Are shorter courses of filgrastim prophylaxis associated with increased risk of hospitalization?

Leveraging G-CSF prescribing in the outpatient setting: considerations beyond clinical factors-a questionnaire study

PURPOSE

This study aims to delineate G-CSF treatment practices, assess decision criteria, and measure their implementation in ambulatory settings for patients with breast (BC), lung (LC), or gastrointestinal cancers (GIC), beyond standard recommendations.

METHODS

In this non-interventional, cross-sectional, multicenter study, clinical cases were presented using conversational interfaces (chatbots), simulating a conversation with one or more virtual interlocutors through voice or text exchange. The clinical simulations were configured by four parameters: types of cancer, risk of FN related to chemotherapy and comorbidities, access to care, and therapy setting (adjuvant/neoadjuvant/metastatic).

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 102 physicians. Most practitioners (84.5%) reported prescribing G-CSF, regardless of tumor type. G-CSF was prescribed more frequently for adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy than for metastatic cases. The type of chemotherapy was cited as the first reason for prescribing G-CSF, with access to care being the second. Regarding the type of chemotherapy, physicians do not consider this factor alone, but combined with comorbidities and age (56.7% of cases). Pegfilgrastim long-acting was prescribed in most cases of BC and LC (70.1% and 86%, respectively), while filgrastim short-acting was named in the majority of cases of GIC (61.7%); 76.3% of physicians prescribed G-CSF as primary prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that recommended practices are broadly followed. In the majority of cases, G-CSF is prescribed as primary prophylaxis. In addition, physicians seem more inclined to prescribe G-CSF to adjuvant/neoadjuvant patients rather than metastatic patients. Finally, the type of chemotherapy tends to be a more significant determining factor than the patient's background.

Pegfilgrastim on febrile neutropenia in pediatric and adolescent cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

There is no meta-analysis about the effects of pegfilgrastim on the occurrence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in pediatric/adolescent cancer patients. The study explored the efficacy of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in preventing FN in children/adolescents with cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published before April 7, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of FN. Effect size (ES) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the outcome. The ES represented the rate of FN, and the STATA 'metaprop' command was used to synthesize the rate.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included, comprising 167 patients and 550 courses of treatment. There was no difference between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the rate of FN in children receiving chemotherapy (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.20-2.23, P = 0.520). In patients receiving pegfilgrastim, the rate of FN was 25.6% (95% CI: 14.9%-36.3%), the rate of grade 4 FN was 38.3% (95% CI: 19.2%-59.5%), the rate of severe neutropenia (SN) was 40.5% (95% CI: 35.1%-46.1%), and the rate of treatment delays due to FN was 4.8% (95% CI: 0.8%-11.3%).

DISCUSSION

The number of studies that could be included was small; therefore, a specific type of cancer or a specific treatment could be studied. Heterogeneity was high.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the rate of FN. The use of pegfilgrastim was still associated with rates of FN, grade 4 FN, severe neutropenia, and treatment delays due to FN in pediatric cancer patients.

Cost-efficiency analysis of conversion to biosimilar filgrastim for supportive cancer care and resultant expanded access analysis to supportive care and early-stage HER2+ breast cancer treatment in Saudi Arabia: simulation study

AIMS

This study estimated, for Saudi Arabia, the cost-efficiency of converting patients from reference Neupogen and Neulastim to one of two filgrastim biosimilars (Nivestim, Zarzio); the budget-neutral expanded access to supportive care with biosimilar filgrastim and therapeutic care to ado-trastuzumab emtansine thus afforded; and the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to provide supportive or therapeutic treatment to one patient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Replicating prior studies, we modeled the cost-efficiencies gained from converting varying proportions of a hypothetical panel of 4,000 patients undergoing six cycles of cancer treatment from Neupogen or Neulastim to one of the two biosimilar G-CSF formulations, using national cost inputs. Cost-savings in USD were used to estimate the additional doses of biosimilar G-CSF and expanded access to ado-trastuzumab emtansine on a budget-neutral basis, and NNC to purchase one additional dose of supportive or therapeutic treatment.

RESULTS

Savings from conversion from reference to a biosimilar filgrastim were $3,086,400 (Nivestim) and $3,460,800 (Zarzio). With reference pegfilgrastim, savings from conversion were $11,712,240 (Nivestim) and $12,086,640 (Zarzio). Biosimilar conversion from reference to biosimilar filgrastim enabled expanded access to ado-trastuzumab emtansine ranging from 61 patients (5 days, Nivestim) to 191 patients (14 days, Zarzio). For supportive care, biosimilar conversion enabled expanded access ranging from 8,244 patients (5 days, Nivestim) to 25,882 patients (14 days, Zarzio). For biosimilar conversion from daily filgrastim, the NNC for treatment with ado-trastuzumab emtansine decreased as days of injections increased [5 days: 395 (Nivestim), 352 (Zarzio); 14 days: 141(Nivestim), 126 (Zarzio)]. Alternately, for biosimilar conversion from single-injection pegfilgrastim to daily biosimilar filgrastim, the NNC for treatment with ado-trastuzumab emtansine rose as days of injections increased, being highest under the 14-day scenario (146, Nivestim; 130, Zarzio).

CONCLUSION

This simulation study demonstrated significant potential cost-savings from biosimilar conversion. These savings provide budget-neutral increased access to supportive and therapeutic cancer care.

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.

Patterns of primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in older Medicare patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend primary prophylactic (PP) granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) for prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with high risk (HR: > 20%), or intermediate risk (IR:10-20%) of FN and ≥ 1 patient risk factor (e.g., age ≥ 65y). The current retrospective cohort study describes patterns of PP-G-CSF in older Medicare patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy with HR/IR of FN.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 66y initiating chemotherapy regimens with HR/IR of FN to treat breast, colorectal, lung, or ovarian cancer, or Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma were selected using Medicare 20% sample (2013-2015) and 100% cancer patient (2014-2017) data. PP-G-CSF use was identified in the first cycle. Timing of pegfilgrastim pre-filled syringe (PFS) administration, proportion of patients completing all cycles (adherence) with pegfilgrastim PFS or on-body injector (OBI), and duration of short-acting G-CSF (sG-CSF) was described across all cycles.

RESULTS

Of 64,893 patients receiving HR/IR for FN, 71% received HR and 29% IR regimens. Overall, PP-G-CSF use in the first cycle was 53% (HR: 74%; IR: 44%) and varied across cancers. Adherence with pegfilgrastim was slightly higher among OBI initiators (78%) than PFS (74%). Number of PP-sG-CSF administrations (mean [SD]) per cycle was 5.1 (SD: 2.7) overall, 5.4 (2.6) for HR, and 4.9 (2.7) for IR.

CONCLUSION

Despite cancer treatment guidelines recommending PP-G-CSF use to reduce risk of FN associated with HR and IR (with ≥ 1 patient risk-factor) regimens, PP-G-CSF remains underutilized in older patients, across cancer types and regimens. Opportunities exist for improvement in use of PP-G-CSF.

[G-CSF for prophylaxis of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, anemia in cancer : Guidelines on supportive treatment part 1]

Infections in patients with neutropenia following chemotherapy are mostly manifested as fever (febrile neutropenia, FN). Some of the most important determinants of the risk of FN are the type of chemotherapy, the dose intensity and patient-specific factors. When the risk of FN is 20% or more granulopoiesis is prophylactically stimulated with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) after the treatment. Anemia should always be clarified and if necessary be treated according to the cause when symptomatic. If an absolute or functional iron deficiency is present, intravenous iron substitution is mostly necessary. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents can be used after chemotherapy with hemoglobin (Hb) levels less than 10 g/dl (6.2 mmol/l). In cases of chronic anemia and Hb levels less than 7-8 g/dl (<4.3-5.0 mmol/l) the indications for transfusion of erythrocyte concentrates should be assessed primarily based on the individual clinical symptoms.

Prophylaxis and treatment strategies for optimizing chemotherapy relative dose intensity

INTRODUCTION

A decrease in relative-dose intensity (RDI) of chemotherapy has been shown to be associated with poor patient outcomes in solid tumors and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The actual delivered chemotherapy dose received by patients can be influenced by dose reductions and treatment delays, often due to toxicities, most commonly chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN).

AREAS COVERED

We review seminal evidence and more recent studies that have shown an association between higher RDI and improved patient survival. A smaller number of studies has shown no association between RDI and outcomes. These differences may be due to study limitations, including low power, differences in patient and disease characteristics, or the chemotherapeutic regimen. We describe guidelines recommendations to prevent and treat CIN with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and describe novel approaches to prevent neutropenia that are being developed that may provide greater value and be associated with fewer adverse events than standard G-CSF options.

EXPERT OPINION

Maintaining RDI is important to ensure optimal patient outcomes. This can be achieved through the proper administration of G-CSF prophylaxis and treatment. Newer agents in development to treat and/or prevent CIN are entering regulatory review and may potentially change the treatment landscape for CIN in the future.

Pooled Analysis on the Effectiveness and Safety of Lipegfilgrastim in Patients With Urological Malignancies in the Real-World Setting

Lipegfilgrastim is a long-acting glycopegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) approved for the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. In general, there is little information on the use of any G-CSFs specifically in patients with urological malignancies receiving chemotherapy. This report combines information from two prospective non-interventional studies on the prophylactic use of lipegfilgrastim in urological cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in the real-world setting. Data were derived from two phase IV studies (NADIR and LEOS) with similar protocols conducted in nine European countries. Analysis included 228 patients (142 prostate, 50 testicular, 27 bladder, and 9 other urological cancers). Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia risk was classified as high (43.0%), intermediate (49.1%), or low (7.5%). Lipegfilgrastim was administered as primary (n=180, 78.9%) or secondary (n=29, 12.7%) prophylaxis. The incidence of febrile neutropenia over all chemotherapy cycles (n=998) and first cycles (n=228) for which lipegfilgrastim was administered for prophylaxis was 2.6% and 1.3%, respectively. Corresponding results for Grade 3/4 neutropenia were 2.2% and 0.9%, respectively. Adverse drug reactions occurred in 24 patients (10.5%): those in more than one patient were bone pain (n=6, 2.6%) and pyrexia (n=3, 1.3%). The use of lipegfilgrastim for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia was effective and well tolerated in patients with urological malignancies in the real-world setting.

Introduction of biosimilar pegfilgrastim in France: Economic analysis of switching from originator

Objectives

To assess the economic impact of introducing biosimilar pegfilgrastim compared to the current standard granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) practice in France.

Methods

A budget impact model was developed to investigate the impact of introducing pegfilgrastim biosimilar over 5 years. The model analysed drug acquisition costs, ambulatory costs, as well as costs associated with poor outcomes, and compared the current standard practice of long-acting and short-acting G-CSF to a revised practice including pegfilgrastim biosimilar in addition to standard practice treatments. The cost of switching to pegfilgrastim biosimilar, within a pharmacy setting, was analysed within the model using data from a survey of French pharmacists.

Results

The budget impact model calculated a cost saving of €51,007,531 over 5 years switching from the current standard practice to pegfilgrastim biosimilar. A sensitivity analysis accounting for variation in pegfilgrastim biosimilar uptake of 1) 15% in year 1 and 1% in years 2–5 and 2) 15% in years 1–5, estimated savings ranging between €29,377,784 and €79,847,194, respectively. A further analysis predicted cost savings of €287,344,835 over 5 years with the extension of pegfilgrastim biosimilar, at an uptake of 15% in year 1 and 7% in years 2–4, to both long-acting and short-acting G-CSF groups compared to unchanged current practice.

Conclusions

The introduction of pegfilgrastim biosimilar will help to reduce cost and alleviate some of the financial pressure on the French healthcare system.

Duration of short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for primary prophylaxis and risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization in older patients with cancer

PURPOSE

Evaluate the relationship between duration of primary prophylactic short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PP-sG-CSF) and risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization (NRH) in older patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

METHODS

Using the Medicare claims database, we conducted a nested case-control study in a cohort of patients aged ≥66 years with breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, or prostate cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma who initiated a first cycle of any myelosuppressive chemotherapy January 1, 2008-September 30, 2016, and received PP-sG-CSF. We matched up to four controls to each NRH case by age, cancer type, regimen febrile neutropenia (FN) risk category, and year using incidence density sampling. We used conditional logistic regression adjusted for race, sex, and modified Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) to estimate relative risk of NRH related to duration of PP-sG-CSF categorized as <5 and ≥ 5 days.

RESULTS

Of 2148 patients receiving PP-sG-CSF, 108 (5%) experienced NRH in the first cycle. We matched 333 controls to 96 cases. Cases were similar to controls in mean age, tumor type, and intermediate/high-risk regimen, but were more likely to have CCI ≥5 and less likely to use PP-sG-CSF ≥5 days (31% vs. 39%). Adjusted ORs (95% CI) for NRH were 0.69 (0.40-1.19) for ≥5 vs. <5 days of PP-sG-CSF among patients receiving any myelosuppressive chemotherapy, 0.43 (0.21-0.89) for intermediate/high-risk regimen, and 0.42 (0.19-0.89) for any myelosuppressive chemotherapy with all agents given on cycle day one only.

CONCLUSIONS

Among older patients with cancer who are receiving PP-sG-CSF, ≥5 days of use was associated with substantial reduction in NRH risk.

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.

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.

Febrile neutropenia and its associated hospitalization in breast cancer patients on docetaxel-containing regimen: A retrospective cohort study on duration of prophylactic GCSF administration

PURPOSE

To compare febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence and hospitalization among breast cancer patients on docetaxel with no granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (GCSF) primary prophylaxis (PP), 4/5-day PP, or 7-day PP.

METHODS

We identified 3916 breast cancer patients using docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (TC), doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide then docetaxel (AC-T), fluorouracil-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide then docetaxel (FEC-T), docetaxel-carboplatin-trastuzumab (TJH), or docetaxel-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (TAC) from a hospital pharmacy dispensing database in Hong Kong between 2014 and 2016. Patients were offered GCSF within 5 days since administering docetaxel. Outcomes included FN incidence, time to first hospitalization, hospitalization rate, and duration.

RESULTS

In TC regimen, FN incidence (with odds ratio, OR) of patients with no PP, 4/5-day PP, and 7-day PP was 21.69%, 7.95% (OR 0.31, p < 0.001), and 5.33% (OR 0.20, p < 0.001), respectively. In TJH regimen, FN incidence of patients with no PP, 4/5-day PP, and 7-day PP was 38.26%, 8.33% (OR 0.15, p < 0.001), and 8.57% (OR 0.15, p < 0.001), respectively. FN incidence of patients on AC-T regimen with no PP and 4/5-day PP was 20.93% and 6.84%, respectively (OR 0.28, p = 0.005); with FEC-T regimen, the incidence was 9.91% and 4.77%, respectively (OR 0.46, p = 0.035). Only 3.27% FN cases were not hospitalized. Mean (±standard deviation, SD) time to first hospitalization was 8.21 ± 2.44 days. Mean (±SD) duration of hospitalization for patients with no PP, 4/5-day PP, and 7-day PP was 4.66 ± 2.60, 4.37 ± 2.85, and 5.12 ± 2.97 days, respectively.

CONCLUSION

GCSF prophylaxis in breast cancer patients on docetaxel could reduce FN incidence and hospitalization. 4/5-day PP demonstrated similar efficacy to 7-day PP with superior saving benefits on healthcare expenditure.

A pilot study on intermittent every other days of 5-dose Filgrastim compared with single Pegfilgrastim in breast Cancer patients receiving adjuvant Docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) chemotherapy

Aim To compare the efficacy and safety of intermittent every other days 5-dose filgrastim with single pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) chemotherapy. Methods In this pilot study, Korean patients who had undergone complete resection for breast cancer and scheduled for adjuvant TAC chemotherapy were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive either intermittent 5 doses of filgrastim (5 mcg/kg/day) or once-a-cycle pegfilgrastim (6 mg) as primary prophylaxis during the first three cycles of the TAC chemotherapy. Absolute neutrophil count (ANC) was analyzed as well. Results A total of 22 patients were randomly and equally divided into filgrastim or pegfilgrastim arms. Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurred in 1 patient in the pegfilgrastim arm (1 of 33 cycles) and none in the filgrastim arm. G3 neutropenia occurred in 1 patient (1 of 33 cycles) in the filgrastim arm and 2 patients (4 of 33 cycles) in the pegfilgrastim arm (P = 0.476). G4 neutropenia occurred in 11 patients (28 of 33 cycles) in the filgrastim arm and 9 patients (18 of 33 cycles) in the pegfilgrastim arm (P = 0.476). Except for on day 9 in cycle 3, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of ANC. Conclusion We observed no significant differences between the two methods of prophylaxis in terms of FN and G3/4 neutropenia incidence in patients receiving adjuvant TAC chemotherapy. Intermittent every other days 5-dose filgrastim may be available alternative to pegfilgrastim.

Filgrastim prophylaxis in elderly cancer patients in the real-life setting: a French multicenter observational study, the TULIP study

PURPOSE

Few studies are currently available among elderly patients, justifying the need for better understanding of daily medical practices in terms of use of growth factors to prevent chemotherapy (CT)-induced neutropenia. The primary objective of this study was to describe the use of filgrastim in the elderly.

METHODS

Cancer patients aged 65 years and above, undergoing CT and initiating a prophylactic treatment with filgrastim, were enrolled. Patients were followed according to routine medical practice from filgrastim initiation until the end of the CT or after a maximum of 6 cycles.

RESULTS

One thousand one hundred nineteen evaluable patients were documented in the study (mean age 73.9 ± 6.2 years, 52.1% men). The majority were suffering from solid tumor (73%) with ECOG 0-1 for 80% of them. Approximately two-third had a global risk for FN ≥ 20%, and one third < 20%. Through all CT cycles, no differences were observed between age classes ([65-74], [75-85], or > 85) in dose, duration, and time to first injection from CT start. Most patients (84%) received primary prophylaxis (PP) and 70% were administered during the first CT cycle. The median time from CT start until filgrastim was 4 days. The median duration of filgrastim treatment was 5 days. Dose reductions and CT delays were less frequent in patients receiving PP (4.8% and 7.1% respectively) than secondary prophylaxis (9.2% and 13.3% respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Filgrastim use was consistent with French Market Authorization terms. No difference was shown compared with younger patients. Safety data were consistent with the known safety profile.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHOD

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

RESULT

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

CONCLUSION

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

Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Clinical practice guidelines recommend routine prophylactic coverage with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-such as pegfilgrastim-for most patients receiving chemotherapy with an intermediate to high risk for FN. Patterns of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis during the chemotherapy course and associated FN risks in US clinical practice have not been well characterized.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and data from two commercial healthcare claims repositories (01/2010-03/2016) and Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files (01/2007-09/2015) were employed. Study population included patients who had non-metastatic breast cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and received intermediate/high-risk regimens. Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis use and FN incidence were ascertained in each chemotherapy cycle, and all cycles were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios for FN were estimated for patients who did versus did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in that cycle.

RESULTS

Study population included 50,778 commercial patients who received 190,622 cycles of chemotherapy and 71,037 Medicare patients who received 271,944 cycles. In cycle 1, 33% of commercial patients and 28% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, and adjusted odds of FN were 2.6 (95% CI 2.3-2.8) and 1.6 (1.5-1.7), respectively, versus those who received pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. In cycle 2, 28% (commercial) and 26% (Medicare) did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis; corresponding adjusted FN odds were comparably elevated (1.9 [1.6-2.2] and 1.6 [1.5-1.8]). Results in subsequent cycles were similar. Across all cycles, 15% of commercial patients and 23% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis despite having FN in a prior cycle, and prior FN increased odds of subsequent FN by 2.1-2.4 times.

CONCLUSIONS

Notwithstanding clinical practice guidelines, a large minority of patients did not receive G-CSF prophylaxis, and FN incidence was substantially higher among this subset of the population. Appropriate use of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis may reduce patient exposure to this potentially fatal but largely preventable complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Patient-Administered Biologic and Biosimilar Filgrastim May Offer More Affordable Options for Patients with Nonmyeloid Malignancies Receiving Chemotherapy in the United States: A Budget Impact Analysis from the Payer Perspective

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are often administered to reduce the incidence, severity, and duration of febrile neutropenia (FN) in chemotherapy patients. Tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz represent a follow-on biologic and a biosimilar version, respectively, of the short-acting G-CSF filgrastim with comparable efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the budget impact of increasing use of patient-(home-) administered tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz from a U.S. payer perspective.

METHODS

An interactive budget impact model was developed to estimate the changes in drug cost associated with projected increases in the market share of tbo-filgrastim from 5% to 10% and of filgrastim-sndz from 10% to 12% (with a corresponding decrease in filgrastim market share from 85% to 78%) for a 1 million-member health plan among patients with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving chemotherapy with a high risk of FN. Patient self-administration at home was assumed for 20% of patients receiving short-acting G-CSF treatment; all products were purchased through the patient's pharmacy benefit and were assumed to have tier 3 formulary status with a patient copay of $54 per prescription. Base-case data were derived from publicly available resources. The total plan budget impact was calculated using a 1-year time horizon, along with the differences in per member per month and per member per year (PMPY) costs between the current and future scenarios.

RESULTS

The effective annual per-patient drug cost to the plan totaled between $16,961 and $27,199, depending on dosage and packaging, for tbo-filgrastim; between $16,216 and $26,015 for filgrastim-sndz; and between $19,134 and $30,663 for filgrastim. The estimated total annual plan cost associated with patient-administered short-acting G-CSFs was $53,298,217 (PMPY = $53.30) in the current scenario and $52,828,832 (PMPY = $52.82) in the future scenario. Cost savings totaled $469,385 (PMPY = $0.48). The model was most sensitive to changes in the percentage of patients self-administering G-CSF at home and to the wholesale acquisition cost for filgrastim.

CONCLUSIONS

The effective annual plan per-patient drug costs for tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz were 11% and 15% lower than filgrastim, respectively. The present analysis estimated an annual U.S. health plan cost savings approaching $0.5 million following increases in market shares of approximately 5% for tbo-filgrastim and 2% for filgrastim-sndz.

DISCLOSURES

This study was sponsored by Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R & D, which participated in the study design, data interpretation and analysis, the writing of the report, and the decision to submit. Aventine Consulting received consulting fees from Teva Pharmaceuticals and developed the cost model and provided data analysis support. Trautman and James are employed by Aventine Consulting. Szabo and Tang are employed by Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Short- versus Long-Acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors for Reduction of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia

Introduction

Short- and long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are approved for the reduction of febrile neutropenia. A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs reporting the use of G-CSFs following chemotherapy treatment.

Methods

Medline^®/Medline in-process, Embase^®, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between January 2003 and June 2016. A hand-search of relevant conference proceedings was conducted for meetings held between 2012 and 2016. Eligible studies were restricted to those reporting a direct, head-to-head comparison of short- versus long-acting G-CSFs for reduction of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Risk-of-bias assessments were performed for full publications only.

Results

The search strategy yielded 4044 articles for electronic screening. Thirty-six publications were evaluated for the meta-analysis: 11 of 12 RCTs and 2 of 24 non-RCTs administered doses of the short-acting G-CSF filgrastim for ≥ 7 days. In RCT studies, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes of interest between short- and long-acting G-CSFs. In non-RCTs, the overall risk was lower with long-acting G-CSF than with short-acting G-CSF for incidence of febrile neutropenia [overall relative risk (RR) = 0.67, P  = 0.023], hospitalizations (overall RR = 0.68, P  < 0.05), and chemotherapy dose delays (overall RR = 0.68, P  = 0.020).

Conclusions

Overall, the weight of evidence from RCTs indicates little difference in efficacy between the short- and long-acting G-CSFs if dosed according to recommended guidelines. There is some evidence for greater efficacy for long-acting G-CSFs in non-RCTs, which may be a result of under-dosing of short-acting G-CSFs in general practice in real-world usage.

Funding

Hospira Inc, which was acquired by Pfizer Inc in September 2015, and Pfizer Inc.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0798-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Incidence of febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy among patients with nonmyeloid cancer receiving filgrastim vs a filgrastim biosimilar

Background

Filgrastim and other granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are recommended to decrease febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence among patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy. Data comparing biosimilar filgrastim-sndz with reference filgrastim (filgrastim-ref) are limited outside of clinical trials in the US.

Objective

To compare the incidence of FN across chemotherapy cycles 1-6 between patients treated with filgrastim-sndz vs filgrastim-ref.

Materials and methods

This was a retrospective claims analysis of patients with nonmyeloid cancer enrolled in commercial or Medicare Advantage plans from March 2015 to June 2016 and receiving filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim-ref during ≥1 completed chemotherapy cycle. Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, pregnant patients, and those with missing data were excluded. FN was identified using the diagnosis codes for neutropenia + fever, neutropenia + bacterial/fungal infection, and neutropenia + infection + fever. Equivalence testing for FN incidence at the cycle level across chemotherapy cycles 1-6 was conducted for filgrastim-sndz vs filgrastim-ref after adjusting for baseline characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results were considered equivalent if the 90% CIs for between-cohort differences were within ±6.0%.

Results

The analysis included 3,459 patients (162 filgrastim-sndz and 3,297 filgrastim-ref). Before weighting, the filgrastim-sndz cohort was younger than filgrastim-ref and had a higher proportion of men, a higher proportion with commercial insurance, and lower proportions with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis or metastatic cancer. After weighting, baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts. Adjusted FN incidence was equivalent for filgrastim-sndz vs filgrastim-ref, respectively: neutropenia + fever, 0.81% vs 0.61% (difference [90% CI]=0.20 [-0.57 to 1.56]); neutropenia + infection, 1.21% vs 1.33% (difference [90% CI]=-0.12 [-1.17 to 2.28]); neutropenia + infection + fever, 0.0% vs 0.14% (difference=-0.14; CI not calculated because filgrastim-sndz had 0 events).

Conclusion

Filgrastim-sndz and filgrastim-ref are statistically equivalent for preventing FN across chemotherapy cycles 1-6 among patients with nonmyeloid cancer.

Pooled analysis of two randomized, double-blind trials comparing proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in breast cancer

Background

Following the functional and physicochemical characterization of a proposed biosimilar, comparative clinical studies help to confirm biosimilarity by demonstrating similar safety and efficacy to the reference product in a sensitive patient population.

Patients and methods

LA-EP2006 is a proposed biosimilar that has been developed for pegfilgrastim, a long-acting form of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for the prevention of neutropenia. The current analysis reports data pooled from two independent, multinational, prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind phase III studies of similar design comparing the safety and efficacy of reference pegfilgrastim with LA-EP2006 in patients with breast cancer receiving myelotoxic (neo)adjuvant TAC (docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy and requiring granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

Results

A total of 624 patients were randomized in the PROTECT-1 and PROTECT-2 studies (NCT01735175; NCT01516736) (LA-EP2006: n = 314; reference: n = 310). Baseline characteristics of patients were well balanced across treatment groups. The primary end point, mean duration of severe neutropenia in the first chemotherapy cycle was similar in both the LA-EP2006 and reference groups (1.05 ± 1.055 days versus 1.01 ± 0.958 days), with a treatment difference of - 0.04 days [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.19 to 0.11] that met the equivalence criteria (the 95% CI were within the defined margin of ±1 day). Secondary end points, such as the nadir of absolute neutrophil count and the incidence of febrile neutropenia, were also similar between LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim. The safety and tolerability profile of LA-EP2006 was similar to that observed with reference pegfilgrastim, and there were no reports of neutralizing antibodies.

Conclusions

This pooled analysis confirms, as a part of totality of evidence approach, that the proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim LA-EP2006 has a comparable efficacy and safety profile to reference pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer receiving TAC chemotherapy.

Clinical trial numbers

NCT01735175 and NCT01516736.

Clinical Outcomes of Treatment with Filgrastim Versus a Filgrastim Biosimilar and Febrile Neutropenia-Associated Costs Among Patients with Nonmyeloid Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors such as filgrastim are used to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) among patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Although the biosimilar filgrastim-sndz has been approved in the United States since 2015, limited real-world comparisons of filgrastim-sndz versus reference filgrastim (filgrastim-ref) have been conducted.

OBJECTIVE

To compare FN incidence and assess overall FN-related health care resource utilization and medical costs among U.S. patients with non-myeloid cancer who received filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim-ref during their first chemotherapy cycle.

METHODS

This was a retrospective claims analysis of patients with non-myeloid cancer who were enrolled in commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance plans from March 2015 through June 2016 and received filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim-ref during their first observed chemotherapy cycle. Patients with evidence of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or pregnancy and those with missing demographic information were excluded. FN was defined on the basis of diagnosis codes for neutropenia and fever (N/F); neutropenia and infection (N/I); and neutropenia, infection, and fever (N/I/F). Cohorts were adjusted for differences in baseline patient characteristics using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method, and equivalence testing was used to compare the proportion of patients who developed FN between weighted cohorts. On the basis of the range of neutropenic fever incidence found in the PIONEER clinical trial, FN incidence was considered equivalent if 90% CIs for between-cohort differences were within ± 6%. Mean FN-related health care resource utilization and total FN-related medical costs were calculated for the overall study population.

RESULTS

A total of 3,542 patients were included in the study (172 filgrastim-sndz; 3,370 filgrastim-ref; mean ages 62.1 years and 64.7 years, respectively). After IPTW, there were 162 patients in the filgrastim-sndz cohort and 3,297 in the filgrastim-ref cohort (mean age 64.5 years for both). FN incidence in the weighted filgrastim-sndz versus filgrastim-ref cohorts, respectively, was 1.4% versus 0.9% for N/F, 2.3% versus 1.7% for N/I, and 0.0% versus 0.3% for N/I/F; FN incidence was statistically equivalent between treatment cohorts. Among patients in either treatment cohort who developed FN, the proportion with FN-related inpatient stays during the first chemotherapy cycle ranged from 35.0% for N/I to 70.0% for N/I/F. Mean (SD) FN-related total medical costs across all patients who developed FN were $11,977 ($18,383) for N/F, $8,040 ($14,809) for N/I, and $21,733 ($30,003) for N/I/F, in 2015 U.S. dollars. For all 3 definitions of FN, the largest proportions (73.5%-93.4%) of medical costs were inpatient related.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world study of patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy, the incidence of FN was statistically equivalent between individuals treated with filgrastim-sndz versus filgrastim-ref during their first chemotherapy cycle. FN-related health care resource utilization and medical costs among patients who developed FN were substantial.

DISCLOSURES

This work was funded by Sandoz, which participated in the study design, data interpretation, writing and revision of the manuscript, and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Balu and Campbell are employees of Sandoz, which is the manufacturer of the filgrastim biosimilars Zarzio and Zarxio. DeLeon was an employee of Sandoz at the time this study was conducted. Lal, Brekke, Elliott, and Korrer are employees of Optum, which was contracted by Sandoz to conduct this study.

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.

Cost-efficiency analyses for the US of biosimilar filgrastim-sndz, reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim with on-body injector in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia

AIMS

Guidelines recommend prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) based on regimen myelotoxicity and patient-related risk factors. The aim was to conduct a cost-efficiency analysis for the US of the direct acquisition and administration costs of the recently approved biosimilar filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio EP2006) with reference to filgrastim (Neupogen), pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), and a pegfilgrastim injection device (Neulasta Onpro; hereafter pegfilgrastim-injector) for CIN/FN prophylaxis.

METHODS

A cost-efficiency analysis of the prophylaxis of one patient during one chemotherapy cycle under 1-14 days' time horizon was conducted using the unit dose average selling price (ASP) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for subcutaneous prophylactic injection under four scenarios: cost of medication only (COSTMED), patient self-administration (SELFADMIN), healthcare provider (HCP) initiating administration followed by self-administration (HCPSTART), and HCP providing full administration (HCPALL). Two case studies were created to illustrate real-world clinical implications. The analyses were replicated using wholesale acquisition cost (WAC).

RESULTS

Using ASP + CPT, cost savings achieved with filgrastim-sndz relative to reference filgrastim ranged from $65 (1 day) to $916 (14 days) across all scenarios. Relative to pegfilgrastim, savings with filgrastim-sndz ranged from $834 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1 day) under the COSTMED, SELFADMIN, and HPOSTART scenarios; and from $284 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1 day) under the HPOALL scenario. Similar to the cost-savings compared to pegfilgrastim, filgrastim-sndz achieved savings relative to pegfilgrastim-injector: from $834 (14 days) to $3,666 (1 day) under the COSTMED scenario, from $859 (14 days) to $3,692 (1 day) under SELFADMIN, from $817 (14 days) to $3,649 (1 day) under HPOSTART, and from $267 (14 days) to $3,649 (1 day) under HPOALL. Cost savings of filgrastim-sndz using WAC + CPT were even greater under all scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with filgrastim-sndz, a biosimilar filgrastim, was associated consistently with significant cost-savings over prophylaxis with reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim-injector, and this across various administration scenarios.

Expanded access to cancer treatments from conversion to neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim-sndz

Aim: Biosimilar medicines offer significant cost-savings potential over their reference products, which can be re-allocated to provide access to other cancer treatments on a budget-neutral basis. Methods: Simulation study using cost data for the USA under consideration of several prophylaxis patterns. Results: Potential savings from conversion from reference filgrastim to biosimilar filgrastim-sndz are significant. These savings expand budget-neutral access to novel immunotherapies (obinutuzumab; pembrolizumab) or supportive care (filgrastim-sndz). Conclusion: The combination of biosimilar savings and expanded access increases the value of cancer care as the same supportive care is provided at lower cost, additional cancer care is enabled at no additional cost, and more patients will have access to cancer care.

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.

Refining the role of pegfilgrastim (a long-acting G-CSF) for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: consensus guidance recommendations

Purpose

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) causes treatment delays and interruptions and can have fatal consequences. Current guidelines provide recommendations on granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) for prevention of FN, but guidance is unclear regarding use of short- vs long-acting G-CSF (e.g., filgrastim vs pegfilgrastim/lipegfilgrastim, respectively). An international panel of experts convened to develop guidance on appropriate use of pegfilgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN.

Methods

Guidance recommendations were developed following a literature review, survey, evaluation of current practice, and an expert meeting. Consensus was established using an anonymous Delphi-based approach.

Results

Guidance recommendations for prevention of treatment-associated FN were as follows: for treatment with curative intent, maintenance of dose intensity using G-CSF to prevent dose delays/reduction should be standard of care; for treatment-associated FN risk ≥ 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given from cycle 1 onwards; and for treatment-associated FN risk < 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given if factors suggest overall risk (including treatment-related and patient-related risk factors) is ≥ 20%. It was agreed that pegfilgrastim and 11 days’ filgrastim have similar efficacy and safety and that pegfilgrastim is preferred to < 11 days’ filgrastim (and may be preferred to ≥ 11 days’ filgrastim based on adherence and convenience); pegfilgrastim is not appropriate in weekly chemotherapy; in split-dose chemotherapy, pegfilgrastim is recommended 24 h after last chemotherapy dose; and during palliative chemotherapy, patient adherence and convenience may favor pegfilgrastim.

Conclusion

In this era of targeted therapies, additional trials with G-CSF are still required. These recommendations should be used with existing guidelines to optimize pegfilgrastim use in clinical practice.

Over- and under-prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia relative to evidence-based guidelines is associated with differences in outcomes: findings from the MONITOR-GCSF study

PURPOSE

In the MONITOR-GCSF study of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia with biosimilar filgrastim, 56.6% of patients were prophylacted according to amended EORTC guidelines, but 17.4% were prophylacted below and 26.0% above guideline recommendations.

METHODS

MONITOR-GCSF is a prospective, observational study of 1447 evaluable patients from 140 cancers centers in 12 European countries treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for up to 6 cycles receiving biosimilar GCSF prophylaxis. Patients were classified as under-, correctly-, or over-prophylacted with GCSF relative to guideline recommendations based on their chemotherapy risk, individual risk factors, and type of GCSF prophylaxis (primary versus secondary).

RESULTS

Differences between under- (17.4%), correctly- (56.6%), or over-prophylacted (26.0%) groups were found in terms of patient risk factors (age, performance status, history of FN, comorbid conditions) as well as prophylaxis patterns (type of prophylaxis, day of GCSF initiation, and GCSF duration). Rates of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) (all grades), FN, and CIN-related hospitalizations were consistently lower in over-prophylacted patients relative to under- and correctly-prophylacted patients. No differences were observed between under- and correctly-prophylacted patients except for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbances. No GCSF safety differences were found between groups (except for headaches).

CONCLUSIONS

The real-world evidence provided by the MONITOR-GCSF study indicates that providing GCSF support may yield better CIN, FN, and CIN/FN-related hospitalization outcomes if patients are prophylacted at levels above guideline recommendations. Patients who are under-prophylacted are at higher risk for disturbances to their chemotherapy regimens. Our findings support the guideline recommendation that CIN/FN risk be assessed at the beginning of each chemotherapy cycle.

G-CSF use in patients receiving first-line chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) as observed in clinical practice in Italy

Treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) requires chemotherapy regimens with significant risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). For patients at ≥20% FN risk, guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis (PP) with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). This study assessed whether G-CSF use in NHL was in line with recommendations in routine practice. This was a retrospective, observational study of adult NHL patients receiving first-line (R)CHOP-like chemotherapy and G-CSF support between June 2010 and 2012, in Italy. The primary outcome was whether G-CSF was provided as PP, which was defined as G-CSF initiation on days 1-3 after chemotherapy, ≥3 days' use for daily G-CSFs and continued prophylaxis from cycle 1 across all cycles. Secondary prophylaxis was defined as continued prophylaxis from cycle 2 or later, and all other use was defined as Suboptimal. The analysis included 199 patients, 61% of whom had diffuse large B cell lymphoma and 21% follicular lymphoma. (R)CHOP-21 was given to 52% of patients and (R)CHOP-14 to 32%. Overall, 29% of patients received PP, while two-thirds received Suboptimal G-CSF. Of patients receiving daily G-CSF, 3% received PP and 94% received Suboptimal use; with pegfilgrastim, 65% received PP and 26% Suboptimal use. FN occurred in 13 patients (7%) and grade 3/4 neutropenia in 43%. Chemotherapy dose delays occurred in 22% and dose reductions in 18% of patients. Delivery of G-CSF, particularly daily G-CSFs, was not in accordance with guideline or product label recommendations in a large proportion of NHL patients receiving chemotherapy in Italy.

Burden of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia Hospitalizations in US Clinical Practice, by Use and Patterns of Prophylaxis with Colony-Stimulating Factor

INTRODUCTION

Evidence suggests that many cancer chemotherapy patients who are candidates for colony-stimulating factor (CSF) prophylaxis do not receive it or receive it inconsistent with guidelines, and that such patients have a higher risk of febrile neutropenia hospitalization (FNH). Little is known about the number and consequences of FNH by use/patterns of CSF prophylaxis in US clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and private healthcare claims data were employed. Study population comprised adults who received a chemotherapy course with a high-risk regimen, or an intermediate-risk regimen (if ≥1 FN risk factor present), for non-metastatic breast cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL); each chemotherapy cycle within the course and each FNH episode within the cycles were identified. Consequences included mortality, inpatient days, and costs (US$2013) during FNH. Use (yes/no) and patterns (agent, administration day/duration) of CSF prophylaxis were evaluated within cycles in which FNH episodes occurred.

RESULTS

Among all FNH episodes (n=6,355; 109 episodes per 1,000 patients), 41.3% (95% CI: 40.1-42.5) occurred among patients who did not receive CSF prophylaxis in that cycle, and 8.8% (8.1-9.5) occurred among those who received CSF prophylaxis on the same day as chemotherapy. Among FNH episodes occurring in patients who received daily CSF agents (2% of CSF use), 56.1% (44.1-68.0) received prophylaxis <7 days during the cycle. Results for FNH consequences were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective evaluation, one-half of FNH episodes, outcomes, and costs among cancer chemotherapy patients who were candidates for CSF prophylaxis occurred in those who either did not receive it or received it inconsistent with guidelines.

Comparative effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors to prevent febrile neutropenia and related complications in cancer patients in clinical practice: A systematic review

Introduction

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious side-effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Several clinical trials and observational studies have evaluated the effects of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) on risk of FN and related complications; however, no systematic reviews have focused on effectiveness in routine clinical practice. Here, we perform a systematic review assessing the comparative effectiveness of prophylaxis with a long-acting G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) versus short-acting G-CSFs (filgrastim, lenograstim, and filgrastim biosimilars) in cancer patients in real-world clinical settings.

Methods

A systematic review was performed based on a pre-specified protocol and was consistent with the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook (2009) and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care (2011). MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles published from January 2002 to June 2014. Congress databases (MASCC/ASCO/ESMO) and Google Scholar were searched for abstracts published from January 2012 to August 2014. Filgrastim (NEUPOGEN®), lenograstim and nivestim (a filgrastim biosimilar) were the only short-acting G-CSFs and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) was the only long-acting G-CSF described in eligible studies. Outcomes of interest were FN, FN-related hospitalisation and other FN-related complications (death, chemotherapy dose delays and reductions, antimicrobial treatment, severe neutropenia and costs and resource use).

Results

Of 1259 unique records identified, 18 real-world observational studies met predefined inclusion criteria; 15 were retrospective studies, and 3 were prospective studies. Multiple tumour types, chemotherapy regimens and geographical regions were included. Seven studies provided statistical comparisons of the risk of FN; risk of FN among patients receiving prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus short-acting G-CSF was significantly lower in three studies, numerically lower in three studies, and numerically higher in one study. Six studies provided statistical comparisons of the risk of FN-related hospitalisation; risk of FN-related hospitalisation among patients receiving prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus short-acting G-CSF was significantly lower in all six studies, though some variation was seen in subanalyses. Data for other outcomes were sparse with available results being generally consistent with the results seen for risk of FN and FN-related hospitalisation.

Conclusions

Based on the findings from this review of real-world comparative effectiveness studies, risks of FN and FN-related complications were generally lower for prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus prophylaxis with short-acting G-CSFs.

Multicentre, Prospective Observational Study of Pegfilgrastim Primary Prophylaxis in Patients at High Risk of Febrile Neutropenia in Poland: PROFIL Study

Aim of the study

PROFIL was a prospective observational study conducted to investigate physicians’ evaluation of febrile neutropenia (FN) risk and reasons for giving pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis (PP) in routine clinical practice in Poland.

Material and methods

Adult cancer patients treated with chemotherapy (CT), assessed by investigators as having high overall FN risk, and who received pegfilgrastim in cycle 1 were enrolled between 03/2009 and 09/2010. Investigators assessed FN risk of the CT regimen, individual risk factors, and overall FN risk, and were asked to provide the most important reasons for providing pegfilgrastim PP. Investigator-assessed CT FN risk was compared with guideline classification.

Results

Data were analysed from 1006 breast, ovarian, and lung cancer, and non-Hodgkin (NHL) and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients. The most important reasons for using pegfilgrastim PP were high CT FN risk and advanced disease; these were consistent across tumour types and treatment intent. The investigators generally assessed high CT FN risk in agreement with guideline classification. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 4% of patients, most commonly in HL, NHL, and patients with advanced disease.

Conclusions

High CT FN risk and advanced stage of disease were found to be the most important reasons for providing pegfilgrastim PP by physicians in Poland.

Chemotherapy treatment patterns and neutropenia management in gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Potentially myelosuppressive doublet and triplet chemotherapy combination regimens are considered the most active treatments in gastric cancer. This multicenter prospective observational study was designed to gain insight into the chemotherapy regimens being used in Europe and to evaluate neutropenia management in patients identified as at high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN).

METHODS

Eligible patients had gastric cancer, were scheduled for ≥ 3 cycles of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and had an investigator-assessed overall FN risk ≥ 20%. Data were collected for up to ten cycles. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) primary prophylaxis (defined as G-CSF initiated on days 1-7 of cycle 1). Secondary endpoints included FN incidence, chemotherapy administration, and G-CSF use.

RESULTS

Of 199 patients who met the eligibility criteria and started at least one cycle of chemotherapy, mean age was 63 years, 76% were men, 83% had an ECOG score of 0 or 1, 54% had metastatic disease, and 24% had received prior chemotherapy. A total of 27 different backbone regimens were given; the most common regimen was modified docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF). Despite all patients having been identified as having a ≥ 20% FN risk, only 70 (35%) received G-CSF primary prophylaxis. FN occurred in 14 patients overall (7%). Most FN events occurred in patients who received DCF/modified DCF (9/14 events, 64%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study reveal a high use of myelotoxic treatment regimens in gastric cancer in Europe and low adherence to clinical practice guidelines for the use of primary and secondary G-CSF prophylaxis for FN.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

IMPLICATIONS

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

Comparative effectiveness of colony-stimulating factors in febrile neutropenia prophylaxis: how results are affected by research design

Aims: To examine the impact of research design on results in two published comparative effectiveness studies. Methods: Guidelines for comparative effectiveness research have recommended incorporating disease process in study design. Based on the recommendations, we develop a checklist of considerations and apply the checklist in review of two published studies on comparative effectiveness of colony-stimulating factors. Both studies used similar administrative claims data, but different methods, which resulted in directionally different estimates. Results: Major design differences between the two studies include: whether the timing of intervention in disease process was identified and whether study cohort and outcome assessment period were defined based on this temporal relationship. Conclusion: Disease process and timing of intervention should be incorporated into the design of comparative effectiveness studies.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors as prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia

Myelosuppression secondary to chemotherapy remains a serious adverse effect of cancer therapy that causes high morbidity and mortality. Several current European and American guidelines recommend consideration of primary prophylaxis with colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) when the risk of febrile neutropenia is higher than 20 %. The main factors associated with a high risk of febrile neutropenia include the chemotherapy regimen, tumor type, and patient-related factors such as old age and/or comorbidities. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the most relevant clinical trials and updated recommendations of the main guidelines on the role of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) in febrile neutropenia, examining whether the combination of G-CSF with chemotherapy improves overall survival. Future directions for G-CSF use are also discussed.

Suboptimal duration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in women diagnosed with breast cancer

PURPOSE

Prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is recommended for cancer patients who are at high risk of neutropenic events. However, whether the clinical effectiveness of G-CSF from randomized controlled trials translates into "real-world" clinical practice is questionable. The goal of this retrospective cohort study was to examine the impact of G-CSF prophylaxis and other potential risk factors of severe neutropenia in women with breast cancer.

METHODS

Our study subjects were women who were diagnosed with breast cancer and who received a new course of chemotherapy between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010, at a cancer center in Taiwan. Generalized estimating equations were applied to examine the association between G-CSF prophylaxis and neutropenic events.

FINDINGS

We identified 353 women with breast cancer who received a total of 2776 cycles of chemotherapy. G-CSF was used as primary prophylaxis in 7% (n = 202) of cycles and as secondary prophylaxis in 11% (n = 319) of cycles. The mean duration of G-CSF for primary and secondary prophylaxis was 4.9 and 3.7 days, respectively. A chemotherapy regimen with high risk of febrile neutropenia was found to be a risk factor for severe neutropenic events (odds ratio, 3.22 [95% CI, 1.97-5.27]). Prophylactic use of G-CSF was not statistically significantly associated with febrile neutropenia.

IMPLICATIONS

The major determinants of neutropenic events among patients with breast cancer were the content and intensity of chemotherapy regimens. Suboptimal use of G-CSF may not be effective in preventing neutropenic events among women with breast cancer.

Discrete choice experiment to estimate breast cancer patients' preferences and willingness to pay for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors

OBJECTIVES

Rising out-of-pocket costs for cancer patients have increased shared decision making. Clinical guidelines recommend prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for patients receiving chemotherapy with a 20% or greater risk of febrile neutropenia. A discrete choice experiment was conducted to explore breast cancer patients' preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for prophylactic G-CSF to decrease the risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

METHODS

An online discrete choice experiment questionnaire survey of a national US convenience sample of self-reported breast cancer patients with prior chemotherapy treatment was conducted. Sixteen paired G-CSF treatment scenarios, each with four attributes (risk of disruption to chemotherapy schedule due to low white blood cell counts, risk of developing an infection requiring hospitalization, frequency of administration, and total out-of-pocket cost) were presented with a follow-up "no treatment" option. Participant preferences and WTP out of pocket were estimated by logistic regression.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 296) preferred G-CSF regimens with lower out-of-pocket costs, lower risk of chemotherapy disruption, lower risk of infection, and greater convenience (one G-CSF injection per chemotherapy cycle). Participants' WTP was $1076 out of pocket per cycle to reduce the risk (high to low) of disrupting their chemotherapy schedule, $884 per cycle to reduce the risk (24% [high] to 7% [low]) of infection, and $851 per cycle to decrease the number of G-CSF injections (11 to 1) per cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants highly valued specific features of prophylactic G-CSF treatment including maintaining their chemotherapy schedule, lowering their risk of infection, and reducing the number of injections. Physicians should consider patient preferences to inform the best treatment choices for individual patients.

Risk and consequences of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic complications in patients receiving daily filgrastim: the importance of duration of prophylaxis

Background

To examine duration of daily filgrastim prophylaxis, and risk and consequences of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic complications (CINC) requiring inpatient care.

Methods

Using a retrospective cohort design and US healthcare claims data (2001–2010), we identified all cancer patients who initiated ≥1 course of myelosuppressive chemotherapy and received daily filgrastim prophylactically in ≥1 cycle. Cycles with daily filgrastim prophylaxis were pooled for analyses. CINC was identified based on hospital admissions with a diagnosis of neutropenia, fever, or infection; consequences were characterized in terms of hospital mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and CINC-related healthcare expenditures.

Results

Risk of CINC requiring inpatient care–adjusted for patient characteristics–was 2.4 (95% CI: 1.6-3.4) and 1.9 (1.3-2.8) times higher with 1–3 (N = 8371) and 4–6 (N = 3691) days of filgrastim prophylaxis, respectively, versus ≥7 days (N = 2226). Among subjects who developed CINC, consequences with 1–3 and 4–6 (vs. ≥7) days of filgrastim prophylaxis were: mortality (8.4% [n/N = 10/119] and 4.0% [3/75] vs. 0% [0/34]); LOS (means: 7.4 [N = 243] and 7.1 [N = 99] vs. 6.5 [N = 40]); and expenditures (means: $18,912 [N = 225] and $14,907 [N = 94] vs. $13,165 [N = 39]).

Conclusions

In this retrospective evaluation, shorter courses of daily filgrastim prophylaxis were found to be associated with an increased risk of CINC as well as poorer outcomes among those developing this condition. Because of the limitations inherent in healthcare claims databases specifically and retrospective evaluations generally, additional research addressing these limitations is needed to confirm the findings of this study.

The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in a Canadian outpatient setting

BACKGROUND

Data on real-life utilization of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (g-csfs) in Canada are limited. The objective of the present study was to describe the reasons for, and the patterns of, g-csf use in selected outpatient oncology clinics in Ontario and Quebec.

METHODS

In a retrospective longitudinal cohort study, a review of medical records from 9 Canadian oncology clinics identified patients being prescribed filgrastim (fil) and pegfilgrastim (peg). Patient characteristics, reasons for g-csf use, and treatment patterns were descriptively analyzed.

RESULTS

Medical records of 395 patients initiating g-csf therapy between January 2008 and January 2009 were included. Of this population, 80% were women, and breast cancer was the predominant diagnosis (59%). The most commonly prescribed g-csf was fil (56% in Ontario and 98% in Quebec). The most frequent reason for g-csf use was primary prophylaxis (42% for both fil and peg), followed by secondary prophylaxis (37% fil, 41% peg). Those proportions varied by tumour type and chemotherapy regimen. Delayed g-csf administration (more than 1 day after the end of chemotherapy) was frequently observed for fil, but rarely reported for peg, and that finding was consistent across tumours and concurrent chemotherapy regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of g-csf varies with the malignancy type and the provincial health care setting. The most commonly prescribed g-csf agent was fil, and most first g-csf prescriptions were for primary prophylaxis. Delays were frequently observed for patients receiving fil, but were rarely reported for those receiving peg.

History of chronic comorbidity and risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma not receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis

We conducted a cohort study to examine the association between a wide variety of chronic comorbidities and risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) from 2000 to 2009 treated with chemotherapy at Kaiser Permanente Southern California. History of comorbidities and FN events were identified using electronic medical records. Cox model adjusting for propensity score was used to determine the association between a comorbid condition and FN. Models that additionally adjusted for cancer stage, baseline absolute neutrophil count, chemotherapy regimen and dose reduction were also evaluated. A total of 2480 patients with NHL were included, and 60% received CHOP/R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, with or without rituximab). In total, 236 (9.5%) patients developed FN in the first chemotherapy cycle. Anemia (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.6, 95% confidence interval [1.2-2.2]), HIV infection (HR = 3.8 [2.0-6.7]) and rheumatoid diseases (HR = 2.4 [1.3-4.0]) were associated with significantly increased risk of FN. These results provide evidence that chronic comorbidity increases the risk of FN.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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