Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim primary prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in the United States

Cost-effectiveness analysis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer in Taiwan

OBJECTIVES

To examine the cost-effectiveness of using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for primary or secondary prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer from the perspective of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Administration.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to simulate the events that may occur during and after a high-risk chemotherapy treatment. Various G-CSF prophylaxis strategies and medications were compared in the model. Effectiveness data were derived from the literature and an analysis of the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). Cost data were obtained from a published NHIRD study, and health utility values were also obtained from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of the cost-effectiveness results.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NT$269,683 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to primary prophylaxis with lenograstim. The ICER for primary prophylaxis with lenograstim versus no G-CSF prophylaxis was NT$61,995 per QALY gained. The results were most sensitive to variations in relative risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) for pegfilgrastim versus no G-CSF prophylaxis. Furthermore, in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of one times Taiwan's gross domestic product per capita, the probability of being cost-effective was 88.1% for primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that primary prophylaxis with either short- or long-acting G-CSF could be considered cost-effective for FN prevention in breast cancer patients receiving high-risk regimens.

Cost comparison of filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim biosimilars for inpatient prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia

INTRODUCTION

The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (The James) uses daily subcutaneous filgrastim as the inpatient granulocyte colony-stimulating factor of choice. The coordination of care associated with filgrastim can often be a barrier to patient discharge. The purpose of this study was to compare the inpatient cost of daily filgrastim to single dose pegfilgrastim and biosimilars.

METHODS

Adult patients admitted to The James who received at least one dose of filgrastim between June 1, 2021 and August 31, 2021 were retrospectively identified. This study compared the inpatient cost of filgrastim and biosimilars associated with one chemotherapy cycle to the potential inpatient cost of pegfilgrastim and biosimilars based on average sales price (ASP). Additionally, the number and duration of discharge prescriptions for filgrastim was determined.

RESULTS

Of the 44 unique patient encounters that met inclusion criteria, 19 received 300-mcg doses of filgrastim and 25 received 480-mcg doses. The median number of doses administered per admission was eight. If each of these patients were to instead receive the most inexpensive biosimilar, pegfilgrastim reference product, the cost would be 216% higher than with filgrastim-sndz. At discharge, 15 patients (34%) received a prescription for filgrastim to be continued for a median duration of 6 days.

CONCLUSION

Based on ASP, pegfilgrastim was more costly than filgrastim. Potential rebates and negotiation power may alter the financial outlook of adding pegfilgrastim to inpatient formulary. Exploration of delays in discharge due to insurance coordination for filgrastim continuation in the outpatient setting may also impact formulary decisions.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Therapy Sequence in Advanced Cancer: A Microsimulation Approach with Application to Metastatic Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with advanced cancer may undergo multiple lines of treatment, switching therapies as their disease progresses. We developed a general microsimulation framework to study therapy sequence and applied it to metastatic prostate cancer.

METHODS

We constructed a discrete-time state transition model to study 2 lines of therapy. Using digitized published survival curves (progression-free survival, time to progression, and overall survival [OS]), we inferred event types (progression or death) and estimated transition probabilities using cumulative incidence functions with competing risks. We incorporated within-patient dependence over time; first-line therapy response informed subsequent event probabilities. Parameters governing within-patient dependence calibrated the model-based results to a target clinical trial. We applied these methods to 2 therapy sequences for metastatic prostate cancer, wherein both docetaxel (DCT) and abiraterone acetate (AA) are appropriate for either first- or second-line treatment. We assessed costs and quality-adjusted life-years (5-y QALYs) for 2 treatment strategies: DCT → AA versus AA → DCT.

RESULTS

Models assuming within-patient independence overestimated OS time, which corrected with the calibration approach. With generic pricing, AA → DCT dominated DCT → AA, (higher 5-y QALYs and lower costs), consistent for all values of calibration parameters (including no correction). Model calibration increased the difference in 5-y QALYs between treatment strategies (0.07 uncorrected v. 0.15 with base-case correction). Applying the correction decreased the estimated difference in cost (-$5,360 uncorrected v. -$3,066 corrected). Results were strongly affected by the cost of AA. Under a lifetime horizon, AA → DCT was no longer dominant but still cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $19,463).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate a microsimulation approach to study the cost-effectiveness of therapy sequences for advanced prostate cancer, taking care to account for within-patient dependence.

HIGHLIGHTS

We developed a discrete-time state transition model for studying therapy sequence in advanced cancers.Results are sensitive to dependence within patients.A calibration approach can introduce dependence across lines of therapy and closely match simulation outcomes to target trial outcomes.

Colony stimulating factors for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in children

INTRODUCTION

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is one of the complications of chemotherapy that can increase the risk of infection and mortality. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are used in practice to prevent and treat episodes of neutropenia. The use of G-CSFs in children with cancer has not been studied much for primary prophylaxis of FN.

AREAS COVERED

Current data suggest that G-CSFs have a similar pharmacokinetic profile in children and adults. Clinical trials published from 2002 to 2021 using G-CSFs in pediatric cancer patients were reviewed. All evaluated clinical trials used a dosage of 5 mcg/kg of filgrastim daily until neutrophil recovery or a single dose of 100 mcg/kg pegfilgrastim. Filgrastim demonstrated the benefit in decreasing the duration of fever, hospital stay, and antibiotic use in high-risk neuroblastoma patients. Pegfilgrastim showed similar efficacy in reducing the occurrence of FN and infections, with bone pain as an adverse effect.

EXPERT OPINION

Filgrastim 5 mcg/kg/day or pegfilgrastim 100 mcg/kg single dose is appropriate when given at least 24 hours or after the chemotherapy in pediatric patients who weigh 45 kg or more. More prospective randomized trials are necessary to further investigate the efficacy and safety of G-CSFs in children with different types of cancer.

Synthetic pro-peptide design to enhance the secretion of heterologous proteins by Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Heterologous protein production in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a useful and effective strategy with many advantages, including the secretion of proteins that require posttranslational processing. However, heterologous proteins in S. cerevisiae are often secreted at comparatively low levels. To improve the production of the heterologous protein, human granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor (hG‐CSF) in S. cerevisiae, a secretion‐enhancing peptide cassette including an hIL‐1β‐derived propeptide, was added and used as a secretion enhancer to alleviate specific bottlenecks in the yeast secretory pathway. The effects of three key parameters—N‐glycosylation, net negative charge balance, and glycine‐rich flexible linker—were investigated in batch cultures of S. cerevisiae. Using a three‐stage design involving screening, selection, and optimization, the production and secretion of hG‐CSF by S. cerevisiae were significantly increased. The amount of extracellular mature hG‐CSF produced by the optimized propeptide after the final stage increased by 190% compared to that of the original propeptide. Although hG‐CSF was used as the model protein in the current study, this strategy applies to the enhanced production of other heterologous proteins, using S. cerevisiae as the host.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF biosimilars in patients at intermediate/high risk of febrile neutropenia

Background: Real-world data suggests superiority of pegfilgrastim (PEG) over filgrastim (FIL) in reducing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), probably attributable to underdosed FIL in practice. We used real-world data to assess the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis with PEG versus FIL in cancer patients at intermediate-to-high risk of FN from a US payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model with lifetime horizon. Results: For the high-risk group, PEG (vs FIL) biosimilars resulted in 0.43 FN events prevented (FNp), 0.27 quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYg) and a cost saving of USD$5703. For the intermediate-risk group, PEG biosimilar led to 0.18 FNp and 0.12 QALYg, at USD$9674/FNp and USD$14,502/QALYg. Conclusion: PEG biosimilars may provide opportunities to optimize FN management in patients with intermediate-to-high FN risk.

