Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Oct 27;14(e2):e003082.
doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2021-003082. Online ahead of print.

Febrile neutropenia prophylaxis, G-CSF physician preferences: discrete-choice experiment

Affiliations

Febrile neutropenia prophylaxis, G-CSF physician preferences: discrete-choice experiment

Florian Scotte et al. BMJ Support Palliat Care. .

Abstract

Objectives: Febrile neutropenia (FN) commonly occurs during cancer chemotherapy. Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) is known to reduce the severity and incidence of FN and infections in patients with cancer. Despite the proven efficacy, G-CSFs are not always prescribed as recommended. We performed a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to determine what factors drive the physician preference for FN prophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

Methods: Attributes for the DCE were selected based on literature search and on expert focus group discussions and comprised pain at the injection site, presence of bone pain, associated fever/influenza syndrome, efficacy of prophylaxis, biosimilar availability, number of injections per chemotherapy cycle and cost. Oncologists, in a national database, were solicited to participate in an online DCE. The study collected the responses to the choice scenarios, the oncologist characteristics and their usual prescriptions of G-CSFs in the context of breast, lungs and gastrointestinal cancers.

Results: Overall, the responses from 205 physicians were analysed. The physicians were mainly male (61%), with ≤20 years of experience (76%) and working only in public hospitals (73%). The physicians prescribe G-CSF primary prophylaxis for 32% of patients: filgrastim in 46% and pegfilgrastim in 54%. The choice of G-CSF for primary and secondary prophylaxis was driven by cost and number of injections. Biosimilars were well accepted.

Conclusion: Cost and convenience of G-CSF drive the physician decision to prescribe or not G-CSF for primary and secondary FN prophylaxes. It is important that these results be incorporated in the optimisation of G-CSF prescription in the clinical setting.

Keywords: cancer; hospital care; supportive care; symptoms and symptom management.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: FS benefited from assistance from Amgen, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Léo Pharma, Pfizer, BMS, Mylan, Vifor Pharma, Helsinn Healthcare, Mundipharma and MSD. HS benefited from assistance from Lilly, Pfizer, Tesaro, Novartis, Lilly, Vifor Pharma, Pierre Fabre, Mundipharma, Mylan, Sandoz, Roche and AstraZeneca. PL was a board member for Servier, Roche, Sanofi, Janssen, Ipsen, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb and MSD; received funding for congresses from Pierre Fabre, Pfizer and Novartis; and received funding for his institution from Lilly, Amgen, Roche and Merck Serono. E-CA benefited from assistance from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Lilly, Eisai and Pierre Fabre. KG was employed by Mundipharma. CC received fees for attending scientific meetings, coordinating research or consulting from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Bayer, Mundipharma and Amgen.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Analysis of the physicians’ preferences for G-CSF as primary (A) and secondary (B) prophylaxes. (A) Analysis of G-CSF preference for primary prophylaxis. (B) Analysis of G-CSF preference for secondary prophylaxis. FN, febrile neutropenia; G-CSF, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Analysis of the G-CSF preference, as primary and secondary prophylaxes, according to the healthcare sector in which the physicians work. (A) Physicians working in the public sectors: primary prophylaxis preference; (B) physicians working in the private sector (combined or not with the public sector): primary prophylaxis preference; (C) physicians working in the public sectors: secondary prophylaxis preference; (D) physicians working in the private sector (combined or not with the public sector): secondary prophylaxis preference. FN, febrile neutropenia; G-CSF, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

References

    1. Patel K, West HJ. Febrile neutropenia. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1751. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.1114. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gatzemeier U, Ciuleanu T, Dediu M, et al. XM02, the first biosimilar G-CSF, is safe and effective in reducing the duration of severe neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients with small cell or non-small cell lung cancer receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4:736–40. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181a52964. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kuderer NM, Dale DC, Crawford J, et al. Mortality, morbidity, and cost associated with febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients. Cancer. 2006;106:2258–66. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21847. - DOI - PubMed
    1. MacDonald K, McBride A, Alrawashdh N, et al. Cost-efficiency and expanded access of prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia: economic simulation analysis for the US of conversion from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv. J Med Econ. 2020;23:1466–76. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2020.1833339. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cooper KL, Madan J, Whyte S, et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis following chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:404. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-404. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources