Administration options for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis: patient and physician preferences from a cross-sectional survey

On-body injector pegfilgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia prophylaxis: Current Status

INTRODUCTION

Myelosuppression, a challenge in cancer treatment, often results in severe complications. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, particularly pegfilgrastim, mitigate chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. This narrative review evaluates the role of on-body injector (OBI) devices for pegfilgrastim administration. A comprehensive search strategy of PubMed and AI-powered intuitive search tools, complemented by authors' contributions, yielded a body of papers presenting evidence on OBI devices, their effectiveness and safety, the benefits and challenges of OBI versus pre-filled syringe administration, patient preferences for pegfilgrastim administration, and economic considerations.

DISCUSSION

OBI devices prove effective and safe, with advantages such as reduced clinic visits and enhanced adherence. Studies highlight cost-efficiency and expanded access, emphasizing the socioeconomic context. Patient and provider preferences underscore the potential of OBI devices in cancer care, with implications for healthcare resource utilization and pharmacoeconomics.

CONCLUSION

The value proposition of OBI devices lies in improving patient outcomes, convenience, resource optimization, and enhancing the overall cancer care experience. As biosimilar OBIs enter the market, they may offer cost savings, further influencing their adoption and their positioning as a cost-efficient alternative in cancer care. Ongoing research and technological advancements are expected to contribute to the broader acceptance of OBI devices in cancer care delivery.

Health professionals' preferences with the use of pegfilgrastim on-body injector at oncology centers in 8 cities in Colombia

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia associated with some chemotherapy regimens can lead to potentially fatal complications and high health care costs. Administration of pegfilgrastim using an On-Body Injector (OBI) may be more convenient for cancer patients and physicians in countries with limited access to high-complexity healthcare. This study aims to describe physician and nurse preferences regarding different options for administration of pegfilgrastim at cancer centers, the chemotherapy schemes for which pegfilgrastim is most frequently prescribed and how healthcare providers prioritize certain administration schemes according to patients' access to healthcare services.

METHODS

Observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study and survey, conducted between 2019 and 2020, to describe physician and nurse preferences regarding options for administration of pegfilgrastim at cancer centers, the demographics of the study population and characteristics of participating cancer centers. It included 60 healthcare professionals practicing at oncology centers from 8 cities in Colombia who were contacted and surveyed via telephone. Quantitative continuous variables were summarized using central tendency and dispersion measures.

RESULTS

It was found that 35% of participants are haemato-oncologists, oncologists or hematologists, 30% are general practitioners, and 35% are other healthcare professionals (i.e., nurse, oncology nurse and head nurse). Our study shows that 48% of physicians prefer the use of OBI, particularly in the scheme of 24 h after myelosuppressive chemotherapy administrations. Regardless of patient frailty and travel time to the clinic, over 90% of healthcare providers (HCPs) prefer to prioritize preventing the patient from having to return to the clinic for pegfilgrastim administration as well as to increase healthcare staff availability through the use of OBI.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study is the first one in Colombia that sought the reasons behind HCPs' choice to use OBI pegfilgrastim. Our results indicate that most professionals prefer to avoid the patient having to re-enter the care center for pegfilgrastim administration to facilitate access to healthcare for patients; patient characteristics and ease of transport are determining factors for respondents when choosing an option for drug administration. We found OBI is the preferred alternative by most HCPs and a good resource optimization strategy in the context of cancer patients' health care in Colombia.

Pegfilgrastim Biosimilars in US Supportive Oncology: A Narrative Review of Administration Options and Economic Considerations to Maximize Patient Benefit

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biologics, such as pegfilgrastim, are a standard of care in supportive cancer treatment that are administered once per chemotherapy cycle to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. The high cost of these biologics in the United States can be a limiting factor to accessing care; however, lower-cost pegfilgrastim biosimilars have been available for several years for patients requiring prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Different options for pegfilgrastim administration are also now available to accommodate specific patient preferences. As patients may want to minimize the risk of both neutropenia and SARS-CoV-2 infection, same-day administration is a pertinent option during the present COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, individualized, patient-centered approaches and risk-management strategies should be considered when selecting the treatment and administration method for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Three methods of administration would minimize hospital or clinic visits while also providing the prophylactic effect of G-CSF: same-day administration after chemotherapy, use of the US Food and Drug Administration-approved on-body injector delivering pegfilgrastim approximately 27 h after chemotherapy, or self-administration by the patient or caregiver > 24 h after chemotherapy. Choice of the specific administration option should be based on the patient's specific needs, while also considering mitigating factors, such as the economic burden associated with biologic medications and the risk of COVID-19. Pegfilgrastim biosimilars can minimize the additional financial burden on patients and the health care system during this pandemic and beyond.

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.

Patient, nurse, and physician preferences: final results of the CONVENIENCE study evaluating pegfilgrastim prophylaxis via pre-filled syringe or on-body injector in cancer patients

Purpose

The on-body injector (OBI) automatically delivers pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy (CTx), thus eliminating the need of return visits to the medical office for guideline-compliant pegfilgrastim administration. The CONVENIENCE study aimed to evaluate patient, nurse, and physician preferences as well as health economics for pegfilgrastim administration either with OBI or manually using a pre-filled syringe (PS).

Methods

Patients with early breast cancer, receiving two or three weekly anthracycline/cyclophosphamide or three weekly taxane-based CTx, and patients with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving first-line R-CHOP-14 or -21 were randomized 1:1 to receive both pegfilgrastim application forms for four consecutive CTx cycles in an alternating sequence starting either with OBI or PS. Primary endpoint was patient preference, assessed by questionnaires.

Results

A total of 308 patients were evaluable in the per-protocol analysis. Patients slightly preferred OBI over PS (OBI, n = 133, 43.2%; vs. PS, n = 111, 36.0%; p-value = 0.159), while study nurses slightly preferred PS (n = 19, 46.3%) over OBI (n = 18, 43.9%) and physicians clearly preferred PS (n = 24, 58.8%) over OBI (n = 15, 36.6%). Among patients with preference for OBI, saving of time was their major reason for preference (53.4%). Pegfilgrastim was administered 24–72 h after each CTx cycle in 97.6% of OBI and 63.1% of PS applications.

Conclusion

The OBI was slightly preferred by patients and saving time was the major reason for their preference. PS was physicians’ most preferable choice and slightly preferred by nurses. Using OBI, pegfilgrastim was almost always administered within the time period recommended by current guidelines, while it was often not applied as specified using PS.

Trial registration

No: ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT03619993. Registered on June 25, 2018

Economic and clinical outcomes of pegfilgrastim via prefilled syringe vs on-body injector: a real-world data analysis

BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim is available as a prefilled syringe (PFS) and an on-body injector (OBI). Whether the administration method of pegfilgrastim affects the effectiveness and health care resources has not been evaluated in the setting of routine care. OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world clinical and economic outcomes between PFS and OBI methods of administration. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study in patients diagnosed with breast cancer or non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and prophylactic use of pegfilgrastim via PFS or OBI between January 1, 2017, and May 31, 2018, according to MarketScan research databases. A propensity score was used to match the PFS cohort 1:1 to the OBI cohort. Outcomes were compared among the matched cohorts using a generalized linear model and generalized estimating equations with log-link function. RESULTS: 3,152 patients were identified. After matching, the final sample included 2,170 patients, representing 1,085 in each cohort. The incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in the first chemotherapy cycle was 1.01% for OBI (95% CI = 0.56-1.82) vs 1.48% for PFS (95% CI = 0.91-2.39; P = 0.336). In all chemotherapy cycles (total cycles = 7,467), the FN incidence was 0.91% for OBI (95% CI = 0.64-1.30) vs 1.22% for PFS (95% CI = 0.90-1.64; P = 0.214). There was no statistically significant difference in adjusted per-member per-month all-cause total cost health care resource utilization (HCRU) for hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and pharmacy claims. CONCLUSIONS: In a matched cohort of patients representing real-world utilization, there was no statistically or clinically meaningful difference in FN incidence between OBI and PFS methods of pegfilgrastim administration. There was no difference in total HCRU or total costs. OBI and PFS methods of administration are both indicated for patients requiring prophylactic pegfilgrastim, which is important considering that biosimilar PFS options are now available. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sandoz, Inc. Wang, Li, and K. Campbell are employees of Sandoz, Inc. Schroader and D. Campbell are employees of Xcenda, which was contracted by Sandoz, Inc., to provide study and manuscript development. McBride reports receiving payment from Sandoz, Inc., as a consultant, unrelated to this study; Coherus for advisory board and speaker engagements; and Pfizer for advisory board participation during the time of this study.

Real-world effectiveness of the pegfilgrastim on-body injector in preventing severe neutropenia

INTRODUCTION

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are used in medical oncology for the prevention of neutropenia. On-body injectors (OBI) have an advantage over the traditional injection (TI) method of not requiring a second visit to the clinic, but these devices are subject to failure. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of OBIs in the real-world.

METHODS

Women with breast cancer diagnosed between June 2015 and June 2016 treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy and a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor were retrospectively identified from the medical records of Henry Ford Hospital. The primary outcome was the incidence of severe neutropenia (SN), defined as an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) ≤500. Secondary outcomes included incidence of neutropenia (ANC ≤ 1500), neutropenic fever, and mortality. A secondary analysis of the data was performed to identify predictors of SN.

RESULTS

A total of 837 cycles of chemotherapy were analyzed. The OBI was used in 395 cycles and the TI in 442. The OBI group had patients that were older, had higher baseline ANC, and were more often white. The incidences of SN, neutropenic fever and neutropenia were not different between groups. Patients with a lower baseline ANC and white ethnicity were at a higher risk for SN. AC (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) was the most commonly used chemotherapy regimen (38% of total cycles).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in the efficacy of the OBI and TI methods for preventing SN, neutropenic fever and neutropenia.

Retrospective study evaluating the safety of administering pegfilgrastim on the final day of 5-fluorouracil continuous intravenous infusion

BACKGROUND

Pegfilgrastim, a long-acting granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor used to prevent neutropenia, is not indicated for administration within 24 h of completion of chemotherapy. The safety of administering pegfilgrastim in gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy regimens containing continuous intravenous infusion of 5-fluorouracil (5-FUCI) on the day of completion of 5-fluorouracil has not been adequately studied.

METHODS

An institutional review board-approved retrospective analysis of patients with a gastrointestinal malignancy receiving pegfilgrastim on the final day of 5-FUCI was conducted. The primary end point was to determine the incidence of grade 3 and grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia when pegfilgrastim was administered on the final day of 5-FUCI. The secondary endpoint was to determine rate of dose reductions and treatment delays.

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients were reviewed from January 2010 to May 2017. The most common cancers were colorectal (25%) and pancreatic (60%), with 77% of patients having late stage disease. The risk of a patient developing grade 3 neutropenia was 0.010 (95% CI 0.002-0.029) and grade 4 neutropenia was 0.007 (95% CI 0.001-0.024). The risk of febrile neutropenia was 0.007 (95% CI 0.001-0.024). The risks of treatment delay and treatment reduction were 0.013 (95% CI 0.004-0.034) and 0.010 (95% CI 0.002-0.029), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The low risk of grade 3 and grade 4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, as well as dose delays and/or reduction suggests that pegfilgrastim can be administered on the final day of 5-FUCI. Limitations of this study were that it was retrospective in nature and was conducted at a single institution.

A Survey of Oncologists' Perceptions and Opinions Regarding the Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors

The purpose of the study is to describe oncologists' perceptions and opinions about patient eligibility, guidelines, and barriers for use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), overall and stratified by their affiliation with the Oncology Care Model (OCM). In May 2018, we invited and recruited practicing US oncologists from a national database for an online survey. Level of agreement was identified using a seven-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Of 200 participating oncologists, 70 were OCM-affiliated. Overall, 65% of oncologists agreed or strongly agreed that all patients at high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) should receive prophylactic G-CSF, and half agreed or strongly agreed that benefits of G-CSF outweigh the potential adverse effects. The most common barriers to G-CSF use for patients at high risk of FN included patient refusal (37.1% of OCM-affiliated oncologists vs. 21.5% of non-OCM-affiliated oncologists), not on protocol/not supported by guidelines (32.9% vs. 23.1%), lack of reimbursement to practice (30.0% vs. 15.4%), and concerns about insurance coverage (22.9% vs. 26.9%). More OCM-affiliated oncologists reported that their practices offer and strongly encourage adherence to a specific protocol for G-CSF use (49.2%) versus non-OCM oncologists (31.3%). Despite recommendations from national guidelines and strong evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials, only two thirds of oncologists agree or strongly agree that all patients at high risk of FN should receive primary G-CSF prophylaxis. Decisions about G-CSF prophylaxis may be affected by factors other than risk of FN, such as patient choice, practice protocols/guidelines, lack of reimbursement, and insurance coverage.

Preferences for Adult Pneumococcal Vaccine Recommendations Among United States Health Care Providers

INTRODUCTION

In 2014, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) followed by 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) for all adults aged ≥ 65 years, with a commitment to revisit the recommendation for PCV13 because of declining vaccine-type disease. The Evidence-to-Recommendation framework used by the ACIP includes review of evidence regarding feasibility and stakeholder acceptability, but no surveys of vaccinator preferences have been published in the literature.

METHODS

Physicians (N = 700), physician assistants (N = 100), pharmacists (N = 100), and nurse practitioners (N = 100) who recently prescribed, administered, or recommended adult pneumococcal vaccine were surveyed in March 2018. Object-case best-worst scaling was used to assess preferences among potential recommendation scenarios: retaining the then-current 2014 recommendation without a scheduled re-evaluation, retaining with a scheduled re-evaluation, revising PCV13 to Category B (retaining PPSV23 as Category A), removing PCV13 (retaining PPSV23 as Category A), and removing both PCV13 and PPSV23.

RESULTS

Providers' most preferred recommendations were retaining the 2014 recommendation with another planned re-evaluation (52.6%) and retaining the then-current recommendation without planned re-evaluation (40.0%). Few preferred changing PCV13 to Category B (3.2%), removing PCV13 (3.7%), or removing both pneumococcal vaccines (0.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of vaccinators surveyed preferred to retain the 2014 recommendation, either with another scheduled reassessment or indefinitely.

FUNDING

Pfizer, Inc.

Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Outcomes Associated With the Use of Pegfilgrastim On-body Injector in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy Requiring Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Support

Objectives: Pegfilgrastim is a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) used as primary prophylaxis in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens that have greater than 20% risk of developing febrile neutropenia (FN). Historically, pegfilgrastim has been administered 24 to 72 hours after chemotherapy, necessitating a return to clinic to receive the provider-administered injection. An alternative option is the pegfilgrastim on-body injector (OBI). With the OBI device, patients have their pegfilgrastim administered 27 hours after receiving chemotherapy while remaining at home, avoiding an additional clinic appointment. Concerns with pegfilgrastim OBI include lack of experience with the device in both the patient and provider, device-related failures, and the success of delivery. This study evaluates pegfilgrastim OBI failure rates through associated patient outcomes among cancer patients receiving chemotherapy requiring G-CSF. Methods: A retrospective electronic chart review was conducted of adult patients with cancer who received chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim OBI from July 1, 2016, to July 31, 2018. The primary objective of this study was the incidence of FN in patients receiving pegfilgrastim OBI. Results: There were no reported cases of hospitalization due to FN in patients who received pegfilgrastim OBI. Dose delays and dosage modifications were not observed in our review. The OBI device failure rate was found to be low (1.92%). Conclusion: The low device failure rate from this study suggests that the OBI is a viable option for administration of pegfilgrastim in patients receiving chemotherapy requiring G-CSF.