Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Febrile neutropenia prophylaxis, G-CSF physician preferences: discrete-choice experiment.
Scotte, Florian; Simon, Hélène; Laplaige, Philippe; Antoine, Eric-Charles; Spasojevic, Caroline; Texier, Nathalie; Gouhier, Karine; Chouaid, Christos.
Afiliación
  • Scotte F; Interdisciplinary patient pathway department, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France florian.scotte@gustaveroussy.fr.
  • Simon H; Oncology, CHRU de Brest, Brest, France.
  • Laplaige P; Blois Polyclinic, La Chaussee Saint Victor, France.
  • Antoine EC; Oncology Department, Clinique Hartmann, Neuilly, France.
  • Spasojevic C; Boulogne-Billancourt, Île-de-France, France.
  • Texier N; Kappa Sante, 4 rue de Clery, Paris, France.
  • Gouhier K; Mundipharma France, Paris, France.
  • Chouaid C; Service de Pneumologie, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Creteil, Creteil, France.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34706865
OBJECTIVES: Febrile neutropenia (FN) commonly occurs during cancer chemotherapy. Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) is known to reduce the severity and incidence of FN and infections in patients with cancer. Despite the proven efficacy, G-CSFs are not always prescribed as recommended. We performed a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to determine what factors drive the physician preference for FN prophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: Attributes for the DCE were selected based on literature search and on expert focus group discussions and comprised pain at the injection site, presence of bone pain, associated fever/influenza syndrome, efficacy of prophylaxis, biosimilar availability, number of injections per chemotherapy cycle and cost. Oncologists, in a national database, were solicited to participate in an online DCE. The study collected the responses to the choice scenarios, the oncologist characteristics and their usual prescriptions of G-CSFs in the context of breast, lungs and gastrointestinal cancers. RESULTS: Overall, the responses from 205 physicians were analysed. The physicians were mainly male (61%), with ≤20 years of experience (76%) and working only in public hospitals (73%). The physicians prescribe G-CSF primary prophylaxis for 32% of patients: filgrastim in 46% and pegfilgrastim in 54%. The choice of G-CSF for primary and secondary prophylaxis was driven by cost and number of injections. Biosimilars were well accepted. CONCLUSION: Cost and convenience of G-CSF drive the physician decision to prescribe or not G-CSF for primary and secondary FN prophylaxes. It is important that these results be incorporated in the optimisation of G-CSF prescription in the clinical setting.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Idioma: En Revista: BMJ Support Palliat Care Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Francia Pais de publicación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Idioma: En Revista: BMJ Support Palliat Care Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Francia Pais de publicación: Reino Unido