To assess the economic impact of introducing biosimilar pegfilgrastim compared to the current standard granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) practice in France.
Methods
A budget impact model was developed to investigate the impact of introducing pegfilgrastim biosimilar over 5 years. The model analysed drug acquisition costs, ambulatory costs, as well as costs associated with poor outcomes, and compared the current standard practice of long-acting and short-acting G-CSF to a revised practice including pegfilgrastim biosimilar in addition to standard practice treatments. The cost of switching to pegfilgrastim biosimilar, within a pharmacy setting, was analysed within the model using data from a survey of French pharmacists.
Results
The budget impact model calculated a cost saving of €51,007,531 over 5 years switching from the current standard practice to pegfilgrastim biosimilar. A sensitivity analysis accounting for variation in pegfilgrastim biosimilar uptake of 1) 15% in year 1 and 1% in years 2–5 and 2) 15% in years 1–5, estimated savings ranging between €29,377,784 and €79,847,194, respectively. A further analysis predicted cost savings of €287,344,835 over 5 years with the extension of pegfilgrastim biosimilar, at an uptake of 15% in year 1 and 7% in years 2–4, to both long-acting and short-acting G-CSF groups compared to unchanged current practice.
Conclusions
The introduction of pegfilgrastim biosimilar will help to reduce cost and alleviate some of the financial pressure on the French healthcare system.
AaproMBocciaRLeonardR, et al.
Refining the role of pegfilgrastim (a long-acting G-CSF) for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: consensus guidance recommendations. Support Care Cancer2017;
25: 3295–3304.
2.
KlasterskyJde NauroisJRolstonK, et al.
Management of febrile neutropaenia: ESMO clinical practice guidelines. Ann Oncol2016;
27: v111–v118.
3.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Neutropenic sepsis: prevention and management in people with cancer (CG151). NICE, www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg151 (2012, accessed 14 November 2019).
4.
WangLBaserOKutikovaL, et al.
The impact of primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors on febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Support Care Cancer2015;
23: 3131–3140.
5.
BonadonnaGValagussaPMoliterniA, et al.
Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in node positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med1995;
332: 901–906.
6.
PettengellRSchwenkglenksMLeonardR, et al.
Neutropenia occurrence and predictors of reduced chemotherapy delivery: results from the INC-EU prospective observational European neutropenia study. Support Care Cancer2008;
16: 1299–1309.
7.
KudererNMDaleDCCrawfordJ, et al.
Impact of primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on febrile neutropenia and mortality in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol2007;
25: 3158–3167.
8.
PintoLLiuZDoanQ, et al.
Comparison of pegfilgrastim with filgrastim on febrile neutropenia, grade IV neutropenia and bone pain: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Curr Med Res Opin2007;
23: 2283–2295.
9.
Von MinckwitzGSchwenkglenksMSkacelT, et al.
Febrile neutropenia and related complications in breast cancer patients receiving pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis versus current practice neutropaenia management: results from an integrated analysis. Eur J Cancer2009;
45: 608–617.
10.
AaproMSchwenkglenksMLymanGH, et al.
Pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis vs. current practice neutropenia management in elderly breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol2010;
74: 203–210.
11.
AaproMSBohliusJCameronDA, et al.
2010 Update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours. Eur J Cancer2011;
47: 8–32.
LymanGHDaleDCCulakovaE, et al.
The impact of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on chemotherapy dose intensity and cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Oncol2013;
24: 2475–2484.
AaproMCornesPAbrahamI.Comparative cost-efficiency across the European G5 countries of various regimens of filgrastim, biosimilar filgrastim, and pegfilgrastim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. J Oncol Pharm Pract2012;
18: 171–179.
18.
SunDAndayaniTMAltyarA, et al.
Potential cost savings from chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with biosimilar filgrastim and expanded access to targeted antineoplastic treatment across the European union G5 countries: a simulation study. Clin Ther2015;
37: 842–857.
19.
DesaiKBrokxSKherS, et al.
Development of a proposed biosimilar product based on the demonstration of physicochemical, pharmacologic and clinical similarity to pegfilgrastim. J Clin Oncol2015;
33: e13534.
20.
CornesPGasconPVultoAG, et al.
Biosimilar pegfilgrastim: improving access and optimising practice to supportive care that enables cure. BioDrugs2020;
34: 255–263.
21.
SinghIPatelAPatelR, et al.
Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalence study of a peg lgrastim biosimilar INTP5 in healthy subjects. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol2018;
82: 329–337.
22.
DesaiKCatalanoTRaiG, et al.
Con rmation of biosimilarity in a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study in healthy volunteers for an analytically highly similar peg lgrastim. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev2016;
5: 354–363.
23.
SullivanSDMauskopfJAAugustovskiF, et al.
Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 budget impact analysis good practice II task force. Value Health2014;
17: 5–14.
24.
The National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE). Population estimates (provisional data at the end of 2017). INSEE, www.insee.fr/en/statistiques/2382597?sommaire=2382613 (accessed 7 November 2018).
25.
Global Cancer Observatory. Cancer today. Estimated crude incidence rates in 2018, all cancers, both sexes, ages 20+. WHO IARC GCO, http://gco.iarc.fr/today/online-analysis-map (2018, accessed 14 November 2019).
GerlierLLamotteMAwadaA, et al.
The use of chemotherapy regimens carrying a moderate or high risk of febrile neutropenia and the corresponding management of febrile neutropenia: an expert survey in breast cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. BMC Cancer2010;
10: 642.
28.
IMS Data. French IMS MAT data on G-CSF up to September2017.
RomieuGClemensMMahlbergR, et al.
Pegfilgrastim supports delivery of FEC-100 chemotherapy in elderly patients with high risk breast cancer: a randomized phase 2 trial. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol2007;
64: 64–72.
31.
GreenMDKoelblHBaselgaJ, et al.
A randomized double-blind multicenter phase III study of fixed-dose single-administration pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Ann Oncol2003;
14: 29–35.
32.
GriggASolal-CelignyPHoskinP, et al.
Open-label, randomized study of pegfilgrastim vs. daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in elderly patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma2003;
44: 1503–1508.
33.
HolmesFAJonesSEO'ShaughnessyJ, et al.
Comparable efficacy and safety profiles of once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim and daily injection filgrastim in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: a multicenter dose-finding study in women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol2002;
13: 903–909.
34.
HolmesFAO’ShaughnessyJAVukeljaS, et al.
Blinded, randomized, multicenter study to evaluate single administration pegfilgrastim once per cycle versus daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II or stage III/IV breast cancer. J Clin Oncol2002;
20: 727–731.
35.
VoseJMCrumpMLazarusH, et al.
Randomized, multicenter, open-label study of pegfilgrastim compared with daily filgrastim after chemotherapy for lymphoma. J Clin Oncol2003;
21: 514–519.
36.
ParkKHSohnJHLeeS, et al.
A randomized, multi-center, open-label, phase II study of once-per-cycle DA-3031, a biosimilar pegylated G-CSF, compared with daily filgrastim in patients receiving TAC chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. Invest New Drugs2013;
31: 1300–1306.
37.
Almenar CubellsDBosch RoigCJimenez OrozcoE, et al.
Effectiveness of daily versus non-daily granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in patients with solid tumours undergoing chemotherapy: a multivariate analysis of data from current practice. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)2013;
22: 400–412.
38.
MorrisonVAWongMHershmanD, et al.
Observational study of the prevalence of febrile neutropenia in patients who received filgrastim or pegfilgrastim associated with 3-4 week chemotherapy regimens in community oncology practices. J Manag Care Pharm2007;
13: 337–348.
39.
BritoMEstevesSAndreR, et al.
Comparison of efficacy of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim, filgrastrim and a biosimilar filgrastim in TAC regimen (docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide). Cancer Res2012;
72: 24.
40.
ChanALengXZChiangJY, et al.
Comparison of daily filgrastim and pegfilgrastim to prevent febrile neutropenia in Asian lymphoma patients. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol2011;
7: 75–81.
41.
SchippingerWHolubRDandachiN, et al.
Frequency of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients receiving epirubicin and docetaxel/paclitaxel with colony-stimulating growth factors: a comparison of filgrastim or lenograstim with pegfilgrastim. Oncology2006;
70: 290–293.
42.
LaneSWCrawfordJKenealyM, et al.
Safety and efficacy of pegfilgrastim compared to granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) supporting a dose-intensive, rapidly cycling anti-metabolite containing chemotherapy regimen (hyper-CVAD) for lymphoid malignancy. Leuk Lymphoma2006;
47: 1813–1817.
TilleulPJacotWEmeryC, et al.
Management and cost analysis of cancer patients treated with G-CSF: a cohort study based on the French national healthcare insurance database. J Med Econ2017;
20: 1261–1267.
45.
De RoquefeuilLStuderANeumannA, et al.
L'échantillon généraliste de bénéficiaires: représentativité, portée et limites. Prat Organ Soins2009;
40: 213–223.
BondTCSzaboEGabrielS, et al.
Meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison of lipegfilgrastim with pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia-related events. J Oncol Pharm Pract2018;
24: 412–423.
48.
MitchellSLiXWoodsM, et al.
Comparative effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors to prevent FN and related complications in cancer patients in clinical practice: a systematic review. J Oncol Pharm Pract2016;
22: 702–716.
49.
VainchtockABoudevinFChaizeG, et al.
Analysis of public and private hospital databases (PMSI) 2010/2011 to estimate the frequency and associated costs for febrile neutropenia in France. J Gest Écon Méd2016;
1: 17–32.
50.
CrawfordJCasertaCRoilaF;
on behalf of the ESMO guidelines working group: hemotopoietic growth factors: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for the applications. Ann Oncol2010;
21: v248–v251.
51.
ParkKHLeeSParkJH, et al.
A randomized, multi-center, open-label, phase III study of once-per-cycle DA-3031, a pegylated G-CSF, in comparison with daily filgrastim in patients receiving TAC chemotherapy for breast cancer. Support Care Cancer2017;
25: 505–511.
52.
AlmenarDMayansJJuanO, et al.
Pegfilgrastim and daily granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: patterns of use and neutropenia-related outcomes in cancer patients in Spain – results of the LEARN study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)2009;
18: 280–286.
53.
NaeimAHenkHJBeckerL, et al.
Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization of cancer patients than filgrastim prophylaxis: a retrospective United States claims analysis of granulocyte colonystimulating factors (G-CSF). BMC Cancer2013;
13: 11.
54.
WeyckerDMalinJKimJ, et al.
Risk of hospitalization for neutropenic complications of chemotherapy in patients with primary solid tumors receiving pegfilgrastim or filgrastim prophylaxis: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Ther2009;
31: 1069–1081.
55.
FalandryCCamponeMCartronG, et al.
Trends in G-CSF use in 990 patients after EORTC and ASCO guidelines. Eur J Cancer2010;
46: 2389–2398.
56.
CooperKLMadanJWhyteS, et al.
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis following chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer2011;
11: 404.
57.
LeonardRCFMansiJLKeerieC, et al.
A randomised trial of secondary prophylaxis using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (‘SPROG’ trial) for maintaining dose intensity of standard adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer by the Anglo-Celtic cooperative group and NCRN. Ann Oncol2015;
26: 2437–2441.
58.
MolineuxG.Pegfilgrastim: using pegylation technology to improve neutropenia support in cancer patients. Anticancer Drugs2003;
13: 259–264.
59.
LambertiniMFerreiraARDel MastroL, et al.
Pegfilgrastim for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with solid tumours. Expert Opin Biol Ther2015;
15: 1799–1817.
60.
WeyckerDHackettJEdelsbergJS, et al.
Are shorter courses of filgrastim prophylaxis associated with increased risk of hospitalization?Ann Pharmacother2006;
40: 402–407.
61.
WeyckerDBarronREdelsbergJS, et al.
Risk and consequences of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic complications in patients receiving daily filgrastim: the importance of duration of prophylaxis. BMC Health Serv Res2014;
14: 189.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
