1
|
Abraham I, Crawford J, Schwartzberg L. On-body injector pegfilgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia prophylaxis: Current Status. Cancer Treat Res Commun 2024; 40:100824. [PMID: 38865836 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctarc.2024.100824] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2024] [Revised: 05/28/2024] [Accepted: 05/28/2024] [Indexed: 06/14/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Myelosuppression, a challenge in cancer treatment, often results in severe complications. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, particularly pegfilgrastim, mitigate chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. This narrative review evaluates the role of on-body injector (OBI) devices for pegfilgrastim administration. A comprehensive search strategy of PubMed and AI-powered intuitive search tools, complemented by authors' contributions, yielded a body of papers presenting evidence on OBI devices, their effectiveness and safety, the benefits and challenges of OBI versus pre-filled syringe administration, patient preferences for pegfilgrastim administration, and economic considerations. DISCUSSION OBI devices prove effective and safe, with advantages such as reduced clinic visits and enhanced adherence. Studies highlight cost-efficiency and expanded access, emphasizing the socioeconomic context. Patient and provider preferences underscore the potential of OBI devices in cancer care, with implications for healthcare resource utilization and pharmacoeconomics. CONCLUSION The value proposition of OBI devices lies in improving patient outcomes, convenience, resource optimization, and enhancing the overall cancer care experience. As biosimilar OBIs enter the market, they may offer cost savings, further influencing their adoption and their positioning as a cost-efficient alternative in cancer care. Ongoing research and technological advancements are expected to contribute to the broader acceptance of OBI devices in cancer care delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ivo Abraham
- Center for Health Outcomes and Pharmacoeconomic Research Center, R. Ken Coit College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; The University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA.
| | | | - Lee Schwartzberg
- William N. Pennington Cancer Institute at Renown Health, Reno, NV, USA; School of Medicine, University of Nevada - Reno, Reno, NV, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gascón P, Harbeck N, Rapoport BL, Anderson R, Brueckmann I, Howe S, Aapro M. Filgrastim biosimilar (EP2006): A review of 15 years' post-approval evidence. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2024; 196:104306. [PMID: 38401695 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104306] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2023] [Revised: 02/16/2024] [Accepted: 02/20/2024] [Indexed: 02/26/2024] Open
Abstract
Filgrastim is approved for several indications, including reduction of the incidence and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and for stem cell mobilization. The filgrastim biosimilar, EP2006, has been available in Europe since 2009, and in the United States since 2015. In this time, preclinical and clinical data used to support the approval of EP2006 have been published. These data established the biosimilarity of EP2006 to reference filgrastim in terms of structure, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Additional real-world evidence studies have also demonstrated equivalent efficacy and safety of EP2006 compared with reference filgrastim, both in the reduction of neutropenia and in stem cell mobilization in clinical practice. This review summarizes these preclinical, clinical, and real-world data, as well as the available cost-effectiveness data, for EP2006 since its approval 15 years ago.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pere Gascón
- Division of Medical Oncology, IDIBAPS, Hospital Clinic, Casanova 143, Barcelona 08036, Spain
| | - Nadia Harbeck
- Breast Center, Department OB&GYN and Center for hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, LMU University Hospital, Marchioninistraße 15, Munich 81377, Germany
| | - Bernardo L Rapoport
- The Medical Oncology Centre of Rosebank, 129 Oxford Road, Johannesburg 2196, South Africa; Department of Immunology, Pathology Building, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
| | - Ronald Anderson
- Department of Immunology, Pathology Building, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
| | - Ines Brueckmann
- Sandoz Group AG, Global Medical Affairs, Industriestr. 25, Holzkirchen D-83607, Germany
| | - Sebastian Howe
- Sandoz Group AG, Global Medical Affairs, Industriestr. 25, Holzkirchen D-83607, Germany.
| | - Matti Aapro
- Cancer Center, Clinique de Genolier, Route du Muids 3, Genolier 1272, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Alkhatib NS, Halloush S, Abraham I. The status and preparation for the next decade of biosimilars in the Middle Eastern and North African region. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2023; 23:671-677. [PMID: 37493610 DOI: 10.1080/14712598.2023.2241346] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2023] [Accepted: 07/24/2023] [Indexed: 07/27/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Little is known about the status and the future potential of biosimilars in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. AREAS COVERED This perspective provides insights into the current regulatory landscape of some MENA countries, currently available biosimilars, the potential of biosimilars in the next decade, and challenges to overcome. EXPERT OPINION Given the economic and demographic heterogeneity across the MENA countries, biosimilars could reduce significant economic unmet needs in these countries. In the next decade, biosimilars may witness higher approval rates and market share over their originators in the MENA countries. We argue that the regulatory bodies in the MENA countries should adopt the new policies of the FDA, the EMA, and the WHO, that aim to ease the biosimilar approval process. These policies are to adopt technology in the process of approval; engage health technology assessment bodies in price assessment; provide educational materials to increase awareness among providers, patients, and payers. Further, MENA countries should upgrade the external-reference pricing systems to more sophisticated ones that consider the heterogeneity in economics and needs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nimer S Alkhatib
- Faculty of Pharmacy, Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
- Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Evaluation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Pi Pharma Intelligence, LLC, Amman, Jordan
| | - Shiraz Halloush
- Faculty of Pharmacy, Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan
| | - Ivo Abraham
- Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Evaluation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Matrix45, LLC, Tucson, Arizona
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
De Oliveira Brandao C, Lewis S, Sandschafer D, Crawford J. Two decades of pegfilgrastim: what have we learned? Where do we go from here? Curr Med Res Opin 2023; 39:707-718. [PMID: 36976784 DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2023.2196197] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/29/2023]
Abstract
Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is a medical emergency that may occur in patients with malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. FN requires early therapeutic intervention since it is associated with increased hospitalizations and high mortality risk of 5%-20%. FN-related hospitalizations are higher in patients with myeloid malignancies than in those with solid tumors due to the myelotoxicity of chemotherapy regimens and the compromised bone marrow function. FN increases the burden of cancer by causing chemotherapy dose reductions and delays. The administration of the first granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), filgrastim, reduced the incidence and duration of FN in patients undergoing chemotherapy. Filgrastim later evolved into pegfilgrastim, which has a longer half-life than filgrastim and was associated with a lower rate of severe neutropenia, chemotherapy dose reduction, and treatment delay. Nine million patients have received pegfilgrastim since its approval in early 2002. The pegfilgrastim on-body injector (OBI) is an innovative device facilitating the time-released auto-injection of pegfilgrastim approximately 27 hours after chemotherapy, as clinically recommended for the prevention of FN, thus eliminating the need for a next-day hospital visit. Since its introduction in 2015, one million patients with cancer have received pegfilgrastim using the OBI. Subsequently, the device has been approved in the United States (US), European Union, Latin America, and Japan, with studies and a postmarketing commitment demonstrating device reliability. A recent prospective observational study conducted in the US demonstrated that the OBI substantially improved the adherence to and compliance with clinically recommended pegfilgrastim therapy; patients receiving pegfilgrastim via the OBI experienced a lower incidence of FN than those receiving alternatives for FN prophylaxis. This review discusses the evolution of G-CSFs leading to the development of the OBI, current recommendations for G-CSF prophylaxis in the clinic, continued evidence supporting next-day pegfilgrastim administration, and improvements in patient care made possible with the OBI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sandra Lewis
- Global Research & Development, Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
| | | | - Jeffrey Crawford
- Medical Oncology, Division of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Thungthong P, Chamnanchanunt S, Suwanban T, Nakhahes C, Iam-arunthai K, Akrawikrai T, Bunworasate U, Rojnuckarin P. The reliability of FEbrile Neutropenia after ChEmotherapy (FENCE) scores in predicting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor breakthrough febrile neutropenia among patients with lymphoma undergoing first-cycle chemotherapy: A prospective observational study. Front Med (Lausanne) 2023; 10:1122282. [PMID: 36993799 PMCID: PMC10040561 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1122282] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2022] [Accepted: 02/13/2023] [Indexed: 03/14/2023] Open
Abstract
BackgroundA tool for estimating risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy, namely the FEbrile Neutropenia after ChEmotherapy (FENCE) score, has been developed but has not been widely validated. This study aimed to validate the FENCE score as a tool for predicting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) breakthrough FN among patients with lymphoma who underwent chemotherapy.MethodsThis was a prospective observational study of treatment-naive adult patients with lymphoma who underwent their first cycle of chemotherapy between 2020 and 2021. The patients were followed up until the next cycle of chemotherapy to identify any infection events.ResultsAmong the 135 patients with lymphoma, 62 (50%) were men. In a comparison of the value of each FENCE parameter for predicting G-CSF breakthrough infection, the parameter of advanced-stage disease showed high sensitivity of 92.8%, and receipt of platinum chemotherapy showed high specificity of 95.33%. With a FENCE score of 12 as a cutoff for low risk, analysis across all patients with lymphoma resulted in a high AUROCC of 0.63 (95% CI = 0.5–0.74%; p = 0.059), and analysis across only patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) resulted in an AUROCC of 0.65 (95% CI = 0.51–0.79%; p = 0.046). With a cutoff point of 12, FENCE score can predict breakthrough infection events at 30.0% (95% CI = 17.8–47.4%).ConclusionThis study divided patients with lymphoma into risk groups according to FENCE score, showing that this instrument has discriminatory ability in predicting FN events, these being more likely to occur in patients in the intermediate- and high-risk groups. Multicenter studies are needed to validate this clinical risk score.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pravinwan Thungthong
- Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Rajavithi Hospital, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Supat Chamnanchanunt
- Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Rajavithi Hospital, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Department of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- *Correspondence: Supat Chamnanchanunt
| | - Tawatchai Suwanban
- Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Rajavithi Hospital, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Chajchawan Nakhahes
- Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Rajavithi Hospital, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Kunapa Iam-arunthai
- Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Rajavithi Hospital, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Tananchai Akrawikrai
- Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Rajavithi Hospital, College of Medicine, Rangsit University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Udomsak Bunworasate
- Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Research Unit in Translational Hematology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Ponlapat Rojnuckarin
- Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Humphreys SZ, Geller RB, Walden P. Pegfilgrastim Biosimilars in US Supportive Oncology: A Narrative Review of Administration Options and Economic Considerations to Maximize Patient Benefit. Oncol Ther 2022; 10:351-361. [PMID: 36114331 PMCID: PMC9483396 DOI: 10.1007/s40487-022-00207-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2022] [Accepted: 08/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biologics, such as pegfilgrastim, are a standard of care in supportive cancer treatment that are administered once per chemotherapy cycle to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. The high cost of these biologics in the United States can be a limiting factor to accessing care; however, lower-cost pegfilgrastim biosimilars have been available for several years for patients requiring prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Different options for pegfilgrastim administration are also now available to accommodate specific patient preferences. As patients may want to minimize the risk of both neutropenia and SARS-CoV-2 infection, same-day administration is a pertinent option during the present COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, individualized, patient-centered approaches and risk-management strategies should be considered when selecting the treatment and administration method for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Three methods of administration would minimize hospital or clinic visits while also providing the prophylactic effect of G-CSF: same-day administration after chemotherapy, use of the US Food and Drug Administration–approved on-body injector delivering pegfilgrastim approximately 27 h after chemotherapy, or self-administration by the patient or caregiver > 24 h after chemotherapy. Choice of the specific administration option should be based on the patient’s specific needs, while also considering mitigating factors, such as the economic burden associated with biologic medications and the risk of COVID-19. Pegfilgrastim biosimilars can minimize the additional financial burden on patients and the health care system during this pandemic and beyond.
Collapse
|
7
|
McBride A, Campbell K, Li E, Schroader B, Campbell D, Wang W. Economic and clinical outcomes of pegfilgrastim via prefilled syringe vs on-body injector: a real-world data analysis. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2021; 27:1230-1238. [PMID: 33929269 PMCID: PMC10394176 DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2021.21010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim is available as a prefilled syringe (PFS) and an on-body injector (OBI). Whether the administration method of pegfilgrastim affects the effectiveness and health care resources has not been evaluated in the setting of routine care. OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world clinical and economic outcomes between PFS and OBI methods of administration. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study in patients diagnosed with breast cancer or non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and prophylactic use of pegfilgrastim via PFS or OBI between January 1, 2017, and May 31, 2018, according to MarketScan research databases. A propensity score was used to match the PFS cohort 1:1 to the OBI cohort. Outcomes were compared among the matched cohorts using a generalized linear model and generalized estimating equations with log-link function. RESULTS: 3,152 patients were identified. After matching, the final sample included 2,170 patients, representing 1,085 in each cohort. The incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in the first chemotherapy cycle was 1.01% for OBI (95% CI = 0.56-1.82) vs 1.48% for PFS (95% CI = 0.91-2.39; P = 0.336). In all chemotherapy cycles (total cycles = 7,467), the FN incidence was 0.91% for OBI (95% CI = 0.64-1.30) vs 1.22% for PFS (95% CI = 0.90-1.64; P = 0.214). There was no statistically significant difference in adjusted per-member per-month all-cause total cost health care resource utilization (HCRU) for hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and pharmacy claims. CONCLUSIONS: In a matched cohort of patients representing real-world utilization, there was no statistically or clinically meaningful difference in FN incidence between OBI and PFS methods of pegfilgrastim administration. There was no difference in total HCRU or total costs. OBI and PFS methods of administration are both indicated for patients requiring prophylactic pegfilgrastim, which is important considering that biosimilar PFS options are now available. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sandoz, Inc. Wang, Li, and K. Campbell are employees of Sandoz, Inc. Schroader and D. Campbell are employees of Xcenda, which was contracted by Sandoz, Inc., to provide study and manuscript development. McBride reports receiving payment from Sandoz, Inc., as a consultant, unrelated to this study; Coherus for advisory board and speaker engagements; and Pfizer for advisory board participation during the time of this study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ali McBride
- Banner University Medical Center and University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Qian J. Uptake and cost of biosimilar filgrastim among Medicare and Medicaid populations in 2015-2018. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2021; 27:660-666. [PMID: 33908273 PMCID: PMC10391058 DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.5.660] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The first biosimilar product filgrastim-sndz was approved by the FDA in 2015, but real-world evaluations of its uptake and cost in nationally representative populations are limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the uptake and cost of filgrastim-sndz, relative to its originator filgrastim and alternative biologic tbofilgrastim, among Medicare and Medicaid populations. METHODS: Using the annually aggregated, product-level utilization and cost data of biologic and biosimilar filgrastim products in 2015-2018 from CMS drug spending data, total number of claims and costs for all 3 filgrastim products were identified and extracted for Medicare Part B, Part D, and Medicaid reimbursement. Annual average cost per claim and per beneficiary of individual filgrastim products were also extracted, and their annual growth rates were calculated. RESULTS: Three years after entering the US market, use of filgrastim-sndz increased to 49.1% and 46.0% of all filgrastim claims paid by Medicare Parts B and D, respectively, and to 38.7% of filgrastim Medicaid claims in 2018. Total cost for filgrastim-sndz also reached 42.8%, 41.8%, and 26.9% of all filgrastim products paid by Medicare Parts B and D and Medicaid, respectively. Significant reductions in average cost per claim for filgrastim-sndz in 2017 and 2018 were observed in Medicare Part B and Medicaid. CONCLUSIONS: Significant uptake of biosimilar filgrastim in Medicare and Medicaid programs occurred during the first 3 years of marketing. Policymakers may use the evidence to evaluate existing barriers and policies regarding biosimilar adoption. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this work. The author has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jingjing Qian
- Auburn University Harrison School of Pharmacy, Auburn, AL
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
McBride A, MacDonald K, Abraham I. Conversion to supportive care with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv enables budget-neutral expanded access to R-CHOP treatment in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Leuk Res 2021; 106:106591. [PMID: 33957339 DOI: 10.1016/j.leukres.2021.106591] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2021] [Accepted: 04/05/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
