Fixed-dose single administration of Pegfilgrastim vs daily Filgrastim in patients with haematological malignancies undergoing autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation

Comparison between a single dose of PEG G-CSF and multiple doses of non-PEG G-CSF: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022

BACKGROUD

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is widely used for the primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN). Two types of G-CSF are available in Japan, namely G-CSF chemically bound to polyethylene glycol (PEG G-CSF), which provides long-lasting effects with a single dose, and non-polyethylene glycol-bound G-CSF (non-PEG G-CSF), which must be sequentially administrated for several days.

METHODS

This current study investigated the utility of these treatments for the primary prophylaxis of FN through a systematic review of the literature. A detailed literature search for related studies was performed using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis or meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate six outcomes.

RESULTS

Through the first and second screenings, 23 and 18 articles were extracted for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis, respectively. The incidence of FN was significantly lower in the PEG G-CSF group than in the non-PEG G-CSF group with a strong quality/certainty of evidence. The differences in other outcomes, such as overall survival, infection-related mortality, the duration of neutropenia (less than 500/μL), quality of life, and pain, were not apparent.

CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of PEG G-CSF is strongly recommended over multiple-dose non-PEG G-CSF therapy for the primary prophylaxis of FN.

Pegfilgrastim: More Cost Effective and Equally Efficacious Option as Compared to Filgrastim in Autologous Stem Cell Transplant

Use of growth factor after high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) and autologous peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) support is current standard in reducing days of neutropenia. This retrospective study aims to compare the efficacy of two standard growth factors, pegfilgrastim (PEG) and filgrastim (FIL) after HDC. We collected data on 195 consecutive adult patients who received an autotransplant (myeloma, lymphoma and others) between January 2004 and December 2014 at two tertiary care centres. The primary end point was the duration of neutropenia in terms of days to reach an ANC > 0.5 × 10⁹/L. Filgrastim was given to 110 patients and PEG was given to 85 patients. Time to engraftment, defined as the time to reach an ANC of 0.5 × 10⁹/L on 2 consecutive days after the day of auto-SCT, was 12.6 days with FIL compared with 12.1 days with PEG group (p = 0.126). When comparing the total days of severe neutropenia (WBC < 0.1 × 10⁹/L), there were 5.5 days of severe neutropenia with FIL compared with 5.8 days with PEG group (p = 0.7). The duration of febrile neutropenia was an average of 5.3 days with FIL and 4.6 days with PEG (p = 0.029). The total number of antibiotic days was shorter for the patients who received PEG, being 11.08 days with PEG and 12.1 days with FIL (p = 0.184).The average cost savings per person in terms of number of days of hospitalization and number of days of total parental nutrition was 582 Rs (p = 0.512) and 6003 Rs (p = 0.018) respectively in favour of PEG arm. PEG is similar to FIL in hematological reconstitution, however it is more cost effective alternative after HDC and PBSC.

[Comparative study on the efficacy and safety between pegfilgrastim (PEG-rhG-CSF) and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in promoting hematopoietic recovery after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation after hematological malignancy]

