Cargando…

A prospective study to evaluate febrile neutropenia incidence in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector vs other choices

PURPOSE: We evaluated the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and related clinical outcomes among patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for nonmyeloid malignancies who received pegfilgrastim on-body injector (OBI) or other options (Other) for FN prophylaxis. METHODS: In this prospect...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rifkin, Robert M., Crawford, Jeffrey, Mahtani, Reshma L., Dale, David C., Narang, Mohit, MacLaughlin, William W., Huynh, Chanh, Gawade, Prasad L., Lewis, Sandra, DeCosta, Lucy, Lawrence, Tatiana, Belani, Rajesh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9216302/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35732748
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07226-9
_version_ 1784731391778357248
author Rifkin, Robert M.
Crawford, Jeffrey
Mahtani, Reshma L.
Dale, David C.
Narang, Mohit
MacLaughlin, William W.
Huynh, Chanh
Gawade, Prasad L.
Lewis, Sandra
DeCosta, Lucy
Lawrence, Tatiana
Belani, Rajesh
author_facet Rifkin, Robert M.
Crawford, Jeffrey
Mahtani, Reshma L.
Dale, David C.
Narang, Mohit
MacLaughlin, William W.
Huynh, Chanh
Gawade, Prasad L.
Lewis, Sandra
DeCosta, Lucy
Lawrence, Tatiana
Belani, Rajesh
author_sort Rifkin, Robert M.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: We evaluated the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and related clinical outcomes among patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for nonmyeloid malignancies who received pegfilgrastim on-body injector (OBI) or other options (Other) for FN prophylaxis. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, adult patients with breast, prostate, or lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma at risk for FN were stratified into subgroups based on FN prophylaxis used in the first chemotherapy cycle: pegfilgrastim OBI vs Other (pegfilgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim prefilled syringe, daily filgrastim, or no granulocyte colony–stimulating factor [G-CSF]) for up to 4 planned chemotherapy cycles. RESULTS: This US study enrolled 2575 eligible patients (OBI, 1624; Other, 951). FN incidence was lower in the OBI group (6.4% [95% CI, 5.2–7.6%]) than in the Other group (9.4% [7.5–11.2%]), with a relative risk (RR) of 0.66 (0.47–0.91; p = .006). A decreased risk of dose delays among patients receiving pegfilgrastim OBI vs Other was observed (RR for ≥ 5 days: 0.64 [0.42–0.96], p = .023; RR for ≥ 7 days: 0.62 [0.40–0.91], p = .016). Adherence, defined as G-CSF support for all chemotherapy cycles, was 94.0% (92.9–95.2%) in the OBI group compared with 58.4% (55.2–61.5%) in the Other group. Compliance with pegfilgrastim, defined as administration the day after chemotherapy, was 88.3% in the OBI group and 48.8% in the prefilled syringe group. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving pegfilgrastim OBI had a lower incidence of FN compared with those receiving alternatives. The OBI was associated with improved adherence to and compliance with clinically recommended G-CSF prophylaxis. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-022-07226-9.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9216302
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92163022022-06-22 A prospective study to evaluate febrile neutropenia incidence in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector vs other choices Rifkin, Robert M. Crawford, Jeffrey Mahtani, Reshma L. Dale, David C. Narang, Mohit MacLaughlin, William W. Huynh, Chanh Gawade, Prasad L. Lewis, Sandra DeCosta, Lucy Lawrence, Tatiana Belani, Rajesh Support Care Cancer Original Article PURPOSE: We evaluated the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and related clinical outcomes among patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for nonmyeloid malignancies who received pegfilgrastim on-body injector (OBI) or other options (Other) for FN prophylaxis. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, adult patients with breast, prostate, or lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma at risk for FN were stratified into subgroups based on FN prophylaxis used in the first chemotherapy cycle: pegfilgrastim OBI vs Other (pegfilgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim prefilled syringe, daily filgrastim, or no granulocyte colony–stimulating factor [G-CSF]) for up to 4 planned chemotherapy cycles. RESULTS: This US study enrolled 2575 eligible patients (OBI, 1624; Other, 951). FN incidence was lower in the OBI group (6.4% [95% CI, 5.2–7.6%]) than in the Other group (9.4% [7.5–11.2%]), with a relative risk (RR) of 0.66 (0.47–0.91; p = .006). A decreased risk of dose delays among patients receiving pegfilgrastim OBI vs Other was observed (RR for ≥ 5 days: 0.64 [0.42–0.96], p = .023; RR for ≥ 7 days: 0.62 [0.40–0.91], p = .016). Adherence, defined as G-CSF support for all chemotherapy cycles, was 94.0% (92.9–95.2%) in the OBI group compared with 58.4% (55.2–61.5%) in the Other group. Compliance with pegfilgrastim, defined as administration the day after chemotherapy, was 88.3% in the OBI group and 48.8% in the prefilled syringe group. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving pegfilgrastim OBI had a lower incidence of FN compared with those receiving alternatives. The OBI was associated with improved adherence to and compliance with clinically recommended G-CSF prophylaxis. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-022-07226-9. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-06-22 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9216302/ /pubmed/35732748 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07226-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Rifkin, Robert M.
Crawford, Jeffrey
Mahtani, Reshma L.
Dale, David C.
Narang, Mohit
MacLaughlin, William W.
Huynh, Chanh
Gawade, Prasad L.
Lewis, Sandra
DeCosta, Lucy
Lawrence, Tatiana
Belani, Rajesh
A prospective study to evaluate febrile neutropenia incidence in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector vs other choices
title A prospective study to evaluate febrile neutropenia incidence in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector vs other choices
title_full A prospective study to evaluate febrile neutropenia incidence in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector vs other choices
title_fullStr A prospective study to evaluate febrile neutropenia incidence in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector vs other choices
title_full_unstemmed A prospective study to evaluate febrile neutropenia incidence in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector vs other choices
title_short A prospective study to evaluate febrile neutropenia incidence in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector vs other choices
title_sort prospective study to evaluate febrile neutropenia incidence in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector vs other choices
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9216302/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35732748
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07226-9
work_keys_str_mv AT rifkinrobertm aprospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT crawfordjeffrey aprospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT mahtanireshmal aprospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT daledavidc aprospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT narangmohit aprospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT maclaughlinwilliamw aprospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT huynhchanh aprospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT gawadeprasadl aprospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT lewissandra aprospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT decostalucy aprospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT lawrencetatiana aprospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT belanirajesh aprospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT rifkinrobertm prospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT crawfordjeffrey prospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT mahtanireshmal prospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT daledavidc prospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT narangmohit prospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT maclaughlinwilliamw prospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT huynhchanh prospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT gawadeprasadl prospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT lewissandra prospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT decostalucy prospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT lawrencetatiana prospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices
AT belanirajesh prospectivestudytoevaluatefebrileneutropeniaincidenceinpatientsreceivingpegfilgrastimonbodyinjectorvsotherchoices