This pharmacoeconomic simulation (1) assessed the cost-efficiency of converting a panel of 20,000 patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv; (2) estimated how savings can be used to provide budget-neutral expanded access to R-CHOP therapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients; and 3) determined the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to purchase one additional dose of R-CHOP (US payer perspective). Model inputs included biosimilar conversion from pre-filled syringe [PFS] or on-body injector [OBI] reference pegfilgrastim; age-proportional blended costs for reference pegfilgrastim PFS and OBI, pegfilgrastim-cbqv and R-CHOP; medication administration costs; biosimilar conversion rates of 10-100 %; and 1-6 cycles of prophylaxis. Cost-savings were used to estimate the number of doses of R-CHOP that could be purchased and the NNC to purchase one additional dose. Converting a panel of 20,000 patients requiring CIN/FN prophylaxis to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv from a low of 1 cycle and 10 % conversion to a high of 6 cycles and 100 % conversion yielded savings from $1,567,195 to $96,668,126. The budget-neutral acquisition of R-CHOP doses afforded by these savings ranged from 227 to 13,999 doses, the latter enabling 2333 patients to receive 6 cycles of R-CHOP treatment with no additional cost to the payer. These results are achieved if all 20,000 panel patients requiring GCSF support are prophylacted with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv for 6 cycles, yielding an NNC of 1.43 patients per additional R-CHOP dose. This simulation underscores the clinic-economic benefit of prophylaxis with biosimilar growth factor and pegfilgrastim-cbqv specifically.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ali McBride
- Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA; Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | | | - Ivo Abraham
- Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA; Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; Matrix45, Tucson, AZ, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Long Z, Kurup AN, Jensen NM, Hangiandreou NJ, Schueler BA, Yu L, Leng S, Wood CP, Felmlee JP. Initial testing of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Onpro) on-body injector in multiple radiological imaging environments. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2021; 22:343-349. [PMID: 33395503 PMCID: PMC7856482 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13156] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2020] [Revised: 12/07/2020] [Accepted: 12/12/2020] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose An increasing number of implantable or external devices can impact whether patients can receive radiological imaging examinations. This study examines and tests the Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) Onpro on‐body injector in multiple imaging environments. Methods The injector was analyzed for four imaging modalities with testing protocols and strategies developed for each modality. In x‐ray and computed tomography (CT), scans with much higher exposure than clinical protocols were performed with the device attached to an anthropomorphic phantom. The device was monitored until the completion of drug delivery. For magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the device was assessed using a hand‐held magnet and underwent the magnetically induced displacement testing in a 1.5T clinical MRI scanner room. For ultrasound, magnetic field changes were measured around an ultrasound scanner system with three transducers. Results For x‐ray and CT no sign of device error was identified during or after the high radiation exposure scans. Drug delivery was completed at expected timing with expected volume. For MRI the device showed significant attractive force towards the hand‐held magnet and a 50‐degree deflection angle at 50 cm from the opening of the scanner bore. No further assessment from the gradient or radiofrequency field was deemed necessary. For ultrasound the maximum magnetic field change from baseline was measured to be +11.7 μT in comparison to +74.2 μT at 4 inches from a working microwave. Conclusions No device performance issue was identified under the extreme test conditions in x‐ray or CT. The device was found to be MR Unsafe. Magnetic field changes around an ultrasound system met the limitation set by manufacture. Patient ultrasound scanning is considered safe as long as the transducers do not inadvertently loosen the device.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zaiyang Long
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Lifeng Yu
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Shuai Leng
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Joel P Felmlee
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
McBride A, MacDonald K, Fuentes-Alburo A, Abraham I. Conversion from pegfilgrastim with on-body injector to pegfilgrastim-jmdb: cost-efficiency analysis and budget-neutral expanded access to prophylaxis and treatment. J Med Econ 2021; 24:598-606. [PMID: 33866947 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2021.1916863] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
AIMS Therapeutic guidelines recommend prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN). Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), biosimilar pegfilgrastim-jmdb (Fulphila), and pegfilgrastim with on-body injector (OBI; Neulasta Onpro) are options for CIN/FN prophylaxis. We aimed to simulate the cost-savings and budget-neutral expanded access to CIN/FN prophylaxis or anticancer treatment achieved through conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to pegfilgrastim-jmdb and to evaluate the economic impact of FN-related hospitalization costs due to pegfilgrastim-OBI failure. METHODS Cost-savings from conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-jmdb were simulated in a panel of 15,000 patients with cancer from the US payer perspective. The primary analyses included conversion rates of 10% to 100%. Adjusted analyses also considered OBI device failure rates of 1% to 7% and associated costs of FN-related hospitalization. Simulations of budget-neutral