Comparative safety of filgrastim versus sargramostim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

Chemoradiation and granulocyte-colony or granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF or GM-CSF): time to think out of the box?

Concerns have been raised about potential toxic interactions when colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) and chemoradiation are concurrently performed. In 2006, the ASCO guidelines advised against their concomitant use. Nevertheless, with the development of modern radiotherapy techniques and supportive care, the therapeutic index of combined chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and CSFs is worth reassessing. Recent clinical trials testing chemoradiation in lung cancer let investigators free to decide the use of concomitant CSFs or not. No abnormal infield event was reported after the use of modern radiotherapy techniques and concomitant chemotherapy regimens. These elements call for further investigation to set new recommendations in favour of the association of chemoradiation and CSFs. Moreover, radiotherapy could induce anticancer systemic effects mediated by the immune system in vitro and in vivo. With combined CSFs, this effect was reinforced in preclinical and clinical trials introducing innovative radioimmunotherapy models. So far, the association of radiation with CSFs has not been combined with immunotherapy. However, it might play a major role in triggering an immune response against cancer cells, leading to abscopal effects. The present article reassesses the therapeutic index of the combination CSFs-chemoradiation through an updated review on its safety and efficacy. It also provides a special focus on radioimmunotherapy.

Utilization of G-CSF and GM-CSF as an alternative to discontinuation in clozapine-induced neutropenia or leukopenia: A case report and discussion

Clozapine remains the definitive gold standard for treatment-resistant schizophrenia despite limitations in use because of hematological abnormalities. Neutropenia or leukopenia are often treated with interruption of clozapine treatment, frequently resulting in clinical decompensation, hospitalization, increased burden to patient care, and increased risk of suicide. Colony-stimulating factors, including granulocyte colony-stimulating factors and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factors, are cytokines that stimulate proliferation and differentiation of myeloid precursor cells. Their use in the prevention and treatment of clozapine-associated neutropenia presents an alternative to clozapine discontinuation in certain cases. We present a case report of successful periodic granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor use with clozapine in a patient with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, as well as discussion of a practical approach to patients with possible clozapine-induced neutropenia or leukopenia.

Hematopoietic growth factors in lung cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Most patients affected by lung cancer are treated with chemotherapy, and hence are at risk of myelosuppression. Hematopoietic growth factors have a relevant role in this setting, as they can improve quality of life, reduce the rate of chemotherapy-induced complications and allow the administration of full-dose chemotherapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Most data of hematologic growth factors in lung cancer come from dated publications or large trials involving different malignancies, thus limiting specific information for lung neoplasms. Nonetheless, most studies consistently identified myeloid growth factors as effective on specific end-points such as the duration and severity of neutropenia, or complications such as hospitalizations and febrile neutropenia; on the other hand, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) consistently improved anemia-specific end-points including hemoglobin values, transfusions rate and fatigue, although some specific safety issues characterized this drug class. The most recent international guidelines address these characteristics and include the main indications for hematologic growth factors in solid neoplasms, including lung cancer.

SUMMARY

Myeloid growth factors and ESAs have a relevant role in selected patients undergoing chemotherapy for nonsmall cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer. Notably, a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment is required in the specific case of ESAs.

Comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim, filgrastim, and sargramostim prophylaxis for neutropenia-related hospitalization: two US retrospective claims analyses

OBJECTIVE

Few studies have compared the effectiveness of filgrastim (FIL), pegfilgrastim (PEG), and sargramostim (SAR) to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy (M-CT). Two large commercial database analyses were separately conducted to examine the incidence of neutropenia-related and all-cause hospitalizations associated with FIL, PEG, and SAR prophylaxis for patients receiving M-CT for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), Hodgkin lymphoma, or solid tumors.

METHODS

Separate retrospective US claims database analyses utilized patient data from January 1, 2004 to April 30, 2010 using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRD(SM)) and January 1, 2001 to August 31, 2009 using OptumInsight's (formerly Ingenix) database. Patients were ≥18 years old and treated with M-CT for NHL, Hodgkin lymphoma, and solid tumors. All identified M-CT cycles with prophylactic (first 5 days of cycle) FIL, PEG, or SAR were included in the analysis. Patterns of administration and incidence rates of all-cause and neutropenia-related hospitalization were examined on a per-cycle basis.

RESULTS

In total, 9330 and 8762 patients with cancer, representing 30,264 and 24,215 chemotherapy cycles (28,189 and 22,649 (PEG), 1669 and 1351 (FIL), 406 and 215 (SAR)) from the HIRD(SM) and OptumInsight databases, respectively, were included in the separate database analyses. Both the HIRD(SM) and OptumInsight analysis showed that SAR and FIL prophylaxis had a higher risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization (SAR: OR = 3.48 [95%CI = 2.11, 5.74] and 2.81 [1.62, 4.87]; FIL: 1.78 [1.28, 2.48] and 2.36 [1.82, 3.06], respectively) and all-cause hospitalization (SAR: 2.18 [1.41, 3.36] and 2.41 [1.58, 3.68]; FIL:1.57 [1.25, 1.97] and 1.95 [1.60, 2.38], respectively) vs PEG.

LIMITATIONS

Medical claims do not contain information about chemotherapy dose, and hospitalizations were not validated against the patient's chart.

CONCLUSION

In this comparative effectiveness study, use of PEG was associated with a lower risk of neutropenia-related and all-cause hospitalizations compared to use of FIL or SAR prophylaxis.

Comparison of hospitalization risk and associated costs among patients receiving sargramostim, filgrastim, and pegfilgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Sargramostim is a granulocyte-macrophage-colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). Unlike filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, which are granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), sargramostim activates a broader range of myeloid lineage-derived cells. Therefore, GM-CSF might reduce infection risk more than the G-CSFs. This study compared real-world infection-related hospitalization rates and costs in patients using G/GM-CSF for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

METHODS

This retrospective matched-cohort study analyzed nationally representative health insurance claims in the United States from 2000 through 2007. The sample population included patients who received chemotherapy and G/GM-CSF. G/GM-CSF treatment episodes began with the first administration of G/GM-CSF and ended when a subsequent administration was >28 days after a prior administration. Sargramostim patients were matched 1:1 with filgrastim and pegfilgrastim patients based on gender and birth year. Outcomes included infection-related hospitalization rates and the associated costs. Hospitalization rates were analyzed using univariate and multivariate Poisson methods; covariates included myelosuppressive agents received, tumor type, anemia, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

A total of 990 sargramostim-filgrastim and 982 sargramostim-pegfilgrastim matched pairs were analyzed. Cohorts were similar with regard to age, gender, and comorbid conditions. Several differences were observed with regard to tumor type, anemia, and chemotherapy, but no systematic trends were apparent. Sargramostim patients experienced a 56% lower risk of infection-related hospitalizations compared with filgrastim and pegfilgrastim patients. Infection-related hospitalization costs were 84% and 62% lower for sargramostim patients compared with patients treated with filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with or at risk for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, these data indicated that use of sargramostim was associated with a reduced risk of infection-related hospitalization and lower associated costs compared with filgrastim or pegfilgrastim.

Evolving strategies in the management of aspergillosis

Aspergillus spp. remain the most common causes of invasive mould infections among patients with hematologic malignancies and recipients of solid-organ and hematopoietic stem-cell transplants. Despite advances in prevention and treatment, invasive aspergillosis continues to be a deadly disease. This paper reviews current approaches to treatment of aspergillosis in adults, including surgical and immune-based strategies, and developments in prophylaxis for aspergillosis in high-risk patient populations.

Use of Colony-Stimulating Factors for Chemotherapy-Associated Neutropenia: Review of Current Guidelines

Chemotherapy-associated neutropenia is often dose-limiting and may compromise treatment efficacy. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage-colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) are increasingly used to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) or to increase dose-density. This review discusses recent changes in treatment guidelines for chemotherapy-associated neutropenia. Primary prophylactic use of CSFs is now recommended as a treatment option at an overall risk of FN of 20%, not taking into account cost-effectiveness. To estimate the risk of FN, patient-, disease-, and treatment-related factors predicting an adverse outcome of FN have been determined. Dose-dense chemotherapy has become feasible with the use of CSFs. However, clinical benefit has been shown only for specific chemotherapy regimens in breast cancer, small cell lung cancer (SCLC), and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), for the latter particularly for patients above 60 years of age. Strategies are being developed to tailor the use of CSFs to patients with a high risk of adverse outcome of FN.

Granulocyte and granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factors as therapy in human and veterinary medicine

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) and granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factors (GM-CSFs) are endogenous cytokines that regulate granulocyte colonies and play a major role in the stimulation of granulopoiesis (neutrophils, basophils and eosinophils) and in the regulation of microbicidal functions. There are numerous pathological conditions in which neutrophils are decreased, the most common being neutropenia associated with cancer chemotherapy, which increases the risk of serious microbial infections developing with the potential for high morbidity and mortality. New methods in molecular biology have led to the identification and cloning of CSF genes and biopharmaceutical production. Since then, CSFs have been widely used for the prevention and treatment of neutropenia associated with cancer chemotherapy, for mobilising haematopoietic cell precursors, and for other neutropenia-related pathologies. This review focuses on the use of CSFs within both human and veterinary medicine. Clinical applications, pharmacology, tolerability and the potential role of these factors in veterinary medicine are considered.

G-CSF in the Prevention of Febrile Neutropenia in Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients

The most common chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of breast cancer are anthracyclines and taxanes. The major dose-limiting toxicities associated with these agents are myelosuppression and associated febrile neutropenia (FN). FN can significantly impact the ability to deliver full-dose chemotherapy on schedule and as a result may increase the risk of disease recurrence and eventual disease-related mortality. The use of granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) significantly improves the management of FN, both in a therapeutic and in a prophylactic approach. Nevertheless, the high cost of these agents limits their widespread prophylactic use. Therefore, the identification of patients who are at a higher risk of developing FN and who will benefit from the prophylactic use of G-CSFs has become the subject of several clinical and cost-effectiveness studies. Recently, new data have been accumulated concerning the risk of FN in different chemotherapy regimens, and different risk models have been developed to assess the neutropenic risk with all its complications. This article reviews and summarizes cutting-edge, disease-specific data as well as national and international guidelines regarding the use of G-CSFs to prevent chemotherapy-induced FN, with focus on the treatment of breast cancer.

Colony-stimulating factors in the management of neutropenia and its complications

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage CSF are potent drugs used to increase neutrophil counts after myelosuppressive chemotherapy. However, in various indications, the use of CSFs has no clinical benefit with regard to morbidity or mortality from infectious complications, frequency of antibiotic use, or rate of hospitalization. Thus, the application of CSFs should be limited to indications with proven clinical benefits or evidence of cost-effectiveness. This review will provide an overview of the state-of-the-art use of CSFs in chemotherapy-associated neutropenia, transplantation, and bone marrow failure syndromes. In addition, recently developed drugs for accelerated hematopoietic recovery will be presented.

Effects of a Formulary Change from Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor to Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor on Outcomes in Patients Treated with Myelosuppressive Chemotherapy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects on efficacy and safety of a formulary change from granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to granulocyte-macrophage CSF (GM-CSF).

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

SETTING

Single-center academic institution.

PATIENTS

Fifty-six patients aged 18 years or older with breast cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who developed neutropenia within 4 weeks after treatment with myelosuppressive chemotherapy and who had been given five or more doses of CSF as primary or secondary prophylaxis from January 1995-March 2002. Twenty-nine patients treated before January 2000 were given G-CSF; after the formulary change in January 2000, 27 patients were primarily given GM-CSF.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary efficacy end point was time to an absolute neutrophil count of 1.5x10(3)/mm3 or greater after treatment with CSF. Second and third efficacy end points, respectively, were frequency of febrile neutropenia and effect of CSF treatment on schedule and dose intensity of subsequent chemotherapy cycles. Primary and secondary safety end points, respectively, were frequency of adverse events and use of resources used to manage these events. The time to neutrophil recovery was similar with G-CSF and GM-CSF. Febrile neutropenia was more common in the patients given GM-CSF. Chemotherapy dose delays also were more common in patients treated with GM-CSF, as was the frequency of fever. Use of resources (platelet and red blood cell transfusions, intravenous antibiotics, and hospitalizations) was greater in the patients treated with GM-CSF.

CONCLUSION

The formulary change to GM-CSF was associated with a higher frequency of febrile neutropenia, resultant chemotherapy dose delays, more adverse events, and greater use of resources to manage the adverse events. These results suggest that G-CSF and GM-CSF are not therapeutically equivalent, with G-CSF having a superior safety and efficacy profile for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic events.

Colony-stimulating factors for the management of neutropenia in cancer patients

Neutropenia and its subsequent infectious complications represent the most common dose-limiting toxicity of cancer chemotherapy. Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs with common chemotherapy regimens in 25 to 40% of treatment-naive patients, and its severity depends on the dose intensity of the chemotherapy regimen, the patient's prior history of either radiation therapy or use of cytotoxic treatment, and comorbidities. The occurrence of FN often causes subsequent chemotherapy delays or dose reductions. It may also lengthen hospital stay, increase monitoring, diagnostic and treatment costs, and reduce patient quality of life. A decade after their introduction, colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) such as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) are now an integral part of the prevention of potentially life-threatening FN; however, only G-CSF has US Food and Drug Administration approval for use in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. These adjunctive agents accelerate formation of neutrophils from committed progenitors, thereby reducing the duration and severity of neutropenia. Important uses of CSFs in oncology are prevention of FN after chemotherapy, treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes and support following bone marrow transplantation, and collection of CSF-mobilised peripheral blood progenitor cells. G-CSF is used more frequently than GM-CSF for all of these indications because of fewer associated adverse effects. Clinical trials to date have not demonstrated a significant effect on overall survival or disease-free survival, which is most likely to be due to small sample size and lack of power to prove effect. However, they have demonstrated clinical utility in allowing the delivery of planned chemotherapy dose on schedule, an important clinical goal especially in curative tumour settings. The high cost of these agents limits their widespread use. Current American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis, or first cycle use, with CSFs being confined to patients with > or = 40% risk of FN, which may include elderly patients and other high-risk patients. In addition to the risk of FN, primary prophylaxis should also be considered if the patient has risk factors that place them in the Special Circumstances category. These risk factors may include decreased immune function in patients who are already at an increased risk of infection and pre-existing neutropenia due to disease, extensive prior chemotherapy, or previous irradiation to the pelvis or other areas containing large amounts of bone marrow. Future studies are needed to better define the patients most likely to benefit from CSF therapy, both for prophylaxis and as an adjunct to antibiotics for treatment of FN. Other potential uses include combination therapy with stem cell factors and other cytokines to boost progenitor cell development, maintaining dose intensity of salvage therapy in metastatic cancer patients, and application in patients with pneumonia, Crohn's fistulas, diabetic foot infections and a variety of other infectious conditions.