When the Risk of Febrile Neutropenia Is 20%, Prophylactic Colony-Stimulating Factor Use Is Clinically Effective, but Is It Cost-Effective?

Prophylactic Measures During Induction for Acute Myeloid Leukemia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Improved management of infectious complications of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has contributed substantially to the success of care over the past half century. An important approach to reducing infectious complications during the induction period of chemotherapy involves the use of prophylactic antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal agents targeting likely pathogens.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is not a one-size-fits-all approach to prophylaxis; every patient undergoing induction therapy should be evaluated individually and within the context of local microbiologic epidemiology and host risk factors. Pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions as well as novel diagnostic platforms can help mitigate the risk of life-threatening infection in patients with AML who undergo induction chemotherapy.

Evaluation and Management of Bacterial and Fungal Infections Occurring in Patients with a Hematological Malignancy: A 2011 Update

Patients with a hematological malignancy are a heterogeneous patient population who are afflicted with diseases that range from rapidly fatal acute leukemia to indolent lymphoma or chronic leukemia. Treatment options for these patients range from observation to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), but all patients are more susceptible to infection. The problem of infection is dynamic with continued shifts in pathogenic organisms and microbial susceptibilities, new treatment regimens that further diminish immune function, and patients receiving treatment who are now older and frailer. The classic patterns of immunodeficiency for patients with a hematological malignancy include: periods of profound neutropenia, increased iatrogenic risks (i.e., central vascular catheters), and cellular immune suppression that affects HSCT recipients, patients with lymphoid malignancies, and those receiving treatment with corticosteroids or agents like alemtuzumab [1–4]. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development, new technology, clinical trial results, and further clinical experience have enhanced the database on which to make infection prophylaxis and treatment decisions. However, the practicing clinician must remember that the majority of basic infection management principles for patients who are neutropenic remain unchanged.

Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of america

This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia. Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving. What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care-associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection.

Executive Summary: Clinical Practice Guideline for the Use of Antimicrobial Agents in Neutropenic Patients with Cancer: 2010 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America

This document updates and expands the initial Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Fever and Neutropenia Guideline that was published in 1997 and first updated in 2002. It is intended as a guide for the use of antimicrobial agents in managing patients with cancer who experience chemotherapy-induced fever and neutropenia.

Recent advances in antimicrobial drug development and technology, clinical trial results, and extensive clinical experience have informed the approaches and recommendations herein. Because the previous iteration of this guideline in 2002, we have a developed a clearer definition of which populations of patients with cancer may benefit most from antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, categorizing neutropenic patients as being at high risk or low risk for infection according to presenting signs and symptoms, underlying cancer, type of therapy, and medical comorbidities has become essential to the treatment algorithm. Risk stratification is a recommended starting point for managing patients with fever and neutropenia. In addition, earlier detection of invasive fungal infections has led to debate regarding optimal use of empirical or preemptive antifungal therapy, although algorithms are still evolving.

What has not changed is the indication for immediate empirical antibiotic therapy. It remains true that all patients who present with fever and neutropenia should be treated swiftly and broadly with antibiotics to treat both gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens.

Finally, we note that all Panel members are from institutions in the United States or Canada; thus, these guidelines were developed in the context of North American practices. Some recommendations may not be as applicable outside of North America, in areas where differences in available antibiotics, in the predominant pathogens, and/or in health care–associated economic conditions exist. Regardless of venue, clinical vigilance and immediate treatment are the universal keys to managing neutropenic patients with fever and/or infection.

Prophylactic G-CSF in patients with early-stage breast cancer: a health economic review

Although the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in conjunction with myelosuppressive chemotherapy is supported by clinical research evidence and advocated by international clinical guidelines when the consequent risk of febrile neutropenia exceeds 20%, there remains doubt as to the cost-effectiveness of the practice. There are limited economic data, and the data that are available are not necessarily applicable to the management of breast cancer in a European setting. Much of the available evidence on G-CSF in the management of febrile neutropenia is partial, focusing primarily on direct costs to the health service - that is, those related to hospitalisation and drug treatment. A full assessment of the cost effectiveness of G-CSF prophylaxis needs to take account of both costs and outcomes, including mortality, quality of life and patient functioning. As febrile neutropenia has been shown to affect productivity, consideration should also be given to quantifying the indirect costs of neutropenia.

Economic implications of using pegfilgrastim rather than conventional G-CSF to prevent neutropenia during small-cell lung cancer chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

For the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile aplasia, a single injection of pegfilgrastim per cycle has the same efficacy as six to ten injections of conventional granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). However, there are few data on the economic impact of pegfilgrastim use, especially in the context of small-cell lung cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved 31 patients and 129 treatment cycles (32 with pegfilgrastim and 97 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)). We estimated the direct costs for preventing and managing febrile aplasia from the payer's perspective and also conducted a willingness-to-pay study with 100 healthy subjects, in order to estimate how highly a single-jab strategy was valued relative to multiple injections.

RESULTS

The costs per cycle were respectively 1743 euros+/- 837 euros and 1466 euros +/- 836 euros for the pegfilgrastim and G-CSF strategies (p < 0.001). The excess cost of the pegfilgrastim strategy was partly compensated for by the perceived value of the single-jab strategy: 88% of interviewees would prefer the pegfilgrastim strategy; 16% would be willing to pay all the excess cost (277 euros) and 67% would be willing to pay half the excess cost.

CONCLUSION

In this willingness-to-pay survey, the excess cost associated with pegfilgrastim relative to other G-CSF-based prophylactic strategies is partly offset by the perceived convenience of a single injection.

The economic value of primary prophylaxis using pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim in patients with breast cancer in the UK

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious adverse event associated with myelotoxic chemotherapy that predisposes patients to life-threatening bacterial infections. Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) from the first cycle of chemotherapy is recommended by the 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2008 National Comprehensive Cancer Network and 2006 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines when the overall risk of FN is approximately 20% or higher. Once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim and daily filgrastim are two commonly used G-CSFs with different dosing schedules and associated costs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim primary prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in the UK.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed from the UK NHS perspective with a lifetime study horizon. The model simulated three clinical scenarios: scenario 1 assumed that pegfilgrastim and filgrastim had differential impact on the risk of FN; scenario 2 assumed additional differential impact on FN-related mortality; and scenario 3 assumed additional differential impact on chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI) with long-term survival effects. The base-case population included 45-year-old women with stage II breast cancer receiving four chemotherapy cycles, with an FN risk of approximately 20% or higher. Model inputs, including FN risk, FN case-fatality, RDI, impact of RDI on survival and utility scores, were based on a review of the literature and expert panel validation. Using data from the literature, it was estimated that the absolute risk of FN associated with pegfilgrastim was 5.5% lower than with 11-day filgrastim (7% vs 12.5%), and 10.5% lower than with 6-day filgrastim (7% vs 17.5%). Costs were taken from official price lists or the literature and included drugs, drug administration, FN-related hospitalizations and subsequent medical costs. Breast cancer mortality and all-cause mortality were obtained from official statistics. The main outcome measures were the costs ( pound, year 2006 values) per percentage decrease in (absolute) FN risk, per FN event avoided, per life-year gained (LYG), and per QALY gained. Model robustness was tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Pegfilgrastim was cost saving compared with 11-day filgrastim ( pound 3196 vs pound 4315). Compared with 6-day filgrastim, pegfilgrastim was associated with a cost of pound 4200 per FN event avoided, or pound 42 per 1% decrease in absolute risk of FN, in scenario 1. In scenario 2, pegfilgrastim provided 0.055 more LYGs or 0.052 more QALYs at a minimal cost increase of pound 441 ( pound 3196 vs pound 2754) per person, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pound 8075/LYG or pound 8526/QALY. In scenario 3, when all potential benefits of G-CSF were considered, the ICER became pound 3955/LYG or pound 4161/QALY. Results were most sensitive to the relative risk of FN for 6-day filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSION

In this UK analysis, pegfilgrastim appears to dominate 11-day use of filgrastim. The value of pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim at pound 4161-8526/QALY was very favourable compared with the commonly used threshold in the UK. In this setting, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim may be cost effective compared with filgrastim.

Cancer-associated neutropenic fever: clinical outcome and economic costs of emergency department care

Purpose. Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common, costly, and potentially fatal complication in oncology. While FN in the inpatient setting has been extensively studied, only one study has evaluated emergency department (ED) care for FN cancer patients. That study found that 96% of patients survived the complication. We evaluated clinical and economic outcomes for cancer patients with chemotherapy-associated FN treated in an ED. Methods. ED records for consecutive oncology patients with FN were reviewed for information on death, intensive care unit (ICU) use, blood cultures, and costs. Results. Forty-eight patients (n = 57 visits) were evaluated. Six patients died from FN (12%) and four received ICU care within 2 weeks and survived (8%). Blood cultures were positive for 37% of the ED visits. The median ED time was 3.3 hours. In 91% of visits, i.v. antibiotics were administered in the ED, ordered at a median of 1.7 hours from triage (interquartile range [IQR], 1.2-2.8 hours). All patients with death or ICU in 2 weeks and all but one patient with positive blood cultures received antibiotics. The median per patient ED costs were $1,455 (IQR, $1,300-$1,579)-42.4% for hospital/nursing, 23.5% for radiology, 20.8% for physician services, 10.9% for diagnostic tests, and 2.4% for antibiotics. Conclusions. Cancer patients with FN in this sample presenting to the ED frequently had no identified source of infection. One third of the patients had positive ED blood cultures and one fifth died or required ICU care within 2 weeks. Costs of ED care were similar to the cost of a single day of inpatient care. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is found at the end of this article.

Risk-adapted strategy for the management of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Among patients who develop fever and neutropenia after having received cancer chemotherapy, we have to distinguish at least three categories of risk levels for complications and death: patients at low risk and eligible for oral treatment and possibly outpatient management, patients at low risk who require intravenous therapy, and patients at higher risk.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer scoring system identifies patients at low risk (<5%) of severe complications with very low mortality (<1%) during an episode of febrile neutropenia; this group represents roughly 70% of an unselected population of patients with febrile neutropenia. A significant percentage (approximately 50%) of these patients are eligible for treatment with orally administered antibiotics and can be discharged early and safely from the hospital after a short (24-48 h) observation period.

ABVD for Hodgkin's lymphoma: full-dose chemotherapy without dose reductions or growth factors

BACKGROUND

We investigated whether administration of full-dose ABVD (Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) chemotherapy without growth factors, and irrespective of the granulocyte count, caused treatment delays or increased the number of infective episodes, in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-eight patients with confirmed predominantly early-stage HL were treated with ABVD outside clinical trial protocols over a 5-year period on an outpatient basis.

RESULTS

Ninety-five per cent of patients completed their scheduled ABVD regimen without adverse effects despite the development of neutropenia. Anaemia and thrombocytopenia did not present problems. Febrile neutropenia complicated 0.57% of combination chemotherapy injections. No growth factors were used and no dose modifications were carried out apart from the omission of bleomycin in one patient for the last two cycles of treatment due to the development of lung toxicity. All patients are currently disease-free, although three (7.8%) required salvage high-dose therapy (one relapsed and two with refractory disease).

CONCLUSIONS

ABVD administration irrespective of granulocyte counts allowed the treatment to be given at full dose without delays or significant number of infective episodes. There was no need for growth factor support, minimising treatment costs. The use of full-dose ABVD irrespective of granulocyte count should be evaluated in future protocols for HL.