Cost-effectiveness analysis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer in Taiwan

OBJECTIVES

To examine the cost-effectiveness of using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for primary or secondary prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer from the perspective of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Administration.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to simulate the events that may occur during and after a high-risk chemotherapy treatment. Various G-CSF prophylaxis strategies and medications were compared in the model. Effectiveness data were derived from the literature and an analysis of the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). Cost data were obtained from a published NHIRD study, and health utility values were also obtained from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of the cost-effectiveness results.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NT$269,683 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to primary prophylaxis with lenograstim. The ICER for primary prophylaxis with lenograstim versus no G-CSF prophylaxis was NT$61,995 per QALY gained. The results were most sensitive to variations in relative risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) for pegfilgrastim versus no G-CSF prophylaxis. Furthermore, in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of one times Taiwan's gross domestic product per capita, the probability of being cost-effective was 88.1% for primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that primary prophylaxis with either short- or long-acting G-CSF could be considered cost-effective for FN prevention in breast cancer patients receiving high-risk regimens.

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.

Febrile neutropenia prophylaxis, G-CSF physician preferences: discrete-choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

Febrile neutropenia (FN) commonly occurs during cancer chemotherapy. Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) is known to reduce the severity and incidence of FN and infections in patients with cancer. Despite the proven efficacy, G-CSFs are not always prescribed as recommended. We performed a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to determine what factors drive the physician preference for FN prophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

METHODS

Attributes for the DCE were selected based on literature search and on expert focus group discussions and comprised pain at the injection site, presence of bone pain, associated fever/influenza syndrome, efficacy of prophylaxis, biosimilar availability, number of injections per chemotherapy cycle and cost. Oncologists, in a national database, were solicited to participate in an online DCE. The study collected the responses to the choice scenarios, the oncologist characteristics and their usual prescriptions of G-CSFs in the context of breast, lungs and gastrointestinal cancers.

RESULTS

Overall, the responses from 205 physicians were analysed. The physicians were mainly male (61%), with ≤20 years of experience (76%) and working only in public hospitals (73%). The physicians prescribe G-CSF primary prophylaxis for 32% of patients: filgrastim in 46% and pegfilgrastim in 54%. The choice of G-CSF for primary and secondary prophylaxis was driven by cost and number of injections. Biosimilars were well accepted.

CONCLUSION

Cost and convenience of G-CSF drive the physician decision to prescribe or not G-CSF for primary and secondary FN prophylaxes. It is important that these results be incorporated in the optimisation of G-CSF prescription in the clinical setting.

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.

Neutropenic complications in the PANTHER phase III study of adjuvant tailored dose-dense chemotherapy in early breast cancer

Introduction: Myelosuppresion is a common side effect of chemotherapy and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is often used to reduce the risk of neutropenic events. The purpose of this exploratory analysis was to investigate neutropenic complications in the phase III PANTHER trial of standard 3-weekly chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide plus docetaxel (FEC/D) versus bi-weekly tailored dose-dense EC/D adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.Patients and methods: Febrile neutropenia, neutropenic infection and infection grade 3-4 according to CTC AE 3.0, were explored in relation to G-CSF use. Per cycle analysis was performed concerning dose reduction and dose delays in conjunction with G-CSF administration.Results: In the experimental group, 98.9% of patients received primary G-CSF support during EC and 97.4% during docetaxel, compared with 49.7% during FEC and 63.88% during docetaxel in the standard group. Overall, the use of G-CSF was associated with a lower risk for developing neutropenic events (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.35-0.55, p < .001). Chemotherapy delays due to neutropenia and leukopenia were significantly decreased among patients that received G-CSF (OR 0.098, 95% CI 0.06-0.15 and OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18-0.58, respectively).Discussion: In conclusion, G-CSF support reduces neutropenic events and permits increased relative dose intensity, which is essential for improved survival outcomes.

Appropriateness of using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in solid tumors

INTRODUCTION

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is one of the dose-limiting adverse effects of chemotherapy. Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factors (G-CSFs) minimize the incidence of FN and reduce the risk of neutropenia complications. This study was conducted to address the prescription pattern of G-CSF for primary prophylaxis of FN during the first cycle of chemotherapy in solid tumors.

METHOD

This prospective observational study was done to investigate the G-CSF prescription pattern in patients receiving the first cycle of chemotherapy for solid tumors and compare it with the NCCN guideline recommendations.

RESULT

Based on the guideline, prophylactic G-CSF administration was indicated in 26 of the 96 patients (27.1%) and all of them received G-CSF. On the other hand, 70 patients (72.9%) did not meet the guideline criteria for prophylaxis, but 60 (62.5%) of them received G-CSF. Seven doses of pegfilgrastim and 165 doses of filgrastim were used inappropriately in the study population, which was associated with an economic burden of about 224.7 million IRR (5350 USD).

CONCLUSION

Taken together, inconsistencies with the guideline were observed in this prospective evaluation, suggesting that submitting rationalized policies to decrease G-CSF prescription, especially in patients with a lower or intermediate FN risk, yields substantial cost savings.

RGB-02 (biosimilar pegfilgrastim) in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

Pegfilgrastim is widely used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The development and use of biosimilar agents help to rationalize healthcare expenditure and improve access to modern therapies to all who need them. This review focuses on pegfilgrastims with important role in oncology supportive care. RGB-02 (Gedeon Richter) is a proposed biosimilar to pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (Neulasta^®, Amgen) with sustained release properties. The clinical analyses in three randomized clinical studies provided comparative data between RGB-02 and Neulasta, in a Phase III study patients receiving docetaxel-doxorubicin chemotherapy treatment equivalence was found. No difference was detected in any safety measure including immunogenicity; treatment switch, from the reference product to RGB-02 proved safe. Long-acting pegylated filgrastim RGB-02 has successfully accomplished various steps of biosimilar development.

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.

Model-based optimization of G-CSF treatment during cytotoxic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Although G-CSF is widely used to prevent or ameliorate leukopenia during cytotoxic chemotherapies, its optimal use is still under debate and depends on many therapy parameters such as dosing and timing of cytotoxic drugs and G-CSF, G-CSF pharmaceuticals used and individual risk factors of patients.

METHODS

We integrate available biological knowledge and clinical data regarding cell kinetics of bone marrow granulopoiesis, the cytotoxic effects of chemotherapy and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of G-CSF applications (filgrastim or pegfilgrastim) into a comprehensive model. The model explains leukocyte time courses of more than 70 therapy scenarios comprising 10 different cytotoxic drugs. It is applied to develop optimized G-CSF schedules for a variety of clinical scenarios.

RESULTS

Clinical trial results showed validity of model predictions regarding alternative G-CSF schedules. We propose modifications of G-CSF treatment for the chemotherapies 'BEACOPP escalated' (Hodgkin's disease), 'ETC' (breast cancer), and risk-adapted schedules for 'CHOP-14' (aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in elderly patients).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that we established a model of human granulopoiesis under chemotherapy which allows predictions of yet untested G-CSF schedules, comparisons between them, and optimization of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim treatment. As a general rule of thumb, G-CSF treatment should not be started too early and patients could profit from filgrastim treatment continued until the end of the chemotherapy cycle.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prophylaxis Treatment Strategies to Reduce the Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer or Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of no prophylaxis, primary prophylaxis (PP), or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), i.e., pegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6- and 11-day), or lenograstim (6- and 11-day), to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with stage II breast cancer receiving TC (docetaxel, cyclophosphamide) and in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) over a lifetime horizon from a Belgian payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov cycle tree tracked FN events during chemotherapy (3-week cycles) and long-term survival (1-year cycles). Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy, risk of reduced relative dose intensity (RDI), and the impact of RDI on mortality, utilities, and costs (in €; 2014 values) were estimated from public sources and the published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed for each strategy for costs per FN event avoided, life-year (LY) saved, and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) saved. LYs and QALYs saved were discounted at 1.5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSAs and PSAs) were conducted.

RESULTS

Base-case ICERs for PP with pegfilgrastim relative to SP with pegfilgrastim were €15,500 per QALY and €14,800 per LY saved for stage II breast cancer and €7800 per QALY and €6900 per LY saved for NHL; other comparators were either more expensive and less effective than PP or SP with pegfilgrastim or had lower costs but higher ICERs (relative to SP with pegfilgrastim) than PP with pegfilgrastim. Results of the DSA for breast cancer and NHL comparing PP and SP with pegfilgrastim indicate that the model results were most sensitive to the cycle 1 risk of FN, the proportion of FN events requiring hospitalization, the relative risk of FN in cycles ≥2 versus cycle 1, no history of FN, and the mortality hazard ratio for RDI (<90% vs ≥90% [for NHL]). In the PSAs for stage II breast cancer and NHL, the probabilities that PP with pegfilgrastim was cost effective or dominant versus all other prophylaxis strategies at a €30,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold were 52% (other strategies ≤24%) and 58% (other strategies ≤24%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

From a Belgian payer perspective, PP with pegfilgrastim appears cost effective compared to other prophylaxis strategies in patients with stage II breast cancer or NHL at a €30,000/QALY threshold.

Cost-utility analyses of drug therapies in breast cancer: a systematic review

The economic evaluation (EE) of health care products has become a necessity. Their quality must be high in order to trust the results and make informed decisions. While cost-utility analyses (CUAs) should be preferred to cost-effectiveness analyses in the oncology area, the quality of breast cancer (BC)-related CUA has been given little attention so far. Thus, firstly, a systematic review of published CUA related to drug therapies for BC, gene expression profiling, and HER2 status testing was performed. Secondly, the quality of selected CUA was assessed and the factors associated with a high-quality CUA identified. The systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE/EMBASE, and Cochrane to identify published CUA between 2000 and 2014. After screening and data extraction, the quality of each selected CUA was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the checklist proposed by Drummond et al. The analysis of factors associated with a high-quality CUA (defined as a Drummond score ≥7) was performed using a two-step approach. Our systematic review was based on 140 CUAs and showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, including differences in the perspective adopted, the time horizon, measurement of cost and effectiveness, and more specially health-state utility values (HSUVs). The median Drummond score was 7 [range 3-10]. Only one in two of the CUA (n = 74) had a Drummond score ≥7, synonymous of "high quality." The statistically significant predictors of a high-quality CUA were article with "gene expression profiling" topic (p = 0.001), consulting or pharmaceutical company as main location of first author (p = 0.004), and articles with both incremental cost-utility ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as outcomes of EE (p = 0.02). Our systematic review identified only 140 CUAs published over the past 15 years with one in two of high quality. It showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, especially focused on HSUVs. A critical appraisal of utility values is necessary to better understand one of the main difficulties encountered by authors and propose areas for improvement to increase the quality of CUA. Since the last 5 years, there is a tendency toward an improvement in the quality of these studies, probably coupled with economic context, a better and widely spreading of recommendations and thus appropriation by medical practitioners. That being said, there is an urgent need for mandatory use of European and international recommendations to ensure quality of such approaches and to allow easy comparison.

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.

Pegfilgrastim for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with solid tumors

INTRODUCTION

Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia are the most common and most severe bone marrow toxicities of chemotherapy. Recombinant granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), both daily (filgrastim and biosimilars, and lenograstim) and long-acting (pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim) formulations, are currently available to counteract the negative consequences of these side effects.

AREAS COVERED

The purpose of this article is to review the physiopathology of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and its consequences, and the current evidence regarding the pharmacological properties, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim as a strategy to prevent chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with solid tumors.

EXPERT OPINION

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and its complications are still a major health-care concern, and the inappropriate employment of G-CSFs in clinical practice can partially explain its burden. Pegfilgrastim has pharmacological advantages over daily G-CSFs that makes it easily administrable, thus reducing the chance of incorrect delivery. The once-per-cycle administration might explain the findings derived from observational studies suggesting a possible superior efficacy of pegfilgrastim over daily G-CSFs. For patients at higher risk of failure with daily G-CSF prophylaxis (e.g. risk of non-compliance, difficulties on performing regular hemograms, high risk of developing febrile neutropenia), pegfilgrastim might be the most appropriate option.

Investigating the Generalizability of Economic Evaluations Conducted in Italy: A Critical Review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the methodological quality of Italian health economic evaluations and their generalizability or transferability to different settings.

METHODS

A literature search was performed on the PubMed search engine to identify trial-based, nonexperimental prospective studies or model-based full economic evaluations carried out in Italy from 1995 to 2013. The studies were randomly assigned to four reviewers who applied a detailed checklist to assess the generalizability and quality of reporting. The review process followed a three-step blinded procedure. The reviewers who carried out the data extraction were blind as to the name of the author(s) of each study. Second, after the first review, articles were reassigned through a second blind randomization to a second reviewer. Finally, any disagreement between the first two reviewers was solved by a senior researcher.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-one economic evaluations eventually met the inclusion criteria. Over time, we observed an increasing transparency in methods and a greater generalizability of results, along with a wider and more representative sample in trials and a larger adoption of transition-Markov models. However, often context-specific economic evaluations are carried out and not enough effort is made to ensure the transferability of their results to other contexts. In recent studies, cost-effectiveness analyses and the use of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were preferred.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a quite positive temporal trend, generalizability of results still appears as an unsolved question, even if some indication of improvement within Italian studies has been observed.

Potential cost savings from chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with biosimilar filgrastim and expanded access to targeted antineoplastic treatment across the European Union G5 countries: a simulation study

PURPOSE

The objectives of this study were to simulate for the European Union G5 countries the potential cost savings of converting patients from originator granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) filgrastim and pegfilgrastim to a biosimilar filgrastim, to evaluate how reallocating these savings could increase patient access to antineoplastic therapy, and to estimate the number of patients needed to convert to provide antineoplastic treatment to one patient.

METHODS

Three models were built: (1) to estimate the costs of using originator G-CSFs and the savings generated from switching to a biosimilar G-CSF, (2) to estimate the incremental number of patients who could be provided antineoplastic therapy-rituximab or trastuzumab-in a hypothetical panel of 10,000 patients with cancer, and (3) to calculate the number of patients needed to convert to provide access to anticancer therapy. Scenarios were developed in which the rate of conversion was varied to estimate the effect on total cost savings. This study took the perspective of the payer in the European Union.

FINDINGS

The savings associated with the biosimilar filgrastim over the originator filgrastim ranged from €785 (day 4) to €2747 (day 14) and increased with longer duration of therapy. By contrast, the savings associated with the biosimilar filgrastim over pegfilgrastim decreased over time, ranging from €6199 (day 4) to €471 (day 14). In a hypothetical panel of 10,000 patients with cancer, the savings associated with the biosimilar filgrastim over the originator filgrastim and the expanded access to antineoplastic therapy improved over time, irrespective of conversion rates. Conversely, in the same hypothetical panel, the savings associated with the biosimilar filgrastim over pegfilgrastim reduced over time, irrespective of conversion rates, along with the expanded access to antineoplastic treatment. Under conversion of the originator filgrastim to the biosimilar filgrastim, the number needed to convert to expand access to rituximab ranged from 4 to 14 patients, and the number needed to convert to expand access to trastuzumab ranged from 11 to 38 patients. Under conversion of pegfilgrastim to the biosimilar filgrastim, the number needed to convert to expand access to rituximab ranged from 2 to 24 patients, and the number needed to convert to expand access to trastuzumab ranged from 5 to 63 patients.

IMPLICATIONS

Use of biosimilar G-CSFs for supportive cancer care could yield potential cost savings and improve patient access to antineoplastic therapy in a budget neutral way-a financial effect with an ethical perspective.

Comparison of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim to prevent neutropenia and maintain dose intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of prophylactic single fixed dose of pegfilgrastim and daily administration of filgrastim on febrile neutropenia (FN), severe neutropenia, treatment delay, and dose reduction in patients with breast cancer receiving dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study with 1058 breast cancer patients matched by age and chemotherapy was conducted. The primary endpoints were FN, severe (grade 3, 4) neutropenia, dose reduction (>10 % reduction of the dose planned), and treatment delay (dose given more than 2 days later).

RESULTS

Eighteen episodes of FN (3.4%) in the filgrastim group and 23 (4.3%) in the pegfilgrastim group (p = 0.500) were recorded. More than half of the total episodes (27/41) occurred during the first 4 cycles of treatment. Patients who received filgrastim were almost three times more likely to experience a severe neutropenia episode and were significantly more likely to experience a dose reduction (18.5%) compared to those who received pegfilgrastim (10.8%) (p < 0.001). The percentage of patients, who received their planned dose on time, was significantly lower in patients receiving filgrastim (58%) compared to those receiving pegfilgrastim (72.4%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was detected on FN rate between daily administration of filgrastim and single administration of pegfilgrastim. However, patients receiving pegfilgrastim had a significantly lower rate of severe neutropenia, as well as dose reduction and treatment delay, thus, achieving a higher dose density.

Economic evaluation of using a genetic test to direct breast cancer chemoprevention in white women with a previous breast biopsy

BACKGROUND

Tamoxifen therapy reduces the risk of breast cancer but increases the risk of serious adverse events including endometrial cancer and thromboembolic events.

OBJECTIVES

The cost effectiveness of using a commercially available breast cancer risk assessment test (BREVAGen™) to inform the decision of which women should undergo chemoprevention by tamoxifen was modeled in a simulated population of women who had undergone biopsies but had no diagnosis of cancer.

METHODS

A continuous time, discrete event, mathematical model was used to simulate a population of white women aged 40-69 years, who were at elevated risk for breast cancer because of a history of benign breast biopsy. Women were assessed for clinical risk of breast cancer using the Gail model and for genetic risk using a panel of seven common single nucleotide polymorphisms. We evaluated the cost effectiveness of using genetic risk together with clinical risk, instead of clinical risk alone, to determine eligibility for 5 years of tamoxifen therapy. In addition to breast cancer, the simulation included health states of endometrial cancer, pulmonary embolism, deep-vein thrombosis, stroke, and cataract. Estimates of costs in 2012 US dollars were based on Medicare reimbursement rates reported in the literature and utilities for modeled health states were calculated as an average of utilities reported in the literature. A 50-year time horizon was used to observe lifetime effects including survival benefits.

RESULTS

For those women at intermediate risk of developing breast cancer (1.2-1.66 % 5-year risk), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the combined genetic and clinical risk assessment strategy over the clinical risk assessment-only strategy was US$47,000, US$44,000, and US$65,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, for women aged 40-49, 50-59, and 60-69 years, respectively (assuming a price of US$945 for genetic testing). Results were sensitive to assumptions about patient adherence, utility of life while taking tamoxifen, and cost of genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

From the US payer's perspective, the combined genetic and clinical risk assessment strategy may be a moderately cost-effective alternative to using clinical risk alone to guide chemoprevention recommendations for women at intermediate risk of developing breast cancer.

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.

Cost effectiveness of first-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy in the management of advanced soft tissue sarcoma in Italy, Spain, and sweden

Background. Doxorubicin/ifosfamide is a first-line systemic chemotherapy for the majority of advanced soft tissue sarcoma (ASTS) subtypes. Trabectedin is indicated for the treatment of ASTS after failure of anthracyclines and/or ifosfamide; however it is being increasingly used off-label as a first-line treatment. This study estimated the cost effectiveness of these two treatments in the first-line management of ASTS in Italy, Spain, and Sweden. Methods. A Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost effectiveness of doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy, defined as the cost per QALY gained, in each country. Results. First-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide resulted in lower two-year healthcare costs and more QALYs than first-line treatment with trabectedin monotherapy in all three countries. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a cost per QALY threshold of €35,000, >90% of a cohort would be cost effectively treated with doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy in all three countries. Conclusion. Within the model's limitations, first-line treatment of patients with ASTS with doxorubicin/ifosfamide instead of trabectedin monotherapy affords a cost-effective use of publicly funded healthcare resources in Italy, Spain, and Sweden and is therefore the preferred treatment in all three countries. These findings support the recommendation that trabectedin should remain a second-line treatment.

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.

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.

PEGylation of interferon-β-1a: a promising strategy in multiple sclerosis

Achieving optimal patient benefit from biological therapies can be hindered by drug instability, rapid clearance requiring frequent dosing or potential immune reactions. One strategy for addressing these challenges is drug modification through PEGylation, a well established process by which one or more molecules of polyethylene glycol (PEG) are covalently attached to a biological or small-molecule drug, effectively transforming it into a therapy with improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Numerous PEGylated therapeutics are currently available, all of which have at least comparable efficacy, safety and tolerability to their unmodified forms. A PEGylated form of interferon-β-1a (PEG-IFNβ-1a) is being developed to address an unmet medical need for safer, more effective and more convenient therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS). Phase I study data suggest that PEG-IFNβ-1a should provide patients with a first-line therapy with a more convenient dosing regimen while maintaining the established efficacy, safety and tolerability of presently available IFNβ-1a. The ongoing global ADVANCE phase III study will determine the clinical efficacy of PEG-IFNβ-1a in patients with relapsing MS.

Optimal use of recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with chemotherapy for solid tumors

Neutropenia is a frequent complication of anticancer chemotherapy (CT) often associated with life-threatening infections, hospitalization, dose reduction and/or delay in the administration of CT. Administration of recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rG-CSF) reduces the duration and the degree of CT-neutropenia. rG-CSF that stimulates both neutropoiesis and neutrophil function, has become an integral part of supportive care during cytotoxic CT, to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN), particularly in patients with a risk of FN ≥ 20%. International guidelines have standardized conditions for rG-CSF administration, however, some 'gray zones' still exist around optimal timing and tailoring of this therapy. We report here the results of a research project aimed to extend the consensus on the optimal use of rG-CSF in association with CT in patient with solid tumours. We also propose a recently developed pharmacodynamic model, based on the biological effects of CT and rG -CSF on bone marrow compartments that clearly indicates within the prophylactic rather than therapeutic setting the better way of rG-CSF administration.

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia in breast cancer in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE

We report a cost-effectiveness evaluation of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy in the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

A mathematical model was constructed simulating the experience of women with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Three strategies were modeled: primary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles), secondary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles after an FN event), and no G-CSF prophylaxis. Three G-CSFs were considered: filgrastim, lenograstim, and pegfilgrastim. Costs were taken from UK databases and utility values from published sources. A systematic review provided data on G-CSF efficacy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined the effects of uncertainty in model parameters.

RESULTS

In the UK, base-case analysis with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20K per quality-adjusted life year gained and also using list prices, the most cost-effective strategy was primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for a patient with baseline FN risk greater than 38%, secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for baseline FN risk 11% to 37%, and no G-CSFs for baseline FN risk less than 11%. Using a WTP threshold of £30K and list prices, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim was cost-effective for baseline FN risks greater than 29%. In all analyses, pegfilgrastim dominated filgrastim and lenograstim. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that higher WTP threshold, younger age, earlier stage at diagnosis, or reduced G-CSF prices result in G-CSF prophylaxis being cost-effective at lower baseline FN risk levels.

CONCLUSION

Pegfilgrastim was the most cost-effective G-CSF. The most cost-effective strategy (primary or secondary prophylaxis) was dependent on the FN risk level for an individual patient, patient age and stage at diagnosis, and G-CSF price.

Comparative cost-efficiency across the European G5 countries of various regimens of filgrastim, biosimilar filgrastim, and pegfilgrastim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia

OBJECTIVES

This cost-efficiency analysis of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) filgrastim (originator Neupogen® and biosimilar Zarzio®) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) examined against a time horizon of 1-14 days of treatment and across the European Union G5 countries (a) when, cost-wise, using Neulasta® 6 mg versus Neupogen® or Zarzio® 300 µg may be cost-saving in reducing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia; and (b) if cost-wise, treatment with Zarzio® 300 µg yields a savings advantage over Neupogen® 300 µg.

METHODS

Cost-efficiency analysis of the direct costs a buyer or payer would incur when purchasing or covering any of these agents for managing one patient during one cycle of chemotherapy under regimens of 1-14 days of standard filgrastim using the population-weighted average unit dose cost of each agent per their public pack cost across the European G5 countries.

RESULTS

The cost of Neupogen® treatment ranged from €128.16 (1 day) to €1794.30 (14 days), compared to €95.46 and €1336.46 for Zarzio®, thus yielding potential cost savings from €32.70 to €457.84 for the latter. Neulasta® turns cost-saving at day 12 of Neupogen® treatment. At no point over a 14-day treatment period did Neulasta® yield a savings advantage over Zarzio®.

CONCLUSION

Prophylaxis or treatment of febrile neutropenia with Zarzio® is cost-efficient under all possible treatment scenarios relative to Neupogen® and to Neulasta®. In the absence of convincing evidence that pegfilgrastim is pharmacotherapeutically superior to standard filgrastim, there is no cost-efficiency rationale to treat with Neulasta® over Zarzio®, though there may be a small window of approximately 3 days where Neulasta® is cost-efficient over Neupogen®. Regardless, our analysis shows Zarzio® to be the most cost-efficient approach to reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated patients.

Prevention of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients: Pegylated versus standard myeloid colony stimulating factors. Do we have a choice?

The pertinent literature on clinical studies comparing the respective value of myeloid colony stimulating factors to pegfilgrastim as a prevention of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients has been reviewed. Pegfilgrastim is definitely not inferior to filgrastim or other myeloid colony stimulating agents with respect to duration of grade IV neutropenia and delivery of full chemotherapy dose on time; several comparative studies indicate a trend to less frequent febrile neutropenia with pegfilgrastim.