Objective: To observe the efficacy and safety between Pegfilgrastim (PEG-rhG-CSF) and Recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) in hematological malignancy after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) . Methods: 157 patients after allo-HSCT were enrolled in this study from June 2015 to November 2016. Two agents of G-CSF were used to stimulate hematopoietic recovery after transplantation. There were 65 cases in PEG-rhG-CSF and 92 cases in rhG-CSF groups. Patients in PEG-rhG-CSF group were given a single subcutaneous dose of 6 mg on the first day and +8 d, while cases in rhG-CSF group were given in dose of 5 μg·kg(-1)·d(-1) by subcutaneous injection from +1 d continuing to neutrophils more than 1.5×10(9)/L, and then the indicators and survival rates in two groups after transplantation were compared. Results: ①There were no significant differences of the neutrophil implantation time[13.5 (8-12) d vs 13 (9-24) d, P=0.393] and platelet implantation time [14 (9-160) d vs 14 (9-92) d, P=0.094] between PEG-rhG-CSF and rhG-CSF groups respectively. There were no significant differences in terms of neutropenia period (P=0.435) , number of cases who got fever during neutropenia (P=0.622) , and the median time of fever in neutropenia period (P=0.460) , respectively between the two groups. There were no significant differences of erythrocyte and platelet transfusions (P=0.074, P=0.059) within 1 month after transplantation. ②There were no significant differences with regard to the incidences of acute GVHD[23.1% (15/65) vs 34.8% (32/92) , P=0.115], chronic GVHD[20.0% (13/65) vs 32.6% (32/92) , P=0.081], Ⅱ-Ⅳdegree of acute GVHD[30.0% (13/65) vs 30.4% (30/92) , P=0.287] and extensive chronic GVHD[9.2% (6/65) vs 20.7% (19/92) , P=0.135] between PEG-rhG-CSF and rhG-CSF groups. ③There were no significant differences in terms of disease free survival (DFS) (62.5% vs 61.4%, P=0.478) and overall survival (OS) (67.4% vs 67.3%, P=0.718) between PEG-rhG-CSF and rhG-CSF groups. ④There was no significant difference of the non-relapse mortality (NRM) between PEG-rhG-CSF and rhG-CSF groups[20.5% (95%CI 11.4%-37.0%) vs 32.6% (95%CI 22.2%-47.9%) , P=0.141]. The relapse rate was not statistically significant[14.9% (95%CI 7.4%-29.8%) vs 10.0% (95%CI 5.0%-20.0%) , P=0.299]. Conclusion: Compared with rhG-CSF, PEG-rhG-CSF could reduce the times of injection. There were no differences in terms of hematopoietic recovery, the incidence of GVHD, relapse rate, DFS and OS rates after allo-HSCT between two groups.

A comparison of the effect of xinruibai versus filgrastim on hematopoietic reconstruction after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Background

To compare the effect of xinruibai (Pegfilgrastim) and filgrastim injections on white blood cell and platelet (PLT) recovery, adverse events, post-operative complications, and cost effectiveness after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT).

Methods

Children who underwent allo-HSCT at our hospital from January 2014 to May 2017 due to thalassemia major, aplastic anemia, leukemia, and mucopolysaccharidosis were included. Among the children, 53 received xinruibai injections and 33 received filgrastim injections.

Results

There were no significant differences in the average time to neutrophil and platelet recovery, the incidence of post-operative complications after allo-HSCT, the number of red blood cell and PLT infusions, or the incidence of adverse events related to the injection between two groups (P >  0.05). The pain score was 3.06 (SD 0.41) for the xinruibai group and 25.18 (SD 6.22) for the filgrastim group, indicating significant differences between the two groups (P <  0.001). No difference was found in the hospitalization cost. The cost of the granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was 257.11 ± 61.87 Euro in the xinruibai group and 214.79 ± 0.00 Euro in the filgrastim group, showing significant difference (P <  0.001).

Conclusions

Xinruibai injection was more convenient, simple, effective, and safer than filgrastim.

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor response is superior to neutropenia duration in predicting the risk of infection after high-dose chemotherapy for myeloma and lymphoma

The patient granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) response is represented by the leukocyte peak in the blood induced by a single dose of G-CSF after chemotherapy, and is correlated with subsequent neutropenic infection risk. General patterns for a meaningful risk group stratification, have not yet been determined. Two independent data sets including a total of 306 cases with myeloma or lymphoma and autologous blood stem cell transplant were available. An infection susceptibility curve plotted according to ranked G-CSF responses from a multicenter study reproduced and validated a curve from the previous single center. Two trend changes were seen within these curves at around 11,000 and 22,000 leukocytes/μL, which separated three groups with a high, medium and low risk of infection. While G-CSF response is related to the consecutive duration of neutropenia, it retains additional independent predictive information for infection risk (p<0.0001) and, more important, is a tool available before the onset of the critical period.

Efficacy of deferred dosing of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in autologous hematopoietic transplantation for multiple myeloma

Routine administration of G-CSF following autologous hematopoietic SCT (ASCT) expedites ANC recovery and reduces hospitalization by 1–2 days; it has no impact on febrile neutropenia, infections, morbidity, mortality, event-free survival or OS. To determine whether delayed G-CSF dosage could result in equivalent ANC recovery and thereby improve cost effectiveness, we deferred the administration of G-CSF until WBC recovery had begun. A total of 117 patients with multiple myeloma received ASCT from January 2005 to September 2012. Of these, 52 were in the conventional dosing group (CGD) and received G-CSF from Day +7 for a median of five doses. In the deferred dosing group (DGD), 65 patients received G-CSF from median day 14 post transplant for a median of zero doses. There was no difference between groups in the incidence or duration of febrile neutropenia, duration of ⩾grade III mucositis, weight gain, rash, engraftment syndrome or early death (100 days). The DGD group had a significantly longer time to neutrophil engraftment than the CGD group (15 days vs 12 days; P<0.0001), a longer period of severe neutropenia (<100/μL; 8 days vs 6 days; P<0.0001), longer treatment with intravenous antibiotics (7 days vs 5 days; P=0.016) and longer hospital stay (19 days vs 17 days; P=<0.0001). Although the cost of G-CSF was lower in the DGD group (mean $308 vs $2467), the additional hospitalization raised the median total cost of ASCT in this group by 17%. There was, however, no adverse effect of deferred dosing on the rate of febrile neuropenic episodes or Day 100 survival, so that deferred dosing of G-CSF may be suitable for patients receiving ASCT as outpatients, for whom longer hospital stay would not be an offsetting cost.

Cost effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with lymphoma and myeloma: an economic evaluation of the PALM Trial

BACKGROUND

Use of the recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) filgrastim accelerates neutrophil recovery following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Since filgrastim requires multiple daily administrations, forms of rhG-CSF with a longer half life, including pegfilgrastim, have been developed. Pegfilgrastim is safe and effective in supporting neutrophil recovery and reducing febrile neutropenia after conventional chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim has also been successfully used to support patients undergoing peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation for haematological malignancies. To our knowledge, no cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of pegfilgrastim in this setting has been published yet.

OBJECTIVE

We undertook a CEA to compare a single injection of pegfilgrastim versus repeated administrations of filgrastim in patients who had undergone PBSC transplantation for lymphoma or myeloma. The CEA was set in France and covered a period of 100 ± 10 days from transplant.

METHODS

The CEA was designed as part of an open-label, multicentre, randomized phase II trial. Costs were assessed from the hospital's point of view and are expressed in 2009 euros. Costs computation focused on inpatient, outpatient, and home care. Costs in the two arms of the study were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. When differences were statistically significant, multiple regression analyses were performed in order to identify cost drivers. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for the major endpoints of the trial; i.e., duration of febrile neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] <0.5 × 10(9)/L and temperature ≥38 °C), duration of neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L and ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L), duration of thrombopenia (platelets <50 × 10(9)/L and <20 × 10(9)/L), and days with a temperature ≥38 °C). Uncertainty around the ICER was captured by a probabilistic analysis using a non-parametric bootstrap method.

RESULTS

151 patients were enrolled at ten French centres from October 2008 to September 2009. The mean total cost in the pegfilgrastim arm of the study (n = 74) was <euro>25,024 (SD 9,945). That in the filgrastim arm (n = 76) was <euro>28,700 (SD 20,597). Pegfilgrastim strictly dominated filgrastim for days of febrile neutropenia avoided, days of neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L) avoided, days of thrombopenia (platelets <20 × 10(9)/L) avoided, and days with temperature ≥38 °C) avoided. Pegfilgrastim was less costly and less effective than filgrastim for the number of days with ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L avoided and the number of days with platelets <50.0 × 10(9)/L avoided. Taking uncertainty into account, the probabilities that pegfilgrastim strictly dominated filgrastim were 67 % for febrile neutropenia, 86 % for neutropenia (ANC <1.0 × 10(9)/L), 59 % for thrombopenia (platelets <20 × 10(9)/L), 86 % for temperature ≥38 °C, 32 % for neutropenia (ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L), and 43 % for thrombopenia (platelets <50 × 10(9)/L). Conversely, the probability that filgrastim strictly dominated pegfilgrastim for neutropenia (ANC <0.5 × 10(9)/L) is 5 %.

CONCLUSION

This study found no evidence that the use of pegfilgrastim is associated with greater cost in lymphoma and myeloma patients after high-dose chemotherapy and PBSC transplantation.

A randomized, non-inferiority study comparing efficacy and safety of a single dose of pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in pediatric patients after autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant

PURPOSE

To assess the non-inferiority of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim in speeding the recovery of polymorphonuclear cells (PMN) in pediatric patients who underwent autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant (PBSCT).

METHODS

The sample size of this randomized, multicenter, phase III study, was calculated assuming that a single dose of pegfilgrastim of 100 ug/kg was not inferior to 9 doses of filgrastim of 5 ug/kg/day. Randomization was performed by a computer-generated list and stored by sequentially numbered sealed envelopes.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients, with a median age of 11.5 years, were recruited: 29 in the filgrastim arm and 32 in the pegfilgrastim arm. Twenty percent were affected by lymphoma/leukaemia and eighty percent by solid tumors. The mean time to PMN engraftment was 10.48 days (standard deviation [SD] 1.57) and 10.44 days (SD 2.44) in the filgrastim and pegfilgrastim arms, respectively. Having fixed a non-inferiority margin Delta of 3, the primary endpoint of non-inferiority was reached. No differences were observed for other secondary endpoints: platelet engraftment, mean time to platelet recovery (28 days vs. 33 days), fever of unknown origin (79% vs. 78%), proven infection (34% vs. 28%), mucositis (76% vs. 59%). After a median follow-up of 2.3 years (95% C.I.: 1.5, 3.3), 20 deaths were observed due to disease progression.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that pegfilgrastim was not inferior to daily filgrastim in pediatric patients who underwent PBSCT. EU CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTER NUMBER: 2007-001430-14.

A randomised phase II study of the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim after autologous stem cell transplant for lymphoma and myeloma (PALM study)

AIM

To evaluate in a multicentre randomised study the effect on duration of febrile neutropenia (FN), the safety and cost-effectiveness of a single subcutaneous pegfilgrastim injection compared with daily injections of filgrastim after peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients receiving high dose chemotherapy for myeloma and lymphoma.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to a single dose of pegfilgrastim at day 5 (D5) or daily filgrastim from D5 to the recovery of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) to 0.5 G/L. Duration of FN, of neutrophil and platelet recovery, transfusion and antibiotic requirements were the main end-points of the study. Costs were calculated from D0 until transplant unit discharge. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as the cost per day of FN prevented. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed by non-parametric bootstrap methods.

RESULTS

Between October 2008 and September 2009, 10 centres enrolled 151 patients: 80 patients with lymphoma and 71 patients with myeloma. The mean duration of FN was 3.07 days (standard deviation (SD) 1.96) in the pegfilgrastin arm and 3.29 (SD 2.54) in the filgrastim one. Mean total costs were 23,256 and 25,448 euros for pegfilgrastim and filgrastim patients, respectively. There was a 62% probability that pegfilgrastim strictly dominates filgrastim.

CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Pegfilgrastim after PBSC transplantation in myeloma and lymphoma is safe, effective when compared with filgrastim and could represent a cost-effective alternative in this setting.

High-dose therapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma

Since its introduction in 1983, high-dose therapy followed by autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation is a pillar of the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma. In the last decades, a multitude of clinical trials helped to improve strategies based on high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation resulting in a continuously prolongation of overall survival of patients. In this chapter we will review the progress, which has been made in order to enhance the mobilisation of autologous stem cells and increase the effectiveness of this treatment.

Mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells for use in autologous transplantation

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a potentially curative therapeutic approach for various malignant hematologic and lymphoid diseases. Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) may be collected from the blood or the bone marrow. HSCs are capable of self-renewal and give rise to progenitor cells, multipotent cells that differentiate and proliferate into the mature cells of the blood and immune system. HSCs and progenitor cells are released from the bone marrow into the peripheral blood through a process called mobilization. HSCs then are collected from the blood in a process called apheresis and cryopreserved for administration following the high-dose preparative regimen. This article reviews stem cell biology, current mobilization strategies, use of novel mobilization agents, and nursing care of patients during the mobilization phase of autologous HSCT. Understanding the biology and process of HSC mobilization is critical for transplantation nurses to deliver and coordinate care during this complex phase of autologous HSCT.

Prevention of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients: Pegylated versus standard myeloid colony stimulating factors. Do we have a choice?

The pertinent literature on clinical studies comparing the respective value of myeloid colony stimulating factors to pegfilgrastim as a prevention of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients has been reviewed. Pegfilgrastim is definitely not inferior to filgrastim or other myeloid colony stimulating agents with respect to duration of grade IV neutropenia and delivery of full chemotherapy dose on time; several comparative studies indicate a trend to less frequent febrile neutropenia with pegfilgrastim.

Pegfilgrastim compared to lenograstim after allogeneic peripheral blood stem-cell transplantation from unrelated donors

We compared a single, subcutaneous fixed dose of 6 mg pegfilgrastim on day +5 with daily lenograstim 263 microg from day +5 and continued until neutrophils were >or=0.5 x 10(9)/L after allogeneic peripheral blood stem-cell transplantation (PBSCT) from unrelated donors for various hematological disorders. Neutrophil engraftment was significantly faster (p = 0.006) in the pegfilgrastim than in the lenograstim group. There was also a tendency towards achieving a faster platelet engraftment (p = 0.06) in the pegfilgrastim group (median 16 vs. 19 days). The duration of thrombocytopenia (<20 x 10(9)/L) was shorter in the pegfilgrastim group (p = 0.05). There were no significant differences in the duration of neutropenia (p = 0.14) and febrile neutropenia (p = 0.25). Differences were not observed in the treatment related mortality, disease free and overall survival between both groups. We conclude that Pegfilgrastim ensured rapid neutrophil engraftment after unrelated allogeneic peripheral SCT, which was at least as effective as daily lenograstim.

Optimal use of G-CSF administration after hematopoietic SCT

After hematopoietic SCT (HSCT), G-CSF is commonly used to enhance stem cell engraftment to minimize the morbidity and mortality associated with prolonged neutropenia. However, there is no consensus on the optimal use of G-CSF after high-dose chemotherapy followed by HSCT. This review was performed to evaluate the evidence regarding the use of G-CSF after autologous and allogeneic HSCT. Studies investigating the use of G-CSF in comparison to control (observation or placebo), early vs delayed initiation of G-CSF, and other approaches driven by patient-specific parameters to identify optimal use of G-CSF have been reviewed. Various outcomes such as neutrophil and platelet engraftment, post-transplant length of hospital stay, post-transplant complications such as infection and GVHD, and survival have been assessed. Finally, we provide the level of evidence for each of the outcomes analyzed while evaluating strategies for using G-CSF in patients undergoing autologous or allogeneic HSCT.

Single-dose pegfilgrastim is comparable to daily filgrastim in mobilizing peripheral blood stem cells: a case-matched study in patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies

Pegfilgrastim (PEGFIL) has been found to be comparable to daily filgrastim (FIL) in managing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. In the present study, we evaluated the ability of PEGFIL to mobilize stem cells in 38 consecutive patients with lymphoproliferative diseases (multiple myeloma, n = 18; lymphomas, n = 15; chronic lymphocytic leukemia, n = 5). Patients were mobilized using PEGFIL (6-18 mg as a single dose) during 2005-2006; 32 then received high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation. PEGFIL-mobilized patients were matched by age, disease, and treatment line at a ratio of 1:2 to historical FIL-mobilized controls. The primary study endpoint was the blood CD34(+) concentration at onset of leukapheresis. Leukapheresis began a median of 10 days from the beginning of mobilization chemotherapy in both groups. At the onset of leukapheresis, median blood CD34(+) cell counts did not differ significantly in the FIL group compared with the PEGFIL group (79 x 10(6)/L vs 64 x 10(6)/L, respectively; p = 0.44). In the different disease categories, the respective CD34(+) cell counts after FIL and PEGFIL mobilization were 72 x 10(6)/L vs 123 x 10(6)/L (p = 0.08) in myeloma, 51 x 10(6)/L vs 62 x 10(6)/L (p = 0.6) in lymphomas, and 27 x 10(6)/L vs 30 x 10(6)/L (p = 0.62) in CLL, respectively. The target CD34(+) cell yield was harvested with one leukapheresis in 53% of PEGFIL-mobilized patients. Engraftment after autografting did not differ significantly in the two groups. Stem cell mobilization with a single dose of PEGFIL was, therefore, comparable to that achieved using daily FIL in patients with lymphoproliferative diseases. PEGFIL is a more practical way to mobilize stem cells than daily FIL.

Biological therapy for pediatric malignancy: current perspectives

Biologicals are defined as agents that are either uniquely or partially tumor-specific. Great expectations were raised by the success in agents that target a specific genetic translocation: all-trans retinoic acid, targeting the chronic myeloid leukemia retinoic acid receptor in acute promyelocytic leukemia and imatinib, a small molecule targeting the BCR-ABL translocation in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Thus far, the search for similar "druggable" genetic targets in pediatric cancers has not yet resulted in such dramatic results. The rarity of pediatric cancer as well as ethical considerations necessitate that the agents for testing be carefully and rigorously selected. Biologicals present an additional challenge, as they often do not lend themselves to in vitro testing. Early approaches to specific targeting of solid tumors utilized monoclonal antibodies. The microenvironment provides an interesting new biological approach to treating tumors and alteration of the host immune response provides another avenue. Biological agents are a step forward in supportive care to reduce the hematological toxicity of high-dose chemotherapy and to manage the frequent infectious complications.

Peg-filgrastim versus filgrastim after autologous stem cell tranplantation: Case-control study in patients with multiple myeloma and review of the literature

We investigated the effects of a single s.c. injection of peg-filgrastim in 32 patients with multiple myeloma who underwent autologous stem cell transplantation (AuSCT) as first line treatment. For comparison, 32 myeloma patients with similar characteristics and receiving standard daily administration of filgrastim were matched. Overall, there were no statistically significant differences between peg-filgrastim and filgrastim in terms of tolerability, marrow recovery, severity of neutropenia, incidence and duration of febrile neutropenia, documented infections and transfusions. However, some favourable trends or effects in favour of peg-filgrastim were observed. This was confirmed by a review of the published papers about this topic.

Pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim after autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with solid tumours and lymphomas

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of pegfilgrastim administered as haematological support after autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation, we compared 44 patients with solid tumours and lymphomas receiving a 6-mg single dose of pegfilgrastim on day +5 after transplantation to a historical control group of 25 patients receiving filgrastim 5 microg kg(-1) day(-1) starting on day +5. There were no significant differences in haematological recovery nor in the incidence and duration of neutropenic fever. Median duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the pegfilgrastim and filgrastim group was similar. The incidence of grade III-IV mucositis was lower in pegfilgrastim than in filgrastim group due to the significant difference observed among the patients with solid tumours (p = 0.00). The only adverse event considered to be cytokine related was mild to moderate bone pain occurring during haematological recovery. According to the present study design and taking into account the current prices in our institution, the cost of the two drugs was similar in both treatment groups. In conclusion, a single injection of pegfilgrastim administered at day +5 post-transplantation shows comparable safety and efficacy profiles to daily injections of filgrastim and may be cost effective.

Pegfilgrastim: current and future perspectives in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

Myeloid colony-stimulating factors (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF] and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor) are commonly used in clinical practice for the prevention of anticancer chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and its potentially life-threatening complications. Pegfilgrastim is a novel recombinant human G-CSF pharmaceutically developed by covalent binding of a polyethylene glycol molecule to the N-terminal sequence of filgrastim. Due to its unique neutrophil-mediated clearance, pegfilgrastim can be administered once per chemotherapy cycle. Clinical trials have demonstrated that a single, fixed, subcutaneous dose of pegfilgrastim is comparable in safety and efficacy to daily injections of filgrastim for decreasing the incidence of infection following myelosuppressive chemotherapy in patients with cancer. Recent trials have been conducted to evaluate the use of pegfilgrastim in different clinical settings, including support of dose-dense regimens, mobilization and transplantation of hematopoietic stem cells.

Pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim after high-dose melphalan and autologous hematopoietic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma patients

We undertook a comparative study of Pegfilgrastim vs. Filgrastim after high-dose melphalan and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (APBSCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Thirty-seven consecutive patients were randomly assigned to receive a single 6 mg dose of Pegfilgrastim on day 1 post-transplant (n = 18 patients) vs. daily subcutaneous injections of Filgrastim 5 microg/kg (n = 19 patients) starting on day 5 post-transplant. The median duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the Pegfilgrastim and Filgrastim groups was 5 and 6 d, respectively (P = ns). The results for the two groups were also not significantly different for time to neutrophil and platelet recovery, but incidence of febrile neutropenia (61.1% vs. 100%, P = 0.003) and duration of febrile neutropenia (1.5 d vs. 4 d, P = 0.005), were lower in the Pegfilgrastim arm. After initial haematopoietic reconstitution, we observed significantly higher value of leukocytes x 10(9) L on day 15 (6.0 vs. 2.7, P = 0.004), in the Pegfilgrastim group compared with the Filgrastim group. This study shows that a single injection Pegfilgrastim can be used with safety and efficacy similar to those provided by daily injections of Filgrastim and it is associated with a decrease incidence of infectious events after APBSCT in MM patients.

Sustained G-CSF plasma levels following administration of pegfilgrastim fasten neutrophil reconstitution after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous blood stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVE

Pegfilgrastim has shown to decrease the duration of severe neutropenia after conventional chemotherapy, but its use after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous blood stem cell transplantation has not been established yet. Therefore we studied the efficacy and the pharmacokinetic profile of pegfilgrastim in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing high-dose chemotherapy.

METHOD

In total, 21 patients received a single subcutaneous injection of 6 mg pegfilgrastim on day +1 after transplantation and pegfilgrastim plasma levels were measured daily by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Clinical outcome was compared with pegfilgrastim levels of 282 plasma samples and data of a historical control group of patients without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support.

RESULTS

Pegfilgrastim levels showed an inverse correlation (r = -0.68, p < 0.01) with neutrophil counts. Peak levels were reached at day +4 (94 ng/mL; range: 37-205) and were maintained until day +7 (85 ng/mL; range: 35-186). Comparison with the control group without G-CSF support showed that time to neutrophil reconstitution was significantly shorter in the pegfilgrastim group with 10 vs 15 days, respectively (p < 0.001). There was no correlation of pegfilgrastim levels and the duration of neutropenia, although patients with a fivefold increase in neutrophil counts the day after pegfilgrastim administration had a significantly shorter median duration of neutropenia in comparison to patients who were less susceptible to G-CSF stimulation (5 vs 7 days, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Neutrophil reconstitution after high-dose chemotherapy could be accelerated by the use of pegfilgrastim in patients with myeloma. Responsiveness of neutrophils to pegfilgrastim before neutropenia was correlated with faster neutrophil reconstitution, whereas G-CSF levels had no impact on neutrophil recovery.

Pegfilgrastim compared with Filgrastim after autologous hematopoietic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation

In order to assess the effect of Pegfilgrastim on the duration of neutropenia and clinical outcome of patients after autologous peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation, we compared 20 consecutive patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma receiving a single 6-mg dose of Pegfilgrastim on day 1 posttransplant to an historical control group of 60 patients receiving daily Filgrastim 5 microg/kg starting on day 1 posttransplant. The duration of neutropenia was similar in the Pegfilgrastim group compared with the control group. There were no differences in time to neutrophil, erythroid, or platelet engraftment nor in the incidence of fever and infections. The duration of antibiotic therapy, transfusion support, and time to hospital discharge were similar in the two groups. However, after initial hematopoietic reconstitution, we observed significantly higher values of lymphocytes (e.g., 1,660+/-1,000 versus 970+/-460 on day 80, p=0.0002), neutrophils (e.g., 3,880+/-2,030 versus 2,420+/-1,500 on day 25, p=0.0004), reticulocytes (e.g., 148,160+/-90,590 versus 87,140+/-65,920 on day 25, p<0.0001), and platelets (e.g., 210,700+/-116,090 versus 150,240+/-58,230 on day 55, p=0.0052) up to day 100 in the Pegfilgrastim group compared with the Filgrastim group. These observations had no impact on clinical outcome of the patients after day 30 due to the low incidence of infectious events after engraftment in autologous PBSC transplantation. We conclude that the effect of Pegfilgrastim administrated on day 1 posttransplant is comparable to that of daily Filgrastim on initial hematopoietic reconstitution. The possibly superior effect of Pegfilgrastim on cell counts we observed after initial engraftment should be further tested in a prospective randomized trial.

An analysis of current neutropenia therapies, including pegfilgrastim

Currently, 2 granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are available in the United States--filgrastim and pegfilgrastim. In patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tumors, lymphoma, and acute myelogenous leukemia, these agents reduce the duration of severe neutropenia, decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia, and facilitate on-time delivery of scheduled doses of chemotherapy. In addition, substantial data document the benefits of using these agents in patients undergoing peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization and in patients who have undergone bone marrow transplantation or peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation. Recent studies suggest that for all of these indications, the efficacy of pegfilgrastim, the newest agent, is comparable to or greater than that of filgrastim. Like filgrastim, pegfilgrastim is generally well tolerated. An important advantage of pegfilgrastim, however, is its once-per-cycle schedule of administration. Patients and health care providers are likely to prefer the administration schedule of pegfilgrastim to the daily administration schedule required with the use of filgrastim. Furthermore, the more convenient schedule of pegfilgrastim may be associated with greater treatment adherence and increased patient quality of life.

Pegfilgrastim: a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with sustained duration of action

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors such as filgrastim (Neupogen, Amgen, Inc.) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta, Amgen, Inc.) are frequently used in clinical practice for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and its potentially life-threatening complications. Due to its unique neutrophil-mediated clearance, pegfilgrastim can be administered once per chemotherapy cycle. Clinical trials have shown that a single, fixed subcutaneous dose of pegfilgrastim 6 mg is comparable in safety and efficacy to daily injections of filgrastim for decreasing the incidence of infection following myelosuppressive chemotherapy in patients with cancer. Postregistrational trials have been conducted to evaluate the use of pegfilgrastim with emerging dose-dense regimens, in myeloid cancers and for mobilisation and engraftment of autologous stem cells. Ongoing clinical trials continue to explore further potential uses for pegfilgrastim.

Pegfilgrastim -- rational drug design for the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

Neutropenia is the most important dose-limiting toxicity of myelotoxic chemotherapy. Current guidelines recommend primary prophylactic use of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) with chemotherapy regimens associated with an incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) of at least 40% and in patients at high risk of infections, such as the elderly. Using prophylactic G-CSF support, planned chemotherapy doses are administered on time more frequently. Pegfilgrastim is a rationally designed recombinant human G-CSF with a sustained duration of action. A once-per-cycle 6-mg fixed dose of pegfilgrastim reduced the duration of severe neutropenia and the incidence of FN as efficiently as daily filgrastim in standard or dose-dense chemotherapy regimens in young and elderly patients with breast cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer and lymphomas. The safety profile of onceper- cycle pegfilgrastim is comparable with that of daily filgrastim. In conclusion, a fixed-dose of pegfilgrastim given once per cycle is a suitable substitute for body weight-based daily dosing of G-CSF, an improvement which should be particularly beneficial for outpatients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy.