Search

Background The treatment of osteoarticular infections in pediatric patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) is a challenging task for the practitioner. The aim of this study is to evaluate cefixime for the treatment of osteoarticular infections in pediatric SCD patients by retrospective design. Methods This study was done in the pediatric hospital of King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The data was obtained from medical records of patients aged 1-16 years admitted between January 2019 to December 2020, diagnosed with SCD and received cefixime for the treatment of OI. A descriptive study for pediatric patients admitted between January 2019 to December 2020 diagnosed with sickle cell disease and diagnosed with osteoarticular infection. All patients were treated with cefixime. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) were used for the descriptive analysis. Results A total of 260 patients were screened, and 51 cases [osteomyelitis (OM), n = 43, and septic arthritis (SA), n = 8] met the inclusion criteria. The median age of OM patients was 7 years, with males making up 67.4% of the cohort. The median length of IV antibiotics and hospital stays were 10 days and 11 days, respectively. The median total duration of antibiotic use was 37 and 25 days for OM and SA, respectively. The treatment success rate was 88% in OM cases and 100% in SA patients. Readmission was noted in 39.5% of the OM patients, while only 25% of the SA patients were recorded for reinfection. Conclusion The study's findings revealed that Cefixime is a viable oral alternative for treating osteoarticular infection in pediatric SCD patients. Nonetheless, a prospective investigation is required to corroborate the findings of this study.

Lay abstract Pegfilgrastim is used to prevent low white blood cell count in patients receiving chemotherapy. Comparable to a generic version of a drug, a biosimilar is a follow-on version of a biologic treatment. We calculated the savings from using biosimilar pegfilgrastim in a hypothetical group of 20,000 patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy with AC (doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide). We then computed the number of additional doses of AC chemotherapy that could be purchased with those savings. We did the same for a group of 5000 HER2+ breast cancer patients treated with TCH (docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab). Using biosimilar pegfilgrastim could save $1,083 per patient per cycle. If all patients were treated with biosimilar pegfilgrastim over six cycles, $129.9 million could be saved in the AC group and $32.5 million in the TCH group. This could provide 220,468 additional AC doses and 6981 TCH doses. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim can generate significant savings. These savings can be used to provide additional patients with chemotherapy cost-free.

Aim: To estimate the cost-savings from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv that can be reallocated to provide budget-neutral expanded access to FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods: Simulation modeling in a panel of 2500 FOLFIRINOX-treated patients, using varying treatment duration (1–12 cycles) and conversion rates (10–100%), to estimate cost-savings and additional FOLFIRINOX treatment that could be budget neutral. Results: In a 2500-patient panel at 100% conversion, savings of US$6,907.41 per converted patient over 12 cycles of prophylaxis translate to US$17.3 million and could provide 72,273 additional FOLFIRINOX doses or 6023 full 6-month regimens. Conclusion: Conversion to biosimilar CIN/FN prophylaxis can generate significant cost-savings and provide budget-neutral expanded access to FOLFIRINOX treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Seven prospective real-world studies conducted in general practices in Belgium of antihypertensive treatment with valsartan-centric regimens were pooled to examine similarities and differences in determinants of blood pressure (BP) values (mmHg) and BP control rates between female and male patients.Pooled analysis of a total evaluable sample of 17,044 patients, including 8273 (48.5%) women and 8771 men (51.5%) treated over approximately 90 days with valsartan-centric regimens in second or later line. Hierarchical linear and logistic regressions were applied to identify patient- and physician-related determinants of BP outcomes and a potential physician class effect.Reductions in BP (mmHg) over 90 days were similar for women and men, and so were changes in BP control rates. Approximately a quarter of the variance in 90 day BP values was attributable to a physician class effect. Both gender groups shared some patient- and physician-related determinants of BP outcomes, though often varying in degree of influence. Analyses also revealed gender-specific determinants. Among others, modifiable/manageable patient-related determinants included BP at hypertension diagnosis (proxy for time of diagnosis), risk factors, antihypertensive treatment and adherence; while among the physician-related determinants clinical experience in hypertension treatment was modifiable/manageable.Valsartan-centric treatment regimens are associated with significant reductions in BP level and improvement in BP control in both women and men. The determinants revealed in modeling provide guidance to clinicians in the common and differential management of hypertension in female and male patients.

Therapeutic guidelines recommend prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN). Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), biosimilar pegfilgrastim-jmdb (Fulphila), and pegfilgrastim with on-body injector (OBI; Neulasta Onpro) are options for CIN/FN prophylaxis. We aimed to simulate the cost-savings and budget-neutral expanded access to CIN/FN prophylaxis or anticancer treatment achieved through conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to pegfilgrastim-jmdb and to evaluate the economic impact of FN-related hospitalization costs due to pegfilgrastim-OBI failure.Cost-savings from conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-jmdb were simulated in a panel of 15,000 patients with cancer from the US payer perspective. The primary analyses included conversion rates of 10% to 100%. Adjusted analyses also considered OBI device failure rates of 1% to 7% and associated costs of FN-related hospitalization. Simulations of budget-neutral expanded access to prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim-jmdb or to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) were also performed.In a 15,000-patient panel, conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to pegfilgrastim-jmdb resulted in cost-savings ranging from $481,259 (10% conversion) to $4,812,585 (100% conversion) in a single cycle. Over 6 cycles at 100% conversion, savings were $28,857,510 and could provide 9,191 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 4,463 cycles of R-CHOP to patients with DLBCL. Adjusted for OBI failure, cost-savings over 6 cycles ranged from $2,935,565 (10% conversion; pegfilgrastim-OBI failure rate of 1%) to $32,236,499 (100% conversion; 7% failure). These cost-savings could provide 943 doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 454 doses of R-CHOP (10% conversion; 1% pegfilgrastim-OBI failure) or provide 10,261 doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 4,982 cycles of R-CHOP (100% conversion; 7% failure).Conversion from pegfilgrastim to pegfilgrastim-jmdb is associated with significant cost-savings which increase markedly when also accounting for pegfilgrastim-OBI failure and associated FN-related hospitalizations. These general and failure-related cost-savings could be allocated on a budget-neutral basis to provide more patients with additional CIN/FN prophylaxis or antineoplastic treatment.

Aim Evaluate long-term real-world treatment patterns and associated effectiveness and safety outcomes in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) treated ≥36 months with 0.5mg ranibizumab. Methods Open-label observational effectiveness study in 9 Belgian clinics. Included were primary treated eyes of 55 DME patients between August 2014 and March 2015 and followed for 3.5±1.8 years. Eyes were 21.8% treatment (TX)-naive, 9.1% non-naive with exclusive prior anti-VEGF treatment (PRIOR-anti-VEGF), and 63.6% non-naive with other prior treatments (PRIOR-other). Intravitreal injections with ranibizumab were administered per ophthalmologists' best clinical judgment. Trend testing of changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) over time occurred using mixed regression analysis. Results The mean±SD number of treatments in the first year was 5.1±3.0 (TX-naive), 4.5±2.7 (PRIOR-anti-VEGF) and 5.6±3.1 (PRIOR-other). At 12 months, BCVA increased by 8.9±16.4 letters from 59.7±9.3 at baseline in TX-naive (p

In this pharmacoeconomic simulation, we: (1) modeled the cost-efficiency of converting patients from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) from the US payer perspective, (2) simulated how savings enable, on a budget-neutral basis, expanded access to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, and (3) estimated the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv.In a hypothetical panel of 20,000 patients, we modeled cost-savings utilizing: two reference formulations (pre-filled syringe [PFS] and on-body injector [OBI]), three medication cost inputs (average sales price [ASP], wholesale acquisition cost [WAC], and an age-proportionate blended ASP/WAC rate), administration cost for injection (PFS) and device application (OBI), conversion rates of 10-100%, and 1-6 cycles of prophylaxis. Cost-savings were used to estimate additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv that could be purchased and the NNC to purchase one additional dose.Using ASP and 10% conversion from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, savings range from $326,744 (1 cycle) to $2.0M (6 cycles) which could provide 93-556 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv, respectively; the NNC to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv ranges from 21.6 (1 cycle) down to 3.6 patients (6 cycles). The WAC model saves $41.1M per cycle and $246.7M over 6 cycles at 100% conversion from reference PFS which could provide 9,709-58,253 additional pegfilgrastim-cbqv doses; the NNC ranges from 2.1 (1 cycle) to 0.3 (6 cycles). Using the blended ASP/WAC rate, converting 50% from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv would save $10.2M per cycle and $60.9M over 6 cycles providing 2,638-15,829 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv; NNCs are 3.8 (1 cycle) and 0.6 patients (6 cycles).Converting 20,000 patients from reference to pegfilgrastim-cbqv over 6 cycles can generate savings up to $246.7M, enough to purchase up to 58,253 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv. This simulation provides economic justification for prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv.

Objectives To conduct a cost analysis of adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy for severe septic shock from the perspective of a third-party payer in the United States. Design Estimates of outcomes were aggregate data from the Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock trials. In these trials, the outcomes of interests were ICU length of stay, vasopressor-free days, ventilation-free days, and the proportion of patients receiving blood transfusion. Each outcome was monetized into a set of mutually exclusive components and was aggregated to estimate the cost-per-patient based on each trial. Cost inputs for each outcome were obtained from literature and adjusted based on the medical care consumer price index. To estimate the budget impact using adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy, per-patient avoided cost was multiplied by expected septic shock annual incidence. Deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis evaluated the robustness of the findings, and Monte Carlo simulation estimated 95% CI of the findings. Setting A total of 103 medical-surgical ICU (69 for Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and 34 for Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock). Patients Adults greater than or equal to 18 years old with septic shock. Interventions Adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy (hydrocortisone at a dose of 200 mg/d for 7 d for Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and hydrocortisone at a 50 mg IV bolus every 6 hr and fludrocortisone as a 50 μg tablet once daily). Measurements and main results Per Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock, adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy showed a 90-day monetized benefit of $8,111 (95% CI, $3,914-$12,307) per patient, driven by improvements in ICU-free days, vasopressor-free days, ventilation-free days, and blood transfusion proportion. The total estimated annual impact of adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy, in 2019 dollars, was $750 million. Per Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock, adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy showed a 90-day monetized benefit of $25,539 per patient (95% CI, $22,853-$28,224), driven by improvements in ICU free-days, vasopressor-free days, and ventilation-free days. The total estimated annual impact of adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy, in 2019 dollars, was $2.3 billion. The deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis showed the cost of ICU stays to be the most influential factor in both analyses. The sensitivity analysis using the reported median showed a greater monetized benefit of $10,658 (Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock) and $30,911 (Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock) per patient. Conclusions Using adjunctive hydrocortisone therapy yields a significant monetized benefit based on inputs from the Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock and Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock trials.

Objective Macrolide antibiotics are among the most commonly used antibiotics; the association of macrolide antibiotics exposure with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) has been hypothesized. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception to 15 July 2019 to identify studies used macrolide antibiotics for any indication. The results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects model to derive the association of macrolide antibiotics exposure with SNHL. The objective of this meta-analysis was to estimate the association of macrolide antibiotics exposure and SNHL from up-to-date evidence. Key findings Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. There was no statistically significant association between macrolide antibiotics exposure and SNHL; the OR was 1.20 (95% CI: 0.96 to 1.49). No significant association was found with any of the subgroup meta-analyses. Summary Whilst the frequency of SNHL was higher with macrolide antibiotics exposure compared with controls, overall, no association was found between macrolide antibiotics and SNHL.

Objective The Beta-Blocker Evaluation Survival Trial showed no survival benefit for bucindolol in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, but subanalyses suggested survival benefits for non-Black subjects and Arg389 homozygotes. We conducted an ex ante economic evaluation of Arg389 targeted treatment with bucindolol versus carvidolol, complementing a previous ex ante economic evaluation of bucindolol preceded by genetic testing for the Arg389 polymorphism, in which genetic testing prevailed economically over no testing. Methods A decision tree analysis with an 18-month time horizon was performed to estimate the cost effectiveness/cost utility of trajectories of 100%, 50%, and 0% of patients genetically tested for Arg389 and comparing bucindolol with empirical carvedilol treatment as per prior BEST subanalyses. Incremental cost-effectiveness/cost-utility ratios (ICERs/ICURs) were estimated. Results Race-based analyses for non-White subjects at 100% testing showed a loss of (0.04) life-years and (0.03) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $2185, yielding a negative ICER of ($54,625)/life-year and ICUR of ($72,833)/QALY lost; at 50%, the analyses showed a loss of (0.27) life-years and (0.16) QALYs at an incremental cost of $1843, yielding a negative ICER of ($6826)/life-year and ICUR of ($11,519)/QALY lost; at 0%, the analyses showed a loss of (0.33) life-years and (0.30) QALYs at an incremental cost of $1459, yielding a negative ICER of ($4421)/life-year and ICUR of ($4863)/QALY lost. Arg389 homozygote analyses at 100% testing showed incremental gains of 0.02 life-years and 0.02 QALYs at an incremental cost of $378, yielding an ICER of 18,900/life-year and ICUR of $18,900/QALY gained; at 50%, the analyses showed a loss of (0.24) life-years and (0.09) QALYs at an incremental cost of $1039, yielding a negative ICER of ($4329)/life-year and ICUR of ($9336)/QALY lost; at 0%, the analyses showed a loss of (0.33) life-years and (0.30) QALYs at an incremental cost of $1459, yielding a negative ICER of ($4421)/life-year and ICUR of ($4863)/QALY lost. Conclusion This independent ex ante economic evaluation suggests that genetically targeted treatment with bucindolol is unlikely to yield clinicoeconomic benefits over empirical treatment with carvedilol in NYHA III/IV HF.

Anita M Leys,1,2 Eva Ramboer,3 Mérédis Favreau,3 Kris Denhaerynck,4,5 Karen MacDonald,4 Ivo Abraham,4,6– 8 Heidi Brié3 1Department of Ophthalmology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Gasthuisberg, KULeuven, Leuven, Belgium; 2Oogartsen, Alken, Belgium; 3Novartis Pharma, Vilvoorde, Belgium; 4Matrix45, Tucson, AZ, USA; 5Department of Public Health, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; 6Center for Health Outcomes and Pharmacoeconomic Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; 7Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; 8Department of Family and Community Medicine, College of Medicine – Tucson, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USACorrespondence: Heidi BriéN.V. Novartis Pharma S.A., Medialaan 40, Vilvoorde B-1800, BelgiumTel +3222461774Email heidi.brie@novartis.comPurpose: To evaluate long-term, real-world treatment patterns and outcomes of ranibizumab 0.5 mg for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in a Belgian cohort.Patients and Methods: This Belgian (BE) cohort of the 5-year global observational LUMINOUS study included 229 patients with nAMD. Outcomes included visual acuity (VA), central retinal thickness (CRT) and safety.Results: The mean age was 79.5± 7.7 years. The majority of patients (67.7%) were female and all patients were Caucasian. Most patients previously received ranibizumab with only 17.5% of patients being treatment-naïve. The injection frequency declined over time irrespective of prior treatment status (p< 0.0001), with treatment-naïve eyes receiving a mean of 4.2± 2.9 yearly injections and prior-ranibizumab eyes 3.6± 2.7. Regression analysis confirmed first-year VA increases for treatment-naïve eyes (p=0.002) followed by a slight decrease of − 1.8 letters per year. For prior-ranibizumab eyes, the visual changes over 1 year were statistically non-significant (p=0.90) but declined slightly after year one (p< 0.0001). Anatomically, the CRT of treatment-naïve eyes decreased over time from baseline (p< 0.0001), whereas the CRT of prior-ranibizumab eyes remained stable (p=0.43). No new safety findings were identified.Conclusion: LUMINOUS-BE reconfirms the well-characterized benefit-risk profile of ranibizumab for nAMD treatment. The observed low injection frequency reflects a need for more rigorous treatment in real-world settings.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01318941.Keywords: ranibizumab, effectiveness, safety, treatment patterns, neovascular age-related macular degeneration, Belgium

Aims: For this economic analysis, we aimed to model: (1) the cost-efficiency of prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) compared to re...

BACKGROUND: Although adherence to imatinib is critical for attaining treatment responses in chronic myeloid leukemia, there is evidence of varying adherence among patients. Our aim was to model and determine the margin of tolerance, if any, required to ensure treatment responses among patients prescribed imatinib before treatment response is at risk. METHOD: We performed post hoc analyses of the ADAGIO study conducted in Belgium on 169 evaluable patients (Blood 2009). Applying Kaplan-Meier methods using adherence instead of the conventional time variable, we modeled the likelihood of complete cytogenetic (CCyR), complete hematological (CHR), major molecular (MMR) and optimal (OR) response as a function of 90-day pill count adherence. RESULTS: Analyses showed that ∼100 % adherence of prescribed dose is associated with probabilities of 0.84 for CHR, 0.83 for CCyR, 0.82 for OR, and 0.77 for MMR; compared to, 0.37 (CHR and CCyR), 0.35 (OR), and 0.39 (MMR) at 90 % adherence. Increasing intake of imatinib from 90 % to 100 % of the prescribed dose increased the likelihood of the various treatment responses by 1.95-2.35-fold. CONCLUSION: There is virtually no margin for nonadherence, if the objective is to optimize the likelihood of treatment response, and a minimal margin to avoid impaired treatment response. ispartof: LEUKEMIA RESEARCH vol:111 ispartof: location:England status: published

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) improves overall survival (OS) in unresectable stage IIIB/C-IV melanoma T-VEC may have synergistic effects with CTLA-4 inhibitors In the absence of a trial comparing T-VEC and ipilimumab (T-VEC + IPI) to T-VEC, we applied a novel indirect comparison method using extrapolated OS curves to estimate OS outcomes in a simulated trial comparing both regimens in stage IIIB/C-IV unresectable melanoma.Two trials with extractable OS curves for a T-VEC versus T-VEC + IPI comparison were identified. Outcomes were adjusted for heterogeneity in prognostic factors using a calculated adjustment factor. T-VEC and adjusted/unadjusted T-VEC+IPI curves were plotted with 95% CIs.Unadjusted indirect OS comparison of T-VEC versus T-VEC + IPI revealed no significant difference up to 15 months. Extrapolation beyond 15 months showed significant survival benefits for T-VEC + IPI over T-VEC, confirmed in adjusted analyses. The expected OS percentage at 48 months is 32.0% (95% CI = 26.6-37.3) for T-VEC, 60.0% (95% CI = 46.2-69.1) for unadjusted, and 81.1% (95% CI = 72.3-85.9) for adjusted T-VEC + IPI.Our novel indirect comparison suggests that T-VEC + IPI may demonstrate a significantly improved OS versus T-VEC alone. Findings may portend a possible role for the addition of T-VEC to advanced melanoma treatment regimens in select patients as salvage therapy.

Two PD-1 (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) and one PD-L1(atezolizumab) inhibitors are approved for previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer but have not been compared in head-to-head trials.A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare efficacy/safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors.In five-trials (including long-term updates) with docetaxel as common comparator there were no differences in OS and PFS between PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Pembrolizumab (odds ratio(OR) = 2.22, 95%CrI = 1.28-3.70) and nivolumab (OR = 1.92, 95%CrI = 1.15-3.23) had higher ORRs than atezolizumab and at PD-L1 expression ≥50% and ≥1%. Probabilistically, pembrolizumab ranked first in OS and ORR, and in OS sub-analyses for adenocarcinoma, EGFR-mutant, ECOG-score-1, male, and age65 years. Nivolumab ranked first in PFS, and in OS sub-analyses for squamous-cell disease, EGFR-wild-type, and ECOG-score-0. Pembrolizumab and nivolumab ranked the best option for most of adverse events.While pembrolizumab and nivolumab prevailed in rank in OS and ORR benefit, patient characteristics, safety and tolerance should be considered in treatment decision-making.

Immunoglobulin E (IgE) is the treatment target of omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody indicated in the treatment of severe allergic asthma. Long-term variability of serum total IgE (sIgEtot) in asthmatics remains poorly documented., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Aim: This study aimed to report patterns of biosimilar filgrastim prophylaxis and outcomes of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN)/febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with hematological malignancies or solid tumors. Patients & methods: MONITOR-GCSF is a real-world study of 1447 cancer patients receiving CIN/FN prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim (solid tumors: 77.2%; hematological malignancies: 22.8%). Results: Differences in prophylaxis intensity and day of initiation relative to guideline recommendations were observed. In hematology patients, higher rates of CIN and FN occurred at cycle level, and rate of FN was higher at patient level (9.1 vs 5.0% in solid tumor patients). Conclusion: Adequate GCSF support in hematology and solid tumor patients is important to prevent CIN/FN and related hospitalizations and chemotherapy disturbances.

Aim: To compare the incidence of febrile neutropenia and related outcomes of prophylactic same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim/pegfilgrastim-cbqv in patients with lymphoma receiving cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP)-like chemotherapy. Methods: Retrospective, real-world, single-institution study. Results: 93 patients received 460 cycles of CHOP-like chemotherapy. The incidence of febrile neutropenia and grade 3/4 chemotherapy-induced neutropenia was 5 and 16.5%, respectively. In 401 cycles pegfilgrastim was administered same-day versus 12 cycles next-day. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 17 cycles versus 0 cycles (p = 1.00) and grade 3/4 chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in 65 cycles (16.2%) versus 1 cycle (16.7%; p = 1.00) with same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim administration, respectively. Conclusion: Pegfilgrastim may be safely administered on the same day as chemotherapy in patients with lymphoma receiving CHOP-like chemotherapy.

This pharmacoeconomic simulation (1) assessed the cost-efficiency of converting a panel of 20,000 patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv; (2) estimated how savings can be used to provide budget-neutral expanded access to R-CHOP therapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients; and 3) determined the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to purchase one additional dose of R-CHOP (US payer perspective). Model inputs included biosimilar conversion from pre-filled syringe [PFS] or on-body injector [OBI] reference pegfilgrastim; age-proportional blended costs for reference pegfilgrastim PFS and OBI, pegfilgrastim-cbqv and R-CHOP; medication administration costs; biosimilar conversion rates of 10-100 %; and 1-6 cycles of prophylaxis. Cost-savings were used to estimate the number of doses of R-CHOP that could be purchased and the NNC to purchase one additional dose. Converting a panel of 20,000 patients requiring CIN/FN prophylaxis to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv from a low of 1 cycle and 10 % conversion to a high of 6 cycles and 100 % conversion yielded savings from $1,567,195 to $96,668,126. The budget-neutral acquisition of R-CHOP doses afforded by these savings ranged from 227 to 13,999 doses, the latter enabling 2333 patients to receive 6 cycles of R-CHOP treatment with no additional cost to the payer. These results are achieved if all 20,000 panel patients requiring GCSF support are prophylacted with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv for 6 cycles, yielding an NNC of 1.43 patients per additional R-CHOP dose. This simulation underscores the clinic-economic benefit of prophylaxis with biosimilar growth factor and pegfilgrastim-cbqv specifically.

Purpose The number of newly approved cancer medications continues to grow; many of these newly approved medications are oral agents. Oral oncolytic agents have advantages including patient convenience, prolonged drug exposure, and noninvasive administration. However, these advantages come at a cost premium that many patients cannot afford, which can lead to change in therapy or abandonment. This study evaluates the perceptions of health-care workers regarding the cost and safety of oral oncolytic agents. Methods This is a descriptive, nonexperimental, cross-sectional study of health-care professionals in hematology/oncology patient care settings across the United States. Data were collected using a 35-item online questionnaire to measure quality improvement areas when using oral oncolytic agents. Results Results are based on 503 survey respondents comprising mainly pharmacists (54%), pharmacy administrators (15%), and nurses (10%). Adherence to oral oncolytics was not included in outcome measurements at 31.5% of respondents’ facilities. Treatment abandonment due to cost was reported by 46.6% of respondents. The most common agents abandoned due to cost included capecitabine, abiraterone, and palbociclib. To reduce cost, some respondents (6.1%) have utilized drug interactions to increase drug half-life. Prior authorization delays were perceived to occur in 1 to 2 patients weekly, creating a 4- to 6-day wait to initiate therapy; 24.0% of respondents spend more than 30 hours weekly resolving these issues. Conclusions Health-care workers underscore their concerns about the prevalence of issues related to oral oncolytic therapy, by reporting on the incidence of abandonment of therapy, delay in therapy initiation, resources needed to assure patient access to oral oncolytic agents, and impact on patient care. Patients diagnosed with cancer require prompt access to appropriate treatments to produce favorable outcomes. In many instances, patients are unable to understand the extensive process involved in determining an appropriate course of treatment. Many factors aid in deciding on a particular course of therapy, including efficacy, safety, access to medication, adherence, and out-of-pocket cost of medication. Until recently, cancer therapy consisted primarily of IV infusion therapy, but oral oncolytic agents have been added to the therapy options over the past several years.

Background: The use of anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (anti-CTLA4) therapy (ipilimumab) and anti-programmed cell-death 1 (anti-PD1) agents (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) in advanced melanoma have been associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs) including colitis. We aimed to estimate the incidence and the risk of colitis in elderly patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 in the real-world setting. Methods: Elderly patients (age ⩾ 65 years) diagnosed with advanced melanoma between 2011 and 2015 and treated with anti-CTLA4 or anti-PD1 agents were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data. We estimated the risk of colitis from start of treatment up to 90 days from the last dose of therapy. We used the log-rank test and logistic regression with adjustment for potential confounders using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method. We conducted several sensitivity analyses. Results: A total of 274 elderly patients with advanced melanoma were included in our cohort. The risk of colitis was similar between anti-PD1 users and anti-CTLA4 users based on log-rank test ( p = 0.17) and logistic regression [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 0.04–2.79]. Sensitivity analyses for patients with all-stage melanoma showed a significantly lower risk of colitis in anti-PD1 compared with anti-CTLA4 treated patients based on log-rank test ( p = 0.017) and logistic regression (OR = 0.21, 95%CI 0.09–0.53). Conclusion: Elderly with advanced melanoma treated with anti-CTLA4 or anti-PD1 had a similar risk of developing colitis. However, there was a statistically significant difference in the risk of colitis between anti-CTLA4 or anti-PD1 users among all-stage-melanoma patients. Plain Language Summary Risk of colitis (inflammation of the large intestine) in elderly patients with melanoma treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (a group of medications that uses the patient’s immune system to fight cancer) While the anti-cancer agents known as immune-checkpoint inhibitors have had a great impact on the treatment of melanoma, they may also have side effects. This study estimated the risk of colitis, a chronic inflammation of the colon, in elderly patients with melanoma treated with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (anti-CTLA4) or anti-programmed cell-death 1 (anti-PD1) agents, using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare linked database. Overall, we found that the risk of colitis was not different between anti-PD1 users and anti-CTLA4 users with advanced-stage melanoma. However, after including patients across all stages of melanoma, we found a significantly lower risk of colitis with anti-PD1 compared with anti-CTLA4.

Aims Six prospective real-world studies of antihypertensive treatment with valsartan-centric regimens were pooled to: (1) examine the effectiveness of similar to 90 days of second- or later-line valsartan treatment in hypertensive patients with known comorbidities; and (2) identify physician- and patient-related determinants associated with systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) outcomes in these patients. Methods and materials A pooled analysis was performed of an evaluable sample of 11,999 hypertensive patients with known comorbidities treated similar to 90 days with valsartan-centric regimens. We applied hierarchical linear and logistic regression models to identify determinants of blood pressure (BP) outcomes and a potential physician class effect. Results Valsartan regimens resulted in mean (SD) SBP and DBP reductions of 18.0 (15.8) mmHg and 9.5 (10.1) mmHg, respectively, at similar to 90 days, yielding SBP, DBP and combined SBP/DBP control rates of 44.0%, 67.2% and 39.3%, respectively. About a quarter of the variance in 90 day BP values was attributable to a physician class effect. BP outcomes declined with physicians' increasing years in practice and being male. At the patient level, BP outcomes declined with SBP and DBP at diagnosis; diabetes; higher cholesterol and BMI; lower valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) doses; and concomitant anti-hypertensives. Older age was associated with improved DBP. A proxy of physician vigilance, cardiovascular disease history, was associated with improved BP outcomes, as were patient adherence and higher doses of valsartan in combination with HCTZ. Conclusions Valsartan-centric regimens have significant BP lowering benefits in this pooled sample of patients with known comorbidities. Many observed determinants of BP outcomes are modifiable or manageable.

Background: The risk of immune-related(ir)-hypothyroidism in older patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti-CTLA4 or anti-PD1 therapies is poorly understood, especially in the real-world setting. Research design and methods: We identified older patients (≥65 years) diagnosed with advanced melanoma between 2011-2015 and treated with anti-CTLA4 or anti-PD1 agents in the SEER-Medicare database. Applying probability-of-treatment-weighting for confounder adjustment and proportional hazards models, we estimated the risk of ir-hypothyroidism between treatment initiation and up to 90 days from last dose between anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4 users. Results: Of 210 older patients with advanced melanoma identified, 164 received anti-CTLA4 (ipilimumab) and 46 anti-PD1 agents (11 nivolumab, 35 pembrolizumab). There was no statistically significant difference in ir-hypothyroidism risk between anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4 users (HR=2.15, 95%CI=0.83-5.53). Pairwise medication comparisons showed a lower risk among ipilimumab versus nivolumab (HR=0.15, 95%CI=0.06-0.40) and pembrolizumab versus nivolumab users (HR=0.13, 95%CI=0.03-0.55). Sensitivity analyses using an all-stages melanoma cohort did not show a difference in ir-hypothyroidism risk between medication classes and individual medications. Conclusions:This retrospective claims data analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in ir-hypothyroidism risk between anti-CTLA4 or anti-PD1 users. However, patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab or pembrolizumab may have a lower ir-hypothyroidism risk compared to nivolumab users.

Background: Severe asthma affects 5–10% of the 350 million people with asthma worldwide. Findings from the authors’ previous meta-analysis supported omalizumab use as an adjuvant treatment for severe allergic asthma. The publication of fourteen new articles necessitates an update of the meta-analysis. Objective: To evaluate the ‘real-world’ effectiveness of omalizumab in the treatment of acute allergic asthma in adults by calculating pooled effects estimates from data in published articles. Methods: Articles on omalizumab effectiveness in ‘real-world’ settings were identified. Effect sizes, including point estimates of the proportion of patients who met a given criteria, mean improvements relative to baseline, and change in the proportion of patients requiring oral corticosteroids compared to baseline were extracted. Meta-analysis of proportions was conducted to pool effect sizes based on proportions. Standardized mean differences (Hedges’ g) were calculated from means and standard deviations. Relative risk was calculated from changes in proportions. Variability within and between studies was evaluated. Results: Omalizumab increases the percentage of individuals rated ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ on the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness Scale. Omalizumab also improves respiratory function, quality-of-life, and asthma control while reducing medication usage, exacerbations, hospitalizations, and adverse events. Conclusion: ‘Real-world’ evidence continues to support the use of omalizumab as adjuvant treatment for severe allergic asthma.

To investigate the cost-efficiency and budget-neutral expanded access of biosimilar intravenous trastuzumab-dkst versus reference intravenous (trastuzumab-IV) and subcutaneous trastuzumab (trastuzumab-SC) (with/without pertuzumab) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Economic simulation modeling in a panel of 1,000 MBC patients to estimate: 1) cost-savings by conversion from trastuzumab-IV or trastuzumab-SC to trastuzumab-dkst at 10-100% conversion rates in 3 weight groups: first quartile (Q1:62.2kg), median (73.1kg), third quartile (Q3:88.6kg), and 2) budget-neutral expanded access to trastuzumab-dkst from cost-savings. In monotherapy, conversion (%) from trastuzumab-IV generates one-year cost-savings from $2,272,189 (Q1;10%) to $31,506,804 (Q3;100%) and from trastuzumab-SC monotherapy savings range from $2,071,277 (Q3;10%) to $35,775,475 (Q1;100%). In combination with pertuzumab, trastuzumab-dkst is cost-efficient in all patient weights with one-year savings over trastuzumab-IV up to $32,662,714 (Q3;100%) and over trastuzumab-SC up to $35,322,461 (Q1;100%). Savings from conversion from trastuzumab-IV monotherapy could provide between 3,087 (Q1;10%) and 30,911 (Q3;100%) additional trastuzumab-dkst doses—enough to treat 58 to 583 patients for one year. Conversion from trastuzumab-SC monotherapy could provide between 1,559 (Q3; 10%) and 48,598 (Q1; 100%) additional trastuzumab-dkst doses or 38 to 918 additional one-year treatments with trastuzumab-dkst. In combination with pertuzumab, conversion from trastuzumab-IV could provide from 311 (Q1;10%) to 3,939 (Q3;100%) maintenance doses (pertuzumab + trastuzumab-dkst) or 17 to 210 additional one-year regimens (all agents). Savings from conversion from trastuzumab-SC could expand access to 226 (Q3;10%) to 4,782 (Q1;100%) additional maintenance doses or 12 to 254 one-year regimens. This first cost-efficiency and expanded access study of biosimilar therapeutic cancer agents shows that trastuzumab-dkst is cost-efficient over trastuzumab-IV and trastuzumab-SC across all patient weights in both monotherapy and in combination with pertuzumab and paclitaxel. These cost-savings could provide more patients with trastuzumab-dkst treatment on a budget-neutral basis.

To examine the outcomes associated with granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) administered as primary versus secondary prophylaxis in setting of bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) regimens. Eighty-five patients who underwent treatment for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with BR at the University of Arizona Cancer Center from November 2013 to June 2019 were evaluated through retrospective chart review. Patients were stratified into two groups: those who were given G-CSF for primary prophylaxis (n = 47) and for secondary prophylaxis (n = 38). G-CSF-included filgrastim or pegfilgrastim. The primary endpoints were incidence of febrile neutropenia and grade 3 or 4 neutropenia. Same-day G-CSF compared with next-day G-CSF was the most common G-CSF dosing method utilized in primary and secondary prophylaxis (94% and 100%), respectively. Primary and secondary prophylaxis groups were similar on baseline characteristics (p > 0.05); the primary outcome of FN (p > 0.05); all secondary outcomes (p > 0.05) except for a higher frequency of dose delays in secondary (40%) vs primary prophylaxis patients (13%; p = 0.01), and mean absolute neutrophil counts (ANC) in cycles 1 through 5. With higher ANC levels observed during all cycles in the primary prophylaxis group compared with secondary prophylaxis. In this single-center retrospective study, BR-treated lymphoma and CLL patients receiving primary versus secondary with G-CSF showed similar outcomes except, notably, for chemotherapy dose delays that may put secondary patients at risk for poor treatment outcomes. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact of primary versus secondary prophylaxis on treatment outcomes.

Practice patterns of same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim vary in numerous practice settings across the country. Current utilization with same-day pegfilgrastim reduced overall visits and reduced treatment time for chemotherapy administration. To assess the efficacy and safety of same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim in patients with colorectal cancer. Patient data was extracted through electronic health records (EHR) search of ICD-9 codes that matched patients with CRC and treated with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI from November 2013 to January 2016. The incidence rates of primary and secondary endpoints were estimated for patients who received either FOLFOX or FOLFIRI and same-day pegfilgrastim with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals. Fisher’s exact test for 2 × 2 contingency tables was used to compare the incidence of primary and secondary endpoints between the two study groups performed at the α = 0.05 significance level. A study by Hecht et al. served as a historical control for next-day pegfilgrastim. A total of 109 out of an initial 330 patients with appropriate ICD-9 criteria were eligible for study inclusion. The primary endpoint of incidence of FN recorded over 4 chemotherapy cycles with either FOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI occurred in 3.7% of patients (95% CI, 1.1–9.4%). Secondary endpoints also occurred with a relatively low incidence: 13 patients developed grades 3/4 neutropenia (11.9%; 95% CI, 7.0–19.5%); 11 patients required dose reductions because of neutropenia or FN (10.1%; 95% CI, 5.6–17.3%); and 5 patients were hospitalized due to neutropenia or FN (4.6%; 1.7–10.6%). There were 4 reported events of FN (3.2%; 95% CI, 1.0–8.3%) for those who received next-day pegfilgrastim compared to 11 events in the placebo group (9.4%; 95% CI, 5.1–16.4%). The incidence of dose delays or dose reductions due to neutropenia or FN were 5 (4.1%, 95% CI, 1.5–9.4%) in the next-day pegfilgrastim group versus 26 (22.1%, 95% CI, 15.5–30.4%) in the placebo group. The study was retrospective in design and utilized a historical control for the comparator. Our study results suggest that same-day pegfilgrastim administration may be a safe and effective alternative to 24-h post-chemotherapy administration in patients with esophageal, gastric, appendiceal, or colorectal cancer undergoing treatment with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI.

Gemcitabine (GEM), oxaliplatin plus GEM (OX + GEM), cisplatin plus GEM (CIS + GEM), capecitabine plus GEM (CAP + GEM), FOLFIRINOX (FFX), and nab-paclitaxel plus GEM (NAB-P + GEM) are the most commonly used regimens as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) in the UK. Independent economic evaluation of these regimens simultaneously has not been conducted for the UK. Using data from a network meta-analysis as efficacy measures, we estimated the cost effectiveness and cost utility of these regimens for the UK. A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed-disease, and death) simulating the total costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] gained and life-years [LYs]) was developed to estimate the incremental cost-utility (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for patients with MPC, from the payer perspective. The model was specified to calculate total costs in 2017 British pounds (GBP, £). All values were discounted at 3.5% per year over a full lifetime horizon. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the results. FFX was the most effective regimen, NAB-P + GEM was the most costly regimen, and GEM was the least costly and least effective regimen. OX + GEM, CIS + GEM, and NAB-P + GEM were dominated by CAP + GEM and FFX. Compared with GEM, the ICUR for CAP + GEM and FFX was £28,066 and £33,020/QALY gained, respectively; compared with GEM, the ICER for CAP + GEM and FFX was £17,437 and £22,291/LY gained, respectively; and compared with CAP + GEM, the ICUR and ICER for FFX were £34,947/QALY gained and 24,414/LY gained, respectively. At a threshold value of £30,000/QALY, CAP + GEM was found to be the only cost-effective regimen in the management of MPC in the UK.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVES: Biosimilar filgrastim may offer significant cost advantages over originator filgrastim and pegfilgrastim. The objectives were (1) to evaluate for the US the comparative cost-minimization of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim ZARZIO® over originator filgrastim NEUPOGEN®, and originator pegfilgrastim NEULASTA® and NEULASTA/ONPRO® injection device with the health-care provider (HP) providing full administration, using 3Q2016 average selling price (ASP); and (2) to apply the different savings estimates to a breast cancer case study. METHODS: Cost-minimization analysis of [1] acquisition costs for one patient for one chemotherapy cycle for 1 to 14 days (d) using per unit dose, and [2] administration costs using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. We calculated [1] the general cost of prophylaxis for one cycle with each agent, with standard filgrastim administrations ranging from 1-14 days and pegfilgrastim limited to single administration; and [2] the cost-savings that could be accrued from 1-14d prophylaxis with ZARXIO® over the three originator options. The case study concerns a 43 y/o Caucasian female, newly diagnosed with stage 2 HER2-negative breast cancer being started on TAC (FN risk >20%); unremarkable medical history; no comorbidities; with primary prophylaxis initiated in cycle 1 and continued through 6 cycles per local protocol (single NEULASTA® or NEULASTA/ONPRO® or 11d NEUPOGEN® or ZARXIO®). RESULTS: Using ASP+CPT, prophylaxis cost per dose (rounded) was $260 for ZARXIO®, $326 for NEUPOGEN®, $3,926 for NEULASTA®; $3,910 for NEULASTA®. In general, cost-savings per cycle from ZARXIO® over NEUPOGEN® ranged from $65 (1d) to $916 (14d); over Neulasta®, from $3,666 (1d) to $284 (14d); and over NEULASTA/ONPRO®, from $3,649 (1d) to $267 (14d). In the breast cancer case study, cost of prophylaxis per one cycle was $2,862 for ZARXIO® (11d), $3,582 for NEUPOGEN® (11d) vs. $3926 for NEULASTA® and $3910 for NEULASTA/ONPRO® single-injection. Cost-savings per cycle from ZARXIO® use were $719 vs. NEUPOGEN®, $1,064 vs. NEULASTA®, and $1,047 vs. NEULASTA/ONPRO®. Total savings from ZARXIO® use over all 6 TAC cycles were $4,316 vs. NEUPOGEN®, $6,385 vs. NEULASTA®, and $6,284 vs. NEULASTA/ONPRO®. CONCLUSIONS: In general, CIN/FN prophylaxis with ZARXIO® for 1-14d generates significant cost savings over NEUPOGEN®, NEULASTA® and NEULASTA/ONPRO generating significant cost-savings. In the case study of the 43 y/o HER-negative breast cancer patient treated with TAC and prescribed 6 cycles of primary prophylaxis with 11d standard or single-administration pegfilgrastim, savings reached as high as $6,385 for the full course of chemotherapy. Given the trial evidence of non-inferiority of pegfilgrastim over filgrastim, the clinical trend for Citation Format: McBride A, Campbell K, Bikkina M, MacDonald K, Abraham I, Balu S. Cost-minimization of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar ZARXIO® over NEUPOGEN®, NEULASTA®, and NEULASTA/ONPRO®: Breast cancer case study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-12-07.

Majed S Al Yami,1,2 Sawsan Kurdi,2,3 Ivo Abraham2,4,5 1Department of Pharmacy Practice, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2Center for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; 3Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia; 4Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; 5Department of Family and Community Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA Background: Standard-duration (7–10 days) thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin, low dose unfractionated heparin, or fondaparinux in hospitalized medically ill patients is associated with ~50% reduction in venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. However, these patients remain at high risk for VTE post-discharge. The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban and betrixaban have been evaluated for extended-duration (30–42 days) thromboprophylaxis in this population. Methods: We review the efficacy and safety results from the 3 pivotal trials of extended-duration DOAC thromboprophylaxis in medically ill patients. We performed a meta-analysis of these pivotal trials focusing on 6 VTE (efficacy) and three bleeding outcomes (safety). These results were integrated into a quantitative risk/benefit assessment. Results: The trials evaluating extended-duration DOAC thromboprophylaxis in medically ill patients failed to establish clear efficacy and/or safety signals for each agent. Our meta-analysis shows that, as a class, DOACs have selective and partial extended-duration prophylactic activity in preventing VTE events. However, this is associated with a marked increase in the risk of various bleeding events. The risk/benefit analyses fail to show a consistent net clinical benefit of extended-duration DOAC prophylaxis in medically ill patients. Conclusion: At this time, the evidence of safe and effective extended-duration thromboprophylaxis with DOACs in this population is inconclusive. Keywords: venous thromboembolism, direct oral anticoagulants, enoxaparin, thromboprophylaxis, medically ill patients

Background: While the product label and international guidelines recommend pegfilgrastim administration 24-72 hours following completion of chemotherapy, increasingly clinicians administer pegfilgrastim using a same-day protocol. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) grade 4, and CIN/FN-related chemotherapy delays and dose reductions in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients treated with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone with or without rituximab (R±CHOP) who were provided with pegfilgrastim on the same-day of chemotherapy versus the standard 24-72h post-chemotherapy time window. Methods: Six databases were searched for studies that compared same-day pegfilgrastim with the standard regimen in NHL patients. Given the low heterogeneity (I 20.10, fixed-effect model was used to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all outcomes of interest. Results: We identified 7 studies, including one clinical trial (Burris et al. 2010) and six retrospective cohort studies (Woods et al. 2010, Ibrahim et al. 2011, Karol et al. 2013, Cheng et al. 2014, Bartels et al. 2021, McBride et al. 2021), that evaluated same-day versus standard 24-72h administration of pegfilgrastim in NHL patients. Results were statistically non-significant for all outcomes (Figure 1): FN across all chemotherapy cycles (OR=1.48, 95%CI= 0.98-2.23, P=0.06, N of studies=7); FN after the first cycle (OR=1.98, 95% CI=0.80-4.90, P=0.14, N=4); CIN grade 4 across all cycles (OR=0.73, 95% CI=0.37-1.47, P= 0.38, N=3); CIN grade 4 after the first cycle (OR=2.58, 95%CI= 0.86-7.73, P=0.09, N=3); and chemotherapy dose delays or reductions (OR=2.25, 95%CI=0.42-11.97, P= 0.34, N=2). Conclusion: In this independent study, the likelihood of developing FN and CIN grade 4 in the first cycle or across all chemotherapy cycles, and the likelihood of chemotherapy dose delays or reductions were statistically not different in NHL patients treated with R±CHOP and administered pegfilgrastim same-day or 24-72h post-chemotherapy. In the setting of NHL treated with R±CHOP, administering pegfilgrastim on the day of completion of chemotherapy may be a safe and effective method of prophylaxis. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Alrawashdh: Genentech: Current Employment. McBride: BMS: Current Employment. Abraham: Matrix45, LLC: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company.

71 Background: Pegfilgrastim administration is recommended at least 24 hours after the end of chemotherapy (CTX) treatment for prevention of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN). Published studies have found no differences in the risk of FN between same-day and next-day pegfilgrastim administrations in certain cancers. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of same-day compared to next-day pegfilgrastim administration in SCLC patients, we evaluated our own institutional data. Methods: Using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes for SCLC, electronic health records were reviewed retrospectivey for the period 11/1/2013-8/31/2018 at the University of Arizona Cancer Center (UACC). Inclusion criteria were age 18 or older, biopsy confirmed SCLC diagnosis, treated at UACC, and pegfilgrastim administration on the same day as CTX. Outcomes collected in the first cycle and all cycles of CTX were: FN incidence, CIN grade 3/4, and treatment delay or hospitalizations due to CIN/FN. Results: Out of 1,181 patient records, 34 patients met inclusion criteria. The median age was 67.5 years, 23.5% of patients had stage 3 or 4 SCLC while 50% had 0-1 ECOG status. 44.1% of patients had a risk based on the type of CTX. Average baseline absolute neutrophil count was 5.55x109cells/L (SD=1.27x109cells/L). A total of 104 CTX cycles were given. Outcomes are summarized in the Table below. After the first cycle, the incidence rate of CIN grade 3/4 was 5.88%, but 0% for all other outcomes. Conclusions: After the first cycle, there were s of FN and no patients experienced treatment delays or hospitalizations related to CIN/FN; only two cases for CIN grade 3/4 were observed. Across all cycles, CIN grade 3/4 was observed in 17 cycles. In only two cycles, treatment was delayed or patient was hospitalized due to CIN/FN, not involving same patients. FN was observed in only 3/104 cycles. All observed rate were comparable or lower than known rates for next-day pegfilgrastim administration. Future studies including randomized trials should be further evaluated.[Table: see text]

Andrea Zimmer,1 Michael Coslovsky,2 Ivo Abraham,3 Bernhard F Décard1 1Neurologic Clinic and Policlinic, Department of Medicine, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, 2Clinical Trial Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; 3Center for Health Outcomes and Pharmacoeconomic Research, University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ, USA Objectives: Adherence to multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment is essential to optimize the likelihood of full treatment effect. This prospective, observational, single-center cohort study investigated adherence to fingolimod over the 2 years following treatment initiation. Two facets of adherence – implementation and persistence – were examined and compared between new and experienced users of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs). Materials and methods: Implementation rates were based on the proportion of days covered and calculated as percentages per half-yearly visits and over 2 years, captured through refill data, pill count, and self-report. Nonadherence was defined as taking less than 85.8% of prescribed pills. Implementation rates were classified as nonadherent (

Introduction: Costs of prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) have been reduced in recent years by the approval of several biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim agents. The savings from conversion to biosimilars can be reallocated to provide expanded access to CIN/FN prophylaxis or anti-neoplastic treatment. To illustrate this, we simulated in a panel of 20,000 non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients: 1) the savings that could be realized from CIN/FN prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv over reference pegfilgrastim with or without on-body injector (PEG/PEG-OBI), 2) a model of expanded access to CIN/FN prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv from cost-savings achieved from conversion from PEG/PEG-OBI, and 3) a model of expanded access to chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone plus rituximab (R-CHOP) for NHL from cost-savings achieved from conversion from PEG/PEG-OBI. Methods: Simulation modeling for a panel of 20,000 NHL patients was conducted from the US payer perspective. Medication costs for PEG/PEG-OBI, pegfilgrastim-cbqv, and R-CHOP drugs were calculated in three ways 1) Q1 2020 average selling price (ASP) derived from CMS Q3 2020 reimbursement limits, 2) Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) from Redbook, and 3) a blended ASP/WAC rate proportionate to the NHL age distribution per Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program data. These three cost estimate bases were applied to one through six cycles of prophylaxis with conversion rates from PEG/PEG-OBI to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv ranging from 10% to 100%. The number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv from PEG/PEG-OBI to purchase one additional treatment of pegfilgrastim-cbqv or one additional cycle of R-CHOP chemotherapy was also estimated. Results: Using ASP, cost-savings of biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv over PEG/PEG-OBI in a panel of 20,000 NHL patients ranged from $371,444 (for 1 cycle of prophylaxis at 10% conversion) to $22,286,640 (6 cycles at 100% conversion). The corresponding savings ranged from $4,112,120 to $246,727,200 when using WAC; and from $1,976,194 to $118,571,640 when using the age-proportionate blended ASP/WAC rate. Focusing on the blended ASP/WAC rate, the savings in a single cycle of chemotherapy translated into expanded access to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv ranging from 524 cycles at 10% conversion from PEG/PEG-OBI to 5,243 cycles at 100% conversion. The savings over six cycles of biosimilar prophylaxis could provide between 3,146 (at 10% conversion) and 31,457 (at 100% conversion) additional cycles of biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv. The NNC from one cycle of PEG/PEG-OBI to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv to purchase one additional cycle of biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv is 4. In a single cycle of chemotherapy, savings using the blended ASP/WAC rate translated into expanded access to R-CHOP ranging from 282 cycles at 10% to 2,817 cycles at 100% conversion. The savings over six cycles of biosimilar prophylaxis could provide between 1,690 (at 10% conversion) and 16,900 cycles (at 100% conversion) additional cycles of R-CHOP. The NNC from one cycle of PEG/PEG-OBI to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv to purchase one additional cycle of R-CHOP is 8. Conclusions: These simulation models demonstrate that significant cost savings for supportive cancer care can be generated through conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv for CIN/FN prophylaxis. The savings generated from conversion from PEG/PEG-OBI can be reallocated on a budget-neural basis to provide expanded access to additional patients/cycles of CIN/FN prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv or to curative anti-neoplastic treatment. Such efficiency and expanded access enhance the value of cancer care to payers and patients. Disclosures McBride: MorphoSys: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Merck: Speakers Bureau; Coherus BioSciences: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. MacDonald:Sandoz: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Terumo: Consultancy; Rockwell Medical: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Mylan: Consultancy; Coherus BioSciences: Research Funding. Abraham:MorphoSys: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Mylan: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Rockwell Medical: Consultancy; Terumo: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Coherus BioSciences: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Background. Although several new treatments are available for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), most patients eventually relapse at a median time of 8.0 months (95%CI: 6.3-8.9). Patients with relapsed and refractory MM (R/R MM) who have had several lines of previous therapy or who are refractory to lenalidomide and proteasome inhibitors require alternative options. Daratumumab and isatuximab are monoclonal antibodies that bind to the human CD38 receptor. Phase II/III clinical trials showed that isatuximab (ISA) or daratumumab (DARA) in combination with pomalidomide (POM-d) and low-dose dexamethasone (DEXA) significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with R/R MM. No studies have assessed the comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of both regimens in management of R/R MM. We performed an indirect comparison of both regimens in terms of PFS and overall survival (OS) and evaluated the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of DARA+POM-d+DEXA and ISA+POM-d+DEXA from a US payer's perspective. Methods. A partitioned survival model was developed to create three health states (pre-progression, progression, and death). The model was run three times with different time horizons (one, three and five years). To simulate health outcomes for each treatment regimen, transition probabilities between the three health states were derived from parametric exponential and lognormal distributions fitted to Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves of PFS and OS of the phase Ib clinical trial (Chari et al.; Blood 2017) for DARA+POM-d+DEXA and the phase III clinical trial (Attal et al.; Lancet 2019) for ISA+POM-d+DEXA. Wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) were obtained from RedBook for each regimen. Pre-progression costs included costs of regimens; premedication (50 mg diphenhydramine, 650 mg acetaminophen, 50 mg ranitidine); managing side effects; routine care and monitoring; and medication administration. Costs were inflated based on the medical consumer price index to the second quarter of 2020. Utilities were obtained from literature and assumed the same for both interventions. Annual discount rate of 3.5% was applied for costs and outcomes beyond the first year. The life years (LY) and quality adjusted LY (QALY) for each treatment, and the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were estimated in both base and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA:10,000 simulations). The cost-effectiveness plane (CEP) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) were plotted. Results. In the naïve patient simulation, median PFS and OS were estimated to be 9.5 months and 18 months for DARA+POM-d+DEXA, and 14.5 months and 26 months for ISA+POM-d +DEXA. As shown in the table below, ISA+POM-d+DEXA is associated with greater LY and QALY gains at one-, three- and five-year time horizons. The costs of ISA+POM-d+DEXA at one- and three- year time horizons are less than that of DARA+POM-d+DEXA, which resulted in saving (decremental) ICERs. At 5 years' time horizon, ISA+POM-d+DEXA was associated with incremental benefits (0.57 LY, 0.35 QALY) and incremental costs of $88,271 when compared with DARA+POM-d+DEXA. Per the CEAC plot, the probability that ISA+POM-d+DEXA is cost-effective was 100%, 65% and 23% at a willingness to pay threshold (WTP) of $100,000 per QALY in one-, three- and five-year time horizons. Conclusions. Clinically, ISA+POM-d+DEXA is associated with incremental survival gains of ~1 month and quality-adjusted survival gains of 0.5 month than DARA+POM-d+DEXA when patients are treated for one year. The benefits increase with treatment duration to reach ~7 months life year gains and 4 months quality-adjusted life year gains if patients treated for 5 years. Due to its lower total costs, Isatuximab based-regimen yielded saving ICERs at one and three years. However, ISA+POM-d+DEXA cost exceeded DARA+POM-d+DEXA at 5 years' time horizon to yield an ICER above the WTP. Disclosures McBride: Merck: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Coherus BioSciences: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Abraham:Celgene: Consultancy; Terumo: Consultancy; Rockwell Medical: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Mylan: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Coherus BioSciences: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MorphoSys: Consultancy.

Background: The use of ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab as monotherapies or in combination has transformed the management of advanced melanoma even though these drugs are associated with a new profile of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The incidence of irAEs from clinical trials of these agents is an important factor for clinicians when treating patients with advanced melanoma. In the current study, we aimed to profile the incidence of potential irAEs of these agents when used as monotherapy and as combination therapy. Methods: We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases; clinicaltrials.gov; and websites of regulatory agencies in the USA, Europe, Australia, and Japan for phase 1-3 trials of ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab for advanced melanoma. Random effect meta-analysis was utilized to profile the incidence of potential irAEs. Results: A total of 58 reports of 35 trials including 6,331 patients with advanced melanoma and reporting irAE data were included in the meta-analyses. We found higher incidences of potential irAEs in combination therapies vs. monotherapies for most of the types of irAEs. Among the monotherapies, ipilimumab users had the most frequent incidence of potential irAEs related to the gastrointestinal system (diarrhea, 29%; and colitis, 8%) and skin (rash, 31%; pruritus, 27%; and dermatitis, 10%), with hypophysitis in 4% of the patients. The most frequent potential irAEs among nivolumab users were maculopapular rash (13%), erythema (4%), hepatitis (3%), and infusion-related reactions (3%), while they were arthralgia (12%), hypothyroidism (8%), and hyperglycemia (6%), among pembrolizumab users. Conclusion: Especially the combination therapies tend to elevate the incidence of potential irAEs. Clinicians should be vigilant about irAEs following combination therapy as well as gastrointestinal and skin irAEs following ipilimumab therapy, in addition to being aware of potential irAEs leading to hyperglycemia, thyroid, hepatic, and musculoskeletal disorders following nivolumab and pembrolizumab therapy.

Objectives: To estimate the pancreatic cancer risk among subjects exposed versus not exposed to proton pump inhibitors.Methods: The authors searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov to identify relevant studies. The authors quantified pancreatic cancer risk among subjects exposed versus not exposed to PPIs, expressed as the pooled (adjusted) odds ratio (OR/aOR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) in overall and sensitivity analyses.Results: One randomized trial, two cohort, four case-control, and five nested case-control studies with 700,178 subjects (73,985 cases; 626,193 controls) were retained. PPI exposure was associated with pancreatic cancer risk (OR = 1.75, 95%CI = 1.12-2.72, I2 = 99%); confirmed in sensitivity analyses for high-quality studies, observational studies, case-control studies, studies with pancreatic cancer as the primary outcome, and in sensitivity analyses for diabetes and obesity but not for pancreatitis and smoking. This association was independent of the duration and Defined Daily Dose of PPI exposure. Rabeprazole had a singular significant association with pancreatic cancer (OR = 5.40, 95%CI = 1.98-14.703, I2 = 87.9%).Conclusion: The class of PPIs is associated with a 1.75-fold increase in pancreatic cancer risk, confirmed in sensitivity analyses.

Background: Guidelines recommend febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis following myelotoxic chemotherapy with either daily injections of filgrastim (Neupogen®) or biosimilar filgrastim-sndz (Zarzio/Zarxio®), single-injection pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®), or pegfilgrastim administered through an on-body injector (PEG-OBI; Neulasta® Onpro®). PEG-OBI failure rates up to 6.9% have been reported, putting patients at incremental risk for FN and FN-related hospitalization. Our objective was to estimate, from a US payer perspective, the incremental costs of FN hospitalizations and the total incremental costs associated with PEG-OBI prophylaxis at varying device failure rates over assured FN prophylaxis with daily injections of filgrastim or filgrastim-sndz or a single injection of pegfilgrastim.Methods: Cost simulations comparing prophylaxis with PEG-OBI at failure rates of 1-10% versus assured prophylaxis in cycle 1 of chemotherapy were performed for panels of 10,000 patients with lung cancer treated with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (1 analysis) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) treated with CHOP or CNOP (2 analyses). Daily injection scenarios were 4.3, 5, and 11 injections for lung cancer and 5, 6.5, and 11 for NHL. The analyses are from the US payer perspective.Results: For lung cancer, the total incremental cost of PEG-OBI prophylaxis at varying failure rates and durations ranged from $6,691,969‒$31,765,299 over filgrastim and $18,901,969‒$36,538,299 over filgrastim-sndz. For NHL, in scenario 1, the total incremental costs ranged from $6,794,984‒$30,361,345 over filgrastim and $19,004,984‒$35,911,345 over filgrastim-sndz; in scenario 2, the incremental costs ranged from $7,003,657‒$32,448,067 over filgrastim and $19,213,657‒$37,998,067 over filgrastim-sndz.Conclusions: In this simulation, the incremental costs of FN-related hospitalization due to PEG-OBI failure in cycle 1 compared to assured prophylaxis with reference pegfilgrastim, reference filgrastim, and biosimilar filgrastim-sndz varied depending upon the PEG-OBI failure rate and the alternative G-CSF prophylaxis option. Biosimilar filgrastim-sndz offers the greatest cost-efficiency.

Olanzapine, neurokinin-1-receptor-antagonists (NK-1-RA), and thalidomide added to palonosetron + dexamethasone (PALO-DEX) have been evaluated in separate studies as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the prophylactic efficacy of these agents in combination with PALO-DEX. PubMed, Medline/Ovid, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception through 22 Mar 2018. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane methodology. A Bayesian network meta-analysis using random-effects models was used to asses complete response (CR) and rate of no nausea (RNN) in acute, delayed, and overall phases and were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible interval (95% CrI). Ranking probabilities of treatments were calculated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to identify the probability of a given treatment as the best option against the worst option. Nine RCTs involving two thousand nine hundred fifty-nine patients were included. The olanzapine-based regimen showed greater CR in the acute, delayed, and overall-phases versus the PALO-DEX regimen (OR = 3.97, 95% CrI = 1.02–19.13; OR = 5.62, 95% CrI = 1.66–28.58; OR = 4.79, 95% CrI = 1.40–24.02, respectively). Additionally, it showed greater RNN than the NK-1-RA-based and the PALO-DEX regimens in the delayed phase only (OR = 2.90, 95% CrI = 1.34–5.15; OR = 4.53, 95% CrI = 1.89–10.55, respectively). Olanzapine-, NK-1-RA-, and thalidomide-based regimens did not differ in CR in the three phases. SUCRA probabilities ranked the olanzapine-based regimen as the best option in terms of CR and RNN, while ranking the NK-1-RA-based regimens as the second best option in terms of CR throughout the three phases. Based on the data included in the analyses, there is insufficient evidence to support adding thalidomide or NK-1-RA to PALO-DEX in preventing CINV induced by HEC. However, adding olanzapine to PALO-DEX achieves better CR and RNN. Olanzapine side-effects and the absence of direct comparisons explain why some guidelines are cautious in suggesting the use of olanzapine.

e18591 Background: Pegfilgrastim is recommended to be administered 24 hours after myelosuppressive chemotherapy (CTX) as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN). Recent studies have yielded equivocal data on same day versus next day administration of pegfilgrastim. There has been limited real world evidence addressing lung cancer (LC) patients and the use of same day pegfilgrastim. We evaluated our own institutional data on the safety of same day pegfilgrastim administration in LC patients. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed by searching electronic health records using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes corresponding with a lung cancer diagnosis between November 1, 2013 and August 31, 2018 at The University of Arizona Cancer Center (UACC). Patients included in the study were 18 years of age or older, diagnosed with biopsy-confirmed lung cancer, treated at UACC, and receiving chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim on the same day. The outcomes of interest included FN incidence after the first cycle and across all cycles of CTX, CIN grade 3/4 and CTX dose delays or hospitalizations due to CIN/FN after first cycle and across all cycles of CTX. Results: 1,181 patient records were reviewed and 114 patients met the inclusion criteria; 87 (76%) patients had non-small cell LC and 27 (24%) patients had small cell LC. The median age was 68 years, 52% of patients had cancer stage of 3 to 4, and 63% of patients had 0-1 ECOG status. The FN risk assessment was mild in 72% of patients. The mean (SD) of baseline absolute neutrophil count was 5.68 (3.09). In total 384 CTX cycles were received. The table shows the results of all intended outcomes. One patient experienced FN after the first cycle of CTX of irinotecan and 5 patients developed 6 FN episodes across all cycles; 2 patients were on carboplatin etoposide; 1 patient on cisplatin etoposide; 1 patient on vinorelbine and 1 patient was on pemetrexed and then on irinotecan CTX when the two FN episodes were developed. Conclusions: This study showing that same day administration of pegfilgrastim was as effective as next day administration in LC patients, without warranting any concerns for febrile neutropenia or delayed engraftment. Utilization of same day pegfilgrastim, in light of biosimilars and COVID, provides a unique opportunity for cancer care without concerns for FN as stated in previous studies.[Table: see text]

e19542 Background: Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, specifically, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is most frequently diagnosed among older patients. The utilization of a reduced dose of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (miniCHOP) chemotherapy-based regimen has an improved tolerance and toxicity profile in select patient populations. Prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim or its biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv is administration on the same day of chemotherapy in all patients with MiniCHOP at The University of Arizona Cancer Center (UACC). We report here on the first study to address the safety and efficacy of same day pegfilgrastim administration in lymphoma patients receiving MiniCHOP. Methods: A retrospective, single center, cohort study was conducted at UACC between October 1, 2013 and October 2020 to evaluate lymphoma patients who were treated with miniR-CHOP and given pegfilgrastim or its biosimilar (pegfilgrastim-cbqv) for FN prophylaxis. The primary objective was to compare the incidence of FN across all cycles of chemotherapy and after the first cycle of chemotherapy in DLBCL patients on miniR-CHOP and provided with next-day versus same-day pegfilgrastim administration. Our secondary outcomes of interests were incidence of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) grade 3/4; hospitalization; anti-biotics administration; and chemotherapy dose-reduction or delays. Results: A total of 100 cycles of miniR-CHOP were received, of these pegfilgrastim was administered on same-day of chemotherapy in 95 cycles and five cycles on the next-day of chemotherapy. Among all cycles the incidence of FN was 5.3% vs. 0.0 ( P= 1.00); CIN 3/4 was 10.5% vs. 0.0 ( P= 1.00); hospitalization was 10.5% vs. 20.0% ( P= 0.45), anti-biotics administration was 6.3% vs. 40.0% ( P= 0.05) and the chemotherapy dose delays or reductions was 16.8% vs. 0.0% ( P= 0.99). In the first cycle of chemotherapy, the incidence of FN was 14.3% vs. 0.0% ( P= 1.00), CIN 3/4 was 21.4% vs. 0.0 ( P= 1.00), hospitalization 28.6% vs. 25.0% ( P= 0.99), and the anti-biotics administration was 21.4% vs. 50.0% ( P= 0.53) for same-day vs. next-day study groups. Conclusions: In our analysis, we have shown that same-day pegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim-cbqv was safe and effective in lymphoma patients receiving miniR-CHOP. There was no significant increase in FN or delayed engraftment in either group. Future prospective studies are warranted to address the safety and efficacy profile of same day pegfilgrastim or a pegfilgrastim biosimilars in elderly lymphoma patients.

8043 Background: IXA, CAR, ELO and DARin combination with LEN+DEXhave been found superior in efficacy compared to LEN+DEX in the management of R/R MM. Applying indirect treatment comparisons from a network meta-analysis (NMA), this economic evaluation aimed to estimate the comparative cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of these four triplet regimens in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: In the absence of direct treatment comparison from a single clinical trial, NMA was used to indirectly estimate the comparative PFS benefit of each regimen. A 2-state Markov model simulating the health outcomes and costs was used to evaluate PFS life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) with the triplet regimens over LEN+DEX and expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). Probability sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the influence of parameter uncertainty on the model. Results: The NMA revealed that DAR+LEN+DEX was superior to the other triplet therapies, which did not differ statistically amongst them. As detailed in the Table, in our cost-effectiveness analysis, all 4 triplet regimens were associated with increased PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (g) over LEN+DEX at an additional cost. DAR+LEN+DEX emerged the most cost-effective with ICER and ICUR of $667,652/PFSLYg and $813,322/PFSQALYg, respectively. The highest probability of cost-effectiveness occurred at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1,040,000/QALYg. Conclusions: Our economic analysis shows that all the triplet regimens were more expensive than LEN +DEX only but were also more effective with respect to PFSLY and PFSQALY gained. Relative to the other regimens, the daratumumab regimen was the most cost-effective.[Table: see text]

e18655 Background: Dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin DA-(EPOCH)-containing regimens are frequently utilized in lymphoma, however, outpatient EPOCH or modified inpatient/outpatient EPOCH has not been described extensively. We transitioned inpatient EPOCH to the outpatient setting and modified EPOCH to be given in the inpatient setting with rituximab outpatient to improve quality of care and access to patient assistance programs. Methods: A single-center, institutional review board-approved retrospective study was conducted for adults receiving EPOCH-based regimens. Data were collected by chart review for each patient between January 2013 and September 2020. The primary outcomes were to determine the incidence of chemotherapy delays due to disease-related reasons as febrile neutropenia (FN), adverse events or abnormal labs and the incidence of FN between patients receiving inpatient (IP), outpatient (OP), or combination inpatient/outpatient DA-EPOCH +/- R (hybrid). Secondary cost analysis including hospital stay cost, chemotherapy and laboratory monitoring costs was performed for the three settings. Results: A total of 43 patients received 175 cycles of an EPOCH regimen (18 [10.3%] IP), 90 [51.4%] OP, and 67 [38.3%] hybrid). The mean maximum dose level achieved with DA-EPOCH+/-R was dose level 2 with the average number of cycles at 4.1 cycles/patient. A total of 15 cycles were delayed due to disease related reasons: 1 (6%) in IP, 12 (18%) in hybrid (P = 0.196, when compared with IP) and 2 (2%) in OP (P = 0.432 when compared with IP). A total of 166 cycles received granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF); 16 cycles (9.6%) administered IP with a FN incidence of two (12.5%), 62 cycles (37.4%) administered in the hybrid setting with a FN incidence of seven (11.3%) (P = 0.893 when compared with IP) and 88 cycles (53%) administered OP with a FN incidence of ten (11.3%) (P = 0.896 when compared with IP). The incidence of FN was 9.3% and 12.7% in patients received pegfilgrastim same day versus next day, respectively, P = 0.558. The incidence of FN in patients received reference pegfilgrastim was 9.5% vs 7.7% for patients received pegfilgrastim-cbqv in OP setting (P = 1.00). Transitioning EPOCH to a hybrid IP/OP or OP setting yielded a total cost savings to the health-system of $3,523,174 with 607 hospital bed days saved. Conclusions: EPOCH-containing regimens can be safely transitioned into the outpatient setting or utilized as a hybrid of EPCOH and outpatient Rituximab after chemotherapy side effects can be monitored and outcomes optimized, to better adapt treatment strategies for individualized patient therapies. As new healthcare payment models are developed, outpatient treatments allow for adaptive financial options both for the payor and the patient.

7038 Background: Although adherence to imatinib treatment has been shown to be critical for attaining treatment response among patients with CML, some studies have suggested a 7.3-9.9% nonadherence tolerance margin before loss of treatment effects. We aimed to model probabilistically the margin of tolerance required to ensure treatment response among patients prescribed imatinib and the margin, if any, before treatment response is at risk. Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of the ADAGIO study conducted in Belgium on 169 evaluable patients ( Blood 2009). Using the pill count ratio as, what in conventional survival analysis would be, the time variable, we modeled the cumulative likelihood of treatment response as a function of increasing pill count adherence. We applied Kaplan-Meier methods to model the likelihood of complete cytogenetic (CCyR), complete hematological (CHR), major molecular (MMR) and optimal (OR) (as defined by the European Leukemia Net) response as a function of 90-day pill count adherence. Kaplan-Meier methods thus estimated the tolerance for nonadherence to imatinib by calculating the 1 minus Kaplan-Meier estimate for treatment response. Results: Analyses (see Table) showed that ̃100% adherence of prescribed dose is associated with probabilities (rounded) of 0.84 for CHR, 0.83 for CCyR, 0.82 for OR, and 0.77 for MMR; compared to, 0.37 (CHR and CCyR), 0.35 (OR), and 0.39 (MMR) at 90% adherence. (of 0.7698 (MMR). Increasing the intake of imatinib from 90% to 100% of the prescribed dose increased the likelihood of the various treatment responses by 1.95 to 2.35-fold. Conclusions: Our findings challenge any previously estimated tolerance for nonadherence. There is virtually no margin for nonadherence if the objective is to optimize the likelihood of treatment response, and only a minimal margin to avoid impaired treatment response. Under such adherence, response rates similar to those in the pivotal IRIS trial can be obtained. Clinicians must assess and promote patient adherence, and patients must be perfectly adherent.[Table: see text]

e21104 Background: Crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib are approved as second line treatment for ALK+ NSCLC. Crizotinib was the first ALK inhibitor for first line therapy approved by Food and Drug Administration (2011) then ceritinib (2014), alectinib (2015), and brigatinib (2017) were approved as second line drugs. Following more data, these agents were approved as the first line therapy (2017 for ceritinib and alectinib; 2020 for brigatinib). These remain as a treatment option in patients who fail the first line therapy. Cost-effectiveness/utility analyses were conducted to assess clinical efficacy with varying costs of the agents. Methods: A three state Markov model were assumed (progression free, progression and death). Progression free survival (PFS) curves were digitized and fitted with exponential function. US payer perspective, a lifetime horizon, and discount rate of 3% were applied. Drug costs were Redbook wholesale acquisition cost. Other costs included were monitoring, adverse events and disease progression from published data (US$ 2020). Adverse events reported >5% in patients were included. Measured outcomes were PFS life years (PFSLY) and quality adjusted life years (PFSQALY). Crizotinib was the reference drug. Incremental cost-effectiveness and utility ratios (ICER/ICUR) of PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (PFSLYG, PFSQALYG) and lost were estimated. Base case (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. Results: Crizotinib was the reference drug for the following outcomes. For alectinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,653 (-$14,712), the incremental PFSLY of 0.16 (0.16) and PFSQALY of 0.05 (0.05) resulted in an ICER / PFSLYG of -$89,337 (-$88,604) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$269,835 (-$266,510). For brigatinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,975 (-$14,954), the incremental PFSLY of 0.01 (0.01) and PFSQALY of ̃0.01 (0.02) yielded an ICER / PFSLYG of -$1,982,962 (-$1,431,631) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$2,140,534 (-$570,538). For ceritinib, with the incremental cost of $7,590 ($7,514), there were decremental PFSLY of -0.01 (-0.01) and PFSQALY of -0.03 (-0.03). Conclusions: As second line treatment, crizotinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib had comparable PFSLYs and PFSQALYs while alectinib had the most PFSLY and PFSQALY and the lowest cost. Therefore, alectinib is the most cost-effective treatment for treating ALK+ NSCLC as the second line therapy.[Table: see text]

1540 Background: Ifosfamide displays clinical activity against germ cell tumors as well as soft-tissue and bone sarcomas. It is used in different oncology regimens and commonly administered inpatient due to patient monitoring and side effect management. Transitioning certain chemotherapy regimens to the outpatient setting provides a novel approach to treating patients while maximizing patient satisfaction and decreasing total patient care costs1. There is limited data and protocol development to transition ifosfamide regimens to the ambulatory setting. This study’s purpose is to characterize a pharmacy managed ambulatory oncology workflow for transitioning ifosfamide based-regimens to the outpatient setting. Methods: A retrospective cohort chart review was conducted at a single center and included patients 18 years and older receiving at least one cycle of ifosfamide therapy between September 1, 2013 and July 31, 2019. The primary outcome was to evaluate the side effect profile and cost of treatment of ifosfamide. The secondary endpoint included number of hospitalizations. The adverse event grading system was defined using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0. The highest grade observed for adverse effects was documented for every cycle of each patient. The cost was evaluated by labs ordered, drug used, length of stay in the hospital for chemotherapy or adverse reactions. Results: Ifosfamide therapy of 86 patients (57 OP, 29 IP) was reviewed. The predominant OP regimens were adriamycin-ifosfamide-mesna (AIM) with 43.9% and ifosfamide-etoposide (IE) with 29.8%. Grade 4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were most frequent in IP vs OP therapies (22.9% IP vs 4.3% OP, 21.6% IP vs 9.2% OP, and 22.8% IP vs 19.6% OP respectively). Neutropenic fever (NF) occurred in 20 OP patients which were predominantly treated with AIM or IE, and led to average hospital stay of 6 days. Neurotoxicity, treated with methylene blue (MB), occurred in 4 OP patients. OP therapy saved a total of 783 hospital days, leading to a cost savings of $2,103,921. Conclusions: Transitioning to outpatient therapy is feasible for academic and community infusion centers. Administration of chemotherapy in the outpatient setting has shown to be safe, well-tolerated, and associated with decreased total cost of care, thereby lowering costs under the oncology care model when compared with inpatient chemotherapy costs.

e19535 Background: PBR and TafaL are two recently regulatory approved regimens that offer treatment options for R/R DLBCL patients who are ASCT ineligible or choose not to undergo ASCT. PBR is administered over 6 cycles, whereas TafaL is sustained until disease progression or death. We report here on an independent, naïve comparative, pharmacoeconomic evaluation of both regimens. Methods: Cost effectiveness and cost utility analyses were performed using a Markov model with 3 health states (progression free survival (PFS), post progression survival (PPS), death) parametrically extrapolated over a 5-year (y) time horizon (US payer perspective; 2020 USD). Cost inputs included main treatment, premedication, drug administration, adverse event management, and physician and laboratory fees. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) estimated the incremental costs to gain 1 unadjusted (LY) or quality adjusted life years (QALY), respectively. A novel metric of the incremental cost per 1% gain in probability of achieving objective response (OR), PFS and overall survival (OS) at trial follow up (̃2y) and PFS and OS at 5y with TafaL over PBR were estimated. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses complemented base case analyses (BCA). Willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds were estimated. Results: At trial follow up (̃2y), PFS and OS rates were 38% and 63% for TafaL vs rates of 18% and 27.5% for PBR. The corresponding 5y PFS and OS rates were 13% and 32.7% for TafaL vs 5.2% and 11.3% for PBR. In BCAs, 5y TafaL costs ($470,949) exceeded PBR’s ($251,615) by $219,334 for incremental gains of 0.71 LY and 0.32 QALY. This yielded BCA ICER of $307,840/LYg and ICUR of $689,314/QALYg attenuated in PSA estimates of ICER of $280,042/LYg and ICUR of $589,215/QALYg. In DSAs, TafaL PFS utility value and PBR treatment costs were the most influential parameters. In PSAs, TafaL had a 50% probability of being cost effective at WTPs of $278,050/LYg and $560,360/QALYg. The incremental cost per 1% gain in probability to achieve OR, PFS and OS at follow up were $7,714, $5,785 and $3,259; and $28,120 and $10,249 for PFS and OS at 5 years. Conclusions: Considering that economic evaluations are intended to inform (but not set) policy, this independent analysis demonstrated that sustained TafaL treatment is associated with better survival outcomes than PBR though at greater cost. The incremental costs to gain a 1% improvement in 2y and 5y survival outcomes with TafaL over PBR were modest, underscoring the longer-term benefit of TafaL over PBR in pts ineligible for or opting out of ASCT.

e18837 Background: The CMS Oncology Care Model (OCM) aims to improve quality of care and health outcomes in cancer centers at the same or lower cost. We performed cost-efficiency analyses of converting selected cancer patients (pts) from reference pegfilgrastim (PFG) to its biosimilar (PFG-jmdb); and simulated re-allocating savings to provide nutrition and transportation support to CMS beneficiaries within OCM. Methods: Incidence rates for breast, ovarian, lung, colorectal cancers and non-Hodgkin lymphoma were extracted from SEER, further stratified by age 65 (Medicare) adjusted for Medicare/Medicaid mix. Chemotherapy (CTX) rates were matched to tumor type; of these 19.4% were assumed to require PFG prophylaxis (PPX). Two models compared respectively prefilled syringe (PFS) and on-body injector (OBI) reference PFG to PFS PFG-jmdb. Cost inputs included Average Sales Price (ASP) 3Q20 for Medicare and National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC, estimated by wholesale acquisition cost (WAC)-3.9%) for Medicaid pts plus medication administration. Cost savings across various biosimilar conversion rates for CTX cycles 1-6 were translated into $100 units of healthy food or medical transportation. Results: In 2020, biosimilar conversion for the estimated 31,210 Medicare and 1,722 Medicaid pts in the 5 tumor types needing PFG PPX yielded savings of up to ̃$19M (Medicare) and ̃$20M (Medicaid). These savings could have provided a monthly $100 food or transportation check to at least 24,716 Medicare or 33,630 Medicaid pts for 6 months. Conclusions: Savings from biosimilar conversion can be re-allocated on a budget neutral basis to food and transportation support to pts with such needs. This achieves the dual OCM aim of reducing drug budgets while enhancing patient-centric support services.[Table: see text]

e20010 Background: Isatuximab and daratumumab target the CD38 transmembrane glycoprotein on MM cells. IKd and DKd regimens have shown reductions of HR=0.53 (95%CI 0.32-0.89) and HR=0.63 (95%CI 0.46-0.85) resp. in progression or death risk compared to Kd in RRMM. In the absence of a direct IKd vs DKd trial, we performed an indirect treatment comparison on progression free survival (PFS) to enable cost-effectiveness analyses. Methods: A 3-state (pre-progression, progression, death) partitioned survival model was specified. NMA-adjusted transition probabilities were estimated from fitted exponential functions (time horizon of 6 and 12 m; cycle length 28 days). Inputs included the Wholesale Acquisition Cost of IKd, DKd, and premedications; cost of medication administration; and cost of adverse event management. Utility inputs for pre-progression (0.65) and progression (0.61) were per literature. Costs and utilities were discounted at 3.5%/y. A payer perspective was adopted. Life years (LY), quality adjusted LY (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were estimated in base case (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) were generated. Results: As detailed in the Table, 6m of IKd treatment was associated with incremental gains of 0.01 (PSA 0.01) LYs but no gains in QALYs at cost savings of $24,188 ($23,762), yielding a dominant ICER of $ -2,418,800 ($-2,376,200) per LYg (ICUR not estimable). Further, 12m of IKd treatment was associated with incremental gains of 0.04 (PSA 0.04) LYs (or 0.48m) and 0.02 (0.03) QALYs at incremental cost of $1,585 ($2,239), yielding ICER of $39,625 ($55,975) per LYg and ICUR of $79,250 ($74,633) per QALYg. Per CEAC, IKd is the dominated strategy in the 6m model and had probability of 50% of being cost-effective at WTP of $100,000 in the 12m model. Conclusions: Clinically, compared to DKd, IKd is associated with slight incremental gains in LYs of 0.12m over 6m and 0.48m over 1y. The 6m clinical gain comes with cost savings of approximately $24,000 or about 15% of IKd therapy, while the 12m gain requires a minimal cost commitment of around $2,000 or 0.6% of DKd treatment. These findings imply a clinico-economic benefit of isatuximab compared to daratumumab containing regimens in RRMM. [Table: see text]