Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29687743›Full record

Observational studyJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2018

Clinical Outcomes of Treatment with Filgrastim Versus a Filgrastim Biosimilar and Febrile Neutropenia-Associated Costs Among Patients with Nonmyeloid Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy.

Lee S Schwartzberg, Lincy S Lal, Sanjeev Balu, Kim Campbell, Lee Brekke, Andrew DeLeon, Caitlin Elliott, Stephanie Korrer

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Patterns of primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in older Medicare patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  7. The Real-World Experience of the Biosimilar (GrastofilCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022
    Article
  8. A retrospective review of the real-world experience of the Pegfilgrastim biosimilar (Lapelga®) to the reference biologic (Neulasta®).Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Patterns of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Article
  13. Biosimilar Pegfilgrastim: Improving Access and Optimising Practice to Supportive Care that Enables Cure.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lee S Schwartzberg1 Vector Oncology and The West Clinic, Memphis, Tennessee.
Lincy S Lal2 Optum, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
Sanjeev Balu3 Sandoz, Princeton, New Jersey.
Kim Campbell3 Sandoz, Princeton, New Jersey.
Lee Brekke2 Optum, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
Andrew DeLeon3 Sandoz, Princeton, New Jersey.
Caitlin Elliott2 Optum, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
Stephanie Korrer2 Optum, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
Optum (United States) · USPrinceton University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGranulocyte colony-stimulating factors such as filgrastim are used to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) among patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Although the biosimilar filgrastim-sndz has been approved in the United States since 2015, limited real-world comparisons of filgrastim-sndz versus reference filgrastim (filgrastim-ref) have been conducted.

objectiveTo compare FN incidence and assess overall FN-related health care resource utilization and medical costs among U.S. patients with non-myeloid cancer who received filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim-ref during their first chemotherapy cycle.

methodsThis was a retrospective claims analysis of patients with non-myeloid cancer who were enrolled in commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance plans from March 2015 through June 2016 and received filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim-ref during their first observed chemotherapy cycle. Patients with evidence of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or pregnancy and those with missing demographic information were excluded. FN was defined on the basis of diagnosis codes for neutropenia and fever (N/F); neutropenia and infection (N/I); and neutropenia, infection, and fever (N/I/F). Cohorts were adjusted for differences in baseline patient characteristics using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method, and equivalence testing was used to compare the proportion of patients who developed FN between weighted cohorts. On the basis of the range of neutropenic fever incidence found in the PIONEER clinical trial, FN incidence was considered equivalent if 90% CIs for between-cohort differences were within ± 6%. Mean FN-related health care resource utilization and total FN-related medical costs were calculated for the overall study population.

resultsA total of 3,542 patients were included in the study (172 filgrastim-sndz; 3,370 filgrastim-ref; mean ages 62.1 years and 64.7 years, respectively). After IPTW, there were 162 patients in the filgrastim-sndz cohort and 3,297 in the filgrastim-ref cohort (mean age 64.5 years for both). FN incidence in the weighted filgrastim-sndz versus filgrastim-ref cohorts, respectively, was 1.4% versus 0.9% for N/F, 2.3% versus 1.7% for N/I, and 0.0% versus 0.3% for N/I/F; FN incidence was statistically equivalent between treatment cohorts. Among patients in either treatment cohort who developed FN, the proportion with FN-related inpatient stays during the first chemotherapy cycle ranged from 35.0% for N/I to 70.0% for N/I/F. Mean (SD) FN-related total medical costs across all patients who developed FN were $11,977 ($18,383) for N/F, $8,040 ($14,809) for N/I, and $21,733 ($30,003) for N/I/F, in 2015 U.S. dollars. For all 3 definitions of FN, the largest proportions (73.5%-93.4%) of medical costs were inpatient related.

conclusionsIn this real-world study of patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy, the incidence of FN was statistically equivalent between individuals treated with filgrastim-sndz versus filgrastim-ref during their first chemotherapy cycle. FN-related health care resource utilization and medical costs among patients who developed FN were substantial. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded by Sandoz, which participated in the study design, data interpretation, writing and revision of the manuscript, and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Balu and Campbell are employees of Sandoz, which is the manufacturer of the filgrastim biosimilars Zarzio and Zarxio. DeLeon was an employee of Sandoz at the time this study was conducted. Lal, Brekke, Elliott, and Korrer are employees of Optum, which was contracted by Sandoz to conduct this study.

Indexed as

Drug CostsAdministrative Claims, HealthcareAgedAntineoplastic AgentsBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsChemotherapy-Induced Febrile NeutropeniaCost-Benefit AnalysisDatabases, FactualFemaleFilgrastimHospital CostsHumansIncidenceInsurance, Pharmaceutical ServicesMaleMedicareAntineoplastic AgentsBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsFilgrastim

Identifiers

PMID29687743
PMCPMC10397873
OpenAlexW2801563950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.