Efficacy and tolerability of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in cancer patients after chemotherapy: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2019;9:15374. [PMID: 31653961 PMCID: PMC6814815 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-51982-4]

Pegfilgrastim on febrile neutropenia in pediatric and adolescent cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

There is no meta-analysis about the effects of pegfilgrastim on the occurrence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in pediatric/adolescent cancer patients. The study explored the efficacy of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in preventing FN in children/adolescents with cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published before April 7, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of FN. Effect size (ES) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the outcome. The ES represented the rate of FN, and the STATA 'metaprop' command was used to synthesize the rate.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included, comprising 167 patients and 550 courses of treatment. There was no difference between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the rate of FN in children receiving chemotherapy (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.20-2.23, P = 0.520). In patients receiving pegfilgrastim, the rate of FN was 25.6% (95% CI: 14.9%-36.3%), the rate of grade 4 FN was 38.3% (95% CI: 19.2%-59.5%), the rate of severe neutropenia (SN) was 40.5% (95% CI: 35.1%-46.1%), and the rate of treatment delays due to FN was 4.8% (95% CI: 0.8%-11.3%).

DISCUSSION

The number of studies that could be included was small; therefore, a specific type of cancer or a specific treatment could be studied. Heterogeneity was high.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the rate of FN. The use of pegfilgrastim was still associated with rates of FN, grade 4 FN, severe neutropenia, and treatment delays due to FN in pediatric cancer patients.

Capillary Leak syndrome within an hour of G-CSF

Capillary leak syndrome (CLS) is a well-known phenomenon that has been reported commonly in association with septic shock, polytrauma, and pancreatitis in intensive care settings. In the hematologic literature, it has been reported following granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, tumor necrosis factor, interleukin 2, and interleukin 4 infusions; and autologous and allogenic bone marrow transplantations in both pediatric as well as adult populations. Only a few cases of CLS have been reported in the pediatric population following G-CSF. We report here a case of a 9-year-old female who developed CLS within 60 minutes of receiving the first dose of G-CSF that was successfully treated with immediate symptomatic management.

New insight into strategies used to develop long-acting G-CSF biologics for neutropenia therapy

Over the last 20 years, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have become the major therapeutic option for the treatment of patients with neutropenia. Most of the current G-CSFs require daily injections, which are inconvenient and expensive for patients. Increased understanding of G-CSFs' structure, expression, and mechanism of clearance has been very instrumental in the development of new generations of long-acting G-CSFs with improved efficacy. Several approaches to reducing G-CSF clearance via conjugation techniques have been investigated. PEGylation, glycosylation, polysialylation, or conjugation with immunoglobulins or albumins have successfully increased G-CSFs' half-lives. Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) has been successfully approved and marketed for the treatment of patients with neutropenia. The rapidly expanding market for G-CSFs has increased demand for G-CSF biosimilars. Therefore, the importance of this review is to highlight the principle, elimination's route, half-life, clearance, safety, benefits, and limitations of different strategies and techniques used to increase the half-life of biotherapeutic G-CSFs. Understanding these strategies will allow for a new treatment with more competitive manufacturing and lower unit costs compared with that of Neulasta.

A comparative assessment of neutropenia events, healthcare resource use, and costs among cancer patients treated with lipegfilgrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in Germany

PURPOSE

We assessed the occurrence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) and the associated healthcare resource in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in combination with pegfilgrastim versus lipegfilgrastim.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis using a German health insurance claims database. Adults receiving chemotherapy with a prescription code for pegfilgrastim (n = 734) or lipegfilgrastim (n = 346) were observed over a 1-year follow-up period. Patient subgroups were analyzed according to cancer type and FN risk. FN risk was based on the chemotherapy regimen and any additional neutropenia risk factors. Outcomes were adjusted via regression analysis.

RESULTS

Most patients were classified as high FN risk (70.0% pegfilgrastim; 65.6% lipegfilgrastim cohort). The mean age was 58.2 years in the pegfilgrastim cohort and 58.0 years in the lipegfilgrastim cohort, with more female patients than male patients (77.3% vs 79.8%, respectively), and the majority had breast cancer (64.9% and 68.8%, respectively). Overall, 10.0% and 10.4% of patients receiving pegfilgrastim or lipegfilgrastim experienced a neutropenia event (p = 0.82), with 4.4% and 3.5% of patients experiencing a FN event (p = 0.49). The mean neutropenia event-related healthcare costs were €604 and €441 for the pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim cohorts; among patients with lymphoma, these costs were significantly greater (p = 0.03) with pegfilgrastim (€1,612) versus lipegfilgrastim (€382). The mean all-cause hospitalizations were significantly (p < 0.01) higher for lymphoma patients receiving pegfilgrastim (2.76) versus lipegfilgrastim (1.60).

CONCLUSION

Overall, patients treated with pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable in terms of neutropenia occurrences in the 1-year follow-up. In patients with lymphoma, neutropenia event-related healthcare costs and all-cause hospitalizations were significantly higher with pegfilgrastim compared with lipegfilgrastim in this study; however, this should be interpreted with caution in light of the limited sample size and the absence of clinical information.

Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Utilization and Prescribing Patterns in Cancer Patients: A Single Institution Experience of a Saudi Cancer Center

Background

Febrile neutropenia (FN), owing to its negative association with immune function and infectious complications, acts as a treatment-limiting factor in myelotoxic cancer chemotherapy. This study aimed to analyze the incidence of FN, utilization of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients who experienced FN, and its association with age and comorbidities.

Methodology

This retrospective study was conducted in a major tertiary hospital in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Inclusion criteria entailed all neutropenic adults aged >18 years with a proven cancer diagnosis, including solid and hematological malignancies. Patients who were treated with chemotherapy and G-CSF were included in the study. Data regarding FN, administration of G-CSF, and patient and physician-related factors were collected.

Results

We collected data on 53 cancer patients with a mean age of 41.9 ± 17.1 years (range = 16-75). FN was present in 16 (30.2%) patients and absent in 37 (69.8%) patients. The mean neutrophil count post-filgrastim did not significantly differ from pre-chemotherapy neutrophil count (Student’s t-test, p = 0.067), while there was a significant difference from post-chemotherapy neutrophil count (Student’s t-test, p = 0.044). In our cohort, 24 (45.3%) patients achieved remission, 12 (22.6%) died, and 17 (32.1%) were not cured. We did not find any significant association between gender, specialty, comorbidities, and age with FN.

Conclusions

G-CSF administration significantly decreases the incidence of FN post-chemotherapy in cancer patients.

Long-acting versus short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors among cancer patients after chemotherapy in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) include long-acting ones and short-acting ones. They have been mainly applied in Chinese clinical practice for years to prevent neutropenia. However, which type of G-CSF is more superior has not been conclusively determined.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WAN FANG databases for related studies published till August 2021. Revman 5.3 software was used to assess the effectiveness and safety of these 2 types of G-CSFs in patients undergoing chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Ten studies involving 1916 patients were included in our meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of long-acting G-CSFs and short-acting G-CSFs. We found that the incidence of febrile neutropenia (relative risk [RR] 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-1.17), the recovery time of the absolute neutrophil count (mean difference -0.23; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.03), and the fatigue rate (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.62-1.07) were similar between the long- and the short-acting G-CSFs. However, the long-acting G-CSFs significantly decreased the incidence (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.76-0.96) and shortened the duration (mean difference -0.19; 95% CI -0.38 to 0.00) of severe (grade ≥3) neutropenia, and decreased the rate of bone and/or muscle pain (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.58-0.98).

CONCLUSION

Primary prophylaxis with long-acting G-CSFs was more effective and safer than primary prophylaxis with short-acting G-CSFs in Chinese adults undergoing chemotherapy.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Values of Angiogenic Factors in Endometrial Cancer

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most frequent gynecological malignancy in developed countries and requires a relatively invasive diagnostic evaluation and operative therapy as the primary therapeutic approach. Angiogenesis is one of the main processes needed for cancer growth and spread. The production of angiogenic factors (AFs) appears early in the process of carcinogenesis. The detection of AFs in plasma and tissue and a better understanding of the angiogenic properties of EC may contribute not only to earlier but also more specific diagnosis and consequently tailored and individual therapeutic approaches. AFs and their receptors also have high potential as binding sites for targeted cancer therapy. In this review, we discuss angiogenesis in EC and the characteristics of the AFs that most contribute to angiogenesis in EC. We also highlight therapeutic strategies that target angiogenesis as potential EC therapy.

Phase I/II study to assess the clinical pharmacology and safety of single ascending and multiple subcutaneous doses of PF-06881894 in women with non-distantly metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the pharmacodynamics (PD), pharmacokinetics (PK), and safety of single and multiple doses of PF-06881894 (pegfilgrastim-apgf; Nyvepria™), a biosimilar to reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®), in women with non-distantly metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

In Phase I (Cycle 0) of this Phase I/II study, the PD response (absolute neutrophil count [ANC]; CD34 + count), PK profile, and safety of a single 3- or 6-mg subcutaneous dose of PF-06881894 were assessed in chemotherapy-naïve patients before definitive breast surgery. In Phase II (Cycles 1-4), the PD response (duration of severe neutropenia [DSN, Cycle 1], ANC [Cycles 1 and 4]) and PK profile (Cycles 1 and 4) of single and multiple 6-mg doses of PF-06881894 concomitant with chemotherapy and after definitive breast surgery were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients (mean age 59 years) were enrolled (Cycle 0, n = 12; Cycles 1-4, n = 13). In Cycle 0, PD responses and PK values were lower with 3-mg versus 6-mg PF-06881894. In Cycles 1 and 4, mean DSN was 0.667 days after single or multiple 6-mg doses of PF-06881894, respectively. In Cycle 4 versus Cycle 1, PD responses were more robust; PK values (mean area under the curve, maximum concentration) were lower; and clearance values were higher. The safety profile of PF-06881894 was similar to that for reference pegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSION

PF-06881894 as a single 3- or 6-mg dose prior to definitive surgery, or multiple 6-mg/cycle doses postoperatively, with/without myelosuppressive chemotherapy, was consistent with the clinical pharmacology and safety profile of reference pegfilgrastim.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

October 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02650193. EudraCT Number: 2015-002057-35.

Efficacy and Safety of Filgrastim and Its Biosimilars to Prevent Febrile Neutropenia in Cancer Patients: A Prospective Study and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

Febrile neutropenia is the serious side-effect associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Filgrastim, the first granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of neutropenia. Subsequently, pegfilgrastim (long-acting G-CSF) and filgrastim biosimilars were developed to have comparable efficacy to filgrastim. Therefore, it is necessary to produce a systematic review and meta-analysis that provides evidence that filgrastim is more efficacious than placebo/no-treatment, as it provides evidence on the comparable efficacy of filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim and biosimilar filgrastim.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to identify, assess, meta-analyze and summarize the comparative effectiveness and safety of filgrastim in head-to-head trials with placebo/no treatment, pegfilgrastim (and biosimilar filgrastim to update advances in the field. Methods: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses PRISMA statement were applied, and a random-effect model was used. Primary endpoints were the rate and duration of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, and an incidence rate of febrile neutropenia. Secondary endpoints were time to absolute neutrophil count ANC recovery, depth of ANC nadir (lowest ANC), neutropenia-related hospitalization and other neutropenia-related complications. For filgrastim versus biosimilar filgrastim comparison, the primary efficacy endpoint was the mean difference in duration of severe neutropenia DSN. Results: A total of 56 studies were considered that included data from 13,058 cancer patients. The risk of febrile neutropenia in filgrastim versus placebo/no treatment was not statistically different. The risk ratio for febrile neutropenia was 0.58, a 42% reduction in favor of filgrastim. The most reported adverse event with FIL was bone pain. For pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim, no statistically significant difference was noted. The risk ratio was 0.90 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.12). The overall difference in duration of severe neutropenia between filgrastim and biosimilar filgrastim was not statistically significant. The risk ratio was 1.03 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.13). Conclusions: Filgrastim was effective and safe in reducing febrile neutropenia and related complications, compared to placebo/no treatment. No notable differences were found between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim in terms of efficacy and safety. However, a similar efficacy profile was observed with FIL and its biosimilars.

G-CSF in tumors: Aggressiveness, tumor microenvironment and immune cell regulation

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a cytokine most well-known for maturation and mobilization of bone marrow neutrophils. Although it is used therapeutically to treat chemotherapy induced neutropenia, it is also highly expressed in some tumors. Case reports suggest that tumors expressing high levels of G-CSF are aggressive, more difficult to treat, and present with poor prognosis and high mortality rates. Research on this topic suggests that G-CSF has tumor-promoting effects on both tumor cells and the tumor microenvironment. G-CSF has a direct effect on tumor cells to promote tumor stem cell longevity and overall tumor cell proliferation and migration. Additionally, it may promote pro-tumorigenic immune cell phenotypes such as M2 macrophages, myeloid-derived suppressor cells, and regulatory T cells. Overall, the literature suggests a plethora of pro-tumorigenic activity that should be balanced with the therapeutic use. In this review, we present an overview of the multiple complex roles of G-CSF and G-CSFR in tumors and their microenvironment and discuss how clinical advances and strategies may open new therapeutic avenues.

Critically ill patients with cancer: A clinical perspective

Cancer patients account for 15% of all admissions to intensive care unit (ICU) and 5% will experience a critical illness resulting in ICU admission. Mortality rates have decreased during the last decades because of new anticancer therapies and advanced organ support methods. Since early critical care and organ support is associated with improved survival, timely identification of the onset of clinical signs indicating critical illness is crucial to avoid delaying. This article focused on relevant and current information on epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of the main clinical disorders experienced by critically ill cancer patients.

Efficacy and safety of two pegfilgrastim biosimilars: Tripegfilgrastim and pegteograstim

Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of two recently developed biosimilars of pegfilgrastim, a pegylated form of the recombinant human granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor (G‐CSF) analog filgrastim with those of the reference pegfilgrastim. We retrospectively analyzed data from patients diagnosed with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who were treated with first‐line R‐CHOP chemotherapy and received pegylated G‐CSF for primary prophylaxis. The following pegylated G‐CSFs were analyzed in this study: reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta^®) and two of its biosimilars (tripegfilgrastim; Dulastin^® and pegteograstim; Neulapeg^®). In total, 296 patients were enrolled. The number of patients with at least one episode of neutropenia during R‐CHOP chemotherapy was the lowest in the reference cohort (pegfilgrastim: 127 of 193 patients, 65.8%; tripegfilgrastim: 64 of 69 patients, 92.8%; pegteograstim: 28 of 34 patients, 82.4%, P < .001). The number of patients with at least one episode of febrile neutropenia was also lowest in the reference cohort (pegfilgrastim: 67 of 193 patients, 34.7%; tripegfilgrastim: 38 of 69 patients, 55.1%; pegteograstim: 16 of 34 patients, 47.1%, P = .009). There were no differences in the duration of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia or treatment outcomes (rate of complete response or relapse and survival). There were no reports of grade 3 or higher adverse events requiring discontinuation of prophylactic pegylated G‐CSF in any group. The safety of the pegfilgrastim biosimilars for prophylactic purposes was comparable to that of the reference pegfilgrastim; however, in terms of their efficacy, the incidence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia tended to be higher than that when using pegfilgrastim. The clinical relevance of these results in the biosimilar cohorts should be explored.

Management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with cancer: 2019 guidelines of the Italian Medical Oncology Association (AIOM)

Neutropenia is the most frequent side effect of commercially available myelosuppressive drugs and its most significant complication is febrile neutropenia. It is associated with increased hospital admissions and higher probability of death. Prophylaxis with the administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor can prevent neutropenia caused by anticancer drugs. The correct administration of these drugs and the management of febrile neutropenia are extremely important in the treatment of patients with cancer.