Monocentric Analysis of the Effectiveness and Financial Consequences of the Use of Lenograstim versus Filgrastim for Mobilization of Peripheral Blood Progenitor Cells in Patients with Lymphoma and Myeloma Receiving Chemotherapy and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation
Received 22 July 2019
Accepted for publication 9 March 2020
Published 2 April 2020 Volume 2020:11 Pages 123—130
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Martin H Bluth
Umberto Restelli,1,2 Davide Croce,1,2 Erminio Bonizzoni,3 Mario Marzanatti,3 Angelo Andreini,4 Marco Sorio,4 Cristina Tecchio,4 Erika Barison,4 Fabio Benedetti4
1School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; 2Center for Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, LIUC Università Cattaneo, Castellanza, VA, Italy; 3Section of Medical Statistics and Biometry “GA Maccacaro”, Department of Clinica Science and Community, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; 4Bone Marrow Transplant Unit- Hematology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
Correspondence: Fabio Benedetti
Bone Marrow Transplant Unit- Hematology, University of Verona, Piazza L.A. Scuro, 10, Verona 37134, Italy
Tel + 39 45 812 4647
Fax + 39 45 8027488
Purpose: Granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are widely used to mobilize CD34+ stem cells and to support the engraftment after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). A budget impact analysis and an incremental cost-effectiveness study of two G-CSFs (Lenograstim and Filgrastim biosimilar), considering engraftment, number of hospitalization days and number of G-CSF vials administered were performed.
Patients and Methods: Between 2009 and 2016, 248 patients undergoing autologous HSCT have been evaluated and divided into three groups (100 Leno-Leno, 93 Leno-Fil, 55 Fil-Fil) according to the type of G-CSF used for hematopoietic stem cell mobilization and hematopoietic stem cell recovery after transplant.
Results: The following statistically significant differences have been observed between Leno-Leno, Leno-Fil, Fil-Fil groups: a higher number of harvested CD34+ cells (10.56 vs 8.00 vs 7.20; p=0.0003) and a lower number of G-CSF vials (8 vs 8 vs 9; p=0.00020) used for full bone marrow recovery favoring Lenograstim. No statistically significant differences were found regarding the number of G-CSF vials used for mobilization, apheresis number and CD34+ cell peak. The post-transplant hematological recovery was faster in Lenograstim group than Filgrastim group: median time to neutrophil count engraftment (> 500/mmc) was 12 vs 13 days; median time for platelets recovery (> 20.000/mmc) was 12 vs 15 days (p=0.0001). The use of Lenograstim achieved cost savings of € 566/patient over Filgrastim biosimilar, related to a decreased number of days of hospitalization (16 vs 17 days; p=0.00012), a lower overall incidence of adverse events, laboratory tests, transfusions for platelet recovery following discharge.
Conclusion: In our experience, Lenograstim outperforms Filgrastim in terms of effectiveness and lower cost. This study shows a clinical superiority of Lenograstim over Filgrastim suggesting a potential cost savings favoring Lenograstim.
Keywords: lenograstim, filgrastim, mobilization, cost-effectiveness, G-CSF, HSCT
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]