-
BMC Health Services Research Dec 2022Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a prevalent and potentially life-threatening complication in patients with lymphoma receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is...
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.
Topics: Humans; Filgrastim; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia; Polyethylene Glycols; Antineoplastic Agents; Lymphoma; Recombinant Proteins; Febrile Neutropenia; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36585648
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08933-z -
Cancers Dec 2022There are limited published data in the Canadian healthcare system on the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) among patients with breast cancer. This...
BACKGROUND
There are limited published data in the Canadian healthcare system on the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) among patients with breast cancer. This study characterized real-world G-CSF use during the period surrounding the introduction of filgrastim biosimilar.
METHODS
Electronic medical records were reviewed retrospectively for patients with breast cancer who received moderately or highly myelosuppressive (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy from 2008 to 2019 in Alberta, Canada. Trends in G-CSF usage were plotted to elucidate temporal variations and multivariable regression models were constructed to identify clinical factors associated with G-CSF use.
RESULTS
We included 6662 patients in our analyses. G-CSF was used in 57.1% of patients during their treatment trajectory. Among the 3801 patients who were treated with G-CSF, the majority received pegfilgrastim only (91.5%; = 3477) versus filgrastim only (5.7%; = 217). G-CSF use increased linearly more than two-fold over the 11-year study period. Predictors of G-CSF use included younger age, south zone of residence, higher neighborhood education, inferior disease stage, highly neutropenic risk chemotherapy, and more recent chemotherapy initiation.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite increasing G-CSF usage over time, an appreciable proportion of patients for whom G-CSF prophylaxis is recommended did not receive it. G-CSF use could be further optimized to align with supportive care clinical guidelines and reduce the impact of neutropenia and its associated complications.
PubMed: 36551681
DOI: 10.3390/cancers14246197 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Nov 2022Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is a medical emergency that causes severe adverse effects and death. Respiratory infections are one of the main causes of...
Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is a medical emergency that causes severe adverse effects and death. Respiratory infections are one of the main causes of fever in patients with FN. We studied whether infection prevention and control (IPC) guidance for coronavirus 2019 disease reduced the incidence of FN. We reviewed female patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide with prophylactic pegfilgrastim between 2019 and 2021. IPC guidance was implemented in April 2020. There was no difference in the incidence of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia between patients with and without IPC. In patients with IPC, the incidence of FN (9.5%) was lower than that of patients without IPC (27.9%). The hospitalization duration (0.7 ± 1.5 days) and total hospital cost (279.6 ± 42.6 USD) of the IPC group were significantly lower than that of the non-IPC group (2.0 ± 3.8 days and 364.7 ± 271.6 USD, respectively). IPC guidance should be implemented to prevent FN in high-risk patients with breast cancer.
PubMed: 36498628
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11237053 -
EClinicalMedicine Dec 2022In trials conducted in India, recombinant granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF) improved survival in alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH). The aim of this trial was...
BACKGROUND
In trials conducted in India, recombinant granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF) improved survival in alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH). The aim of this trial was to determine the safety and efficacy of pegfilgrastim, a long-acting recombinant GCSF, in patients with AH in the United States.
METHODS
This prospective, randomized, open label trial conducted between March 2017 and March 2020 randomized patients with a clinical diagnosis of AH and a Maddrey discriminant function score ≥32 to standard of care (SOC) or SOC+pegfilgrastim (0.6 mg subcutaneously) on Day 1 and Day 8 (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02776059). SOC was 28 days of either pentoxifylline or prednisolone, as determined by the patient's primary physician. The second injection of pegfilgrastim was not administered if the white blood cell count exceeded 30,000/mm on Day 8. Primary outcome was survival at Day 90. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), hepatic encephalopathy, or infections.
FINDINGS
The study was terminated early due to COVID19 pandemic. Eighteen patients were randomized to SOC and 16 to SOC+pegfilgrastim. All patients received prednisolone as SOC. Nine patients failed to receive a second dose of pegfilgrastin due to WBC > 30,000/mm on Day 8. Survival at 90 days was similar in both groups (SOC: 0.83 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-0.94] vs. pegfilgrastim: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.44-0.89]; p > 0.05; CI for difference: -0.18-0.38). The incidences of AKI, HRS, hepatic encephalopathy, and infections were similar in both treatment arms and there were no serious adverse events attributed to pegfilgrastim.
INTERPRETATION
This phase II trial found no survival benefit at 90 days among subjects with AH who received pegfilgrastim+prednisolone compared with subjects receiving prednisolone alone.
FUNDING
was provided by the United States National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism U01-AA021886 and U01-AA021884.
PubMed: 36267499
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101689 -
Cancer Reports (Hoboken, N.J.) Nov 2022Biologicals have become an integral part of cancer treatment both as therapeutic agents and as supportive care agents. It is important to know that biologics are large,... (Review)
Review
Biologicals have become an integral part of cancer treatment both as therapeutic agents and as supportive care agents. It is important to know that biologics are large, complex molecular entities requiring extensive immunogenicity testing and pharmacovigilance strategies to ensure no immune response is evoked in the body. Oncology's pharmacological market is dominated by biologics; however, their high development and manufacturing costs are burdensome to health care systems. Biologics being the most expensive prescription drugs on the market limit the accessibility for necessary treatment in the case of many patients. As biologics patents expire, the development of biosimilars is underway in an effort to lower costs and enable patients to access new cancer therapies. Regulatory guidelines for biosimilars have now been established and are constantly being revised to address any issues, facilitating their robust development. Moreover, many scientific societies offer guidance to help stakeholders better understand current regulations and biosimilar's safety. Despite the potential cost benefits, lack of knowledge about biosimilars, and the possibility of immunogenicity have created an uncertain environment for healthcare professionals and patients. In this review, we provide an overview of relevant legislation and regulations, pharmacoeconomics, and stakeholder perceptions regarding biosimilars. The article also describes biosimilars in development, as well as the ones currently available on the market.
Topics: Humans; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Antineoplastic Agents; Medical Oncology
PubMed: 36195576
DOI: 10.1002/cnr2.1720 -
Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Dec 2022Contemporary, prospective data regarding the impact of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) on outcomes after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Contemporary, prospective data regarding the impact of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) on outcomes after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (Auto-HSCT) in an era when stem cell grafts are more qualitatively robust are limited. Recent retrospective analyses have not supported a beneficial effect of post-transplantation G-CSF use on major outcomes after Auto-HSCT leading to strategies to delay or eliminate the use of G-CSF altogether in this context. To test the hypothesis that the infusion of consistently higher doses of stem cells (defined as ≥4 × 10/kg) in Auto-HSCT will obviate the need for post-transplantation G-CSF. If so, the impact of withholding G-CSF will be noninferior to the use of G-CSF in terms of length of stay (LOS). The specific objectives were to conduct a prospective, randomized clinical trial primarily examining the impact of post-transplantation G-CSF on LOS, and secondarily on engraftment, infectious complications, antibiotic usage, and incidence of engraftment syndrome after Auto-HSCT in patients receiving versus not receiving G-CSF after Auto-HSCT. Patients with multiple myeloma or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who underwent Pegfilgrastim plus Plerixafor-primed stem cell collection followed by Auto-HSCT were randomized to the G-CSF group (receive G-CSF starting at day 3 after Auto-HSCT) or the no G-CSF group (G-CSF withheld after Auto-HSCT). Seventy patients per arm were planned to demonstrate the primary endpoint of noninferiority in LOS between the G-CSF and the no G-CSF groups. Patient outcomes in the two groups were followed up and compared after Auto-HSCT, and an interim analysis for futility was planned when accrual reached 50%.The primary finding of this study was that despite only a 2-day longer median absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery in the no G-CSF arm (median 11 versus 13 days; P = .001), LOS was 4 days longer in patients not treated with G-CSF (median 11 days versus 15 days; P = .001). G-CSF use was associated with more robust incremental daily increases in ANC once recovered (P = .001), fewer days of febrile neutropenia (P = .001), and fewer days on antibiotics (P = .001), potentially contributing to this disproportionate finding. Inferiority in LOS in the no G-CSF group was demonstrated on the interim analysis, and the study was closed at the half-way point. There were no significant group differences in platelet recovery, documented infections, hospital readmissions, or overall survival at 1 year. Engraftment syndrome occurred in 54.3% of patients and was not related to G-CSF use. These results suggest that the increased LOS associated with the omission of G-CSF is largely due to concerns regarding the potential for infection in patients without a stable, recovered ANC in a hospital setting. Engraftment syndrome represented a significant source of febrile neutropenia further contributing to patient safety concerns and requires strategies to decrease its incidence. Infectious complications and death were not affected by the omission of G-CSF supporting a carefully monitored outpatient approach to Auto-HSCT in which white blood cell growth factor is eliminated or given as needed for documented infection. © 2023 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Topics: Humans; Transplantation, Autologous; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Mobilization; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Heterocyclic Compounds; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Febrile Neutropenia
PubMed: 36167307
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtct.2022.09.012 -
Oncology and Therapy Dec 2022Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biologics, such as pegfilgrastim, are a standard of care in supportive cancer treatment that are administered once per... (Review)
Review
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.
