Blinded, randomized, multicenter study to evaluate single administration pegfilgrastim once per cycle versus daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II or stage III/IV breast cancer

Efficacy and safety of early G-CSF administration in patients with head and neck cancer treated by docetaxel-cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (DCF protocol): a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Induction chemotherapy with docetaxel-cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) for locally advanced head and neck cancers (HNC) is associated with a high risk of severe neutropenia or febrile neutropenia (FN). We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of administering granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) on day 3 (D3) during chemotherapy (early G-CSF stimulation) versus after the end of chemotherapy, as per current guidelines (i.e., after the end of 5-FU perfusion; D7), and its impact on patient outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients ≥19 years old, with advanced HNC who received DCF induction chemotherapy (D and P 75 mg per meter squared (mg/m(2)) on day 1 and 5-FU 750 mg/m(2)/day from D1 to D5), were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Data of 70 patients were analyzed from 01 January 2003 to 01 December 2010. Mean age was 56 years (range 45 to 77 years). Thirty-six patients (51.4 %) received pegfilgrastim on D7, and 28 (40 %) started G-CSF prophylaxis during chemotherapy; 12 (17.1 %) had daily filgrastim and 16 (22.9 %) pegfilgrastim on D3. Overall response rate (ORR) was 89.6 % (three early deaths due to infectious complications; 4.3 %). The 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was 72.8 %. FN rate was 14.3 % and chemotherapy delay was 12.9 %. In the D7 G-CSF arm, incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia (p = 0.023), FN (p = 0.029), and cycle delays (p = 0.006) was statistically higher than the "early" G-CSF arm. A decrease of OS was observed at 2 years (from 85.1 to 63.5 %) of chemotherapy discontinuation or FN (p = 0.0348).

DISCUSSION

Early administration of G-CSF is safe and seems to be more effective than D7. Future prospective trials are required to confirm our results.

Risk and consequences of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic complications in patients receiving daily filgrastim: the importance of duration of prophylaxis

Background

To examine duration of daily filgrastim prophylaxis, and risk and consequences of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic complications (CINC) requiring inpatient care.

Methods

Using a retrospective cohort design and US healthcare claims data (2001–2010), we identified all cancer patients who initiated ≥1 course of myelosuppressive chemotherapy and received daily filgrastim prophylactically in ≥1 cycle. Cycles with daily filgrastim prophylaxis were pooled for analyses. CINC was identified based on hospital admissions with a diagnosis of neutropenia, fever, or infection; consequences were characterized in terms of hospital mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and CINC-related healthcare expenditures.

Results

Risk of CINC requiring inpatient care–adjusted for patient characteristics–was 2.4 (95% CI: 1.6-3.4) and 1.9 (1.3-2.8) times higher with 1–3 (N = 8371) and 4–6 (N = 3691) days of filgrastim prophylaxis, respectively, versus ≥7 days (N = 2226). Among subjects who developed CINC, consequences with 1–3 and 4–6 (vs. ≥7) days of filgrastim prophylaxis were: mortality (8.4% [n/N = 10/119] and 4.0% [3/75] vs. 0% [0/34]); LOS (means: 7.4 [N = 243] and 7.1 [N = 99] vs. 6.5 [N = 40]); and expenditures (means: $18,912 [N = 225] and $14,907 [N = 94] vs. $13,165 [N = 39]).

Conclusions

In this retrospective evaluation, shorter courses of daily filgrastim prophylaxis were found to be associated with an increased risk of CINC as well as poorer outcomes among those developing this condition. Because of the limitations inherent in healthcare claims databases specifically and retrospective evaluations generally, additional research addressing these limitations is needed to confirm the findings of this study.

The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in a Canadian outpatient setting

BACKGROUND

Data on real-life utilization of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (g-csfs) in Canada are limited. The objective of the present study was to describe the reasons for, and the patterns of, g-csf use in selected outpatient oncology clinics in Ontario and Quebec.

METHODS

In a retrospective longitudinal cohort study, a review of medical records from 9 Canadian oncology clinics identified patients being prescribed filgrastim (fil) and pegfilgrastim (peg). Patient characteristics, reasons for g-csf use, and treatment patterns were descriptively analyzed.

RESULTS

Medical records of 395 patients initiating g-csf therapy between January 2008 and January 2009 were included. Of this population, 80% were women, and breast cancer was the predominant diagnosis (59%). The most commonly prescribed g-csf was fil (56% in Ontario and 98% in Quebec). The most frequent reason for g-csf use was primary prophylaxis (42% for both fil and peg), followed by secondary prophylaxis (37% fil, 41% peg). Those proportions varied by tumour type and chemotherapy regimen. Delayed g-csf administration (more than 1 day after the end of chemotherapy) was frequently observed for fil, but rarely reported for peg, and that finding was consistent across tumours and concurrent chemotherapy regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of g-csf varies with the malignancy type and the provincial health care setting. The most commonly prescribed g-csf agent was fil, and most first g-csf prescriptions were for primary prophylaxis. Delays were frequently observed for patients receiving fil, but were rarely reported for those receiving peg.

Feasibility and safety of a reduced duration of therapy of colony-stimulating factor in a dose-dense regimen

Purpose

The risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy is mainly due to the type of chemotherapy regimen and the presence of specific risk factors in patients. The recent trend of using a dose-dense treatment schedule has enhanced the risk of FN. In the present prospective study, we evaluated the feasibility of a reduction of duration of therapy with colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in a dose-dense regimen.

Methods

Between June 2002 and December 2011, 107 patients with a new diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving dose-dense chemotherapy, every 14 days, were included in the study. The primary endpoint was defined as the completion of planned chemotherapy cycles as scheduled. Secondary endpoints were median number of administered G-CSF doses (vials), incidence of FN, hospitalization and toxicity.

Results

The planned chemotherapy cycles (primary endpoint) were completed by 84.1 % of patients. The median number of G-CSF (lenograstim) doses administered for each patient was 24 (range 10–35), which corresponds to a median of five vials (range 0–10) for each cycle. Grades 3–4 toxicities, related to G-CSF administration, included neutropenia and thrombocytopenia (14.0 and 1.9 %, respectively). No grades 3–4 bone pain was detected. The incidence of FN and hospitalization was 9.3 % (10/107) and 4.5 % (5/107), respectively.

Conclusions

Reduced dosage of G-CSF allows dose-dense chemotherapy scheduling, limits exposure to G-CSF and also represents an opportunity for cost savings.

Use of pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis and risk of infection, by chemotherapy cycle and regimen, among patients with breast cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

PURPOSE

This study aims to examine granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis by cancer type, chemotherapy regimen, and cycle in a real-world setting to assess if practice conforms to clinical guidelines, which recommend G-CSF prophylaxis every cycle when a patient's risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) is 20% or greater, and to describe the incidence of FN among patients who discontinue pegfilgrastim (peg) prophylaxis.

METHODS

The cohort was selected from administrative claims data and includes adults diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) or breast cancer (BC) who began chemotherapy 2005-2010.

RESULTS

About 83.2% of the 4,470 patients with BC treated with dose-dense doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (ddAC), 83.6% of 2,197 patients with BC treated with docetaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (TAC), and about 55.6% of the 2,722 patients with NHL treated with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, with or without prednisone for 3-week cycles (CHOP-R Q3W) received peg prophylaxis in cycle 1. Among patients on these regimens who received peg prophylaxis in cycle 1 and were still on the regimen in cycle 4, about 90% received peg prophylaxis in that cycle. Among patients with BC or NHL who discontinued G-CSF, the incidence proportion of infection or FN varied by regimen and cycle, with a range from 0 to 14%.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite clinical guidelines recommending G-CSF prophylaxis with chemotherapy regimens with a high risk of FN, many NHL and BC patients do not receive FN prophylaxis in cycle 1. However, among patients who receive G-CSF in cycle 1 and remain on the regimen, the majority appear to continue prophylaxis as indicated.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis treatment strategies for febrile neutropenia in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with pegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6-day and 11-day), or no prophylaxis to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving docetaxel or topotecan.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PP vs SP from a US payer perspective. Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy (relative risk of FN with prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis) and mortality, costs, and utility values were estimated from public sources and peer-reviewed publications. Incremental cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of net cost per FN event avoided, incremental cost per life-year saved (LYS), and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted.

RESULTS

For patients receiving docetaxel, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim was $7900 per QALY gained, and PP with pegfilgrastim dominated all other comparators. For patients receiving topotecan, PP with pegfilgrastim dominated all comparators. Model results were most sensitive to baseline FN risk. PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim was cost effective in 68% and 83% of simulations for docetaxel and in >99% of simulations for topotecan at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

PP with pegfilgrastim should be considered cost effective compared to other prophylaxis strategies in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving docetaxel or topotecan with a high risk of FN.

A prospective observational study to evaluate G-CSF usage in patients with solid tumors receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in Italian clinical oncology practice

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a severe dose-limiting side effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy in patients with solid tumors. Clinical practice guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis with G-CSF in patients with an overall ≥ 20 % risk of FN. AIOM Italian guidelines recommend starting G-CSF within 24-72 h after chemotherapy; for daily G-CSF, administration should continue until the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) is 1 × 10(9)/L post-nadir and should not be terminated after ANC increase in the early days of administration. The aim of this study was to assess guideline adherence in oncology practice in Italy. In this multicenter, prospective, observational study, patients were enrolled at the first G-CSF use in any cycle and were followed for two subsequent cycles (or until the end of chemotherapy if less than two additional cycles). Primary objective was to explore G-CSF use in Italian clinical practice; therefore, data were collected on the G-CSF type, timing of administration, and number of doses. 512 eligible patients were enrolled (median age, 62). The most common tumor types were breast (36 %), lung (18 %), and colorectal (13 %). A total of 1,164 G-CSF cycles (daily G-CSF, 718; pegfilgrastim, 446) were observed. Daily G-CSF was administered later than 72 h after chemotherapy in 42 % of cycles, and the median [range] number of doses was four [1, 10]. Pegfilgrastim was administered later than 72 h in 8 % of cycles. G-CSF prophylaxis in Italy is frequently administered in a manner which is not supported by evidence-based guidelines. As this practice may lead to poor outcomes, educational initiatives are recommended.

Pegylated filgrastim is comparable with filgrastim as support for commonly used chemotherapy regimens: a multicenter, randomized, crossover phase 3 study

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a single subcutaneous injection of pegylated filgrastim with daily filgrastim as a prophylaxis for neutropenia induced by commonly used chemotherapy regimens. Fifteen centers enrolled 337 chemotherapy-naive cancer patients with normal bone marrow function. All patients randomized into AOB and BOA arms received two cycles of chemotherapy. Patients received a single dose of pegylated filgrastim 100 µg/kg in cycle 1 (AOB) or cycle 2 (BOA) and daily doses of filgrastim 5 µg/kg/day in cycle 1 (BOA) or cycle 2 (AOB). Efficacy and safety parameters were recorded. The primary end point was the rate of protection against grade 4 neutropenia after chemotherapy [defined as the rate at which the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) remained >0.5×10(9)/l throughout the entire cycle]. Ninety-four percent of patients receiving pegylated filgrastim or filgrastim did not develop grade 4 neutropenia. The incidence of ANC<1.0×10(9)/l was 16.0% (50/313) after support with either pegylated filgrastim or filgrastim. The incidences of febrile neutropenia and antibiotic administration were similar in both groups. Notably, faster ANC recovery was observed with pegylated filgrastim support. The ANC nadir was also earlier with pegylated filgrastim (day 7) support than with filgrastim support (day 9), although the depth of nadir was not significantly different. A single subcutaneous injection of pegylated filgrastim 100 μg/kg provided adequate and safe neutrophil support comparable with daily subcutaneous injections of unmodified filgrastim 5 μg/kg/day in patients receiving commonly used standard-dose mild-to-moderate myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens.

Efficacy and safety analysis of once per cycle pegfilgrastim and daily lenograstim in patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant myelosuppressive chemotherapy FEC 100: a pilot study

Background

Neutropenia is a common toxicity in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In this prospective pilot study, we compared the efficacy and safety profiles of pegfilgrastim administered subcutaneously once per cycle and lenograstim administered subcutaneously daily six times per cycle, for primary neutropenia prophylaxis in women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

Materials and methods

Twenty women were enrolled. All patients received epirubicin 100 mg/m² with 5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m² and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m² on day 1 and every 21 days thereafter, according to the FEC 100 chemotherapy regimen. Eight patients received a single dose of pegfilgrastim on day 2, while 12 patients were treated with daily administration of lenograstim from days five to ten. Absolute neutrophil count and duration of grade 3–4 neutropenia were monitored using seriated blood samples. The incidence of bone pain was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS).

Results

The incidence of grade 3–4 neutropenia was 75% in patients who received pegfilgrastim, and 25% in patients who received lenograstim. One case of febrile neutropenia was shown in pegfilgrastim patients. The mean duration of grade 3–4 neutropenia was 2 days in pegfilgrastim group versus 1.4 days in the lenograstim group. Bone pain was present in 37.5% of pegfilgrastim patients versus 58.3% of lenograstim patients. The mean duration of bone pain in the pegfilgrastim group was 4 days versus 6 days in the lenograstim group.

Conclusion

In our experience, a single injection of pegfilgrastim was less effective for controlling neutropenia than six daily injections of lenograstim. The safety profiles of pegfilgrastim and lenograstim were similar with a lower incidence of bone pain in patients treated with pegfilgrastim.

Clinical experience with Zarzio® in Europe: what have we learned?

Biosimilars are similar, but non-identical, versions of existing biological drugs for which patents have expired. Despite the rigorous approval process for biosimilars, concerns have been expressed about the efficacy and safety of these products in clinical practice. Biosimilars of filgrastim, based on the originator product Neupogen®, have been available since 2008 and are now in widespread clinical use in Europe and elsewhere. Three biosimilar G-CSFs have been approved based on a combination of physicochemical and biological protein characterisation, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assessment in healthy volunteers and efficacy and safety data in patients with cancer. To assess whether biosimilars are effective in the real-world clinical practice setting, a pooled analysis of five post-approval studies of biosimilar G-CSF (Zarzio®) that included 1,302 adult patients who received at least one cycle of chemotherapy with G-CSF support for the prevention of neutropenia was conducted. A total of 36 % of patients had a febrile neutropenia risk of >20 %, while 39.6 % had a risk of 10-20 % based on chemotherapy regimen. The occurrence of severe or febrile neutropenia was within the range of that observed in previous studies of originator G-CSF. In addition, the safety profile of Zarzio® was consistent with that reported for originator G-CSF and the known safety profile of G-CSF. Initial concerns about the use of biosimilars, at least with regard to biosimilar G-CSFs, appear to be unfounded. Adoption of cost-effective biosimilars should help reduce healthcare costs and improve patient access to biological treatments.

Efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim: a randomized, multicenter, active-control phase 3 trial in patients with breast cancer receiving doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Lipegfilgrastim is a novel glyco-pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in development for neutropenia prophylaxis in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. This phase III, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, noninferiority trial compared the efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in chemotherapy-naïve breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with high-risk stage II, III, or IV breast cancer and an absolute neutrophil count ≥1.5 × 109 cells/L were randomized to a single 6-mg subcutaneous injection of lipegfilgrastim (n = 101) or pegfilgrastim (n = 101) on day 2 of each 21-day chemotherapy cycle (4 cycles maximum). The primary efficacy endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia during cycle 1.

RESULTS

Cycle 1: The mean duration of severe neutropenia for the lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim groups was 0.7 and 0.8 days, respectively (λ = -0.218 [95% confidence interval: -0.498%, 0.062%], p = 0.126), and no severe neutropenia was observed in 56% and 49% of patients in the lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim groups, respectively. All cycles: In the efficacy population, febrile neutropenia occurred in three pegfilgrastim-treated patients (all in cycle 1) and zero lipegfilgrastim-treated patients. Drug-related adverse events in the safety population were reported in 28% and 26% of patients in the lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that lipegfilgrastim 6 mg is as effective as pegfilgrastim in reducing neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Eudra EEACTA200901599910.

Real-world impact of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (pp-g-csf) is recommended in patients undergoing chemotherapy carrying a febrile neutropenia (fn) risk of 20% or more. In the present study, we examined clinical practice patterns and the impact of pp-g-csf on fn incidence in women with early-stage breast cancer (ebc) treated with modern adjuvant chemotherapy (act).

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective cohort study of women with ebc, who were identified from the pharmacy database and who received at least 1 cycle of modern act from January 2009 to December 2011, was conducted at the Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario. Data on patient demographics, pathology, stage distribution, chemotherapy, pp-g-csf use, dose reductions, chemotherapy delays, treatment discontinuation, relative dose intensity, and fn events were collected. Chi-square tests, t-tests, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, and nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-tests were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 239 women eligible for analysis, 145 (61%) received pp-g-csf, and 50 (21%) developed at least 1 episode of fn. Use of pp-g-csf was associated with a significantly lower rate of fn (14% vs. 31%, p = 0.002) and trends to fewer dose delays (17% vs. 27%, p = 0.060) and dose reductions (19% vs. 25%, p = 0.28). Among women receiving pp-g-csf, higher fn rates were associated with an age of 65 years or older, taxane-based chemotherapy, and prophylaxis with filgrastim.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical practice patterns at our institution showed that more than 50% of ebc patients treated with modern act received pp-g-csf, which led to fewer fn episodes and increased delivery of planned act. The observed high fn risk despite pp-g-csf was linked to older age, taxane-based chemotherapy, and filgrastim.

A retrospective study of patients' out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors

OBJECTIVE

With rising healthcare costs, there is an increasing concern with the burden of out-of-pocket costs on cancer patients. This study examined patients' out-of-pocket expenditures for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, which are given to cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and have been shown to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia.

METHODS

Adult patients who received chemotherapy and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in the outpatient setting in the United States between January 2007 and June 2010 were evaluated using medical and pharmacy claims data from two healthcare data sources, the MarketScan(®) Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases and the HealthCore Integrated Research Database(SM). The distribution of out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors per patient and per administration was described for each quarter. Longitudinal analyses of out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors were also performed for patients with continuous health plan eligibility during each calendar year from 2007 to 2009.

RESULTS

The pattern of out-of-pocket expenditures for pegfilgrastim and filgrastim was generally consistent between the databases and over time. On average, about 65%-75% of patients had zero quarterly out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Across the years, the mean quarterly out-of-pocket costs per patient were $100-$150 and $50-$80 for pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, respectively. The mean quarterly out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors per administration were $40-$70 and $8-$10, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective analysis of medical and pharmacy claims data, most patients who received chemotherapy and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in 2007 to 2010 had incurred no quarterly out-of-pocket costs associated with G-CSF use.

Effectiveness of daily versus non-daily granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in patients with solid tumours undergoing chemotherapy: a multivariate analysis of data from current practice

We conducted a multicentre, retrospective, observational study including patients with solid tumours (excluding breast cancer) that received granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) and chemotherapy. We investigated the effectiveness of daily vs. non-daily G-CSFs (pegfilgrastim) adjusting by potential confounders. The study included 391 patients (211 daily G-CSF; 180 pegfilgrastim), from whom 47.3% received primary prophylaxis (PP) (57.8% pegfilgrastim), 26.3% secondary prophylaxis (SP: initiation after cycle 1 and no reactive treatment in any cycle) (51.5% pegfilgrastim) and 26.3% reactive treatment (19.4% pegfilgrastim). Only 42.2% of patients with daily G-CSF and 46.2% with pegfilgrastim initiated prophylaxis within 72 h after chemotherapy, and only 10.5% of patients with daily G-CSF received it for ≥7 days. In the multivariate models, daily G-CSF was associated with higher risk of grade 3-4 neutropenia (G3-4N) vs. pegfilgrastim [odds ratio (OR): 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.004–2.97]. Relative to SP, PP protected against G3-4N (OR for SP vs. PP: 6.0, 95%CI: 3.2–11.4) and febrile neutropenia (OR: 3.1, 95%CI: 1.1–8.8), and was associated to less chemotherapy dose delays and reductions (OR for relative dose intensity <85% for SP vs. PP: 3.1, 95%CI: 1.7–5.4) and higher response rate (OR: 2.1, 95%CI: 1.2–3.7). Data suggest that pegfilgrastim, compared with a daily G-CSF, and PP, compared with SP, could be more effective in preventing neutropenia and its related events in the clinical practice.

Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization of cancer patients than filgrastim prophylaxis: a retrospective United States claims analysis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF)

BACKGROUND

Myelosuppressive chemotherapy can lead to dose-limiting febrile neutropenia. Prophylactic use of recombinant human G-CSF such as daily filgrastim and once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim may reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. This comparative study examined the effect of pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim on the risk of hospitalization.

METHODS

This retrospective United States claims analysis utilized 2004-2009 data for filgrastim- and pegfilgrastim-treated patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) or breast, lung, ovarian, or colorectal cancers. Cycles in which pegfilgrastim or filgrastim was administered within 5 days from initiation of chemotherapy (considered to represent prophylaxis) were pooled for analysis. Neutropenia-related hospitalization and other healthcare encounters were defined with a "narrow" criterion for claims with an ICD-9 code for neutropenia and with a "broad" criterion for claims with an ICD-9 code for neutropenia, fever, or infection. Odds ratios (OR) for hospitalization and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by generalized estimating equation (GEE) models and adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Per-cycle healthcare utilization and costs were examined for cycles with pegfilgrastim or filgrastim prophylaxis.

RESULTS

We identified 3,535 patients receiving G-CSF prophylaxis, representing 12,056 chemotherapy cycles (11,683 pegfilgrastim, 373 filgrastim). The mean duration of filgrastim prophylaxis in the sample was 4.8 days. The mean duration of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in the sample was 1.0 day, consistent with the recommended dosage of pegfilgrastim - a single injection once per chemotherapy cycle. Cycles with prophylactic pegfilgrastim were associated with a decreased risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization (narrow definition: OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.16-1.13; broad definition: OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.24-0.59) and all-cause hospitalization (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.35-0.72) versus cycles with prophylactic filgrastim. For neutropenia-related utilization by setting of care, there were more ambulatory visits and hospitalizations per cycle associated with filgrastim prophylaxis than with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. Mean per-cycle neutropenia-related costs were also higher with prophylactic filgrastim than with prophylactic pegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSIONS

In this comparative effectiveness study, pegfilgrastim prophylaxis was associated with a reduced risk of neutropenia-related or all-cause hospitalization relative to filgrastim prophylaxis.

A randomized, non-inferiority study comparing efficacy and safety of a single dose of pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in pediatric patients after autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant

PURPOSE

To assess the non-inferiority of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim in speeding the recovery of polymorphonuclear cells (PMN) in pediatric patients who underwent autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant (PBSCT).

