Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim prophylaxis among patients aged ≥65 years: a retrospective evaluation using Medicare claims

Weycker, Derek; Hanau, Ahuva; Lonshteyn, Alexander; Bowers, Charles; Bensink, Mark; Garawin, Tamer; Chandler, David

doi:10.1080/03007995.2018.1495621

Cited by 12 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The risk of FN was higher in all cycles for patients receiving same-day pegfilgrastim, odds ratio (OR), 1.5 (95% CI 1.3-1.6). Similar findings were reported in follow-up studies using private healthcare claims data spanning 2010-2015 (OR ¼ 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.4) and using Medicare claims data (OR ¼ 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.4) 64,65 . A recent systematic review of the literature on this topic concluded that the literature supports "administration of pegfilgrastim to patients at least 1 d after the completion of a chemotherapy cycle" 66 .…”

Section: The 2010ssupporting

confidence: 83%

Prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with colony-stimulating factors: the first 25 years

Edelsberg

Weycker

Bensink

et al. 2019

Current Medical Research and Opinion

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Filgrastim prophylaxis, both primary and secondary, was rapidly incorporated into clinical practice in the 1990s. When pegfilgrastim became available in 2002, it quickly replaced filgrastim as the colonystimulating factor (CSF) of choice for prophylaxis. Use of prophylaxis increased markedly in the first decade of this century and has stabilized during the present decade. Data concerning real-world CSF prophylactic practice patterns are limited but suggest that both primary and secondary prophylaxis are common, and that use is frequently inappropriate according to guidelines. The extent of inappropriate use is controversial, as are issues concerning the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis and the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis. Nevertheless, CSF prophylaxis is firmly established as a valuable adjunct to chemotherapy and will almost certainly continue to be widely used for the foreseeable future. In this article, we chronicle the use and impact of CSF prophylaxis in US patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for nonmyeloid malignancies. We emphasize the interplay of expert opinion, clinical evidence, and economic factors in shaping the use of CSFs in clinical practice over time, and, with the recent introduction of new CSF agents and options, we aim to provide useful clinical and economic information for healthcare decision makers. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: The 2010ssupporting

confidence: 83%

Prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with colony-stimulating factors: the first 25 years

Edelsberg

Weycker

Bensink

et al. 2019

Current Medical Research and Opinion

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8 Additional studies on this topic are retrospective, single center designs and retrospective cohort studies based on insurance claims data. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Several of these studies are older and were published prior to the approval of the autoinjector device.…”

Section: Literature Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Weycker and colleagues published a series of retrospective cohort studies examining patterns of febrile neutropenia related to CSF administration. 14 , 15 These studies included patients with non-metastatic breast cancer and NHL, as well as non-metastatic ovarian and lung cancer in 1 study. A statistically higher incidence of febrile neutropenia with same day administration (day 0) compared to administration on days 1 to 3 during cycle 1 (based on Medicare claims: 11.4% vs. 8.4%, respectively; OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3 to 1.6; p < 0.001; based on private insurance claims: 3.4% vs. 2.5%; OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.7; p < 0.001).…”

Section: Summary Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Revisiting same day administration of pegfilgrastim in the age of biosimilars: A review of literature

Gerberich

Attilio

Svoboda

2020

J Oncol Pharm Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Since 2018, several pegfilgrastim biosimilars were approved, which may affect insurance reimbursement. Guidelines recommend pegfilgrastim be administered the days following chemotherapy to prevent hematopoietic toxicity. To date, only the reference pegfilgrastim product has an available autoinjector-device. This has contributed to logistical issues in administering biosimilar agents per guideline recommendations. Administration on the same day as chemotherapy may be a potential alternative when logistical issues are present. This review will assess current evidence on this practice to inform clinical decisions. Data sources: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline for studies examining the administration of pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy. Data summary: Several studies were identified, including a systematic review, retrospective reviews, and insurance claim data. Studies had significant limitations, and chemotherapy regimens and cancer types varied among studies. Studies showed inconsistent results in terms of incidence, duration, and severity of febrile neutropenia. In studies with patients with head and neck, urothelial, gynecologic, gastrointestinal, and prostate cancer, no difference in outcomes was detected or outcomes supported the feasibility of same-day administration. In patients with breast cancer, outcomes were worse with same-day administration. Outcomes were mixed in studies with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and various solid tumors. Conclusion Administration of pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy may be safe and an acceptable alternative, if logistics prohibit a patient from receiving administration the days after chemotherapy. Clinicians should consider patient risk factors and prescribed chemotherapy regimens, along with available evidence when contemplating administration of same-day pegfilgrastim.

show abstract

“…Granulocyte colony‐stimulating factors (G‐CSFs) are growth factors that can stimulate the bone marrow to produce neutrophils and minimize the risk of developing FN in these patients. Pegylated recombinant human granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor (PEG‐rhG‐CSF) is currently the most commonly used prophylactic G‐CSF agent in clinical practice 1–3 . Improved patient compliance with chemotherapy treatment further favors its use clinically 4 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety and efficacy of administering reduced doses of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte‐colony stimulating factors in patients treated with cisplatin and etoposide for small cell carcinoma: A retrospective study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The aim of this study was to discuss the safety and efficacy of administering reduced doses (3 mg) of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor (PEG‐rhG‐CSF) at approximately 24 h or up to three days following treatment with etoposide and cisplatin (EP). Methods A total of 104 cycles from 31 patients were divided into a PEG‐rhG‐CSF prophylaxis group (PP‐Group) and a control group (No‐PP‐Group). The PP‐Group received a reduced dose of 3 mg of PEG‐rhG‐CSF within a minimum of 15 h and a maximum of 72 h following EP chemotherapy, while the rest did not receive any G‐CSF prophylaxis (No‐PP‐Group). For both groups, complete blood counts, incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), grade III or IV neutropenia, and the use of antibiotics to treat neutropenia were recorded. Results There was statistically no significant difference in the incidence of FN (0% vs. 1.4%, p = 1), antibiotic use due to neutropenia (0% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.881), estimated lowest mean marginal (EM) platelet (106.56 × 109/L vs. 127.70 × 109/L, p = 0.056) and hemoglobin (110.48 g/L vs. 110.14 g/L, p = 0.906) levels between the two groups. However, when compared with the No‐PP‐group, the white blood cell count in the PP‐group was significantly higher (EM means: 4.95 × 109/L vs. 2.80 × 109/L, p < 0.01), while the incidence of grade III or IV neutropenia was significantly lower (9.1% vs. 68.1%, p < 0.01). Conclusions The administration of a low dose (3 mg) of PEG‐rhG‐CSF within approximately 24 h or up to three days following EP treatment is safe and effective at reducing the risk of neutropenia. These findings bring a more flexible administration interval between PEG‐rhG‐CSF and EP treatment.

show abstract

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim prophylaxis among patients aged ≥65 years: a retrospective evaluation using Medicare claims

Cited by 12 publications

References 29 publications

Prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with colony-stimulating factors: the first 25 years

Prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with colony-stimulating factors: the first 25 years

Revisiting same day administration of pegfilgrastim in the age of biosimilars: A review of literature

Safety and efficacy of administering reduced doses of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte‐colony stimulating factors in patients treated with cisplatin and etoposide for small cell carcinoma: A retrospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About