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

Matti Aapro, Paul Cornes, Ivo L Abraham

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

63 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: This cost-efficiency analysis of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) filgrastim (originator Neupogen® and biosimilar Zarzio®) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) examined against a time horizon of 1-14 days of treatment and across the European Union G5 countries (a) when, cost-wise, using Neulasta® 6 mg versus Neupogen® or Zarzio® 300 μg may be cost-saving in reducing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia; and (b) if cost-wise, treatment with Zarzio® 300 μg yields a savings advantage over Neupogen® 300 μg.Methods: Cost-efficiency analysis of the direct costs a buyer or payer would incur when purchasing or covering any of these agents for managing one patient during one cycle of chemotherapy under regimens of 1-14 days of standard filgrastim using the population-weighted average unit dose cost of each agent per their public pack cost across the European G5 countries.Results: The cost of Neupogen® treatment ranged from €128.16 (1 day) to €1794.30 (14 days), compared to €95.46 and €1336.46 for Zarzio®, thus yielding potential cost savings from €32.70 to €457.84 for the latter. Neulasta® turns cost-saving at day 12 of Neupogen® treatment. At no point over a 14-day treatment period did Neulasta® yield a savings advantage over Zarzio®.Conclusion: Prophylaxis or treatment of febrile neutropenia with Zarzio® is cost-efficient under all possible treatment scenarios relative to Neupogen® and to Neulasta®. In the absence of convincing evidence that pegfilgrastim is pharmacotherapeutically superior to standard filgrastim, there is no cost-efficiency rationale to treat with Neulasta® over Zarzio®, though there may be a small window of approximately 3 days where Neulasta® is cost-efficient over Neupogen®. Regardless, our analysis shows Zarzio® to be the most cost-efficient approach to reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)171-179
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice
Volume18
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2012

Fingerprint

Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals
Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia
Costs and Cost Analysis
Incidence
Febrile Neutropenia
Health Care Costs
Filgrastim
pegfilgrastim
Therapeutics
Drug Therapy

Keywords

  • biosimilars
  • cost savings
  • cost-efficiency
  • febrile neutropenia
  • Filgrastim
  • G-CSF
  • neutropenia
  • pegfilgrastim

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology (medical)
  • Oncology

Cite this

@article{0da213133b9548c0af6862ea1f8d7000,
title = "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",
abstract = "Objectives: This cost-efficiency analysis of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) filgrastim (originator Neupogen{\circledR} and biosimilar Zarzio{\circledR}) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta{\circledR}) examined against a time horizon of 1-14 days of treatment and across the European Union G5 countries (a) when, cost-wise, using Neulasta{\circledR} 6 mg versus Neupogen{\circledR} or Zarzio{\circledR} 300 μg may be cost-saving in reducing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia; and (b) if cost-wise, treatment with Zarzio{\circledR} 300 μg yields a savings advantage over Neupogen{\circledR} 300 μg.Methods: Cost-efficiency analysis of the direct costs a buyer or payer would incur when purchasing or covering any of these agents for managing one patient during one cycle of chemotherapy under regimens of 1-14 days of standard filgrastim using the population-weighted average unit dose cost of each agent per their public pack cost across the European G5 countries.Results: The cost of Neupogen{\circledR} treatment ranged from €128.16 (1 day) to €1794.30 (14 days), compared to €95.46 and €1336.46 for Zarzio{\circledR}, thus yielding potential cost savings from €32.70 to €457.84 for the latter. Neulasta{\circledR} turns cost-saving at day 12 of Neupogen{\circledR} treatment. At no point over a 14-day treatment period did Neulasta{\circledR} yield a savings advantage over Zarzio{\circledR}.Conclusion: Prophylaxis or treatment of febrile neutropenia with Zarzio{\circledR} is cost-efficient under all possible treatment scenarios relative to Neupogen{\circledR} and to Neulasta{\circledR}. In the absence of convincing evidence that pegfilgrastim is pharmacotherapeutically superior to standard filgrastim, there is no cost-efficiency rationale to treat with Neulasta{\circledR} over Zarzio{\circledR}, though there may be a small window of approximately 3 days where Neulasta{\circledR} is cost-efficient over Neupogen{\circledR}. Regardless, our analysis shows Zarzio{\circledR} to be the most cost-efficient approach to reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated patients.",
keywords = "biosimilars, cost savings, cost-efficiency, febrile neutropenia, Filgrastim, G-CSF, neutropenia, pegfilgrastim",
author = "Matti Aapro and Paul Cornes and Abraham, {Ivo L}",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1177/1078155211407367",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "171--179",
journal = "Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice",
issn = "1078-1552",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - 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

