Explore the vast range of titles available.

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. Trial registration PROSPERO registration no : CRD42019155572 .

Cancer patients with bone metastasis (BM) from solid tumors or multiple myeloma (MM) have an increased risk of painful skeletal-related events (SREs), which can decrease quality of life and increase mortality. Bone targeting agents (BTAs) can help delay or prevent SREs; however, a significant portion of eligible patients are not receiving BTA therapy. This study was conducted to understand patient awareness of cancer-related bone health and to identify opportunities to improve bone health education in cancer patients at risk of SREs. The online BonE heAlth eduCatiOn Needs assessment (BEACON) survey included questions about patient demographics, cancer diagnosis and treatments (including BTA usage), and extent and satisfaction with bone health education received. Direct-to-patient outreach was used to recruit patients. Eligible patients were US adults with a diagnosis of self-reported MM or BM from a solid tumor (breast, lung, or prostate cancer) within the past three years. Of 125 patients, 71% were diagnosed with solid tumors with BM and 29% with MM. At least one prior SRE was experienced by 57% of patients (38% radiation to bone, 32% bone fracture, 22% spinal cord compression, and 19% surgery to bone), and 74% were currently receiving BTA therapy. Awareness of cancer bone health, protection strategies, and screening tests was low to moderate; patients were least informed of the impact of lifestyle changes (38%) and specific cancer treatments (≤35%) on bone health. Sixty-two percent of patients were not completely satisfied with the bone health education received. Patients generally wanted more information (58%) and to receive information by more than one mode of communication. Notable gaps in bone health education were observed in cancer patients at risk for SREs indicating an important need for improved communication and education strategies to promote better health outcomes.

Bone metastases are common in advanced breast cancer (BC) patients and increase the risk for skeletal-related events (SREs), which present a significant health and economic burden. Bone targeting agents (BTAs) can improve health-related quality of life by delaying or preventing SREs; nevertheless, a significant portion of eligible BC patients are not receiving this therapy. A bone health education needs assessment survey was conducted to examine cancer-related bone health awareness and to identify opportunities to improve bone health education. Direct-to-patient outreach was used to recruit adult BC patients in the USA self-reporting a diagnosis of bone metastasis within the past 3 years. Of the 200 patients, 59% experienced at least one SRE prior to survey participation (44% radiation to bone, 29% bone fracture, 17% spinal cord compression, 15% surgery to bone), and 83% were currently receiving a BTA. Awareness of general cancer bone health, protection strategies against SREs, and screening tests were low to moderate. Patients currently not receiving a BTA were least knowledgeable about cancer bone health, with only 40% aware of BTAs as a protective strategy, and only 26% were very or extremely satisfied with the information received from healthcare providers. Sixty-two percent of patients wanted to receive information by more than one mode of communication. Notable gaps in bone health education were observed in bone metastatic BC patients at risk for SREs, suggesting the need for earlier and more effective communication and education strategies to promote appropriate BTA use and better health outcomes.

Purpose Guidelines recommend primary prophylactic (PP) granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) for prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with high risk (HR: > 20%), or intermediate risk (IR:10–20%) of FN and ≥ 1 patient risk factor (e.g., age ≥ 65y). The current retrospective cohort study describes patterns of PP-G-CSF in older Medicare patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy with HR/IR of FN. Methods Patients aged ≥ 66y initiating chemotherapy regimens with HR/IR of FN to treat breast, colorectal, lung, or ovarian cancer, or Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma were selected using Medicare 20% sample (2013–2015) and 100% cancer patient (2014–2017) data. PP-G-CSF use was identified in the first cycle. Timing of pegfilgrastim pre-filled syringe (PFS) administration, proportion of patients completing all cycles (adherence) with pegfilgrastim PFS or on-body injector (OBI), and duration of short-acting G-CSF (sG-CSF) was described across all cycles. Results Of 64,893 patients receiving HR/IR for FN, 71% received HR and 29% IR regimens. Overall, PP-G-CSF use in the first cycle was 53% (HR: 74%; IR: 44%) and varied across cancers. Adherence with pegfilgrastim was slightly higher among OBI initiators (78%) than PFS (74%). Number of PP-sG-CSF administrations (mean [SD]) per cycle was 5.1 (SD: 2.7) overall, 5.4 (2.6) for HR, and 4.9 (2.7) for IR. Conclusion Despite cancer treatment guidelines recommending PP-G-CSF use to reduce risk of FN associated with HR and IR (with ≥ 1 patient risk-factor) regimens, PP-G-CSF remains underutilized in older patients, across cancer types and regimens. Opportunities exist for improvement in use of PP-G-CSF.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of oral glucocorticoid (GC) dose on rates of hospitalized infectious events (HIEs) among RA patients newly exposed to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapy. This retrospective cohort study used data from the MarketScan claims database. Incident and prevalent adult RA patients newly exposed to TNFi therapy were identified and assigned to three cohorts: no GC, low-dose GC (≤7.5 mg), and high-dose GC (>7.5 mg); patients could contribute exposure time to multiple cohorts if they changed dose or discontinued GC. The primary outcome was estimated incidence rate (IR) of HIEs per 100 patient-years of GC exposure. A total of 40,933 eligible patients were identified (mean age 53.0 years; 77.4% female). HIE risk increased with increasing GC dose: the IR [95% confidence interval (CI)] was 3.9 (3.63–4.13) for no GC; 6.4 (5.68–7.16) for low-dose GC; and 13.3 (11.9–15.5) for high-dose GC. Adjusted rate ratios (95% CI) were 1.4 (1.21–1.60) for low-dose vs no GC; 2.8 (2.32–3.34) for high-dose vs no GC, and 2.0 (1.66–2.45) for high-dose vs low-dose GC. The risk of HIEs increased with increasing age. HIE risk did not increase with longer exposure to GCs. Oral GCs, regardless of dose, significantly increased the risk of HIEs among RA patients newly initiating TNFi therapy. Steroid dosing must be considered when assessing infection risk in treatment decisions for RA patients.