During this week’s meeting of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomic and Outcomes Research, held from May 18 to 22 in New Orleans, Louisiana, researchers presented findings on both the patient attitudes toward granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) therapies and their effectiveness in the prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia.
The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) therapies is well understood to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), a serious adverse event related to myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Multiple G-CSF options are available to prevent FN, including reference and biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim products.
During this week’s meeting of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomic and Outcomes Research, held from May 18 to 22 in New Orleans, Louisiana, researchers presented findings on both patient attitudes toward these drugs and the drugs’ effectiveness in the prophylaxis of FN.
One research team presented a study that found that patients preferred—and were willing to pay for—G-CSFs that were convenient and provided improved clinical outcomes.1
The study’s authors created a discrete-choice experiment that used an online cross-sectional survey of self-reported patients with breast cancer who had previously received myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
The 302 participants were presented with 18 scenarios with different levels of multiple attributes, including the risk of developing FN that required hospitalization, the risk of disrupting chemotherapy, the need for additional clinic visits, the number of G-CSF administrations, and total out-of-pocket costs for G-CSF.
They found that participants preferred the options with the lowest out-of-pocket costs, followed by the lowest risk of FN that required hospitalization, the lowest risk of chemotherapy disruption, a lower number of clinic visits, and fewer administrations.
Median incremental willingness to pay was $948 to reduce the risk of being hospitalized for FN, and $420 to reduce the number of additional visits to the clinic.
Some subgroups, including those from the Midwest, those covered by Medicare Part D, and those with experience with an on-body injector device, valued convenience more highly than other groups.
A second research team reported that that patients with high—FN risk chemotherapy regimens gained the most benefit from G-CSF therapy.2
Using a commercial, deidentified paid claims dataset from 2007 to 2016, the researchers used diagnostic codes to identify patients with breast cancer, to document the occurrence of FN, and to locate chemotherapy and G-CSF claims. A logistic regression model was used to estimate the association between patient and chemotherapy regimen characteristics and the use of G-CSF.
Patients who used G-CSF were less likely to experience FN (hazard ratio [HR], 0.24; P <.01) and death within 60 days of chemotherapy (HR, 0.22; P <.01) during their first cycle than those who did not use G-CSF.
The effects of G-CSF were particularly substantial for those who had high-risk chemotherapy regimens (HR, 0.19; P <.01). However, no significant association was found between the timing of prophylaxis and its effectiveness in reducing FN risk.
References
1. Yucel A, Chase K, Kumar R, Fuehrer D, Bensink M. Breast cancer patient preference and willingness to pay for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF). Presented at: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 24th Annual International Meeting; May 18-22, 2019; New Orleans, Louisiana. Abstract PCN265.
2. Lee CH, Mccombs J. An analysis of granulocyte-colony stimulation factor utilization for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia among breast cancer patients in the United States. Presented at: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 24th Annual International Meeting; May 18-22, 2019; New Orleans, Louisiana. Abstract PCN15.
Biosimilar Market Development Requires Strategic Flexibility and Global Partnerships
April 29th 2025Thriving in the evolving biosimilar market demands bold collaboration, early global partnerships, and a fresh approach to development strategies to overcome uncertainty and drive future success.
Biosimilars Oncology Roundup for June 2024—Podcast Edition
July 7th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we review biosimilar news coming out of June, with clinical trial results from conferences and a study showcasing how to overcome economic and noneconomic barriers to oncology biosimilars.
Addressing Patent Abuse, Reimbursement Models Key to Sustainable Biosimilar Market
April 25th 2025Sonia T. Oskouei, PharmD, emphasized strategies to streamline regulations and evolve to overcome barriers and expand the availability of cost-effective biosimilar treatments across more therapeutic areas.
Insights from Festival of Biologics: Dracey Poore Discusses Cardinal Health’s 2024 Biosimilar Report
May 19th 2024The discussion highlights key emerging trends from the Festival of Biologics conference and the annual Cardinal Health Biosimilars Report, including the importance of sustainability in the health care landscape and the challenges and successes in biosimilar adoption and affordability.
Decade of Biosimilars Yields $36 Billion in Savings and Strengthens Supply Chain
April 24th 2025Dracey Poore, MS, director of biosimilars and emerging therapies at Cardinal Health, highlighted that biosimilars saved $36 billion over the last decade by improving patient access and the supply chain, but continued education and a robust pipeline are crucial for future growth.