METHODS

The sample size of this randomized, multicenter, phase III study, was calculated assuming that a single dose of pegfilgrastim of 100 ug/kg was not inferior to 9 doses of filgrastim of 5 ug/kg/day. Randomization was performed by a computer-generated list and stored by sequentially numbered sealed envelopes.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients, with a median age of 11.5 years, were recruited: 29 in the filgrastim arm and 32 in the pegfilgrastim arm. Twenty percent were affected by lymphoma/leukaemia and eighty percent by solid tumors. The mean time to PMN engraftment was 10.48 days (standard deviation [SD] 1.57) and 10.44 days (SD 2.44) in the filgrastim and pegfilgrastim arms, respectively. Having fixed a non-inferiority margin Delta of 3, the primary endpoint of non-inferiority was reached. No differences were observed for other secondary endpoints: platelet engraftment, mean time to platelet recovery (28 days vs. 33 days), fever of unknown origin (79% vs. 78%), proven infection (34% vs. 28%), mucositis (76% vs. 59%). After a median follow-up of 2.3 years (95% C.I.: 1.5, 3.3), 20 deaths were observed due to disease progression.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that pegfilgrastim was not inferior to daily filgrastim in pediatric patients who underwent PBSCT. EU CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTER NUMBER: 2007-001430-14.

Comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim, filgrastim, and sargramostim prophylaxis for neutropenia-related hospitalization: two US retrospective claims analyses

OBJECTIVE

Few studies have compared the effectiveness of filgrastim (FIL), pegfilgrastim (PEG), and sargramostim (SAR) to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy (M-CT). Two large commercial database analyses were separately conducted to examine the incidence of neutropenia-related and all-cause hospitalizations associated with FIL, PEG, and SAR prophylaxis for patients receiving M-CT for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), Hodgkin lymphoma, or solid tumors.

METHODS

Separate retrospective US claims database analyses utilized patient data from January 1, 2004 to April 30, 2010 using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRD(SM)) and January 1, 2001 to August 31, 2009 using OptumInsight's (formerly Ingenix) database. Patients were ≥18 years old and treated with M-CT for NHL, Hodgkin lymphoma, and solid tumors. All identified M-CT cycles with prophylactic (first 5 days of cycle) FIL, PEG, or SAR were included in the analysis. Patterns of administration and incidence rates of all-cause and neutropenia-related hospitalization were examined on a per-cycle basis.

RESULTS

In total, 9330 and 8762 patients with cancer, representing 30,264 and 24,215 chemotherapy cycles (28,189 and 22,649 (PEG), 1669 and 1351 (FIL), 406 and 215 (SAR)) from the HIRD(SM) and OptumInsight databases, respectively, were included in the separate database analyses. Both the HIRD(SM) and OptumInsight analysis showed that SAR and FIL prophylaxis had a higher risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization (SAR: OR = 3.48 [95%CI = 2.11, 5.74] and 2.81 [1.62, 4.87]; FIL: 1.78 [1.28, 2.48] and 2.36 [1.82, 3.06], respectively) and all-cause hospitalization (SAR: 2.18 [1.41, 3.36] and 2.41 [1.58, 3.68]; FIL:1.57 [1.25, 1.97] and 1.95 [1.60, 2.38], respectively) vs PEG.

LIMITATIONS

Medical claims do not contain information about chemotherapy dose, and hospitalizations were not validated against the patient's chart.

CONCLUSION

In this comparative effectiveness study, use of PEG was associated with a lower risk of neutropenia-related and all-cause hospitalizations compared to use of FIL or SAR prophylaxis.

Neutropenia and G-CSF in lymphoproliferative diseases

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It frequently causes dose reductions or treatment delay, which can be prevented or treated by the administration of granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). However, a better knowledge of the incidence, day of onset after therapy, and duration of neutropenia is essential to optimize the use of G-CSF.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Six hundred and ninety-four patients from a single institution, affected by lympho-proliferative diseases, were retrospectively reviewed for the occurrence of grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN). Duration of neutropenia and time of neutrophil nadir were also retrieved. The diagnoses included non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. Chemotherapy regimens were obviously different according to the diagnosis, disease stage, and first or subsequent lines of therapy.

RESULTS

No patient received G-CSF as primary prophylaxis. Median nadir did not significantly differ among patients treated with first or successive lines of therapy. The incidence of grade 4 neutropenia and FN ranged from 0 to 94%, depending on the chemotherapy regimen. Patients receiving a first-line chemotherapy regimen had a significantly lower incidence of febrile grade 4 neutropenia compared to patients treated with a second or subsequent line of therapy. The duration of grade 4 neutropenia was significantly longer in patients given second or subsequent lines.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study could be useful to define the nadir onset in the hematologic setting in order to correctly tailor timing and duration of G-CSF prophylaxis and to assess the lowest fully effective dose.

Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

High-dose or dose-intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy often causes myelosuppression and severe neutropenia among cancer patients. Severe neutropenia accompanied by fever, named febrile neutropenia (FN), is the most serious manifestation of neutropenia usually requiring hospitalization and intravenous antibiotics. FN and neutropenia can lead to chemotherapy treatment delays or dose reductions, which potentially compromises the effectiveness of cancer treatment and prospects for a cure. Granulocyte-macrophage (GM) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are administered during chemotherapy in order to prevent or reduce the incidence or the duration of FN and neutropenia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) in reducing the incidence and duration of FN, and all-cause and infection-related mortality during chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, HEALTHSTAR, International Health Technology Assessment, SOMED, AMED and BIOSIS up to 8 August 2011. We also searched three Chinese databases (VIP, CNKI, CBM), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and OpenGrey.eu up to August 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CSFs (any dose) with placebo or no treatment in patients with breast cancer at any stage, at risk of developing FN while undergoing any type of chemotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes. At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Trial authors were contacted for further details when information was unclear.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs involving 2156 participants with different stages of breast cancer and chemotherapy regimens. The trials were carried out between 1995 and 2008 and judged as being at least at moderate risk of bias. The strength of the evidence was weak for the majority of outcomes, which was mostly because of the small numbers of evaluable patients, varying definitions, as well as unclear measurements of the trials' outcomes and uncertain influences of supportive treatments on them. In most trials, the chemotherapy regimens had a risk of FN that was below the threshold at which current guidelines recommend routine primary prophylaxis with CSFs. Using CSFs significantly reduced the proportion of patients with FN (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12) but there was substantial heterogeneity which can be explained by possible differential effects of G-CSFs and GM-CSFs and different definitions of FN. A significant reduction in early mortality was observed in CSF-treated patients compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.77; NNTB 79). This finding was based on 23 fatal events in 2143 patients; wherein 19 of these 23 events occurred in one study and 17 events were attributed to progression of the disease by the study authors. For infection-related mortality, there were no significant differences between CSF and control groups (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29). In CSF-treated patients, the risk for hospitalization was significantly reduced (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.30; NNTB 13), as well as the use of intravenous antibiotics (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55; NNTB 18). The risks of severe neutropenia, infection or not maintaining the scheduled dose of chemotherapy did not differ between CSF-treated and control groups. CSFs frequently led to bone pain (RR 5.88; 95% CI 2.54 to 13.60; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 3) and injection-site reactions (RR 3.59; 95% CI 2.33 to 5.53; NNTH 3).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy, CSFs have shown evidence of benefit in the prevention of FN. There is evidence, though less reliable, of a decrease of all-cause mortality during chemotherapy and a reduced need for hospital care. No reliable evidence was found for a reduction of infection-related mortality, a higher dose intensity of chemotherapy with CSFs or diminished rates of severe neutropenia and infections. The majority of adverse events reported from CSF use were bone pain and injection-site reactions but no conclusions could be drawn regarding late-term side effects.

Comparative effectiveness of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and sargramostim as prophylaxis against hospitalization for neutropenic complications in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Comparative effectiveness of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and sargramostim in preventing hospitalization for febrile neutropenia (FN) during myelosuppressive chemotherapy has not been well characterized and is an important clinical question in oncology.

METHODS

This study used a retrospective cohort design and US healthcare claims data. Source population included patients with solid tumors receiving filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or sargramostim during their first observed course of chemotherapy between July 2001 and June 2007. For each patient, every unique chemotherapy cycle during the course was identified, along with each cycle in which filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or sargramostim was administered by the fifth day of the cycle (ie, as prophylaxis). Risks of hospitalization for neutropenic complications (broad definition: admission with a diagnosis of neutropenia, fever, or infection; narrow definition: admission with a diagnosis of neutropenia) and for any reason were examined on a cycle-specific basis during all the cycles in which colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis was administered. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for hospitalization were estimated.

RESULTS

Risk (unadjusted) of hospitalization for neutropenic complications (narrow definition) was 2.1% for filgrastim prophylaxis (n=8286), 1.1% for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (n=67,247), and 2.5% for sargramostim prophylaxis (n=1736). Corresponding risks of hospitalization based on the broad definition were 4.0%, 2.6%, and 5.1%. Risks of all-cause hospitalization were 7.9%, 5.3%, and 9.6%, respectively. Adjusted odds of hospitalization were significantly higher for filgrastim [OR (range across the 3 alternative measures of hospitalization): 1.58-1.79; P<0.001] and sargramostim (OR: 1.89-2.68; P<0.001) versus pegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of hospitalization for neutropenic complications during cancer chemotherapy is lower with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis than with filgrastim or sargramostim prophylaxis.

Pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor conveys long-term neuroprotection and improves functional outcome in a model of Parkinson's disease

Recent proof-of-principle data showed that the haematopoietic growth factor granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (filgrastim) mediates neuroprotection in rodent models of Parkinson's disease. In preparation for future clinical trials, we performed a preclinical characterization of a pegylated derivative of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (pegfilgrastim) in the mouse 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine model of Parkinson's disease. We determined serum and cerebrospinal fluid drug levels after subcutaneous injection. A single injection of pegfilgrastim was shown to achieve stable levels of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in both serum and cerebrospinal fluid with substantially higher levels compared to repetitive filgrastim injections. Leucocyte blood counts were only transiently increased after repeated injections. We demonstrated substantial dose-dependent long-term neuroprotection by pegfilgrastim in both young and aged mice, using bodyweight-adjusted doses that are applicable in clinical settings. Importantly, we found evidence for the functionally relevant preservation of nigrostriatal projections by pegfilgrastim in our model of Parkinson's disease, which resulted in improved motor performance. The more stable levels of pegylated neuroprotective proteins in serum and cerebrospinal fluid may represent a general advantage in the treatment of chronic neurodegenerative diseases and the resulting longer injection intervals are likely to improve patient compliance. In summary, we found that pegylation of a neuroprotective growth factor improved its pharmacokinetic profile over its non-modified counterpart in an in vivo model of Parkinson's disease. As the clinical safety profile of pegfilgrastim is already established, these data suggest that evaluation of pegfilgrastim in further Parkinson's disease models and ultimately clinical feasibility studies are warranted.

Uptake and economic impact of first-cycle colony-stimulating factor use during adjuvant treatment of breast cancer

PURPOSE

In 2002, pegfilgrastim was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the benefits of dose-dense breast cancer chemotherapy, especially for hormone receptor (HR) -negative tumors, were reported. We examined first-cycle colony-stimulating factor use (FC-CSF) before and after 2002 and estimated US expenditures for dose-dense chemotherapy.

METHODS

We identified patients in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare greater than 65 years old with stages I to III breast cancer who had greater than one chemotherapy claim within 6 months of diagnosis(1998 to 2005) and classified patients with an average cycle length less than 21 days as having received dose-dense chemotherapy. The associations of patient, tumor, and physician-related factors with the receipt of any colony-stimulating factor (CSF) and FC-CSF use were analyzed by using generalized estimating equations. CSF costs were estimated for patients who were undergoing dose-dense chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Among the 10,773 patients identified, 5,266 patients (48.9%) had a CSF claim. CSF use was stable between 1998 and 2002 and increased from 36.8% to 73.7% between 2002 and 2005, FC-CSF use increased from 13.2% to 67.9%, and pegfilgrastim use increased from 4.1% to 83.6%. In a multivariable analysis, CSF use was associated with age and chemotherapy type and negatively associated with black/Hispanic race, rural residence, and shorter chemotherapy duration. FC-CSF use was associated with high socioeconomic status but not with age or race/ethnicity. The US annual CSF expenditure for women with HR-positive tumors treated with dose-dense chemotherapy is estimated to be $38.8 million.

CONCLUSION

A rapid increase in FC-CSF use occurred over a short period of time, which was likely a result of the reported benefits of dose-dense chemotherapy and the ease of pegfilgrastim administration. Because of the increasing evidence that elderly HR-positive patients do not benefit from dose-dense chemotherapy, limiting pegfilgrastim use would combat the increasing costs of cancer care.

[Side effects of tumor pharmacotherapy. What internists should know]

Cytotoxic drugs have been used in the therapy of malignant tumors for the last 70 years. However, side effects of cytotoxic drugs are very common and often dose-limiting. Although many protocols have been optimized, side effects are still frequently life-threatening. Nausea and vomiting are among the most frequently reported side effects, in addition to mucositis and fatigue. Bone marrow toxicity can lead to neutropenic sepsis, thrombocytopenic bleeding, or anemia with the respective sequelae. In addition to these unspecific side effects, organ toxicity is class or drug specific and may involve the kidney, liver, heart, lung, skin, or central nervous system. As most protocols can be administered on an outpatient basis, knowledge of these side effects is important for the general internist.

Different schedules of granulocyte growth factor support for patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant dose-dense chemotherapy: a prospective nonrandomized study

PURPOSE

This prospective, nonrandomized study evaluates 4 schedules of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant dose-dense chemotherapy regarding febrile neutropenia, treatment delays, and costs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two hundred and thirty-one patients were enrolled to receive adjuvant dose-dense chemotherapy with 4 G-CSF schedules: filgrastim (300 mcg) days 3 to 10 [n = 84 (36.4%) group A]; days 3 to 7 [n = 26 (11.3%) group B]; days 5, 7, 9, and 11 [n = 64 (27.7%) group C], or pegfilgrastim (6 mg) on day 2 [n=57 (24.6%) group D].

RESULTS

Thirteen patients were hospitalized due to 14 episodes of febrile neutropenia; 3 in group A, 3 in group B, 1 in group C, and 6 in group D. No statistically significant difference was observed among the 4 groups. Fewer febrile neutropenic events were observed in group C than in group D (P=0.041). No statistically significant differences were observed in treatment delays or other hematological toxicities. Average overall G-CSF cost per patient in groups A and D was $8500 versus $4400 in groups B and C.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a trend in favor of the shorter G-CSF schedule. A larger, prospective randomized trial should be carried out to evaluate shorter versus standard filgrastim and pegfilgrastim schedules with regard to clinical outcomes, hematological and nonhematological toxicities, and impact in costs.

Early versus late administration of pegfilgrastim after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

PURPOSE

Single-dose pegylated filgrastim (pegfilgrastim) after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) showed similar efficacy compared to daily lenograstim. To address the question of the optimal application time, we randomly assigned patients (pts) to pegfilgrastim on day + 1 (Peg1) or day + 4 (Peg4) after AHSCT.

METHOD

Fifty-three pts with different hematological malignancies were included in this prospective randomized multicenter study. Primary endpoint of this study was time to neutrophil recovery (>500 Gpt/l), and secondary endpoint was time to neutrophil recovery (>1,000 Gpt/l), platelet recovery (>20,000 Gpt/l), number and duration of febrile episodes, i.v. antibiotics, and number of transfusions. Time to engraftment endpoints were estimated according to Kaplan-Meier.

RESULTS

Median time to neutrophil recovery (>500 Gpt/l) was 10 days (95% CI: 10-11) in Peg1 versus 10 days (95% CI: 10-11) in Peg4 (P = 0.68, logrank test; hazard ratio: 0.93). The corresponding mean values were 10.2 and 10.4 days. Median time to platelet recovery (>20,000 Gpt/l) was 10 (95% CI: 10-11) in Peg1 versus 10 (95% CI: 9-11) in Peg4, again not significantly different (P = 0.54). There was no difference regarding the incidence (67% vs. 60%, P = 0.77, Fisher's exact test) or duration of febrile neutropenia episodes in both groups (median: 1 vs. 1; mean: 2.8 vs. 2.4 days; P = 0.73, Wilcoxon test).

CONCLUSION

In terms of neutrophil or platelet recovery after AHSCT, number and duration of febrile episodes, the use of i.v. antibiotics, early and late administration of pegfilgrastim are equally effective.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis following chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs following myelosuppressive chemotherapy and is associated with morbidity, mortality, costs, and chemotherapy reductions and delays. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) stimulate neutrophil production and may reduce FN incidence when given prophylactically following chemotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of G-CSFs (pegfilgrastim, filgrastim or lenograstim) in reducing FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. G-CSFs were compared with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis and with one another. Nine databases were searched in December 2009. Meta-analysis used a random effects model due to heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty studies compared primary G-CSF prophylaxis with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis: five studies of pegfilgrastim; ten of filgrastim; and five of lenograstim. All three G-CSFs significantly reduced FN incidence, with relative risks of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.14 to 0.65) for pegfilgrastim, 0.57 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.69) for filgrastim, and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.88) for lenograstim. Overall, the relative risk of FN for any primary G-CSF prophylaxis versus no primary G-CSF prophylaxis was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.62). In terms of comparisons between different G-CSFs, five studies compared pegfilgrastim with filgrastim. FN incidence was significantly lower for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim, with a relative risk of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary prophylaxis with G-CSFs significantly reduces FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. Pegfilgrastim reduces FN incidence to a significantly greater extent than filgrastim.

Pegfilgrastim on the Same Day Versus Next Day of Chemotherapy in Patients With Breast Cancer, Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer, Ovarian Cancer, and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Results of Four Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized Phase II Studies

PURPOSE

To compare data on severe (grade 4) neutropenia duration and febrile neutropenia incidence in patients receiving chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim administered the same day or 24 hours after chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

These were similar, randomized, double-blind phase II noninferiority studies of patients with lymphoma or non-small-cell lung (NSCLC), breast, or ovarian cancer. Each study was analyzed separately. The primary end point in each study was cycle-1 severe neutropenia duration. Approximately 90 patients per study were to be randomly assigned at a ratio of 1:1 to receive pegfilgrastim 6 mg once per cycle on the day of chemotherapy or the day after (with placebo on the alternate day).

RESULTS

In four studies, 272 patients received chemotherapy and one or more doses of pegfilgrastim (133 same day, 139 next day). Three studies (breast, lymphoma, NSCLC) enrolled an adequate number of patients for analysis. However, in the NSCLC study, the neutropenic rate was lower than expected (only two patients per arm experienced grade 4 neutropenia). In the breast cancer study, the mean cycle-1 severe neutropenia duration was 1.2 days (95% confidence limit [CL], 0.7 to 1.6) longer in the same-day compared with the next-day group (mean, 2.6 v 1.4 days). In the lymphoma study, the mean cycle-1 severe neutropenia duration was 0.9 days (95% CL, 0.3 to 1.4) longer in the same-day compared with the next-day group (mean, 2.1 v 1.2 days). In the breast and lymphoma studies, the absolute neutrophil count profile for same-day patients was earlier, deeper, and longer compared with that for next-day patients, although the results indicate that same-day administration was statistically noninferior to next-day administration according to neutropenia duration.

CONCLUSION

For patients receiving pegfilgrastim with chemotherapy, pegfilgrastim administered 24 hours after chemotherapy completion is recommended.

Comparative cost-efficiency across the European G5 countries of various regimens of filgrastim, biosimilar filgrastim, and pegfilgrastim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia

OBJECTIVES

This cost-efficiency analysis of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) filgrastim (originator Neupogen® and biosimilar Zarzio®) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) examined against a time horizon of 1-14 days of treatment and across the European Union G5 countries (a) when, cost-wise, using Neulasta® 6 mg versus Neupogen® or Zarzio® 300 µg may be cost-saving in reducing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia; and (b) if cost-wise, treatment with Zarzio® 300 µg yields a savings advantage over Neupogen® 300 µg.

METHODS

Cost-efficiency analysis of the direct costs a buyer or payer would incur when purchasing or covering any of these agents for managing one patient during one cycle of chemotherapy under regimens of 1-14 days of standard filgrastim using the population-weighted average unit dose cost of each agent per their public pack cost across the European G5 countries.

RESULTS

The cost of Neupogen® treatment ranged from €128.16 (1 day) to €1794.30 (14 days), compared to €95.46 and €1336.46 for Zarzio®, thus yielding potential cost savings from €32.70 to €457.84 for the latter. Neulasta® turns cost-saving at day 12 of Neupogen® treatment. At no point over a 14-day treatment period did Neulasta® yield a savings advantage over Zarzio®.

CONCLUSION

Prophylaxis or treatment of febrile neutropenia with Zarzio® is cost-efficient under all possible treatment scenarios relative to Neupogen® and to Neulasta®. In the absence of convincing evidence that pegfilgrastim is pharmacotherapeutically superior to standard filgrastim, there is no cost-efficiency rationale to treat with Neulasta® over Zarzio®, though there may be a small window of approximately 3 days where Neulasta® is cost-efficient over Neupogen®. Regardless, our analysis shows Zarzio® to be the most cost-efficient approach to reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated patients.

Effects of pegylated G-CSF on immune cell number and function in patients with gynecological malignancies

Background

Pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; pegfilgrastim) is a longer-acting form of G-CSF, whose effects on dendritic cell (DC) and regulatory T cell (Treg) mobilization, and on the in vivo and ex vivo release of immune modulating cytokines remain unexplored.

Methods

Twelve patients with gynecological cancers received carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy and single-dose pegfilgrastim as prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Peripheral blood was collected prior to pegfilgrastim administration (day 0) and on days +7, +11 and +21, to quantify immunoregulatory cytokines and to assess type 1 DC (DC1), type 2 DC (DC2) and Treg cell mobilization. In vitro-differentiated, monocyte-derived DC were used to investigate endocytic activity, expression of DC maturation antigens and ability to activate allogeneic T-cell proliferation.

Results

Pegfilgrastim increased the frequency of circulating DC1 and DC2 precursors. In contrast, CD4⁺FoxP3⁺ bona fide Treg cells were unchanged compared with baseline. Serum levels of hepatocyte growth factor and interleukin (IL)-12p40, but not transforming growth factor-β1 or immune suppressive kynurenines, significantly increased after pegfilgrastim administration. Interestingly, pegfilgrastim fostered in vitro monocytic secretion of IL-12p40 and IL-12p70 when compared with unconjugated G-CSF. Finally, DC populations differentiated in vitro after clinical provision of pegfilgrastim were phenotypically mature, possessed low endocytic activity, and incited a robust T-cell proliferative response.

Conclusions

Pegfilgrastim induced significant changes in immune cell number and function. The enhancement of monocytic IL-12 secretion portends favorable implications for pegfilgrastim administration to patients with cancer, a clinical context where the induction of immune deviation would be highly undesirable.

A single dose pegfilgrastim for supporting neutrophil recovery in patients treated for high-risk acute myeloid leukemia by the EMA 2000 schedule

Dose intensity has been demonstrated to be one determinant for treatment efficacy in younger adults with high-risk (relapsed and refractory) acute myelogenous leukemia. Between 2000 and 2006, 56 patients entered the EMA 2000 study and received timed sequential reinduction chemotherapy. From 2004, chemotherapy was also followed by one subcutaneous dose of pegfilgrastim. Thirty-six patients reached a complete remission, while nine obtained a partial remission. Median time to granulocyte and platelet recovery was 34 and 38 days respectively. The major non-hematologic toxicities were severe infections but despite this 23 remitters could proceed to their post-remission treatment, although 13 did not because of severe toxicity or early relapse. The median overall survival was 9.3 months. The EMA 2000 regimen is a highly effective treatment with a response rate of 64% and a low early death rate. The period of critical neutropenia was relatively short in both phases and the supportive use of pegfilgrastim, although showing a trend toward reduced neutropenic period, did not appear to reduce the risk of infection in this group and may not be a critical requirement for reducing the risk of treatment-related toxicity.

The colony-stimulating factors and cancer

The four colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) are glycoproteins that regulate the generation and some functions of infection-protective granulocytes and macrophages. Recombinant granulocyte-CSF (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage-CSF (GM-CSF) have now been used to increase dangerously low white blood cell levels in many millions of cancer patients following chemotherapy. These CSFs also release haematopoietic stem cells to the peripheral blood, and these cells have now largely replaced bone marrow as more effective populations for transplantation to cancer patients who have treatment-induced bone marrow damage.

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: where are we now?

Updated international guidelines published in 2006 have broadened the scope for the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in supporting delivery of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. G-CSF prophylaxis is now recommended when the overall risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) due to regimen and individual patient factors is >or=20%, for supporting dose-dense and dose-intense chemotherapy and to help maintain dose density where dose reductions have been shown to compromise outcomes. Indeed, there is now a large body of evidence for the efficacy of G-CSFs in supporting dose-dense chemotherapy. Predictive tools that can help target those patients who are most at risk of FN are now becoming available. Recent analyses have shown that, by reducing the risk of FN and chemotherapy dose delays and reductions, G-CSF prophylaxis can potentially enhance survival benefits in patients receiving chemotherapy in curative settings. Accumulating data from 'real-world' clinical practice settings indicate that patients often receive abbreviated courses of daily G-CSF and consequently obtain a reduced level of FN protection. A single dose of PEGylated G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) may provide a more effective, as well as a more convenient, alternative to daily G-CSF. Prospective studies are needed to validate the importance of delivering the full dose intensity of standard chemotherapy regimens, with G-CSF support where appropriate, across a range of settings. These studies should also incorporate prospective evaluation of risk stratification for neutropenia and its complications.

Phase II, randomized, open-label study of pegfilgrastim-supported VDC/IE chemotherapy in pediatric sarcoma patients

PURPOSE

This multicenter, randomized, open-label study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of a single subcutaneous pegfilgrastim injection with daily subcutaneous filgrastim administration in pediatric patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for sarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Forty-four patients with previously untreated, biopsy-proven sarcoma stratified into three age groups (0-5, 6-11, and 12-21 years) were randomly assigned in a 6:1 randomization ratio to receive a single pegfilgrastim dose of 100 microg/kg (n = 38) or daily filgrastim doses of 5 microg/kg (n = 6) after chemotherapy (cycles 1 and 3: vincristine-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide; cycles 2 and 4: ifosfamide-etoposide). The duration of grade 4 neutropenia, time to neutrophil recovery, incidence of febrile neutropenia, and adverse events were recorded. Results Pegfilgrastim and filgrastim were similar for all efficacy and safety end points, and their pharmacokinetic profiles were consistent with those in adults. Younger children experienced more protracted neutropenia and had higher median pegfilgrastim exposure than older children. CONCLUSION A single dose of pegfilgrastim at 100 microg/kg administered once per chemotherapy cycle is comparable to daily injections of filgrastim at 5 microg/kg for pediatric sarcoma patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Spanish Society of Medical Oncology consensus for the use of haematopoietic colony-stimulating factors in cancer patients

Neutropenia is a common complication of cancer chemotherapy. Colony-stimulating factors (CSF) may be used to avoid neutropenia-associated complications. The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) recently constituted a working group to review the main issues concerning the use of CSF and carried out a consensus process about the use of CSF in cancer patients, held in Madrid on 26 May 2006. The group concluded the following recommendations: prophylactic use of CSF is recommended when a rate of febrile neutropenia (FN) higher than 20% is expected without the use of CSF or when additional risk factors for neutropenia exist; therapeutic use of CSF is recommended in order to treat FN episodes but not to treat afebrile neutropenic episodes. In addition, the use of CSF is considered effective when used to mobilise stem cells before high-dose chemotherapy and when used for chemotherapy schedule optimisation in dose-dense and in dose-intense regimens.

Development of a new G-CSF product based on biosimilarity assessment

BACKGROUND

Zarzio, a new recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (filgrastim), was evaluated in healthy volunteers and neutropenic patients in phase I and III studies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Healthy volunteers in randomized, two-period crossover studies received single- and multiple-dose s.c. injections of 1 microg/kg (n = 24), 2.5 microg/kg (n = 28), 5 microg/kg (n = 28), or 10 microg/kg (n = 40), as well as single-dose i.v. infusions of 5 microg/kg (n = 26), of Zarzio or the reference product (Neupogen). Filgrastim serum levels were monitored; pharmacodynamic parameters were absolute neutrophil count (all studies) and CD34(+) cells (multiple-dose studies). Supportive efficacy and safety data were obtained from an open phase III study in 170 breast cancer patients undergoing four cycles of doxorubicin and docetaxel (Taxotere) chemotherapy, receiving Zarzio (300 or 480 microg) as primary prophylaxis of severe neutropenia.

RESULTS

The results of the studies in healthy volunteers confirm the comparability of the test and reference products with respect to their pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics. Confidence intervals were within the predefined equivalence boundaries. In the phase III study in breast cancer patients, the administration of Zarzio was efficacious and safe, triggering no immunogenicity.

CONCLUSION

The results of these studies demonstrate the biosimilarity of Zarzio with its reference product Neupogen.

Randomized trial and pharmacokinetic study of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim after dose-intensive chemotherapy in young adults and children with sarcomas

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness, tolerance, and pharmacokinetics of a single dose of pegfilgrastim to daily filgrastim in children and young adults with sarcomas treated with dose-intensive combination chemotherapy.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Patients were randomized to receive a single dose of 100 mcg/kg of pegfilgrastim s.c. or 5 mcg/kg/day of filgrastim s.c., daily until neutrophil recovery after two treatment cycles with vincristine, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (VDC) and two cycles of etoposide and ifosfamide (IE). The duration of severe neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count, < or =500/mcL) during cycles 1 to 4 and cycle duration for all cycles were compared. Pharmacokinetics of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim and CD34+ stem cell mobilization were studied on cycle 1. Growth factor-related toxicity, transfusions, and episodes of fever and neutropenia and infections were collected for cycles 1 to 4.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients (median age, 20 years; range 3.8-25.8) were enrolled, and 32 completed cycles 1 to 4. The median (range) duration of absolute neutrophil count of <500/mcL was 5.5 (3-8) days for pegfilgrastim and 6 (0-9) days for filgrastim (P = 0.76) after VDC, and 1.5 (0-4) days for pegfilgrastim and 3.75 (0-6.5) days for filgrastim (P = 0.11) after IE. More episodes of febrile neutropenia and documented infections occurred on the filgrastim arm. Serum pegfilgrastim concentrations were highly variable. Pegfilgrastim apparent clearance (11 mL/h/kg) was similar to that reported in adults.

CONCLUSION

A single dose per cycle of pegfilgrastim was well tolerated and may be as effective as daily filgrastim based on the duration of severe neutropenia and number of episodes of febrile neutropenia and documented infections after dose-intensive treatment with VDC and IE.

Prevention of febrile neutropenia: use of prophylactic antibiotics

Febrile neutropenia (FN) causes significant morbidity and mortality in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy and can lead to reduced chemotherapy dose intensity and increased overall treatment costs. Antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the incidence of FN. Recent research and meta-analyses confirm that prophylactic fluoroquinolones decrease FN and infection-related mortality in patients with acute leukaemia and those receiving high-dose chemotherapy. Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis also lowers the incidence of FN and all-cause mortality following the first cycle of myelosuppressive chemotherapy for solid tumours. Levofloxacin has been the agent studied most thoroughly in this context. Although there is no convincing evidence that colonisation of individuals with resistant organisms due to antibiotic prophylaxis increases FN or mortality, such concerns must be taken seriously and the use of prophylaxis should be limited responsibly for patients with the greatest chance of benefit. Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis is well tolerated and cost-effective and should be offered to patients receiving chemotherapy for haematological malignancies and high-dose chemotherapy for solid tumours in which prolonged (>7 days) neutropenia is expected. It should also be considered for those receiving chemotherapy for solid tumours and lymphomas during the first cycle of chemotherapy when grade 4 neutropenia is anticipated.

Pegfilgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-associated neutropenia in pediatric patients with solid tumors

BACKGROUND

Pegfilgrastim has similar efficacy to filgrastim in adults, but studies in pediatrics are limited. We report our institutional experience with pegfilgrastim following dose intensive chemotherapy for solid tumors.

PROCEDURE

We evaluated the initial four courses of myelosuppressive chemotherapy for 47 patients (total 176 courses) diagnosed between 1/1/07 and 2/6/08 who received chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim support (100 mcg/kg; 6 mg maximum dose) in this retrospective review. We collected demographic data, treatment characteristics, frequency of severe neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count (ANC) <200/mm(3)), duration of neutropenia, and frequency of neutropenic fever.

RESULTS

The median age of treated patients was 13 years (range 0.17-23 years) and the median weight was 50.8 kg (range 4-107 kg), including 16 (34%) <20 kg, and 22 (47%) <45 kg. Primary diagnoses included osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, soft tissue sarcoma, neuroblastoma, Hodgkin disease, and other solid tumors. No significant adverse events secondary to pegfilgrastim were noted. Severe neutropenia occurred in 57% of courses. The median duration of severe neutropenia was 1 day (range 0-11 days). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 28% of courses. Eight patients were treated with interval-compressed (every 14 days) sarcoma chemotherapy. Of the 30-interval compressed courses, the median duration per course was 14 days (range 14-18 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Pegfilgrastim following dose intensive chemotherapy for solid tumors is feasible in children, including those <45 kg. The frequency and duration of severe neutropenia, as well as incidence of febrile neutropenia, were similar to filgrastim historic data.

Once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients treated with docetaxel/epidoxorubicin/cyclophosphamide

The incidence of neutropenia following combination chemotherapy is significant in breast cancer and impairs patients' quality of life. Colony-stimulating factors significantly decrease the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and safety profile of once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim in reducing FN in breast cancer patients treated with docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)), epidoxorubicin (75 mg/m(2)), cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m(2)) administered every 3 weeks. Thirty-five breast cancer patients were enrolled. Chemotherapy was administered in adjuvant, neoadjuvant and metastatic setting respectively in 26, 4 and 5 patients. Toxicity was monitored with programmed clinical evaluation and blood sampling. All patients completed the therapeutic programme consisting of six cycles for overall 210 cycles. The FN appeared in 6 out of 35 patients (17%), requiring dose reduction in 3 patients. Hypertransaminasemia was registered in two patients. In one patient pegfilgrastim administration was stopped because of skin hypersensitivity reaction. In conclusion, pegfilgrastim was able to maintain doses and timing of docetaxel/epidoxorubicin/cyclophosphamide in almost all breast cancer patients treated in this series. The reduced need for daily administration of colony-stimulating factors, blood sampling, antibiotic therapy and hospitalization has a significant impact in terms of both quality of life and pharmaco-economic evaluations.

Economic implications of using pegfilgrastim rather than conventional G-CSF to prevent neutropenia during small-cell lung cancer chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

For the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile aplasia, a single injection of pegfilgrastim per cycle has the same efficacy as six to ten injections of conventional granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). However, there are few data on the economic impact of pegfilgrastim use, especially in the context of small-cell lung cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved 31 patients and 129 treatment cycles (32 with pegfilgrastim and 97 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)). We estimated the direct costs for preventing and managing febrile aplasia from the payer's perspective and also conducted a willingness-to-pay study with 100 healthy subjects, in order to estimate how highly a single-jab strategy was valued relative to multiple injections.

RESULTS

The costs per cycle were respectively 1743 euros+/- 837 euros and 1466 euros +/- 836 euros for the pegfilgrastim and G-CSF strategies (p < 0.001). The excess cost of the pegfilgrastim strategy was partly compensated for by the perceived value of the single-jab strategy: 88% of interviewees would prefer the pegfilgrastim strategy; 16% would be willing to pay all the excess cost (277 euros) and 67% would be willing to pay half the excess cost.

CONCLUSION

In this willingness-to-pay survey, the excess cost associated with pegfilgrastim relative to other G-CSF-based prophylactic strategies is partly offset by the perceived convenience of a single injection.

Neutrophil biology and the next generation of myeloid growth factors

Neutrophils are the body's critical phagocytic cells for defense against bacterial and fungal infections; bone marrow must produce approximately 10 x 10(9) neutrophils/kg/d to maintain normal blood neutrophil counts. Production of neutrophils depends on myeloid growth factors, particularly granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). After the original phase of development, researchers modified these growth factors to increase their size and delay renal clearance, increase their biologic potency, and create unique molecules for business purposes. Pegylated G-CSF is a successful product of these efforts. Researchers have also tried to identify small molecules to serve as oral agents that mimic the parent molecules, but these programs have been less successful. In 2006, the European Medicines Agency established guidelines for the introduction of new biologic medicinal products claimed to be similar to reference products that had previously been granted marketing authorization in the European community, called bio-similars. Globally, new and copied versions of G-CSF and other myeloid growth factors are now appearing. Some properties of the myeloid growth factors are similar to other agents, offering opportunities for the development of alternative drugs and treatments. For example, recent research shows that hematopoietic progenitor cells can be mobilized with a chemokine receptor antagonist, chemotherapy, G-CSF, and granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor. Advances in neutrophil biology coupled with better understanding and development of myeloid growth factors offer great promise for improving the care of patients with cancer and many other disorders.

Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim primary prophylaxis in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving CHOP-21 in United States

OBJECTIVES

Prophylaxis with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Randomized clinical trials have shown that pegfilgrastim, a 2nd-generation G-CSF, is at least as effective as the 1st-generation G-CSF filgrastim. In the meta-analysis of trials pegfilgrastim performed better than filgrastim with respect to FN risk. The incremental cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (starting in cycle 1 and continuing in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy) with pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim used for 6 days (as is often used in clinical practice) was estimated in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in the United States.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from a health insurer's perspective with a life-time study horizon. The model considered direct medical costs and outcomes related to reduced FN and potential survival benefits due to 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 (ICER) of pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim primary prophylaxis was $2167/FN episode avoided. Adding survival benefit from avoiding FN mortality yielded an ICER of $5532/LY gained or $6190/QALY gained. When the potential benefit of optimized chemotherapy was included, the ICER was $1494/LY gained or $1677/QALY gained. The most influential factors included cost of pegfilgrastim, relative risk of FN between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, FN case-fatality rate, cost of filgrastim and baseline FN risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Pegfilgrastim is cost-effective in primary prophylaxis of FN compared to 6 days per cycle of filgrastim, in patients with NHL receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy (e.g., cyclophosphamide + doxorubicin + vincristine + prednisolone [CHOP-21]) chemotherapy. Study limitations included lack of direct evidence linking G-CSF use with a reduction in FN-related mortality and limited data that show a relationship between relative dose intensity (RDI) and cancer-specific patient survival.