Cost-Effectiveness of Adding Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor to Primary Prophylaxis With Antibiotics in Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Two decades of pegfilgrastim: what have we learned? Where do we go from here?

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is a medical emergency that may occur in patients with malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. FN requires early therapeutic intervention since it is associated with increased hospitalizations and high mortality risk of 5%-20%. FN-related hospitalizations are higher in patients with myeloid malignancies than in those with solid tumors due to the myelotoxicity of chemotherapy regimens and the compromised bone marrow function. FN increases the burden of cancer by causing chemotherapy dose reductions and delays. The administration of the first granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), filgrastim, reduced the incidence and duration of FN in patients undergoing chemotherapy. Filgrastim later evolved into pegfilgrastim, which has a longer half-life than filgrastim and was associated with a lower rate of severe neutropenia, chemotherapy dose reduction, and treatment delay. Nine million patients have received pegfilgrastim since its approval in early 2002. The pegfilgrastim on-body injector (OBI) is an innovative device facilitating the time-released auto-injection of pegfilgrastim approximately 27 hours after chemotherapy, as clinically recommended for the prevention of FN, thus eliminating the need for a next-day hospital visit. Since its introduction in 2015, one million patients with cancer have received pegfilgrastim using the OBI. Subsequently, the device has been approved in the United States (US), European Union, Latin America, and Japan, with studies and a postmarketing commitment demonstrating device reliability. A recent prospective observational study conducted in the US demonstrated that the OBI substantially improved the adherence to and compliance with clinically recommended pegfilgrastim therapy; patients receiving pegfilgrastim via the OBI experienced a lower incidence of FN than those receiving alternatives for FN prophylaxis. This review discusses the evolution of G-CSFs leading to the development of the OBI, current recommendations for G-CSF prophylaxis in the clinic, continued evidence supporting next-day pegfilgrastim administration, and improvements in patient care made possible with the OBI.

The effect of concomitant use of Colony-Stimulating factors on bleomycin pulmonary toxicity - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Changes in the incidence of bleomycin pulmonary toxicity (BPT) as a result of adding colony-stimulating factors (CSF) to bleomycin regimens has been investigated in numerous studies. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the outcomes of these studies.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase on April 2021. Studies evaluating the incidence of BPT in patients receiving bleomycin with and without CSF were included. In addition, meta-analysis was performed by pooling odds ratios using R.

RESULTS

Out of 340 obtained records, our qualitative and quantitative analysis included 3234 and 1956 patients from 22 and 14 studies, respectively. The quantitative synthesis showed that addition of CSF significantly increased the risk of BPT incidence (OR = 1.82, 95 % CI: 1.37-2.40, p < 0.0001; I2 = 10.7 %). Subgroup analysis did not show any association between continent, bleomycin dose, cancer type, type of study, and pulmonary function test with BPT incidence.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that co-administration of CSF with bleomycin increases the incidence of BPT. The physicians need to consider this finding while deciding the best strategy for this cohort of patients.

Synthetic pro-peptide design to enhance the secretion of heterologous proteins by Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Heterologous protein production in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a useful and effective strategy with many advantages, including the secretion of proteins that require posttranslational processing. However, heterologous proteins in S. cerevisiae are often secreted at comparatively low levels. To improve the production of the heterologous protein, human granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor (hG‐CSF) in S. cerevisiae, a secretion‐enhancing peptide cassette including an hIL‐1β‐derived propeptide, was added and used as a secretion enhancer to alleviate specific bottlenecks in the yeast secretory pathway. The effects of three key parameters—N‐glycosylation, net negative charge balance, and glycine‐rich flexible linker—were investigated in batch cultures of S. cerevisiae. Using a three‐stage design involving screening, selection, and optimization, the production and secretion of hG‐CSF by S. cerevisiae were significantly increased. The amount of extracellular mature hG‐CSF produced by the optimized propeptide after the final stage increased by 190% compared to that of the original propeptide. Although hG‐CSF was used as the model protein in the current study, this strategy applies to the enhanced production of other heterologous proteins, using S. cerevisiae as the host.

Real-world burden of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in patients with small cell lung cancer: a retrospective analysis of electronic medical data from community cancer care providers

AIMS

Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression, which commonly exhibits as neutropenia, anemia, or thrombocytopenia, represents a substantial burden for patients with cancer that affects health-related quality of life and increases healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). We evaluated the burden of myelosuppression among chemotherapy-treated patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) using real-world data from community cancer care providers in the Western United States.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational analysis of electronic medical records (EMRs) from Providence St. Joseph Health hospital-associated oncology clinics between January 2016 and December 2019. Patient demographics were assessed from the date of first SCLC diagnosis in adult patients with chemotherapy-induced grade ≥3 myelosuppression in first-line (1L) or second-line-and-beyond (2L+) treatment settings. Myelosuppressive adverse events (AEs), treatment patterns, and HCRU were assessed from the date of chemotherapy initiation (index date) until 12 months, date of the last visit, date of death, or study end, whichever occurred earliest.

RESULTS

Of 347 eligible patients with SCLC who had received chemotherapy (mean age 66; 49% female), all had received at least 1L treatment, and 103 (29.7%) had a 2L + treatment recorded within the EMR during the study period. Of 338 evaluable patients with longitudinal laboratory data, 206 (60.9%) experienced grade ≥3 myelosuppressive AEs, most commonly neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (44.9, 41.1, and 25.4 per 100 patients, respectively). Rates of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use and red blood cell transfusions were 47.0 and 41.7 per 100 patients, respectively. There was a trend toward increasing the use of supportive care interventions and visits to inpatient and outpatient facilities in patients with myelosuppressive AEs in more than one cell lineage.

