Literature DB >> 30550346

Use of colony-stimulating factor primary prophylaxis and incidence of febrile neutropenia from 2010 to 2016: a longitudinal assessment.

Derek Weycker1, Mark Bensink2, Alexander Lonshteyn1, Robin Doroff1, David Chandler2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend primary prophylactic use of colony-stimulating factor (PP-CSF) when risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) - based on chemotherapy and patient risk factors - is high. Whether and how PP-CSF use may have changed over time (e.g. due to guideline revisions, increasing use of myelosuppressive regimens, controversy regarding inappropriate CSF use), and whether there has been a concomitant change in the incidence of FN, is unknown.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort design and data from two US healthcare claims repositories were employed. The study population included patients who had non-metastatic cancer of the breast, colon/rectum, lung or ovaries, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), and who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens with an intermediate/high risk for FN. For each patient, the first cycle of the first course was characterized in terms of PP-CSF use and FN episodes. Crude incidence proportions for PP-CSF and FN during the first cycle were estimated by calendar quarter (2010-2016); multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate quarter-specific adjusted mean probabilities of FN by PP-CSF use.
RESULTS: The study population totaled 142,730 patients with breast cancer (61%), colorectal cancer (14%), NHL (11%), ovarian cancer (10%) or lung cancer (5%). PP-CSF use increased from 52% in 1Q2010 to 58% in 4Q2016; pegfilgrastim was the most commonly used agent (>96% across quarters). PP-CSF administration on the same day as chemotherapy ranged from 8 to 11% until 1Q2015, and increased to 64% by 4Q2016. Adjusted incidence proportions for FN in the first chemotherapy cycle ranged from 2.7% (95% CI: 2.3-3.0) to 3.7% (95% CI: 3.1-4.3) among those who did not receive PP-CSF, and was 2.6% (95% CI: 2.5-2.7) across quarters among those who received PP-CSF.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of PP-CSF is commonplace in current US clinical practice, underutilization in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy regimens with an intermediate/high risk for FN may still be an issue. Use of same-day PP-CSF increased markedly from the end of 2015, although this finding reflects (at least in part) increased uptake of pegfilgrastim delivered via an on-body injector as well as the recent change in clinical practice guidelines. Overall, patients receiving PP-CSF appear to have a lower risk of FN during the first cycle of chemotherapy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Febrile neutropenia; granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; pegfilgrastim

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30550346     DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2018.1558851

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin        ISSN: 0300-7995            Impact factor:   2.580


  5 in total

1.  Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study.

Authors:  Derek Weycker; Robin Doroff; Ahuva Hanau; Charles Bowers; Rajesh Belani; David Chandler; Alexander Lonshteyn; Mark Bensink; Gary H Lyman
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 4.430

2.  Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with metastatic cancer not receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in US clinical practice.

Authors:  Ahuva Averin; Amanda Silvia; Lois Lamerato; Kathryn Richert-Boe; Manpreet Kaur; Devi Sundaresan; Neel Shah; Mark Hatfield; Tatiana Lawrence; Gary H Lyman; Derek Weycker
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2020-09-03       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  Hospitalisations with infectious disease diagnoses in somatic healthcare between 1998 and 2019: A nationwide, register-based study in Swedish adults.

Authors:  Torisson Gustav; Rosenqvist Mari; Melander Olle; Resman Fredrik
Journal:  Lancet Reg Health Eur       Date:  2022-03-24

4.  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.

Authors:  Reshma L Mahtani; Rajesh Belani; Jeffrey Crawford; David Dale; Lucy DeCosta; Prasad L Gawade; Chanh Huynh; Tatiana Lawrence; Sandra Lewis; William W MacLaughlin; Mohit Narang; Robert Rifkin
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2022-04-14       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 5.  Pegfilgrastim Biosimilars in US Supportive Oncology: A Narrative Review of Administration Options and Economic Considerations to Maximize Patient Benefit.

Authors:  Sophia Z Humphreys; Robert B Geller; Paul Walden
Journal:  Oncol Ther       Date:  2022-09-16
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.