Cost-effectiveness analysis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the cost-effectiveness of using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for primary or secondary prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer from the perspective of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Administration. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to simulate the events that may occur during and after a high-risk chemotherapy treatment. Various G-CSF prophylaxis strategies and medications were compared in the model. Effectiveness data were derived from the literature and an analysis of the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). Cost data were obtained from a published NHIRD study, and health utility values were also obtained from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of the cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NT$269,683 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to primary prophylaxis with lenograstim. The ICER for primary prophylaxis with lenograstim versus no G-CSF prophylaxis was NT$61,995 per QALY gained. The results were most sensitive to variations in relative risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) for pegfilgrastim versus no G-CSF prophylaxis. Furthermore, in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of one times Taiwan's gross domestic product per capita, the probability of being cost-effective was 88.1% for primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that primary prophylaxis with either short- or long-acting G-CSF could be considered cost-effective for FN prevention in breast cancer patients receiving high-risk regimens.

Reduction of biologic pricing following biosimilar introduction: Analysis across 57 countries and regions, 2012-19.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the entry of biosimilars on the pricing of eight biologic products in 57 countries and regions. METHODS: We utilized an interrupted time series design and IQVIA MIDAS® data to analyze the annual sales data of eight biologic products (adalimumab, bevacizumab, epoetin, etanercept, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and trastuzumab) across 57 countries and regions from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019. We examined the immediate and long-term changes in biologics ex-manufacturer pricing following the entry of biosimilars to the market. RESULTS: Following the entry of biosimilars, the average price per dose of biologic product was immediately reduced by $438 for trastuzumab, $112 for infliximab, and $110 for bevacizumab. The persistent effect of biosimilars' market entry led to further reductions in price per dose every year: by $49 for adalimumab, $290 for filgrastim, $21 for infliximab, and $189 for trastuzumab. Similarly, we analyzed the impact of biosimilars on four biologics' prices in the US, where the prices of three biologics significantly decreased every year, with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and infliximab decreasing by $955, $753, and $104, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of biosimilars has significantly reduced the prices of biologics both globally and in the US. These findings not only demonstrate the economic benefits of increasing biosimilar utilization, but also emphasize the importance of biosimilars in controlling healthcare costs. Policies should aim to expand the availability of biosimilars to counteract the exponential growth of medical spending caused by the use of biologics.

Efficacy and Cost-effectiveness of Pegfilgrastim for Preventing Febrile Neutropenia During Docetaxel, Cisplatin, and 5-Fluorouracil Therapy for Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The docetaxel, 5-fluorouracil, and cisplatin (DCF) regimen is an effective form of chemotherapy for advanced esophageal cancer. However, the incidence of adverse events, such as febrile neutropenia (FN), is high. This study retrospectively examined whether pegfilgrastim treatment reduces FN development during DCF therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study evaluated 52 patients who were diagnosed with esophageal cancer and underwent DCF therapy at Jikei Daisan Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, between 2016 and 2020. They were divided into non-pegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim-treated groups, and side-effects of chemotherapy and cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim were examined. RESULTS: Eighty-six cycles of DCF therapy were conducted (33 and 53 cycles, respectively). FN was observed in 20 (60.6%) and seven (13.2%) cases, respectively (p<0.001). The lowest absolute neutrophil count during chemotherapy was significantly lower in the non-pegfilgrastim group (p<0.001), and the number of days until improvement from nadir was significantly shorter in the pegfilgrastim group (9 vs. 11 days; p<0.001). No significant difference was found in the onset of grade 2 or more adverse events by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. However, renal dysfunction was significantly lower in the pegfilgrastim group (30.7% vs. 60.6%, p=0.038). Hospitalization costs were also significantly lower in this group (692,839 vs. 879,431 Japanese yen, p=0.028). CONCLUSION: This study revealed the usefulness and cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim in prevention of FN in patients treated with DCF.

A comparative assessment of neutropenia events, healthcare resource use, and costs among cancer patients treated with lipegfilgrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in Germany.

PURPOSE: We assessed the occurrence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) and the associated healthcare resource in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in combination with pegfilgrastim versus lipegfilgrastim. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis using a German health insurance claims database. Adults receiving chemotherapy with a prescription code for pegfilgrastim (n = 734) or lipegfilgrastim (n = 346) were observed over a 1-year follow-up period. Patient subgroups were analyzed according to cancer type and FN risk. FN risk was based on the chemotherapy regimen and any additional neutropenia risk factors. Outcomes were adjusted via regression analysis. RESULTS: Most patients were classified as high FN risk (70.0% pegfilgrastim; 65.6% lipegfilgrastim cohort). The mean age was 58.2 years in the pegfilgrastim cohort and 58.0 years in the lipegfilgrastim cohort, with more female patients than male patients (77.3% vs 79.8%, respectively), and the majority had breast cancer (64.9% and 68.8%, respectively). Overall, 10.0% and 10.4% of patients receiving pegfilgrastim or lipegfilgrastim experienced a neutropenia event (p = 0.82), with 4.4% and 3.5% of patients experiencing a FN event (p = 0.49). The mean neutropenia event-related healthcare costs were €604 and €441 for the pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim cohorts; among patients with lymphoma, these costs were significantly greater (p = 0.03) with pegfilgrastim (€1,612) versus lipegfilgrastim (€382). The mean all-cause hospitalizations were significantly (p < 0.01) higher for lymphoma patients receiving pegfilgrastim (2.76) versus lipegfilgrastim (1.60). CONCLUSION: Overall, patients treated with pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable in terms of neutropenia occurrences in the 1-year follow-up. In patients with lymphoma, neutropenia event-related healthcare costs and all-cause hospitalizations were significantly higher with pegfilgrastim compared with lipegfilgrastim in this study; however, this should be interpreted with caution in light of the limited sample size and the absence of clinical information.

Expanded access to anticancer treatments from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv in US breast cancer patients.

Aim: To estimate cost-savings from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv that could be reallocated to provide budget-neutral expanded access to AC (doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) and TCH (docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab) in breast cancer (BC) patients. Methods: Simulation modeling in panels of 20,000 BC and 5000 HER2+ (HER2+ BC) patients, varying treatment duration (one-six cycles) and conversion rates (10-100%), to estimate cost-savings and additional AC and TCH treatment that could be provided. Results: In 20,000 patients, cost-savings of $1,083 per-patient per-cycle translate to $21,652,064 (one cycle) to $129,912,397 (six cycles). Savings range from $5,413,016 to $32,478,097, respectively, in the 5000-patient HER2+ BC panel. Conclusion: Conversion to pegfilgrastim-cbqv could save up to $130 million and provide more than 220,000 additional cycles of antineoplastic treatment on a budget-neutral basis to BC patients.

Lay abstract Pegfilgrastim is used to prevent low white blood cell count in patients receiving chemotherapy. Comparable to a generic version of a drug, a biosimilar is a follow-on version of a biologic treatment. We calculated the savings from using biosimilar pegfilgrastim in a hypothetical group of 20,000 patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy with AC (doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide). We then computed the number of additional doses of AC chemotherapy that could be purchased with those savings. We did the same for a group of 5000 HER2+ breast cancer patients treated with TCH (docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab). Using biosimilar pegfilgrastim could save $1,083 per patient per cycle. If all patients were treated with biosimilar pegfilgrastim over six cycles, $129.9 million could be saved in the AC group and $32.5 million in the TCH group. This could provide 220,468 additional AC doses and 6981 TCH doses. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim can generate significant savings. These savings can be used to provide additional patients with chemotherapy cost-free.

Efficacy and cost of G-CSF derivatives for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients underwent autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacies and costs between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim prophylaxis for FN post-ASCT for lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients. METHODS: 43 patients who received pegfilgrastim (6 mg) were compared to a retrospective cohort of 129 patients that had received filgrastim post-ASCT. Hematopoietic recovery time, FN incidence and treatment costs were assessed and compared. RESULTS: The mean time to absolute neutrophil count engraftment was 8.72 ± 2.38 days for the prospective pegfilgrastim group and 9.87 ± 3.13 days for the retrospective filgrastim group (P = 0.027). The incidence of FN was 18.60% and 50.39% in prospective pegfilgrastim and retrospective filgrastim groups, respectively (P = 0.000). The mean cost of filgrastim was $617.22 ± 37.87, compared with $525.78 for pegfilgrastim (P = 0.032). DISCUSSION: Convenience, effectiveness, and safety of prophylaxis for FN in the prospective pegfilgrastim group were significantly improved compared to the retrospective filgrastim group in ASCT patients. CONCLUSION: Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis was more effective and convenient than filgrastim for FN prophylaxis in patients post-ASCT, especially for MM patients.

Conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv enables budget-neutral access to FOLFIRINOX treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Aim: To estimate the cost-savings from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv that can be reallocated to provide budget-neutral expanded access to FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods: Simulation modeling in a panel of 2500 FOLFIRINOX-treated patients, using varying treatment duration (1-12 cycles) and conversion rates (10-100%), to estimate cost-savings and additional FOLFIRINOX treatment that could be budget neutral. Results: In a 2500-patient panel at 100% conversion, savings of US$6,907.41 per converted patient over 12 cycles of prophylaxis translate to US$17.3 million and could provide 72,273 additional FOLFIRINOX doses or 6023 full 6-month regimens. Conclusion: Conversion to biosimilar CIN/FN prophylaxis can generate significant cost-savings and provide budget-neutral expanded access to FOLFIRINOX treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Lay abstract Pegfilgrastim is used to prevent low white blood cell count in patients receiving chemotherapy. Comparable to a generic version of a drug, a biosimilar is a follow-on version of a biologic treatment. The authors calculated the savings from using biosimilar pegfilgrastim in a hypothetical group of 2500 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and then computed the number of additional doses of FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy that could be purchased with those savings. Using biosimilar pegfilgrastim for 12 cycles could save US$6,907.41 per patient. If all 2500 patients were treated with biosimilar pegfilgrastim, US$17.3 million could be saved. This could provide 72,273 additional FOLFIRINOX doses. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim can generate significant savings to purchase chemotherapy for additional patients cost-free.

Economic and clinical outcomes of pegfilgrastim via prefilled syringe vs on-body injector: a real-world data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim is available as a prefilled syringe (PFS) and an on-body injector (OBI). Whether the administration method of pegfilgrastim affects the effectiveness and health care resources has not been evaluated in the setting of routine care. OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world clinical and economic outcomes between PFS and OBI methods of administration. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study in patients diagnosed with breast cancer or non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and prophylactic use of pegfilgrastim via PFS or OBI between January 1, 2017, and May 31, 2018, according to MarketScan research databases. A propensity score was used to match the PFS cohort 1:1 to the OBI cohort. Outcomes were compared among the matched cohorts using a generalized linear model and generalized estimating equations with log-link function. RESULTS: 3,152 patients were identified. After matching, the final sample included 2,170 patients, representing 1,085 in each cohort. The incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in the first chemotherapy cycle was 1.01% for OBI (95% CI = 0.56-1.82) vs 1.48% for PFS (95% CI = 0.91-2.39; P = 0.336). In all chemotherapy cycles (total cycles = 7,467), the FN incidence was 0.91% for OBI (95% CI = 0.64-1.30) vs 1.22% for PFS (95% CI = 0.90-1.64; P = 0.214). There was no statistically significant difference in adjusted per-member per-month all-cause total cost health care resource utilization (HCRU) for hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and pharmacy claims. CONCLUSIONS: In a matched cohort of patients representing real-world utilization, there was no statistically or clinically meaningful difference in FN incidence between OBI and PFS methods of pegfilgrastim administration. There was no difference in total HCRU or total costs. OBI and PFS methods of administration are both indicated for patients requiring prophylactic pegfilgrastim, which is important considering that biosimilar PFS options are now available. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sandoz, Inc. Wang, Li, and K. Campbell are employees of Sandoz, Inc. Schroader and D. Campbell are employees of Xcenda, which was contracted by Sandoz, Inc., to provide study and manuscript development. McBride reports receiving payment from Sandoz, Inc., as a consultant, unrelated to this study; Coherus for advisory board and speaker engagements; and Pfizer for advisory board participation during the time of this study.

Uptake and cost of biosimilar filgrastim among Medicare and Medicaid populations in 2015-2018.

BACKGROUND: The first biosimilar product filgrastim-sndz was approved by the FDA in 2015, but real-world evaluations of its uptake and cost in nationally representative populations are limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the uptake and cost of filgrastim-sndz, relative to its originator filgrastim and alternative biologic tbofilgrastim, among Medicare and Medicaid populations. METHODS: Using the annually aggregated, product-level utilization and cost data of biologic and biosimilar filgrastim products in 2015-2018 from CMS drug spending data, total number of claims and costs for all 3 filgrastim products were identified and extracted for Medicare Part B, Part D, and Medicaid reimbursement. Annual average cost per claim and per beneficiary of individual filgrastim products were also extracted, and their annual growth rates were calculated. RESULTS: Three years after entering the US market, use of filgrastim-sndz increased to 49.1% and 46.0% of all filgrastim claims paid by Medicare Parts B and D, respectively, and to 38.7% of filgrastim Medicaid claims in 2018. Total cost for filgrastim-sndz also reached 42.8%, 41.8%, and 26.9% of all filgrastim products paid by Medicare Parts B and D and Medicaid, respectively. Significant reductions in average cost per claim for filgrastim-sndz in 2017 and 2018 were observed in Medicare Part B and Medicaid. CONCLUSIONS: Significant uptake of biosimilar filgrastim in Medicare and Medicaid programs occurred during the first 3 years of marketing. Policymakers may use the evidence to evaluate existing barriers and policies regarding biosimilar adoption. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this work. The author has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Comparing the efficacy and side-effects of PDLASTA® (Pegfilgrastim) with PDGRASTIM® (Filgrastim) in breast cancer patients: a non-inferiority randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and side effects of a single dose (Pegfilgrastim or PDL) or repeated six daily injections (Filgrastim or PDG) during chemotherapy courses in breast cancer patients in a non-inferiority clinical trial. METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, 80 patients were recruited and allocated randomly to two equal arms. In one group, a single subcutaneous dose of PDL was injected the day after receiving the chemotherapy regimen in each cycle. The second arm received a subcutaneous injection of PDG for six consecutive days in each cycle of treatment. The side effects of GCF treatment and its effect on blood parameters were compared in each cycle and during eight cycles of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Hematologic parameters showed no significant differences in any of the treatment courses between the two study groups. The comparison of WBC (p = 0.527), Hgb (p = 0.075), Platelet (p = 0.819), Neutrophil (p = 0.575), Lymphocyte (p = 705) and ANC (p = 0.675) changes during the eight courses of treatment also revealed no statistically significant difference between the two study groups. Side effects including headache, injection site reaction and muscle pain had a lower frequency in patients receiving PDL drugs. CONCLUSION: It seems that PDL is non-inferior in efficacy and also less toxic than PDG. Since PDL can be administered in a single dose and is also less costly, it can be regarded as a cost-effective drug for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRCT20190504043465N1 , May 2019.

Cabazitaxel schedules in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a review.

Cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) is the standard second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel. It is associated with a risk of neutropenic complications, which may be a barrier to its use in daily clinical practice, particularly in frail elderly patients. Here the authors reviewed key studies conducted with cabazitaxel (TROPIC, PROSELICA, AFFINITY, CARD and the European compassionate use program) and pilot studies with adapted schedules. Based on this review, the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor from cycle 1 appears crucial to maximize the benefit-risk ratio of cabazitaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Preliminary data with alternative schedules look promising, especially for frail patients. Results of the ongoing Phase III CABASTY trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02961257) are awaited.

Efficacy of a conversion from filgrastim to filgrastim-sndz in stem cell transplant patients undergoing mobilization.

During autologous stem cell transplant, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) serve the integral role of mobilizing hematopoietic cells into the peripheral blood for subsequent collection by leukapheresis. Filgrastim (Neupogen®) is a G-CSF and affects hematopoietic cells by stimulating growth and differentiation of neutrophils. Filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio®), a biosimilar of filgrastim, received landmark approval as the first biosimilar product approved by the FDA in the United States. As a result of the recent FDA approval, our medical center made the conversion in August 2016 from using filgrastim to filgrastim-sndz to provide patients the same benefits of the filgrastim injection at a reduced cost. This retrospective, observational cohort study evaluated the comparative efficacy of the filgrastim-sndz biosimilar in 147 patients who underwent mobilization prior to stem cell transplant with filgrastim between 1 August 2015 and 31 July 2016 or filgrastim-sndz between 1 September 2016 and 30 November 2017. The mean number of CD34 cells collected during apheresis was 7.38 × 106 in the filgrastim group and 8.86 × 106 in the filgrastim-sndz group. Filgrastim-sndz was significantly non-inferior, as the difference between filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz was -1.48 × 106 with an upper 95% confidence bound equal to -0.24 × 106 that did not include the non-inferiority margin of 1 × 106 (p = 0.0006). The median number of days of apheresis was 2 in both groups (p= 0.3273). In conclusion, the biosimilar product was non-inferior for mobilization and the conversion from filgrastim to filgrastim-sndz afforded patients similar efficacy for mobilization in stem cell transplant at a reduced cost.

Association Between Filgrastim Biosimilar Availability and Changes in Claim Payments and Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs for Biologic Filgrastim Products.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of filgrastim-sndz market entry on patient out-of-pocket costs and claim payments for filgrastim products. METHODS: This study used a single interrupted time series design with longitudinal, nationally representative, individual-level claims data from IBM MarketScan. Analyses included all outpatient and prescription claims for branded filgrastim (filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim) and biosimilar filgrastim (filgrastim-sndz) from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017. Outcomes of interest included changes in monthly claim payments and monthly patient out-of-pocket costs for filgrastim products. RESULTS: In the baseline period (January 2014 to February 2016), insurers paid an average of $472.21 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 465.38-479.03) for 480 mcg of branded filgrastim, whereas patients paid an average of $49.26 (CI: 34.25-64.27). Filgrastim-sndz market entry was associated with a statistically significant and immediate 1-month decrease in insurer payment of $30.77 (95% CI: -40.59 to -20.94) and a significant decrease in monthly insurer payment trend of $3.10 per month (95% CI: -3.90 to -2.31) relative to baseline. Long-term changes in patient out-of-pocket costs were modest and restricted to beneficiaries enrolled in high cost sharing plans. CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilar filgrastim availability led to significant immediate and long-term decreases in claims payments for filgrastim products, supporting efforts to facilitate biosimilar adoption in the United States. Nevertheless, there were only slight changes in patient out-of-pocket costs, restricted to beneficiaries enrolled in high cost sharing plans, suggesting the importance of further work assessing the relationship between biosimilar availability and patient out-of-pocket costs.

Pegfilgrastim improves the outcomes of mobilization and engraftment in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the only curable therapy for multiple myeloma (MM), while its success primarily relies on mobilization to obtain sufficient hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells (HPC). Although the role of Pegfilgrastim (PEG), a novel PEGylated form of the recombinant G-CSF filgrastim (FIL), in mobilization has been demonstrated, it remains unclear whether this approach is cost-effective in MM treatment. Here, we performed a real-world analysis to evaluate the efficacy and cost of PEG for mobilization in a cohort of MM patients, of which 53% carried high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. A total of 91 patients who received either a single dose of PEG (6 or 12 mg, n = 42) or multiple dosing of 10 µg/kg/day FIL (n = 49) after chemotherapy for HPC mobilization were included. The yield of MNCs and CD34+ cells per milliliter of blood collected via apheresis was significantly greater in the PEG group than that in the FIL group (P = 0.014 and P = 0.038). Mobilization with PEG yielded significantly higher median number of collected CD34+ cells than FIL (5.56 vs. 4.82 × 106/kg; P = 0.038). Moreover, the average time-to-recovery of leukocytes and platelets after transplantation was markedly shorter in the PEG group than that in the FIL group (leukocyte, 11.59 ± 1.98 vs 12.93 ± 2.83 days, P = 0.019; platelet, 12.86 ± 2.62 vs 14.80 ± 5.47, P = 0.085). However, the total cost of mobilization and apheresis using PEG or FIL was comparable (P = 0.486). Of note, mobilization with 12 mg PEG further shortened time-to-recovery of leukocytes (10.64 ± 0.51 vs. 12.04 ± 2.26 days, P = 0.05) and platelets (10.60 ± 2.89 vs. 13.33 ± 2.35 days, P = 0.031) compared with 6 mg PEG. Our results support a notion that PEG (especially 12 mg) combined with chemotherapy is a cost-effective and convenient regimen of mobilization, which might improve the outcome of ASCT in MM.

Provider differences in biosimilar uptake in the filgrastim market.

OBJECTIVES: To identify differences in biosimilar uptake across providers and to examine the association between provider biosimilar uptake and observable practice-level characteristics. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of 100% of a commercial medical claims database from June 2015 to June 2018. METHODS: We focused on providers of biologic (Neupogen) and biosimilar (Zarxio) filgrastim. We compared trends in biosimilar uptake across 2 dimensions: provider's place of service and provider's prescribing exclusivity. We then used multivariate regression analysis to estimate the association between any biosimilar uptake and practice-level characteristics, controlling for geography and time fixed effects. RESULTS: Relative to hospital-based providers, office-based providers were earlier and quicker adopters of the biosimilar filgrastim. Across all places of service, providers predominantly prescribed either the biosimilar or biologic, exclusively, for all their patients. Any biosimilar uptake was more common among providers in office-based settings, providers with larger practice sizes, and providers with a higher share of health maintenance organization patients, nonwhite patients, and younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study uncovers important associations between provider practice characteristics and biosimilar uptake. Our findings suggest that provider awareness and incentives can be important levers to strengthen US biosimilar market penetration and competition.

Economic modeling for the US of the cost-efficiency and associated expanded treatment access of conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez from reference pegfilgrastim.

Aims: For this economic analysis, we aimed to model: (1) the cost-efficiency of prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) compared to reference pegfilgrastim, and (2) the expanded access to CIN/FN prophylaxis and anti-neoplastic treatment that could be achieved with biosimilar cost-savings on a budget-neutral basis.Methods: In a hypothetical panel of 20,000 cancer patients receiving CIN/FN prophylaxis and using the average sales price (ASP) for the second quarter of 2019 for reference pegfilgrastim, we: conducted an ex ante simulation from the payer perspective of the cost-savings of 10-100% conversion from reference to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez using drug price discounting ranging from 10-35%; estimated the budget-neutral expanded access to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez enabled by these cost-savings; and estimated the budget-neutral expanded access to anti-neoplastic treatment with pembrolizumab. The simulations were replicated using fourth quarter 2019 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for reference pegfilgrastim and biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez in a post facto analysis.Results: In ASP simulations, cost-savings of using pegfilgrastim-bmez over reference pegfilgrastim in a 20,000 patient panel range from $1.3 M (at 15% price discount) to $3 M (35%) at 10% conversion rate and from $6.4 M to $14.9 M, respectively, at 50% conversion. These savings could provide prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim-bmez to an additional 352 (15% discount) to 1,076 patients (35%) at 10% conversion or 1,764-5,384, respectively, at 50% conversion. Alternatively, savings could be reallocated for anti-neoplastic treatment with pembrolizumab to 3 (15% discount) to 9 (35%) patients at 10% conversion or 19-45, respectively, at 50% conversion. When utilizing WAC, cost-savings range from $4.6 M (10% conversion) to $23.1 M (50%) which could provide pegfilgrastim-bmez to an additional 1,174 (10% conversion) to 5,873 patients (50%).Conclusions: Prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez increases the value of cancer care by generating significant cost-savings that could be reallocated to provide expanded access to CIN/FN prevention and anti-neoplastic therapy on a budget-neutral basis.

Biosimilar Uptake in Medicare Part B Varied Across Hospital Outpatient Departments and Physician Practices: The Case of Filgrastim.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the uptake of filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio), the first biosimilar to launch in the United States, in the Medicare Part B fee-for-service program from its launch in September 2015 to December 2017 and compare characteristics of patients and facilities that used filgrastim-sndz or originator filgrastim (Neupogen). METHODS: The 20% sample of Medicare Part B fee-for-service administrative claims data was used to extract information on claims for any filgrastim product between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017. RESULTS: The utilization of filgrastim-sndz in Medicare Part B increased sharply between January and August 2016, surpassing filgrastim by November 2017, contributing to a 30% decrease in overall spending on this drug since 2015. Uptake was faster and larger in physician practices compared with hospital outpatient departments. About 77% of patients receiving filgrastim-sndz were new users. Utilization patterns indicated that product selection occurred at the facility level, rather than being at the discretion of the prescribing physician or driven by patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Uptake of biosimilar filgrastim in the Medicare Part B program occurred despite multiple challenges to the adoption of biosimilars in the US market, suggesting that substantial potential savings could be generated by improving biosimilar uptake. Our findings indicated that physician practices and hospital outpatient departments have distinctive biosimilar uptake patterns. Thus policy makers aiming to contain Medicare Part B spending might consider focusing on incentivizing biosimilar uptake among hospital outpatient departments.

Biosimilar Uptake in Academic and Veterans Health Administration Settings: Influence of Institutional Incentives.

OBJECTIVE: To compare uptake in the ordering of biosimilars at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) to that at an academic medical center, where institutional incentives for infused medications differ. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of medical record data and estimated institutional financial incentives at 2 medical centers in Philadelphia: 1) the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS), and 2) the local VAMC. All ordering events for filgrastim or infliximab products were quantified over time and stratified according to product (biosimilar versus reference product) and center. Financial incentives to the institutions over time were determined based on actual drug costs for the VAMC and average sales prices (ASPs) and Medicare Part B reimbursement rates for UPHS. RESULTS: There were 15,761 infusions of infliximab at UPHS, of which 99% were for the reference product. There was a sharper decline in the use of reference products at the VAMC; 62% of the 446 infliximab infusions ordered at the VAMC were for the reference product. ASPs were consistently lower for biosimilar infliximab products, but the estimated institutional financial incentives remained similar over time for biosimilar and reference infliximab at UPHS. At the VAMC, the costs for 100-mg vials of reference infliximab and infliximab-abda were $623.48 and $115.58, respectively: a $507.90 (81%) savings per vial. CONCLUSION: The uptake of infliximab biosimilars has been slow at an academic medical center compared to a nearby VAMC, where financial savings are realized by the institution from its use. Slow adoption of biosimilar medications may impact the rates of decline in costs.

Tbo-filgrastim versus filgrastim for stem cell mobilization and engraftment in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients: A retrospective review.

INTRODUCTION: Filgrastim, a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, is commonly used in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCTs) to assist with peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) collection and to support stem cell engraftment. In the United States, tbo-filgrastim is approved under its own Biologic License Application and is limited to a single indication excluding the HSCT population. METHODS: Approximately one year after a system-wide formulary change to tbo-filgrastim for all on- and off-label indications, our institution conducted an IRB-approved retrospective comparison of tbo-filgrastim to filgrastim in the autologous HSCT setting. The study included 71 patients who received an autologous HSCT from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2016 with a documented administration of tbo-filgrastim or filgrastim. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences noted on CD34 + counts during stem cell mobilization, neutrophil engraftment, infection rates during the engraftment phase, nor duration of hospitalization during the engraftment phase. More patients in the tbo-filgrastim group received plerixafor per protocol resulting in more patients meeting their PBPC collection goal in one day with fewer collection days overall, a result potentially confounded by institutional protocol changes. Utilizing tbo-filgrastim offered an average cost savings per patient of $2664.26 ($1907.33 for PBPC mobilization and $756.93 for stem cell engraftment) when comparing dollars spent on granulocyte colony-stimulating factor products only. CONCLUSION: Tbo-filgrastim demonstrates comparable efficacy with a cost savings benefit compared to filgrastim for autologous PBPC mobilization and stem cell engraftment.

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.