Administration options for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis: patient and physician preferences from a cross-sectional survey

Hauber, A. Brett; Mange, Brennan; Price, Mark; Wolin, Daniel; Bensink, Mark; Kaye, James A.; Chandler, David

doi:10.1007/s00520-017-3841-2

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While age did not play a major role in patients' decision for either of the two application forms, the ECOG status at baseline had an influence, insofar as patients having an ECOG status of 0 had no clear preference, while for patients having an ECOG status of 1, the OBI seemed to be the better option, possibly as for this group of patients, return visits to the medical office might be particularly strenuous. This would be in line with findings of a cross-sectional survey on US patients' and physicians' preferences for pegfilgrastim application forms [20], in which physicians indicated to more likely prescribe the OBI when the patient's health was particularly compromised. At the same time, however, it was also suggested that especially for patients in a poor condition, an additional appointment at the medical office might be reasonable as it offers the opportunity to more closely monitor the patient's condition [20].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…This would be in line with findings of a cross-sectional survey on US patients' and physicians' preferences for pegfilgrastim application forms [20], in which physicians indicated to more likely prescribe the OBI when the patient's health was particularly compromised. At the same time, however, it was also suggested that especially for patients in a poor condition, an additional appointment at the medical office might be reasonable as it offers the opportunity to more closely monitor the patient's condition [20]. The finding of the present study that higher proportions of both study nurses and physicians selected PS as the application form providing a better control over administration and side-effects might support this assumption and might have influenced their preference the most at the EOS, as a higher proportion of both study nurses and physicians indicated to prefer PS over OBI.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Metz¹,

Semsek

Rogmans

et al. 2021

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The on-body injector (OBI) automatically delivers pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy (CTx), thus eliminating the need of return visits to the medical office for guideline-compliant pegfilgrastim administration. The CONVENIENCE study aimed to evaluate patient, nurse, and physician preferences as well as health economics for pegfilgrastim administration either with OBI or manually using a pre-filled syringe (PS). Methods Patients with early breast cancer, receiving two or three weekly anthracycline/cyclophosphamide or three weekly taxane-based CTx, and patients with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving first-line R-CHOP-14 or -21 were randomized 1:1 to receive both pegfilgrastim application forms for four consecutive CTx cycles in an alternating sequence starting either with OBI or PS. Primary endpoint was patient preference, assessed by questionnaires. Results A total of 308 patients were evaluable in the per-protocol analysis. Patients slightly preferred OBI over PS (OBI, n = 133, 43.2%; vs. PS, n = 111, 36.0%; p-value = 0.159), while study nurses slightly preferred PS (n = 19, 46.3%) over OBI (n = 18, 43.9%) and physicians clearly preferred PS (n = 24, 58.8%) over OBI (n = 15, 36.6%). Among patients with preference for OBI, saving of time was their major reason for preference (53.4%). Pegfilgrastim was administered 24–72 h after each CTx cycle in 97.6% of OBI and 63.1% of PS applications. Conclusion The OBI was slightly preferred by patients and saving time was the major reason for their preference. PS was physicians’ most preferable choice and slightly preferred by nurses. Using OBI, pegfilgrastim was almost always administered within the time period recommended by current guidelines, while it was often not applied as specified using PS. Trial registration No: ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT03619993. Registered on June 25, 2018

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

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

Metz¹,

Semsek

Rogmans

et al. 2021

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the current study, an increase in use of pegfilgrastim OBI over the last 2 years was reported by two thirds of the oncologists, and they most commonly attributed this increase to convenient dosing and patients' need for an active lifestyle. These results reaffirm the findings from a 2016 survey of 200 patients and 200 oncologists, which found that avoiding the need to return to the clinic was the most important treatment feature in the opinion of both patients and oncologists [19].…”

Section: Tablesupporting

confidence: 82%

“…An on-body injector (OBI), approved in 2015 [18], can be applied on the same day as chemotherapy and automatically administers pegfilgrastim~27 h later, allowing patients to avoid a return visit. However, the perceptions and opinions of oncologists related to OBI use have not been studied since 2016, when a survey was conducted among early adopters [19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey of Oncologists’ Perceptions and Opinions Regarding the Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the study is to describe oncologists' perceptions and opinions about patient eligibility, guidelines, and barriers for use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), overall and stratified by their affiliation with the Oncology Care Model (OCM). In May 2018, we invited and recruited practicing US oncologists from a national database for an online survey. Level of agreement was identified using a seven-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Of 200 participating oncologists, 70 were OCM-affiliated. Overall, 65% of oncologists agreed or strongly agreed that all patients at high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) should receive prophylactic G-CSF, and half agreed or strongly agreed that benefits of G-CSF outweigh the potential adverse effects. The most common barriers to G-CSF use for patients at high risk of FN included patient refusal (37.1% of OCM-affiliated oncologists vs. 21.5% of non-OCM-affiliated oncologists), not on protocol/not supported by guidelines (32.9% vs. 23.1%), lack of reimbursement to practice (30.0% vs. 15.4%), and concerns about insurance coverage (22.9% vs. 26.9%). More OCM-affiliated oncologists reported that their practices offer and strongly encourage adherence to a specific protocol for G-CSF use (49.2%) versus non-OCM oncologists (31.3%). Despite recommendations from national guidelines and strong evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials, only two thirds of oncologists agree or strongly agree that all patients at high risk of FN should receive primary G-CSF prophylaxis. Decisions about G-CSF prophylaxis may be affected by factors other than risk of FN, such as patient choice, practice protocols/guidelines, lack of reimbursement, and insurance coverage.

show abstract

“…Participants were identified and recruited through Survey Sampling International (SSI), a global panel provider and research partner for this study. SSI has access to panels of HCPs and patients who have agreed to participate in online research about health care-related issues and has recruited physicians and patients for published survey studies (e.g., [9–13]). SSI panel sources recruit HCPs from a variety of methods, including telephone or face-to-face via calling lists of hospitals and HCPs.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preferences for Adult Pneumococcal Vaccine Recommendations Among United States Health Care Providers

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIn 2014, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) followed by 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) for all adults aged ≥ 65 years, with a commitment to revisit the recommendation for PCV13 because of declining vaccine-type disease. The Evidence-to-Recommendation framework used by the ACIP includes review of evidence regarding feasibility and stakeholder acceptability, but no surveys of vaccinator preferences have been published in the literature.MethodsPhysicians (N = 700), physician assistants (N = 100), pharmacists (N = 100), and nurse practitioners (N = 100) who recently prescribed, administered, or recommended adult pneumococcal vaccine were surveyed in March 2018. Object-case best–worst scaling was used to assess preferences among potential recommendation scenarios: retaining the then-current 2014 recommendation without a scheduled re-evaluation, retaining with a scheduled re-evaluation, revising PCV13 to Category B (retaining PPSV23 as Category A), removing PCV13 (retaining PPSV23 as Category A), and removing both PCV13 and PPSV23.ResultsProviders’ most preferred recommendations were retaining the 2014 recommendation with another planned re-evaluation (52.6%) and retaining the then-current recommendation without planned re-evaluation (40.0%). Few preferred changing PCV13 to Category B (3.2%), removing PCV13 (3.7%), or removing both pneumococcal vaccines (0.5%).ConclusionsThe majority of vaccinators surveyed preferred to retain the 2014 recommendation, either with another scheduled reassessment or indefinitely.FundingPfizer, Inc.Electronic Supplementary MaterialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40121-019-00266-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Administration options for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis: patient and physician preferences from a cross-sectional survey

Abstract: Patients and physicians identified that returning clinic visits for pegfilgrastim administration may be burdensome. A potential solution to mitigate this burden is the OBI, which allows adherence to the labeled use of pegfilgrastim without return visits to the clinic.

Cited by 14 publications

References 11 publications

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

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

A Survey of Oncologists’ Perceptions and Opinions Regarding the Use of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors

Preferences for Adult Pneumococcal Vaccine Recommendations Among United States Health Care Providers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About