RESUMO
PURPOSE: Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (rG-CSFs), such as filgrastim, are administered to prevent complications in patients receiving chemotherapy. In Europe, a biosimilar to filgrastim, tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim, was approved in 2008. In the USA, the same product was approved as tbo-filgrastim under a 351(a) biologic license application in 2012 with the brand name Granix®. Postmarket surveillance remains a priority for monitoring the safety of biologics and biosimilars to identify rare and immunogenicity-related events. We report the global and US pharmacovigilance data for tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim and tbo-filgrastim, respectively. METHODS: Cumulative exposure and adverse event data from initial approval in Europe to December 31, 2016, were collected globally from spontaneous reports submitted by healthcare professionals and consumers, scientific literature, competent authorities, and solicited case reports from non-interventional studies. A separate search was conducted on the global data set to identify reports originating from the USA and Puerto Rico to describe the US experience. RESULTS: Overall, the global safety profile of tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim in the postmarket, real-world setting was comparable to clinical trial experience. Postmarket safety experience of tbo-filgrastim in the USA was consistent with global data. The most common SAEs were febrile neutropenia and decreased white blood cell count. The most common non-serious event was bone pain. There was no evidence of immunogenicity. CONCLUSIONS: This pharmacovigilance analysis indicates that postmarket experience of tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim and tbo-filgrastim is consistent with clinical trials. Adverse reactions associated with the originator rG-CSF (capillary leak syndrome and glomerulonephritis) have not been observed with tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim or tbo-filgrastim during the postmarket period.
Assuntos
Medicamentos Biossimilares/administração & dosagem , Medicamentos Biossimilares/efeitos adversos , Fator Estimulador de Colônias de Granulócitos/administração & dosagem , Fator Estimulador de Colônias de Granulócitos/efeitos adversos , Europa (Continente) , Filgrastim/administração & dosagem , Filgrastim/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Vigilância de Produtos Comercializados , Porto Rico , Proteínas Recombinantes/administração & dosagem , Proteínas Recombinantes/efeitos adversosRESUMO
Background: Granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) reduce the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Lipegfilgrastim is a long-acting, once-per-cycle G-CSF, while Brazil's standard of care is short-acting filgrastim. A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of lipegfilgrastim was conducted with filgrastim and once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim for adults at risk of neutropenia in Brazil. Methods: The decision model used national and clinical data to evaluate the costs and outcomes of each treatment. Costs included drug and medical expenses, outpatient and inpatient neutropenia treatments, and adverse events. Health outcomes included incidence of neutropenia-related events. For the budget impact analysis, health outcomes and costs for the pre/post-lipegfilgrastim scenarios were combined to identify expenditure with lipegfilgrastim's introduction. Results: Total cost per patient during a course of four chemotherapy cycles was estimated at R$12,920 for lipegfilgrastim, R$15,168 for filgrastim, and R$13,232 for pegfilgrastim. Based on better outcomes and lower total costs with lipegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim as well as pegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim was the dominant treatment strategy over both filgrastim and pegfilgrastim during the duration of chemotherapy treatment. Over 5 years, the uptake of lipegfilgrastim led to savings of R$61,532,403 in overall medical costs. Neutropenic events decreased by 17,141 and deaths linked to febrile neutropenia decreased by 239. Conclusion: Due to better outcomes and lower overall cost, lipegfilgrastim was a cost-saving strategy compared with filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in the Brazilian healthcare system. Furthermore, the budget impact analysis estimated a reduction in overall medical costs and improved health outcomes over 5 years following the introduction of lipegfilgrastim.
Introdução: Fatores estimuladores de colônias de granulócitos (G-CSFs) reduzem risco de neutropenia induzida por quimioterapia. Lipegfilgrastim é um G-CSF de longa ação, de "um por ciclo", enquanto o padrão de cuidado no Brasil é filgrastim de curta ação. Realizou-se uma análise de custo/ benefício e impacto orçamentário (IO) no Brasil do lipegfilgrastim um por ciclo com filgrastim e pegfilgrastim para adultos sob risco de neutropenia. Métodos: O modelo de decisão usou dados nacionais e clínicos para avaliar resultados e custos dos tratamentos que incluíam medicamentos, médicos, tratamentos ambulatoriais e hospitalares para a neutropenia, e eventos adversos. Resultados de saúde incluíam a incidência de eventos relacionados à neutropenia. Para a análise do IO, os custos e resultados de antes/depois do lipegfilgrastim foram combinados para identificar gastos com o lipegfilgrastim. Resultados: O custo total por paciente em quatro ciclos foi estimado em R$ 12.920 para lipegfilgrastim, R$ 15.168 para filgrastim e R$ 13.232 para pegfilgrastim. Com base em melhores resultados e custos totais menores, o lipegfilgrastim, comparado ao filgrastim e ao pegfilgrastim, representou a estratégia de tratamento predominante. Em 5 anos, o lipegfilgrastim gerou uma economia de R$ 61.532.403 em custos médicos gerais. Houve 17.141 menos eventos neutropênicos e as mortes relacionadas à neutropenia febril reduziram em 239. Conclusão: Devido a melhores resultados e menores custos, lipegfilgrastim, comparado ao filgrastim e ao pegfilgrastim, foi uma estratégia econômica no sistema brasileiro. A análise de IO estimou uma redução nos custos médicos e melhorou os resultados em 5 anos após a introdução do lipegfilgrastim.