Clinical confirmation to demonstrate similarity for a biosimilar pegfilgrastim: a 3-way randomized equivalence study for a proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim versus US-licensed and EU-approved reference products in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

Comparison of Innovative and Conventional Methods in Biosimilar Bridging Studies with Multiple References

For assessment of biosimilar drug products, if there are multiple-reference products (eg, a US-licensed product and an EU-approved product), a biosimilar bridging study with a 3-way pairwise comparison is often conducted. In our paper, two innovative methods in biosimilar bridging study are compared with the conventional method of pairwise comparisons. For parallel study design, the simultaneous confidence interval (CI) method is compared to the convention method. For crossover study design, the multiplicity-adjusted Schuirmann's two one-sided tests (MATOST) is considered. This paper conclude that the simultaneous CI method achieves the similar statistical power to the conventional approach in biosimilarity assessment. However, the MATOST method using the conservative Holm and Bonferroni approaches is not favorable since it leads to a large sample size although it controls the type I error rate.

Achieving white blood cell equity: are the safety profiles of biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastims comparable?

Biosimilars can provide choices for patients and may provide cost savings; however, their uptake has been slow in the USA, in part due to limited knowledge. To provide additional confidence in US pegfilgrastim biosimilars, this narrative review compared the safety profiles of biosimilar pegfilgrastims, currently approved or filed for approval in the USA, with the EU- and US-approved reference pegfilgrastims. Headache and bone pain were common to biosimilars and reference products and occurred at a similar incidence. Clinical trial data on the safety profiles of biosimilar pegfilgrastims and reference products have demonstrated similarity and comparability, with no unexpected safety outcomes. Overall, the safety profiles of biosimilar pegfilgrastims and reference pegfilgrastims demonstrated a high degree of similarity and comparability.

Assessing the Optimal Regimen: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Long-Acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors in Patients with Breast Cancer

Patients with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy are susceptible to prolonged and severe neutropenia. Multiple biosimilars of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (LA-G-CSFs) have been newly developed to prevent this disease. Nonetheless, which LA-G-CSF regimen has the optimal balance of efficacy and safety remains controversial. Moreover, there is a lack of evidence supporting clinical decisions on LA-G-CSF dose escalation in poor conditions. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and several Chinese databases were searched (December 2022) to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about LA-G-CSFs preventing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in breast cancer patients. No restrictions were imposed on language. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. We assessed the incidence of severe neutropenia (SN) and febrile neutropenia (FN), the duration of SN (DSN), and the absolute neutrophil account recovery time (ANCrt) for efficacy, while the incidence of severe adverse events (SAE) was assessed for safety. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022361606). A total of 33 RCTs were included. Our network meta-analysis demonstrated that lipegfilgrastim 6 mg and eflapegrastim 13.2 mg outperformed other LA-G-CSFs with high efficacy rates and few safety concerns (SUCRA of lipegfilgrastim 6 mg: ANC rt 95.2%, FN 97.4%; eflapegrastim 13.2 mg: FN 87%, SN 89.3%). Additionally, 3.6 mg, 4.5 mg, 6 mg, and 13.2 mg dosages all performed significantly better than 1.8 mg in reducing the duration of SN (3.6 mg: DSN, SMD -0.68 [-1.13, -0.22; moderate]; 4.5 mg: -0.87 [-1.57, -0.17; low]; 6 mg: -0.89 [-1.49, -0.29; moderate]; 13.2 mg: -1.02 [1.63, -0.41; high]). Increasing the dosage from the guideline-recommended 6 mg to 13.2 mg can reduce both the duration and incidence of SN (SMD -0.13 [-0.24 to -0.03], RR 0.65 [0.43 to 0.96], respectively), with no significant difference in SAE. For patients with breast cancer, lipegfilgrastim 6 mg and eflapegrastim 13.2 mg might be the most effective regimen among LA-G-CSFs. Higher doses of LA-G-CSF may enhance efficacy without causing additional SAEs.

Comparative Safety Profiles of Oncology Biosimilars: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is crucial that the safety profiles of biosimilars are similar to those of the original biologics. A better understanding of biosimilars and their relative safety and immunogenicity profiles are required for healthcare providers to prescribe them to patients with life-threatening cancer diseases who receive chemotherapies with potentially serious adverse events (AEs).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to collate and analyze currently available safety and immunogenicity outcomes of biosimilars used in oncology and compare their safety information with those of the original biologics.

METHODS

The MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases were searched as at 28 February 2022. Four anti-cancer biosimilar molecules were considered: bevacizumab, trastuzumab, rituximab, and (peg)filgrastim. Through a systematic review, we selected the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing safety outcomes between the biosimilars and original biologics of the four molecules. As safety outcomes, various treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were collated, such as any TEAE, serious AE, and TEAE higher than grade 3. A risk ratio (RR) per category of TEAE was estimated through a meta-analysis. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was also conducted to compare the safety among the biosimilar brands for TEAEs over 25% with higher variability in addition to the serious AE cases.

RESULTS

Forty-nine RCTs were identified. The results from the meta-analysis showed that the safety and immunogenicity profiles of all four biosimilar molecules are comparable with that of the original biologics at the TEAE level without statistically significant differences, except for diarrhea for (peg)filgrastim. The incidence of diarrhea with (peg)filgrastim was less than that with the original biologic (RR 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.89). The NMA results showed similar safety profiles among the biosimilar brands for all four biosimilar molecules, except for the serious adverse event of a trastuzumab biosimilar (RR 0.296, 95% credible interval 0.109-0.840).

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis and NMA for all four biosimilars showed that the safety and immunogenicity profiles of biosimilar products in oncology are generally comparable with that of the original biologics at the TEAE level. However, additional evidence needs to be collected since several TEAEs of specific biosimilars were out of the equivalent range. The results of this study provide comparative safety information and a better understanding of oncology biosimilars for healthcare providers to prescribe them to patients.

Phase I/II study to assess the clinical pharmacology and safety of single ascending and multiple subcutaneous doses of PF-06881894 in women with non-distantly metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the pharmacodynamics (PD), pharmacokinetics (PK), and safety of single and multiple doses of PF-06881894 (pegfilgrastim-apgf; Nyvepria™), a biosimilar to reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®), in women with non-distantly metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

In Phase I (Cycle 0) of this Phase I/II study, the PD response (absolute neutrophil count [ANC]; CD34 + count), PK profile, and safety of a single 3- or 6-mg subcutaneous dose of PF-06881894 were assessed in chemotherapy-naïve patients before definitive breast surgery. In Phase II (Cycles 1-4), the PD response (duration of severe neutropenia [DSN, Cycle 1], ANC [Cycles 1 and 4]) and PK profile (Cycles 1 and 4) of single and multiple 6-mg doses of PF-06881894 concomitant with chemotherapy and after definitive breast surgery were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients (mean age 59 years) were enrolled (Cycle 0, n = 12; Cycles 1-4, n = 13). In Cycle 0, PD responses and PK values were lower with 3-mg versus 6-mg PF-06881894. In Cycles 1 and 4, mean DSN was 0.667 days after single or multiple 6-mg doses of PF-06881894, respectively. In Cycle 4 versus Cycle 1, PD responses were more robust; PK values (mean area under the curve, maximum concentration) were lower; and clearance values were higher. The safety profile of PF-06881894 was similar to that for reference pegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSION

PF-06881894 as a single 3- or 6-mg dose prior to definitive surgery, or multiple 6-mg/cycle doses postoperatively, with/without myelosuppressive chemotherapy, was consistent with the clinical pharmacology and safety profile of reference pegfilgrastim.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

October 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02650193. EudraCT Number: 2015-002057-35.

Biosimilar Pegfilgrastim: Improving Access and Optimising Practice to Supportive Care that Enables Cure

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of chemotherapy, which can cause significant morbidity and mortality, result in dose delays and reductions and, ultimately, reduce cancer survival. Over the past decade, the availability of biosimilar filgrastim (short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) has transformed patient access, with clear evidence of clinical benefit at preventing FN at reduced costs. In 2019, seven biosimilar pegfilgrastims (long-acting G-CSFs) were licensed, creating optimal market conditions and choice for prescribers. FN affects up to 117 per 1000 cancer patients, with mortality rates in the range of 2–21%. By reducing FN incidence and improving chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI), G-CSF has been associated with a 3.2% absolute survival benefit. Guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis and that filgrastim be administered for 10–14 days, while pegfilgrastim is administered once per cycle. When taken according to the guidelines, pegfilgrastim and filgrastim are equally effective. However, in routine clinical practice, filgrastim is often under-dosed (< 7 days) and has been shown to be inferior to pegfilgrastim at reducing FN incidence, hospitalisations and maintaining RDI. Once-per-cycle administration with pegfilgrastim might also aid patient adherence. The introduction of biosimilar pegfilgrastim should instigate a rethink of neutropenia management. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim offers countries using biosimilar filgrastim opportunities to improve adherence and thus cancer survival, whilst offering economic benefits for countries using reference pegfilgrastim. These benefits can be realised in full if biosimilar pegfilgrastim becomes part of routine clinical practice supported by drug and therapeutic committees implementing guidelines with multidisciplinary support in the hospital.

Safety of Marketed Cancer Supportive Care Biosimilars in the US: A Disproportionality Analysis Using the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Database

BACKGROUND

Since the approval and availability of the first biosimilar in 2015 in the United States (US), evidence regarding the post-marketing safety of cancer supportive care biosimilars remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to explore the adverse event (AE) reporting patterns and detect disproportionate reporting signals for cancer supportive care biosimilars in the US compared to their originator biologics.

METHODS

The US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database (January 1, 2004-March 31, 2020) was used to identify AE reports for filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and epoetin alpha by type of product (originator biologics vs. biosimilars) and report characteristics. Plots of AE reports against years were used to reveal the reporting patterns. Disproportionality analyses using reporting odds ratios (RORs) were conducted to detect differences in serious and specific AEs between studied drugs and all other drugs. Breslow-Day tests were used to determine homogeneity between the originator biologic-biosimilar pair RORs for the same AE.

RESULTS

Total numbers of AEs for all studied biosimilars increased after marketing. More AE reports were from female patients for all of the studied drugs. More AEs for originator biologics and filgrastim biosimilar were reported by health professionals, while the highest proportion of reports came from consumers for pegfilgrastim and epoetin alpha biosimilars (29% and 44.1%, respectively). Signals of disproportionate reporting in serious AEs were detected for a pegfilgrastim biosimilar (Fulphila^®) compared to its originator biologic.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the similarity in the signals of disproportionate reporting between cancer supportive care originator biologics and biosimilars, except for Fulphila^®.

A retrospective review of the real-world experience of the Pegfilgrastim biosimilar (Lapelga®) to the reference biologic (Neulasta®)

Introduction

Cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy are vulnerable to febrile neutropenia (FN) which contributes to poor treatment outcomes. The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors is administered to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The introduction of biosimilars has allowed for greater cost-savings while maintaining safety and efficacy. This retrospective study assessed the incidence of FN and related treatment outcomes and the cost minimization of a pegfilgrastim biosimilar and its reference.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of breast cancer patients receiving (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy from February 2017 to May 2020 was conducted. The endpoints included the incidence of FN, the occurrence of dose reduction (DR), dose delay (DD) and pain. A cost minimization analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective.

Results

One hundred Neulasta® and 74 Lapelga® patients were included in the first-cycle analysis. The rate of FN in cycle 1 for Neulasta® and Lapelga® was 2/100 and 4/74, respectively; risk difference (RD)  =  3.4%; 95% CI: –2.4 to 9.2%. Eighty-three Neulasta® and 59 Lapelga® patients were included in the all-cycle analyses, where DR was reported in 76 (15%) Neulasta® cycles vs 33 (10%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = –3.6, 95% CI: –10.2 to 2.9). DD was reported in 20 (4%) Neulasta® cycles vs. 11 (3.5%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = –0.3; 95% CI: –2.7 to 2.0). Adverse events were similar between groups. Cost minimization using a cohort of 20,000 patients translated into an incremental savings of $21,606,800 CAD for each cycle.

Conclusion

The biosimilar pegfilgrastim was non-inferior to the reference biologic based on FN incidence in addition to related outcomes including DR and DD.

Efficacy and safety of two pegfilgrastim biosimilars: Tripegfilgrastim and pegteograstim

Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of two recently developed biosimilars of pegfilgrastim, a pegylated form of the recombinant human granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor (G‐CSF) analog filgrastim with those of the reference pegfilgrastim. We retrospectively analyzed data from patients diagnosed with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who were treated with first‐line R‐CHOP chemotherapy and received pegylated G‐CSF for primary prophylaxis. The following pegylated G‐CSFs were analyzed in this study: reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta^®) and two of its biosimilars (tripegfilgrastim; Dulastin^® and pegteograstim; Neulapeg^®). In total, 296 patients were enrolled. The number of patients with at least one episode of neutropenia during R‐CHOP chemotherapy was the lowest in the reference cohort (pegfilgrastim: 127 of 193 patients, 65.8%; tripegfilgrastim: 64 of 69 patients, 92.8%; pegteograstim: 28 of 34 patients, 82.4%, P < .001). The number of patients with at least one episode of febrile neutropenia was also lowest in the reference cohort (pegfilgrastim: 67 of 193 patients, 34.7%; tripegfilgrastim: 38 of 69 patients, 55.1%; pegteograstim: 16 of 34 patients, 47.1%, P = .009). There were no differences in the duration of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia or treatment outcomes (rate of complete response or relapse and survival). There were no reports of grade 3 or higher adverse events requiring discontinuation of prophylactic pegylated G‐CSF in any group. The safety of the pegfilgrastim biosimilars for prophylactic purposes was comparable to that of the reference pegfilgrastim; however, in terms of their efficacy, the incidence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia tended to be higher than that when using pegfilgrastim. The clinical relevance of these results in the biosimilar cohorts should be explored.

A large multicentre, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study in healthy volunteers to compare pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of a pegfilgrastim biosimilar with its US- and EU-reference biologics

Aims

Recombinant PEGylated human granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor (pegfilgrastim) is indicated for the reduction of chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia and prevention of febrile neutropenia. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim is expected to reduce the financial burden of this complication of chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to demonstrate biosimilarity between Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim and its US‐ and EU‐approved reference biologics.

Methods

Phase I, randomized, double‐blind, single‐dose, 3‐period, 6‐sequence cross‐over, multicentre study to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety and immunogenicity of Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim with US‐ and EU‐references in healthy adults.

Results

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity was demonstrated between the 3 biologics, as the 90% confidence interval for all primary pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic endpoint comparisons were contained within the predefined similarity margins of 0.80–1.25. Safety, immunogenicity and tolerability were also similar.

Conclusions

Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim demonstrated pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity to both US‐ and EU‐reference biologics. No meaningful differences in safety, local tolerability and immunogenicity were identified.

Efficacy and tolerability of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in cancer patients after chemotherapy: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

The optimum granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) treatment for cancer patients after being treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy remains unknown. Therefore, a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of 11 G-CSF drugs on patients after chemotherapy. A total of 73 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) containing 15,124 cancer patients were included for the final network meta-analysis. Compared with pegfilgrastim, there were a higher risk with filgrastim for incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) (OR [95% CI]: 1.63 [1.07, 2.46]), and a higher risk with short-acting G-CSF (S-G-CSF) biosimilar and lenograstim for incidence of bone pain (BP) (OR [95% CI]: 6.45 [1.10, 65.73], 5.12 [1.14, 26.12], respectively). Mecapegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim and balugrastim were best G-CSF drugs in reducing FN (cumulative probabilities: 58%, 15%, 11%, respectively). S-G-CSF biosimilar, empegfilgrastim, and long-acting G-CSF (L-G-CSF) biosimilar were best G-CSF drugs in reducing severe neutropenia (SN) (cumulative probabilities: 21%, 20%, 15%, respectively). Mecapegfilgrastim, balugrastim, lipegfilgrastim and L-G-CSF biosimilar were best G-CSF drugs in reducing BP (cumulative probabilities: 20%, 14%, 8%, 8%, respectively). Mecapegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim and balugrastim might be the most appreciate G-CSF drugs with both good efficacy and tolerability when treating cancer patients after cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Supportive Care Biosimilars Among Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologics are widely used to manage the side effects of cancer treatment (e.g., epoetin alfa is used to treat chemotherapy-induced anemia [CIA] and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors [G-CSFs] are used to treat chemotherapy-induced neutropenia [CIN]). As several patents for biologics used in cancer treatment have expired, a number of companies have developed supportive care biosimilars (e.g., epoetin alfa biosimilar, filgrastim biosimilar, pegfilgrastim biosimilar).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to synthesize current evidence on the efficacy and safety of supportive care biosimilars compared with their reference biologics in oncology.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISI Web of Science and several Chinese databases from their inception dates to December 31, 2018 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or comparative observational studies that compared the efficacy and safety of supportive care biosimilars and their reference biologics in oncology. We pooled results separately for RCTs and observational studies, as such studies involve different patient populations and are designed differently. We pooled binary outcomes using risk ratios (RR) with confidence intervals (CIs) and continuous outcomes using weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% CIs, then conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

We identified 28 studies that compared biosimilars of G-CSF or epoetin alfa: one RCT and five cohort studies (total N = 2816) of epoetin alfa biosimilars, and 13 RCTs and 9 cohort studies (total N = 23,043) of G-CSF biosimilars [corrected]. Despite involving different populations, RCTs and observational studies comparing biosimilars and reference biologics indicated similar efficacy and safety results. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in any efficacy or safety outcomes between any biosimilars and their corresponding original biologics (all p > 0.05). The quality of GRADE evidence of efficacy and safety outcomes was moderate or low. Findings were robust for all prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Existing evidence suggests highly comparable efficacy and safety profiles for supportive care biosimilars and their reference biologics in oncology.