Safety and Efficacy of Pegteograstim on Chemotherapy-induced Neutropenia in Children and Adolescents With Solid Tumors

PURPOSE

Pegteograstim (Neulapeg) is a recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor conjugated with methoxy-maleimide-polyethylene glycol. We conducted a single-arm study investigating its safety and noninferiority to conventional filgrastim in children and adolescents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients younger than 21 years with solid tumors were eligible for the study. Pegteograstim was administered on day 7 of the fourth chemotherapy cycle. Toxicities were monitored, and the change in absolute neutrophil count was compared with that of the historic control (conventional filgrastim). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02787876.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were enrolled. Adverse events possibly related to pegteograstim were musculoskeletal pain (n=3), skin nodule (n=1), paroxysmal cough (n=1), urticaria (n=2), rash (n=1), and itching (n=1). These adverse events were all grade 1 or 2. Duration of neutropenia (ANC<500/µL) was shorter in the pegteograstim group compared with the historic control (median 6.5 vs. 10 d, P=0.004). The time from day 0 to neutrophil recovery (ANC>500/µL) was shorter in the pegteograstim group (median 15 vs. 18 d, P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Pegteograstim is safe and shows comparable efficacy to conventional filgrastim in children and adolescents. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm its safety and efficacy.

Comparative Study of Adverse Drug Reactions Associated with Filgrastim and Pegfilgrastim Using the EudraVigilance Database

Simple Summary

The most commonly reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to filgrastim (FIL) and pegfilgrastim (PEG-F) were obtained and analyzed from the European EudraVigilance (EV) database. Frequently reported ADRs for FIL and PEG-F are pyrexia, bone pain, back pain, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. No statistical difference in the probability of bone pain between FIL and PEG-F was observed. To further depict the safety of FIL and PEG-F, there is a further need to examine the real-life data.

Abstract

The primary prophylaxis with filgrastim (FIL) and pegfilgrastim (PEG-F) is recommended to decrease the severity of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). The commonly reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) with FIL and PEG-F is bone pain. ADRs pertaining to FIL and PEG-F were extracted from the European EudraVigilance (EV) database. The Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) obtained from EV database that reported FIL and PEG-F as the suspected drug were analyzed. Registered ADRs (from the groups “General disorders and administration site conditions”, “Blood and lymphatic system disorders”, “Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders” and “Investigations”) for FIL and PEG-F were collected from EV database from 2007 to 5 June 2021. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) was used to calculate ICSRs with most common ADRs related to FIL and PEG-F. A total of 17,403 ICSRs described the incidence of most common ADRs of FIL and PEG-F. The commonly reported ADRs for both drugs were pyrexia, bone pain, back pain, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. The odds ratio of ICSRs belonging to the System Organ Class (SOC) “Investigations” (ROR 1.01 (CI 0.93–1.10)) revealed no significant difference in FIL and PEG-F. However, for the SOCs (General disorders and administration site conditions” and “Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders” ((ROR 1.14 (CI 1.06–1.21); ROR 1.21 (CI 1.18–1.32), respectively), an increased reporting probability with PEG-F was found. The authors reported a lower reporting probability for the SOC “Blood and lymphatic system disorders” for FIL versus PEG-F (ROR 0.75 (CI 0.70–0.80)). Our results have demonstrated that the occurrence of bone pain was similar with FIL and PEG-F. For the incidence of pyrexia and back pain, PEG-F was associated with a higher reporting probability as compared to FIL. However, the incidence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia was higher in FIL compared to PEG-F. Further evaluation of data from real life is needed.

Association Between Time Since Administration of Pegylated G-CSF (Pegfilgrastim) and Bone Marrow Uptake on FDG PET/CT: Determination of a Minimum Interval

BACKGROUND. Pegfilgrastim administration after chemotherapy increases bone marrow and spleen FDG uptake. Consensus is lacking regarding the optimal interval between pegfilgrastim administration and FDG PET/CT. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the association between bone marrow and spleen uptake and the interval between pegfilgrastim administration and FDG PET/CT. METHODS. This retrospective study included 70 oncology patients (mean age, 64 ± 12 [SD] years; 48 men, 22 women) receiving chemotherapy who underwent FDG PET/CT (study scan) within 35 days after pegfilgrastim administration and who underwent additional FDG PET/CT at least 4 months before pegfilgrastim initiation or at least 3 months after last pegfilgrastim administration (reference scan). A nuclear medicine physician recorded the SUV_mean for normal osseous structures and spleen and assessed bone marrow uptake using a 4-point visual scale (1, no abnormal uptake; 2, clinically insignificant uptake; 3, clinically significant uptake possibly interfering with interpretation; 4, clinically significant uptake expected to interfere with interpretation). RESULTS. Percentage change in SUV_mean between reference and study scans significantly increased (p < .05) as the interval increased for five sites (i.e., for patients with interval of 7-13 vs 29-35 days, mean percentage change was 32.3% ± 18.2% vs 11.5% ± 17.3% for cervical vertebra, 42.2% ± 18.3% vs 21.3% ± 14.2% for thoracic vertebra, 47.2% ± 19.8% vs 19.1% ± 13.9% for lumbar vertebra, 51.1% ± 25.8% vs 12.7% ± 11.3% for pelvis, and 53.0% ± 25.6% vs 4.4% ± 14.1% for lower extremity); percentage change was not associated with the interval for upper extremity or spleen (p > .05). Visual uptake scores of 4, 3, 2, and 1 were observed in days 7-21, 12-22, 12-28, and 14-35, respectively. Percentage of patients with a score of 3 or 4 was 94.4% for days 7-13, 58.1% for days 14-21, 6.7% for days 22-28, and 0% for days 29-35. A total of 71.4% of patients had a score of 3 or 4 on day 7-21, whereas 4.8% had a score of 3 and 0% had a score of 4 on days 22-35. CONCLUSION. A visual uptake score of 3 or 4 was consistently observed throughout an approximately 3-week interval following pegfilgrastim administration, without any such case beyond 22 days. CLINICAL IMPACT. We recommend a preferred interval of at least 3 weeks after pegfilgrastim administration before PET/CT.

Trilaciclib and the economic value of multilineage myeloprotection from chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression among patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy

AIMS

Proliferating hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) are susceptible to chemotherapy-induced damage, resulting in myelosuppressive adverse events (AEs) such as neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia that are associated with high health care costs and decreased quality of life (QoL). In this study, a trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to help assess the economic impact of administering trilaciclib, a myeloprotective therapy that protects multilineage HSPCs from chemotherapy-induced damage, prior to standard first-line chemotherapy, using data from a pivotal Phase II study of trilaciclib in the setting of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC, NCT03041311).

METHOD

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone among patients with ES-SCLC from a United States payer perspective. Data on the rate and frequency of myelosuppressive AEs and health utility were derived from the pivotal study of trilaciclib. Costs of managing myelosuppressive AEs and costs of chemotherapy treatment were sourced from published literature. Outcomes included the number of myelosuppressive AEs, costs (in 2021 US dollars), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost, incremental QALY, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

Administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy was associated with a reduction in neutropenia (82%), febrile neutropenia (75%), anemia (43%), and thrombocytopenia (96%) compared with chemotherapy alone. Additionally, trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy was cost-saving compared with chemotherapy alone ($99,919 vs $118,759, respectively) and associated with QALY improvement (0.150 vs 0.145, respectively). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed 58% of iterations projecting cost savings and QALY improvement with trilaciclib.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that the use of trilaciclib prior to first-line chemotherapy in patients with ES-SCLC can be cost-beneficial owing to fewer myelosuppressive AEs and lower costs, together with a favorable QoL profile.

Comparison of Primary and Secondary Prophylaxis Using PEGylated Recombinant Human Granulocyte-Stimulating Factor as a Cost-Effective Measure in Malignant Neoplasms: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

Purpose: The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PEGylated recombinant human granulocyte-stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) as a means of achieving primary and secondary prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced neutropenia cancer cases. Methods: Individuals who underwent PEG-rhG-CSF therapeutics were monitored for 12 months, together with thorough examination of individual medical records for extracting medical care costs. Both prophylaxis-based therapeutic options (primary/secondary) were scrutinized for cost-effectiveness, using a decision-making analysis model which derived the perspective of Chinese payers. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess the robustness of the model. Results: In summary, 130 clinical cases treated using PEG-rhG-CSF prophylaxis were included in this study: 51 within the primary prophylaxis (PP) group and 79 within the secondary prophylaxis (SP) group. Compared with SP, PP-based PEG-rhG-CSF successfully contributed to a 14.3% reduction in febrile neutropenia. In general, PP was estimated to reduce costs by $4,701.81 in comparison to SP, with a gain of 0.02 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Equivalent results were found in differing febrile neutropenia (FN) risk subgroups. Sensitivity analyses found the model outputs to be most affected for the average time of hospitalization and for the cost of FN. Conclusion: From the perspective of Chinese payers, PP with PEG-rhG-CSF should be considered cost-effective compared to SP strategies in patients who received chemotherapy regimens with a middle- to high-risk of FN.

