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.

Effects of filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim on outcomes of DA-R-EPOCH for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

PURPOSE

Our study aimed to compare the median and average last dose level reached with DA-R-EPOCH, which includes the chemotherapy agents etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab, in patients using filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim as febrile neutropenia primary prophylaxis.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center chart review from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2019, at The University of Kansas Health System identified patients > 18 years old who received at least four cycles of DA-R-EPOCH in an inpatient or outpatient setting for any subtype of lymphoma along with at least one dose of filgrastim or pegfilgrastim. Data was collected to compare dosing levels reached, appropriate discontinuation of daily filgrastim when ANC > 5000 cells/mm³, completion of at least twice weekly complete blood count (CBC) monitoring after chemotherapy administration, the incidence of infections, FN, hospitalizations from infections or FN, and bone pain.

RESULTS

We hypothesized that patients receiving pegfilgrastim will achieve similar median and average dose levels of DA-EPOCH, event-free survival rates, overall response rates, completion of at least twice weekly CBC monitoring, and incidence of infections, FN, hospitalizations for infections or FN, and bone pain compared to patients receiving filgrastim.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of pegfilgrastim as a supportive care agent resulted in similar efficacy and safety outcomes compared to filgrastim with DA-R-EPOCH in terms of dose intensity levels and incidence of infections, FN, and bone pain.