Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study
- PMID: 31399079
- PMCID: PMC6688232
- DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-6010-9
Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study
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.
Keywords: Febrile neutropenia; Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; Neulasta; Pegfilgrastim.
Conflict of interest statement
DW, RD, AH, and AL are employed by Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI). CB, RB, DC, and MB are employed by, and own stock in, Amgen Inc. GHL is the principal investigator on a research grant to Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center from Amgen Inc.
Similar articles
-
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.Curr Med Res Opin. 2018 Sep;34(9):1705-1711. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2018.1495621. Epub 2018 Jul 25. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018. PMID: 29962268
-
Febrile neutropenia (FN) and pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in breast cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients receiving high (> 20%) FN-risk chemotherapy: results from a prospective observational study.Support Care Cancer. 2019 Apr;27(4):1449-1457. doi: 10.1007/s00520-018-4473-x. Epub 2018 Sep 26. Support Care Cancer. 2019. PMID: 30259136
-
Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with early discontinuation of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice.Support Care Cancer. 2016 Jun;24(6):2481-90. doi: 10.1007/s00520-015-3039-4. Epub 2015 Dec 15. Support Care Cancer. 2016. PMID: 26670915 Free PMC article.
-
Prophylactic pegfilgrastim to prevent febrile neutropenia among patients receiving biweekly (Q2W) chemotherapy regimens: a systematic review of efficacy, effectiveness and safety.BMC Cancer. 2021 May 27;21(1):621. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08258-w. BMC Cancer. 2021. PMID: 34044798 Free PMC article.
-
Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with lymphoma: a systematic review.BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Dec 30;22(1):1600. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08933-z. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022. PMID: 36585648 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim biosimilars vs originator for prevention of febrile neutropenia: A retrospective cohort study.J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2023 Feb;29(2):119-127. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2023.29.2.119. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2023. PMID: 36705287 Free PMC article.
-
Real-world evidence of febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization on patients with perioperative chemotherapy for early breast cancer in Japan.Breast Cancer. 2025 Jul;32(4):857-866. doi: 10.1007/s12282-025-01714-6. Epub 2025 May 19. Breast Cancer. 2025. PMID: 40388078 Free PMC article.
-
Pegfilgrastim Prophylaxis Is Effective in the Prevention of Febrile Neutropenia and Reduces Mortality in Patients Aged ≥ 75 Years with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treated with R-CHOP: A Prospective Cohort Study.Cancer Res Treat. 2022 Oct;54(4):1268-1277. doi: 10.4143/crt.2021.1168. Epub 2021 Dec 30. Cancer Res Treat. 2022. PMID: 34990525 Free PMC article.
-
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.Support Care Cancer. 2022 Jul;30(7):6135-6144. doi: 10.1007/s00520-022-07025-2. Epub 2022 Apr 14. Support Care Cancer. 2022. PMID: 35426046 Free PMC article.
-
How Can Oncology Nurses and Advanced Practice Providers Reduce the Burden of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia in the US?J Adv Pract Oncol. 2024 May 22:1-15. doi: 10.6004/jadpro.2024.15.8.5. Online ahead of print. J Adv Pract Oncol. 2024. PMID: 39802536 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Bosly A, Bron D, Van Hoof A, De Bock R, Berneman Z, Ferrant A, et al. Achievement of optimal average relative dose intensity and correlation with survival in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients treated with CHOP. Ann Hematol. 2008;87(4):277–283. - PubMed
-
- Caggiano V, Weiss RV, Rickert TS, Linde-Zwirble WT. Incidence, cost, and mortality of neutropenia hospitalization associated with chemotherapy. Cancer. 2005;103(9):1916–1924. - PubMed
-
- Kuderer NM, Dale DC, Crawford J, Cosler LE, Lyman GH. Mortality, morbidity, and cost associated with febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients. Cancer. 2006;106(10):2258–2266. - PubMed
-
- Kwak LW, Halpern J, Olshen RA, Horning SJ. Prognostic significance of actual dose intensity in diffuse large-cell lymphoma: results of a tree-structured survival analysis. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8(6):963–977. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous