Pegfilgrastim +/- ciprofloxacin for primary prophylaxis with TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy for breast cancer. Results from the GEPARTRIO study

Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim primary prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in the United States

BACKGROUND

Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor reduces the risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (starting in cycle 1 of chemotherapy) with pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in the United States.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from a health payer's perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model considered direct medical costs and outcomes related to reduced FN and potential survival benefits due to reduced FN-related mortality and on-time receipt of full-dose chemotherapy. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Pegfilgrastim was cost-saving and more effective (ie, dominant strategy) than 11-day filgrastim. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim was $12,904 per FN episode avoided. Adding the survival benefit due to reduced FN mortality and receipt of optimal chemotherapy dose yielded an ICER of $31,511 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and $14,415 per QALY gained, respectively. The most influential factors included inpatient FN case-fatality rate, cost of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, baseline probability of FN, relative risk for FN between filgrastim and pegfil-grastim, and cost of administration of filgrastim.

CONCLUSION

Pegfilgrastim was cost-saving compared with 11-day filgrastim and cost-effective compared with 6-day filgrastim from a health payer's perspective for the primary prophylaxis of FN in these women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Risk of hospitalization for neutropenic complications of chemotherapy in patients with primary solid tumors receiving pegfilgrastim or filgrastim prophylaxis: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

In a meta-analysis of data from randomized trials, the risk of febrile neutropenia during myelosuppressive chemotherapy was reported to be lower with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis than filgrastim prophylaxis. However, there is limited information on the comparative effectiveness of these agents in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to compare the risks of hospitalization for neutropenic complications of chemotherapy in US clinical practice in patients with primary solid tumors receiving pegfilgrastim or filgrastim prophylaxis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study employing a US health insurance database. The source population included all patients who received chemotherapy for a primary solid tumor between January 2003 and December 2005 and who received filgrastim or pegfilgrastim during their first course of chemotherapy. All unique chemotherapy cycles were identified for each patient, and cycles in which pegfilgrastim or filgrastim was administered by cycle day 5 (considered to represent prophylaxis) were selected and pooled for analysis. The risks of hospitalization for neutro-penic complications (using both narrow and broad criteria) and for any reason were then compared between cycles in which filgrastim or pegfilgrastim prophylaxis was administered. Generalized estimating equations were used to control for potential confounding variables.

RESULTS

Filgrastim prophylaxis was used in 1193 unique chemotherapy cycles (mean [SD] number of days per cycle, 4.5 [3.3]); for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, the number of unique chemotherapy cycles was 14,570. First-cycle use represented 16% of all cycles analyzed. The mean ages of patients receiving filgrastim and pegfilgrastim prophylaxis were 61 and 60 years, respectively. Breast cancer was the most common tumor type (52% and 51%), followed by non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (21% and 18%) and lung cancer (11% and 15%). Hospitalization for neutropenic complications (narrow criterion) occurred during 2.1% of filgrastim cycles and 1.2% of pegfilgrastim cycles; hospitalization for neutropenic complications (broad criterion) occurred in a respective 4.8% and 3.1% of cycles; and hospitalization for all causes occurred in 8.7% and 6.3% of cycles (all, P < 0.01). The risks of hospitalization were consistently lower for chemotherapy cycles that involved pegfilgrastim prophylaxis compared with filgrastim prophylaxis (odds ratios = 0.64-0.73; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The risk of hospitalization for neutro-penic complications during cancer chemotherapy in clinical practice was approximately one third higher among patients who received filgrastim prophylaxis than among those who received pegfilgrastim prophylaxis.

The Role of Supportive Therapy in the Era of Modern Adjuvant Treatment - Current and Future Tools

Recent advances in adjuvant treatment of breast cancer have improved progression-free and overall survival. Optimal management of treatment-induced side effects has therefore gained further importance. This review cannot provide a comprehensive overview of treatment-related toxicity and its management, but focuses on important new developments in the field of supportive therapy. Erythropoietins, while highly effective in treating chemotherapy-induced anaemia, may have detrimental effects on outcome, and should only be used with the aim to reduce the number of whole blood transfusions. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors were a prerequisite for development of dose-dense regimens, and are also necessary in many anthracycline/taxane combination regimens. A potential tumour-stimulating effect was not proven in solid cancers. For side effects of conventional chemotherapy, such as mucositis, nausea, or diarrhoea, regularly updated guidelines may improve symptom control. Overall, modern supportive treatment tools will further reduce treatment-related mortality and help increase quality of life.

Cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of G-CSF pegfilgrastim primary (starting in cycle 1 and continuing in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy) versus secondary (only after an FN event) prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with a >or=20% FN risk.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from a health insurer's perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model considers direct medical costs and outcomes related to reduced FN and potential survival benefits because of reduced FN-related mortality. Inputs for the model were obtained from the medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted across plausible ranges in parameter values.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pegfilgrastim as primary versus secondary prophylaxis was $48,000/FN episode avoided. Adding survival benefit from avoiding FN mortality yielded an ICER of $110,000/life-year gained (LYG) or $116,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The most influential factors included FN case-fatality, FN relative risk reduction from primary prophylaxis, and age at diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with secondary prophylaxis, the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis may be equivalent or superior to other commonly used supportive care interventions for women with breast cancer. Further assessment of the direct impact of G-CSF on short- and long-term survival is needed to substantiate these findings.

Prophylactic antibiotics or G-CSF for the prevention of infections and improvement of survival in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (G-CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factors (GM-CSF); and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Important current guidelines recommend the use of colony stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20% but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of G-CSF or GM-CSF with antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myeloablative chemotherapy with respect to preventing fever, febrile neutropenia, infection, infection-related mortality, early mortality and improving quality of life.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to 2007). We planned to include both full-text and abstract publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF or GM-CSF versus antibiotics in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy or bone marrow or stem cell transplantation were included for review. Both study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done in duplicate. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two eligible randomised controlled trials with 195 patients. Due to differences in the outcomes reported, the trials could not be pooled for meta-analysis. Both trials showed non-significant results favouring antibiotics for the prevention of fever or hospitalisation for febrile neutropenia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence for or against antibiotics compared to G(M)-CSFs for the prevention of infections in cancer patients.

The economic value of primary prophylaxis using pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim in patients with breast cancer in the UK

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious adverse event associated with myelotoxic chemotherapy that predisposes patients to life-threatening bacterial infections. Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) from the first cycle of chemotherapy is recommended by the 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2008 National Comprehensive Cancer Network and 2006 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines when the overall risk of FN is approximately 20% or higher. Once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim and daily filgrastim are two commonly used G-CSFs with different dosing schedules and associated costs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim primary prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in the UK.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from the UK NHS perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model simulated three clinical scenarios: scenario 1 assumed that pegfilgrastim and filgrastim had differential impact on the risk of FN; scenario 2 assumed additional differential impact on FN-related mortality; and scenario 3 assumed additional differential impact on chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI) with long-term survival effects. The base-case population included 45-year-old women with stage II breast cancer receiving four chemotherapy cycles, with an FN risk of approximately 20% or higher. Model inputs, including FN risk, FN case-fatality, RDI, impact of RDI on survival and utility scores, were based on a review of the literature and expert panel validation. Using data from the literature, it was estimated that the absolute risk of FN associated with pegfilgrastim was 5.5% lower than with 11-day filgrastim (7% vs 12.5%), and 10.5% lower than with 6-day filgrastim (7% vs 17.5%). Costs were taken from official price lists or the literature and included drugs, drug administration, FN-related hospitalizations and subsequent medical costs. Breast cancer mortality and all-cause mortality were obtained from official statistics. The main outcome measures were the costs ( pound, year 2006 values) per percentage decrease in (absolute) FN risk, per FN event avoided, per life-year gained (LYG), and per QALY gained. Model robustness was tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Pegfilgrastim was cost saving compared with 11-day filgrastim ( pound 3196 vs pound 4315). Compared with 6-day filgrastim, pegfilgrastim was associated with a cost of pound 4200 per FN event avoided, or pound 42 per 1% decrease in absolute risk of FN, in scenario 1. In scenario 2, pegfilgrastim provided 0.055 more LYGs or 0.052 more QALYs at a minimal cost increase of pound 441 ( pound 3196 vs pound 2754) per person, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pound 8075/LYG or pound 8526/QALY. In scenario 3, when all potential benefits of G-CSF were considered, the ICER became pound 3955/LYG or pound 4161/QALY. Results were most sensitive to the relative risk of FN for 6-day filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSION

In this UK analysis, pegfilgrastim appears to dominate 11-day use of filgrastim. The value of pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim at pound 4161-8526/QALY was very favourable compared with the commonly used threshold in the UK. In this setting, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim may be cost effective compared with filgrastim.

Pegfilgrastim and daily granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: patterns of use and neutropenia-related outcomes in cancer patients in Spain--results of the LEARN Study

Daily granulocyte colony-stimulating factors [(G-CSFs); e.g. filgrastim, lenograstim] are frequently used to reduce the duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in cancer patients. A pegylated formulation of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, which is administered once per cycle, was introduced in Spain in 2003. LEARN was a multi-centre, retrospective, observational study in Spain comparing patterns of use of daily G-CSF and pegfilgrastim, and CIN-related outcomes in adults with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Outcome measures were the percentage of patients receiving G-CSF for primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis/treatment, duration of treatment with G-CSF and incidence of CIN-related complications. Medical records from consecutive patients with documented pegfilgrastim (n = 75) or daily G-CSF (n = 111) use during 2003 were included. The proportion of patients receiving primary or secondary prophylaxis was comparable between the pegfilgrastim (39 and 48% respectively) and daily G-CSF (40 and 48% respectively) groups. However, there was a trend towards less frequent use to treat a neutropenic event such as FN or neutropenia in the pegfilgrastim group (17 versus 30% with daily G-CSF). Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia-related complications were less frequent in patients receiving pegfilgrastim (e.g. FN 11 versus 24% with daily G-CSF). This is the first study to show the potential benefits of pegfilgrastim over daily G-CSF in Spanish clinical practice.

Clinical feasibility of (neo)adjuvant taxane-based chemotherapy in older patients: analysis of >4,500 patients from four German randomized breast cancer trials

Introduction

Despite the fact that people older than 65 years of age have the highest incidence of developing breast cancer, these patients are excluded from clinical trials in most cases. Furthermore, most physicians tend towards therapy regimens without the use of dose-dense, highly active taxane-based treatments because of a lack of data regarding toxicities of these compounds in older patients.

Methods

Pooled side-effect data were analyzed from four prospective, randomized clinical trials in which patients of different age groups (< 60 years, between 60 and 64 years, and > 64 years) with primary breast cancer received taxane-based chemotherapy.

Results

Dose delays, dose reductions, hospitalization, and therapy discontinuation increased with age. Hematologic toxicities and some nonhematologic toxicities were generally more common in older patients. Leucopenia increased from 55.3% in patients aged < 60 years to 65.5% in patients aged > 64 years (P < 0.001), and neutropenia increased from 46.9% to 57.4% (P < 0.001). There was no difference, however, in clinically more relevant febrile neutropenia between the different age groups. Thrombopenia shows a similar age-dependent increase, whereas there is no difference between the age groups concerning anemia. Hot flushes and elevated liver enzymes decreased with increasing age.

Conclusions

The present pooled analysis of a substantial cohort of older primary breast cancer patients demonstrates that taxane-containing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy is feasible in older patients and that toxicity can be reduced by sequential therapy regimens.