Hb level at initiation- <10g\/dl<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n In patients with Hb 10-12g\/dl, ESAs are to be used according to circumstances and clinical judgement<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For symptomatic patients with AOC without a reversible cause, transfusion is recommended<\/strong> rather than ESAs<\/p>\n\n\n\nA<\/strong>dverse effects<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nIncreases the risk of death,<\/li> Myocardial infarction,<\/li> Stroke<\/li> venous thromboembolism and<\/li> tumour progression or recurrence.<\/li> can also lead to an increase in adverse cardiovascular events, hypertension, seizures.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n <\/figure>\n\n\n\n <\/figure>\n\n\n\nFDA announced on April 13, 2017 <\/strong>the elimination of the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS)<\/strong> for ESAs.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\nBy eliminating the REMS:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Hospitals that dispense ESAs to patients with cancer will no longer be required to enrol and become certified to dispense ESAs.<\/li> While the REMS is no longer necessary to ensure the benefits outweigh the risks, the serious risks of shortened overall survival and\/or increased risk of tumour progression or recurrence associated with these drugs remain.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\nHealth care providers are encouraged to discuss the risks and benefits of using ESAs with each patient before initiating use.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\nHead-to-Head Study of<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nDarbepoetin alfa versus Epoetin Alfa <\/strong>\u00e0<\/strong> <\/strong>Similar clinical efficacy in<\/p>\n\n\n\nboosting haemoglobin levelsreducing the need for red blood cell transfusions and mortality<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\nNo differences were observed between the two groups for \u00e0health-related quality of life assessment<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Epoetin alfa is the better pharmacoeconomic value <\/strong>of the two currently available Erythropoietic agents.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMisuse of ESAs<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nErythropoiesis-stimulating agents have a history of misuse by athletes<\/li> The primary reason athletes use ESAs is to improve oxygen delivery to muscles, which directly improves their endurance capacity.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\nESAs increase haematocrit and total red cell mass in the body, providing a good advantage in sports where such practice is banned<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Myeloid Growth Factors<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/figure>\n\n\n\nconventional cytotoxic chemotherapy<\/strong>– most common dose-limiting toxicity- neutropenia<\/strong> and the associated risk of infection.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\nThe likelihood of developing fever in this setting of neutropenia (defined as an absolute neutrophil count [ANC] <500 cells per ml) is approximately 10% per day<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/figure>\n\n\n\nG-CSF<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nFilgrastim<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\u2013 produced in Escherichia coli<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 has an amino acid sequence identical to endogenous CSF3, with the exception of the addition of an N-terminal methionine and absence of glycosylation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 The half-life ~ 3.5 hours <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pegfilgrastim<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\u2013 polyethylene glycol-conjugated version of filgrastim<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 The half-life ~ 33 hours<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lenograstim<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\u2013 a glycosylated recombinant CSF3 derived from a mammalian cell system (Chinese hamster ovaries)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
G<\/strong>M-CSF<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nSargramostim<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nrecombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (rhu GM-CSF)<\/li> produced in a yeast (S. cerevisiae) expression system.<\/li> The amino acid sequence of Sargramostim differs from the natural human GM-CSF by a substitution of leucine at position 23<\/li> T1\/2 is 60 mins<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\nMolgramostim<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nan immunostimulant<\/li> prescribed fortreatment of Ganciclovir-induced neutropenia<\/li><\/ul>chemotherapy-associated neutropenia<\/li><\/ul>bone marrow transplantation associated complications.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\nINDICATIONS AND USAGE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nCancer Patients Receiving Myelosuppressive Chemotherapy<\/li> Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia Receiving Induction or Consolidation Chemotherapy<\/li> Cancer Patients Receiving Bone Marrow Transplant<\/li> Patients Undergoing Peripheral Blood Progenitor Cell Collection and Therapy<\/li> Patients With Severe Chronic Neutropenia<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\nSCHEDULE AND DOSE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nsubcutaneous doses of G-CSF- 5 mcg\/kg\/day<\/strong><\/li> GM-CSF- 250 mcg\/m2\/day<\/strong>,<\/li>beginning 24 hours after chemotherapy <\/strong>and continuing until the post-nadir ANC recovery is complete.(10)<\/li>Initial recommendations were to continue the treatment until an ANC of >10,000 cells per ml was achieved, but ASCO guidelines recommend that consideration be given to stopping CSF at ANC levels of <10,000 based on clinical experience and cost considerations.<\/li> The availability of a long-acting formulation of G-CSF <\/strong>has simplified scheduling to a single subcutaneous injection of 6 mg of Pegfilgrastim <\/strong>24 hours after chemotherapy.<\/li>After administration of these agents \u00e0 there is a transient decrease in the peripheral WBC count, likely as a result of increased neutrophil adherence to endothelial cells.<\/li> It is estimated that in the presence of G-CSF, this process occurs within 1 day rather than the normal 5-day process in unstimulated bone marrow.<\/li> With the use of GM-CSF, kinetic studies have shown a less dramatic enhancement of proliferation of leukocytes but a prolongation of circulating neutrophil half-life resulting in a sustained leukocytosis.<\/li> In addition to effects on proliferation and maturation of neutrophils, both CSFs enhance activities of neutrophils,<\/li><\/ul>including the respiratory burst,<\/li><\/ul>adherence,<\/li><\/ul>superoxide release,<\/li><\/ul>bacterial killing.<\/li><\/ul><\/li> Adverse effect of CSF<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n Common<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nGastrointestinal: Nausea and vomitingmild-to-moderate bone pain.<\/li><\/ul> Splenomegaly – reported in chronic use<\/li><\/ul>transient dyspnoea and pulmonary infiltrates on chest radiography.<\/li><\/ul> leucocytosis<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\nSerious<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nallergic-type reactionssplenic rupture <\/strong>in persons receiving recombinant CSF3 for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization.<\/li><\/ul>adult respiratory distress syndrome<\/li><\/ul><\/li> Side effects of G-CSF<\/strong><\/li>\u2022 Better tolerated than GM-CSF<\/li> \u2022 Rarely cause Sweet syndrome<\/strong>Acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>sudden onset of fever,<\/li><\/ul>an elevated WBC count, and<\/li><\/ul>tender, red, well-demarcated papules<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\nSide effects of GM-CSF<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\u2022 Flu like symptoms<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2022 In vitro evidence that it may stimulate HIV replication but clinical studies not corroborating<\/p>\n\n\n\n
GUIDELINE RECOMMENDATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nPrimary prophylaxis with a CSF starting with the first cycle and continuing through subsequent cycles of chemotherapy is recommended in patients who have an approximately 20% or higher risk <\/strong>for febrile neutropenia based on patient disease and treatment-related factors.<\/li>Secondary prophylaxis with a CSF is recommended for patients who experienced a neutropenic complication from a prior cycle of chemotherapy (for which primary prophylaxis was not received),<\/li> CSFs should not be routinely used <\/strong>for patients with neutropenia who are afebrile.<\/strong><\/li>CSFs should not be routinely used <\/strong>as adjunctive <\/strong>treatment with antibiotic therapy <\/strong>for patients with fever and neutropenia.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\nPrecautions of CSF<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\u2022 Avoid the simultaneous use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy with G-CSF and GM-CSF;<\/li> DO NOT administer within 24 hours before or after cytotoxic chemotherapy<\/li> \u2013 Potential sensitivity of rapidly dividing myeloid cells to cytotoxic chemotherapy.<\/li> \u2022 Possible growth stimulation of tumors<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\nH<\/strong>EAD TO HEAD TRIAL<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Filgrastim(G-CSF) vs. Sargramostim(GM-CSF)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\u2022 no firm evidence <\/strong>indicating the superiority of one over another<\/p>\n\n\n\npatients who received G\u2010CSF <\/strong>had faster recovery of ANC<\/strong>fewer patients:<\/li><\/ul><\/li> requiring red blood cell transfusions, with fever<\/li> hospital admissions<\/li> less intravenous antibiotic therapy<\/li> There were no significant differences in outcomes between G\u2010CSF alone and the sequential regimen GM-CSF followed by G-CSF<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\nG\u2010CSF alone is superior to GM\u2010 CSF alone<\/strong> for the mobilization of CD34+ cells and reduction of toxicities following myelosuppressive chemotherapy.<\/p>\n\n\n\nComparative Effectiveness of Filgrastim, Pegfilgrastim, and Sargramostim<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nPegfilgrastim reduces FN <\/strong>incidence to a significantly greater extent than Filgrastim<\/li>Risk of hospitalization <\/strong>for neutropenic complications during cancer chemotherapy is lower with Pegfilgrastim <\/strong>prophylaxis than with Filgrastim or Sargramostim prophylaxis.<\/li>