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

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.

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.

Consistency of Sedentary Behavior Patterns among Office Workers with Long-Term Access to Sit-Stand Workstations

INTRODUCTION

Sit-stand workstations are a popular intervention to reduce sedentary behavior (SB) in office settings. However, the extent and distribution of SB in office workers long-term accustomed to using sit-stand workstations as a natural part of their work environment are largely unknown. In the present study, we aimed to describe patterns of SB in office workers with long-term access to sit-stand workstations and to determine the extent to which these patterns vary between days and workers.

METHODS

SB was objectively monitored using thigh-worn accelerometers for a full week in 24 office workers who had been equipped with a sit-stand workstation for at least 10 months. A comprehensive set of variables describing SB was calculated for each workday and worker, and distributions of these variables between days and workers were examined.

RESULTS

On average, workers spent 68% work time sitting [standard deviation (SD) between workers and between days (within worker): 10.4 and 18.2%]; workers changed from sitting to standing/walking 3.2 times per hour (SDs 0.6 and 1.2 h-1); with bouts of sitting being 14.9 min long (SDs 4.2 and 8.5 min). About one-third of the workers spent >75% of their workday sitting. Between-workers variability was significantly different from zero only for percent work time sitting, while between-days (within-worker) variability was substantial for all SB variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Office workers accustomed to using sit-stand workstations showed homogeneous patterns of SB when averaged across several days, except for percent work time seated. However, SB differed substantially between days for any individual worker. The finding that many workers were extensively sedentary suggests that just access to sit-stand workstations may not be a sufficient remedy against SB; additional personalized interventions reinforcing use may be needed. To this end, differences in SB between days should be acknowledged as a potentially valuable source of variation.