Advertisement

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Short- versus Long-Acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors for Reduction of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia

  • Paul Cornes
  • Pere Gascon
  • Stephen Chan
  • Khalid Hameed
  • Catherine R. Mitchell
  • Polly Field
  • Mark Latymer
  • Luiz H. ArantesJr.
Review

Abstract

Introduction

Short- and long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are approved for the reduction of febrile neutropenia. A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs reporting the use of G-CSFs following chemotherapy treatment.

Methods

Medline®/Medline in-process, Embase®, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between January 2003 and June 2016. A hand-search of relevant conference proceedings was conducted for meetings held between 2012 and 2016. Eligible studies were restricted to those reporting a direct, head-to-head comparison of short- versus long-acting G-CSFs for reduction of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Risk-of-bias assessments were performed for full publications only.

Results

The search strategy yielded 4044 articles for electronic screening. Thirty-six publications were evaluated for the meta-analysis: 11 of 12 RCTs and 2 of 24 non-RCTs administered doses of the short-acting G-CSF filgrastim for ≥ 7 days. In RCT studies, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes of interest between short- and long-acting G-CSFs. In non-RCTs, the overall risk was lower with long-acting G-CSF than with short-acting G-CSF for incidence of febrile neutropenia [overall relative risk (RR) = 0.67, P  = 0.023], hospitalizations (overall RR = 0.68, P  < 0.05), and chemotherapy dose delays (overall RR = 0.68, P  = 0.020).

Conclusions

Overall, the weight of evidence from RCTs indicates little difference in efficacy between the short- and long-acting G-CSFs if dosed according to recommended guidelines. There is some evidence for greater efficacy for long-acting G-CSFs in non-RCTs, which may be a result of under-dosing of short-acting G-CSFs in general practice in real-world usage.

Funding

Hospira Inc, which was acquired by Pfizer Inc in September 2015, and Pfizer Inc.

Keywords

Chemotherapy Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia Filgrastim Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor Neutropenia Oncology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding

This systematic literature review and meta-analysis was funded by Hospira Inc, which was acquired by Pfizer Inc. in September 2015, and by Pfizer Inc. Article processing charges were funded by Pfizer Inc.

Medical Writing, Editorial, and Other Assistance

This systematic literature review and meta-analysis was developed by Catherine R. Mitchell and Polly Field. Medical writing and editorial support was provided by Merry H. Saba, PharmD, and Elyse Smith, PhD, of Engage Scientific Solutions, and funded by Pfizer Inc.

Authorship

All authors had full access to all of the data in this study and take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data analysis. All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.

Disclosures

Paul Cornes has received honoraria from Accord Healthcare, Amgen, Hospira/Pfizer Inc, Medicines for Europe/European Generics Medecines Association, Roche, Sandoz, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Pere Gascon has provided consultancy/advisory services (uncompensated) for Hospira. Steve Chan and Khalid Hameed have nothing to disclose. Polly Field is Communications Director at PharmaGenesis Oxford Central, which received compensation from Hospira/Pfizer Inc for development of the systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Catherine R. Mitchell was a consultant for PharmaGenesis Oxford Central at the time of development of the systematic review and meta-analysis. Mark Latymer is a full-time employee of, and declares stock holdings and/or stock options from, Pfizer Inc. Luiz H. Arantes is a full-time employee of, and declares stock holdings and/or stock options from, Pfizer Inc.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article/as supplementary information files.

Supplementary material

12325_2018_798_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (469 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 469 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Crawford J, Dale DC, Lyman GH. Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: risks, consequences, and new directions for its management. Cancer. 2004;100:228–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tai E, Guy GP, Dunbar A, Richardson LC. Cost of cancer-related neutropenia or fever hospitalizations, United States, 2012. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13:e552–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schelenz S, Giles D, Abdallah S. Epidemiology, management and economic impact of febrile neutropenia in oncology patients receiving routine care at a regional UK cancer centre. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:1889–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dulisse B, Li X, Gayle JA, Barron RL, Ernst FR, Rothman KJ, et al. A retrospective study of the clinical and economic burden during hospitalizations among cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. J Med Econ. 2013;16:720–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wingard JR, Elmongy M. Strategies for minimizing complications of neutropenia: prophylactic myeloid growth factors or antibiotics. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2009;72:144–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leonard RC, Mansi JL, Keerie C, Yellowlees A, Crawford S, Benstead K, et al. A randomised trial of secondary prophylaxis using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (‘SPROG’ trial) for maintaining dose intensity of standard adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer by the Anglo-Celtic Cooperative Group and NCRN. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:2437–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lyman GH, Dale DC, Culakova E, Poniewierski MS, Wolff DA, Kuderer NM, et al. The impact of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on chemotherapy dose intensity and cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:2475–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weycker D, Barron R, Edelsberg J, Kartashov A, Legg J, Glass AG. Risk and consequences of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic complications in patients receiving daily filgrastim: the importance of duration of prophylaxis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amgen Inc. Neupogen (filgrastim) US prescribing information; 2018. http://pi.amgen.com/~/media/amgen/repositorysites/pi-amgen-com/neupogen/neupogen_pi_hcp_english.ashx. Last accessed 8 Aug 2018.
  10. 10.
    Morrison VA, Wong M, Hershman D, Campos LT, Ding B, Malin J. Observational study of the prevalence of febrile neutropenia in patients who received filgrastim or pegfilgrastim associated with 3–4 week chemotherapy regimens in community oncology practices. J Manag Care Pharm. 2007;13:337–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weycker D, Hackett J, Edelsberg JS, Oster G, Glass AG. Are shorter courses of filgrastim prophylaxis associated with increased risk of hospitalization? Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40:402–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Amgen Inc. Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) US prescribing information; 2018. http://pi.amgen.com/~/media/amgen/repositorysites/pi-amgen-com/neulasta/neulasta_pi_hcp_english.pdf. Last accessed 8 Aug 2018.
  13. 13.
    Almenar Cubells D, Bosch Roig C, Jimenez Orozco E, Alvarez R, Cuervo JM, Diaz Fernandez N, et al. Effectiveness of daily versus non-daily granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in patients with solid tumours undergoing chemotherapy: a multivariate analysis of data from current practice. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2013;22:400–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mates MM, Hopman W, Altwairgi AK. Review of practice patterns of primary granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis and impact on febrile neutropenia rate and chemotherapy delivery in patients with early breast cancer treated with modern adjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:e19541.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Naeim A, Henk HJ, Becker L, Chia V, Badre S, Deeter RG. Pegfilgrastim use associated with lower risk of hospitalization than filgrastim use: a retrospective US claims analysis. Blood. 2010;116:3801.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Naeim A, Henk HJ, Becker L, Chia V, Badre S, Li X, et al. Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization of cancer patients than filgrastim prophylaxis: a retrospective United States claims analysis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF). BMC Cancer. 2013;13:11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Salar A, Lopez A, Pio Torres J, Lopez MD, Caballero MD, Prieto E, et al. Incidence of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in lymphoma patients and use of prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in clinical practice. Haematologica. 2009;94:521.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tan H, Tomic K, Hurley D, Daniel G, Barron R, Malin J. Comparative effectiveness of colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia: a retrospective study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27:79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weycker D, Barron RL, Kartashov A, Oster G. Comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim, filgrastim, and sargramostim as prophylaxis against hospitalization for febrile neutropenia in cancer chemotherapy patients. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009;15:576–7.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weycker D, Malin J, Barron R, Edelsberg J, Kartashov A, Oster G. Comparative effectiveness of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and sargramostim as prophylaxis against hospitalization for neutropenic complications in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. Am J Clin Oncol. 2012;35:267–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Almenar D, Mayans J, Juan O, Bueno JM, Lopez JI, Frau A, et al. Pegfilgrastim and daily granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: patterns of use and neutropenia-related outcomes in cancer patients in Spain—results of the LEARN Study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2009;18:280–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Henk HJ, Becker L, Tan H, Yu J, Kavati A, Naeim A, et al. Comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim, filgrastim, and sargramostim prophylaxis for neutropenia-related hospitalization: two US retrospective claims analyses. J Med Econ. 2013;16:160–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kourlaba G, Dimopoulos MA, Pectasides D, Skarlos DV, Gogas H, Pentheroudakis G, et al. Comparison of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim to prevent neutropenia and maintain dose intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:2045–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Klastersky J, Awada A. Prevention of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients: pegylated versus standard myeloid colony stimulating factors. Do we have a choice? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011;78:17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang L, Baser O, Kutikova L, Page JH, Barron R. The impact of primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors on febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:3131–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mitchell S, Li X, Woods M, Garcia J, Hebard-Massey K, Barron R, et al. Comparative effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors to prevent febrile neutropenia and related complications in cancer patients in clinical practice: a systematic review. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2016;22:702–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brito M, Esteves S, Andre R, Isidoro M, Moreira A. Abstract P1-15-03. Comparison of efficacy of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim, filgrastrim and a biosimilar filgrastim in TAC regimen (docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide). Cancer Res. 2012;72:P1-15-03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brito M, Esteves S, Andre R, Isidoro M, Moreira A. Comparison of effectiveness of biosimilar filgrastim (Nivestim), reference Amgen filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in febrile neutropenia primary prevention in breast cancer patients treated with neo(adjuvant) TAC: a non-interventional cohort study. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24:597–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chan A, Leng XZ, Chiang JY, Tao M, Quek R, Tay K, et al. Comparison of daily filgrastim and pegfilgrastim to prevent febrile neutropenia in Asian lymphoma patients. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2011;7:75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heaney ML, Toy EL, Vekeman F, Laliberte F, Dority BL, Perlman D, et al. Comparison of hospitalization risk and associated costs among patients receiving sargramostim, filgrastim, and pegfilgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Cancer. 2009;115:4839–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Leonard RCF, Mansi J, Benstead K, Stewart G, Yellowlees A, Adamson D, et al. 5033 Secondary PROphylaxis with G-CSF has a major effect on delivered dose intensity: the results of the UK NCRI/Anglo Celtic SPROG trial for adjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer. EJC Suppl. 2009;7:271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Skarlos DV, Timotheadou E, Galani E, Samantas E, Grimani I, Lianos E, et al. Pegfilgrastim administered on the same day with dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer is associated with a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia as compared to conventional growth factor support: matched case-control study of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. Oncology. 2009;77:107–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bozzoli V, Tisi MC, Maiolo E, Alma E, Bellesi S, D’Alo F, et al. Four doses of unpegylated versus one dose of pegylated filgrastim as supportive therapy in R-CHOP-14 for elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 2015;169:787–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Filon O, Nechaeva M, Burdaeva O, Vladimirov VI, Lifirenko I, Kovalenko NV, et al. Efficacy and safety of empegfilgrastim, a novel pegylated G-CSF: results of complete analysis after 4 cycles of myelosuppressive chemotherapy in phase III double-dummy randomized clinical study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:e20735.