Observational studyBMC cancer2019
Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in BMC cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient, nurse, and physician preferences: final results of the CONVENIENCE study evaluating pegfilgrastim prophylaxis via pre-filled syringe or on-body injector in cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Trial
- Real-world evidence of febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization on patients with perioperative chemotherapy for early breast cancer in Japan.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Article
- How Can Oncology Nurses and Advanced Practice Providers Reduce the Burden of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia in the US?Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2024Review
- Article
- Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in intermediate-risk regimens: Clinical and economic outcomes of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2023Article
- Comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim biosimilars vs originator for prevention of febrile neutropenia: A retrospective cohort study.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2023Article
- Pegfilgrastim Prophylaxis Is Effective in the Prevention of Febrile Neutropenia and Reduces Mortality in Patients Aged ≥ 75 Years with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treated with R-CHOP: A Prospective Cohort Study.Cancer research and treatment · 2022Article
- A prospective cohort study to evaluate the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector versus other options for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia: breast cancer subgroup analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with metastatic cancer not receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in US clinical practice.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Safety of Marketed Cancer Supportive Care Biosimilars in the US: A Disproportionality Analysis Using the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Database.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFebrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Clinical practice guidelines recommend routine prophylactic coverage with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-such as pegfilgrastim-for most patients receiving chemotherapy with an intermediate to high risk for FN. Patterns of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis during the chemotherapy course and associated FN risks in US clinical practice have not been well characterized.
methodsA retrospective cohort design and data from two commercial healthcare claims repositories (01/2010-03/2016) and Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files (01/2007-09/2015) were employed. Study population included patients who had non-metastatic breast cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and received intermediate/high-risk regimens. Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis use and FN incidence were ascertained in each chemotherapy cycle, and all cycles were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios for FN were estimated for patients who did versus did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in that cycle.
resultsStudy population included 50,778 commercial patients who received 190,622 cycles of chemotherapy and 71,037 Medicare patients who received 271,944 cycles. In cycle 1, 33% of commercial patients and 28% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, and adjusted odds of FN were 2.6 (95% CI 2.3-2.8) and 1.6 (1.5-1.7), respectively, versus those who received pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. In cycle 2, 28% (commercial) and 26% (Medicare) did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis; corresponding adjusted FN odds were comparably elevated (1.9 [1.6-2.2] and 1.6 [1.5-1.8]). Results in subsequent cycles were similar. Across all cycles, 15% of commercial patients and 23% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis despite having FN in a prior cycle, and prior FN increased odds of subsequent FN by 2.1-2.4 times.
conclusionsNotwithstanding clinical practice guidelines, a large minority of patients did not receive G-CSF prophylaxis, and FN incidence was substantially higher among this subset of the population. Appropriate use of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis may reduce patient exposure to this potentially fatal but largely preventable complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.