Hematopoietic growth factors: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the applications

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.

Filgrastim biosimilar (EP2006): A review of 15 years' post-approval evidence

Filgrastim is approved for several indications, including reduction of the incidence and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and for stem cell mobilization. The filgrastim biosimilar, EP2006, has been available in Europe since 2009, and in the United States since 2015. In this time, preclinical and clinical data used to support the approval of EP2006 have been published. These data established the biosimilarity of EP2006 to reference filgrastim in terms of structure, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Additional real-world evidence studies have also demonstrated equivalent efficacy and safety of EP2006 compared with reference filgrastim, both in the reduction of neutropenia and in stem cell mobilization in clinical practice. This review summarizes these preclinical, clinical, and real-world data, as well as the available cost-effectiveness data, for EP2006 since its approval 15 years ago.

The Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor as Primary Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy: An Experience of Moroccan Oncologists

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a frequent and serious emergency for oncologic patients undergoing chemotherapy. Using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) as primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia is an integral part of the management of cancer patients. Our study aims to identify the challenges that prevent Moroccan oncologists from prescribing G-CSF for primary prevention. Seventy doctors participated in our study, with a participation rate of 35.35%. Twenty-two participants had at least five years of experience in oncology. Most participants were medical oncologists (82.9%), and two-thirds of them practiced in teaching hospitals. Regarding the use of G-CSF in primary prevention, all participants complied with the recommendations for FN risk assessment and the prescription of G-CSF for prophylaxis in patients at high risk of FN (>20%). However, their use in intermediate-risk patients remains limited mainly by the cost of these drugs (45.7% of participants). FN remains a dreadful complication in oncology. Since the introduction of G-CSF into standard oncology practice, particularly in primary prevention, the management of certain patients has improved considerably. Nevertheless, the indications for G-CSF in our context, essentially in intermediate-risk patients, are uncertain.

Synergistic Effect of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin and Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor in the Mobilization of HSPCs Improves Overall Survival After PBSCT in a Preclinical Murine Model. Are We Far Enough for Therapy?

Strategies to improve hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell (HSPC) mobilization from the bone marrow can have a pivotal role in addressing iatrogenic bone-marrow insufficiency from chemo(radio)therapy and overcoming peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) limitations such as insufficient mobilization. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) represents the standard mobilization strategy for HSPC and has done so for more than three decades since its FDA approval. Its association with non-G-CSF agents is often employed for difficult HSPC mobilization. However, obtaining a synergistic effect between the two classes is limited by different timing and mechanisms of action. Based on our previous in vitro results, we tested the mobilization potential of human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), alone and in combination with G-CSF in vivo in a murine study. Our results show an improved mobilization capability of the combination, which seems to act synergistically in stimulating hematopoiesis. With the current understanding of the dynamics of HSPCs and their origins in more primitive cells related to the germline, new strategies to employ the mobilization of hematopoietic progenitors using chorionic gonadotropins could soon become clinical practice.

Febrile neutropenia incidence and the variable toxicity profile between brand and generic docetaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide regimen

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incidence of febrile neutropenia without primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in patients undergoing chemotherapy with adjuvant docetaxel and cyclophosphamide, and to evaluate the toxicity profile of brand-name docetaxel (Taxotere ® ) and the generic formulation.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted using data obtained from electronic medical records of patients treated at a Brazilian cancer center. Patients with breast cancer who underwent adjuvant treatment between January 2016 and June 2019 were selected. Data were analyzed using chi-square and Fisher correlation of variables, and multivariate analyses were adjusted for propensity score.

RESULTS

A total of 231 patients with a mean age of 55.9 years at the time of treatment were included in the study. The majority (93.9%) had luminal histology, 84.8% were at clinical stage I, and 98.2% had a good performance status. The overall incidence of febrile neutropenia in the study population was 13.4% (31 cases). The use of brand-name docetaxel (Taxotere ® ) was the only factor associated with febrile neutropenia occurrence (OR= 3.55, 95%CI= 1.58-7.94, p=0.002).

CONCLUSION

In patients with breast cancer who require treatment with adjuvant docetaxel and cyclophosphamide regimen, the toxicity profile differs between brand-name and generic docetaxel. Regardless of the formulation used, the incidence of febrile neutropenia was less than 20%, which may allow for the omission of primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in this setting.

Impact of primary prophylaxis by pegfilgrastim in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP

Febrile neutropenia (FN) and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) are common conditions that lead to dose reduction or delayed chemotherapy in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Primary prophylaxis (PP) with long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was introduced in South Korea in 2014. We aimed to investigate the effects of PP on FN-related hospitalization and death in patients with DLBCL receiving rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). Korean individuals (n = 11,491) with incident DLBCL and receiving R-CHOP during 2010-2016 were followed for FN-related hospitalization and mortality. The PP exposure group (patients during 2014-2015, n = 3599), patients during 2010-2016 (n = 11,491), and patients receiving PP during 2014-2016 (n = 4421) were compared with the non-exposure group (patients during July 2011-June 2013, n = 3017), patients in 2013 (n = 1596), and patients not receiving PP during 2014-2016 (n = 1289), respectively. Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using the Cox model. The PP exposure group had 16% lower FN-related hospitalizations than the non-exposure group (HR = 0.84, P < 0.001). PP exposure had no beneficial effect on 1-year (HR = 0.98, P = 0.782) and 5-year mortality (HR = 0.97, P = 0.474). Patients in 2014 (HR = 0.85, P < 0.001), 2015 (HR = 0.88, P = 0.003), and 2016 (HR = 0.80, P < 0.001) had a decreased risk of FN-related hospitalizations compared with those in 2013. Among patients receiving their first R-CHOP cycle during 2014-2016, the HR for FN-related hospitalization was 0.90 (P = 0.014) in PP users compared with non-users. PP with a long-acting G-CSF lowered the FN-related hospitalization risk but did not benefit survival in patients with DLBCL receiving R-CHOP.

Assessing the Optimal Regimen: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Long-Acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors in Patients with Breast Cancer

Patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy are susceptible to prolonged and severe neutropenia. Multiple biosimilars of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (LA-G-CSFs) have been newly developed to prevent this disease. Nonetheless, which LA-G-CSF regimen has the optimal balance of efficacy and safety remains controversial. Moreover, there is a lack of evidence supporting clinical decisions on LA-G-CSF dose escalation in poor conditions. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and several Chinese databases were searched (December 2022) to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about LA-G-CSFs preventing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in breast cancer patients. No restrictions were imposed on language. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. We assessed the incidence of severe neutropenia (SN) and febrile neutropenia (FN), the duration of SN (DSN), and the absolute neutrophil account recovery time (ANCrt) for efficacy, while the incidence of severe adverse events (SAE) was assessed for safety. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022361606). A total of 33 RCTs were included. Our network meta-analysis demonstrated that lipegfilgrastim 6 mg and eflapegrastim 13.2 mg outperformed other LA-G-CSFs with high efficacy rates and few safety concerns (SUCRA of lipegfilgrastim 6 mg: ANC rt 95.2%, FN 97.4%; eflapegrastim 13.2 mg: FN 87%, SN 89.3%). Additionally, 3.6 mg, 4.5 mg, 6 mg, and 13.2 mg dosages all performed significantly better than 1.8 mg in reducing the duration of SN (3.6 mg: DSN, SMD -0.68 [-1.13, -0.22; moderate]; 4.5 mg: -0.87 [-1.57, -0.17; low]; 6 mg: -0.89 [-1.49, -0.29; moderate]; 13.2 mg: -1.02 [1.63, -0.41; high]). Increasing the dosage from the guideline-recommended 6 mg to 13.2 mg can reduce both the duration and incidence of SN (SMD -0.13 [-0.24 to -0.03], RR 0.65 [0.43 to 0.96], respectively), with no significant difference in SAE. For patients with breast cancer, lipegfilgrastim 6 mg and eflapegrastim 13.2 mg might be the most effective regimen among LA-G-CSFs. Higher doses of LA-G-CSF may enhance efficacy without causing additional SAEs.

Pretreatment hematological parameters as predictors of tumor granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor expression in patients of head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma

Background

Tumor secreting granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and/or G-CSF therapy has been documented as a poor prognostic factor. Tumor G-CSF study is a relatively costly and sparsely available investigation. Therefore, this study was undertaken to predict tumor G-CSF score from pretreatment hematological parameters (PTHP) in patients of head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

Materials and Methods

This pilot study was performed after institutional ethics committee approval. Consecutive nonmetastatic HNSCC patients of oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynx registered from February to December 2019 were analyzed. Patients whose PTHP and formalin-fixed-paraffin-embedded tissue were available, were included. PTHP (absolute neutrophil count [ANC], absolute monocyte count [AMC], absolute lymphocyte count [ALC], neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio [NLR], and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio [PLR]) done before any active oncology treatment, were noted. A semiquantitative tumor G-CSF score was calculated. Tumor G-CSF score and PTHP were correlated with clinicopathological factors. Statistical analysis was performed using SYSTAT version 12.

Results

Data of 47 eligible patients were analyzed. The median age at presentation was 60 years. The male-to-female ratio was 43:4. The most common head-and-neck subsite was oropharynx (31.92%), and majority of patients presented with Stage IVA disease (51.1%). Higher tumor G-CSF score was significantly associated with a higher T-stage (P = 0.013). Tumor G-CSF score was directly proportional to ANC, AMC, and ALC while it was inversely proportional to NLR and PLR. Regression equations to predict the tumor G-CSF score when PTHP are known, were determined.

Conclusions

PTHP can predict the tumor G-CSF score which may guide G-CSF-directed therapy. Future studies with large number of patients are needed to elucidate its clinical use.

Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with lymphoma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a prevalent and potentially life-threatening complication in patients with lymphoma receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is more effective than filgrastim as prophylaxis for FN. However, its usage has been limited because of its higher cost. Pegfilgrastim's value for money remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim compared to filgrastim as a primary or secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases, and Google Scholar. The most widely used economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and cost-benefit analysis) were included in the review. Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist, and the quality of reviewed articles was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. Cost-effectiveness data were rigorously summarized and synthesized narratively. Costs were adjusted to US$ 2020.

RESULTS

We identified eight economic evaluation studies (two cost-utility analyses, three cost-effectiveness analyses, and three studies reporting both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses). Half of these studies were from Europe (n = 4), the other half were from Iran, USA, Canada, and Singapore. Six studies met > 80% of the JBI quality assessment criteria. Cost-effectiveness estimates in the majority (n = 6) of these studies were for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with high-risk of FN (> 20%). The studies considered a wide range of baseline FN risk (17-97.4%) and mortality rates (5.8-8.9%). Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from US$ 2199 to US$ 8,871,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, dominant to US$ 44,358 per FN averted, and US$ 4261- US$ 7251 per life-years gained. The most influential parameters were medication and hospitalization costs, the relative risk of FN, and assumptions of mortality benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies showed that pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to filgrastim as primary and secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma at a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$ 50,000 per QALY gained. The findings could assist clinicians and healthcare decision-makers to make informed decisions regarding resource allocation for the management of chemotherapy-induced FN in settings similar to those studied.

Does castration status affect docetaxel-related adverse events? :Identification of risk factors for docetaxel-related adverse events in metastatic prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Docetaxel-related adverse events (AEs) such as neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) can be life-threatening. A previous in vivo study raised the hypothesis that the castration status affects the rate of hematologic AEs. We aimed to investigate the impact of castration status on the incidence of docetaxel-related AE in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 265 mPCa patients treated with docetaxel, comprising 92 patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and 173 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) between January 2015 and December 2021. Common terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was applied to evaluate AEs. We analyzed the differential incidences between mHSPC and mCRPC, and risk factors of hematologic and nonhematologic AEs using a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The rate of patients who received primary prophylaxis against neutropenia was higher in those with the mHSPC compared with those with the mCRPC (7.5% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). Among the patients without primary prophylaxis, incidence rates of severe neutropenia (CTCAE ≥ Grade3) and FN were 89% and 16% in patients with mCRPC compared to 81% and 18% in those with mHSPC. Logistic regression analysis revealed that age ≥ 75 years and failure to provide primary prophylaxis were independent risk factors of severe neutropenia (odds ratio [OR]: 2.39, 95% confidential interval [CI]: 1.10-5.18 and OR: 15.8, 95% CI: 7.23-34.6, respectively). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) ≧ 1 was an independent risk factor of FN (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.13-4.54). Castration status (mHSPC vs. mCRPC) was not associated with the risks of severe neutropenia and FN.

CONCLUSIONS

Castration status did not affect the risk of severe neutropenia or FN in mPCa patients treated with docetaxel regardless of the disease state. Failure to provide primary prophylaxis and advanced patient age are independent risk factors of severe neutropenia; while patients with poor PS are more likely to develop FN. These findings may help guide the clinical decision-making for proper candidate selection of docetaxel treatment.

A multinational, drug utilization study of lipegfilgrastim use in real-world setting in Europe

PURPOSE

Lipegfilgrastim (Lonquex, Teva Pharma B.V.) is approved for reduction in neutropenia duration and febrile neutropenia incidence. In the framework of lipegfilgrastim regulatory approval in the EU, the Health Authorities requested a drug utilization study. This study was conducted to characterize prescribing patterns of lipegfilgrastim and quantify the extent of on- and off-label use of lipegfilgrastim in real-world setting in Europe.

METHODS

Information on lipegfilgrastim use between January 2014 and March 2020 was abstracted from medical records in hospital and outpatient clinical settings. Indication for lipegfilgrastim was classified either as on-label or off-label use according to pre-determined criteria. The primary endpoint was the extent of lipegfilgrastim off-label use based on the most recent lipegfilgrastim cycle.

RESULTS

Records of 481 patients were obtained from five European countries. Lipegfilgrastim was most commonly prescribed for prevention of neutropenia by oncologists and hematologists. Patients who were administered lipegfilgrastim were primarily ≥ 55 years old (65.1%) and female (65.7%). The most frequent underlying diagnosis was breast cancer (38.3%). For the most recent lipegfilgrastim cycle, on-label use was recorded in 452/459 patients with no missing data (98.5%), while off-label use was recorded in 7/459 patients (1.5%). The majority of off-label use was attributed to use with non-cytotoxic chemotherapy (57.1%). Off-label use of lipegfilgrastim across all treatment cycles with no missing data was 11/1547 cycles (0.7%).

CONCLUSION

Using real-world data, these findings confirm the low rate of lipegfilgrastim off-label use as reported in a preceding feasibility study, indicating very high adherence to the approved indication.

Biosimilar Versus Originator Pegfilgrastim for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia: A Phase III Randomized, Multicenter, Evaluator-Blinded, Noninferiority Study

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilar pegfilgrastim (PegFilBS) and originator pegfilgrastim (PegFilOR) in patients with stage 2-4 breast cancer.

METHODS

This phase III randomized, multicenter, evaluator-blinded, noninferiority study recruited women with stage 2-4 breast cancer in Argentina who were scheduled to receive chemotherapy. Stratification was based on the breast cancer stage. The primary end point was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN, noninferiority margin: 1 day) in the first chemotherapy cycle. Secondary end points assessed were incidence of severe neutropenia, grade 3 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, infections, postchemotherapy hospitalization and duration, and the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned to receive PegFilBS (58 patients) or PegFilOR (62 patients). Severe neutropenia occurred in 52 of 283 cycles (18.4%) for 27 patients who received PegFilBS and in 48 of 297 cycles (16.2%) for 20 patients who received PegFilOR (P = .48). During the first cycle, severe neutropenia occurred in 16 patients who received PegFilBS (DSN: 0.78 ± 1.53 days) and in 11 patients who received PegFilOR (DSN: 0.53 ± 1.25 days; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.76 days). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean DSN values were 0.90 ± 1.79 days for the PegFilBS group and 0.50 ± 1.21 for the PegFilOR group (95% CI, -0.15 to 0.95 days). No significant differences were observed for the secondary efficacy end points. Three patients experienced seven ADRs in the PegFilBS group while 10 patients experienced 31 ADRs in the PegFilOR group. The most common ADR was myalgia.

CONCLUSION

Relative to PegFilOR, PegFilBS provided noninferior efficacy outcomes in Argentinian women with stage 2-4 breast cancer who were treated using myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

The Real-World Experience of the Biosimilar (Grastofil®) to the Reference Biologic (Neupogen®) in Breast Cancer and Lymphoma: A Canadian Single-Centre Retrospective Study

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common side effect of cytotoxic chemotherapy that may result in poor treatment outcomes. The short acting granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) act to stimulate granulocytes to increase production of white blood cells. The filgrastim biosimilar is useful, as it may provide a cheaper and equally effective treatment to FN. This study explored the usage of the filgrastim biosimilar (Grastofil^®) and the reference biologic (Neupogen^®) in breast cancer and lymphoma patients. A retrospective chart review of patients receiving Grastofil^® from January 2017 to June 2019 or Neupogen^® for primary prophylaxis of FN from January 2013 to December 2017 was conducted. The endpoints included the incidence of FN and the occurrence of dose reduction (DR) and dose delay (DD). One hundred and fifty-three Grastofil^® patients were matched to 153 Neupogen^® patients. This cohort was further split into breast cancer (n = 275) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (n = 31) cohorts. After adjusting for chemotherapy cycles, the biosimilar filgrastim was non-inferior to the reference biologic based on FN incidence in addition to related outcomes including DR and DD.

Analysis of the Safety of Pegfilgrastim Addition in Bleomycin, Etoposide, and Cisplatin Treatment Patients With Germ Cell Tumors

It has been reported that chemotherapy drugs and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administered on the same day can aggravate neutropenia. In the present study, we investigated the safety of pegfilgrastim during bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) therapy. This single-center retrospective study, including 137 cycles of BEP therapy for germ cell tumors between January 2008 and April 2021, investigated safety. Short-acting G-CSF was used for 84 cycles and pegfilgrastim was used for 53 cycles. In the pegfilgrastim group, neutrophil count at nadir was significantly higher than in the G-CSF group (median 1,650/μl and 680/μl, respectively). The incidence of grade 3–4 neutropenia was significantly higher and the duration longer in the G-CSF group. Also, there was no significant difference in the incidence of febrile neutropenia. In conclusion, concomitant use of pegfilgrastim during BEP therapy did not increase neutropenia and was effective in terms of safety.

Patient Preference Between Cabazitaxel and Docetaxel for First-line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: The CABADOC Trial

BACKGROUND

The taxanes docetaxel and cabazitaxel prolong overall survival for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), with cabazitaxel approved in the postdocetaxel setting only. Recent data suggest they have similar efficacy but a different safety profile in the first-line mCRPC setting.

OBJECTIVE

To assess patient preference between docetaxel and cabazitaxel among men who received one or more doses of each taxane and did not experience progression after the first taxane.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC were randomized 1:1 to receive docetaxel (75 mg/m² every 3 wk × 4 cycles) followed by cabazitaxel (25 mg/m² every 3 wk × 4 cycles) or the reverse sequence. Randomization was stratified by prior abiraterone or enzalutamide use.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary endpoint was patient preference, assessed via a dedicated questionnaire after the second taxane. Secondary endpoints included reasons for patient preference, prostate-specific antigen response, radiological progression-free survival, and overall survival. This clinical trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02044354.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Of 195 men randomized, 152 met the prespecified modified intent-to-treat criteria for analysis. Overall, 66 patients (43%) preferred cabazitaxel, 40 (27%) preferred docetaxel, and 46 (30%) had no preference (p = 0.004, adjusted for treatment period effect). More patients preferred treatment period 1 (43%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 36-52%) versus period 2 (27%, 95% CI 20-34%). Patient preference for cabazitaxel was mainly related to less fatigue (72%), better quality of life (64%), and other adverse events (hair loss, pain, nail disorders, edema). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of each drug.

CONCLUSIONS

A significantly higher proportion of chemotherapy-naïve men with mCRPC who received both taxanes preferred cabazitaxel over docetaxel. Less fatigue and better quality of life were the two main reasons driving patient choice.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer preferred cabazitaxel over docetaxel for chemotherapy, mainly because of less fatigue and better quality of life.

Risk factors for neutropenic fever in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients with primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Febrile neutropenia (FN) interferes with the proper chemotherapy dose density or intensity in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) patients. Chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) ± rituximab has an intermediate FN risk. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support is recommended for patients with other host-related risk factors.

METHODS

We evaluated the risk factors for FN-related admission in NHL patients who have received primary G-CSF (lenograstim) prophylaxis.

RESULTS

Data from 148 patients were analyzed. The incidence of neutropenic fever was 96 events (12.2%), and the median period was 3.85 days (range, 0 to 5.9); the median duration of neutropenia was 4.21 days (range, 3.3 to 5.07). Eighty-three FN-related admissions were reported. Advanced age (> 60 years), female sex, a low albumin level, and prednisone use were associated with FN-related admission in multivariable analysis (p = 0.010, p < 0.001, and p = 0.010, respectively). A comparison between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients treated with R-CHOP and pegylated G-CSF and those treated with R-CHOP and lenograstim did not reveal significant differences in the FN-related admission rate between the two groups, although the lenograstim-treated group had a higher incidence of severe neutropenia.

CONCLUSION

Elderly patients, female patients, and patients with low albumin levels need to be actively followed-up for FN even when primary prophylaxis with G-CSF has been used.

BBCIC Research Network Analysis of First-Cycle Prophylactic G-CSF Use in Patients Treated With High-Neutropenia Risk Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is prevented or minimized with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs). Several G-CSF biosimilars are approved in the United States. The Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) is a nonprofit initiative whose objective is to provide scientific evidence on real-world use and comparative safety and effectiveness of biologics and biosimilars using the BBCIC distributed research network (DRN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We describe real-world G-CSF use in patients with breast or lung cancer receiving first-cycle chemotherapy associated with high FN risk. We assessed hospitalizations for FN, availability of absolute neutrophil counts, and G-CSF-induced adverse events to inform future observational comparative effectiveness studies of G-CSF reference products and their biosimilars. A descriptive analysis of 5 participating national health insurance plans was conducted within the BBCIC DRN.

RESULTS

A total of 57,725 patients who received at least one G-CSF dose were included. Most (92.5%) patients received pegfilgrastim. FN hospitalization rates were evaluated by narrow (<0.5%), intermediate (1.91%), and broad (2.99%) definitions. Anaphylaxis and hyperleukocytosis were identified in 1.15% and 2.28% of patients, respectively. This analysis provides real-world evidence extracted from a large, readily available database of diverse patients, characterizing G-CSF reference product use to inform the feasibility of future observational comparative safety and effectiveness analyses of G-CSF biosimilars. We showed that the rates of FN and adverse events in our research network are consistent with those reported by previous small studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Readily available BBCIC DRN data can be used to assess G-CSF use with the incidence of FN hospitalizations. Insufficient laboratory result data were available to report absolute neutrophil counts; however, other safety data are available for assessment that provide valuable baseline data regarding the effectiveness and safety of G-CSFs in preparation for comparative effectiveness studies of reference G-CSFs and their biosimilars.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis or Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor Support in Multiple Myeloma Patients Undergoing Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

We compare, in this manuscript, antibiotic prophylaxis versus granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) support as anti-infective strategies, in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), undergoing high-dose therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT). At our institution, antibiotic prophylaxis after HDT/ASCT in MM was stopped in January 2017 and replaced by G-CSF support in March 2017. Consecutive MM patients who received HDT/ASCT between March 2016 and July 2018 were included in this single-center retrospective analysis. In total, 298 patients and 353 individual cases of HDT/ASCT were evaluated. In multivariate analyses, G-CSF support was associated with a significantly shortened duration of severe leukopenia < 1/nL (p < 0.001, hazard ratio (HR) = 16.22), and hospitalization (estimate = -0.19, p < 0.001) compared to antibiotic prophylaxis. Rates of febrile neutropenia, need of antimicrobial therapy, transfer to intensive care unit, and death, were similar between the two groups. Furthermore, antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with a significantly increased risk for the development of multidrug resistant bacteria especially vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium compared to G-CSF support (odds ratio (OR) = 17.38, p = 0.01). Stop of antibiotic prophylaxis as an anti-infective strategy was associated with a reduction in overall resistance rates of bacterial isolates. These results indicate that G-CSF support should be the preferred option in MM patients undergoing HDT/ASCT.

Improving Outcomes of Chemotherapy: Established and Novel Options for Myeloprotection in the COVID-19 Era

Chemotherapy-induced damage of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HPSCs) often results in myelosuppression that adversely affects patient health and quality of life. Currently, chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression is managed with chemotherapy dose delays/reductions and lineage-specific supportive care interventions, such as hematopoietic growth factors and blood transfusions. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has created additional challenges for the optimal management of myelosuppression. In this review, we discuss the impact of this side effect on patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy, with a focus on the prevention of myelosuppression in the COVID-19 era. During the COVID-19 pandemic, short-term recommendations on the use of supportive care interventions have been issued with the aim of minimizing the risk of infection, reducing the need for hospitalization, and preserving limited blood supplies. Recently, trilaciclib, an intravenous cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, was approved to decrease the incidence of myelosuppression in adult patients when administered prior to platinum/etoposide-containing or topotecan-containing chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Approval was based on data from three phase 2 placebo-controlled clinical studies in patients with ES-SCLC, showing that administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy significantly reduced multilineage myelosuppression, with patients receiving trilaciclib having fewer chemotherapy dose delays/reductions and myelosuppression/sepsis-related hospitalizations, and less need for supportive care interventions, compared with patients receiving placebo. Several other novel agents are currently in clinical development for the prevention or treatment of multilineage or single-lineage myelosuppression in patients with various tumor types. The availability of treatments that could enable patients to maintain standard-of-care chemotherapy regimens without the need for additional interventions would be valuable to physicians, patients, and health systems.

Pooled Analysis on the Effectiveness and Safety of Lipegfilgrastim in Patients With Urological Malignancies in the Real-World Setting

Lipegfilgrastim is a long-acting glycopegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) approved for the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. In general, there is little information on the use of any G-CSFs specifically in patients with urological malignancies receiving chemotherapy. This report combines information from two prospective non-interventional studies on the prophylactic use of lipegfilgrastim in urological cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in the real-world setting. Data were derived from two phase IV studies (NADIR and LEOS) with similar protocols conducted in nine European countries. Analysis included 228 patients (142 prostate, 50 testicular, 27 bladder, and 9 other urological cancers). Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia risk was classified as high (43.0%), intermediate (49.1%), or low (7.5%). Lipegfilgrastim was administered as primary (n=180, 78.9%) or secondary (n=29, 12.7%) prophylaxis. The incidence of febrile neutropenia over all chemotherapy cycles (n=998) and first cycles (n=228) for which lipegfilgrastim was administered for prophylaxis was 2.6% and 1.3%, respectively. Corresponding results for Grade 3/4 neutropenia were 2.2% and 0.9%, respectively. Adverse drug reactions occurred in 24 patients (10.5%): those in more than one patient were bone pain (n=6, 2.6%) and pyrexia (n=3, 1.3%). The use of lipegfilgrastim for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia was effective and well tolerated in patients with urological malignancies in the real-world setting.

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.

A management of neutropenia using granulocyte colony stimulating factor support for chemotherapy consisted of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

An exploratory study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of granulocyte colony stimulating factor support for chemotherapy consisting of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy in patients with oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, (2) a schedule to receive three courses of induction chemotherapy (docetaxel 75 mg/m2 day 1, cisplatin 75 mg/m2 day 1, 5-fluorouracil 750 mg/m2 days 1-5, every 3 weeks), (3) stage IB-III, (4) 20-75 years old, (5) 0-1 performance status, (6) preserved organ functions and (7) written informed consent. The endpoints were to evaluate the efficacy of granulocyte colony stimulating factor support including secondary prophylactic usage for docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy. Patients who previously had 'febrile neutropenia', or 'Grade 3 or 4 infection accompanied by grade 3 or 4 neutropenia' prophylactically received granulocyte colony stimulating factor support from day 7.

RESULTS

A total of 91 patients were included in the analysis. Granulocyte colony stimulating factor support was given to 81.3%. The incidence of grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were 81.3 and 32.9%, respectively. The dose of anticancer agents was reduced in 48.4%. There were no treatment-related deaths. The relative dose intensity of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil were 92.7 ± 9.8%, 86.0 ± 15.6% and 91.8 ± 10.0%, respectively. In the secondary prophylactic granulocyte colony stimulating factor support group, the neutrophil count significantly increased between day 7 and day 13 as compared with the non-prophylactic granulocyte colony stimulating factor support group (P < 0.05 for each day).

CONCLUSIONS

Granulocyte colony stimulating factor support including secondary prophylactic usage may be feasible for maintaining the intensity of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy in patients with oesophageal cancer.

ROBUST: A Phase III Study of Lenalidomide Plus R-CHOP Versus Placebo Plus R-CHOP in Previously Untreated Patients With ABC-Type Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

Patients with the activated B-cell-like (ABC) subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) historically showed inferior survival with standard rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). Phase II studies demonstrated that adding the immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide to R-CHOP improved outcomes in ABC-type DLBCL. The goal of the global, phase III ROBUST study was to compare lenalidomide plus R-CHOP (R2-CHOP) with placebo/R-CHOP in previously untreated, ABC-type DLBCL.

Advances in the pharmacological management of neutropenia in solid tumors: the advent of biosimilars

Introduction: Severe neutropenia and infections are potentially life-threatening complications of cytotoxic antineoplastic therapies and often require hospitalization with a severe economic impact. Furthermore, hematological toxicity frequently results in chemotherapy dose reductions and delays that could interfere with disease control.Areas covered: This review provides an overview of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) including pegylated molecules, as well as more recent biosimilar G-CSFs, focusing on the toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of these compounds.Expert opinion: The administration of hematopoietic growth factors in primary and secondary prophylaxis of neutropenia is a standard supportive care measure. Recently, several biosimilars have been developed. The market for biosimilar agents seems to be increasing over time thanks to their similar effectiveness and safety, compared with their originators, but lower costs.

Biosimilar Pegfilgrastim: Improving Access and Optimising Practice to Supportive Care that Enables Cure

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of chemotherapy, which can cause significant morbidity and mortality, result in dose delays and reductions and, ultimately, reduce cancer survival. Over the past decade, the availability of biosimilar filgrastim (short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) has transformed patient access, with clear evidence of clinical benefit at preventing FN at reduced costs. In 2019, seven biosimilar pegfilgrastims (long-acting G-CSFs) were licensed, creating optimal market conditions and choice for prescribers. FN affects up to 117 per 1000 cancer patients, with mortality rates in the range of 2–21%. By reducing FN incidence and improving chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI), G-CSF has been associated with a 3.2% absolute survival benefit. Guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis and that filgrastim be administered for 10–14 days, while pegfilgrastim is administered once per cycle. When taken according to the guidelines, pegfilgrastim and filgrastim are equally effective. However, in routine clinical practice, filgrastim is often under-dosed (< 7 days) and has been shown to be inferior to pegfilgrastim at reducing FN incidence, hospitalisations and maintaining RDI. Once-per-cycle administration with pegfilgrastim might also aid patient adherence. The introduction of biosimilar pegfilgrastim should instigate a rethink of neutropenia management. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim offers countries using biosimilar filgrastim opportunities to improve adherence and thus cancer survival, whilst offering economic benefits for countries using reference pegfilgrastim. These benefits can be realised in full if biosimilar pegfilgrastim becomes part of routine clinical practice supported by drug and therapeutic committees implementing guidelines with multidisciplinary support in the hospital.

Efficacy and Safety of Lipegfilgrastim in Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Myelosuppressive Chemotherapy in a Real-World Setting: Results of an Analysis of Pooled Data from Two Non-Interventional European Studies

BACKGROUND/AIM

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a common and serious complication in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This analysis was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim, a glycoPEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, in lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

Data from two European non-interventional studies (NIS NADIR and NIS LEOS) investigating lipegfilgrastim for primary and secondary prophylaxis were pooled. Outcomes included the incidence of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN), use of anti-infectives and antimycotics, and adverse events and their relationship to lipegfilgrastim.

RESULTS

The safety population included 361 patients with lung cancer (median age, 66 years [range, 36-88]), of whom 322 had received 2 or more consecutive cycles of lipegfilgrastim (efficacy population [primary prophylaxis, 75.5%; secondary prophylaxis, 16.5%]). Almost 40% of the patients were considered to have a high risk (>20%) of FN, and around 60% had an intermediate risk (10-20%). For all cycles, FN was reported in 3 patients (0.9%), neutropenia in 14 (4.3%), and grade 4 neutropenia in 9 (2.8%). Anti-infectives were used in 27 patients (8.4%) and antimycotics in 6 (1.9%). The incidence rates were lower for the patients' first cycle (FN, 0.4%; neutropenia, 0.8%; grade 4 neutropenia, 0.8%; anti-infectives, 0.6%; antimycotics, 0.6%). Adverse drug reactions considered lipegfilgrastim related were reported in 35 patients (9.7%), and serious adverse drug reactions in 10 (2.8%). None of the fatal events reported in 28 patients (7.8%) were lipegfilgrastim related.

CONCLUSION

Lipegfilgrastim administered to patients with lung cancer undergoing chemotherapy in real-world clinical practice showed similar effectiveness and safety to that reported in published pivotal trials.

Development and content validation of the Satisfaction and Experience Questionnaire for Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (SEQ-G-CSF)

BACKGROUND

Several options for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia are available to patients worldwide. We have developed a novel patient-reported outcome measure, the Satisfaction and Experience Questionnaire for G-CSF (SEQ-G-CSF), to help understand patients' perspectives of and satisfaction with different G-CSF options.

RESULTS

Three oncology nurses and 40 adult oncology patients in the United States were enrolled and participated in focus group discussions to develop and refine the SEQ-G-CSF. Nurses had ≥ 5 years of experience treating oncology patients and were currently involved in the management of oncology patients receiving G-CSF prophylaxis. The patients had breast cancer, lung cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or prostate cancer (10 patients in each group) and were receiving G-CSF prophylaxis via injection or the on-body injector (OBI) device. The preliminary SEQ-G-CSF contained an item relevance questionnaire and three SEQ modules (sociodemographic, medical history, and G-CSF-related healthcare characteristics questionnaires). Twenty-one patients (53% of total sample size) discussed their experience and satisfaction with G-CSF. Their most common experiences were G-CSF effectiveness, convenience and benefits of the OBI, and relationships with healthcare providers. Side effects and having to undergo additional treatment were also reported. Satisfaction with aspects of G-CSF included the OBI and effectiveness of G-CSF treatment; dissatisfaction included inconvenience (having to return to the clinic the next day and administration of the injection) and the insurance approval process. The SEQ-G-CSF was finalized after three rounds of cognitive interviews and includes five domains related to general satisfaction (one item), treatment burden (four items), travel burden (two items), time burden (four items), and treatment compliance (two items).

CONCLUSIONS

The SEQ-G-CSF is a novel instrument that quantifies a patient's experience and satisfaction with different G-CSF options using 13 easy-to-understand items. This study provides evidence for the content validity of SEQ-G-CSF. Although further psychometric testing is required, the SEQ-G-CSF may be a useful addition to clinical trials, observational studies, and clinical practice.

Analysis of ANC Levels after Filgrastim Therapy in Acute Leukemia Children with Neutropenia

Cytotoxic chemotherapy suppresses the hematopoietic system, and the most serious hematologic toxicity is neutropenia. This can decrease a risk of infection that causes delays in treatment and reduction of dose intensity, which reduces therapeutic outcome. Filgrastim is used to increase neutrophils level whose therapeutic effect is unknown. The effectiveness of filgrastim is based on the ANC level pre- and post-therapy. This study aimed to analyze the use of filgrastim on ANC level changes in acute leukemia children with neutropenia, and to analyze the patient that achieve ANC level’s targeted therapy = 1000 cell/mm3. A prospective observational study with a longitudinal design was conducted from June to October 2016. The inclusion criteria of the study were patients who diagnosed acute leukemia with neutropenia and received filgrastim 10 µg/kgBW for 3, 4, 5 days. Patients’ ANC levels were measured before and after filgrastim therapy. This study has been approved its ethical clearance by Dr. Saiful Anwar Hospital, Malang. Data were obtained on the basis of neutropenic episodes, followed by 7 episodes of obtaining filgrastim for 3 days, 1 episode of obtaining filgrastim for 4 days, and 7 episodes of obtaining filgrastim for 5 days. Thus, it consists of 15 episodes. In 3 days, ANC levels increased by 9.5 fold from 381.3 ± 91.8 cell/mm3 to 3984.9 ± 426.8 cell/mm3, but in 5 days, ANC levels decreased by 0.9 fold from 200.9 cell/mm3 ± 98.2 to 189.7 ± 14.2 cell/mm3. Filgrastim was able to increased the ANC levels around nine fold for 3 days of theraphy. There were 53% neutropenia patients who achieved the goal of therapy. Filgrastim therapy with dose 10 µg/kgBW for 3 to 5 days has been able to reach the therapeutic target of 53% in acute leukemia children with neutropenia. The increased levels of ANC maximum was reached on the third day with increased levels of 9.5 fold.

Change in Body Weight and Serum Albumin Levels in Febrile Neutropenic Lung Cancer Patients

Although advances have been made in the treatment and prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy, it is still a complication that requires clinical attention. Impaired nutritional status in patients who develop FN can affect the continuation of cancer treatment, but it has not been investigated. We conducted a retrospective longitudinal study in order to clarify (1) if body weight and serum albumin levels change in lung cancer patients who do and do not develop FN, and (2) if these indicators are more likely to worsen in patients with FN than in patients without FN. Patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy between January 2011 and June 2020 were consecutively included in the study. Changes in body weight and serum albumin levels were investigated in a case-control study of patients with FN, and control patients without FN who were matched by age, gender, histopathology, and stage of lung cancer, at a ratio of 1:2. During the study period, 226 patients received cytotoxic chemotherapy. Among those, 33 (14.6%) patients developed FN during the first course of cytotoxic chemotherapy. We found a more pronounced decrease in both body weight and serum albumin level at four weeks after the initiation of chemotherapy in FN patients. In order to safely administer effective chemotherapy, medical staff need to pay close attention to the nutritional status of patients receiving chemotherapy.

A retrospective review of the real-world experience of the Pegfilgrastim biosimilar (Lapelga®) to the reference biologic (Neulasta®)

Introduction

Cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy are vulnerable to febrile neutropenia (FN) which contributes to poor treatment outcomes. The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors is administered to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The introduction of biosimilars has allowed for greater cost-savings while maintaining safety and efficacy. This retrospective study assessed the incidence of FN and related treatment outcomes and the cost minimization of a pegfilgrastim biosimilar and its reference.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of breast cancer patients receiving (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy from February 2017 to May 2020 was conducted. The endpoints included the incidence of FN, the occurrence of dose reduction (DR), dose delay (DD) and pain. A cost minimization analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective.

Results

One hundred Neulasta® and 74 Lapelga® patients were included in the first-cycle analysis. The rate of FN in cycle 1 for Neulasta® and Lapelga® was 2/100 and 4/74, respectively; risk difference (RD)  =  3.4%; 95% CI: –2.4 to 9.2%. Eighty-three Neulasta® and 59 Lapelga® patients were included in the all-cycle analyses, where DR was reported in 76 (15%) Neulasta® cycles vs 33 (10%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = –3.6, 95% CI: –10.2 to 2.9). DD was reported in 20 (4%) Neulasta® cycles vs. 11 (3.5%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = –0.3; 95% CI: –2.7 to 2.0). Adverse events were similar between groups. Cost minimization using a cohort of 20,000 patients translated into an incremental savings of $21,606,800 CAD for each cycle.

Conclusion

The biosimilar pegfilgrastim was non-inferior to the reference biologic based on FN incidence in addition to related outcomes including DR and DD.

Is PEGylated G-CSF superior to G-CSF in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

PEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a safe alternative to G-CSF to improve chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). This superiority has resulted in its increased use by physicians; however, the superiority of PEGylated G-CSF for CIN in breast cancer has not been conclusively determined.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the superiority of PEGylated G-CSF for CIN in breast cancer in terms of effectiveness and safety via a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed for eligible studies published from database inception to December 2019. All studies comparing PEGylated G-CSF and G-CSF for CIN of breast cancer were reviewed. After literature selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was conducted using Revman, version 5.2.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials were finally identified. The publication bias of these studies was acceptable. For the endpoint of effectiveness, analysis of the incidence/duration of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, the duration of grade 4 neutropenia, the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), and the time to absolute neutrophil count recovery showed no advantage of PEGylated G-CSF over G-CSF for CIN of breast cancer (P > 0.05), with the premise of a sufficient dose of G-CSF according to the guidelines. No significant differences in grade 4 adverse events were observed between the groups (P = 0.29), and PEGylated G-CSF did not increase the incidence of skeletal and/or muscle pain compared with G-CSF (P = 0.32).

CONCLUSION

PEGylated G-CSF was as effective and safe as G-CSF to reduce CIN in breast cancer but did not show an obvious superiority. However, in clinical practice, PEGylated G-CSF has an obvious advantage in terms of convenience, which could improve patient's quality of life.

Introduction of biosimilar pegfilgrastim in France: Economic analysis of switching from originator

Objectives

To assess the economic impact of introducing biosimilar pegfilgrastim compared to the current standard granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) practice in France.

Methods

A budget impact model was developed to investigate the impact of introducing pegfilgrastim biosimilar over 5 years. The model analysed drug acquisition costs, ambulatory costs, as well as costs associated with poor outcomes, and compared the current standard practice of long-acting and short-acting G-CSF to a revised practice including pegfilgrastim biosimilar in addition to standard practice treatments. The cost of switching to pegfilgrastim biosimilar, within a pharmacy setting, was analysed within the model using data from a survey of French pharmacists.

Results

The budget impact model calculated a cost saving of €51,007,531 over 5 years switching from the current standard practice to pegfilgrastim biosimilar. A sensitivity analysis accounting for variation in pegfilgrastim biosimilar uptake of 1) 15% in year 1 and 1% in years 2–5 and 2) 15% in years 1–5, estimated savings ranging between €29,377,784 and €79,847,194, respectively. A further analysis predicted cost savings of €287,344,835 over 5 years with the extension of pegfilgrastim biosimilar, at an uptake of 15% in year 1 and 7% in years 2–4, to both long-acting and short-acting G-CSF groups compared to unchanged current practice.

Conclusions

The introduction of pegfilgrastim biosimilar will help to reduce cost and alleviate some of the financial pressure on the French healthcare system.

Infection profiles of different chemotherapy regimens and the clinical feasibility of antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients with DLBCL

Various chemotherapy regimens are used to treat patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). However, treatment-related toxicity with a focus on infectious disease has not been fully reviewed. Several phase 3 trials have demonstrated different rates of febrile neutropenia (FN) between regimens (e.g. dose-adjusted (DA) EPOCH-R vs. R-CHOP). With heterogeneous patient characteristics, a combination regimen of lenalidomide or ibrutinib with R-CHOP exhibited promising efficacy with moderate infectious toxicity. While R-bendamustine is feasible for patients who don't tolerate other forms of chemotherapy, clinical data indicate increased opportunistic infections under prolonged lymphopenia. The usefulness of prophylactic antibiotics/antifungal agents in DLBCL patients is controversial owing to shorter and less severe neutropenia than with the induction regimen for acute leukemia or hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor is recommended for intensive regimens such as DA-EPOCH-R, R-DHAP, or R-ICE. Regardless of multiple studies about FN incidence, studies focusing on microbiologic events are limited, and further investigations are warranted.

Neutropenia management in patients receiving myelosuppressive polychemotherapy for early breast cancer in Belgium: BRONS study results

Background: Chemotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of early breast cancer (EBC). Granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) can reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia as primary prophylaxis (PP) or secondary prophylaxis (SP). The BRONS study investigated the incidence of serious neutropenic events (SNE) and G-CSF use in a Belgian population of EBC patients treated with myelosuppressive polychemotherapy.Methods: Conducted in 2011, this study was a prospective, multicentre, observational trial involving 260 patients. The primary endpoint was the incidence of SNE defined as either febrile neutropenia (FN) or prolonged severe neutropenia (PSN; neutrophil count ≤0.5 × 10⁹ for at least five days). Secondary endpoints included a description of the chemotherapeutic regimens prescribed and G-CSF use.Results: Nine percent of patients were treated with a dose-dense regimen (DD) and 91% received classical chemotherapy (CC). PP with G-CSF (PPG) was given to 20% of patients (100% in DD and 11% in CC). Eighteen percent of patients presented a SNE (4% in DD and 20% in CC) of which 15% were FN and 3% PSN. SNE occurrence was 8% in the PPG subgroup and 21% in the no-PPG subgroup. In the DD subgroup, all patients received PPG and no FN was reported. Twenty six adverse events related to G-CSF were reported in 8.2% of patients and two of these were classified as severe.Conclusion: This observational study highlights the high incidence of SNE with CC regimens in patients who do not receive PPG. It also confirms the safe profile of DD regimens with G-CSF support.

Towards a comprehensive safety understanding of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor biosimilars in treating chemotherapy associated febrile neutropenia: Trends from decades of data

Filgrastim, a biopharmaceutical listed on WHO model list of essential medicines, was approved in USA in 1991 for patients with non-myeloid malignancies associated with severe neutropenia and fever. Several filgrastim biosimilars have now been approved in USA, Europe and elsewhere since 2008, based on the reference product which has lost patent exclusivity; however their immunogenicity and safety is controversial. We conducted a retrospective, post market study between 1991 and May 2018 using VigiBase®. The study included all adverse events with case reports ≥150. Overall, 11,183 adverse drugs reaction reports were identified during observation period; of which 5764; 51.5% reports concerned to Neupogen®, the originator, and rest consists of Leucostim® (N = 680), Zarzio® (N = 622), Grasin® (N = 545), Nivestim® (N = 359) and Tevagrastim® (N = 152) biosimilars. When compared with the originator, Grasin® was associated with higher reporting of pyrexia (11.5% vs 7.9%, ROR 1.52, IC₀₂₅ 1.12), myalgia (37% vs 2.2%, ROR 25.94, IC₀₂₅ 2.11) and back pain (11.3% vs 4%, ROR 3.09, IC₀₂₅ 2.32). Zarzio® was associated with increased reporting of arthralgia (4.5% vs 2.9%, ROR 1.59, IC₀₂₅ 1.25) and neutropenia (11.4% vs 4%, ROR 2.59, IC₀₂₅ 3.07). Bone pain was reported more often with Nivestim® (14.4% vs 8.3%, ROR 1.87, IC₀₂₅ 5.30). Drug ineffectiveness was reported in cases with Zarzio® (35.9%), Nivestim® (19.4%) and Tevagrastim® (42.2%). Authors observed significant differences among originator and biosimilars in particular to efficacy, adverse events reported and time to onset of occurrences. Large epidemiologic studies are needed to further confirm these finding and provide additional insights.

Neutropenic complications in the PANTHER phase III study of adjuvant tailored dose-dense chemotherapy in early breast cancer

Introduction: Myelosuppresion is a common side effect of chemotherapy and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is often used to reduce the risk of neutropenic events. The purpose of this exploratory analysis was to investigate neutropenic complications in the phase III PANTHER trial of standard 3-weekly chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide plus docetaxel (FEC/D) versus bi-weekly tailored dose-dense EC/D adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.Patients and methods: Febrile neutropenia, neutropenic infection and infection grade 3-4 according to CTC AE 3.0, were explored in relation to G-CSF use. Per cycle analysis was performed concerning dose reduction and dose delays in conjunction with G-CSF administration.Results: In the experimental group, 98.9% of patients received primary G-CSF support during EC and 97.4% during docetaxel, compared with 49.7% during FEC and 63.88% during docetaxel in the standard group. Overall, the use of G-CSF was associated with a lower risk for developing neutropenic events (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.35-0.55, p < .001). Chemotherapy delays due to neutropenia and leukopenia were significantly decreased among patients that received G-CSF (OR 0.098, 95% CI 0.06-0.15 and OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18-0.58, respectively).Discussion: In conclusion, G-CSF support reduces neutropenic events and permits increased relative dose intensity, which is essential for improved survival outcomes.

RGB-02 (biosimilar pegfilgrastim) in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

Pegfilgrastim is widely used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The development and use of biosimilar agents help to rationalize healthcare expenditure and improve access to modern therapies to all who need them. This review focuses on pegfilgrastims with important role in oncology supportive care. RGB-02 (Gedeon Richter) is a proposed biosimilar to pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (Neulasta^®, Amgen) with sustained release properties. The clinical analyses in three randomized clinical studies provided comparative data between RGB-02 and Neulasta, in a Phase III study patients receiving docetaxel-doxorubicin chemotherapy treatment equivalence was found. No difference was detected in any safety measure including immunogenicity; treatment switch, from the reference product to RGB-02 proved safe. Long-acting pegylated filgrastim RGB-02 has successfully accomplished various steps of biosimilar development.

Risk factors for neutropenia and febrile neutropenia following prophylactic pegfilgrastim

AIM

Neutropenia is a common side effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor is being used for neutropenia prophylaxis, but there are patients who develop neutropenia or febrile neutropenia despite prophylaxis. We attempted to identify potential risk factors for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, observational study of patients with breast cancer or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. We obtained patients' data from electronic medical records, including baseline demographics and clinical characteristics regarding diseases, treatments and laboratory values. The outcome measures assessed were the incidence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia.

RESULTS

There were a total of 127 patients, including 77 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and 50 patients with breast cancer, and we analyzed 722 chemotherapy cycles. We found 88 cases (12.2%) of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and 39 cases of febrile neutropenia (5.4%). In the univariate analysis, variables associated with both grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were age, cancer type, cancer stage, radiotherapy and platelet count. A multivariate logistic regression model revealed that age, radiotherapy and platelet count were significant factors in severe neutropenia, whereas platelet count was the only statistically significant factor in febrile neutropenia. Platelet counts of less than 150 000/mm³ increased the risk of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia approximately fourfold. In the subgroup analysis of patients with DLBCL, it was found that platelet count was a significant factor for both neutropenia and febrile neutropenia.

CONCLUSION

Among cancer patients with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, advanced age, absence of radiation therapy and low platelet count were independent predictors of neutropenia, and low platelet count was the predictor of febrile neutropenia.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving biosimilar filgrastim for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced/febrile neutropaenia: Results from the MONITOR-GCSF study

Objective

Real‐world evidence data on the use of granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor (G‐CSF) in patients with non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited. MONITOR‐GCSF is a pan‐European, multicentre, prospective, non‐interventional study designed to describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients receiving biosimilar filgrastim in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy‐induced neutropaenia (CIN) and febrile neutropaenia (FN).

Methods

In this subanalysis, patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes are described for 345 patients with stage 3 or 4 NSCLC, receiving up to six chemotherapy cycles. Patients were treated with biosimilar filgrastim as per their treating physician's best judgement.

Results

CIN (any grade) occurred in 13.6% of patients in Cycle 1 and in 36.5% of patients in all cycles. FN occurred in 1.4% of patients in Cycle 1 and in 5.2% of patients in all cycles. Grade 3–4 FN occurred in 1.2% of patients in Cycle 1 and in 3.8% of patients in all cycles.

Conclusion

Results show that in real‐life practice in patients with NSCLC, biosimilar filgrastim has similar effectiveness and safety to the known effectiveness and safety profile of reference filgrastim, supporting the use of biosimilar filgrastim for the real‐world treatment of neutropaenia in patients with NSCLC.

Development and validation of a cycle-specific risk score for febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy cycles 2-6 in patients with solid cancers: The CSR FENCE score

The absolute risk reduction by prophylaxis in chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is largest in patients at highest underlying risk. Therefore, reliable predictive models are needed. Here, we develop and validate such a model for risk of FN during chemotherapy cycles 2-6. A prediction score for risk of FN during the first cycle has recently been published. Patients with solid cancers initiating first-line chemotherapy in 2010-2016 were included. Cycle-specific risk factors were assessed by Poisson regression using generalized estimating equations and random split sampling. The derivation cohort included 4,590 patients treated with 15,419 cycles, wherein 326 (2.1%) FN events occurred. Predictors of FN in multivariable analyses were: higher predicted risk of FN in the first cycle, platinum- or taxane-containing therapies, concurrent radiotherapy, treatment in cycle 2 compared to later cycles, previous FN or neutropenia and not receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Each predictor added between -2 and 8 points to each patient's score (median score 4; interquartile range, 1-6). The incidence rate ratios for developing FN in the intermediate (score 1-4), high (score 5-6) and very high risk groups (score ≥7) were 7.8 (95% CI, 2.4-24.9), 18.6 (95% CI, 5.9-58.8) and 51.7 (95% CI, 16.5-162.3) compared to the low risk group (score ≤0), respectively. The score had good discriminatory ability with a Harrell's C-statistic of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.76-0.80) in the derivation and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72-0.78) in the validation cohort (patient n = 2,295, cycle n = 7,670). The Cycle-Specific Risk of FEbrile Neutropenia after ChEmotherapy score is the first published method to estimate cycle-specific risk of FN.

AUGMENT: A Phase III Study of Lenalidomide Plus Rituximab Versus Placebo Plus Rituximab in Relapsed or Refractory Indolent Lymphoma

PURPOSE

Patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma typically respond well to first-line immunochemotherapy. At relapse, single-agent rituximab is commonly administered. Data suggest the immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide could increase the activity of rituximab.

METHODS

A phase III, multicenter, randomized trial of lenalidomide plus rituximab versus placebo plus rituximab was conducted in patients with relapsed and/or refractory follicular or marginal zone lymphoma. Patients received lenalidomide or placebo for 12 cycles plus rituximab once per week for 4 weeks in cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2 through 5. The primary end point was progression-free survival per independent radiology review.

RESULTS

A total of 358 patients were randomly assigned to lenalidomide plus rituximab (n = 178) or placebo plus rituximab (n = 180). Infections (63% v 49%), neutropenia (58% v 23%), and cutaneous reactions (32% v 12%) were more common with lenalidomide plus rituximab. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (50% v 13%) and leukopenia (7% v 2%) were higher with lenalidomide plus rituximab; no other grade 3 or 4 adverse event differed by 5% or more between groups. Progression-free survival was significantly improved for lenalidomide plus rituximab versus placebo plus rituximab, with a hazard ratio of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.62; P < .001) and median duration of 39.4 months (95% CI, 22.9 months to not reached) versus 14.1 months (95% CI, 11.4 to 16.7 months), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Lenalidomide improved efficacy of rituximab in patients with recurrent indolent lymphoma, with an acceptable safety profile.

Prevention of Infection: A Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Practice Interventions for Management in Patients With Cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer-related infections lead to increases in mortality, antibiotic use, and hospital stays. Other adverse outcomes include dose delays and reductions, which can result in suboptimal treatment outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

Effective implementation of risk assessment and evidence-based interventions for the prevention and treatment of infection are essential to improve care and reduce costs related to infections in patients with cancer receiving immunosuppressive therapy.

METHODS

The Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) Putting Evidence Into Practice (PEP) prevention of infection resource have been developed and updated to identify and disseminate the best available scientific evidence.

FINDINGS

Pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions were evaluated, resulting in recommended for practice rating for catheter care bundles, antimicrobial prophylaxis, vaccination for specific populations, and implementation of contact precautions for resistant organisms.

Filgrastim prophylaxis in elderly cancer patients in the real-life setting: a French multicenter observational study, the TULIP study

Purpose

Few studies are currently available among elderly patients, justifying the need for better understanding of daily medical practices in terms of use of growth factors to prevent chemotherapy (CT)-induced neutropenia. The primary objective of this study was to describe the use of filgrastim in the elderly.

Methods

Cancer patients aged 65 years and above, undergoing CT and initiating a prophylactic treatment with filgrastim, were enrolled. Patients were followed according to routine medical practice from filgrastim initiation until the end of the CT or after a maximum of 6 cycles.

Results

One thousand one hundred nineteen evaluable patients were documented in the study (mean age 73.9 ± 6.2 years, 52.1% men). The majority were suffering from solid tumor (73%) with ECOG 0–1 for 80% of them. Approximately two-third had a global risk for FN ≥ 20%, and one third < 20%. Through all CT cycles, no differences were observed between age classes ([65–74], [75–85], or > 85) in dose, duration, and time to first injection from CT start. Most patients (84%) received primary prophylaxis (PP) and 70% were administered during the first CT cycle. The median time from CT start until filgrastim was 4 days. The median duration of filgrastim treatment was 5 days. Dose reductions and CT delays were less frequent in patients receiving PP (4.8% and 7.1% respectively) than secondary prophylaxis (9.2% and 13.3% respectively).

Conclusions

Filgrastim use was consistent with French Market Authorization terms. No difference was shown compared with younger patients. Safety data were consistent with the known safety profile.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-019-04725-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Medication overuse in oncology: current trends and future implications for patients and society

The high cost of cancer care worldwide is largely attributable to rising drugs prices. Despite their high costs and potential toxic effects, anticancer treatments could be subject to overuse, which is defined as the provision of medical services that are more likely to harm than to benefit a patient. We found 30 studies documenting medication overuse in cancer, which included 16 examples of supportive medication overuse and 17 examples of antineoplastic medication overuse in oncology. Few specific agents have been assessed, and no studies investigated overuse of the most toxic or expensive medications currently used in cancer treatment. Although financial, psychological, or physical harms of medication overuse in cancer could be substantial, there is little published evidence addressing these harms, so their magnitude is unclear. Further research is needed to better quantify medication overuse, understand its implications, and help protect patients and the health-care system from overuse.

Multiday corticosteroids in cancer chemotherapy delay the diagnosis of and antimicrobial administration for febrile neutropenia: a double-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Medical staff should promptly administer antimicrobials to patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) to decrease the mortality related to cancer chemotherapy. Corticosteroids, which are used in cancer chemotherapy, have a fever-suppressive effect. This effect could lead to a blunt fever response and any local signs of infection, especially in patients receiving multiday corticosteroid administration. The aim of this study was to determine whether multiday corticosteroid administration in cancer chemotherapy delays the diagnosis of and antimicrobial treatment for FN.

METHODS

We conducted a double-center retrospective study in Japanese patients with FN. The patients were divided into two groups based on the corticosteroid administration method, i.e., whether administration was multiday or not. To evaluate the degree of masking on FN by corticosteroids, we assessed the correlation between body temperature variation and time of antimicrobial administration after the initiation of chemotherapy. Risk factors for delayed antimicrobial administration were identified by multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirteen patients were analyzed. The median time required to body temperature reaching 37.5 °C and for antimicrobial administration was longer in the multiday group than in the non-multiday group, with 0.64 and 0.60 days (P = 0.002 and P < 0.001), respectively. Multiday corticosteroid use was identified as an independent risk factor for delayed antimicrobial administration (odds ratio = 3.94; 95% confidence interval = 1.80-8.62; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiday corticosteroid administration in cancer chemotherapy delayed the diagnosis of and antimicrobial administration for FN. Furthermore, it was the only risk factor for delayed antimicrobial administration. We could thus provide evidence that the diagnosis of and antimicrobial administration for FN in patients receiving multiday corticosteroid administration should not be based on body temperature variation alone.

Lenograstim and filgrastim in the febrile neutropenia prophylaxis of hospitalized patients: efficacy and cost of the prophylaxis in a retrospective survey

Purpose

We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and related costs of using two different molecules of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) (lenograstim - LENO or filgrastim - FIL) as primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in a hematological inpatient setting.

Methods

The primary endpoints of the analysis were the efficacy of the two G-CSFs in terms of the level of white blood cells, hemoglobin and platelets at the end of the treatment and the per capita direct medical costs related to G-CSF prophylaxis.

Results

Two hundred twelve patients (96 LENO, 116 FIL) have been evaluated. The following statistically significant differences have been observed between FIL and LENO: the use of a higher number of vials (11 vs 7; P<0.03) to fully recover bone marrow, a higher grade 3-4 neutropenia at the time of G-CSF discontinuation (29.3% vs 16.7%; P=0.031) and an increased number of days of hospitalization (8 vs 5; P<0.005). A longer hospital stay before discharge was necessary (12 vs 10), which reflects the higher final costs per patient (median treatment cost per cycle 10.706 € for LENO, compared to 12.623 € for FIL).

Conclusion

The use of LENO has been associated with a lower number of days of hospitalization, number of vials and less incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia at the time of G-CSF discontinuation. LENO seems to be cost-saving when compared with FIL (-15.2%).

Biosimilar filgrastim treatment patterns and prevention of febrile neutropenia: a prospective multicentre study in France in patients with solid tumours (the ZOHé study)

Background

The ZOHé study was a prospective, non-interventional, multicentre study in France to assess the use of biosimilar filgrastim Zarzio® (Sandoz filgrastim) in routine clinical practice in patients at risk of neutropenia-inducing chemotherapy (CT).

Methods

Patients ≥ 18 years undergoing CT for a malignant disease and with a first prescription for Zarzio® were enrolled in two cohorts according to tumour type: solid tumour or haematological malignancy; results from the solid tumour cohort are reported here. Analyses primarily described the prescription and use of Zarzio® in current practice, and also included identification of factors linked to prescription for primary prophylaxis and comparison of Zarzio® use in relation to European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines.

Results

Responses were obtained from 125 physicians and 1179 patients with solid tumours, allowing robust statistical analysis of the data. Use of Zarzio® in clinical practice was relatively standardised and followed label indication. The patient profile was in line with EORTC guidelines for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis, and the majority of patients had ≥ 1 EORTC factor(s) for increased risk of febrile neutropenia. Some patients (10.8%) received Zarzio® despite receiving CT regimens categorised in guidelines as low (< 10%) FN risk (‘over prophylaxis’). Nearly half of patients’ CT regimens did not have a recommended FN risk category. Zarzio® was commonly initiated as primary prophylaxis; initiation in Cycle ≥ 2 of the current line of CT was associated more with a history of neutropenia. The safety profile of Zarzio® was confirmed.

Conclusions

Use of Zarzio® in routine clinical practice is generally in line with EORTC guidelines for prophylaxis of CT-induced neutropenia. Patient-related risk factors appear to be a stronger driver of clinicians’ decision to initiate Zarzio® than CT risk category for FN. The intrinsic risk of FN associated with a specific CT protocol is often miscategorised by physicians. In contrast to earlier reports of underuse of G-CSF prophylaxis, over prophylaxis is observed in a small subgroup of patients with FN risk of < 10%.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4986-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.