Dataset Information

Meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison of lipegfilgrastim with pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia-related events.

ABSTRACT: Background Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are effective at reducing the risk and duration of neutropenia. The current meta-analysis compared the neutropenia-related efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim to those of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim. Methods Embase was searched for trials examining the efficacy/safety of lipegfilgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or filgrastim. Outcomes included febrile neutropenia, severe neutropenia, duration of severe neutropenia, time to recovery of absolute neutrophil count, and incidence of bone pain. Direct comparisons were made using random-effects models. No trials directly compared lipegfilgrastim and filgrastim. Indirect comparisons were made between lipegfilgrastim and filgrastim with pegfilgrastim as the common comparator. Results This meta-analysis included a total of 5769 patients from 24 studies. Over all cycles, lipegfilgrastim showed a lower, nonsignificant risk of febrile neutropenia compared with pegfilgrastim. Lipegfilgrastim has a lower risk of febrile neutropenia versus filgrastim but was also not statistically significant. The risk ratio for severe neutropenia in cycle 1 was 0.80, a 20% reduction in favor of lipegfilgrastim. For cycles 2-4, the risk ratio was 0.53 (0.35, 0.79) for lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim. The risk of severe neutropenia in cycles 2-4 was also significantly lower for lipegfilgrastim (risk ratio 0.45, 0.27, 0.75, respectively). No significant differences were found for febrile neutropenia and severe neutropenia in cycle 1. However, in cycles 2-4, lipegfilgrastim was associated with significant and clinically meaningful reductions in risk of severe neutropenia versus either pegfilgrastim or filgrastim. Conclusions Compared with pegfilgrastim or filgrastim, lipegfilgrastim has a statistically significantly lower absolute neutrophil count recovery time; however, differences in duration of severe neutropenia and bone pain were nonsignificant.

SUBMITTER: Bond TC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6094503 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison of lipegfilgrastim with pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia-related events.

Bond T Christopher TC Szabo Erika E Gabriel Susan S Klastersky Jean J Tomey Omar O Mueller Udo U Schwartzberg Lee L Tang Boxiong B

Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners 20170614 6

Background Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are effective at reducing the risk and duration of neutropenia. The current meta-analysis compared the neutropenia-related efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim to those of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim. Methods Embase was searched for trials examining the efficacy/safety of lipegfilgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or filgrastim. Outcomes included febrile neutropenia, severe neutropenia, duration of severe neutropenia, time to recovery of absolute neutrop ...[more]

PMID: 28614980

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFebrile neutropenia (FN) is a prevalent and potentially life-threatening complication in patients with lymphoma receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is more effective than filgrastim as prophylaxis for FN. However, its usage has been limited because of its higher cost. Pegfilgrastim's value for money remains unclear.ObjectiveTo systematically review the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim compared to filgrastim as a primary or secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases, and Google Scholar. The most widely used economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and cost-benefit analysis) were included in the review. Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist, and the quality of reviewed articles was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. Cost-effectiveness data were rigorously summarized and synthesized narratively. Costs were adjusted to US$ 2020.ResultsWe identified eight economic evaluation studies (two cost-utility analyses, three cost-effectiveness analyses, and three studies reporting both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses). Half of these studies were from Europe (n = 4), the other half were from Iran, USA, Canada, and Singapore. Six studies met > 80% of the JBI quality assessment criteria. Cost-effectiveness estimates in the majority (n = 6) of these studies were for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with high-risk of FN (> 20%). The studies considered a wide range of baseline FN risk (17-97.4%) and mortality rates (5.8-8.9%). Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from US$ 2199 to US$ 8,871,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, dominant to US$ 44,358 per FN averted, and US$ 4261- US$ 7251 per life-years gained. The most influential parameters were medication and hospitalization costs, the relative risk of FN, and assumptions of mortality benefit.ConclusionsMost studies showed that pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to filgrastim as primary and secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma at a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$ 50,000 per QALY gained. The findings could assist clinicians and healthcare decision-makers to make informed decisions regarding resource allocation for the management of chemotherapy-induced FN in settings similar to those studied.

Project description:Background:The granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilar filgrastim (Nivestim™) reduces the duration and severity of neutropenia and the frequency of occurrence of febrile neutropenia (FN). Administration of this biosimilar filgrastim and the patient population receiving it at home have not been sufficiently documented in day-to-day medical practice. Insight into home administration may help optimize the management of FN in this setting, potentially at a reduced cost and patient burden vs hospital administration. Materials and methods:This was a prospective, non-interventional, non-comparative, multisite study involving 171 patients across 29 sites treated with at least one dose of filgrastim. Mean age was 59.3 years, and most patients were female and G-CSF-naïve. The data collected originated from paper-based patient questionnaires and routine documentation by the treating physicians. The primary endpoint was the characterization of patients treated with filgrastim. Secondary endpoints were satisfaction with filgrastim, effectiveness, safety and tolerability, and compliance with prescription. Results:Most patients had solid tumors (95.9%), mainly located in the breast, while 4.7% had malignant hematological disease. Solid tumors were recorded as grade 1 (7.9%), grade 2 (28.0%), grade 3 (45.7%), and grade 4 (3.0%), and the majority of patients classified at TNM Stages I and II. Many patients (71.0%) could self-inject filgrastim and 72.2% found the handling instructions "extremely straightforward and easy to understand" at least once. Nearly all (99.4%) patients found the syringes "easy to use" at least once and 91.7% were willing to continue home administration. The mean patient satisfaction score for home administration was 1.9±0.9, ranging from 1 (very satisfied) to 6 (absolutely dissatisfied). No cases of neutropenia were observed and only one event of FN occurred. Conclusion:Home-based prophylaxis for FN with filgrastim was found to be effective, well tolerated, and well received by patients (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02956967).

Project description:BackgroundNivestim™ (filgrastim) is a follow-on biologic agent licensed in the EU for the treatment of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia induced by myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Nivestim™ has been studied in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials where its efficacy and safety was found to be similar to its reference product, Neupogen®. Follow-on biologics continue to be scrutinised for safety. We present a design for two observational phase IV studies that are evaluating the safety profile of Nivestim™ for the prevention and treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy in general clinical practice.Methods/designThe NEXT (Tolérance de Nivestim chez les patiEnts traités par une chimiothérapie anticancéreuse cytotoXique en praTique courante) and VENICE (VErträglichkeit von NIvestim unter zytotoxischer Chemotherapie in der Behandlung malinger Erkrankungen) trials are multicentre, prospective, longitudinal, observational studies evaluating the safety profile of Nivestim™ in 'real-world' clinical practice. Inclusion criteria include patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy for malignancy and receiving Nivestim as primary or secondary prophylaxis (NEXT and VENICE), or as treatment for ongoing FN (NEXT only). In accordance with European Union pharmacovigilance guidelines, the primary objective is to evaluate the safety of Nivestim™ by gathering data on adverse events in all system organ classes. Secondary objectives include obtaining information on patient characteristics, efficacy of Nivestim™ therapy (including chemotherapy dose intensity), patterns of use of Nivestim™, and physician knowledge regarding filgrastim prescription and the reasons for choosing Nivestim™. Data will be gathered at three visits: 1. At the initial inclusion visit, 2. At a 1-month follow-up visit, and 3. At the end of chemotherapy.Recruitment for VENICE commenced in July 2011 and in November 2011 for NEXT. VENICE completed recruitment in July 2013 with 407 patients, and NEXT in September 2013 with 2123 patients. Last patient, last visit for each study will be December 2013 and March 2014 respectively.DiscussionThe NEXT and VENICE studies will provide long-term safety, efficacy and practice pattern data in patients receiving Nivestim™ to support myelosuppressive chemotherapy in real world clinical practice. These data will improve our understanding of the performance of Nivestim™ in patients encountered in the general patient population.Trial registrationNEXT NCT01574235, VENICE NCT01627990.

Project description:BackgroundRisk models of chemotherapy-induced (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN) have to date focused on determinants measured at the start of chemotherapy. We extended this static approach with a dynamic approach of CIN/FN risk modeling at the start of each cycle.DesignWe applied predictive modeling using multivariate logistic regression to identify determinants of CIN/FN episodes and related hospitalizations and chemotherapy disturbances (CIN/FN consequences) in analyses at the patient ('ever' during the whole period of chemotherapy) and cycle-level (during a given chemotherapy cycle). Statistical dependence of cycle data being 'nested' under patients was managed using generalized estimation equations. Predictive performance of each model was evaluated using bootstrapped c concordance statistics.ResultsStatic patient-level risk models of 'ever' experiencing CIN/FN adverse events and consequences during a planned chemotherapy regimen included predictors related to history, risk factors, and prophylaxis initiation and intensity. Dynamic cycle-level risk models of experiencing CIN/FN adverse events and consequences in an upcoming cycle included predictors related to history, risk factors, and prophylaxis initiation and intensity; as well as prophylaxis duration, CIN/FN in prior cycle, and treatment center characteristics.ConclusionsThese 'real-world evidence' models provide clinicians with the ability to anticipate CIN/FN adverse events and their consequences at the start of a chemotherapy line (static models); and, innovatively, to assess risk of CIN/FN adverse events and their consequences at the start of each cycle (dynamic models). This enables individualized patient treatment and is consistent with the EORTC recommendation to re-appraise CIN/FN risk at the start of each cycle. Prophylaxis intensity (under-, correctly-, or over-prophylacted relative to current EORTC guidelines) is a major determinant. Under-prophylaxis is clinically unsafe. Over-prophylaxis of patients administered chemotherapy with intermediate or low myelotoxicity levels may be beneficial, both in patients with and without risk factors, and must be validated in future studies.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment with recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is accepted standard for prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. RGB-02 (Gedeon Richter) is a proposed biosimilar to pegylated G-CSF (Neulasta®, Amgen) with sustained release properties. This is a randomized, comparative, double-blind, multicenter study to evaluate efficacy and safety of RGB-02 in breast cancer patients receiving cytotoxic regimen.MethodsTwo hundred thirty-nine women presenting with breast cancer were randomized to RGB-02 (n = 121) and the reference product (n = 118). All patients received up to 6 cycles of docetaxel/doxorubicin chemotherapy combination and a once-per-cycle injection of a fixed 6 mg dose of pegfilgrastim. Primary endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.5 × 109/L) in Cycle 1 (2-sided CI 95%). Secondary endpoints included incidence and duration of severe neutropenia (in cycles 2-4), incidence of febrile neutropenia, time to ANC recovery, depth of ANC nadir, and safety outcomes.ResultsThe mean duration of severe neutropenia in Cycle 1 was 1.7 (RGB-02) and 1.6 days (reference), with a difference (LS Mean) of 0.1 days (95% CI -0.2, 0.4). Equivalence could be established as the CI for the difference in LS Mean lay entirely within the pre-defined range of ±1 day. This positive result was supported by the analysis of secondary endpoints, which also revealed no clinical meaningful differences. Safety profiles were comparable between groups. No neutralizing antibodies against pegfilgrastim were identified.ConclusionsTreatment equivalence in reducing the duration of chemotherapy induced neutropenia between RGB-02 and Neulasta® could be demonstrated. Similar efficacy and safety profiles of the once-per-cycle administration of RGB-02 and the pegfilgrastim reference were demonstrated.Trial registrationThe trial was registered prospectively, prior to study initiation. EudraCT number ( 2013-003166-14 ). The date of registration was 12 July, 2013.

Project description:BackgroundPegfilgrastim, a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), is commonly used to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN), a potentially life-threatening complication, following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. The FDA label for pegfilgrastim specifies that it should not be administered 14 days before or within 24 h of administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, precluding the use of pegfilgrastim in biweekly (Q2W) regimens. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines support the use of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens. The objective of this study was to systematically review evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that describe the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in preventing FN among patients receiving Q2W regimens.MethodsAn Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library literature search was conducted to evaluate the evidence regarding efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim versus no prophylactic pegfilgrastim or prophylaxis with other G-CSF in patients who were receiving Q2W chemotherapy regimens with high (> 20%) or intermediate (10-20%) risk of FN for a non-myeloid malignancy. Studies that addressed absolute or relative risk of FN, grade 1-4 neutropenia, all-cause or any hospitalization, dose delays or dose reductions, adverse events, or mortality were included. Studies where the comparator was a Q3W chemotherapy regimen with primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim were also included.ResultsThe initial literature search identified 2258 publications. Thirteen publications met the eligibility criteria, including eight retrospective, one prospective, one phase 1 dose escalation study, and three RCTs. In nine of the 13 studies reporting incidence of FN, and in seven of the nine studies reporting incidence of neutropenia, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens resulted in decreased or comparable rates of FN or neutropenia compared with patients receiving filgrastim, no G-CSF, lipefilgrastim or pegfilgrastim in Q3W regimens. In six of the nine studies reporting safety data, lower or comparable safety profiles were observed between pegfilgrastim and comparators.ConclusionsIn a variety of non-myeloid malignancies, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim was efficacious in reducing the risk of FN in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk Q2W regimens, with an acceptable safety profile.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration no: CRD42019155572 .

Dataset Information

Meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison of lipegfilgrastim with pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia-related events.

Publications

Meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison of lipegfilgrastim with pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia-related events.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets