Patterns of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

Growth Factor in the Setting of CAR T-Cell Therapy: To Use or Not to Use

Patients undergoing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy may experience side effects including cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), neutropenia, and infection. Growth factor has historically been used to treat neutropenia; however, its role in CAR T-cell therapy is not well explained. Existing data on the safety and efficacy of growth factor are conflicting. The purpose of this integrative review was to explore the safety and efficacy of growth factor in adult patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing CAR T-cell therapy. A literature review was conducted using PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL), and Scopus databases. A total of 2,635 articles were retrieved. Four studies were included that looked at the use of growth factor in the CAR T-cell setting. Safety outcomes evaluated included CRS, ICANS, neutropenic fever and/or infection, and neutropenia duration. Efficacy outcomes evaluated included CAR T-cell expansion and treatment response. The literature suggests that growth factor may not increase CRS prevalence, but may lead to an increased grade of CRS, namely grade 2. Growth factor administration does not have any association with ICANS toxicity, CAR T-cell expansion, or treatment response. Its use may not necessarily lead to decreased infection rates but may shorten the duration of neutropenia. Practice implications for providers working with this unique patient population include using growth factor early in the course of CAR T-cell therapy as treatment to shorten the duration of neutropenia rather than infection prophylaxis.

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.

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.

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.

A prospective study to evaluate febrile neutropenia incidence in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector vs other choices

PURPOSE

We evaluated the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and related clinical outcomes among patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for nonmyeloid malignancies who received pegfilgrastim on-body injector (OBI) or other options (Other) for FN prophylaxis.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, adult patients with breast, prostate, or lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma at risk for FN were stratified into subgroups based on FN prophylaxis used in the first chemotherapy cycle: pegfilgrastim OBI vs Other (pegfilgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim prefilled syringe, daily filgrastim, or no granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) for up to 4 planned chemotherapy cycles.

RESULTS

This US study enrolled 2575 eligible patients (OBI, 1624; Other, 951). FN incidence was lower in the OBI group (6.4% [95% CI, 5.2-7.6%]) than in the Other group (9.4% [7.5-11.2%]), with a relative risk (RR) of 0.66 (0.47-0.91; p = .006). A decreased risk of dose delays among patients receiving pegfilgrastim OBI vs Other was observed (RR for ≥ 5 days: 0.64 [0.42-0.96], p = .023; RR for ≥ 7 days: 0.62 [0.40-0.91], p = .016). Adherence, defined as G-CSF support for all chemotherapy cycles, was 94.0% (92.9-95.2%) in the OBI group compared with 58.4% (55.2-61.5%) in the Other group. Compliance with pegfilgrastim, defined as administration the day after chemotherapy, was 88.3% in the OBI group and 48.8% in the prefilled syringe group.

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving pegfilgrastim OBI had a lower incidence of FN compared with those receiving alternatives. The OBI was associated with improved adherence to and compliance with clinically recommended G-CSF prophylaxis.

A multinational, drug utilization study of lipegfilgrastim use in real-world setting in Europe

PURPOSE

Lipegfilgrastim (Lonquex, Teva Pharma B.V.) is approved for reduction in neutropenia duration and febrile neutropenia incidence. In the framework of lipegfilgrastim regulatory approval in the EU, the Health Authorities requested a drug utilization study. This study was conducted to characterize prescribing patterns of lipegfilgrastim and quantify the extent of on- and off-label use of lipegfilgrastim in real-world setting in Europe.

METHODS

Information on lipegfilgrastim use between January 2014 and March 2020 was abstracted from medical records in hospital and outpatient clinical settings. Indication for lipegfilgrastim was classified either as on-label or off-label use according to pre-determined criteria. The primary endpoint was the extent of lipegfilgrastim off-label use based on the most recent lipegfilgrastim cycle.

RESULTS

Records of 481 patients were obtained from five European countries. Lipegfilgrastim was most commonly prescribed for prevention of neutropenia by oncologists and hematologists. Patients who were administered lipegfilgrastim were primarily ≥ 55 years old (65.1%) and female (65.7%). The most frequent underlying diagnosis was breast cancer (38.3%). For the most recent lipegfilgrastim cycle, on-label use was recorded in 452/459 patients with no missing data (98.5%), while off-label use was recorded in 7/459 patients (1.5%). The majority of off-label use was attributed to use with non-cytotoxic chemotherapy (57.1%). Off-label use of lipegfilgrastim across all treatment cycles with no missing data was 11/1547 cycles (0.7%).

CONCLUSION

Using real-world data, these findings confirm the low rate of lipegfilgrastim off-label use as reported in a preceding feasibility study, indicating very high adherence to the approved indication.

Association Between Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) Use and Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) or Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Among Elderly Patients with Breast, Lung, or Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Patients diagnosed with cancer have an increased risk both for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) following treatment.

METHODS

Using SEER-Medicare data, we selected patients aged 66 years and older who completed systemic therapy between 2002 and 2014 for breast (stage I-III), lung (stage I-III), or prostate (stage I-IV) cancer. For each cancer, we estimated the risk of a composite endpoint of MDS or AML in patients receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) vs. not.

RESULTS

The 10-year cumulative risk difference (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF] - no G-CSF) for MDS-AML was 0.45% (95% CI 0.13-0.77%) in breast cancer and 0.39% (95% CI 0.15-0.62%) in lung cancer. G-CSF use was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.60 (95% CI 1.07-2.40) in breast cancer and 1.50 (95% CI 0.99-2.29) in lung cancer. Filgrastim use was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.01 (95% CI 1.00-1.03) per administration in breast cancer and 1.02 (95% CI 0.99-1.05) per administration in lung cancer. Pegfilgrastim was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.08 (95% CI 1.01-1.15) per administration in breast cancer and 1.12 (95% CI 1.00-1.25) per administration in lung cancer. Analyses in prostate cancer were limited because of the low number of events.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of G-CSF in patients diagnosed with breast and lung cancer is associated with an increased risk of MDS-AML. However, the MDS-AML absolute risk difference is very low.

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.

A prospective cohort study to evaluate the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector versus other options for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia: breast cancer subgroup analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer chemotherapy often carries a high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN); guidelines recommend prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), such as pegfilgrastim. Neulasta^® Onpro^® on-body injector (OBI) is a delivery device administering pegfilgrastim approximately 27 h after application.

METHODS

This prospective study examined patients with breast cancer who received chemotherapy with a high risk of FN, receiving OBI ("OBI") or other options (other G-CSF or none; "other"). The primary endpoint was FN incidence; secondary endpoints included chemotherapy delivery, adherence (G-CSF in all cycles), compliance (G-CSF day after chemotherapy), and FN incidence in patients receiving curative or palliative treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 1776 patients with breast cancer were enrolled (OBI, n = 1196; other, n = 580). Across all cycles, FN incidence was lower for OBI (4.4% [95% CI, 3.3-5.6%]) than other (7.4% [5.3-9.6%]). For curative treatment, the FN incidence across all cycles was lower for OBI (4.6% [3.4-5.8%]) than for other (7.1% [5.0-9.3%]). For palliative treatment (OBI, n = 33; other, n = 20), 3 patients (15%) in the other and none in the OBI group had FN. After adjusting for baseline covariates, FN incidence remained lower for OBI (4.6% [3.5-6.1%]) versus other (7.8% [5.7-10.5%]). Adherence was higher for OBI (93.8%) than for other G-CSF (69.8%), as was compliance (90.5 and 53.2%, respectively). Chemotherapy dose delays/reductions were similar for OBI (4.7%/32.3%, respectively) and other (4.7%/30.0%) groups.

CONCLUSION

Pegfilgrastim OBI was associated with a lower FN incidence in patients with breast cancer compared to other options for FN prophylaxis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov , NCT02178475, registered 30 June, 2014.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF biosimilars in patients at intermediate/high risk of febrile neutropenia

Background: Real-world data suggests superiority of pegfilgrastim (PEG) over filgrastim (FIL) in reducing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), probably attributable to underdosed FIL in practice. We used real-world data to assess the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis with PEG versus FIL in cancer patients at intermediate-to-high risk of FN from a US payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model with lifetime horizon. Results: For the high-risk group, PEG (vs FIL) biosimilars resulted in 0.43 FN events prevented (FNp), 0.27 quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYg) and a cost saving of USD$5703. For the intermediate-risk group, PEG biosimilar led to 0.18 FNp and 0.12 QALYg, at USD$9674/FNp and USD$14,502/QALYg. Conclusion: PEG biosimilars may provide opportunities to optimize FN management in patients with intermediate-to-high FN risk.

Real-world evaluation of supportive care using an electronic health record text-mining tool: G-CSF use in breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is a life-threatening and chemotherapy dose-limiting adverse event. FN can be prevented with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs). Guidelines recommend primary G-CSF use for patients receiving either high (> 20%) FN risk (HR) chemotherapy, or intermediate (10-20%) FN risk (IR) chemotherapy if the overall risk with additional patient-related risk factors exceeds 20%. In this study, we applied an EHR text-mining tool for real-world G-CSF treatment evaluation in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

Breast cancer patients receiving IR or HR chemotherapy treatments between January 2015 and February 2021 at LUMC, the Netherlands, were included. We retrospectively collected data from EHR with a text-mining tool and assessed G-CSF use, risk factors, and the FN and neutropenia (grades 3-4) and incidence.

RESULTS

A total of 190 female patients were included, who received 77 HR and 113 IR treatments. In 88.3% of the HR regimens, G-CSF was administered; 7.3% of these patients developed FN vs. 33.3% without G-CSF. Although most IR regimen patients had ≥ 2 risk factors, only 4% received G-CSF, of which none developed neutropenia. However, without G-CSF, 11.9% developed FN and 31.2% severe neutropenia.

CONCLUSIONS

Our text-mining study shows high G-CSF use among HR regimen patients, and low use among IR regimen patients, although most had ≥ 2 risk factors. Therefore, current practice is not completely in accordance with the guidelines. This shows the need for increased awareness and clarity regarding risk factors. Also, text-mining can effectively be implemented for the evaluation of patient care.

Underutilisation of prophylactic G-CSF in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant docetaxel/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy

Docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC) is a widely used adjuvant chemotherapy regimen, especially in patients with node-negative or low-risk node-positive breast cancer. Guidelines recommend the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to prevent febrile neutropenia. In this study, we aimed to explore the use of G-CSF as a primary prophylactic and determine the factors influencing its use. This retrospective study used nationwide claims data from the National Inpatient Sample compiled by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service in South Korea from 2018. The claims data included 10% of inpatients admitted at least once in 2018 and 1% of outpatients who were not admitted. Female patients with breast cancer who received an adjuvant TC regimen after surgery were selected. Primary prophylactic G-CSF was defined as G-CSF prescribed within two days of the first cycle of TC. The factors influencing its utilisation were investigated using the chi-square test and a multiple logistic regression model. A total of 229 patients were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients who received primary prophylactic G-CSF treatment after the first cycle of TC was 55.5%. The factors positively influencing G-CSF utilization were patients' age ≥65 years, location (i.e. metropolitan areas), and the type of healthcare facility (i.e. non-tertiary hospitals). The use of prophylactic G-CSF in patients with breast cancer who received the adjuvant TC regimen was insufficient. The use of primary G-CSF prophylaxis should be emphasised to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia among patients receiving a myelosuppressive TC regimen.

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

IMPORTANCE

The introduction of biosimilars and novel delivery devices between 2014 and 2019 may have changed the utilization of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF).

OBJECTIVE

To assess utilization trends of G-CSFs for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN) among patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with commercial or Medicare insurance.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study assessed G-CSF utilization trends overall and stratified by regimen febrile neutropenia risk level. Associations between patient characteristics and G-CSF use were evaluated. Patients with cancer, including breast, lung, colorectal, esophageal and gastric, pancreatic, prostate, ovarian, and non-Hodgkin lymphomas, initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy courses were included from the 2014 to 2019 commercial insurance and 2014 to 2018 Medicare fee-for-service claims databases. Data were analyzed from March to June 2021.

EXPOSURES

Year of chemotherapy initiation.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were use and trends of G-CSFs for primary prophylaxis, from completion to 3 days after in the first chemotherapy cycle.

RESULTS

In total, 86 731 chemotherapy courses (mean [SD] age, 57.7 [11.5] years; 57 838 [66.7%] women and 28 893 [33.3%] men) were identified from 82 410 patients in the commercial insurance database and 32 398 chemotherapy courses (mean [SD] age, 71.8 [8.3] years; 18 468 [57.0%] women and 13 930 [43.0%] men) were identified from 30 279 patients in the Medicare database. Among the commercially insured population, 39 639 patients (45.7%) received G-CSFs, and 12 562 patients (38.8%) received G-CSFs among Medicare insured patients. Overall G-CSF use increased significantly throughout the study period in both populations, from 45.1% (95% CI, 44.4%-45.7%) of patients in 2014 to 47.5% (95% CI, 46.5%-48.5%) of patients in 2019 (P = .001) in the commercially insured population and from 36.0% (95% CI, 34.2%-38.0%) of patients in 2014 to 39.1% (95% CI, 38.1%-40.1%) of patients in 2018 (P < .001) in the Medicare population. The greatest increases in G-CSF use were observed among patients with high FN risk, from 75.0% (95% CI, 74.1%-76.0%) of patients to 83.2% (95% CI, 82.0%-84.2%) of patients (P < .001) among the commercially insured population and 75.3% (95% CI, 71.8%-78.6%) of patients to 86.2% (95% CI, 84.7%-87.6%) of patients (P < .001) among the Medicare population. Use of G-CSFs decreased in the commercially insured population among patients with intermediate FN risk (from 27.5% [95% CI, 26.4%-28.5%] of patients to 20.4% [95% CI, 19.1%-21.7%] of patients; P < .001) or low FN risk (from 19.3% [95% CI, 18.3%-20.4%] of patients to 16.3% [95% CI, 14.7%-18.0%] of patients; P < .001) and remained stable in the Medicare population (intermediate risk: from 26.4% [95% CI, 23.8%-29.2%] of patients to 28.4% [95% CI, 27.0%-29.8%] of patients; P = .35; low risk: from 19.6% [95% CI, 17.0%-22.4%] of patients to 20.9% [95% CI, 19.6%-22.3%] of patients; P = .58). Factors associated with increased odds of G-CSF use included older age (commercial insurance: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.50 [95% CI, 1.41-1.59]; Medicare: aOR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.08-1.71]), receiving a regimen with high FN risk (commercial insurance: aOR, 16.01 [95% CI, 15.17-16.90]; Medicare: aOR, 17.17 [95% CI, 15.76-18.71]), and history of neutropenia (commercial insurance: 3.90 (3.67-4.15); Medicare: 3.82 (3.50-4.18).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cross-sectional study found that utilization of G-CSFs increased among patients with cancer with high FN risk in both a commercially and Medicare-insured population, but 14% to 17% of patients still did not receive preventive treatment.

The Impact of Baseline Risk Factors on the Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy with Pegfilgrastim Prophylaxis: A Real-World Data Analysis

Background: There are sparse data addressing whether standard risk factors for febrile neutropenia (FN) are relevant in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and primary prophylaxis for FN, which would have implications for variables to consider during real-world comparative analyses of FN incidence. Objective: To assess the impact of baseline patient-specific risk factors and regimen risk on the incidence of FN in patients receiving pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study in patients with breast cancer (BC) who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and prophylactic pegfilgrastim identified January 1, 2017-May 31, 2018 from MarketScan® research databases. The outcomes were defined as incidence of FN in the first cycle and among all cycles of chemotherapy using three different definitions for FN. Logistic regression and generalized estimating equations models were used to compare outcomes among patients with and without patient-specific risk factors and among those receiving regimens categorized as high-, intermediate-, or other-risk for FN (low-risk or undefinable by clinical practice guidelines). Results: A total of 4460 patients were identified. In the first cycle of therapy, patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens were at up to 2 times higher risk for FN across all definitions than those receiving high-risk regimens (P<0.01). The odds ratio for main FN among patients with ≥4 versus 0 risk factors was 15.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5, 169.4; P<0.01). Patients with ≥3 FN risk factors had significantly greater risks for FN across all cycles of treatment than those with no risk factors; this was true for all FN definitions. Discussion: The choice of FN definition significantly changed the impact of risk factors on the FN outcomes in our study, demonstrating the importance of evaluating all proxies for true FN events in a database study. This is particularly important during real-world study planning where potential missteps may lead to bias or confounding effects that render a study meaningless. Conclusions: In patients with BC receiving chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, patient-specific risk factors and regimen risk levels are determinants of FN risk. In real-world studies evaluating FN incidence, it is imperative to consider and control for these risk factors when conducting comparative analyses.

Prophylaxis and treatment strategies for optimizing chemotherapy relative dose intensity

INTRODUCTION

A decrease in relative-dose intensity (RDI) of chemotherapy has been shown to be associated with poor patient outcomes in solid tumors and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The actual delivered chemotherapy dose received by patients can be influenced by dose reductions and treatment delays, often due to toxicities, most commonly chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN).

AREAS COVERED

We review seminal evidence and more recent studies that have shown an association between higher RDI and improved patient survival. A smaller number of studies has shown no association between RDI and outcomes. These differences may be due to study limitations, including low power, differences in patient and disease characteristics, or the chemotherapeutic regimen. We describe guidelines recommendations to prevent and treat CIN with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and describe novel approaches to prevent neutropenia that are being developed that may provide greater value and be associated with fewer adverse events than standard G-CSF options.

EXPERT OPINION

Maintaining RDI is important to ensure optimal patient outcomes. This can be achieved through the proper administration of G-CSF prophylaxis and treatment. Newer agents in development to treat and/or prevent CIN are entering regulatory review and may potentially change the treatment landscape for CIN in the future.

Patient Characteristics and Utilization Patterns of Short-Acting Recombinant Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) Biosimilars Compared to Their Reference Product

BACKGROUND

Data on short-acting recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilar utilization from claims data in the USA are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patient baseline characteristics and utilization patterns for short-acting G-CSF products with particular focus on the assessment of filgrastim biosimilar usage relative to the originator product.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We examined filgrastim, filgrastim-sndz, and tbo-filgrastim use among adult patients between January 2012 and March 2019 across the five health-plan research partners in the BBCIC Distributed Research Network. The publicly available Sentinel System analytic toolkit was used to perform the distributed analyses.

RESULTS

We evaluated over 38 million eligible health-plan members representing more than 88 million person-years of data. We identified 45,204 incident treatment episodes, including 33,118 episodes with filgrastim, 6525 episodes with filgrastim-sndz, and 5,561 episodes with tbo-filgrastim. We observed that the demographic and clinical characteristics of users were comparable across products. While total use of all filgrastim products remained consistent, the proportion of incident episodes of the originator filgrastim steadily decreased since 2014, with filgrastim-sndz and tbo-filgrastim making up the difference. Utilization for the G-CSF biosimilar, filgrastim-sndz, increased from 40 (1%) of 6823 total filgrastim product episodes in 2015, to 2486 (44%) of a total 5668 episodes of filgrastim products in 2018 (partial data for 2018).

CONCLUSION

New episodes of short-acting biosimilar filgrastim products have increased over time while the overall number of new users remained flat. Although barriers to biosimilar use in oncology have been noted, uptake has begun and continues to grow.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with metastatic cancer not receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in US clinical practice

Objectives

To evaluate the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis in US patients with selected metastatic cancers and chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence and associated outcomes among the subgroup who did not receive prophylaxis.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at four US health systems and included adults with metastatic cancer (breast, colorectal, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma [NHL]) who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy (2009–2017). Patients were stratified by FN risk level based on risk factors and chemotherapy (low/unclassified risk, intermediate risk without any risk factors, intermediate risk with ≥ 1 risk factor [IR + 1], high risk [HR]). G-CSF use was evaluated among all patients stratified by FN risk, and FN/FN-related outcomes were evaluated among patients who did not receive first-cycle G-CSF prophylaxis.

Results

Among 1457 metastatic cancer patients, 20.5% and 28.1% were classified as HR and IR + 1, respectively. First-cycle G-CSF prophylaxis use was 48.5% among HR patients and 13.9% among IR + 1 patients. In the subgroup not receiving first-cycle G-CSF prophylaxis, FN incidence in cycle 1 was 7.8% for HR patients and 4.8% for IR + 1 patients; during the course, corresponding values were 16.9% and 15.9%. Most (> 90%) FN episodes required hospitalization, and mortality risk ranged from 7.1 to 26.9% across subgroups.

Conclusion

In this retrospective study, the majority of metastatic cancer chemotherapy patients for whom G-CSF prophylaxis is recommended did not receive it; FN incidence in this subgroup was notably high. Patients with elevated FN risk should be carefully identified and managed to ensure appropriate use of supportive care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-020-05715-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.