Prophylaxis Of Febrile Neutropenia Research Articles

Mecapegfilgrastim for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in children and adolescents with rhabdomyosarcoma or Ewing sarcoma: a prospective, single-arm, pilot study

BackgroundThe chemotherapy regimens recommended for both rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) and Ewing sarcoma (ES) patients are myelosuppressive and can reduce the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and subsequently increase the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). However, only a few studies have focused on the efficacy and safety of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) drugs in pediatric and adolescent patients with RMS and ES. Our objective was to investigate the efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim, a biosimilar of pegfilgrastim, in prophylaxis of FN for pediatric and adolescent patients with RMS or ES.MethodsIn this single-arm, single-center, prospective study, pediatric and adolescent patients with RMS or ES were enrolled to receive either VAC (vincristine, cyclophosphamide, dactinomycin) regimen or VDC (vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin) regimen in a 3-week cycle, followed by treatment with mecapegfilgrastim (100 μg/kg, maximum 6 mg) given at 24 h after completing chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the incidence rate of FN. Secondary endpoints included the incidence rate of grade 4 neutropenia, duration of ANC ≤ 0.5 × 109/L, incidence rate of chemotherapy delay or reduction, use of antibiotics, and safety profile.ResultsIn total, 2 of the 30 (6.7%, 95% CI: 0.82–22.07) patients experienced FN after the first cycle of chemotherapy. Eight (26.7%, 95% CI: 12.28–45.89) patients experienced grade 4 neutropenia after receiving prophylactic mecapegfilgrastim. Eight patients experienced ANC ≤ 0.5 × 109/L with a median duration of 4.5 days; among them, 6 patients reached the lowest point of their ANC level on day 7, and 5 of them recovered by day 10. No dose reductions, delays, or discontinuation of chemotherapy was reported. Twenty-one (70.0%) patients received antibiotics during the treatment period. No patient experienced FN in the 0–5 years and the 13–18 years groups, and 2 patients experienced FN in the 6–12 years group. Two patients, 6 patients, and no patient experienced grade 4 neutropenia in the 0–5 years, 6–12 years, and 13–18 years groups, respectively.ConclusionMecapegfilgrastim showed acceptable efficacy and safety profile in pediatric and adolescent patients with RMS or ES. Further randomized studies with large sample size are warranted.Trial registrationThis clinical trial was registered at Chictr.org.cn (No.ChiCTR1900022249). Registered on March 31, 2019.

Effectiveness and safety of empegfilgrastim (Extimia®) in patients with solid tumors receiving cytotoxic therapy: final results of the DEFENDOR study

Aim. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Extimia® (empegfilgrastim, JSC "BIOCAD") in reducing the frequency, duration of neutropenia, the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and infections caused by FN in patients with solid tumors receiving myelosuppressive therapy. Materials and methods. The paper presents the final results of a multicenter prospective observational post-marketing study of the safety and effectiveness of Extimia® (empegfilgrastim) in patients with solid tumors receiving cytotoxic therapy. For the primary prevention of FN, all patients received empegfilgrastim at 7.5 mg subcutaneously once per course of chemotherapy (CT) 24 hours after the end of CT administration. The primary endpoint included an assessment of the relative dose-intensity (RDI) of the CT courses administered. The endpoints of interest included the assessment of the RDI of CT courses by nosology and CT regimen, the frequency of dose-limiting neutropenia, and the incidence of all adverse events (AEs) in patients who received at least one dose of the study medication, including serious AEs. Results. From February 2021 to December 2022, 3218 patients with various malignancies were included in 41 study centers of the Russian Fede- ration. Of these, 3217 (99.97%) patients received at least one dose of the study drug, and 2663 (82.8%) patients were included in the RDI evaluation population according to the study protocol. The mean age in this group was 56.9 (18–84) years. RDI ≥85% was achieved in 2,415 (90.7%) patients. The mean RDI was 96.2%, with a median of 100%. FN risk factors were present in 1216 (45.7%) patients, with age ≥65 years being the most common risk factor at 761/2663 (28.6%). It should be noted that in patients younger than 65 years, the RDI was 91.5%, and in elderly patients (≥65 years) 88.7%. Dose-limiting neutropenia was reported in 19 (0.7%) patients. There were 74 cases of grade 3–4 AEs (according to CTCAE v.5) in 59 (1.8%) patients. The most common were neutropenia, anemia, and diarrhea in 19 (0.7%), 7 (0.2%), and 6 (0.2%) patients, respectively. Serious AEs were reported in 17 patients (0.5%). Conclusion. Primary prophylaxis of FN with long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor empegfilgrastim effectively maintains RDI in various nosological and therapeutic groups of patients with different CT regimens in real-world clinical practice.

Abstract PO2-12-12: REaCT 5G: A randomized study comparing bone pain after 5 days of filgrastim or one day of pegfilgrastim for primary febrile neutropenia prophylaxis during neo-/adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer

Abstract Background: Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) such as filgrastim (FIL) or pegfilgrastim (PEG) significantly reduces the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) and treatment-related hospitalization in patients with early breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. However, patients receiving G-CSF can experience clinically significant bone pain. Previous studies examining post-GCSF bone pain were mostly based on physician pain assessment and compared mixed doses (30/60/100 μg/kg) of PEG vs. FIL (5μg/kg/day or 300 μg/day) given for 7 to 14 days. Based on a randomized non-inferiority study, 5 days of FIL is considered non-inferior to 10 days of FIL to prevent FN and hospitalizations and is frequently used in patients receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer. Patient-reported bone pain after 5 days of FIL vs. single dose of PEG has never been compared in a prospective randomized study and has important implications for patient and physician treatment preferences. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label trial, patients receiving neo-/adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer requiring primary FN prophylaxis with G-CSF were randomized 1:1 to either 5 days of FIL (300 μg or 480μg if ≥ 90 kg) or 1 day of PEG (6 mg) with each cycle of chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was bone pain using area under the curve (AUC) of the daily pain score from days 1-5 (AUC score 0 to 40) during cycle 1. We used linear regression adjusting for stratification factors [cancer center (2 centers) and chemotherapy regimen (taxane (TAX) or anthracycline (ANTH)-based during cycle 1] and prespecified baseline covariates: age, pain, and use of pain medications pre-chemotherapy. Supportive analysis of bone pain across cycles 1 to 4 was conducted using repeated linear regression. Key secondary endpoints included incidence of FN, hospitalizations, chemotherapy delay, dose-reduction or discontinuation, and chemotherapy-related deaths. Results: From June 2021 to March 2023, 233 patients were enrolled, with 217 patients (108 FIL/109 PEG) in the intention-to-treat analysis; 16 (7.4%) patients were excluded because of incomplete follow-up. Participants were mean age 55.6 years; almost exclusively female (99.1%), on chemotherapy regimen TAX 57% vs. ANTH 43%, had mean baseline pain score 1.12, and prevalence of pain medication use pre-chemotherapy was acetaminophen 14.7%, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) 6.0% and opioids 3.2%. Characteristics were balanced between arms (Table 1). After repeated measures linear regression adjusted for age, chemotherapy regimen, baseline pain, and use of pain medications pre-chemotherapy, mean AUC for bone pain at cycle 1 was 10.94 for FIL and 10.12 for PEG (mean difference 0.82; 95% CI: -1.59, 3.23; p = 0.516). There was no significant difference between arms across treatment cycles (interaction p = 0.785; mean time-averaged difference 0.28; 95% CI: -1.75, 2.32). Across cycles 1 to 4, mean peak pain over 5 days post-GCSF was 3.27 vs. 3.41 (p=0.700); frequency of bone pain during first 8 days (pain score > 0) was 52.5% vs. 51.3%; p=0.358, and mean frequency of severe pain (pain score ≥ 5) was 17.5% vs. 15.2%; p=0.014 for FIL vs. PEG, respectively. The incidence of FN [4.6% vs. 0%, absolute difference 4.6% (95% CI: -0.3%, 9.5%; p=0.069)] and hospitalization [FN and non-FN related: 10.2% vs. 1.8%, absolute difference of 8.4% (95% CI: 1.2%, 15.5%; p=0.021)] was higher in the FIL group. There were no significant differences in chemotherapy delay (13% vs. 11%; p=0.815), dose reduction (14.8% vs. 14.7%; p=0.999), early discontinuation (8.3% vs. 5.5%; p=0.580), or chemotherapy-related death (0.9% vs. 0%; p=0.996) in the FIL vs. PEG groups, respectively. Conclusion: There was no difference in patient-reported bone pain after 5 days of FIL or PEG, even after controlling for important clinical factors. Importantly, the study observed higher rates of FN and hospitalizations in patients receiving FIL for 5 days only. Table 1 Baseline Characteristics Citation Format: Terry Ng, Yuxin Zhang, Carol Stober, Jennifer Shamess, Natalie Mills, Stuart Nicholls, Mohammed Ibrahim, Daniel Davoudpour, Christopher Armiento, Marie-France Savard, Moira Rushton, Arif Awan, Sandeep Sehdev, John Hilton, Xinni Song, Rakesh Goel, Fiona Macdonald, Kelly Daigle, Lisa Vandermeer, Monica Taljaard, Mark Clemons. REaCT 5G: A randomized study comparing bone pain after 5 days of filgrastim or one day of pegfilgrastim for primary febrile neutropenia prophylaxis during neo-/adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO2-12-12.

Comparison between a single dose of PEG G-CSF and multiple doses of non-PEG G-CSF: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is widely used for the primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN). Two types of G-CSF are available in Japan, namely G-CSF chemically bound to polyethylene glycol (PEG G-CSF), which provides long-lasting effects with a single dose, and non-polyethylene glycol-bound G-CSF (non-PEG G-CSF), which must be sequentially administrated for several days. This current study investigated the utility of these treatments for the primary prophylaxis of FN through a systematic review of the literature. A detailed literature search for related studies was performed using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis or meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate six outcomes. Through the first and second screenings, 23 and 18 articles were extracted for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis, respectively. The incidence of FN was significantly lower in the PEG G-CSF group than in the non-PEG G-CSF group with a strong quality/certainty of evidence. The differences in other outcomes, such as overall survival, infection-related mortality, the duration of neutropenia (less than 500/μL), quality of life, and pain, were not apparent. A single dose of PEG G-CSF is strongly recommended over multiple-dose non-PEG G-CSF therapy for the primary prophylaxis of FN.

The Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor as Primary Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy: An Experience of Moroccan Oncologists.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a frequent and serious emergency for oncologic patients undergoing chemotherapy. Using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) as primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia is an integral part of the management of cancer patients. Our study aims to identify the challenges that prevent Moroccan oncologists from prescribing G-CSF for primary prevention. Seventy doctors participated in our study, with a participation rate of 35.35%. Twenty-two participants had at least five years of experience in oncology. Most participants were medical oncologists (82.9%), and two-thirds of them practiced in teaching hospitals. Regarding the use of G-CSF in primary prevention, all participants complied with the recommendations for FN risk assessment and the prescription of G-CSF for prophylaxis in patients at high risk of FN (>20%). However, their use in intermediate-risk patients remains limited mainly by the cost of these drugs (45.7% of participants). FN remains a dreadful complication in oncology. Since the introduction of G-CSF into standard oncology practice, particularly in primary prevention, the management of certain patients has improved considerably. Nevertheless, the indications for G-CSF in our context, essentially in intermediate-risk patients, are uncertain.

Phase II study of the safety and efficacy of discontinuing pegfilgrastim for pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with FOLFIRINOX.

663 Background: The original FOLFIRINOX regimen (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with a high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN), and pegfilgrastim has been used to reduce the risk. However, it remains unclear how long pegfilgrastim needs to continue. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of FOLFIRINOX after discontinuing pegfilgrastim in PDAC patients. Methods: This prospective phase II trial included patients with PDAC who received the first three courses of FOLFIRINOX, with primary pegfilgrastim prophylaxis for FN, and did not experience FN. The patients continued on FOLFIRINOX without pegfilgrastim from the fourth course. The primary endpoint was development of FN. The secondary endpoints included relative dose intensity (RDI), objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). The threshold and expected development of FN were 20% and 7%, respectively, at a one-sided significance level of 0.10 and statistical power of 80%. Based on this hypothesis, we calculated the number of patients needed to be 33. Results: In total, 34 patients (20 male, median age 66 years) were enrolled from August 2017 to September 2021. Twenty-three patients were unresectable, and 11 were borderline resectable. FN developed in one patient. Grade 4 neutropenia was observed in six patients, grade 3 neutropenia in 10 (29.4%), anemia in four (11.8%), diarrhea in two (5.9%), and malaise, lung infection, peripheral sensory neuropathy, colitis, and biliary tract infection in one (2.9%) each. Twenty-two patients required dose reduction, mainly because of neutropenia. Mean RDIs at the sixth course of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, acute infusion of fluorouracil, and continuous infusion of fluorouracil were 77.0%, 88.2%, 81.8%, 84.4%, and 87.6%, respectively. ORR, median PFS, and median OS were 44.1%, 15.8 months, and 25.8 months, respectively. Conclusions: FOLFIRINOX can be continued safely with a low incidence of FN after discontinuing pegfilgrastim in PDAC patients who did not experience FN during the first three courses of FOLFIRINOX, if the drug dose is reduced appropriately for neutropenia from the fourth course. Clinical trial information: UMIN000028055 .

The frequency of regimens associated with high risk of febrile neutropenia and the incidence of dose-limiting neutropenia among patients receiving cytotoxic therapy for malignancies: the FLAME study results

Aim. To assess the proportion and profile of patients at high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy (CT), as well as the incidence of FN and dose-limiting neutropenia after one cycle of CT.
 Materials and methods. The paper presents the results of the FLAME study, the first Russian observational study in patients with solid tumors who received only cytotoxic CT or a combination with targeted, immuno-oncological drugs. By random sampling, the study retrospectively included 500 patients with a median age of 59 years (18–83 years) from 25 medical institutions in the Russian Federation.
 Results. CT regimens with a high (20%) risk of FN were received by 25.2% (126/500) of patients; 53% (265/500) of patients had intermediate risk, and half of them (132/265 [49.8%]) had at least one additional risk FN factor following international NCCN guidelines. Thus, a high risk of FN, according to the therapy and the assessment of individual prognostic adverse factors, was noted in 51.6% (258/500) of patients. 36.8% (95/258) of patients with high risk for FN received primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors.
 Conclusion. The study showed a significant proportion of patients with a high risk of FN, and most of them do not receive primary prophylaxis of FN.

Open-labeled, multicenter phase II study of prophylactic administration of pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received pomalidomide-based regimens (KMM170).

Pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has been widely used for preventing febrile neutropenia in various types of cancer treatment. In the present study, we prospectively evaluated the safety and efficacy of pegfilgrastim as a primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia and infection among patients with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treated with pomalidomide-based regimens. Thirty-three patients with RRMM who received pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd) with or without cyclophosphamide (PCd) were enrolled in this study. Twenty-eight patients were treated with PCd and 5 patients were treated with Pd. All patients were given pegfilgrastim subcutaneously with a single administration performed on the first day of each cycle as primary prophylaxis until the fourth cycle. The median age of the patients was 75 (range 56-85), and the median prior line of therapy was 2 (range 2-6). Seventeen patients (51.5%) had any grade of neutropenia and 20 (60.6%) had any grade of thrombocytopenia before starting pomalidomide treatment. During the 4 cycles of treatment, grade 3 or more neutropenia occurred in 17 patients (51.5%), and 4 (12.1%) experienced grade 3 or more febrile neutropenia. Grade 3 or more infections occurred in 5 patients (15.2%). Interestingly, the patients with markedly increased ANC of more than 2 x 109/L compared to baseline ANC after 7 days of pegfilgrastim at 1st cycle of treatment showed a significantly lower incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia. The most common adverse event of pegfilgrastim was fatigue, and all the adverse events caused by pegfilgrastim were grade 1 or 2. And there was no significant change in the immune cell population and cytokines during the administration of pegfilgrastim. Considering that this study included elderly patients with baseline neutropenia, pegylated G-CSF could be helpful to prevent severe neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, or infection in patients with RRMM.

A study indicates an essential link between a mild deterioration in excretory kidney function and the risk of neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy

PurposeNeutropenia, defined as a number of neutrophils in patients’ blood specimen lower than 1500 cells/μm3, is a common adverse event during myelosuppressive oncological chemotherapy, predisposing to febrile neutropenia (FN). Patients with coexisting moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk of FN, included in the guidelines for the primary prophylaxis of FN. However, this does not include mild kidney function impairment with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 60–89 ml/min/1.73 m2. This prospective study analyzed the risk of neutropenia in patients on chemotherapy without indication for the primary prophylaxis of FN.MethodsThe study enrolled 38 patients starting chemotherapy, including 26 (68.4%) patients aged 65 years or more. The median duration of follow-up was 76 days. The methodology of creatinine assessment enabled the use of the recommended CKD-EPI formula for identifying patients with a mild reduction of glomerular filtration.ResultsSixteen (42.1%) patients developed at least G2 neutropenia without episodes of FN. Only five (13.1%) patients had eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2, while 15 (62.5%) eGFR < 90 ml/min/1.73 m2. The relative risk of neutropenia in patients with impaired eGFR was over six times higher than in patients with eGFR > 90 ml/min/1.73 m2 (RR = 6.08; 95%CI:1.45–27.29; p < 0.01).ConclusionsOur observation indicates that even a mild reduction in eGFR is a risk factor for the development of neutropenia and a potential risk factor for FN.

Factors associated with thrombocytopenia in patients treated with pegfilgrastim.

Pegfilgrastim is a long-acting, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor approved in Japan for the prevention of neutropenia caused by antineoplastic agents. Severe thrombocytopenia was reported with pegfilgrastim, however, the factors associated with thrombocytopenia are unclear. This study aimed to explore the factors associated with thrombocytopenia in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with pegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN) with cabazitaxel. This study included metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients who received pegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis of FN with cabazitaxel. The timing and severity of thrombocytopenia and factors associated with the reduction rate of platelets were examined in patients who received pegfilgrastim for the primary prevention of FN during the first course of cabazitaxel and by multiple regression analysis. Thrombocytopenia was most common within 7 days of pegfilgrastim administration, with 32 cases of grade 1 and 6 cases of grade 2 as per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Multiple regression analysis revealed that the reduction rate of platelets after pegfilgrastim administration was significantly positively correlated with monocytes. In contrast, the presence of liver metastases and neutrophils was significantly negatively correlated with the reduction rate of platelets. Thrombocytopenia due to pegfilgrastim administered as primary prophylaxis for FN with cabazitaxel was most likely to occur within one week after pegfilgrastim administration, suggesting that monocytes, neutrophils, and liver metastases were associated with a reduction in platelets.

Outcomes in Patients With Curative Malignancies Receiving Filgrastim as Primary Prophylaxis.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis has been shown to reduce the risk and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia and is recommended for at-risk patients receiving chemotherapy. Within the South Texas Veterans Health Care System, daily filgrastim injections remain the preferred formulation of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. This retrospective, single-center cohort study included 59 patients who received daily filgrastim as primary prophylaxis with a curative cancer diagnosis and a chemotherapy regimen at the South Texas Veterans Health Care System from September 1, 2015 to September 24, 2020. Patients had either a high risk for febrile neutropenia or a chemotherapy regimen with an intermediate risk for febrile neutropenia and additional risk factors. The primary outcome was the incidence of neutropenia/febrile neutropenia leading to treatment delays. Secondary outcomes included chemotherapy dose decreases or discontinuations, hospitalizations, days of hospitalization, infections, extended duration of filgrastim, and transitions to pegfilgrastim due to neutropenia/febrile neutropenia. Patients received a median (IQR) of 7 (5-10) doses of filgrastim for primary prophylaxis. Overall, 10 patients (17%) experienced treatment delays due to neutropenia/febrile neutropenia. Fifteen patients (25%) were hospitalized with a median (IQR) length of stay of 5 (4-7) days, 9 patients (15%) had documented infections, and 2 patients (3%) required a chemotherapy dose reduction. Additionally, 9 patients (15%) required an additional median (IQR) of 2 (2-5) doses of filgrastim, and 9 (15%) patients were transitioned to pegfilgrastim. These results suggest that additional measures such as tracking postnadir absolute neutrophil counts should be performed to ensure patients receive an appropriate number of filgrastim doses to prevent complications associated with neutropenia/febrile neutropenia.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in intermediate-risk regimens: Clinical and economic outcomes of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia increases the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) and infection with resultant hospitalizations, with substantial health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (GCSF) is recommended as primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy regimens having more than a 20% risk of FN. Yet, for intermediate-risk (10%-20%) regimens, it should be considered only for patients with 1 or more clinical risk factors (RFs) for FN. It is unclear whether FN prophylaxis for intermediate-risk patients is being optimally implemented. OBJECTIVE: To examine RFs, prophylaxis use, HCRU, and costs associated with incident FN during chemotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective study used administrative claims data for commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees with nonmyeloid cancer treated with intermediate-risk chemotherapy regimens during January 1, 2009, to March 31, 2020. Clinical RFs, GCSF prophylaxis, incident FN, HCRU, and costs were analyzed descriptively by receipt of primary GCSF, secondary GCSF, or no GCSF prophylaxis. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to examine the association between number of RFs and cumulative FN risk. RESULTS: The sample comprised 13,937 patients (mean age 67 years, 55% female). Patients had a mean of 2.3 RFs, the most common being recent surgery, were aged 65 years or greater, and had baseline liver or renal dysfunction; 98% had 1 or more RFs. However, only 35% of patients received primary prophylaxis; 12% received secondary prophylaxis. The hazard ratio of incident FN was higher with increasing number of RFs during the first line of therapy, yet more than 54% of patients received no prophylaxis, regardless of RFs. Use of GCSF prophylaxis varied more by chemotherapeutic regimen than by number of RFs. Among patients treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin hydrochloride (doxorubicin hydrochloride), vincristine, and prednisone, 76% received primary prophylaxis, whereas only 22% of patients treated with carboplatin/paclitaxel received primary prophylaxis. Among patients with a first line of therapy FN event, 78% had an inpatient stay and 42% had an emergency visit. During cycle 1, mean FN-related coordination of benefits-adjusted medical costs per patient per month ($13,886 for patients with primary prophylaxis and $18,233 for those with none) were driven by inpatient hospitalizations, at 91% and 97%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Incident FN occurred more often with increasing numbers of RFs, but GCSF prophylaxis use did not rise correspondingly. Variation in prophylaxis use was greater based on regimen than RF number. Lower health care costs were observed among patients with primary prophylaxis use. Improved individual risk identification for intermediate-risk regimens and appropriate prophylaxis may decrease FN events toward the goal of better clinical and health care cost outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded by Sandoz Inc., which participated in the design of the study, interpretation of the data, writing and revision of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The study was performed by Optum under contract with Sandoz Inc. The author(s) meet criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. Dr Li is an employee of Sandoz Inc. Drs Bell and Lal and Mr Peterson-Brandt were employees of Optum at the time of the study. Ms Anderson and Dr Aslam are employees of Optum. Dr Lyman has been primary investigator on a research grant from Amgen to their institution and has consulted for Sandoz, G1 Therapeutics, Partners Healthcare, BeyondSpring, ER Squibb, Merck, Jazz Pharm, Kallyope, Teva; Fresenius Kabi, Seattle Genetics, and Samsung.

A Rare Case Report of Zinsser–Engman–Cole Syndrome

Dyskeratosis congenita (DC), also known as Zinsser–Engman–Cole syndrome, is a rare cause of hereditary aplastic anemia. Here, we report a case of a 31-year-old male who presented with complaints of shortness of breath and recurrent episodes of fever for 4 months. Other features on examination include pallor, nail dystrophy, thinning and loss of nails, hypopigmentation of skin on the back, and leukoplakia on the tongue. On evaluation, peripheral smear revealed pancytopenia with reduced precursors. Bone marrow studies revealed hypocellular bone marrow with no fibrosis. Diagnosis of DC was made based on the clinical triad of nail changes, skin changes, and leukoplakia along with bone marrow findings. The patient was given supportive management and prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia and was advised allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant in the further course. It is important to diagnose early because there is a high predisposition to solid tumors and hematologic malignancies.

Developing a standardized approach to prevention and outpatient management of febrile neutropenia.

234 Background: Optimal prevention and safe management of febrile neutropenia (FN) in the outpatient setting, when clinically appropriate, can help to keep vulnerable patients from experiencing severe complications requiring hospitalization. Variation in the prevention and outpatient management of FN was identified as a quality and safety gap by Ontario clinicians. This initiative aimed to facilitate a standardized approach to prevention and outpatient management of FN through the development of practical, evidence-based health-care provider and patient resources. Methods: A clinical practice guideline was developed by a 15-member multidisciplinary Working Group (WG) consisting of physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and administrators who are knowledgeable in the areas of prevention and management of FN. The WG reviewed current relevant international guidelines and available literature on primary and secondary FN prophylaxis and FN management, with an emphasis on the optimal use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and appropriate FN management in the outpatient setting. The 2016 Cancer Care Ontario recommendations on the use of G-CSF were used as a foundation for the prevention of FN content. Key clinical questions were identified by the WG, and content was approached with an Ontario-specific lens. Recommendations were developed using an iterative consensus-building process over six WG meetings. The guideline report was reviewed by external clinical experts who validated final content. Accompanying patient information was informed by health literacy best practices, existing symptom management resources, and input from patient education experts, patients, and caregivers. Results: A user-friendly clinical practice guideline was created. Definitions, risk factors, FN prophylaxis strategies based on risk/treatment intent, and appropriate outpatient management of FN are described. Key clinical questions are reviewed and a total of 25 evidence-informed consensus-based recommendations are presented. The guideline includes FN risk assessment and outpatient FN management algorithms, as well as summaries of available literature and WG discussion. The accompanying patient information explains what neutropenia and neutropenic fever are, lists potential symptoms, and describes management strategies in patient-friendly language. All resources are publicly available on the Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario website and have been disseminated broadly to relevant stakeholders via email, social media, and webinars. Conclusions: Review of current evidence and expertise from oncology and infectious disease clinicians resulted in an evidence-informed, consensus-based guideline. This clinical practice guideline and accompanying patient information resource can help to facilitate safe, standardized prevention and appropriate outpatient management of FN.

Pegfilgrastim Biosimilars in US Supportive Oncology: A Narrative Review of Administration Options and Economic Considerations to Maximize Patient Benefit.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biologics, such as pegfilgrastim, are a standard of care in supportive cancer treatment that are administered once per chemotherapy cycle to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. The high cost of these biologics in the United States can be a limiting factor to accessing care; however, lower-cost pegfilgrastim biosimilars have been available for several years for patients requiring prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Different options for pegfilgrastim administration are also now available to accommodate specific patient preferences. As patients may want to minimize the risk of both neutropenia and SARS-CoV-2 infection, same-day administration is a pertinent option during the present COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, individualized, patient-centered approaches and risk-management strategies should be considered when selecting the treatment and administration method for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Three methods of administration would minimize hospital or clinic visits while also providing the prophylactic effect of G-CSF: same-day administration after chemotherapy, use of the US Food and Drug Administration–approved on-body injector delivering pegfilgrastim approximately 27 h after chemotherapy, or self-administration by the patient or caregiver > 24 h after chemotherapy. Choice of the specific administration option should be based on the patient’s specific needs, while also considering mitigating factors, such as the economic burden associated with biologic medications and the risk of COVID-19. Pegfilgrastim biosimilars can minimize the additional financial burden on patients and the health care system during this pandemic and beyond.

628P Infection-related hospitalization and overall survival with primary prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP: A nationwide population-based study

Febrile neutropenia (FN) and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) are common conditions involving dose reduction or delayed chemotherapy in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Owing to the lack of real-word data on the effectiveness of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP)-based primary prophylaxis (PP) in literature, we aimed to investigate the effects of PP with R-CHOP on the incidence of FN/CIN-related hospitalizations, overall survival (OS), and length of hospital stay in DLBCL patients.

Evaluating the safety and effectiveness of PegaGen® (pegfilgrastim) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a post-marketing surveillance study.

Phase IV clinical trials are required to evaluate the real-world safety and effectiveness of drugs. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of once-per-cycle administration of PegaGen® (pegfilgrastim, CinnaGen, Iran) in cancer patients. In this open-label, multicenter, prospective, real-world, post-marketing surveillance study, patients with any type of cancer receiving chemotherapy regimens with a high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) were included if they were prescribed pegfilgrastim for FN prophylaxis. The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and the secondary objective was to assess the effectiveness of pegfilgrastim in the prevention of FN in cancer patients. A total of 654 patients (51.73 ± 15.12years of age) were enrolled and 3615 cycles of pegfilgrastim injections were recorded. The most common malignancies among the study patients were breast cancer (n = 192, 29.36%), lymphoma (n = 131, 20.03%), and gastric cancer (n = 65, 9.94%). The median (Q1, Q3) number of pegfilgrastim cycles per patient was 6 (4, 7). A single 6mg dose was injected in 99.17% of the cycles. A total number of 816 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 246 patients (37.62%). Bone pain was recorded in 141 patients (21.56%) and in 440 cycles (12.17%). Among all patients, 45 patients (6.88%) experienced FN 51 times, and FN frequency was 1.4% among cycles. Moreover, 14 (2.14%) patients were hospitalized following FN. Antibiotics were administered to 24 patients (3.67%) for FN treatment. The results from this post-marketing surveillance study support the safety and effectiveness of PegaGen® used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN in patients with various types of cancer and treatment regimens. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04460079.

Patient out-of-pocket and payer costs for pegfilgrastim originator vs biosimilars as primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in the first cycle among a commercially insured population.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether using pegfilgrastim biosimilars is cost saving in a real-world setting. OBJECTIVE: To compare medical costs including pegfilgrastim drug costs and febrile neutropenia (FN) treatment and management costs between pegfilgrastim biosimilars (pegfilgrastim-jmdb, pegfilgrastim-cbqv) and originator users for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using 2019 IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases was conducted in adult patients with cancer initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy courses. At least 2 diagnoses of the same cancer (at least 7 days apart) were required within 30 days of the chemotherapy initiation date. Pegfilgrastim (excluding on-body injector) costs included drug costs only (excluding administration fees). FN-related costs included all FN-related health care utilizations that were defined as having neutropenia, fever, or infection diagnosis. Per-patient per-cycle (PPPC) out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, health plan costs, and total costs were compared between originator (excluding on-body injector) and biosimilars users in the first cycle. A generalized linear model and a 2-part model were used. RESULTS: A total of 1,930 patients were included, of whom 884 (45.8%) used pegfilgrastim originator, 427 (22.1%) used pegfilgrastim-jmdb, and 619 (32.1%) used pegfilgrastim-cbqv. Adjusted PPPC OOP pegfilgrastim costs in the first cycle were significantly lower for the biosimilars vs the originator ($182 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb and $159 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv vs $299 for originator, P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). However, there was no difference in health plan costs ($5,783 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb and $5,845 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv vs $5,618 for originator) and total costs. In addition, no difference was observed for adjusted PPPC FN treatment and management OOP costs, health plan costs, and total costs in the first cycle. FN treatment OOP costs were $192 for originator, $197 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb (P = 0.958), and $240 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv (P = 0.680). FN treatment health plan costs were $2,804 for originator, $2,970 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb (P = 0.692), and $2,745 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv (P = 0.879). CONCLUSIONS: In a commercially insured population, using pegfilgrastim biosimilars in the first cycle for primary prophylaxis of FN led to cost savings for patients but not payers. No difference in FN-related costs was observed.

P42-5 Optimal primary prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia during docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-FU therapy for esophageal cancer

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (DCF) is standard of care for locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC). DCF is associated with high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN); however, there is no consensus on optimal primary prophylaxis for FN using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and antibiotics.

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

PurposeWe 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsThis 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.ConclusionPatients 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 InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-022-07226-9.