AU - Aapro, Matti

AU - Cornes, Paul

AU - Abraham, Ivo L

PY - 2012/6

Y1 - 2012/6

N2 - Objectives: This cost-efficiency analysis of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) filgrastim (originator Neupogen® and biosimilar Zarzio®) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) examined against a time horizon of 1-14 days of treatment and across the European Union G5 countries (a) when, cost-wise, using Neulasta® 6 mg versus Neupogen® or Zarzio® 300 μg may be cost-saving in reducing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia; and (b) if cost-wise, treatment with Zarzio® 300 μg yields a savings advantage over Neupogen® 300 μg.Methods: Cost-efficiency analysis of the direct costs a buyer or payer would incur when purchasing or covering any of these agents for managing one patient during one cycle of chemotherapy under regimens of 1-14 days of standard filgrastim using the population-weighted average unit dose cost of each agent per their public pack cost across the European G5 countries.Results: The cost of Neupogen® treatment ranged from €128.16 (1 day) to €1794.30 (14 days), compared to €95.46 and €1336.46 for Zarzio®, thus yielding potential cost savings from €32.70 to €457.84 for the latter. Neulasta® turns cost-saving at day 12 of Neupogen® treatment. At no point over a 14-day treatment period did Neulasta® yield a savings advantage over Zarzio®.Conclusion: Prophylaxis or treatment of febrile neutropenia with Zarzio® is cost-efficient under all possible treatment scenarios relative to Neupogen® and to Neulasta®. In the absence of convincing evidence that pegfilgrastim is pharmacotherapeutically superior to standard filgrastim, there is no cost-efficiency rationale to treat with Neulasta® over Zarzio®, though there may be a small window of approximately 3 days where Neulasta® is cost-efficient over Neupogen®. Regardless, our analysis shows Zarzio® to be the most cost-efficient approach to reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated patients.

AB - Objectives: This cost-efficiency analysis of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) filgrastim (originator Neupogen® and biosimilar Zarzio®) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) examined against a time horizon of 1-14 days of treatment and across the European Union G5 countries (a) when, cost-wise, using Neulasta® 6 mg versus Neupogen® or Zarzio® 300 μg may be cost-saving in reducing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia; and (b) if cost-wise, treatment with Zarzio® 300 μg yields a savings advantage over Neupogen® 300 μg.Methods: Cost-efficiency analysis of the direct costs a buyer or payer would incur when purchasing or covering any of these agents for managing one patient during one cycle of chemotherapy under regimens of 1-14 days of standard filgrastim using the population-weighted average unit dose cost of each agent per their public pack cost across the European G5 countries.Results: The cost of Neupogen® treatment ranged from €128.16 (1 day) to €1794.30 (14 days), compared to €95.46 and €1336.46 for Zarzio®, thus yielding potential cost savings from €32.70 to €457.84 for the latter. Neulasta® turns cost-saving at day 12 of Neupogen® treatment. At no point over a 14-day treatment period did Neulasta® yield a savings advantage over Zarzio®.Conclusion: Prophylaxis or treatment of febrile neutropenia with Zarzio® is cost-efficient under all possible treatment scenarios relative to Neupogen® and to Neulasta®. In the absence of convincing evidence that pegfilgrastim is pharmacotherapeutically superior to standard filgrastim, there is no cost-efficiency rationale to treat with Neulasta® over Zarzio®, though there may be a small window of approximately 3 days where Neulasta® is cost-efficient over Neupogen®. Regardless, our analysis shows Zarzio® to be the most cost-efficient approach to reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated patients.

KW - biosimilars

KW - cost savings

KW - cost-efficiency

KW - febrile neutropenia

KW - Filgrastim

KW - G-CSF

KW - neutropenia

KW - pegfilgrastim

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84871355839&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84871355839&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1078155211407367

DO - 10.1177/1078155211407367

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 171

EP - 179

JO - Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice

JF - Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice

SN - 1078-1552

IS - 2

ER -