Trends in Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Following Introduction of Biosimilars Among Adults With Cancer and Commercial or Medicare Insurance From 2014 to 2019

Prevalence and risks of intravenous chemotherapy-induced severe neutropenia in solid cancers: a multicenter retrospective cohort study on real-life data

PURPOSE

We aimed at identifying prevalence, clinical outcomes and prognostic factors in cancer patients with intravenous chemotherapy-induced severe neutropenia (ICISN).

METHODS

In this multicenter retrospective cohort study on the clinical data warehouse of Greater Paris University Hospitals (AP-HP), we included all adult patients with solid cancer hospitalized between 2016 and 2021 with intravenous chemotherapy within 30 days prior to severe neutropenia (D70 or D611 ICD-10 codes AND a neutrophil count < 500/mm3). The primary endpoint was referral to intensive care unit (ICU) or death within 30 days. We collected cancer, patient, and treatment characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 141,586 cancer inpatients, 40,660 received chemotherapy among whom 661 (1.6%) had ICISN. Median age was 63 years (interquartile range (IQR), 54-70) and 330 patients (49%) were female. The median Charlson score was 10 (IQR, 8-11). Main primary cancers were lung (n = 204, 31%) and breast (n = 87, 13%). Advanced cancers were found in 551 patients (83%), 331 (50%) were in 1st line of chemotherapy, 284 (42%) in the 1st cycle of the current line and 149 (22%) had primary G-CSF. Documented bacterial (mostly gram-negative bacilli) and fungal infections were observed in 113 (17%) and 19 (3%) patients; 58 (9%) were transferred to ICU and 82 (12%) died within 30 days, 372 (56%) patients received subsequent chemotherapy. Independent prognostic factors were the level of monocyte, lymphocyte counts or albuminemia and a documented bacterial infection, while Charlson index and primary prophylactic G-CSF were not associated with patient clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Despite the use of primary G-CSF, ICISN remains a frequent event, which leads to ICU death in one on five cases Some prognostic factors of severity have been highlighted and could help clinicians to prevent severe complications.

Trends in the use of granulocyte colony stimulating factors for older patients with cancer, 2010 to 2019

INTRODUCTION

Older patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive treatment are at an increased risk for developing febrile neutropenia (FN) or having chemotherapy dose-reductions or delays, resulting in suboptimal health outcomes. Granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) are effective medications to reduce these adverse events and are recommended for patients ≥65 years receiving chemotherapy with >10 % FN risk. We sought to characterize the trends and predictors of G-CSF use between the youngest-old (66-74 years), middle-old (75-84 years), and oldest-old (≥85 years) patients with cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used registry data from SEER-Medicare for breast, lung, ovarian, colorectal, esophageal, gastric, uterine, prostate, pancreatic cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) diagnoses from 2010 to 2019. Cox proportional hazard analysis was used.

RESULTS

Overall, 41.4 % of patients received G-CSF from chemotherapy initiation to three days after completion of the first chemotherapy course. The use rate remained relatively stable for all cancers, except for an increase in use for those with pancreatic cancer. G-CSF use decreased as patients got older. The oldest-old were 43.0 % (95 % confidence interval: 40.7-45.2 %) less likely to receive G-CSF compared to the youngest-old. Patients with breast cancer or NHL were more likely to receive G-CSF than those with other cancers. Patients who were female, married, White or Hispanic, and had fewer comorbidities were more likely to receive G-CSF.

DISCUSSION

G-CSF is used less often in populations at higher risk of developing FN and related complications. Improving adherence to recommendations can improve health outcomes, especially in the oldest adults, older males, and Black patients.

Rates of febrile neutropenia and its causes in the real world

Aim: Characterize febrile neutropenia in the real-world and explore potentially modifiable risk factors.Patients & methods: Characteristics of patient presenting with febrile neutropenia after systemic cancer treatment were investigated, with a thorough evaluation of potential risk factors.Results: The rate of febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization was comparable with clinical trials (mean absolute difference 2%, 95% CI: -1-4%; p = 0.29). The in-hospital mortality rate was 6%. Most cases resulted from low-risk regimens (50%) and 18.2% presented no apparent risk factors. 42.4% of patients presented modifiable factors potentially involved in the occurrence of febrile neutropenia.Conclusion: Febrile neutropenia rate in contemporary real-world evidence is comparable with clinical trials. Appropriate G-CSF administration and avoidance of potentially harmful drug-interactions represent potential areas for improvement.

The impact of new and emerging agents on outcomes for febrile neutropenia: addressing clinical gaps

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

While chemotherapy treatment options for patients with solid and hematologic malignancies have dramatically improved over recent years, chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN) remain major barriers to delivering treatment at full doses and optimal timing. Despite concurrent advances in granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration, multiple barriers to the administration of and disparities in the access to these agents remain. The introduction of new, emerging agents, including biosimilars and novel therapies show promise in improving outcomes for CIN.

RECENT FINDINGS

The introduction of biosimilar filgrastim products has improved access to G-CSF administration by driving marketplace competition and has reduced costs for both patients and healthcare systems without sacrificing efficacy. Emerging therapies to address similar issues include long-acting G-CSF products, efbemalenograstim alfa and eflapegrastin-xnst, as well as agents with novel mechanisms of action, plinabulin and trilaciclib. These agents have shown efficacy and cost-saving benefits in certain populations and disease groups.

SUMMARY

Multiple emerging agents show promise in decreasing the burden of CIN. Use of these therapies will reduce access disparities and will improve outcomes for patients with cancer receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Many ongoing trials are underway to evaluate the roles of these agents for more widespread use.

Comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim biosimilars vs originator for prevention of febrile neutropenia: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence on the comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim biosimilars compared with the originator product is limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) among users of pegfilgrastim biosimilars (pegfilgrastim-jmdb and pegfilgrastim-cbqv) and the originator product. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using 2019 IBM MarketScan databases to assess comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim originator and biosimilars for prevention of FN among patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Patients with cancer, including breast, lung, colorectal, esophageal and gastric, pancreatic, prostate, ovarian, and non-Hodgkin lymphomas, initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy courses were selected. We further selected patients who used pegfilgrastim originator and biosimilars within 3 days of chemotherapy completion. FN-associated hospitalizations were measured by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes. After 1:1 propensity score matching, we used equivalence (with a margin of 6%) hypothesis tests to compare FN-related hospitalization risk in the first cycle and across all cycles between biosimilars and originator users. RESULTS: A total of 2,045 patients were included, of which 445 (21.8%) used pegfilgrastim-jmdb, 636 (31.1%) used pegfilgrastim-cbqv, and 964 (47.1%) used pegfilgrastim originator. After matching, 13 out of 445 originator users and 17 out of 445 pegfilgrastim-jmdb users developed FN after the first chemotherapy cycle (risk difference was 0.9%; P < 0.001 for equivalence test indicating statistical equivalence). After matching, 14 out of 633 originator users and 16 out of 633 pegfilgrastim-cbqv users developed FN (risk difference was 0.32%; P < 0.001 for equivalence test indicating statistical equivalence). Results across all cycles (including the first cycle) were consistent with that in the first cycle. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study of patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, there was no difference in FN risk between patients receiving pegfilgrastim originator and biosimilars in the first cycle and across all cycles. These results add further to the current evidence on pegfilgrastim biosimilars and support wider adoption of pegfilgrastim biosimilars among payers, providers, and patients. Future studies assessing the tolerability, side effects, and other safety issues of pegfilgrastim biosimilars are needed.

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

IMPORTANCE

Colony-stimulating factors are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. Research suggests that 55% to 95% of colony-stimulating factor prescribing is inconsistent with national guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether a guideline-based standing order for primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors improves use and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cluster randomized clinical trial, the Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER), involved 32 community oncology clinics in the US. Participants were adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy and enrolled between January 2016 and April 2020. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Sites were randomized 3:1 to implementation of a guideline-based primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor standing order system or usual care. Automated orders were added for high-risk regimens, and an alert not to prescribe was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was to find an increase in colony-stimulating factor use among high-risk patients from 40% to 75%, a reduction in use among low-risk patients from 17% to 7%, and a 50% reduction in febrile neutropenia rates in the intervention group. Mixed model logistic regression adjusted for correlation of outcomes within a clinic.

RESULTS

A total of 2946 patients (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [50.0-67.0] years; 2233 women [77.0%]; 2292 White [79.1%]) were enrolled; 2287 were randomized to the intervention, and 659 were randomized to usual care. Colony-stimulating factor use for patients receiving high-risk regimens was high and not significantly different between groups (847 of 950 patients [89.2%] in the intervention group vs 296 of 309 patients [95.8%] in the usual care group). Among high-risk patients, febrile neutropenia rates for the intervention (58 of 947 patients [6.1%]) and usual care (13 of 308 patients [4.2%]) groups were not significantly different. The febrile neutropenia rate for patients receiving high-risk regimens not receiving colony-stimulating factors was 14.9% (17 of 114 patients). Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, colony-stimulating factor use was low and did not differ between groups (29 of 457 patients [6.3%] in the intervention group vs 7 of 128 patients [5.5%] in the usual care group). Febrile neutropenia rates did not differ between usual care (1 of 127 patients [0.8%]) and the intervention (7 of 452 patients [1.5%]) groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cluster randomized clinical trial, implementation of a guideline-informed standing order did not affect colony-stimulating factor use or febrile neutropenia rates in high-risk and low-risk patients. Overall, use was generally appropriate for the level of risk. Standing order interventions do not appear to be necessary or effective in the setting of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor prescribing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02728596.

Myelosuppression Alleviation and Hematopoietic Regeneration by Tetrahedral-Framework Nucleic-Acid Nanostructures Functionalized with Osteogenic Growth Peptide

As major complications of chemoradiotherapy, myelosuppression and hematopoietic-system damage severely affect immunologic function and can delay or even terminate treatment for cancer patients. Although several specific cytokines have been used for hematopoiesis recovery, their effect is limited, and they may increase the risk of tumor recurrence. In this study, osteogenic growth peptide functionalized tetrahedral framework nucleic-acid nanostructures (OGP-tFNAs) are prepared; they combine the positive hematopoiesis stimulating effect of OGP and the drug carrying function of tFNAs. The potential of OGP-tFNAs for hematopoietic stimulation and microenvironment regulation is investigated. It is shown that OGP-tFNAs can protect bone marrow stromal cells from 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-induced DNA damage and apoptosis. OGP-tFNAs pretreatment activates the extracellularly regulated protein kinase signal and downregulates apoptosis-related proteins. OGP-tFNAs also alleviate the chemotherapy-induced inhibition of hematopoiesis-related cytokine expression, which is crucial for hematopoiesis reconstitution. In conclusion, OGP-tFNAs can protect hematopoietic cells and their microenvironment from chemotherapy-induced injuries and myelosuppression, while promoting hematopoiesis regeneration.

Patient out-of-pocket and payer costs for pegfilgrastim originator vs biosimilars as primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in the first cycle among a commercially insured population

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether using pegfilgrastim biosimilars is cost saving in a real-world setting. OBJECTIVE: To compare medical costs including pegfilgrastim drug costs and febrile neutropenia (FN) treatment and management costs between pegfilgrastim biosimilars (pegfilgrastim-jmdb, pegfilgrastim-cbqv) and originator users for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using 2019 IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases was conducted in adult patients with cancer initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy courses. At least 2 diagnoses of the same cancer (at least 7 days apart) were required within 30 days of the chemotherapy initiation date. Pegfilgrastim (excluding on-body injector) costs included drug costs only (excluding administration fees). FN-related costs included all FN-related health care utilizations that were defined as having neutropenia, fever, or infection diagnosis. Per-patient per-cycle (PPPC) out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, health plan costs, and total costs were compared between originator (excluding on-body injector) and biosimilars users in the first cycle. A generalized linear model and a 2-part model were used. RESULTS: A total of 1,930 patients were included, of whom 884 (45.8%) used pegfilgrastim originator, 427 (22.1%) used pegfilgrastim-jmdb, and 619 (32.1%) used pegfilgrastim-cbqv. Adjusted PPPC OOP pegfilgrastim costs in the first cycle were significantly lower for the biosimilars vs the originator ($182 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb and $159 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv vs $299 for originator, P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). However, there was no difference in health plan costs ($5,783 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb and $5,845 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv vs $5,618 for originator) and total costs. In addition, no difference was observed for adjusted PPPC FN treatment and management OOP costs, health plan costs, and total costs in the first cycle. FN treatment OOP costs were $192 for originator, $197 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb (P = 0.958), and $240 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv (P = 0.680). FN treatment health plan costs were $2,804 for originator, $2,970 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb (P = 0.692), and $2,745 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv (P = 0.879). CONCLUSIONS: In a commercially insured population, using pegfilgrastim biosimilars in the first cycle for primary prophylaxis of FN led to cost savings for patients but not payers. No difference in FN-related costs was observed.