• Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.151-158
• /
• 2015

Objective: This study was designed to compare pegfilgrastim and filgrastim in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients treated with a rituximab with cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin, oncovin, and prednisone (R-CHOP) regimen in terms of clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Method: Clinical efficacy was measured by trough level of absolute neutrophil count (ANC), days of ANC under 50% of baseline value, days of ANC under 90% of baseline value, duration of ANC recovery to baseline value, days of ANC less than $0.5{\times}10^9cells/L$, and difference of peak and trough level of ANC during 1 cycle of R-CHOP regimen. To evaluate cost-effectiveness, total prices of used filgrastim and pegfilgrastim within 1 cycle of R-CHOP were analyzed. Results: In terms of clinical efficacy, trough level of ANC and days to ANC recovery showed statistical significance. The median trough levels of ANC with administration of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim were 0.18 and 1.94 (p = 0.021), respectively, and the median durations of ANC recovery to baseline value were 5.5 days and 2 days (p = 0.023), respectively. For the median days of ANC under 50% of baseline value, days of ANC under 90% of baseline value, days of ANC less than $0.5{\times}10^9cells/L$, and difference of peak and trough level of ANC during 1 cycle of R-CHOP, the pegfilgrastim group performed better than the filgrastim group. However the difference was not statistically significant. In terms of overall expense during 1 cycle of R-CHOP, pegfilgrastim is about 3.43 times more expensive than filgrastim. Conclusion: Pegfilgrastim is more efficient than filgrastim in terms of clinical efficacy. In terms of prices, pegfilgrastim is more expensive than filgrastim for patients, but it is more convenient in clinical use. Therefore, pegfilgrastim should be the preferred choice of G-CSF for neutropenic patients. Further comparative study of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim is needed.