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.

Comparison of treatment patterns and economic outcomes among metastatic pancreatic cancer patients initiated on nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX.

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) is substantial while treatment options are limited. Little is known about the treatment patterns and healthcare costs among mPC patients who initiated first-line gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-P + G) and FOLFIRINOX. METHODS: The MarketScan® claims databases were used to identify adults with ≥2 claims for pancreatic cancer, 1 claim for a secondary malignancy, completed ≥1 cycle of nab-P + G or FOLFIRINOX during 4/1/2013 and 3/31/2015, and had continuous plan enrollment for ≥6 months pre- and 3 months after the first-line treatment. Duration of therapy, per patient per month (PPPM) costs of total healthcare, mPC-related treatment, and supportive care were measured during first-line therapy. RESULTS: 550 mPC patients met selection criteria (nab-P + G, n = 294; FOLFIRINOX, n = 256). There was no difference in duration of therapy (p = 0.60) between nab-P + G and FOLFIRINOX. Compared with FOLFIRINOX, patients with nab-P + G had higher chemotherapy drug costs but lower treatment administration costs and supportive care costs (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with nab-P + G (vs FOLFIRINOX) had similar treatment duration but lower costs of outpatient prescriptions, treatment administration and supportive care. Lower supportive care costs in the nab-P + G cohort were mainly driven by lower utilization of pegfilgrastim and anti-emetics.

Biliary stents in malignant obstructive jaundice due to pancreatic carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Obstructive jaundice frequently complicates pancreatic carcinoma and is associated with complications such as malabsorption, coagulopathy, progressive hepatocellular dysfunction, and cholangitis in addition to disabling pruritus, which greatly interferes with terminal patients' quality of life. Endoscopic placement of biliary stents decreases the risk of these complications and is considered the procedure of choice for palliation for patients with unresectable tumors. We used decision analysis with Markov modeling to compare the cost-effectivenesses of plastic stents and metal stents in patients with unresectable pancreatic carcinoma. METHODS: A model of the natural history of unresectable pancreatic carcinoma was constructed using probabilities derived from the literature. Cost estimates were obtained from Medicare reimbursement rates and supplemented by the literature. Two strategies were evaluated: 1) initial endoscopic plastic stent placement and 2) initial endoscopic metal stent placement. We compared total costs and performed cost-effectiveness analysis in these strategies. The outcome measures were quality-adjusted life months. Sensitivity analyses were performed on selected variables. RESULTS: Our baseline analysis showed that initial plastic stent placement was associated with a total cost of $13,879/patient and 1.799 quality-adjusted life months. Initial placement of a metal stent cost $13,466/patient and conferred 1.832 quality-adjusted life months. Among the variables examined, expected patient survival was demonstrated by sensitivity analyses to have the most influence on the results of the model. CONCLUSION: Initial endoscopic placement of a metal stent is a cost-saving strategy compared to initial plastic stent placement, particularly in patients expected to survive longer than 6 months.

Surgical bypass versus metallic stent for unresectable pancreatic cancer.

With the development of interventional radiology and endoscopy, the practice of inserting expandable metallic stents for malignant jaundice has become widespread. Many studies have compared surgical bypass with polyethylene stents, or metallic stents with polyethylene stents. However, few data are available on the comparison of surgical bypass and metallic stents. The aim of this study was to compare the patient's postprocedure course and the cost performance of surgical bypass and metallic stents in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. The parameters analyzed were the rates of procedural and therapeutic success, duration of hospital stay, prevalence of early and late complications, cost performance, and prognosis. The rates of procedural and therapeutic success were excellent with both palliative treatments. With surgical bypass, there was a low prevalence of late complications, but duodenal obstruction sometimes occurred in patients without gastric bypass. With metallic stents, there was shorter hospitalization and lower cost, but a higher prevalence of late complications. Stent occlusion tended to occur in patients with uncovered metallic stents. There was no difference in the prognosis between the two palliative treatments. Thus, in consideration of the poor prognosis of pancreatic cancer, in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer, insertion of covered metallic stents would be preferable to surgical bypass, because of the subsequent short hospitalization and the low cost. On the other hand, in patients with a relatively long expected prognosis, or in those with existing duodenal obstruction, biliary bypass with gastrojejunostomy may provide an advantage.