expanded access to prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim-jmdb or to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) were also performed. RESULTS In a 15,000-patient panel, conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to pegfilgrastim-jmdb resulted in cost-savings ranging from $481,259 (10% conversion) to $4,812,585 (100% conversion) in a single cycle. Over 6 cycles at 100% conversion, savings were $28,857,510 and could provide 9,191 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 4,463 cycles of R-CHOP to patients with DLBCL. Adjusted for OBI failure, cost-savings over 6 cycles ranged from $2,935,565 (10% conversion; pegfilgrastim-OBI failure rate of 1%) to $32,236,499 (100% conversion; 7% failure). These cost-savings could provide 943 doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 454 doses of R-CHOP (10% conversion; 1% pegfilgrastim-OBI failure) or provide 10,261 doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 4,982 cycles of R-CHOP (100% conversion; 7% failure). CONCLUSION Conversion from pegfilgrastim to pegfilgrastim-jmdb is associated with significant cost-savings which increase markedly when also accounting for pegfilgrastim-OBI failure and associated FN-related hospitalizations. These general and failure-related cost-savings could be allocated on a budget-neutral basis to provide more patients with additional CIN/FN prophylaxis or antineoplastic treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ali McBride
- The University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, The University of Arizona College of Pharmacy, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | | | | | - Ivo Abraham
- The University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, The University of Arizona College of Pharmacy, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Matrix45, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
McBride A, MacDonald K, Fuentes-Alburo A, Abraham I. Cost-efficiency and expanded access modeling of conversion to biosimilar trastuzumab-dkst with or without pertuzumab in metastatic breast cancer. J Med Econ 2021; 24:743-756. [PMID: 34003067 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2021.1928515] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
AIMS To investigate the cost-efficiency and budget-neutral expanded access of biosimilar intravenous trastuzumab-dkst versus reference intravenous (trastuzumab-IV) and subcutaneous trastuzumab (trastuzumab-SC) (with/without pertuzumab) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS Economic simulation modeling in a panel of 1,000 MBC patients to estimate: 1) cost-savings by conversion from trastuzumab-IV or trastuzumab-SC to trastuzumab-dkst at 10-100% conversion rates in 3 weight groups: first quartile (Q1:62.2 kg), median (73.1 kg), third quartile (Q3:88.6 kg), and 2) budget-neutral expanded access to trastuzumab-dkst from cost-savings. RESULTS In monotherapy, conversion (%) from trastuzumab-IV generates one-year cost-savings from $2,272,189 (Q1;10%) to $31,506,804 (Q3;100%) and from trastuzumab-SC monotherapy savings range from $2,071,277 (Q3;10%) to $35,775,475 (Q1;100%). In combination with pertuzumab, trastuzumab-dkst is cost-efficient in all patient weights with one-year savings over trastuzumab-IV up to $32,662,714 (Q3;100%) and over trastuzumab-SC up to $35,322,461 (Q1;100%). Savings from conversion from trastuzumab-IV monotherapy could provide between 3,087 (Q1;10%) and 30,911 (Q3;100%) additional trastuzumab-dkst doses-enough to treat 58 to 583 patients for one year. Conversion from trastuzumab-SC monotherapy could provide between 1,559 (Q3;10%) and 48,598 (Q1;100%) additional trastuzumab-dkst doses or 38 to 918 additional one-year treatments with trastuzumab-dkst. In combination with pertuzumab, conversion from trastuzumab-IV could provide from 311 (Q1;10%) to 3,939 (Q3;100%) maintenance doses (pertuzumab + trastuzumab-dkst) or 17 to 210 additional one-year regimens (all agents). Savings from conversion from trastuzumab-SC could expand access to 226 (Q3;10%) to 4,782 (Q1;100%) additional maintenance doses or 12 to 254 one-year regimens. CONCLUSIONS This first cost-efficiency and expanded access study of biosimilar therapeutic cancer agents shows that trastuzumab-dkst is cost-efficient over trastuzumab-IV and trastuzumab-SC across all patient weights in both monotherapy and combination with pertuzumab and paclitaxel. These cost savings could provide more patients with trastuzumab-dkst treatment on a budget-neutral basis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ali McBride
- The University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, The University of Arizona College of Pharmacy, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | | | | | - Ivo Abraham
- The University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, The University of Arizona College of Pharmacy, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Matrix45, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
MacDonald K, McBride A, Alrawashdh N, Abraham I. Cost-efficiency and expanded access of prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia: economic simulation analysis for the US of conversion from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv. J Med Econ 2020; 23:1466-1476. [PMID: 33023360 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2020.1833339] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
AIMS In this pharmacoeconomic simulation, we: (1) modeled the cost-efficiency of converting patients from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) from the US payer perspective, (2) simulated how savings enable, on a budget-neutral basis, expanded access to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, and (3) estimated the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv. METHODS In a hypothetical panel of 20,000 patients, we modeled cost-savings utilizing: two reference formulations (pre-filled syringe [PFS] and on-body injector [OBI]), three medication cost inputs (average sales price [ASP], wholesale acquisition cost [WAC], and an age-proportionate blended ASP/WAC rate), administration cost for injection (PFS) and device application (OBI), conversion rates of 10-100%, and 1-6 cycles of prophylaxis. Cost-savings were used to estimate additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv that could be purchased and the NNC to purchase one additional dose. RESULTS Using ASP and 10% conversion from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, savings range from $326,744 (1 cycle) to $2.0M (6 cycles) which could provide 93-556 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv, respectively; the NNC to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv ranges from 21.6 (1 cycle) down to 3.6 patients (6 cycles). The WAC model saves $41.1M per cycle and $246.7M over 6 cycles at 100% conversion from reference PFS which could provide 9,709-58,253 additional pegfilgrastim-cbqv doses; the NNC ranges from 2.1 (1 cycle) to 0.3 (6 cycles). Using the blended ASP/WAC rate, converting 50% from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv would save $10.2M per cycle and $60.9M over 6 cycles providing 2,638-15,829 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv; NNCs are 3.8 (1 cycle) and 0.6 patients (6 cycles). CONCLUSIONS Converting 20,000 patients from reference to pegfilgrastim-cbqv over 6 cycles can generate savings up to $246.7M, enough to purchase up to 58,253 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv. This simulation provides economic justification for prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ali McBride
- Medical Center, Banner University, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Cancer Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | - Neda Alrawashdh
- Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | - Ivo Abraham
- Matrix45, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Cancer Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Huang HY, Liu CC, Yu Y, Wang L, Wu DW, Guo LW, Wang SH, Fang H, Bai Y, Fang Y, Fan Q, Sun C, Wu Y, Shi JF, Ma F, Tang Y, Dai M, Li N. Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Cancer Biosimilars Worldwide: A Systematic Review. Front Pharmacol 2020; 11:572569. [PMID: 33536905 PMCID: PMC7849203 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.572569] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2020] [Accepted: 10/06/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and Purpose: The availability of oncology biosimilars is deemed as a fundamental strategy to achieve sustainable health care. However, there is scarce systematic evidence on economic effectiveness of cancer biosimilars. We aimed to synthesize evidence from pharmacoeconomic evaluation of oncology biosimilars globally, provide essential data and methodological reference for involved stakeholders. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted in PubMed, embase, the Cochrane library, CRD, ISPOR and NICE utill December 31, 2019. Information on basic characteristics, evaluation methodology and results were extracted. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Checklist. Results: For 17 studies identified (13 from Europe and four from United States), the overall quality was generally acceptable. A total of seven biological molecules involved with filgrastim, EPOETIN α, and trastuzumab leading the three. The mostly common evaluation perspective was payer, but the time horizon varied greatly. There were ten studies which adopted cost minimization analysis to evaluate efficiency while seven studies adopted budget impact analysis to address affordability, with cost ratio and cost saving being its corresponding primary endpoint. Although the comparability of included studies was limited and specific results were largely affected by uptake and price discount rates of the oncology biosimilar, the comprehensive results consistently favored its promotion. Conclusion: Globally, the economic evaluation of cancer biosimilars is in its initial phase. However, limited evidence from developed countries consistently supported both cost-effectiveness of efficiency and affordability of oncology biosimilars, while they were largely affected by uptake and price discount rate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hui-Yao Huang
- Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Cheng-Cheng Liu
- Office of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Yue Yu
- Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Le Wang
- Institute of Cancer and Basic Medicine, Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China
| | - Da-Wei Wu
- Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Lan-Wei Guo
- Office for Cancer Control and Research, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Shu-Hang Wang
- Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Hong Fang
- Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Ying Bai
- Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Yuan Fang
- Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Qi Fan
- Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Chao Sun
- Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Ying Wu
- Pfizer Investment Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China
| | - Ju-Fang Shi
- Office of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Fei Ma
- Department of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Yu Tang
- Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Min Dai
- Office of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Ning Li
- Clinical Trials Center, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Gerberich AJ, Attilio MR, Svoboda A. Revisiting same day administration of pegfilgrastim in the age of biosimilars: A review of literature. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2020; 26:1970-1976. [DOI: 10.1177/1078155220956305] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Purpose Since 2018, several pegfilgrastim biosimilars were approved, which may affect insurance reimbursement. Guidelines recommend pegfilgrastim be administered the days following chemotherapy to prevent hematopoietic toxicity. To date, only the reference pegfilgrastim product has an available autoinjector-device. This has contributed to logistical issues in administering biosimilar agents per guideline recommendations. Administration on the same day as chemotherapy may be a potential alternative when logistical issues are present. This review will assess current evidence on this practice to inform clinical decisions. Data sources: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline for studies examining the administration of pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy. Data summary: Several studies were identified, including a systematic review, retrospective reviews, and insurance claim data. Studies had significant limitations, and chemotherapy regimens and cancer types varied among studies. Studies showed inconsistent results in terms of incidence, duration, and severity of febrile neutropenia. In studies with patients with head and neck, urothelial, gynecologic, gastrointestinal, and prostate cancer, no difference in outcomes was detected or outcomes supported the feasibility of same-day administration. In patients with breast cancer, outcomes were worse with same-day administration. Outcomes were mixed in studies with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and various solid tumors. Conclusion Administration of pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy may be safe and an acceptable alternative, if logistics prohibit a patient from receiving administration the days after chemotherapy. Clinicians should consider patient risk factors and prescribed chemotherapy regimens, along with available evidence when contemplating administration of same-day pegfilgrastim.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda J Gerberich
- Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Pharmacy, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Mark R Attilio
- Department of Pharmacy, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Alison Svoboda
- Department of Pharmacy, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
McBride A, Wang W, Campbell K, Balu S, MacDonald K, Abraham I. Economic modeling for the US of the cost-efficiency and associated expanded treatment access of conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez from reference pegfilgrastim. J Med Econ 2020; 23:856-863. [PMID: 32323582 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2020.1760284] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
Aims: For this economic analysis, we aimed to model: (1) the cost-efficiency of prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) compared to reference pegfilgrastim, and (2) the expanded access to CIN/FN prophylaxis and anti-neoplastic treatment that could be achieved with biosimilar cost-savings on a budget-neutral basis.Methods: In a hypothetical panel of 20,000 cancer patients receiving CIN/FN prophylaxis and using the average sales price (ASP) for the second quarter of 2019 for reference pegfilgrastim, we: conducted an ex ante simulation from the payer perspective of the cost-savings of 10-100% conversion from reference to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez using drug price discounting ranging from 10-35%; estimated the budget-neutral expanded access to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez enabled by these cost-savings; and estimated the budget-neutral expanded access to anti-neoplastic treatment with pembrolizumab. The simulations were replicated using fourth quarter 2019 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for reference pegfilgrastim and biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez in a post facto analysis.Results: In ASP simulations, cost-savings of using pegfilgrastim-bmez over reference pegfilgrastim in a 20,000 patient panel range from $1.3 M (at 15% price discount) to $3 M (35%) at 10% conversion rate and from $6.4 M to $14.9 M, respectively, at 50% conversion. These savings could provide prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim-bmez to an additional 352 (15% discount) to 1,076 patients (35%) at 10% conversion or 1,764-5,384, respectively, at 50% conversion. Alternatively, savings could be reallocated for anti-neoplastic treatment with pembrolizumab to 3 (15% discount) to 9 (35%) patients at 10% conversion or 19-45, respectively, at 50% conversion. When utilizing WAC, cost-savings range from $4.6 M (10% conversion) to $23.1 M (50%) which could provide pegfilgrastim-bmez to an additional 1,174 (10% conversion) to 5,873 patients (50%).Conclusions: Prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez increases the value of cancer care by generating significant cost-savings that could be reallocated to provide expanded access to CIN/FN prevention and anti-neoplastic therapy on a budget-neutral basis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ali McBride
- Arizona Cancer Center, Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, AZ, USA
- College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona Health Sciences Center, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | - Weijia Wang
- Department of Health Economics and Outcome Research, Sandoz Inc, Princeton, NJ, USA
| | - Kim Campbell
- Department of Health Economics and Outcome Research, Sandoz Inc, Princeton, NJ, USA
| | - Sanjeev Balu
- Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA
| | | | - Ivo Abraham
- College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona Health Sciences Center, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
- MATRIX45, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
- Department of Family and Community Medicine College of Medicine - Tucson, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
| |
Collapse
|