Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN): healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in commercially insured patients in the US.

PURPOSE: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a known side effect of chemotherapy, often requiring hospitalization. Economic burden increases with an FN episode and estimates of cost per episode should be updated from real-world data. METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis of FN episodes in patients with non-myeloid malignancies from 2014 to 2021 was performed in IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database. FN episodes were defined as having same-day claims for neutropenia and fever or infection, plus antibiotic in outpatient settings, following a claim for chemotherapy; index date was defined as the first claim for neutropenia/fever/infection. Patients receiving bone marrow/stem cell transplant and CAR-T therapy were excluded, as were select hematologic malignancies or COVID-19. Healthcare utilization and costs were evaluated and described overall, by episode type (w/wo hospitalization), index year, malignancy type, NCI comorbidity score, and age group. RESULTS: 7,033 FN episodes were identified from 6,825 patients. Most episodes had a hospitalization (91.2%) and 86% of patients had ≥1 risk factor for FN. Overall, FN episodes had a mean (SD) FN-related cost of $25,176 ($39,943). Episodes with hospitalization had higher average FN-related costs versus those without hospitalization ($26,868 vs $7,738), and costs increased with comorbidity score (NCI=0: $23,095; NCI >0-2: $26,084; NCI ≥2: $26,851). CONCLUSIONS: FN continues to be associated with significant economic burden, and varied by cancer type, comorbidity burden, and age. In this analysis, most FN episodes were not preceded by GCSF prophylaxis. The results of this study highlight the opportunity to utilize GCSF in appropriate oncology scenarios.

Therapeutic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with febrile neutropenia: a comprehensive systematic review for clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia represents a critical oncologic emergency, and its management is pivotal in cancer therapy. In several guidelines, the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is not routinely recommended except in high-risk cases. The Japan Society of Clinical Oncology has updated its clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF, incorporating a systematic review to address this clinical question. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted by performing a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web, focusing on publications from January 1990 to December 2019. Selected studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and cohort and case-control studies. Evaluated outcomes included overall survival, infection-related mortality, hospitalization duration, quality of life, and pain. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 332 records. Following two rounds of screening, two records were selected for both qualitative and quantitative synthesis including meta-analysis. Regarding infection-related mortality, the event to case ratio was 5:134 (3.73%) in the G-CSF group versus 6:129 (4.65%) in the non-G-CSF group, resulting in a relative risk of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-2.58; p = 0.54), which was not statistically significant. Only median values for hospitalization duration were available from the two RCTs, precluding a meta-analysis. For overall survival, quality of life, and pain, no suitable studies were found for analysis, rendering their assessment unfeasible. CONCLUSION: A weak recommendation is made that G-CSF treatment not be administered to patients with febrile neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy. G-CSF treatment can be considered for patients at high risk.

Effectiveness of G-CSF in chemotherapy for digestive system tumors: a systematic review of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 delineated by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reportedly reduces the risk of neutropenia and subsequent infections caused by cancer chemotherapy. Although several guidelines recommend using G-CSF in primary prophylaxis according to the incidence rate of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), the effectiveness of G-CSF in digestive system tumor chemotherapy remains unclear. To address these clinical questions, we conducted a systematic review as part of revising the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 published by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology. METHODS: This systematic review addressed two main clinical questions (CQ): CQ1: "Is primary prophylaxis with G-CSF effective in chemotherapy?", and CQ2: "Is increasing the intensity of chemotherapy with G-CSF effective?" We reviewed different types of digestive system tumors, including esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, biliary tract, colorectal, and neuroendocrine carcinomas. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases were searched for information sources. Independent systematic reviewers conducted two rounds of screening and selected relevant records for each CQ. Finally, the working group members synthesized the strength of evidence and recommendations. RESULTS: After two rounds of screening, 5/0/3/0/2/0 records were extracted for CQ1 of esophageal/gastric/pancreatic/biliary tract/colorectal/ and neuroendocrine carcinoma, respectively. Additionally, a total of 2/6/1 records were extracted for CQ2 of esophageal/pancreatic/colorectal cancer, respectively. The strength of evidence and recommendations were evaluated for CQ1 of colorectal cancer; however, we could not synthesize recommendations for other CQs owing to the lack of records. CONCLUSION: The use of G-CSF for primary prophylaxis in chemotherapy for colorectal cancer is inappropriate.

Improving management of febrile neutropenia in oncology patients: the role of artificial intelligence and machine learning.

INTRODUCTION: Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have the potential to revolutionize the management of febrile neutropenia (FN) and drive progress toward personalized medicine. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we detail how the collection of a large number of high-quality data can be used to conduct precise mathematical studies with ML and AI. We explain the foundations of these techniques, covering the fundamentals of supervised and unsupervised learning, as well as the most important challenges, e.g. data quality, 'black box' model interpretation and overfitting. To conclude, we provide detailed examples of how AI and ML have been used to enhance predictions of chemotherapy-induced FN, detection of bloodstream infections (BSIs) and multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria, and anticipation of severe complications and mortality. EXPERT OPINION: There is promising potential of implementing accurate AI and ML models whilst managing FN. However, their integration as viable clinical tools poses challenges, including technical and implementation barriers. Improving global accessibility, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and addressing ethical and security considerations are essential. By overcoming these challenges, we could transform personalized care for patients with FN.

Consensus survey on the management of children with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and at low risk of severe infection.

Our aim was to identify national consensus criteria for the management of children with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), for evidence-based step-down treatment approaches for patients classified at low risk of severe infection. In 2018, a five-section, 38-item survey was e-mailed to all pediatric hematology and oncology units in France (n = 30). The five sections contained statements on possible consensus criteria for the (i) definition of FN, (ii) initial management of children with FN, (iii) conditions required for initiating step-down therapy in low-risk patients, (iv) management strategy for low-risk patients, and (v) antibiotic treatment on discharge. Consensus was defined by respondents' combined answers (somewhat agree and strongly agree) at 75% or more. Sixty-five physicians (participation rate: 58%), all specialists in pediatric onco-hematology, from 18 centers completed the questionnaire. A consensus was reached on 22 of the 38 statements, including the definition of FN, the criteria for step-down therapy in low-risk children, and the initial care of these patients. There was no consensus on the type and duration of antibiotic therapy on discharge. In conclusion, a consensus has been reached on the criteria for initiating evidence-based step-down treatment of children with FN and a low risk of severe infection but not for the step-down antimicrobial regimen.

La neutropenia: Una revisión narrativa / Neutropenia: A narrative review

Introducción: La Neutropenia constituye una de las complicaciones más comunes en pacientes que reciben tratamiento sistémico con quimioterapia, siendo esta una población heterogénea; por lo tanto su presentación clínica es inespecífica, pudiendo presentarse de manera asintomática o inclusive evidenciar cuadros muy severos con signos de sepsis grave. Ante lo referido, en la actualidad los grupos de trabajo requieren determinar de manera consistente los diferentes factores de riesgo que contribuyen a la presentación de neutropenia, con el objetivo de estratificar de manera óptima al paciente y así disminuir complicaciones. Puntos importantes: Este trabajo se enfatiza en analizar los factores de riesgo; tanto del paciente, la enfermedad y el tratamiento; de acuerdo a los sistemas de estratificación como MASCC, CISNE. Además se evaluaron los fundamentos clínicos y microbiológicos para categorizar al paciente e incluir medidas de soporte profiláctico a los grupos con mayor fragilidad, disminuyendo el alto riesgo de complicaciones severas. Conclusión: La neutropenia es un evento adverso indeseable en el manejo del tratamiento oncohematológico. Los sistemas de estratificación de riesgos MASCC y CISNE son herramientas útiles para seleccionar pacientes de bajo riesgo. Sin embargo, otros factores, como el tipo de tumor y el tipo de infección, pueden influir en la estratificación. Por lo tanto, es importante manejar a cada paciente de forma individualizada.El inicio de la profilaxis antimicrobiana y el uso de FECG pueden ayudar a reducir la morbimortalidad.

Introduction: Neutropenia is one of the most common complications in patients receiving systemic treatment with chemotherapy; this is a heterogeneous population; therefore, its clinical presentation is nonspecific, presenting asymptomatically or even showing very severe symptoms with signs of severe sepsis. Given those above, currently, the working groups need to consistently determine the different risk factors contributing to the presentation of neutropenia to stratify the patient and thus optimally reduce complications. Important points: This work emphasizes the analysis of risk factors, including the patient, the disease, and the treatment, according to stratification systems such as MASCC and CISNE. In addition, the clinical and microbiological foundations were evaluated to categorize the patient and include prophylactic support measures for the most frail groups, reducing the high risk of severe complications. Conclusion: Neutropenia is an undesirable adverse event in managing oncohaematological treatment. The MASCC and CISNE risk stratification systems are valuable tools for selecting low-risk patients. However, other factors, such as the type of tumor and infection, may influence the stratification. Therefore, it is essential to manage each patient individually. The initiation of antimicrobial prophylaxis and the use of FECG can help reduce morbidity and mortality.

The impact of new and emerging agents on outcomes for febrile neutropenia: addressing clinical gaps.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While chemotherapy treatment options for patients with solid and hematologic malignancies have dramatically improved over recent years, chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN) remain major barriers to delivering treatment at full doses and optimal timing. Despite concurrent advances in granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration, multiple barriers to the administration of and disparities in the access to these agents remain. The introduction of new, emerging agents, including biosimilars and novel therapies show promise in improving outcomes for CIN. RECENT FINDINGS: The introduction of biosimilar filgrastim products has improved access to G-CSF administration by driving marketplace competition and has reduced costs for both patients and healthcare systems without sacrificing efficacy. Emerging therapies to address similar issues include long-acting G-CSF products, efbemalenograstim alfa and eflapegrastin-xnst, as well as agents with novel mechanisms of action, plinabulin and trilaciclib. These agents have shown efficacy and cost-saving benefits in certain populations and disease groups. SUMMARY: Multiple emerging agents show promise in decreasing the burden of CIN. Use of these therapies will reduce access disparities and will improve outcomes for patients with cancer receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Many ongoing trials are underway to evaluate the roles of these agents for more widespread use.

Two decades of pegfilgrastim: what have we learned? Where do we go from here?

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is a medical emergency that may occur in patients with malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. FN requires early therapeutic intervention since it is associated with increased hospitalizations and high mortality risk of 5%-20%. FN-related hospitalizations are higher in patients with myeloid malignancies than in those with solid tumors due to the myelotoxicity of chemotherapy regimens and the compromised bone marrow function. FN increases the burden of cancer by causing chemotherapy dose reductions and delays. The administration of the first granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) filgrastim reduced the incidence and duration of FN in patients undergoing chemotherapy. Filgrastim later evolved into pegfilgrastim, which has a longer half-life than filgrastim and is associated with a lower rate of severe neutropenia, chemotherapy dose reduction, and treatment delay. Nine million patients have received pegfilgrastim since its approval in early 2002. The pegfilgrastim on-body injector (OBI) is an innovative device facilitating the time-released auto-injection of pegfilgrastim approximately 27 h after chemotherapy, as clinically recommended for the prevention of FN, thus eliminating the need for a next-day hospital visit. Since its introduction in 2015, one million patients with cancer have received pegfilgrastim using the OBI. Subsequently, the device was approved in the United States (US), European Union, Latin America, and Japan, with studies and a postmarketing commitment demonstrating device reliability. A recent prospective observational study conducted in the US demonstrated that the OBI substantially improved the adherence to and compliance with clinically recommended pegfilgrastim therapy; patients receiving pegfilgrastim via the OBI experienced a lower incidence of FN than those receiving alternatives for FN prophylaxis. This review discusses the evolution of G-CSFs leading to the development of the OBI, current recommendations for G-CSF prophylaxis in the clinic, continued evidence supporting next-day pegfilgrastim administration, and improvements in patient care made possible with the OBI.

For over 20 years, treatment with pegfilgrastim (a therapy that supports the growth of immune cells) has been used in patients with cancer to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) ­ an unwanted effect of cancer treatment or chemotherapy. FN is defined as the loss of healthy immune cells and development of fever possibly due to an infection. Patients with FN may be very ill or may die, depending on the seriousness of the condition. However, treatment with pegfilgrastim reduces the occurrence of FN and improves survival.Treatment guidelines recommend that pegfilgrastim should be given 24 h after chemotherapy, requiring patients to travel to the hospital on the next day of chemotherapy. Some patients may choose the less helpful option of receiving pegfilgrastim on the same day of chemotherapy to avoid travel. This need led to the development of an on-body injector (OBI) device that is applied on the skin on the last day of chemotherapy and administers pegfilgrastim approximately 27 h after chemotherapy. The highly reliable OBI ensures timely delivery of therapy with a success rate of 99.9%, reduces the travel burden, and helps in following the recommended guidelines for pegfilgrastim administration. For two decades, pegfilgrastim has played a significant role in the treatment and prevention of FN, and the new OBI device provides the required treatment support for improving patient care.

Clinical factors predicting return emergency department visits in chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia patients.

BACKGROUND: Although chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is the most common and life-threatening oncologic emergency, the characteristics and outcomes associated with return visits to the emergency department (ED) in these patients are uncertain. Hence, we aimed to investigate the predictive factors and clinical outcomes of chemotherapy-induced FN patients returning to the ED. METHOD: This single-center, retrospective observational study spanning 14 years included chemotherapy-induced FN patients who visited the ED and were discharged. The primary outcome was a return visit to the ED within five days. We conducted logistic regression analyses to evaluate the factors influencing ED return visit. RESULTS: This study included 1318 FN patients, 154 (12.1%) of whom revisited the ED within five days. Patients (53.3%) revisited the ED owing to persistent fever (56.5%), with no intensive care unit admission and only one mortality case who was discharged hopelessly. Multivariable analysis revealed that shock index >0.9 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-2.10), thrombocytopenia (<100 × 103/uL) (OR: 1.64, 95% CI, 1.11-2.42), and lactic acid level > 2 mmol/L (OR: 1.51, 95% CI, 0.99-2.25) were associated with an increased risk of a return visit to the ED, whereas being transferred into the ED from other hospitals (OR: 0.08; 95% CI, 0.005-0.38) was associated with a decreased risk of a return visit to the ED. CONCLUSION: High shock index, lactic acid, thrombocytopenia, and ED arrival type can predict return visits to the ED in chemotherapy-induced FN patients.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in intermediate-risk regimens: Clinical and economic outcomes of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia increases the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) and infection with resultant hospitalizations, with substantial health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (GCSF) is recommended as primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy regimens having more than a 20% risk of FN. Yet, for intermediate-risk (10%-20%) regimens, it should be considered only for patients with 1 or more clinical risk factors (RFs) for FN. It is unclear whether FN prophylaxis for intermediate-risk patients is being optimally implemented. OBJECTIVE: To examine RFs, prophylaxis use, HCRU, and costs associated with incident FN during chemotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective study used administrative claims data for commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees with nonmyeloid cancer treated with intermediate-risk chemotherapy regimens during January 1, 2009, to March 31, 2020. Clinical RFs, GCSF prophylaxis, incident FN, HCRU, and costs were analyzed descriptively by receipt of primary GCSF, secondary GCSF, or no GCSF prophylaxis. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to examine the association between number of RFs and cumulative FN risk. RESULTS: The sample comprised 13,937 patients (mean age 67 years, 55% female). Patients had a mean of 2.3 RFs, the most common being recent surgery, were aged 65 years or greater, and had baseline liver or renal dysfunction; 98% had 1 or more RFs. However, only 35% of patients received primary prophylaxis; 12% received secondary prophylaxis. The hazard ratio of incident FN was higher with increasing number of RFs during the first line of therapy, yet more than 54% of patients received no prophylaxis, regardless of RFs. Use of GCSF prophylaxis varied more by chemotherapeutic regimen than by number of RFs. Among patients treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin hydrochloride (doxorubicin hydrochloride), vincristine, and prednisone, 76% received primary prophylaxis, whereas only 22% of patients treated with carboplatin/paclitaxel received primary prophylaxis. Among patients with a first line of therapy FN event, 78% had an inpatient stay and 42% had an emergency visit. During cycle 1, mean FN-related coordination of benefits-adjusted medical costs per patient per month ($13,886 for patients with primary prophylaxis and $18,233 for those with none) were driven by inpatient hospitalizations, at 91% and 97%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Incident FN occurred more often with increasing numbers of RFs, but GCSF prophylaxis use did not rise correspondingly. Variation in prophylaxis use was greater based on regimen than RF number. Lower health care costs were observed among patients with primary prophylaxis use. Improved individual risk identification for intermediate-risk regimens and appropriate prophylaxis may decrease FN events toward the goal of better clinical and health care cost outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded by Sandoz Inc., which participated in the design of the study, interpretation of the data, writing and revision of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The study was performed by Optum under contract with Sandoz Inc. The author(s) meet criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. Dr Li is an employee of Sandoz Inc. Drs Bell and Lal and Mr Peterson-Brandt were employees of Optum at the time of the study. Ms Anderson and Dr Aslam are employees of Optum. Dr Lyman has been primary investigator on a research grant from Amgen to their institution and has consulted for Sandoz, G1 Therapeutics, Partners Healthcare, BeyondSpring, ER Squibb, Merck, Jazz Pharm, Kallyope, Teva; Fresenius Kabi, Seattle Genetics, and Samsung.

Management of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with soft tissue or bone sarcoma.

INTRODUCTION: Febrile neutropenia, an oncological complication related to myelosuppressive chemotherapy, can lead to unplanned hospitalization, morbidity, mortality, and changes in the oncological therapeutic plan. The present study aimed (1) to determine the prevalence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization and the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and (2) to evaluate its consequences for the oncological treatment of patients with soft tissue or bone sarcomas. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional and retrospective study (January 2018 to December 2019) carried out in a reference oncology hospital in the Brazilian public health system. Inpatients diagnosed with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, older than the age of 18 years, and treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor were included in the study. RESULTS: Twenty-nine chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia events were identified, involving 25 patients. Among the febrile neutropenia events, 90% were grade 4, and 59% occurred during palliative chemotherapy. Among patients with febrile neutropenia, 31% had arterial hypertension or/and diabetes mellitus comorbidities, 34% had infectious skin sites, such as compression ulcers and tumor wounds, and 31% had infections with defined etiologic agents. Treatment of hospitalized patients was performed with cefepime in combinations or alone (97%) and filgrastim. The outcomes related to chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia were chemotherapy dose reduction (31%), chemotherapy cycle delays (21%), chemotherapy treatment suspension (17%), deaths (7%), and other associated complications (10%). Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis was prescribed in 72.41% of febrile neutropenia events. The frequency of febrile neutropenia concerning total chemotherapy cycles was 2.15%. CONCLUSION: Even with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis, an overall prevalence of 2.15% of febrile neutropenia associated with hospitalization was observed, causing negative outcomes in chemotherapy treatment of patients.

Efficacy of same-day versus next-day administration of pegfilgrastim for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients receiving dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: A retrospective multi-site analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Administering pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy can improve patient satisfaction through convenience and may increase the utilization of cost-effective biosimilars compared to next-day administration, but the effect on clinical outcomes with commonly used breast cancer regimens is unclear. METHODS: This multi-site, retrospective cohort study included breast cancer patients age 18 years or older who received dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) and pegfilgrastim between 1 June 2016 and 31 May 2020. Pegfilgrastim was given on the same day as chemotherapy at one site and the day after chemotherapy at the other two sites. The primary endpoint compared the incidence of febrile neutropenia associated with pegfilgrastim administration timing. RESULTS: A total of 360 patients were reviewed (146 same-day administration and 214 next-day administration). In the same-day group 36 patients (24.6%) developed FN compared to 25 patients (11.7%) in the next-day group (p = 0.002). Same-day administration also significantly increased the incidences of additional acute care visits (11.6% vs 2.8%, p = 0.0016), grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (38.4% vs 13.6%, p < 0.0001), chemotherapy dose reductions (21.2% vs 6.1%, p < 0.0001), and antibiotic use (26.7% vs 12.6%, p = 0.001). Same-day administration did not significantly increase the rate of hospitalization (15% vs 11.2%, p = 0.36) and delay of next chemotherapy cycle by ≥1 day (8.2% vs 6.1%, p = 0.57) due to neutropenic complications. CONCLUSIONS: Administering pegfilgrastim on the same day as ddAC led to a significant increase in neutropenic complications. This study confirms the need to administer pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy in breast cancer patients receiving ddAC.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia among breast Cancer patients in a tertiary care hospital: Risk and consequences.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To identify the risk factors that may predispose breast cancer patients to Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and its associated complications for the years 2018 and 2020. CIN is an established complication of breast cancer treatment. Clinical Pharmacists can play an important role in the treatment of CIN through involvement in risk assessment to identify patients for oral antimicrobial therapy, drug therapy monitoring, and development of suitable guidelines or policies. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective study was performed by collecting data of 72 breast cancer patients for the last two years from department of Medical Oncology in a tertiary care hospital. RESULTS: The overall occurrence of CIN was 59.7% in our study population. Out of 72 patients studied, 43 patients were found to be neutropenic. Using Pearson Chi square test, chemotherapy-induced neutropenia was associated with older age (over 60 y) (p < 0.038), diabetes mellitus (p < 0.050), tumour stage IIIa (p < 0.024), AC (p < 0.051) and taxane chemotherapy regimens (p < 0.041). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 37.28% of patients and the incidence of infection-related mortality [severe septicaemia] was 3.38%. CONCLUSION: The incorporation of clinical pharmacist must be brought into practice in our country for providing proper guidance to the patient on CIN and its complications. By identifying risk factors for neutropenia, the safe management of CIN may be possible in patients with breast cancer.

Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of imipenem in neutropenic adult patients.

OBJECTIVE: Imipenem is recommended in patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Although alterations of antibiotic pharmacokinetic parameters have been reported in such patients, little data is available on imipenem. METHODS: Prospective, single-center, non-interventional pharmacokinetic cohort study in adults with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Critically ill patients were excluded. Imipenem was administered as a 30-min infusion of 1000 mg/8h. Total imipenem plasma concentrations were assayed by high-performance liquid chromatography during neutropenia and just after neutrophil recovery. We estimated population pharmacokinetic parameters of imipenem by non-linear mixed-effect modelling using the SAEM algorithm. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were included in the study, including nine women (56.3%), median age 37 years (range, 18.3; 78.3). Eight patients had an hematological malignancy (50.0%) and seven had a solid tumor (43.8%). Imipenem pharmacokinetics were best described by a one-compartment model with first-order elimination. Mean values for imipenem were: clearance 14.3L/h and 10.9L/h and volume of distribution 20.7L and 14.5 L during neutropenia and after recovery, respectively. Imipenem plasma area under the curve at steady state was reduced by 23% during neutropenia. However, all patients achieved a pharmacodynamic target of %fT>MIC ≥ 40% with a regimen of 1000 mg/8 h or 500 mg/6 h, for MICs up to 2 mg/L. The pharmacodynamics profile for a target of %fT > MIC = 100% was however less favorable with 500 mg/6 h or 1000 mg/8 h either during or after neutropenia. CONCLUSION: Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic goals for imipenem were similar in patients during and after neutropenia, despite reduced plasma exposure.

Predictive Factors of Febrile Neutropenia After Primary Prophylactic Pegfilgrastim With DCF Chemotherapy for Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: We investigated the predictive factors of febrile neutropenia (FN) after the administration of pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis in patients with esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) to support the appropriate management of FN. We evaluated changes in neutrophil counts and relative dose intensity (RDI) after the incidence of FN. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study involved 122 patients with esophageal cancer who were treated with DCF and pegfilgrastim at Showa University Hospital, Japan, between April 2016 and August 2021. The primary outcome was FN incidence after cycle 1 of DCF chemotherapy. The significant independent factors associated with FN incidence were selected using the multivariate analysis. Changes in neutrophil counts and RDI were compared between the FN and non-FN groups. RESULTS: One-hundred patients were included in the analysis. The incidence of FN in cycle 1 was 21%. In the multivariate analysis, geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) <92 [odds ratio (OR)=13.162, p<0.001] and combination of platelet and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (COP-NLR) score of 0 (OR=4.619, p=0.012) were independent predictors of FN. The neutrophil count on day 7-10 and RDI in the FN group were lower than those in the non-FN group (all p<0.05). CONCLUSION: GNRI <92 and COP-NLR score of 0 are important indicators to predict patients at high risk of DCF chemotherapy-induced FN. Furthermore, FN incidence after pegfilgrastim administration had a strong effect on delayed neutrophil recovery and reduced RDI.

Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with lymphoma: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a prevalent and potentially life-threatening complication in patients with lymphoma receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is more effective than filgrastim as prophylaxis for FN. However, its usage has been limited because of its higher cost. Pegfilgrastim's value for money remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim compared to filgrastim as a primary or secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases, and Google Scholar. The most widely used economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and cost-benefit analysis) were included in the review. Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist, and the quality of reviewed articles was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. Cost-effectiveness data were rigorously summarized and synthesized narratively. Costs were adjusted to US$ 2020. RESULTS: We identified eight economic evaluation studies (two cost-utility analyses, three cost-effectiveness analyses, and three studies reporting both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses). Half of these studies were from Europe (n = 4), the other half were from Iran, USA, Canada, and Singapore. Six studies met > 80% of the JBI quality assessment criteria. Cost-effectiveness estimates in the majority (n = 6) of these studies were for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with high-risk of FN (> 20%). The studies considered a wide range of baseline FN risk (17-97.4%) and mortality rates (5.8-8.9%). Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from US$ 2199 to US$ 8,871,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, dominant to US$ 44,358 per FN averted, and US$ 4261- US$ 7251 per life-years gained. The most influential parameters were medication and hospitalization costs, the relative risk of FN, and assumptions of mortality benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies showed that pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to filgrastim as primary and secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma at a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$ 50,000 per QALY gained. The findings could assist clinicians and healthcare decision-makers to make informed decisions regarding resource allocation for the management of chemotherapy-induced FN in settings similar to those studied.

Supportive therapies in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and appropriate use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: a Delphi consensus statement.

PURPOSE: Data indicate that the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) in routine practice is not consistent with guideline recommendations. The initiative "supportive care for febrile neutropenia prevention and appropriateness of G-CFS use" was undertaken to address the issue of inappropriate prescription of G-CSFs and to improve guideline adherence in the treatment of FN. METHODS: In a two-round Delphi procedure, 36 medical oncologists reviewed clinically relevant recommendations on risk assessment, the appropriate use of G-CSFs, and the prevention of FN based on available literature and individual clinical expertise. RESULTS: The consensus was reached on 16 out of 38 recommendations, which are backed by evidence from randomised clinical trials and routine clinical practice. The medical oncologists agreed that the severity of neutropenia depends on patients' characteristics and chemotherapy intensity, and therefore, the risk of severe neutropenia or FN should be assessed at each chemotherapy cycle so as to initiate prophylaxis with G-CSFs if required. The use of biosimilar G-CSFs, with similar efficacy and safety profiles to the originator biologic, has improved the availability and sustainability of cancer care. The timing of supportive therapy is crucial; for example, long-acting G-CSF should be administered 24-72 h after chemotherapy administration. Each biological agent has a recommended administration dose and duration, and it is important to follow these recommendations to avoid complications associated with under-prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: It is hoped that these statements will help to increase adherence to guideline recommendations for appropriate G-CSF use and improve patient care.

The Prognostic Utility of Lymphocyte-Based Measures and Ratios in Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia Patients following Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Therapy.

Background and Objectives: Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is the most widespread oncologic emergency with high morbidity and mortality rates. Herein we present a retrospective risk factor identification study to evaluate the prognostic role of lymphocyte-based measures and ratios in a cohort of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia patients following granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) therapy. Materials and Methods: The electronic medical records at our center were utilized to identify patients with a first attack of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and were treated accordingly with G-CSF between January 2010 to December 2020. Patients' demographics and disease characteristics along with laboratory tests data were extracted. Prognosis-related indicators were the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) at admission and the following 6 days besides the length of stay and mortality rate. Results: A total of 80 patients were enrolled, which were divided according to the absolute lymphocyte count at admission into two groups, the first includes lymphopenia patients (n = 55) and the other is the non-lymphopenia group (n = 25) with a cutoff point of 700 lymphocytes/µL. Demographics and baseline characteristics were generally insignificant among the two groups but the white blood cell count was higher in the non-lymphopenia group. ANC, neutrophils percentage and ANC difference in reference to admission among the two study groups were totally insignificant. The same insignificant pattern was observed in the length of stay and the mortality rate. Univariate analysis utilizing the ANC difference compared to the admission day as the dependent variable, revealed no predictability role in the first three days of follow up for any of the variables included. However, during the fourth day of follow up, both WBC (OR = 0.261; 95% CI: 0.075, 0.908; p = 0.035) and lymphocyte percentage (OR = 1.074; 95% CI: 1.012, 1.141; p = 0.019) were marginally significant, in which increasing WBC was associated with a reduction in the likelihood of ANC count increase, compared to the lymphocyte percentage which exhibited an increase in the likelihood. In comparison, sequential ANC difference models demonstrated lymphocyte percentage (OR = 0.961; 95% CI: 0.932, 0.991; p = 0.011) and monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (OR = 7.436; 95% CI: 1.024, 54.020; p = 0.047) reduction and increment in the enhancement of ANC levels, respectively. The fifth day had WBC (OR = 0.790; 95% CI: 0.675, 0.925; p = 0.003) to be significantly decreasing the likelihood of ANC increment. Conclusions: we were unable to determine any concrete prognostic role of lymphocyte-related measures and ratios. It is plausible that several limitations could have influenced the results obtained, but as far as our analysis is concerned ALC role as a predictive factor for ANC changes remains questionable.