Economic implications of using pegfilgrastim rather than conventional G-CSF to prevent neutropenia during small-cell lung cancer chemotherapy

Willingness to pay for cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Willingness to pay (WTP) studies examine the maximum amount of money an individual is willing to pay for a specified health intervention, and can be used to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. Our objectives were to assess how people value cancer-related interventions, identify differences in the methodologies used, and review the trends in studies' publication.

AREAS COVERED

We extracted PubMed and EconLit articles published in 1997-2020 that reported WTP for cancer-related interventions, characterized the methodological differences and summarized each intervention's mean and median WTP values. We reviewed 1,331 abstracts and identified 103 relevant WTP studies, of which 37 (36%) focused on treatment followed by screening (26), prevention (21), diagnosis (7) and other interventions (12). The methods used to determine WTP values were primarily discrete-choice questions (n = 54, 52%), bidding games (15), payment cards (12) and open-ended questions (12). We found a wide variation in WTP reported values ranged from below $100 to over $20,000.

EXPERT OPINION

The WTP literature on oncology interventions has grown rapidly. There is considerable heterogeneity with respect to the type of interventions and diseases assessed, the respondents' characteristics, and the study methodologies. This points to the need to establish international guidelines for best practices in this field.

Outcome and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Long-acting G-CSF as Primary Prophylaxis of Neutropenia Induced by Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients, From a Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

This retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as primary prophylaxis of neutropenia caused by chemotherapy for breast cancer.

METHODS

Patients with breast cancer who received long- or short-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as primary prophylaxis of neutropenia were enrolled in this study, and incidences of neutropenia were compared between two groups. A decision-analytic and a Markov model were used to compare the health benefits and costs of utilizing long- vs short-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as the primary prophylaxis from the perspective of the Chinese health service system. Subsequently, one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated in baseline and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Patients receiving long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as the primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia experienced a significant lower incidence of this adverse event, compared with the short-acting one for 2 to 7 days. The outcomes of baseline analysis indicated that long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor had a gain of 0.08 quality-adjusted life years and costed $149 more than the short-acting one, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1792 per quality-adjusted life year. The sensitivity analysis proved the stability of our models and economic efficiency of long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as primary prophylaxis of neutropenia experienced lower risk of this event compared with those underusing short-acting one. The long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor may be a more cost-effective strategy for primary prophylaxis of neutropenia than short-acting one, considering the Chinese willingness-to-pay threshold of $12158.6 per quality-adjusted life year.

Approaches of stem cell mobilization in a large cohort of metastatic germ cell cancer patients

High-dose chemotherapy (HD-Cx) in refractory germ cell cancer (GCC) is effective but limited data are available concerning the optimal approach for stem cell mobilization (SCM) in these patients. In this analysis 102 patients undergoing SCM during first (n = 25) or subsequent treatment lines (n = 77) were analyzed. Subcutaneous injections of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) were given once daily (group 1) in 52 patients (51%), twice daily (group 2) in 39 patients (38%) or one injection Pegylated-G-CSF (PegG-CSF) (group 3) in eleven patients (11%) after one cycle of mobilization chemotherapy. Plerixafor was administered 13 times in group 1, seven times in group 2 and once in group 3. Overall, 77 (75%) patients achieved successful SCM defined as ≥8*10⁶ CD34+ cells/kg body weight for three consecutive HD-Cx plus one backup dose. In group 1, 40 of 52 patients (77%) achieved successful SCM with a median of 11 G-CSF injections, in group 2, 27 of 39 patients (69%) with a median of 14 G-CSF injections and in group 3, 10 of 11 patients (91%) with one injection of PegG-CSF. SCM was more successful if conducted during first-line chemotherapy (p = 0.016) and associated with a beneficial outcome concerning overall survival (p = 0.02) if performed satisfactorily.

The Economic Burden of Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC), the most aggressive form of lung carcinoma, represents approximately 15% of all lung cancers; however, the economic and healthcare burden of SCLC is not well-defined.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore the impact of SCLC on healthcare costs through a systematic literature review (SLR).

METHODS

Using the OVID search engine, the SLR was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, EconLIT and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Searches were limited to studies published between January 2005 and 24 February 2016, and excluded preclinical studies. Additional internet-based searches were conducted. In total, 229 abstracts were retrieved and systematically screened for eligibility, with 17 publications retained.

RESULTS

The majority of publications provided data on limited and extensive disease of SCLC. The reported burden was categorised as direct costs and indirect costs, with the majority of the publications (n = 16) reporting on direct costs and one reporting on both direct and indirect costs. The only indirect costs reported for SCLC were lost productivity (premature mortality costs) and caregiver burden. Chemotherapy, diagnostic costs and treatment costs were identified as significant costs when managing SCLC patients, including the associated treatment costs such as hospitalisation, nurse visits, emergency room visits, follow-up appointments and outpatient care.

CONCLUSIONS

SCLC and its treatment have a substantial impact on costs. The scarcity and heterogeneity of economic cost data negated meaningful cost comparison, highlighting the need for further research. Capturing the economic burden of SCLC may help patients and clinicians make informed treatment choices and improve SCLC management.

Pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor versus non-pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilizes and increases the amount of hematopoietic stem cells in peripheral blood, enabling its harvest by few apheresis procedures. The pegylated G-CSF has longer half-life and is given once only, which is more comfortable for patients, whereas the non-pegylated requires multiple daily injection because of its short half-life. We summarized results of randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of pegylated and non-pegylated G-CSF for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization. We searched the Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and two conference proceedings. Two authors made the selection, extracted data and evaluated methodological quality using GRADE independently. We used random-effects model for meta-analysis. We found 3956 records and retrieved 47 full texts. We included eight randomized trials with a total number of 554 randomized and 532 analyzed subjects. The meta-analysis included five trials because not all trials reported the same outcomes. Pooling data from two studies shows no evidence for a difference in the successful mobilization rate (CD34+ cell ≥ 2 × 10⁶ /kg collected) between pegfilgrastim 6 mg (early administration) and filgrastim 5 µg/kg/day (147 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 0.67-1.11; P = .26). Pooling data from three studies shows no difference in the incidence of adverse events between pegylated and non-pegylated G-CSF (170 participants; RR 0.86, 95%CI 0.34-2.17; P = .75). No difference found on the quantity of CD34+ cells collected, number of apheresis procedure in successful mobilization, level of peak PB CD34+ cells achieved, and day of neutrophil and platelet engraftment.

Comparative effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors to prevent febrile neutropenia and related complications in cancer patients in clinical practice: A systematic review

Introduction

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious side-effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Several clinical trials and observational studies have evaluated the effects of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) on risk of FN and related complications; however, no systematic reviews have focused on effectiveness in routine clinical practice. Here, we perform a systematic review assessing the comparative effectiveness of prophylaxis with a long-acting G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) versus short-acting G-CSFs (filgrastim, lenograstim, and filgrastim biosimilars) in cancer patients in real-world clinical settings.

Methods

A systematic review was performed based on a pre-specified protocol and was consistent with the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook (2009) and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care (2011). MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles published from January 2002 to June 2014. Congress databases (MASCC/ASCO/ESMO) and Google Scholar were searched for abstracts published from January 2012 to August 2014. Filgrastim (NEUPOGEN®), lenograstim and nivestim (a filgrastim biosimilar) were the only short-acting G-CSFs and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) was the only long-acting G-CSF described in eligible studies. Outcomes of interest were FN, FN-related hospitalisation and other FN-related complications (death, chemotherapy dose delays and reductions, antimicrobial treatment, severe neutropenia and costs and resource use).

Results

Of 1259 unique records identified, 18 real-world observational studies met predefined inclusion criteria; 15 were retrospective studies, and 3 were prospective studies. Multiple tumour types, chemotherapy regimens and geographical regions were included. Seven studies provided statistical comparisons of the risk of FN; risk of FN among patients receiving prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus short-acting G-CSF was significantly lower in three studies, numerically lower in three studies, and numerically higher in one study. Six studies provided statistical comparisons of the risk of FN-related hospitalisation; risk of FN-related hospitalisation among patients receiving prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus short-acting G-CSF was significantly lower in all six studies, though some variation was seen in subanalyses. Data for other outcomes were sparse with available results being generally consistent with the results seen for risk of FN and FN-related hospitalisation.

Conclusions

Based on the findings from this review of real-world comparative effectiveness studies, risks of FN and FN-related complications were generally lower for prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus prophylaxis with short-acting G-CSFs.

Cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy combined with thoracic radiotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for limited stage small cell lung cancer: A population-based propensity-score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The addition of thoracic radiotherapy improves the outcome of limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC), however, the cost-effectiveness of this process has never been reported. We aimed to estimate the short-term cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy combined with thoracic radiotherapy (C-TRT) versus chemotherapy alone (C/T) for LS-SCLC patients from the payer's perspective (Taiwan National Health Insurance).

METHODS

We identified LS-SCLC patients diagnosed within 2007-2009 through a comprehensive population-based database containing cancer and death registries, and reimbursement data. The duration of interest was one year within diagnosis. We included potential confounding covariables through literature searching and our own experience, and used a propensity score to construct a 1:1 population for adjustment. We used a net benefit (NB) approach to evaluate the cost-effectiveness at various willingness-to-pay (WTP) levels. Sensitivity analysis regarding potential unmeasured confounder(s) was performed.

RESULTS

Our study population constituted 74 patients. The mean cost (2013 USD) and survival (year) was higher for C-TRT (42 439 vs. 28 357; 0.94 vs. 0.88). At the common WTP level (50 000 USD/life-year), C-TRT was not cost effective (incremental NB - 11 082) and the probability for C-TRT to be cost effective (i.e. positive net benefit) was 0.005. The result was moderately sensitive to potential unmeasured confounder(s) in sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide evidence that when compared to C/T, C-TRT is effective in improving survival, but is not cost-effective in the short-term at a common WTP level from a payer's perspective. This information should be considered by clinicians when discussing thoracic radiotherapy with their LS-SCLC patients.

A retrospective study of patients' out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors

OBJECTIVE

With rising healthcare costs, there is an increasing concern with the burden of out-of-pocket costs on cancer patients. This study examined patients' out-of-pocket expenditures for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, which are given to cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and have been shown to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia.

METHODS

Adult patients who received chemotherapy and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in the outpatient setting in the United States between January 2007 and June 2010 were evaluated using medical and pharmacy claims data from two healthcare data sources, the MarketScan(®) Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases and the HealthCore Integrated Research Database(SM). The distribution of out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors per patient and per administration was described for each quarter. Longitudinal analyses of out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors were also performed for patients with continuous health plan eligibility during each calendar year from 2007 to 2009.

RESULTS

The pattern of out-of-pocket expenditures for pegfilgrastim and filgrastim was generally consistent between the databases and over time. On average, about 65%-75% of patients had zero quarterly out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Across the years, the mean quarterly out-of-pocket costs per patient were $100-$150 and $50-$80 for pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, respectively. The mean quarterly out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors per administration were $40-$70 and $8-$10, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective analysis of medical and pharmacy claims data, most patients who received chemotherapy and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in 2007 to 2010 had incurred no quarterly out-of-pocket costs associated with G-CSF use.

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.

Understanding patient perspectives on communication about the cost of cancer care: a review of the literature

PURPOSE

Patient-physician communication about cost when making treatment decisions has been promoted as a potential solution to the rising cost of oncologic care and suggested as an important component of high-quality oncologic care. However, little is known regarding the perspectives of patients with cancer on such discussions with their physicians.

METHODS

A literature review was performed in July 2009, with search terms including but not limited to patient-physician communication, cost of cancer care, and cost communication.

RESULTS

The cost of cancer care is high and seems to affect decisions that many patients make about the treatment they receive. Yet there is scant oncology literature on patient-physician cost communication, with the only formal study examining oncologist perspectives. Extrapolation from the general medicine literature may not be appropriate for this unique population of patients, and there are some data to suggest that patients with cancer may prefer not to discuss finances with their oncologists. Practical guidelines and tools for discussions of cost with patients with cancer are also limited.

CONCLUSION

To my knowledge, patient preferences surrounding discussion of cost of cancer care have gone largely unstudied and are thus unknown. If the goal is to provide high-quality care while controlling rising health care costs, more research is needed to better understand patient perspectives on communication surrounding the cost of oncologic care, particularly given the significant impact such discussions may have on cancer outcomes, cost, and overall patient satisfaction.