Enhancing patient-centered care: a randomized study on G-CSF administration preferences in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.
Humans
Female
Middle Aged
Male
Patient Preference
Filgrastim
/ administration & dosage
Prospective Studies
Polyethylene Glycols
/ administration & dosage
Neutropenia
/ chemically induced
Patient-Centered Care
Aged
Antineoplastic Agents
/ adverse effects
France
Syringes
Surveys and Questionnaires
Adult
Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Cross-Over Studies
Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor
/ administration & dosage
Cancer
Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia
Patient empowerment
Patient outcome assessment
Patient preference
Patient-centered care
Journal
Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer
ISSN: 1433-7339
Titre abrégé: Support Care Cancer
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9302957
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Oct 2024
22 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
15
04
2024
accepted:
07
10
2024
medline:
22
10
2024
pubmed:
22
10
2024
entrez:
22
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia poses a significant risk to cancer patients, with pegfilgrastim being commonly used for its prevention. While pegfilgrastim can be administered via prefilled syringe or pen device, patient preferences and experiences with these delivery methods remain unclear. We conducted a prospective, open-label, randomized, observational trial (NCT05910164) at the Rafael Institute, France, comparing patient preferences for pegfilgrastim administration using a prefilled syringe versus a prefilled pen device. Patients undergoing chemotherapy and requiring pegfilgrastim were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to receive either syringe or pen first, with crossover administration. Questionnaires assessed patient preferences, learning experiences, autonomy, pain levels, emotional responses, satisfaction with nursing care, and empowerment. Among 150 randomized patients (mean age 58 years; 69% female), both groups showed a preference for the pen device, with significantly higher mean scores favoring pen administration (4.94 ± 1.70 vs. 4.27 ± 1.84; p = 0.00106). Patients reported significantly lower perceived pain with pen administration and stronger positive emotions compared to syringe use. Satisfaction with nursing care was higher with syringe use. Empowerment levels were similar across groups but significantly stronger when using the pen in complete autonomy. A preference for pegfilgrastim administration via the pen device was observed, though this may have been influenced by the administration sequence and the absence of syringe self-administration. The insights gained can help inform clinical decision-making and improve patient-centered care in managing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. NCT05910164 on June 15, 2023.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39436413
doi: 10.1007/s00520-024-08929-x
pii: 10.1007/s00520-024-08929-x
doi:
Substances chimiques
Filgrastim
PVI5M0M1GW
Polyethylene Glycols
3WJQ0SDW1A
pegfilgrastim
3A58010674
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor
143011-72-7
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05910164']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
743Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Crawford J, Dale DC, Lyman GH (2004) Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: risks, consequences, and new directions for its management. Cancer 100(2):228–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11882
doi: 10.1002/cncr.11882
pubmed: 14716755
Kuderer NM, Dale DC, Crawford J, Cosler LE, Lyman GH (2006) Mortality, morbidity, and cost associated with febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients. Cancer 106(10):2258–2266. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21847
doi: 10.1002/cncr.21847
pubmed: 16575919
Cooper KL, Madan J, Whyte S, Stevenson MD, Akehurst RL (2011) Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis following chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 11:404. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-11-404
doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-404
pubmed: 21943360
pmcid: 3203098
Naeim A, Henk HJ, Becker L, Chia V, Badre S, Li X, Deeter R (2013) Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization of cancer patients than filgrastim prophylaxis: a retrospective United States claims analysis of granulocyte colonys timulating factors (G-CSF). BMC Cancer 13:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-11
doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-11
pubmed: 23298389
pmcid: 3559272
Crawford J, Caserta C, Roila F, ESMO Guidelines Working Group (2010) Hematopoietic growth factors: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the applications. Ann Oncol 21(Suppl 5):v248-51. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq195
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq195
pubmed: 20555091
Griffiths EA, Roy V, Alwan L, Bachiashvili K, Baird J, Cool R, Dinner S, Geyer M, Glaspy J, Gojo I, Hicks A, Kallam A, Kidwai WZ, Kloth DD, Kraut EH, Landsburg D, Lyman GH, Mahajan A, Miller R, Nachar V, Patel S, Patel S, Perez LE, Poust A, Riaz F, Rosovsky R, Rugo HS, Simon S, Vasu S, Wadleigh M, Westbrook K, Westervelt P, Berardi RA, Pluchino L (2022) NCCN Guidelines® insights: hematopoietic growth factors, version 1.2022. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 20(5):436–442. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2022.0026
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2022.0026
pubmed: 35545171
Klastersky J, de Naurois J, Rolston K, Rapoport B, Maschmeyer G, Aapro M et al (2016) Management of febrile neutropaenia: ESMO clinical practice guidelines. Ann Oncol 27(suppl 5):v118. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw325
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdw325
Aapro MS, Bohlius J, Cameron DA, Dal Lago L, Donnelly JP, Kearney N, Lyman GH, Pettengell R, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Walewski J, Weber DC, Zielinski C, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (2011) 2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) 47(1):8–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.10.013
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.10.013
Smith TJ, Khatcheressian J, Lyman GH, Ozer H, Armitage JO, Balducci L, Bennett CL, Cantor SB, Crawford J, Cross SJ, Demetri G, Desch CE, Pizzo PA, Schiffer CA, Schwartzberg L, Somerfield MR, Somlo G, Wade JC, Wade JL, Winn RJ, Wozniak AJ, Wolff AC (2006) 2006 update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 24(19):3187–205. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.06.4451
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.4451
pubmed: 16682719
Brett Hauber A, Mange B, Price MA, Wolin D, Bensink M, Kaye JA, Chandler D (2018) Administration options for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis: patient and physician preferences from a cross-sectional survey. Support Care Cancer. 26(1):251–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3841-2
doi: 10.1007/s00520-017-3841-2
pubmed: 28785862
Pulvirenti M, McMillan J, Lawn S (2014) Empowerment, patient centred care and self-management. Health Expect. 17(3):303–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00757.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00757.x
pubmed: 22212306
Metz M, Semsek D, Rogmans G, Hutzschenreuter U, Fietz T, Harde J, Zacharias S, Hielscher C, Lorenz A, Zahn MO, Guth D, Liebers S, Berghorn M, Grebhardt S, Matillon CD, Egerer G, Potthoff K (2021) 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. Support Care Cancer. 29(11):6633–6643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06230-9
doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06230-9
pubmed: 33956213
pmcid: 8464571
Rifkin RM, Crawford J, Mahtani RL, Dale DC, Narang M, MacLaughlin WW, Huynh C, Gawade PL, Lewis S, DeCosta L, Lawrence T, Belani R (2022) A prospective study to evaluate febrile neutropenia incidence in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector vs other choices. Support Care Cancer. 30(10):7913–7922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07226-9
doi: 10.1007/s00520-022-07226-9
pubmed: 35732748
pmcid: 9216302