The safety and efficacy of day 1 versus day 2 administration of pegfilgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for gynecologic malignancies

Pegfilgrastim for the management of neutropenia during neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil in esophageal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) therapy is a new standard for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The optimal timing of pegfilgrastim with the DCF regimen to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) remains controversial. The effectiveness of concomitant pegfilgrastim administration with continuous 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) infusion in the DCF regimen was therefore assessed.

METHODS

All patients who received neoadjuvant DCF for esophageal cancer were retrospectively assessed. Patients who had been scheduled to receive pegfilgrastim on days 3-5 (early group) or days 7-9 (regular group) of the DCF regimen were included. Uni- and multivariate analyses were used to assess risk factors for FN.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients were included in the analysis. The 26 patients in the early group received pegfilgrastim as scheduled. In the 62 patients of the regular group, 51 received pegfilgrastim at a median of 7 days after starting DCF chemotherapy. However, 11 patients in the regular group could not receive pegfilgrastim. Twenty-two patients of the regular group and 2 patients of the early group developed FN after the first session of DCF. Early administration of pegfilgrastim and grade 4 neutropenia were significantly associated with onset of FN, with multivariate analysis identifying early administration of pegfilgrastim as an independent preventive factor and grade 4 neutropenia as a risk factor, after adjusting for sex and age.

CONCLUSION

Early pegfilgrastim administration is a safe approach that reduces the incidence of FN in DCF therapy. Using pegfilgrastim with continuous 5-FU infusion in the DCF regimen represents a reasonable option to prevent FN.

Efficacy of same-day versus next-day administration of pegfilgrastim for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients receiving dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: A retrospective multi-site analysis

INTRODUCTION

Administering pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy can improve patient satisfaction through convenience and may increase the utilization of cost-effective biosimilars compared to next-day administration, but the effect on clinical outcomes with commonly used breast cancer regimens is unclear.

METHODS

This multi-site, retrospective cohort study included breast cancer patients age 18 years or older who received dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) and pegfilgrastim between 1 June 2016 and 31 May 2020. Pegfilgrastim was given on the same day as chemotherapy at one site and the day after chemotherapy at the other two sites. The primary endpoint compared the incidence of febrile neutropenia associated with pegfilgrastim administration timing.

RESULTS

A total of 360 patients were reviewed (146 same-day administration and 214 next-day administration). In the same-day group 36 patients (24.6%) developed FN compared to 25 patients (11.7%) in the next-day group (p = 0.002). Same-day administration also significantly increased the incidences of additional acute care visits (11.6% vs 2.8%, p = 0.0016), grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (38.4% vs 13.6%, p < 0.0001), chemotherapy dose reductions (21.2% vs 6.1%, p < 0.0001), and antibiotic use (26.7% vs 12.6%, p = 0.001). Same-day administration did not significantly increase the rate of hospitalization (15% vs 11.2%, p = 0.36) and delay of next chemotherapy cycle by ≥1 day (8.2% vs 6.1%, p = 0.57) due to neutropenic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Administering pegfilgrastim on the same day as ddAC led to a significant increase in neutropenic complications. This study confirms the need to administer pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy in breast cancer patients receiving ddAC.

Timing of Pegfilgrastim: Association with Febrile Neutropenia in a Pediatric Solid and CNS Tumor Population

Background: While recommended timing of pegfilgrastim administration is ≥24 h after chemotherapy, patient barriers to next day administration, available adult evidence, and pharmacokinetic data have led to earlier administration in some pediatric patients with solid and central nervous system tumors. The purpose of this study was to compare patient outcomes by timing of pegfilgrastim after chemotherapy. Methods: A retrospective chart review examined timing of 932 pegfilgrastim administrations to 182 patients, 0-29 years of age. The primary outcome was febrile neutropenia (FN); the secondary outcome was neutropenic delays (ND) ≥7 days to next chemotherapy cycle. To account for multiple pegfilgrastim administrations per patient, a generalized mixed model was used with a logit link for the dichotomous outcomes (FN & ND), timing as the dichotomous independent variable, and random effect for patient. Results: FN occurred in 196 of 916 cycles (21.4%); and ND in 19 of 805 cycles (2.4%). The fixed effect of pegfilgrastim administration < or ≥24 h after chemotherapy was not significant, p = .50; however, earlier or later than 20 h was significant, p = .005. FN odds were significantly higher when pegfilgrastim was given <20 h (OR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.19-2.65) after chemotherapy, which may be attributable to differences in chemotherapy toxicity regardless of pegfilgrastim timing. Discussion: While attempts should be made to administer pegfilgrastim ≥24 h after chemotherapy, if barriers exist, modified timing based on individual patient characteristics should be considered. Prospective randomized trials are needed to identify lower risk patients for early pegfilgrastim administration.

Pegfilgrastim safety and efficacy on the last chemotherapy day versus the next: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of pegfilgrastim administered on the day of chemotherapy completion (same day) versus at least 1 day after chemotherapy (next day).

METHODS

We searched relevant literature published before April 2020 from the following databases: Embase, PubMed, Cochrane databases and Web of science.

RESULTS

One randomised controlled trial and 12 observational studies met all of the prespecified criteria for eligibility. The meta-analysis showed a significantly higher febrile neutropenia (FN) rate for the same-day group than that for the next-day arm in the first chemotherapy cycle (OR=2.56, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.48, p=0.02), and in all chemotherapy cycles (OR=1.54, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.84, p<0.00001). Results of subgroup analysis showed a higher FN rate in the same-day arm than in the next-day group for patients with breast cancer (OR=5.50, 95% CI 2.29 to 13.23, p=0.0001) and lymphoma (OR=1.53, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.34, p=0.05). The pooled analysis of studies on gynaecological malignancies showed that patients in the same-day group had a higher incidence of bone pain (OR=1.30, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.68, p=0.04) and a lower incidence of chemotherapy delay (OR=0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96, p=0.03) compared with the next-day group.

CONCLUSIONS

Same-day administration of pegfilgrastim resulted in increased incidence of FN compared with the next-day schedule. This is especially true for patients with breast cancer or lymphoma. These results do not support same-day administration of pegfilgrastim .

Evaluation of efficacy and safety of pegfilgrastim when given less than two weeks from dose-dense chemotherapy regimens

INTRODUCTION

In clinical practice, waiting 14 days between the administration of pegfilgrastim and subsequent chemotherapy cycle (as recommended by the prescribing information) is sometimes not feasible with multi-cycle dose-dense regimens. This study evaluated the practice related to the use of pegfilgrastim in oncology patients at a multi-hospital health system.

METHODS

Patients who received pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis following dose-dense chemotherapy scheduled every 14 days were included. The primary endpoint was the impact of <14 elapsed days between pegfilgrastim administration and next chemotherapy cycle on the change in mean absolute neutrophil counts (ANC). A generalized linear mixed-effects model with fixed effects for pegfilgrastim delivery method, elapsed days between pegfilgrastim and chemotherapy (fixed categorical effect for 12, 13, 14 days), and ANC at subsequent cycle was fitted to the change in ANC between chemotherapy cycles.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty four patients with breast cancer who received pegfilgrastim support for dose dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) qualified for the model. The mean age was 52 ± 12 years. Eighty-eight percent received pegfilgrastim on-body injector while 13% received pegfilgrastim injection. The mean number of elapsed days between pegfilgrastim and subsequent chemotherapy was 13 ± 0.5 days. The method of pegfilgrastim delivery and elapsed days between pegfilgrastim and chemotherapy administration had no significant effect on the change in ANC (p = 0.8663 and p = 0.8434 respectively); however, patient's age (p = 0.0125) had a significant effect on the change in ANC.

CONCLUSION

The study findings suggest safety and efficacy when chemotherapy is administered 12-14 days from pegfilgrastim.

Prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with colony-stimulating factors: the first 25 years

Filgrastim prophylaxis, both primary and secondary, was rapidly incorporated into clinical practice in the 1990s. When pegfilgrastim became available in 2002, it quickly replaced filgrastim as the colony-stimulating factor (CSF) of choice for prophylaxis. Use of prophylaxis increased markedly in the first decade of this century and has stabilized during the present decade. Data concerning real-world CSF prophylactic practice patterns are limited but suggest that both primary and secondary prophylaxis are common, and that use is frequently inappropriate according to guidelines. The extent of inappropriate use is controversial, as are issues concerning the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis and the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis. Nevertheless, CSF prophylaxis is firmly established as a valuable adjunct to chemotherapy and will almost certainly continue to be widely used for the foreseeable future. In this article, we chronicle the use and impact of CSF prophylaxis in US patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for non-myeloid malignancies. We emphasize the interplay of expert opinion, clinical evidence, and economic factors in shaping the use of CSFs in clinical practice over time, and, with the recent introduction of new CSF agents and options, we aim to provide useful clinical and economic information for healthcare decision makers.

Early administration of pegfilgrastim for esophageal cancer treated with docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil: A phase II study

Preoperative or induction chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, plus 5-fluorouracil (DCF) is a promising regimen for advanced esophageal cancer. However, the DCF regimen is associated with a high risk of severe neutropenia or febrile neutropenia (FN). However, the current guidelines fail to recommend an optimal dosing schedule of pegfilgrastim along with the DCF regimen to prevent FN. In the present study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of giving pegfilgrastim early on day 3 during DCF therapy for esophageal cancer. In this single-arm phase II study, patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus were recruited. They were treated with the DCF therapy on days 1-5, with pegfilgrastim given on day 3. Primary endpoint was the occurrence of grade 4 neutropenia. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of FN, grade 3 neutropenia, dose delays/reductions, antitumor effect, and safety. Between July 2016 and December 2018, 23 patients were enrolled. The incidence of grade 4 neutropenia was 8.7% (95% confidence interval 1.1%-28.0%). No patient experienced FN. Of the 19 patients who received two cycles of DCF, one required a dose reduction/treatment delay due to hematological toxicity in the second treatment cycle. No serious adverse events, considered relevant to pegfilgrastim, were observed. This is the first prospective study that showed an efficacious dosing schedule of pegfilgrastim for preventing hematological toxicity during DCF therapy. The results might be generalized to other similar regimens where continuous infusions of 5-fluorouracil are used.

Utilization of an Alternative Docetaxel-based Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Regimen in Patients With Ovarian, Fallopian Tube or Primary Peritoneal Carcinoma: A Continued Need for Ovarian Cancer Patients

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to report the tolerability and toxicity of a regimen consisting of intravenous (IV) docetaxel and intraperitoneal (IP) cisplatin and paclitaxel with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with surgical stage II-IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal carcinoma treated with an outpatient IP chemotherapy regimen consisting of docetaxel 75 mg/m IV and cisplatin 75 mg/m IP day 1 followed by paclitaxel 60 mg/m IP day 8 every 21 days. Grade 3 and 4 toxicity, dose delays and reductions, port complications, and tolerability are reported. Outcomes, including response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) are also reported.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients received this IP regimen. Most common toxicities included neutropenia (47%), gastrointestinal (28%), and anemia (25%). Most patients (85%) experienced no IP port complications. Dose delay or reduction was required in 30% of patients. Two-thirds completed all prescribed cycles, with 80% of total planned cycles completed. Complete response was achieved for 88%, and 43% are currently without evidence of disease. Median PFS for all patients was 25.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 20.4-30.5 mo) while OS for all patients was 56.8 months (95% CI, 47.7-65.9 mo). For the 44 patients with stage III disease, median PFS was 22.1 months (95% CI, 16.3-28.0 mo), while median OS was 56.8 months (95% CI, 47.3-66.3 mo).

CONCLUSIONS

This docetaxel-based IP chemotherapy regimen demonstrates an improved tolerability profile compared with GOG172. Additional evaluations on alternative IP regimens remain warranted. Short follow-up time limits survival assessment, but results are encouraging.

A single-arm, retrospective analysis of the incidence of febrile neutropenia using same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim in patients with gastrointestinal cancers treated with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI

BACKGROUND

Practice patterns of same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim vary in numerous practice settings across the country. Current utilization with same-day pegfilgrastim reduced overall visits and reduced treatment time for chemotherapy administration.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim in patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Patient data was extracted through electronic health records (EHR) search of ICD-9 codes that matched patients with CRC and treated with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI from November 2013 to January 2016. The incidence rates of primary and secondary endpoints were estimated for patients who received either FOLFOX or FOLFIRI and same-day pegfilgrastim with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals. Fisher's exact test for 2 × 2 contingency tables was used to compare the incidence of primary and secondary endpoints between the two study groups performed at the α = 0.05 significance level. A study by Hecht et al. served as a historical control for next-day pegfilgrastim.

RESULTS

A total of 109 out of an initial 330 patients with appropriate ICD-9 criteria were eligible for study inclusion. The primary endpoint of incidence of FN recorded over 4 chemotherapy cycles with either FOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI occurred in 3.7% of patients (95% CI, 1.1-9.4%). Secondary endpoints also occurred with a relatively low incidence: 13 patients developed grades 3/4 neutropenia (11.9%; 95% CI, 7.0-19.5%); 11 patients required dose reductions because of neutropenia or FN (10.1%; 95% CI, 5.6-17.3%); and 5 patients were hospitalized due to neutropenia or FN (4.6%; 1.7-10.6%). There were 4 reported events of FN (3.2%; 95% CI, 1.0-8.3%) for those who received next-day pegfilgrastim compared to 11 events in the placebo group (9.4%; 95% CI, 5.1-16.4%). The incidence of dose delays or dose reductions due to neutropenia or FN were 5 (4.1%, 95% CI, 1.5-9.4%) in the next-day pegfilgrastim group versus 26 (22.1%, 95% CI, 15.5-30.4%) in the placebo group.

LIMITATIONS

The study was retrospective in design and utilized a historical control for the comparator.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results suggest that same-day pegfilgrastim administration may be a safe and effective alternative to 24-h post-chemotherapy administration in patients with esophageal, gastric, appendiceal, or colorectal cancer undergoing treatment with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim prophylaxis among patients aged ≥65 years: a retrospective evaluation using Medicare claims

BACKGROUND

Two recent evaluations reported that risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) may be higher when pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (PP) is administered on same day as chemotherapy rather than per recommendation (1-3 days following chemotherapy). Such evidence is based largely on the experience of younger privately insured adults and may not be generalizable to older patients in US clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and data from Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files (January 2008-September 2015) were employed. Patients were aged ≥65 years, had breast cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, received chemotherapy with intermediate/high risk for FN, and received PP in ≥1 cycle; cycles with PP were stratified based on administration day (same-day ["Day 0"] vs. 1-3 days following chemotherapy ["Days 1-3"]) and were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for FN during the cycle were estimated for patients who received PP on Day 0 versus Days 1-3.

RESULTS

Study population included 65,003 patients who received PP in 261,184 cycles; in 5% of cycles, patients received PP on Day 0. Incidence proportion for FN in cycle 1 was 11.4% for Day 0 versus 8.4% for Days 1-3; adjusted OR was 1.4 (p < .001). Incidence proportion for FN when considering all cycles was 7.7% for Day 0 and 6.0% for Days 1-3; adjusted OR was 1.3 (p < .001). Adjusted ORs when considering all cycles and only inpatient FN episodes (1.3, p < .001) and the narrow definition for FN (1.5, p < .001) were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Among Medicare patients receiving chemotherapy and PP in US clinical practice, PP was administered before the recommended timing in 5% of cycles and FN incidence was significantly higher in these cycles. Along with prior research, study findings support recently updated US practice guidelines indicating that PP should be administered the day after chemotherapy.

Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor according to ASCO guidelines has no preventive effect on febrile neutropenia in patients treated with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in preventing febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients treated with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) chemotherapy remains controversial. We compared the incidence of FN in patients treated with and without primary prophylactic G-CSF.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 142 patients with locally advanced head and neck or esophageal cancer treated with TPF between January 2009 and March 2017. Among them, 116 patients started TPF without primary prophylactic G-CSF (control group) while 26 patients were given primary prophylactic G-CSF from day 7 of the first cycle of TPF (prophylactic group).

RESULTS

The incidence of grade 4 neutropenia during the first cycle of TPF was significantly higher in the control group than in the prophylactic group [58.6% (n = 68) vs. 30.8% (n = 8), p = 0.02]. However, the incidence of FN in the first cycle was not significantly different between the two groups [32 patients (27.5%) in the control group and 8 patients (30.8%) in the prophylactic group (p = 0.62)]. In addition, the mean relative dose intensity throughout all cycles of TPF, as well as the survival time and response after TPF, were also not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary prophylactic G-CSF from day 7 of the first cycle of TPF did not reduce the incidence of FN. Our findings suggest that the timing of primary prophylactic G-CSF, as recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, should be modified to reduce the incidence of FN in TPF.

Predictive factors in patients eligible for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis focusing on RDI using ordered logistic regression analysis

Although pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is expected to maintain the relative dose intensity (RDI) of chemotherapy and improve safety, information is limited. However, the optimal selection of patients eligible for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is an important issue from a medical economics viewpoint. Therefore, this retrospective study identified factors that could predict these eligible patients to maintain the RDI. The participants included 166 cancer patients undergoing pegfilgrastim prophylaxis combined with chemotherapy in our outpatient chemotherapy center between March 2015 and April 2017. Variables were extracted from clinical records for regression analysis of factors related to maintenance of the RDI. RDI was classified into four categories: 100% = 0, 85% or < 100% = 1, 60% or < 85% = 2, and < 60% = 3. Multivariate ordered logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictive factors in patients eligible for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis to maintain the RDI. Threshold measures were examined using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis curve. Age [odds ratio (OR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.11; P < 0.0001], anemia (grade) (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.10-2.84; P = 0.0184), and administration 24-72 h after chemotherapy (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.89; P = 0.0224) were factors that significantly correlated with RDI maintenance. ROC curve analysis of the group that failed to maintain the RDI indicated that the threshold for age was 70 years and above, with a sensitivity of 60.0% and specificity of 80.2% (area under the curve: 0.74). In conclusion, younger age, anemia (less), and administration of pegfilgrastim 24-72 h after chemotherapy were significant factors for RDI maintenance.

Model-based optimization of G-CSF treatment during cytotoxic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Although G-CSF is widely used to prevent or ameliorate leukopenia during cytotoxic chemotherapies, its optimal use is still under debate and depends on many therapy parameters such as dosing and timing of cytotoxic drugs and G-CSF, G-CSF pharmaceuticals used and individual risk factors of patients.

METHODS

We integrate available biological knowledge and clinical data regarding cell kinetics of bone marrow granulopoiesis, the cytotoxic effects of chemotherapy and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of G-CSF applications (filgrastim or pegfilgrastim) into a comprehensive model. The model explains leukocyte time courses of more than 70 therapy scenarios comprising 10 different cytotoxic drugs. It is applied to develop optimized G-CSF schedules for a variety of clinical scenarios.

RESULTS

Clinical trial results showed validity of model predictions regarding alternative G-CSF schedules. We propose modifications of G-CSF treatment for the chemotherapies 'BEACOPP escalated' (Hodgkin's disease), 'ETC' (breast cancer), and risk-adapted schedules for 'CHOP-14' (aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in elderly patients).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that we established a model of human granulopoiesis under chemotherapy which allows predictions of yet untested G-CSF schedules, comparisons between them, and optimization of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim treatment. As a general rule of thumb, G-CSF treatment should not be started too early and patients could profit from filgrastim treatment continued until the end of the chemotherapy cycle.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia by day of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice from 2010 to 2015

OBJECTIVE

Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (PP) is recommended 1-3 days following administration of chemotherapy during the cycle. Some patients, however, receive PP before or after the recommended timing. While evidence suggests that risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) may be lower when PP is administered per recommendation, such evidence is based on older data. We undertook a new study to compare FN risk between patients who received PP on the last day of chemotherapy ("day 0") or 4-5 days following chemotherapy ("days 4-5"), versus 1-3 days following chemotherapy ("days 1-3"), using recent data from US clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and data from two US private healthcare claims repositories (2010-2016) were employed. Patients received intermediate/high-risk chemotherapy regimens for solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and PP in ≥1 cycle; all cycles with PP were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) for FN during the cycle were estimated for patients who received PP on day 0 or days 4-5, vs. days 1-3, using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

The study population included 53,814 patients who received PP in 217,273 cycles; in 9% of cycles, patients received PP on day 0 (8%) or days 4-5 (<1%). Odds of FN in cycle 1 were significantly higher among patients receiving PP on day 0 (OR: 1.4 [95% CI: 1.2-1.7]) or days 4-5 (1.9 [1.2-3.0]), vs. days 1-3, in that cycle. Results for subsequent cycles of chemotherapy were comparable to those for the first cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large-scale retrospective evaluation of cancer chemotherapy patients receiving PP in recent US clinical practice, PP was administered before or after the recommended timing in 9% of cycles. FN incidence was significantly higher in these cycles providing additional real-world evidence that PP should be administered the day after chemotherapy in alignment with recently updated US practice guidelines.

Is it reasonable to administer pegfilgrastim on day 1 of a myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimen? A cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

There is recent evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of same-day dosing of pegfilgrastim in patients undergoing chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim on day 1 (D1) versus day 2 (D2) for primary prevention of neutropenia in women receiving chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cost-utility model was designed comparing standard D2 versus D1 administration of pegfilgrastim to ovarian cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with an intermediate risk (10-15%) of febrile neutropenia (FN). Rates of FN despite prophylaxis were modeled as 10% for D1 and 5% for D2. Societal costs associated with D2 injection ($175.71) were incorporated. Quality of life (QOL) was modeled from published data; we assumed a small decrement in QOL on treatment days. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

D1 administration was less costly ($17,195 versus $17,681) and resulted in higher QOL (0.2298 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) versus 0.2288 QALYs) than D2. Results were sensitive to the risk of FN. D1 remained dominant or cost-effective (ICER less than $50,000/QALY) compared to D2 if the FN rate with D1 was assumed less than 14.5% (baseline estimate 10%). If the FN rate with D1 was assumed greater than or equal to 15%, D1 was not cost-effective compared to D2, with an ICER greater than $100,000/QALY. Findings are insensitive to variations in the modeled cost of treating FN, the additional cost of D2 injection, and the reduced QOL associated with treatment visits.

CONCLUSION

Administration of D1 pegfilgrastim is cost-effective in women with ovarian cancer who are treated with intermediate risk chemotherapy.

The effectiveness and safety of same-day versus next-day administration of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) are commonly used in clinical practice to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN). US and EU prescribing information and treatment guidelines from the NCCN, ASCO, and EORTC specify that pegfilgrastim, a long-acting (LA) G-CSF, should be administered at least 24 h after myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Nevertheless, many patients receive LA G-CSFs on the same day as chemotherapy. This systematic literature review evaluated the relative merits of same-day versus next-day dosing of LA G-CSFs.

METHODS

A broad Ovid MEDLINE® and Embase® literature search was conducted that examined all publications indexed before May 9, 2016 that compared same-day versus next-day LA G-CSF administration. A congress abstract literature search included congresses from January 1, 2011 to April 6, 2016. The parameters for this review were prospectively delineated in a research protocol and adhered to the PRISMA Guidelines.

RESULTS

The first part of the systematic literature search identified 1736 publications. After elimination of duplicates, title/abstract screening was conducted on 1440 records, and full text review was conducted on 449 publications. Eleven publications met all criteria and are included in this systematic review; of these, four included data from randomized or single arm prospective studies, and seven were retrospective studies. In most studies included in this review and across a variety of tumor types, administration of pegfilgrastim at least 24 h after myelosuppressive chemotherapy resulted in improved patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from multiple publications support administration of pegfilgrastim at least 1 day after chemotherapy.

Burden of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia Hospitalizations in US Clinical Practice, by Use and Patterns of Prophylaxis with Colony-Stimulating Factor

INTRODUCTION

Evidence suggests that many cancer chemotherapy patients who are candidates for colony-stimulating factor (CSF) prophylaxis do not receive it or receive it inconsistent with guidelines, and that such patients have a higher risk of febrile neutropenia hospitalization (FNH). Little is known about the number and consequences of FNH by use/patterns of CSF prophylaxis in US clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and private healthcare claims data were employed. Study population comprised adults who received a chemotherapy course with a high-risk regimen, or an intermediate-risk regimen (if ≥1 FN risk factor present), for non-metastatic breast cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL); each chemotherapy cycle within the course and each FNH episode within the cycles were identified. Consequences included mortality, inpatient days, and costs (US$2013) during FNH. Use (yes/no) and patterns (agent, administration day/duration) of CSF prophylaxis were evaluated within cycles in which FNH episodes occurred.

RESULTS

Among all FNH episodes (n=6,355; 109 episodes per 1,000 patients), 41.3% (95% CI: 40.1-42.5) occurred among patients who did not receive CSF prophylaxis in that cycle, and 8.8% (8.1-9.5) occurred among those who received CSF prophylaxis on the same day as chemotherapy. Among FNH episodes occurring in patients who received daily CSF agents (2% of CSF use), 56.1% (44.1-68.0) received prophylaxis <7 days during the cycle. Results for FNH consequences were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective evaluation, one-half of FNH episodes, outcomes, and costs among cancer chemotherapy patients who were candidates for CSF prophylaxis occurred in those who either did not receive it or received it inconsistent with guidelines.

"Same-Day" administration of pegfilgrastim following myelosuppressive chemotherapy: clinical practice and provider rationale

PURPOSE

To describe patient- and practice-related factors that physicians report affect their clinical decision to administer prophylactic pegfilgrastim to patients <24 h after completion of a myelosuppressive chemotherapy cycle (i.e., "same-day" pegfilgrastim).

METHODS

Oncologists, hematologists, and hematologist-oncologists enrolled in a US national physician panel were invited to participate in a cross-sectional, web-based survey to assess physicians' reasons for prescribing "same-day" pegfilgrastim. Physicians were screened as eligible if they reported prescribing "same-day" pegfilgrastim within the previous 6 months. The survey assessed physician perspectives and physician-perceived patient/caregiver preferences.

RESULTS

Of 17,478 invited physicians, 386 answered the screening questions; 151 (39.1 %) were eligible, agreed to participate, and completed the survey. Physicians estimated that overall 41.3 % of their patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy received pegfilgrastim and that 31.6 % treated with pegfilgrastim received it on a "same-day" schedule. Approximately 36 % of physicians relied primarily on their clinical judgment when deciding to administer "same-day" pegfilgrastim. The clinical consideration reported most commonly by physicians as moderately or very important when deciding to administer "same-day" pegfilgrastim was previous febrile neutropenia (77.6 %). The most important patient-related consideration in the decision to administer "same-day" pegfilgrastim was patient/caregiver travel distance, and the most important practice-related consideration was the burden to the physician's practice of "next-day" administration (vs. same-day), reported by 84.7 % and 65.1 % of physicians as moderately or very important, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

While clinical judgment, patients' risk factors, and practice burden were principal influences favoring "same-day" pegfilgrastim administration, physician-perceived patient preferences and logistical barriers also have important roles in this decision.

Trajectory of absolute neutrophil counts in patients treated with pegfilgrastim on the day of chemotherapy versus the day after chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Risk of infection increases with severity and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). Pegfilgrastim is approved for use on the day after chemotherapy to reduce incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia (FN), in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In this study, we compared severity and duration of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) suppression in patients who received pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy versus the next day.

METHODS

We combined individual patient data from four Amgen-sponsored clinical trials in which patients with cancer were randomized to receive pegfilgrastim either the same day as chemotherapy or the next day. Severity and duration of ANC suppression were calculated using area over the curve (AOC, the area over the ANC-time response curve and below a given clinical threshold). AOC of ANC and incidences of CIN and FN were compared by day of pegfilgrastim use.

RESULTS

The analysis included 95 same-day patients and 97 next-day patients. Despite similar ANC at baseline, ANC at nadir was higher among next-day patients than same-day patients. Mean AOC of ANC (cutoff 0.5 × 10(9)/L) among next-day patients was lower by 0.30 (95 % confidence interval: 0.16, 0.43) 10(9)/L × day than same-day patients in cycle 1. Next-day patients had lower incidences of CIN than same-day patients, but there were no significant differences in incidences of FN.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy had less severe and shorter suppression of ANC than patients who received pegfilgrastim the same day as chemotherapy.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in cancer patients receiving pegfilgrastim prophylaxis: does timing of administration matter?

PURPOSE

Contrary to the approved indication for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, some patients receive it on the same day as the last administration of chemotherapy in clinical practice, which could adversely impact risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). An evaluation of the timing of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis and FN risk was undertaken.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and data from two US private health care claims repositories were employed. Study population comprised adults who received intermediate/high-risk chemotherapy regimens for solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and received pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in ≥1 cycle; all cycles with pegfilgrastim were pooled for analyses. Odds ratios (OR) for FN during the cycle were estimated for patients who received pegfilgrastim on the same day (day 1) as the last administration of chemotherapy versus days 2-4 from chemotherapy completion.

RESULTS

The study population included 45,592 patients who received pegfilgrastim in 179,152 cycles (n = 37,095 in cycle 1); in 12 % of cycles, patients received pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy. Odds of FN were higher for patients receiving pegfilgrastim prophylaxis on the same day as chemotherapy versus days 2-4 from chemotherapy in cycle 1 (OR = 1.6, 95 % CI = 1.3-1.9, p < 0.001) and all cycles (OR = 1.5, 95 % CI = 1.3-1.6, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large-scale evaluation of adults who received intermediate/high-risk regimens for solid tumors or NHL in US clinical practice, FN incidence was found to be significantly higher among those who received pegfilgrastim prophylaxis on the same day as chemotherapy completion versus days 2-4 from chemotherapy completion, underscoring the importance of adhering to the indicated administration schedule.

Evaluation of the Hematologic Safety of Same Day Versus Standard Administration (24- to 72-Hour Delay) of Pegfilgrastim in Gynecology Oncology Patients Undergoing Cytotoxic Chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the safety and efficacy of administration of pegfilgrastim on the same day compared with standard administration 24 to 72 hours after chemotherapy in patients with gynecologic malignancies.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on patients undergoing pegfilgrastim to mitigate the myelosuppressive consequences of chemotherapy. The primary outcome was incidence of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia following pegfilgrastim for same-day administration (D1) versus standard administration (D2+). Secondary outcomes included dose delay, regimen change, hospitalization due to neutropenia, and incidence of febrile neutropenia.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty-one patients with 2071 administrations of pegfilgrastim were included. Five hundred six administrations of pegfilgrastim were given on D1 compared with 1565 administrations on D2+. The most common malignancy was ovarian cancer (79.1%), followed by endometrial (14.5%). Comparing the D1 and D2+ cohorts, noninferiority was not established for the incidence of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (2.6% vs 1.8%, adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.6; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-3.2) or dose modification (6.5% vs 4.9%; aRR, 1.3; 90% CI, 0.9-1.8). However, the rate of treatment delays (7.3% vs 9.4%; aRR, 0.8; 90% CI, 0.6-1.1) in the D1 and D2+ groups suggested that delays in the D1 group were not more common than in the D2+ group.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of hematologic toxicities and dose modification in patients receiving same-day pegfilgrastim were not as low as in those undergoing standard administration. However, treatment delays were found to be no more frequent in those receiving same-day pegfilgrastim versus standard administration. Same-day administration of pegfilgrastim is a reasonable option.

Comparison of pharmacokinetics and safety of pegfilgrastim administered by two delivery methods: on-body injector and manual injection with a prefilled syringe

PURPOSE

For patients with clinically significant risk of febrile neutropenia, pegfilgrastim administration should occur the day after myelosuppressive chemotherapy; however, a variety of factors may preclude patients from returning to the clinic the next day for pegfilgrastim administration, necessitating other strategies. This study compared the pharmacokinetics and safety of pegfilgrastim administered via an on-body injector applied to the subject's skin versus manual injection using a prefilled syringe.

METHODS

Healthy subjects aged 18-50 years were randomized 1:1 to receive a single 6-mg subcutaneous pegfilgrastim dose from an on-body injector or a prefilled syringe. Blood for pharmacokinetic measurements was collected at baseline and prespecified time points after pegfilgrastim administration; safety was assessed throughout the 6-week study. Primary endpoints were maximum concentration (C max) and area under the concentration curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-inf). Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity.

RESULTS

Pegfilgrastim mean AUC0-inf values for the on-body injector (n = 125) and manual injection (n = 128) were 10,900 and 11,100 h ng/mL, respectively; mean C max values were 248 and 262 ng/mL, respectively. The least squares geometric mean ratios were 0.97 for C max and 1.00 for AUC0-inf; the corresponding 90 % CIs were within the prespecified range (0.80-1.25), indicating comparable pegfilgrastim pharmacokinetics between delivery methods. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were similar between groups (injector, 86 %; manual, 85 %). Injector- or syringe-related AEs were more prevalent with the injector (13 %; manual, 4 %); none were serious. No pegfilgrastim-neutralizing antibodies were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Pegfilgrastim pharmacokinetics and safety were comparable between the on-body injector and manual injection groups.

Efficacy and safety of early G-CSF administration in patients with head and neck cancer treated by docetaxel-cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (DCF protocol): a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Induction chemotherapy with docetaxel-cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) for locally advanced head and neck cancers (HNC) is associated with a high risk of severe neutropenia or febrile neutropenia (FN). We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of administering granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) on day 3 (D3) during chemotherapy (early G-CSF stimulation) versus after the end of chemotherapy, as per current guidelines (i.e., after the end of 5-FU perfusion; D7), and its impact on patient outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients ≥19 years old, with advanced HNC who received DCF induction chemotherapy (D and P 75 mg per meter squared (mg/m(2)) on day 1 and 5-FU 750 mg/m(2)/day from D1 to D5), were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Data of 70 patients were analyzed from 01 January 2003 to 01 December 2010. Mean age was 56 years (range 45 to 77 years). Thirty-six patients (51.4 %) received pegfilgrastim on D7, and 28 (40 %) started G-CSF prophylaxis during chemotherapy; 12 (17.1 %) had daily filgrastim and 16 (22.9 %) pegfilgrastim on D3. Overall response rate (ORR) was 89.6 % (three early deaths due to infectious complications; 4.3 %). The 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was 72.8 %. FN rate was 14.3 % and chemotherapy delay was 12.9 %. In the D7 G-CSF arm, incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia (p = 0.023), FN (p = 0.029), and cycle delays (p = 0.006) was statistically higher than the "early" G-CSF arm. A decrease of OS was observed at 2 years (from 85.1 to 63.5 %) of chemotherapy discontinuation or FN (p = 0.0348).

DISCUSSION

Early administration of G-CSF is safe and seems to be more effective than D7. Future prospective trials are required to confirm our results.

Pegfilgrastim on the Same Day Versus Next Day of Chemotherapy in Patients With Breast Cancer, Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer, Ovarian Cancer, and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Results of Four Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized Phase II Studies

PURPOSE

To compare data on severe (grade 4) neutropenia duration and febrile neutropenia incidence in patients receiving chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim administered the same day or 24 hours after chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

These were similar, randomized, double-blind phase II noninferiority studies of patients with lymphoma or non-small-cell lung (NSCLC), breast, or ovarian cancer. Each study was analyzed separately. The primary end point in each study was cycle-1 severe neutropenia duration. Approximately 90 patients per study were to be randomly assigned at a ratio of 1:1 to receive pegfilgrastim 6 mg once per cycle on the day of chemotherapy or the day after (with placebo on the alternate day).

RESULTS

In four studies, 272 patients received chemotherapy and one or more doses of pegfilgrastim (133 same day, 139 next day). Three studies (breast, lymphoma, NSCLC) enrolled an adequate number of patients for analysis. However, in the NSCLC study, the neutropenic rate was lower than expected (only two patients per arm experienced grade 4 neutropenia). In the breast cancer study, the mean cycle-1 severe neutropenia duration was 1.2 days (95% confidence limit [CL], 0.7 to 1.6) longer in the same-day compared with the next-day group (mean, 2.6 v 1.4 days). In the lymphoma study, the mean cycle-1 severe neutropenia duration was 0.9 days (95% CL, 0.3 to 1.4) longer in the same-day compared with the next-day group (mean, 2.1 v 1.2 days). In the breast and lymphoma studies, the absolute neutrophil count profile for same-day patients was earlier, deeper, and longer compared with that for next-day patients, although the results indicate that same-day administration was statistically noninferior to next-day administration according to neutropenia duration.

CONCLUSION

For patients receiving pegfilgrastim with chemotherapy, pegfilgrastim administered 24 hours after chemotherapy completion is recommended.