Efficacy and safety analysis of once per cycle pegfilgrastim and daily lenograstim in patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant myelosuppressive chemotherapy FEC 100: a pilot study

Long-acting versus short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors among cancer patients after chemotherapy in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) include long-acting ones and short-acting ones. They have been mainly applied in Chinese clinical practice for years to prevent neutropenia. However, which type of G-CSF is more superior has not been conclusively determined.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WAN FANG databases for related studies published till August 2021. Revman 5.3 software was used to assess the effectiveness and safety of these 2 types of G-CSFs in patients undergoing chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Ten studies involving 1916 patients were included in our meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of long-acting G-CSFs and short-acting G-CSFs. We found that the incidence of febrile neutropenia (relative risk [RR] 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-1.17), the recovery time of the absolute neutrophil count (mean difference -0.23; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.03), and the fatigue rate (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.62-1.07) were similar between the long- and the short-acting G-CSFs. However, the long-acting G-CSFs significantly decreased the incidence (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.76-0.96) and shortened the duration (mean difference -0.19; 95% CI -0.38 to 0.00) of severe (grade ≥3) neutropenia, and decreased the rate of bone and/or muscle pain (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.58-0.98).

CONCLUSION

Primary prophylaxis with long-acting G-CSFs was more effective and safer than primary prophylaxis with short-acting G-CSFs in Chinese adults undergoing chemotherapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Filgrastim and Its Biosimilars to Prevent Febrile Neutropenia in Cancer Patients: A Prospective Study and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

Febrile neutropenia is the serious side-effect associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Filgrastim, the first granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of neutropenia. Subsequently, pegfilgrastim (long-acting G-CSF) and filgrastim biosimilars were developed to have comparable efficacy to filgrastim. Therefore, it is necessary to produce a systematic review and meta-analysis that provides evidence that filgrastim is more efficacious than placebo/no-treatment, as it provides evidence on the comparable efficacy of filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim and biosimilar filgrastim.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to identify, assess, meta-analyze and summarize the comparative effectiveness and safety of filgrastim in head-to-head trials with placebo/no treatment, pegfilgrastim (and biosimilar filgrastim to update advances in the field. Methods: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses PRISMA statement were applied, and a random-effect model was used. Primary endpoints were the rate and duration of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, and an incidence rate of febrile neutropenia. Secondary endpoints were time to absolute neutrophil count ANC recovery, depth of ANC nadir (lowest ANC), neutropenia-related hospitalization and other neutropenia-related complications. For filgrastim versus biosimilar filgrastim comparison, the primary efficacy endpoint was the mean difference in duration of severe neutropenia DSN. Results: A total of 56 studies were considered that included data from 13,058 cancer patients. The risk of febrile neutropenia in filgrastim versus placebo/no treatment was not statistically different. The risk ratio for febrile neutropenia was 0.58, a 42% reduction in favor of filgrastim. The most reported adverse event with FIL was bone pain. For pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim, no statistically significant difference was noted. The risk ratio was 0.90 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.12). The overall difference in duration of severe neutropenia between filgrastim and biosimilar filgrastim was not statistically significant. The risk ratio was 1.03 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.13). Conclusions: Filgrastim was effective and safe in reducing febrile neutropenia and related complications, compared to placebo/no treatment. No notable differences were found between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim in terms of efficacy and safety. However, a similar efficacy profile was observed with FIL and its biosimilars.

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.

Reduced dose pegfilgrastim is associated with less bone pain without increased neutropenia: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy for breast cancer is associated with a high risk of neutropenia. Pegfilgrastim reduces the risk of neutropenic fever but commonly causes bone pain.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate whether a reduced dose of pegfilgrastim (3 mg) reduced the frequency of bone pain without compromising efficacy.

METHODS

Records reviewed from breast cancer patients who received at least one 3 mg dose of pegfilgrastim, white blood count (WBC), and absolute granulocyte counts (AGC) were collected. Musculoskeletal pain scale was collected at each visit.

RESULTS

265 treatments from 36 women were analyzed. There was no difference in post-treatment AGC between 3 versus 6 mg. Leukocytosis (WBC > 20,000 cells/cu mm) was more likely for those treated with 6 mg (chi-square 5.265, p = 0.0215). There was higher change in bone pain in patients who received 6 mg doses compared to none or 3 mg.

LIMITATIONS

In this retrospective, non-randomized study, we found the majority of patients received the reduced 3 mg dose after intolerance to the 6 mg dose. It is unknown if smaller or larger doses than 3 mg would achieve similar results or whether 3 mg dose would be effective as an initial therapy or for patients receiving different chemotherapy regimens. Pain is observed despite premedication with naproxen and/or loratidine.

CONCLUSION

Reduced dose of pegfilgrastim 3 mg was less likely to cause bone pain. The reduced dose was not associated with a significant difference in post-treatment AGC or rate of serious infection.

Efficacy, safety and proper dose analysis of PEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor as support for dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy in node positive Chinese breast cancer patients

For high-risk breast cancer patients with positive axillary lymph nodes, dose-dense every-two-week epirubicin/cyclophosphamide-paclitaxel (ddEC-P) regimen is the optimal postoperative adjuvant therapy. However, this regimen is limited by the grade 3/4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN). There is an urgent need to explore the efficacy, safety and proper dosage of PEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-G-CSF) as support for ddEC-P in Chinese breast cancer patients with positive axillary lymph nodes. Prospectively, 40 women with stage IIIA to IIIC breast cancer received ddEC-P ± trastuzumab as adjuvant treatment. PEG-G-CSF was injected subcutaneously in a dose of 6 mg or 3 mg on the 2^th day of each treatment cycle. With administration of PEG-G-CSF, all of the 40 patients completed 8 cycles of ddEC-P ± trastuzumab regimen without dose reductions or treatment delays. Moreover, no FN cases were observed. Further analysis showed that the proper dosage of PEG-G-CSF was 6 mg for ddEC treatment, and 3 mg for ddP treatment. PEG-G-CSF exhibits advantages compared with G-CSF in convenient of administration and tolerance for high risk Chinese breast cancer patients. More importantly, the proper dose of PEG-G-CSF for high risk Chinese breast cancer patients during ddEC-P chemotherapy may be 6 mg for ddEC treatment and 3 mg for ddP treatment.

Pegfilgrastim for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with solid tumors

INTRODUCTION

Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia are the most common and most severe bone marrow toxicities of chemotherapy. Recombinant granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), both daily (filgrastim and biosimilars, and lenograstim) and long-acting (pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim) formulations, are currently available to counteract the negative consequences of these side effects.

AREAS COVERED

The purpose of this article is to review the physiopathology of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and its consequences, and the current evidence regarding the pharmacological properties, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim as a strategy to prevent chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with solid tumors.

EXPERT OPINION

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and its complications are still a major health-care concern, and the inappropriate employment of G-CSFs in clinical practice can partially explain its burden. Pegfilgrastim has pharmacological advantages over daily G-CSFs that makes it easily administrable, thus reducing the chance of incorrect delivery. The once-per-cycle administration might explain the findings derived from observational studies suggesting a possible superior efficacy of pegfilgrastim over daily G-CSFs. For patients at higher risk of failure with daily G-CSF prophylaxis (e.g. risk of non-compliance, difficulties on performing regular hemograms, high risk of developing febrile neutropenia), pegfilgrastim might be the most appropriate option.

Lipegfilgrastim for the prophylaxis and treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

Chemotherapy is frequently associated with hematologic toxicity. Neutropenia with or without fever is a relevant cause of morbidity, mortality and costs, compromising treatment administration and clinical outcomes. The development of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors has had a positive impact on the clinician's approach to neutropenia. Such agents, currently used for primary and secondary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN), are effective in limiting hematologic toxicities and consequently allow the administration of intensive dose-dense regimens. Several biosimilar products of filgrastim have been developed over the years, showing effects similar to the originator drug. Until now, pegfilgrastim has been the only available long-acting factor, requiring just a single administration per chemotherapy cycle. The recent approval of the novel granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, lipegfilgrastim, offers interesting therapeutic alternatives. In fact, similar to pegfilgrastim, it has been demonstrated to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the occurrence of FN during chemotherapy safely.

Efficacy, effectiveness and safety of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Pegfilgrastim was introduced over a decade ago. Other long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have recently been developed. We systematically reviewed the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of neutropenia prophylaxis with long-acting G-CSFs in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts from key congresses. Studies of long-acting G-CSFs for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN) were identified by two independent reviewers. Abstracts and full texts were assessed for final inclusion; risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane's tool. Effectiveness and safety results were extracted according to study type and G-CSF used.

RESULTS

Of the 839 articles identified, 41 articles representing different studies met the eligibility criteria. In five randomised controlled trials, 11 clinical trials and 17 observational studies across several tumour types and chemotherapy regimens, pegfilgrastim was used alone or compared with daily G-CSF, no G-CSF, no upfront pegfilgrastim or placebo. Studies generally reported lower incidence of CIN (4/7 studies), FN (11/14 studies), hospitalisations (9/13 studies), antibiotic use (6/7 studies) and adverse events (2/5 studies) with pegfilgrastim than filgrastim, no upfront pegfilgrastim or no G-CSF. Eight studies evaluated other long-acting G-CSFs; most (5/8) were compared to pegfilgrastim and involved patients with breast cancer receiving docetaxel-based therapy. Efficacy and safety profiles of balugrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable to pegfilgrastim in phase 3 studies. Efficacy and safety of other long-acting G-CSFs were mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

Pegfilgrastim reduced the incidence of FN and CIN compared with no prophylaxis. Most studies showed better efficacy and effectiveness for pegfilgrastim than filgrastim. Efficacy and safety profiles of lipegfilgrastim and balugrastim were similar to pegfilgrastim.