A prospective evaluation of the activity of human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor on the prevention of chemotherapy-related neutropenia in patients with advanced carcinoma

Efficacy and Safety of Filgrastim and Its Biosimilars to Prevent Febrile Neutropenia in Cancer Patients: A Prospective Study and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

Febrile neutropenia is the serious side-effect associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Filgrastim, the first granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of neutropenia. Subsequently, pegfilgrastim (long-acting G-CSF) and filgrastim biosimilars were developed to have comparable efficacy to filgrastim. Therefore, it is necessary to produce a systematic review and meta-analysis that provides evidence that filgrastim is more efficacious than placebo/no-treatment, as it provides evidence on the comparable efficacy of filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim and biosimilar filgrastim.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to identify, assess, meta-analyze and summarize the comparative effectiveness and safety of filgrastim in head-to-head trials with placebo/no treatment, pegfilgrastim (and biosimilar filgrastim to update advances in the field. Methods: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses PRISMA statement were applied, and a random-effect model was used. Primary endpoints were the rate and duration of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, and an incidence rate of febrile neutropenia. Secondary endpoints were time to absolute neutrophil count ANC recovery, depth of ANC nadir (lowest ANC), neutropenia-related hospitalization and other neutropenia-related complications. For filgrastim versus biosimilar filgrastim comparison, the primary efficacy endpoint was the mean difference in duration of severe neutropenia DSN. Results: A total of 56 studies were considered that included data from 13,058 cancer patients. The risk of febrile neutropenia in filgrastim versus placebo/no treatment was not statistically different. The risk ratio for febrile neutropenia was 0.58, a 42% reduction in favor of filgrastim. The most reported adverse event with FIL was bone pain. For pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim, no statistically significant difference was noted. The risk ratio was 0.90 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.12). The overall difference in duration of severe neutropenia between filgrastim and biosimilar filgrastim was not statistically significant. The risk ratio was 1.03 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.13). Conclusions: Filgrastim was effective and safe in reducing febrile neutropenia and related complications, compared to placebo/no treatment. No notable differences were found between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim in terms of efficacy and safety. However, a similar efficacy profile was observed with FIL and its biosimilars.

Efficacy and tolerability of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in cancer patients after chemotherapy: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

The optimum granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) treatment for cancer patients after being treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy remains unknown. Therefore, a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of 11 G-CSF drugs on patients after chemotherapy. A total of 73 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) containing 15,124 cancer patients were included for the final network meta-analysis. Compared with pegfilgrastim, there were a higher risk with filgrastim for incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) (OR [95% CI]: 1.63 [1.07, 2.46]), and a higher risk with short-acting G-CSF (S-G-CSF) biosimilar and lenograstim for incidence of bone pain (BP) (OR [95% CI]: 6.45 [1.10, 65.73], 5.12 [1.14, 26.12], respectively). Mecapegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim and balugrastim were best G-CSF drugs in reducing FN (cumulative probabilities: 58%, 15%, 11%, respectively). S-G-CSF biosimilar, empegfilgrastim, and long-acting G-CSF (L-G-CSF) biosimilar were best G-CSF drugs in reducing severe neutropenia (SN) (cumulative probabilities: 21%, 20%, 15%, respectively). Mecapegfilgrastim, balugrastim, lipegfilgrastim and L-G-CSF biosimilar were best G-CSF drugs in reducing BP (cumulative probabilities: 20%, 14%, 8%, 8%, respectively). Mecapegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim and balugrastim might be the most appreciate G-CSF drugs with both good efficacy and tolerability when treating cancer patients after cytotoxic chemotherapy.

The impact of primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors on febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

The study aims to assess the relative efficacy of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) products administered as primary prophylaxis (PP) to patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified publications (January 1990 to September 2013) of randomized controlled trials evaluating PP with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, lenograstim, or lipegfilgrastim in adults receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for solid tumors or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Direct, indirect, and mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) were used to estimate the odds ratio and 95 % credible interval of febrile neutropenia (FN) during cycle 1 and all cycles of chemotherapy combined without adjusting for differences in relative dose intensity (RDI) between study treatment arms.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven publications representing 30 randomized controlled trials were included. Using MTC over all chemotherapy cycles, PP with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, lenograstim, and lipegfilgrastim versus no G-CSF PP or placebo were associated with statistically significantly reduced FN risk. FN risk was also significantly reduced with pegfilgrastim PP versus filgrastim PP. Over all chemotherapy cycles, there was a numerical but statistically nonsignificant increase in the FN risk for lipegfilgrastim PP versus pegfilgrastim PP. Using MTC in cycle 1, PP with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and lipegfilgrastim versus no G-CSF PP or placebo were associated with statistically significantly reduced FN risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, using MTC without adjustment for RDI, PP with all G-CSFs evaluated reduced the FN risk in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Future studies are needed to assess the influence of RDI on FN outcomes and to eliminate potential bias between G-CSF arms receiving more intensive chemotherapy than control arms.

Pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors: a critical and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors (MGFs) is an important topic that has received substantial attention in recent years. The use of the MGFs as primary prophylaxis to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) has grown considerably over the past decade and professional guidelines regarding their use have broadened the settings in which these agents are indicated. Recent data also suggest a potential role for them in reducing infection-related and all-cause mortality. The cost and effectiveness of these agents will continue to gain visibility as companies pursue approval for biosimilar agents in the US, similar to their recent approval in Europe.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this paper is to review the available pharmacoeconomic literature on the MGFs, which is particularly timely in light of the recent passage of healthcare reform and the increasing focus on cost control. The cost of treating cancer in the US is rising faster than the already rapid increase in overall medical expenditure. The clinical utility and cost effectiveness of supportive care measures in oncology must therefore be weighed carefully. This review focuses on the use of different formulations of MGFs for primary and secondary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed to find studies that became available since the prior review of this topic was published in Pharmacoeconomics in 2003.

RESULTS

Acceptable cost-minimization estimates for primary prophylaxis with the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy have been provided by several studies in the US. Of the commonly used agents in the US, pegfilgrastim appears to be superior to the currently recommended dose and schedule of filgrastim in terms of cost minimization, and primary prophylaxis appears to be less costly than secondary prophylaxis. However, the cost benefits of primary prophylaxis in Europe are not as pronounced as in the US, due to the lower costs of medical care. Data continue to emerge suggesting a decreased risk of early mortality from averted infections as well as the possibility of a disease-specific mortality benefit through maintaining the relative dose intensity of chemotherapy with MGF support.

CONCLUSION

This evidence will prove valuable in assessing the overall cost effectiveness and cost utility of the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis following chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs following myelosuppressive chemotherapy and is associated with morbidity, mortality, costs, and chemotherapy reductions and delays. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) stimulate neutrophil production and may reduce FN incidence when given prophylactically following chemotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of G-CSFs (pegfilgrastim, filgrastim or lenograstim) in reducing FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. G-CSFs were compared with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis and with one another. Nine databases were searched in December 2009. Meta-analysis used a random effects model due to heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty studies compared primary G-CSF prophylaxis with no primary G-CSF prophylaxis: five studies of pegfilgrastim; ten of filgrastim; and five of lenograstim. All three G-CSFs significantly reduced FN incidence, with relative risks of 0.30 (95% CI: 0.14 to 0.65) for pegfilgrastim, 0.57 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.69) for filgrastim, and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.88) for lenograstim. Overall, the relative risk of FN for any primary G-CSF prophylaxis versus no primary G-CSF prophylaxis was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.62). In terms of comparisons between different G-CSFs, five studies compared pegfilgrastim with filgrastim. FN incidence was significantly lower for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim, with a relative risk of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary prophylaxis with G-CSFs significantly reduces FN incidence in adults undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumours or lymphoma. Pegfilgrastim reduces FN incidence to a significantly greater extent than filgrastim.

Consistency between direct and indirect trial evidence: is direct evidence always more reliable?

OBJECTIVES

To present a case study involving the reduction in incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), illustrating difficulties that may arise when following the common preference for direct evidence over indirect evidence.

METHODS

Evidence of the efficacy of treatments was identified from two previous systematic reviews. We used Bayesian evidence synthesis to estimate relative treatment effects based on direct evidence, indirect evidence, and both pooled together. We checked for inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence and explored the role of one specific trial using cross-validation. A subsequent review identified further studies not available at the time of the original analysis. We repeated the analyses on the enlarged evidence base.

RESULTS

We found substantial inconsistency in the original evidence base. The median odds ratio of FN for primary pegfilgrastim versus no primary G-CSF was 0.06 (95% credible interval: 0.02-0.19) based on direct evidence, but 0.27 (95% credible interval: 0.13-0.53) based on indirect evidence (P value for consistency hypothesis 0.027). The additional trials were consistent with the earlier indirect, rather than the direct, evidence, and there was no inconsistency between direct and indirect estimates in the updated evidence. The earlier inconsistency was due to one trial comparing primary pegfilgrastim with no primary G-CSF. Predictive cross-validation showed that this study was inconsistent with the evidence as a whole and with other trials making this comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the Cochrane Handbook and the NICE Methods Guide express a preference for direct evidence. A more robust strategy, which is in line with the accepted principles of evidence synthesis, would be to combine all relevant and appropriate information, whether direct or indirect.

Impact of primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on febrile neutropenia and mortality in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) have demonstrated a significant reduction in febrile neutropenia (FN) after systemic chemotherapy. Several RCTs have been published recently that investigate the impact of G-CSF on mortality and relative dose-intensity (RDI).

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of all reported RCTs comparing primary prophylactic G-CSF with placebo or untreated controls in adult solid tumor and malignant lymphoma patients was undertaken without language restrictions, using electronic databases, conference proceedings, and hand-searching techniques. Two reviewers extracted data independently. Summary estimates of relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs were estimated based on the method of Mantel-Haenszel and DerSimonian and Laird.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs were identified including 3,493 patients. For infection-related mortality, RR reduction with G-CSF compared with controls was 45% (RR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.90; P = .018); for early mortality (all-cause mortality during chemotherapy period), it was 40% (RR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.83; P = .002); and for FN, it was 46% (RR = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.67; P < .001). Average RDI was significantly higher in patients who received G-CSF compared with control patients (P < .001). Bone or musculoskeletal pain was reported in 10.4% of controls and 19.6% of G-CSF patients (RR = 4.03; 95% CI, 2.15 to 7.52; P < .001). Significant reductions in FN with G-CSF were observed in studies allowing secondary G-CSF prophylaxis in controls and in the three trials with concurrent prophylactic antibiotics in both treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic G-CSF reduces the risk of FN and early deaths, including infection-related mortality, while increasing RDI and musculoskeletal pain. There are insufficient data to assess the impact of G-CSF on disease-free and overall survival.

Randomized multicentre trial of filgrastim as an adjunct to combination chemotherapy for Hodgkin's disease. West of Scotland Lymphoma Group

This study was intended to ascertain whether the adjunctive administration of filgrastim (r metHuG-CSF, Amgen) would influence the dose intensity of chemotherapy or the morbidity of myelosuppression in patients receiving MOPP or MOPP/EVAP hybrid chemotherapy for Hodgkin's disease. In a prospective randomized trial, two regimens for the treatment of Hodgkin's disease were compared. The substudy described here randomized patients receiving either regimen to receive filgrastim on the days when chemotherapy was not administered. During chemotherapy, parameters of myelosuppression were documented, including dose delays, the severity and duration of neutrophil and platelet nadirs, infective episodes, and resulting hospital admissions. In the MOPP arm, 13/25 eligible patients, and, in the MOPP/EVAP arm, 12/22 eligible patients, received filgrastim. The use of filgrastim made no statistically significant difference to the administered dose intensity for either MOPP (P = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15-point increase to 8-point reduction) or MOPP/EVAP (P = 0.53; 95% CI 7-point increase to 11-point reduction). In patients receiving MOPP, filgrastim reduced the median duration of leucopenia (P = 0.007) and the severity of the white blood cell nadir (P = 0.036); however, no statistically significant effect (at the 5% level) was seen in platelet or haemoglobin nadirs, the number of days of in-patient hospitalization, the number of admissions for infective complications, the incidence, grade or duration of infections, or the incidence of febrile neutropenia. In patients receiving MOPP/EVAP, filgrastim had no significant effect on the duration or depth of leucopenia but was associated with a reduction in the median haemoglobin (P = 0.002) and platelet nadirs (P = 0.015). No effect on the above listed sequelae of myelosuppression was influenced by the administration of filgrastim. This study, although small, suggests that the routine use of filgrastim, aimed at influencing the administered dose intensity of conventional dose chemotherapy in Hodgkin's disease, is not warranted.

Colony-stimulating factors in the prevention of solid tumors induced by chemotherapy in patients with febrile neutropenia

Haematologic toxicity and its most frequent complication, febrile neutropenia represents the main limiting factor to the use of anti-cancer chemotherapy. The recent availability of recombinant human colony stimulating factors offers a new opportunity to improve the tolerance of these treatments. Most randomized trials in various solid tumors have demonstrated the ability of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor to significantly reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia and related complications. Interestingly enough, these compounds are well tolerated and easy to administrate. However, since the increase in dose-intensity does not translate into any improved efficacy in terms of response rates or survival, the use of colony-stimulating factors has to be decided on the basis of cost-benefit considerations. Therefore, some scientific societies such as the American Association of Clinical Oncology in the US and the Anti-Cancer Centers Group in France have published recommendations for their use in routine oncology practice. We here discuss these guidelines on the basis of an overview of the literature.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and fever in patients with metastatic breast carcinoma receiving salvage chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and associated fever and infection are the most common complications of systemic chemotherapy. In this retrospective analysis, the authors evaluated the incidence of neutropenic fever, infection, and mortality in relation to the level of neutropenia, performance status, course number of chemotherapy, bone marrow metastasis, and age among patients with metastatic breast carcinoma receiving salvage chemotherapy.

METHODS

A total of 174 patients with previously treated metastatic breast carcinoma enrolled on 4 consecutive Phase II protocols were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-three percent of the patients had an episode of neutropenic fever (41 episodes among 40 patients). The incidence of neutropenic fever did not increase until the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) had decreased to less than 500/microL, and then fever incidence had a linear relationship with decreasing ANC (linear trend, P < 0.01). A source of infection was documented in 59% of the neutropenic fever episodes. The incidence of infection did not increase significantly until the ANC had decreased to less than 250/microL (P < 0.01). The risk of neutropenic fever and infection was also significantly higher when patients had poor performance status or were undergoing the initial courses of chemotherapy. Patients with bone marrow metastases also had a higher frequency of fever, infection, and death, but these differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with metastatic breast carcinoma receiving salvage chemotherapy, the risk of fever increases with decreasing ANC, but the risk of infection does not increase significantly until ANC decreases to less than 250/microL. Poor performance status, initial courses of chemotherapy, and bone marrow metastases further increase the risk of fever, infection, and death.

Host immunologic augmentation for the control of infection

The emergence of resistance to pharmacologic antimicrobial agents and the desire to increase chemotherapy dose-intensity have necessitated the search for alternative means to control infectious disease. Enhancement of host immunity against infection has been permitted through the use of hematopoietic growth factors, which can shorten the duration of neutropenia and reduce the risk for bacterial and fungal infections. Hematopoietic growth factor-mobilized hematopoietic stem cells have also proven to be highly efficacious in permitting high-dose chemotherapy. Interferons, immunoregulatory cytokines, immune globulins, and immune lymphocytes also hold promise to enhance host immunity and reduce susceptibility for serious infectious morbidity.

Laevofolinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, cyclophosphamide and escalating doses of epirubicin with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support in locally advanced and/or metastatic breast carcinoma: a phase I-II study of the Southern Italy Oncology Group (GOIM)

Sixty-four consecutive patients with locally advanced (n = 7) or metastatic breast cancer (n = 57), were treated with a combination of laevofolinic acid 100 mg m-2 plus 5-fluorouracil 340 mg m-2 i.v. on days 1-3, cyclophosphamide 600 mg m-2 i.v. on day 1 and epirubicin 90 mg m-2 i.v. on day 1. Epirubicin dose was progressively escalated by 10 mg m-2 per cycle up to 120 mg m-2 in the absence of dose-limiting toxicities. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was given subcutaneously in order to prevent neutropenia. Epirubicin dosage could be increased to 100 mg m-2 in 53 patients (87%), to 110 mg m-2 in 31 patients (51%) and to 120 mg m-2 in 18 cases (30%). In most patients the dose-limiting toxicity was represented by myelosuppression. A statistically significant correlation was found between median white blood count (WBC) or absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir and epirubicin dose level (P = 0.009; P = 0.008). Moreover, a statistically significant correlation was observed between the number of chemotherapeutic cycles, nadir ANC and WBC and the occurrence of anaemia and thrombocytopenia of increasing severity. These data suggest the occurrence of progressive cumulative bone marrow toxicity. Although patients who reached different epirubicin levels showed differences in mean dose intensity, such differences were not statistically significant. No correlation was found between the increase in dose intensity and type, rate or duration of objective responses. In patients with metastatic breast cancer the overall response rate was 72% (95% CL 66-78%) with a 25% complete response rate. Median duration of response was 10 and 13 months respectively for complete and partial responses. All patients with locally advanced breast cancer had an objective response and underwent radical mastectomy. Projected median survival of the whole series of patients with metastatic breast cancer was 20 + months. These data demonstrate that the combination of 5-fluorouracil with laevofolinic acid, cyclophosphamide and epirubicin is very active against metastatic breast cancer. Use of G-CSF allows epirubicin dosage to be increased up to 120 mg m-2 cycle-1, but its use may be linked to the occurrence of sometimes severe cumulative haematological toxicity.