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Green MD, Koelbl H, Baselga J, Galid A, Guillem V, Gascon P, et al. A randomized double-blind multicenter phase III study of fixed-dose single-administration pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2003;14:29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Grigg A, Solal-Celigny P, Hoskin P, Taylor K, McMillan A, Forstpointner R, et al. Open-label, randomized study of pegfilgrastim vs daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in elderly patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2003;44:1503–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hadji P, Kostev K, Schroder-Bernhardi D, Ziller V. Cost comparison of outpatient treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) in Germany. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;50:281–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hershman D, Hurley D, Wong M, Morrison VA, Malin JL. Impact of primary prophylaxis on febrile neutropenia within community practices in the US. J Med Econ. 2009;12:203–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kubista E, Glaspy J, Holmes FA, Green MD, Hackett J, Neumann T, et al. Bone pain associated with once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim is similar to daily filgrastim in patients with breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2003;3:391–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Leung M, Eustaquio J, Kano J, Marr T, Higgins BP, Myers RE, et al. Pain severity and impairment of activity between pegfilgrastim (P) and fixed-dose filgrastim (F) in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:e19570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Leung M, Florendo J, Kano J, Marr-Del Monte T, Higgins B, Myers R, et al. A modified filgrastim regimen does not reduce pain burden compared to pegfilgrastim in women receiving chemotherapy for non-metastatic breast cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:1669–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lopez A, de Sevilla AF, Castaigne S, Greil R, Sierra J, Sanchez J, et al. Pegfilgrastim supports delivery of CHO-R chemotherapy administered every 14 days: a randomized phase II study. J Support Oncol. 2005;3:46–7.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Marina J, Carabantes FJ, Escrivá de Romani S, Pernas S, Cantos B, Carañana V, et al. 3019 Current practice of prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for preventing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in breast cancer patients in Spain. Eur J Cancer Suppl. 2009;7:181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mazo EM, Gil-Fernandez JJ, Garcia Suarez J, Callejas Charavia M, Guerrero YM, Pascual Garcia T, et al. Comparative effect of filgrastim vs pegfilgrastim after chemotherapy on high grade non hodgkin lymphoma. Haematologica. 2009;94:231.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Park KH, Sohn JH, Lee S, Park JH, Kang SY, Kim HY, et al. A randomized, multi-center, open-label, phase II study of once-per-cycle DA-3031, a biosimilar pegylated G-CSF, compared with daily filgrastim in patients receiving TAC chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. Investig New Drugs. 2013;31:1300–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Phillips J, Ritter S, Starner CI, Gleason PP. Filgrastim (Neupogen) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta): cost analysis and utilization management opportunity assessment. J Manag Care Pharm. 2012;18:176–7.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ramkumar A, Nimmagadda R, Nirni SS, Aidris T, Anand A. A randomized, multi centre, open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Peg G-CSF as compared to grafeel in the prophylaxis of severe neutropenia in cancer patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2013;29:388.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Salafet OV, Chernovskaya TV, Sheveleva LP, Khorinko AV, Prokopenko TI, Nechaeva MP, et al. Efficacy and safety of BCD-017, a novel pegylated filgrastim: results of open-label controlled phase II study in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:e20593.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Satheesh CT, Tejinder S, Ankit J, Sajeevan KV, Lakshmaiah KC, Lokanatha D, et al. To analyze efficacy and safety of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:e20587.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schippinger W, Holub R, Dandachi N, Bauernhofer T, Samonigg H. Frequency of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients receiving epirubicin and docetaxel/paclitaxel with colony-stimulating growth factors: a comparison of filgrastim or lenograstim with pegfilgrastim. Oncology. 2006;70:290–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Shi YK, Chen Q, Zhu YZ, He XH, Wang HQ, Jiang ZF, et al. Pegylated filgrastim is comparable with filgrastim as support for commonly used chemotherapy regimens: a multicenter, randomized, crossover phase 3 study. Anticancer Drugs. 2013;24:641–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shi YK, He XH, Yang S, Wang HQ, Jiang ZF, Zhu YZ, et al. Treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: a multi-center randomized controlled phase II clinical study. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2006;86:3414–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sierra J, Szer J, Kassis J, Herrmann R, Lazzarino M, Thomas X, et al. A single dose of pegfilgrastim compared with daily filgrastim for supporting neutrophil recovery in patients treated for low-to-intermediate risk acute myeloid leukemia: results from a randomized, double-blind, phase 2 trial. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    von Minckwitz G, Kummel S, du Bois A, Eiermann W, Eidtmann H, Gerber B, et al. Pegfilgrastim +/− ciprofloxacin for primary prophylaxis with TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy for breast cancer. Results from the GEPARTRIO study. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:292–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Vose JM, Crump M, Lazarus H, Emmanouilides C, Schenkein D, Moore J, et al. Randomized, multicenter, open-label study of pegfilgrastim compared with daily filgrastim after chemotherapy for lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:514–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zhang M, Lan HT, Chen L. Clinical observation of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in preventing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia [Chinese]. Chin J New Drugs. 2014;23:815–8.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zhang W, Jiang Z, Wang L, Li C, Xia J. An open-label, randomized, multicenter dose-finding study of once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving TAC chemotherapy. Med Oncol. 2015;32:147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zhou S, Wang H, Zhang H, Qiu L, Qian Z, Li W, et al. A randomized controlled clinical study of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Chin J Clin Oncol. 2011;38:1154–8.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zhou SY, Shi YK, Gui L, Han XH, Wang L, Zhang CL. A randomized, open-label, single-dose, self-controlled, dose-escalation phase I study of Y-pegylated recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor. Chin J New Drugs. 2013;22:928–36.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nechaeva MN, Burdaeva ON, Vladimirov VI, Lifirenko ID, Kovalenko NV, Kopp MV, et al. Efficacy and safety of empegfilgrastim, a novel pegylated G-CSF: results of double-dummy phase III study in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:S163–4.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wetten S, Li X, Haas J, Worth G, Jacob C, Braun S, et al. Comparative effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) for reducing incidence of febrile neutropenia (Fn)-related hospitalization: a retrospective cohort study using German claims data. Value Health. 2015;18:A434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    von Minckwitz G, Kummel S, Vogel P, Hanusch C, Eidtmann H, Hilfrich J, et al. Intensified neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early-responding breast cancer: phase III randomized GeparTrio study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:552–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Klastersky J, de Naurois J, Rolston K, Rapoport B, Maschmeyer G, Aapro M, et al. Management of febrile neutropaenia: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:v111–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Smith TJ, Bohlke K, Lyman GH, Carson KR, Crawford J, Cross SJ, et al. Recommendations for the use of WBC growth factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Fagnani D, Isa L, Verga MF, Nova P, Casartelli C, Filipazzi V, et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors used in clinical practice: PoloNord Registry-Based Cohort Italian Study. Tumori. 2014;100:491–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Johnson P, Bancroft T, Barron R, Legg J, Li X, Watson H, et al. Discrete choice experiment to estimate breast cancer patients’ preferences and willingness to pay for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Value Health. 2014;17:380–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    James E, Trautman H, Szabo E, Tang B, editors. Budget impact analysis of switching chemotherapy patients using granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) from pegfilgrastim to short-acting G-CSFs in the United States (abstr 4668). Atlanta: American Society of Hematology; 2017.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Guideline on similar biological medicinal products; 2014. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2014/10/WC500176768.pdf. Last accessed 27 June 2017.
  69. 69.
    US Food and Drug Administration. Scientific considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity to a reference product: guidance for industry; 2015. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM291128.pdf. Last accessed 27 June 2017.
  70. 70.
    Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (GaBi). Biosimilars of filgrastim [online posting]; 2015. http://www.gabionline.net/Biosimilars/General/Biosimilars-of-filgrastim. Last accessed 27 Nov 2017.
  71. 71.
    PHARMAC Pharmaceutical Management Agency. PHARMAC Annual Review 2014; 2014. https://www.pharmac.govt.nz/assets/annual-review-2014.pdf. Last accessed 28 Sept 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Healthcare Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Cornes
    • 1
  • Pere Gascon
    • 2
  • Stephen Chan
    • 3
  • Khalid Hameed
    • 4
  • Catherine R. Mitchell
    • 5
  • Polly Field
    • 5
  • Mark Latymer
    • 6
  • Luiz H. ArantesJr.
    • 7
  1. 1.Comparative Outcomes GroupBristolUK
  2. 2.Department of Hematology-Oncology, Hospital ClínicUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Nottingham University HospitalsNottinghamUK
  4. 4.Sheffield University, Weston Park HospitalSheffieldUK
  5. 5.PharmaGenesis Oxford CentralOxfordUK
  6. 6.Pfizer LtdSandwichUK
  7. 7.Pfizer IncNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations