Impact of treatment experience on patient knowledge of colony-stimulating factors among patients receiving cancer chemotherapy: evidence from S1415CD-a large pragmatic trial.

PURPOSE: Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed alongside chemotherapy regimens that carry a significant risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). As part of S1415CD, a prospective, pragmatic trial evaluating the impact of automated orders to improve PP-CSF prescribing, we evaluated patients' baseline knowledge of PP-CSF and whether that knowledge improved following the first cycle of chemotherapy. METHODS: Adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer initiating chemotherapy were enrolled in S1415CD between January 2016 and April 2020. Eight questions assessing knowledge of CSF indications, risks, benefits, and out-of-pocket costs were included in a baseline survey and in a follow-up survey at the end of the first cycle of chemotherapy. Responses were stratified by the trial arm and whether chemotherapy was low, intermediate, or high FN risk. RESULTS: Of the 3605 eligible patients, 3580 (99.3%) completed the baseline survey, and 3420 (95.5%) completed the follow-up survey. At baseline, 803 (22.4%) patients responded "Don't know" to all 8 questions, and all patients averaged 2.75 correct questions. At follow-up, knowledge increased by 0.34 in the high-FN-risk group (p < 0.001) but declined for the other FN-risk groups. In multivariate analysis, receiving a high-FN-risk regimen and younger age were significantly associated with knowledge improvement. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy patients had poor knowledge of PP-CSF that improved only modestly among recipients of high-FN-risk chemotherapy. Further efforts to inform patients about the risks, benefits, and costs of PP-CSF may be warranted, particularly for those in whom prophylaxis is indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02728596, April 6, 2016.

A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Standing Order Entry Intervention for Colony-Stimulating Factor Use Among Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia.

PURPOSE: Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed to reduce febrile neutropenia (FN) but their benefit for intermediate FN risk regimens is uncertain. Within a pragmatic, randomized trial of a standing order entry (SOE) PP-CSF intervention, we conducted a substudy to evaluate the effectiveness of SOE for patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens. METHODS: TrACER was a cluster randomized trial where practices were randomized to usual care or a guideline-based SOE intervention. In the primary study, sites were randomized 3:1 to SOE of automated PP-CSF orders for high FN risk regimens and alerts against PP-CSF use for low-risk regimens versus usual care. A secondary 1:1 randomization assigned 24 intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for intermediate-risk regimens. Clinicians were allowed to over-ride the SOE. Patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled. Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used to test differences between randomized sites. RESULTS: Between January 2016 and April 2020, 846 eligible patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens were registered to either SOE to prescribe (12 sites: n = 542) or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF (12 sites: n = 304). Rates of PP-CSF use were higher among sites randomized to SOE (37.1% v 9.9%, odds ratio, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.77 to 19.70; P = .0038). Rates of FN were low and identical between arms (3.7% v 3.7%). CONCLUSION: Although implementation of a SOE intervention for PP-CSF significantly increased PP-CSF use among patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens, FN rates were low and did not differ between arms. Although this guideline-informed SOE influenced prescribing, the results suggest that neither SOE nor PP-CSF provides sufficient benefit to justify their use for all patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens.

Effects of a Guideline-Informed Clinical Decision Support System Intervention to Improve Colony-Stimulating Factor Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Colony-stimulating factors are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. Research suggests that 55% to 95% of colony-stimulating factor prescribing is inconsistent with national guidelines. Objective: To examine whether a guideline-based standing order for primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors improves use and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial, the Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER), involved 32 community oncology clinics in the US. Participants were adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy and enrolled between January 2016 and April 2020. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2021. Interventions: Sites were randomized 3:1 to implementation of a guideline-based primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor standing order system or usual care. Automated orders were added for high-risk regimens, and an alert not to prescribe was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was to find an increase in colony-stimulating factor use among high-risk patients from 40% to 75%, a reduction in use among low-risk patients from 17% to 7%, and a 50% reduction in febrile neutropenia rates in the intervention group. Mixed model logistic regression adjusted for correlation of outcomes within a clinic. Results: A total of 2946 patients (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [50.0-67.0] years; 2233 women [77.0%]; 2292 White [79.1%]) were enrolled; 2287 were randomized to the intervention, and 659 were randomized to usual care. Colony-stimulating factor use for patients receiving high-risk regimens was high and not significantly different between groups (847 of 950 patients [89.2%] in the intervention group vs 296 of 309 patients [95.8%] in the usual care group). Among high-risk patients, febrile neutropenia rates for the intervention (58 of 947 patients [6.1%]) and usual care (13 of 308 patients [4.2%]) groups were not significantly different. The febrile neutropenia rate for patients receiving high-risk regimens not receiving colony-stimulating factors was 14.9% (17 of 114 patients). Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, colony-stimulating factor use was low and did not differ between groups (29 of 457 patients [6.3%] in the intervention group vs 7 of 128 patients [5.5%] in the usual care group). Febrile neutropenia rates did not differ between usual care (1 of 127 patients [0.8%]) and the intervention (7 of 452 patients [1.5%]) groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, implementation of a guideline-informed standing order did not affect colony-stimulating factor use or febrile neutropenia rates in high-risk and low-risk patients. Overall, use was generally appropriate for the level of risk. Standing order interventions do not appear to be necessary or effective in the setting of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor prescribing. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02728596.

Multicenter Randomized Open-Label Phase II Clinical Study Comparing Outcomes of NK105 and Paclitaxel in Advanced or Recurrent Breast Cancer.

Background: NK105 is a paclitaxel (PTX)-incorporating "core-shell-type" polymeric micellar nanoparticle formulation composed of block copolymers (polyethylene glycol and a polyamino acid). The efficacy and safety of NK105 and paclitaxel in advanced or recurrent breast cancer have never been compared at equivalent dose levels. Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to either NK105 or PTX in a 1:1 ratio. The study drug was administered on Day 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with 80 mg/m2. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events. Results: A total of 123 patients (NK105, n=62; PTX, n=61) received one of the two drugs. There was no significant difference in ORR, the median PFS, or OS (NK105 group: 41.9%, 9.1, and 27.5 months, respectively; PTX group: 45.9%, 7.8, and 32.4 months, respectively). Neutropenia occurred more frequently in the NK105 group, but most patients did not require granulocyte-colony stimulating factor or dose-reduction. The median time to onset of peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN) in the NK105 group was significantly longer than that in the PTX group (p=0.001), and PSN (≥ grade 3) was not observed in the NK105 group. Conclusion: Weekly NK105 administration was well-tolerated. Efficacy was similar in both groups. The PSN profile was better in the NK105 group.

Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy With Docetaxel, Cisplatin, and 5-Fluorouracil (DCF-RT) for Patients With Potentially Resectable Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: We evaluated the long-term outcome of docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil as combination chemoradiotherapy (DCF-RT) for patients with potentially resectable esophageal cancer (EC) in clinical settings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with potentially resectable thoracic EC were included in this study. Chemotherapy consisted of intravenous docetaxel at 50 mg/m2 (day 1), CDDP at 60 mg/m2 (day 1), and 5-FU at 600 mg/m2 (days 1 to 4), repeated every four weeks for two cycles along with radiotherapy (60 Gy in 30 fractions). Potentially resectable esophageal cancer was defined as clinical stage (cStage) I, II, III, and IV with supraclavicular lymph node metastasis [M1(Lym)]. RESULTS: The overall complete response (CR) rate was 88.5%. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates for cStage I, cStage II-III, and IV [M1(lym)] patients were 79.5%, 76.2%, and 50.0%, respectively. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 acute toxicities were leucopenia (85.7%), neutropenia (78.5%), and febrile neutropenia (FN) (21.4%). The rate of any grade 3 or 4 late toxicity was 7.7%. CONCLUSION: DCF-RT demonstrated a satisfactory CR rate and OS with a higher rate of FN for potentially resectable thoracic EC patients. Prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor and antibiotics may be appropriate supportive care for patients undergoing DCF-RT.

Recurrent Cytomegalovirus Infection Controlled by the Introduction of Everolimus in a Simultaneous Pancreas-Kidney Transplantation Recipient: A Case Report.

In simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPK) recipients, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is a major complication that has been associated with the use of tacrolimus (TAC)-based immunosuppression. As one of the immunosuppressive drug options, the use of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi) results in reduced rates of CMV infection in the field of solid organ transplantation. However, little is known about mTORi usage in pancreas transplantation. We report a case of recurrent CMV infection that was controlled by the introduction of mTORi (everolimus) in addition to a TAC-based immunosuppression regimen in SPK. A 52-year-old man underwent SPK. Graft duodenal perforation occurred on the 13th day of surgery, and graft duodenal resection was performed after long-term abscess drainage treatment. After graft duodenal resection, he was diagnosed with CMV viremia, and valganciclovir was started. However, because of recurrent febrile neutropenia caused by cytopenia as a side effect of valganciclovir, there was a repeated need for granulocyte-colony stimulating factor treatment. Immunosuppressive drug taper adjustment was attempted to control recurrent CMV viremia, and everolimus was introduced with the aim of reducing the dose of TAC and mycophenolate mofetil. This resulted in a continuously negative CMV antigenemia test and a stable general condition. Understanding the characteristics of various immunosuppressive agents and appropriately controlling and managing infectious diseases is crucial for the good postoperative management of patients with SPK.

Inhibition of colony stimulating factor-1 receptor (CSF-1R) as a potential therapeutic strategy for neurodegenerative diseases: opportunities and challenges.

Microglia are specialized dynamic immune cells in the central nervous system (CNS) that plays a crucial role in brain homeostasis and in disease states. Persistent neuroinflammation is considered a hallmark of many neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), Huntington's disease (HD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS). Colony stimulating factor 1-receptor (CSF-1R) is predominantly expressed on microglia and its expression is significantly increased in neurodegenerative diseases. Cumulative findings have indicated that CSF-1R inhibitors can have beneficial effects in preclinical neurodegenerative disease models. Research using CSF-1R inhibitors has now been extended into non-human primates and humans. This review article summarizes the most recent advances using CSF-1R inhibitors in different neurodegenerative conditions including AD, PD, HD, ALS and MS. Potential challenges for translating these findings into clinical practice are presented.

Study protocol of Phase 2 open-label multicenter randomized controlled trial for granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (GCSF) in post-Kasai Type 3 biliary atresia.

Animal studies support RCT findings of improved liver function and short-term benefits using repurposed Granulocyte Colonic Stimulating Factor GCSF in adults with decompensated cirrhosis. We describe the protocol for phase 2 RCT of sequential Kasai-GCSF under an FDA-approved IND to test that GCSF improves early bile flow and post-Kasai biliary atresia BA clinical outcome. Immediate post-Kasai neonates, age 15-180 days, with biopsy-confirmed type 3 BA, without access to early liver transplantation, will be randomized 1:1 to standard of care SOC + GCSF at 10 ug/kg in 3 daily doses within 4 days of Kasai vs SOC + NO-GCSF (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0437391). They will be recruited from children's hospitals in Vietnam, Pakistan and one US center. The primary objective is to demonstrate that GCSF decreases the proportion of subjects with a 3-month post-Kasai serum Total Bilirubin ≥ 34 umol/L by 20%, (for a = 0.05, b = 0.80, i.e., calculated sample size of 218 subjects). The secondary objectives are to demonstrate that the frequency of post-Kasai cholangitis at 6-month and 24-month transplant-free survival are improved. The benefits are that GCSF is an affordable BA adjunct therapy, especially in developing countries, to improve biliary complications, enhance quality of liver and survival while diminishing costly liver transplantation.Clinical trial registration: A phase 1 for GCSF dose and safety determination under ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03395028 was completed in 2019. The current Phase 2 trial was registered under NCT04373941.

Use of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: A multicenter real-world experience.

INTRODUCTION: The metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma clinical trial (MPACT) trial established gemcitabine (gem) and nab-paclitaxel (nab) as a standard treatment for pancreatic cancer utilizing granulocyte colony-stimulating factors to manage neutropenia. This was a challenge for jurisdictions that do not use granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in palliative settings. We developed dosage guidelines to dose modify gem and nab without granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. We undertook a retrospective review to determine the efficacy and safety of these dose adjustment guidelines in the real world. METHODS: A multi-centered, retrospective chart review was performed on pancreatic patients between December 1, 2014, and August 21, 2018. Provincial electronic medical health records were reviewed. Using Log-rank statistics we determined the patient's progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: Of 248 patients, 209 met patient selection criteria. Patients were excluded if they were lost to follow-up, on gem alone prior to nab/gem combination therapy or did not receive nab or gem. Patients who received nab/gem as first-line therapy had a median progression-free survival of 6.3 months (95% CI, 5.1-7.4), and median overall survival of 11.1 months (95% CI, 9.5-12.8). Those who received gem/nab in the second line had a median progression-free survival of 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.8-6.5), and median overall survival of 19.3 months (95% CI, 12.6-26.0). CONCLUSIONS: The patient's progression-free survival and overall survival taking nab/gem using our dose modification algorithm were equivalent or superior to the MPACT trial's progression-free survival and overall survival. Gem/nab can be given by our dose modification scheme without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

Intravitreal Injection Of The Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor For The Treatment Of Non-Arteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy: A Pilot Study.

Purpose To investigate the efficacy of intravitreal injection of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for the treatment of non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION).Methods: Patients with acute NAION were enrolled in this prospective interventional case series. They received an intravitreal injection of 60 micrograms in 0.1 ml of G-CSF within 2 weeks of the onset of the disease. Visual acuity, visual field, intraocular pressure (IOP), corneal endothelial cell density, and peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness were recorded before injections and 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and one year after the injections. Full-field electroretinography (ERG) was obtained at the baseline, 1 month, and 12 months post- injections.Results: Fourteen eyes of 14 patients entered the study. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) significantly improved in the first month following injections (p = .007), decreased subsequently, and the final BCVA showed no significant improvement (p = .278) compared to the baseline measurements. A significant decrease in RNFL thickness was observed in all quadrants compared to the baseline measurements. Also, no improvement in the visual field parameters was observed. From the toxicity aspect, no significant changes in the corneal endothelial cell density, IOP, and ERG recordings were observed.Conclusion: Intravitreal injection of G-CSF seems to be safe. The effect may last for one month and then decline.

The Protective and Reparative Role of Colony-Stimulating Factors in the Brain with Cerebral Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury.

Stroke is a debilitating disease and has the ability to culminate in devastating clinical outcomes. Ischemic stroke followed by reperfusion entrains cerebral ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury, which is a complex pathological process and is associated with serious clinical manifestations. Therefore, the development of a robust and effective poststroke therapy is crucial. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) and erythropoietin (EPO), originally discovered as hematopoietic growth factors, are versatile and have transcended beyond their traditional role of orchestrating the proliferation, differentiation, and survival of hematopoietic progenitors to one that fosters brain protection/neuroregeneration. The clinical indication regarding GCSF and EPO as an auspicious therapeutic strategy is conferred in a plethora of illnesses, including anemia and neutropenia. EPO and GCSF alleviate cerebral I/R injury through a multitude of mechanisms, involving antiapoptotic, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, neurogenic, and angiogenic effects. Despite bolstering evidence from preclinical studies, the multiple brain protective modalities of GCSF and EPO failed to translate in clinical trials and thereby raises several questions. The present review comprehensively compiles and discusses key findings from in vitro, in vivo, and clinical data pertaining to the administration of EPO, GCSF, and other drugs, which alter levels of colony-stimulating factor (CSF) in the brain following cerebral I/R injury, and elaborates on the contributing factors, which led to the lost in translation of CSFs from bench to bedside. Any controversial findings are discussed to enable a clear overview of the role of EPO and GCSF as robust and effective candidates for poststroke therapy.

Trends in use of primary prophylactic colony stimulating factors and neutropenia-related hospitalization in commercially insured patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in the United States: 2005-2017.

PURPOSE: Describe temporal changes in use of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor, and neutropenia-related hospitalization, in commercially insured patients. METHODS: Using a large commercial administrative database, we identified annual cohorts of adult patients diagnosed with breast or lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma and initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy during 2005-2017. We described yearly changes in proportions of myelosuppressive chemotherapy by febrile neutropenia risk category (high, intermediate, unclassified) and proportion of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor use and unadjusted incidence of neutropenia-related hospitalization in the first cycle of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. RESULTS: Annual cohorts included 4383-5888 eligible patients during 2005-2017. The proportion of eligible patients aged ≥ 65 years increased from 26.0% in 2005 to 58.2% in 2017. Myelosuppressive chemotherapy use with regimens with high risk for febrile neutropenia increased from 15.1% in 2005 to 31.0% in 2017; and regimens with intermediate risk for febrile neutropenia decreased from 63.7% to 48.1% in 2017. Prophylactic colony-stimulating factor use increased from 41.6% in 2005 to 54.3% in 2017. Crude incidence of neutropenia-related hospitalization for all cancers increased from 2.0% to 3.1%, with a substantial increase in neutropenia-related hospitalization observed among non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients (2.8% to 8.5%) during 2005-2017. CONCLUSION: Among adult patients with breast and lung cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, use of regimens with high risk for febrile neutropenia increased, as did the use of prophylactic colony-stimulating factors after 2005. Incidence of neutropenia-related hospitalization increased slightly, particularly among non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Further studies are required to understand this increasing trend of neutropenia-related hospitalization, changing patient-level risk factors, and febrile neutropenia management.

Should we screen patients with hematologic malignancies for COVID-19?

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has posed several challenges to the hematology community to re-organize the medical care of patients with hematologic malignancies. Whereas the oncology societies favored a more or less conservative approach which considered the possibility of delaying treatment administration on a case-by-case basis, the hematology community guidelines were less stringent and recommended adequate individualized regimens. As countries are de-escalating the lockdown and the medical community is unable to foresee the end of the current outbreak will and whether the pandemic would eventually come back as a seasonal infection, there is interest in screening of patients with hematology malignancies with COVID-19 instead of limiting access to curative treatments. The rapidly accumulating knowledge about COVID-19 allows a better understanding of the diagnostic tools that may be potentially used in screening. Herein, we briefly review the pathophysiology of COVID-19, the rationale of screening of patients with hematologic malignancies, tools for screening, and available guidelines.

Prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with colony-stimulating factors: the first 25 years.

Filgrastim prophylaxis, both primary and secondary, was rapidly incorporated into clinical practice in the 1990s. When pegfilgrastim became available in 2002, it quickly replaced filgrastim as the colony-stimulating factor (CSF) of choice for prophylaxis. Use of prophylaxis increased markedly in the first decade of this century and has stabilized during the present decade. Data concerning real-world CSF prophylactic practice patterns are limited but suggest that both primary and secondary prophylaxis are common, and that use is frequently inappropriate according to guidelines. The extent of inappropriate use is controversial, as are issues concerning the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis and the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis. Nevertheless, CSF prophylaxis is firmly established as a valuable adjunct to chemotherapy and will almost certainly continue to be widely used for the foreseeable future. In this article, we chronicle the use and impact of CSF prophylaxis in US patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for non-myeloid malignancies. We emphasize the interplay of expert opinion, clinical evidence, and economic factors in shaping the use of CSFs in clinical practice over time, and, with the recent introduction of new CSF agents and options, we aim to provide useful clinical and economic information for healthcare decision makers.

New Biosimilar Approvals for Myeloid Growth Factors and Anemia.

Biosimilars are here to stay, but whether they will enjoy widespread uptake remains to be seen. The FDA sets a high bar for approval of biosimilar products, yet many clinicians remain skeptical about the efficacy and safety of these agents. Favorable experience with >30 biosimilars in Europe provides some reassurance that these agents are safe and effective and can be substituted for the reference product.

Use of colony-stimulating factor primary prophylaxis and incidence of febrile neutropenia from 2010 to 2016: a longitudinal assessment.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend primary prophylactic use of colony-stimulating factor (PP-CSF) when risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) - based on chemotherapy and patient risk factors - is high. Whether and how PP-CSF use may have changed over time (e.g. due to guideline revisions, increasing use of myelosuppressive regimens, controversy regarding inappropriate CSF use), and whether there has been a concomitant change in the incidence of FN, is unknown. METHODS: A retrospective cohort design and data from two US healthcare claims repositories were employed. The study population included patients who had non-metastatic cancer of the breast, colon/rectum, lung or ovaries, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), and who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens with an intermediate/high risk for FN. For each patient, the first cycle of the first course was characterized in terms of PP-CSF use and FN episodes. Crude incidence proportions for PP-CSF and FN during the first cycle were estimated by calendar quarter (2010-2016); multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate quarter-specific adjusted mean probabilities of FN by PP-CSF use. RESULTS: The study population totaled 142,730 patients with breast cancer (61%), colorectal cancer (14%), NHL (11%), ovarian cancer (10%) or lung cancer (5%). PP-CSF use increased from 52% in 1Q2010 to 58% in 4Q2016; pegfilgrastim was the most commonly used agent (>96% across quarters). PP-CSF administration on the same day as chemotherapy ranged from 8 to 11% until 1Q2015, and increased to 64% by 4Q2016. Adjusted incidence proportions for FN in the first chemotherapy cycle ranged from 2.7% (95% CI: 2.3-3.0) to 3.7% (95% CI: 3.1-4.3) among those who did not receive PP-CSF, and was 2.6% (95% CI: 2.5-2.7) across quarters among those who received PP-CSF. CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of PP-CSF is commonplace in current US clinical practice, underutilization in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy regimens with an intermediate/high risk for FN may still be an issue. Use of same-day PP-CSF increased markedly from the end of 2015, although this finding reflects (at least in part) increased uptake of pegfilgrastim delivered via an on-body injector as well as the recent change in clinical practice guidelines. Overall, patients receiving PP-CSF appear to have a lower risk of FN during the first cycle of chemotherapy.

Agranulocitosis en paciente en tratamiento con oxcarbacepina que, tras su retirada, se evidenció recuperación de neutrófilos / Agranulocytosis in a patient in oxcarbazepine treatment, after its withdrawal, neutrophils returned to a normal levels

No disponible

Real-World Impact of a Decision Support Tool on Colony-Stimulating Factor Use and Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia Among Patients With Breast Cancer.

Background: White blood cell colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) decrease the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN). Widespread use of CSFs that is not guideline-concordant has been reported. Among patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy, the ability of evidence-based decision support tools to promote risk-appropriate reductions in CSF use without increased incidence of FN has not been examined. Methods: A retrospective cohort design and US commercial claims data were used. The impact of CSF decision support was analyzed among women with breast cancer receiving first-cycle chemotherapy from April 1, 2013, to March 30, 2015. The tool was implemented as part of a prior authorization process in 9 states starting July 1, 2014. Patients were assigned to intervention (ie, states where the decision support tool had been implemented) or nonintervention states (ie, 39 states where the tool had not been implemented). CSF use and subsequent incidence of FN were compared using difference-in-difference (DID) regressions adjusting for baseline differences in FN risk factors such as comorbidities and various infections. Results: The study sample of 7,224 patients (intervention states: pre-implementation, 1,991 and post-implementation, 2,010; nonintervention states: pre-implementation, 1,569 and post-implementation, 1,654) showed no significant difference in risk factors. Before and after implementation, a significant decrease in the proportion of patients with CSF use was observed in the intervention states (75% to 69%) compared with no significant change in the nonintervention (72% to 71%) states (DID, -5.4%; 95% CI, -6.0% to -4.7%; P=.006). No significance increase in FN incidence occurred in intervention (5.0% to 5.5%) and nonintervention (5.4% to 4.8%) states (DID, 0.2%; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.30; P=.78). Similar results were obtained in subgroups by comorbidities and in sensitivity analyses by claims-based FN definitions. Conclusions: CSF use decreased modestly after implementation of the decision support tool, with no observed changes in FN rates. Such tools can reduce practice variation to improve care standards.

SEIFEM 2017: from real life to an agreement on the use of granulocyte transfusions and colony-stimulating factors for prophylaxis and treatment of infectious complications in patients with hematologic malignant disorders.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid spread of severe infections mainly due to resistant pathogens, justifies the search for therapies aiming to restore immune functions severely compromised in patients with hematologic malignancies. Areas covered: The present review summarizes the current knowledge on the role of granulocyte transfusions and colony-stimulating factors as treatment strategy for hematologic patients with serious infectious complications. In addition, a survey among 21 hematologic centers, to evaluate the clinical practice for the use of G-CSF originator and biosimilars was performed. Expert commentary: Granulocyte transfusions with a target dose of at least 1.5-3 × 108 cells/kg, may be considered as an approach to bridge the gap between marrow suppression and recovery of granulocytes. G-CSF shortens the period of neutropenia, the hospitalization, the use of antibiotics and the rate of febrile neutropenia (FN) in adult and pediatric patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and in adults with acute myeloid leukemia where these advantages nevertheless, did not translate into a clinical benefit. G-CSF biosimilar showed equivalence or non-inferiority to filgrastim. There are no data supporting the use of GM-CSF, eltrombopag and erythropoietin for preventing or treating infectious complications in patients with hematologic disorders.

A stakeholder-informed randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness study of an order prescribing intervention to improve colony stimulating factor use for cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy: the TrACER study.

Colony stimulating factors (CSF) are widely prescribed to avoid febrile neutropenia (FN) among cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, but studies show their use is often not consistent with practice guidelines. In addition, there is limited high quality evidence assessing benefits and harms of primary prophylactic-CSF (PP-CSF) in the setting of chemotherapy that poses an intermediate risk of FN. To address these issues, with funding from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program, SWOG is sponsoring a prospective, cluster randomized controlled pragmatic trial of an automated order entry protocol for PP-CSF among patients with breast, lung and colorectal cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, with a nested randomized controlled trial of PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate risk chemotherapy. Primary outcomes include adherence to practice guidelines, overall rates of FN and rates of FN among persons receiving intermediate risk chemotherapy. The study, the first pragmatic trial in the National Cancer Institute's cancer cooperative clinical trials network, will provide critical evidence to inform physician and patient decision-making around PP-CSF use and practice policies regarding automated orders in cancer components.