» Articles » PMID: 31399079

Use and Effectiveness of Pegfilgrastim Prophylaxis in US Clinical Practice:a Retrospective Observational Study

Overview
Journal BMC Cancer
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Oncology
Date 2019 Aug 11
PMID 31399079
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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

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

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

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

Citing Articles

How Can Oncology Nurses and Advanced Practice Providers Reduce the Burden of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia in the US?.

Orbaugh K, Cuellar S, Sheldon L J Adv Pract Oncol. 2025; 1-15.

PMID: 39802536 PMC: 11715408. DOI: 10.6004/jadpro.2024.15.8.5.


Cost-effectiveness analysis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer in Taiwan.

Tseng T, Chiang S, Hsu J, Ko Y PLoS One. 2024; 19(6):e0303294.

PMID: 38857244 PMC: 11164394. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303294.


Comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim biosimilars vs originator for prevention of febrile neutropenia: A retrospective cohort study.

Wang C, Vouri S, Park H, Heldermon C, Brown J J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2023; 29(2):119-127.

PMID: 36705287 PMC: 10387906. DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2023.29.2.119.


Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in intermediate-risk regimens: Clinical and economic outcomes of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis.

Aslam S, Li E, Bell E, Lal L, Anderson A, Peterson-Brandt J J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2023; 29(2):128-138.

PMID: 36705281 PMC: 10387928. DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2023.29.2.128.


A prospective cohort study to evaluate the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector versus other options for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia: breast cancer subgroup analysis.

Mahtani R, Belani R, Crawford J, Dale D, Decosta L, Gawade P Support Care Cancer. 2022; 30(7):6135-6144.

PMID: 35426046 PMC: 9009498. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-07025-2.


References
1.
Siena S, Piccart M, Holmes F, Glaspy J, Hackett J, Renwick J . A combined analysis of two pivotal randomized trials of a single dose of pegfilgrastim per chemotherapy cycle and daily Filgrastim in patients with stage II-IV breast cancer. Oncol Rep. 2003; 10(3):715-24. View

2.
Scott S, Chrischilles E, Link B, Delgado D, Fridman M, Stolshek B . Days of prophylactic filgrastim use to reduce febrile neutropenia in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with chemotherapy. J Manag Care Pharm. 2003; 9(2 Suppl):15-21. PMC: 10437157. DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2003.9.s2.15. View

3.
Lyman G, Dale D, Crawford J . Incidence and predictors of low dose-intensity in adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy: a nationwide study of community practices. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21(24):4524-31. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.05.002. View

4.
Bonadonna G, Moliterni A, Zambetti M, Daidone M, Pilotti S, Gianni L . 30 years' follow up of randomised studies of adjuvant CMF in operable breast cancer: cohort study. BMJ. 2005; 330(7485):217. PMC: 546063. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38314.622095.8F. View

5.
Caggiano V, Weiss R, Rickert T, Linde-Zwirble W . Incidence, cost, and mortality of neutropenia hospitalization associated with chemotherapy. Cancer. 2005; 103(9):1916-24. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20983. View