Back to Search
Start Over
Economic and clinical outcomes of pegfilgrastim via prefilled syringe vs on-body injector: a real-world data analysis.
- Source :
-
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy [J Manag Care Spec Pharm] 2021 Sep; Vol. 27 (9), pp. 1230-1238. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Apr 30. - Publication Year :
- 2021
-
Abstract
- BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim is available as a prefilled syringe (PFS) and an on-body injector (OBI). Whether the administration method of pegfilgrastim affects the effectiveness and health care resources has not been evaluated in the setting of routine care. OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world clinical and economic outcomes between PFS and OBI methods of administration. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study in patients diagnosed with breast cancer or non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and prophylactic use of pegfilgrastim via PFS or OBI between January 1, 2017, and May 31, 2018, according to MarketScan research databases. A propensity score was used to match the PFS cohort 1:1 to the OBI cohort. Outcomes were compared among the matched cohorts using a generalized linear model and generalized estimating equations with log-link function. RESULTS: 3,152 patients were identified. After matching, the final sample included 2,170 patients, representing 1,085 in each cohort. The incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in the first chemotherapy cycle was 1.01% for OBI (95% CI = 0.56-1.82) vs 1.48% for PFS (95% CI = 0.91-2.39; P = 0.336). In all chemotherapy cycles (total cycles = 7,467), the FN incidence was 0.91% for OBI (95% CI = 0.64-1.30) vs 1.22% for PFS (95% CI = 0.90-1.64; P = 0.214). There was no statistically significant difference in adjusted per-member per-month all-cause total cost health care resource utilization (HCRU) for hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and pharmacy claims. CONCLUSIONS: In a matched cohort of patients representing real-world utilization, there was no statistically or clinically meaningful difference in FN incidence between OBI and PFS methods of pegfilgrastim administration. There was no difference in total HCRU or total costs. OBI and PFS methods of administration are both indicated for patients requiring prophylactic pegfilgrastim, which is important considering that biosimilar PFS options are now available. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sandoz, Inc. Wang, Li, and K. Campbell are employees of Sandoz, Inc. Schroader and D. Campbell are employees of Xcenda, which was contracted by Sandoz, Inc., to provide study and manuscript development. McBride reports receiving payment from Sandoz, Inc., as a consultant, unrelated to this study; Coherus for advisory board and speaker engagements; and Pfizer for advisory board participation during the time of this study.
- Subjects :
- Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Data Analysis
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Retrospective Studies
Young Adult
Filgrastim administration & dosage
Filgrastim economics
Injections instrumentation
Outcome Assessment, Health Care
Polyethylene Glycols administration & dosage
Polyethylene Glycols economics
Syringes
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 2376-1032
- Volume :
- 27
- Issue :
- 9
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 33929269
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2021.21010