Pegfilgrastim vs. filgrastim for supportive care after autologous stem cell transplantation: can we decide?

The Effectiveness and Optimal Timing of PEG-rhG-CSF After Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation: A Multicenter Experience

No consensus has been made on the use of PEG-modification recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) in patients receiving autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT). To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PEG-rhG-CSF in provision of neutrophil support for lymphoma patients receiving autologous PBSCT. This retrospective study included lymphoma patients receiving either PEG-rhG-CSF or rhG-CSF after autologous PBSCT from 2018 to 2021 in two clinics. Hematologic recovery time, incidence of infectious complications and toxicity were compared between these two rhG-CSFs and among different initiation time of PEG-rhG-CSF. Of the 139 subjects included, 93 received PEG-rhG-CSF and 46 received rhG-CSF after transplantation. Compared with rhG-CSF, PEG-rhG-CSF marginally but significantly accelerated the neutrophil engraftment by 1 day (10 vs. 9 days, respectively) with no increasing on the risk of infectious complication and toxicity. In the PEG-rhG-CSF group, 50 patients received the growth factor on day 1, 19 received on day 3 and 24 received on day 5. The neutrophil engraftment was significantly shorter in day 1 and day 3 subgroup (9, 9, and 10 days, respectively), with a lower incidence of febrile neutropenia (82%, 100%, 100%) and documented infections (76%, 100%, 100%) in day 1 subgroup. PEG-rhG-CSF might be an alternative to rhG-CSF for lymphoma patients received autologous PBSCT. Administrating PEG-rhG-CSF on day 1 can achieve both faster hematologic recovery and lower infectious complications.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12288-023-01704-8.

Efficacy and cost of G-CSF derivatives for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients underwent autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacies and costs between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim prophylaxis for FN post-ASCT for lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients.

METHODS

43 patients who received pegfilgrastim (6 mg) were compared to a retrospective cohort of 129 patients that had received filgrastim post-ASCT. Hematopoietic recovery time, FN incidence and treatment costs were assessed and compared.

RESULTS

The mean time to absolute neutrophil count engraftment was 8.72 ± 2.38 days for the prospective pegfilgrastim group and 9.87 ± 3.13 days for the retrospective filgrastim group (P = 0.027). The incidence of FN was 18.60% and 50.39% in prospective pegfilgrastim and retrospective filgrastim groups, respectively (P = 0.000). The mean cost of filgrastim was $617.22 ± 37.87, compared with $525.78 for pegfilgrastim (P = 0.032).

DISCUSSION

Convenience, effectiveness, and safety of prophylaxis for FN in the prospective pegfilgrastim group were significantly improved compared to the retrospective filgrastim group in ASCT patients.

CONCLUSION

Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis was more effective and convenient than filgrastim for FN prophylaxis in patients post-ASCT, especially for MM patients.

Long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor pegfilgrastim (lipegfilgrastim) for stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard of care in newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Several studies before the introduction of novel therapies in MM, demonstrated a pegylated G-CSF to be successful in mobilizing peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs). Lipegfilgrastim is a novel long-acting G-CSF that is produced by the conjugation of a single 20-kDa polyethelene glycol to the natural O-glycosylation site of G-CSF. Twenty-four MM patients were included for PBSCs mobilization with a single SC injection of 6 mg lipegfilgrastim. PBSC collection was started when the CD34⁺ count was > 10 × 10⁶ cells/L. The target progenitor cells were 6 × 10⁶ cells/kg. The median day of apheresis was + 3 (range 2-5) following lipegfilgrastim. Median peripheral blood CD34⁺ count pre-mobilization was of 22.65 (range 3.36-105) × 10⁶ cells/L. The median number of leukaphaeresis procedures was 2 (range 1-4). The median mobilized CD34⁺ cells/kg were 8.26 (range 0.77-12.42). One patient failed to mobilize and two patients mobilized < 6 × 10⁶ cells/kg. Toxicity was mild and transient. Twenty-three patients underwent ASCT following high dose melphalan. All patients engrafted. As lipegfilgrastim is administered only once, it is conceivable that it improves both compliance and quality-of-life (NCT02488382).

Multiple Myeloma Outpatient Transplant Program in the Era of Novel Agents: State-of-the-Art

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the most common indication for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), and outpatient models have been widely developed in this setting. Although numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of outpatient ASCT, it is not a routine procedure. Stringent guidelines for patient selection and clinical management, including functional status, caregiver support, and psychological aspects, are essential to identify eligible patients. However, there is still no general agreement on these criteria. Quality of life data are limited and contradictory. There is considerable variability in outpatient transplant models, and there are no randomised studies supporting the use of one over the other. Studies evaluating results in terms of long-term survival, transplant toxicity in comparison with a standard approach are lacking. The procedure is cost-effective within the context of a hospital budget, but an in-depth analysis of the real cost of these programmes has yet to be performed.

A comparative effectiveness study of lipegfilgrastim in multiple myeloma patients after high dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant

G-CSF administration after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has been shown to expedite neutrophil recovery. Several studies comparing filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in the post-ASCT setting concluded that the two are at least equally effective. Lipegfilgrastim (LIP) is a new long-acting, once-per-cycle G-CSF. This multicentric, prospective study aimed to describe the use of LIP in multiple myeloma patients receiving high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and compare LIP with historic controls of patients who received short-acting agent (filgrastim [FIL]). Overall, 125 patients with a median age of 60 years received G-CSF after ASCT (80 patients LIP on day 1 post-ASCT and 45 patients FIL on day 5 post-ASCT). The median duration of grade 4 neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] < 0.5 × 10 [9]/L) was 5 days in both LIP and FIL groups, whereas the median number of days to reach ANC ≥ 0.5 × 10 [9]/L was 10% lower in the LIP than in the FIL group (10 vs 11 days), respectively. Male sex was significantly associated with a faster ANC ≥ 0.5 × 10 [9] L response (p = 0.015). The incidence of FN was significantly lower in the LIP than in the FIL group (29% vs 49%, respectively, p = 0.024). The days to discharge after ASCT infusion were greater in patients with FN (p < 0.001). The study indicates that LIP had a shorter time to ANC recovery and is more effective than FIL for the prevention of FN in the ASCT setting.

[Comparative study on the efficacy and safety between pegfilgrastim (PEG-rhG-CSF) and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in promoting hematopoietic recovery after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation after hematological malignancy]

Objective: To observe the efficacy and safety between Pegfilgrastim (PEG-rhG-CSF) and Recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) in hematological malignancy after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) . Methods: 157 patients after allo-HSCT were enrolled in this study from June 2015 to November 2016. Two agents of G-CSF were used to stimulate hematopoietic recovery after transplantation. There were 65 cases in PEG-rhG-CSF and 92 cases in rhG-CSF groups. Patients in PEG-rhG-CSF group were given a single subcutaneous dose of 6 mg on the first day and +8 d, while cases in rhG-CSF group were given in dose of 5 μg·kg(-1)·d(-1) by subcutaneous injection from +1 d continuing to neutrophils more than 1.5×10(9)/L, and then the indicators and survival rates in two groups after transplantation were compared. Results: ①There were no significant differences of the neutrophil implantation time[13.5 (8-12) d vs 13 (9-24) d, P=0.393] and platelet implantation time [14 (9-160) d vs 14 (9-92) d, P=0.094] between PEG-rhG-CSF and rhG-CSF groups respectively. There were no significant differences in terms of neutropenia period (P=0.435) , number of cases who got fever during neutropenia (P=0.622) , and the median time of fever in neutropenia period (P=0.460) , respectively between the two groups. There were no significant differences of erythrocyte and platelet transfusions (P=0.074, P=0.059) within 1 month after transplantation. ②There were no significant differences with regard to the incidences of acute GVHD[23.1% (15/65) vs 34.8% (32/92) , P=0.115], chronic GVHD[20.0% (13/65) vs 32.6% (32/92) , P=0.081], Ⅱ-Ⅳdegree of acute GVHD[30.0% (13/65) vs 30.4% (30/92) , P=0.287] and extensive chronic GVHD[9.2% (6/65) vs 20.7% (19/92) , P=0.135] between PEG-rhG-CSF and rhG-CSF groups. ③There were no significant differences in terms of disease free survival (DFS) (62.5% vs 61.4%, P=0.478) and overall survival (OS) (67.4% vs 67.3%, P=0.718) between PEG-rhG-CSF and rhG-CSF groups. ④There was no significant difference of the non-relapse mortality (NRM) between PEG-rhG-CSF and rhG-CSF groups[20.5% (95%CI 11.4%-37.0%) vs 32.6% (95%CI 22.2%-47.9%) , P=0.141]. The relapse rate was not statistically significant[14.9% (95%CI 7.4%-29.8%) vs 10.0% (95%CI 5.0%-20.0%) , P=0.299]. Conclusion: Compared with rhG-CSF, PEG-rhG-CSF could reduce the times of injection. There were no differences in terms of hematopoietic recovery, the incidence of GVHD, relapse rate, DFS and OS rates after allo-HSCT between two groups.

A comparison of the effect of xinruibai versus filgrastim on hematopoietic reconstruction after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Background

To compare the effect of xinruibai (Pegfilgrastim) and filgrastim injections on white blood cell and platelet (PLT) recovery, adverse events, post-operative complications, and cost effectiveness after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT).

Methods

Children who underwent allo-HSCT at our hospital from January 2014 to May 2017 due to thalassemia major, aplastic anemia, leukemia, and mucopolysaccharidosis were included. Among the children, 53 received xinruibai injections and 33 received filgrastim injections.

Results

There were no significant differences in the average time to neutrophil and platelet recovery, the incidence of post-operative complications after allo-HSCT, the number of red blood cell and PLT infusions, or the incidence of adverse events related to the injection between two groups (P >  0.05). The pain score was 3.06 (SD 0.41) for the xinruibai group and 25.18 (SD 6.22) for the filgrastim group, indicating significant differences between the two groups (P <  0.001). No difference was found in the hospitalization cost. The cost of the granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was 257.11 ± 61.87 Euro in the xinruibai group and 214.79 ± 0.00 Euro in the filgrastim group, showing significant difference (P <  0.001).

Conclusions

Xinruibai injection was more convenient, simple, effective, and safer than filgrastim.

Italian consensus conference for the outpatient autologous stem cell transplantation management in multiple myeloma

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the leading indication for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) worldwide. The safety and efficacy of reducing hospital stay for MM patients undergoing ASCT have been widely explored, and different outpatient models have been proposed. However, there is no agreement on the criteria for selecting patients eligible for this strategy as well as the standards for their clinical management. On the basis of this rationale, the Italian Group for Stem Cell Transplantation (GITMO) endorsed a project to develop guidelines for the management of outpatient ASCT in MM, using evidence-based knowledge and consensus-formation techniques. An expert panel convened to discuss the currently available data on the practice of outpatient ASCT management and formulated recommendations according to the supporting evidence. Evidence gaps were filled with consensus-based statements. Three main topics were addressed: (1) the identification of criteria for selecting MM patients eligible for outpatient ASCT management; (2) the definition of standard procedures for performing outpatient ASCT (model, supportive care and monitoring during the aplastic phase); (3) the definition of the standard criteria and procedures for re-hospitalization during the aplastic phase at home. Herein, we report the summary and the results of the discussion and the consensus.

Very low rate of readmission after an early discharge outpatient model for autografting in multiple myeloma patients: an Italian multicenter retrospective study

We analyzed the main modalities and clinical outcomes of the early discharge outpatient model in autologous stem cell transplantation (EDOM-ASCT) for multiple myeloma in Italy. EDOM-ASCT was employed in 382 patients, for a total of 522 procedures, between 1998 and 2012. Our study showed high homogeneity among centers in terms of inclusion criteria, supportive care, and in hospital readmission criteria. Overall, readmissions during the aplastic phase occurred in 98 of 522 transplantations (18.8%). The major extrahematological complication was neutropenic fever in 161 cases (30.8%), which required readmission in 76 cases. The incidence of severe World Health Organization grade 3 to 4 mucositis was 9.6%. By univariate analysis, fever, mucositis, altered renal function at diagnosis, second transplantation, and transplantation performed late in the course of the disease were significantly correlated with readmission, whereas fever, mucositis, altered renal function, and timing of transplantation remained the only independent predictors by multivariate analysis. Overall, transplantation-related mortality was 1.0%. No center effect was observed in this study (P = .36). The safety and low rate of readmission of the EDOM-ASCT in myeloma trial suggest that this strategy could be extended to other transplantation centers if a stringent patient selection and appropriate management are applied.

Cost effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with lymphoma and myeloma: an economic evaluation of the PALM Trial

BACKGROUND

Use of the recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) filgrastim accelerates neutrophil recovery following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Since filgrastim requires multiple daily administrations, forms of rhG-CSF with a longer half life, including pegfilgrastim, have been developed. Pegfilgrastim is safe and effective in supporting neutrophil recovery and reducing febrile neutropenia after conventional chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim has also been successfully used to support patients undergoing peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation for haematological malignancies. To our knowledge, no cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of pegfilgrastim in this setting has been published yet.

OBJECTIVE

We undertook a CEA to compare a single injection of pegfilgrastim versus repeated administrations of filgrastim in patients who had undergone PBSC transplantation for lymphoma or myeloma. The CEA was set in France and covered a period of 100 ± 10 days from transplant.

METHODS

The CEA was designed as part of an open-label, multicentre, randomized phase II trial. Costs were assessed from the hospital's point of view and are expressed in 2009 euros. Costs computation focused on inpatient, outpatient, and home care. Costs in the two arms of the study were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. When differences were statistically significant, multiple regression analyses were performed in order to identify cost drivers. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for the major endpoints of the trial; i.e., duration of febrile neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] <0.5 × 10(9)/L and temperature ≥38 °C), duration of neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L and ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L), duration of thrombopenia (platelets <50 × 10(9)/L and <20 × 10(9)/L), and days with a temperature ≥38 °C). Uncertainty around the ICER was captured by a probabilistic analysis using a non-parametric bootstrap method.

RESULTS

151 patients were enrolled at ten French centres from October 2008 to September 2009. The mean total cost in the pegfilgrastim arm of the study (n = 74) was <euro>25,024 (SD 9,945). That in the filgrastim arm (n = 76) was <euro>28,700 (SD 20,597). Pegfilgrastim strictly dominated filgrastim for days of febrile neutropenia avoided, days of neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L) avoided, days of thrombopenia (platelets <20 × 10(9)/L) avoided, and days with temperature ≥38 °C) avoided. Pegfilgrastim was less costly and less effective than filgrastim for the number of days with ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L avoided and the number of days with platelets <50.0 × 10(9)/L avoided. Taking uncertainty into account, the probabilities that pegfilgrastim strictly dominated filgrastim were 67 % for febrile neutropenia, 86 % for neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L), 59 % for thrombopenia (platelets <20 × 10(9)/L), 86 % for temperature ≥38 °C, 32 % for neutropenia (ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L), and 43 % for thrombopenia (platelets <50 × 10(9)/L). Conversely, the probability that filgrastim strictly dominated pegfilgrastim for neutropenia (ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L) is 5 %.

CONCLUSION

This study found no evidence that the use of pegfilgrastim is associated with greater cost in lymphoma and myeloma patients after high-dose chemotherapy and PBSC transplantation.

A randomized, non-inferiority study comparing efficacy and safety of a single dose of pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in pediatric patients after autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant

PURPOSE

To assess the non-inferiority of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim in speeding the recovery of polymorphonuclear cells (PMN) in pediatric patients who underwent autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant (PBSCT).

METHODS

The sample size of this randomized, multicenter, phase III study, was calculated assuming that a single dose of pegfilgrastim of 100 ug/kg was not inferior to 9 doses of filgrastim of 5 ug/kg/day. Randomization was performed by a computer-generated list and stored by sequentially numbered sealed envelopes.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients, with a median age of 11.5 years, were recruited: 29 in the filgrastim arm and 32 in the pegfilgrastim arm. Twenty percent were affected by lymphoma/leukaemia and eighty percent by solid tumors. The mean time to PMN engraftment was 10.48 days (standard deviation [SD] 1.57) and 10.44 days (SD 2.44) in the filgrastim and pegfilgrastim arms, respectively. Having fixed a non-inferiority margin Delta of 3, the primary endpoint of non-inferiority was reached. No differences were observed for other secondary endpoints: platelet engraftment, mean time to platelet recovery (28 days vs. 33 days), fever of unknown origin (79% vs. 78%), proven infection (34% vs. 28%), mucositis (76% vs. 59%). After a median follow-up of 2.3 years (95% C.I.: 1.5, 3.3), 20 deaths were observed due to disease progression.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that pegfilgrastim was not inferior to daily filgrastim in pediatric patients who underwent PBSCT. EU CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTER NUMBER: 2007-001430-14.

A randomised phase II study of the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim after autologous stem cell transplant for lymphoma and myeloma (PALM study)

AIM

To evaluate in a multicentre randomised study the effect on duration of febrile neutropenia (FN), the safety and cost-effectiveness of a single subcutaneous pegfilgrastim injection compared with daily injections of filgrastim after peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients receiving high dose chemotherapy for myeloma and lymphoma.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to a single dose of pegfilgrastim at day 5 (D5) or daily filgrastim from D5 to the recovery of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) to 0.5 G/L. Duration of FN, of neutrophil and platelet recovery, transfusion and antibiotic requirements were the main end-points of the study. Costs were calculated from D0 until transplant unit discharge. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as the cost per day of FN prevented. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed by non-parametric bootstrap methods.

RESULTS

Between October 2008 and September 2009, 10 centres enrolled 151 patients: 80 patients with lymphoma and 71 patients with myeloma. The mean duration of FN was 3.07 days (standard deviation (SD) 1.96) in the pegfilgrastin arm and 3.29 (SD 2.54) in the filgrastim one. Mean total costs were 23,256 and 25,448 euros for pegfilgrastim and filgrastim patients, respectively. There was a 62% probability that pegfilgrastim strictly dominates filgrastim.

CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Pegfilgrastim after PBSC transplantation in myeloma and lymphoma is safe, effective when compared with filgrastim and could represent a cost-effective alternative in this setting.