Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors (MGFs) is an important topic that has received substantial attention in recent years. The use of the MGFs as primary prophylaxis to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) has grown considerably over the past decade and professional guidelines regarding their use have broadened the settings in which these agents are indicated. Recent data also suggest a potential role for them in reducing infection-related and all-cause mortality. The cost and effectiveness of these agents will continue to gain visibility as companies pursue approval for bio-similar agents in the US, similar to their recent approval in Europe. Objectives The objective of this paper is to review the available pharmaco-economic literature on the MGFs, which is particularly timely in light of the recent passage of healthcare reform and the increasing focus on cost control. The cost of treating cancer in the US is rising faster than the already rapid increase in overall medical expenditure. The clinical utility and cost effectiveness of supportive care measures in oncology must therefore be weighed carefully. This review focuses on the use of different formulations of MGFs for primary and secondary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Methods A MEDLINE search was performed to find studies that became available since the prior review of this topic was published in Pharmacoeconomics in 2003. Results Acceptable cost-minimization estimates for primary prophylaxis with the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy have been provided by several studies in the US. Of the commonly used agents in the US, pegfilgrastim appears to be superior to the currently recommended dose and schedule of filgrastim in terms of cost minimization, and primary prophylaxis appears to be less costly than secondary prophylaxis. However, the cost benefits of primary prophylaxis in Europe are not as pronounced as in the US, due to the lower costs of medical care. Data continue to emerge suggesting a decreased risk of early mortality from averted infections as well as the possibility of a disease-specific mortality benefit through maintaining the relative dose intensity of chemotherapy with MGF support. Conclusion This evidence will prove valuable in assessing the overall cost effectiveness and cost utility of the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.

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. 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. 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. 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.

To evaluate the clinical value of polyethylene glycolized recombinant human granulocyte-stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) for hematopoietic reconstitution after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. This study analyzed data from 70 NDMM patients undergoing ASCT, with 33 receiving PEG-rhG-CSF and 37 receiving rhG-CSF. The median time of neutrophil and platelet engraftment, median transfusions of blood products, treatment-related adverse reactions, long-term hematopoietic reconstitution and economic benefits were compared between the two groups. Both groups had similar median neutrophil engraftment, but PEG-rhG-CSF resulted in slower platelet engraftment (13.7 vs. 11.4 days, p  < 0.001), more platelet transfusions (2.9 vs. 1.6 units, p  < 0.001), higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 diarrhea (60.6 vs. 29.7%, p  = 0.006), longer diarrhea duration (9.0 vs. 5.5 days, p  = 0.004), and higher costs (RMB 77,126 vs. RMB 68,361, p  = 0.027). PEG-rhG-CSF support post-ASCT in NDMM led to slower platelet engraftment, greater platelet transfusion requirements, increased incidence and duration of severe diarrhea, and greater costs, indicating its potential as an expensive treatment option.

Biosimilars are similar, but non-identical, versions of existing biological drugs for which patents have expired. Despite the rigorous approval process for biosimilars, concerns have been expressed about the efficacy and safety of these products in clinical practice. Biosimilars of filgrastim, based on the originator product Neupogen®, have been available since 2008 and are now in widespread clinical use in Europe and elsewhere. Three biosimilar G-CSFs have been approved based on a combination of physicochemical and biological protein characterisation, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assessment in healthy volunteers and efficacy and safety data in patients with cancer. To assess whether biosimilars are effective in the real-world clinical practice setting, a pooled analysis of five post-approval studies of biosimilar G-CSF (Zarzio®) that included 1,302 adult patients who received at least one cycle of chemotherapy with G-CSF support for the prevention of neutropenia was conducted. A total of 36 % of patients had a febrile neutropenia risk of >20 %, while 39.6 % had a risk of 10–20 % based on chemotherapy regimen. The occurrence of severe or febrile neutropenia was within the range of that observed in previous studies of originator G-CSF. In addition, the safety profile of Zarzio® was consistent with that reported for originator G-CSF and the known safety profile of G-CSF. Initial concerns about the use of biosimilars, at least with regard to biosimilar G-CSFs, appear to be unfounded. Adoption of cost-effective biosimilars should help reduce healthcare costs and improve patient access to biological treatments.

Cyclophosphamide plus G-CSF (C+G-CSF) is one of the most widely used stem cell (SC) mobilization regimens for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Plerixafor plus G-CSF (P+G-CSF) has demonstrated superior SC mobilization efficacy when compared with G-CSF alone and has been shown to rescue patients who fail mobilization with G-CSF or C+G-CSF. Despite the proven efficacy of P+G-CSF in upfront SC mobilization, its use has been limited, mostly due to concerns of high price of the drug. However, a comprehensive comparison of the efficacy and cost effectiveness of SC mobilization using C+G-CSF versus P+G-CSF is not available. In this study, we compared 111 patients receiving C+G-CSF to 112 patients receiving P+G-CSF. The use of P+G-CSF was associated with a higher success rate of SC collection defined as ⩾5 × 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg (94 versus 83%, P= 0.013) and less toxicities. Thirteen patients in the C+G-CSF arm were hospitalized owing to complications while none in the P+G-CSF group. C+G-CSF was associated with higher financial burden as assessed using institutional-specific costs and charges ( P< 0.001) as well as using Medicare reimbursement rates ( P= 0.27). Higher rate of hospitalization, increased need for salvage mobilization, and increased G-CSF use account for these differences.

The objectives of this study were to simulate for the European Union G5 countries the potential cost savings of converting patients from originator granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) filgrastim and pegfilgrastim to a biosimilar filgrastim, to evaluate how reallocating these savings could increase patient access to antineoplastic therapy, and to estimate the number of patients needed to convert to provide antineoplastic treatment to one patient. Three models were built: (1) to estimate the costs of using originator G-CSFs and the savings generated from switching to a biosimilar G-CSF, (2) to estimate the incremental number of patients who could be provided antineoplastic therapy—rituximab or trastuzumab—in a hypothetical panel of 10,000 patients with cancer, and (3) to calculate the number of patients needed to convert to provide access to anticancer therapy. Scenarios were developed in which the rate of conversion was varied to estimate the effect on total cost savings. This study took the perspective of the payer in the European Union. The savings associated with the biosimilar filgrastim over the originator filgrastim ranged from €785 (day 4) to €2747 (day 14) and increased with longer duration of therapy. By contrast, the savings associated with the biosimilar filgrastim over pegfilgrastim decreased over time, ranging from €6199 (day 4) to €471 (day 14). In a hypothetical panel of 10,000 patients with cancer, the savings associated with the biosimilar filgrastim over the originator filgrastim and the expanded access to antineoplastic therapy improved over time, irrespective of conversion rates. Conversely, in the same hypothetical panel, the savings associated with the biosimilar filgrastim over pegfilgrastim reduced over time, irrespective of conversion rates, along with the expanded access to antineoplastic treatment. Under conversion of the originator filgrastim to the biosimilar filgrastim, the number needed to convert to expand access to rituximab ranged from 4 to 14 patients, and the number needed to convert to expand access to trastuzumab ranged from 11 to 38 patients. Under conversion of pegfilgrastim to the biosimilar filgrastim, the number needed to convert to expand access to rituximab ranged from 2 to 24 patients, and the number needed to convert to expand access to trastuzumab ranged from 5 to 63 patients. Use of biosimilar G-CSFs for supportive cancer care could yield potential cost savings and improve patient access to antineoplastic therapy in a budget neutral way—a financial effect with an ethical perspective.

Recombinant form of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was first approved by FDA in 1998 for chemotherapy induced neutropenia. However, despite production of its biosimilars, less expensive production of G-CSF could reduce the overall therapeutic cost. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possibility of producing biologically active recombinant G-CSF via a single step purification procedure mediated by a self-cleavable intein. G-CSF was expressed by E. coli BL21 (DE3) through IPTG induction, followed by its purification using pH optimization on a chitin column. Western blotting, ELISA, size exclusion chromatography, circular diachorism, peptide mapping, and in vitro assays were performed to compare the structural similarity and biological activity of the purified G-CSF with Neupogen™. Protein purification was confirmed by revealing a band of approximately 18.8 kDa on SDS-PAGE. Bioactivity and physicochemical assays based on the US pharmacopeia showed almost identical or acceptable ranges of similarities between recombinant G-CSF and Neopogen™. this study, biologically active soluble recombinant G-CSF was successfully produced with high purity without using chaotropic solvents through a one-step procedure. This shorter and more efficient purification procedure can reduce the cost and time of G-CSF production which makes its industrial production more cost-effective and might be also applicable for production of other biopharmaceuticals.

Background Myelosuppressive chemotherapy can lead to dose-limiting febrile neutropenia. Prophylactic use of recombinant human G-CSF such as daily filgrastim and once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim may reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. This comparative study examined the effect of pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim on the risk of hospitalization. Methods This retrospective United States claims analysis utilized 2004–2009 data for filgrastim- and pegfilgrastim-treated patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) or breast, lung, ovarian, or colorectal cancers. Cycles in which pegfilgrastim or filgrastim was administered within 5 days from initiation of chemotherapy (considered to represent prophylaxis) were pooled for analysis. Neutropenia-related hospitalization and other healthcare encounters were defined with a “narrow” criterion for claims with an ICD-9 code for neutropenia and with a “broad” criterion for claims with an ICD-9 code for neutropenia, fever, or infection. Odds ratios (OR) for hospitalization and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by generalized estimating equation (GEE) models and adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Per-cycle healthcare utilization and costs were examined for cycles with pegfilgrastim or filgrastim prophylaxis. Results We identified 3,535 patients receiving G-CSF prophylaxis, representing 12,056 chemotherapy cycles (11,683 pegfilgrastim, 373 filgrastim). The mean duration of filgrastim prophylaxis in the sample was 4.8 days. The mean duration of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in the sample was 1.0 day, consistent with the recommended dosage of pegfilgrastim - a single injection once per chemotherapy cycle. Cycles with prophylactic pegfilgrastim were associated with a decreased risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization (narrow definition: OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.16–1.13; broad definition: OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.24–0.59) and all-cause hospitalization (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.35–0.72) versus cycles with prophylactic filgrastim. For neutropenia-related utilization by setting of care, there were more ambulatory visits and hospitalizations per cycle associated with filgrastim prophylaxis than with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. Mean per-cycle neutropenia-related costs were also higher with prophylactic filgrastim than with prophylactic pegfilgrastim. Conclusions In this comparative effectiveness study, pegfilgrastim prophylaxis was associated with a reduced risk of neutropenia-related or all-cause hospitalization relative to filgrastim prophylaxis.

The adoption of primary (PP) versus secondary prophylaxis (SP) of febrile neutropenia (FN), with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF), for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) regimens in breast cancer (BC) could be affected by its “value for money”. This systematic review examined (i) cost-effectiveness of PP versus SP, (ii) FN threshold at which PP is cost-effective including the guidelines 20 % threshold and (iii) potential impact of G-CSF efficacy assumptions on outcomes. The systematic review identified all cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses (CEA/CUA) involving PP versus SP G-CSF for AC in BC that met predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Five relevant CEA/CUA were identified. These CEA/CUA examined different AC regimens (TAC = 2; FEC-D = 1; TC = 2) and G-CSF formulations (filgrastim “F” = 4; pegfilgrastim “P” = 4) with varying baseline FN—risk (range 22–32 %), mortality (range 1.4–6.0 %) and utility (range 0.33–0.47). The potential G-CSF benefit, including FN risk reduction with P versus F, varied among models. Overall, relative to SP, PP was not associated with good value for money, as per commonly utilized CE thresholds, at the baseline FN rates examined, including the consensus 20 % FN threshold, in most of these studies. The value for money associated with PP versus SP was primarily dependent on G-CSF benefit assumptions including reduced FN mortality and improved BC survival. PP G-CSF for FN prevention in BC patients undergoing AC may not be a cost-effective strategy at the guidelines 20 % FN threshold.

On 7 January, an FDA advisory panel decided unanimously that a drug made by Sandoz, the generics arm of Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis, should be accepted as a replacement for filgrastim (Neupogen), an immune-boosting drug for people undergoing cancer treatment made by Amgen of Thousand Oaks, California. The result is a drug so complex that it is difficult - if not impossible - to fully characterize. Because biosimilars are inexact copies, they are required to undergo more testing than an ordinary generic drug.