Cost-effectiveness analysis of mecapegfilgrastim and recombinant human granulocyte stimulating factor for primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and economics of mecapegfilgrastim and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) in the primary prevention of chemotherapy-related neutropenia in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 181 patients with NSCLC who received intermediate risk chemotherapy were collected from the information system of a tertiary hospital in China. Patients were categorized into two groups: those treated with mecapegfilgrastim (n = 91) and those treated with rhG-CSF (n = 90). The clinical efficacy rates of neutropenia prevention were used as effect indicators, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Logistic regression, generalized linear regression, and bootstrap methods were used for sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the mecapegfilgrastim and rhG-CSF groups in clinical efficacy rates (98.9 vs. 97.8%). However, the total cost in the mecapegfilgrastim group was significantly higher than that in the rhG-CSF group (16,341.6 CNY vs. 14,371.1 CNY, p = 0.03). The cost-minimization analysis shows that mecapegfilgrastim is not cost-effective. The sensitivity analyses confirm that these results are robust. CONCLUSION: Compared with rhG-CSF, mecapegfilgrastim is not a cost-effective strategy for NSCLC patients in neutropenia prevention in China.

Assessment of the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of a group of Turkish pediatric glycogen storage disease type 1b patients with varying clinical presentations and a novel mutation.

OBJECTIVES: Glycogen storage disease (GSD) type 1b is a multisystemic disease in which immune and infectious complications are present, different from GSD type 1a. Treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is often required in the management of neutropenia and inflammatory bowel disease. Recently, an alternative treatment option to G-CSF has been preferred, like empagliflozin. To report on the demographics, genotype, clinical presentation, management, and complications of pediatric patients with glycogen storage disease type 1b (GSD 1b). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the clinical course of eight patients with GSD type 1b whose diagnosis was confirmed by molecular testing. RESULTS: The mean age at referral was four months. The diagnosis of GSD 1b was based on clinical and laboratory findings and supported by genetic studies. One patient presented with an atypical clinical finding in the form of hydrocephalus at the time of first admission. The first symptom was abscess formation on the scalp due to neutropenia in another patient. Other patients had hypoglycemia at the time of admission. All patients presented suffered from neutropenia, which was managed with G-CSF, except one. Hospitalizations for infections were frequent. One patient developed chronic diarrhea and severe infections, which have been brought under control with empagliflozin. CONCLUSIONS: Neutropenia is an essential finding in GSD 1b and responsible for complications. The coexistence of hypoglycemia and neutropenia should bring to mind GSD 1b. Empagliflozin can be a treatment option for neutropenia, which is resistant to G-CSF treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of all approved granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk regimens (in those with additional patient risk factors). Previous studies have examined G-CSF cost-effectiveness by cancer type in patients with a high baseline risk of FN. This study evaluated patients with breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving therapy who were at intermediate risk for FN and compared primary prophylaxis (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) using biosimilar filgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim in Austria, France, and Germany. METHODS: A Markov cycle tree-based model was constructed to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL receiving therapy over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that using biosimilar filgrastim as PP compared to SP resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below the most commonly accepted WTP threshold of €30,000. Across all three countries, PP in NSCLC had the lowest cost per QALY, and in France, PP was both cheaper and more effective than SP. Similar results were found using biosimilar pegfilgrastim, with ICERs generally higher than those for filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis are cost-effective approaches to avoid FN events in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL at intermediate risk for FN in Austria, France, and Germany.

Real-World Impact of Prophylactic Growth Factor Use on Timing of Febrile Neutropenia and Infection After High-Risk Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic growth-factor therapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with breast cancer initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy. However, little is known about the protective benefit early in the chemotherapy cycle. METHODS: To assess the relationship between G-CSF prophylaxis and incidence of FN/infection in week 1 versus beyond week 1 of the first chemotherapy cycle, a retrospective study was conducted using Medicare claims from 2005 through 2020 among patients with breast cancer initiating high-risk chemotherapy. Two cohorts were compared based on G-CSF prophylaxis within 3 days following chemotherapy initiation. The primary outcome was FN or infection, defined as hospitalization with neutropenia, fever, or infection diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were a stricter definition of FN and infection-related hospitalization. Unadjusted and regression-adjusted proportions of patients experiencing each outcome during week 1 versus beyond week 1 of the first chemotherapy cycle were compared. RESULTS: Of 78,810 patients meeting all inclusion criteria (>98% female; mean age, 69 years), 79% initiated TC (docetaxel/cyclophosphamide), 14% TCH (docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab), and 7% TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide). Among patients receiving G-CSF (74%), incidence of first-cycle FN/infection was lower compared with patients not receiving G-CSF (overall, 6% vs 13%; TAC, 12% vs 19%; TC, 6% vs 12%; TCH, 5% vs 15%). However, patients who received G-CSF were generally more likely to experience FN/infection in week 1 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.24 for all; 1.73 for TAC; 1.35 for TC; and 0.76 for TCH). Results were similar for strictly defined FN (overall aOR, 1.29 for week 1 and 0.12 for beyond week 1) and infection-related hospitalization (overall aOR, 1.33 for week 1 and 0.27 for beyond week 1). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the rates of chemotherapy-related FN and infection in week 1 of the first chemotherapy cycle are similar for patients receiving and not receiving G-CSF, suggesting continued risk in week 1 despite prophylactic G-CSF.

Drug-Drug interactions of docetaxel in patients with breast cancer based on insurance claims data.

Despite an increase in the use of targeted anticancer drugs and immunotherapy, cytotoxic anticancer drugs such as docetaxel continue to play a clinically important role. The aim of this study was to evaluate drug-drug interactions between docetaxel and coadministered medicines in patients with breast cancer a claims database. The Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) database (2017 to 2019) was used in this study. We evaluated the risk of neutropenia (defined using receipt of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prescriptions) under docetaxel administration or the coadministration of docetaxel and an interacting anticancer drug (predefined based on approval information obtained from the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety and the Lexicomp electronic database). The propensity score matching method was applied to balance covariates in the case (patients with G-CSF prescriptions) and control (patients without G-CSF prescriptions) groups. We identified 947 female patients with breast cancer prescribed with docetaxel and excluded 321 patients based on inclusion criteria. Of the remaining 626 patients, 280 were assigned to the case group and 346 to the control group. Predefined drugs were coadministered to 71 (11.3%) patients during the 7-day period before and after the administration of docetaxel. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) calculated using the logistic regression model applied to the propensity score matching showed no significant difference between the administration of docetaxel alone and docetaxel coadministration (adjusted OR, 2.010; 95% confidence interval, 0.906, 4.459). In conclusion, we suggest that coadministration of docetaxel and a predefined interacting drug are not associated with G-CSF prescription.

Provider barriers in uptake of biosimilars: case study on filgrastim.

In this article, we used administrative claims data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse and American Hospital Association Annual Survey data to examine associations between hospital characteristics and uptake of biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatments. We found that 340B-participating hospitals and non-rural referral center (RRC) hospitals that reported owning rural health clinics were less likely to administer the lower-cost biosimilars, whereas the opposite was true for hospitals that are RRCs. To our knowledge, our study offers a first look at an underappreciated source of disparities in access to lower-cost medications such as biosimilars. Results from our study reveal opportunities for targeted policies to encourage adoption of lower-cost treatments, particularly among hospitals that serve rural communities where patients often have fewer choices in care site.

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.

Outcome and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Long-acting G-CSF as Primary Prophylaxis of Neutropenia Induced by Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients, From a Retrospective Study.

PURPOSE: This retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as primary prophylaxis of neutropenia caused by chemotherapy for breast cancer. METHODS: Patients with breast cancer who received long- or short-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as primary prophylaxis of neutropenia were enrolled in this study, and incidences of neutropenia were compared between two groups. A decision-analytic and a Markov model were used to compare the health benefits and costs of utilizing long- vs short-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as the primary prophylaxis from the perspective of the Chinese health service system. Subsequently, one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated in baseline and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Patients receiving long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as the primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia experienced a significant lower incidence of this adverse event, compared with the short-acting one for 2 to 7 days. The outcomes of baseline analysis indicated that long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor had a gain of 0.08 quality-adjusted life years and costed $149 more than the short-acting one, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1792 per quality-adjusted life year. The sensitivity analysis proved the stability of our models and economic efficiency of long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as primary prophylaxis of neutropenia experienced lower risk of this event compared with those underusing short-acting one. The long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor may be a more cost-effective strategy for primary prophylaxis of neutropenia than short-acting one, considering the Chinese willingness-to-pay threshold of $12158.6 per quality-adjusted life year.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in intermediate-risk regimens: Clinical and economic outcomes of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia increases the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) and infection with resultant hospitalizations, with substantial health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (GCSF) is recommended as primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy regimens having more than a 20% risk of FN. Yet, for intermediate-risk (10%-20%) regimens, it should be considered only for patients with 1 or more clinical risk factors (RFs) for FN. It is unclear whether FN prophylaxis for intermediate-risk patients is being optimally implemented. OBJECTIVE: To examine RFs, prophylaxis use, HCRU, and costs associated with incident FN during chemotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective study used administrative claims data for commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees with nonmyeloid cancer treated with intermediate-risk chemotherapy regimens during January 1, 2009, to March 31, 2020. Clinical RFs, GCSF prophylaxis, incident FN, HCRU, and costs were analyzed descriptively by receipt of primary GCSF, secondary GCSF, or no GCSF prophylaxis. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to examine the association between number of RFs and cumulative FN risk. RESULTS: The sample comprised 13,937 patients (mean age 67 years, 55% female). Patients had a mean of 2.3 RFs, the most common being recent surgery, were aged 65 years or greater, and had baseline liver or renal dysfunction; 98% had 1 or more RFs. However, only 35% of patients received primary prophylaxis; 12% received secondary prophylaxis. The hazard ratio of incident FN was higher with increasing number of RFs during the first line of therapy, yet more than 54% of patients received no prophylaxis, regardless of RFs. Use of GCSF prophylaxis varied more by chemotherapeutic regimen than by number of RFs. Among patients treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin hydrochloride (doxorubicin hydrochloride), vincristine, and prednisone, 76% received primary prophylaxis, whereas only 22% of patients treated with carboplatin/paclitaxel received primary prophylaxis. Among patients with a first line of therapy FN event, 78% had an inpatient stay and 42% had an emergency visit. During cycle 1, mean FN-related coordination of benefits-adjusted medical costs per patient per month ($13,886 for patients with primary prophylaxis and $18,233 for those with none) were driven by inpatient hospitalizations, at 91% and 97%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Incident FN occurred more often with increasing numbers of RFs, but GCSF prophylaxis use did not rise correspondingly. Variation in prophylaxis use was greater based on regimen than RF number. Lower health care costs were observed among patients with primary prophylaxis use. Improved individual risk identification for intermediate-risk regimens and appropriate prophylaxis may decrease FN events toward the goal of better clinical and health care cost outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded by Sandoz Inc., which participated in the design of the study, interpretation of the data, writing and revision of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The study was performed by Optum under contract with Sandoz Inc. The author(s) meet criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. Dr Li is an employee of Sandoz Inc. Drs Bell and Lal and Mr Peterson-Brandt were employees of Optum at the time of the study. Ms Anderson and Dr Aslam are employees of Optum. Dr Lyman has been primary investigator on a research grant from Amgen to their institution and has consulted for Sandoz, G1 Therapeutics, Partners Healthcare, BeyondSpring, ER Squibb, Merck, Jazz Pharm, Kallyope, Teva; Fresenius Kabi, Seattle Genetics, and Samsung.

Cost comparison of filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim biosimilars for inpatient prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia.

INTRODUCTION: The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (The James) uses daily subcutaneous filgrastim as the inpatient granulocyte colony-stimulating factor of choice. The coordination of care associated with filgrastim can often be a barrier to patient discharge. The purpose of this study was to compare the inpatient cost of daily filgrastim to single dose pegfilgrastim and biosimilars. METHODS: Adult patients admitted to The James who received at least one dose of filgrastim between June 1, 2021 and August 31, 2021 were retrospectively identified. This study compared the inpatient cost of filgrastim and biosimilars associated with one chemotherapy cycle to the potential inpatient cost of pegfilgrastim and biosimilars based on average sales price (ASP). Additionally, the number and duration of discharge prescriptions for filgrastim was determined. RESULTS: Of the 44 unique patient encounters that met inclusion criteria, 19 received 300-mcg doses of filgrastim and 25 received 480-mcg doses. The median number of doses administered per admission was eight. If each of these patients were to instead receive the most inexpensive biosimilar, pegfilgrastim reference product, the cost would be 216% higher than with filgrastim-sndz. At discharge, 15 patients (34%) received a prescription for filgrastim to be continued for a median duration of 6 days. CONCLUSION: Based on ASP, pegfilgrastim was more costly than filgrastim. Potential rebates and negotiation power may alter the financial outlook of adding pegfilgrastim to inpatient formulary. Exploration of delays in discharge due to insurance coordination for filgrastim continuation in the outpatient setting may also impact formulary decisions.

Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with lymphoma: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a prevalent and potentially life-threatening complication in patients with lymphoma receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is more effective than filgrastim as prophylaxis for FN. However, its usage has been limited because of its higher cost. Pegfilgrastim's value for money remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim compared to filgrastim as a primary or secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases, and Google Scholar. The most widely used economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and cost-benefit analysis) were included in the review. Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist, and the quality of reviewed articles was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. Cost-effectiveness data were rigorously summarized and synthesized narratively. Costs were adjusted to US$ 2020. RESULTS: We identified eight economic evaluation studies (two cost-utility analyses, three cost-effectiveness analyses, and three studies reporting both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses). Half of these studies were from Europe (n = 4), the other half were from Iran, USA, Canada, and Singapore. Six studies met > 80% of the JBI quality assessment criteria. Cost-effectiveness estimates in the majority (n = 6) of these studies were for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with high-risk of FN (> 20%). The studies considered a wide range of baseline FN risk (17-97.4%) and mortality rates (5.8-8.9%). Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from US$ 2199 to US$ 8,871,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, dominant to US$ 44,358 per FN averted, and US$ 4261- US$ 7251 per life-years gained. The most influential parameters were medication and hospitalization costs, the relative risk of FN, and assumptions of mortality benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies showed that pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to filgrastim as primary and secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma at a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$ 50,000 per QALY gained. The findings could assist clinicians and healthcare decision-makers to make informed decisions regarding resource allocation for the management of chemotherapy-induced FN in settings similar to those studied.

Granulocyte colony stimulating factor use and adherence to clinical practice guidelines among women with breast cancer living in Puerto Rico: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Febrile Neutropenia (FN) is a common and serious condition related to cancer chemotherapy. Human recombinant Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) prevents and attenuates the severity and duration of FN. We evaluated the use and predictors of G-CSF adherence among women with breast cancer with a high risk of FN in Puerto Rico. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the Puerto Rico Central Cancer Registry-Health Insurance Linkage Database. Women with invasive breast cancer diagnosed during 2009-2015 who received selected chemotherapy regimens (n = 816) were included. The risk of FN was categorized as high and low risk based on the chemotherapy regimens according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and literature. Adherence was defined as the use or no use of G-CSF at the start of the first chemotherapy cycle among women with breast cancer based on the risk of developing FN. We used a multivariate logistic model to identify factors associated with G-CSF use in women classified at high risk for FN. RESULTS: Adherence to G-CSF clinical practice guidelines was low (38.2%) among women with a high risk of FN. Women at high risk of FN with Medicaid (aOR: 0.14; CI 95%: 0.08, 0.24) and Medicare/Medicaid (aOR: 0.33; CI 95%: 0.15, 0.73) were less likely to receive G-CSF than women with private health insurance. Women with regional stage (aOR: 1.82; CI 95%: 1.15, 2.88) were more likely to receive G-CSF than women with localized cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to clinical practice guidelines was poor among women with a high risk of FN. Furthermore, disparities in the adherence to G-CSF use in terms of health insurance, health region, and cancer stage granted the opportunity to implement strategies to follow the recommended guidelines for using G-CSF as part of cancer treatment.

MEdical Database AnaLysIS of Japanese multiple myeloma patienTs with apheresis #2 (MEDALIST-2): the impact of plerixafor use on costs and healthcare resources during mobilization and stem cell transplantation.

Treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) can involve apheresis to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells for later autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), which can become costly over time. This retrospective claims database study examined healthcare resource use and medical costs associated with plerixafor, a selective CXCR4 inhibitor that mobilizes hematopoietic stem cells and minimizes apheresis times. Medical data were sampled from Japanese MM patients between April 2017 and September 2019, after the Japanese launch of plerixafor. The study population (190 plerixafor users and 180 non-users) was identified from the Medical Data Vision database, and further stratified into those using granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in monotherapy or in combination with cyclophosphamide to trigger apheresis. A descriptive comparison of patient characteristics, healthcare resource use, and medical costs across the mobilization and ASCT phases indicated plerixafor is associated with higher average total medical costs. However, plerixafor-treated patients received fewer concomitant medications and spent less time in apheresis than non-users. A comparison of non-users with a similar analysis conducted pre-plerixafor launch (2013-2017) showed general improvements to treatment independent of plerixafor. The results of this research can inform guidelines for the role of plerixafor in balancing cost-effectiveness and drug efficacy in MM treatment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pegfilgrastim in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving ramucirumab plus docetaxel in Japan.

PURPOSE: The dose-limiting factor of ramucirumab plus docetaxel (RAM + DTX) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is febrile neutropenia (FN), which has a high incidence in Asians. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim (Peg-G) in patients with NSCLC receiving RAM + DTX in Japan. METHODS: We simulated model patients treated with RAM + DTX in Japan and developed a decision-analytical model for patients receiving Peg-G prophylaxis or no primary prophylaxis. The expected cost, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each treatment were calculated from the perspective of a Japanese healthcare payer. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at 45,867 United States dollars (USD) (5 million Japanese yen) per QALY gained. The probabilities, utility values, and other costs were obtained from published sources. Deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probabilistic analysis were conducted to evaluate the effect of each parameter and robustness of the base-case results. RESULTS: The expected cost and QALYs were 20,275 USD and 0.701 for Peg-G prophylaxis and 17,493 USD and 0.672 for no primary prophylaxis, respectively. The ICER was calculated to be 97,519 USD per QALY gained. The results were most sensitive to FN risk with Peg-G. When FN risk with no primary prophylaxis exceeded 51% or the cost of Peg-G was less than 649 USD per injection, the ICER was below the WTP threshold. The probabilistic analysis revealed a 9.1% probability that the ICER was below the WTP threshold. CONCLUSION: Peg-G is not cost-effective in patients with NSCLC receiving RAM + DTX in Japan.

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.

Economic Analysis on Adoption of Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors in Patients With Nonmyeloid Cancer at Risk of Febrile Neutropenia Within the Oncology Care Model Framework.

PURPOSE: Value-based programs, such as the Oncology Care Model (OCM), seek to improve care for patients undergoing chemotherapy, while reducing total costs. The purpose of this study is to quantify the impact of adopting biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for febrile neutropenia (FN) primary prophylaxis (PP) from a US practice perspective. METHODS: A 1-year economic analysis on real-world direct drug costs and health care resource utilization was conducted in a hypothetical cohort of 500 patients with nonmyeloid cancer receiving chemotherapy. The first model simulated total cost savings of biosimilar versus reference G-CSFs over six cycles of chemotherapy. The second model evaluated cost and outcome implications of expanding the use of biosimilar G-CSFs to an additional 10% of patients at intermediate FN risk. RESULTS: Based on real-world evidence over 1 year, a total of 121 of 500 patients received G-CSF prophylaxis resulting in cost savings that ranged from $0.54M US dollars (USD) (short-acting, eg, filgrastim) to $1.68M USD (long-acting, eg, pegfilgrastim) when switching from reference to biosimilar G-CSFs. Expanding the use of biosimilar G-CSFs allowed an additional 24 patients to receive prophylaxis of FN, leading to cost savings of $0.03M USD or $1.19M USD, with a reduction of $0.08M USD in FN-related resource utilization cost. The per-patient per-year cost saving for long-acting G-CSFs was about $3,000 USD. CONCLUSION: The implementation of biosimilar versus reference G-CSFs to OCM-participating practices results in a reduction of costs and facilitates achieving OCM metrics by improving patients' outcomes while expanding biosimilar G-CSFs access to patients at intermediate risk of chemotherapy-induced FN.

Impact of a G-CSF Policy to Reduce Low-Value Care on Guideline Adherence and Mortality.

PURPOSE: Practice guidelines recommend the prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) in patients with high risk of febrile neutropenia, but evidence suggests that G-CSFs are frequently overused. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine the prevalence and prescribing patterns of G-CSF and (2) to evaluate the impact of a program initiative on G-CSF prescribing patterns, adherence to guidelines, and mortality. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, data were used from the electronic health records of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who received care at a multicenter oncology practice network during two time periods: July 01, 2013, to December 31, 2014, and July 01, 2017, to December 31, 2017. Beginning 2016, a site-wide program initiative that involved educational materials, appropriate nonuse recommendations, and prior authorization was introduced in the oncology practice network with an aim of reducing G-CSF overutilization. Descriptive statistics, t tests, and chi-squared tests were employed to analyze program impact. RESULTS: There were 3,426 chemotherapy regimens corresponding to 2,968 patients. There were a total of 387 (11.3%) G-CSF-treated patients and 3,095 G-CSF administrations during the study period. G-CSF use was significantly lower in the postperiod, compared with the preperiod (P < .0001). Adherence to guidelines was significantly higher in the postperiod, compared with the preperiod (P < .0001). Mortality rates did not significantly differ between the two time periods. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that policy initiatives have the potential to positively affect G-CSF prescription patterns and promote guideline adherence. These findings could help prescribers adopt a cost-effective approach in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, leading to enhanced clinical practice and value-based care.

Efficacy and cost-benefit of filgrastim administered after early assessment bone marrow biopsy during induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia.

The role of filgrastim during acute myeloid leukemia (AML) induction therapy remains controversial. At our institution, newly diagnosed AML patients from 2003 through 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were stratified on whether they received filgrastim within 5 days after early assessment bone marrow (BMBx) and divided into early GCSF group (eGCSF) and no-eGCSF group. A total of 121 patients were included. We found significantly shorter hospital stay (median 24 vs 26 days, p < .01), absolute neutrophil count recovery days (median 23 vs 25 days, p = .03), and intravenous antibiotics days (mean 18.5 vs 21.4 days, p = .01) in patients with eGCSF comparing with no-eGCSF. There was no significant difference regarding complete response rates; however, for those failed to achieve remission, eGCSF was associated with higher blast count. There was no significant difference regarding overall survival or progression-free survival. The use of eGCSF was associated with cost savings of $5199 per patient over no-eGCSF.

Healthcare resource utilization in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: post hoc analysis of the randomized phase 3 REVEL study.

PURPOSE: In REVEL, patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and patients with increased tumor aggressiveness (rapid disease progression (RDP), platinum-refractory disease (PRD), and high symptom burden (HSB)) benefited from second-line treatment with ramucirumab plus docetaxel over placebo plus docetaxel. This post hoc analysis describes healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) associated with the treatment. METHODS: aNSCLC patients who had progressed during or after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized to receive docetaxel and either ramucirumab or placebo until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or death. HCRU included hospitalizations, transfusions, and concomitant medications. Categorical variables (counts and percentages) were compared using Fisher's exact test. Continuous variables (mean, standard deviation (SD), median, minimum, and maximum) were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were largely similar between treatment arms. Within the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (n = 1253), the mean treatment duration was 19.7 and 16.9 weeks in the ramucirumab and control arms, respectively; 51.0% versus 54.9% of patients received subsequent anticancer therapy, respectively. Hospitalization rates were 41.9% versus 42.6% (p = 0.863), mean length of hospital stay was 14.5 days versus 11.3 days (p = 0.066), transfusion rates were 9.9% versus 12.3% (p = 0.206), and use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors was 41.8% versus 36.6% (p = 0.063), respectively. No significant difference was observed in HCRU between treatment arms in both ITT population and in aggressive disease subgroups including RDP (n = 209), PRD (n = 360), and HSB (n = 497). CONCLUSION: In REVEL, the addition of ramucirumab to docetaxel did not increase HCRU among patients with aggressive aNSCLC disease. These results may help inform economic evaluation of treatment for patients with aNSCLC.

[Cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis with PEG-rhG-CSF in early-stage breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in China].

Objective: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) with pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF), PP with recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) and no prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer in China. Methods: Two phase Markov models were constructed for a hypothetical cohort of patients aged 45 with stage Ⅱ breast cancer. The first phase modelled costs and outcomes of 4 cycles docetaxel combined with cyclophosphamide [TC×4, febrile neutropenia (FN) risk>20%] chemotherapy, which assumptions based on literature reviews, including FN rates [base-case (deterministic sensitivity analysis range), 0.29 (0.24-0.35)] and related events [FN case-fatality, 3.4 (2.7-4.1)]. Second phase modelled the long term survival which was link with the relative dose intensity (RDI) [mortality hazard ratio (HR) of RDI < 85% vs ≥85%, 1.45 (1.00-2.32)]. Clinical effectiveness, therapeutic costs, and economic utilities were estimated from peer-reviewed publications and expert opinions in case of unavailability of published evidences. Results: Compared to rhG-CSF PP and no prophylaxis, the cost of PEG-rhG-CSF PP increased to 5 208.19 RMB and 5 222.73 RMB, respectively. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) enhanced to 0.066 and 0.297, respectively. Accordingly, the incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are 79 146.3 RMB and 17 558.77 RMB per QALY, which were both below the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of three times GDP per capita (18, 000 RMB) recommended by the WHO. Sensitivity analysis suggested that the more clinically effective the primary prophylaxis with PEG-rhG-CSF is, the more cost-effective primary prophylaxis with PEG-rhG-CSF will be. And the lower the mortality HR of RDI<85% vs ≥85% is, the more cost-effective primary prophylaxis with PEG-rhG-CSF will be. Conclusion: Although the cost of PP PEG-rhG-CSF is higher, considering the additional benefits, the administrating of PP PEG-rhG-CSF is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to PP rhG-CSF and no prophylaxis in patients with early stage breast cancer whose FN risks are more than 20% in China.