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

[Effect and safety of pegylated recombinant human G-CSF on hematopoietic reconstitution after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in lymphoma patients]

Objective: Efficacy and safety analysis of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) in promoting hematopoietic recovery after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) in patients with lymphoma. Methods: A total of 149 patients after auto-HSCT in Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine were enrolled in this study from April 2016 to December 2021. There were 75 cases in the PEG-rhG-CSF group who were given a single subcutaneous dose of 100 µg/kg on the first day and +8 d, while 74 cases in the rhG-CSF group were given a dose of 5-10 µg·kg(-1)·d(-1) by subcutaneous injection from +1d continuing to an absolute value of neutrophil (ANC) of more than 1.5×10(9)/L. Results: ①The time of grade 3/4 agranulocytosis and neutrophil implantation in the PEG-rhG-CSF group were significantly different from that in rhG-CSF group (P=0.010, 0.030, 0.007) . There were no significant differences in the platelet implantation time, anemia incidence and duration, and platelet and red blood cell infusion within 1 month after transplantation between groups. ②The agranulocytosis with fever incidence in PEG-rhG-CSF group was similar to that in rhG-CSF group (84.0% vs 82.4% , P=0.798) , but the duration was shorter in the PEG-rhG-CSF group (4.0 d vs 5.5 d, P=0.005) . ③The incidence of infection in the PEG-rhG-CSF and the rhG-CSF groups were 22.7% (17/75) and 31.1% (23/74) , respectively (P=0.247) , and the bloodstream infection incidence were 5.3% (4/75) and 9.5% (7/74) , respectively (P=0.336) . ④The PEG-rhG-CSF group and rhG-CSF group's mean length of hospital stay were 31.5 (23-43) days and 37 (25-75) days, respectively (P<0.001) . ⑤The PEG-rhG-CSF group and rhG-CSF group's disease-free survival rates were (96.4±2.5) % and (94.7±2.6) % (P=0.638) , respectively, and the OS rates were 100.0% and (98.6±1.3) % (P=0.312) , respectively. Conclusion: PEG-rhG-CSF application after auto-HSCT in patients with lymphoma can promote hematopoietic granulocyte reconstruction and shorten hospital stay, but has no significant effect on the incidence of infection, disease-free survival, and overall survival after transplantation.

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.

Patterns of primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in older Medicare patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend primary prophylactic (PP) granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) for prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with high risk (HR: > 20%), or intermediate risk (IR:10-20%) of FN and ≥ 1 patient risk factor (e.g., age ≥ 65y). The current retrospective cohort study describes patterns of PP-G-CSF in older Medicare patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy with HR/IR of FN.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 66y initiating chemotherapy regimens with HR/IR of FN to treat breast, colorectal, lung, or ovarian cancer, or Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma were selected using Medicare 20% sample (2013-2015) and 100% cancer patient (2014-2017) data. PP-G-CSF use was identified in the first cycle. Timing of pegfilgrastim pre-filled syringe (PFS) administration, proportion of patients completing all cycles (adherence) with pegfilgrastim PFS or on-body injector (OBI), and duration of short-acting G-CSF (sG-CSF) was described across all cycles.

RESULTS

Of 64,893 patients receiving HR/IR for FN, 71% received HR and 29% IR regimens. Overall, PP-G-CSF use in the first cycle was 53% (HR: 74%; IR: 44%) and varied across cancers. Adherence with pegfilgrastim was slightly higher among OBI initiators (78%) than PFS (74%). Number of PP-sG-CSF administrations (mean [SD]) per cycle was 5.1 (SD: 2.7) overall, 5.4 (2.6) for HR, and 4.9 (2.7) for IR.

CONCLUSION

Despite cancer treatment guidelines recommending PP-G-CSF use to reduce risk of FN associated with HR and IR (with ≥ 1 patient risk-factor) regimens, PP-G-CSF remains underutilized in older patients, across cancer types and regimens. Opportunities exist for improvement in use of PP-G-CSF.

Use of prophylactic pegfilgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in the US: A review of adherence to present guidelines for usage

Evidence-based US guidelines provide recommendations for the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) as supportive therapy in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is recommended for FN prophylaxis in patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving a high-risk chemotherapy regimen, or an intermediate-risk regimen if one or more risk factors are present. The guidelines highlight the patient characteristics and chemotherapy regimens for solid tumors and hematologic malignancies that may influence a patient's overall risk of FN and may benefit from pegfilgrastim support. This review aimed to evaluate how pegfilgrastim use in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in routine clinical practice aligns with evidence-based US guidelines. Examination of the literature revealed widespread deviation in relation to under- and over-prescribing, and timing of administration in US clinical practice. Pegfilgrastim is often over-prescribed in patients receiving palliative chemotherapy and those at low risk of FN. Potential under-prescribing of pegfilgrastim was also observed. In this literature search, data that appear to support same-day administration of pegfilgrastim were from uncontrolled studies that were limited in size. Analyses of healthcare claims data clearly favored next-day use, with statistically significant increases in FN incidence among patients receiving same-day pegfilgrastim versus those treated 1-4 days post-chemotherapy. Earlier-than-recommended administration typically occurs at the physician's discretion where next-day administration might present barriers to the patient receiving supportive therapy.There is a need to ensure appropriate prescribing to optimize patient outcomes, as deviation from the guideline recommendations was associated with increased incidence of FN and hospitalization.

Opioid use prior to admission for chemotherapy induced febrile neutropenia is associated with increased documented infection, sepsis, and death

PURPOSE

Cancer patients on chemotherapy are at risk for developing febrile neutropenia and infections. Opioids have been associated with immune suppression and risk of infection. We aimed to investigate opioid use associated with infections and death among cancer patients admitted with febrile neutropenia.

METHODS

A total of 481 patients admitted for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia were reviewed. There were 274 patients with opioid prescriptions (OP) within 10 days of hospitalization and 207 patients without opioid prescriptions (NOP) for >1 year of hospitalization. The primary outcomes were microbiologically and clinically documented infection as defined by the International Immunocompromised Host Society (IHS), sepsis by clinician, systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score.

RESULTS

Documented infection occurred in 192 (70%) of patients with opioids compared to 99 (48%) with non-opioids, p < 0.001. Similar results were observed in sepsis by SOFA score with 173 (63%) opioids versus 92 (44%) non-opioids, p < 0.001, and sepsis by SIRS with 225 (82%) and 115 (56%) respectively, p < 0.001. Multivariable analysis showed opioid use has an increased adjusted odds of documented infection by 7.13 fold (95% CI 3.97-12.78), Sepsis by SOFA by 2.39 fold (95% CI 1.33-4.29), and Sepsis by SIRS by 1.87 fold (95% CI 1.13-3.10). Multivariable analysis for death/hospice showed that opioids had 2.30 fold (95% CI 1.16-4.57) increase in adjusted odds of death/hospice within 30 days of discharge.

CONCLUSION

The data supports that patients with prior opioid use is associated with increased odds for infection, sepsis and death than non-opioid users admitted with febrile neutropenia.

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.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) and pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in breast cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients receiving high (> 20%) FN-risk chemotherapy: results from a prospective observational study

PURPOSE

Prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia (FN) is recommended for the duration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy in high-risk patients; yet, granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) discontinuation occurs frequently in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to investigate the incidence of FN in real-world settings and the extent and impact of early pegfilgrastim discontinuation.

METHODS

This prospective, observational study enrolled patients with any-stage non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) or breast cancer initiating a new chemotherapy course with a high (> 20%) FN risk, with pegfilgrastim in cycle 1. During routine clinical visits, data were collected on FN events, discontinuation of pegfilgrastim (defined as administration of G-CSF other than pegfilgrastim for ≥ 1 cycle) and all G-CSF (and reasons), neutropenic complications and adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

RESULTS

Overall, 943 patients were enrolled; 844 met the eligibility criteria (full analysis set) and 814 (86%) completed the study. Twenty-eight patients (3%) had 31 FN events (NHL, n = 17; breast cancer, n = 11). Twenty-six patients (3%) discontinued pegfilgrastim. Forty-four patients (5%) discontinued G-CSF. The most common reason for pegfilgrastim discontinuation was physician preference for daily G-CSF (n = 14 [2%]), and for discontinuation of all G-CSFs was reduced FN risk (n = 14 [2%]). Patients who continued G-CSF prophylaxis were less likely to experience neutropenic complications (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.26 [0.09-0.80]). Suspected ADRs to pegfilgrastim occurred in 43 patients (5%) and serious ADRs in 5 (1%).

CONCLUSIONS

FN rates were consistent with previous reports with pegfilgrastim in clinical practice. No new ADRs were observed. G-CSF discontinuation was uncommon but appeared to increase the likelihood of neutropenic complications.

Overuse and underuse of pegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommend pegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia after highly myelosuppressive chemotherapy. While deviations from guidelines could result in overuse and increased costs, underuse is also a concern and could compromise quality of care. Our objectives were to evaluate guideline adherence and quantify the extent to which physician heterogeneity may influence pegfilgrastim use.

METHODS

We randomly sampled 550 patients from a retrospective cohort of those who received infusions at an academic cancer center between 1 September 2013 and 1 September 2014. Electronic medical and drug dispensing records provided information on patient characteristics, chemotherapy characteristics, prescribing physician, and pegfilgrastim administration.

RESULTS

We included 154 patients treated by 25 physicians. About half of patients were male and mean age was 61.3 years. Forty (26.1%) patients had no febrile neutropenia risk factors, 62 (40.5%) had one, and 51 (33.3%) had two or more. Thirty patients (19.5%) received pegfilgrastim, of which 12 (40%) received palliative chemotherapy. Nine (60%) of 15 patients on a regimen with a febrile neutropenia risk  ≥ 20% received pegfilgrastim. Pegfilgrastim use significantly varied by cancer type (p < 0.01), chemotherapy regimen (p < 0.001), and regimen febrile neutropenia risk (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis reaffirmed the association between chemotherapy regimen febrile neutropenia risk ≥ 20% and pegfilgrastim use (odds ratio (OR) = 10.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.6-62.7) and suggested that 31% (95% CI: 8%-71%) of the variation in use was attributable to physician characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Pegfilgrastim was potentially overused for palliative chemotherapy and underused for chemotherapy regimens with febrile neutropenia risk ≥ 20%. Successful interventions to modify prescribing practices likely require an understanding of the relationship between specific physician characteristics and pegfilgrastim use.

Tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in a cohort of adults with rheumatologic conditions

Based on limited evidence, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a black box warning for the use of tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNFIs) and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Our objective was to determine the risk of NHL associated with TNFI use by duration and type of anti-TNF agent. We performed a nested case-control study within a retrospective cohort of adults with rheumatologic conditions from a U.S. commercial health insurance database between 2009 and 2015. Use of TNFIs (infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab and certolizumab pegol) and conventional-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) was identified, and conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for risk of NHL. From a retrospective cohort of 55,446 adult patients, 101 NHL cases and 984 controls matched on age, gender and rheumatologic indication were included. Compared to controls, NHL cases had greater TNFI use (33% vs. 20%) but were similar in csDMARD use (70% vs. 71%). TNFI ever-use was associated with nearly two-fold increased risk of NHL (OR = 1.93; 95% CI: 1.16-3.20) with suggestion of increasing risk with duration (P-trend = 0.05). TNF fusion protein (etanercept) was associated with increased NHL risk (OR = 2.73; 95% CI: 1.40-5.33), whereas risk with anti-TNF monoclonal antibodies was not statistically significant (OR = 1.77; 95% CI: 0.87-3.58). In sensitivity analyses evaluating confounding by rheumatologic disease severity, channeling bias was not likely to account for our results. Our findings support the FDA black box warning for NHL. Continued surveillance and awareness of this rare but serious adverse outcome are warranted with new TNFIs and biosimilar products forthcoming.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with early discontinuation of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis based on real-world data from 2010 to 2015

OBJECTIVE

Evidence suggests that not all cancer chemotherapy patients who receive first-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (PP) continue to receive it in later cycles, and that these patients may be subsequently at higher risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Available evidence, however, may not be reflective of current clinical practice. We undertook an evaluation to estimate the odds of FN, beginning with second chemotherapy cycle, among patients who received PP in that cycle and all previous cycles versus those who received PP in all previous cycles only, using recent real-world data.

METHODS

A matched-cohort design and data from two US healthcare claims repositories (2010-2015) were employed. The source population comprised cancer patients who received intermediate/high-risk chemotherapy and first-cycle PP. From the source population, beginning with the second cycle, all patients who received PP in all previous cycles were identified. From this subset, patients who did not receive PP in the cycle of interest ("comparison patients") were matched to those who received PP in that cycle ("PP patients"); the same process was repeated for subsequent cycles. Odds ratios (ORs) for FN (broad and narrow definitions) were estimated using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

Among 47,254 patients in the source population, 9% did not receive second-cycle PP and were matched to those who did. FN odds in cycle 2 were significantly higher among comparison patients versus PP patients (OR [broad definition]: 1.7, p < .001); OR [narrow definition]: 4.3, p < .001). Results for subsequent cycles and for the last cycle, respectively, were comparable (OR [range, broad definition]: 1.6 to 3.1, p < .001 for all; OR [range, narrow definition]: 2.7 to 11.8, p < .001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world evaluation of cancer chemotherapy patients who received first-cycle PP, FN risk was substantially higher among patients who did not receive PP in subsequent cycles versus those who continued PP.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia by day of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice from 2010 to 2015

OBJECTIVE

Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (PP) is recommended 1-3 days following administration of chemotherapy during the cycle. Some patients, however, receive PP before or after the recommended timing. While evidence suggests that risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) may be lower when PP is administered per recommendation, such evidence is based on older data. We undertook a new study to compare FN risk between patients who received PP on the last day of chemotherapy ("day 0") or 4-5 days following chemotherapy ("days 4-5"), versus 1-3 days following chemotherapy ("days 1-3"), using recent data from US clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and data from two US private healthcare claims repositories (2010-2016) were employed. Patients received intermediate/high-risk chemotherapy regimens for solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and PP in ≥1 cycle; all cycles with PP were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) for FN during the cycle were estimated for patients who received PP on day 0 or days 4-5, vs. days 1-3, using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

The study population included 53,814 patients who received PP in 217,273 cycles; in 9% of cycles, patients received PP on day 0 (8%) or days 4-5 (<1%). Odds of FN in cycle 1 were significantly higher among patients receiving PP on day 0 (OR: 1.4 [95% CI: 1.2-1.7]) or days 4-5 (1.9 [1.2-3.0]), vs. days 1-3, in that cycle. Results for subsequent cycles of chemotherapy were comparable to those for the first cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large-scale retrospective evaluation of cancer chemotherapy patients receiving PP in recent US clinical practice, PP was administered before or after the recommended timing in 9% of cycles. FN incidence was significantly higher in these cycles providing additional real-world evidence that PP should be administered the day after chemotherapy in alignment with recently updated US practice guidelines.

NOLAN: a randomized, phase 2 study to estimate the effect of prophylactic naproxen or loratadine vs no prophylactic treatment on bone pain in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim

Purpose

Mild-to-moderate bone pain is a commonly reported adverse event (AE) associated with pegfilgrastim. We evaluated the effect of prophylactic naproxen or loratadine vs no prophylactic treatment on pegfilgrastim-associated bone pain.

Methods

In this open-label study (NCT01712009), women ≥ 18 years of age with newly diagnosed stage I–III breast cancer and an ECOG performance status ≤ 2 who were planning ≥ 4 cycles of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim support starting in cycle 1 were randomized 1:1:1 to receive naproxen, loratadine, or no treatment to prevent pegfilgrastim-associated bone pain. The primary endpoint was all-grade bone pain in cycle 1 from AE reporting. Secondary endpoints included bone pain in cycles 2–4 and across all cycles from AE reporting and patient-reported bone pain by cycle and across all cycles.

Results

Six hundred patients were enrolled. Most patients (83.0%) were white, and mean (SD) age was 54.2 (11.1) years. The percentage of patients with all-grade bone pain in cycle 1 from AE reporting in the naproxen, loratadine, and no prophylaxis groups was 40.3, 42.5, and 46.6%, respectively; differences between the treatment groups were not statistically significant. Maximum, mean, and area under the curve for patient-reported bone pain were consistently lower in the naproxen and loratadine groups than in the no prophylaxis group; some of these differences were significant. Loratadine was associated with fewer treatment-related AEs and discontinuations than naproxen.

Conclusions

Given its tolerability, its ease of administration, and its potential benefit, treatment with loratadine should be considered to help prevent bone pain in patients receiving chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01712009

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-017-3959-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Burden of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia Hospitalizations in US Clinical Practice, by Use and Patterns of Prophylaxis with Colony-Stimulating Factor

INTRODUCTION

Evidence suggests that many cancer chemotherapy patients who are candidates for colony-stimulating factor (CSF) prophylaxis do not receive it or receive it inconsistent with guidelines, and that such patients have a higher risk of febrile neutropenia hospitalization (FNH). Little is known about the number and consequences of FNH by use/patterns of CSF prophylaxis in US clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and private healthcare claims data were employed. Study population comprised adults who received a chemotherapy course with a high-risk regimen, or an intermediate-risk regimen (if ≥1 FN risk factor present), for non-metastatic breast cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL); each chemotherapy cycle within the course and each FNH episode within the cycles were identified. Consequences included mortality, inpatient days, and costs (US$2013) during FNH. Use (yes/no) and patterns (agent, administration day/duration) of CSF prophylaxis were evaluated within cycles in which FNH episodes occurred.

RESULTS

Among all FNH episodes (n=6,355; 109 episodes per 1,000 patients), 41.3% (95% CI: 40.1-42.5) occurred among patients who did not receive CSF prophylaxis in that cycle, and 8.8% (8.1-9.5) occurred among those who received CSF prophylaxis on the same day as chemotherapy. Among FNH episodes occurring in patients who received daily CSF agents (2% of CSF use), 56.1% (44.1-68.0) received prophylaxis <7 days during the cycle. Results for FNH consequences were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective evaluation, one-half of FNH episodes, outcomes, and costs among cancer chemotherapy patients who were candidates for CSF prophylaxis occurred in those who either did not receive it or received it inconsistent with guidelines.

Results of a prospective dose intensity and neutropenia prophylaxis evaluation programme (DIEPP) in cancer patients at risk of febrile neutropenia due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To describe the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and use of pegfilgrastim in cancer patients with high overall risk of FN and to investigate the relationship between granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) guideline adherence and chemotherapy delivery in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and Austria.

METHODS

Dose Intensity Evaluation Program and Prophylaxis (DIEPP) was a multicentre, prospective, and observational study of adult patients with breast cancer, lymphoma, lung cancer, gastric cancer, and ovarian cancer, who received chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim support and who had an overall risk of FN ≥ 20 %. Physicians assessed patient risk factors and reported their reasons for administering pegfilgrastim.

RESULTS

Patients were enrolled from 113 centres in CEE and Austria between August 2010 and July 2013, and data were analysed from 1072 patients. The most common tumour types were breast cancer (50 %) and lymphoma (24 %). FN incidence was 5 % overall. FN occurred in 3 % of patients (28/875) who received pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis (PP) and 13 % of patients (19/142) who received it as secondary prophylaxis (SP); 79 % of FN events in SP patients occurred in the first cycle before pegfilgrastim was administered. The three most frequently chosen reasons for using pegfilgrastim were planned chemotherapy with high FN risk, female gender, and advanced disease. Overall, 40 % of patients received > 90 % of their planned chemotherapy dose within 3 days of the planned schedule.

CONCLUSION

FN incidence was relatively low with pegfilgrastim PP in patients with a physician-assessed overall FN risk of ≥ 20 %. The most important reasons for pegfilgrastim use were consistent with the investigators' risk assessment and international guidelines.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with early discontinuation of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice

Purpose

Accumulating evidence suggests that not all cancer chemotherapy patients who receive first-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis continue to receive it in subsequent cycles and that these patients may be subsequently at higher risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Additional evidence from US clinical practice is warranted.

Methods

Data from two US private healthcare claims repositories were employed. The source population comprised adults who received “intermediate-risk” or “high-risk” chemotherapy regimens for solid cancers or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and first-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. From the source population, all patients who did not receive second-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis ("comparison patients”) were matched (1:1) to those who received it (“pegfilgrastim patients”) based on cancer, regimen, and propensity score. Odds ratios (OR) for FN—broad and narrow definitions—during the second chemotherapy cycle were estimated for comparison patients versus pegfilgrastim patients using generalized estimating equations.

Results

A total of 2245 comparison patients (5.3 % of source population) were matched to pegfilgrastim patients; cohorts were well-balanced on baseline characteristics. Second-cycle FN incidence proportions for comparison and pegfilgrastim patients were 3.8 versus 2.2 % based on broad definition and 2.6 versus 0.8 % based on narrow definition; corresponding OR were 1.7 (95 % CI 1.2–2.5, p = 0.002) and 3.5 (95 % CI 2.0–6.0, p < 0.001). Results were similar within cancer/regimen-subgroups and were robust when using alternative methods for confounding adjustment.

Conclusions

In this retrospective evaluation of cancer chemotherapy patients who received first-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice, a clinically relevant minority did not receive second-cycle prophylaxis. Second-cycle FN odds among this subset were significantly higher than they were among those who continued prophylaxis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00520-015-3039-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in cancer patients receiving pegfilgrastim prophylaxis: does timing of administration matter?

PURPOSE

Contrary to the approved indication for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, some patients receive it on the same day as the last administration of chemotherapy in clinical practice, which could adversely impact risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). An evaluation of the timing of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis and FN risk was undertaken.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and data from two US private health care claims repositories were employed. Study population comprised adults who received intermediate/high-risk chemotherapy regimens for solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and received pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in ≥1 cycle; all cycles with pegfilgrastim were pooled for analyses. Odds ratios (OR) for FN during the cycle were estimated for patients who received pegfilgrastim on the same day (day 1) as the last administration of chemotherapy versus days 2-4 from chemotherapy completion.

RESULTS

The study population included 45,592 patients who received pegfilgrastim in 179,152 cycles (n = 37,095 in cycle 1); in 12 % of cycles, patients received pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy. Odds of FN were higher for patients receiving pegfilgrastim prophylaxis on the same day as chemotherapy versus days 2-4 from chemotherapy in cycle 1 (OR = 1.6, 95 % CI = 1.3-1.9, p < 0.001) and all cycles (OR = 1.5, 95 % CI = 1.3-1.6, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large-scale evaluation of adults who received intermediate/high-risk regimens for solid tumors or NHL in US clinical practice, FN incidence was found to be significantly higher among those who received pegfilgrastim prophylaxis on the same day as chemotherapy completion versus days 2-4 from chemotherapy completion, underscoring the importance of adhering to the indicated administration schedule.