PubMed: 36114331
DOI: 10.1007/s40487-022-00207-2 -
Cancers Aug 2022Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia are common and potentially life-threating events associated with chemotherapy treatment in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Neutropenia-related...
Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia are common and potentially life-threating events associated with chemotherapy treatment in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Neutropenia-related infectious events could be an issue both for direct clinical consequences and for delay in treatment delivery, affecting final outcomes in a potentially highly curable disease. Pegfilgrastim is the pegylated form of filgrastim, the recombinant form of human G-CSF, capable of prevent and mitigate neutropenic effects of chemotherapy, when adopted as primary prophylaxis in several hematological malignancies. No updated version of major international guidelines provides clear indication on prophylaxis use of pegfilgrastim in HL to prevent febrile neutropenia episodes in HL. Moreover, to date, scarce and non-uniform clinical experiences evaluating pegfilgrastim as prophylaxis in HL are present in the literature. Herein, we propose a brief summary of the literature data about efficacy and safety of the use of pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis in HL during chemotherapy treatment.
PubMed: 36077600
DOI: 10.3390/cancers14174063 -
Surgical Case Reports Aug 2022Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is increasingly used to prevent chemotherapy-associated febrile neutropenia. Generally, aortitis is not considered a side...
BACKGROUND
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is increasingly used to prevent chemotherapy-associated febrile neutropenia. Generally, aortitis is not considered a side effect of G-CSF and is thought to be extremely rare. Aortitis is an inflammation of the aorta and occurs mainly in connective tissue diseases (Takayasu arteritis, giant cell arteritis, etc.) and infectious diseases (bacterial endocarditis, syphilis, etc.). We report herein a rare case of G-CSF associated with aortitis in a woman with breast cancer.
CASE PRESENTATION
Here, we present a case involving a 63-year-old woman with luminal type stage IIa breast cancer. The patient's treatment was initiated with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide, with pegfilgrastim (PEG-G) as support. After PEG-G administration on day 3, the patient developed an intermittent fever of up to 39.4 °C on day 10 and visited our outpatient clinic on day 13 with persistent high fever. Laboratory tests revealed a high neutrophil count (14,000/μL) and a high C-reactive protein (CRP) level (42.8 mg/dL) without any other abnormalities. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography scanning revealed soft tissue thickening with weak enhancement around the wall of the thoraco-abdominal aorta, aortic arch and left subclavian artery. The patient did not respond to antimicrobial agents. On the basis of these observations, the patient was diagnosed with PEG-G-induced aortitis, and her condition rapidly improved without corticosteroids.
CONCLUSIONS
Clinicians should be aware of aortitis as a potential complication in patients undergoing G-CSF chemotherapy. In cases with persistent high fever after PEG-G administration, and in the absence of infection, aortitis should be suspected.
PubMed: 35980544
DOI: 10.1186/s40792-022-01514-6 -
JAMA Health Forum Sep 2021This cross-sectional study describes changes in annual Medicare Part B spending for biologic drugs after biosimilar entry, focusing on the first 4 products to experience...
This cross-sectional study describes changes in annual Medicare Part B spending for biologic drugs after biosimilar entry, focusing on the first 4 products to experience biosimilar competition: filgrastim, infliximab, epoetin alpha, and pegfilgrastim.
Topics: Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Cross-Sectional Studies; Infliximab; Medicare Part B; United States
PubMed: 35977178
DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.2634