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression places a substantial real-world burden on patients with SCLC in the community cancer care setting. Innovations to protect bone marrow from chemotherapy-induced damage have the potential to reduce this burden.

Management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with cancer: 2019 guidelines of the Italian Medical Oncology Association (AIOM)

Neutropenia is the most frequent side effect of commercially available myelosuppressive drugs and its most significant complication is febrile neutropenia. It is associated with increased hospital admissions and higher probability of death. Prophylaxis with the administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor can prevent neutropenia caused by anticancer drugs. The correct administration of these drugs and the management of febrile neutropenia are extremely important in the treatment of patients with cancer.

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.

Clinical Safety and Efficacy of Secondary Prophylactic Pegylated G-CSF in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Patients Treated with mFOLFIRINOX: A Single-center Retrospective Study

Objective Although modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX, mFFX) is widely used for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), maintenance of the standard dose intensity is often difficult due to the high incidence of neutropenic events. Pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (Peg G) is a long-lasting G-CSF agent that is applicable for prophylaxis against neutropenic complications. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical safety and efficacy of mFFX combined with secondary prophylaxis using Peg G in advanced PDAC patients. Methods Advanced PDAC patients who had received more than two cycles of mFFX were analyzed. The clinical safety and efficacy were compared between patients in the Peg G group and those in the non-Peg G group in a retrospective manner. Results Among 45 patients treated with mFFX, 28 exhibited grade 3-4 neutropenia or febrile neutropenia. Among these 28 patients, 4 who received only 1 or 2 mFFX cycles were excluded from this study. Finally, 11 patients in the Peg G group and 13 in the non-Peg G group were enrolled. The combination therapy with Peg G and mFFX markedly prolonged the progression-free survival compared with the non-Peg G group, and its effects were associated with a reduced incidence of neutropenic events as well as lower rates of dosage reduction, delayed chemotherapy due to neutropenic events and altered blood cell counts after chemotherapy. Conclusion The scheduled administration of secondary prophylactic Peg G prolonged the progression-free survival in patients treated with mFFX. The combination therapy of Peg G and mFFX may be recommended in patients who exhibit grade 3-4 neutropenic events after prior mFFX cycles.

The evolution of value with filgrastim in oncology

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

The Economic Burden of Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC), the most aggressive form of lung carcinoma, represents approximately 15% of all lung cancers; however, the economic and healthcare burden of SCLC is not well-defined.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore the impact of SCLC on healthcare costs through a systematic literature review (SLR).

METHODS

Using the OVID search engine, the SLR was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, EconLIT and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Searches were limited to studies published between January 2005 and 24 February 2016, and excluded preclinical studies. Additional internet-based searches were conducted. In total, 229 abstracts were retrieved and systematically screened for eligibility, with 17 publications retained.

RESULTS

The majority of publications provided data on limited and extensive disease of SCLC. The reported burden was categorised as direct costs and indirect costs, with the majority of the publications (n = 16) reporting on direct costs and one reporting on both direct and indirect costs. The only indirect costs reported for SCLC were lost productivity (premature mortality costs) and caregiver burden. Chemotherapy, diagnostic costs and treatment costs were identified as significant costs when managing SCLC patients, including the associated treatment costs such as hospitalisation, nurse visits, emergency room visits, follow-up appointments and outpatient care.

CONCLUSIONS

SCLC and its treatment have a substantial impact on costs. The scarcity and heterogeneity of economic cost data negated meaningful cost comparison, highlighting the need for further research. Capturing the economic burden of SCLC may help patients and clinicians make informed treatment choices and improve SCLC management.

Pretreatment monocyte counts and neutrophil counts predict the risk for febrile neutropenia in patients undergoing TPF chemotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Background

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is the most serious hematologic toxicity of systemic chemotherapy. However, accurate prediction of FN development has been difficult because the risk varies largely depending on the chemotherapy regimen and various individual factors.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed diverse clinical factors including pretreatment hematological parameters to clarify the reliable predictors of FN development during chemotherapy with a docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (TPF) regimen in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Results

Among the 50 patients, grade ≥3 neutropenia, grade 4 neutropenia, and FN developed in 36 (72%), 21 (42%), and 12 (24%) patients, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that a pretreatment absolute monocyte count (AMC) <370/mm³ is an independent predictor of TPF chemotherapy-induced FN (odds ratio=6.000, p=0.017). The predictive performance of the model combining AMC and absolute neutrophil count (ANC), in which the high-risk group was defined as having an AMC <370/mm³ and/or ANC <3500/mm³, was superior (area under the curve [AUC]=0.745) to that of the model with a cutoff for AMC alone (AUC=0.679).

Conclusions

On the basis of our results, we recommend primary prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and/or antibiotics selectively for patients predicted to be at high risk for TPF chemotherapy-induced FN.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pegfilgrastim versus Six Days of Filgrastim for Preventing Febrile Neutropenia in Breast Cancer Patients

Aims and background

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a major complication of chemotherapy and is associated with substantial morbidity, mortality and costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus six-day filgrastim in preventing FN in Italian patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy associated with a ≥20% FN risk.

Methods

The pharmacoeconomic evaluation was based on a decision-analytic model taking into account the possible consequences of FN (e.g., death and reduction/delay of chemotherapy dose). Parameters included in the model were relative risk of FN with pegfilgrastim versus six-day filgrastim; direct costs (drug purchase and FN-related hospitalizations); relative risk of relative dose intensity <85% with pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim; impact on long-term survival due to relative dose intensity <85%; and impact of age on FN and relative dose intensity <85%.

Results

Under base-case assumptions, pegfilgrastim was cost-effective compared to six-day filgrastim in Italy. The estimated cost, life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years per person for pegfilgrastim were € 3078, 16.47 years, and 15.32; the corresponding figures for six-day filgrastim were € 3033, 16.35 years, and 15.22. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with pegfilgrastim was € 409 per life-year gained and € 429 per quality-adjusted life year gained. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the results were most sensitive to the relative risk of FN for 6-day filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim. The results were moderately sensitive to the cost of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, cost of drug administration, cost of FN hospitalization, and number of chemotherapy cycles. Pegfilgrastim remained cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio well below the accepted limit of € 50,000 per life year gained in all one-way sensitivity analyses. A two-way sensitivity analysis on cost of drugs showed a range of pegfilgrastim dominance over six-day filgrastim.

Conclusions

At the current official price in Italy, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim improved health outcomes with a very limited cost increase for the National Health Service payer. Even when very low prices of filgrastim and high prices of pegfilgrastim were considered in the model, the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained well within the acceptable cost-effectiveness limit of € 50,000/quality-adjusted life year.

MODEL-BASED COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF CONVENTIONAL AND INNOVATIVE CHEMO-RADIATION IN LUNG CANCER

INTRODUCTION

Optimizing radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy through advanced imaging and accelerated radiation schemes shows promising results in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study compared the cost-effectiveness of positron emission tomography-computed tomography based isotoxic accelerated sequential chemo-radiation (SRT2) and concurrent chemo-radiation with daily low-dose cisplatin (CRT2) with standard sequential (SRT1) and concurrent chemo-radiation (CRT1).

METHODS

We used an externally validated mathematical model to simulate the four treatment strategies. The model was built using data from 200 NSCLC patients treated with curative sequential chemo-radiation. For concurrent strategies, data from a meta-analysis and a single study were included in the model. Costs, utilities, and resource use estimates were obtained from literature. Primary outcomes were the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of each strategy. Scenario analyses were carried out to investigate the impact of uncertainty.

RESULTS

Total undiscounted costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for SRT1, CRT1, SRT2, and CRT2 were EUR 17,288, EUR 18,756, EUR 19,072, EUR 17,360 and QALYs 1.10, 1.15, 1.40, and 1.40, respectively. Compared with SRT1, the ICURs were EUR 38,024/QALY for CRT1, EUR 6,249/QALY for SRT2, and EUR 346/QALY for CRT2. CRT2 was highly cost-effective compared with SRT1. Moreover, CRT2 was more effective and less costly than CRT1 and SRT2. Therefore, these strategies were dominated by CRT2.

CONCLUSION

Optimized sequential and concurrent chemo-radiation strategies are more effective and cost-effective than the current conventional sequential and concurrent strategies. Concurrent chemo-radiation with a daily low dose cisplatin regimen is the most cost-effective treatment option for locally advanced inoperable NSCLC patients.

Time trends in utilization of G-CSF prophylaxis and risk of febrile neutropenia in a Medicare population receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to assess temporal trends in the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis and risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) among older women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

Women aged ≥ 66 years with diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer who initiated selected adjuvant chemotherapy regimens were identified using the SEER-Medicare data from 2002 to 2012. Adjusted, calendar-year-specific proportions were estimated for use of G-CSF primary prophylaxis (PP) and secondary prophylaxis and FN risk in the first and the second/subsequent cycles during the first course of chemotherapy, using logistic regression models. calendar-year-specific mean probabilities were estimated with covariates set to modal values.

RESULTS

Among 11,107 eligible patients (mean age 71.7 years), 74% received G-CSF in the first course of chemotherapy. Of all patients, 5819 (52%) received G-CSF PP, and among those not receiving G-CSF PP, only 5% received G-CSF secondary prophylaxis. The adjusted proportion using G-CSF PP increased from 6% in 2002 to 71% in 2012. During the same period, the adjusted risk of FN in the first cycle increased from 2% to 3%; the adjusted risk increased from 1.5% to 2.9% among those receiving G-CSF PP and from 2.3% to 3.5% among those not receiving G-CSF PP.

CONCLUSION

The use of G-CSF PP increased substantially during the study period. Although channeling of higher-risk patients to treatment with G-CSF PP is expected, the adjusted risk of FN among patients treated with G-CSF PP tended to be lower than among those not receiving G-CSF PP.

Prophylactic long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) in gynecologic malignancies: an oncologic expert statement

We reviewed the status of the use of the prophylactic long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim in gynecologic malignancies. Long-acting G-CSFs should not be used in weekly regimens. Filgrastim is not indicated in patients with febrile and/or severe neutropenia after administration of long-acting G-CSF in the same cycle. One study has shown a moderate effect on febrile neutropenia of ciprofloxacin when co-administered with pegfilgrastim. There is broad evidence from meta-analyses that pegfilgrastim effectively reduces severe neutropenia. In parallel, its adverse effects have been studied extensively. All-cause mortality was significantly reduced by pegfilgrastim. The glycopegylated long-acting G-CSF, lipegfilgrastim has demonstrated antineutropenic efficacy similar to that of pegfilgrastimin in one breast cancer study. In another pivitol non-small cell lung cancer study, impaired survival was observed in the lipegfilgrastim group during the first 30 days of study. The European Medicines Agency claimed more profound safety data to be provided for lipegfilgrastim by 2017.

Primary vs secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for the reduction of febrile neutropenia risk in patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: cost-effectiveness analyses

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary vs secondary prophylaxis (PP vs SP) with pegfilgrastim to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy from a US payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to compare PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim in a cohort of patients receiving six cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHOP) or CHOP plus rituximab (CHOP-R) chemotherapy. Model inputs, including efficacy of pegfilgrastim in reducing risk of FN and costs, were estimated from publicly available sources and peer-reviewed publications. Incremental cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of net cost per life-year saved (LYS), per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and per FN event avoided over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to assess sensitivity and robustness of results.

RESULTS

Lifetime costs for PP were $5000 greater than for SP; however, PP was associated with fewer FN events and more LYs and QALYs gained vs SP. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for PP vs SP for CHOP were $13,400 per FN event avoided, $29,500 per QALY gained, and $25,800 per LYS. CHOP-R results were similar ($15,000 per FN event avoided, $33,000 per QALY gained, and $28,900 per LYS). Results were most sensitive to baseline FN risk, cost per FN episode, and odds ratio for reduced relative dose intensity due to prior FN event. PP was cost-effective vs SP in 85% of simulations at a $50,000 per QALY threshold.

LIMITATIONS

In the absence of NHL-specific data, estimates for pegfilgrastim efficacy and relative risk reduction of FN were based on available data for neoadjuvant TAC in patients with breast cancer. Baseline risks of FN for CHOP and CHOP-R were assumed to be equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

PP with pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to SP with pegfilgrastim in NHL patients receiving CHOP or CHOP-R.

Efficacy and safety analysis of once per cycle pegfilgrastim and daily lenograstim in patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant myelosuppressive chemotherapy FEC 100: a pilot study

Background

Neutropenia is a common toxicity in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In this prospective pilot study, we compared the efficacy and safety profiles of pegfilgrastim administered subcutaneously once per cycle and lenograstim administered subcutaneously daily six times per cycle, for primary neutropenia prophylaxis in women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

Materials and methods

Twenty women were enrolled. All patients received epirubicin 100 mg/m² with 5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m² and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m² on day 1 and every 21 days thereafter, according to the FEC 100 chemotherapy regimen. Eight patients received a single dose of pegfilgrastim on day 2, while 12 patients were treated with daily administration of lenograstim from days five to ten. Absolute neutrophil count and duration of grade 3–4 neutropenia were monitored using seriated blood samples. The incidence of bone pain was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS).

Results

The incidence of grade 3–4 neutropenia was 75% in patients who received pegfilgrastim, and 25% in patients who received lenograstim. One case of febrile neutropenia was shown in pegfilgrastim patients. The mean duration of grade 3–4 neutropenia was 2 days in pegfilgrastim group versus 1.4 days in the lenograstim group. Bone pain was present in 37.5% of pegfilgrastim patients versus 58.3% of lenograstim patients. The mean duration of bone pain in the pegfilgrastim group was 4 days versus 6 days in the lenograstim group.

Conclusion

In our experience, a single injection of pegfilgrastim was less effective for controlling neutropenia than six daily injections of lenograstim. The safety profiles of pegfilgrastim and lenograstim were similar with a lower incidence of bone pain in patients treated with pegfilgrastim.

Cost effectiveness of primary pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer at risk of febrile neutropenia

PURPOSE

Guidelines advise primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis during chemotherapy if risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) is more than 20%, but this comes with considerable costs. We investigated the incremental costs and effects between two treatment strategies of primary pegfilgrastim prophylaxis.

METHODS

Our economic evaluation used a health care perspective and was based on a randomized study in patients with breast cancer with increased risk of FN, comparing primary G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles (G-CSF 1-6 cycles) with prophylaxis during the first two cycles only (G-CSF 1-2 cycles). Primary outcome was cost effectiveness expressed as costs per patient with episodes of FN prevented.

RESULTS

The incidence of FN increased from 10% in the G-CSF 1 to 6 cycles study arm (eight of 84 patients) to 36% in the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles study arm (30 of 83 patients), whereas the mean total costs decreased from € 20,658 (95% CI, € 20,049 to € 21,247) to € 17,168 (95% CI € 16,239 to € 18,029) per patient, respectively. Chemotherapy and G-CSF determined 80% of the total costs. As expected, FN-related costs were higher in the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles arm. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the G-CSF 1 to 6 cycles arm compared with the G-CSF 1 to 2 cycles arm was € 13,112 per patient with episodes of FN prevented.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles is more effective, but more costly, compared with prophylaxis limited to the first two cycles. Whether G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles is considered cost effective depends on the willingness to pay per patient with episodes of FN prevented.

Documenting the Benefits and Cost Savings of a Large Multistate Cancer Pathway Program From a Payer's Perspective

Broadly implemented clinical pathways can achieve reasonable physician compliance, resulting in substantial cost savings.

Primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis during the first two cycles only or throughout all chemotherapy cycles in patients with breast cancer at risk for febrile neutropenia

PURPOSE

Early breast cancer is commonly treated with anthracyclines and taxanes. However, combining these drugs increases the risk of myelotoxicity and may require granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support. The highest incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and largest benefit of G-CSF during the first cycles of chemotherapy lead to questions about the effectiveness of continued use of G-CSF throughout later cycles of chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a multicenter study, patients with breast cancer who were considered fit enough to receive 3-weekly polychemotherapy, but also had > 20% risk for FN, were randomly assigned to primary G-CSF prophylaxis during the first two chemotherapy cycles only (experimental arm) or to primary G-CSF prophylaxis throughout all chemotherapy cycles (standard arm). The noninferiority hypothesis was that the incidence of FN would be maximally 7.5% higher in the experimental compared with the standard arm.

RESULTS

After inclusion of 167 eligible patients, the independent data monitoring committee advised premature study closure. Of 84 patients randomly assigned to G-CSF throughout all chemotherapy cycles, eight (10%) experienced an episode of FN. In contrast, of 83 patients randomly assigned to G-CSF during the first two cycles only, 30 (36%) had an FN episode (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.54), with a peak incidence of 24% in the third cycle (ie, first cycle without G-CSF prophylaxis).

CONCLUSION

In patients with early breast cancer at high risk for FN, continued use of primary G-CSF prophylaxis during all chemotherapy cycles is of clinical relevance and thus cannot be abandoned.

Evaluation and Management of Bacterial and Fungal Infections Occurring in Patients with a Hematological Malignancy: A 2011 Update

Patients with a hematological malignancy are a heterogeneous patient population who are afflicted with diseases that range from rapidly fatal acute leukemia to indolent lymphoma or chronic leukemia. Treatment options for these patients range from observation to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), but all patients are more susceptible to infection. The problem of infection is dynamic with continued shifts in pathogenic organisms and microbial susceptibilities, new treatment regimens that further diminish immune function, and patients receiving treatment who are now older and frailer. The classic patterns of immunodeficiency for patients with a hematological malignancy include: periods of profound neutropenia, increased iatrogenic risks (i.e., central vascular catheters), and cellular immune suppression that affects HSCT recipients, patients with lymphoid malignancies, and those receiving treatment with corticosteroids or agents like alemtuzumab [1–4]. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development, new technology, clinical trial results, and further clinical experience have enhanced the database on which to make infection prophylaxis and treatment decisions. However, the practicing clinician must remember that the majority of basic infection management principles for patients who are neutropenic remain unchanged.

Guideline-Based Peer-to-Peer Consultation Optimizes Pegfilgrastim Use With No Adverse Clinical Consequences

PURPOSE

Practice guidelines do not recommend the routine use of colony-stimulating factors when there is a low risk (< 10%) of febrile neutropenia (FN). We prospectively determined whether expert peer-to-peer consultation with prescribing oncologists would improve adherence to guidelines and whether there would be any adverse events associated with that adherence.

METHODS

Commencing in March 2010, we reviewed requests for pegfilgrastim from 22 community oncology practices comprising 78 physicians providing service to approximately 97,000 Medicare members. Paid claims data on all chemotherapy and supportive care medications were reviewed from fourth quarter (Q4) 2009 through third quarter (Q3) 2010. In total, 82 patients received pegfilgrastim. If the prescribed chemotherapy was associated with a low risk (< 10%) for FN, then a peer review was initiated. The treating physician made the final decision to use, or not use, pegfilgrastim, and no denials were issued.

RESULTS

A total of 245 units (1 unit = 6 mg) of pegfilgrastim were administered during the four quarters analyzed. Use in the low-risk category decreased from 52 units in Q4 2009 to 15 units in Q3 2010. The per-member per-month (PMPM) cost of pegfilgrastim decreased across quarters, with an average cost of $1.07 PMPM for Q4 2009 and $0.57 PMPM for Q3 2010. No studied patient was admitted for neutropenic fever.

CONCLUSION

Active expert peer-to-peer consultation with prescribing oncologists can promote adherence to guidelines and potentially lead to significant cost reductions without significant risk of neutropenic fever, with or without hospitalization, for patients with cancer.

Austrian Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) guideline for prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) in gynecologic malignancies, including breast cancer

The current knowledge and recommendations on the clinical use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) in gynecologic cancers including breast cancer, along with the clinical experience of the members of the working group of the Austrian Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO), have been summarized. G-CSF is either administered as primary or secondary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. The term "primary prophylaxis" denotes the prophylactic use of G-CSF as early as during the first cycle of a new chemotherapeutic regimen. Secondary prophylaxis, on the other hand, defines the use of G-CSF after development of grade 4 neutropenia or febrile neutropenia in a preceding cycle of a particular chemotherapeutic regimen. When chemotherapy regimens are associated with a > 20 % risk of febrile neutropenia such as TAC (docetaxel-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide), primary prophylaxis with G-CSF is indicated. When chemotherapy regimens are associated with a 10-20 % risk of febrile neutropenia, the decision for primary prophylaxis with G-CSF is based upon patient-related risk factors such as age > 65 years, previous cytotoxic treatment(s) and/or radiation therapy, preexisting tumor-related neutropenia or bone marrow involvement, preexisting neutropenia, infections/open sores, reduced Karnofsky performance status/WHO performance status and reduced nutritional status, advanced malignant disease, history of prior febrile neutropenia, impaired kidney function, and hepatic failure particularly with hyperbilirubinaemia. The patient's individual overall febrile neutropenia risk should be assessed prior to each chemotherapy cycle.

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.

Hematopoietic growth factors: personalization of risks and benefits

A common side effect of cancer treatment is bone marrow suppression. The resulting myelosuppression and anemia can cause significant morbidity and mortality for patients. Agents such as granulocyte colony stimulating factors (GCSF) and erythropoietin stimulating agents (ESAs) may be helpful to ameliorate this depression of blood counts; however these agents have risks which also need to be carefully weighed.

Cost-utility analysis of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma receiving curative-intent chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline recommended primary prophylaxis (PP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) instead of secondary prophylaxis (SP) for elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma receiving chemotherapy. We examined the cost-effectiveness of PP when compared with SP.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-utility analysis to compare PP to SP for diffuse aggressive lymphoma. We used a Markov model with an eight-cycle chemotherapy time horizon with a government-payer perspective and Ontario health, economic, and cost data. Data for efficacies of G-CSF, probabilities, and utilities were obtained from published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PP to SP was $700,500 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way sensitivity analyses (willingness-to-pay threshold = $100,000/QALY) showed that if PP were to be cost-effective, the cost of hospitalization for febrile neutropenia (FN) had to be more than $31,138 (2.5 × > base case), the cost of G-CSF per cycle less than $960 (base case = $1,960), the risk of first-cycle FN more than 47% (base case = 24%), or the relative risk reduction of FN with G-CSF more than 91% (base case = 41%). Our result was robust to all variables. PSA revealed a 10% probability of PP being cost-effective over SP at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY.

CONCLUSION

PP is not cost-effective when compared with SP in this population. PP becomes attractive only if the cost of hospitalization for FN is significantly higher or the cost of G-CSF is significantly lower.

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.

Prolonged progression-free survival in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during treatment with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab

The clinical benefit of the addition of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to standard immunochemotherapy of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) is still unclear. In this retrospective study we analyzed the outcome of 32 consecutive patients with CLL during treatment with FCR. Sixteen patients received G-CSF for treatment of CTC grade 3 or 4 neutropenia or febrile neutropenia at some point during therapy and 16 did not. Both groups were well balanced for clinical and biological risk factors. Overall response rates were not significantly different (94% vs. 75%; p=0.144). Interestingly, a significantly better progression-free survival (100% vs. 35.4% at 24 months; p<0.001) and even overall survival (100% vs. 77.8% at 24 months; p=0.022) was observed in patients receiving G-CSF. While the underlying cause remains to be elucidated, these data strongly suggest an association of the addition of G-CSF to FCR therapy with final patient outcome.

Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of america

This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving. What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care-associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection.

Executive Summary: Clinical Practice Guideline for the Use of Antimicrobial Agents in Neutropenic Patients with Cancer: 2010 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America

This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia.

Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving.

What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens.

Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care–associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection.

Dose-dense chemotherapy in nonmetastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Dose-dense chemotherapy has become a mainstay regimen in the adjuvant setting for women with high-risk breast cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing data from randomized controlled trials regarding the efficacy and toxicity of the dose-dense chemotherapy approach in nonmetastatic breast cancer.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials that compared a dose-dense chemotherapy protocol with a standard chemotherapy schedule in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting in adult women older than 18 years with breast cancer were identified by searching The Cochrane Cancer Network register of trials, The Cochrane Library, and LILACS and MEDLINE databases (from January 1966 to January 2010). Hazard ratios (HRs) of death and recurrence and relative risks of adverse events were estimated and pooled. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

Ten trials met the inclusion criteria and were classified into two categories based on trial methodology. Three trials enrolling 3337 patients compared dose-dense chemotherapy with a conventional chemotherapy schedule (similar agents). Patients who received dose-dense chemotherapy had better overall survival (HR of death = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.98, P = .03) and better disease-free survival (HR of recurrence or death = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.94, P = .005) than those on the conventional schedule. No benefit was observed in patients with hormone receptor–positive tumors. Seven trials enrolling 8652 patients compared dose-dense chemotherapy with regimens that use standard intervals but with different agents and/or dosages in the treatment arms. Similar results were obtained for these trials with respect to overall survival (HR of death = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.96, P = .01) and disease-free survival (HR of recurrence or death = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.88, P < .001). The rate of nonhematological adverse events was higher in the dose-dense chemotherapy arms than in the conventional chemotherapy arms.

Conclusion

Dose-dense chemotherapy results in better overall and disease-free survival, particularly in women with hormone receptor–negative breast cancer. However, additional data from randomized controlled trials are needed before dose-dense chemotherapy can be considered as the standard of care.

Controversies in the management of fever in the neutropenic cancer patient

The febrile neutropenic episode (FNE) constitutes a medical emergency, primarily because of the attendant risks of overwhelming infection and death. Infection, particularly bacterial in nature, is the most important cause of FNE, although there are other potential causes that depend on host, disease, and therapy related factors. The spectrum of microbiological pathogens varies both temporally and geographically, rendering it difficult to provide universal recommendations for antimicrobial therapy in FNE. Nonetheless, there are unifying principles in the management of FNE that are helpful in guiding therapeutic decisions. Using a case-based approach in a patient with lymphoma, the following controversies regarding the management of FNE are discussed: the role of prophylactic anti-bacterial antimicrobials, the management of febrile patients in the out-patient setting, and the choice of initial antimicrobials.

G-CSF in Peg-IFN induced neutropenia in liver transplanted patients with HCV recurrence

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) in liver transplanted patients with hepatitis C (HCV) recurrence and Pegylated-IFN α-2b induced neutropenia, and to evaluate the impact of G-CSF administration on virological response.

METHODS: Sixty-eight patients undergoing antiviral treatment for post-liver transplantation (OLT) HCV recurrence were enrolled. All patients developing neutropenia received G-CSF.

RESULTS: Twenty three (34%) received G-CSF. Mean neutrophil count at the onset of neutropenia was 700/mmc (range 400-750/mmc); after 1 mo of G-CSF it increased to 1210/mmc (range 300-5590/mmc) (P < 0.0001). Three patients did not respond to G-CSF. Treatment duration was similar in neutropenic and non-neutropenic patients. No differences in the rate of discontinuation, infections or virological response were observed between the two groups. G-CSF was protective for the onset of de novo autoimmune hepatitis (P < 0.003).

CONCLUSION: G-CSF administration is effective in the case of Peg-IFN induced neutropenia increasing neutrophil count, prolonging treatment and leading to sustained virological response (SVR) rates comparable to non-neutropenic patients. It prevents the occurrence of de novo autoimmune hepatitis.

Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim primary prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in the United States

BACKGROUND

Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor reduces the risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (starting in cycle 1 of chemotherapy) with pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in the United States.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from a health payer's perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model considered direct medical costs and outcomes related to reduced FN and potential survival benefits due to reduced FN-related mortality and on-time receipt of full-dose chemotherapy. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Pegfilgrastim was cost-saving and more effective (ie, dominant strategy) than 11-day filgrastim. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim was $12,904 per FN episode avoided. Adding the survival benefit due to reduced FN mortality and receipt of optimal chemotherapy dose yielded an ICER of $31,511 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and $14,415 per QALY gained, respectively. The most influential factors included inpatient FN case-fatality rate, cost of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, baseline probability of FN, relative risk for FN between filgrastim and pegfil-grastim, and cost of administration of filgrastim.

CONCLUSION

Pegfilgrastim was cost-saving compared with 11-day filgrastim and cost-effective compared with 6-day filgrastim from a health payer's perspective for the primary prophylaxis of FN in these women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Should the indications for the use of myeloid growth factors for the prevention of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients be extended?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prevention of infectious complications of chemotherapy-induced granulocytopenia is a major issue in preventive medicine, as febrile neutropenia is still associated with an overall 10% mortality and extensive morbidity and cost.

RECENT FINDINGS

The prescription of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors should not be determined according to a risk prediction of febrile neutropenia considering solely type of chemotherapy and according to cost-effectiveness; other factors appear now to be important for making the decision, namely age and the presence of various comorbid factors.

SUMMARY

It is likely that the consideration of these newly recognized risk factors and the availability of more affordable granulocyte colony-stimulating factors will lead, in the near future, to an extension of the presently recognized indications for the prescription of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors.

Economic implications of using pegfilgrastim rather than conventional G-CSF to prevent neutropenia during small-cell lung cancer chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

For the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile aplasia, a single injection of pegfilgrastim per cycle has the same efficacy as six to ten injections of conventional granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). However, there are few data on the economic impact of pegfilgrastim use, especially in the context of small-cell lung cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved 31 patients and 129 treatment cycles (32 with pegfilgrastim and 97 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)). We estimated the direct costs for preventing and managing febrile aplasia from the payer's perspective and also conducted a willingness-to-pay study with 100 healthy subjects, in order to estimate how highly a single-jab strategy was valued relative to multiple injections.

RESULTS

The costs per cycle were respectively 1743 euros+/- 837 euros and 1466 euros +/- 836 euros for the pegfilgrastim and G-CSF strategies (p < 0.001). The excess cost of the pegfilgrastim strategy was partly compensated for by the perceived value of the single-jab strategy: 88% of interviewees would prefer the pegfilgrastim strategy; 16% would be willing to pay all the excess cost (277 euros) and 67% would be willing to pay half the excess cost.

CONCLUSION

In this willingness-to-pay survey, the excess cost associated with pegfilgrastim relative to other G-CSF-based prophylactic strategies is partly offset by the perceived convenience of a single injection.

Cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of G-CSF pegfilgrastim primary (starting in cycle 1 and continuing in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy) versus secondary (only after an FN event) prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with a >or=20% FN risk.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from a health insurer's perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model considers direct medical costs and outcomes related to reduced FN and potential survival benefits because of reduced FN-related mortality. Inputs for the model were obtained from the medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted across plausible ranges in parameter values.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pegfilgrastim as primary versus secondary prophylaxis was $48,000/FN episode avoided. Adding survival benefit from avoiding FN mortality yielded an ICER of $110,000/life-year gained (LYG) or $116,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The most influential factors included FN case-fatality, FN relative risk reduction from primary prophylaxis, and age at diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with secondary prophylaxis, the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis may be equivalent or superior to other commonly used supportive care interventions for women with breast cancer. Further assessment of the direct impact of G-CSF on short- and long-term survival is needed to substantiate these findings.

Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim primary prophylaxis in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving CHOP-21 in United States

OBJECTIVES

Prophylaxis with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Randomized clinical trials have shown that pegfilgrastim, a 2nd-generation G-CSF, is at least as effective as the 1st-generation G-CSF filgrastim. In the meta-analysis of trials pegfilgrastim performed better than filgrastim with respect to FN risk. The incremental cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (starting in cycle 1 and continuing in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy) with pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim used for 6 days (as is often used in clinical practice) was estimated in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in the United States.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from a health insurer's perspective with a life-time study horizon. The model considered direct medical costs and outcomes related to reduced FN and potential survival benefits due to reduced FN-related mortality. Inputs for the model were obtained from the medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted across plausible ranges in parameter values.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim primary prophylaxis was $2167/FN episode avoided. Adding survival benefit from avoiding FN mortality yielded an ICER of $5532/LY gained or $6190/QALY gained. When the potential benefit of optimized chemotherapy was included, the ICER was $1494/LY gained or $1677/QALY gained. The most influential factors included cost of pegfilgrastim, relative risk of FN between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, FN case-fatality rate, cost of filgrastim and baseline FN risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Pegfilgrastim is cost-effective in primary prophylaxis of FN compared to 6 days per cycle of filgrastim, in patients with NHL receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy (e.g., cyclophosphamide + doxorubicin + vincristine + prednisolone [CHOP-21]) chemotherapy. Study limitations included lack of direct evidence linking G-CSF use with a reduction in FN-related mortality and limited data that show a relationship between relative dose intensity (RDI) and cancer-specific patient survival.

The economic value of primary prophylaxis using pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim in patients with breast cancer in the UK

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious adverse event associated with myelotoxic chemotherapy that predisposes patients to life-threatening bacterial infections. Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) from the first cycle of chemotherapy is recommended by the 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2008 National Comprehensive Cancer Network and 2006 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines when the overall risk of FN is approximately 20% or higher. Once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim and daily filgrastim are two commonly used G-CSFs with different dosing schedules and associated costs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim primary prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in the UK.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from the UK NHS perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model simulated three clinical scenarios: scenario 1 assumed that pegfilgrastim and filgrastim had differential impact on the risk of FN; scenario 2 assumed additional differential impact on FN-related mortality; and scenario 3 assumed additional differential impact on chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI) with long-term survival effects. The base-case population included 45-year-old women with stage II breast cancer receiving four chemotherapy cycles, with an FN risk of approximately 20% or higher. Model inputs, including FN risk, FN case-fatality, RDI, impact of RDI on survival and utility scores, were based on a review of the literature and expert panel validation. Using data from the literature, it was estimated that the absolute risk of FN associated with pegfilgrastim was 5.5% lower than with 11-day filgrastim (7% vs 12.5%), and 10.5% lower than with 6-day filgrastim (7% vs 17.5%). Costs were taken from official price lists or the literature and included drugs, drug administration, FN-related hospitalizations and subsequent medical costs. Breast cancer mortality and all-cause mortality were obtained from official statistics. The main outcome measures were the costs ( pound, year 2006 values) per percentage decrease in (absolute) FN risk, per FN event avoided, per life-year gained (LYG), and per QALY gained. Model robustness was tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Pegfilgrastim was cost saving compared with 11-day filgrastim ( pound 3196 vs pound 4315). Compared with 6-day filgrastim, pegfilgrastim was associated with a cost of pound 4200 per FN event avoided, or pound 42 per 1% decrease in absolute risk of FN, in scenario 1. In scenario 2, pegfilgrastim provided 0.055 more LYGs or 0.052 more QALYs at a minimal cost increase of pound 441 ( pound 3196 vs pound 2754) per person, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pound 8075/LYG or pound 8526/QALY. In scenario 3, when all potential benefits of G-CSF were considered, the ICER became pound 3955/LYG or pound 4161/QALY. Results were most sensitive to the relative risk of FN for 6-day filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSION

In this UK analysis, pegfilgrastim appears to dominate 11-day use of filgrastim. The value of pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim at pound 4161-8526/QALY was very favourable compared with the commonly used threshold in the UK. In this setting, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim may be cost effective compared with filgrastim.

Economic analysis of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

OBJECTIVES

Neutropenia and its complications, including febrile neutropenia (FN), are a common side effect of cancer chemotherapy. Results of clinical trials showed that prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) is effective in preventing FN. In this study, the cost effectiveness (measured as cost per quality-adjusted time [days]) of three treatment alternatives were evaluated: no G-CSF, filgrastim administered daily for 7-12 days after chemotherapy, and a pegylated form of G-CSF pegfilgrastim, administered once per cycle.

METHODS

A cost-utility model based on standard clinical practice of treating FN with immediate hospitalization or with ambulatory treatment, from a societal perspective was developed. Direct medical cost estimates for hospitalization were derived from claims data reported by 115 US academic medical centers. Indirect medical costs, productivity costs, probabilities, and utilities are based on published literature. Results were subjected to sensitivity analyses and 95% confidence intervals are based on a Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

Mean estimated costs/day of hospitalization were $1984 (SD $1040, N = 24,687) for surviving patients and $3139 (SD $2014, N = 1437) for dying patients. Under baseline conditions, pegfilgrastim dominated both filgrastim and no G-CSF, with expected costs and effectiveness of $4203 and 12.361 quality adjusted life-days (QALDs) for no G-CSF, $3058 and 12.967 QALDs for pegfilgrastim, and $5264 and 12.698 QALDs for filgrastim.

CONCLUSIONS

This cost-utility analysis provides strong evidence that pegfilgrastim is not only cost-effective but also cost-saving in most common clinical and economic settings. There appear to be both clinical and economic benefits from prophylactic administration of pegfilgrastim.