Clinical equivalence with G-CSF biosimilars: methodologic approach in a (neo)adjuvant setting in non-metastatic breast cancer

Improving Outcomes of Chemotherapy: Established and Novel Options for Myeloprotection in the COVID-19 Era

Chemotherapy-induced damage of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HPSCs) often results in myelosuppression that adversely affects patient health and quality of life. Currently, chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression is managed with chemotherapy dose delays/reductions and lineage-specific supportive care interventions, such as hematopoietic growth factors and blood transfusions. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has created additional challenges for the optimal management of myelosuppression. In this review, we discuss the impact of this side effect on patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy, with a focus on the prevention of myelosuppression in the COVID-19 era. During the COVID-19 pandemic, short-term recommendations on the use of supportive care interventions have been issued with the aim of minimizing the risk of infection, reducing the need for hospitalization, and preserving limited blood supplies. Recently, trilaciclib, an intravenous cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, was approved to decrease the incidence of myelosuppression in adult patients when administered prior to platinum/etoposide-containing or topotecan-containing chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Approval was based on data from three phase 2 placebo-controlled clinical studies in patients with ES-SCLC, showing that administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy significantly reduced multilineage myelosuppression, with patients receiving trilaciclib having fewer chemotherapy dose delays/reductions and myelosuppression/sepsis-related hospitalizations, and less need for supportive care interventions, compared with patients receiving placebo. Several other novel agents are currently in clinical development for the prevention or treatment of multilineage or single-lineage myelosuppression in patients with various tumor types. The availability of treatments that could enable patients to maintain standard-of-care chemotherapy regimens without the need for additional interventions would be valuable to physicians, patients, and health systems.

Efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with breast cancer: a randomized, multicenter, active-controlled phase III trial

Background

Neutropenia is a common complication from chemotherapy. Mecapegfilgramtim (code name HHPG-19K), a long-acting recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF), has been developed. This study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim for reducing neutropenia compared with filgrastim.

Methods

This was a randomized, controlled non-inferiority study. A total of 339 breast cancer patients who were eligible for (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy were randomized assigned into three groups to receive mecapegfilgrastim 100 µg/kg, mecapegfilgrastim fixed dose of 6 mg or filgrastim 5 µg/kg/day in the first cycle of chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the duration of grade ≥3 neutropenia in cycle 1. The secondary endpoints included the duration of grade ≥3 neutropenia in cycles 2-4, incidence of grade ≥3 neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia (FN). The safety profile was also evaluated.

Results

The mean duration of grade ≥3 neutropenia was 1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65, 1.26] days in mecapegfilgrastim 100 µg/kg group, 1.23 (95% CI: 0.84, 1.88) days in mecapegfilgrastim 6 mg group, and 2.06 (95% CI: 1.66, 2.46) days in the filgrastim group. The mean difference between mecapegfilgrastim 100 µg/kg and filgrastim was -1.00 (95% CI: -1.52, -0.48), the mean difference between mecapegfilgrastim 6 mg and filgrastim was -0.83 (95% CI: -1.36, -0.30). The upper bounds of 95% CI for the difference between mecapegfilgrastim and filgrastim were all <1 day (the predefined non-inferiority margin). For the incidence of grade ≥3 and grade 4 neutropenia, the mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia, mecapegfilgrastim showed better performance compared with filgrastim. For the incidence of FN, there was no difference between patients treated with mecapegfilgrastim and filgrastim. For safety profile, mecapegfilgrastim of two doses groups were all well-tolerated. Fixed 6 mg dose of mecapegfilgrastim exhibited comparable efficacy and safety in comparison with 100 µg/kg during 4 cycles.

Conclusions

Long-acting mecapegfilgrastim (100 µg/kg and fixed 6 mg) is very effective and well tolerated when administered in the primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy induced neutropenia and in consecutive-cycle treatment. In some clinical parameters, mecafilgrastim is non-inferior and even superior to filgrastim. The fixed 6 mg-dose regimen showed similar efficacy and safety profile compared with 100 µg/kg regimen, and would be the preference in clinical practice, due to the convenient once-per-cycle administration and high-degree treatment compliance for the patients. This study provided new evidence for the novel long-acting rhG-CSF, mecapegfilgrastim, which would be a new alternative for clinical practice for prophylaxis of chemotherapy induced neutropenia.

Safety analysis of proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar in Phase I and Phase III studies

Aim: This analysis compares safety data for Sandoz proposed biosimilar (LA-EP2006) and reference pegfilgrastim from a Phase I pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study in healthy volunteers (HVs) and two Phase III confirmatory studies in patients with breast cancer (BC; total n = 808). Patients & methods: Baseline characteristics were summarized, and event rates of bone pain and headache calculated. Results: HVs in the Phase I pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study were generally younger, with lower mean body mass index, versus BC patients in PROTECT-1/-2. Bone pain was the most frequent adverse event with similar incidences with reference versus proposed biosimilar in all studies. Conclusion: No differences in adverse events were found between Sandoz proposed biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastim, notwithstanding some differences between HVs and BC patients.

Proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim shows similarity in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics to reference pegfilgrastim in healthy subjects

AIMS

This study aimed to demonstrate that the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profile of Sandoz proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006) matches reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta® ) in healthy subjects. Safety and immunogenicity were also assessed.

METHODS

The phase I, randomized, double-blind, two-period crossover study consisted of two treatment periods separated by an 8-week washout period. Healthy subjects aged 18-45 were randomized to either proposed biosimilar/reference pegfilgrastim or reference pegfilgrastim/proposed biosimilar. Proposed biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastim were administered on Day 1 of each treatment period (single 6 mg subcutaneous injection). Blood samples for PK/PD analysis were taken predose and ≤336 h postdose. PK/PD similarity was claimed if 90% (PK) and 95% (PD) confidence intervals (CI) for geometric mean ratios of the area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) from time of dosing and extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-inf ), or to the last measurable concentration (AUC0-last ), maximum observed serum concentration (Cmax ), absolute neutrophil count (ANC) area under the effect curve from the time of dosing to the last measurable concentration (AUEC0-last ) and ANC maximum effect attributable to the therapy under investigation (Emax ) were completely contained within the predefined margin (0.8 to 1.25).

RESULTS

Overall, 169 subjects completed the study. PK/PD similarity was demonstrated; 90% CIs of geometric mean ratio of proposed biosimilar/reference for PK: AUC0-inf (1.0559-1.2244), AUC0-last (1.0607-1.2328), Cmax (1.0312-1.1909) and 95% CIs for PD (ANC): AUEC0-last (0.9948-1.0366), Emax (0.9737-1.0169) were completely contained within predefined margin of 0.8 to 1.25. Both biologics had similar safety profiles, were well tolerated and had low incidence of anti-drug antibodies. No neutralizing or clinically relevant antibodies were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

PK/PD similarity of Sandoz proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim and reference pegfilgrastim was confirmed. No clinically meaningful differences in safety, tolerability and immunogenicity were observed in healthy subjects.