The role of colony-stimulating factors and granulocyte transfusion in treatment options for neutropenia in children with cancer

Children with cancer receiving anticancer therapy always experience neutropenia, and as a result often develop serious neutropenic infections that cause morbidity and/or mortality. Intensive chemotherapy with improved supportive care for neutropenia contribute to the recent advances in treatment outcome in children with cancer. Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) can shorten the duration and decrease the severity of neutropenia, and thus support intensive chemotherapy. Both G-CSF and GM-CSF stimulate proliferation and maturation of myeloid progenitor cells and are thus used to help mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells, and after stem-cell transplantation. The American Society of Clinical Oncology 2000 Guidelines recommended that colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) can be administered as a primary prophylaxis with a chemotherapy regimen if previous experiences with chemotherapy regimens have shown that the incidence of febrile neutropenia (neutropenic fever) is > or =40%. The routine use of CSFs for secondary prophylaxis or for patients with afebrile neutropenia is not recommended in order to avoid the overuse of CSFs. The use of a CSF may be considered in children with febrile neutropenia with a neutrophil count <100/microL, uncontrolled primary disease, pneumonia, hypotension, multiorgan dysfunction (sepsis syndrome), or invasive fungal infection. Although these guidelines are generally applicable to children with cancer, further studies on CSFs are certainly needed in pediatric oncology. The recent advances in granulocyte collection, using healthy volunteer donor stimulation with G-CSF and/or dexamethasone to yield large numbers of granulocytes has made granulocyte transfusion a more realistic option. Granulocyte transfusion has shown promising results in treating children with severe neutropenic infection; however, controlled trials are warranted to clarify the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of this procedure.     

Prophylactic and therapeutic strategies in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

INTRODUCTION: Neutropenia poses a serious threat to patients on chemotherapy. It exposes them to the risk of infection--including potentially fatal infections--and also leads to delays in treatment and reductions in dose intensity, which can compromise the possibility of a favorable outcome. AREAS COVERED: The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) and antibiotics to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) and to ameliorate cancer chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression is discussed, based on a systematic search of Pubmed for clinical trials, reviews and meta-analysis published in the last 20 years. We consider that the treatment of FN, with the emphasis on careful attention to the patient, prompts antibiotic therapy and good hospital care. EXPERT OPINION: We would argue that antibiotic prophylaxis should be offered routinely to patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy for acute leukemia and for patients with solid tumors and lymphoma receiving high-dose chemotherapy. In patients undergoing cyclical standard-dose myelosuppressive chemotherapy, we believe that prophylaxis is indicated during the first cycle of chemotherapy in which there is an expectation of grade 4 neutropenia (< 500 neutrophils). However, although the use of antibiotics and haematopoietic growth factors may improve quality of life by reducing the risk and consequences of FN, further study of the magnitude of their effects is needed.     

Colony-stimulating factors for the management of neutropenia in cancer patients

Neutropenia and its subsequent infectious complications represent the most common dose-limiting toxicity of cancer chemotherapy. Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurs with common chemotherapy regimens in 25 to 40% of treatment-naive patients, and its severity depends on the dose intensity of the chemotherapy regimen, the patient's prior history of either radiation therapy or use of cytotoxic treatment, and comorbidities. The occurrence of FN often causes subsequent chemotherapy delays or dose reductions. It may also lengthen hospital stay, increase monitoring, diagnostic and treatment costs, and reduce patient quality of life. A decade after their introduction, colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) such as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) are now an integral part of the prevention of potentially life-threatening FN; however, only G-CSF has US Food and Drug Administration approval for use in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. These adjunctive agents accelerate formation of neutrophils from committed progenitors, thereby reducing the duration and severity of neutropenia. Important uses of CSFs in oncology are prevention of FN after chemotherapy, treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes and support following bone marrow transplantation, and collection of CSF-mobilised peripheral blood progenitor cells. G-CSF is used more frequently than GM-CSF for all of these indications because of fewer associated adverse effects. Clinical trials to date have not demonstrated a significant effect on overall survival or disease-free survival, which is most likely to be due to small sample size and lack of power to prove effect. However, they have demonstrated clinical utility in allowing the delivery of planned chemotherapy dose on schedule, an important clinical goal especially in curative tumour settings. The high cost of these agents limits their widespread use. Current American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis, or first cycle use, with CSFs being confined to patients with > or = 40% risk of FN, which may include elderly patients and other high-risk patients. In addition to the risk of FN, primary prophylaxis should also be considered if the patient has risk factors that place them in the Special Circumstances category. These risk factors may include decreased immune function in patients who are already at an increased risk of infection and pre-existing neutropenia due to disease, extensive prior chemotherapy, or previous irradiation to the pelvis or other areas containing large amounts of bone marrow. Future studies are needed to better define the patients most likely to benefit from CSF therapy, both for prophylaxis and as an adjunct to antibiotics for treatment of FN. Other potential uses include combination therapy with stem cell factors and other cytokines to boost progenitor cell development, maintaining dose intensity of salvage therapy in metastatic cancer patients, and application in patients with pneumonia, Crohn's fistulas, diabetic foot infections and a variety of other infectious conditions.     

Effects of a formulary change from granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor on outcomes in patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects on efficacy and safety of a formulary change from granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to granulocyte-macrophage CSF (GM-CSF). DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Single-center academic institution. PATIENTS: Fifty-six patients aged 18 years or older with breast cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who developed neutropenia within 4 weeks after treatment with myelosuppressive chemotherapy and who had been given five or more doses of CSF as primary or secondary prophylaxis from January 1995-March 2002. Twenty-nine patients treated before January 2000 were given G-CSF; after the formulary change in January 2000, 27 patients were primarily given GM-CSF. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary efficacy end point was time to an absolute neutrophil count of 1.5x10(3)/mm3 or greater after treatment with CSF. Second and third efficacy end points, respectively, were frequency of febrile neutropenia and effect of CSF treatment on schedule and dose intensity of subsequent chemotherapy cycles. Primary and secondary safety end points, respectively, were frequency of adverse events and use of resources used to manage these events. The time to neutrophil recovery was similar with G-CSF and GM-CSF. Febrile neutropenia was more common in the patients given GM-CSF. Chemotherapy dose delays also were more common in patients treated with GM-CSF, as was the frequency of fever. Use of resources (platelet and red blood cell transfusions, intravenous antibiotics, and hospitalizations) was greater in the patients treated with GM-CSF. CONCLUSION: The formulary change to GM-CSF was associated with a higher frequency of febrile neutropenia, resultant chemotherapy dose delays, more adverse events, and greater use of resources to manage the adverse events. These results suggest that G-CSF and GM-CSF are not therapeutically equivalent, with G-CSF having a superior safety and efficacy profile for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic events.     

妇科恶性肿瘤放化疗期间应用聚乙二醇化重组人粒细胞集落刺激因子（PEG-rhG-CSF）的中国专家共识（2023年版）

中性粒细胞减少症是妇科恶性肿瘤放化疗最常见的血液学毒性,可导致后续治疗延迟和剂量减少,并易引发中性粒细胞减少性发热及严重感染,影响患者预后。重视中性粒细胞减少症的危害,对其进行风险评估和规范性防治具有重要意义。聚乙二醇化重组人粒细胞集落刺激因子（PEG-rhG-CSF）作为重组人粒细胞集落刺激因子（rhG-CSF）的长效制剂,可预防和治疗中性粒细胞减少症,临床使用便捷。为促进临床合理用药,本共识制定小组以循证证据为基础,评估其在妇科恶性肿瘤放化疗期间应用的有效性及安全性,明确预防与治疗的临床路径及给药方式,形成妇科恶性肿瘤放化疗期间应用PEG-rhG-CSF的中国专家共识。     

Filgrastim. A reappraisal of pharmacoeconomic considerations in the prophylaxis and treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

Neutropenia is a frequent and often dose-limiting complication of chemotherapy and is associated with considerable patient morbidity and mortality. Standard treatment in patients who become febrile includes hospitalisation and empirical antibiotic therapy. Filgrastim is a recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rHuG-CSF). It significantly decreases the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving standard-dose chemotherapy, and shortens the duration of febrile neutropenia in patients undergoing autologous bone marrow transplantation (BMT) or peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) infusion after myeloablative chemotherapy regimens. These effects are usually associated with a decrease in hospitalisation and antibiotic requirements. The contribution of filgrastim therapy to beneficial effects on other clinically important end-points (e.g. quality of life, tumour relapse rate, and short and long term survival) remains to be accurately determined. Pharmacoeconomic data concerning the use of filgrastim as an adjunct to standard-dose chemotherapy are derived largely from the results of phase III trials. Cost analyses based on hospital charges suggest that the cost of providing filgrastim therapy can be fully recouped if the drug is used as primary prophylaxis in previously untreated patients, for whom the risk of developing febrile neutropenia is at least 40%. Reserving filgrastim for use in patients who have developed febrile neutropenia in a previous chemotherapy cycle may result in further cost savings. However, careful patient selection is required, since potential cost savings will vary depending upon the risk of hospitalisation in the absence of filgrastim treatment. Infusion of filgrastim-mobilised PBPCs is emerging as a preferred strategy in patients receiving myeloablative chemotherapy, and promising results have been obtained from cost analyses. From a pharmacoeconomic viewpoint, future research should be directed towards defining optimum dosage regimens and hence improving the cost-effective use of filgrastim. Data evaluating patient quality of life and treatment preferences would help define the cost utility of filgrastim therapy. In the meantime, available pharmacoeconomic data support the use of filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in selected clinical situations.     

Prophylactic and therapeutic strategies in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

Introduction: Neutropenia poses a serious threat to patients on chemotherapy. It exposes them to the risk of infection – including potentially fatal infections – and also leads to delays in treatment and reductions in dose intensity, which can compromise the possibility of a favorable outcome.

Areas covered: The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) and antibiotics to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) and to ameliorate cancer chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression is discussed, based on a systematic search of Pubmed for clinical trials, reviews and meta-analysis published in the last 20 years. We consider that the treatment of FN, with the emphasis on careful attention to the patient, prompts antibiotic therapy and good hospital care.

Expert opinion: We would argue that antibiotic prophylaxis should be offered routinely to patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy for acute leukemia and for patients with solid tumors and lymphoma receiving high-dose chemotherapy. In patients undergoing cyclical standard-dose myelosuppressive chemotherapy, we believe that prophylaxis is indicated during the first cycle of chemotherapy in which there is an expectation of grade 4 neutropenia (< 500 neutrophils). However, although the use of antibiotics and haematopoietic growth factors may improve quality of life by reducing the risk and consequences of FN, further study of the magnitude of their effects is needed.     

Granulocytic growth factors and cancer-related neutropenia: limited effects

(1) Cancer chemotherapy often causes haematological complications, in particular neutropenia, which can have grave consequences in terms of the risk of infections (increasing with the degree and duration of neutropenia) and the need for modifications in chemotherapy protocols (longer intervals between cycles or dose reductions). (2) In France, three haematopoietic growth factors are licensed to stimulate leukocyte production: filgrastim (unglycosylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)), pegfilgrastim (pegylated filgrastim), and lenograstim (glycosylated G-CSF). (3) The main adverse effects of these three growth factors are joint and bone pain, a flu-like syndrome, and reactions at the injection site. (4) G-CSF has provided disappointing results in primary prevention, and its use is only justified for patients receiving chemotherapy that causes febrile neutropenia in at least 40% of cases: patients with acute leukaemia, elderly patients, and patients with cancer-related neutropenia or poor general status, etc. In these patients, G-CSF reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia and, possibly, the risk of hospitalisation. A meta-analysis of 11 comparative trials involving about 1500 patients with non Hodgkin's lymphoma showed only a reduction in the incidence of febrile neutropenia and infections. (5) In the prevention of recurrences of neutropenia on continuing chemotherapy, only one trial, involving patients aged over 60 with high-grade non Hodgkin's lymphoma, showed an improvement in survival time with filgrastim (survival rate: 64.3% with filgrastim versus 49% with placebo, after a median follow-up of 40 months). Until these results are confirmed in other clinical trials, reduction in the intensity of chemotherapy (dosage, frequency) is generally recommended. (6) Curative treatment of neutropenia with G-CSF is only warranted for febrile patients with a high risk of severe infections requiring lengthy hospitalisation. Two meta-analyses, one including 8 trials and the other including 13 trials, involving a total of about 1500 patients, only showed a reduction in the length of hospitalisation.     

粒细胞减少或缺乏患者感染的高危因素及防治措施

本文通过检索国内外关于粒细胞减少/缺乏患者抗感染治疗的文献报道,分析中性粒细胞减少/缺乏患者感染发生的特点、因素、种类、抗感染措施、辅助治疗措施及疗效,探讨患者中性粒细胞减少与发生感染的相关因素及防治措施。中性粒细胞减少/缺乏患者的感染发生率高,合理使用抗菌药物、使用粒细胞刺激因子、做好基础护理、警惕真菌感染等是防治感染的重要措施。     

Economic evaluations of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

The prevailing uncertainty about the pharmacoeconomic positioning of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia has resulted in a number of pharmacoeconomic evaluations published in the past 10 years. These studies vary considerably regarding the approaches used and the results presented. In order to contribute to a clearer pharmacoeconomic positioning of G-CSF, a systematic review of economic evaluations was carried out.The focus of the review was prophylaxis and therapy of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with cancer. A computerised bibliography search of several databases was conducted yielding 33 studies.The findings demonstrated the cost-saving potential of G-CSF in standard-dose chemotherapy to be limited, with lower costs often seen in the control group. The results of these studies were too heterogeneous to extract a clear recommendation from a cost-saving point of view. The administration of G-CSF after high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell support resulted more often in cost savings in the G-CSF group as compared with standard-dose chemotherapy, illustrating a possible cost-saving potential of G-CSF. In the treatment of established chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, cost savings were found in all studies. This result is surprising but hampered by the small number of studies (n = 5) and remains to be confirmed by more rigourously designed prospective economic analyses.Despite the substantial research on this topic, the economic evaluation of G-CSF is far from being settled and needs further investigation.     

Granulocyte colony--stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with small cell lung cancer : the 40% rule revisited

Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) [filgrastim and lenograstim] and pegylated G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) have been shown to reduce the severity and duration of chemotherapy-associated febrile neutropenia (FN) when administered prophylactically to cancer patients receiving chemotherapeutic regimens. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) evidence-based clinical guidelines published in 1994, 1996 and 1997 recommended primary prophylaxis with G-CSF for cancer patients. The 2000 ASCO update, with the same recommendation, highlights the importance of economic considerations in decision making for CSFs. This paper reviews the available cost-effectiveness evidence on the use of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis against FN in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC).Cost-effectiveness ratios from a healthcare payer perspective supported the use of filgrastim as primary prophylaxis for people with SCLC, on the basis of both clinical and economic benefits, treated with chemotherapeutic regimens that have an FN rate in the range of 40-60%. However, when indirect and patient out-of-pocket costs attributable to severe FN are included, available evidence suggests that the risk threshold may be reduced by more than half.Given that FN rates associated with chemotherapeutic regimens for SCLC are generally <40%, then few circumstances would warrant the use of G-CSFs (filgrastim and lenograstim) under the current rule. However, inclusion of indirect costs would lower the cost-effectiveness threshold. Future cost-effectiveness studies of medications such as pegfilgrastim should attempt to capture the societal perspective by incorporating productivity-related costs and using base-case rates of FN reported in the literature.     

Recombinant granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (rGM-CSF): an appraisal of its pharmacoeconomic status in neutropenia associated with chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplant

Recombinant granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (rGM-CSF) expedites neutrophil recovery in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with or without autologous bone marrow transplant (ABMT). The limited cost analyses available in patients undergoing ABMT support a cost reduction of about 25 to 35% with rGM-CSF therapy, relative to placebo, generated primarily by decreases of 20 to 30% in hospitalisation costs reflecting reductions in length of hospitalisation. Results of 1 trial show equivalent cost savings of 40% versus placebo with either rGM-CSF or recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rG-CSF) in patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Whether reduced infection rates seen with rGM-CSF may lessen costs of antimicrobial therapy is undetermined; however, a 16% decrease in this cost factor was reported in 1 evaluation of high dose chemotherapy with ABMT. No analyses have assessed the cost effectiveness of rGM-CSF as prophylaxis in patients receiving chemotherapy. Survival rates have increased in patients treated with rGM-CSF after bone marrow graft failure. In contrast, with the exception of one small trial, improvements in mortality or relapse rates have not occurred with rGM-CSF used prophylactically with chemotherapy, despite favourable effects on neutrophil recovery and facilitation of dose-intensified chemotherapy regimens. Similarly, survival has not increased in patients undergoing ABMT. The long term economic impact of rGM-CSF in these indications is thus unknown. Other factors predicted to produce modest cost savings include possible reductions in expenditure related to treating mucositis, and lowered transfusion requirements in some patients. Whether rGM-CSF may provide benefits in other areas that can be expressed in economic terms, such as quality of life, also remains to be established. On the whole, rGM-CSF has a good tolerability profile, obviating the need for costly monitoring procedures. Like other expensive biotechnology products, its cost effectiveness will be aided by implementation of appropriate prescribing techniques and protocols to minimise wastage. Thus, at present rGM-CSF therapy appears to offer a means of reducing hospitalisation costs, and therefore a substantial component of treatment expenditure, in patients undergoing ABMT or with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.     

Effects of prophylactic hematopoietic colony stimulating factors on stem cell transplantations: Meta-analysis

Hematopoietic growth factors are often given for prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN), infections, and other complications by hastening neutrophil recovery in the treatment of malignancies after high dose chemotherapy (HDCT). Although several meta-analyses have already demonstrated beneficial effects of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) administration, the effects of G-CSF have not been confirmed in cancer patients receiving stem cell transplantation (SCT) after HDCT. Therefore, we performed a statistical combination of controlled clinical trials to investigate the efficacy of prophylactic use of G-CSF in preventing the neutropenic complications associated with SCT following HDCT in cancer patients. We searched PubMed to identify potentially relevant references and finally selected seven randomized controlled trials that met all of the eligibility criteria. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that prophylactic G-CSF reduced the risk of documented infections and time to hematologic recovery manifested by days to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) ?? 0.5 × 10⁹/L, days to ANC ?? 1.0 × 10⁹/L, and days to platelets ?? 20 × 10⁹/L in SCT patients with cancer following HDCT. The G-CSF treated group also showed a decrease in the length of hospital stay. However, there was no difference between G-CSF treatment group and placebo group in regard to all-cause mortality, infection-related mortality, grade 2??4 acute graft-versus-host-disease, and episode of fever.     

Biweekly docetaxel and vinorelbine with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support for patients with anthracycline-resistant metastatic breast cancer

This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 plus docetaxel 60 mg2/m administered on day 1, every 2 weeks with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support (G-CSF, 5 microg/kg/day, days 3-7) as primary prophylaxis in patients with histologically confirmed metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and previously treated with anthracyclines in the adjuvant or in the first-line setting. A total of 48 patients received 352 cycles (median 8, range 2-10). All patients were included in the efficacy and safety evaluation on an intent-to-treat analysis. Eight patients (17%) showed a complete response and 14 patients (29%) showed a partial response. Overall response rate was 46% [95% confidence interval (CI) 33-60]. The median duration of response was 10.0 months. With a median follow-up of 18.0 months, the median time to progression was 11.9 months and the median overall survival was 27.1 months. The most frequently reported grade 3/4 hematological toxicity was neutropenia (19% of patients, 4% of cycles). Febrile neutropenia was reported in six patients (13%) and 7 cycles (2%), but no toxic deaths were reported. The most common grade 3/4 non-hematological toxicity was asthenia (17% of patients, 6% of cycles) and nail toxicity (15% of patients, 3% of cycles). In conclusion, biweekly docetaxel plus vinorelbine with G-CSF support is active and well tolerated as chemotherapy for patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines. G-CSF support is recommended for lowering the incidence and severity of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia.     

A survey of the management of neutropenic fever in oncology units in the UK

A nationwide questionnaire-based survey was performed to define the different practices in managing febrile neutropenia in oncology units and the use of antimicrobial chemotherapy prophylaxis. A 69.7% response rate was obtained from a total of 165 units. Fifty percent of the responding oncologists used combination therapy with piperacillin/tazobactam plus gentamicin as a first-line treatment in febrile neutropenia. When response to initial empirical therapy does not occur after 24-48h, 51.3% of oncology units add a glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) and 39.2% change to a carbapenem and a glycopeptide. The role of oral antibiotics in managing febrile neutropenia is still low. Approximately 30% of studied units might consider using an oral antibiotic in this setting. When response to initial empirical therapy does not occur after 3-7 days, 46.1% of oncologists preferred liposomal amphotericin to conventional amphotericin (28.7%) in treating persistent febrile neutropenia. The antimicrobial chemotherapy treatment of febrile neutropenia in oncology patients and the use of antimicrobial prophylaxis varies significantly across the UK. This survey is the first to examine the prescribing practices of UK oncology units in this area and could help in the formulation of practice guidelines.     

Therapeutic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for established febrile neutropenia: effect on costs from a hospital perspective

BACKGROUND: The prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) reduces the severity and duration of neutropenia and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia after cancer chemotherapy. However, the use of G-CSFs, particularly filgrastim, to treat established neutropenia remains controversial. A recent meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating G-CSF treatment for established febrile neutropenia demonstrated a reduction in prolonged hospitalisations. Because more than one-third of patients in the analysis were hospitalised for at least 10 days, this finding has broad pharmacoeconomic and clinical significance. This analysis presents the potential cost implications of G-CSF treatment for established neutropenia among hospitalised patients. METHODS: Direct medical costs ($US, year 2003 values) related to hospitalisation for established neutropenia were modelled using a hospital perspective and according to two treatment options: (i) no use of G-CSF during the neutropenic episode (control); and (ii) addition of daily G-CSF until neutrophil recovery. Within each option, we modelled the probability of a long stay (>or=10 days) and patient survival. The model used three data sets: discharge data from a consortium of academic medical institutions, drug cost data (filgrastim) from Federal payers, and estimates of G-CSF efficacy derived from a meta-analysis of RCTs of treatment in patients with established febrile neutropenia. The lowest expected total cost was predicted for both treatment options; sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulations were used to evaluate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: The G-CSF arm produced the lowest expected cost, and predicted net estimated savings of $US1046 per neutropenic episode compared with the control strategy. G-CSF was less expensive than the control for most reasonable estimates of cost per day and all lengths of stay (LOS) >or=10 days. G-CSF was the least costly strategy for 73.5% of 10,000 Monte Carlo iterations, while the no-G-CSF control strategy predicted savings in 26.5% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: This pharmacoeconomic model suggests that therapeutic use of G-CSF should be considered for patients with established neutropenia in order to reduce overall hospital cost. G-CSF treatment may offer substantial potential savings for hospitalised patients with established neutropenia over a wide range of model assumptions. Therapeutic G-CSF use among patients hospitalised for established neutropenia may complement the recommended prophylactic use of these agents for the prevention of neutropenic episodes.     

急性淋巴细胞白血病患儿侵袭性真菌感染的临床分析

目的：了解本院急性淋巴细胞白血病患者化疗后出现侵袭性真菌感染的发病率及高危因素,探讨有效的预防措施。方法：对本院2007年1月～2010年12月期间新确诊并化疗的急性淋巴细胞白血病患者187例进行了回顾性调查分析。结果：187例急性淋巴细胞白血病患儿共发生真菌感染38例次,真菌感染率为20.32%,侵袭性真菌感染17例次,感染率为9.09%,占真菌感染的44.73%。真菌感染部位主要为口腔,侵袭性真菌感染主要为肺部,发生真菌感染的危险因素有住院时间、中性粒细胞缺乏持续时间、长期使用抗生素等。结论：急性淋巴细胞白血病化疗期间,缩短住院时间,合理使用抗生素,在粒细胞持续降低期间,应用粒细胞集落刺激因子,预防性应用抗真菌药物,可有效降低侵袭性真菌感染。     

Consensus on the use of neutrophil-stimulating hematopoietic growth factors in clinical practice: an international viewpoint

Hematopoietic growth factors (CSFs) are now available for use in patients with myelosuppression due to congenital, acquired and therapy-induced conditions. Variations in the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in different countries are due to differences in approved indications by national regulatory agencies, varying opinions on the importance of certain treatment outcomes, differences in the selection of published and unpublished evidence of efficacy and the impact of the cost of these agents in different health care systems. Through Medline searches and personal files, we have reviewed the published literature on the efficacy and cost of GM-CSF and G-CSF in patients with severe chronic neutropenia and those receiving standard dose chemotherapy or high-dose chemotherapy requiring bone marrow reconstitution. Guidelines were established with regard to (1) the relative merits of different types of clinical studies and (2) the relative importance of different clinical outcomes as reported in these studies. The cost implications of these agents as they apply to the different clinical settings are also reviewed. Recommendations for the use of G-CSF and/or GM-CSF include: (1) the prevention of recurrent, debilitating infections in patients with severe chronic neutropenia; and (2) the maintaining of dose-intensity of potentially curative, standard-dose chemotherapy. While G-CSF and/or GM-CSF have been shown to improve secondary outcomes in higher-than-standard dose-intensive therapy, further studies are needed to test whether such improvements also lead to significant improvements in survival and/or quality of life. These recommendations are based on the collective interpretation of the presented evidence by an international group of investigators in this area.     

Predictors of response of patients with solid tumors to granulocyte colony-stimulating factor

Background Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration is an important component of supportive therapy in chemotherapy-induced leukopenia. Although patient response to granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration is known to vary, the factors responsible for poor response have not been identified. Objective To identify the predictors of the responses of patients with solid tumors to granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Setting A 600-bed university hospital offering secondary and tertiary care in Japan. Methods This retrospective cohort study examined the response of 181 patients with solid tumors who were administered prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for the first time after they developed severe grade 3/4 leukopenia (white blood cell count <2,000 × 10^?9/L) because of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The granulocyte colony-stimulating factor response was defined as the length of the leukocyte recovery period, which was assessed as the period within which the normal white blood cell count (white blood cell count >3,000 × 10^?9/L) is reached after the first dosage of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. After classification of the patients as either poor or normal granulocyte colony-stimulating factor responders according to the confidence interval of the recovery period, their characteristics were compared. Main outcome measure The time for recovery to normal white blood cell count was 2–7 days (90 % confidence interval), and the cutoff value for differentiating poor responders (n = 14) from normal responders (n = 167) was 8 days. Univariate analysis identified previous radiotherapy, number of chemotherapy courses, high granulocyte colony-stimulating factor dosage, and hypoalbuminemia to be significantly associated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor response. Multivariate analysis identified undergoing four or more chemotherapy courses (odds ratio = 5.09; 95 % confidence interval, 1.14–22.71) and heart failure (odds ratio = 5.96; 95 % confidence interval, 1.09–32.57) to be significantly associated with poor granulocyte colony-stimulating factor response. Conclusions Undergoing four or more chemotherapy courses and heart failure are independent risk factors for poor response to granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. These findings may help prevent the complications of leukopenia during chemotherapy and highlight the need to develop better strategies for preventing and treating infectious disease in patients undergoing granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration.     

Prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with colony-stimulating factors: the first 25 years

Abstract

Filgrastim prophylaxis, both primary and secondary, was rapidly incorporated into clinical practice in the 1990s. When pegfilgrastim became available in 2002, it quickly replaced filgrastim as the colony-stimulating factor (CSF) of choice for prophylaxis. Use of prophylaxis increased markedly in the first decade of this century and has stabilized during the present decade. Data concerning real-world CSF prophylactic practice patterns are limited but suggest that both primary and secondary prophylaxis are common, and that use is frequently inappropriate according to guidelines. The extent of inappropriate use is controversial, as are issues concerning the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis and the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis versus secondary prophylaxis. Nevertheless, CSF prophylaxis is firmly established as a valuable adjunct to chemotherapy and will almost certainly continue to be widely used for the foreseeable future. In this article, we chronicle the use and impact of CSF prophylaxis in US patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for non-myeloid malignancies. We emphasize the interplay of expert opinion, clinical evidence, and economic factors in shaping the use of CSFs in clinical practice over time, and, with the recent introduction of new CSF agents and options, we aim to provide useful clinical and economic information for healthcare decision makers.