Pegfilgrastim Biosimilars in US Supportive Oncology: A Narrative Review of Administration Options and Economic Considerations to Maximize Patient Benefit.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biologics, such as pegfilgrastim, are a standard of care in supportive cancer treatment that are administered once per chemotherapy cycle to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. The high cost of these biologics in the United States can be a limiting factor to accessing care; however, lower-cost pegfilgrastim biosimilars have been available for several years for patients requiring prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Different options for pegfilgrastim administration are also now available to accommodate specific patient preferences. As patients may want to minimize the risk of both neutropenia and SARS-CoV-2 infection, same-day administration is a pertinent option during the present COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, individualized, patient-centered approaches and risk-management strategies should be considered when selecting the treatment and administration method for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Three methods of administration would minimize hospital or clinic visits while also providing the prophylactic effect of G-CSF: same-day administration after chemotherapy, use of the US Food and Drug Administration-approved on-body injector delivering pegfilgrastim approximately 27 h after chemotherapy, or self-administration by the patient or caregiver > 24 h after chemotherapy. Choice of the specific administration option should be based on the patient's specific needs, while also considering mitigating factors, such as the economic burden associated with biologic medications and the risk of COVID-19. Pegfilgrastim biosimilars can minimize the additional financial burden on patients and the health care system during this pandemic and beyond.

Payer Perspectives on Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Administration of Drugs.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought increased attention to vulnerable populations such as older or immunocompromised patients and heightened the focus on alternatives to intravenous (IV) formulations, particularly those that may be administered in a non-clinical setting. Among these alternative formulations are subcutaneous (SC) injections, which comprise an increasing share of commercialized and pipeline therapies. While much has been published about the benefits and limitations of IV versus SC administration to patients and health systems, less attention has been given to payer considerations regarding these routes of administration. Accordingly, this article provides payer perspectives on some of the key differences between IV and SC administration as they relate to management and billing, cost, treatment adherence and safety, and patient preference and quality of life. The benefits and limitations of these drug administration routes to key healthcare stakeholders-namely patients, physicians, and payers-are also discussed. Considerations of relevance are highlighted, including the potential for misalignment of stakeholder interests and countervailing factors that may impact decision-making about IV and SC formulations.