Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 251–260 | Cite as

Administration options for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis: patient and physician preferences from a cross-sectional survey

  • A. Brett Hauber
  • Brennan Mange
  • Mark A. PriceEmail author
  • Daniel Wolin
  • Mark Bensink
  • James A. Kaye
  • David Chandler
Original Article
  • 361 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

Although clinical guidelines recommend administration of pegfilgrastim 1–4 days after a myelosuppressive chemotherapy cycle to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), some physicians administer pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy administration. A novel on-body injector (OBI) that automatically delivers pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy is also available. Our objective was to estimate patient and physician preferences among the pegfilgrastim administration options.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients receiving pegfilgrastim and physicians prescribing pegfilgrastim. Respondents’ preferences for pegfilgrastim administration options were elicited using direct elicitation; the relative importance of features associated with the options was estimated in a point-allocation exercise. Physicians considered two hypothetical patient profiles when completing the exercises.

Results

The samples included 200 patients and 200 physicians. Patients generally preferred the administration option with which they had experience. Among patients, 48.5% with previous in-clinic injections 24 hours after chemotherapy preferred this option; 56.8% with previous OBI administration preferred this option. For a clinically compromised patient, 37.5% of physicians preferred an in-clinic injection option; 49.5% preferred the OBI. For a less compromised patient, 55.5% preferred an in-clinic injection option; 28.0% preferred the OBI. Avoiding the need to return to the clinic was chosen most often as the most important treatment feature for patients and physicians.

Conclusions

Patients and physicians identified that returning clinic visits for pegfilgrastim administration may be burdensome. A potential solution to mitigate this burden is the OBI, which allows adherence to the labeled use of pegfilgrastim without return visits to the clinic.

Keywords

Pegfilgrastim Febrile neutropenia Preference Patient Physician 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge Jacob Garcia, MD, formerly of Amgen, Inc., for his clinical input on the study and the manuscript. Kate Lothman of RTI Health Solutions provided medical writing services, which were funded by Amgen, Inc.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

This work was supported by Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, United States. ABH, BM, MAP, DW, and JAK are employees of RTI Health Solutions, which received research funding from Amgen, Inc. MB and DC are employees and stockholders of Amgen, Inc.

Statement of human rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

520_2017_3841_MOESM1_ESM.docx (42 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 42 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Crawford J, Dale DC, Kuderer NM et al (2008) Risk and timing of neutropenic events in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: the results of a prospective nationwide study of oncology practice. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 6:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vogel CL, Wojtukiewicz MZ, Carroll RR et al (2005) First and subsequent cycle use of pegfilgrastim prevents febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study. J Clin Oncol 23:1178–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) prescribing information (2016) Available from: http://pi.amgen.com/~/media/amgen/repositorysites/pi-amgen-com/neulasta/neulasta_pi_hcp_english.ashx. Accessed 9 December 2016
  4. 4.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) (2015) Guidelines on myeloid growth factors, version 1. 2015. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/myeloid_growth.pdf. Accessed 1 September 2015
  5. 5.
    Smith TJ, Bohlke K, Lyman GH et al (2015) Recommendations for the use of WBC growth factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 33:3199–3212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weycker D, Li X, Figueredo J et al (2016) Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in cancer patients receiving pegfilgrastim prophylaxis: does timing of administration matter? Support Care Cancer 24:2309–2316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marion S, Tzivelekis S, Darden C et al (2016) “same-day” administration of pegfilgrastim following myelosuppressive chemotherapy: clinical practice and provider rationale. Support Care Cancer 24:3889–3896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Neulasta Onpro healthcare provider instructions for use (2016) http://pi.amgen.com/united_states/neulasta/neulasta_ifu_hcp_pt_english.pdf. Accessed 10 November 2016
  9. 9.
    Berg MJ, Gross RA, Tomaszewski KJ et al (2008) Generic substitution in the treatment of epilepsy – case evidence of breakthrough seizures. Neurology 71:525–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Devine S, Babrowicz J, Hahn R et al (2015) Intra-operative communication regarding neuromuscular blockade: a survey of anaesthesiologists and surgeons. J Anesth Clin Res 6:524–530Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hovinga CA, Asato MR, Manjunath R et al (2015) Association of non-adherence to antiepileptic drugs and seizures, quality of life, and productivity: survey of patients with epilepsy and physicians. Epilepsy Behav 13:316–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Landy SH, Runken MC, Bell CF et al (2011) Assessing the impact of migraine onset on work productivity. J Occup Environ Med 53:74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tomaszewski K, Deniz B, Tomanovich P et al (2012) Comparison of current US risk strategy to screen for hepatitis C virus with a hypothetical targeted birth cohort strategy. Am J Public Health 102:e101–e106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Joshi RS, Egbuna OI, Cairns AS et al (2016) Performance of the pegfilgrastim on-body injector as studied with placebo buffer in healthy volunteers. Curr Med Res Opin 5:1–21Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yang BB, Morrow PK, Wu X et al (2015) Comparison of pharmacokinetics and safety of pegfilgrastim administered by two delivery methods: on-body injector and manual injection with a prefilled syringe. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 75:1199–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Brett Hauber
    • 1
  • Brennan Mange
    • 1
  • Mark A. Price
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel Wolin
    • 2
  • Mark Bensink
    • 3
  • James A. Kaye
    • 4
  • David Chandler
    • 3
  1. 1.RTI Health SolutionsNCUSA
  2. 2.RTI Health SolutionsAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Amgen, Inc.Thousand OaksUSA
  4. 4.RTI Health SolutionsWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations