On-Body Injector: An Administration Device for Pegfilgrastim

On-body injector pegfilgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia prophylaxis: Current Status

INTRODUCTION

Myelosuppression, a challenge in cancer treatment, often results in severe complications. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, particularly pegfilgrastim, mitigate chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. This narrative review evaluates the role of on-body injector (OBI) devices for pegfilgrastim administration. A comprehensive search strategy of PubMed and AI-powered intuitive search tools, complemented by authors' contributions, yielded a body of papers presenting evidence on OBI devices, their effectiveness and safety, the benefits and challenges of OBI versus pre-filled syringe administration, patient preferences for pegfilgrastim administration, and economic considerations.

DISCUSSION

OBI devices prove effective and safe, with advantages such as reduced clinic visits and enhanced adherence. Studies highlight cost-efficiency and expanded access, emphasizing the socioeconomic context. Patient and provider preferences underscore the potential of OBI devices in cancer care, with implications for healthcare resource utilization and pharmacoeconomics.

CONCLUSION

The value proposition of OBI devices lies in improving patient outcomes, convenience, resource optimization, and enhancing the overall cancer care experience. As biosimilar OBIs enter the market, they may offer cost savings, further influencing their adoption and their positioning as a cost-efficient alternative in cancer care. Ongoing research and technological advancements are expected to contribute to the broader acceptance of OBI devices in cancer care delivery.

Evaluating unmet needs in large-volume subcutaneous drug delivery: U.S. payer perspectives on a novel, large-volume on-body delivery system

OBJECTIVE

Existing healthcare systems face finite resource allocation and budgetary constraints, resulting in a substantial need for innovative solutions to enhance service delivery at reduced costs. A novel, user-friendly on-body delivery system (OBDS) was developed which enables administration of large-volume subcutaneous (SC) drugs in both clinical and home-based settings (at-home healthcare professional [HCP] administration or at-home self-administration).

METHODS

This research sought to evaluate the potential economic impact of at-home self- or HCP- administration with the OBDS through a comprehensive review of published literature and semi-structured interviews with 17 US payers representing approximately 227 million covered lives.

RESULTS

Published literature on OBDS remains limited, but available research highlights the cost-savings of SC administration due to reduced healthcare resource utilization, particularly with home-based care, and improved patient compliance. In interviews, payers identified several attributes that would help address unmet clinical and economic needs. Clinically, the hidden needle and ease-of-use compared to SC syringe pumps was deemed valuable to improve patient compliance and, as OBDS required minimal training, reduce the risk of administration errors. The flexibility to administer drugs at home (self-administration or HCP-administration) or in-clinic was identified as the most impactful attribute on coverage decision making as it has the greatest potential to reduce costs associated with HCP administration for several therapeutic areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the ability to help address critical unmet needs for the patient and healthcare system, a large proportion of the payers stated that the novel OBDS would warrant a price premium versus the cost of the standalone SC vial and certainly over the IV counterpart. Future research to quantify the value that OBDS efficiencies could bring to healthcare delivery are warranted.

Efficacy of same-day versus next-day administration of pegfilgrastim for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients receiving dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: A retrospective multi-site analysis

INTRODUCTION

Administering pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy can improve patient satisfaction through convenience and may increase the utilization of cost-effective biosimilars compared to next-day administration, but the effect on clinical outcomes with commonly used breast cancer regimens is unclear.

METHODS

This multi-site, retrospective cohort study included breast cancer patients age 18 years or older who received dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) and pegfilgrastim between 1 June 2016 and 31 May 2020. Pegfilgrastim was given on the same day as chemotherapy at one site and the day after chemotherapy at the other two sites. The primary endpoint compared the incidence of febrile neutropenia associated with pegfilgrastim administration timing.

RESULTS

A total of 360 patients were reviewed (146 same-day administration and 214 next-day administration). In the same-day group 36 patients (24.6%) developed FN compared to 25 patients (11.7%) in the next-day group (p = 0.002). Same-day administration also significantly increased the incidences of additional acute care visits (11.6% vs 2.8%, p = 0.0016), grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (38.4% vs 13.6%, p < 0.0001), chemotherapy dose reductions (21.2% vs 6.1%, p < 0.0001), and antibiotic use (26.7% vs 12.6%, p = 0.001). Same-day administration did not significantly increase the rate of hospitalization (15% vs 11.2%, p = 0.36) and delay of next chemotherapy cycle by ≥1 day (8.2% vs 6.1%, p = 0.57) due to neutropenic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Administering pegfilgrastim on the same day as ddAC led to a significant increase in neutropenic complications. This study confirms the need to administer pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy in breast cancer patients receiving ddAC.

Health professionals' preferences with the use of pegfilgrastim on-body injector at oncology centers in 8 cities in Colombia

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia associated with some chemotherapy regimens can lead to potentially fatal complications and high health care costs. Administration of pegfilgrastim using an On-Body Injector (OBI) may be more convenient for cancer patients and physicians in countries with limited access to high-complexity healthcare. This study aims to describe physician and nurse preferences regarding different options for administration of pegfilgrastim at cancer centers, the chemotherapy schemes for which pegfilgrastim is most frequently prescribed and how healthcare providers prioritize certain administration schemes according to patients' access to healthcare services.

METHODS

Observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study and survey, conducted between 2019 and 2020, to describe physician and nurse preferences regarding options for administration of pegfilgrastim at cancer centers, the demographics of the study population and characteristics of participating cancer centers. It included 60 healthcare professionals practicing at oncology centers from 8 cities in Colombia who were contacted and surveyed via telephone. Quantitative continuous variables were summarized using central tendency and dispersion measures.

RESULTS

It was found that 35% of participants are haemato-oncologists, oncologists or hematologists, 30% are general practitioners, and 35% are other healthcare professionals (i.e., nurse, oncology nurse and head nurse). Our study shows that 48% of physicians prefer the use of OBI, particularly in the scheme of 24 h after myelosuppressive chemotherapy administrations. Regardless of patient frailty and travel time to the clinic, over 90% of healthcare providers (HCPs) prefer to prioritize preventing the patient from having to return to the clinic for pegfilgrastim administration as well as to increase healthcare staff availability through the use of OBI.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study is the first one in Colombia that sought the reasons behind HCPs' choice to use OBI pegfilgrastim. Our results indicate that most professionals prefer to avoid the patient having to re-enter the care center for pegfilgrastim administration to facilitate access to healthcare for patients; patient characteristics and ease of transport are determining factors for respondents when choosing an option for drug administration. We found OBI is the preferred alternative by most HCPs and a good resource optimization strategy in the context of cancer patients' health care in Colombia.

Effects of a Guideline-Informed Clinical Decision Support System Intervention to Improve Colony-Stimulating Factor Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Colony-stimulating factors are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. Research suggests that 55% to 95% of colony-stimulating factor prescribing is inconsistent with national guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether a guideline-based standing order for primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors improves use and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cluster randomized clinical trial, the Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER), involved 32 community oncology clinics in the US. Participants were adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy and enrolled between January 2016 and April 2020. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Sites were randomized 3:1 to implementation of a guideline-based primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor standing order system or usual care. Automated orders were added for high-risk regimens, and an alert not to prescribe was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was to find an increase in colony-stimulating factor use among high-risk patients from 40% to 75%, a reduction in use among low-risk patients from 17% to 7%, and a 50% reduction in febrile neutropenia rates in the intervention group. Mixed model logistic regression adjusted for correlation of outcomes within a clinic.

RESULTS

A total of 2946 patients (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [50.0-67.0] years; 2233 women [77.0%]; 2292 White [79.1%]) were enrolled; 2287 were randomized to the intervention, and 659 were randomized to usual care. Colony-stimulating factor use for patients receiving high-risk regimens was high and not significantly different between groups (847 of 950 patients [89.2%] in the intervention group vs 296 of 309 patients [95.8%] in the usual care group). Among high-risk patients, febrile neutropenia rates for the intervention (58 of 947 patients [6.1%]) and usual care (13 of 308 patients [4.2%]) groups were not significantly different. The febrile neutropenia rate for patients receiving high-risk regimens not receiving colony-stimulating factors was 14.9% (17 of 114 patients). Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, colony-stimulating factor use was low and did not differ between groups (29 of 457 patients [6.3%] in the intervention group vs 7 of 128 patients [5.5%] in the usual care group). Febrile neutropenia rates did not differ between usual care (1 of 127 patients [0.8%]) and the intervention (7 of 452 patients [1.5%]) groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cluster randomized clinical trial, implementation of a guideline-informed standing order did not affect colony-stimulating factor use or febrile neutropenia rates in high-risk and low-risk patients. Overall, use was generally appropriate for the level of risk. Standing order interventions do not appear to be necessary or effective in the setting of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor prescribing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02728596.

Pegfilgrastim Biosimilars in US Supportive Oncology: A Narrative Review of Administration Options and Economic Considerations to Maximize Patient Benefit

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biologics, such as pegfilgrastim, are a standard of care in supportive cancer treatment that are administered once per chemotherapy cycle to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. The high cost of these biologics in the United States can be a limiting factor to accessing care; however, lower-cost pegfilgrastim biosimilars have been available for several years for patients requiring prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Different options for pegfilgrastim administration are also now available to accommodate specific patient preferences. As patients may want to minimize the risk of both neutropenia and SARS-CoV-2 infection, same-day administration is a pertinent option during the present COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, individualized, patient-centered approaches and risk-management strategies should be considered when selecting the treatment and administration method for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Three methods of administration would minimize hospital or clinic visits while also providing the prophylactic effect of G-CSF: same-day administration after chemotherapy, use of the US Food and Drug Administration–approved on-body injector delivering pegfilgrastim approximately 27 h after chemotherapy, or self-administration by the patient or caregiver > 24 h after chemotherapy. Choice of the specific administration option should be based on the patient’s specific needs, while also considering mitigating factors, such as the economic burden associated with biologic medications and the risk of COVID-19. Pegfilgrastim biosimilars can minimize the additional financial burden on patients and the health care system during this pandemic and beyond.

Patient out-of-pocket and payer costs for pegfilgrastim originator vs biosimilars as primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in the first cycle among a commercially insured population

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether using pegfilgrastim biosimilars is cost saving in a real-world setting. OBJECTIVE: To compare medical costs including pegfilgrastim drug costs and febrile neutropenia (FN) treatment and management costs between pegfilgrastim biosimilars (pegfilgrastim-jmdb, pegfilgrastim-cbqv) and originator users for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using 2019 IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases was conducted in adult patients with cancer initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy courses. At least 2 diagnoses of the same cancer (at least 7 days apart) were required within 30 days of the chemotherapy initiation date. Pegfilgrastim (excluding on-body injector) costs included drug costs only (excluding administration fees). FN-related costs included all FN-related health care utilizations that were defined as having neutropenia, fever, or infection diagnosis. Per-patient per-cycle (PPPC) out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, health plan costs, and total costs were compared between originator (excluding on-body injector) and biosimilars users in the first cycle. A generalized linear model and a 2-part model were used. RESULTS: A total of 1,930 patients were included, of whom 884 (45.8%) used pegfilgrastim originator, 427 (22.1%) used pegfilgrastim-jmdb, and 619 (32.1%) used pegfilgrastim-cbqv. Adjusted PPPC OOP pegfilgrastim costs in the first cycle were significantly lower for the biosimilars vs the originator ($182 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb and $159 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv vs $299 for originator, P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). However, there was no difference in health plan costs ($5,783 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb and $5,845 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv vs $5,618 for originator) and total costs. In addition, no difference was observed for adjusted PPPC FN treatment and management OOP costs, health plan costs, and total costs in the first cycle. FN treatment OOP costs were $192 for originator, $197 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb (P = 0.958), and $240 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv (P = 0.680). FN treatment health plan costs were $2,804 for originator, $2,970 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb (P = 0.692), and $2,745 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv (P = 0.879). CONCLUSIONS: In a commercially insured population, using pegfilgrastim biosimilars in the first cycle for primary prophylaxis of FN led to cost savings for patients but not payers. No difference in FN-related costs was observed.

Retrospective evaluation of safety and effectiveness of same-day pegfilgrastim in patients with lung cancer

Aim: To determine the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) and related outcomes after same-day pegfilgrastim in lung cancer. Materials & methods: This single-center, retrospective study evaluated electronic health records of patients with lung cancer treated between 2013-2018. The main end points were incidence of FN and grade 3/4 neutropenia after the first and across all chemotherapy cycles. Results: A total of 114 patients received same-day pegfilgrastim in 384 cycles. The incidence of FN and grade 3/4 neutropenia was 2.3 and 25% after the first chemotherapy cycle and 1.6 and 10.4% across all cycles, respectively. Conclusion: Same-day prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients with lung cancer may be a suitable option, owing to its low incidence of FN and related outcomes.

Development of Delivery Systems for Local Administration of Cytokines/Cytokine Gene-Directed Therapeutics: Modern Oncologic Implications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we discuss modern cytokine delivery systems in oncologic care, focusing on modalities being developed in the clinical trials or currently in use. These include pegylation, immune-cytokine drug conjugates, cytokine-expressing plasmid nanoparticles, nonviral cytokine nanoparticles, viral systems, and AcTakines.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cytokine therapy has the potential to contribute to cancer treatment options by modulating the immune system towards an improved antitumor response and has shown promise both independently and in combination with other immunotherapy agents. Despite promising preliminary studies, systemic toxicities and challenges with administration have limited the impact of unmodified cytokine therapy. In the last decade, novel delivery systems have been developed to address these challenges and facilitate cytokine-based oncologic treatments. Novel delivery systems provide potential solutions to decrease dose-limiting side effects, facilitate administration, and increase the therapeutic activity of cytokine treatments in oncology care. The expanding clinical and translational research in these systems provides an opportunity to augment the armamentarium of immune oncology and may represent the next frontier of cytokine-based immuno-oncology.

Observation and Mitigation of Leachables from Non-Product Contact Materials in Electromechanical Delivery Devices for Biotechnology Products

Battery-powered drug delivery devices are widely used as primary containers for storing and delivering therapeutic protein products to improve patient compliance and quality of life. Compared to conventional delivery approaches such as pre-filled syringes, battery-powered devices are more complex in design requiring new materials/components for proper functionality, which could cause potential product safety and quality concerns from the extractable and leachables (E&L) of the new materials/components. In this study, E&L assessments were performed on a battery-powered delivery device during the development and qualification of the device, where novel compound 2‑hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone (HMPP) and related compounds were observed in both E&L. The source of the HMPP and related compounds was identified to be the nonproduct contact device batteries, in which HMPP photo-initiator was used as a curing agent in the battery sealant to prevent leakage of the battery electrolytes. Toxicology assessment was performed, which showed the levels of HMPP observed in the device lots were acceptable relative to the permitted daily exposure. A drug product HMPP spike study was also performed, where no product impact was observed. Based on these assessments, an action threshold and specification limits could be established as a control strategy, if needed, to mitigate the potential risks associate with the observed leachables. As a full resolution, seven battery candidates from different suppliers were screened and one new battery was successfully qualified for the delivery devices. Overall, the holistic E&L approach was fully successful in the development and qualification of the battery-powered devices for biotherapeutic products delivery ensuring product quality and patient safety. Non-product contact materials are commonly rated as low or no risk and typically considered as out of scope of E&L activities for delivery systems following industry benchmark and regulatory agency guidance. This case study is novel as it brings into attention the materials that might not normally be in consideration during the development process. It is highly recommended to understand materials in the context of intended use on a case-by-case basis and not to generalize to ensure successful development and qualification.

Same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim-cbqv in patients with lymphoma receiving CHOP-like chemotherapy

Aim: To compare the incidence of febrile neutropenia and related outcomes of prophylactic same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim/pegfilgrastim-cbqv in patients with lymphoma receiving cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP)-like chemotherapy. Methods: Retrospective, real-world, single-institution study. Results: 93 patients received 460 cycles of CHOP-like chemotherapy. The incidence of febrile neutropenia and grade 3/4 chemotherapy-induced neutropenia was 5 and 16.5%, respectively. In 401 cycles pegfilgrastim was administered same-day versus 12 cycles next-day. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 17 cycles versus 0 cycles (p = 1.00) and grade 3/4 chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in 65 cycles (16.2%) versus 1 cycle (16.7%; p = 1.00) with same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim administration, respectively. Conclusion: Pegfilgrastim may be safely administered on the same day as chemotherapy in patients with lymphoma receiving CHOP-like chemotherapy.

Conversion to supportive care with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv enables budget-neutral expanded access to R-CHOP treatment in non-Hodgkin lymphoma

This pharmacoeconomic simulation (1) assessed the cost-efficiency of converting a panel of 20,000 patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv; (2) estimated how savings can be used to provide budget-neutral expanded access to R-CHOP therapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients; and 3) determined the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to purchase one additional dose of R-CHOP (US payer perspective). Model inputs included biosimilar conversion from pre-filled syringe [PFS] or on-body injector [OBI] reference pegfilgrastim; age-proportional blended costs for reference pegfilgrastim PFS and OBI, pegfilgrastim-cbqv and R-CHOP; medication administration costs; biosimilar conversion rates of 10-100 %; and 1-6 cycles of prophylaxis. Cost-savings were used to estimate the number of doses of R-CHOP that could be purchased and the NNC to purchase one additional dose. Converting a panel of 20,000 patients requiring CIN/FN prophylaxis to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv from a low of 1 cycle and 10 % conversion to a high of 6 cycles and 100 % conversion yielded savings from $1,567,195 to $96,668,126. The budget-neutral acquisition of R-CHOP doses afforded by these savings ranged from 227 to 13,999 doses, the latter enabling 2333 patients to receive 6 cycles of R-CHOP treatment with no additional cost to the payer. These results are achieved if all 20,000 panel patients requiring GCSF support are prophylacted with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv for 6 cycles, yielding an NNC of 1.43 patients per additional R-CHOP dose. This simulation underscores the clinic-economic benefit of prophylaxis with biosimilar growth factor and pegfilgrastim-cbqv specifically.

Initial testing of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Onpro) on-body injector in multiple radiological imaging environments

Purpose

An increasing number of implantable or external devices can impact whether patients can receive radiological imaging examinations. This study examines and tests the Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) Onpro on‐body injector in multiple imaging environments.

Methods

The injector was analyzed for four imaging modalities with testing protocols and strategies developed for each modality. In x‐ray and computed tomography (CT), scans with much higher exposure than clinical protocols were performed with the device attached to an anthropomorphic phantom. The device was monitored until the completion of drug delivery. For magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the device was assessed using a hand‐held magnet and underwent the magnetically induced displacement testing in a 1.5T clinical MRI scanner room. For ultrasound, magnetic field changes were measured around an ultrasound scanner system with three transducers.

Results

For x‐ray and CT no sign of device error was identified during or after the high radiation exposure scans. Drug delivery was completed at expected timing with expected volume. For MRI the device showed significant attractive force towards the hand‐held magnet and a 50‐degree deflection angle at 50 cm from the opening of the scanner bore. No further assessment from the gradient or radiofrequency field was deemed necessary. For ultrasound the maximum magnetic field change from baseline was measured to be +11.7 μT in comparison to +74.2 μT at 4 inches from a working microwave.

Conclusions

No device performance issue was identified under the extreme test conditions in x‐ray or CT. The device was found to be MR Unsafe. Magnetic field changes around an ultrasound system met the limitation set by manufacture. Patient ultrasound scanning is considered safe as long as the transducers do not inadvertently loosen the device.

Conversion from pegfilgrastim with on-body injector to pegfilgrastim-jmdb: cost-efficiency analysis and budget-neutral expanded access to prophylaxis and treatment

AIMS

Therapeutic guidelines recommend prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN). Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), biosimilar pegfilgrastim-jmdb (Fulphila), and pegfilgrastim with on-body injector (OBI; Neulasta Onpro) are options for CIN/FN prophylaxis. We aimed to simulate the cost-savings and budget-neutral expanded access to CIN/FN prophylaxis or anticancer treatment achieved through conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to pegfilgrastim-jmdb and to evaluate the economic impact of FN-related hospitalization costs due to pegfilgrastim-OBI failure.

METHODS

Cost-savings from conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-jmdb were simulated in a panel of 15,000 patients with cancer from the US payer perspective. The primary analyses included conversion rates of 10% to 100%. Adjusted analyses also considered OBI device failure rates of 1% to 7% and associated costs of FN-related hospitalization. Simulations of budget-neutral expanded access to prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim-jmdb or to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) were also performed.

RESULTS

In a 15,000-patient panel, conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to pegfilgrastim-jmdb resulted in cost-savings ranging from $481,259 (10% conversion) to $4,812,585 (100% conversion) in a single cycle. Over 6 cycles at 100% conversion, savings were $28,857,510 and could provide 9,191 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 4,463 cycles of R-CHOP to patients with DLBCL. Adjusted for OBI failure, cost-savings over 6 cycles ranged from $2,935,565 (10% conversion; pegfilgrastim-OBI failure rate of 1%) to $32,236,499 (100% conversion; 7% failure). These cost-savings could provide 943 doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 454 doses of R-CHOP (10% conversion; 1% pegfilgrastim-OBI failure) or provide 10,261 doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 4,982 cycles of R-CHOP (100% conversion; 7% failure).

CONCLUSION

Conversion from pegfilgrastim to pegfilgrastim-jmdb is associated with significant cost-savings which increase markedly when also accounting for pegfilgrastim-OBI failure and associated FN-related hospitalizations. These general and failure-related cost-savings could be allocated on a budget-neutral basis to provide more patients with additional CIN/FN prophylaxis or antineoplastic treatment.

Real-world effectiveness of the pegfilgrastim on-body injector in preventing severe neutropenia

INTRODUCTION

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are used in medical oncology for the prevention of neutropenia. On-body injectors (OBI) have an advantage over the traditional injection (TI) method of not requiring a second visit to the clinic, but these devices are subject to failure. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of OBIs in the real-world.

METHODS

Women with breast cancer diagnosed between June 2015 and June 2016 treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy and a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor were retrospectively identified from the medical records of Henry Ford Hospital. The primary outcome was the incidence of severe neutropenia (SN), defined as an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) ≤500. Secondary outcomes included incidence of neutropenia (ANC ≤ 1500), neutropenic fever, and mortality. A secondary analysis of the data was performed to identify predictors of SN.

RESULTS

A total of 837 cycles of chemotherapy were analyzed. The OBI was used in 395 cycles and the TI in 442. The OBI group had patients that were older, had higher baseline ANC, and were more often white. The incidences of SN, neutropenic fever and neutropenia were not different between groups. Patients with a lower baseline ANC and white ethnicity were at a higher risk for SN. AC (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) was the most commonly used chemotherapy regimen (38% of total cycles).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in the efficacy of the OBI and TI methods for preventing SN, neutropenic fever and neutropenia.

Cost-efficiency and expanded access of prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia: economic simulation analysis for the US of conversion from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv

AIMS

In this pharmacoeconomic simulation, we: (1) modeled the cost-efficiency of converting patients from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) from the US payer perspective, (2) simulated how savings enable, on a budget-neutral basis, expanded access to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, and (3) estimated the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv.

METHODS

In a hypothetical panel of 20,000 patients, we modeled cost-savings utilizing: two reference formulations (pre-filled syringe [PFS] and on-body injector [OBI]), three medication cost inputs (average sales price [ASP], wholesale acquisition cost [WAC], and an age-proportionate blended ASP/WAC rate), administration cost for injection (PFS) and device application (OBI), conversion rates of 10-100%, and 1-6 cycles of prophylaxis. Cost-savings were used to estimate additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv that could be purchased and the NNC to purchase one additional dose.

RESULTS

Using ASP and 10% conversion from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, savings range from $326,744 (1 cycle) to $2.0M (6 cycles) which could provide 93-556 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv, respectively; the NNC to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv ranges from 21.6 (1 cycle) down to 3.6 patients (6 cycles). The WAC model saves $41.1M per cycle and $246.7M over 6 cycles at 100% conversion from reference PFS which could provide 9,709-58,253 additional pegfilgrastim-cbqv doses; the NNC ranges from 2.1 (1 cycle) to 0.3 (6 cycles). Using the blended ASP/WAC rate, converting 50% from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv would save $10.2M per cycle and $60.9M over 6 cycles providing 2,638-15,829 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv; NNCs are 3.8 (1 cycle) and 0.6 patients (6 cycles).

CONCLUSIONS

Converting 20,000 patients from reference to pegfilgrastim-cbqv over 6 cycles can generate savings up to $246.7M, enough to purchase up to 58,253 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv. This simulation provides economic justification for prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv.

Febrile neutropenia hospitalization due to pegfilgrastim on-body injector failure compared to single-injection pegfilgrastim and daily injections with reference and biosimilar filgrastim: US cost simulation for lung cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Background: Guidelines recommend febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis following myelotoxic chemotherapy with either daily injections of filgrastim (Neupogen^®) or biosimilar filgrastim-sndz (Zarzio/Zarxio^®), single-injection pegfilgrastim (Neulasta^®), or pegfilgrastim administered through an on-body injector (PEG-OBI; Neulasta^® Onpro^®). PEG-OBI failure rates up to 6.9% have been reported, putting patients at incremental risk for FN and FN-related hospitalization. Our objective was to estimate, from a US payer perspective, the incremental costs of FN hospitalizations and the total incremental costs associated with PEG-OBI prophylaxis at varying device failure rates over assured FN prophylaxis with daily injections of filgrastim or filgrastim-sndz or a single injection of pegfilgrastim.Methods: Cost simulations comparing prophylaxis with PEG-OBI at failure rates of 1-10% versus assured prophylaxis in cycle 1 of chemotherapy were performed for panels of 10,000 patients with lung cancer treated with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (1 analysis) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) treated with CHOP or CNOP (2 analyses). Daily injection scenarios were 4.3, 5, and 11 injections for lung cancer and 5, 6.5, and 11 for NHL. The analyses are from the US payer perspective.Results: For lung cancer, the total incremental cost of PEG-OBI prophylaxis at varying failure rates and durations ranged from $6,691,969‒$31,765,299 over filgrastim and $18,901,969‒$36,538,299 over filgrastim-sndz. For NHL, in scenario 1, the total incremental costs ranged from $6,794,984‒$30,361,345 over filgrastim and $19,004,984‒$35,911,345 over filgrastim-sndz; in scenario 2, the incremental costs ranged from $7,003,657‒$32,448,067 over filgrastim and $19,213,657‒$37,998,067 over filgrastim-sndz.Conclusions: In this simulation, the incremental costs of FN-related hospitalization due to PEG-OBI failure in cycle 1 compared to assured prophylaxis with reference pegfilgrastim, reference filgrastim, and biosimilar filgrastim-sndz varied depending upon the PEG-OBI failure rate and the alternative G-CSF prophylaxis option. Biosimilar filgrastim-sndz offers the greatest cost-efficiency.

Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Outcomes Associated With the Use of Pegfilgrastim On-body Injector in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy Requiring Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Support

Objectives: Pegfilgrastim is a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) used as primary prophylaxis in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens that have greater than 20% risk of developing febrile neutropenia (FN). Historically, pegfilgrastim has been administered 24 to 72 hours after chemotherapy, necessitating a return to clinic to receive the provider-administered injection. An alternative option is the pegfilgrastim on-body injector (OBI). With the OBI device, patients have their pegfilgrastim administered 27 hours after receiving chemotherapy while remaining at home, avoiding an additional clinic appointment. Concerns with pegfilgrastim OBI include lack of experience with the device in both the patient and provider, device-related failures, and the success of delivery. This study evaluates pegfilgrastim OBI failure rates through associated patient outcomes among cancer patients receiving chemotherapy requiring G-CSF. Methods: A retrospective electronic chart review was conducted of adult patients with cancer who received chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim OBI from July 1, 2016, to July 31, 2018. The primary objective of this study was the incidence of FN in patients receiving pegfilgrastim OBI. Results: There were no reported cases of hospitalization due to FN in patients who received pegfilgrastim OBI. Dose delays and dosage modifications were not observed in our review. The OBI device failure rate was found to be low (1.92%). Conclusion: The low device failure rate from this study suggests that the OBI is a viable option for administration of pegfilgrastim in patients receiving chemotherapy requiring G-CSF.

Polymer therapeutics at a crossroads? Finding the path for improved translation in the twenty-first century

Despite the relatively small early investment, first generation 'polymer therapeutics' have been remarkably successful with more than 25 products licenced for human use as polymeric drugs, sequestrants, conjugates, and as an imaging agent. Many exhibit both clinical and commercial success with new concepts already in clinical trials. Nevertheless after four decades of evolution, this field is arriving at an important crossroads. Over the last decade, the landscape has changed rapidly. There are an increasing number of failed clinical trials, the number of 'copy' and 'generic' products is growing (danger of ignoring the biological rationale for design and suppression of innovation), potential drawbacks of PEG are becoming more evident, and the 'nanomedicine' boom has brought danger of loss of scientific focus/hype. Grasping opportunities provided by advances in understanding of the patho-physiology and molecular basis of diseases, new polymer/conjugate synthetic and analytical methods, as well as the large database of clinical experience will surely ensure a successful future for innovative polymer therapeutics. Progress will, however, be in jeopardy if polymer safety is overlooked in respect of the specific route of administration/clinical use, poorly characterised materials/formulations are used to define biological or early clinical properties, and if clinical trial protocols fail to select patients most likely to benefit from these macromolecular therapeutics. Opportunities to improve clinical trial design for polymer-anticancer drug conjugates are discussed. This short personal perspective summarises some of the important challenges facing polymer therapeutics in R&D today, and future opportunities to improve successful translation.