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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |