An exploratory comparative effectiveness analysis of febrile neutropenia incidence among patients with cancer receiving granulocyte colony stimulating factors.

Authors

null

Pamala A. Pawloski

HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, Minneapolis, MN

Pamala A. Pawloski, Catherine Lockhart, Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez, Terese A DeFor, Aaron Mendelsohn, James Marshall, Erick Moyneur, Cara L. McDermott

Organizations

HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, Minneapolis, MN, Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium, Alexandria, VA, Health Partners Institute, Bloomington, MN, HealthPartners, Bloomington, MN, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, Harvard Pilgrim, Boston, MA, Statlog Econometrics, Montreal, QC, Canada, Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence at UW Medicine, Seattle, WA

Research Funding

Other
Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium.

Background: We conducted an exploratory comparative effectiveness analysis comparing various G-CSF (pegfilgrastim/filgrastim) products to each other in incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) among patients with breast, lung, colon, pancreatic, ovarian cancers or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) in the Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium’s (BBCIC) Distributed Research Network. Methods: We included patients aged > = 20 years who, in 2015-2019, per insurance claims, received any pegfilgrastim or filgrastim products as febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis during the first cycle of chemotherapy posing a high or intermediate FN risk per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. We compared the FN risk starting at day 5 following day 1 of chemotherapy receipt between products using Poisson regression model with standardized inverse probability weights and robust variance to estimate the Relative Risk (RR) and 95% Confidence intervals (CI). Results: A total of 15,941 patients received a pegfilgrastim product in cycle 1 of chemotherapy: 15,115 (95%) pegfilgrastim, 484 (3%) pegfilgrastim_cbqv, 342 (2%) pegfilgrastim_jmdb. 565 patients received a filgrastim product: 284 (50%) filgrastim, 201 (36%) filgrastim_sndz, 80 (14%) tbo-filgrastim. FN events by product were: 346 pegfilgrastim (2.3% of users), 11 pegfilgrastim_cbqv (2.3%), 8 pegfilgrastim_jmdb (2.3%), 13 filgrastim (4.6%), 5 filgrastim_sndz (2.5%), 2 tbo-filgrastim (2.5%). We found no difference in FN incidence when comparing pegfilgrastim_cbqv to pegfilgrastim (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.41-1.69), pegfilgrastim_jmdb to pegfilgrastim (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56-1.92), and pegfilgrastim_jmdb to pegfilgrastim_cbqv (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45-2.74). Similarly, we found no difference in FN incidence when comparing filgrastim_sndz to filgrastim (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.17-1.28), tbo-filgrastim to filgrastim (RR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.06-1.36), or tbo-filgrastim to filgrastim_sndz (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.10-2.77). Adverse events were rare, with similar rates observed among all products. Conclusions: We observed no significant difference in FN incidence among patients when comparing various G-CSF products, including when biosimilars were compared to their reference counterparts.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2022 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session B

Track

Palliative and Supportive Care,Technology and Innovation in Quality of Care,Quality, Safety, and Implementation Science

Sub Track

Real-World Evidence

Citation

J Clin Oncol 40, 2022 (suppl 28; abstr 408)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2022.40.28_suppl.408

Abstract #

408

Poster Bd #

F11

Abstract Disclosures