Search

Introduction: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious side-effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Several clinical trials and observational studies have evaluated the effects of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) on risk of FN and related complications; however, no systematic reviews have focused on effectiveness in routine clinical practice. Here, we perform a systematic review assessing the comparative effectiveness of prophylaxis with a long-acting G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) versus short-acting G-CSFs (filgrastim, lenograstim, and filgrastim biosimilars) in cancer patients in real-world clinical settings., Methods: A systematic review was performed based on a pre-specified protocol and was consistent with the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook (2009) and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care (2011). MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles published from January 2002 to June 2014. Congress databases (MASCC/ASCO/ESMO) and Google Scholar were searched for abstracts published from January 2012 to August 2014. Filgrastim (NEUPOGEN®), lenograstim and nivestim (a filgrastim biosimilar) were the only short-acting G-CSFs and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) was the only long-acting G-CSF described in eligible studies. Outcomes of interest were FN, FN-related hospitalisation and other FN-related complications (death, chemotherapy dose delays and reductions, antimicrobial treatment, severe neutropenia and costs and resource use)., Results: Of 1259 unique records identified, 18 real-world observational studies met predefined inclusion criteria; 15 were retrospective studies, and 3 were prospective studies. Multiple tumour types, chemotherapy regimens and geographical regions were included. Seven studies provided statistical comparisons of the risk of FN; risk of FN among patients receiving prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus short-acting G-CSF was significantly lower in three studies, numerically lower in three studies, and numerically higher in one study. Six studies provided statistical comparisons of the risk of FN-related hospitalisation; risk of FN-related hospitalisation among patients receiving prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus short-acting G-CSF was significantly lower in all six studies, though some variation was seen in subanalyses. Data for other outcomes were sparse with available results being generally consistent with the results seen for risk of FN and FN-related hospitalisation., Conclusions: Based on the findings from this review of real-world comparative effectiveness studies, risks of FN and FN-related complications were generally lower for prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus prophylaxis with short-acting G-CSFs., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Purpose: Mild-to-moderate bone pain is a commonly reported adverse event (AE) associated with pegfilgrastim. We evaluated the effect of prophylactic naproxen or loratadine vs no prophylactic treatment on pegfilgrastim-associated bone pain.Methods: In this open-label study (NCT01712009), women ≥ 18 years of age with newly diagnosed stage I-III breast cancer and an ECOG performance status ≤ 2 who were planning ≥ 4 cycles of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim support starting in cycle 1 were randomized 1:1:1 to receive naproxen, loratadine, or no treatment to prevent pegfilgrastim-associated bone pain. The primary endpoint was all-grade bone pain in cycle 1 from AE reporting. Secondary endpoints included bone pain in cycles 2-4 and across all cycles from AE reporting and patient-reported bone pain by cycle and across all cycles.Results: Six hundred patients were enrolled. Most patients (83.0%) were white, and mean (SD) age was 54.2 (11.1) years. The percentage of patients with all-grade bone pain in cycle 1 from AE reporting in the naproxen, loratadine, and no prophylaxis groups was 40.3, 42.5, and 46.6%, respectively; differences between the treatment groups were not statistically significant. Maximum, mean, and area under the curve for patient-reported bone pain were consistently lower in the naproxen and loratadine groups than in the no prophylaxis group; some of these differences were significant. Loratadine was associated with fewer treatment-related AEs and discontinuations than naproxen.Conclusions: Given its tolerability, its ease of administration, and its potential benefit, treatment with loratadine should be considered to help prevent bone pain in patients receiving chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ; NCT01712009. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To describe patient- and practice-related factors that physicians report affect their clinical decision to administer prophylactic pegfilgrastim to patients <24 h after completion of a myelosuppressive chemotherapy cycle (i.e., "same-day" pegfilgrastim).Methods: Oncologists, hematologists, and hematologist-oncologists enrolled in a US national physician panel were invited to participate in a cross-sectional, web-based survey to assess physicians' reasons for prescribing "same-day" pegfilgrastim. Physicians were screened as eligible if they reported prescribing "same-day" pegfilgrastim within the previous 6 months. The survey assessed physician perspectives and physician-perceived patient/caregiver preferences.Results: Of 17,478 invited physicians, 386 answered the screening questions; 151 (39.1 %) were eligible, agreed to participate, and completed the survey. Physicians estimated that overall 41.3 % of their patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy received pegfilgrastim and that 31.6 % treated with pegfilgrastim received it on a "same-day" schedule. Approximately 36 % of physicians relied primarily on their clinical judgment when deciding to administer "same-day" pegfilgrastim. The clinical consideration reported most commonly by physicians as moderately or very important when deciding to administer "same-day" pegfilgrastim was previous febrile neutropenia (77.6 %). The most important patient-related consideration in the decision to administer "same-day" pegfilgrastim was patient/caregiver travel distance, and the most important practice-related consideration was the burden to the physician's practice of "next-day" administration (vs. same-day), reported by 84.7 % and 65.1 % of physicians as moderately or very important, respectively.Conclusions: While clinical judgment, patients' risk factors, and practice burden were principal influences favoring "same-day" pegfilgrastim administration, physician-perceived patient preferences and logistical barriers also have important roles in this decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Accumulating evidence suggests that not all cancer chemotherapy patients who receive first-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis continue to receive it in subsequent cycles and that these patients may be subsequently at higher risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Additional evidence from US clinical practice is warranted.Methods: Data from two US private healthcare claims repositories were employed. The source population comprised adults who received "intermediate-risk" or "high-risk" chemotherapy regimens for solid cancers or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and first-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. From the source population, all patients who did not receive second-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis ("comparison patients") were matched (1:1) to those who received it ("pegfilgrastim patients") based on cancer, regimen, and propensity score. Odds ratios (OR) for FN-broad and narrow definitions-during the second chemotherapy cycle were estimated for comparison patients versus pegfilgrastim patients using generalized estimating equations.Results: A total of 2245 comparison patients (5.3 % of source population) were matched to pegfilgrastim patients; cohorts were well-balanced on baseline characteristics. Second-cycle FN incidence proportions for comparison and pegfilgrastim patients were 3.8 versus 2.2 % based on broad definition and 2.6 versus 0.8 % based on narrow definition; corresponding OR were 1.7 (95 % CI 1.2-2.5, p = 0.002) and 3.5 (95 % CI 2.0-6.0, p < 0.001). Results were similar within cancer/regimen-subgroups and were robust when using alternative methods for confounding adjustment.Conclusions: In this retrospective evaluation of cancer chemotherapy patients who received first-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice, a clinically relevant minority did not receive second-cycle prophylaxis. Second-cycle FN odds among this subset were significantly higher than they were among those who continued prophylaxis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]