Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Weycker, Derek, Doroff, Robin, Hanau, Ahuva, Bowers, Charles, Belani, Rajesh, Chandler, David, Lonshteyn, Alexander, Bensink, Mark, Lyman, Gary H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6688232/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31399079
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-6010-9
_version_ 1783442843547729920
author Weycker, Derek
Doroff, Robin
Hanau, Ahuva
Bowers, Charles
Belani, Rajesh
Chandler, David
Lonshteyn, Alexander
Bensink, Mark
Lyman, Gary H.
author_facet Weycker, Derek
Doroff, Robin
Hanau, Ahuva
Bowers, Charles
Belani, Rajesh
Chandler, David
Lonshteyn, Alexander
Bensink, Mark
Lyman, Gary H.
author_sort Weycker, Derek
collection PubMed
description 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-6010-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6688232
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66882322019-08-14 Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study Weycker, Derek Doroff, Robin Hanau, Ahuva Bowers, Charles Belani, Rajesh Chandler, David Lonshteyn, Alexander Bensink, Mark Lyman, Gary H. BMC Cancer Research Article 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-6010-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-08-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6688232/ /pubmed/31399079 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-6010-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Weycker, Derek
Doroff, Robin
Hanau, Ahuva
Bowers, Charles
Belani, Rajesh
Chandler, David
Lonshteyn, Alexander
Bensink, Mark
Lyman, Gary H.
Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study
title Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study
title_full Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study
title_fullStr Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study
title_full_unstemmed Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study
title_short Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study
title_sort use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in us clinical practice:a retrospective observational study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6688232/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31399079
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-6010-9
work_keys_str_mv AT weyckerderek useandeffectivenessofpegfilgrastimprophylaxisinusclinicalpracticearetrospectiveobservationalstudy
AT doroffrobin useandeffectivenessofpegfilgrastimprophylaxisinusclinicalpracticearetrospectiveobservationalstudy
AT hanauahuva useandeffectivenessofpegfilgrastimprophylaxisinusclinicalpracticearetrospectiveobservationalstudy
AT bowerscharles useandeffectivenessofpegfilgrastimprophylaxisinusclinicalpracticearetrospectiveobservationalstudy
AT belanirajesh useandeffectivenessofpegfilgrastimprophylaxisinusclinicalpracticearetrospectiveobservationalstudy
AT chandlerdavid useandeffectivenessofpegfilgrastimprophylaxisinusclinicalpracticearetrospectiveobservationalstudy
AT lonshteynalexander useandeffectivenessofpegfilgrastimprophylaxisinusclinicalpracticearetrospectiveobservationalstudy
AT bensinkmark useandeffectivenessofpegfilgrastimprophylaxisinusclinicalpracticearetrospectiveobservationalstudy
AT lymangaryh useandeffectivenessofpegfilgrastimprophylaxisinusclinicalpracticearetrospectiveobservationalstudy