Literature DB >> 19539108

Risk of hospitalization for neutropenic complications of chemotherapy in patients with primary solid tumors receiving pegfilgrastim or filgrastim prophylaxis: a retrospective cohort study.

Derek Weycker1, Jennifer Malin, John Kim, Rich Barron, John Edelsberg, Alex Kartashov, Gerry Oster.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In a meta-analysis of data from randomized trials, the risk of febrile neutropenia during myelosuppressive chemotherapy was reported to be lower with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis than filgrastim prophylaxis. However, there is limited information on the comparative effectiveness of these agents in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to compare the risks of hospitalization for neutropenic complications of chemotherapy in US clinical practice in patients with primary solid tumors receiving pegfilgrastim or filgrastim prophylaxis.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study employing a US health insurance database. The source population included all patients who received chemotherapy for a primary solid tumor between January 2003 and December 2005 and who received filgrastim or pegfilgrastim during their first course of chemotherapy. All unique chemotherapy cycles were identified for each patient, and cycles in which pegfilgrastim or filgrastim was administered by cycle day 5 (considered to represent prophylaxis) were selected and pooled for analysis. The risks of hospitalization for neutro-penic complications (using both narrow and broad criteria) and for any reason were then compared between cycles in which filgrastim or pegfilgrastim prophylaxis was administered. Generalized estimating equations were used to control for potential confounding variables.
RESULTS: Filgrastim prophylaxis was used in 1193 unique chemotherapy cycles (mean [SD] number of days per cycle, 4.5 [3.3]); for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, the number of unique chemotherapy cycles was 14,570. First-cycle use represented 16% of all cycles analyzed. The mean ages of patients receiving filgrastim and pegfilgrastim prophylaxis were 61 and 60 years, respectively. Breast cancer was the most common tumor type (52% and 51%), followed by non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (21% and 18%) and lung cancer (11% and 15%). Hospitalization for neutropenic complications (narrow criterion) occurred during 2.1% of filgrastim cycles and 1.2% of pegfilgrastim cycles; hospitalization for neutropenic complications (broad criterion) occurred in a respective 4.8% and 3.1% of cycles; and hospitalization for all causes occurred in 8.7% and 6.3% of cycles (all, P < 0.01). The risks of hospitalization were consistently lower for chemotherapy cycles that involved pegfilgrastim prophylaxis compared with filgrastim prophylaxis (odds ratios = 0.64-0.73; P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The risk of hospitalization for neutro-penic complications during cancer chemotherapy in clinical practice was approximately one third higher among patients who received filgrastim prophylaxis than among those who received pegfilgrastim prophylaxis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19539108     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.05.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Ther        ISSN: 0149-2918            Impact factor:   3.393


  26 in total

1.  The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in a Canadian outpatient setting.

Authors:  S Fine; M Koo; T Gill; M Marin; M Poulin-Costello; R Barron; N Mittmann
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: where are we now?

Authors:  Matti Aapro; Jeffrey Crawford; Didier Kamioner
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2010-02-27       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  Burden of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia Hospitalizations in US Clinical Practice, by Use and Patterns of Prophylaxis with Colony-Stimulating Factor.

Authors:  Derek Weycker; Xiaoyan Li; Spiros Tzivelekis; Mark Atwood; Jacob Garcia; Yanli Li; Maureen Reiner; Gary H Lyman
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 4.  PEGylation of interferon-β-1a: a promising strategy in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Bernd C Kieseier; Peter A Calabresi
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 5.749

5.  Clinical and economic burden of emergency department presentations for neutropenia following outpatient chemotherapy for cancer in Victoria, Australia.

Authors:  Patricia M Livingston; Melinda Craike; Monica Slavin
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2012-06-15

6.  Costs and outcomes associated with hospitalized cancer patients with neutropenic complications: A retrospective study.

Authors:  M Blane Schilling; Connie Parks; Robert G Deeter
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2011-06-30       Impact factor: 2.447

7.  Kinetics of neutrophils in mice exposed to radiation and/or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatment.

Authors:  A L Romero-Weaver; X S Wan; E S Diffenderfer; L Lin; A R Kennedy
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2013-07-05       Impact factor: 2.841

8.  A modified filgrastim regimen does not reduce pain burden compared to pegfilgrastim in women receiving chemotherapy for non-metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Mova Leung; Joy Florendo; Jessica Kano; Tiffany Marr-Del Monte; Brian Higgins; Robert Myers; Trishala Menon; Glenn Jones
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2014-11-26       Impact factor: 3.603

9.  Risk of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving emerging chemotherapy regimens.

Authors:  Derek Weycker; Xiaoyan Li; John Edelsberg; Rich Barron; Alex Kartashov; Hairong Xu; Gary H Lyman
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 3.603

10.  Effectiveness of biosimilar filgrastim vs. original granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in febrile neutropenia prevention in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Isabel Puértolas; Alberto Frutos Pérez-Surio; María Aránzazu Alcácera; Raquel Andrés; María Del Tránsito Salvador
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2017-11-19       Impact factor: 2.953

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.