Outcomes of primary and secondary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced and febrile neutropenia in bendamustine plus rituximab regimens in patients with lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia: real-world, single-center experience

Immunoglobulin substitution in patients with secondary antibody deficiency in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and multiple myeloma: a representative analysis of guideline adherence and infections

“…At the first glance, G-CSF to prevent neutropenia seems to correlate with a higher risk of severe infections, even if this is not statistically significant. But it has to be considered that patients with G-CSF prophylaxis are treated with more aggressive regimens, for which G-CSF prophylaxis is appropriate [2,30,31].…”

Same-Day Versus Next-Day Pegfilgrastim or Pegfilgrastim-Cbqv in Patients with Lymphoma Receiving CHOP-Like Chemotherapy

“…Using the OBI-based product or same-day administration of reference or biosimilar pegfilgrastim would prevent the requirement for a label-and guidelineadvised next-day visit [1,7]. Due to the reportedly increased risk of myelosuppression and FN with same-day filgrastim (unpegylated, short-acting G-CSF) [21], several studies have investigated possible differences in FN prophylaxis and associated outcomes (grade 3/4 CIN, hospitalizations) between next-day administration and the common real-world practice of same-day administration of pegfilgrastim, the pegylated, long-acting form of G-CSF [24,29,30,33]. A recent review suggested that efficacy of same-day pegfilgrastim may be dependent on the chemotherapy regimen administered [20], and a growing body of data shows that same-day pegfilgrastim can be considered for the neutropenia prophylaxis, as acknowledged in the latest NCCN guidelines [1].…”

“…The manufacturer of originator pegfilgrastim, the FDA, and NCCN guidelines recommend the injection of pegfilgrastim be given no sooner than 24 h after the last day of chemotherapy for each cycle [1,7]. This recommendation originated from concerns that administration of pegfilgrastim too soon may lead to higher rates of FN or myelosuppression [24,25], but it has been questioned by researchers and healthcare providers over the last several years due to the additional healthcare burden of next-day dosing schedules, integration of biosimilars, and the results of follow-up studies supporting same-day pegfilgrastim use and a lack of prolonged myelosuppression [26][27][28][29].…”

Pegfilgrastim in Supportive Care of Hodgkin Lymphoma

“…Nevertheless, before evaluating the literature in an HL setting, there is some information that could be borrowed indirectly from some studies on the NHL setting or studies involving both HL and NHL patients. To date, only a few phase II or prospective studies define pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis as at least comparable, if not superior, in terms of efficacy in preventing infectious events and avoidance of chemotherapy treatment discontinuation in non-Hodgkin lymphomas [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]. An open-label, randomized, phase II study had as its first endpoint the duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle in 50 elderly patients.…”

“…The primary endpoint was the incidence of febrile neutropenia and grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, the secondary endpoint was incidence of fever, infection, hospitalization, dose delay or reductions and absolute neutrophil count. The two groups did not differ in primary and secondary endpoints, aside from a higher frequency of dose delays in secondary vs. primary prophylaxis patients (40% vs. 13%, respectively; p = 0.01) [ 26 ]. A retrospective, single-center study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of primary prophylaxis with filgrastim or pegfilgrastim to prevent NF in patient with aggressive B-cell lymphoma treated with an etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, rituximab (DA-R-EPOCH) schedule.…”