Abstract
Background: Daily G-CSFs(Filgrastim, lenograstim) are widely used to reduce duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia(CIN) and incidence of febrile neutropenia(FN) in cancer patients(pts). Data on their patterns of use and effectiveness in routine clinical practice are however limited. The introduction of the once-per-cycle G-CSF pegfilgrastim(Neulasta®) in Spain in 2003 may have changed patterns of use of daily G-CSFs and CIN-related outcomes.
Methods: Multicentre, retrospective, observational study of daily G-CSF and pegfilgrastim patterns of use and outcomes in adult subjects with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy(CT). Consecutive patient medical records with documented use of daily G-CSF or pegfilgrastim were abstracted from 10 Spanish centers during 2003.
Endpoints: percentage of proactive(primary prophylaxis) vs reactive(secondary prophylaxis/treatment) use of G-CSFs, duration of treatment with G-CSF, and CIN-related outcomes(dose delay, dose reduction, incidence of FN, hospitalization and antibiotic consumption).
Results: 248 charts documented pegfilgrastim or daily G-CSF use; 75 pts received pegfilgrastim only; 111 pts received daily G-CSF only(99 Filgrastim, 12 lenograstim); 62 pts received both daily G-CSF and pegfilgrastim during their CT(data not shown). Most common tumor types were lung(25%), breast(20%), malignant lymphomas(20%). Pattern of use (% pts on primary or secondary prophylaxis, or treatment at any time during CT) was:pegfilgrastim(39%,48%,17%, respectively) vs daily G-CSF(40%,48%,30%, respectively). Median number of injections/cycle in the daily G-CSF group was 6 (range 1–13) in primary prophylaxis, and 5 (range 1–11) in secondary prophylaxis and treatment. CIN-related outcomes are shown in the table below.
Conclusions: Patterns of use of daily G-CSFs and pegfilgrastim were similar for primary and secondary prophylaxis, but a potential trend to less frequent treatment use in the pegfilgrastim group was observed. CIN-related complications, including incidence of FN, were observed to be lower in pts receiving pegfilgrastim.
CT-related complications% pts (95% CI) | Pegfilgrastim(n=75) | Daily G-CSF(n=111) |
Dose Delay | 44% (33; 55) | 46% (36; 55) |
Dose Reduction | 14.7% (8.2; 24.6) | 20.7% (14.2; 29.2) |
Dose Reduction due to Neutropenia | 6.7% (2.5; 15.0) | 20.7% (14.1; 29.2) |
Febrile Neutropenia (FN) | 10.7% (5.3; 19.9) | 24.3% (17.2; 33.1) |
Hospitalization due to FN | 9.3% (4.3; 18.3) | 19.8% (13.4; 28.3) |
Antibiotic Consumption due to FN | 8.0% (3.4; 16.7) | 17.1% (11.2; 25.3) |
CT-related complications% pts (95% CI) | Pegfilgrastim(n=75) | Daily G-CSF(n=111) |
Dose Delay | 44% (33; 55) | 46% (36; 55) |
Dose Reduction | 14.7% (8.2; 24.6) | 20.7% (14.2; 29.2) |
Dose Reduction due to Neutropenia | 6.7% (2.5; 15.0) | 20.7% (14.1; 29.2) |
Febrile Neutropenia (FN) | 10.7% (5.3; 19.9) | 24.3% (17.2; 33.1) |
Hospitalization due to FN | 9.3% (4.3; 18.3) | 19.8% (13.4; 28.3) |
Antibiotic Consumption due to FN | 8.0% (3.4; 16.7) | 17.1% (11.2; 25.3) |
Author notes
Corresponding author
This feature is available to Subscribers Only
Sign In or Create an Account Close Modal