[Bisphosphonate and denosumab-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: Epidemiology, diagnosis and management]. / Ostéonécrose des maxillaires liée aux bisphosphonates et denosumab : épidémiologie, diagnostic et traitement.

Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw have been widely described. Denosumab has recently been associated to ONJ. Guidance to clinicians is based on criteria established by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS). Treatment should be multidisciplinary. Two options are available and have to be discussed on the basis of associated therapeutic, patient's general state of health and possibility of therapeutic window during cancer treatment: conservative (medication and conservative surgery like superficial debridement) and extensive surgery. Therefore, we report an update about management strategies of osteonecrosis of the jaw and two cases of patients with a stage 2 osteonecrosis of the jaw only treated with mouth rinses, antibiotics and debridement and complete healing.

Cost effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with lymphoma and myeloma: an economic evaluation of the PALM Trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of the recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) filgrastim accelerates neutrophil recovery following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Since filgrastim requires multiple daily administrations, forms of rhG-CSF with a longer half life, including pegfilgrastim, have been developed. Pegfilgrastim is safe and effective in supporting neutrophil recovery and reducing febrile neutropenia after conventional chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim has also been successfully used to support patients undergoing peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation for haematological malignancies. To our knowledge, no cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of pegfilgrastim in this setting has been published yet. OBJECTIVE: We undertook a CEA to compare a single injection of pegfilgrastim versus repeated administrations of filgrastim in patients who had undergone PBSC transplantation for lymphoma or myeloma. The CEA was set in France and covered a period of 100 ± 10 days from transplant. METHODS: The CEA was designed as part of an open-label, multicentre, randomized phase II trial. Costs were assessed from the hospital's point of view and are expressed in 2009 euros. Costs computation focused on inpatient, outpatient, and home care. Costs in the two arms of the study were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. When differences were statistically significant, multiple regression analyses were performed in order to identify cost drivers. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for the major endpoints of the trial; i.e., duration of febrile neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] <0.5 × 10(9)/L and temperature ≥38 °C), duration of neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L and ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L), duration of thrombopenia (platelets <50 × 10(9)/L and <20 × 10(9)/L), and days with a temperature ≥38 °C). Uncertainty around the ICER was captured by a probabilistic analysis using a non-parametric bootstrap method. RESULTS: 151 patients were enrolled at ten French centres from October 2008 to September 2009. The mean total cost in the pegfilgrastim arm of the study (n = 74) was 25,024 (SD 9,945). That in the filgrastim arm (n = 76) was 28,700 (SD 20,597). Pegfilgrastim strictly dominated filgrastim for days of febrile neutropenia avoided, days of neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L) avoided, days of thrombopenia (platelets <20 × 10(9)/L) avoided, and days with temperature ≥38 °C) avoided. Pegfilgrastim was less costly and less effective than filgrastim for the number of days with ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L avoided and the number of days with platelets <50.0 × 10(9)/L avoided. Taking uncertainty into account, the probabilities that pegfilgrastim strictly dominated filgrastim were 67 % for febrile neutropenia, 86 % for neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L), 59 % for thrombopenia (platelets <20 × 10(9)/L), 86 % for temperature ≥38 °C, 32 % for neutropenia (ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L), and 43 % for thrombopenia (platelets <50 × 10(9)/L). Conversely, the probability that filgrastim strictly dominated pegfilgrastim for neutropenia (ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L) is 5 %. CONCLUSION: This study found no evidence that the use of pegfilgrastim is associated with greater cost in lymphoma and myeloma patients after high-dose chemotherapy and PBSC transplantation.

[Hematopoietic growth factors and autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation]. / Utilisation des facteurs de croissance hématopoïétiques et transplantation de cellules souches d'origine autologue ou allogénique.

Hematopoietic growth factors are usually administered in autologous and allogeneic stem cell transplantation. RhuG-CSF and rhuEPO are the most frequently used, either for mobilization of peripheral stem cells or after transplantation for the improvement of hematologic recovery. G-CSF (filgrastim or lenograstim) can be administered alone or in combination with stem cell factor to enhance stem cells mobilization. IL-3 and sargramostim are not used anymore. The protocol of administration of rhuG-CSF is well established. Furthermore, stem cell transplantation with peripheral cells is less expensive than with bone marrow. RhuEPO (erythropoietin) is not effective in mobilization. After transplantation, filgrastim or lenograstim can shorten the neutropenic period and decrease infectious complications. The potential effect of these growth factors on the incidence and the severity of GvHD is still unknown and under debate. The use of rhuEPO after transplantation might be of interest to reduce the need of red blood cell transfusion. Some studies suggest that the administration of rhuEPO should start before delivering the conditioning regimen. The new long acting growth factors such as pegfilgrastim are still under evaluation and their use in mobilization seems promising.