Primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving CHOP chemotherapy treatment without adversely affecting their quality of life: cost–benefit and quality of life analysis

Two decades of pegfilgrastim: what have we learned? Where do we go from here?

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is a medical emergency that may occur in patients with malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. FN requires early therapeutic intervention since it is associated with increased hospitalizations and high mortality risk of 5%-20%. FN-related hospitalizations are higher in patients with myeloid malignancies than in those with solid tumors due to the myelotoxicity of chemotherapy regimens and the compromised bone marrow function. FN increases the burden of cancer by causing chemotherapy dose reductions and delays. The administration of the first granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), filgrastim, reduced the incidence and duration of FN in patients undergoing chemotherapy. Filgrastim later evolved into pegfilgrastim, which has a longer half-life than filgrastim and was associated with a lower rate of severe neutropenia, chemotherapy dose reduction, and treatment delay. Nine million patients have received pegfilgrastim since its approval in early 2002. The pegfilgrastim on-body injector (OBI) is an innovative device facilitating the time-released auto-injection of pegfilgrastim approximately 27 hours after chemotherapy, as clinically recommended for the prevention of FN, thus eliminating the need for a next-day hospital visit. Since its introduction in 2015, one million patients with cancer have received pegfilgrastim using the OBI. Subsequently, the device has been approved in the United States (US), European Union, Latin America, and Japan, with studies and a postmarketing commitment demonstrating device reliability. A recent prospective observational study conducted in the US demonstrated that the OBI substantially improved the adherence to and compliance with clinically recommended pegfilgrastim therapy; patients receiving pegfilgrastim via the OBI experienced a lower incidence of FN than those receiving alternatives for FN prophylaxis. This review discusses the evolution of G-CSFs leading to the development of the OBI, current recommendations for G-CSF prophylaxis in the clinic, continued evidence supporting next-day pegfilgrastim administration, and improvements in patient care made possible with the OBI.

Primary prophylaxis with G-CSF may improve outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV Hodgkin lymphoma treated with brentuximab vedotin plus chemotherapy

We investigate the impact of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) primary prophylaxis (G-PP, N = 83) versus no G-PP (N = 579) on safety and efficacy of brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A + AVD) in the ECHELON-1 study of previously untreated stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma. G-PP was associated with lower incidence of ≥ grade 3 neutropenia (29% versus 70%) and febrile neutropenia (11% versus 21%). Fewer dose delays (35% versus 49%), reductions (20% versus 26%), and hospitalizations (29% versus 38%) were observed. Seven neutropenia-associated deaths occurred in the A + AVD arm; none received G-PP. A + AVD with G-PP was associated with decreased risk of a modified progression-free survival event by 26% compared with A + AVD alone (95% CI: 0.40-1.37). G-PP reduced the rate and severity of adverse events, including febrile neutropenia, reduced treatment delays, dose reductions, and discontinuations, and may thus improve efficacy outcomes. These data support G-PP for all patients treated with A + AVD.

Clinical role of filgrastim in the management of patients at risk of prolonged severe neutropenia: An evidence-based review

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing chemotherapy are at risk of toxicity, especially of haematological origin. Granulocyte depletion, although often underestimated, can lead to the occurrence of an event defined as febrile neutropenia (FN). Neutropenic fever syndromes are dangerous because they cause major complications in around 25%-30% of patients and have a mortality rate of up to 11%. Treatment for FN was limited to antibiotics and supportive therapies until filgrastim was approved for use in the 1990s.

OBJECTIVES

The present systematic review focuses on the efficacy and safety of this haematopoietic growth factor.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

For this review, a systematic literature search of electronic databases and references from recent reviews up to December 2018 was carried out to identify clinical trials, observational studies and case reports evaluating filgrastim efficacy and safety. English language was defined as a restriction. Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs), case reports and reviews analysing the effects of filgrastim on severe neutropenia and its limits were considered. Four review authors independently selected the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted study data.

RESULTS

As reported in ASCO guidelines, the efficacy of filgrastim with respect to placebo or no treatment in RCTs is based on its prevention of FN. A recent meta-analysis analysed nine RCTs with 2197 patients, revealing a reduction in the incidence of FN with filgrastim (risk ratio [RR] 0.63, 95% CI 0.53-0.75). These findings were further confirmed in two observational studies. Bone pain is the most commonly reported adverse event with filgrastim, while other toxicities are associated with filgrastim efficacy and with an increased neutrophil count.

KEY FINDINGS

In conclusion, our findings attest to the previous results on the efficacy and safety of filgrastim.

Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study

Background

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Clinical practice guidelines recommend routine prophylactic coverage with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)—such as pegfilgrastim—for most patients receiving chemotherapy with an intermediate to high risk for FN. Patterns of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis during the chemotherapy course and associated FN risks in US clinical practice have not been well characterized.

Methods

A retrospective cohort design and data from two commercial healthcare claims repositories (01/2010–03/2016) and Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files (01/2007–09/2015) were employed. Study population included patients who had non-metastatic breast cancer or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and received intermediate/high-risk regimens. Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis use and FN incidence were ascertained in each chemotherapy cycle, and all cycles were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios for FN were estimated for patients who did versus did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in that cycle.

Results

Study population included 50,778 commercial patients who received 190,622 cycles of chemotherapy and 71,037 Medicare patients who received 271,944 cycles. In cycle 1, 33% of commercial patients and 28% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, and adjusted odds of FN were 2.6 (95% CI 2.3–2.8) and 1.6 (1.5–1.7), respectively, versus those who received pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. In cycle 2, 28% (commercial) and 26% (Medicare) did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis; corresponding adjusted FN odds were comparably elevated (1.9 [1.6–2.2] and 1.6 [1.5–1.8]). Results in subsequent cycles were similar. Across all cycles, 15% of commercial patients and 23% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis despite having FN in a prior cycle, and prior FN increased odds of subsequent FN by 2.1–2.4 times.

Conclusions

Notwithstanding clinical practice guidelines, a large minority of patients did not receive G-CSF prophylaxis, and FN incidence was substantially higher among this subset of the population. Appropriate use of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis may reduce patient exposure to this potentially fatal but largely preventable complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-6010-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia with lipegfilgrastim in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NADIR study)

OBJECTIVE

The prospective non-interventional study (NIS) NADIR was designed to evaluate both effectiveness and safety of prophylactic use of lipegfilgrastim (Lonquex^® ), a glycopegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, in cancer patients with different tumor entities undergoing chemotherapy in routine clinical practice. The primary objective was incidence of severe neutropenia, febrile neutropenia (FN), and neutropenia-associated complications.

METHOD

NADIR was a national, multicenter, prospective NIS.

RESULTS

Here, we present the data on patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Final analysis comprised 337 NHL patients having received ≥1 administration of lipegfilgrastim. Primary prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim was documented in 78.7% of patients with high risk to develop FN. In total, ≥1 severe neutropenia (grade 3/4) was reported in 115 (34.1%) patients and ≥1 event of FN documented in 15 (4.5%) patients. Grade 3/4 infections were reported in 22 (6.5%) patients overall. Most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) related to lipegfilgrastim in total were bone pain (5.4%), leukocytosis (2.1%), back pain (1.8%), platelet count decreased (1.2%), and myalgia (1.2%). Fatal serious AEs were documented in 9 (2.7%) patients; none were attributable to lipegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSION

Prophylaxis or therapeutic intention with lipegfilgrastim in NHL patients in routine clinical practice showed similar effectiveness and safety as demonstrated in the pivotal trials.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and respiratory status of critically ill neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies

In patients with hematologic malignancies, respiratory status may deteriorate during neutropenia recovery. This multicenter, observational study aims to evaluate granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) impact on respiratory status in critically ill neutropenic patients. Among 1011 critically ill patients with hematologic malignancies, 288 were neutropenic and included in this study. 201 (70%) did not receive G-CSF at day 1 or 2. After propensity score matching for the probability of receiving G-CSF at day 1 or 2, there was no association between G-CSF and respiratory deterioration at day 14 (OR =1.19; 95%CI (0.57-2.51); p = .64). Additional sensitivity analysis in patients admitted for acute respiratory failure showed similar results (OR =1.34; 95%CI (0.5-3.59); p = .57). Among patients who recovered from neutropenia, 75% experienced respiratory deterioration during neutropenia recovery. This study confirms that neutropenia recovery is a situation at risk of respiratory deterioration. However, whether G-CSF is an aggravating factor cannot be supported by our results.

Model-based optimization of G-CSF treatment during cytotoxic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Although G-CSF is widely used to prevent or ameliorate leukopenia during cytotoxic chemotherapies, its optimal use is still under debate and depends on many therapy parameters such as dosing and timing of cytotoxic drugs and G-CSF, G-CSF pharmaceuticals used and individual risk factors of patients.

METHODS

We integrate available biological knowledge and clinical data regarding cell kinetics of bone marrow granulopoiesis, the cytotoxic effects of chemotherapy and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of G-CSF applications (filgrastim or pegfilgrastim) into a comprehensive model. The model explains leukocyte time courses of more than 70 therapy scenarios comprising 10 different cytotoxic drugs. It is applied to develop optimized G-CSF schedules for a variety of clinical scenarios.

RESULTS

Clinical trial results showed validity of model predictions regarding alternative G-CSF schedules. We propose modifications of G-CSF treatment for the chemotherapies 'BEACOPP escalated' (Hodgkin's disease), 'ETC' (breast cancer), and risk-adapted schedules for 'CHOP-14' (aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in elderly patients).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that we established a model of human granulopoiesis under chemotherapy which allows predictions of yet untested G-CSF schedules, comparisons between them, and optimization of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim treatment. As a general rule of thumb, G-CSF treatment should not be started too early and patients could profit from filgrastim treatment continued until the end of the chemotherapy cycle.

The Effectiveness of Febrile Neutropenia Prophylaxis with Lipegfilgrastim in Routine Clinical Practice

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common and potentially fatal complication of anticancer treatment, particularly in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. It has been shown that prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), especially its pegylated forms, significantly reduces the incidence of FN, the likelihood of chemotherapy dose intensity reduction and, also, the number of hospitalizations due to FN. This review discusses currently published results from clinical trials dealing with FN prophylaxis in routine clinical practice in patients with solid tumors and myeloproliferative malignancies with a focus on lipegfilgrastim, which is the newest modification of the original molecule filgrastim. The discussed results proved that prophylactic administration of lipegfilgrastim can almost eliminate the risk of FN and significantly reduce the risk of chemotherapy (CHT) dose reduction in routine clinical practice in cases of a clear high-risk chemotherapy regimen or in the presence of risk factors (such as age, comorbidities, performance status, etc.) in patients who received chemotherapy with medium risk of FN.

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia among breast cancer and Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients under Taiwan's national health insurance system

RATIONALE, AIM AND OBJECTIVE

The beneficial effects of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis on reducing the risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (CIFN) were well documented throughout the literature. However, existing data regarding its cost-effectiveness were conflicting. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of G-CSF prophylaxis in CIFN under Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) system.

METHODS

Data on clinical outcomes and direct medical costs were derived for 5179 newly diagnosed breast cancer and 629 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) patients from the NHI claims database. Patients were further categorized into three subgroups as "primary-", "secondary-" and "no -" prophylaxis based on their patterns of G-CSF use. Generalized estimating equations were applied to estimate the impact of G-CSF use on the incidence of CIFN. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of primary and secondary prophylactic G-CSF use were calculated and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Primary prophylaxis of G-CSF decreased the incidence of CIFN by 27% and 83%, while secondary prophylaxis by 34% and 22% in breast cancer and NHL patients, respectively. Compared with those with no prophylaxis, the incremental cost per CIFN reduced in primary prophylaxis is $931 and $52 among patients with breast cancer and NHL, respectively. In contrast, secondary prophylaxis is dominated by no prophylaxis and primary prophylaxis in both cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Primary but not secondary prophylactic use of G-CSF was cost-effective in CIFN in breast cancer and NHL patients under Taiwan's NHI system.

Emerging agents for the prevention of treatment induced neutropenia in adult cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

The administration of myeloid growth factors is the only approved treatment for the prevention of chemotherapy induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. However, their specific indications and contraindications and potential side effects limit their application to only a relatively small subset of patients at the highest risk for complications, such as infection.

AREAS COVERED

A computerized systematic literature search was performed through Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, the Pharmaprojects database and the clinicaltrials.gov website. The shortcomings of the existing treatment approach are reviewed, along with a synopsis of the characteristics of novel agents that protect bone marrow progenitors from the cytotoxic effects of antineoplastic treatment that may be used in the future as a stand-alone preventive strategy or as an adjunct to growth factors.

EXPERT OPINION

There is an abundance of agents undergoing evaluation for the prevention of treatment-induced neutropenia. The appropriate selection of patients, the optimization of the use of existing agents and the increasing competition from biosimilars which likely ensure future decreases in healthcare costs are essential for growth factors to retain their dominant position in this setting.

Granulocyte growth factor use in elderly patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the United States: adherence to guidelines and comparative effectiveness

PURPOSE

The efficacy of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) among elderly patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving CHOP-based chemotherapy has been demonstrated in clinical trials, and G-CSFs are recommended in guidelines. We studied guideline adherence and the effectiveness of G-CSFs in the general population.

METHODS

We used inpatient and outpatient claims from nationally representative databases linked to cancer information from tumor registries. Patients (N = 5884) diagnosed with NHL between 2001 and 2007 who were older than 65 years and who received CHOP-based chemotherapy were included. Adherence to guidelines was measured as the use of G-CSFs within 7 days of the first dose of chemotherapy. The measures of effectiveness were fever, infection, and death during cycle 1 of chemotherapy and time to cycle 2. Multiple-variable models of these outcomes were developed using logistic regression, controlling for demographic, clinical, and provider factors.

RESULTS

G-CSF use increased from 32 % in 2001 to 72 % in 2007. Patients who received G-CSFs were significantly less likely to have outpatient encounters for infection than those who did not receive early G-CSFs (35 vs 47 %; p < 0.0001). Inpatient encounters for infection were similarly prevalent among patients who did or did not receive early G-CSFs (5 vs 4 %; p = 0.2). There was no association between G-CSF use and death during cycle 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to guidelines increased after publication of clinical trials and exceeded 70 % after publication of guidelines. G-CSFs were effective in preventing outpatient encounters for fever or infection, but not inpatient encounters or deaths during cycle 1.

Changing patterns of chemotherapy relative dose intensity and supportive care for aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Maintaining high relative dose intensity (RDI) is associated with improved outcomes, especially in patients with aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). To evaluate changes in practice, we examined RDI, chemotherapy treatment patterns, dose delays and reductions, neutropenia and related consequences, and supportive care in 500 patients with aggressive B-cell NHL treated between 2006-2009. We then compared the results to a previous study of patients treated between 1993-2001. Relative to the previous study, rituximab was a common addition to CHOP-21 (91% vs. 3%), more patients received an RDI ≥ 85% (68% vs. 52%), and fewer patients experienced dose reductions (21% vs. 35%), though incidences of dose delays were similar (26% vs. 23%). Incidences of febrile neutropenia (FN; 12% vs. 21%) and FN-related hospitalizations (10% vs. 16%) were lower. Finally, more patients received primary prophylaxis with colony-stimulating factors (75% vs. 12%). Together, these results illustrate evolving practice patterns for patients with aggressive B-cell NHL.

Pharmacoeconomics of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: a critical review

INTRODUCTION

In the USA, neutropenia-related hospitalization is estimated to occur in 34.2 cases per 1,000 chemotherapy-treated patients. The cost of hospitalization is significant with estimates ranging, on average, from $10,000 to $30,000 per neutropenia-related hospitalization. Prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) significantly reduces the risk and duration of neutropenia-related negative events. However, the exact economic benefits of using G-CSF prophylactically are not completely known. The objective of this review is to examine the cost of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis (PP) as well as when used reactively to treat severe neutropenia (SN) or febrile neutropenia (FN).

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for studies published up to January 2014.

RESULTS

The evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of PP use of G-CSF is inconsistent. The cost savings of PP use of G-CSF associated with the reduction of neutropenia-related events are offset by the increased costs associated with improved chemotherapy administration. Cost savings due to the reduction in mortality and disease/symptoms and use of dose-dense regimens have not been adequately incorporated into previous cost-effectiveness studies. Available data suggest that using G-CSF in conjunction with antibiotics is more cost-effective than antibiotics alone when treating patients with SN/FN. Recent studies of biosimilars suggest that they are as effective as originator G-CSFs and, given their lower cost, could represent a cost-effective alternative. Finally, studies have not taken into consideration the indirect patient costs of experiencing a neutropenia-related event.

CONCLUSION

G-CSF use is effective in preventing SN/FN. Costs due to hospitalization and other neutropenia-related events are lower in patients treated with G-CSF as PP versus untreated patients. Despite this, many studies have not found solid evidence for the overall cost-effectiveness of PP use of G-CSF. One possibility for this is that patients receiving G-CSF prophylactically often receive more intense chemotherapy regimens, have better relative dose intensity, and fewer dose delays, and thereby have greater costs associated with chemotherapy administration than patients who do not receive G-CSF.

New G-CSF agonists for neutropenia therapy

INTRODUCTION

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; filgrastim) and its pegylated form (pegfilgrastim) are widely used to treat neutropenia associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation, AIDS-associated or drug-induced neutropenia, and neutropenic diseases. G-CSF facilitates restoration of neutrophil counts, decreases incidence of infection/febrile neutropenia and reduces resource utilization. G-CSF is also widely used to mobilize peripheral blood stem cells for hematopoietic transplant.

AREAS COVERED

We review the therapeutic use, cost effectiveness and disease impact of G-CSF for neutropenia, development of G-CSF biosimilars and current next-generation discovery efforts.

EXPERT OPINION

G-CSF has impacted the treatment and survival of patients with congenital neutropenias. For chemotherapy-associated neutropenia, cost effectiveness and impact on survival are still unclear. G-CSFs are expensive and require systemic administration. Market entry of new biosimilars, some with enhanced half-life profiles, will probably reduce cost and increase cost effectiveness. There is no evidence that marketed or late development biosimilars display effectiveness superior to current G-CSFs. Second-generation compounds that mimic the activity of G-CSF at its receptor, induce endogenous ligand(s) or offer adjunct activity have been reported and represent attractive G-CSF alternatives, but are in preclinical stages. A significant therapeutic advance will require reduced depth and duration of neutropenia compared to current G-CSFs.