Simulating Costs of Intravenous Biosimilar Trastuzumab vs. Subcutaneous Reference Trastuzumab in Adjuvant HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Belgian Case Study

This study aimed to compare drug costs and healthcare costs of a 1 year adjuvant course with intravenous biosimilar trastuzumab vs. subcutaneous reference trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer from the Belgian hospital perspective. Our simulation is based on the methodology used by Tjalma and colleagues, and considered costs of drugs, healthcare professional time and consumables. We calculated intravenous drug costs for different body weights, and computed drug costs and healthcare costs to treat 100 patients with either trastuzumab formulation, assuming a binomial body weight distribution in this sample. Scenarios were run to account for drug discounts and intravenous vial sharing. Drug costs amounted to €1,431,282 with intravenous biosimilar trastuzumab and €1,522,809 with subcutaneous reference trastuzumab for a sample of 100 patients in the base case analysis. When healthcare professional time and consumables were also considered, healthcare costs with intravenous biosimilar trastuzumab were similar to those with subcutaneous reference trastuzumab. Differences in healthcare costs between intravenous biosimilar trastuzumab and subcutaneous reference trastuzumab depended on the level of discounts on these formulations and on intravenous vial sharing. Our case study demonstrates that comparing costs of intravenous vs. subcutaneous formulations is complex and multifactorial, and entails more than a simple cost comparison of products.

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

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

Retrospective Cost Analysis of a Single-Center Reusable Flexible Ureterorenoscopy Program: A Comparative Cost Simulation of Disposable fURS as an Alternative

OBJECTIVE

The increasing number of flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) procedures, the fragility of devices, and their growing maintenance and repair costs represent a substantial burden for urologic departments. Disposable single-use fURS devices offer many advantages over reusable fURS. Among them, the LithoVue™ model shows the best clinical utility. In our study, we assessed the economic aspects of reusable fURS application compared with the potential costs and benefits of single-use fURS (LithoVue™). Indications for single-use fURS were proposed based on potential risk factors of reusable fURS damage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective analysis compared the actual cost of reusable fURS procedures with the potential costs of LithoVue™ based on the price offered by the manufacturer. Consecutive case analysis of damaged fURS was performed to determine potential risk factors associated with fURS damage.

RESULTS

The study group consisted of 423 reusable fURS procedures conducted between January 2013 and December 2016. During this period, 102 (24.11%) diagnostic fURS and 321 (75.89%) fURS for kidney stone therapy were performed. In 32 of 423 (7.57%) fURS cases, devices were postoperatively deemed defective, 9 of which were used for diagnostic procedures (9/102; 8.82%), 7 for stone removal (7/148; 4.73%), and 16 for stone removal and laser (Ho:YAG) application (16/173; 9.25%). The average cost per reusable fURS procedure was found to be €503.26.

CONCLUSIONS

Disposable fURS is a more expensive option for high-volume centers. Based on our case analysis, laser disintegration treatment of multiple, large stones in the lower kidney pole of recurrent stone formers, as well as a steep infundibulopelvic angle (IPA ≤50°), seems to be the main risk factor for fURS damage. For these cases, disposable fURS may be a cost-effective alternative; however, a prospective comparison of economic outcomes between disposable and reusable fURS, together with confirmation of the proposed damage risk factors, is needed.

Analysis of the incidence of tumor lysis syndrome in patients with hematological malignancies treated with rasburicase

The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in patients with hematological malignancies treated with rasburicase, and to evaluate the dose and duration of rasburicase administration. A total of 52 patients were enrolled. The background of the patients, incidence of TLS and laboratory data were retrospectively examined; in addition, the dose and duration of rasburicase administration and the factors affecting the onset of TLS were evaluated and compared among TLS risk categories. During the study period, 2 (3.8%) of the patients developed clinical TLS and 24 (46.2%) developed laboratory TLS (LTLS). Although the LTLS rate was very high, there were no life-threatening cases of TLS. The median daily dose of rasburicase administered to all patients was 7.5 mg/day (interquartile range, 7.5-9.0 mg/day), and the daily weight-based dose was 0.147 mg/kg/day (range, 0.126-0.178 mg/kg/day). The administration duration was 3 days (interquartile range, 3-4 days). Additionally, there was no significant association between TLS risk classification and daily rasburicase administration dose, duration, or post-administration laboratory data. The factors affecting the onset of TLS included serum uric acid level, as well as serum creatinine and phosphate levels. Rasburicase was highly effective in the prevention and management of hyperuricemia, even at a low-dose (7.5 mg/day) and a duration that was 3 days shorter compared with that recommended by the manufacturer. Therefore, clinicians should administer rasburicase based on their clinical judgment, taking into consideration the cost-effectiveness of this therapy.