Economic analysis of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Utilization and Prescribing Patterns in Cancer Patients: A Single Institution Experience of a Saudi Cancer Center

Background

Febrile neutropenia (FN), owing to its negative association with immune function and infectious complications, acts as a treatment-limiting factor in myelotoxic cancer chemotherapy. This study aimed to analyze the incidence of FN, utilization of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients who experienced FN, and its association with age and comorbidities.

Methodology

This retrospective study was conducted in a major tertiary hospital in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Inclusion criteria entailed all neutropenic adults aged >18 years with a proven cancer diagnosis, including solid and hematological malignancies. Patients who were treated with chemotherapy and G-CSF were included in the study. Data regarding FN, administration of G-CSF, and patient and physician-related factors were collected.

Results

We collected data on 53 cancer patients with a mean age of 41.9 ± 17.1 years (range = 16-75). FN was present in 16 (30.2%) patients and absent in 37 (69.8%) patients. The mean neutrophil count post-filgrastim did not significantly differ from pre-chemotherapy neutrophil count (Student’s t-test, p = 0.067), while there was a significant difference from post-chemotherapy neutrophil count (Student’s t-test, p = 0.044). In our cohort, 24 (45.3%) patients achieved remission, 12 (22.6%) died, and 17 (32.1%) were not cured. We did not find any significant association between gender, specialty, comorbidities, and age with FN.

Conclusions

G-CSF administration significantly decreases the incidence of FN post-chemotherapy in cancer patients.

Safety and Efficacy of Pegteograstim on Chemotherapy-induced Neutropenia in Children and Adolescents With Solid Tumors

PURPOSE

Pegteograstim (Neulapeg) is a recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor conjugated with methoxy-maleimide-polyethylene glycol. We conducted a single-arm study investigating its safety and noninferiority to conventional filgrastim in children and adolescents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients younger than 21 years with solid tumors were eligible for the study. Pegteograstim was administered on day 7 of the fourth chemotherapy cycle. Toxicities were monitored, and the change in absolute neutrophil count was compared with that of the historic control (conventional filgrastim). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02787876.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were enrolled. Adverse events possibly related to pegteograstim were musculoskeletal pain (n=3), skin nodule (n=1), paroxysmal cough (n=1), urticaria (n=2), rash (n=1), and itching (n=1). These adverse events were all grade 1 or 2. Duration of neutropenia (ANC<500/µL) was shorter in the pegteograstim group compared with the historic control (median 6.5 vs. 10 d, P=0.004). The time from day 0 to neutrophil recovery (ANC>500/µL) was shorter in the pegteograstim group (median 15 vs. 18 d, P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Pegteograstim is safe and shows comparable efficacy to conventional filgrastim in children and adolescents. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm its safety and efficacy.

Budget impact analysis of trilaciclib for decreasing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer in the United States

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression, which commonly manifests as neutropenia, anemia, and/or thrombocytopenia, is a frequent and severe complication of standard treatment regimens for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Trilaciclib is a first-in-class myeloprotective therapy indicated to decrease the incidence of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression when administered prior to a platinum-/etoposide-containing regimen or topotecan-containing regimen for ES-SCLC. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy to manage chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in adults with ES-SCLC from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of introducing trilaciclib to a hypothetical 1 million-member health insurance plan. The model compared 2 market scenarios: a current scenario of standard treatments for ES-SCLC without trilaciclib, and an alternative scenario of standard treatment plus trilaciclib. Population, clinical, and cost inputs were derived from published literature and trilaciclib clinical trial data. Model outcomes included the number of myelosuppressive adverse events (AEs), costs of treatment, costs of AE management, total cost, and per-member per-month (PMPM) costs. The budget impact of trilaciclib was calculated as the difference in cost (2021 US dollars) between the 2 scenarios over a 1- to 5-year time horizon. Scenario and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty around key model inputs. RESULTS: An estimated total of 301 patients were eligible for treatment with trilaciclib over a 5-year period. The use of trilaciclib was estimated to reduce the number of myelosuppressive AEs over a 5-year period (events avoided included 108 for neutropenia, 7 for febrile neutropenia, 23 for anemia, and 46 for thrombocytopenia) compared with the scenario without trilaciclib. The adoption of trilaciclib was associated with a cost saving of $801,254 ($0.013 PMPM) over 5 years. The acquisition cost for trilaciclib ($3,704,199) was offset by the reduction in AE management cost ($4,282,748) and reduction in prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use ($222,704). The cost savings associated with trilaciclib began in year 1 (total $34,388; $0.003 PMPM) and accrued over time. CONCLUSIONS: The acquisition cost of trilaciclib is projected to be offset by a reduction in the costs of managing AEs related to myelosuppression when added to standard chemotherapy regimens for ES-SCLC. The net budget impact of trilaciclib is estimated to be a cost saving. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded by G1 Therapeutics, Inc., and implemented by ZS Associates, an independent consultancy that collated the model inputs and performed the budget impact analysis. The study sponsor was involved in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. The journal open access fee was funded by G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Moran, Chioda, and Huang are employed by G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Chioda and Huang report stocks and stock options for G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Goyal and Deniz are employed by ZS Associates. Goyal reports consulting fees from G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Abraham reports consulting fees from Coherus, G1 Therapeutics, Inc. (unrelated to this study and manuscript), Mylan/Viatris, and Sandoz and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for G1 Therapeutics, Inc. MacDonald reports consulting fees from Coherus, G1 Therapeutics, Inc. (unrelated to this study and manuscript), Mylan/Viatris, and Sandoz. Deniz reports no disclosures. A synopsis of the current study was presented in poster format at the Virtual AMCP Annual Meeting, April 12-16, 2021.

Trilaciclib and the economic value of multilineage myeloprotection from chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression among patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy

AIMS

Proliferating hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) are susceptible to chemotherapy-induced damage, resulting in myelosuppressive adverse events (AEs) such as neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia that are associated with high health care costs and decreased quality of life (QoL). In this study, a trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to help assess the economic impact of administering trilaciclib, a myeloprotective therapy that protects multilineage HSPCs from chemotherapy-induced damage, prior to standard first-line chemotherapy, using data from a pivotal Phase II study of trilaciclib in the setting of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC, NCT03041311).

