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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A systematic review and cost analysis of repeat colonoscopies due to inadequate bowel cleansing in five European countries.

Background: Colonoscopies are carried out for a range of reasons including for the detection of colon cancer and investigation of abdominal and bowel related symptoms. Inadequate preparation can increase the burden of repeat procedures.Methods: A systematic review aimed to identify the rate of repeat colonoscopies due to inadequate bowel preparation in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. The information obtained populated a decision analytic model to estimate the cost implications of inadequate bowel cleansing in the same five countries. The model explored scenarios by comparing one and two-litre polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation.Results: The systematic review identified 14 eligible studies reporting on the proportion of patients with inadequate bowel cleansing indicated for a repeat procedure. Data were available for Italy (27.5%-35.9%), Spain (63%) and the UK (24.5%) only. The decision analytic model demonstrates that improving the proportion of adequate bowel cleansing at first colonoscopy is likely to generate cost savings.Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, increasing the proportion of people who have adequate bowel cleansing at index colonoscopy will likely have financial benefits in Italy, Spain and the UK. A paucity of data, for France and Germany, limits the robustness of conclusions in these countries.

Time spent on erythropoietin stimulating agents administration in hemodialysis centers in Panama: a time and motion study.

Objectives: There is a lack of data in Panama on the potential differences in total healthcare professional (HCP) time between routine administrations of short-acting erythropoietin simulating agents (ESAs) (i.e. epoetin alfa) and continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (CERA) (i.e. methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta). This study aimed to quantify the HCP time associated with a single administration of epoetin alfa and CERA for the treatment of anemic patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on hemodialysis. Methods: This was a multi-center, cross-sectional study, using a time-and-motion methodology. Costs related to HCP time and consumables usage associated with administration of epoetin alfa and CERA were estimated. Results: Based on 60 administrations of either CERA or epoetin alfa, the estimated savings in mean total active HCP time were 2.34 (95% confidence interval = 1.87-2.81) min (-30%) per administration. When extrapolating to a full year's treatment with intravenous ESA, it would require a total of 20.3 (95% CI = 19.90-20.71) h of HCP time for epoetin alfa vs 1.1 (95% CI = 1.01-1.19) h for CERA per patient per year. Estimated savings in active HCP time per patient per year were 19.20 (95% CI = 19.20-19.21) h (-95%). This, in turn, translates into staff cost efficiency that favors Mircera with an estimated annual saving of $78.24 (95% CI = 78.24-78.28) (-95%) per patient. Conclusions: Data from a real-world setting showed that the adoption of CERA could potentially lead to a reduction in active HCP time. Highlights Few comparative data have explored the costs and potential savings of using long-acting erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESA) instead of short-acting ESAs to treat anemia in CKD patients on hemodialysis. This time-and-motion study shows that use of CERA reduces total healthcare professional time and could represent a save for an institution in a real-world setting in Panama.

Increased Cost With Use of Brand-Name Bowel Preparation by Patients With Medicare Part D From 2013 to 2015.

High-quality bowel preparation (prep) before colonoscopy is essential for the success of the procedure.1 Bowel preps should be safe, tolerable, efficacious, and allow for visualization of polyps 5 mm or larger.2 Full-volume (4 L) polyethylene glycol-3350 with electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) has been considered a standard bowel prep regimen, with good safety and efficacy profiles, and is available as a generic.2.

Pembrolizumab in advanced recurrent endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in patients with recurrent endometrial cancer that have failed first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: We created a model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) or bevacizumab for the treatment of women with recurrent endometrial cancer who have failed carboplatin and paclitaxel. Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) and non-microsatellite instability-high (non-MSI-H) tumors were evaluated. We included 4400 patients in the model; 800 patients were assumed to have MSI-H tumors. Drug costs were calculated using 2016-2017 wholesale acquisition costs, and cost of Grade III-IV toxicities was estimated from clinical experience. Effectiveness was calculated as 2-year overall survival (OS). We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to determine the cost per 2-year survivor. Univariate sensitivity analyses were performed. The willingness to pay threshold was $100,000 per year of OS. RESULTS: The cost of therapy with PLD and bevacizumab were $33.2 million (M) and $167.9 M, respectively. The cost of pembrolizumab therapy was $318.3 M for non-MSI-H patients compared to $57.9 M for MSI-H patients. For non-MSI-H patients, bevacizumab was cost-effective relative to PLD with an ICER of $153,028, while pembrolizumab was not cost-effective relative to bevacizumab with an ICER of $341,830. For MSI-H patients, pembrolizumab was cost-effective compared to PLD with an ICER of $147,249, while bevacizumab was subjected to extended dominance. Sensitivity analysis revealed that for non-MSI-H patients, one cycle of pembrolizumab would need to cost $7253 or less to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with MSI-H recurrent endometrial cancers who have failed first-line chemotherapy, pembrolizumab is cost-effective relative to other single agent drugs. To be cost-effective in non-MSI-H patients, the cost of pembrolizumab should decrease substantially.

Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin therapy for hepatitis C virus genotype 2 infection in South Korea.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: For genotype 2 chronic hepatitis C (CHC), the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin therapy (SOF + RBV) was better than pegylated interferon plus ribavirin therapy (PR) at a greater drug cost. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of SOF + RBV compared with PR for treatment-naïve genotype 2 CHC in South Korea. METHODS: Using a decision analytic Markov model, a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SOF + RBV with PR or no treatment for treatment-naïve genotype 2 CHC was performed with probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses from the payer's perspective in 2017. Three cohorts of patients aged 40-49, 50-59, and 60-69 years were simulated to progress through the fibrosis stages F0-F4 to end-stage liver disease, hepatocellular carcinoma, or death. Published and calculated data on the clinical efficacy of the regimen, health-related quality of life, costs, and transition probabilities were used. RESULTS: While the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PR was dominant over no treatment, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for SOF + RBV were $20 058 for the patients in their 40s, $19 662 for those in their 50s, and $22 278 for those in their 60s compared with PR. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated an 89.0% probability for the SOF + RBV to be cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $29 754.4 (per-capita gross domestic product in 2017) for the patients in their 40s and 94.1% and 89.1% for the patients in their 50s and 60s, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The SOF + RBV is a cost-effective option for genotype 2 treatment-naïve CHC patients, especially for the patients with liver cirrhosis in Korea.

Mobilization of Hematopoietic Progenitor Cells for Autologous Transplantation Using Pegfilgrastim and Plerixafor: Efficacy and Cost Implications.

Filgrastim (FIL) is the most common growth factor combined with plerixafor for autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization, but requires daily, multi-injection administration. We adopted a standardized mobilization regimen with pegfilgrastim (PEG) and upfront plerixafor, allowing for a single injection given the long half-life and slow elimination of PEG. Between 2015 and 2017, a total of 235 patients with lymphoma or plasma cell dyscrasias underwent mobilization with PEG 6 mg on day 1 and upfront plerixafor 24 mg on day 3, followed by apheresis on day 4 regardless of peripheral blood CD34+ cells. The median CD34+ cells/mm3 in peripheral blood on first day of collection was 48 and median collection yield was 7.27 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg (range, 0.32 to 39.6 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg) after a mean of 1.6 apheresis collections. Overall, 83% of patients achieved the mobilization target, and 95% reached the minimum necessary CD34+ cell yield to proceed with transplantation (2 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg). Because FIL is weight-based and dosed daily, the cost comparison with PEG is influenced by patient weight and number of apheresis sessions required. A cost simulation using actual patient data indicates that PEG is associated with lower cost than FIL for the majority of patients. Autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization with PEG and plerixafor is practical, effective, and not associated with increased cost compared with FIL mobilization.

Is it reasonable to administer pegfilgrastim on day 1 of a myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimen? A cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is recent evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of same-day dosing of pegfilgrastim in patients undergoing chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim on day 1 (D1) versus day 2 (D2) for primary prevention of neutropenia in women receiving chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-utility model was designed comparing standard D2 versus D1 administration of pegfilgrastim to ovarian cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with an intermediate risk (10-15%) of febrile neutropenia (FN). Rates of FN despite prophylaxis were modeled as 10% for D1 and 5% for D2. Societal costs associated with D2 injection ($175.71) were incorporated. Quality of life (QOL) was modeled from published data; we assumed a small decrement in QOL on treatment days. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: D1 administration was less costly ($17,195 versus $17,681) and resulted in higher QOL (0.2298 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) versus 0.2288 QALYs) than D2. Results were sensitive to the risk of FN. D1 remained dominant or cost-effective (ICER less than $50,000/QALY) compared to D2 if the FN rate with D1 was assumed less than 14.5% (baseline estimate 10%). If the FN rate with D1 was assumed greater than or equal to 15%, D1 was not cost-effective compared to D2, with an ICER greater than $100,000/QALY. Findings are insensitive to variations in the modeled cost of treating FN, the additional cost of D2 injection, and the reduced QOL associated with treatment visits. CONCLUSION: Administration of D1 pegfilgrastim is cost-effective in women with ovarian cancer who are treated with intermediate risk chemotherapy.

A comparison of the effect of xinruibai versus filgrastim on hematopoietic reconstruction after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

BACKGROUND: To compare the effect of xinruibai (Pegfilgrastim) and filgrastim injections on white blood cell and platelet (PLT) recovery, adverse events, post-operative complications, and cost effectiveness after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). METHODS: Children who underwent allo-HSCT at our hospital from January 2014 to May 2017 due to thalassemia major, aplastic anemia, leukemia, and mucopolysaccharidosis were included. Among the children, 53 received xinruibai injections and 33 received filgrastim injections. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the average time to neutrophil and platelet recovery, the incidence of post-operative complications after allo-HSCT, the number of red blood cell and PLT infusions, or the incidence of adverse events related to the injection between two groups (P >  0.05). The pain score was 3.06 (SD 0.41) for the xinruibai group and 25.18 (SD 6.22) for the filgrastim group, indicating significant differences between the two groups (P <  0.001). No difference was found in the hospitalization cost. The cost of the granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was 257.11 ± 61.87 Euro in the xinruibai group and 214.79 ± 0.00 Euro in the filgrastim group, showing significant difference (P <  0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Xinruibai injection was more convenient, simple, effective, and safer than filgrastim.

Assembly of PEG Microgels into Porous Cell-Instructive 3D Scaffolds via Thiol-Ene Click Chemistry.

The assembly of microgel building blocks into 3D scaffolds is an emerging strategy for tissue engineering. A key advantage is that the inherent microporosity of these scaffolds provides cells with a more permissive environment than conventional nanoporous hydrogels. Here, norbornene-bearing poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) based microgels are assembled into 3D cell-instructive scaffolds using a PEG-dithiol linker and thiol-ene click photopolymerization. The bulk modulus of these materials depends primarily on the crosslink density of the microgel building blocks. However, the linker and initiator concentrations used during assembly have significant effects on cell spreading and proliferation when human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) are incorporated in the scaffolds. The cell response is also affected by the properties of the modular microgel building blocks, as hMSCs growing in scaffolds assembled from stiff but not soft microgels activate Yes-associated protein signaling. These results indicate that PEG microgel scaffolds assembled via thiol-ene click chemistry can be engineered to provide a cell-instructive 3D milieu, making them a promising 3D platform for tissue engineering.

Cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir plus asunaprevir for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1b treatment-naïve patients in China.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C is the second fastest growing infectious disease in China. The standard-of-care for chronic hepatitis C in China is Pegylated interferon plus ribavirin (PR), which is associated with tolerability and efficacy issues. An interferon- and ribavirin-free, all-oral regimen comprising daclatasvir (DCV) and asunaprevir (ASV), which displays higher efficacy and tolerability, has recently been approved in China. OBJECTIVES: This study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of DCV+ASV (24 weeks) for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1b treatment-naïve patients compared with PR regimen (48 weeks) in China. METHODS: A cohort-based Markov model was developed from Chinese payer perspective to project the lifetime outcomes of treating 10,000 patients with an average age of 44.5 with two hypothetical regimens, DCV+ASV and PR. Chinese-specific health state costs and efficacy data were used. The annual discount rate was 5%. Base-case analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS: For HCV Genotype 1b treatment-naïve patients, DCV+ASV proved to be dominant over PR, with a cost saving of ¥33,480(5,096 USD) and gains in QALYs and life years of 1.29 and 0.85, respectively. The lifetime risk of compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related death was greatly reduced with DCV+ASV. Univariate sensitivity analysis demonstrated that key influencers were the discount rate, time horizon, initial disease severity and sustained virological response rate of DCV+ASV, with all scenarios resulting in additional benefit. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that DCV+ASV has a high likelihood (100%) of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: DCV+ASV is not only an effective and well-tolerated regimen to treat chronic HCV genotype 1b infection treatment-naïve patients, but also is more cost-effective than PR regimen. DCV+ASV can benefit both the public health and reimbursement system in China.

Transparent cap-assisted endoscopic sclerotherapy in esophageal varices: a randomized-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic treatment is widely accepted as the first-line therapy selection for esophageal variceal bleeding. Nevertheless, endoscopic injection sclerotherapy requires experienced endoscopists and is associated with a high risk of bleeding. Our study evaluates the feasibility and efficacy of transparent cap-assisted endoscopic sclerotherapy in the management of esophageal varices. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized-controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary referral center from April 2015 to May 2016. Patients who received endoscopic sclerotherapy were randomized in a blinded manner into two groups: the transparent cap-assisted group (n=59) and the control group (n=61). RESULTS: The average injection sites were reduced in the transparent cap-assisted group compared with the control group (1.2±0.4 vs. 1.4±0.05, P=0.000), whereas no difference was observed in the dosage of lauromacrogol (16.97±4.91 vs. 16.85±4.57, P=0.662) and the hemorrhage that occurred during injection made no difference (50.8 vs. 61.0%, P=0.276); yet, salvage hemostasis methods were used in only nine patients in the transparent cap-assisted group compared with 17 patients in the control group (25.0 vs. 38.7%, P=0.0936). The cost of each procedure in the cap-assisted group was ¥2578 (1878-4202), whereas it was ¥3691 for the control group (2506-5791) (P=0.023). Moreover, in both groups, no esophageal constriction was observed during the 6-month follow-up period, whereas the rebleeding rate between two groups showed no statistical significance in 6 months (89.8 vs. 93.4%, P=0.563). CONCLUSION: Transparent cap-assisted sclerotherapy provided a clear field of vision and helped to fix the targeted veins, thus significantly reducing the use of the salvage hemostasis method during sclerotherapy injection hemorrhage. It is also associated with reduced injection sites and endoscopic therapy cost.