Predictive Model for Occurrence of Febrile Neutropenia after Chemotherapy in Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Observational Study

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a major concern in patients undergoing chemotherapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL); however, the overall risk of FN is difficult to assess. This study aimed to develop a model for predicting the occurrence of FN in patients with DLBCL. In this multicenter, retrospective, observational analysis, a multivariate logistic regression model was used to analyze the association between FN incidence and pretreatment clinical factors. We included adult inpatients and outpatients (aged ≥ 18 years) diagnosed with DLBCL who were treated with chemotherapy. The study examined 246 patients. Considering FN occurring during the first cycle of chemotherapy as the primary outcome, a predictive model with a total score of 5 points was constructed as follows: 1 point each for a positive hepatitis panel, extranodal involvement, and a high level of soluble interleukin-2 receptor and 2 points for lymphopenia. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of this model was 0.844 (95% confidence interval: 0.777-0.911). Our predictive model can assess the risk of FN before patients with DLBCL start chemotherapy, leading to better outcomes.

Ibrutinib Plus RCHOP versus RCHOP Only in Young Patients with Activated B-Cell-like Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (ABC-DLBCL): A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

The standard treatment for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) is rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (RCHOP). However, many patients require subsequent treatment after relapsed disease. The ABC subtype of DLBCL (ABC-DLBCL) has a worse prognosis, and the PHOENIX trial explored adding ibrutinib to RCHOP for this patient population. The trial showed favorable outcomes for younger patients, and our study aimed to inform clinical decision-making via a cost-effectiveness model to compare RCHOP with and without ibrutinib (I-RCHOP). A Markov decision analysis model was designed to compare the treatments for patients younger than 60 years with ABC-DLBCL. The model considered treatment pathways, adverse events, relapses, and death, incorporating data on salvage treatments and novel therapies. The results indicated that I-RCHOP was more cost-effective, with greater quality-adjusted life years (QALY, 15.48 years vs. 14.25 years) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD 34,111.45/QALY compared to RCHOP only. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the model's robustness. Considering the high market price for ibrutinib, I-RCHOP may be more costly. However, it is suggested as the preferred cost-effective strategy for younger patients due to its benefits in adverse events, overall survival, and quality of life. The decision analytic model provided relevant and robust results to inform clinical decision-making.

Impact of primary prophylaxis by pegfilgrastim in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP

Febrile neutropenia (FN) and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) are common conditions that lead to dose reduction or delayed chemotherapy in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Primary prophylaxis (PP) with long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was introduced in South Korea in 2014. We aimed to investigate the effects of PP on FN-related hospitalization and death in patients with DLBCL receiving rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). Korean individuals (n = 11,491) with incident DLBCL and receiving R-CHOP during 2010-2016 were followed for FN-related hospitalization and mortality. The PP exposure group (patients during 2014-2015, n = 3599), patients during 2010-2016 (n = 11,491), and patients receiving PP during 2014-2016 (n = 4421) were compared with the non-exposure group (patients during July 2011-June 2013, n = 3017), patients in 2013 (n = 1596), and patients not receiving PP during 2014-2016 (n = 1289), respectively. Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using the Cox model. The PP exposure group had 16% lower FN-related hospitalizations than the non-exposure group (HR = 0.84, P < 0.001). PP exposure had no beneficial effect on 1-year (HR = 0.98, P = 0.782) and 5-year mortality (HR = 0.97, P = 0.474). Patients in 2014 (HR = 0.85, P < 0.001), 2015 (HR = 0.88, P = 0.003), and 2016 (HR = 0.80, P < 0.001) had a decreased risk of FN-related hospitalizations compared with those in 2013. Among patients receiving their first R-CHOP cycle during 2014-2016, the HR for FN-related hospitalization was 0.90 (P = 0.014) in PP users compared with non-users. PP with a long-acting G-CSF lowered the FN-related hospitalization risk but did not benefit survival in patients with DLBCL receiving R-CHOP.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with lymphoma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a prevalent and potentially life-threatening complication in patients with lymphoma receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is more effective than filgrastim as prophylaxis for FN. However, its usage has been limited because of its higher cost. Pegfilgrastim's value for money remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim compared to filgrastim as a primary or secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases, and Google Scholar. The most widely used economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and cost-benefit analysis) were included in the review. Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist, and the quality of reviewed articles was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. Cost-effectiveness data were rigorously summarized and synthesized narratively. Costs were adjusted to US$ 2020.

RESULTS

We identified eight economic evaluation studies (two cost-utility analyses, three cost-effectiveness analyses, and three studies reporting both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses). Half of these studies were from Europe (n = 4), the other half were from Iran, USA, Canada, and Singapore. Six studies met > 80% of the JBI quality assessment criteria. Cost-effectiveness estimates in the majority (n = 6) of these studies were for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with high-risk of FN (> 20%). The studies considered a wide range of baseline FN risk (17-97.4%) and mortality rates (5.8-8.9%). Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from US$ 2199 to US$ 8,871,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, dominant to US$ 44,358 per FN averted, and US$ 4261- US$ 7251 per life-years gained. The most influential parameters were medication and hospitalization costs, the relative risk of FN, and assumptions of mortality benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies showed that pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to filgrastim as primary and secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma at a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$ 50,000 per QALY gained. The findings could assist clinicians and healthcare decision-makers to make informed decisions regarding resource allocation for the management of chemotherapy-induced FN in settings similar to those studied.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pegfilgrastim in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving ramucirumab plus docetaxel in Japan

PURPOSE

The dose-limiting factor of ramucirumab plus docetaxel (RAM + DTX) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is febrile neutropenia (FN), which has a high incidence in Asians. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim (Peg-G) in patients with NSCLC receiving RAM + DTX in Japan.

METHODS

We simulated model patients treated with RAM + DTX in Japan and developed a decision-analytical model for patients receiving Peg-G prophylaxis or no primary prophylaxis. The expected cost, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each treatment were calculated from the perspective of a Japanese healthcare payer. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at 45,867 United States dollars (USD) (5 million Japanese yen) per QALY gained. The probabilities, utility values, and other costs were obtained from published sources. Deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probabilistic analysis were conducted to evaluate the effect of each parameter and robustness of the base-case results.

RESULTS

The expected cost and QALYs were 20,275 USD and 0.701 for Peg-G prophylaxis and 17,493 USD and 0.672 for no primary prophylaxis, respectively. The ICER was calculated to be 97,519 USD per QALY gained. The results were most sensitive to FN risk with Peg-G. When FN risk with no primary prophylaxis exceeded 51% or the cost of Peg-G was less than 649 USD per injection, the ICER was below the WTP threshold. The probabilistic analysis revealed a 9.1% probability that the ICER was below the WTP threshold.

CONCLUSION

Peg-G is not cost-effective in patients with NSCLC receiving RAM + DTX in Japan.

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.

Exploring the burden of short-term CHOP chemotherapy adverse events in post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease: a comprehensive literature review in lymphoma patients

Purpose

Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP) is a treatment for post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) following solid organ transplant (SOT) after failing rituximab, an aggressive and potentially fatal lymphoma. This study explores the humanistic and economic burden of CHOP-associated adverse events (AEs) in PTLD patients. Since PTLD is rare, searches included lymphoproliferative disease with lymphoma patients.

Design

This comprehensive literature review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol, pre-specifying the search strategy and criteria. CHOP-associated short-term AEs with an incidence of >4% were sourced from published literature and cancer websites to inform the search strategy. PubMed and EMBASE searches were used to identify humanistic and economic burden studies.

Results

PubMed and EMBASE searches identified 3946 citations with 27 lymphoma studies included. Studies were methodologically heterogeneous. Febrile neutropenia (FN) was the AE most encountered, followed by chemotherapy-induced (CI) anemia (A), infection, CI-nausea and vomiting, thrombocytopenia, and CI-peripheral neuropathy (PN). FN and infections were associated with significant disutility, increased hospitalization, and extended length of stay (LOS). Infections and CIPN significantly impacted the utility of patients and CIA-related fatigue showed reductions in quality of life (QoL). Many patients continue to have QoL deficits continued even after AEs were treated. Management costs varied greatly, ranging from nominal (CIPN) to over $100,000 in the USA for infections, EUR 10,290 in Europe for infections, or CAN$1012 in Canada for FN. Cost of outpatient care varied but had a lower economic impact compared to hospitalizations.

Conclusions

Short-term AEs from CHOP in the lymphoma population were associated with substantial humanistic and economic burden.

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

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

Cost burden of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Introduction: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common non-Hodgkin lymphoma and is a clinically heterogeneous disease. Treatment pathways for DLBCL are diverse and integrate established and novel therapies.Areas covered: We review the cost burden of DLBCL and the cost-effectiveness of DLBCL management including precision and cellular medicine. We utilized Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords to search the National Library of Medicine online MEDLINE database (PubMed) for articles related to cost, cost burden, and cost-of-illness of DLBCL and cost-effectiveness of DLBCL management strategies published in English as of June 2019.Expert commentary: Available and developing DLBCL therapies offer improved outcomes and often curative treatment at considerable financial expense, and the total cost burden for DLBCL management is substantial for patients and the healthcare system. In the era of personalized medicine, CAR T cells and targeted therapies provide exciting avenues for current and future DLBCL care and can further increase treatment cost. Determinations of cost and cost-effectiveness in DLBCL treatment pathways should continue to guide care providers and systems in identifying cost reduction strategies to provide appropriate therapies to the greatest number of patients in treating DLBCL.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of multigene expression profiling assays to guide adjuvant therapy decisions in women with invasive early-stage breast cancer

Gene expression profiling (GEP) testing using 12-gene recurrence score (RS) assay (EndoPredict®), 58-gene RS assay (Prosigna®), and 21-gene RS assay (Oncotype DX®) is available to aid in chemotherapy decision-making when traditional clinicopathological predictors are insufficient to accurately determine recurrence risk in women with axillary lymph node-negative, hormone receptor-positive, and human epidermal growth factor-receptor 2-negative early-stage breast cancer. We examined the cost-effectiveness of incorporating these assays into standard practice. A decision model was built to project lifetime clinical and economic consequences of different adjuvant treatment-guiding strategies. The model was parameterized using follow-up data from a secondary analysis of the Anastrozole or Tamoxifen Alone or Combined randomized trial, cost data (2017 Canadian dollars) from the London Regional Cancer Program (Canada) and secondary Canadian sources. The 12-gene, 58-gene, and 21-gene RS assays were associated with cost-effectiveness ratios of $36,274, $48,525, and $74,911/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and resulted in total gains of 379, 284.3, and 189.5 QALYs/year and total budgets of $12.9, $14.2, and $16.6 million/year, respectively. The total expected-value of perfect information about GEP assays' utility was $10.4 million/year. GEP testing using any of these assays is likely clinically and economically attractive. The 12-gene and 58-gene RS assays may improve the cost-effectiveness of GEP testing and offer higher value for money, although prospective evidence is still needed. Comparative field evaluations of GEP assays in real-world practice are associated with a large societal benefit and warranted to determine the optimal and most cost-effective assay for routine use.

The evolution of value with filgrastim in oncology

The recombinant G-CSF filgrastim was first approved in 1991, and its value has been evolving ever since. Initial health technology assessments suggested low value due to high drug cost and no evidence for significant gain in overall survival. However, more recent meta-analyses of placebo-controlled randomized trial data show falling costs due to biosimilar competition and absolute overall survival gains of 3.2% (95% CI: 2.1-4.2%) from filgrastim support of cytotoxic chemotherapy. The launch of biosimilar alternatives merits a re-evaluation of decisions by health technology assessments and explains the first inclusion of filgrastim in the WHO Essential Drug List for cancer >20 years after its original approval in 1991, thus demonstrating the power of biosimilar medicines in transforming healthcare.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Optimizing Symptoms and Management of Febrile Neutropenia among Cancer Patients: Current Status and Future Directions

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common and serious complication among cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy. FN should be treated as a medical emergency because it can lead to life-threatening complications if appropriate treatment is not initiated immediately. This study provides a critical review on the current management of FN and identifies possible directions to optimize FN management.

Patterns of growth factor usage and febrile neutropenia among older patients with diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma treated with CHOP or R-CHOP: the Intergroup experience (CALGB 9793; ECOG-SWOG 4494)

Patterns of myeloid growth factor (GF) usage and febrile neutropenia (FN) were examined in patients >60 years of age with diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (DLBCL) enrolled on CALGB 9793/ECOG-SWOG 4494, receiving initial therapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP) or rituximab + CHOP (R-CHOP). Myeloid GFs were administered to 256/520 (49%) patients. Indications for use were: prevent dose reduction/dose delay (81%, 207/256); treat FN or non-febrile neutropenia (NFN) (19%, 48/256). One or more FN episodes occurred in 41% (212/520) of patients, with FN most often in cycle 1 (38% of episodes). In multivariate analysis, risk factors for FN included age >65 years (odds ratio (OR) = 2.6, 95% CI: [1.4, 4.9]) and anemia (hemoglobin <12 g/dl) (OR =2.2, 95% confidence intervals (CI): [1.4, 3.5]. Myeloid GF use was common in this older DLBCL population receiving CHOP-based therapy, as was FN, especially during cycle one. Risk factors predictive for FN should be used prospectively to identify patients for whom myeloid GFs are best utilized.

Routine Primary Prophylaxis for Febrile Neutropenia with Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (Nivestim) or Pegfilgrastim Is Cost Effective in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients undergoing Curative-Intent R-CHOP Chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of various strategies of myeloid growth factor prophylaxis for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Singapore who are undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy with curative intent.

METHODS

A Markov model was created to compare seven prophylaxis strategies: 1) primary prophylaxis (PP) with nivestim (biosimilar filgrastim) throughout all cycles of chemotherapy; 2) PP with nivestim during the first two cycles of chemotherapy; 3) secondary prophylaxis (SP) with nivestim; 4) PP with pegfilgrastim throughout all cycles of chemotherapy; 5) PP with pegfilgrastim during the first two cycles of chemotherapy; 6) SP with pegfilgrastim; and 7) no prophylaxis (NP). The perspective of a hospital was taken and cost-effectiveness was expressed as the cost per episode of FN avoided over six cycles of chemotherapy. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Strategies 3, 6, and 7 were dominated in the base case analysis by strategy 5. The costs associated with strategies 2, 5, 1, and 4 were US$3,813, US$4,056, US$4,545, and US$5,331, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for strategy 5 vs. strategy 2, strategy 1 vs. strategy 5, and strategy 4 vs. strategy 1 were US$13,532, US$22,565, and US$30,452, respectively, per episode of FN avoided. Strategy 2 has the highest probability to be cost-effective (ranged from 48% to 60%) when the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold is lower than US$10,000 per FN episode prevented.

CONCLUSION

In Singapore, routine PP with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (nivestim or pegfilgrastim) is cost-effective for reducing the risk of FN in patients receiving R-CHOP.

Recommendations for the Use of WBC Growth Factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update the 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs).

METHODS

The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Update Committee and conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews from October 2005 through September 2014. Guideline recommendations were based on the review of the evidence by the Update Committee.

RESULTS

Changes to previous recommendations include the addition of tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz, moderation of the recommendation regarding routine use of CSFs in older patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma, and addition of recommendations against routine dose-dense chemotherapy in lymphoma and in favor of high-dose-intensity chemotherapy in urothelial cancer. The Update Committee did not address recommendations regarding use of CSFs in acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes in adults.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Prophylactic use of CSFs to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia is warranted when the risk of febrile neutropenia is approximately 20% or higher and no other equally effective and safe regimen that does not require CSFs is available. Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of febrile neutropenia in patients who are at high risk on the basis of age, medical history, disease characteristics, and myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen. Dose-dense regimens that require CSFs should only be used within an appropriately designed clinical trial or if supported by convincing efficacy data. Current recommendations for the management of patients exposed to lethal doses of total-body radiotherapy, but not doses high enough to lead to certain death as a result of injury to other organs, include the prompt administration of CSFs.

Four doses of unpegylated versus one dose of pegylated filgrastim as supportive therapy in R-CHOP-14 for elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

The primary objective of this prospective, randomized study was to compare the efficacy of a reduced regimen of only four doses of unpegylated filgrastim from day +8 to +11 per cycle with a standard once per cycle administration of pegylated filgrastim to maintain dose-intensity of R-CHOP-14 (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone given every 14 d) in previously untreated elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). We included 51 patients (median age 66 years, range 60-76). Median dose intensity did not differ between the group of 24 patients receiving four doses of unpegylated filgrastim of each cycle (87·5%) and the group of 27 patients receiving pegylated filgrastim once per cycle on day 2 (89·4%) (P = 0·9). There was also no difference in the frequency of adverse events, such as episodes of neutropenic fever and unplanned hospitalizations. Patient characteristics that negatively influenced dose intensity were reduced performance status, advanced stage disease and poor-risk International Prognostic Index, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2 being the most significant factor. In conclusion, a limited support with 4 d of filgrastim appears to be equivalent to pegylated filgrastim administered once per cycle, and appears to be sufficient to maintain dose-intensity of the R-CHOP-14 regimen in elderly patients with DLBCL without risk factors.

Economic burden of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with lymphoma: a systematic review

The primary objective of this review was to identify the cost components that were most frequently associated with the economic burden of febrile neutropenia (FN) among patients with lymphoma. The secondary objective was to identify any parameter associated with higher FN cost. Ten cost of illness (COI) studies were identified. General characteristics on study design, country, perspective, and patient population were extracted and systematically reported. It was observed that majority (70%) of the studies employed the perspective of healthcare provider. 20% of the studies considered long-term costs. Estimated costs were adjusted to 2013 US dollars and ranged from US$5819 to US$34,756. The cost components that were most frequently associated with economic burden were ward and medication costs. Inpatient management, male gender, discharged dead, and comorbidity were positively associated with higher FN costs. Future COI studies on FN should focus on the accurate estimation on ward and medication costs.

US-Based Drug Cost Parameter Estimation for Economic Evaluations

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, more than 10% of national health expenditures are for prescription drugs. Assessing drug costs in US economic evaluation studies is not consistent, as the true acquisition cost of a drug is not known by decision modelers. Current US practice focuses on identifying one reasonable drug cost and imposing some distributional assumption to assess uncertainty.

METHODS

We propose a set of Rules based on current pharmacy practice that account for the heterogeneity of drug product costs. The set of products derived from our Rules, and their associated costs, form an empirical distribution that can be used for more realistic sensitivity analyses and create transparency in drug cost parameter computation. The Rules specify an algorithmic process to select clinically equivalent drug products that reduce pill burden, use an appropriate package size, and assume uniform weighting of substitutable products. Three diverse examples show derived empirical distributions and are compared with previously reported cost estimates.

RESULTS

The shapes of the empirical distributions among the 3 drugs differ dramatically, including multiple modes and different variation. Previously published estimates differed from the means of the empirical distributions. Published ranges for sensitivity analyses did not cover the ranges of the empirical distributions. In one example using lisinopril, the empirical mean cost of substitutable products was $444 (range = $23-$953) as compared with a published estimate of $305 (range = $51-$523).

CONCLUSIONS

Our Rules create a simple and transparent approach to creating cost estimates of drug products and assessing their variability. The approach is easily modified to include a subset of, or different weighting for, substitutable products. The derived empirical distribution is easily incorporated into 1-way or probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Pharmacoeconomics of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: a critical review

INTRODUCTION

In the USA, neutropenia-related hospitalization is estimated to occur in 34.2 cases per 1,000 chemotherapy-treated patients. The cost of hospitalization is significant with estimates ranging, on average, from $10,000 to $30,000 per neutropenia-related hospitalization. Prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) significantly reduces the risk and duration of neutropenia-related negative events. However, the exact economic benefits of using G-CSF prophylactically are not completely known. The objective of this review is to examine the cost of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis (PP) as well as when used reactively to treat severe neutropenia (SN) or febrile neutropenia (FN).

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for studies published up to January 2014.

RESULTS

The evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of PP use of G-CSF is inconsistent. The cost savings of PP use of G-CSF associated with the reduction of neutropenia-related events are offset by the increased costs associated with improved chemotherapy administration. Cost savings due to the reduction in mortality and disease/symptoms and use of dose-dense regimens have not been adequately incorporated into previous cost-effectiveness studies. Available data suggest that using G-CSF in conjunction with antibiotics is more cost-effective than antibiotics alone when treating patients with SN/FN. Recent studies of biosimilars suggest that they are as effective as originator G-CSFs and, given their lower cost, could represent a cost-effective alternative. Finally, studies have not taken into consideration the indirect patient costs of experiencing a neutropenia-related event.

CONCLUSION

G-CSF use is effective in preventing SN/FN. Costs due to hospitalization and other neutropenia-related events are lower in patients treated with G-CSF as PP versus untreated patients. Despite this, many studies have not found solid evidence for the overall cost-effectiveness of PP use of G-CSF. One possibility for this is that patients receiving G-CSF prophylactically often receive more intense chemotherapy regimens, have better relative dose intensity, and fewer dose delays, and thereby have greater costs associated with chemotherapy administration than patients who do not receive G-CSF.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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