METHOD

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone among patients with ES-SCLC from a United States payer perspective. Data on the rate and frequency of myelosuppressive AEs and health utility were derived from the pivotal study of trilaciclib. Costs of managing myelosuppressive AEs and costs of chemotherapy treatment were sourced from published literature. Outcomes included the number of myelosuppressive AEs, costs (in 2021 US dollars), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost, incremental QALY, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

Administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy was associated with a reduction in neutropenia (82%), febrile neutropenia (75%), anemia (43%), and thrombocytopenia (96%) compared with chemotherapy alone. Additionally, trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy was cost-saving compared with chemotherapy alone ($99,919 vs $118,759, respectively) and associated with QALY improvement (0.150 vs 0.145, respectively). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed 58% of iterations projecting cost savings and QALY improvement with trilaciclib.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that the use of trilaciclib prior to first-line chemotherapy in patients with ES-SCLC can be cost-beneficial owing to fewer myelosuppressive AEs and lower costs, together with a favorable QoL profile.

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.

Home administration of filgrastim (Nivestim™) in primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

The granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilar filgrastim (Nivestim™) reduces the duration and severity of neutropenia and the frequency of occurrence of febrile neutropenia (FN). Administration of this biosimilar filgrastim and the patient population receiving it at home have not been sufficiently documented in day-to-day medical practice. Insight into home administration may help optimize the management of FN in this setting, potentially at a reduced cost and patient burden vs hospital administration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, non-interventional, non-comparative, multisite study involving 171 patients across 29 sites treated with at least one dose of filgrastim. Mean age was 59.3 years, and most patients were female and G-CSF-naïve. The data collected originated from paper-based patient questionnaires and routine documentation by the treating physicians. The primary endpoint was the characterization of patients treated with filgrastim. Secondary endpoints were satisfaction with filgrastim, effectiveness, safety and tolerability, and compliance with prescription.

RESULTS

Most patients had solid tumors (95.9%), mainly located in the breast, while 4.7% had malignant hematological disease. Solid tumors were recorded as grade 1 (7.9%), grade 2 (28.0%), grade 3 (45.7%), and grade 4 (3.0%), and the majority of patients classified at TNM Stages I and II. Many patients (71.0%) could self-inject filgrastim and 72.2% found the handling instructions "extremely straightforward and easy to understand" at least once. Nearly all (99.4%) patients found the syringes "easy to use" at least once and 91.7% were willing to continue home administration. The mean patient satisfaction score for home administration was 1.9±0.9, ranging from 1 (very satisfied) to 6 (absolutely dissatisfied). No cases of neutropenia were observed and only one event of FN occurred.

CONCLUSION

Home-based prophylaxis for FN with filgrastim was found to be effective, well tolerated, and well received by patients (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02956967).

Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor and Its Potential Application for Skeletal Muscle Repair and Regeneration

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was originally discovered in the context of hematopoiesis. However, the identification of the G-CSF receptor (G-CSFR) being expressed outside the hematopoietic system has revealed wider roles for G-CSF, particularly in tissue repair and regeneration. Skeletal muscle damage, including that following strenuous exercise, induces an elevation in plasma G-CSF, implicating it as a potential mediator of skeletal muscle repair. This has been supported by preclinical studies and clinical trials investigating G-CSF as a potential therapeutic agent in relevant disease states. This review focuses on the growing literature associated with G-CSF and G-CSFR in skeletal muscle under healthy and disease conditions and highlights the current controversies.

Is it reasonable to administer pegfilgrastim on day 1 of a myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimen? A cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

There is recent evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of same-day dosing of pegfilgrastim in patients undergoing chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim on day 1 (D1) versus day 2 (D2) for primary prevention of neutropenia in women receiving chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cost-utility model was designed comparing standard D2 versus D1 administration of pegfilgrastim to ovarian cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with an intermediate risk (10-15%) of febrile neutropenia (FN). Rates of FN despite prophylaxis were modeled as 10% for D1 and 5% for D2. Societal costs associated with D2 injection ($175.71) were incorporated. Quality of life (QOL) was modeled from published data; we assumed a small decrement in QOL on treatment days. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

D1 administration was less costly ($17,195 versus $17,681) and resulted in higher QOL (0.2298 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) versus 0.2288 QALYs) than D2. Results were sensitive to the risk of FN. D1 remained dominant or cost-effective (ICER less than $50,000/QALY) compared to D2 if the FN rate with D1 was assumed less than 14.5% (baseline estimate 10%). If the FN rate with D1 was assumed greater than or equal to 15%, D1 was not cost-effective compared to D2, with an ICER greater than $100,000/QALY. Findings are insensitive to variations in the modeled cost of treating FN, the additional cost of D2 injection, and the reduced QOL associated with treatment visits.

CONCLUSION

Administration of D1 pegfilgrastim is cost-effective in women with ovarian cancer who are treated with intermediate risk chemotherapy.

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.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in secondary prophylaxis for advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma treated with ABVD chemotherapy: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is commonly administered to patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) with neutropenia. We constructed a decision-analytic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of secondary prophylaxis with G-CSF to a strategy of 'no G-CSF' in response to severe neutropenia for adults with advanced-stage HL treated with ABVD. A Canadian public health payer's perspective was considered and costs were presented in 2013 Canadian dollars. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) attained with the G-CSF and 'no G-CSF' strategies were 1.403 and 1.416, respectively. Costs for the strategies with and without G-CSF were $38,971 and $33,982, respectively. In the base case analysis, the 'no G-CSF' strategy was associated with cost savings and improved QALYs; therefore, 'no G-CSF' was the dominant approach. For patients with severe neutropenia during ABVD chemotherapy for advanced-stage HL, a strategy without G-CSF support is associated with improved quality-adjusted outcomes, cost savings, and is the preferred approach.

Assessing the impact of a targeted electronic medical record intervention on the use of growth factor in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Patients receiving chemotherapy are at risk for febrile neutropenia following treatment. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommend screening patients for risk of febrile neutropenia and risk stratification based on likelihood of febrile neutropenia events. The impact of the implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR) system on physician compliance with growth factor support guidelines has not been studied.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether implementation of automated orders in EMRs can improve adherence to national guidelines in prophylactic G-CSF use in chemotherapy patients.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy from January 1, 2007 to August 1, 2008 (pre- EMR) and January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 (post-EMR) was conducted. Institutional adherence to ASCO and NCCN guidelines for G-CSF after the implementation of automatic electronic orders for pegfilgrastim in patients who received a high-risk chemotherapy regimen were examined. The results were compared with a similar study that had been conducted before the implementation of the EMR system.

RESULTS

The number of regimens that included guideline-driven growth factor usage and nonusage was 75.6% in the post-intervention arm, compared with 67.5% in the pre-intervention arm. This is a statistically significant difference between the pre-EMR and post-EMR compliance with national guidelines on growth factor usage ( P = .041, based on chi-square test). The post-EMR implementation data of 1,042 individual new chemotherapy regimens showed correct use of G-CSF in 89.13% high-risk chemotherapy regimens and 58.74% intermediate-risk regimens, with risk factors and incorrect usage in 26.23% of intermediate-risk regimens without risk factors and 19.34% of low-risk regimens. The appropriateness of use in high- and low-risk regimens was the most compliant, because growth factor was built into chemotherapy plans of high-risk regimens and omitted from low-risk regimens.

LIMITATIONS

This project was limited by a change in EMR systems at West Virginia University hospitals on January 1, 2009. All pre- EMR data was collected before 2009 and could not be further collected once the project began in 2013.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriateness of growth factor usage can be improved when integrated into an EMR. This can improve compliance and adherence to national recommendations. Further development and understanding of EMR is needed to improve usage to meet national guidelines, with particular attention paid to integration of risk factors into EMR to improve growth factor usage compliance.

A comparison of international guidelines for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy utilizing the myeloid growth factors have been developed by several major international professional organizations. This review provides updates on the current status of these guidelines and summarizes recent reported studies currently under review by guideline panels which may alter guideline recommendations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Whereas the consensus guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) are updated annually, previous evidence-based recommendations from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) are currently undergoing an update in their evidence base and recommendations. These updates will consider and base new recommendations on recent important studies related to the efficacy, safety, and cost of these agents in the prevention of neutropenic complications including febrile neutropenia. New information relating to the risk of second malignancies and the ability of the myeloid growth factors to sustain or increase chemotherapy dose intensity and improve overall survival is reviewed.

SUMMARY

Current guideline recommendations for the prevention of febrile neutropenia are reviewed along with recent published results likely to alter future guideline recommendations on the use of these agents.

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.

Are the true impacts of adverse events considered in economic models of antineoplastic drugs? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Antineoplastic drugs for cancer are often associated with adverse events, which influence patients' physical health, quality of life and survival. However, the modelling of adverse events in cost-effectiveness analyses of antineoplastic drugs has not been examined.

AIMS

This article reviews published economic evaluations that include a calculated cost for adverse events of antineoplastic drugs. The aim is to identify how existing models manage four issues specific to antineoplastic drug adverse events: the selection of adverse events for inclusion in models, the influence of dose modifications on drug quantity and survival outcomes, the influence of adverse events on quality of life and the consideration of multiple simultaneous or recurring adverse events.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using MESH headings and key words in multiple electronic databases, covering the years 1999-2009. Inclusion criteria for eligibility were papers covering a population of adults with solid tumour cancers, the inclusion of at least one adverse event and the resource use and/or costs of adverse event treatment.

RESULTS

From 4,985 citations, 26 eligible articles were identified. Studies were generally of moderate quality and addressed a range of cancers and treatment types. While the four issues specific to antineoplastic drug adverse events were addressed by some studies, no study addressed all of the issues in the same model.

CONCLUSION

This review indicates that current modelling assumptions may restrict our understanding of the true impact of adverse events on cost effectiveness of antineoplastic drugs. This understanding could be improved through consideration of the selection of adverse events, dose modifications, multiple events and quality of life in cost-effectiveness studies.

De-escalation from micafungin is a cost-effective alternative to traditional escalation from fluconazole in the treatment of patients with systemic Candida infections

BACKGROUND

Systemic Candida infections (SCI) occur predominantly in intensive care unit patients and are a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Recently, changes in Candida epidemiology with an increasing prevalence of SCI caused by Candida non-albicans species have been reported. Resistance to fluconazole and azoles in general is not uncommon for non-albicans species. Despite guidelines recommending initial treatment with broad-spectrum antifungals such as echinocandins with subsequent switch to fluconazole if isolates are sensitive (de-escalation strategy), fluconazole is still the preferred first-line antifungal (escalation) in many clinical practice settings. After diagnosis of the pathogen, the initial therapy with fluconazole is switched to a broad-spectrum antifungal if a non-albicans is identified.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with micafungin (de-escalation) vs fluconazole (escalation) in patients with SCI was estimated using decision analysis based on clinical and microbiological data from pertinent studies. The model horizon was 42 days, and was extrapolated to cover a lifetime horizon. All costs were analyzed from the UK NHS perspective. Several assumptions were taken to address uncertainties; the limitations of these assumptions are discussed in the article.

RESULTS

In patients with fluconazole-resistant isolates, initial treatment with micafungin avoids 30% more deaths and successfully treats 23% more patients than initial treatment with fluconazole, with cost savings of £1621 per treated patient. In the overall SCI population, de-escalation results in 1.2% fewer deaths at a marginal cost of £740 per patient. Over a lifetime horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness of de-escalation vs escalation was £15,522 per life-year and £25,673 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

De-escalation from micafungin may improve clinical outcomes and overall survival, particularly among patients with fluconazole-resistant Candida strains. De-escalation from initial treatment with micafungin is a cost-effective alternative to escalation from a UK NHS perspective, with a differential cost per QALY below the 'willingness-to-pay' threshold of £30,000.

New G-CSF agonists for neutropenia therapy

INTRODUCTION

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; filgrastim) and its pegylated form (pegfilgrastim) are widely used to treat neutropenia associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation, AIDS-associated or drug-induced neutropenia, and neutropenic diseases. G-CSF facilitates restoration of neutrophil counts, decreases incidence of infection/febrile neutropenia and reduces resource utilization. G-CSF is also widely used to mobilize peripheral blood stem cells for hematopoietic transplant.

AREAS COVERED

We review the therapeutic use, cost effectiveness and disease impact of G-CSF for neutropenia, development of G-CSF biosimilars and current next-generation discovery efforts.

EXPERT OPINION

G-CSF has impacted the treatment and survival of patients with congenital neutropenias. For chemotherapy-associated neutropenia, cost effectiveness and impact on survival are still unclear. G-CSFs are expensive and require systemic administration. Market entry of new biosimilars, some with enhanced half-life profiles, will probably reduce cost and increase cost effectiveness. There is no evidence that marketed or late development biosimilars display effectiveness superior to current G-CSFs. Second-generation compounds that mimic the activity of G-CSF at its receptor, induce endogenous ligand(s) or offer adjunct activity have been reported and represent attractive G-CSF alternatives, but are in preclinical stages. A significant therapeutic advance will require reduced depth and duration of neutropenia compared to current G-CSFs.

The cost offsets and cost-effectiveness associated with pegylated drugs: a review of the literature

Pegylation (PEG) is used as both a drug-delivery and a drug-modification technology in ten drugs approved by the US FDA. Benefits of PEG drugs can include increased plasma half-life, longer absorption, improved tumor targeting and less antigenicity and immunogenicity. Clinical benefits of PEG drugs over non-PEG drugs may include reduced administration, improved efficacy, improved tolerability, and decreased severity and incidence of adverse events. This study reviews 37 economic literature publications featuring PEG drugs versus non-PEG versions. PEG drugs showed some reductions in overall costs resulting from various offsets including fewer administrations, lower adverse event treatment costs, reduced disease complication costs or reduced inpatient/outpatient costs. Of the 18 cost-effectiveness studies reviewed, 17 of them found PEG drugs to be cost effective versus the non-PEG drugs. Cost offsets and cost-effectiveness of PEG drugs have been demonstrated in multiple studies across various therapies, indications and country settings, and the results have been found to be stable when key parameters were varied in analyses. Further studies are needed to assess the potential for cost savings and cost-effectiveness for new PEG therapies in development.

Incidence of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and current practice of prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in cancer patients in Spain: a prospective, observational study

We aimed to describe the incidence of neutropenia in breast cancer and lymphoma patients and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) use in clinical practice. We conducted a multicentre, prospective, observational study including breast cancer and lymphoma patients initiating chemotherapy (≥ 10% febrile neutropenia risk). We included 734 patients with breast cancer and 291 with lymphoma. Over the first four chemotherapy cycles, patients had an incidence of 11.0% grade 3-4 neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count <1.0 × 10(9) /L) and 4.3% febrile neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count <0.5 × 10(9) /L and fever ≥ 38 °C) in the breast cancer cohort, and 40.5% and 14.8% in the lymphoma cohort. Full dose on schedule (>85% of planned chemotherapy dose and ≤ 3 days delay) was achieved by 85.6% of breast cancer and 68.9% of lymphoma patients. Hospitalisation due to febrile neutropenia was required in 2.0% and 12.0% of breast cancer and lymphoma patients respectively. G-CSF was administered to 70.0% of breast cancer and 83.8% of lymphoma patients, and initiated from the first chemotherapy cycle (primary prophylaxis) in 60.6% and 64.2% of cases. Severe neutropenia affects approximately one in 10 breast cancer patients and one in two lymphoma patients receiving chemotherapy with moderate or greater risk of febrile neutropenia. Most patients received treatment with G-CSF in Spanish clinical practice.

Cost effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with lymphoma and myeloma: an economic evaluation of the PALM Trial

BACKGROUND

Use of the recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) filgrastim accelerates neutrophil recovery following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Since filgrastim requires multiple daily administrations, forms of rhG-CSF with a longer half life, including pegfilgrastim, have been developed. Pegfilgrastim is safe and effective in supporting neutrophil recovery and reducing febrile neutropenia after conventional chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim has also been successfully used to support patients undergoing peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation for haematological malignancies. To our knowledge, no cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of pegfilgrastim in this setting has been published yet.

OBJECTIVE

We undertook a CEA to compare a single injection of pegfilgrastim versus repeated administrations of filgrastim in patients who had undergone PBSC transplantation for lymphoma or myeloma. The CEA was set in France and covered a period of 100 ± 10 days from transplant.

METHODS

The CEA was designed as part of an open-label, multicentre, randomized phase II trial. Costs were assessed from the hospital's point of view and are expressed in 2009 euros. Costs computation focused on inpatient, outpatient, and home care. Costs in the two arms of the study were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. When differences were statistically significant, multiple regression analyses were performed in order to identify cost drivers. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for the major endpoints of the trial; i.e., duration of febrile neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] <0.5 × 10(9)/L and temperature ≥38 °C), duration of neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L and ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L), duration of thrombopenia (platelets <50 × 10(9)/L and <20 × 10(9)/L), and days with a temperature ≥38 °C). Uncertainty around the ICER was captured by a probabilistic analysis using a non-parametric bootstrap method.

RESULTS

151 patients were enrolled at ten French centres from October 2008 to September 2009. The mean total cost in the pegfilgrastim arm of the study (n = 74) was <euro>25,024 (SD 9,945). That in the filgrastim arm (n = 76) was <euro>28,700 (SD 20,597). Pegfilgrastim strictly dominated filgrastim for days of febrile neutropenia avoided, days of neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L) avoided, days of thrombopenia (platelets <20 × 10(9)/L) avoided, and days with temperature ≥38 °C) avoided. Pegfilgrastim was less costly and less effective than filgrastim for the number of days with ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L avoided and the number of days with platelets <50.0 × 10(9)/L avoided. Taking uncertainty into account, the probabilities that pegfilgrastim strictly dominated filgrastim were 67 % for febrile neutropenia, 86 % for neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L), 59 % for thrombopenia (platelets <20 × 10(9)/L), 86 % for temperature ≥38 °C, 32 % for neutropenia (ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L), and 43 % for thrombopenia (platelets <50 × 10(9)/L). Conversely, the probability that filgrastim strictly dominated pegfilgrastim for neutropenia (ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L) is 5 %.

CONCLUSION

This study found no evidence that the use of pegfilgrastim is associated with greater cost in lymphoma and myeloma patients after high-dose chemotherapy and PBSC transplantation.

Effectiveness of daily versus non-daily granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in patients with solid tumours undergoing chemotherapy: a multivariate analysis of data from current practice

We conducted a multicentre, retrospective, observational study including patients with solid tumours (excluding breast cancer) that received granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) and chemotherapy. We investigated the effectiveness of daily vs. non-daily G-CSFs (pegfilgrastim) adjusting by potential confounders. The study included 391 patients (211 daily G-CSF; 180 pegfilgrastim), from whom 47.3% received primary prophylaxis (PP) (57.8% pegfilgrastim), 26.3% secondary prophylaxis (SP: initiation after cycle 1 and no reactive treatment in any cycle) (51.5% pegfilgrastim) and 26.3% reactive treatment (19.4% pegfilgrastim). Only 42.2% of patients with daily G-CSF and 46.2% with pegfilgrastim initiated prophylaxis within 72 h after chemotherapy, and only 10.5% of patients with daily G-CSF received it for ≥7 days. In the multivariate models, daily G-CSF was associated with higher risk of grade 3-4 neutropenia (G3-4N) vs. pegfilgrastim [odds ratio (OR): 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.004–2.97]. Relative to SP, PP protected against G3-4N (OR for SP vs. PP: 6.0, 95%CI: 3.2–11.4) and febrile neutropenia (OR: 3.1, 95%CI: 1.1–8.8), and was associated to less chemotherapy dose delays and reductions (OR for relative dose intensity <85% for SP vs. PP: 3.1, 95%CI: 1.7–5.4) and higher response rate (OR: 2.1, 95%CI: 1.2–3.7). Data suggest that pegfilgrastim, compared with a daily G-CSF, and PP, compared with SP, could be more effective in preventing neutropenia and its related events in the clinical practice.

Comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim, filgrastim, and sargramostim prophylaxis for neutropenia-related hospitalization: two US retrospective claims analyses

OBJECTIVE

Few studies have compared the effectiveness of filgrastim (FIL), pegfilgrastim (PEG), and sargramostim (SAR) to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy (M-CT). Two large commercial database analyses were separately conducted to examine the incidence of neutropenia-related and all-cause hospitalizations associated with FIL, PEG, and SAR prophylaxis for patients receiving M-CT for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), Hodgkin lymphoma, or solid tumors.

METHODS

Separate retrospective US claims database analyses utilized patient data from January 1, 2004 to April 30, 2010 using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRD(SM)) and January 1, 2001 to August 31, 2009 using OptumInsight's (formerly Ingenix) database. Patients were ≥18 years old and treated with M-CT for NHL, Hodgkin lymphoma, and solid tumors. All identified M-CT cycles with prophylactic (first 5 days of cycle) FIL, PEG, or SAR were included in the analysis. Patterns of administration and incidence rates of all-cause and neutropenia-related hospitalization were examined on a per-cycle basis.

RESULTS

In total, 9330 and 8762 patients with cancer, representing 30,264 and 24,215 chemotherapy cycles (28,189 and 22,649 (PEG), 1669 and 1351 (FIL), 406 and 215 (SAR)) from the HIRD(SM) and OptumInsight databases, respectively, were included in the separate database analyses. Both the HIRD(SM) and OptumInsight analysis showed that SAR and FIL prophylaxis had a higher risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization (SAR: OR = 3.48 [95%CI = 2.11, 5.74] and 2.81 [1.62, 4.87]; FIL: 1.78 [1.28, 2.48] and 2.36 [1.82, 3.06], respectively) and all-cause hospitalization (SAR: 2.18 [1.41, 3.36] and 2.41 [1.58, 3.68]; FIL:1.57 [1.25, 1.97] and 1.95 [1.60, 2.38], respectively) vs PEG.

LIMITATIONS

Medical claims do not contain information about chemotherapy dose, and hospitalizations were not validated against the patient's chart.

CONCLUSION

In this comparative effectiveness study, use of PEG was associated with a lower risk of neutropenia-related and all-cause hospitalizations compared to use of FIL or SAR prophylaxis.

Pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors: a critical and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors (MGFs) is an important topic that has received substantial attention in recent years. The use of the MGFs as primary prophylaxis to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) has grown considerably over the past decade and professional guidelines regarding their use have broadened the settings in which these agents are indicated. Recent data also suggest a potential role for them in reducing infection-related and all-cause mortality. The cost and effectiveness of these agents will continue to gain visibility as companies pursue approval for biosimilar agents in the US, similar to their recent approval in Europe.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this paper is to review the available pharmacoeconomic literature on the MGFs, which is particularly timely in light of the recent passage of healthcare reform and the increasing focus on cost control. The cost of treating cancer in the US is rising faster than the already rapid increase in overall medical expenditure. The clinical utility and cost effectiveness of supportive care measures in oncology must therefore be weighed carefully. This review focuses on the use of different formulations of MGFs for primary and secondary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed to find studies that became available since the prior review of this topic was published in Pharmacoeconomics in 2003.

RESULTS

Acceptable cost-minimization estimates for primary prophylaxis with the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy have been provided by several studies in the US. Of the commonly used agents in the US, pegfilgrastim appears to be superior to the currently recommended dose and schedule of filgrastim in terms of cost minimization, and primary prophylaxis appears to be less costly than secondary prophylaxis. However, the cost benefits of primary prophylaxis in Europe are not as pronounced as in the US, due to the lower costs of medical care. Data continue to emerge suggesting a decreased risk of early mortality from averted infections as well as the possibility of a disease-specific mortality benefit through maintaining the relative dose intensity of chemotherapy with MGF support.

CONCLUSION

This evidence will prove valuable in assessing the overall cost effectiveness and cost utility of the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.

Trends in neutropenia-related inpatient events

PURPOSE

Neutropenic complications (NCs) after myelosuppressive chemotherapy are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We described NC rates by using US hospital discharge data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional analysis used data from the US National Inpatient Sample database. Hospital discharges with cancer diagnoses (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code) from 1989 to 2007 were analyzed for the ICD-9-CM neutropenia code. NC rates per 10,000 discharges were calculated for all adult discharges without radiation therapy (study population, all cancers); lung cancer, breast cancer, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL); and all three combined. The use of growth factors and myelosuppressive chemotherapy from 1994 to 2008 was estimated by using the IMS Health Drug Distribution Database.

RESULTS

Estimated lung cancer and breast cancer discharges remained relatively steady, whereas NHL discharges increased. NC rates for each study cancer increased two-fold until the late 1990s before stabilizing and/or declining. The average hospital stay for all three cancers decreased from 10.4 days to 7.1 days. The mortality rates for NCs for the three cancers combined decreased at a fairly constant rate from 10% in 1989 to 5.4% in 2007. Estimated discharges for NCs from 1989 to 2007 ranged from 111,000 to 169,000 for the study population, from 57,000 to 103,000 for all cancers, and from 21,000 to 40,000 for the three study cancers. The use of growth factors and myelosuppressive chemotherapy increased from 1994 to 2008.

CONCLUSION

Whereas the number of hospitalizations with cancer diagnoses has remained steady since 1989, hospitalizations for NCs increased approximately two-fold from 1989 to 1997 and then stabilized.

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor use and medical costs after initial adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients with early-stage breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the risk of severe neutropenia associated with chemotherapy, but its cost implications following chemotherapy are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to examine associations between G-CSF use and medical costs after initial adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage (stage I-III) breast cancer (ESBC).

METHODS

Women diagnosed with ESBC from 1999 to 2005, who had an initial course of chemotherapy beginning within 180 days of diagnosis and including ≥1 highly myelosuppressive agent, were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Medicare claims were used to describe the initial chemotherapy regimen according to the classes of agents used: anthracycline ([A]: doxorubicin or epirubicin); cyclophosphamide (C); taxane ([T]: paclitaxel or docetaxel); and fluorouracil (F). Patients were classified into four study groups according to their G-CSF use: (i) primary prophylaxis, if the first G-CSF claim was within 5 days of the start of the first chemotherapy cycle; (ii) secondary prophylaxis, if the first claim was within 5 days of the start of the second or subsequent cycles; (iii) G-CSF treatment, if the first claim occurred outside of prophylactic use; and (iv) no G-CSF. Patients were described by age, race, year of diagnosis, stage, grade, estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR) receptor status, National Cancer Institute (NCI) Co-morbidity Index, chemotherapy regimen and G-CSF use. Total direct medical costs ($US, year 2009 values) to Medicare were estimated from 4 weeks after the last chemotherapy administration up to 48 months. Medical costs included those for ESBC treatment and all other medical services received after chemotherapy. Least squares regression, using inverse probability weighting (IPW) to account for censoring within the cohort, was used to evaluate adjusted associations between G-CSF use and costs.

RESULTS

A total of 7026 patients were identified, with an average age of 72 years, of which 63% had stage II disease, and 59% were ER and/or PR positive. Compared with no G-CSF, those receiving G-CSF primary prophylaxis were more likely to have stage III disease (30% vs. 16%; p < 0.0001), to be diagnosed in 2003-5 (87% vs. 26%; p < 0.0001), and to receive dose-dense AC-T (26% vs. 1%; p < 0.0001), while they were less likely to receive an F-based regimen (12% vs. 42%; p < 0.0001). Overall, the estimated average direct medical cost over 48 months after initial chemotherapy was $US 42,628. In multivariate analysis, stage II or III diagnosis (compared with stage I), NCI Co-morbidity Index score 1 or ≥2 (compared with 0), or FAC or standard AC-T (each compared with AC) were associated with significantly higher IPW 48-month costs. Adjusting for patient demographic and clinical factors, costs in the G-CSF primary prophylaxis group were not significantly different from those not receiving primary prophylaxis (the other three study groups combined). In an analysis that included four separate study groups, G-CSF treatment was associated with significantly greater costs (incremental cost = $US 2938; 95% CI 285, 5590) than no G-CSF.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct medical costs after initial chemotherapy were not statistically different between those receiving G-CSF primary prophylaxis and those receiving no G-CSF, after adjusting for potential confounders.

A randomised phase II study of the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim after autologous stem cell transplant for lymphoma and myeloma (PALM study)

AIM

To evaluate in a multicentre randomised study the effect on duration of febrile neutropenia (FN), the safety and cost-effectiveness of a single subcutaneous pegfilgrastim injection compared with daily injections of filgrastim after peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients receiving high dose chemotherapy for myeloma and lymphoma.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to a single dose of pegfilgrastim at day 5 (D5) or daily filgrastim from D5 to the recovery of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) to 0.5 G/L. Duration of FN, of neutrophil and platelet recovery, transfusion and antibiotic requirements were the main end-points of the study. Costs were calculated from D0 until transplant unit discharge. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as the cost per day of FN prevented. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed by non-parametric bootstrap methods.

RESULTS

Between October 2008 and September 2009, 10 centres enrolled 151 patients: 80 patients with lymphoma and 71 patients with myeloma. The mean duration of FN was 3.07 days (standard deviation (SD) 1.96) in the pegfilgrastin arm and 3.29 (SD 2.54) in the filgrastim one. Mean total costs were 23,256 and 25,448 euros for pegfilgrastim and filgrastim patients, respectively. There was a 62% probability that pegfilgrastim strictly dominates filgrastim.

CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Pegfilgrastim after PBSC transplantation in myeloma and lymphoma is safe, effective when compared with filgrastim and could represent a cost-effective alternative in this setting.

Effect of primary prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor use on incidence of neutropenia hospitalizations for elderly early-stage breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Chemotherapy is vital for breast cancer management, but early-onset toxicities like neutropenia hinder its administration, especially in the elderly. Primary prophylactic (PP) use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) helps prevent neutropenia and its complications while receiving chemotherapy. Nevertheless, evidence supporting the effectiveness of PPG-CSF in the elderly is limited. Thus, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for PPG-CSF use in the elderly are not explicit. This study analyzed the effects of administration of PPG-CSF and duration of administration on the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia hospitalizations in elderly breast cancer patients.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data from 1994 to 2003. To account for the nonrandom nature of the observational data, a nonparametric matching technique was used to preprocess the data before parametrically estimating the treatment effects.

RESULTS

Administration of PPG-CSF during the first course chemotherapy reduced neutropenia hospitalizations by 16% within the first 3 months and 17% within the first 6 months of chemotherapy initiation (P < 0.05). Hospitalization rates within the first 3 months of chemotherapy initiation were 3 times higher in women receiving less than 5 consecutive days of PPG-CSF compared with women receiving PPG-CSF for 5 or more days (P < 0.05). Hospitalization rates within the first 1 and 6 months were also lower with longer PPG-CSF duration (≥5 d) (P < 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

PPG-CSF use is associated with reductions in in-patient healthcare utilization. These findings have implications for ASCO guidelines and Medicare coverage policies for PPG-CSF administration in elderly breast cancer patients.

The use of chemotherapy regimens carrying a moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia and the corresponding management of febrile neutropenia: an expert survey in breast cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

BACKGROUND

The use of chemotherapy regimens with moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia (defined as having a FN incidence of 10% or more) and the respective incidence and clinical management of FN in breast cancer and NHL has not been studied in Belgium. The existence of a medical need for G-CSF primary and secondary prophylaxis with these regimens was investigated in a real-life setting.

METHODS

Nine oncologists and six hematologists from different Belgian general hospitals and university centers were surveyed to collect expert opinion and real-life data (year 2007) on the use of chemotherapy regimens with moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia and the clinical management of FN in patients aged <65 years with breast cancer or NHL. Data were retrospectively obtained, over a 6-month observation period.

RESULTS

The most frequently used regimens in breast cancer patients (n = 161) were FEC (45%), FEC-T (37%) and docetaxel alone (6%). In NHL patients (n = 39), R-CHOP-21 (33%) and R-ACVBP-14 (15%) were mainly used. Without G-CSF primary prophylaxis (PP), FN occurred in 31% of breast cancer patients, and 13% had PSN. After G-CSF secondary prophylaxis (SP), 4% experienced further FN events. Only 1 breast cancer patient received PP, and did not experience a severe neutropenic event. Overall, 30% of chemotherapy cycles observed in breast cancer patients were protected by PP/SP. In 10 NHL patients receiving PP, 2 (20%) developed FN, whereas 13 (45%) of the 29 patients without PP developed FN and 3 (10%) PSN. Overall, 55% of chemotherapy cycles observed in NHL patients were protected by PP/SP. Impaired chemotherapy delivery (timing and/or dose) was reported in 40% (breast cancer) and 38% (NHL) of patients developing FN. Based on oncologist expert opinion, hospitalization rates for FN (average length of stay) without and with PP were, respectively, 48% (4.2 days) and 19% (1.5 days). Similar rates were obtained from hematologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the studied chemotherapy regimens being known to be associated with a moderate or high risk of FN, upfront G-CSF prophylaxis was rarely used. The observed incidence of severe neutropenic events without G-CSF prophylaxis was higher than generally reported in the literature. The impact on medical resources used is sizeable.

Addressing the health technology assessment of biosimilar pharmaceuticals

Abstract The growing number of biosimilars presents challenges to regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) systems. This paper illustrates these challenges by focusing on biosimilars used in the oncological setting. In particular, discordances between data required by regulatory and HTA authorities potentially deprive patients of effective treatments and hinder optimal resource allocation. Regulatory and HTA authorities need to harmonize requirements to foster the development and widespread use of biosimilars, which potentially release considerable resources. The authors believe that often-inappropriate methodology creates a very real chance that HTA authorities will reject some biosimilars. This would effectively extend patent protection and, in the absence of competitor pressure from biosimilars, result in prices remaining unnecessarily high. The authors propose that HTA organizations should accept pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence between the brand and the biosimilar as a proxy of biological comparability. HTA organizations should then adopt, in the absence of compelling reasons otherwise, cost-minimization analysis (CMA) as the basis of the cost-effectiveness deliberations. In the absence of adequate studies demonstrating equivalent efficacy, a prerequisite of CMA, HTA organizations should require threshold analysis. Once approved, biosimilar manufacturers and regulators should maintain rigorous pharmacovigilance to exclude immunoreactivity or other rare adverse events. Furthermore, cancer centres and trusts should regularly audit and publish the impact of biosimilars on clinical outcomes and resource use. When appropriate, regulatory and HTA authorities should demand revised cost-effectiveness analyses from biosimilar manufacturers. This approach would hone the accuracy of the cost-effectiveness analyses, protect patients and allow health services rapid access to low cost treatments.

Thiopurine S- methyltransferase [corrected] testing in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a pharmacogenetic cost-effectiveness analysis

Azathioprine in combination with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and steroids is a standard therapy for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Its use, however, is limited by its side effects, principally leukopenia. A genotypic assay, thiopurine S-methyltransferase (TPMT), has been developed that can potentially identify those at risk for developing leukopenia with azathioprine, and thereby limit its toxicity. In those with abnormal TPMT activity, azathioprine can be started at lower dose or an alternate regimen selected. Determine the cost-effectiveness of a treatment strategy using TPMT testing before initiation of azathioprine, NAC, and steroids in IPF by performing a computer-based simulation. We developed a decision analytic model comparing three strategies: azathioprine, NAC and steroids with and without prior TPMT testing, and conservative therapy, consisting of only supportive measures. Prevalence of abnormal TPMT alleles and complication rates of therapy were taken from the literature. We assumed a 12.5% incidence of abnormal TPMT alleles, 4% overall incidence of leukopenia while taking azathioprine, and that azathioprine, NAC, and steroids in combination reduced IPF disease progression by 14% during 12 months. TPMT testing before azathioprine, NAC, and steroids was the most effective and most costly strategy. The marginal cost-effectiveness of the TPMT testing strategy was $49,156 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained versus conservative treatment. Compared with azathioprine, NAC and steroids without prior testing, the TPMT testing strategy cost only $29,662 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, when the prevalence of abnormal TPMT alleles was higher than our base case, TPMT was "cost-effective." At prevalence rates lower than our base case, it was not. TPMT testing before initiating therapy with azathioprine, NAC, and steroids is a cost-effective treatment strategy for IPF.

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: where are we now?

Updated international guidelines published in 2006 have broadened the scope for the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in supporting delivery of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. G-CSF prophylaxis is now recommended when the overall risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) due to regimen and individual patient factors is ≥20%, for supporting dose-dense and dose-intense chemotherapy and to help maintain dose density where dose reductions have been shown to compromise outcomes. Indeed, there is now a large body of evidence for the efficacy of G-CSFs in supporting dose-dense chemotherapy. Predictive tools that can help target those patients who are most at risk of FN are now becoming available. Recent analyses have shown that, by reducing the risk of FN and chemotherapy dose delays and reductions, G-CSF prophylaxis can potentially enhance survival benefits in patients receiving chemotherapy in curative settings. Accumulating data from ‘real-world’ clinical practice settings indicate that patients often receive abbreviated courses of daily G-CSF and consequently obtain a reduced level of FN protection. A single dose of PEGylated G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) may provide a more effective, as well as a more convenient, alternative to daily G-CSF. Prospective studies are needed to validate the importance of delivering the full dose intensity of standard chemotherapy regimens, with G-CSF support where appropriate, across a range of settings. These studies should also incorporate prospective evaluation of risk stratification for neutropenia and its complications.

The role of the primary care physician during the active treatment phase

Although more research needs to be done to determine the optimal role for PCPs during the active phase of cancer treatment, patients, PCPs, and oncologists all see a significant role for primary care in the care of patients with cancer. In the United States, family physicians are actively involved in the care of cancer patients, especially in provision of support, education, and care of intercurrent illness and chronic disease. Fatigue, depression, pain, and psychosocial distress are important symptoms that should be screened for and addressed. The PCP should be aware of adverse effects of chemotherapy and radiation and cancer-related emergencies. Sexual and intimacy concerns, including contraception and fertility, are important to patients entering active cancer treatment but may not be addressed adequately in usual cancer care. Advising the patient in active cancer treatment on issues of general health including common nutritional issues can provide value through the treatment period. Use of CAM is common and several modalities have been shown to benefit patients in the course of cancer treatment.

The economic value of reducing medication dosing frequency with drug delivery technologies: an evidence assessment

OBJECTIVE

To critically evaluate published cost-effectiveness studies of novel drug products requiring less-frequent medication dosing compared to conventional formulations of the same drug substance.

METHODS

A search was conducted in the Medline and Embase databases for cost-effectiveness studies published before May 2009 that compared two or more drug delivery technologies formulated with the same active drug substance. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) grading criteria for cost-effectiveness studies was applied to the selected publications.

RESULTS

The literature search identified approximately 907 articles of which six cost-effectiveness studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies spanned four chronic conditions, were conducted from various international perspectives and used decision-analytic models to project economic outcomes. The base-case results of all six studies indicated that the drug product with sustained therapeutic efficacy was either more effective and less costly ('dominant') or more cost effective than the conventional formulation of the same drug substance. Quality scores ranging from 70 to 84 (scale 0 to 100) were assigned to the studies, with a mean of 78.

LIMITATIONS

This review likely did not capture all relevant drug delivery technologies and drug products. Only one reviewer critically evaluated the cost-effectiveness studies and independently assigned quality scores using the QHES grading criteria, which may be limited in its ability to identify poorly analyzed studies.

CONCLUSION

Evaluation of the published literature suggests that drug products with less-frequent medication dosing can be cost effective when compared to conventional formulations, but assessments are challenging because of complex relationships among therapeutic drug levels, dosing frequency, medication adherence, and health outcomes. Additional product-specific, comparative, pragmatic studies in this area are needed.

Advances in the treatment of neutropenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review updates treatment of neutropenia from articles published from January 2008 through April 2009.

RECENT FINDINGS

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia occurs most commonly in the first cycle of treatment. Older patients, patients with multiple comorbidities, and those receiving more myelotoxic drugs are prone to develop neutropenia and its complications. Current guidelines recommend the prophylactic use of the myeloid growth factors for the first cycle of chemotherapy for patients with more than a 20% risk of febrile neutropenia. Meta analysis from randomized trials shows that granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis is associated with patients receiving more intensive chemotherapy, having better survival, but also having a higher risk of secondary acute myeloid leukemia. Antibiotics are standard treatment of febrile neutropenia and are increasingly used for prophylaxis in 'low-risk' patients.

SUMMARY

The myeloid growth factor granulocyte colony-stimulating factor has radically changed our approach to the prevention of febrile neutropenia. Antibiotics remain the mainstay of treatment of febrile neutropenia.

Polymeric carriers: preclinical safety and the regulatory implications for design and development of polymer therapeutics

Since the early 1990s polymer-protein conjugates (included PEGylated enzymes and cytokines), polymeric drugs and polymeric sequestrants have been entering the market as innovative polymer-based therapeutics. Initially these products were most frequently developed as novel anticancer agents; indeed they can be considered first generation "nanomedicines". More recently, a much broader range of life-threatening and debilitating diseases (e.g. viral infections, arthritis, multiple sclerosis and hormone abnormalities) have been targeted via intravenous (i.v.), subcutaneous (s.c.) or oral routes of administration. Given the increasing novelty of polymeric materials proposed for development as second-generation polymer therapeutics (with increasing complexity of conjugate composition), and the growing debate as to the safety of nanomedicines per se, the need for evolution of an appropriate regulatory framework is at the forefront of the scientific discussion. The adequacy of the current tests and models used to define safety are also constantly being reviewed. Here we describe the current status and future challenges in relation to these issues.

Impact of effective prevention and management of febrile neutropenia

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is costly in both financial and human terms. The associated costs can be reduced substantially through the development and implementation of national policies and locally agreed protocols for the prevention and management of febrile neutropenia. Patients, the NHS, healthcare professionals and the broader community all stand to benefit from a commitment to effective management of this common and predictable side effect of some chemotherapy regimens for early-stage breast cancer.

Prophylactic G-CSF in patients with early-stage breast cancer: a health economic review

Although the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in conjunction with myelosuppressive chemotherapy is supported by clinical research evidence and advocated by international clinical guidelines when the consequent risk of febrile neutropenia exceeds 20%, there remains doubt as to the cost-effectiveness of the practice. There are limited economic data, and the data that are available are not necessarily applicable to the management of breast cancer in a European setting. Much of the available evidence on G-CSF in the management of febrile neutropenia is partial, focusing primarily on direct costs to the health service - that is, those related to hospitalisation and drug treatment. A full assessment of the cost effectiveness of G-CSF prophylaxis needs to take account of both costs and outcomes, including mortality, quality of life and patient functioning. As febrile neutropenia has been shown to affect productivity, consideration should also be given to quantifying the indirect costs of neutropenia.