Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy in patients with cancer who have low-risk neutropenic sepsis: the EASI-SWITCH RCT.

Background: Neutropenic sepsis is a common complication of systemic anticancer treatment. There is variation in practice in timing of switch to oral antibiotics after commencement of empirical intravenous antibiotic therapy. Objectives: To establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early switch to oral antibiotics in patients with neutropenic sepsis at low risk of infective complications. Design: A randomised, multicentre, open-label, allocation concealed, non-inferiority trial to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early oral switch in comparison to standard care. Setting: Nineteen UK oncology centres. Participants: Patients aged 16 years and over receiving systemic anticancer therapy with fever (≥ 38°C), or symptoms and signs of sepsis, and neutropenia (≤ 1.0 × 109/l) within 24 hours of randomisation, with a Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer score of ≥ 21 and receiving intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem for < 24 hours were eligible. Patients with acute leukaemia or stem cell transplant were excluded. Intervention: Early switch to oral ciprofloxacin (750 mg twice daily) and co-amoxiclav (625 mg three times daily) within 12-24 hours of starting intravenous antibiotics to complete 5 days treatment in total. Control was standard care, that is, continuation of intravenous antibiotics for at least 48 hours with ongoing treatment at physician discretion. Main outcome measures: Treatment failure, a composite measure assessed at day 14 based on the following criteria: fever persistence or recurrence within 72 hours of starting intravenous antibiotics; escalation from protocolised antibiotics; critical care support or death. Results: The study was closed early due to under-recruitment with 129 patients recruited; hence, a definitive conclusion regarding non-inferiority cannot be made. Sixty-five patients were randomised to the early switch arm and 64 to the standard care arm with subsequent intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses including 125 (intervention n = 61 and control n = 64) and 113 (intervention n = 53 and control n = 60) patients, respectively. In the intention-to-treat population the treatment failure rates were 14.1% in the control group and 24.6% in the intervention group, difference = 10.5% (95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.22). In the per-protocol population the treatment failure rates were 13.3% and 17.7% in control and intervention groups, respectively; difference = 3.7% (95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.148). Treatment failure predominantly consisted of persistence or recurrence of fever and/or physician-directed escalation from protocolised antibiotics with no critical care admissions or deaths. The median length of stay was shorter in the intervention group and adverse events reported were similar in both groups. Patients, particularly those with care-giving responsibilities, expressed a preference for early switch. However, differences in health-related quality of life and health resource use were small and not statistically significant. Conclusions: Non-inferiority for early oral switch could not be proven due to trial under-recruitment. The findings suggest this may be an acceptable treatment strategy for some patients who can adhere to such a treatment regimen and would prefer a potentially reduced duration of hospitalisation while accepting increased risk of treatment failure resulting in re-admission. Further research should explore tools for patient stratification for low-risk de-escalation or ambulatory pathways including use of biomarkers and/or point-of-care rapid microbiological testing as an adjunct to clinical decision-making tools. This could include application to shorter-duration antimicrobial therapy in line with other antimicrobial stewardship studies. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN84288963. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/140/05) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 14. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Neutropenic sepsis, or infection with a low white blood cell count, can occur following cancer treatment. Usually patients receive treatment with intravenous antibiotics (antibiotics delivered into a vein) for two or more days. Patients at low risk of complications from their infection may be able to have a shorter period of intravenous antibiotics benefitting both patients and the NHS. The trial compared whether changing from intravenous to oral antibiotics (antibiotics taken by mouth as tablets or liquid) 12­24 hours after starting antibiotic treatment ('early switch') is as effective as usual care. Patients could take part if they had started intravenous antibiotics for low-risk neutropenic sepsis. Patients were randomly allocated to 'early switch' or to usual care. The main outcome measured was treatment failure. Treatment failure happened if fever persisted or recurred despite antibiotics, if patients needed to change antibiotics, if they needed to be re-admitted to hospital or needed to be admitted to intensive care within 14 days or died. We had originally intended that 628 patients would take part, but after review of the design of the study the number needed to take part was revised to 230. We were not able to complete the trial as planned as unfortunately only 129 patients took part. As the trial was smaller than expected we were not able to draw conclusions as to whether 'early switch' is no less effective than usual care. Our findings suggest that 'early switch' might result in a shorter time in hospital initially; however, treatment failure was more likely to occur, meaning some patients had to return to hospital for further antibiotics. There were no differences in side effects and no serious complications from treatment or treatment failure (such as intensive care admission or death) among the 65 patients in the 'early switch' group. Patients were satisfied with 'early switch'. Early switch may be a treatment option for some patients with low-risk neutropenic sepsis who would prefer a shorter duration of hospital admission but accept a risk of needing hospital re-admission.

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 mortality-related risk factors and effective antimicrobial regimens for treatment of bloodstream infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in patients with hematological diseases.

Background: Infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA) are related to higher mortality. The objective of this study was to explore clinical outcomes of CRPA bacteremia, identify risk factors and also, compare the efficacy of traditional and novel antibiotic regimens. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at a blood diseases hospital in China. The study included hematological patients who were diagnosed with CRPA bacteremia between January 2014 and August 2022. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at day 30. Secondary endpoints included 7-day and 30-day clinical cure. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was employed to identify mortality-related risk factors. Results: 100 patients infected with CRPA bacteremia were included and 29 patients accepted allogenic-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. 24 received ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI)-based therapy and 76 received other traditional antibiotics. 30-day mortality was 21.0%. Multivariable cox regression analysis showed neutropenia >7 days after bloodstream infections (BSI) (P=0.030, HR: 4.068, 95%CI: 1.146~14.434), higher Pitt bacteremia score (P<0.001, HR:1.824, 95%CI: 1.322~2.517), higher Charlson comorbidity index (P=0.01, HR: 1.613, 95%CI: 1.124~2.315) and bacteremia due to multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MDR-PA) (P=0.024, HR:3.086, 95%CI: 1.163~8.197) were identified as independent risk factors of 30-day mortality. After controlling for confounders, an additional multivariable cox regression analysis revealed definitive regimens containing CAZ-AVI were associated with lower mortality in CRPA bacteremia (P=0.016, HR: 0.150, 95%CI: 0.032~0.702), as well as in MDR-PA bacteremia (P=0.019, HR: 0.119, 95%CI: 0.020~0.709). Conclusions: For patients with hematological diseases and CRPA bacteremia, 30-day mortality rate was 21.0% (21/100). Neutropenia >7 days after BSI, higher Pitt bacteremia score, higher Charlson comorbidity index and bacteremia due to MDR-PA increased 30-day mortality. CAZ-AVI-based regimens were effective alternatives for bacteremia due to CRPA or MDR-PA.

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.

Assessment and management of adult patients with neutropenic sepsis in the emergency department.

As cancer diagnoses rise, and more treatment options become available, doctors, nurses and allied health professionals will increasingly encounter more patients with acute oncological emergencies in the emergency department (ED). Neutropenia (low levels of neutrophils in the blood) is a common side effect of systemic anti-cancer therapy, particularly chemotherapy, and has a negative effect on patients' immune system, leaving them vulnerable to infection. Patients who develop neutropenia are at increased risk of developing neutropenic sepsis, a potentially life-threatening condition that requires urgent assessment and treatment within an hour of presentation. This article describes the risk factors for and signs and symptoms of neutropenic sepsis and outlines assessment and management of patients who present to the ED with this condition.

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 Assessment of Neutropenia during Low-Dose Valganciclovir Prophylaxis for Heart Transplant Recipients.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether low-dose valganciclovir (VGCV) prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection increased the risk of developing neutropenia in heart transplant recipients (HTRs). Forty-three HTRs receiving VGCV were divided into two groups: those who received VGCV prophylaxis (n = 22) and those who did not (n = 21). Neutropenia was defined as an absolute neutrophil count ˂1500/µL and was monitored for approximately one year post-transplantation. In the prophylaxis group, 77.3% (17/22) of HTRs experienced neutropenia, which was significantly higher than that in the no prophylaxis group (42.9% [9/21], p = 0.031). No significant differences in the duration of VGCV administration and cumulative dose up to the first neutropenia episode were observed between the groups. Meanwhile, the cumulative dose of mycophenolate mofetil was significantly higher in the prophylaxis group than in the no prophylaxis group (p = 0.018); the daily maintenance dose and regularly measured area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of mycophenolic acid did not significantly differ between groups. In conclusion, the risk of developing neutropenia was higher in HTRs receiving low-dose VGCV prophylaxis than it was in those not receiving prophylaxis, probably not attributed to dosing period and cumulative dose of VGCV until the onset of neutropenia.

Treatment patterns and burden of myelosuppression for patients with small cell lung cancer: A SEER-medicare study.

PURPOSE: To depict the treatment journey for patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and evaluate health care resource utilization (HCRU) associated with myelosuppression, a complication induced by chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus radiation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a descriptive, retrospective study of patients with SCLC aged ≥65 years, identified from linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data curated between January 2012 and December 2015. Treatment types (chemotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery) were classified as first, second, or third line, depending on the temporal sequence in which regimens were prescribed. For each year, the proportions of patients completing 4- or 6-cycle chemotherapy regimens, with hospital admissions associated with myelosuppression, or who used granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), blood/platelet transfusions, or erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), were calculated. RESULTS: Chemotherapy was administered as initial treatment in 7,807/11,907 (65.6%) patients whose treatment journey was recorded. Approximately one-third (n = 3,985) subsequently received radiation therapy. In total, 5,791 (57.8%) patients completed the guideline-recommended 4-6 cycles of chemotherapy. Among all chemotherapy-treated patients, 10,370 (74.3%) experienced ≥1 inpatient admission associated with myelosuppression (anemia, 7,366 [52.8%]; neutropenia, 4,642 [33.3%]; thrombocytopenia, 2,375 [17.0%]; pancytopenia, 1,983 [14.2%]). Supportive care interventions included G-CSF (6,756 [48.4%] patients), ESAs (1,534 [11.0%]), and transfusions (3,674 [26.3%]). CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy remains a cornerstone of care for patients with SCLC. Slightly over half of patients completed the recommended number of cycles, underscoring the frailty of patients and aggressiveness of SCLC. HCRU associated with myelosuppression was prominent, suggesting a substantial burden on older patients with SCLC.

The Pharmacoeconomic Benefits of Pemetrexed Dose Individualization in Patients With Lung Cancer.

Neutropenia is a dose-related treatment-limiting and costly adverse event of pemetrexed. We postulate that individualized dosing reduces the incidence of neutropenia. The aims of this study were (i) to investigate the costs of pemetrexed-related neutropenia and (ii) to determine the pharmacoeconomic benefits of individualized dosing of pemetrexed in terms of budget impact, yearly cost savings, and reduction in severe neutropenia. Retrospective data on the treatment of grade 3 or higher neutropenia during pemetrexed-based chemotherapy were collected from three Dutch hospitals to determine the mean healthcare consumption during a neutropenic episode. Subsequently, Monte Carlo simulations were performed using a validated pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model to predict the neutropenia incidence during four cycles for standard dosing of pemetrexed and individualized dosing. The mean costs per neutropenia and the expected neutropenia incidence were combined to calculate the budget impact and cost savings. We found that the average costs per pemetrexed-associated neutropenic episode to be €1,490 (US $1,674). The neutropenia incidence for the standard and individualized pemetrexed dosing strategies were 12.7% and 9.9%, respectively. This resulted in total expected neutropenia-related costs of ~ €3.0 million (US $3.372 million) and €2.4 million (US $2.697 million), respectively. Taking the number of patients eligible for pemetrexed treatment into account, individualized dosing could result in saving €686,000 (US $770,995) on a yearly basis in the Netherlands alone. Individualized dosing of pemetrexed can decrease the incidence of neutropenia and thus result in a significant decrease in neutropenia-related costs and decreased risk of hospitalization or even death while maintaining therapeutic exposure.

Clinical application of vancomycin population pharmacokinetics model in patients with hematological diseases and neutropenia.

To explore the clinical application of a population pharmacokinetics (PPK) model of vancomycin in patients with hematological diseases and neutropenia. Patients with hematological diseases and neutropenia were included in the PPK model study. Nonlinear mixed effect modeling approach (NONMEM) was used for model establishment. Monte Carlo simulation was carried out. A total of 74 patients were divided into model group and non-model group for clinical application research. The model group was given the initial dose of 1g q8h, and the non-model group was given 1g q12h as an empiric initial dosage. The follow-up dose adjustments were made according to the concentration results. This two-compartment model showed good stability and accuracy. The first trough concentration (C0 ) and the compliance rate of the first C0 were much higher in the model group than that in the non-model group (14.30 ± 4.73 µg/ml and 59.38% vs. 8.02 ± 2.61 µg/ml, 35.71%). Less patients needed dose adjustments and fewer adjustment times in the model group than those in the non-model group (12.50% and 0.13 ± 0.34 times vs. 50.00% and 0.61 ± 0.66 times). This suggested that for those patients who had a Creatinine clearance rate (CLCR) ≥ 90 ml/min/1.73 m2 , the initial dose of 1g q8h may help to reach the target C0 (10∼20 µg/ml) quickly. It also helped to reduce the times and number of patients who need dose adjustments. Our PPK model of vancomycin in patients with hematologic diseases and neutropenia can be used to shorten the time to reach the target concentration and reduce the number of dose adjustments.Clinical trial registration: Not applicable (Retrospective study).

Cost-efficiency and expanded access of prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia: economic simulation analysis for the US of conversion from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv.

AIMS: In this pharmacoeconomic simulation, we: (1) modeled the cost-efficiency of converting patients from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) from the US payer perspective, (2) simulated how savings enable, on a budget-neutral basis, expanded access to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, and (3) estimated the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv. METHODS: In a hypothetical panel of 20,000 patients, we modeled cost-savings utilizing: two reference formulations (pre-filled syringe [PFS] and on-body injector [OBI]), three medication cost inputs (average sales price [ASP], wholesale acquisition cost [WAC], and an age-proportionate blended ASP/WAC rate), administration cost for injection (PFS) and device application (OBI), conversion rates of 10-100%, and 1-6 cycles of prophylaxis. Cost-savings were used to estimate additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv that could be purchased and the NNC to purchase one additional dose. RESULTS: Using ASP and 10% conversion from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, savings range from $326,744 (1 cycle) to $2.0M (6 cycles) which could provide 93-556 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv, respectively; the NNC to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv ranges from 21.6 (1 cycle) down to 3.6 patients (6 cycles). The WAC model saves $41.1M per cycle and $246.7M over 6 cycles at 100% conversion from reference PFS which could provide 9,709-58,253 additional pegfilgrastim-cbqv doses; the NNC ranges from 2.1 (1 cycle) to 0.3 (6 cycles). Using the blended ASP/WAC rate, converting 50% from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv would save $10.2M per cycle and $60.9M over 6 cycles providing 2,638-15,829 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv; NNCs are 3.8 (1 cycle) and 0.6 patients (6 cycles). CONCLUSIONS: Converting 20,000 patients from reference to pegfilgrastim-cbqv over 6 cycles can generate savings up to $246.7M, enough to purchase up to 58,253 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv. This simulation provides economic justification for prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv.

Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy in patients with cancer who have low-risk neutropenic sepsis (the EASI-SWITCH trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neutropenic sepsis remains a common treatment complication for patients receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence have not recommended switching from empirical intravenous antibiotics to oral antibiotics within 48 h for patients assessed as low risk for septic complications because of uncertainty about whether this would achieve comparable outcomes to using intravenous antibiotics for longer. The UK National Institute for Health Research funded the EASI-SWITCH trial to tackle this uncertainty. METHODS: The trial is a pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial that aims to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of early switching from intravenous to oral antibiotics in cancer patients with low-risk neutropenic sepsis. Patients ≥ 16 years, receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment (acute leukaemics/stem cell transplants excluded), with a temperature of > 38 °C, neutrophil count ≤ 1.0 × 109/L, MASCC (Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer) score ≥ 21 and receiving IV piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem for less than 24 h are eligible to participate. Patients are randomised 1:1 either (i) to switch to oral ciprofloxacin and co-amoxiclav within 12-24 h of commencing intravenous antibiotics, completing at least 5 days total antibiotics (intervention), or (ii) to continue intravenous antibiotics for at least 48 h, with ongoing antibiotics being continued at the physician's discretion (control). Patients are discharged home when their physician deems it appropriate. The primary outcome measure is a composite of treatment failures as assessed at day 14. The criteria for treatment failure include fever persistence or recurrence 72 h after starting intravenous antibiotics, escalation from protocolised antibiotics, hospital readmission related to infection/antibiotics, critical care support or death. Based on a 15% treatment failure rate in the control group and a 15% non-inferiority margin, the recruitment target is 230 patients. DISCUSSION: If the trial demonstrates non-inferiority of early switching to oral antibiotics, with potential benefits for patient quality of life and resource savings, this finding will have significant implications for the routine clinical management of those with low-risk neutropenic sepsis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 84288963. Registered on the 1 July 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN84288963. EudraCT: 2015-002830-35.

The cost-effectiveness of empirical antibiotic treatments for high-risk febrile neutropenic patients: A decision analytic model.

PURPOSE: Febrile neutropenia has a significant clinical and economic impact on cancer patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of different current empiric antibiotic treatments. METHODS: A decision analytic model was constructed to compare the use of cefepime, meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, and piperacillin/tazobactam for treatment of high-risk patients. The analysis was performed from the perspective of U.S.-based hospitals. The time horizon was defined to be a single febrile neutropenia episode. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating costs and deaths averted. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTP), were used to address the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The base-case analysis results showed that treatments were equally effective but differed mainly in their cost. In increasing order: treatment with imipenem/cilastatin cost $52,647, cefepime $57,270, piperacillin/tazobactam $57,277, and meropenem $63,778. In the probabilistic analysis, mean costs were $52,554 (CI: $52,242-$52,866) for imipenem/cilastatin, $57,272 (CI: $56,951-$57,593) for cefepime, $57,294 (CI: $56,978-$57,611) for piperacillin/tazobactam, and $63,690 (CI: $63,370-$64,009) for meropenem. Furthermore, with a WTP set at $0 to $50,000, imipenem/cilastatin was cost-effective in 66.2% to 66.3% of simulations compared to all other high-risk options. DISCUSSION: Imipenem/cilastatin is a cost-effective strategy and results in considerable health care cost-savings at various WTP thresholds. Cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to differentiate the treatments of febrile neutropenia in high-risk patients.

Regulatory and Clinical Experiences with Biosimilar Filgrastim in the U.S., the European Union, Japan, and Canada.

Biosimilar filgrastims are primarily indicated for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia prevention. They are less expensive formulations of branded filgrastim, and biosimilar filgrastim was the first biosimilar oncology drug administered in European Union (EU) countries, Japan, and the U.S. Fourteen biosimilar filgrastims have been marketed in EU countries, Japan, the U.S., and Canada since 2008, 2012, 2015, and 2016, respectively. We reviewed experiences and policies for biosimilar filgrastim markets in EU countries and Japan, where uptake has been rapid, and in the U.S. and Canada, where experience is rapidly emerging. U.S. regulations for designating biosimilar interchangeability are under development, and such regulations have not been developed in most other countries. Pharmaceutical substitution is allowed for new filgrastim starts in some EU countries and in Canada, but not Japan and the U.S. In EU countries, biosimilar adoption is facilitated with favorable hospital tender offers. U.S. adoption is reportedly 24%, while the second filgrastim biosimilar is priced 30% lower than branded filgrastim and 20% lower than the first biosimilar filgrastim approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Utilization is about 60% in EU countries, where biosimilar filgrastim is marketed at a 30%-40% discount. In Japan, biosimilar filgrastim utilization is 45%, primarily because of 35% discounts negotiated by Central Insurance and hospital-only markets. Overall, biosimilar filgrastim adoption barriers are small in many EU countries and Japan and are diminishing in Canada in the U.S. Policies facilitating improved U.S. adoption of biosimilar filgrastim, based on positive experiences in EU countries and Japan, including favorable insurance coverage; larger price discount relative to reference filgrastim pricing; closing of the "rebate trap" with transparent pricing information; formal educational efforts of patients, physicians, caregivers, and providers; and allowance of pharmaceutical substitution of biosimilar versus reference filgrastim, should be considered. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: We reviewed experiences and policies for biosimilar filgrastims in Europe, Japan, Canada, and the U.S. Postmarketing harmonization of regulatory policies for biosimilar filgrastims has not occurred. Acceptance of biosimilar filgrastims for branded filgrastim, increasing in the U.S. and in Canada, is commonplace in Japan and Europe. In the U.S., some factors, accepted in Europe or Japan, could improve uptake, including acceptance of biosimilars as safe and effective; larger cost savings, decreasing "rebate traps" where pharmaceutical benefit managers support branded filgrastim, decreased use of patent litigation/challenges, and allowing pharmacists to routinely substitute biosimilar for branded filgrastim.

Measures of Treatment Workload for Patients With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with breast cancer spend a large amount of time and effort receiving treatment. When the number of health care tasks exceeds a patient's ability to manage that workload, they could become overburdened, leading to decreased plan adherence. We used electronic health record data to retrospectively assess dimensions of treatment workload related to outpatient encounters, commuting, and admissions. METHODS: Using tumor registry and scheduling data, we evaluated the sensitivity of treatment workload measures to detect expected differences in breast cancer treatment burden by stage. We evaluated the impact of the on-body pegfilgrastim injector on the treatment workload of patients undergoing a specific chemotherapy protocol. RESULTS: As hypothesized, patients with higher stage cancer experienced higher treatment workload. Over the first 18 months after diagnosis, patients with stage III disease spent a median of 81 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 39 to 113 hours) in outpatient clinics, commuted 61 hours (IQR, 32 to 86 hours), and spent $1,432 (IQR, $690 to $2,552) in commuting costs. In contrast, patients with stage I disease spent a median of 29 hours (IQR, 18 to 46 hours in clinic), commuted for 34 hours (IQR, 19 to 55 hours), and spent $834 (IQR, $389 to $1,649) in commuting costs. In addition, we substantiated claims that the pegfilgrastim on-body injector was effective in reducing some dimensions of workload such as unique appointment days. CONCLUSION: Treatment workload measures capture an important dimension in the experience of patients with cancer. Patients and health care organizations can use workload measures to plan and allocate resources, leading to higher quality and better coordinated care.

De-escalation and discontinuation strategies in high-risk neutropenic patients: an interrupted time series analyses of antimicrobial consumption and impact on outcome.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is the main reason for antibiotic prescription in hematology wards where, on the other hand, antibiotic stewardship (AS) is poorly explored. The objectives of the present study were to evaluate (1) the impact of an AS intervention on antibiotic consumption and (2) the applicability and acceptance rate of the intervention and its clinical impact. A persuasive AS intervention based on European Conference on Infection in Leukaemia (ECIL) guidelines for FN was implemented in a high-risk hematology ward in a tertiary referral public university hospital. This included the creation and diffusion of flow charts on de-escalation and discontinuation of antibiotics for FN, and the introduction in the team of a doctor dedicated to the implementation of flow charts and to antibiotic prescription revision. All consecutive patients receiving antibiotics during hospitalization were included. A segmented linear regression model was performed for the evaluation of antibiotic consumption, taking into account 1-year pre-intervention period and 6-month intervention period. Overall, 137 consecutive antibiotic prescriptions were re-evaluated, 100 prescriptions were for FN. A significant reduction of the level of carbapenem consumption was observed during the intervention period (level change (estimate coefficient ± standard error) = - 135.28 ± 59.49; p = 0.04). Applicability and acceptability of flow charts were high. No differences in terms of intensive care unit transfers, bacteremia incidence, and mortality were found. A persuasive AS intervention in hematology significantly reduced carbapenem consumption without affecting outcome and was well accepted. This should encourage further applications of ECIL guidelines for FN.

Assessment of the In Vivo Activity of SPR741 in Combination with Azithromycin against Multidrug-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Isolates in the Neutropenic Murine Thigh Infection Model.

SPR741 is a novel agent with structural similarity to polymyxins that is capable of potentiating the activities of various classes of antibiotics. Previously published studies indicated that although Enterobacteriaceae isolates had minimal susceptibilities to azithromycin (AZM), the in vitro antimicrobial activity of AZM against Enterobacteriaceae was enhanced when it was combined with SPR741. The current study evaluated the in vivo activity of human-simulated regimens (HSR) of AZM equivalent to clinical doses of 500 mg given intravenously (i.v.) every 24 h (q24h) and SPR741 equivalent to clinical doses of 400 mg q8h i.v. (1-h infusion), alone and in combination, against multidrug-resistant (MDR) Enterobacteriaceae We studied 30 MDR Enterobacteriaceae isolates expressing a wide spectrum of ß-lactamases (ESBL, NDM, VIM, and KPC), including a subset of isolates positive for genes conferring macrolide resistance (mphA, mphE, ermB, and msr). In vivo activity was assessed as the change in log10 CFU per thigh at 24 h compared with 0 h. Treatment with AZM alone was associated with net growth of 2.60 ± 0.83 log10 CFU/thigh. Among isolates with AZM MICs of ≤16 mg/liter, treatment with AZM-SPR741was associated with an average reduction in bacterial burden of -0.53 ± 0.82 log10 CFU/thigh, and stasis to 1-log kill was observed in 9/11 isolates (81.8%). Combination therapy with an AZM-SPR741 HSR showed promising in vivo activity against MDR Enterobacteriaceae isolates with AZM MICs of ≤16 mg/liter, including those producing a variety of ß-lactamases. These data support a potential role for AZM-SPR741 in the treatment of infections due to MDR Enterobacteriaceae.

Evaluation of pegfilgrastim use at an academic medical center.

PURPOSE: Pegfilgrastim is indicated to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. As a cost-savings initiative, Pegfilgrastim Process Guidelines were developed and implemented at a large, academic teaching institution to improve appropriate use of pegfilgrastim and to decrease costs of outpatient infusion center administration by deferring doses to home self-administration for eligible patients. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review was conducted post-implementation of the Pegfilgrastim Process Guideline to evaluate the use of pegfilgrastim and to assess the safety and efficacy of transferring pegfilgrastim orders from outpatient infusion center to home administration for eligible patients. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were included in the study, with 35 patients receiving pegfilgrastim in the outpatient infusion center, 13 patients self-injecting at home, and 11 patients receiving doses in both settings. The total wholesale cost avoidance for pegfilgrastim orders transferred to self-administration at home during this time period totaled $205,163. The revenue from outpatient prescriptions of pegfilgrastim totaled $291,111.93. The percentage of febrile neutropenia admissions was 11.4%, 0%, and 9.1% in the outpatient infusion, home, and outpatient/home group, respectively. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the Pegfilgrastim Process Guidelines demonstrated decreased total pegfilgrastim orders to be dispensed by the infusion center and a cost avoidance of $205,163 in four months without any perceivable changes in patient outcomes. This represents a significant cost-savings opportunity.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dose-dense versus standard intravenous chemotherapy for ovarian cancer: An economic analysis of results from the Gynecologic Oncology Group protocol 262 randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of dose-dense versus standard intravenous adjuvant chemotherapy for ovarian cancer using results from the no-bevacizumab cohort of the Gynecologic Oncology Group protocol 262 (GOG-262) randomized controlled trial, which reported a smaller absolute progression-free survival (PFS) benefit than the prior Japanese trial. METHODS: A three-state Markov decision model from a healthcare system perspective with a 21day cycle length and 28month time-horizon was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values per progression-free life-year saved (PFLYS) using results from GOG-262. Costs of chemotherapy, complications, and surveillance were from Medicare or institutional data. PFS, discontinuation, and complication rates were from GOG-262. Time-dependent transition probabilities and within-cycle corrections were used. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The model produces standard and dose-dense cohorts with 84.3% and 68.3% progression event proportions at 28months, matching GOG-262 rates at the trial's median follow-up. With a median PFS of 10.3months after standard chemotherapy and a hazard ratio for progression of 0.62 after dose-dense therapy, the ICER for dose-dense chemotherapy is $8074.25 (95% confidence interval: $7615.97-$10,207.16) per PFLYS. ICER estimates are sensitive only to the hazard ratio estimate but do not exceed $100,000 per PFLYS. 99.8% of ICER estimates met a more stringent willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per PFLYS. The willingness-to-pay value at which there is a 90% probability of dose-dense treatment being cost-effective is $12,000 per PFLYS. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy is robustly cost-effective for advanced ovarian cancer from a healthcare system perspective based on results from GOG-262.

Costo- Efectividad Del Uso Profiláctico Del Factor Estimulante De Colonias De Granulocitos En Adultos Con Leucemia Linfoblástica Aguda en Colombia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic administration of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) compared with no use of it, during the induction phase of chemotherapy in Adults with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) in Colombia. METHODS: A decision tree with a time horizon of 30 days was built under colombian health system perspective including only direct costs. The costs of procedures and medications were taken from official sources and an institution of national reference of oncology services. The safety and effectiveness data were taken from the literature and two Colombian cohorts with patients older than 15 years. The unit of outcome was the proportion of deaths avoided. RESULTS: Base-case results on a clinical trial indicate that using factor is a dominant strategy. The variable that most impacted the outcome was the incidence of febrile neutropenia. Considering a threshold of $22.228 USD in 80% of cases using factor was cost effective. However, the use of factor is not cost-effective for the country for incidences of febrile neutropenia > 48%. It was not possible to establish cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim because no information was found. CONCLUSION: As per Colombian data, the use of prophylactic factor under chemotherapeutic induction in adults with ALL, turns out to be not cost effective. The difference in the results suggests the need of a careful extrapolation of information from clinical trials (ideal world) for developing economic evaluations in Colombia.