Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study
Posted on 2019-08-10 - 04:42
Abstract Background Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Clinical practice guidelines recommend routine prophylactic coverage with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)—such as pegfilgrastim—for most patients receiving chemotherapy with an intermediate to high risk for FN. Patterns of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis during the chemotherapy course and associated FN risks in US clinical practice have not been well characterized. Methods A retrospective cohort design and data from two commercial healthcare claims repositories (01/2010–03/2016) and Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files (01/2007–09/2015) were employed. Study population included patients who had non-metastatic breast cancer or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and received intermediate/high-risk regimens. Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis use and FN incidence were ascertained in each chemotherapy cycle, and all cycles were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios for FN were estimated for patients who did versus did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in that cycle. Results Study population included 50,778 commercial patients who received 190,622 cycles of chemotherapy and 71,037 Medicare patients who received 271,944 cycles. In cycle 1, 33% of commercial patients and 28% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, and adjusted odds of FN were 2.6 (95% CI 2.3–2.8) and 1.6 (1.5–1.7), respectively, versus those who received pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. In cycle 2, 28% (commercial) and 26% (Medicare) did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis; corresponding adjusted FN odds were comparably elevated (1.9 [1.6–2.2] and 1.6 [1.5–1.8]). Results in subsequent cycles were similar. Across all cycles, 15% of commercial patients and 23% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis despite having FN in a prior cycle, and prior FN increased odds of subsequent FN by 2.1–2.4 times. Conclusions Notwithstanding clinical practice guidelines, a large minority of patients did not receive G-CSF prophylaxis, and FN incidence was substantially higher among this subset of the population. Appropriate use of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis may reduce patient exposure to this potentially fatal but largely preventable complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
CITE THIS COLLECTION
DataCiteDataCite
3 Biotech3 Biotech
3D Printing in Medicine3D Printing in Medicine
3D Research3D Research
3D-Printed Materials and Systems3D-Printed Materials and Systems
4OR4OR
AAPG BulletinAAPG Bulletin
AAPS OpenAAPS Open
AAPS PharmSciTechAAPS PharmSciTech
Abhandlungen aus dem Mathematischen Seminar der Universität HamburgAbhandlungen aus dem Mathematischen Seminar der Universität Hamburg
ABI Technik (German)ABI Technik (German)
Academic MedicineAcademic Medicine
Academic PediatricsAcademic Pediatrics
Academic PsychiatryAcademic Psychiatry
Academic QuestionsAcademic Questions
Academy of Management DiscoveriesAcademy of Management Discoveries
Academy of Management JournalAcademy of Management Journal
Academy of Management Learning and EducationAcademy of Management Learning and Education
Academy of Management PerspectivesAcademy of Management Perspectives
Academy of Management ProceedingsAcademy of Management Proceedings
Academy of Management ReviewAcademy of Management Review
Weycker, Derek; Doroff, Robin; Hanau, Ahuva; Bowers, Charles; Belani, Rajesh; Chandler, David; et al. (2019). Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study. figshare. Collection. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4614062.v1