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

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.

Biosimilar pegfilgrastim may offer affordable treatment options for patients in France: a budget impact analysis on the basis of clinical trial and real-world data

BACKGROUND

NYVEPRIA, a pegfilgrastim (a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) biosimilar, was recently recommended for marketing authorization in Europe for decreasing the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anti-cancer drugs. The present study aimed to evaluate the financial impact of introducing a new pegfilgrastim biosimilar from a French healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

An Excel-based budget impact model was developed to estimate the financial impact by introducing a new pegfilgrastim biosimilar (NYVEPRIA) to France over a 5-year time horizon. Comparators included existing long-acting and short-acting G-CSFs. The burden of FN was obtained from existing literature. Costs (2021 Euros) included drug acquisition and administration, estimated based on drug dosage in both clinical trial and real-world settings. Scenario analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of key model assumptions.

RESULTS

In a total French population of 67.19 million, 79,873 patients were estimated to be treated with G-CSFs annually. The annual number of patients to be treated with NYVEPRIA was estimated to be 1593, 3195, 3674, 3782, and 4052 in years 1 to 5, respectively. Using real-world data, NYVEPRIA resulted in total annual cost savings of €8,620, €868,498, €868,498, €814,102, and €958,952 over years 1 to 5, respectively, leading to a cumulative 5-year cost savings of €3,518,669. Using data from clinical trials, NYVEPRIA resulted in total annual cost savings of €14,366, €1,447,496, €1,447,496, €1,356,836, and €1,598,253 over years 1 to 5, respectively, leading to a cumulative 5-year cost savings of €5,864,448.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of a new pegfilgrastim biosimilar (NYVEPRIA) is potentially associated with substantial cost savings for the French healthcare system.

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Cancer Biosimilars Worldwide: A Systematic Review

Background and Purpose: The availability of oncology biosimilars is deemed as a fundamental strategy to achieve sustainable health care. However, there is scarce systematic evidence on economic effectiveness of cancer biosimilars. We aimed to synthesize evidence from pharmacoeconomic evaluation of oncology biosimilars globally, provide essential data and methodological reference for involved stakeholders. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted in PubMed, embase, the Cochrane library, CRD, ISPOR and NICE utill December 31, 2019. Information on basic characteristics, evaluation methodology and results were extracted. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Checklist. Results: For 17 studies identified (13 from Europe and four from United States), the overall quality was generally acceptable. A total of seven biological molecules involved with filgrastim, EPOETIN α, and trastuzumab leading the three. The mostly common evaluation perspective was payer, but the time horizon varied greatly. There were ten studies which adopted cost minimization analysis to evaluate efficiency while seven studies adopted budget impact analysis to address affordability, with cost ratio and cost saving being its corresponding primary endpoint. Although the comparability of included studies was limited and specific results were largely affected by uptake and price discount rates of the oncology biosimilar, the comprehensive results consistently favored its promotion. Conclusion: Globally, the economic evaluation of cancer biosimilars is in its initial phase. However, limited evidence from developed countries consistently supported both cost-effectiveness of efficiency and affordability of oncology biosimilars, while they were largely affected by uptake and price discount rate.