IntroductionShort- and long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are approved for the reduction of febrile neutropenia. A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs reporting the use of G-CSFs following chemotherapy treatment.MethodsMedline®/Medline in-process, Embase®, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between January 2003 and June 2016. A hand-search of relevant conference proceedings was conducted for meetings held between 2012 and 2016. Eligible studies were restricted to those reporting a direct, head-to-head comparison of short- versus long-acting G-CSFs for reduction of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Risk-of-bias assessments were performed for full publications only.ResultsThe search strategy yielded 4044 articles for electronic screening. Thirty-six publications were evaluated for the meta-analysis: 11 of 12 RCTs and 2 of 24 non-RCTs administered doses of the short-acting G-CSF filgrastim for ≥ 7 days. In RCT studies, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes of interest between short- and long-acting G-CSFs. In non-RCTs, the overall risk was lower with long-acting G-CSF than with short-acting G-CSF for incidence of febrile neutropenia [overall relative risk (RR) = 0.67, P  = 0.023], hospitalizations (overall RR = 0.68, P  < 0.05), and chemotherapy dose delays (overall RR = 0.68, P  = 0.020).ConclusionsOverall, the weight of evidence from RCTs indicates little difference in efficacy between the short- and long-acting G-CSFs if dosed according to recommended guidelines. There is some evidence for greater efficacy for long-acting G-CSFs in non-RCTs, which may be a result of under-dosing of short-acting G-CSFs in general practice in real-world usage.FundingHospira Inc, which was acquired by Pfizer Inc in September 2015, and Pfizer Inc.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0798-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Biopharmaceuticals (biologics) represent one of the fastest growing sectors of cancer treatment. They are recommended for treating underlying cancer and as supportive care for management of treatment side effects. Given the high costs of cancer care and the need to balance health care provision and associated budgets, patient access and value are the subject of discussion and debate in the USA and globally. As the costs of biologics are high, biosimilars offer the potential of greater choice and value, increased patient access to treatment, and the potential for improved outcomes. Value-based care aims to improve the quality of care, while containing costs. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has developed value-based care programs as alternatives to fee-for-service reimbursement, including in oncology, that reward health care providers with incentive payments for improving the quality of care they provide. It is anticipated that CMS payments in oncology care will be increasingly tied to measured performance. This review provides an overview of value-based care models in oncology with a focus on CMS programs and discusses the contribution of biosimilars to CMS value-based care objectives. Biosimilars may provide an important tool for providers participating in value-based care initiatives, resulting in cost savings and efficiencies in the delivery of high-value care through expanded use of biologic treatment and supportive care agents during episodes of cancer care.

Anemia is common in patients with cancer or with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although the introduction of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) has transformed the management of anemia, their use has been complicated by a number of factors including frequent guideline updates, safety concerns and, in the United States, a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, which aimed to ensure that the benefits of ESAs outweigh the risks. Many previous concerns around ESA use in cancer and CKD have been addressed by the reassuring results of post-approval studies, and biosimilar ESAs have been used in Europe for many years, with safety and efficacy profiles similar to originator products. This review describes the evolution of the use of ESAs from approval to the present day, discussing results from clinical studies of ESAs in cancer and CKD, and the influence of these findings on product labeling and guideline updates. We also discuss the impact of the introduction of ESA biosimilars in Europe, bringing cost savings and increased access to patients.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are man-made forms of erythropoietin used in the treatment of anemia. This quick-scoping review of systematic literature reviews (SLRs) was conducted to define the clinical, economic, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes for short-acting and long-acting ESAs in patients with chronic kidney disease-induced anemia (CKD-IA) and patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from their establishment until October 2017. SLRs related to the use of short-acting and long-acting ESAs in the treatment of CIA and CKD-IA were included. Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The evidence suggests little difference in efficacy, HRQoL, and safety outcomes among ESA types. Cost-effectiveness and market price are likely to become determining factors driving the choice of agent. Comparative studies and costing models accounting for the utilization of biosimilars are needed to establish which ESAs are more cost-effective.

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of several cancers and systemic immune-mediated inflammatory conditions. Expiry of patents protecting a number of biologics has provided the opportunity to commercialize highly similar versions, known as biosimilars. Biosimilars are approved by regulatory agencies via an independent pathway that requires extensive head-to-head comparison with the originator product. Biosimilars have the potential to provide savings to healthcare systems and expand patient access to biologics. In Latin American countries, regulatory frameworks for biosimilar approval have been introduced in recent years, and biosimilars of monoclonal antibody and fusion protein therapies are now emerging. However, the situation in this region is complicated by the presence of “non-comparable biotherapeutics” (also known as “intended copies”), which have not been rigorously compared with the originator product. We review the considerations for clinicians in Latin American countries, focusing on monoclonal antibody biosimilars relevant to oncology, rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology.