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

Validation of Risk Models for Predicting Febrile Neutropenia Among Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy: A Real-World Study

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy may develop a serious complication called febrile neutropenia (FN). We aimed to validate and compare three existing FN prediction models for breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in Taiwan.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective observational real-world study. Data were acquired from the clinical research databases of three study hospitals. Breast cancer patients who have received at least one antineoplastic chemotherapy drug were chosen for the analysis. For evaluating the occurrence of FN, we used both broad (a body temperature above 38°C with an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) below 0.5 × 109/L or a body temperature above 38°C with a diagnosis of neutropenia) and narrow definitions (having both fever and neutropenia diagnoses or having both neutropenia and infection diagnoses). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for each selected FN model.

RESULTS

Among the 1903 patients identified, when the broad and narrow definitions of FN were applied, 70 (3.7%) and 60 (3.2%) patients developed FN in the first cycle, respectively. Using the broad FN definition, Aagaard's model was the highest in sensitivity (90.0%), followed by Chantharakhit's (40.0%) and Chen's (7.2%); in specificity, Chen's (93.6%) was the highest. In addition, the accuracy was highest with the Chen model (90.4%). All three models' PPVs were low, ranging from 0.5% to 4.2%, but all three models' NPVs were over 96.3%. When the narrow FN definition was used, Chantharakhit's model showed a relatively high improvement in sensitivity (53.3%) and PPV (3.9%) while negligible increases or even slight decreases were seen in the other two models and in the other performance indicators of Chantharakhit's model.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study provide important information for clinicians when selecting models to identify patients at high-risk of FN. As the model performance observed was less than satisfactory, improving the prediction ability of the models is needed.

[Neutropenia - when is GCSF support indicated?]

Many systemic treatments used in genitourinary oncology negatively affect haematopoiesis, thus leading to neutropenia. Neutropenic patients are vulnerable to bacterial, and other infections. Often fever is the only symptom in these patients. Neutropenic fever is a major threat for these patients, as it may lead to life-threatening therapy complications that significantly impair the patient's quality of life, Moreover, it may also worsen the prognosis due to therapy delays or necessary dose modifications. Granulocyte colony stimulating factors (GCSF), which can improve neutrophil granulocyte formation, are used both for supportive treatment in febrile neutropenia and for its prophylaxis. The correct indication for such GCSF support depends on the general risk of febrile neutropenia of the therapy used, as well as on individual patient factors and the treatment intent (palliative vs. curative). Based on the current recommendations both of the German and international guidelines, this article aims to provide an up-to-date and practice-oriented overview of the use of GCSF in uro-oncology.

Prescription patterns of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in patients with breast cancer: A real-world study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Myelosuppressive chemotherapy is effective for breast cancer but carries a potential risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Clinical practice guidelines have recommended prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to reduce the incidence of FN in patients receiving chemotherapy. We aimed to examine the use of G-CSFs for primary prophylaxis for FN and to see whether it follows the guidelines. In addition, we examined the changes in the use of long-acting and short-acting G-CSFs in patients with breast cancer over the past ten years.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational real-world study. The data were obtained from the clinical research database of three hospitals affiliated with Taipei Medical University. Patients with breast cancer who initiated their first chemotherapy regimen between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2020, were identified by the ICD codes and their use of filgrastim or pegfilgrastim was identified by the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical codes. Whether and how G-CSF was prescribed during the study patients' first chemotherapy regimen was examined, and the annual change in the total number of short- and long-acting G-CSFs prescribed to the study patients from 2011 to 2020 was analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 2,444 patients who were prescribed at least one of the examined 15 breast cancer chemotherapy drugs, 1,414 did not use any G-CSFs during their first chemotherapy regimen while 145 used G-CSFs for primary prophylaxis and 185 for treatment. Among the patients receiving high FN risk regimens, only 8.6% used G-CSF for primary prophylaxis. The average (± SD) number of days for short-acting G-CSF use was 2.3 (± 1.5) days with a median of 2 days. In addition, it was found that there was a significant reduction in long-acting G-CSF use (p = 0.03) whereas the changes in short-acting G-CSF use over time were not significant (p = 0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results show that G-CSFs are used for primary prophylaxis in a small percentage of patients with breast cancer and the duration of short-acting G-CSF use is relatively short. Considering the significant clinical and economic impact of FN, it is hoped that the prescription patterns of G-CSFs observed can provide an important reference for future clinical practice and reimbursement policy.

Pegfilgrastim Biosimilars in US Supportive Oncology: A Narrative Review of Administration Options and Economic Considerations to Maximize Patient Benefit

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biologics, such as pegfilgrastim, are a standard of care in supportive cancer treatment that are administered once per chemotherapy cycle to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. The high cost of these biologics in the United States can be a limiting factor to accessing care; however, lower-cost pegfilgrastim biosimilars have been available for several years for patients requiring prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Different options for pegfilgrastim administration are also now available to accommodate specific patient preferences. As patients may want to minimize the risk of both neutropenia and SARS-CoV-2 infection, same-day administration is a pertinent option during the present COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, individualized, patient-centered approaches and risk-management strategies should be considered when selecting the treatment and administration method for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Three methods of administration would minimize hospital or clinic visits while also providing the prophylactic effect of G-CSF: same-day administration after chemotherapy, use of the US Food and Drug Administration-approved on-body injector delivering pegfilgrastim approximately 27 h after chemotherapy, or self-administration by the patient or caregiver > 24 h after chemotherapy. Choice of the specific administration option should be based on the patient's specific needs, while also considering mitigating factors, such as the economic burden associated with biologic medications and the risk of COVID-19. Pegfilgrastim biosimilars can minimize the additional financial burden on patients and the health care system during this pandemic and beyond.

Association Between Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) Use and Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) or Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Among Elderly Patients with Breast, Lung, or Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Patients diagnosed with cancer have an increased risk both for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) following treatment.

METHODS

Using SEER-Medicare data, we selected patients aged 66 years and older who completed systemic therapy between 2002 and 2014 for breast (stage I-III), lung (stage I-III), or prostate (stage I-IV) cancer. For each cancer, we estimated the risk of a composite endpoint of MDS or AML in patients receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) vs. not.

RESULTS

The 10-year cumulative risk difference (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF] - no G-CSF) for MDS-AML was 0.45% (95% CI 0.13-0.77%) in breast cancer and 0.39% (95% CI 0.15-0.62%) in lung cancer. G-CSF use was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.60 (95% CI 1.07-2.40) in breast cancer and 1.50 (95% CI 0.99-2.29) in lung cancer. Filgrastim use was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.01 (95% CI 1.00-1.03) per administration in breast cancer and 1.02 (95% CI 0.99-1.05) per administration in lung cancer. Pegfilgrastim was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.08 (95% CI 1.01-1.15) per administration in breast cancer and 1.12 (95% CI 1.00-1.25) per administration in lung cancer. Analyses in prostate cancer were limited because of the low number of events.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of G-CSF in patients diagnosed with breast and lung cancer is associated with an increased risk of MDS-AML. However, the MDS-AML absolute risk difference is very low.

Effects of Prophylactic Administration of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor on Peripheral Leukocyte and Neutrophil Counts Levels After Chemotherapy in Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Both chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN) frequently occur and can lead to dose-limiting toxicity and even fatal chemotherapy side effects. The prophylactic use of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF), including pegylated rhG-CSF (PEG-rhG-CSF), significantly reduces the risks of CIN and FN during chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) patients. However, whether the prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), especially PEG-rhG-CSF, can influence white blood cell (WBC) counts and absolute neutrophil counts (ANCs) after finishing the chemotherapy remains unknown. Therefore, exploring the development and recovery tendency of WBC counts and ANCs during and after chemotherapy is crucial.

Objective

We aimed to investigate the variation tendency and recovery of WBC counts and ANCs during and after chemotherapy and evaluate the independent factors influencing leukopenia and neutropenia lasting longer after chemotherapy. We also aimed to provide individualized prophylactically leukocyte elevation therapy for breast cancer patients.

Methods

This single-center retrospective cohort study evaluated 515 ESBC patients who received rhG-CSF or PEG-G-CSF for prophylaxis after adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Blood test reports were analyzed during chemotherapy, and on a 12-month follow-up period after finishing the chemotherapy. The WBC counts and ANCs were measured to assess their variation tendency characteristics and to identify independent factors that influenced the occurrence of leukopenia and neutropenia lasting longer than 12 months after chemotherapy.

Results

Prophylaxis with rhG-CSF or PEG-rhG-CSF kept the mean values of WBC counts and ANCs within the normal range during chemotherapy, but a significant difference in WBC levels was detected before the end of the last chemotherapy compared to the prechemotherapy period (baseline) (p < 0.001). During the 12-month follow-up after the end of the last chemotherapy, WBC counts and ANCs gradually recovered, but the group that used only PEG-rhG-CSF (long-acting group, p _WBC = 0.012) or rhG-CSF (short-acting group, p _WBC = 0.0005) had better leukocyte elevation effects than the mixed treatment group (PEG-rhG-CSF mixed rhG-CSF). Besides, the short-acting group had a better neutrophil elevation effect than the longer-acting (p _ANC = 0.019) and mixed (p _ANC = 0.002) groups. Leukopenia was still present in 92 (17.9%) patients and neutropenia in 63 (12.2%) 12 months after the end of the last chemotherapy. The duration of leukopenia over 12 months was closely associated with the baseline WBC level (p < 0.001), G-CSF types (p = 0.027), and surgical method (p = 0.041). Moreover, the duration of neutropenia over 12 months was closely related to the baseline ANC (p < 0.001), G-CSF types (p = 0.043), and molecular typing (p = 0.025).

Conclusion

The prophylactic application of G-CSF effectively stabilized the WBC counts and ANCs during chemotherapy in ESBC patients. Nevertheless, the recovery of WBC counts and ANCs after chemotherapy varied between different G-CSF treatment groups. The risk of leukopenia and neutropenia persisting for more than 12 months after chemotherapy was associated with G-CSF types, the baseline level of WBC count/ANCs, surgical method, and molecular typing.

Retrospective evaluation of safety and effectiveness of same-day pegfilgrastim in patients with lung cancer

Aim: To determine the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) and related outcomes after same-day pegfilgrastim in lung cancer. Materials & methods: This single-center, retrospective study evaluated electronic health records of patients with lung cancer treated between 2013-2018. The main end points were incidence of FN and grade 3/4 neutropenia after the first and across all chemotherapy cycles. Results: A total of 114 patients received same-day pegfilgrastim in 384 cycles. The incidence of FN and grade 3/4 neutropenia was 2.3 and 25% after the first chemotherapy cycle and 1.6 and 10.4% across all cycles, respectively. Conclusion: Same-day prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients with lung cancer may be a suitable option, owing to its low incidence of FN and related outcomes.

Use of prophylactic pegfilgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in the US: A review of adherence to present guidelines for usage

Evidence-based US guidelines provide recommendations for the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) as supportive therapy in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is recommended for FN prophylaxis in patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving a high-risk chemotherapy regimen, or an intermediate-risk regimen if one or more risk factors are present. The guidelines highlight the patient characteristics and chemotherapy regimens for solid tumors and hematologic malignancies that may influence a patient's overall risk of FN and may benefit from pegfilgrastim support. This review aimed to evaluate how pegfilgrastim use in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in routine clinical practice aligns with evidence-based US guidelines. Examination of the literature revealed widespread deviation in relation to under- and over-prescribing, and timing of administration in US clinical practice. Pegfilgrastim is often over-prescribed in patients receiving palliative chemotherapy and those at low risk of FN. Potential under-prescribing of pegfilgrastim was also observed. In this literature search, data that appear to support same-day administration of pegfilgrastim were from uncontrolled studies that were limited in size. Analyses of healthcare claims data clearly favored next-day use, with statistically significant increases in FN incidence among patients receiving same-day pegfilgrastim versus those treated 1-4 days post-chemotherapy. Earlier-than-recommended administration typically occurs at the physician's discretion where next-day administration might present barriers to the patient receiving supportive therapy.There is a need to ensure appropriate prescribing to optimize patient outcomes, as deviation from the guideline recommendations was associated with increased incidence of FN and hospitalization.

Same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim-cbqv in patients with lymphoma receiving CHOP-like chemotherapy

Aim: To compare the incidence of febrile neutropenia and related outcomes of prophylactic same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim/pegfilgrastim-cbqv in patients with lymphoma receiving cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP)-like chemotherapy. Methods: Retrospective, real-world, single-institution study. Results: 93 patients received 460 cycles of CHOP-like chemotherapy. The incidence of febrile neutropenia and grade 3/4 chemotherapy-induced neutropenia was 5 and 16.5%, respectively. In 401 cycles pegfilgrastim was administered same-day versus 12 cycles next-day. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 17 cycles versus 0 cycles (p = 1.00) and grade 3/4 chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in 65 cycles (16.2%) versus 1 cycle (16.7%; p = 1.00) with same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim administration, respectively. Conclusion: Pegfilgrastim may be safely administered on the same day as chemotherapy in patients with lymphoma receiving CHOP-like chemotherapy.

Prophylaxis and treatment strategies for optimizing chemotherapy relative dose intensity

INTRODUCTION

A decrease in relative-dose intensity (RDI) of chemotherapy has been shown to be associated with poor patient outcomes in solid tumors and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The actual delivered chemotherapy dose received by patients can be influenced by dose reductions and treatment delays, often due to toxicities, most commonly chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN).

AREAS COVERED

We review seminal evidence and more recent studies that have shown an association between higher RDI and improved patient survival. A smaller number of studies has shown no association between RDI and outcomes. These differences may be due to study limitations, including low power, differences in patient and disease characteristics, or the chemotherapeutic regimen. We describe guidelines recommendations to prevent and treat CIN with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and describe novel approaches to prevent neutropenia that are being developed that may provide greater value and be associated with fewer adverse events than standard G-CSF options.

EXPERT OPINION

Maintaining RDI is important to ensure optimal patient outcomes. This can be achieved through the proper administration of G-CSF prophylaxis and treatment. Newer agents in development to treat and/or prevent CIN are entering regulatory review and may potentially change the treatment landscape for CIN in the future.

Prophylactic pegfilgrastim to prevent febrile neutropenia among patients receiving biweekly (Q2W) chemotherapy regimens: a systematic review of efficacy, effectiveness and safety

Background

Pegfilgrastim, a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), is commonly used to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN), a potentially life-threatening complication, following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. The FDA label for pegfilgrastim specifies that it should not be administered 14 days before or within 24 h of administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, precluding the use of pegfilgrastim in biweekly (Q2W) regimens. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines support the use of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens. The objective of this study was to systematically review evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that describe the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in preventing FN among patients receiving Q2W regimens.

Methods

An Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library literature search was conducted to evaluate the evidence regarding efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim versus no prophylactic pegfilgrastim or prophylaxis with other G-CSF in patients who were receiving Q2W chemotherapy regimens with high (> 20%) or intermediate (10–20%) risk of FN for a non-myeloid malignancy. Studies that addressed absolute or relative risk of FN, grade 1–4 neutropenia, all-cause or any hospitalization, dose delays or dose reductions, adverse events, or mortality were included. Studies where the comparator was a Q3W chemotherapy regimen with primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim were also included.

Results

The initial literature search identified 2258 publications. Thirteen publications met the eligibility criteria, including eight retrospective, one prospective, one phase 1 dose escalation study, and three RCTs. In nine of the 13 studies reporting incidence of FN, and in seven of the nine studies reporting incidence of neutropenia, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens resulted in decreased or comparable rates of FN or neutropenia compared with patients receiving filgrastim, no G-CSF, lipefilgrastim or pegfilgrastim in Q3W regimens. In six of the nine studies reporting safety data, lower or comparable safety profiles were observed between pegfilgrastim and comparators.

Conclusions

In a variety of non-myeloid malignancies, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim was efficacious in reducing the risk of FN in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk Q2W regimens, with an acceptable safety profile.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration no: CRD42019155572.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08258-w.

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 .

Revisiting same day administration of pegfilgrastim in the age of biosimilars: A review of literature

Purpose

Since 2018, several pegfilgrastim biosimilars were approved, which may affect insurance reimbursement. Guidelines recommend pegfilgrastim be administered the days following chemotherapy to prevent hematopoietic toxicity. To date, only the reference pegfilgrastim product has an available autoinjector-device. This has contributed to logistical issues in administering biosimilar agents per guideline recommendations. Administration on the same day as chemotherapy may be a potential alternative when logistical issues are present. This review will assess current evidence on this practice to inform clinical decisions. Data sources: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline for studies examining the administration of pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy. Data summary: Several studies were identified, including a systematic review, retrospective reviews, and insurance claim data. Studies had significant limitations, and chemotherapy regimens and cancer types varied among studies. Studies showed inconsistent results in terms of incidence, duration, and severity of febrile neutropenia. In studies with patients with head and neck, urothelial, gynecologic, gastrointestinal, and prostate cancer, no difference in outcomes was detected or outcomes supported the feasibility of same-day administration. In patients with breast cancer, outcomes were worse with same-day administration. Outcomes were mixed in studies with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and various solid tumors.

Conclusion

Administration of pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy may be safe and an acceptable alternative, if logistics prohibit a patient from receiving administration the days after chemotherapy. Clinicians should consider patient risk factors and prescribed chemotherapy regimens, along with available evidence when contemplating administration of same-day pegfilgrastim.

Patterns of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

Purpose

To evaluate patterns of primary prophylactic (PP) granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF) use following chemotherapy by cancer type and febrile neutropenia (FN) risk.

Methods

Using a commercial administrative database, we identified adult patients diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who initiated chemotherapy with high risk (HR) or intermediate risk (IR) for FN between January 1, 2013, and August 31, 2017. We describe use of PP-G-CSF, proportion completing all their cycles with pegfilgrastim, timing of pegfilgrastim, and duration of short-acting G-CSF.

Results

Among 22,868 patients (breast 11,513; colorectal 3765; lung 4273; ovarian 1287; and NHL 2030), 36.8% received HR and 63.2% received IR (64.4% of whom had ≥ 1 risk factor [RF] for FN). Proportions of patients receiving PP-G-CSF in the first cycle were 76.1%, 28.2%, and 26.4% among patients receiving HR, IR, and IR plus ≥ 1 RF, respectively. Among breast cancer patients receiving HR regimens and initiating PP-pegfilgrastim, 60.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 57.2–63.6%) initiating via on-body injector (OBI) and 51.9% (95% CI 48.0–55.8%) initiating via prefilled syringe (PFS) completed all their cycles with OBI and PFS, respectively. Among all cycles with PP-PFS, 8.5% received PFS on the same day as chemotherapy completion. Mean administrations/cycle were 3.2 (standard deviation [SD] 2.3) for filgrastim, 3.0 (SD 1.6) for filgrastim-sndz, and 4.3 (SD 2.5) for tbo-filgrastim.

Conclusions

There is under- and mistimed use of PP-G-CSF among patients at HR for FN. Novel pegfilgrastim delivery devices could help breast cancer patients at HR for FN complete all their cycles with timely prophylaxis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-020-05295-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Clinical practice guidelines recommend routine prophylactic coverage with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-such as pegfilgrastim-for most patients receiving chemotherapy with an intermediate to high risk for FN. Patterns of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis during the chemotherapy course and associated FN risks in US clinical practice have not been well characterized.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and data from two commercial healthcare claims repositories (01/2010-03/2016) and Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files (01/2007-09/2015) were employed. Study population included patients who had non-metastatic breast cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and received intermediate/high-risk regimens. Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis use and FN incidence were ascertained in each chemotherapy cycle, and all cycles were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios for FN were estimated for patients who did versus did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in that cycle.

RESULTS

Study population included 50,778 commercial patients who received 190,622 cycles of chemotherapy and 71,037 Medicare patients who received 271,944 cycles. In cycle 1, 33% of commercial patients and 28% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, and adjusted odds of FN were 2.6 (95% CI 2.3-2.8) and 1.6 (1.5-1.7), respectively, versus those who received pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. In cycle 2, 28% (commercial) and 26% (Medicare) did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis; corresponding adjusted FN odds were comparably elevated (1.9 [1.6-2.2] and 1.6 [1.5-1.8]). Results in subsequent cycles were similar. Across all cycles, 15% of commercial patients and 23% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis despite having FN in a prior cycle, and prior FN increased odds of subsequent FN by 2.1-2.4 times.

CONCLUSIONS

Notwithstanding clinical practice guidelines, a large minority of patients did not receive G-CSF prophylaxis, and FN incidence was substantially higher among this subset of the population. Appropriate use of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis may reduce patient exposure to this potentially fatal but largely preventable complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Use of colony-stimulating factor primary prophylaxis and incidence of febrile neutropenia from 2010 to 2016: a longitudinal assessment

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend primary prophylactic use of colony-stimulating factor (PP-CSF) when risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) - based on chemotherapy and patient risk factors - is high. Whether and how PP-CSF use may have changed over time (e.g. due to guideline revisions, increasing use of myelosuppressive regimens, controversy regarding inappropriate CSF use), and whether there has been a concomitant change in the incidence of FN, is unknown.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and data from two US healthcare claims repositories were employed. The study population included patients who had non-metastatic cancer of the breast, colon/rectum, lung or ovaries, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), and who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens with an intermediate/high risk for FN. For each patient, the first cycle of the first course was characterized in terms of PP-CSF use and FN episodes. Crude incidence proportions for PP-CSF and FN during the first cycle were estimated by calendar quarter (2010-2016); multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate quarter-specific adjusted mean probabilities of FN by PP-CSF use.

RESULTS

The study population totaled 142,730 patients with breast cancer (61%), colorectal cancer (14%), NHL (11%), ovarian cancer (10%) or lung cancer (5%). PP-CSF use increased from 52% in 1Q2010 to 58% in 4Q2016; pegfilgrastim was the most commonly used agent (>96% across quarters). PP-CSF administration on the same day as chemotherapy ranged from 8 to 11% until 1Q2015, and increased to 64% by 4Q2016. Adjusted incidence proportions for FN in the first chemotherapy cycle ranged from 2.7% (95% CI: 2.3-3.0) to 3.7% (95% CI: 3.1-4.3) among those who did not receive PP-CSF, and was 2.6% (95% CI: 2.5-2.7) across quarters among those who received PP-CSF.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of PP-CSF is commonplace in current US clinical practice, underutilization in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy regimens with an intermediate/high risk for FN may still be an issue. Use of same-day PP-CSF increased markedly from the end of 2015, although this finding reflects (at least in part) increased uptake of pegfilgrastim delivered via an on-body injector as well as the recent change in clinical practice guidelines. Overall, patients receiving PP-CSF appear to have a lower risk of FN during the first cycle of chemotherapy.

Risk and consequences of chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia in US clinical practice

Background

Chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT) is a potentially serious complication that can lead to chemotherapy dose delays, dose reductions, or discontinuation, and increases the risk of serious bleeding events. The objectives of this study were to characterize the incidence, clinical consequences, and economic costs of CIT in current US clinical practice.

Methods

A retrospective cohort design and data from two US private healthcare claims repositories (01/2010–12/2016) were employed. Study population comprised adults who received selected myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens for solid tumors or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. CIT was identified based on: diagnosis code for thrombocytopenia or bleeding; procedure code for platelet transfusion or bleeding control; or drug code for thrombopoietin-receptor agonist. Incidence of CIT was evaluated during the chemotherapy course (max. no. cycles = 8), and associated consequences and costs (2016US$) were evaluated during the cycle of the CIT episode.

Results

Among 215,508 cancer chemotherapy patients, CIT incidence during the course (mean no. cycles = 4.6) was 9.7% (95% CI: 9.6–9.8), and ranged from 6.1% (5.9–6.3) for regimens containing cyclophosphamide to 13.5% (12.7–14.3) for regimens containing gemcitabine; among all patients, incidence was 2.7% (2.6–2.8) in cycle 1, 2.7% (2.6–2.8) in cycle 2, and 2.9% (2.9–3.0) in cycles thereafter. One-third of CIT episodes were managed in hospital, and for the subset of patients hospitalized with a first-listed diagnosis of CIT, mean length of stay was 4.6 (4.4–5.0) days and mean cost of inpatient care was $36,448 (32,332-41,331). Across cycles with CIT, mean cost of CIT-related care was $2179 (2029-2329), comprising $1024 (881–1167) for inpatient care and $1153 (1119-1187) for outpatient care.

Conclusions

In this retrospective evaluation of cancer chemotherapy patients, CIT incidence was high, especially among patients receiving gemcitabine-based regimens, and the costs of CIT-related care were substantial. Accordingly, interventions aimed at identifying and targeting high-risk patients for preventative measures may yield substantial clinical and economic benefits.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5354-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Optimal timing for pegfilgrastim administration in Japanese breast cancer patients receiving intermediate-risk chemotherapies

Background Pegfilgrastim is widely used for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN) in cancer patients receiving chemotherapies. However, the optimal timing of pegfilgrastim administration has not been established. Objective We investigated the effect of the timing of pegfilgrastim administration on the prevention of FN in patients with breast cancer undergoing intermediate-risk chemotherapies. Method We retrospectively analysed the incidence of FN in patients with breast cancer treated at our institution with intermediate-risk chemotherapies and primary or secondary prophylactic pegfilgrastim between 2015 and 2017. The impact of the timing of pegfilgrastim administration on the incidence of FN was evaluated by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results Overall, 87 patients received a total of 318 chemotherapy cycles with pegfilgrastim, and 14 patients (16%) experienced FN. In univariate analyses, day 2 pegfilgrastim administration, age of > 65 years, baseline haemoglobin < 12 g/dL, prior history of FN, and presence of recurrent/metastatic disease trended toward an association with FN. Adjustment for these confounding risk factors revealed that day 2 pegfilgrastim administration was associated with a significantly increased risk of FN (odds ratio 11.0, p = 0.009). Conclusion Administrating pegfilgrastim on day 3 or later may prevent FN more effectively among Japanese breast cancer patients receiving intermediate-risk chemotherapies.