Dataset Information

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Short- versus Long-Acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors for Reduction of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Short- and long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are approved for the reduction of febrile neutropenia. A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs reporting the use of G-CSFs following chemotherapy treatment.

Methods

Medline^®/Medline in-process, Embase^®, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between January 2003 and June 2016. A hand-search of relevant conference proceedings was conducted for meetings held between 2012 and 2016. Eligible studies were restricted to those reporting a direct, head-to-head comparison of short- versus long-acting G-CSFs for reduction of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Risk-of-bias assessments were performed for full publications only.

Results

The search strategy yielded 4044 articles for electronic screening. Thirty-six publications were evaluated for the meta-analysis: 11 of 12 RCTs and 2 of 24 non-RCTs administered doses of the short-acting G-CSF filgrastim for ≥ 7 days. In RCT studies, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes of interest between short- and long-acting G-CSFs. In non-RCTs, the overall risk was lower with long-acting G-CSF than with short-acting G-CSF for incidence of febrile neutropenia [overall relative risk (RR) = 0.67, P = 0.023], hospitalizations (overall RR = 0.68, P < 0.05), and chemotherapy dose delays (overall RR = 0.68, P = 0.020).

Conclusions

Overall, the weight of evidence from RCTs indicates little difference in efficacy between the short- and long-acting G-CSFs if dosed according to recommended guidelines. There is some evidence for greater efficacy for long-acting G-CSFs in non-RCTs, which may be a result of under-dosing of short-acting G-CSFs in general practice in real-world usage.

Funding

Hospira Inc, which was acquired by Pfizer Inc in September 2015, and Pfizer Inc.

SUBMITTER: Cornes P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6223993 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveInappropriate granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use with myelosuppressive chemotherapy has been reported. Using the Oncology Services Comprehensive Electronic Records electronic medical record database, prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (pegfilgrastim/filgrastim) use in cancer patients was assessed by febrile neutropenia risk level.MethodsPatients with nonmetastatic or metastatic breast, head/neck, colorectal, ovarian/gynecologic, lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy from June 2013 to May 2014 were included. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use with high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk chemotherapy and distribution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk factors with intermediate-risk regimens were assessed.ResultsOverall, 86,189 patients received ?4.2 million chemotherapy cycles (high risk, 9%; intermediate risk, 48%; low risk, 43%). Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 24% of cycles (high risk, 59%; intermediate risk, 29%; low risk, 11%). For nonmetastatic solid tumors, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 78% (high risk), 31% (intermediate risk), and 6% (low risk) of cycles. For metastatic solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 50% (high risk), 27% (intermediate risk), and 11% (low risk) of cycles. Among patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, febrile neutropenia risk factors were identified in 56% (95% confidence interval, 51.1-60.9%) of patients with nonmetastatic solid tumors (n?=?400) and in 70% (64.5-73.5%) of patients with metastatic solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n?=?400).ConclusionProphylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use was appropriately highest for high-risk regimens and lowest for low-risk regimens yet still potentially underused in high risk regimens, overused in low-risk regimens, and not appropriately targeted in intermediate-risk regimens, indicating a need for further education on febrile neutropenia risk evaluation and appropriate granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Eflapegrastim, a novel, long-acting recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF), consists of a rhG-CSF analog conjugated to a human IgG4 Fc fragment via a short polyethylene glycol linker. Preclinical and phase I and II pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data showed increased potency for neutrophil counts for eflapegrastim versus pegfilgrastim. This open-label phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim with pegfilgrastim for reducing the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with early-stage breast cancer were randomized 1:1 to fixed-dose eflapegrastim 13.2 mg (3.6 mg G-CSF) or standard pegfilgrastim (6 mg G-CSF) following standard docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for 4 cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate the noninferiority of eflapegrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN; grade 4) in cycle 1. RESULTS:Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to study arms (eflapegrastim, n =?196; pegfilgrastim, n =?210). The incidence of cycle 1 severe neutropenia was 16% (n =?31) for eflapegrastim versus 24% (n =?51) for pegfilgrastim, reducing the relative risk by 35% (p = .034). The difference in mean cycle 1 DSN (-0.148 day) met the primary endpoint of noninferiority (p < .0001) and also showed statistical superiority for eflapegrastim (p = .013). Noninferiority was maintained for the duration of treatment (all cycles, p < .0001), and secondary efficacy endpoints and safety results were also comparable for study arms. CONCLUSION:These results demonstrate noninferiority and comparable safety for eflapegrastim at a lower G-CSF dose versus pegfilgrastim. The potential for increased potency of eflapegrastim to deliver improved clinical benefit warrants further clinical study in patients at higher risk for CIN. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) remains a significant clinical dilemma for oncology patients who are striving to complete their prescribed chemotherapy regimen. In a randomized, phase III trial comparing eflapegrastim to pegfilgrastim in the prevention of CIN, the efficacy of eflapegrastim was noninferior to pegfilgrastim and had comparable safety. Nevertheless, the risk of CIN remains a great concern for patients undergoing chemotherapy, as the condition frequently results in chemotherapy delays, dose reductions, and treatment discontinuations.