Filgrastim prophylaxis in elderly cancer patients in the real-life setting: a French multicenter observational study, the TULIP study

Prescription patterns of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in patients with breast cancer: A real-world study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Myelosuppressive chemotherapy is effective for breast cancer but carries a potential risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Clinical practice guidelines have recommended prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to reduce the incidence of FN in patients receiving chemotherapy. We aimed to examine the use of G-CSFs for primary prophylaxis for FN and to see whether it follows the guidelines. In addition, we examined the changes in the use of long-acting and short-acting G-CSFs in patients with breast cancer over the past ten years.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational real-world study. The data were obtained from the clinical research database of three hospitals affiliated with Taipei Medical University. Patients with breast cancer who initiated their first chemotherapy regimen between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2020, were identified by the ICD codes and their use of filgrastim or pegfilgrastim was identified by the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical codes. Whether and how G-CSF was prescribed during the study patients' first chemotherapy regimen was examined, and the annual change in the total number of short- and long-acting G-CSFs prescribed to the study patients from 2011 to 2020 was analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 2,444 patients who were prescribed at least one of the examined 15 breast cancer chemotherapy drugs, 1,414 did not use any G-CSFs during their first chemotherapy regimen while 145 used G-CSFs for primary prophylaxis and 185 for treatment. Among the patients receiving high FN risk regimens, only 8.6% used G-CSF for primary prophylaxis. The average (± SD) number of days for short-acting G-CSF use was 2.3 (± 1.5) days with a median of 2 days. In addition, it was found that there was a significant reduction in long-acting G-CSF use (p = 0.03) whereas the changes in short-acting G-CSF use over time were not significant (p = 0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results show that G-CSFs are used for primary prophylaxis in a small percentage of patients with breast cancer and the duration of short-acting G-CSF use is relatively short. Considering the significant clinical and economic impact of FN, it is hoped that the prescription patterns of G-CSFs observed can provide an important reference for future clinical practice and reimbursement policy.

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.

Biosimilar pegfilgrastim may offer affordable treatment options for patients in France: a budget impact analysis on the basis of clinical trial and real-world data

BACKGROUND

NYVEPRIA, a pegfilgrastim (a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) biosimilar, was recently recommended for marketing authorization in Europe for decreasing the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anti-cancer drugs. The present study aimed to evaluate the financial impact of introducing a new pegfilgrastim biosimilar from a French healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

An Excel-based budget impact model was developed to estimate the financial impact by introducing a new pegfilgrastim biosimilar (NYVEPRIA) to France over a 5-year time horizon. Comparators included existing long-acting and short-acting G-CSFs. The burden of FN was obtained from existing literature. Costs (2021 Euros) included drug acquisition and administration, estimated based on drug dosage in both clinical trial and real-world settings. Scenario analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of key model assumptions.

RESULTS

In a total French population of 67.19 million, 79,873 patients were estimated to be treated with G-CSFs annually. The annual number of patients to be treated with NYVEPRIA was estimated to be 1593, 3195, 3674, 3782, and 4052 in years 1 to 5, respectively. Using real-world data, NYVEPRIA resulted in total annual cost savings of €8,620, €868,498, €868,498, €814,102, and €958,952 over years 1 to 5, respectively, leading to a cumulative 5-year cost savings of €3,518,669. Using data from clinical trials, NYVEPRIA resulted in total annual cost savings of €14,366, €1,447,496, €1,447,496, €1,356,836, and €1,598,253 over years 1 to 5, respectively, leading to a cumulative 5-year cost savings of €5,864,448.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of a new pegfilgrastim biosimilar (NYVEPRIA) is potentially associated with substantial cost savings for the French healthcare system.

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.