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.

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.

The Pharmacological Costs of Second-Line Treatments for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In ovarian cancer, it is uncertain which chemotherapy regimen is more clinically effective and cost-effective for the treatment of recurrence; therefore, it might be interesting to make a balance between the cost of the drugs administered and the difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: The present evaluation was restricted to pivotal phase 3 randomized controlled trials. We calculated the pharmacological costs necessary to get the benefit in PFS and OS. The costs of drugs are at the pharmacy of our hospital and are expressed in Euros (&OV0556;). We have subsequently applied the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. RESULTS: Our study evaluated 3 phase 3 randomized controlled trials, including 2004 patients. The most relevant increase of costs was associated with the combination chemotherapy including trabectedin, with the highest costs for month of PFS gained (15,836 &OV0556;) and for month of OS gained (7198 &OV0556;), but it substantially differs considering the data of partially platinum-sensitive populations (platinum-free interval of 6-12 months), with 3959 &OV0556; for month of OS gained. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of trabectedin to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer can lead to an increase of pharmacological costs. Differently, considering OS in patients with platinum-free interval of 6 to 12 months, there is a halving of pharmacological costs with the addition of trabectedin to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. These costs are in line with the spending suggested as sustainable (thresholds of <$61,500 per life-year gained).

Cost-effectiveness of the introduction of specialized oral care with laser therapy in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Oral mucositis (OM) is one of the side effects of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), resulting in major morbidity. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the introduction of a specialized oral care program including laser therapy in the care of patients receiving HSCT with regard to morbidity associated with OM. Clinical information was gathered on 167 patients undergoing HSCT and divided according to the presence (n = 91) or absence (n = 76) of laser therapy and oral care. Cost analysis included daily hospital fees, parenteral nutrition (PN) and prescription of opioids. It was observed that the group without laser therapy (group II) showed a higher frequency of severe degrees of OM (relative risk = 16.8, 95% confidence interval -5.8 to 48.9, p < 0.001), with a significant association between this severity and the use of PN (p = 0.001), prescription of opioids (p < 0.001), pain in the oral cavity (p = 0.003) and fever > 37.8°C (p = 0.005). Hospitalization costs in this group were up to 30% higher. The introduction of oral care by a multidisciplinary staff including laser therapy helps reduce morbidity resulting from OM and, consequently, helps minimize hospitalization costs associated with HSCT, even considering therapy costs.

Cost-effectiveness of trabectedin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for the treatment of women with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer in the UK: analysis based on the final survival data of the OVA-301 trial.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of trabectedin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) compared with PLD alone for the treatment of patients with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer who are not expected to benefit from retreatment with platinum-based therapies based on the final survival data published in October 2012. METHODS: A decision-analytic model estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for trabectedin plus PLD compared with PLD alone from the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective over a lifetime horizon. Mean progression-free survival and overall survival were calculated by using parametric survival distributions adjusted for imbalances discovered in the final survival data. Between-arm imbalances included the platinum-free interval, cancer antigen 125 (CA-125), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score. Cost categories included drug, administration, medical management, and treatment of adverse events. Quality of life was measured by using the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Uncertainty was addressed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, trabectedin plus PLD increased mean progression-free survival by 3.0 months and overall survival by 9.7 months compared with PLD alone. The additional cost and QALYs of trabectedin plus PLD were £18,476 and 0.49, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £38,026 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were sensitive to platinum-free interval adjustment and the choice of survival distributions. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis estimated a significant improvement in mean overall survival and incremental cost per QALY compared with that calculated in the original National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence assessment, which was based on immature survival data.

Cost comparison by treatment arm and center-level variations in cost and inpatient days on the phase III high-risk B acute lymphoblastic leukemia trial AALL0232.

The Children's Oncology Group (COG) develops and implements multi-institutional clinical trials with the primary goal of assessing the efficacy and safety profile of treatment regimens for various pediatric cancers. However, the monetary costs of treatment regimens are not measured. AALL0232 was a COG randomized phase III trial for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia that found that dexamethasone (DEX) was a more effective glucocorticoid than prednisone (PRED) in patients younger than 10 years, but PRED was equally effective and less toxic in older patients. In addition, high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) led to better survival than escalating doses of methotrexate (C-MTX). Cost data from the Pediatric Health Information System database were merged with clinical data from the COG AALL0232 trial. Total and component costs were compared between treatment arms and across hospitals. Inpatient costs were higher in the HD-MTX and DEX arms when compared to the C-MTX and PRED arms at the end of therapy. There was no difference in cost between these arms at last follow-up. Considerable variation in total costs existed across centers to deliver the same therapy that was driven by differences in inpatient days and pharmacy costs. The more effective regimens were found to be more expensive during therapy but were ultimately cost-neutral in longer term follow-up. The variations in cost across centers suggest an opportunity to standardize resource utilization for patients receiving similar therapies, which could translate into reduced healthcare expenditures.

Clinical benefits and economic analysis of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin/vincristine/dexamethasone versus doxorubicin/vincristine/dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin has reduced toxicity compared with conventional doxorubicin. In a noninferiority trial randomizing patients to receive pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40 mg/m(2) and vincristine 1.4 mg/m(2) (maximum, 2 mg) intravenously on day 1 plus reduced-dose dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1-4 (DVd; n = 97) or conventional doxorubicin 9 mg/m(2) per day and vincristine 0.4 mg per day continuous intravenous infusion on days 1-4 plus reduced-dose dexamethasone (VAd; n = 95) for >/= 4 cycles. Treatment was repeated every 4 weeks until maximal response, disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or until patients underwent transplantation. Treatment cost was estimated by applying standard US costs in 2004 to recorded health-care resource utilization units. Outcome measures included response, toxicity, and treatment cost. Objective response rates (DVd, 44%; VAd, 41%), progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.11; P = 0.69), and overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; P = 0.67) were similar between treatment groups. DVd was associated with significantly less grade 3/4 neutropenia or neutropenic fever (10% vs. 24%; P = 0.01), less sepsis, antibiotic use, growth factor support, and alopecia, but more hand-foot syndrome. Study drug costs were significantly higher for DVd versus VAd; however, lower costs for drug administration and supportive care more than offset this difference, resulting in nominally lower overall study drug treatment costs for DVd (DVd, $34,442; VAd, $35,846; P = 0.76). The DVd regimen demonstrated similar efficacy and cost with less toxicity and supportive care compared with VAd. This should improve clinical utility and optimize the opportunity for transplantation.

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.

Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Different Management Strategies between Best Supportive Care and Second-line Chemotherapy for Platinum-resistant or Refractory Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is no standard treatment for patients with platinum-resistant or refractory epithelial ovarian cancer. Single agent chemotherapies have evidence of more efficacy and less toxicity than combination therapy. Most are very expensive, with appreciable toxicity and minimal survival. Since it is difficult to make comparison between outcomes, economic analysis of single-agent chemotherapy regimens and best supportive care may help to make decisions about an appropriate management for the affected patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of second-line chemotherapy compared with best supportive care for patients with platinum-resistant or refractory epithelial ovarian cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the effectiveness and total costs associated with treatments. The hypothetical patient population comprised women aged 55 with platinum-resistant or refractory epithelial ovarian cancer. Four types of alternative treatment options were evaluated: 1) gemcitabine followed by BSC; 2) pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) followed by BSC; 3) gemcitabine followed by topotecan; and 4) PLD followed by topotecan. Baseline comparator of alternative treatments was BSC. Time horizon of the analysis was 2 years. Health care provider perspective and 3% discount rate were used to determine the costs of medical treatment in this study. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were used to measure the treatment effectiveness. Treatment effectiveness data were derived from the literature. Costs were calculated from unit cost treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer patients at various stages of disease in King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital (KCMH) in the year 2011. Parameter uncertainty was tested in probabilistic sensitivity analysis by using Monte Carlo simulation. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to explore each variable's impact on the uncertainty of the results. RESULTS: Approximated life expectancy of best supportive care was 0.182 years and its total cost was 26,862 Baht. All four alternative treatments increased life expectancy. Life expectancy of gemcitabine followed by BSC, PLD followed by BSC, gemcitabine followed by topotecan and PLD followed by topotecan was 0.510, 0.513, 0.566, and 0.570 years, respectively. The total cost of gemcitabine followed by BSC, PLD followed by BSC, gemcitabine followed by topotecan and PLD followed by topotecan was 113,000, 124,302, 139,788 and 151,135 Baht, respectively. PLD followed by topotecan had the highest expected quality-adjusted life-years but was the most expensive of all the above strategies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of gemcitabine followed by BSC, PLD followed by BSC, gemcitabine followed by topotecan and PLD followed by topotecan was 344,643, 385,322, 385,856, and 420,299 Baht, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All of the second-line chemotherapy strategies showed certain benefits due to an increased life- year gained compared with best supportive care. Moreover, gemcitabine as second-line chemotherapy followed by best supportive care in progressive disease case was likely to be more effective strategy with less cost from health care provider perspective. Gemcitabine was the most cost-effective treatment among all four alternative treatments. ICER is only an economic factor. Treatment decisions should be based on the patient benefit.

Routine Primary Prophylaxis for Febrile Neutropenia with Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (Nivestim) or Pegfilgrastim Is Cost Effective in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients undergoing Curative-Intent R-CHOP Chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of various strategies of myeloid growth factor prophylaxis for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Singapore who are undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy with curative intent. METHODS: A Markov model was created to compare seven prophylaxis strategies: 1) primary prophylaxis (PP) with nivestim (biosimilar filgrastim) throughout all cycles of chemotherapy; 2) PP with nivestim during the first two cycles of chemotherapy; 3) secondary prophylaxis (SP) with nivestim; 4) PP with pegfilgrastim throughout all cycles of chemotherapy; 5) PP with pegfilgrastim during the first two cycles of chemotherapy; 6) SP with pegfilgrastim; and 7) no prophylaxis (NP). The perspective of a hospital was taken and cost-effectiveness was expressed as the cost per episode of FN avoided over six cycles of chemotherapy. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Strategies 3, 6, and 7 were dominated in the base case analysis by strategy 5. The costs associated with strategies 2, 5, 1, and 4 were US$3,813, US$4,056, US$4,545, and US$5,331, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for strategy 5 vs. strategy 2, strategy 1 vs. strategy 5, and strategy 4 vs. strategy 1 were US$13,532, US$22,565, and US$30,452, respectively, per episode of FN avoided. Strategy 2 has the highest probability to be cost-effective (ranged from 48% to 60%) when the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold is lower than US$10,000 per FN episode prevented. CONCLUSION: In Singapore, routine PP with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (nivestim or pegfilgrastim) is cost-effective for reducing the risk of FN in patients receiving R-CHOP.

Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine for advanced recurrent or refractory ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death. Of those people successfully treated with first-line chemotherapy, 55-75% will relapse within 2 years. At this time, it is uncertain which chemotherapy regimen is more clinically effective and cost-effective for the treatment of recurrent, advanced ovarian cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan (Hycamtin(®), GlaxoSmithKline), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride (PLDH; Caelyx(®), Schering-Plough), paclitaxel (Taxol(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), trabectedin (Yondelis(®), PharmaMar) and gemcitabine (Gemzar(®), Eli Lilly and Company) for the treatment of advanced, recurrent ovarian cancer. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (MEDLINE(®), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluations Database) and trial registries were searched, and company submissions were reviewed. Databases were searched from inception to May 2013. METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical and economic literature was carried out following standard methodological principles. Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials, evaluating topotecan, PLDH, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine, and economic evaluations were included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out. A de novo economic model was developed. RESULTS: For most outcomes measuring clinical response, two networks were constructed: one evaluating platinum-based regimens and one evaluating non-platinum-based regimens. In people with platinum-sensitive disease, NMA found statistically significant benefits for PLDH plus platinum, and paclitaxel plus platinum for overall survival (OS) compared with platinum monotherapy. PLDH plus platinum significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with paclitaxel plus platinum. Of the non-platinum-based treatments, PLDH monotherapy and trabectedin plus PLDH were found to significantly increase OS, but not PFS, compared with topotecan monotherapy. In people with platinum-resistant/-refractory (PRR) disease, NMA found no statistically significant differences for any treatment compared with alternative regimens in OS and PFS. Economic modelling indicated that, for people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving platinum-based therapy, the estimated probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER; incremental cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] for paclitaxel plus platinum compared with platinum was £24,539. Gemcitabine plus carboplatin was extendedly dominated, and PLDH plus platinum was strictly dominated. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving non-platinum-based therapy, the probabilistic ICERs associated with PLDH compared with paclitaxel, and trabectedin plus PLDH compared with PLDH, were estimated to be £25,931 and £81,353, respectively. Topotecan was strictly dominated. For people with PRR disease, the probabilistic ICER associated with topotecan compared with PLDH was estimated to be £324,188. Paclitaxel was strictly dominated. LIMITATIONS: As platinum- and non-platinum-based treatments were evaluated separately, the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these regimens is uncertain in patients with platinum-sensitive disease. CONCLUSIONS: For platinum-sensitive disease, it was not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of platinum-based therapies with non-platinum-based therapies. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with platinum-based therapies, paclitaxel plus platinum could be considered cost-effective compared with platinum at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with non-platinum-based therapies, it is unclear whether PLDH would be considered cost-effective compared with paclitaxel at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY; trabectedin plus PLDH is unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. For patients with PRR disease, it is unlikely that topotecan would be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. Randomised controlled trials comparing platinum with non-platinum-based treatments might help to verify the comparative effectiveness of these regimens. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003555. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Primary vs secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for the reduction of febrile neutropenia risk in patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: cost-effectiveness analyses.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary vs secondary prophylaxis (PP vs SP) with pegfilgrastim to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was used to compare PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim in a cohort of patients receiving six cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHOP) or CHOP plus rituximab (CHOP-R) chemotherapy. Model inputs, including efficacy of pegfilgrastim in reducing risk of FN and costs, were estimated from publicly available sources and peer-reviewed publications. Incremental cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of net cost per life-year saved (LYS), per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and per FN event avoided over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to assess sensitivity and robustness of results. RESULTS: Lifetime costs for PP were $5000 greater than for SP; however, PP was associated with fewer FN events and more LYs and QALYs gained vs SP. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for PP vs SP for CHOP were $13,400 per FN event avoided, $29,500 per QALY gained, and $25,800 per LYS. CHOP-R results were similar ($15,000 per FN event avoided, $33,000 per QALY gained, and $28,900 per LYS). Results were most sensitive to baseline FN risk, cost per FN episode, and odds ratio for reduced relative dose intensity due to prior FN event. PP was cost-effective vs SP in 85% of simulations at a $50,000 per QALY threshold. LIMITATIONS: In the absence of NHL-specific data, estimates for pegfilgrastim efficacy and relative risk reduction of FN were based on available data for neoadjuvant TAC in patients with breast cancer. Baseline risks of FN for CHOP and CHOP-R were assumed to be equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: PP with pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to SP with pegfilgrastim in NHL patients receiving CHOP or CHOP-R.

Cost effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with lymphoma and myeloma: an economic evaluation of the PALM Trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of the recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) filgrastim accelerates neutrophil recovery following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Since filgrastim requires multiple daily administrations, forms of rhG-CSF with a longer half life, including pegfilgrastim, have been developed. Pegfilgrastim is safe and effective in supporting neutrophil recovery and reducing febrile neutropenia after conventional chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim has also been successfully used to support patients undergoing peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation for haematological malignancies. To our knowledge, no cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of pegfilgrastim in this setting has been published yet. OBJECTIVE: We undertook a CEA to compare a single injection of pegfilgrastim versus repeated administrations of filgrastim in patients who had undergone PBSC transplantation for lymphoma or myeloma. The CEA was set in France and covered a period of 100 ± 10 days from transplant. METHODS: The CEA was designed as part of an open-label, multicentre, randomized phase II trial. Costs were assessed from the hospital's point of view and are expressed in 2009 euros. Costs computation focused on inpatient, outpatient, and home care. Costs in the two arms of the study were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. When differences were statistically significant, multiple regression analyses were performed in order to identify cost drivers. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for the major endpoints of the trial; i.e., duration of febrile neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] <0.5 × 10(9)/L and temperature ≥38 °C), duration of neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L and ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L), duration of thrombopenia (platelets <50 × 10(9)/L and <20 × 10(9)/L), and days with a temperature ≥38 °C). Uncertainty around the ICER was captured by a probabilistic analysis using a non-parametric bootstrap method. RESULTS: 151 patients were enrolled at ten French centres from October 2008 to September 2009. The mean total cost in the pegfilgrastim arm of the study (n = 74) was 25,024 (SD 9,945). That in the filgrastim arm (n = 76) was 28,700 (SD 20,597). Pegfilgrastim strictly dominated filgrastim for days of febrile neutropenia avoided, days of neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L) avoided, days of thrombopenia (platelets <20 × 10(9)/L) avoided, and days with temperature ≥38 °C) avoided. Pegfilgrastim was less costly and less effective than filgrastim for the number of days with ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L avoided and the number of days with platelets <50.0 × 10(9)/L avoided. Taking uncertainty into account, the probabilities that pegfilgrastim strictly dominated filgrastim were 67 % for febrile neutropenia, 86 % for neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L), 59 % for thrombopenia (platelets <20 × 10(9)/L), 86 % for temperature ≥38 °C, 32 % for neutropenia (ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L), and 43 % for thrombopenia (platelets <50 × 10(9)/L). Conversely, the probability that filgrastim strictly dominated pegfilgrastim for neutropenia (ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L) is 5 %. CONCLUSION: This study found no evidence that the use of pegfilgrastim is associated with greater cost in lymphoma and myeloma patients after high-dose chemotherapy and PBSC transplantation.

A randomised phase II study of the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim after autologous stem cell transplant for lymphoma and myeloma (PALM study).

AIM: To evaluate in a multicentre randomised study the effect on duration of febrile neutropenia (FN), the safety and cost-effectiveness of a single subcutaneous pegfilgrastim injection compared with daily injections of filgrastim after peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients receiving high dose chemotherapy for myeloma and lymphoma. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to a single dose of pegfilgrastim at day 5 (D5) or daily filgrastim from D5 to the recovery of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) to 0.5 G/L. Duration of FN, of neutrophil and platelet recovery, transfusion and antibiotic requirements were the main end-points of the study. Costs were calculated from D0 until transplant unit discharge. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as the cost per day of FN prevented. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed by non-parametric bootstrap methods. RESULTS: Between October 2008 and September 2009, 10 centres enrolled 151 patients: 80 patients with lymphoma and 71 patients with myeloma. The mean duration of FN was 3.07 days (standard deviation (SD) 1.96) in the pegfilgrastin arm and 3.29 (SD 2.54) in the filgrastim one. Mean total costs were 23,256 and 25,448 euros for pegfilgrastim and filgrastim patients, respectively. There was a 62% probability that pegfilgrastim strictly dominates filgrastim. CONCLUDING STATEMENT: Pegfilgrastim after PBSC transplantation in myeloma and lymphoma is safe, effective when compared with filgrastim and could represent a cost-effective alternative in this setting.

Paclitaxel and gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in advanced non-nasopharyngeal head and neck cancer. An efficacy and cost analysis randomized study conducted by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer (HNC) is poor. Median survival of these patients following chemotherapy is in the range of 6 to 9 months. In the present randomized phase III trial we compared two new combinations containing new drugs with proven activity in phase II studies with patients with HNC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From November 1999 until November 2004, 166 eligible patients with HNC were enrolled in the study. They were treated with paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks (group A, 85 patients) or with paclitaxel, as in group A, and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 4 weeks (group B, 81 patients). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in response rate (20% versus 29%, P = 0.21), time to disease progression (median; 4.4 months versus 6.0 months, P = 0.09) and survival (median; 8.6 months versus 11.05 months, P = 0.25). Both regimens were generally well tolerated. The most frequently reported side effect, apart from alopecia, was neutropenia. Overall, there was no significant difference in severe toxicity between the two treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The present study could not demonstrate a survival benefit with either regimen. Both treatments were well tolerated. Randomized studies comparing each of the two regimens with standard chemotherapy are warranted.