Patterns of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To evaluate patterns of primary prophylactic (PP) granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use following chemotherapy by cancer type and febrile neutropenia (FN) risk. METHODS:Using a commercial administrative database, we identified adult patients diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who initiated chemotherapy with high risk (HR) or intermediate risk (IR) for FN between January 1, 2013, and August 31, 2017. We describe use of PP-G-CSF, proportion completing all their cycles with pegfilgrastim, timing of pegfilgrastim, and duration of short-acting G-CSF. RESULTS:Among 22,868 patients (breast 11,513; colorectal 3765; lung 4273; ovarian 1287; and NHL 2030), 36.8% received HR and 63.2% received IR (64.4% of whom had ??1 risk factor [RF] for FN). Proportions of patients receiving PP-G-CSF in the first cycle were 76.1%, 28.2%, and 26.4% among patients receiving HR, IR, and IR plus ??1 RF, respectively. Among breast cancer patients receiving HR regimens and initiating PP-pegfilgrastim, 60.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 57.2-63.6%) initiating via on-body injector (OBI) and 51.9% (95% CI 48.0-55.8%) initiating via prefilled syringe (PFS) completed all their cycles with OBI and PFS, respectively. Among all cycles with PP-PFS, 8.5% received PFS on the same day as chemotherapy completion. Mean administrations/cycle were 3.2 (standard deviation [SD] 2.3) for filgrastim, 3.0 (SD 1.6) for filgrastim-sndz, and 4.3 (SD 2.5) for tbo-filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS:There is under- and mistimed use of PP-G-CSF among patients at HR for FN. Novel pegfilgrastim delivery devices could help breast cancer patients at HR for FN complete all their cycles with timely prophylaxis.
Project description:The study aims to assess the relative efficacy of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) products administered as primary prophylaxis (PP) to patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.A systematic literature review identified publications (January 1990 to September 2013) of randomized controlled trials evaluating PP with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, lenograstim, or lipegfilgrastim in adults receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for solid tumors or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Direct, indirect, and mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) were used to estimate the odds ratio and 95 % credible interval of febrile neutropenia (FN) during cycle 1 and all cycles of chemotherapy combined without adjusting for differences in relative dose intensity (RDI) between study treatment arms.Twenty-seven publications representing 30 randomized controlled trials were included. Using MTC over all chemotherapy cycles, PP with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, lenograstim, and lipegfilgrastim versus no G-CSF PP or placebo were associated with statistically significantly reduced FN risk. FN risk was also significantly reduced with pegfilgrastim PP versus filgrastim PP. Over all chemotherapy cycles, there was a numerical but statistically nonsignificant increase in the FN risk for lipegfilgrastim PP versus pegfilgrastim PP. Using MTC in cycle 1, PP with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and lipegfilgrastim versus no G-CSF PP or placebo were associated with statistically significantly reduced FN risk.In this meta-analysis, using MTC without adjustment for RDI, PP with all G-CSFs evaluated reduced the FN risk in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Future studies are needed to assess the influence of RDI on FN outcomes and to eliminate potential bias between G-CSF arms receiving more intensive chemotherapy than control arms.
Project description:This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of various strategies of myeloid growth factor prophylaxis for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Singapore who are undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy with curative intent.A Markov model was created to compare seven prophylaxis strategies: 1) primary prophylaxis (PP) with nivestim (biosimilar filgrastim) throughout all cycles of chemotherapy; 2) PP with nivestim during the first two cycles of chemotherapy; 3) secondary prophylaxis (SP) with nivestim; 4) PP with pegfilgrastim throughout all cycles of chemotherapy; 5) PP with pegfilgrastim during the first two cycles of chemotherapy; 6) SP with pegfilgrastim; and 7) no prophylaxis (NP). The perspective of a hospital was taken and cost-effectiveness was expressed as the cost per episode of FN avoided over six cycles of chemotherapy. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted.Strategies 3, 6, and 7 were dominated in the base case analysis by strategy 5. The costs associated with strategies 2, 5, 1, and 4 were US$3,813, US$4,056, US$4,545, and US$5,331, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for strategy 5 vs. strategy 2, strategy 1 vs. strategy 5, and strategy 4 vs. strategy 1 were US$13,532, US$22,565, and US$30,452, respectively, per episode of FN avoided. Strategy 2 has the highest probability to be cost-effective (ranged from 48% to 60%) when the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold is lower than US$10,000 per FN episode prevented.In Singapore, routine PP with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (nivestim or pegfilgrastim) is cost-effective for reducing the risk of FN in patients receiving R-CHOP.
Project description:The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of no prophylaxis, primary prophylaxis (PP), or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), i.e., pegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6- and 11-day), or lenograstim (6- and 11-day), to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with stage II breast cancer receiving TC (docetaxel, cyclophosphamide) and in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) over a lifetime horizon from a Belgian payer perspective.A Markov cycle tree tracked FN events during chemotherapy (3-week cycles) and long-term survival (1-year cycles). Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy, risk of reduced relative dose intensity (RDI), and the impact of RDI on mortality, utilities, and costs (in €; 2014 values) were estimated from public sources and the published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed for each strategy for costs per FN event avoided, life-year (LY) saved, and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) saved. LYs and QALYs saved were discounted at 1.5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSAs and PSAs) were conducted.Base-case ICERs for PP with pegfilgrastim relative to SP with pegfilgrastim were €15,500 per QALY and €14,800 per LY saved for stage II breast cancer and €7800 per QALY and €6900 per LY saved for NHL; other comparators were either more expensive and less effective than PP or SP with pegfilgrastim or had lower costs but higher ICERs (relative to SP with pegfilgrastim) than PP with pegfilgrastim. Results of the DSA for breast cancer and NHL comparing PP and SP with pegfilgrastim indicate that the model results were most sensitive to the cycle 1 risk of FN, the proportion of FN events requiring hospitalization, the relative risk of FN in cycles ?2 versus cycle 1, no history of FN, and the mortality hazard ratio for RDI (<90% vs ?90% [for NHL]). In the PSAs for stage II breast cancer and NHL, the probabilities that PP with pegfilgrastim was cost effective or dominant versus all other prophylaxis strategies at a €30,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold were 52% (other strategies ?24%) and 58% (other strategies ?24%), respectively.From a Belgian payer perspective, PP with pegfilgrastim appears cost effective compared to other prophylaxis strategies in patients with stage II breast cancer or NHL at a €30,000/QALY threshold.
Project description:Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of chemotherapy, which can cause significant morbidity and mortality, result in dose delays and reductions and, ultimately, reduce cancer survival. Over the past decade, the availability of biosimilar filgrastim (short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) has transformed patient access, with clear evidence of clinical benefit at preventing FN at reduced costs. In 2019, seven biosimilar pegfilgrastims (long-acting G-CSFs) were licensed, creating optimal market conditions and choice for prescribers. FN affects up to 117 per 1000 cancer patients, with mortality rates in the range of 2-21%. By reducing FN incidence and improving chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI), G-CSF has been associated with a 3.2% absolute survival benefit. Guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis and that filgrastim be administered for 10-14 days, while pegfilgrastim is administered once per cycle. When taken according to the guidelines, pegfilgrastim and filgrastim are equally effective. However, in routine clinical practice, filgrastim is often under-dosed (<?7 days) and has been shown to be inferior to pegfilgrastim at reducing FN incidence, hospitalisations and maintaining RDI. Once-per-cycle administration with pegfilgrastim might also aid patient adherence. The introduction of biosimilar pegfilgrastim should instigate a rethink of neutropenia management. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim offers countries using biosimilar filgrastim opportunities to improve adherence and thus cancer survival, whilst offering economic benefits for countries using reference pegfilgrastim. These benefits can be realised in full if biosimilar pegfilgrastim becomes part of routine clinical practice supported by drug and therapeutic committees implementing guidelines with multidisciplinary support in the hospital.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Myelosuppressive chemotherapy can lead to dose-limiting febrile neutropenia. Prophylactic use of recombinant human G-CSF such as daily filgrastim and once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim may reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. This comparative study examined the effect of pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim on the risk of hospitalization. METHODS: This retrospective United States claims analysis utilized 2004-2009 data for filgrastim- and pegfilgrastim-treated patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) or breast, lung, ovarian, or colorectal cancers. Cycles in which pegfilgrastim or filgrastim was administered within 5 days from initiation of chemotherapy (considered to represent prophylaxis) were pooled for analysis. Neutropenia-related hospitalization and other healthcare encounters were defined with a "narrow" criterion for claims with an ICD-9 code for neutropenia and with a "broad" criterion for claims with an ICD-9 code for neutropenia, fever, or infection. Odds ratios (OR) for hospitalization and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by generalized estimating equation (GEE) models and adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Per-cycle healthcare utilization and costs were examined for cycles with pegfilgrastim or filgrastim prophylaxis. RESULTS: We identified 3,535 patients receiving G-CSF prophylaxis, representing 12,056 chemotherapy cycles (11,683 pegfilgrastim, 373 filgrastim). The mean duration of filgrastim prophylaxis in the sample was 4.8 days. The mean duration of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in the sample was 1.0 day, consistent with the recommended dosage of pegfilgrastim - a single injection once per chemotherapy cycle. Cycles with prophylactic pegfilgrastim were associated with a decreased risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization (narrow definition: OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.16-1.13; broad definition: OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.24-0.59) and all-cause hospitalization (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.35-0.72) versus cycles with prophylactic filgrastim. For neutropenia-related utilization by setting of care, there were more ambulatory visits and hospitalizations per cycle associated with filgrastim prophylaxis than with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. Mean per-cycle neutropenia-related costs were also higher with prophylactic filgrastim than with prophylactic pegfilgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative effectiveness study, pegfilgrastim prophylaxis was associated with a reduced risk of neutropenia-related or all-cause hospitalization relative to filgrastim prophylaxis.
Project description:Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a common result of myelosuppressive chemotherapy treatment. Infections such as febrile neutropenia (FN) are sensitive to the duration of neutropenia as well as the depth of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) at nadir. Filgrastim, a granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), can stimulate the function of mature neutrophils. Pegfilgrastim, a long-acting form of filgrastim, has been shown to reduce FN to a greater extent compared to filgrastim. G-CSF agents have been recommended for prophylactic administration with chemotherapy. Apotex developed a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar. This study was conducted to confirm that no clinically meaningful efficacy or safety differences exist between Apotex's proposed biosimilar and its reference product.589 breast cancer patients were randomized and dosed with the proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar, US-licensed pegfilgrastim reference product, or EU-approved pegfilgrastim reference product. The primary endpoint assessed was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) and secondary endpoints included rate of FN and ANC nadir.Data showed that the mean DSN, the primary endpoint measured, was comparable across all three treatments. The As Treated arm had a 95% confidence interval within the equivalence range for the proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar with the US-licensed and EU-approved pegfilgrastim reference products. Secondary endpoints, which included depth and peak of ANC nadir, time to ANC recovery post-nadir and rates of FN, also showed similarity between the three different treatment groups. The adverse event incidence was similar across treatment arms and there were no unexpected safety events.Overall, these results show that the proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar is similar to Amgen's US-licensed and EU-approved pegfilgrastim reference products with regard to the clinical efficacy and safety endpoints assessed.Trial registration EMA: European Union Clinical Trials Register: (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=eudract_number:2011-002678-21) Eudract # 2011-002678-21 Registered: 01/10/2012.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Myelosuppressive chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is a life-threatening condition. Patients receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) have shorter duration of neutropenia, faster recovery from fever, and shorter duration of antibiotics use. Most strategies for FN prevention using daily G-CSF and pegfilgrastim are based on overseas studies. Data on Japanese patients were lacking; thus, we previously determined the incidence of FN in non-Hodgkin B cell lymphoma (B-NHL) patients at our center. Here, we aimed to gain additional insights into pegfilgrastim use in this population. METHODS:This single-center, retrospective, observational study (STOP FN in NHL 2) enrolled patients with B-NHL who underwent a regimen comprising rituximab and CHOP therapy over a 2-year period (January 2015-June 2017). The incidence of FN in cycle 1 of chemotherapy, risk factors for FN development, and use of daily G-CSF and pegfilgrastim were evaluated. RESULTS:We evaluated 239 patients: 61 patients did not receive G-CSF and 178 received G-CSF. The incidence of FN was 10.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.9-15.1%) in cycle 1 and 13.0% (95% CI 9.0-17.9%) in all cycles. The FN incidence was significantly lower (P?=?0.0008) in patients receiving daily G-CSF and pegfilgrastim than patients not receiving G-CSF. Significant risk factors for FN were age ??65 years, albumin <?3.5 g/dL, hemoglobin <?12 g/dL, and no prophylaxis with daily G-CSF/pegfilgrastim during cycle 1. CONCLUSIONS:The incidence of FN in cycle 1 and in all cycles and the identified risk factors were similar with those we previously reported; thus, our results validate previous findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION:UMIN000029534.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Clinical practice guidelines recommend routine prophylactic coverage with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-such as pegfilgrastim-for most patients receiving chemotherapy with an intermediate to high risk for FN. Patterns of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis during the chemotherapy course and associated FN risks in US clinical practice have not been well characterized. METHODS:A retrospective cohort design and data from two commercial healthcare claims repositories (01/2010-03/2016) and Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files (01/2007-09/2015) were employed. Study population included patients who had non-metastatic breast cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and received intermediate/high-risk regimens. Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis use and FN incidence were ascertained in each chemotherapy cycle, and all cycles were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios for FN were estimated for patients who did versus did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in that cycle. RESULTS:Study population included 50,778 commercial patients who received 190,622 cycles of chemotherapy and 71,037 Medicare patients who received 271,944 cycles. In cycle 1, 33% of commercial patients and 28% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, and adjusted odds of FN were 2.6 (95% CI 2.3-2.8) and 1.6 (1.5-1.7), respectively, versus those who received pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. In cycle 2, 28% (commercial) and 26% (Medicare) did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis; corresponding adjusted FN odds were comparably elevated (1.9 [1.6-2.2] and 1.6 [1.5-1.8]). Results in subsequent cycles were similar. Across all cycles, 15% of commercial patients and 23% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis despite having FN in a prior cycle, and prior FN increased odds of subsequent FN by 2.1-2.4 times. CONCLUSIONS:Notwithstanding clinical practice guidelines, a large minority of patients did not receive G-CSF prophylaxis, and FN incidence was substantially higher among this subset of the population. Appropriate use of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis may reduce patient exposure to this potentially fatal but largely preventable complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), which are used for the prevention of complications from chemotherapy-related neutropenia, are linked to the risk of developing second primary myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The objective of this study was to examine the correlation between using a specific G-CSF agent and the risk of MDS/AML among older patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of adults aged >65 years who were diagnosed with first primary NHL between 2001 and 2011. With data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-linked database, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for the risk of MDS/AML associated with the receipt of G-CSF(filgrastim and pegfilgrastim) in Cox proportional-hazards models, which were stratified according to treatment accounting for confounding by indication. RESULTS:Among 18,245 patients with NHL patients who had a median follow-up of 3.5 years, 56% received chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy, and G-CSF was most commonly used in those who received rituximab plus multiple chemotherapy regimens (77%). Subsequent MDS/AML diagnoses were identified in 666 patients (3.7%). A modest increased risk of MDS/AML was observed with the receipt of G-CSF (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.01-1.62) and a trend was observed with increasing doses (Ptrend < .01). When specific agents were analyzed, an increased risk of MDS/AML was consistently observed with filgrastim (?10 doses: HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.25-2.23), but not with pegfilgrastim (?10 + doses: HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.84-1.45). CONCLUSIONS:A higher of MDS/AML was observed in patients with NHL risk among those who received G-CSF that was specific to the use of filgrastim (?10 doses), but not pegfilgrastim. Neutropenia prophylaxis is an essential component of highly effective NHL treatment regimens. The differential risk related to the types of G-CSF agents used warrants further study given their increasing use and newly available, US Food and Drug Administration-approved, biosimilar products.
Project description:Background Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are effective at reducing the risk and duration of neutropenia. The current meta-analysis compared the neutropenia-related efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim to those of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim. Methods Embase was searched for trials examining the efficacy/safety of lipegfilgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or filgrastim. Outcomes included febrile neutropenia, severe neutropenia, duration of severe neutropenia, time to recovery of absolute neutrophil count, and incidence of bone pain. Direct comparisons were made using random-effects models. No trials directly compared lipegfilgrastim and filgrastim. Indirect comparisons were made between lipegfilgrastim and filgrastim with pegfilgrastim as the common comparator. Results This meta-analysis included a total of 5769 patients from 24 studies. Over all cycles, lipegfilgrastim showed a lower, nonsignificant risk of febrile neutropenia compared with pegfilgrastim. Lipegfilgrastim has a lower risk of febrile neutropenia versus filgrastim but was also not statistically significant. The risk ratio for severe neutropenia in cycle 1 was 0.80, a 20% reduction in favor of lipegfilgrastim. For cycles 2-4, the risk ratio was 0.53 (0.35, 0.79) for lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim. The risk of severe neutropenia in cycles 2-4 was also significantly lower for lipegfilgrastim (risk ratio 0.45, 0.27, 0.75, respectively). No significant differences were found for febrile neutropenia and severe neutropenia in cycle 1. However, in cycles 2-4, lipegfilgrastim was associated with significant and clinically meaningful reductions in risk of severe neutropenia versus either pegfilgrastim or filgrastim. Conclusions Compared with pegfilgrastim or filgrastim, lipegfilgrastim has a statistically significantly lower absolute neutrophil count recovery time; however, differences in duration of severe neutropenia and bone pain were nonsignificant.