Impact of a G-CSF Policy to Reduce Low-Value Care on Guideline Adherence and Mortality

PURPOSE

Practice guidelines recommend the prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) in patients with high risk of febrile neutropenia, but evidence suggests that G-CSFs are frequently overused. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine the prevalence and prescribing patterns of G-CSF and (2) to evaluate the impact of a program initiative on G-CSF prescribing patterns, adherence to guidelines, and mortality.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, data were used from the electronic health records of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who received care at a multicenter oncology practice network during two time periods: July 01, 2013, to December 31, 2014, and July 01, 2017, to December 31, 2017. Beginning 2016, a site-wide program initiative that involved educational materials, appropriate nonuse recommendations, and prior authorization was introduced in the oncology practice network with an aim of reducing G-CSF overutilization. Descriptive statistics, t tests, and chi-squared tests were employed to analyze program impact.

RESULTS

There were 3,426 chemotherapy regimens corresponding to 2,968 patients. There were a total of 387 (11.3%) G-CSF-treated patients and 3,095 G-CSF administrations during the study period. G-CSF use was significantly lower in the postperiod, compared with the preperiod (P < .0001). Adherence to guidelines was significantly higher in the postperiod, compared with the preperiod (P < .0001). Mortality rates did not significantly differ between the two time periods.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that policy initiatives have the potential to positively affect G-CSF prescription patterns and promote guideline adherence. These findings could help prescribers adopt a cost-effective approach in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, leading to enhanced clinical practice and value-based care.

A retrospective review of the real-world experience of the Pegfilgrastim biosimilar (Lapelga®) to the reference biologic (Neulasta®)

Introduction

Cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy are vulnerable to febrile neutropenia (FN) which contributes to poor treatment outcomes. The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors is administered to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The introduction of biosimilars has allowed for greater cost-savings while maintaining safety and efficacy. This retrospective study assessed the incidence of FN and related treatment outcomes and the cost minimization of a pegfilgrastim biosimilar and its reference.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of breast cancer patients receiving (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy from February 2017 to May 2020 was conducted. The endpoints included the incidence of FN, the occurrence of dose reduction (DR), dose delay (DD) and pain. A cost minimization analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective.

Results

One hundred Neulasta® and 74 Lapelga® patients were included in the first-cycle analysis. The rate of FN in cycle 1 for Neulasta® and Lapelga® was 2/100 and 4/74, respectively; risk difference (RD)  =  3.4%; 95% CI: –2.4 to 9.2%. Eighty-three Neulasta® and 59 Lapelga® patients were included in the all-cycle analyses, where DR was reported in 76 (15%) Neulasta® cycles vs 33 (10%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = –3.6, 95% CI: –10.2 to 2.9). DD was reported in 20 (4%) Neulasta® cycles vs. 11 (3.5%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = –0.3; 95% CI: –2.7 to 2.0). Adverse events were similar between groups. Cost minimization using a cohort of 20,000 patients translated into an incremental savings of $21,606,800 CAD for each cycle.

Conclusion

The biosimilar pegfilgrastim was non-inferior to the reference biologic based on FN incidence in addition to related outcomes including DR and DD.

Towards a comprehensive safety understanding of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor biosimilars in treating chemotherapy associated febrile neutropenia: Trends from decades of data

Filgrastim, a biopharmaceutical listed on WHO model list of essential medicines, was approved in USA in 1991 for patients with non-myeloid malignancies associated with severe neutropenia and fever. Several filgrastim biosimilars have now been approved in USA, Europe and elsewhere since 2008, based on the reference product which has lost patent exclusivity; however their immunogenicity and safety is controversial. We conducted a retrospective, post market study between 1991 and May 2018 using VigiBase®. The study included all adverse events with case reports ≥150. Overall, 11,183 adverse drugs reaction reports were identified during observation period; of which 5764; 51.5% reports concerned to Neupogen®, the originator, and rest consists of Leucostim® (N = 680), Zarzio® (N = 622), Grasin® (N = 545), Nivestim® (N = 359) and Tevagrastim® (N = 152) biosimilars. When compared with the originator, Grasin® was associated with higher reporting of pyrexia (11.5% vs 7.9%, ROR 1.52, IC₀₂₅ 1.12), myalgia (37% vs 2.2%, ROR 25.94, IC₀₂₅ 2.11) and back pain (11.3% vs 4%, ROR 3.09, IC₀₂₅ 2.32). Zarzio® was associated with increased reporting of arthralgia (4.5% vs 2.9%, ROR 1.59, IC₀₂₅ 1.25) and neutropenia (11.4% vs 4%, ROR 2.59, IC₀₂₅ 3.07). Bone pain was reported more often with Nivestim® (14.4% vs 8.3%, ROR 1.87, IC₀₂₅ 5.30). Drug ineffectiveness was reported in cases with Zarzio® (35.9%), Nivestim® (19.4%) and Tevagrastim® (42.2%). Authors observed significant differences among originator and biosimilars in particular to efficacy, adverse events reported and time to onset of occurrences. Large epidemiologic studies are needed to further confirm these finding and provide additional insights.

Prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with colony-stimulating factors: the first 25 years

Filgrastim prophylaxis, both primary and secondary, was rapidly incorporated into clinical practice in the 1990s. When pegfilgrastim became available in 2002, it quickly replaced filgrastim as the colony-stimulating factor (CSF) of choice for prophylaxis. Use of prophylaxis increased markedly in the first decade of this century and has stabilized during the present decade. Data concerning real-world CSF prophylactic practice patterns are limited but suggest that both primary and secondary prophylaxis are common, and that use is frequently inappropriate according to guidelines. The extent of inappropriate use is controversial, as are issues concerning the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis and the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis. Nevertheless, CSF prophylaxis is firmly established as a valuable adjunct to chemotherapy and will almost certainly continue to be widely used for the foreseeable future. In this article, we chronicle the use and impact of CSF prophylaxis in US patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for non-myeloid malignancies. We emphasize the interplay of expert opinion, clinical evidence, and economic factors in shaping the use of CSFs in clinical practice over time, and, with the recent introduction of new CSF agents and options, we aim to provide useful clinical and economic information for healthcare decision makers.

Cost-effectiveness of abiraterone versus docetaxel in the treatment of metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the US. Since 2015, landmark studies have demonstrated improved survival outcomes with the use of docetaxel (DCT) or abiraterone (AA) in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the metastatic hormone-naïve setting. These treatment strategies have not been prospectively compared but have similar overall survival benefits despite differing mechanisms of action, toxicity, and cost. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to provide insight into the value of AA vs. DCT in the first-line treatment of metastatic prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed Markov models by using a US-payer perspective and a 3-year time horizon to estimate costs (2018 US$) and progression-free quality-adjusted life years (PF-QALYs) for ADT alone, DCT, and AA. Health states were defined as initial state, treatment states according to experience of an adverse event, and progressed disease/death. State transition probabilities were derived from rates for drug discontinuation, frequency of adverse events, disease progression, and death from the randomized phase III trials ChemoHormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer (CHAARTED) and LATITUDE. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty.

RESULTS

DCT resulted in an increase of 0.32 PF-QALYs and $16,100 in cost and AA resulted in an increase of 0.52 PF-QALYs and $215,800 in cost compared to ADT alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for DCT vs. ADT was $50,500/PF-QALY and for AA vs. DCT was $1,010,000/PF-QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/PF-QALY AA was highly unlikely to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

DCT is substantially more cost-effective than AA in the treatment of metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer.

RGB-02 (biosimilar pegfilgrastim) in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

Pegfilgrastim is widely used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The development and use of biosimilar agents help to rationalize healthcare expenditure and improve access to modern therapies to all who need them. This review focuses on pegfilgrastims with important role in oncology supportive care. RGB-02 (Gedeon Richter) is a proposed biosimilar to pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (Neulasta^®, Amgen) with sustained release properties. The clinical analyses in three randomized clinical studies provided comparative data between RGB-02 and Neulasta, in a Phase III study patients receiving docetaxel-doxorubicin chemotherapy treatment equivalence was found. No difference was detected in any safety measure including immunogenicity; treatment switch, from the reference product to RGB-02 proved safe. Long-acting pegylated filgrastim RGB-02 has successfully accomplished various steps of biosimilar development.

Efficacy of pegfilgrastim to support neoadjuvant dose-dense epirubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in breast cancer

PURPOSE

The role of long-acting hematopoietic growth factor in supporting dose-dense chemotherapy and minimizing hematologic toxicity has not been established. We investigated the efficacy and safety of once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant dose-dense epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddEC).

METHODS

Newly diagnosed stage I to III breast cancer patients received four cycles of ddEC (E, 100 mg/m² and C, 600 mg/m² every 2 weeks) and 6 mg of subcutaneous pegfilgrastim on day 2 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the incidence of chemotherapy delay. Secondary endpoints include the incidences of febrile neutropenia (FN) and grade 3/4 neutropenia during the four ddEC cycles.

RESULTS

A total of 240 patients were enrolled and 913 ddEC cycles were administered in the study. Chemotherapy delay occurred in 15 patients (6.3% of patients, 95% CI 3.2-9.4%) for 17 cycles (1.9% of cycles, 95% CI 1.0-2.8%). The most frequent cause of chemotherapy delay was transaminase elevation (10 patients, 12 cycles). A total of 12 patients (5.0%, 95% CI 2.2-7.8%) developed 13 episodes of FN. Of the 221 patients that completed four ddEC cycles with pegfilgrastim support, 209 patients (94.6%, 95% CI 91.6-97.6%) had a 100% relative dose intensity (RDI). A RDI ≥ 85% was achieved in 217 of 221 patients (98.2%, 95% CI 96.5-99.9%). Bone pain of any grade was recorded in 85 of 220 evaluable patients (38.6%, 95% CI 32.2-45.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Pegfilgrastim is effective and safe in facilitating four cycles of neoadjuvant ddEC, with low incidences of chemotherapy delay and febrile neutropenia.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lipegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis in women with breast cancer in Australia: a modelled economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To examine the cost-effectiveness of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis in women with early stage breast cancer.

METHODS

Two Markov models including a chemotherapy and a post-chemotherapy models were constructed with a time horizon of 12 weeks and 30 years, respectively. All the transition probabilities and utility weights were derived from clinical trials and/or published literatures. The costs populated in the chemotherapy model were extracted from Medicare, Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme and the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority. No cost was considered in the post-chemotherapy model. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

From the first chemotherapy model, lipegfilgrastim was associated with fewer episodes of severe neutropenia (SN) (N = 142 per 1000 patients treated), febrile neutropenia (FN) (N = 29 per 1000 patients treated), infection (N = 17 per 1000 patients treated) and chemotherapy delayed (N = 170 per 1000 patients treated) and lower cost ($116.88 less per patient treated). The post-chemotherapy model indicated lipegfilgrastim led to higher gains in both life years (18.72 versus 18.61) and quality-adjusted life years (17.28 versus 17.18) in comparison to pegfilgrastim. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results from the chemotherapy model is very sensitive to the baseline risk of SN; while from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, lipegfilgrastim was likely to be more cost-effective than pegfilgrastim based on two models.

CONCLUSIONS

Lipegfilgrastim was likely to be a cost-effective alternative to pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis. The sensitivity analysis showed the confidence interval for the cost and benefit outcomes overlapped to a great extent, suggesting an insignificant difference.

Pegfilgrastim Versus Filgrastim for Primary Prophylaxis of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Study

Aim:

One method to deal with febrile neutropenia is the use of granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs). Pegfilgrastim or Filgrastim injection can lead to a reduction in febrile neutropenia and severe neutropenia in patients receiving chemotherapy. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of using Pegfilgrastim, 3-day Filgrastim and 1-day Filgrastim medication strategies for the primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in patients with relapsed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after salvage chemotherapy who referred to two referral centers affiliated to Iran, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in 2014.

Method:

This cost-effectiveness study was conducted on 131 patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The outcome of the study was the prevention of febrile neutropenia. The cost data were collected from the health payer’s perspective for each medication strategy by reviewing the patients’ medical records and using expert opinion. The results were presented in terms of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the sensitivity analysis was used to assess the robustness of results. In this study, the collected data were analyzed using Excel 2007 and Tree-age 2011.

Results:

The results showed that the degrees of febrile neutropenia prevented by Pegfilgrastim, 3-day Filgrastim and 1-day Filgrastim strategies were 0.97, 0.95 and 0.83, respectively, and the average annual costs of hospitalization per patient were, 5299, 4959 and 5808 PPP$.

Conclusion:

The results showed that while 1-day Filgrastim was absolutely predominant, using the 3-day Filgrastim and Pegfilgrastim strategies were more cost-effective. Therefore, they can be recommended respectively as the first and second treatment priorities in patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after salvage chemotherapy.

Cost-efficiency analyses for the US of biosimilar filgrastim-sndz, reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim with on-body injector in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia

AIMS

Guidelines recommend prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) based on regimen myelotoxicity and patient-related risk factors. The aim was to conduct a cost-efficiency analysis for the US of the direct acquisition and administration costs of the recently approved biosimilar filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio EP2006) with reference to filgrastim (Neupogen), pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), and a pegfilgrastim injection device (Neulasta Onpro; hereafter pegfilgrastim-injector) for CIN/FN prophylaxis.

METHODS

A cost-efficiency analysis of the prophylaxis of one patient during one chemotherapy cycle under 1-14 days' time horizon was conducted using the unit dose average selling price (ASP) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for subcutaneous prophylactic injection under four scenarios: cost of medication only (COSTMED), patient self-administration (SELFADMIN), healthcare provider (HCP) initiating administration followed by self-administration (HCPSTART), and HCP providing full administration (HCPALL). Two case studies were created to illustrate real-world clinical implications. The analyses were replicated using wholesale acquisition cost (WAC).

RESULTS

Using ASP + CPT, cost savings achieved with filgrastim-sndz relative to reference filgrastim ranged from $65 (1 day) to $916 (14 days) across all scenarios. Relative to pegfilgrastim, savings with filgrastim-sndz ranged from $834 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1 day) under the COSTMED, SELFADMIN, and HPOSTART scenarios; and from $284 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1 day) under the HPOALL scenario. Similar to the cost-savings compared to pegfilgrastim, filgrastim-sndz achieved savings relative to pegfilgrastim-injector: from $834 (14 days) to $3,666 (1 day) under the COSTMED scenario, from $859 (14 days) to $3,692 (1 day) under SELFADMIN, from $817 (14 days) to $3,649 (1 day) under HPOSTART, and from $267 (14 days) to $3,649 (1 day) under HPOALL. Cost savings of filgrastim-sndz using WAC + CPT were even greater under all scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with filgrastim-sndz, a biosimilar filgrastim, was associated consistently with significant cost-savings over prophylaxis with reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim-injector, and this across various administration scenarios.

Expanded access to cancer treatments from conversion to neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim-sndz

Aim: Biosimilar medicines offer significant cost-savings potential over their reference products, which can be re-allocated to provide access to other cancer treatments on a budget-neutral basis. Methods: Simulation study using cost data for the USA under consideration of several prophylaxis patterns. Results: Potential savings from conversion from reference filgrastim to biosimilar filgrastim-sndz are significant. These savings expand budget-neutral access to novel immunotherapies (obinutuzumab; pembrolizumab) or supportive care (filgrastim-sndz). Conclusion: The combination of biosimilar savings and expanded access increases the value of cancer care as the same supportive care is provided at lower cost, additional cancer care is enabled at no additional cost, and more patients will have access to cancer care.

Time trends in utilization of G-CSF prophylaxis and risk of febrile neutropenia in a Medicare population receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to assess temporal trends in the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis and risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) among older women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

Women aged ≥ 66 years with diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer who initiated selected adjuvant chemotherapy regimens were identified using the SEER-Medicare data from 2002 to 2012. Adjusted, calendar-year-specific proportions were estimated for use of G-CSF primary prophylaxis (PP) and secondary prophylaxis and FN risk in the first and the second/subsequent cycles during the first course of chemotherapy, using logistic regression models. calendar-year-specific mean probabilities were estimated with covariates set to modal values.

RESULTS

Among 11,107 eligible patients (mean age 71.7 years), 74% received G-CSF in the first course of chemotherapy. Of all patients, 5819 (52%) received G-CSF PP, and among those not receiving G-CSF PP, only 5% received G-CSF secondary prophylaxis. The adjusted proportion using G-CSF PP increased from 6% in 2002 to 71% in 2012. During the same period, the adjusted risk of FN in the first cycle increased from 2% to 3%; the adjusted risk increased from 1.5% to 2.9% among those receiving G-CSF PP and from 2.3% to 3.5% among those not receiving G-CSF PP.

CONCLUSION

The use of G-CSF PP increased substantially during the study period. Although channeling of higher-risk patients to treatment with G-CSF PP is expected, the adjusted risk of FN among patients treated with G-CSF PP tended to be lower than among those not receiving G-CSF PP.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Lipegfilgrastim Compared to Pegfilgrastim for the Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia in Patients with Stage II-IV Breast Cancer

Background: Lipegfilgrastim (Lonquex®) has demonstrated to be non-inferior to pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) in reducing the duration of severe neutropenia (SN) in patients with stage II-IV breast cancer. Compared to pegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim also demonstrated statistically significant lower time to ANC recovery in cycles 1-3, lower incidence of SN in cycle 2 and lower depth of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir in cycles 2 and 3. The aim of this study was to quantify the cost utility of lipegfilgrastim compared to pegfilgrastim in stage II-IV breast cancer patients, taking the perspective of the Belgian payer over a lifetime horizon. Methods: Two Markov models were developed to track on- and post-chemotherapy related complications, including SN, febrile neutropenia (FN), chemotherapy dose delay, chemotherapy relative dose intensity of less than 85%, infection, death rates, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Data on costs (2015 value) and effects were obtained from literature, national references, and complemented by a survey of clinical experts using a modified Delphi method. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out. Outcomes measures included costs, QALYs and life-years (LY). Results: At current equivalent price of €1,169, treatment with lipegfilgrastim was associated with overall costs of €9,845 vs. €10,208 for pegfilgrastim and overall QALYs of 13.977 vs. 13.925 for pegfilgrastim. Life expectancy was increased by 21 days (or 0.058 LY gained). The difference in costs stem from avoided infection, SN and FN cases in the lipegfilgrastim compared to the pegfilgrastim group. Similarly, the difference in QALYs was explained by the difference in the number of patients in the chemotherapy/G-CSF Markov state followed by infection and FN between lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim. The probability of lipegfilgrastim to be cost-effective compared to pegfilgrastim was 68, 79, and 83% at the willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTP) of €10,000, €30,000 and €50,000 per QALY gained, respectively. At a WTP threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained, lipegfilgrastim was cost-effective up to €1,500 across all age bands and cancer stages, compared to the current price. Conclusions: Lipegfilgrastim is a cost-effective use of health care resources in patients with stage II-IV breast cancer.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prophylaxis Treatment Strategies to Reduce the Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer or Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of no prophylaxis, primary prophylaxis (PP), or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), i.e., pegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6- and 11-day), or lenograstim (6- and 11-day), to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with stage II breast cancer receiving TC (docetaxel, cyclophosphamide) and in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) over a lifetime horizon from a Belgian payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov cycle tree tracked FN events during chemotherapy (3-week cycles) and long-term survival (1-year cycles). Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy, risk of reduced relative dose intensity (RDI), and the impact of RDI on mortality, utilities, and costs (in €; 2014 values) were estimated from public sources and the published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed for each strategy for costs per FN event avoided, life-year (LY) saved, and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) saved. LYs and QALYs saved were discounted at 1.5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSAs and PSAs) were conducted.

RESULTS

Base-case ICERs for PP with pegfilgrastim relative to SP with pegfilgrastim were €15,500 per QALY and €14,800 per LY saved for stage II breast cancer and €7800 per QALY and €6900 per LY saved for NHL; other comparators were either more expensive and less effective than PP or SP with pegfilgrastim or had lower costs but higher ICERs (relative to SP with pegfilgrastim) than PP with pegfilgrastim. Results of the DSA for breast cancer and NHL comparing PP and SP with pegfilgrastim indicate that the model results were most sensitive to the cycle 1 risk of FN, the proportion of FN events requiring hospitalization, the relative risk of FN in cycles ≥2 versus cycle 1, no history of FN, and the mortality hazard ratio for RDI (<90% vs ≥90% [for NHL]). In the PSAs for stage II breast cancer and NHL, the probabilities that PP with pegfilgrastim was cost effective or dominant versus all other prophylaxis strategies at a €30,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold were 52% (other strategies ≤24%) and 58% (other strategies ≤24%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

From a Belgian payer perspective, PP with pegfilgrastim appears cost effective compared to other prophylaxis strategies in patients with stage II breast cancer or NHL at a €30,000/QALY threshold.

Cost-utility analyses of drug therapies in breast cancer: a systematic review

The economic evaluation (EE) of health care products has become a necessity. Their quality must be high in order to trust the results and make informed decisions. While cost-utility analyses (CUAs) should be preferred to cost-effectiveness analyses in the oncology area, the quality of breast cancer (BC)-related CUA has been given little attention so far. Thus, firstly, a systematic review of published CUA related to drug therapies for BC, gene expression profiling, and HER2 status testing was performed. Secondly, the quality of selected CUA was assessed and the factors associated with a high-quality CUA identified. The systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE/EMBASE, and Cochrane to identify published CUA between 2000 and 2014. After screening and data extraction, the quality of each selected CUA was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the checklist proposed by Drummond et al. The analysis of factors associated with a high-quality CUA (defined as a Drummond score ≥7) was performed using a two-step approach. Our systematic review was based on 140 CUAs and showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, including differences in the perspective adopted, the time horizon, measurement of cost and effectiveness, and more specially health-state utility values (HSUVs). The median Drummond score was 7 [range 3-10]. Only one in two of the CUA (n = 74) had a Drummond score ≥7, synonymous of "high quality." The statistically significant predictors of a high-quality CUA were article with "gene expression profiling" topic (p = 0.001), consulting or pharmaceutical company as main location of first author (p = 0.004), and articles with both incremental cost-utility ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as outcomes of EE (p = 0.02). Our systematic review identified only 140 CUAs published over the past 15 years with one in two of high quality. It showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, especially focused on HSUVs. A critical appraisal of utility values is necessary to better understand one of the main difficulties encountered by authors and propose areas for improvement to increase the quality of CUA. Since the last 5 years, there is a tendency toward an improvement in the quality of these studies, probably coupled with economic context, a better and widely spreading of recommendations and thus appropriation by medical practitioners. That being said, there is an urgent need for mandatory use of European and international recommendations to ensure quality of such approaches and to allow easy comparison.

