Febrile neutropenia hospitalization due to pegfilgrastim on-body injector failure compared to single-injection pegfilgrastim and daily injections with reference and biosimilar filgrastim: US cost simulation for lung cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma

McBride, Ali; Krendyukov, Andriy; Mathieson, Nicola; Campbell, Kim; Balu, Sanjeev; Natek, M.; MacDonald, Karen; Abraham, Ivo

doi:10.1080/13696998.2019.1658591

Cited by 18 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the potential cost associated with patient hospitalization due to a missed dose of medication should be weighed in the patient management decision. 24 An additional factor is whether the device has a clear indicator of error and therefore can be easily monitored. The on-body injector device has both visual and audible error indicators.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Initial testing of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Onpro) on‐body injector in multiple radiological imaging environments

Long

Kurup

Jensen

et al. 2021

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeAn increasing number of implantable or external devices can impact whether patients can receive radiological imaging examinations. This study examines and tests the Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) Onpro on‐body injector in multiple imaging environments.MethodsThe injector was analyzed for four imaging modalities with testing protocols and strategies developed for each modality. In x‐ray and computed tomography (CT), scans with much higher exposure than clinical protocols were performed with the device attached to an anthropomorphic phantom. The device was monitored until the completion of drug delivery. For magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the device was assessed using a hand‐held magnet and underwent the magnetically induced displacement testing in a 1.5T clinical MRI scanner room. For ultrasound, magnetic field changes were measured around an ultrasound scanner system with three transducers.ResultsFor x‐ray and CT no sign of device error was identified during or after the high radiation exposure scans. Drug delivery was completed at expected timing with expected volume. For MRI the device showed significant attractive force towards the hand‐held magnet and a 50‐degree deflection angle at 50 cm from the opening of the scanner bore. No further assessment from the gradient or radiofrequency field was deemed necessary. For ultrasound the maximum magnetic field change from baseline was measured to be +11.7 μT in comparison to +74.2 μT at 4 inches from a working microwave.ConclusionsNo device performance issue was identified under the extreme test conditions in x‐ray or CT. The device was found to be MR Unsafe. Magnetic field changes around an ultrasound system met the limitation set by manufacture. Patient ultrasound scanning is considered safe as long as the transducers do not inadvertently loosen the device.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Initial testing of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Onpro) on‐body injector in multiple radiological imaging environments

Long

Kurup

Jensen

et al. 2021

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the cost ratio in CMA studies could be quantified specific to each patient per cycle, it's hard to compare them directly, like the cost ratios for G-CSF biosimilars. Apart from the coverage region, study design, such as retrospective cohort in the hospital setting (Ianotto et al, 2014;Bongiovanni et al, 2017) and hypothetical cohort (Mehta and Hay, 2014;Sun et al, 2015;McBride et al, 2017;McBride et al, 2020), and data source for cost, including the hospital base and official database, would contribute the variation together. Besides, under the market with multi-stakeholders, cost for biosimilars would concern the drug itself, administration and condition (McBride et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 17 studies were finally included in this study, and the detailed information is displayed in Figure 1 (Aapro et al, 2012a;Aapro et al, 2012b;Nikolaidi et al, 2013;Abraham et al, 2014;Ianotto et al, 2014;Mehta and Hay, 2014;Sun et al, 2015;Valentina et al, 2016;Bongiovanni et al, 2017;Cesarec and Likić, 2017;Gulácsi et al, 2017;McBride et al, 2017;Rognoni et al, 2018;Giuliani and Bonetti, 2019;Lee et al, 2019;Trautman et al, 2019;McBride et al, 2020). All included studies were published in last decade, of which 8 studies were reported in the recent three years.…”

Section: Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concerning the range of included costs, most studies only took drug cost into consideration (Aapro et al, 2012a;Aapro et al, 2012b;Ianotto et al, 2014;Sun et al, 2015;Valentina et al, 2016;Bongiovanni et al, 2017;McBride et al, 2017;Giuliani and Bonetti, 2019), and official database was the main data source. McBride et al study also included administration, and condition-related cost (McBride et al, 2020).…”

Section: Cost Minimization Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In total, two identified publications performed sensitivity analysis for cost-saving, including factors of days for one cycle, and uptake rate of biosimilars in each study, separately (Table 3). Uptake rate of biosimilars played an important role in the stability of the cost saving, with the 50% reduction in cost-saving if the uptake rate conversion from 10 to 50% (McBride et al, 2020).…”

Section: Cost Minimization Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Cancer Biosimilars Worldwide: A Systematic Review

Huang

Liu

et al. 2020

Front. Pharmacol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Purpose: The availability of oncology biosimilars is deemed as a fundamental strategy to achieve sustainable health care. However, there is scarce systematic evidence on economic effectiveness of cancer biosimilars. We aimed to synthesize evidence from pharmacoeconomic evaluation of oncology biosimilars globally, provide essential data and methodological reference for involved stakeholders.Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted in PubMed, embase, the Cochrane library, CRD, ISPOR and NICE utill December 31, 2019. Information on basic characteristics, evaluation methodology and results were extracted. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Checklist.Results: For 17 studies identified (13 from Europe and four from United States), the overall quality was generally acceptable. A total of seven biological molecules involved with filgrastim, EPOETIN α, and trastuzumab leading the three. The mostly common evaluation perspective was payer, but the time horizon varied greatly. There were ten studies which adopted cost minimization analysis to evaluate efficiency while seven studies adopted budget impact analysis to address affordability, with cost ratio and cost saving being its corresponding primary endpoint. Although the comparability of included studies was limited and specific results were largely affected by uptake and price discount rates of the oncology biosimilar, the comprehensive results consistently favored its promotion.Conclusion: Globally, the economic evaluation of cancer biosimilars is in its initial phase. However, limited evidence from developed countries consistently supported both cost-effectiveness of efficiency and affordability of oncology biosimilars, while they were largely affected by uptake and price discount rate.

show abstract

Pegfilgrastim Biosimilars in US Supportive Oncology: A Narrative Review of Administration Options and Economic Considerations to Maximize Patient Benefit

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biologics, such as pegfilgrastim, are a standard of care in supportive cancer treatment that are administered once per chemotherapy cycle to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. The high cost of these biologics in the United States can be a limiting factor to accessing care; however, lower-cost pegfilgrastim biosimilars have been available for several years for patients requiring prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Different options for pegfilgrastim administration are also now available to accommodate specific patient preferences. As patients may want to minimize the risk of both neutropenia and SARS-CoV-2 infection, same-day administration is a pertinent option during the present COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, individualized, patient-centered approaches and risk-management strategies should be considered when selecting the treatment and administration method for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Three methods of administration would minimize hospital or clinic visits while also providing the prophylactic effect of G-CSF: same-day administration after chemotherapy, use of the US Food and Drug Administration–approved on-body injector delivering pegfilgrastim approximately 27 h after chemotherapy, or self-administration by the patient or caregiver > 24 h after chemotherapy. Choice of the specific administration option should be based on the patient’s specific needs, while also considering mitigating factors, such as the economic burden associated with biologic medications and the risk of COVID-19. Pegfilgrastim biosimilars can minimize the additional financial burden on patients and the health care system during this pandemic and beyond.

show abstract

Febrile neutropenia hospitalization due to pegfilgrastim on-body injector failure compared to single-injection pegfilgrastim and daily injections with reference and biosimilar filgrastim: US cost simulation for lung cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Abstract: Abraham (2020) Febrile neutropenia hospitalization due to pegfilgrastim on-body injector failure compared to single-injection pegfilgrastim and daily injections with reference and biosimilar filgrastim: US cost simulation for lung cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma,

Cited by 18 publications

References 34 publications

Initial testing of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Onpro) on‐body injector in multiple radiological imaging environments

Initial testing of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Onpro) on‐body injector in multiple radiological imaging environments

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Cancer Biosimilars Worldwide: A Systematic Review

Pegfilgrastim Biosimilars in US Supportive Oncology: A Narrative Review of Administration Options and Economic Considerations to Maximize Patient Benefit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About