Search

Aim. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Extimia® (empegfilgrastim, JSC "BIOCAD") in reducing the frequency, duration of neutropenia, the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and infections caused by FN in patients with solid tumors receiving myelosuppressive therapy. Materials and methods. The paper presents the final results of a multicenter prospective observational post-marketing study of the safety and effectiveness of Extimia® (empegfilgrastim) in patients with solid tumors receiving cytotoxic therapy. For the primary prevention of FN, all patients received empegfilgrastim at 7.5 mg subcutaneously once per course of chemotherapy (CT) 24 hours after the end of CT administration. The primary endpoint included an assessment of the relative dose-intensity (RDI) of the CT courses administered. The endpoints of interest included the assessment of the RDI of CT courses by nosology and CT regimen, the frequency of dose-limiting neutropenia, and the incidence of all adverse events (AEs) in patients who received at least one dose of the study medication, including serious AEs. Results. From February 2021 to December 2022, 3218 patients with various malignancies were included in 41 study centers of the Russian Fede- ration. Of these, 3217 (99.97%) patients received at least one dose of the study drug, and 2663 (82.8%) patients were included in the RDI evaluation population according to the study protocol. The mean age in this group was 56.9 (18–84) years. RDI ≥85% was achieved in 2,415 (90.7%) patients. The mean RDI was 96.2%, with a median of 100%. FN risk factors were present in 1216 (45.7%) patients, with age ≥65 years being the most common risk factor at 761/2663 (28.6%). It should be noted that in patients younger than 65 years, the RDI was 91.5%, and in elderly patients (≥65 years) 88.7%. Dose-limiting neutropenia was reported in 19 (0.7%) patients. There were 74 cases of grade 3–4 AEs (according to CTCAE v.5) in 59 (1.8%) patients. The most common were neutropenia, anemia, and diarrhea in 19 (0.7%), 7 (0.2%), and 6 (0.2%) patients, respectively. Serious AEs were reported in 17 patients (0.5%). Conclusion. Primary prophylaxis of FN with long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor empegfilgrastim effectively maintains RDI in various nosological and therapeutic groups of patients with different CT regimens in real-world clinical practice.

Data about biosimilar Peg-filgrastim (bioPEG) in autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) are still scarce. The aim of this study has been to assess efficacy and safety of bioPEG among lymphoma and myeloma patients undergoing ASCT, comparing these data with historical controls receiving other G-CSFs. Furthermore, an economic evaluation has been included to estimate the savings by using bioPEG. This is a prospective cohort study comparing lymphoma and myeloma patients undergoing ASCT and receiving bioPEG (n = 73) with three historical consecutive cohorts collected retrospectively who received other G-CSFs (Lenograstim — Leno — n = 101, biosimilar Filgrastim — bioFIL n = 392, and originator Peg-filgrastim — oriPEG n = 60). We observed a significantly shorter time to neutrophils and platelet engraftment (p < 0.001) in patients treated with bioPEG and oriPEG. Moreover, patients who received bioPEG showed a shorter hospitalization time (p < 0.001) and a lower transfusion need (p < 0.001). We did not observe any significant difference in terms of transplant-related mortality, mucositis, and diarrhea among the four groups. No serious adverse events were associated with bioPEG. Similar data were obtained after running a stratified analysis for lymphomas and myeloma separately conducted by using a propensity score matching. The average total cost per patient of bioPEG was € 18218.9 compared to € 23707.8, € 20677.3 and € 19754.9 of Leno, oriPEG, and bioFIL, respectively. In conclusion, bioPEG seems to be as effective as the originator and more effective than short-acting G-CSFs in terms of post-transplant engraftment in myeloma and lymphoma patients undergoing ASCT. Moreover, bioPEG was cost-effective when compared with the other G-CSFs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) receiving R-CHOP-21. The prophylactic use of granulocyte colony–stimulating factors (G-CSFs) can significantly reduce the risk of FN. International guidelines recommend G-CSFs for patients receiving chemotherapy with FN risk of 20% or 10 to 20% with defined risk factors. However, there are few studies on the incidence and risk factors of FN in patients with DLBCL receiving R-CHOP-21, especially in patients without primary G-CSF prophylaxis. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis for the clinical data of 103 patients with DLBCL who underwent first R-CHOP-21 without primary G-CSF prophylaxis. The objective of the assessment was the incidence and risk factors of FN after the first chemotherapy cycle. Results: After the first chemotherapy cycle, the incidence of FN was 20.4%. Multivariate analysis showed that age ≥ 65 years, bone marrow involvement, albumin < 35 g/L, and average relative dose intensity ≥ 80% were independent risk factors for FN. According to risk factors, we created a risk score system. The incidence of FN in the low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups was 5.6%, 17.2%, and 61.9%, respectively. Conclusion: Our data indicated that R-CHOP-21 itself is associated with a high-risk regiment for FN. We recommend that intermediate/high-risk patients should actively consider primary G-CSF prophylaxis to reduce the incidence of FN after chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rituximab-based combinations are the standard of care in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL). Despite being on market for over 20 years, some of the adverse effects associated with the use of rituximab are not well known. Drug-induced interstitial pneumonitis (DIP) is a potentially fatal complication of the treatment. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) are supportive agents commonly used to prevent neutropenic infections. G-CSF are reported to have pulmonary toxicity, but the risk of DIP is greater when used in combination with other potentially pulmotoxic agents. Methods: In this retrospective study, we reported the G-CSF use and risk of DIP in 234 DLBCL patients and 87 FL patients receiving R-CHOP-type immunochemotherapy. Results: In 72% of patients, the treatment included a G-CSF support. The overall incidence of treatment-induced pneumonitis was 6.9% in this patient group. All the DIP cases (n=16) were among patients receiving G-CSF support (p=0.03). Older age (over 60 years) and higher disease stage (Ann Arbor 3–4) also increased the risk of DIP. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the use of G-CSF increases the risk of DIP, when used in combination with rituximab-containing regimen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim. To assess the proportion and profile of patients at high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy (CT), as well as the incidence of FN and dose-limiting neutropenia after one cycle of CT. Materials and methods. The paper presents the results of the FLAME study, the first Russian observational study in patients with solid tumors who received only cytotoxic CT or a combination with targeted, immuno-oncological drugs. By random sampling, the study retrospectively included 500 patients with a median age of 59 years (18–83 years) from 25 medical institutions in the Russian Federation. Results. CT regimens with a high (20%) risk of FN were received by 25.2% (126/500) of patients; 53% (265/500) of patients had intermediate risk, and half of them (132/265 [49.8%]) had at least one additional risk FN factor following international NCCN guidelines. Thus, a high risk of FN, according to the therapy and the assessment of individual prognostic adverse factors, was noted in 51.6% (258/500) of patients. 36.8% (95/258) of patients with high risk for FN received primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Conclusion. The study showed a significant proportion of patients with a high risk of FN, and most of them do not receive primary prophylaxis of FN.

Neutropenia is a common complication during anti-cancer therapy. Risk factors for febrile neutropenia, its diagnostic criteria, and methods of its prevention and treatment have been well described. In this article, we demonstrated the need to assess cost effectiveness of primary prevention of complications associated with polychemotherapy and treatment of neutropenia, as well as the need to analyze their incidence. Individual risk assessment of febrile neutropenia, implementation of the antimicrobial drug registry, and administration of pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor reduced the incidence of neutropenia, its duration, and the number of antimicrobial drugs used. This, in turn, improved the quality of healthcare and optimized the use of hospital resources.

Abstract Background Rituximab‐based combinations are the standard of care in diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL). Despite being on market for over 20 years, some of the adverse effects associated with the use of rituximab are not well known. Drug‐induced interstitial pneumonitis (DIP) is a potentially fatal complication of the treatment. Granulocyte colony‐stimulating factors (G‐CSF) are supportive agents commonly used to prevent neutropenic infections. G‐CSF are reported to have pulmonary toxicity, but the risk of DIP is greater when used in combination with other potentially pulmotoxic agents. Methods In this retrospective study, we reported the G‐CSF use and risk of DIP in 234 DLBCL patients and 87 FL patients receiving R‐CHOP‐type immunochemotherapy. Results In 72% of patients, the treatment included a G‐CSF support. The overall incidence of treatment‐induced pneumonitis was 6.9% in this patient group. All the DIP cases (n = 16) were among patients receiving G‐CSF support (p = 0.03). Older age (over 60 years) and higher disease stage (Ann Arbor 3–4) also increased the risk of DIP. Conclusions These findings suggest that the use of G‐CSF increases the risk of DIP, when used in combination with rituximab‐containing regimen.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/objectives: Neutropenia is a frequent complication among solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients receiving immunosuppressive therapy and antimicrobial prophylaxis. However, there are limited studies analysing the frequency and impact of neutropenia in lung transplant recipients (LTRs). Our aim was to analyse the frequency of neutropenia, the need for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) treatment within the first 18 months post-transplant and its association with acute rejection, chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD), overall survival and the development of infections., Methods: This observational and retrospective study recruited 305 patients who underwent lung transplantation between 2009 and 2019, with outpatient quarterly follow-up during the first 18 months post-surgery., Results: During this period, 51.8% of patients experienced at least one episode of neutropenia. Neutropenia was classified as mild in 50.57% of cases, moderate in 36.88% and severe in 12.54%. GCSF treatment was indicated in 23.28% of patients, with a mean dose of 3.53 units. No statistically significant association was observed between neutropenia or its severity and the development of acute rejection, CLAD or overall survival. However, the patients who received GCSF treatment had a higher mortality rate compared to those who did not. Sixteen patients (5.25%) developed infections during neutropenia, with bacterial infections being the most common., Conclusions: Neutropenia is common in the first 18 months after lung transplantation and most episodes are mild. We did not find an association between neutropenia and acute rejection, CLAD, or mortality. However, the use of GCSF were associated with worse post-transplant survival.

Hematological toxicity is the most common complication of chemotherapy. The most dangerous manifestation of hematological toxicity is febrile neutropenia (FN). FN reduces survival, increases the risk of death, the frequency of infectious complications, hospitalizations, the cost of treatment. The risk of FN should be assessed before the beginning of the therapy, using the general algorithm from the protocol to prevent FN applying the granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF). G-CSF for the prevention is required throughout all cycles of myelosuppressive therapy. For the prevention of FN, the most effective is the use of PEGylated G-CSF. Patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, receiving the TPF or DCF regimen, combined with docetaxel and cisplatin, are included in the group of routine primary prophylaxis for neutropenia. In case of developing 34 grade FN in these patients, the use of PEGylated G-CSF (empegfilgrastim) is preferable.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neutropenia is a common hematological complication of chemotherapy (СT). The number of studies showed that the underperformance of the treatment program due to the development of this type of hematological toxicity could lead to the decrease in therapy efficacy and to the increase in cancer mortality. Infections that occur as a result of prolonged neutropenia are extremely dangerous. The most severe manifestation of grade 4 neutropenia is febrile neutropenia (FN), which can lead to death from severe infections. Such patients should be immediately hospitalized and should receive empirical therapy with broad-spectrum antibiotics. The costs, associated with the hospitalization, due to FN increase total cost of cancer patients treatment. The application of recombinant forms of the natural protein granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in clinical practice has solved the number of important problems on that front. The clinical studies and common use show that primary and secondary prevention using recombinant G-CSF reduces the risk of FN development and improves the results of the treatment of malignancies. The review provides actual data concerning pharmacological properties, clinical efficacy and reasonable use of G-CSF with prolonged action to prevent FN in patients with solid tumors during 2-week CT cycles. Special attention is paid to CH regimens with the inclusion of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). The use of neoadjuvant treatment in such patients allows to achieve resectability of the tumor and to perform radical surgery. The maintenance of drugs dose intensity throughout the cycle of CT plays an important role in achieving the treatment success. Therefore, the prevention of CT-induced severe neutropenia and FN is especially important in patients who are the candidates for surgical treatment. The results of some studies confirm the necessity of using G-CSF with prolonged action during 2-week CT cycles in patients with CRC.

Introduction: Pegfilgrastim-cbqv was developed as a biosimilar of pegfilgrastim, a pegylated form of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor approved for decreasing febrile neutropenia-associated infection in patients receiving myelosuppressive drugs. This multicenter, randomized, single-blind, partial-reference-replicated, three-sequence crossover study assessed pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalence of pegfilgrastim-cbqv and pegfilgrastim in healthy subjects. Methods: One hundred twenty-two subjects were randomized to one of three treatment sequences; each included one dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv and two doses of pegfilgrastim separated by ≥ 28 days. The primary pharmacokinetic end points were area under the curve (AUC) from 0 to infinity (AUC0−∞) and maximum concentration (Cmax). The primary pharmacodynamic end points were maximum absolute neutrophil count (ANCmax) and ANC AUC from time 0 to the last measurable observation (ANC AUC0−last). Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalences were demonstrated if the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of pegfilgrastim-cbqv to pegfilgrastim was within 80–125% for the primary end points. Results: Pharmacokinetic bioequivalence criteria were met for Cmax (GMR 105.0; 90% CI 95.5–115.4) and AUC0−∞ (GMR 97.5; 90% CI 88.6–107.2). Pharmacodynamic bioequivalence criteria were met for ANCmax (GMR 99.6; 90% CI 96.2–103.2) and ANC AUC0−last (GMR 96.7; 90% CI 92.2–101.4). Adverse events occurred in 76.0%, 76.6%, and 73.1% of subjects for pegfilgrastim-cbqv, first pegfilgrastim, and second pegfilgrastim dosing periods across treatment sequences, respectively. Investigators found no drug-related serious adverse events. Conclusion: This study established pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalence of pegfilgrastim-cbqv to pegfilgrastim. The treatments displayed similar safety profiles, including immunogenicity, with no unexpected safety findings. Clinical Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02650973, February 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE Pegfilgrastim is a new generation on granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) with different pharmacokinetic properties. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the results of the use of pegfilgrastim as secondary prophylaxis. METHODS Between November 2016 and June 2019, a retrospective analysis of the patients who used pegfilgrastim with solid malignancies treated in the University of Health Sciences, Dr. A. Y. Ankara Oncology Hospital Department of Medical Oncology was performed. RESULTS A total of 148 patients were evaluated, and 33 (22.2%) of them were in the geriatric population (age>65). The majority of the patients (n=97, 65.5%) were diagnosed with breast carcinoma, and 93.2% (n=138) of all patients were treated with the intermediate-risk chemotherapy regimen. Pegfilgrastim was used as secondary prophylaxis for all of the patients. Despite pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, febrile neutropenia (FN) developed in four (2.7%) patients. Chemotherapy delay due to afebrile neutropenia occurred in eight patients (5.4%), and neutrophil counts returned to normal in mean 4.0 (3-5) days. When side effects were evaluated, 31 patients (20.9%) had pegfilgrastim-induced bone pain and two patients (1.3%) had redness in the injection site. CONCLUSION The low incidence of FN and chemotherapy delay, even in secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim, suggests that pegfilgrastim is an effective agent in neutropenia prophylaxis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the study is to describe oncologists' perceptions and opinions about patient eligibility, guidelines, and barriers for use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), overall and stratified by their affiliation with the Oncology Care Model (OCM). In May 2018, we invited and recruited practicing US oncologists from a national database for an online survey. Level of agreement was identified using a seven-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Of 200 participating oncologists, 70 were OCM-affiliated. Overall, 65% of oncologists agreed or strongly agreed that all patients at high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) should receive prophylactic G-CSF, and half agreed or strongly agreed that benefits of G-CSF outweigh the potential adverse effects. The most common barriers to G-CSF use for patients at high risk of FN included patient refusal (37.1% of OCM-affiliated oncologists vs. 21.5% of non-OCM-affiliated oncologists), not on protocol/not supported by guidelines (32.9% vs. 23.1%), lack of reimbursement to practice (30.0% vs. 15.4%), and concerns about insurance coverage (22.9% vs. 26.9%). More OCM-affiliated oncologists reported that their practices offer and strongly encourage adherence to a specific protocol for G-CSF use (49.2%) versus non-OCM oncologists (31.3%). Despite recommendations from national guidelines and strong evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials, only two thirds of oncologists agree or strongly agree that all patients at high risk of FN should receive primary G-CSF prophylaxis. Decisions about G-CSF prophylaxis may be affected by factors other than risk of FN, such as patient choice, practice protocols/guidelines, lack of reimbursement, and insurance coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are indicated for prophylaxis or management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN). Guidelines recommend G-CSF 24-72 h following chemotherapy; however, some evidence suggests that G-CSF initiated < 24 h may benefit some patients.Methods: MONITOR-GCSF was a prospective, observational, multicenter, pan-European study of 1447 chemotherapy-treated patients receiving daily biosimilar (standard) filgrastim (Zarzio®/Zarxio®, filgrastim-sndz, Hexal AG, Sandoz Inc.). In this analysis, cycles were classified as same-day, per-guidelines, or late if G-CSF support was initiated < 24 h, 24-72 h, and > 72 h after chemotherapy. Outcomes included occurrence of CIN of any grade (CIN1/4), grade 3 or 4 (CIN3/4), grade 4 (CIN4), or FN: CIN/FN-related hospitalization or CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance.Results: A total of 5930 chemotherapy cycles from 1423 evaluable patients from MONITOR-GCSF had data for day of G-CSF initiation: 795 cycles (13.4%) classified as same-day, 3320 (56.0%) as per-guidelines, and 1815 (30.6%) as late. Groups did not differ as to CIN1/4 and FN episodes, or CIN/FN-related hospitalizations or chemotherapy disturbances. Patients in the same-day and per-guidelines groups had statistically similar odds of not experiencing any outcomes of interest in any given cycle. Patients in the late group had worse odds of experiencing CIN1/4, CIN3/4, and CIN4 episodes in any given cycle. Proportions of patients reporting clinical events of interest were generally similar.Conclusions: This real-world evidence indicates that CIN/FN prophylaxis initiated with biosimilar filgrastim within 24-72 h post-chemotherapy is effective and safe. Filgrastim administration on the day of chemotherapy may be appropriate in some patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), which are used for the prevention of complications from chemotherapy-related neutropenia, are linked to the risk of developing second primary myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The objective of this study was to examine the correlation between using a specific G-CSF agent and the risk of MDS/AML among older patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults aged >65 years who were diagnosed with first primary NHL between 2001 and 2011. With data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-linked database, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for the risk of MDS/AML associated with the receipt of G-CSF(filgrastim and pegfilgrastim) in Cox proportional-hazards models, which were stratified according to treatment accounting for confounding by indication.Results: Among 18,245 patients with NHL patients who had a median follow-up of 3.5 years, 56% received chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy, and G-CSF was most commonly used in those who received rituximab plus multiple chemotherapy regimens (77%). Subsequent MDS/AML diagnoses were identified in 666 patients (3.7%). A modest increased risk of MDS/AML was observed with the receipt of G-CSF (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.01-1.62) and a trend was observed with increasing doses (Ptrend < .01). When specific agents were analyzed, an increased risk of MDS/AML was consistently observed with filgrastim (≥10 doses: HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.25-2.23), but not with pegfilgrastim (≥10 + doses: HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.84-1.45).Conclusions: A higher of MDS/AML was observed in patients with NHL risk among those who received G-CSF that was specific to the use of filgrastim (≥10 doses), but not pegfilgrastim. Neutropenia prophylaxis is an essential component of highly effective NHL treatment regimens. The differential risk related to the types of G-CSF agents used warrants further study given their increasing use and newly available, US Food and Drug Administration-approved, biosimilar products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) receiving R-CHOP-21. The prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) can significantly reduce the risk of FN. International guidelines recommend G-CSFs for patients receiving chemotherapy with FN risk of 20% or 10 to 20% with defined risk factors. However, there are few studies on the incidence and risk factors of FN in patients with DLBCL receiving R-CHOP-21, especially in patients without primary G-CSF prophylaxis., Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis for the clinical data of 103 patients with DLBCL who underwent first R-CHOP-21 without primary G-CSF prophylaxis. The objective of the assessment was the incidence and risk factors of FN after the first chemotherapy cycle., Results: After the first chemotherapy cycle, the incidence of FN was 20.4%. Multivariate analysis showed that age ≥ 65 years, bone marrow involvement, albumin < 35 g/L, and average relative dose intensity ≥ 80% were independent risk factors for FN. According to risk factors, we created a risk score system. The incidence of FN in the low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups was 5.6%, 17.2%, and 61.9%, respectively., Conclusion: Our data indicated that R-CHOP-21 itself is associated with a high-risk regiment for FN. We recommend that intermediate/high-risk patients should actively consider primary G-CSF prophylaxis to reduce the incidence of FN after chemotherapy., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Although immunomodulatory drugs, alkylating agents, corticosteroids, protease inhibitors, and therapeutic monoclonal antibodies improve multiple myeloma outcomes, treatment burden is still an issue. Neutropenia is a known complication of cytotoxic cancer therapy and is often associated with infections; it is an important consideration in myeloma given the fact that patients often have a weakened immune system. The risk of febrile neutropenia increases with severe and persisting neutropenia. Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are commonly used to reduce the incidence, duration, and severity of febrile neutropenia. Here, we review the risk and management of neutropenia associated with new and commonly used anti-myeloma agents. Few papers report the use of G-CSF in patients with multiple myeloma receiving anti-cancer treatments, and fewer describe whether G-CSF was beneficial. None of the identified studies reported G-CSF primary prophylaxis. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the need for G-CSF prophylaxis in multiple myeloma. Prophylaxis may be particularly useful in patients at high risk of prolonged severe neutropenia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biosimilars are biological medicines that have been shown to be similar to a reference biological medicine that has already been approved for use. Development of biosimilars is based on a "totality of evidence" approach that involves a series of steps by which biosimilars must demonstrate similarity to a reference product in all aspects of the drug and eliminate any remaining uncertainties. Clinical studies are then considered confirmatory and are performed to show that there are no clinically meaningful differences compared with the reference product in a sensitive patient population. The recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilar EP2006/Zarxio® (filgrastim-sdnz) became the first FDA-approved biosimilar in 2015. This review evaluates how clinical equivalence can be demonstrated with G-CSF biosimilars through the identification of "sensitive" study populations and endpoints. Patients with non-metastatic breast cancer treated in the (neo)adjuvant setting represent a potentially homogenous population, making this a suitable sensitive indication for assessing filgrastim and pegfilgrastim biosimilars compared with reference products. This review includes clinical trials of G-CSF biosimilars in breast cancer, focusing on key aspects of the trials that were necessary to accurately demonstrate clinical equivalence and enable extrapolation to relevant indications, based on guidelines and biostatistical principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) causes treatment delays and interruptions and can have fatal consequences. Current guidelines provide recommendations on granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) for prevention of FN, but guidance is unclear regarding use of short- vs long-acting G-CSF (e.g., filgrastim vs pegfilgrastim/lipegfilgrastim, respectively). An international panel of experts convened to develop guidance on appropriate use of pegfilgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN.Methods: Guidance recommendations were developed following a literature review, survey, evaluation of current practice, and an expert meeting. Consensus was established using an anonymous Delphi-based approach.Results: Guidance recommendations for prevention of treatment-associated FN were as follows: for treatment with curative intent, maintenance of dose intensity using G-CSF to prevent dose delays/reduction should be standard of care; for treatment-associated FN risk ≥ 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given from cycle 1 onwards; and for treatment-associated FN risk < 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given if factors suggest overall risk (including treatment-related and patient-related risk factors) is ≥ 20%. It was agreed that pegfilgrastim and 11 days' filgrastim have similar efficacy and safety and that pegfilgrastim is preferred to < 11 days' filgrastim (and may be preferred to ≥ 11 days' filgrastim based on adherence and convenience); pegfilgrastim is not appropriate in weekly chemotherapy; in split-dose chemotherapy, pegfilgrastim is recommended 24 h after last chemotherapy dose; and during palliative chemotherapy, patient adherence and convenience may favor pegfilgrastim.Conclusion: In this era of targeted therapies, additional trials with G-CSF are still required. These recommendations should be used with existing guidelines to optimize pegfilgrastim use in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia are two major complications of chemotherapy. Dose reductions, delays in treatment administration, and the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are equally recommended options to preserve absolute neutrophil count in case of chemotherapy regimens bringing a risk of febrile neutropenia of 20% or higher. Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, such as filgrastim and lenograstim, have a short elimination half-life (t1/2) and need to be used daily, while others, like pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim, are characterized by a long t1/2 requiring only a single administration per cycle. Balugrastim is a novel long-acting recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor obtained by means of a genetic fusion between recombinant human serum albumin and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Albumin binding increases the molecular weight and determines a high plasmatic stability leading to a t1/2 of ~19 days. Balugrastim's efficacy, safety, and tolerability have been assessed in four different clinical trials involving breast cancer patients treated with doxorubicin and docetaxel. Pegfilgrastim was chosen as a comparator. Balugrastim was noninferior to pegfilgrastim with regard to the reduction of mean duration of severe neutropenia during cycle 1. Moreover, both treatments were comparable in terms of efficacy and safety profile. Balugrastim was well tolerated, with the only related adverse event being mild to moderate bone pain. The aim of this review is to summarize the currently available literature data on balugrastim. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Febrile neutropenia (FN) during adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with morbidity, mortality risk, and substantial cost, and subsequent chemotherapy dose reductions may result in poorer outcomes. Patients at high risk of, or who develop FN, often receive prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF). We investigated whether different prophylaxis strategies with G-CSF offered favorable value-for-money.Methods: We developed a decision model to estimate the short- and long-term costs and outcomes of a hypothetical cohort of women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant taxotere + cyclophosphamide (TC) chemotherapy. The short-term phase estimated upfront costs and FN risks with adjuvant TC chemotherapy without G-CSF prophylaxis (i.e., chemotherapy dose reductions) as well as with secondary and primary G-CSF prophylaxis strategies. The long-term phase estimated the expected costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for patients who completed adjuvant TC chemotherapy with or without one or more episodes of FN.Results: Secondary G-CSF was associated with lower costs and greater QALY gains than a no G-CSF strategy. Primary G-CSF appears likely to be cost-effective relative to secondary G-CSF at FN rates greater than 28%, assuming some loss of chemotherapy efficacy at lower dose intensities. The cost-effectiveness of primary vs. secondary G-CSF was sensitive to FN risk and mortality, and loss of chemotherapy efficacy following FN.Conclusions: Secondary G-CSF is more effective and less costly than a no G-CSF strategy. Primary G-CSF may be justified at higher willingness-to-pay thresholds and/or higher FN risks, but this threshold FN risk appears to be higher than the 20% rate recommended by current clinical guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) are frequent and potentially fatal toxicities of myelosuppressive anticancer treatments. The introduction of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) in clinical practice has remarkably reduced the duration and severity of neutropenia, as well as the incidence of FN, thus allowing the administration of chemotherapeutic agents at the optimal dose and time with lower risk. The current scenario of G-CSFs in Europe includes filgrastim, lenograstim, some G-CSF biosimilars, and pegfilgrastim. Recently, a novel long-acting G-CSF, lipegfilgrastim, became available. Lipegfilgrastim is a glycopegylated G-CSF, alternative to pegfilgrastim, and has shown in randomized trials, to be equivalent to pegfilgrastim in reducing the incidence of severe neutropenia and FN in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy, with a similar safety profile. Furthermore, lipegfilgrastim was more effective than the placebo in reducing the incidence of severe neutropenia, its duration, and time to absolute neutrophil count recovery, in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving myelosuppressive therapy. Although the number of studies currently published is still limited, lipegfilgrastim seems to be a promising drug in the management of chemotherapyinduced neutropenia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Risk of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) post-breast cancer treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) is not fully characterized. Our objective was to estimate MDS/AML risk associated with specific breast cancer treatments. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women aged ≥66 years with stage I-III breast cancer between 2001 and 2009 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. Women were classified as receiving treatment with radiation, chemotherapy, and/or G-CSF. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for MDS/AML risk. Among 56,251 breast cancer cases, 1.2 % developed MDS/AML during median follow-up of 3.2 years. 47.1 % of women received radiation and 14.3 % received chemotherapy. Compared to breast cancer cases treated with surgery alone, those treated with chemotherapy (HR = 1.38, 95 %-CI 0.98-1.93) and chemotherapy/radiation (HR = 1.77, 95 %-CI 1.25-2.51) had increased risk of MDS/AML, but not radiation alone (HR = 1.08, 95 % CI 0.86-1.36). Among chemotherapy regimens and G-CSF, MDS/AML risk was differentially associated with anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-containing regimens (HR = 1.86, 95 %-CI 1.33-2.61) and filgrastim (HR = 1.47, 95 %-CI 1.05-2.06), but not pegfilgrastim (HR = 1.10, 95 %-CI 0.73-1.66). We observed increased MDS/AML risk among older breast cancer survivors treated with anthracycline/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy that was enhanced by G-CSF. Although small, this risk warrants consideration when determining adjuvant chemotherapy and neutropenia prophylaxis for breast cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Myelosuppression secondary to chemotherapy remains a serious adverse effect of cancer therapy that causes high morbidity and mortality. Several current European and American guidelines recommend consideration of primary prophylaxis with colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) when the risk of febrile neutropenia is higher than 20 %. The main factors associated with a high risk of febrile neutropenia include the chemotherapy regimen, tumor type, and patient-related factors such as old age and/or comorbidities. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the most relevant clinical trials and updated recommendations of the main guidelines on the role of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) in febrile neutropenia, examining whether the combination of G-CSF with chemotherapy improves overall survival. Future directions for G-CSF use are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: With rising healthcare costs, there is an increasing concern with the burden of out-of-pocket costs on cancer patients. This study examined patients’ out-of-pocket expenditures for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, which are given to cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and have been shown to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia. Methods: Adult patients who received chemotherapy and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in the outpatient setting in the United States between January 2007 and June 2010 were evaluated using medical and pharmacy claims data from two healthcare data sources, the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases and the HealthCore Integrated Research DatabaseSM. The distribution of out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors per patient and per administration was described for each quarter. Longitudinal analyses of out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors were also performed for patients with continuous health plan eligibility during each calendar year from 2007 to 2009. Results: The pattern of out-of-pocket expenditures for pegfilgrastim and filgrastim was generally consistent between the databases and over time. On average, about 65%–75% of patients had zero quarterly out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Across the years, the mean quarterly out-of-pocket costs per patient were $100–$150 and $50–$80 for pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, respectively. The mean quarterly out-of-pocket costs for granulocyte colony stimulating factors per administration were $40–$70 and $8–$10, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is utilized to reduce neutropenic complications in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. This study represents a systematic review and evidence summary of the impact of G-CSF support on chemotherapy dose intensity and overall mortality. Materials and methods All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chemotherapy with or without G-CSF support and reporting all-cause mortality with at least 2 years of follow-up were sought. Dual-blind data abstraction of disease, treatment, patient and outcome study results with conflict resolution by third party was carried out. Results The search revealed 61 randomized comparisons of chemotherapy with or without initial G-CSF support. Death was reported in 4251 patients randomized to G-CSFs and in 5188 controls. Relative risk (RR) with G-CSF support for all-cause mortality was 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.90–0.96; P < 0.001). RR for mortality varied by intended chemotherapy dose and schedule: same dose and schedule (RR = 0.96; P = 0.060), dose dense (RR = 0.89; P < 0.001), dose escalation (RR = 0.92; P = 0.019) and drug substitution or addition (RR = 0.94; P = 0.003). Greater RR reduction was observed among studies with longer follow-up (P = 0.02), where treatment was for curative intent (RR = 0.91; P < 0.001), and where survival was the primary outcome (RR = 0.91; P < 0.001). Conclusions All-cause mortality is reduced in patients receiving chemotherapy with primary G-CSF support. The greatest impact was observed in RCTs in patients receiving dose-dense schedules. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The patent expiration for first-generation biological drugs has prompted the development of a new group of biopharmaceuticals -- follow-on biologics. The extent of studies needed in the process of follow-on biologics approval is incomparably greater than in the case of generics but reduced in comparison to innovative biologics. The basis for the approval is to show the similarity sufficient to ensure the same quality, safety and efficacy as the reference medicine. In oncology, the most widely used among so far registered follow-on biologics are biosimilar granulocyte colonystimulating factors, and in the hitherto clinical practice, there have been no concerns about their effectiveness and safety. It is expected that along with the patent expiry of next biologics, the number of follow-on biologics will increasingly grow, that implies the need to develop and implement specific regulations for this new class of medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objectives: To present a case study involving the reduction in incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy with granulocyte colony–stimulating factors (G-CSFs), illustrating difficulties that may arise when following the common preference for direct evidence over indirect evidence. Methods: Evidence of the efficacy of treatments was identified from two previous systematic reviews. We used Bayesian evidence synthesis to estimate relative treatment effects based on direct evidence, indirect evidence, and both pooled together. We checked for inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence and explored the role of one specific trial using cross-validation. A subsequent review identified further studies not available at the time of the original analysis. We repeated the analyses on the enlarged evidence base. Results: We found substantial inconsistency in the original evidence base. The median odds ratio of FN for primary pegfilgrastim versus no primary G-CSF was 0.06 (95% credible interval: 0.02–0.19) based on direct evidence, but 0.27 (95% credible interval: 0.13–0.53) based on indirect evidence (P value for consistency hypothesis 0.027). The additional trials were consistent with the earlier indirect, rather than the direct, evidence, and there was no inconsistency between direct and indirect estimates in the updated evidence. The earlier inconsistency was due to one trial comparing primary pegfilgrastim with no primary G-CSF. Predictive cross-validation showed that this study was inconsistent with the evidence as a whole and with other trials making this comparison. Conclusions: Both the Cochrane Handbook and the NICE Methods Guide express a preference for direct evidence. A more robust strategy, which is in line with the accepted principles of evidence synthesis, would be to combine all relevant and appropriate information, whether direct or indirect. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To assess the value of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) in promoting recovery from established episodes of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy in cancer patients.Method: The literature was searched using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and IPA databases. Reference lists from the retrieved papers and hand searches of relevant journals complemented the search. Eleven randomized controlled trials were selected for review.Result: G-CSF use in established FN appears to be limited to a small reduction in neutropenia duration, length of hospitalization, and duration of antibiotic use. Overall, there are no significant reductions in time to neutrophil recovery and fever resolution. The cost analyses performed do not show significant cost savings.Conclusion: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) are biological agents typically used for prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) or as adjunctive treatment with antibiotics of established FN. Most clinical guidelines discourage the general use of G-CSF for adjunctive treatment of ongoing neutropenic fever; however, its use in special situations, such as high-risk for infectious complications or adverse prognostic factors, is advised. G-CSF should be reserved for high-risk cancer patients, in accordance with the results of this review. This recommendation needs to be taken with caution in view of the disparities and methodological flaws found among trials. It is necessary to design further trials appropriately, well-powered and focused on high-risk patients. Moreover, it is necessary to perform an appropriate economic evaluation for this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract: Objective: We report a cost-effectiveness evaluation of granulocyte colony–stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) after chemotherapy in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: A mathematical model was constructed simulating the experience of women with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Three strategies were modeled: primary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles), secondary prophylaxis (G-CSFs administered in all cycles after an FN event), and no G-CSF prophylaxis. Three G-CSFs were considered: filgrastim, lenograstim, and pegfilgrastim. Costs were taken from UK databases and utility values from published sources. A systematic review provided data on G-CSF efficacy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined the effects of uncertainty in model parameters. Results: In the UK, base-case analysis with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20K per quality-adjusted life year gained and also using list prices, the most cost-effective strategy was primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for a patient with baseline FN risk greater than 38%, secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for baseline FN risk 11% to 37%, and no G-CSFs for baseline FN risk less than 11%. Using a WTP threshold of £30K and list prices, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim was cost-effective for baseline FN risks greater than 29%. In all analyses, pegfilgrastim dominated filgrastim and lenograstim. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that higher WTP threshold, younger age, earlier stage at diagnosis, or reduced G-CSF prices result in G-CSF prophylaxis being cost-effective at lower baseline FN risk levels. Conclusion: Pegfilgrastim was the most cost-effective G-CSF. The most cost-effective strategy (primary or secondary prophylaxis) was dependent on the FN risk level for an individual patient, patient age and stage at diagnosis, and G-CSF price. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness (as measured as cost per life-year saved) of white blood cell growth factor or colony-stimulating factor (CSF) use among a large cohort of elderly non-Hodgkin''s lymphoma (NHL) patients in a real-world setting. Methods: We identified 13,203 NHL patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database who received the diagnosis from 1992 to 2002 and who received chemotherapy within 12 months of diagnosis. Benefit (effectiveness) of CSF use (primary and secondary prophylaxis) was measured as observed improvement in overall survival. Costs for each patient were calculated by adding the cumulative reimbursement amounts from Medicare claims. Cost-effectiveness was estimated by modeling the joint influence of CSF use on both costs and effectiveness using a propensity-score net monetary benefit approach. Results: Primary prophylactic CSF use was cost-effective at lower willingness-to-pay thresholds, whereas at higher thresholds, not providing prophylactic CSF became the cost-effective strategy. For secondary prophylactic CSF use among patients experiencing neutropenia, fever, and/or infection, the opposite trend was observed. For low willingness-to-pay thresholds (<$20,000 per life-year gained), not administering CSF was the cost-effective strategy, whereas CSF use became cost-effective as willingness to pay increased (from $100,000+ per life-year gained). Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first large population-based study to empirically measure the cost-effectiveness of CSF among NHL patients treated with chemotherapy. CSF use as primary or secondary prophylaxis may be a cost-effective strategy depending on society''s (or payers'') willingness to pay for improvements in outcomes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: Neutropenia and its complications, including febrile neutropenia (FN), are a common side effect of cancer chemotherapy. Results of clinical trials showed that prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) is effective in preventing FN. In this study, the cost effectiveness (measured as cost per quality-adjusted time [days]) of three treatment alternatives were evaluated: no G-CSF, filgrastim administered daily for 7–12 days after chemotherapy, and a pegylated form of G-CSF pegfilgrastim, administered once per cycle. Methods: A cost-utility model based on standard clinical practice of treating FN with immediate hospitalization or with ambulatory treatment, from a societal perspective was developed. Direct medical cost estimates for hospitalization were derived from claims data reported by 115 US academic medical centers. Indirect medical costs, productivity costs, probabilities, and utilities are based on published literature. Results were subjected to sensitivity analyses and95% confidence intervals are based on a Monte Carlo simulation. Results: Mean estimated costs/day of hospitalization were $1984 (SD $1040, N = 24,687) for surviving patients and $3139 (SD $2014, N = 1437) for dying patients. Under baseline conditions, pegfilgrastim dominated both filgrastim and no G-CSF, with expected costs and effectiveness of $4203 and 12.361 quality adjusted life-days (QALDs) for no G-CSF, $3058 and 12.967 QALDs for pegfilgrastim, and $5264 and 12.698 QALDs for filgrastim. Conclusions: This cost-utility analysis provides strong evidence that pegfilgrastim is not only cost-effective but also cost-saving in most common clinical and economic settings. There appear to be both clinical and economic benefits from prophylactic administration of pegfilgrastim. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of European Journal of Oncology Nursing is the property of Churchill Livingstone, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) have been shown to be effective in reducing the risk of infections associated with antitumour chemotherapy. This report describes a single-centre experience of the efficacy of pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim or lenograstim in reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving combination chemotherapy with taxane and epirubicin in a neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting. Methods: A total of 118 patients with breast cancer were treated with either epirubicin 75 mg/m2 and docetaxel 75 mg/m2 or epirubicin 90 mg/m2 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 every 3 weeks; 88 received G-CSF support with daily filgrastim or lenograstim and 30 with pegfilgrastim once per cycle. Results: Eight patients (9.1%) with prophylactic filgrastim or lenograstim support developed febrile neutropenia, as well as 1 patient (3.3%) in the pegfilgrastim group (p = 0.445). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 13 (2.7%) of 476 filgrastim or lenograstim supported chemotherapy cycles and in 2 (1.2%) of 172 cycles with pegfilgrastim support (p = 0.376). The frequency of chemotherapy delays and dose reductions was not significantly different between the two G-CSF treatment groups. Conclusion: These data show a trend towards superiority of pegfilgrastim over filgrastim or lenograstim in reducing the frequency of febrile neutropenia in patients treated with taxane and epirubicin chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer. Copyright © 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Waladkhani A.-R. (2004) European Journal of Cancer Care 13, 371–379 Pegfilgrastim: a recent advance in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a frequent complication in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia can result in febrile neutropenia and potentially life-threatening infections requiring hospitalization and intravenous anti-infectives. Chemotherapy dose may be reduced or delayed as a result of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, which can negatively impact treatment outcomes. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, such as filgrastim, stimulate neutrophil production and can therefore reduce the incidence and severity of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Filgrastim undergoes rapid renal clearance and needs to be administered daily. The development of pegfilgrastim represents a significant advance in the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia as the longer serum half-life allows once-per-chemotherapy administration, and evidence supports increased prophylactic effectiveness in reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia. This paper reviews the development of pegfilgrastim and summarizes recent clinical data on the use of this simple, effective and well-tolerated option for the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.