Policy Analysis Inc., Four Davis Court, Brookline, MA 02445, USA.
Am J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jun;35(3):267-74. doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e31820dc075.
Comparative effectiveness of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and sargramostim in preventing hospitalization for febrile neutropenia (FN) during myelosuppressive chemotherapy has not been well characterized and is an important clinical question in oncology.
This study used a retrospective cohort design and US healthcare claims data. Source population included patients with solid tumors receiving filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or sargramostim during their first observed course of chemotherapy between July 2001 and June 2007. For each patient, every unique chemotherapy cycle during the course was identified, along with each cycle in which filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or sargramostim was administered by the fifth day of the cycle (ie, as prophylaxis). Risks of hospitalization for neutropenic complications (broad definition: admission with a diagnosis of neutropenia, fever, or infection; narrow definition: admission with a diagnosis of neutropenia) and for any reason were examined on a cycle-specific basis during all the cycles in which colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis was administered. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for hospitalization were estimated.
Risk (unadjusted) of hospitalization for neutropenic complications (narrow definition) was 2.1% for filgrastim prophylaxis (n=8286), 1.1% for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (n=67,247), and 2.5% for sargramostim prophylaxis (n=1736). Corresponding risks of hospitalization based on the broad definition were 4.0%, 2.6%, and 5.1%. Risks of all-cause hospitalization were 7.9%, 5.3%, and 9.6%, respectively. Adjusted odds of hospitalization were significantly higher for filgrastim [OR (range across the 3 alternative measures of hospitalization): 1.58-1.79; P<0.001] and sargramostim (OR: 1.89-2.68; P<0.001) versus pegfilgrastim.
Risk of hospitalization for neutropenic complications during cancer chemotherapy is lower with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis than with filgrastim or sargramostim prophylaxis.
在骨髓抑制性化疗期间,比较粒细胞集落刺激因子、聚乙二醇化粒细胞集落刺激因子和沙格司亭预防发热性中性粒细胞减少症(FN)住院的疗效尚未得到充分描述,这是肿瘤学中的一个重要临床问题。
本研究采用回顾性队列设计和美国医疗保健索赔数据。源人群包括 2001 年 7 月至 2007 年 6 月期间首次接受化疗期间接受粒细胞集落刺激因子、聚乙二醇化粒细胞集落刺激因子或沙格司亭治疗的实体瘤患者。对于每位患者,确定每个化疗周期中的每个独特周期,以及每个周期中在周期的第 5 天(即作为预防措施)给予粒细胞集落刺激因子的每个周期。在给予集落刺激因子预防的所有周期中,根据中性粒细胞减少症并发症(广义定义:入院诊断为中性粒细胞减少症、发热或感染;狭义定义:入院诊断为中性粒细胞减少症)和任何原因住院的风险,在周期特异性基础上进行了检查。估计了住院的未调整和调整后的优势比(OR)。
中性粒细胞减少症并发症(狭义定义)住院的风险为粒细胞集落刺激因子预防组为 2.1%(n=8286),聚乙二醇化粒细胞集落刺激因子预防组为 1.1%(n=67247),沙格司亭预防组为 2.5%(n=1736)。广义定义的相应住院风险分别为 4.0%、2.6%和 5.1%。全因住院的风险分别为 7.9%、5.3%和 9.6%。与聚乙二醇化粒细胞集落刺激因子相比,调整后的住院几率显著升高(OR(三种替代住院措施的范围):1.58-1.79;P<0.001)和沙格司亭(OR:1.89-2.68;P<0.001)。
在癌症化疗期间,聚乙二醇化粒细胞集落刺激因子预防中性粒细胞减少症并发症的住院风险低于粒细胞集落刺激因子或沙格司亭预防。