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

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.

A comparative assessment of neutropenia events, healthcare resource use, and costs among cancer patients treated with lipegfilgrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in Germany

PURPOSE

We assessed the occurrence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) and the associated healthcare resource in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in combination with pegfilgrastim versus lipegfilgrastim.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis using a German health insurance claims database. Adults receiving chemotherapy with a prescription code for pegfilgrastim (n = 734) or lipegfilgrastim (n = 346) were observed over a 1-year follow-up period. Patient subgroups were analyzed according to cancer type and FN risk. FN risk was based on the chemotherapy regimen and any additional neutropenia risk factors. Outcomes were adjusted via regression analysis.

RESULTS

Most patients were classified as high FN risk (70.0% pegfilgrastim; 65.6% lipegfilgrastim cohort). The mean age was 58.2 years in the pegfilgrastim cohort and 58.0 years in the lipegfilgrastim cohort, with more female patients than male patients (77.3% vs 79.8%, respectively), and the majority had breast cancer (64.9% and 68.8%, respectively). Overall, 10.0% and 10.4% of patients receiving pegfilgrastim or lipegfilgrastim experienced a neutropenia event (p = 0.82), with 4.4% and 3.5% of patients experiencing a FN event (p = 0.49). The mean neutropenia event-related healthcare costs were €604 and €441 for the pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim cohorts; among patients with lymphoma, these costs were significantly greater (p = 0.03) with pegfilgrastim (€1,612) versus lipegfilgrastim (€382). The mean all-cause hospitalizations were significantly (p < 0.01) higher for lymphoma patients receiving pegfilgrastim (2.76) versus lipegfilgrastim (1.60).

CONCLUSION

Overall, patients treated with pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable in terms of neutropenia occurrences in the 1-year follow-up. In patients with lymphoma, neutropenia event-related healthcare costs and all-cause hospitalizations were significantly higher with pegfilgrastim compared with lipegfilgrastim in this study; however, this should be interpreted with caution in light of the limited sample size and the absence of clinical information.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of PEG-rhG-CSF as Primary Prophylaxis to Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia in Women With Breast Cancer in China: Results Based on Real-World Data

Background: Pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (PEG-rhG-CSFs) are more commonly and widely used than recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (rhG-CSFs) in preventing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with stage II-IV breast cancer. To reduce the financial burden on these patients, the corresponding medical insurance directory needs to be revised.

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PEG-rhG-CSF versus rhG-CSF in patients with stage II-IV breast cancer in central China.

Methods: Two Markov models, a chemotherapy model and a post-chemotherapy model, were developed to study the effects and costs, with a time horizon of 12 weeks and 35 years, respectively. Cost and probability input data were primarily obtained from a retrospective real-world study conducted in five tertiary hospitals. Propensity score matching was adopted to overcome retrospective bias. Other parameters were extracted from literature as well as advice from clinical experts. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: In the first chemotherapy model, PEG-rhG-CSF was associated with fewer episodes of febrile neutropenia (FN) (N = 19 per 1000 patients treated), infections (N = 24 per 1000 patients treated) and deaths (N = 2 per 1000 patients treated), but higher costs (¥36 more per patient treated). The post-chemotherapy model indicated that PEG-rhG-CSF led to higher gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (11.695 versus 11.516) in comparison to rhG-CSF. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of PEG-rhG-CSF had the greatest impact on the incremental costs, and incremental QALYs were very sensitive to the risk of RDI <85%. The probability of PEG-rhG-CSF being cost-effective compared to rhG-CSF was 66% at the willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds of ¥72,371 per QALY gained.

Conclusion: According to this economic evaluation based on real-world data, PEG-rhG-CSF may be considered as a more cost-effective strategy relative to rhG-CSF for stage II-IV breast cancer patients in central China. However, to reflect a national perspective, further evidence is needed using data from larger-scale studies.

The Use of Expert Elicitation among Computational Modeling Studies in Health Research: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Expert elicitation (EE) has been used across disciplines to estimate input parameters for computational modeling research when information is sparse or conflictual.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic review to compare EE methods used to generate model input parameters in health research.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and Web of Science.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY

Modeling studies that reported the use of EE as the source for model input probabilities were included if they were published in English before June 2021 and reported health outcomes.

DATA ABSTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Studies were classified as "formal" EE methods if they explicitly reported details of their elicitation process. Those that stated use of expert opinion but provided limited information were classified as "indeterminate" methods. In both groups, we abstracted citation details, study design, modeling methodology, a description of elicited parameters, and elicitation methods. Comparisons were made between elicitation methods.

STUDY APPRAISAL

Studies that conducted a formal EE were appraised on the reporting quality of the EE. Quality appraisal was not conducted for studies of indeterminate methods.

RESULTS

The search identified 1520 articles, of which 152 were included. Of the included studies, 40 were classified as formal EE and 112 as indeterminate methods. Most studies were cost-effectiveness analyses (77.6%). Forty-seven indeterminate method studies provided no information on methods for generating estimates. Among formal EEs, the average reporting quality score was 9 out of 16.

LIMITATIONS

Elicitations on nonhealth topics and those reported in the gray literature were not included.

CONCLUSIONS

We found poor reporting of EE methods used in modeling studies, making it difficult to discern meaningful differences in approaches. Improved quality standards for EEs would improve the validity and replicability of computational models.

HIGHLIGHTS

We find extensive use of expert elicitation for the development of model input parameters, but most studies do not provide adequate details of their elicitation methods.Lack of reporting hinders greater discussion of the merits and challenges of using expert elicitation for model input parameter development.There is a need to establish expert elicitation best practices and reporting guidelines.

Efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in elderly patients with aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL): results of the randomized, open-label, non-inferiority AVOID neutropenia study

Background

Lipegfilgrastim has been shown to be non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for reduction of the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in breast cancer patients. This open-label, non-inferiority study assessed the efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in elderly patients with aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) at high risk for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

Patient and methods

One hundred and one patients (median age, 75 years) were randomized to lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim (6 mg/cycle) during six cycles of R-CHOP21.

Results

Lipegfilgrastim was non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for the primary efficacy endpoint, reduction of DSN in cycle 1. In the per-protocol population, mean (standard deviation) DSN was 0.8 (0.92) and 0.9 (1.11) days in the two groups, respectively; the adjusted mean difference between groups was − 0.3 days (95% confidence interval, − 0.70 to 0.19). Non-inferiority was also demonstrated in the intent-to-treat population. The incidence of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 was 51% (21/41) in the lipegfilgrastim group and 52% (23/44) in the pegfilgrastim group. Very severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.1 × 10⁹/L) in cycle 1 was reported by 5 (12%) patients in the lipegfilgrastim group and 8 (18%) patients in the pegfilgrastim group. However, over all cycles, febrile neutropenia (strict definition) was reported by only 1 (2%) patient in each treatment group (during cycle 1 in the lipegfilgrastim group and cycle 6 in the pegfilgrastim group). The mean time to absolute neutrophil count recovery (defined as ≥ 2.0 × 10⁹/L) was 8.3 and 9.4 days in the two groups, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred in 46% of patients in each group; none were considered treatment-related. Eight patients died during the study (2 in the lipegfilgrastim group, 5 in the pegfilgrastim group, and 1 who died before starting study treatment). No deaths occurred during the treatment period, and all were considered to be related to the underlying disease.

Conclusions

This study shows lipegfilgrastim to be non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for the reduction of DSN in elderly patients with aggressive B cell NHL receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, with a comparable safety profile.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02044276; EudraCT number 2013-001284-23

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-020-05711-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Advantages with prophylactic PEG-rhG-CSF versus rhG-CSF in breast cancer patients receiving multiple cycles of myelosuppressive chemotherapy: an open-label, randomized, multicenter phase III study

BACKGROUND

PEG-rhG-CSF reduces neutropenia and improves chemotherapy safety. In China's registration trial (CFDA: 2006L01305), we assessed its efficacy and safety against rhG-CSF, and prospectively explored its value over multiple cycles of chemotherapy.

METHODS

In this open-label, randomized, multicenter phase 3 study, breast cancer patients (n = 569) were randomized to receive PEG-rhG-CSF 100 µg/kg, PEG-rhG-CSF 6 mg, or rhG-CSF 5 µg/kg/d after chemotherapy. The primary endpoints were the incidence and duration of grade 3/4 neutropenia during cycle 1. Secondary endpoints included the incidence and duration of grade 3/4 neutropenia during cycles 2-4, the incidence of febrile neutropenia, and the safety.

RESULTS

A once-per-cycle PEG-rhG-CSF at either 100 µg/kg or 6 mg was not different from daily injections of rhG-CSF for either incidence or duration of grade 3/4 neutropenia. Interestingly, a substantial difference was noted during cycle 2, and the difference became bigger over cycles 3-4, reaching a statistical significance at cycle 4 in either incidence (P = 0.0309) or duration (P = 0.0289) favoring PEG-rhG-CSF. A significant trend toward a lower incidence of all-grade adverse events was noted at 129 (68.98%), 142 (75.53%), and 160 (82.47%) in the PEG-rhG-CSF 100 µg/kg and 6 mg and rhG-CSF groups, respectively (P = 0.0085). The corresponding incidence of grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events was 2/187 (1.07%), 1/188 (0.53%), and 8/194 (4.12%), respectively (P = 0.0477). Additionally, PFS in metastatic patients preferred PEG-rhG-CSF to rhG-CSF despite no significance observed by Kaplan-Meier analysis (n = 49, P = 0.153).

CONCLUSIONS

PEG-rhG-CSF is a more convenient and safe formulation and a more effective prophylactic measure in breast cancer patients receiving multiple cycles of chemotherapy.