BACKGROUND: The timing of prophylactic pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration during cancer chemotherapy varies, with Day 2 and Days 3-5 being the most common schedules. Optimal timing remains uncertain, affecting efficacy and adverse events. This systematic review sought to evaluate the available evidence on the timing of prophylactic pegylated G-CSF administration.
METHODS: Based on the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development, we searched the PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and Cochrane Library databases for literature published from January 1990 to December 2019. The inclusion criteria included studies among the adult population using pegfilgrastim. The search strategy focused on timing-related keywords. Two reviewers independently extracted and assessed the data.
RESULTS: Among 300 initial search results, only four articles met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis for febrile neutropenia incidence suggested a potential higher incidence when pegylated G-CSF was administered on Days 3-5 than on Day 2 (odds ratio: 1.27, 95% CI 0.66-2.46, p = 0.47), with a moderate certainty of evidence. No significant difference in overall survival or mortality due to infections was observed. The trend of severe adverse events was lower on Days 3-5, without statistical significance (odds ratio: 0.72, 95% CI 0.14-3.67, p = 0.69) and with a moderate certainty of evidence. Data on pain were inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS: Both Day 2 and Days 3-5 were weakly recommended for pegylated G-CSF administration post-chemotherapy in patients with cancer. The limited evidence highlights the need for further research to refine recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Febrile 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.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim compared to filgrastim as a primary or secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma.
METHODS: A 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.
RESULTS: We 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.
CONCLUSIONS: Most 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.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biologics, such as pegfilgrastim, are a standard of care in supportive cancer treatment that are administered once per chemotherapy cycle to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. The high cost of these biologics in the United States can be a limiting factor to accessing care; however, lower-cost pegfilgrastim biosimilars have been available for several years for patients requiring prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Different options for pegfilgrastim administration are also now available to accommodate specific patient preferences. As patients may want to minimize the risk of both neutropenia and SARS-CoV-2 infection, same-day administration is a pertinent option during the present COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, individualized, patient-centered approaches and risk-management strategies should be considered when selecting the treatment and administration method for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Three methods of administration would minimize hospital or clinic visits while also providing the prophylactic effect of G-CSF: same-day administration after chemotherapy, use of the US Food and Drug Administration-approved on-body injector delivering pegfilgrastim approximately 27 h after chemotherapy, or self-administration by the patient or caregiver > 24 h after chemotherapy. Choice of the specific administration option should be based on the patient\'s specific needs, while also considering mitigating factors, such as the economic burden associated with biologic medications and the risk of COVID-19. Pegfilgrastim biosimilars can minimize the additional financial burden on patients and the health care system during this pandemic and beyond.

BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim (PEG) is a sustained-duration pegylated form of filgrastim, a granulocyte-colony stimulating factor agent that is widely used as prophylaxis against febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy. We report the case of a breast cancer patient who developed PEG-induced vasculitis complicated by subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and review the relevant literature.
METHODS: A 48-year-old woman had undergone surgery for breast cancer and was receiving docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy (docetaxel 75 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2); on day 4 of treatment, PEG had been administered. On day 14, she was admitted to hospital with fever, general malaise, and neck pain, and her C-reactive protein level was found to be high (12.65 mg/dL). Although infection was initially suspected, antimicrobial treatment was ineffective and other laboratory test results were negative for this. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography on day 22 showed thickened vessel walls in the left subclavian artery, the origin of the common carotid artery, and the thoracoabdominal aorta. On day 26, magnetic resonance imaging of the head to investigate possible causes of headache showed signs consistent with SAH, and magnetic resonance angiography images showed irregularity in the basilar artery wall; the findings of both studies were considered to be due to PEG-induced vasculitis. Once treatment with prednisolone 40 mg/day had started, the wall thickening and irregularity improved.
CONCLUSIONS: Although an uncommon adverse effect, vasculitis affecting vessels of various sizes may be caused by PEG. To the best of our knowledge, this report is the first to describe a case of G-CSF-induced vasculitis complicated by SAH. In cases of persistent high fever and elevated inflammatory response after PEG administration and in the absence of infection, clinicians should consider the possibility of drug-induced vasculitis.

The totality-of-evidence approach requires that similarity between a proposed biosimilar and a reference biologic is demonstrated across a range of analytical, preclinical, and clinical parameters to establish biosimilarity. We describe the totality of evidence for Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006 [marketed as Ziextenzo]) that supported its regulatory approval in Europe and the United States.
Analytical similarity to the reference biologic [marketed by Amgen as Neulasta] was first investigated with regard to physiochemical quality attributes such as primary structure, pegylation, higher-order structures, variants and impurities, molecular size variants, and formulation (protein content, pH, excipients, etc.). In vitro biological activity studies were performed to examine the primary mechanism of action of pegfilgrastim. Bioequivalence (clinical pharmacokinetics [PK] and pharmacodynamics [PD]) of Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim to the reference biologic was studied in healthy volunteers; efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were assessed during confirmatory clinical efficacy studies in patients undergoing treatment for breast cancer.
No meaningful or relevant differences were identified between Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim and the reference biologic during analytical testing. Similar receptor binding and induction of cellular proliferation in vitro confirmed no functional differences between the biologics. Clinical studies in healthy adult participants demonstrated PK/PD biosimilarity and a similar safety profile between biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastim. Clinical studies in a sensitive patient population also demonstrated similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity between Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim and the reference biologic.
The totality of evidence confirms that Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim matches the reference biologic and will therefore provide equivalent efficacy and safety in all eligible indications.

Evidence-based US guidelines provide recommendations for the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) as supportive therapy in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is recommended for FN prophylaxis in patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving a high-risk chemotherapy regimen, or an intermediate-risk regimen if one or more risk factors are present. The guidelines highlight the patient characteristics and chemotherapy regimens for solid tumors and hematologic malignancies that may influence a patient\'s overall risk of FN and may benefit from pegfilgrastim support. This review aimed to evaluate how pegfilgrastim use in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in routine clinical practice aligns with evidence-based US guidelines. Examination of the literature revealed widespread deviation in relation to under- and over-prescribing, and timing of administration in US clinical practice. Pegfilgrastim is often over-prescribed in patients receiving palliative chemotherapy and those at low risk of FN. Potential under-prescribing of pegfilgrastim was also observed. In this literature search, data that appear to support same-day administration of pegfilgrastim were from uncontrolled studies that were limited in size. Analyses of healthcare claims data clearly favored next-day use, with statistically significant increases in FN incidence among patients receiving same-day pegfilgrastim versus those treated 1-4 days post-chemotherapy. Earlier-than-recommended administration typically occurs at the physician\'s discretion where next-day administration might present barriers to the patient receiving supportive therapy.There is a need to ensure appropriate prescribing to optimize patient outcomes, as deviation from the guideline recommendations was associated with increased incidence of FN and hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Aortitis following granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration has been reported in 0.3-0.47% of cases. To evaluate the characteristics of G-CSF-associated aortitis, we systematically reviewed the literature.
METHODS: We searched PubMed and found 49 cases of G-CSF-associated aortitis and cancer comorbidities and analyzed their characteristics and treatments.
RESULTS: Since 2004, cases of G-CSF-associated aortitis have been increasing, particularly in Asia (75.5%). The mean age was 60.1 years; 79.6% of patients were 50 years and older; and most patients were females (91.8%). All patients underwent chemotherapy (taxane, 51.0%). The most frequent symptom was fever, which occurred within 10 days (61.2%) of G-CSF administration, similar to that in febrile neutropenia. The period to remission was within 14 days in 44.9% of cases. Steroids were administered to 59.2% of patients; however, treatment efficacy was not significant. No patients died.
CONCLUSIONS: High levels of inflammatory cytokines might induce aortitis; however, further studies are warranted.

BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim, 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.
METHODS: An 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.
RESULTS: The 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.
CONCLUSIONS: In 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.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO registration no: CRD42019155572 .

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy are vulnerable to febrile neutropenia (FN) which contributes to poor treatment outcomes. The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors is administered to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The introduction of biosimilars has allowed for greater cost-savings while maintaining safety and efficacy. This retrospective study assessed the incidence of FN and related treatment outcomes and the cost minimization of a pegfilgrastim biosimilar and its reference.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review of breast cancer patients receiving (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy from February 2017 to May 2020 was conducted. The endpoints included the incidence of FN, the occurrence of dose reduction (DR), dose delay (DD) and pain. A cost minimization analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective.
RESULTS: One hundred Neulasta® and 74 Lapelga® patients were included in the first-cycle analysis. The rate of FN in cycle 1 for Neulasta® and Lapelga® was 2/100 and 4/74, respectively; risk difference (RD)  =  3.4%; 95% CI: -2.4 to 9.2%. Eighty-three Neulasta® and 59 Lapelga® patients were included in the all-cycle analyses, where DR was reported in 76 (15%) Neulasta® cycles vs 33 (10%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = -3.6, 95% CI: -10.2 to 2.9). DD was reported in 20 (4%) Neulasta® cycles vs. 11 (3.5%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = -0.3; 95% CI: -2.7 to 2.0). Adverse events were similar between groups. Cost minimization using a cohort of 20,000 patients translated into an incremental savings of $21,606,800 CAD for each cycle.
CONCLUSIONS: The biosimilar pegfilgrastim was non-inferior to the reference biologic based on FN incidence in addition to related outcomes including DR and DD.

OBJECTIVE: Since 2018, several pegfilgrastim biosimilars were approved, which may affect insurance reimbursement. Guidelines recommend pegfilgrastim be administered the days following chemotherapy to prevent hematopoietic toxicity. To date, only the reference pegfilgrastim product has an available autoinjector-device. This has contributed to logistical issues in administering biosimilar agents per guideline recommendations. Administration on the same day as chemotherapy may be a potential alternative when logistical issues are present. This review will assess current evidence on this practice to inform clinical decisions.Data sources: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline for studies examining the administration of pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy.Data summary: Several studies were identified, including a systematic review, retrospective reviews, and insurance claim data. Studies had significant limitations, and chemotherapy regimens and cancer types varied among studies. Studies showed inconsistent results in terms of incidence, duration, and severity of febrile neutropenia. In studies with patients with head and neck, urothelial, gynecologic, gastrointestinal, and prostate cancer, no difference in outcomes was detected or outcomes supported the feasibility of same-day administration. In patients with breast cancer, outcomes were worse with same-day administration. Outcomes were mixed in studies with non-Hodgkin\'s lymphoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and various solid tumors.
CONCLUSIONS: Administration of pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy may be safe and an acceptable alternative, if logistics prohibit a patient from receiving administration the days after chemotherapy. Clinicians should consider patient risk factors and prescribed chemotherapy regimens, along with available evidence when contemplating administration of same-day pegfilgrastim.