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.

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.

Real-world evaluation of supportive care using an electronic health record text-mining tool: G-CSF use in breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is a life-threatening and chemotherapy dose-limiting adverse event. FN can be prevented with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs). Guidelines recommend primary G-CSF use for patients receiving either high (> 20%) FN risk (HR) chemotherapy, or intermediate (10-20%) FN risk (IR) chemotherapy if the overall risk with additional patient-related risk factors exceeds 20%. In this study, we applied an EHR text-mining tool for real-world G-CSF treatment evaluation in breast cancer patients. METHODS: Breast cancer patients receiving IR or HR chemotherapy treatments between January 2015 and February 2021 at LUMC, the Netherlands, were included. We retrospectively collected data from EHR with a text-mining tool and assessed G-CSF use, risk factors, and the FN and neutropenia (grades 3-4) and incidence. RESULTS: A total of 190 female patients were included, who received 77 HR and 113 IR treatments. In 88.3% of the HR regimens, G-CSF was administered; 7.3% of these patients developed FN vs. 33.3% without G-CSF. Although most IR regimen patients had ≥ 2 risk factors, only 4% received G-CSF, of which none developed neutropenia. However, without G-CSF, 11.9% developed FN and 31.2% severe neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: Our text-mining study shows high G-CSF use among HR regimen patients, and low use among IR regimen patients, although most had ≥ 2 risk factors. Therefore, current practice is not completely in accordance with the guidelines. This shows the need for increased awareness and clarity regarding risk factors. Also, text-mining can effectively be implemented for the evaluation of patient care.

Evaluating the safety and effectiveness of PegaGen® (pegfilgrastim) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a post-marketing surveillance study.

PURPOSE: Phase IV clinical trials are required to evaluate the real-world safety and effectiveness of drugs. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of once-per-cycle administration of PegaGen® (pegfilgrastim, CinnaGen, Iran) in cancer patients. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, prospective, real-world, post-marketing surveillance study, patients with any type of cancer receiving chemotherapy regimens with a high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) were included if they were prescribed pegfilgrastim for FN prophylaxis. The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and the secondary objective was to assess the effectiveness of pegfilgrastim in the prevention of FN in cancer patients. RESULTS: A total of 654 patients (51.73 ± 15.12 years of age) were enrolled and 3615 cycles of pegfilgrastim injections were recorded. The most common malignancies among the study patients were breast cancer (n = 192, 29.36%), lymphoma (n = 131, 20.03%), and gastric cancer (n = 65, 9.94%). The median (Q1, Q3) number of pegfilgrastim cycles per patient was 6 (4, 7). A single 6 mg dose was injected in 99.17% of the cycles. A total number of 816 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 246 patients (37.62%). Bone pain was recorded in 141 patients (21.56%) and in 440 cycles (12.17%). Among all patients, 45 patients (6.88%) experienced FN 51 times, and FN frequency was 1.4% among cycles. Moreover, 14 (2.14%) patients were hospitalized following FN. Antibiotics were administered to 24 patients (3.67%) for FN treatment. CONCLUSION: The results from this post-marketing surveillance study support the safety and effectiveness of PegaGen® used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN in patients with various types of cancer and treatment regimens. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04460079.

Retrospective evaluation of safety and effectiveness of same-day pegfilgrastim in patients with lung cancer.

Aim: To determine the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) and related outcomes after same-day pegfilgrastim in lung cancer. Materials & methods: This single-center, retrospective study evaluated electronic health records of patients with lung cancer treated between 2013-2018. The main end points were incidence of FN and grade 3/4 neutropenia after the first and across all chemotherapy cycles. Results: A total of 114 patients received same-day pegfilgrastim in 384 cycles. The incidence of FN and grade 3/4 neutropenia was 2.3 and 25% after the first chemotherapy cycle and 1.6 and 10.4% across all cycles, respectively. Conclusion: Same-day prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients with lung cancer may be a suitable option, owing to its low incidence of FN and related outcomes.

Chemotherapy is intended to kill fast-growing cancer cells but can also kill immune cells that are needed to prevent infections. When too many immune cells are killed by chemotherapy, patients with cancer may experience febrile neutropenia, a serious condition that can lead to death in the most severe cases. To prevent this side effect of chemotherapy, a protein that helps certain immune cells to grow (pegfilgrastim) is administered on the day after chemotherapy. To avoid a second clinic visit the day after receiving chemotherapy, it has become common to administer pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy. Whether this approach is as effective and safe as next-day administration is currently unclear. This study from the University of Arizona Cancer Center showed that in patients with lung cancer who receive chemotherapy, administration of pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy is a safe, effective method to prevent febrile neutropenia.

Periodontal inflamed surface area in oral cavity associated with febrile neutropenia in patients with hematologic malignancy undergoing chemotherapy.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is an infectious complication that develops during chemotherapy. Although the oral cavity can be an important infection route, it is unknown whether the oral environment is associated with FN. The present study examined the relationship between the oral environment using periodontal inflamed surface area (PISA), a new periodontal disease parameter, and FN in hematologic cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. In this retrospective cohort study, 157 patients were divided into FN onset during chemotherapy (n = 75) and the FN negative groups (n = 82). The associations of risk factors related to the intraoral environment were assessed. Logistic regression analysis showed that types of blood cancer (odds ratio 1.98; P < 0.01), use of a high-risk regimen (odds ratio 4.44; P < 0.05), prophylaxis treatment with human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (odds ratio 4.15; P < 0.01) and PISA (odds ratio 1.02; P < 0.01) were independent factors associated with FN onset. Finally, propensity score matching was performed between two groups; 37 matched pairs were generated. PISA was significantly higher in the FN group than the FN negative group. There was a significant relationship between PISA and FN onset (P = 0.035). The present findings indicate that periodontitis treatment before starting cancer treatment is recommended as supportive care for preventing FN onset during chemotherapy.

Prophylactic pegfilgrastim to prevent febrile neutropenia among patients receiving biweekly (Q2W) chemotherapy regimens: a systematic review of efficacy, effectiveness and safety.

BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim, a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), is commonly used to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN), a potentially life-threatening complication, following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. The FDA label for pegfilgrastim specifies that it should not be administered 14 days before or within 24 h of administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, precluding the use of pegfilgrastim in biweekly (Q2W) regimens. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines support the use of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens. The objective of this study was to systematically review evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that describe the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in preventing FN among patients receiving Q2W regimens. METHODS: An Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library literature search was conducted to evaluate the evidence regarding efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim versus no prophylactic pegfilgrastim or prophylaxis with other G-CSF in patients who were receiving Q2W chemotherapy regimens with high (> 20%) or intermediate (10-20%) risk of FN for a non-myeloid malignancy. Studies that addressed absolute or relative risk of FN, grade 1-4 neutropenia, all-cause or any hospitalization, dose delays or dose reductions, adverse events, or mortality were included. Studies where the comparator was a Q3W chemotherapy regimen with primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim were also included. RESULTS: The initial literature search identified 2258 publications. Thirteen publications met the eligibility criteria, including eight retrospective, one prospective, one phase 1 dose escalation study, and three RCTs. In nine of the 13 studies reporting incidence of FN, and in seven of the nine studies reporting incidence of neutropenia, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens resulted in decreased or comparable rates of FN or neutropenia compared with patients receiving filgrastim, no G-CSF, lipefilgrastim or pegfilgrastim in Q3W regimens. In six of the nine studies reporting safety data, lower or comparable safety profiles were observed between pegfilgrastim and comparators. CONCLUSIONS: In a variety of non-myeloid malignancies, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim was efficacious in reducing the risk of FN in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk Q2W regimens, with an acceptable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no: CRD42019155572 .

Economic Analysis on Adoption of Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors in Patients With Nonmyeloid Cancer at Risk of Febrile Neutropenia Within the Oncology Care Model Framework.

PURPOSE: Value-based programs, such as the Oncology Care Model (OCM), seek to improve care for patients undergoing chemotherapy, while reducing total costs. The purpose of this study is to quantify the impact of adopting biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for febrile neutropenia (FN) primary prophylaxis (PP) from a US practice perspective. METHODS: A 1-year economic analysis on real-world direct drug costs and health care resource utilization was conducted in a hypothetical cohort of 500 patients with nonmyeloid cancer receiving chemotherapy. The first model simulated total cost savings of biosimilar versus reference G-CSFs over six cycles of chemotherapy. The second model evaluated cost and outcome implications of expanding the use of biosimilar G-CSFs to an additional 10% of patients at intermediate FN risk. RESULTS: Based on real-world evidence over 1 year, a total of 121 of 500 patients received G-CSF prophylaxis resulting in cost savings that ranged from $0.54M US dollars (USD) (short-acting, eg, filgrastim) to $1.68M USD (long-acting, eg, pegfilgrastim) when switching from reference to biosimilar G-CSFs. Expanding the use of biosimilar G-CSFs allowed an additional 24 patients to receive prophylaxis of FN, leading to cost savings of $0.03M USD or $1.19M USD, with a reduction of $0.08M USD in FN-related resource utilization cost. The per-patient per-year cost saving for long-acting G-CSFs was about $3,000 USD. CONCLUSION: The implementation of biosimilar versus reference G-CSFs to OCM-participating practices results in a reduction of costs and facilitates achieving OCM metrics by improving patients' outcomes while expanding biosimilar G-CSFs access to patients at intermediate risk of chemotherapy-induced FN.

Pegteograstim prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia: a prospective, observational, postmarketing surveillance study in Korea.

PURPOSE: This observational study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of pegteograstim prophylaxis in patients with lymphoma and solid malignancies. METHODS: This study was conducted at 18 sites in Korea between November 2015 and August 2018. RESULTS: In total, 611 patients (female, 61.2%) with a median age of 58 (range, 18-88) years were included. Most patients had lymphomas (n = 371, 60.7%) and breast cancer (n = 230, 37.6%) and were administered R-CHOP21 (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone per 21 days) (n = 284, 46.5%) and AC (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) (n = 177, 29.0%). The total pegteograstim dose in the 611 patients was 14,970 mg (2495 doses), with each patient receiving an average daily dose of 6.0 mg. Neutropenia grade 4 occurred in 97 patients (15.9%), and febrile neutropenia (FN) occurred in 31 patients (5.1%). Among the 611 patients, 267 patients (43.7%) developed 882 adverse events (AEs), and 11 patients (1.8%) experienced 18 adverse drug reactions (ADRs). There were 62 patients (10.2%) who experienced 81 cases of serious adverse events (SAEs), with FN and pneumonia being the most frequent at 14 and 13 episodes, respectively, in 13 patients (2.1%). Meanwhile, 1 patient (0.2%) developed 2 episodes of serious ADRs (grade 1 and grade 2 hypotension). No safety concerns in the elderly and patients with liver and/or renal disease were identified. CONCLUSION: The prophylactic use of pegteograstim might have good overall safety and efficacy in patients with lymphomas and solid malignancies in routine clinical practice, even in those who are elderly and have liver and renal diseases.

Primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim during the first cycle of R-CHOP to avoid reduction of dose intensity in elderly patients.

The long-term effects of pegfilgrastim administered in the first cycle of chemotherapy in day-to-day practice remain unclear. We retrospectively identified 114 patients aged ≥ 70 years with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who received a rituximab-cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-vincristine-prednisolone (R-CHOP) regimen in our institution. Twenty-six patients received pegfilgrastim (pegfilgrastim group); of the 88 patients scheduled to receive conventional granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) when their neutrophil count decreased (neut-adjusted-G group), conventional G-CSF was ultimately administered to 57. During the first cycle of R-CHOP, the incidence of febrile neutropenia was lower in the pegfilgrastim group than in the neut-adjusted-G group (0% vs. 18%, p = 0.020). Throughout all cycles, a higher proportion of patients exhibited sustained relative dose intensity (≥ 80%) in the pegfilgrastim group than in the neut-adjusted-G group (25% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.008). A lower proportion of patients received a reduced dose in the second cycle in the pegfilgrastim group than in the neut-adjusted-G group (0% vs. 10%, p = 0.116). Although the differences were not significant, the pegfilgrastim group showed higher progression-free survival and overall survival than the neut-adjusted-G group. Adequate prevention of febrile neutropenia using pegfilgrastim during the first cycle of R-CHOP may contribute to avoidance of dose intensity reduction in all cycles.

Effect of lipegfilgrastim administration as prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia on dose modification and incidence of neutropenic events: real-world evidence from a non-interventional study in Belgium and Luxembourg.

Objectives: This study evaluated the effect of lipegfilgrastim, a glycopegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, used as primary (PP) or secondary prophylaxis (SP) on chemotherapy (CT) treatment modifications, as well as the incidence of CT-induced neutropenic events in adult patients receiving cytotoxic CT with or without biological therapy (BT) for solid and hematological tumors, in routine clinical practice. Other objectives were to characterize the population of lipegfilgrastim-treated cancer patients and safety assessment. Methods: This phase 4, prospective, observational study was conducted at 15 centers from Belgium and Luxembourg, between 2015 and 2017. Results: Of 139 patients, 82.7% had breast cancer and 54.7% were treated with dose-dense regimens. Most received lipegfilgrastim as PP (82.0%) and were at high-risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) (68.3%). FN and grade III/IV neutropenia were reported for 7.9% and 22.3% patients. Among 123 evaluated patients, CT/BT dose modifications were recorded for 33.3% (PP) and 52.4% (SP) of patients receiving lipegfilgrastim; dose reductions, followed by dose delays, were more frequent than omissions. Among 45 patients with dose modifications, FN was reported for 8.8% and 9.1% patients and grade IV neutropenia for 17.6% and 18.2% of patients when lipegfilgrastim was applied for PP and SP, respectively. Adverse events related to lipegfilgrastim occurred for 55 (39.6%) patients; bone pain and back pain were more frequent. Lipegfilgrastim-related serious adverse events were reported for 9 (6.5%) patients. Conclusion: Use of lipegfilgrastim in real-world settings resulted in limited CT dose modifications and low incidences of neutropenic events, with no new safety concerns arising.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) and Covid-19: a double-edged sword?

Not available.

A retrospective analysis of nadir-neutropenia directed pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on febrile neutropenia rates in (neo)adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy regimens.

BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim, a pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating-factor (GCSF), reduces chemotherapy morbidity and mortality in early stage breast cancer. The optimal approach to individual patient selection for GCSF is unknown, in particular whether secondary GCSF should be given after asymptomatic neutropenia, or only after febrile neutropenia (FN). AIMS: To determine if preplanned nadir blood counts and subsequent nadir-neutropenia directed GCSF was effective to reduce rates of FN associated with (neo)adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy. We also aimed to describe (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and GCSF prescribing practices at our institution. METHODS: This was a retrospective electronic medical record review. The rate of FN with secondary GCSF after cycle 1 nadir-neutropenia <1.0 × 109 cells/L was compared with the rate of FN in patients who did not have cycle 1 nadir blood counts or secondary GCSF, and analyzed according to patient and treatment data. RESULTS: Between 11/4/2011 and 22/4/2018, 584 patients received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Over all rates of FN were 17%, compared with 9% in patients who received primary GCSF. Rates of FN were highest in docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab (TCH, 27%) and docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC, 27%). There were 268 patients (46%) who received primary GCSF and 238 patients (41%) who received secondary GCSF. Rates of FN did not differ between patients who received nadir-neutropenia directed secondary GCSF (6/125, 5%, 95% CI 1.1-8.6), and those who did not have nadir blood counts or secondary GCSF (0/49, 0%, 95% CI not calculable) (P = .1186). GCSF use was associated with lower rates of non-FN hospital admissions. Patients ≥65 years were more likely to have FN and non-FN admissions. Two of three treatment related deaths occurred due to FN. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, nadir-neutropenia directed secondary GCSF was not associated with reduced rates of FN. Observed rates of FN >20% in TC and TCH in routine clinical practice should guide primary GCSF use in accordance with international guidelines.

Use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factors in older patients: a review of recently published data.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review presents the analysis of recently published studies about the benefit from granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) in older cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. RECENT FINDINGS: During the last years, no major study aiming to confirm the clinical benefit of G-CSF prophylaxis in older patients treated with chemotherapy has been published. Nonetheless, all the data made recently available confirm that age, especially if other comorbid conditions are present as well, is a major risk factor for febrile neutropenia occurrence and that G-CSF prophylaxis can reduce significantly that risk. SUMMARY: New modalities of administering G-CSF prophylaxis might be considered in older people in the future. Among these approaches, the 'same day' administration of prophylaxis and chemotherapy and the development of less-expensive approaches for G-CSF prophylaxis, such as the use of biosimilars are studied.

A multicentre, randomised trial comparing schedules of G-CSF (filgrastim) administration for primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in early stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of filgrastim as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in early breast cancer patients is unknown, with 5, 7 or 10 days being commonly prescribed. This trial evaluates whether 5 days of filgrastim was non-inferior to 7/10 days. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomised, open-label trial, early breast cancer patients who were to receive filgrastim as primary FN prophylaxis were randomly allocated to 5 versus 7 versus 10 days of filgrastim for all chemotherapy cycles. A protocol amendment in November 2017 allowed subsequent patients (N = 324) to be randomised to either 5 or 7/10 days. The primary outcome was a composite of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisations. Secondary outcomes included chemotherapy dose reductions, delays and discontinuations. Analyses were carried out by per protocol (primary) and intention-to-treat, and the non-inferiority margin was set at 3% for the risk of having FN and/or hospitalisation per cycle of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Patients (N = 466) were randomised to receive 5 (184, 39.5%), or 7/10 (282, 60.5%) days of filgrastim. In our primary analysis, the difference in risk of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisation per cycle was -1.52% [95% confidence interval (CI): -3.22% to 0.19%] suggesting non-inferiority of a 5-day filgrastim schedule compared with 7/10-days. The difference in events per cycle for FN was 0.11% (95% CI: -1.05 to 1.27) while for treatment-related hospitalisations it was -1.68% (95% CI: -2.73% to -0.63%). The overall proportions of patients having at least one occurrence of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisation were 11.8% and 14.96% for the 5- and 7/10-day groups, respectively (risk difference: -3.17%, 95% CI: -9.51% to 3.18%). CONCLUSION: Five days of filgrastim was non-inferior to 7/10 days. Given the cost and toxicity of this agent, 5 days should be considered standard of care. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT02428114 and NCT02816164.

Economic modeling for the US of the cost-efficiency and associated expanded treatment access of conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez from reference pegfilgrastim.

Aims: For this economic analysis, we aimed to model: (1) the cost-efficiency of prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) compared to reference pegfilgrastim, and (2) the expanded access to CIN/FN prophylaxis and anti-neoplastic treatment that could be achieved with biosimilar cost-savings on a budget-neutral basis.Methods: In a hypothetical panel of 20,000 cancer patients receiving CIN/FN prophylaxis and using the average sales price (ASP) for the second quarter of 2019 for reference pegfilgrastim, we: conducted an ex ante simulation from the payer perspective of the cost-savings of 10-100% conversion from reference to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez using drug price discounting ranging from 10-35%; estimated the budget-neutral expanded access to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez enabled by these cost-savings; and estimated the budget-neutral expanded access to anti-neoplastic treatment with pembrolizumab. The simulations were replicated using fourth quarter 2019 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for reference pegfilgrastim and biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez in a post facto analysis.Results: In ASP simulations, cost-savings of using pegfilgrastim-bmez over reference pegfilgrastim in a 20,000 patient panel range from $1.3 M (at 15% price discount) to $3 M (35%) at 10% conversion rate and from $6.4 M to $14.9 M, respectively, at 50% conversion. These savings could provide prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim-bmez to an additional 352 (15% discount) to 1,076 patients (35%) at 10% conversion or 1,764-5,384, respectively, at 50% conversion. Alternatively, savings could be reallocated for anti-neoplastic treatment with pembrolizumab to 3 (15% discount) to 9 (35%) patients at 10% conversion or 19-45, respectively, at 50% conversion. When utilizing WAC, cost-savings range from $4.6 M (10% conversion) to $23.1 M (50%) which could provide pegfilgrastim-bmez to an additional 1,174 (10% conversion) to 5,873 patients (50%).Conclusions: Prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez increases the value of cancer care by generating significant cost-savings that could be reallocated to provide expanded access to CIN/FN prevention and anti-neoplastic therapy on a budget-neutral basis.