Long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in primary prophylaxis of early infection in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Introduction

Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) experience an increased chance of infection than the general population, with the risk being 13 times more than that for pneumonia and 30 times more than that for sepsis [ 1 , 2 ]. The greater risk of infection in patients with MM can be attributed to advanced age; disease-related immunodeficiency involving humoral immunity and treatment-related toxicity, particularly for myelotoxicity; and comorbidities such as diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. Notably, the infection itself also contributes to the progression of MM via the production of interleukin-6 and the activation of Toll-like receptors on myeloma cells [ 3 ]. Importantly, infection is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with MM, with around 45% of deaths in this population resulting from infection [ 2 ]. Currently, with the continual advent of several novel anti-myeloma drugs, the 5-year survival rate of patients with MM has risen to about 60% [ 4 ]. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to continue efforts to prevent deaths from infection among these individuals.

The entry of infectious organisms, including bacteria and viruses, into the body can occur during any treatment phase in patients with MM. The result of the FIRST study, which examined the prevalence of infections among patients with MM, showed that the infection rate was 56.2% over the initial four cycles of the treatment period. In particular, 30% of infections occurred in the first month of treatment [ 5 ]. So, more attention should be paid to the prevention of infection during the first and second courses of treatment in patients with MM. As well known, the most common therapy for bacterial infections is the use of antibiotics. However, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guideline does not recommend universal antibacterial prophylaxis in patients with hematological and solid tumors, including those with MM [ 6 , 7 ].

In patients with MM, neutropenia not only causes treatment delays or dose reductions but is also seen as an independent risk factor for a poor prognosis [ 3 ]. The national cancer center network (NCCN) guideline on managing febrile neutropenia (FN) recommends prophylactic treatment of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor (G-CSF) for patients receiving chemotherapy and at high risk of more than 20% of developing FN. For patients newly diagnosed with MM, up to 56.2% experienced infections during their initial four courses of chemotherapy [ 5 ]. Importantly, there is a direct correlation between a lower neutrophil cell count and a greater risk of infection (mainly bacterial and fungal infections) in patients with MM [ 8 ]. Therefore, it is reasonable to adopt prophylactic use of G-CSF for infection in patients with MM with neutropenia.

In recent years, long-acting G-CSF therapies, such as pegfilgrastim and biosimilar drugs, have been widely applied in cancer-related supportive care due to their higher efficacy and better adherence. The vast majority of clinical studies have focused on the mobilization outcome of pegfilgrastim in autologous stem cell transplantation of MM [ 9 ]. In contrast, only a few studies (including just three clinical trials and three observational studies) have considered primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for FN in refractory and relapsed patients with MM who received lenalidomide- or bendamustine-based regimens [ 10 – 15 ]. These studies reported the supportive role of pegfilgrastim in ensuring scheduled chemotherapy and decreasing the rates of neutropenia and infection; however, all investigations were both single-armed or retrospective studies and only enrolled patients with recurrent or refractory MM. As mentioned above, the risk of infection is highest during the first 4 months of treatment, owing to the huge tumor burden and frail physical status typically present in patients with MM [ 5 ]. In the present study, we included patients newly diagnosed with MM, aiming to compare the primary prophylactic efficacy of early infection using long-acting and standard G-CSF. The primary endpoints were the incidence rates of early infection and treatment delays in patients newly diagnosed with MM.

Methods

Patients

A total of 68 consecutive patients with MM were included from March 1, 2019, to July 20, 2021, at three regional hospitals. The eligibility criteria for inclusion in this study were as follows: (1) newly diagnosed with systematic MM; (2) aged 18–75 years; (3) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of less than three points; and (4) no history of cardiac arrhythmias, congestive heart failure, or severe coronary artery disease.

All patients received anti-myeloma therapy, except autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The last study follow-up date was June 30, 2021. Patients with amyloidosis or without a willingness to receive treatment were excluded.

Treatment protocol

According to medication use of long-acting or standard G-CSF, all patients were randomly divided into two groups of 33 patients treated with the chemotherapy with long-acting G-CSF (treatment group) and 35 patients treated with the chemotherapy with standard G-CSF (control group).

The specific chemotherapy protocol, known as the VRd regimen, was as follows: 1.3 mg/sqm of bortezomib (Qilu-pharma, Jinan, China) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11; 20–25 mg/d of lenalidomide (SL Pharm, Beijing, China) for 14 days; and 20 mg/d of dexamethasone on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. According to the regimens described in the literature by Cerchione et al. [ 13 ], the patients in the treatment group were given long-acting G-CSF (6 mg) (Xinruibai, Qilu-pharma, Jinan, China) subcutaneously with a single administration performed on the 6th day as primary prophylaxis, while the patients in the control group were treated by primary prophylaxis of standard G-CSF (5 μg/kg/day on days 6–8 of each cycle) (Ruibai, Qilu-pharma, Jinan, China). For the purposes of this study, a treatment cycle was 21 days in length, and all patients underwent 6–8 courses of chemotherapy and then continued to receive lenalidomide therapy until an unacceptable adverse event or disease progression occurred. Lenalidomide was given orally once daily with the starting dose was 25 mg/day for all patients. The dose reduced to 20 mg/day in patients who experienced febrile neutropenia or grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Blood routine, liver and kidney functions, C-reactive protein level, immunoglobulin concentration, and serum-free light chain results were examined before and after chemotherapy of each cycle.

Study endpoints

The primary endpoints were the incidence rates of FN, early infection, and treatment delay. An episode of FN was defined as follows: (1) fever, a single axillary temperature greater than 38.0 °C or an axillary temperature greater than 37.5 °C lasting 1 h and (2) neutropenia, defined according to the FN guidelines from NCCN [ 16 ]. The criteria for infection in this study were defined as the existence of a pathogen and imaging evidence of infection combined with concomitant clinical symptoms, such as non-pharmacological rise in body temperature (> 37 °C), cough with sputum, and painful urination. Bacteria and fungi were identified by morphological, biochemical, and serological reactions after isolation, purification, and cultivation [ 17 ]. Early infection was deemed as that occurring during the first 4 months of treatment [ 5 ]. Treatment delay referred to chemotherapy administration occurring more than 2 days after the scheduled date. The secondary endpoint was patient clinical outcomes.

Efficacy was assessed every two cycles of treatment according to the new categories from the International Myeloma Working Group, which include stringent complete remission (sCR), complete remission (CR), very good partial remission (VGPR), partial remission (PR), minimal response (MR), stable disease, and progressive disease [ 18 ].

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software program (version 26; IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). An independent t -test was run to examine the differences between the two groups. Fisher’s exact test and a chi-squared test were employed to compare the binary outcomes. The degree of clinical efficacy was analyzed by Ridit analysis. A p -value less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant, based on a two-sided test.

Results

Clinical characteristics

A total of 68 patients with MM were enrolled in this study, including 33 and 35 patients assigned to the treatment and control groups, respectively. As shown in Table 1 , the two groups were very similar in terms of baseline characteristics, including age, sex, Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) stage, ECOG score, and cytogenetic abnormalities ( p > 0.05). Table 1 Comparison of clinical characteristics between the treatment and control groups Characteristic Treatment group, n (%) Control group, n (%) p -value Number 33 35 - Age, years Median (range) 62 (54–71) 65 (56–75) 0.3538 Sex Male 18 (54.6%) 16 (45.7%) Female 15 (45.4%) 19 (54.3%) 0.4666 R-ISS stage I–II 16 (48.5%) 15 (42.8%) III 17 (51.5%) 20 (57.1%) 0.9253 ECOG 0–1 28 (84.8%) 27 (77.1%) ≥ 2 5 (15.2%) 8 (22.9%) 0.4193 Cytogenetic abnormality Standard risk 13 (39.4%) 18 (51.4%) High risk 20 (60.6%) 17 (48.6%) 0.3193

An independent t -test was run to examine the differences of ages from two groups. Fisher’s exact test and a chi-squared test were used to compare the other binary outcomes.

Incidence rates of FN, early infection, and treatment delay

Throughout the period of chemotherapy, 6.1% and 17.1% of cases of FN were detected in the treatment and control groups, respectively, but there was no statistical difference between the two groups. However, as shown in Table 2 , we discovered that the rates of early infection and treatment delay in the treatment group were markedly lower than those in the control group. As shown in Table 3 , all early infections occurred during the initial second to fourth cycles. There were 6.1% episodes of dose adjustment in the treatment group and 17.1% episodes in the control patients. No grade 4 thrombocytopenia was observed in the two groups. Table 2 Clinical events between the treatment and control groups Event Treatment group ( n = 33), n (%) Control group ( n = 35), n (%) p -value Febrile neutropenia 2 (6.1%) 6 (17.1%) 0.297 Early infection 2 (6.1%) 9 (25.7%) 0.0278 # Treatment delay 3 (9.1%) 11 (31.4%) 0.0228 # Dose adjustment 2 (6.1%) 6 (17.1%) 0.297 Fisher ’s exact test and a chi-squared test were performed to compare the binary outcomes. # The differences were statistically significant. Table 3 Comparison of early infections in patients between the treatment and control groups Type of infection Treatment group ( n = 33), n Control group ( n = 35), n Cycle sequence(s) of infection occurrence Pneumonia 1 5 2–4 Colitis 0 2 2–3 Fever of unknown origin 1 2 2–4 Total 2 9

Clinical outcomes

All 68 patients completed at least six cycles of chemotherapy, and 60 (88.2%) patients completed the prescribed eight cycles. As shown in Table 4 , there were not marked differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups. No stringent complete remission efficacy was found in either group; however, all patients achieved at least PR of their disease. Table 4 Clinical outcomes between the treatment and control groups Efficacy Treatment group ( n = 33), n (%) Control group ( n = 35), n (%) p -value sCR 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0.2305 CR 3 (9.1%) 1 (2.9%) VGPR 23 (69.7%) 22 (62.9%) PR 7 (21.2%) 12 (34.3%) MR 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) sCR Stringent complete remission; CR complete remission; VGPR very good partial response; PR partial remission; MR minimal response. The degree of clinical efficacy was compared by Ridit analysis.

Discussion

In the era of emerging novel treatments, the clinical outcomes of patients with MM have improved greatly to a 5-year survival rate of 60% [ 4 ]. However, MM remains notorious for placing patients at high risk of infection, thanks to the impairment of host defenses, and ensuring treatment-related immunosuppression. Importantly, the risk of infection is the highest within the first 4 months after the initial diagnosis. Furthermore, infection contributes to approximately 45% of early deaths [ 2 ]. Although the transition from chemotherapy to novel agents has caused a marked decrease in the incidence of severe pneumonia, heightened rates of early infection and pneumonia persist. Nearly all recent studies investigating MM-related infection focused on patients with refractory and relapsed MM [ 10 – 15 ]. As compared with these patients, those newly diagnosed with MM also experience the same risk of infection [ 19 ]. Therefore, it is imperative to prevent the occurrence of infection in all patients with MM, particularly early infection within the first 4 months after diagnosis.

As the vast majority of infections are bacterial in nature, it is reasonable, logically, to administer antibiotics for the prevention of infection in MM patients. A phase III study explored the effects of oral antibiotic prophylaxis, i.e., ciprofloxacin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, on the incidence of infection in patients with newly diagnosed MM; however, the study revealed that routine use of prophylactic antibiotics did not reduce the incidence of infection [ 7 ]. On the contrary, the other two studies supported the prophylactic use of levofloxacin in MM cases due to the marked decrease in severe infection observed relative to the control group (30.9% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.037; 27% vs 19%, p = 0.0018) [ 20 , 21 ]. However, about 50% of patients withdrew from the TEAMM study due to severe infection [ 21 ]. Moreover, prophylactic antibiotics can also increase the risk of Clostridioides difficile infection and antibiotic resistance. The discrepancy was largely attributed to significant differences in therapeutic regimens and enrolled patients with MM. Currently, prophylactic antibiotics for early infection should be limited to use in high-risk patients who have the heightened potential to experience severe-grade and prolonged neutropenia during anti-myeloma treatment [ 22 ].

In the clinical setting, neutropenia has been strongly associated with the incidence of infection in patients with MM [ 8 , 23 ]. Owing to the fragile performance status and multiple comorbidities (e.g., diabetes) of patients with MM, neutropenia-related infection may be a potentially life-threatening condition in such patients, which also results in treatment delay and the final poor outcome. Thus, the idea of G-CSF as a feasible treatment option has emerged to prevent neutropenia-related infections in those with MM. As noted previously, long-acting G-CSF has been documented for prophylaxis of infection mainly in refractory and relapsed patients with MM [ 10 – 15 ]. Enlightened by such previous findings, we investigated the effect of long-acting G-CSF on preventing infection among those with newly diagnosed MM.

In our study, the incidence rates of early infection and treatment delay were markedly lower in the long-acting G-CSF group than in the standard G-CSF group. The underlying mechanisms were attributed to the longer circulation half-life of long-acting G-CSF in comparison with standard G-CSF [ 24 ]. We detected a tendency for reduction of FN in the long-acting G-CSF in compared with standard G-CSF group (6.1% vs. 17.1%; p = 0.297), but there was no significant difference, which might be ascribed to the relatively small sample sizes. Further analysis reported that the common types of early infection included pneumonia, colitis, and fever of unknown origin. Of note, pneumonia was the most frequent type of infection, accounting for more than 50% of early infections in our study. This finding was consistent with the results of other research, such as that by Lavi et al. [ 25 ], who strongly recommended chest computed tomography as a routine examination for patients with MM at high risk of infection. In the present study, the VRd regimen was chosen as the front induction therapy due to the reported pronounced improvements in overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival, especially among patients with high-risk features [ 26 ]. As for clinical efficacy, there were no significant differences between the long-acting and standard G-CSF groups. All of our participants achieved PR or better outcomes following the VRd plus G-CSF regimen.

Conclusions

For patients newly diagnosed with MM, the results of this study revealed that domestic long-acting G-CSF administered on day 6 led to marked decreases in early infection and treatment delay relative to standard G-CSF, while no difference was detected between these two regimens in terms of the incidence of FN. Moreover, all of the early infections in this study occurred during the initial second to fourth cycles of the VRd regimen, and the most common type of early infection was pneumonia. In light of these results, it appears appropriate to administer long-acting G-CSF for the prevention of early infection. However, there were some deficiencies in this study. One was its small sample size, and another was the single kind of standard treatment protocol employed herein. Future clinical studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm our results.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Acknowledgements

We thank LetPub ( www.letpub.com ) for its linguistic assistance during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author contribution

Xinjing Ding drafted the manuscript and analyzed the data. Jianghua Ding revised the manuscript and produced the figures. Hong Gu and Chuanxiang Zhong provided the raw data and figures as the patients’ primary medical oncologist. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the Science and Technology Project of Health Commission of Jiangxi Province, China (Grant no. 20204282).

Data availability

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Declarations

Ethics approval

Ethical approval was obtained from the ethical committee of the affiliated hospital of Jiujiang University.

Consent to participate

All participants or their guardians signed written informed consent before study enrollment.

Consent to publication

All participants or their guardians signed written informed consent including publication of individual’s data.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

1. Kumar V Ailawadhi M Dutta N Trends in early mortality from multiple myeloma: a population-based analysis Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2021 21 5 e449 e455 10.1016/j.clml.2020.12.023 33485835

2. Blimark C Holmberg E Mellqvist UH Multiple myeloma and infections: a population-based study on 9253 multiple myeloma patients Haematologica 2015 100 1 107 113 10.3324/haematol.2014.107714 25344526 PMC4281323

3. T V V G A ND Multiple Myeloma Index for Risk of Infection Journal of Cancer 2018 9 12 2211 2214 10.7150/jca.24288 29937941 PMC6010689

4. Rajkumar SV Kumar S Multiple myeloma current treatment algorithms Blood Cancer J 2020 10 9 94 10.1038/s41408-020-00359-2 32989217 PMC7523011

5. Dumontet C Hulin C Dimopoulos MA A predictive model for risk of early grade >/= 3 infection in patients with multiple myeloma not eligible for transplant: analysis of the FIRST trial Leukemia 2018 32 6 1404 1413 10.1038/s41375-018-0133-x 29784907 PMC5990520

6. Aapro MS Bohlius J Cameron DA 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 2011 47 1 8 32 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.10.013 21095116

7. Vesole DH Oken MM Heckler C Oral antibiotic prophylaxis of early infection in multiple myeloma: a URCC/ECOG randomized phase III study Leukemia 2012 26 12 2517 2520 10.1038/leu.2012.124 22678167 PMC4734137

8. Palumbo A Blade J Boccadoro M How to manage neutropenia in multiple myeloma Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2012 12 1 5 11 10.1016/j.clml.2011.11.001 22178143

9. Ding X Huang W Peng Y Pegfilgrastim improves the outcomes of mobilization and engraftment in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of multiple myeloma Ann Hematol 2020 99 6 1331 1339 10.1007/s00277-019-03800-0 32382775

10. Knop S Gerecke C Liebisch P Lenalidomide, adriamycin, and dexamethasone (RAD) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a report from the German Myeloma Study Group DSMM (Deutsche Studiengruppe Multiples Myelom) Blood 2009 113 18 4137 4143 10.1182/blood-2008-10-184135 19182205

11. Leleu X Terpos E Sanz RG An international, multicenter, prospective, observational study of neutropenia in patients being treated with lenalidomide + dexamethasone for relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RR-MM) Am J Hematol 2016 91 8 806 811 10.1002/ajh.24416 27169523

12. Mey UJ Brugger W Schwarb H Bendamustine, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (BRd) has high activity as 2(nd) -line therapy for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma - a phase II trial Br J Haematol 2017 176 5 770 782 10.1111/bjh.14481 27983764

13. Cerchione C Catalano L Pareto AE Pegfilgrastim in primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a real-life experience Support Care Cancer 2015 23 2 301 302 10.1007/s00520-014-2490-y 25341551

14. Cerchione C Catalano L Peluso I Managing neutropenia by pegfilgrastim in patients affected by relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with bendamustine-bortezomib-dexamethasone Support Care Cancer 2016 24 12 4835 4837 10.1007/s00520-016-3430-9 27726031 PMC5082581

15. Cerchione C De Renzo A Nappi D Pegfilgrastim in primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in elderly patients with hematological malignancies-bendamustine and G-CSF support Support Care Cancer 2019 27 5 1587 1588 10.1007/s00520-019-4651-5 30671660

16. Escrihuela-Vidal F Laporte J Albasanz-Puig A Update on the management of febrile neutropenia in hematologic patients Rev Esp Quimioter 2019 32 Suppl 2 55 58 31475812 PMC6755372

17. Lin C Shen H Zhou S Assessment of infection in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: risk factors and main characteristics BMC Infect Disease 2020 20 1 699 10.1186/s12879-020-05412-w 32972385 PMC7517606

18. Kumar S Paiva B Anderson KC International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma Lancet Oncology 2016 17 8 e328 e346 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6 27511158

19. Balmaceda N Aziz M Chandrasekar VT Infection risks in multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials from 2015 to 2019 BMC Cancer 2021 21 1 730 10.1186/s12885-021-08451-x 34172037 PMC8233183

20. Jung SH Kang SJ Jang HC Effect of levofloxacin prophylaxis for prevention of severe infections in multiple myeloma patients receiving bortezomib-containing regimens Int J Hematol 2014 100 5 473 477 10.1007/s12185-014-1672-1 25212681

21. Drayson MT Bowcock S Planche T Levofloxacin prophylaxis in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma (TEAMM): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncology 2019 20 12 1760 1772 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30506-6 31668592 PMC6891230

22. Freifeld AG Bow EJ Sepkowitz KA Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of america Clin Infect Dis 2011 52 4 e56 e93 10.1093/cid/cir073 21258094

23. Li G Zhang QK Wei XF Analysis on related factors of pulmonary infection in patients with multiple myeloma treated with bortezomib Zhongguo Shi Yan Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi 2021 29 1 152 157 33554812 10.19746/j.cnki.issn.1009-2137.2021.01.024

24. Parker SD, King N, Jacobs TF (2021). Pegfilgrastim.

25. Lavi N Avivi I Kra-Oz Z Community-acquired respiratory infections are common in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma Support Care Cancer 2018 26 7 2425 2431 10.1007/s00520-018-4079-3 29427192

26. Cook J Johnson I Higgins A Outcomes with different administration schedules of bortezomib in bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) as first-line therapy in multiple myeloma Am J Hematol 2021 96 3 330 337 10.1002/ajh.26074 33326116