Pegfilgrastim: More Cost Effective and Equally Efficacious Option as Compared to Filgrastim in Autologous Stem Cell Transplant
- 25 Downloads
Use of growth factor after high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) and autologous peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) support is current standard in reducing days of neutropenia. This retrospective study aims to compare the efficacy of two standard growth factors, pegfilgrastim (PEG) and filgrastim (FIL) after HDC. We collected data on 195 consecutive adult patients who received an autotransplant (myeloma, lymphoma and others) between January 2004 and December 2014 at two tertiary care centres. The primary end point was the duration of neutropenia in terms of days to reach an ANC > 0.5 × 109/L. Filgrastim was given to 110 patients and PEG was given to 85 patients. Time to engraftment, defined as the time to reach an ANC of 0.5 × 109/L on 2 consecutive days after the day of auto-SCT, was 12.6 days with FIL compared with 12.1 days with PEG group (p = 0.126). When comparing the total days of severe neutropenia (WBC < 0.1 × 109/L), there were 5.5 days of severe neutropenia with FIL compared with 5.8 days with PEG group (p = 0.7). The duration of febrile neutropenia was an average of 5.3 days with FIL and 4.6 days with PEG (p = 0.029). The total number of antibiotic days was shorter for the patients who received PEG, being 11.08 days with PEG and 12.1 days with FIL (p = 0.184).The average cost savings per person in terms of number of days of hospitalization and number of days of total parental nutrition was 582 Rs (p = 0.512) and 6003 Rs (p = 0.018) respectively in favour of PEG arm. PEG is similar to FIL in hematological reconstitution, however it is more cost effective alternative after HDC and PBSC.
KeywordsPegfilgrastim Filgrastim Autologous stem cell transplantation
Prof Navin Khattry and Prof Arnon Nagler for valuable inputs during preparation of manuscript.
VS, RJ and AG contributed equally, wrote manuscript, analyzed data, designed study, treated patients; AG, treated patients; TS, mentored manuscript, treated patients, designed study.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
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.Acknowledgement, Prof Navin Khattry and Prof Arnon Nagler for valuable inputs during preparation of manuscript.
- 6.Lee SM, Radford JA, Dobson L et al (1998) Recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (filgrastim) following high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood progenitor cell rescue in high-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: clinical benefits at no extra cost. Br J Cancer 77:1294–1299CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 9.Kawano Y, Takaue Y, Mimaya J et al (1998) Marginal benefit/disadvantage of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor therapy after autologous blood stem cell transplantation in children: results of a prospective randomized trial. The Japanese Cooperative Study Group of PBSCT. Blood 92:4040–4046PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Holmes FA, Jones SE, O’Shaughnessy J et al (2002) Comparable efficacy and safety profiles of once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim and daily injection filgrastim in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: a multicenter dose-finding study in women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol 13:903–909CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Holmes FA, O’Shaughnessy JA, Vukelja S et al (2002) Blinded, randomized, multicenter study to evaluate single administration pegfilgrastim once per cycle versus daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II or stage III/IV breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 20:727–731CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Bruns I, Steidl U, Fischer JC et al (2008) Pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor mobilizes CD34 cells with different stem and progenitor subsets and distinct functional properties in comparison with unconjugated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Haematologica 93:347–355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar