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.

Filgrastim and infliximab biosimilar uptake in Medicare Advantage compared with Traditional Medicare, 2016-2019.

BACKGROUND: Medicare Advantage (MA) and Traditional Medicare face different financing structures and incentives and may implement different strategies to encourage biosimilar uptake. Strategies used by health insurers can influence biosimilar uptake, which can in turn promote savings to insurers and patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare filgrastim and infliximab biosimilar uptake between MA and Traditional Medicare from 2016 to 2019 and examine biosimilar uptake by different MA carriers and plan types (Health Maintenance Organization [HMO] or Preferred Provider Organization). METHODS: We use a 2016-2019 nationally representative random 20% sample of the carrier (physician) and outpatient paid claims for Traditional Medicare data and final-action carrier and outpatient records for MA data. We compare quarterly biosimilar uptake from 2016 to 2019 for the first 2 drugs with biosimilar competition: (1) filgrastim, (Neupogen, originator), and biosimilars tbo-filgrastim (GRANIX) and filgrastim-sndz (ZARXIO), and (2) infliximab (Remicade, originator), and biosimilars infliximab-dyyb (Inflectra) and infliximab-abda (Renflexis). RESULTS: From their introduction, there was consistently greater uptake of filgrastim and infliximab biosimilars in MA compared with Traditional Medicare. By Q4 2019, filgrastim biosimilar uptake was 7.6 percentage points higher in MA (80.3%) than Traditional Medicare (72.7%). By Q4 2019, infliximab biosimilar uptake was 28.7% and 15.4% in MA and Traditional Medicare, respectively. Kaiser HMO plans were primarily responsible for the higher uptake of biosimilars in MA; in Q4 2019, filgrastim and infliximab biosimilar uptake was 98.8% and 78.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that filgrastim and infliximab biosimilar uptake is greater in MA compared with Traditional Medicare, which is driven in part by particularly high uptake of biosimilars in MA Kaiser HMO plans. This highlights the need for future work to examine specific strategies and levers employed by MA Kaiser HMO plans and other insurers to increase biosimilar uptake, which can lead to cost savings for physician-administered drugs.

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.

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.

Biosimilar Use Among 38 ASCO PracticeNET Practices, 2019-2021.

PURPOSE: Biosimilars offer increased patient choice and potential cost-savings, compared with originator biologics. We studied 3 years of prescribed biologics among US physician practices to determine the relationship of practice type and payment source to oncology biosimilar use. METHODS: We acquired biologic utilization data from 38 practices participating in PracticeNET. We focused on six biologics (bevacizumab, epoetin alfa, filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab) for the period from 2019 to 2021. We complemented our quantitative analysis with a survey of PracticeNET participants (prescribers and practice leaders) to reveal potential motivators and barriers to biosimilar use. We implemented logistic regression to evaluate the biosimilar use for each biologic, with covariates including time, practice type, and payment source, and accounted for clusters of practices. RESULTS: Use of biosimilars increased over the 3-year period, reaching between 51% and 80% of administered doses by the fourth quarter of 2021, depending on the biologic. Biosimilar use varied by practice, with independent physician practices having higher use of biosimilars for epoetin alfa, filgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab. Compared with commercial health plans, Medicaid plans had lower biosimilar use for four biologics; traditional Medicare had lower use for five biologics. The average cost per dose decreased between 24% and 41%, dependent on the biologic. CONCLUSION: Biosimilars have, through increased use, lowered the average cost per dose of the studied biologics. Biosimilar use differed by originator biologic, practice type, and payment source. There remains further opportunity for increases in biosimilar use among certain practices and payers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Primary Prophylaxis With Biosimilar Filgrastim for Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: Temporary COVID-19 guideline recommendations have recently been issued to expand the use of colony-stimulating factors in patients with cancer with intermediate to high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) with biosimilar filgrastim-sndz in patients with intermediate risk of FN compared with secondary prophylaxis (SP) over three different cancer types. METHODS: A Markov decision analytic model was constructed from the US payer perspective over a lifetime horizon to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with breast cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds for incremental cost per FN avoided, life year gained, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. RESULTS: Compared with SP, PP provided an additional 0.102-0.144 LYs and 0.065-0.130 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ranged from $5,660 in US dollars (USD) to $20,806 USD per FN event avoided, $5,123 to $31,077 USD per life year gained, and $7,213 to $35,563 USD per QALY gained. Over 1,000 iterations, there were 73.6%, 99.4%, and 91.8% probabilities that PP was cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $50,000 USD per QALY gained for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL, respectively. CONCLUSION: PP with a biosimilar filgrastim (specifically filgrastim-sndz) is cost-effective in patients with intermediate risk for FN receiving curative chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL. Expanding the use of colony-stimulating factors for patients may be valuable in reducing unnecessary health care visits for patients with cancer at risk of complications because of COVID-19 and should be considered for the indefinite future.

Physician, Practice, and Patient Characteristics Associated With Biosimilar Use in Medicare Recipients.

Importance: Biosimilars, or highly similar versions of complex biologic drugs, have the potential to slow drug spending growth; however, biosimilar uptake in the United States has been slow. Little is known about barriers to biosimilar uptake following drug launch. Objective: To examine the patient, physician, and practice characteristics associated with biosimilar use in the Medicare population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used regression analysis to estimate the association between biosimilar use and various characteristics. Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who received a filgrastim product or an infliximab product between the launch of a class's first biosimilar (quarter 3 2015 for filgrastim-sndz and quarter 4 2016 for infliximab-dyyb) and December 2018. Data analysis was conducted from March to November 2020. Exposures: Patient demographic characteristics and product clinical indications; physician demographic characteristics, specialty, and volume of filgrastim or infliximab biologic administration; hospital size, ownership, 340B status, academic medical center status, and system affiliation; physician office size and multispecialty status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Administration of a filgrastim or infliximab biosimilar. Results: The final filgrastim sample included 25 870 patients (11 857 [45.8%] men; 14 224 [55.0%] aged 65-74 years; 22 617 [87.4%] White individuals) who had 259 178 administrations (79 017 [30.5%] biosimilar administrations), and the final infliximab sample included 14 786 patients (4765 [32.2%] men; 8773 [59.3%] aged 65-74 years; 13 467 [91.1%] White individuals) who had 174 973 administrations (9012 [5.2%] biosimilar administrations). In adjusted analyses, no patient demographic characteristics and 2 of 9 clinical indications (22.2%) were associated with biosimilar use (filgrastim, neutropenia: adjusted difference, -2.0 [95% CI, -3.9 to -0.2] percentage points; P = .03; infliximab, Crohn disease: adjusted difference, -1.8 [95% CI, -2.9 to -0.8] percentage points; P = .001). Several physician characteristics were associated with biosimilar administrations, including high filgrastim or infliximab prescribing volume (high vs low volume, filgrastim: adjusted difference, 3.6 [95% CI, 1.5 to 5.8] percentage points; P = .001; infliximab: adjusted difference, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.3 to 2.2] percentage points; P = .007) and specialty (eg, hematologist-oncologists vs primary care, filgrastim: adjusted difference, -3.0 [95% CI, -5.4 to -0.5] percentage points; P = .02). Numerous practice characteristics were associated with biosimilar use, including practice setting (outpatient hospital department vs office practice, filgrastim: adjusted difference, -16.1 [95% CI, -18.1 to -14.1] percentage points; P < .001; infliximab: adjusted difference, 3.0 [95% CI, 2.2 to 3.7] percentage points; P < .001) and hospital outpatient department ownership status (for-profit vs not-for-profit, filgrastim: adjusted difference, -17.4 [95% CI, -21.6 to -13.3] percentage points; P < .001; infliximab: adjusted difference, 10.8 [95% CI, 6.7 to 14.9] percentage points; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, practice setting and hospital ownership status had the largest associations with biosimilar usage, suggesting practices play a role in steering physicians toward certain medications. However, the types of practices with high biosimilar use differed by drug class. Further research is needed to understand the reasons for these differences across drug classes.

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.

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.

Improving oncology biosimilar launches in the EU, the USA, and Japan: an updated Policy Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions.

The EU, the USA, and Japan account for the majority of biological pharmacotherapy use worldwide. Biosimilar regulatory approval pathways were authorised in the EU (2006), in Japan (2009), and in the USA (2015), to facilitate approval of biological drugs that are highly similar to reference products and to encourage market competition. Between 2007 and 2020, 33 biosimilars for oncology were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), 16 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and ten by the Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). Some of these approved applications were initially rejected because of manufacturing concerns (four of 36 [11%] with the EMA, seven of 16 [44%] with the FDA, none of ten for the PMDA). Median times from initial regulatory submission before approval of oncology biosimilars were 1·5 years (EMA), 1·3 years (FDA), and 0·9 years (PMDA). Pharmacists can substitute biosimilars for reference biologics in some EU countries, but not in the USA or Japan. US regulation prohibits substitution, unless the biosimilar has been approved as interchangeable, a designation not yet achieved for any biosimilar in the USA. Japan does not permit biosimilar substitution, as prescribers must include the product name on each prescription and that specific product must be given to the patient. Policy Reviews published in 2014 and 2016 in The Lancet Oncology focused on premarket and postmarket policies for oncology biosimilars before most of these drugs received regulatory approval. In this Policy Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions, we identify factors preventing the effective launch of oncology biosimilars. Introduction to the market has been more challenging with therapeutic than for supportive care oncology biosimilars. Addressing region-specific competition barriers and educational needs would improve the regulatory approval process and market launches for these biologics, therefore expanding patient access to these products in the EU, the USA, and Japan.