Clinical research in febrile neutropenia in cancer patients: Past achievements and perspectives for the future

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality. It can also be the reason for delaying or changing potentially effective treatments and generates substantial costs. It has been recognized for more than 50 years that empirical administration of broad spectrum antibiotics to patients with FN was associated with much improved outcomes; that has become a paradigm of management. Increase in the incidence of microorganisms resistant to many antibiotics represents a challenge for the empirical antimicrobial treatment and is a reason why antibiotics should not be used for the prevention of neutropenia. Prevention of neutropenia is best performed with the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs). Prophylactic administration of G-CSFs significantly reduces the risk of developing FN and consequently the complications linked to that condition; moreover, the administration of G-CSF is associated with few complications, most of which are not severe. The most common reason for not using G-CSF as a prophylaxis of FN is the relatively high cost. If FN occurs, in spite of prophylaxis, empirical therapy with broad spectrum antibiotics is mandatory. However it should be adjusted to the risk of complications as established by reliable predictive instruments such as the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer. Patients predicted at a low level of risk of serious complications, can generally be treated with orally administered antibiotics and as out-patients. Patients with a high risk of complications should be hospitalized and treated intravenously. A short period of time between the onset of FN and beginning of empirical therapy is crucial in those patients. Persisting fever in spite of antimicrobial therapy in neutropenic patients requires a special diagnostic attention, since invasive fungal infection is a possible cause for it and might require the use of empirical antifungal therapy.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in secondary prophylaxis for advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma treated with ABVD chemotherapy: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is commonly administered to patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) with neutropenia. We constructed a decision-analytic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of secondary prophylaxis with G-CSF to a strategy of 'no G-CSF' in response to severe neutropenia for adults with advanced-stage HL treated with ABVD. A Canadian public health payer's perspective was considered and costs were presented in 2013 Canadian dollars. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) attained with the G-CSF and 'no G-CSF' strategies were 1.403 and 1.416, respectively. Costs for the strategies with and without G-CSF were $38,971 and $33,982, respectively. In the base case analysis, the 'no G-CSF' strategy was associated with cost savings and improved QALYs; therefore, 'no G-CSF' was the dominant approach. For patients with severe neutropenia during ABVD chemotherapy for advanced-stage HL, a strategy without G-CSF support is associated with improved quality-adjusted outcomes, cost savings, and is the preferred approach.

Pegfilgrastim for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with solid tumors

INTRODUCTION

Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia are the most common and most severe bone marrow toxicities of chemotherapy. Recombinant granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), both daily (filgrastim and biosimilars, and lenograstim) and long-acting (pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim) formulations, are currently available to counteract the negative consequences of these side effects.

AREAS COVERED

The purpose of this article is to review the physiopathology of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and its consequences, and the current evidence regarding the pharmacological properties, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim as a strategy to prevent chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with solid tumors.

EXPERT OPINION

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and its complications are still a major health-care concern, and the inappropriate employment of G-CSFs in clinical practice can partially explain its burden. Pegfilgrastim has pharmacological advantages over daily G-CSFs that makes it easily administrable, thus reducing the chance of incorrect delivery. The once-per-cycle administration might explain the findings derived from observational studies suggesting a possible superior efficacy of pegfilgrastim over daily G-CSFs. For patients at higher risk of failure with daily G-CSF prophylaxis (e.g. risk of non-compliance, difficulties on performing regular hemograms, high risk of developing febrile neutropenia), pegfilgrastim might be the most appropriate option.

A randomized, multicenter, phase II/III study to determine the optimal dose and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pegteograstim (GCPGC) on chemotherapy-induced neutropenia compared to pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients: KCSG PC10-09

PURPOSE

Pegylated granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is frequently used to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients undergoing chemotherapy with a high risk of myelosuppression. This phase II/III study was conducted to determine the adequate dose of pegteograstim, a new formulation of pegylated G-CSF, and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pegteograstim compared to pegfilgrastim.

METHODS

In the phase II part, 60 breast cancer patients who were undergoing DA (docetaxel and doxorubicin) or TAC (docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy were randomly selected to receive a single subcutaneous injection of 3.6 or 6.0 mg pegteograstim on day 2 of each chemotherapy cycle. The phase III part was seamlessly started to compare the dose of pegteograstim at selected in phase II with 6.0 mg pegfilgrastim in 117 breast cancer patients. The primary endpoint of both the phase II and III parts was the duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the chemotherapy cycle 1.

RESULTS

The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia for the 3.6 mg pegteograstim (n = 33) was similar to that for the 6.0 mg pegteograstim (n = 26) (1.97 ± 1.79 days vs. 1.54 ± 0.95 days, p = 0.33). The 6.0 mg pegteograstim was selected to be compared with the 6.0 mg pegfilgrastim in the phase III part. In the phase III part, the primary analysis revealed that the efficacy of pegteograstim (n = 56) was non-inferior to that of pegfilgrastim (n = 59) [duration of grade 4 neutropenia, 1.64 ± 1.18 days vs. 1.80 ± 1.05 days; difference, -0.15 ± 1.11 (p = 0.36, 97.5 % confidence intervals = 0.57 and 0.26)]. The time to the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery of pegteograstim (≥2000/μL) was significantly shorter than that of pegfilgrastim (8.85 ± 1.45 days vs. 9.83 ± 1.20 days, p < 0.0001). Other secondary endpoints showed no significant difference between the two groups. The safety profiles of the two groups did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Pegteograstim was shown to be as effective as pegfilgrastim in the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in the breast cancer patients who were undergoing chemotherapy with a high risk of myelosuppression.

Comparison of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim to prevent neutropenia and maintain dose intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of prophylactic single fixed dose of pegfilgrastim and daily administration of filgrastim on febrile neutropenia (FN), severe neutropenia, treatment delay, and dose reduction in patients with breast cancer receiving dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study with 1058 breast cancer patients matched by age and chemotherapy was conducted. The primary endpoints were FN, severe (grade 3, 4) neutropenia, dose reduction (>10 % reduction of the dose planned), and treatment delay (dose given more than 2 days later).

RESULTS

Eighteen episodes of FN (3.4%) in the filgrastim group and 23 (4.3%) in the pegfilgrastim group (p = 0.500) were recorded. More than half of the total episodes (27/41) occurred during the first 4 cycles of treatment. Patients who received filgrastim were almost three times more likely to experience a severe neutropenia episode and were significantly more likely to experience a dose reduction (18.5%) compared to those who received pegfilgrastim (10.8%) (p < 0.001). The percentage of patients, who received their planned dose on time, was significantly lower in patients receiving filgrastim (58%) compared to those receiving pegfilgrastim (72.4%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was detected on FN rate between daily administration of filgrastim and single administration of pegfilgrastim. However, patients receiving pegfilgrastim had a significantly lower rate of severe neutropenia, as well as dose reduction and treatment delay, thus, achieving a higher dose density.

A comparison of international guidelines for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy utilizing the myeloid growth factors have been developed by several major international professional organizations. This review provides updates on the current status of these guidelines and summarizes recent reported studies currently under review by guideline panels which may alter guideline recommendations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Whereas the consensus guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) are updated annually, previous evidence-based recommendations from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) are currently undergoing an update in their evidence base and recommendations. These updates will consider and base new recommendations on recent important studies related to the efficacy, safety, and cost of these agents in the prevention of neutropenic complications including febrile neutropenia. New information relating to the risk of second malignancies and the ability of the myeloid growth factors to sustain or increase chemotherapy dose intensity and improve overall survival is reviewed.

SUMMARY

Current guideline recommendations for the prevention of febrile neutropenia are reviewed along with recent published results likely to alter future guideline recommendations on the use of these agents.

Economic evaluation of using a genetic test to direct breast cancer chemoprevention in white women with a previous breast biopsy

BACKGROUND

Tamoxifen therapy reduces the risk of breast cancer but increases the risk of serious adverse events including endometrial cancer and thromboembolic events.

OBJECTIVES

The cost effectiveness of using a commercially available breast cancer risk assessment test (BREVAGen™) to inform the decision of which women should undergo chemoprevention by tamoxifen was modeled in a simulated population of women who had undergone biopsies but had no diagnosis of cancer.

METHODS

A continuous time, discrete event, mathematical model was used to simulate a population of white women aged 40-69 years, who were at elevated risk for breast cancer because of a history of benign breast biopsy. Women were assessed for clinical risk of breast cancer using the Gail model and for genetic risk using a panel of seven common single nucleotide polymorphisms. We evaluated the cost effectiveness of using genetic risk together with clinical risk, instead of clinical risk alone, to determine eligibility for 5 years of tamoxifen therapy. In addition to breast cancer, the simulation included health states of endometrial cancer, pulmonary embolism, deep-vein thrombosis, stroke, and cataract. Estimates of costs in 2012 US dollars were based on Medicare reimbursement rates reported in the literature and utilities for modeled health states were calculated as an average of utilities reported in the literature. A 50-year time horizon was used to observe lifetime effects including survival benefits.

RESULTS

For those women at intermediate risk of developing breast cancer (1.2-1.66 % 5-year risk), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the combined genetic and clinical risk assessment strategy over the clinical risk assessment-only strategy was US$47,000, US$44,000, and US$65,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, for women aged 40-49, 50-59, and 60-69 years, respectively (assuming a price of US$945 for genetic testing). Results were sensitive to assumptions about patient adherence, utility of life while taking tamoxifen, and cost of genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

From the US payer's perspective, the combined genetic and clinical risk assessment strategy may be a moderately cost-effective alternative to using clinical risk alone to guide chemoprevention recommendations for women at intermediate risk of developing breast cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis treatment strategies for febrile neutropenia in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with pegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6-day and 11-day), or no prophylaxis to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving docetaxel or topotecan.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PP vs SP from a US payer perspective. Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy (relative risk of FN with prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis) and mortality, costs, and utility values were estimated from public sources and peer-reviewed publications. Incremental cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of net cost per FN event avoided, incremental cost per life-year saved (LYS), and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted.

RESULTS

For patients receiving docetaxel, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim was $7900 per QALY gained, and PP with pegfilgrastim dominated all other comparators. For patients receiving topotecan, PP with pegfilgrastim dominated all comparators. Model results were most sensitive to baseline FN risk. PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim was cost effective in 68% and 83% of simulations for docetaxel and in >99% of simulations for topotecan at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

PP with pegfilgrastim should be considered cost effective compared to other prophylaxis strategies in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving docetaxel or topotecan with a high risk of FN.

New G-CSF agonists for neutropenia therapy

INTRODUCTION

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; filgrastim) and its pegylated form (pegfilgrastim) are widely used to treat neutropenia associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation, AIDS-associated or drug-induced neutropenia, and neutropenic diseases. G-CSF facilitates restoration of neutrophil counts, decreases incidence of infection/febrile neutropenia and reduces resource utilization. G-CSF is also widely used to mobilize peripheral blood stem cells for hematopoietic transplant.

AREAS COVERED

We review the therapeutic use, cost effectiveness and disease impact of G-CSF for neutropenia, development of G-CSF biosimilars and current next-generation discovery efforts.

EXPERT OPINION

G-CSF has impacted the treatment and survival of patients with congenital neutropenias. For chemotherapy-associated neutropenia, cost effectiveness and impact on survival are still unclear. G-CSFs are expensive and require systemic administration. Market entry of new biosimilars, some with enhanced half-life profiles, will probably reduce cost and increase cost effectiveness. There is no evidence that marketed or late development biosimilars display effectiveness superior to current G-CSFs. Second-generation compounds that mimic the activity of G-CSF at its receptor, induce endogenous ligand(s) or offer adjunct activity have been reported and represent attractive G-CSF alternatives, but are in preclinical stages. A significant therapeutic advance will require reduced depth and duration of neutropenia compared to current G-CSFs.

Incidence, treatment, and consequences of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in the inpatient and outpatient settings

Objective

To examine the incidence, treatment, and consequences of febrile neutropenia across inpatient and outpatient care settings.

Methods

Data were obtained from Humedica's National Electronic Health Record-Derived Longitudinal Patient-Level Database (2007–2010). The study population included adult patients who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy for a solid tumor or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. For each patient, each chemotherapy regimen course and each cycle within each regimen course was characterized. Febrile neutropenia episodes were identified on a cycle-specific basis based on any of the following: (1) absolute neutrophil count <1.0 × 109/L and evidence of infection or fever; (2) inpatient diagnosis of neutropenia, fever, or infection; (3) outpatient diagnosis of neutropenia and non-prophylactic antimicrobial use; or (4) mention of febrile neutropenia in physician notes. Febrile neutropenia episodes were categorized as inpatient or outpatient based on the initial setting of care (i.e. acute-care inpatient facility vs. ambulatory care facility). Febrile neutropenia consequences included hospital length of stay and mortality (inpatient cases only), as well as number of febrile neutropenia-related outpatient encounters.

Results

Among the 2131 patients in this study, 401 experienced a total of 458 febrile neutropenia episodes. Risk of febrile neutropenia during the chemotherapy regimen course was 16.8% (95% CI: 15.3, 18.4). In cycle 1 alone, risk of febrile neutropenia was 8.1% (7.1, 9.3). Most febrile neutropenia episodes (83.2%) were initially treated in the inpatient setting; the hospital mortality rate was 8.1% (5.8, 11.1), and mean hospital length of stay was 8.4 days (7.7, 9.1). Among febrile neutropenia episodes initially treated in the outpatient setting (16.8%), the mean number of outpatient management encounters was 2.6 (2.1, 3.1), most of which were in the physician’s office (69.2%) or emergency department (26.9%).

Conclusions

Febrile neutropenia remains a common occurrence among patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and typically results in extended hospitalization and, for many patients, death. A minority of patients are, however, treated exclusively on an outpatient basis.

Real-world impact of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (pp-g-csf) is recommended in patients undergoing chemotherapy carrying a febrile neutropenia (fn) risk of 20% or more. In the present study, we examined clinical practice patterns and the impact of pp-g-csf on fn incidence in women with early-stage breast cancer (ebc) treated with modern adjuvant chemotherapy (act).

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective cohort study of women with ebc, who were identified from the pharmacy database and who received at least 1 cycle of modern act from January 2009 to December 2011, was conducted at the Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario. Data on patient demographics, pathology, stage distribution, chemotherapy, pp-g-csf use, dose reductions, chemotherapy delays, treatment discontinuation, relative dose intensity, and fn events were collected. Chi-square tests, t-tests, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, and nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-tests were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 239 women eligible for analysis, 145 (61%) received pp-g-csf, and 50 (21%) developed at least 1 episode of fn. Use of pp-g-csf was associated with a significantly lower rate of fn (14% vs. 31%, p = 0.002) and trends to fewer dose delays (17% vs. 27%, p = 0.060) and dose reductions (19% vs. 25%, p = 0.28). Among women receiving pp-g-csf, higher fn rates were associated with an age of 65 years or older, taxane-based chemotherapy, and prophylaxis with filgrastim.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical practice patterns at our institution showed that more than 50% of ebc patients treated with modern act received pp-g-csf, which led to fewer fn episodes and increased delivery of planned act. The observed high fn risk despite pp-g-csf was linked to older age, taxane-based chemotherapy, and filgrastim.

The cost offsets and cost-effectiveness associated with pegylated drugs: a review of the literature

Pegylation (PEG) is used as both a drug-delivery and a drug-modification technology in ten drugs approved by the US FDA. Benefits of PEG drugs can include increased plasma half-life, longer absorption, improved tumor targeting and less antigenicity and immunogenicity. Clinical benefits of PEG drugs over non-PEG drugs may include reduced administration, improved efficacy, improved tolerability, and decreased severity and incidence of adverse events. This study reviews 37 economic literature publications featuring PEG drugs versus non-PEG versions. PEG drugs showed some reductions in overall costs resulting from various offsets including fewer administrations, lower adverse event treatment costs, reduced disease complication costs or reduced inpatient/outpatient costs. Of the 18 cost-effectiveness studies reviewed, 17 of them found PEG drugs to be cost effective versus the non-PEG drugs. Cost offsets and cost-effectiveness of PEG drugs have been demonstrated in multiple studies across various therapies, indications and country settings, and the results have been found to be stable when key parameters were varied in analyses. Further studies are needed to assess the potential for cost savings and cost-effectiveness for new PEG therapies in development.

Comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim, filgrastim, and sargramostim prophylaxis for neutropenia-related hospitalization: two US retrospective claims analyses

OBJECTIVE

Few studies have compared the effectiveness of filgrastim (FIL), pegfilgrastim (PEG), and sargramostim (SAR) to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy (M-CT). Two large commercial database analyses were separately conducted to examine the incidence of neutropenia-related and all-cause hospitalizations associated with FIL, PEG, and SAR prophylaxis for patients receiving M-CT for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), Hodgkin lymphoma, or solid tumors.

METHODS

Separate retrospective US claims database analyses utilized patient data from January 1, 2004 to April 30, 2010 using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRD(SM)) and January 1, 2001 to August 31, 2009 using OptumInsight's (formerly Ingenix) database. Patients were ≥18 years old and treated with M-CT for NHL, Hodgkin lymphoma, and solid tumors. All identified M-CT cycles with prophylactic (first 5 days of cycle) FIL, PEG, or SAR were included in the analysis. Patterns of administration and incidence rates of all-cause and neutropenia-related hospitalization were examined on a per-cycle basis.

RESULTS

In total, 9330 and 8762 patients with cancer, representing 30,264 and 24,215 chemotherapy cycles (28,189 and 22,649 (PEG), 1669 and 1351 (FIL), 406 and 215 (SAR)) from the HIRD(SM) and OptumInsight databases, respectively, were included in the separate database analyses. Both the HIRD(SM) and OptumInsight analysis showed that SAR and FIL prophylaxis had a higher risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization (SAR: OR = 3.48 [95%CI = 2.11, 5.74] and 2.81 [1.62, 4.87]; FIL: 1.78 [1.28, 2.48] and 2.36 [1.82, 3.06], respectively) and all-cause hospitalization (SAR: 2.18 [1.41, 3.36] and 2.41 [1.58, 3.68]; FIL:1.57 [1.25, 1.97] and 1.95 [1.60, 2.38], respectively) vs PEG.

LIMITATIONS

Medical claims do not contain information about chemotherapy dose, and hospitalizations were not validated against the patient's chart.

CONCLUSION

In this comparative effectiveness study, use of PEG was associated with a lower risk of neutropenia-related and all-cause hospitalizations compared to use of FIL or SAR prophylaxis.

Use and delivery of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy-single-centre experience

BACKGROUND

Use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (g-csf) as primary prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced neutropenia has significant cost implications. We examined use of g-csf for early-stage breast cancer patients at our centre. The study also examined the pattern of nurse-led patient teaching with respect to drug self-administration.

METHODS

Patients who received g-csf between November 2009 and October 2010 were identified from pharmacy records. After consent had been obtained, electronic charts were examined to extract data on chemotherapy and use of g-csf. Patients were contacted by telephone to obtain information on the utilization of home-care nursing visits for g-csf administration.

RESULTS

The study analyzed 36 patients. Median age was 58 years (range: 31-78 years). Of the 36 patients, 30 (83%) had received adjuvant treatment, and 6 (17%), neoadjuvant treatment. Most patients (71%) received 10 days (range: 7-10 days) of filgrastim. Of the 36 patients, 29 (81%) received g-csf as primary prophylaxis. In 90% of those patients, primary prophylaxis commenced with the taxane component of treatment. Of the 36 patients, 7 (19%) received g-csf after neutropenia, including 2 who had febrile neutropenia. In 96% of the patients, injections were received at home with the help of a nurse; those patients were subsequently taught self-injection techniques. The median number of nursing visits was 2 (range: 1-3 visits). Most patients were satisfied with the home care and g-csf teaching they received.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the g-csf used in breast cancer treatment during the study period was given for primary prophylaxis. A major reason for the decision to use g-csf appears to have been physician-perceived risk of febrile neutropenia. Delivery of g-csf by home-care nurses was well received by patients.

Pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors: a critical and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors (MGFs) is an important topic that has received substantial attention in recent years. The use of the MGFs as primary prophylaxis to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) has grown considerably over the past decade and professional guidelines regarding their use have broadened the settings in which these agents are indicated. Recent data also suggest a potential role for them in reducing infection-related and all-cause mortality. The cost and effectiveness of these agents will continue to gain visibility as companies pursue approval for biosimilar agents in the US, similar to their recent approval in Europe.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this paper is to review the available pharmacoeconomic literature on the MGFs, which is particularly timely in light of the recent passage of healthcare reform and the increasing focus on cost control. The cost of treating cancer in the US is rising faster than the already rapid increase in overall medical expenditure. The clinical utility and cost effectiveness of supportive care measures in oncology must therefore be weighed carefully. This review focuses on the use of different formulations of MGFs for primary and secondary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed to find studies that became available since the prior review of this topic was published in Pharmacoeconomics in 2003.

RESULTS

Acceptable cost-minimization estimates for primary prophylaxis with the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy have been provided by several studies in the US. Of the commonly used agents in the US, pegfilgrastim appears to be superior to the currently recommended dose and schedule of filgrastim in terms of cost minimization, and primary prophylaxis appears to be less costly than secondary prophylaxis. However, the cost benefits of primary prophylaxis in Europe are not as pronounced as in the US, due to the lower costs of medical care. Data continue to emerge suggesting a decreased risk of early mortality from averted infections as well as the possibility of a disease-specific mortality benefit through maintaining the relative dose intensity of chemotherapy with MGF support.

CONCLUSION

This evidence will prove valuable in assessing the overall cost effectiveness and cost utility of the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.

PEGylation of interferon-β-1a: a promising strategy in multiple sclerosis

Achieving optimal patient benefit from biological therapies can be hindered by drug instability, rapid clearance requiring frequent dosing or potential immune reactions. One strategy for addressing these challenges is drug modification through PEGylation, a well established process by which one or more molecules of polyethylene glycol (PEG) are covalently attached to a biological or small-molecule drug, effectively transforming it into a therapy with improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Numerous PEGylated therapeutics are currently available, all of which have at least comparable efficacy, safety and tolerability to their unmodified forms. A PEGylated form of interferon-β-1a (PEG-IFNβ-1a) is being developed to address an unmet medical need for safer, more effective and more convenient therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS). Phase I study data suggest that PEG-IFNβ-1a should provide patients with a first-line therapy with a more convenient dosing regimen while maintaining the established efficacy, safety and tolerability of presently available IFNβ-1a. The ongoing global ADVANCE phase III study will determine the clinical efficacy of PEG-IFNβ-1a in patients with relapsing MS.

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia in breast cancer in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE

We report a cost-effectiveness evaluation of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy in the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

A mathematical model was constructed simulating the experience of women with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Three strategies were modeled: primary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles), secondary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles after an FN event), and no G-CSF prophylaxis. Three G-CSFs were considered: filgrastim, lenograstim, and pegfilgrastim. Costs were taken from UK databases and utility values from published sources. A systematic review provided data on G-CSF efficacy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined the effects of uncertainty in model parameters.

RESULTS

In the UK, base-case analysis with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20K per quality-adjusted life year gained and also using list prices, the most cost-effective strategy was primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for a patient with baseline FN risk greater than 38%, secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for baseline FN risk 11% to 37%, and no G-CSFs for baseline FN risk less than 11%. Using a WTP threshold of £30K and list prices, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim was cost-effective for baseline FN risks greater than 29%. In all analyses, pegfilgrastim dominated filgrastim and lenograstim. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that higher WTP threshold, younger age, earlier stage at diagnosis, or reduced G-CSF prices result in G-CSF prophylaxis being cost-effective at lower baseline FN risk levels.

CONCLUSION

Pegfilgrastim was the most cost-effective G-CSF. The most cost-effective strategy (primary or secondary prophylaxis) was dependent on the FN risk level for an individual patient, patient age and stage at diagnosis, and G-CSF price.