Sargramostim lowers infection rate, costs associated with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

Article

Evidence from a large managed-care database suggests that sargramostim (Leukine) reduced the risk of infection-related hospitalization as well as associated costs compared with filgrastim (Neupogen) or pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) in patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

SAN FRANCISCO -- Evidence from a large managed-care database suggests that sargramostim (Leukine) reduced the risk of infection-related hospitalization as well as associated costs compared with filgrastim (Neupogen) or pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) in patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

"This study reflects a ‘real-life' cohort. The clinical differences we observed translated to cost differences," said presenter Mei Sheng Duh, MPH, of the Analysis Group in Boston. "We found that treatment with sargramostim lowered the risk of hospitalization for infection compared with treatment with [filgrastim or pegfilgrastim]. These results are hypothesis-generating."

Filgrastim and pegfilgrastim are granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) that stimulate neutrophil and dendritic cell production, while sargramostim is a granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) that stimulates production of neutrophils, dendritic cells, and macrophages, conferring additional immune protection. The authors of this retrospective, matched cohort study hypothesized that sargramostim's properties would translate to reduced infection-related hospitalizations and associated costs compared with the two G-CSFs.

The study analyzed a large, nationally representative managed-care claims database including 45 health plans in the U.S. covering more than 80 million beneficiaries for the years 2000 to 2007. CIN patients were identified as those with at least two claims of sargramostim or filgrastim or at least one claim of pegfilgrastim, at least one cancer claim within 120 days prior to the start of treatment with G/GM-CSF (index date), and more than one chemotherapy claim within 60 days prior to the index date (abstract 665).

The treatment episode began with the first claim for G/GM-CSF treatment satisfying the 120-day washout period and ended on the last claim date for sargramostim and filgrastim episodes. Because of its long-action properties, a pegfilgrastim episode ended on the last claim date plus a mean therapeutic duration of 19 days. Any claim for G/GM-CSF more than 28 days after a prior claim was considered as a new treatment episode.

Patients included in the analysis were 18 years or older on the index date. Patients were matched 1:1 based on gender and age. The analysis included 990 sargramostim-filgrastim matched pairs and 982 sargramostim-pegfilgrastim matched pairs.

Baseline characteristics of these cohorts were similar, except for two differences: the percentage of patients diagnosed with neutropenia at index date (sargramostim 65%, filgrastim 57%, and pegfilgrastim 45%), and the percentage of patients treated with myelosuppressive agents (sargramostim 54%, filgrastim 48%, and pegfilgrastim 77%).

Filgrastim or pegfilgrastim accounted for about twice as many infections as sargramostim. After adjusting for confounding variables, multivariate analyses showed that sargramostim-treated patients were 50% less likely to have infection-related hospitalizations than those treated with filgrastim or pegfilgrastim.

Costs for infection-related hospitalizations were lower for sargramostim compared with either agent. Compared with filgrastim, infection-related hospitalization costs were lower with sargramostim ($728/patient/month and $8,736/patient/year). Compared with pegfilgrastim, associated costs were lower with sargramostim ($226/patient/month and $2,712/patient/year).

Newsletter

Stay up to date on recent advances in the multidisciplinary approach to cancer.

Recent Videos
“The trial will be successful, or [we’ll] declare it a success if we see at least 3 of 24 responses overall,” stated Ravi, MD, BChir, MRCP, on the phase 2 LASER trial in RCC.
Success with the 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy would be transformative for the clear cell renal cell carcinoma treatment landscape.
An ongoing phase 1 trial seeks to prove XmAb819 as an effective treatment and ENPP3 as a plausible target in patients with relapsed or refractory RCC.
“The therapy is designed to prevent both CAR T-cell inactivation and to restore the anti-tumor immunity of the white blood cells that have gotten through the tumor,” said Marasco, MD, PhD.
Ongoing studies aim to combine base immunotherapy regimens with novel agents to potentially improve outcomes among patients with kidney cancer.
Investigators have found a way to reduce liver and biliary toxicity when targeting the molecule CAIX in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
Neoantigen-targeting vaccines resulted in an absence of recurrence in 9 patients with high-risk kidney cancer, according to David A. Braun, MD, PhD.
The Kidney Cancer Research Consortium may allow collaborators to form more mechanistic and scientifically driven efforts in the field.
Wayne A. Marasco, MD, PhD, stated that by targeting 2 molecules instead of 1, higher levels of tumor cell killing can be achieved in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
Leading experts in the breast cancer field highlight the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, and other treatment modalities.
Related Content