A randomized double-blind multicenter phase III study of fixed-dose single-administration pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

Comparison between a single dose of PEG G-CSF and multiple doses of non-PEG G-CSF: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022

BACKGROUD

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is widely used for the primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia (FN). Two types of G-CSF are available in Japan, namely G-CSF chemically bound to polyethylene glycol (PEG G-CSF), which provides long-lasting effects with a single dose, and non-polyethylene glycol-bound G-CSF (non-PEG G-CSF), which must be sequentially administrated for several days.

METHODS

This current study investigated the utility of these treatments for the primary prophylaxis of FN through a systematic review of the literature. A detailed literature search for related studies was performed using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis or meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate six outcomes.

RESULTS

Through the first and second screenings, 23 and 18 articles were extracted for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis, respectively. The incidence of FN was significantly lower in the PEG G-CSF group than in the non-PEG G-CSF group with a strong quality/certainty of evidence. The differences in other outcomes, such as overall survival, infection-related mortality, the duration of neutropenia (less than 500/μL), quality of life, and pain, were not apparent.

CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of PEG G-CSF is strongly recommended over multiple-dose non-PEG G-CSF therapy for the primary prophylaxis of FN.

Filgrastim-induced hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in a patient with mantle cell lymphoma: A case report

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is a life-threatening disease potentially induced by various causes. Very few reports have described HLH induced by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and those few previous reports have uniformly indicated that continuing G-CSF is unfeasible once HLH has been induced. A 52-year-old Japanese man who had been diagnosed with mantle cell lymphoma with systemic and central nervous system involvements received rituximab, hyper-fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, Adriamycin and dexamethasone (R-HCVAD)/methotrexate and cytarabine. During the second cycle of R-HCVAD, the patient developed severe back pain, thrombocytopenia, elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase and ferritin levels, and hemophagocytosis in the bone marrow. Complete remission (CR) of mantle cell lymphoma was confirmed on whole-body computed tomography, brain magnetic resonance imaging, and bone marrow biopsy. The patient was diagnosed with HLH induced by filgrastim. HLH recovered with intravenous methylprednisolone at 1 g/day for 3 days, followed by oral prednisolone tapered off over 5 days. The patient continued chemotherapy with a change in the G-CSF formulation from filgrastim to lenograstim and prophylactic administration of corticosteroids. He safely completed scheduled chemotherapy without recurrence of HLH and successfully maintained CR of lymphoma. Although rare, G-CSF potentially induces HLH. Changing the G-CSF formulation and steroid prophylaxis may allow safe continuation of G-CSF.

Efbemalenograstim alfa not inferior to pegfilgrastim in providing neutrophil support in women with breast cancer undergoing myelotoxic chemotherapy: results of a phase 2 randomized, multicenter, open-label trial

PURPOSE

Evaluate the safety and efficacy of efbemalenograstim alfa for neutrophil support in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy in a phase 2, dose-finding, open-label study (NCT01648322, ClinicalTrials.gov, 2012-07-19).

METHODS

232 patients received up to 4 cycles of chemotherapy, 141 patients with docetaxel + cyclophosphamide (TC) and 91 patients with docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide (TAC). Patients were randomized to efbemalenograstim alfa (80, 240, or 320 µg/kg [TC]; 240 or 320 µg/kg [TAC]) or pegfilgrastim (6 mg) on Day 2 of each cycle.

RESULTS

Efbemalenograstim alfa was non-inferior to pegfilgrastim in duration of moderate and severe neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] < 1.0 × 109/L) in TAC Cycle 1 (mean [SD] of 2.1 [1.58] and 2.1 [1.46] days for 240 µg/kg and 320 µg/kg efbemalenograstim alfa, respectively, and 1.8 [1.28] days for pegfilgrastim), with a difference (95% CI) of 0.3 (-0.4, 1.1) days. ANC nadir occurred between Days 7-8 of TAC Cycle 1, with mean [SD] of 0.68 [1.064], 0.86 [1.407] and 0.78[1.283] × 109/L for 240 µg/kg, 320 µg/kg efbemalenograstim alfa and pegfilgrastim, respectively. Time to ANC recovery post nadir (defined as an ANC > 2.0 × 109/L after the expected ANC nadir) was 2.0-2.4 and 1.9 days for TAC patients treated with efbemalenograstim alfa and pegfilgrastim, respectively. No significant difference was found between any dose of efbemalenograstim alfa and pegfilgrastim in TAC Cycle 1 for incidence of moderate to severe neutropenia (76%-77% of patients) or incidence of severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.5 × 109/L; 63%-72%). Efbemalenograstim alfa exhibited similar safety profile to pegfilgrastim. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 4 (1.8%) patients, 2 patients each for 320 µg/kg efbemalenograstim alfa and pegfilgrastim, with no event considered related to study drug.

CONCLUSION

Efbemalenograstim alfa was comparable to pegfilgrastim in efficacy and safety.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT01648322.

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.

Efbemalenograstim alfa, an Fc fusion protein, long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia following chemotherapy: results of a phase III trial

PURPOSE

Evaluate the safety and efficacy of efbemalenograstim alfa for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

METHODS

A phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted. A total of 122 subjects received up to 4 cycles of TA chemotherapy (75 mg/m2 docetaxel + 60 mg/m2 doxorubicin). Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to subcutaneously inject a single 20 mg of efbemalenograstim alfa or placebo on day 2 of cycle 1, and all subjects received efbemalenograstim alfa on day 2 of cycles 2, 3, and 4. Duration of severe (grade 4) neutropenia (DSN), depth of neutrophil nadir, incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), time to neutrophil recovery, and safety information were recorded.

RESULTS

For the primary endpoint, the mean DSN in cycle 1 was 1.3 days and 3.9 days for efbemalenograstim alfa and placebo respectively (95% CI, 2.3, 3.4). As the lower bound of the 95% CI was > 0, superiority of efbemalenograstim alfa over placebo can be declared. In addition, the incidence of FN in Cycle 1 was lower in efbemalenograstim alfa group than in placebo group (4.8% vs. 25.6%; p = 0.0016). Patients in the efbemalenograstim alfa group required less intravenous antibiotics (3.6% vs. 17.9%; p = 0.0119). Most adverse events were consistent with those expected for breast cancer patient receiving TA chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Efbemalenograstim alfa is effective and safe for significantly decreasing the duration of severe neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients who are receiving TA chemotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02872103, August 19, 2016.

Open-labeled, multicenter phase II study of prophylactic administration of pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received pomalidomide-based regimens (KMM170)

Introduction

Pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has been widely used for preventing febrile neutropenia in various types of cancer treatment. In the present study, we prospectively evaluated the safety and efficacy of pegfilgrastim as a primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia and infection among patients with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treated with pomalidomide-based regimens.

Methods

Thirty-three patients with RRMM who received pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd) with or without cyclophosphamide (PCd) were enrolled in this study. Twenty-eight patients were treated with PCd and 5 patients were treated with Pd. All patients were given pegfilgrastim subcutaneously with a single administration performed on the first day of each cycle as primary prophylaxis until the fourth cycle.

Results

The median age of the patients was 75 (range 56-85), and the median prior line of therapy was 2 (range 2-6). Seventeen patients (51.5%) had any grade of neutropenia and 20 (60.6%) had any grade of thrombocytopenia before starting pomalidomide treatment. During the 4 cycles of treatment, grade 3 or more neutropenia occurred in 17 patients (51.5%), and 4 (12.1%) experienced grade 3 or more febrile neutropenia. Grade 3 or more infections occurred in 5 patients (15.2%). Interestingly, the patients with markedly increased ANC of more than 2 x 109/L compared to baseline ANC after 7 days of pegfilgrastim at 1st cycle of treatment showed a significantly lower incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia. The most common adverse event of pegfilgrastim was fatigue, and all the adverse events caused by pegfilgrastim were grade 1 or 2. And there was no significant change in the immune cell population and cytokines during the administration of pegfilgrastim.

Discussion

Considering that this study included elderly patients with baseline neutropenia, pegylated G-CSF could be helpful to prevent severe neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, or infection in patients with RRMM.

Cost comparison of filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim biosimilars for inpatient prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia

INTRODUCTION

The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (The James) uses daily subcutaneous filgrastim as the inpatient granulocyte colony-stimulating factor of choice. The coordination of care associated with filgrastim can often be a barrier to patient discharge. The purpose of this study was to compare the inpatient cost of daily filgrastim to single dose pegfilgrastim and biosimilars.

METHODS

Adult patients admitted to The James who received at least one dose of filgrastim between June 1, 2021 and August 31, 2021 were retrospectively identified. This study compared the inpatient cost of filgrastim and biosimilars associated with one chemotherapy cycle to the potential inpatient cost of pegfilgrastim and biosimilars based on average sales price (ASP). Additionally, the number and duration of discharge prescriptions for filgrastim was determined.

RESULTS

Of the 44 unique patient encounters that met inclusion criteria, 19 received 300-mcg doses of filgrastim and 25 received 480-mcg doses. The median number of doses administered per admission was eight. If each of these patients were to instead receive the most inexpensive biosimilar, pegfilgrastim reference product, the cost would be 216% higher than with filgrastim-sndz. At discharge, 15 patients (34%) received a prescription for filgrastim to be continued for a median duration of 6 days.

CONCLUSION

Based on ASP, pegfilgrastim was more costly than filgrastim. Potential rebates and negotiation power may alter the financial outlook of adding pegfilgrastim to inpatient formulary. Exploration of delays in discharge due to insurance coordination for filgrastim continuation in the outpatient setting may also impact formulary decisions.

Semimechanistic pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model of tripegfilgrastim for pediatric patients after chemotherapy

Tripegfilgrastim is a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) that has been used to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in adults. This study aimed to establish a pharmacokinetic (PK)-pharmacodynamic (PD) model to explore the impact of chemotherapy and tripegfilgrastim on absolute neutrophil counts (ANCs) and to further propose a fixed-dose regimen in pediatric patients. Because neutrophils affect the clearance of tripegfilgrastim, the semimechanistic PK-PD model was developed simultaneously by using data from 40 healthy adults and 27 pediatric patients with solid tumors. Tripegfilgrastim PK and ANC dynamics were described with a pharmacodynamics-mediated drug disposition model assuming quasi-equilibrium with five transit compartments mimicking neutrophil granulopoiesis. The effect of chemotherapy on neutrophils was included by stimulating the elimination of the G-CSF receptor at the mitotic cells. Healthy adult and pediatric patients showed significantly different value for dissociation constant of the tripegfilgrastim-G-CSF receptor complex (Kd ) and apparent volume of distribution (Vd /F). Patients treated with chemotherapy had a higher Vd /F and 62% lower Kd than healthy adults. As the age increased, the absorption rate of tripegfilgrastim was decreased. Body weight affected the G-CSF receptor-mediated internalization of tripegfilgrastim, and the baseline ANC value impacted the production rate of G-CSF receptors. Simulations from the developed model suggested that 1.5, 2.5, 4, and 6 mg single subcutaneous tripegfilgrastim doses for the respective weight groups of 10-20, 21-30, 31-44, and more than 45 kg significantly reduced the duration of Grade 4 neutropenia similar to tripegfilgrastim weight-based treatment with 100 μg/kg.

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.

Comparison of prophylactic effects for chemotherapy induced neutropenia between same-day versus next-day administration of pegteograstim (Neurapeg®) in patients treated with chemotherapy regimen composed of day 1 intensive myleosuppressive agent: A randomized phase III clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Administration of pegylated granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (peg-GCSF) 24 to 72 hours after chemotherapy is usually recommended. Next-day administration (after 24 hours) resulted in fewer duration of grade (Gr) 4 chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and decreased severity of CIN than same-day (within 4 hours). However, patients sometimes receive same-day Peg-GCSF for the sake of convenience. In addition, a few prior studies showed that the same-day method is comparable or superior to the next-day method in preventing CIN, especially in chemotherapy regimens that include day 1 myelosuppressive agents. Thus, we aim to verify the hypothesis that same-day administration of pegteograstim, a new formulation of peg-GCSF, is non-inferior to next-day administration in terms of Gr4 CIN duration.

METHODS

This study is a randomized, multicenter, open-label, investigator-initiated phase 3 study. Patients with adjuvant/neoadjuvant or first-line palliative chemotherapy comprising intensively myelosuppressive agents on day 1 (mFOLFIRINOX, ECb, EP, FOLFIRI, and FOLFOX) are enrolled. The patients are assigned to the same-day arm or the next-day arm in a 1:1 ratio. The randomizations are stratified according to number of patient CIN risk factors (1 vs ≥2), chemotherapy setting (perioperative vs palliative), and interval (2-week vs 3-week). In the same-day arm, pegteograstim 6 mg is subcutaneously injected within 4 hours after completion of chemotherapy. In the next-day arm, pegetograstim is injected at 24 to 36 hours post-chemotherapy. A complete blood count test is performed daily from day 5 to 9 during the cycle 1. The primary endpoint is duration of Gr4 CIN (cycle 1), and secondary endpoints include incidence of Gr 3 to 4 CIN (cycle 1), severity of CIN (cycle 1), time to recovery absolute neutrophil count 1000/μL (cycle 1), incidence of febrile neutropenia, incidence of CIN-related dose delay, and dose intensity. In order to verify non-inferiority of 0.6 days, we estimated a significance level of 5%, power of 80%, and drop-out rate of 15%. This results in the need for a total of 160 patients, 80 in each group.

Advances in engineering and delivery strategies for cytokine immunotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Cytokine immunotherapy is a growing field for the treatment of cancer, infectious disease, autoimmunity, and other ailments. Therapeutic cytokines are a class of secreted, small proteins that play a pivotal role in regulating the innate and adaptive immune system by provoking or mitigating immune responses. In the clinic, cytokines are frequently combined with other treatments, such as small molecules and monoclonal antibodies. However, the clinical translation of cytokine therapies is hindered by their short half-life, pleiotropic nature, and off-target effects, which cause diminished efficacy and severe systemic toxicity. Such toxicity limits dosage, thus resulting in suboptimal doses. Accordingly, numerous efforts have been devoted to exploring strategies to promote cytokine therapies by improving their tissue specificity and pharmacokinetics.

AREAS COVERED

Preclinical and clinical research into bioengineering and delivery strategies for cytokines, consisting of bioconjugation, fusion proteins, nanoparticles, and scaffold-based systems.

EXPERT OPINION

These approaches pave the way for the development of next-generation cytokine treatments with greater clinical benefit and reduced toxicity, circumventing such issues currently associated with cytokine therapy.

Two decades of pegfilgrastim: what have we learned? Where do we go from here?

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is a medical emergency that may occur in patients with malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. FN requires early therapeutic intervention since it is associated with increased hospitalizations and high mortality risk of 5%-20%. FN-related hospitalizations are higher in patients with myeloid malignancies than in those with solid tumors due to the myelotoxicity of chemotherapy regimens and the compromised bone marrow function. FN increases the burden of cancer by causing chemotherapy dose reductions and delays. The administration of the first granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), filgrastim, reduced the incidence and duration of FN in patients undergoing chemotherapy. Filgrastim later evolved into pegfilgrastim, which has a longer half-life than filgrastim and was associated with a lower rate of severe neutropenia, chemotherapy dose reduction, and treatment delay. Nine million patients have received pegfilgrastim since its approval in early 2002. The pegfilgrastim on-body injector (OBI) is an innovative device facilitating the time-released auto-injection of pegfilgrastim approximately 27 hours after chemotherapy, as clinically recommended for the prevention of FN, thus eliminating the need for a next-day hospital visit. Since its introduction in 2015, one million patients with cancer have received pegfilgrastim using the OBI. Subsequently, the device has been approved in the United States (US), European Union, Latin America, and Japan, with studies and a postmarketing commitment demonstrating device reliability. A recent prospective observational study conducted in the US demonstrated that the OBI substantially improved the adherence to and compliance with clinically recommended pegfilgrastim therapy; patients receiving pegfilgrastim via the OBI experienced a lower incidence of FN than those receiving alternatives for FN prophylaxis. This review discusses the evolution of G-CSFs leading to the development of the OBI, current recommendations for G-CSF prophylaxis in the clinic, continued evidence supporting next-day pegfilgrastim administration, and improvements in patient care made possible with the OBI.

Primary Prophylaxis Lapelga® in Early Breast Cancer: A Real-World Experience

Background: Lapelga® was approved by Health Canada as a pegfilgrastim biosimilar in 2019 and remains the most commonly used biosimilar in Ontario and is fully reimbursed under the Ontario Drug Benefit program in this category. We explored the efficacy and tolerability of Lapelga® in a retrospective analysis of patients with early breast cancer who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy supported with Lapelga® as a primary prophylaxis. Methods: Adult patients with early breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy at the London Regional Cancer Program in London, ON, Canada between May 2019 and June 2022 were included. All of these patients were supported with Lapelga® as the primary prophylaxis. Patients’ age, tumour, and nodal status, their type of chemotherapy, co-morbid conditions, and incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and its related details as well as any reported side effects to Lapelga® were collected. Results: A total of 201 patients were included in this review with majority (78%) of patients under 65 years of age. One third of patients were treated with the adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC)-Paclitaxel dose dense chemotherapy and a quarter of patients with either a docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) combination or an AC-dose dense with Paclitaxel weekly, and 10% or less patients had FEC-D (5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide) and AC chemotherapy. FN incidence was only 3.48% in this review (7/201 patients). Patients with FN were admitted to hospital and recovered completely with no mortality reported. No cases of a switch to a different granulocyte colony growth factor were seen. The most frequent side effects from Lapelga® included musculoskeletal pain, fever, and headache. However, the majority of patients (88.6%; 178/201) did not have any reported side effects specifically assigned to Lapelga®. Conclusions: In this single centre retrospective study, early breast cancer patients (n = 201) treated with adjuvant chemotherapy supported with primary prophylaxis with Lapelga® had a low incidence of FN (3.48%). This supports Lapelga® being an effective strategy as the primary prophylaxis when used with common chemotherapy regimens in the real-world setting.

Comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim biosimilars vs originator for prevention of febrile neutropenia: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence on the comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim biosimilars compared with the originator product is limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) among users of pegfilgrastim biosimilars (pegfilgrastim-jmdb and pegfilgrastim-cbqv) and the originator product. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using 2019 IBM MarketScan databases to assess comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim originator and biosimilars for prevention of FN among patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Patients with cancer, including breast, lung, colorectal, esophageal and gastric, pancreatic, prostate, ovarian, and non-Hodgkin lymphomas, initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy courses were selected. We further selected patients who used pegfilgrastim originator and biosimilars within 3 days of chemotherapy completion. FN-associated hospitalizations were measured by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes. After 1:1 propensity score matching, we used equivalence (with a margin of 6%) hypothesis tests to compare FN-related hospitalization risk in the first cycle and across all cycles between biosimilars and originator users. RESULTS: A total of 2,045 patients were included, of which 445 (21.8%) used pegfilgrastim-jmdb, 636 (31.1%) used pegfilgrastim-cbqv, and 964 (47.1%) used pegfilgrastim originator. After matching, 13 out of 445 originator users and 17 out of 445 pegfilgrastim-jmdb users developed FN after the first chemotherapy cycle (risk difference was 0.9%; P < 0.001 for equivalence test indicating statistical equivalence). After matching, 14 out of 633 originator users and 16 out of 633 pegfilgrastim-cbqv users developed FN (risk difference was 0.32%; P < 0.001 for equivalence test indicating statistical equivalence). Results across all cycles (including the first cycle) were consistent with that in the first cycle. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study of patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, there was no difference in FN risk between patients receiving pegfilgrastim originator and biosimilars in the first cycle and across all cycles. These results add further to the current evidence on pegfilgrastim biosimilars and support wider adoption of pegfilgrastim biosimilars among payers, providers, and patients. Future studies assessing the tolerability, side effects, and other safety issues of pegfilgrastim biosimilars are needed.

Higher incidence of pegfilgrastim-induced bone pain in younger patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy: a real-world experience

BACKGROUND

Pegfilgrastim is widely used for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for various types of cancer. However, pegfilgrastim-induced bone pain (PIBP) is a relevant adverse event occurring during cancer treatment. Thus, we aimed to determine the risk factors for PIBP in real-world clinical practice.

MAIN BODY

We retrospectively collected the clinical records of patients who received pegfilgrastim to support myelosuppressive chemotherapy with at least a 10% risk of FN between 2015 and 2018 at our center. Patients received pegfilgrastim 3.6 mg between days 2 and 7 after chemotherapy administration (day 1) for primary or secondary prophylaxis against FN. All adverse events were recorded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Patients who experienced intermittent bone pain in the back, femur, or other anatomic sites after the pegfilgrastim administration were considered to have PIBP. To evaluate the relationship between PIBP incidence and patient characteristics, we performed univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) of possible risk factors for PIBP. We analyzed the data of 305 patients (median age: 63 years), who underwent 1220 chemotherapy cycles with pegfilgrastim per cycle. Univariate analysis revealed that female sex (vs. male sex), younger age (< 55 years vs. ≥ 55 years), and solid cancers (vs. hematologic cancers) had significantly higher ORs (p < 0.05). However, only younger age (< 55 years) was an independent risk factor for PIBP on multivariate analysis (OR 3.62, 95% confidence interval 1.51-8.69, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Younger age (< 55 years) was significantly associated with a higher risk of PIBP among patients receiving chemotherapy with a ≥ 10% risk of FN. Therefore, oncologists should meticulously formulate management plan for PIBP in younger patients after administering pegfilgrastim.

Outcome and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Long-acting G-CSF as Primary Prophylaxis of Neutropenia Induced by Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients, From a Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

This retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as primary prophylaxis of neutropenia caused by chemotherapy for breast cancer.

METHODS

Patients with breast cancer who received long- or short-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as primary prophylaxis of neutropenia were enrolled in this study, and incidences of neutropenia were compared between two groups. A decision-analytic and a Markov model were used to compare the health benefits and costs of utilizing long- vs short-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as the primary prophylaxis from the perspective of the Chinese health service system. Subsequently, one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated in baseline and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Patients receiving long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as the primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia experienced a significant lower incidence of this adverse event, compared with the short-acting one for 2 to 7 days. The outcomes of baseline analysis indicated that long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor had a gain of 0.08 quality-adjusted life years and costed $149 more than the short-acting one, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1792 per quality-adjusted life year. The sensitivity analysis proved the stability of our models and economic efficiency of long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor as primary prophylaxis of neutropenia experienced lower risk of this event compared with those underusing short-acting one. The long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor may be a more cost-effective strategy for primary prophylaxis of neutropenia than short-acting one, considering the Chinese willingness-to-pay threshold of $12158.6 per quality-adjusted life year.

Does castration status affect docetaxel-related adverse events? :Identification of risk factors for docetaxel-related adverse events in metastatic prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Docetaxel-related adverse events (AEs) such as neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) can be life-threatening. A previous in vivo study raised the hypothesis that the castration status affects the rate of hematologic AEs. We aimed to investigate the impact of castration status on the incidence of docetaxel-related AE in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 265 mPCa patients treated with docetaxel, comprising 92 patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and 173 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) between January 2015 and December 2021. Common terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was applied to evaluate AEs. We analyzed the differential incidences between mHSPC and mCRPC, and risk factors of hematologic and nonhematologic AEs using a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The rate of patients who received primary prophylaxis against neutropenia was higher in those with the mHSPC compared with those with the mCRPC (7.5% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). Among the patients without primary prophylaxis, incidence rates of severe neutropenia (CTCAE ≥ Grade3) and FN were 89% and 16% in patients with mCRPC compared to 81% and 18% in those with mHSPC. Logistic regression analysis revealed that age ≥ 75 years and failure to provide primary prophylaxis were independent risk factors of severe neutropenia (odds ratio [OR]: 2.39, 95% confidential interval [CI]: 1.10-5.18 and OR: 15.8, 95% CI: 7.23-34.6, respectively). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) ≧ 1 was an independent risk factor of FN (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.13-4.54). Castration status (mHSPC vs. mCRPC) was not associated with the risks of severe neutropenia and FN.

CONCLUSIONS

Castration status did not affect the risk of severe neutropenia or FN in mPCa patients treated with docetaxel regardless of the disease state. Failure to provide primary prophylaxis and advanced patient age are independent risk factors of severe neutropenia; while patients with poor PS are more likely to develop FN. These findings may help guide the clinical decision-making for proper candidate selection of docetaxel treatment.

Safety and Biodistribution Profile of Poly(styrenyl acetal trehalose) and Its Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor Conjugate

Poly(styrenyl acetal trehalose) (pSAT), composed of trehalose side chains linked to a polystyrene backbone via acetals, stabilizes a variety of proteins and enzymes against fluctuations in temperature. A promising application of pSAT is conjugation of the polymer to therapeutic proteins to reduce renal clearance. To explore this possibility, the safety of the polymer was first studied. Investigation of acute toxicity of pSAT in mice showed that there were no adverse effects of the polymer at a high (10 mg/kg) concentration. The immune response (antipolymer antibody and cytokine production) in mice was also studied. No significant antipolymer IgG was detected for pSAT, and only a transient and low level of IgM was elicited. pSAT was also safe in terms of cytokine response. The polymer was then conjugated to a granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF), a therapeutic protein that is approved by the Federal Drug Administration, in order to study the biodistribution of a pSAT conjugate. A site-selective, two-step synthesis approach was developed for efficient conjugate preparation for the biodistribution study resulting in 90% conjugation efficiency. The organ distribution of GCSF-pSAT was measured by positron emission tomography and compared to controls GCSF and GCSF-poly(ethylene glycol), which confirmed that the trehalose polymer conjugate improved the in vivo half-life of the protein by reducing renal clearance. These findings suggest that trehalose styrenyl polymers are promising for use in therapeutic protein-polymer conjugates for reduced renal clearance of the biomolecule.

Evaluating the safety and effectiveness of PegaGen® (pegfilgrastim) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a post-marketing surveillance study

PURPOSE

Phase IV clinical trials are required to evaluate the real-world safety and effectiveness of drugs. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of once-per-cycle administration of PegaGen^® (pegfilgrastim, CinnaGen, Iran) in cancer patients.

METHODS

In this open-label, multicenter, prospective, real-world, post-marketing surveillance study, patients with any type of cancer receiving chemotherapy regimens with a high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) were included if they were prescribed pegfilgrastim for FN prophylaxis. The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety and the secondary objective was to assess the effectiveness of pegfilgrastim in the prevention of FN in cancer patients.

RESULTS

A total of 654 patients (51.73 ± 15.12 years of age) were enrolled and 3615 cycles of pegfilgrastim injections were recorded. The most common malignancies among the study patients were breast cancer (n = 192, 29.36%), lymphoma (n = 131, 20.03%), and gastric cancer (n = 65, 9.94%). The median (Q1, Q3) number of pegfilgrastim cycles per patient was 6 (4, 7). A single 6 mg dose was injected in 99.17% of the cycles. A total number of 816 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 246 patients (37.62%). Bone pain was recorded in 141 patients (21.56%) and in 440 cycles (12.17%). Among all patients, 45 patients (6.88%) experienced FN 51 times, and FN frequency was 1.4% among cycles. Moreover, 14 (2.14%) patients were hospitalized following FN. Antibiotics were administered to 24 patients (3.67%) for FN treatment.

CONCLUSION

The results from this post-marketing surveillance study support the safety and effectiveness of PegaGen^® used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN in patients with various types of cancer and treatment regimens.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04460079.

Impact of G-CSF Prophylaxis on Chemotherapy Dose-Intensity, Link Between Dose-Intensity and Survival in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

In metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, few data are available on the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis and its impact on dose-intensity (DI), or the link between DI and progression-free survival (PFS). This study assessed the impact of G-CSF prophylaxis on the DI received by patients and the relationship between full DI and PFS according to chemotherapy regimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients from three first-line randomized phase II clinical trials were included in this retrospective cohort. G-CSF prophylaxis groups were identified and balanced according to baseline characteristics using a propensity score. Patients were classified into 2 treatment groups (FOLFIRINOX vs FOLFIRI/nab-paclitaxel (NAB)). DI was a binary variable (full/reduced). Adverse events were defined using NCI-CTCAE v4.0.

RESULTS

Of the 498 patients, 154 (31%) were in "prophylaxis" group; 179 (36%) were treated by FOLFIRINOX and 319 (64%) by FOLFIRI/NAB. In FOLFIRINOX group, G-CSF prophylaxis was significantly associated with a higher rate of full DI (OR, 5.07; 95% CI, 1.52-16.90; P < .01) while in FOLFIRI/NAB group, it was significantly associated with a lower rate of full DI (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.83; P = .03). Full DI was associated with a non-significant increase in PFS (FOLFIRINOX group: HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.59-1.16; P = .27; FOLFIRI/NAB group: HR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63-1.11; P = .22).

CONCLUSION

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis was associated with a higher rate of full DI with FOLFIRINOX. Full DI was associated with a non-significant increase in PFS. These results need to be confirmed prospectively.

A prospective study to evaluate febrile neutropenia incidence in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector vs other choices

Purpose

We evaluated the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and related clinical outcomes among patients treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for nonmyeloid malignancies who received pegfilgrastim on-body injector (OBI) or other options (Other) for FN prophylaxis.

Methods

In this prospective observational study, adult patients with breast, prostate, or lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma at risk for FN were stratified into subgroups based on FN prophylaxis used in the first chemotherapy cycle: pegfilgrastim OBI vs Other (pegfilgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim prefilled syringe, daily filgrastim, or no granulocyte colony–stimulating factor [G-CSF]) for up to 4 planned chemotherapy cycles.

Results

This US study enrolled 2575 eligible patients (OBI, 1624; Other, 951). FN incidence was lower in the OBI group (6.4% [95% CI, 5.2–7.6%]) than in the Other group (9.4% [7.5–11.2%]), with a relative risk (RR) of 0.66 (0.47–0.91; p = .006). A decreased risk of dose delays among patients receiving pegfilgrastim OBI vs Other was observed (RR for ≥ 5 days: 0.64 [0.42–0.96], p = .023; RR for ≥ 7 days: 0.62 [0.40–0.91], p = .016). Adherence, defined as G-CSF support for all chemotherapy cycles, was 94.0% (92.9–95.2%) in the OBI group compared with 58.4% (55.2–61.5%) in the Other group. Compliance with pegfilgrastim, defined as administration the day after chemotherapy, was 88.3% in the OBI group and 48.8% in the prefilled syringe group.

Conclusion

Patients receiving pegfilgrastim OBI had a lower incidence of FN compared with those receiving alternatives. The OBI was associated with improved adherence to and compliance with clinically recommended G-CSF prophylaxis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-022-07226-9.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF biosimilars in patients at intermediate/high risk of febrile neutropenia

Background: Real-world data suggests superiority of pegfilgrastim (PEG) over filgrastim (FIL) in reducing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), probably attributable to underdosed FIL in practice. We used real-world data to assess the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis with PEG versus FIL in cancer patients at intermediate-to-high risk of FN from a US payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model with lifetime horizon. Results: For the high-risk group, PEG (vs FIL) biosimilars resulted in 0.43 FN events prevented (FNp), 0.27 quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYg) and a cost saving of USD$5703. For the intermediate-risk group, PEG biosimilar led to 0.18 FNp and 0.12 QALYg, at USD$9674/FNp and USD$14,502/QALYg. Conclusion: PEG biosimilars may provide opportunities to optimize FN management in patients with intermediate-to-high FN risk.

Comparative Study of Adverse Drug Reactions Associated with Filgrastim and Pegfilgrastim Using the EudraVigilance Database

Simple Summary

The most commonly reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to filgrastim (FIL) and pegfilgrastim (PEG-F) were obtained and analyzed from the European EudraVigilance (EV) database. Frequently reported ADRs for FIL and PEG-F are pyrexia, bone pain, back pain, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. No statistical difference in the probability of bone pain between FIL and PEG-F was observed. To further depict the safety of FIL and PEG-F, there is a further need to examine the real-life data.

Abstract

The primary prophylaxis with filgrastim (FIL) and pegfilgrastim (PEG-F) is recommended to decrease the severity of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). The commonly reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) with FIL and PEG-F is bone pain. ADRs pertaining to FIL and PEG-F were extracted from the European EudraVigilance (EV) database. The Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) obtained from EV database that reported FIL and PEG-F as the suspected drug were analyzed. Registered ADRs (from the groups “General disorders and administration site conditions”, “Blood and lymphatic system disorders”, “Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders” and “Investigations”) for FIL and PEG-F were collected from EV database from 2007 to 5 June 2021. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) was used to calculate ICSRs with most common ADRs related to FIL and PEG-F. A total of 17,403 ICSRs described the incidence of most common ADRs of FIL and PEG-F. The commonly reported ADRs for both drugs were pyrexia, bone pain, back pain, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. The odds ratio of ICSRs belonging to the System Organ Class (SOC) “Investigations” (ROR 1.01 (CI 0.93–1.10)) revealed no significant difference in FIL and PEG-F. However, for the SOCs (General disorders and administration site conditions” and “Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders” ((ROR 1.14 (CI 1.06–1.21); ROR 1.21 (CI 1.18–1.32), respectively), an increased reporting probability with PEG-F was found. The authors reported a lower reporting probability for the SOC “Blood and lymphatic system disorders” for FIL versus PEG-F (ROR 0.75 (CI 0.70–0.80)). Our results have demonstrated that the occurrence of bone pain was similar with FIL and PEG-F. For the incidence of pyrexia and back pain, PEG-F was associated with a higher reporting probability as compared to FIL. However, the incidence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia was higher in FIL compared to PEG-F. Further evaluation of data from real life is needed.

Analysis of the Safety of Pegfilgrastim Addition in Bleomycin, Etoposide, and Cisplatin Treatment Patients With Germ Cell Tumors

It has been reported that chemotherapy drugs and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administered on the same day can aggravate neutropenia. In the present study, we investigated the safety of pegfilgrastim during bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) therapy. This single-center retrospective study, including 137 cycles of BEP therapy for germ cell tumors between January 2008 and April 2021, investigated safety. Short-acting G-CSF was used for 84 cycles and pegfilgrastim was used for 53 cycles. In the pegfilgrastim group, neutrophil count at nadir was significantly higher than in the G-CSF group (median 1,650/μl and 680/μl, respectively). The incidence of grade 3–4 neutropenia was significantly higher and the duration longer in the G-CSF group. Also, there was no significant difference in the incidence of febrile neutropenia. In conclusion, concomitant use of pegfilgrastim during BEP therapy did not increase neutropenia and was effective in terms of safety.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo- and Active-Controlled, Escalating Single-Dose Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetic, and Pharmacodynamic Profiles of Subcutaneous Eflapegrastim in Healthy Japanese and Caucasian Subjects

Background

Eflapegrastim (Rolontis^®) is a novel long‐acting pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Eflapegrastim has been developed to reduce the duration and incidence of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in cancer patients using patient-friendly, less-frequent administration.

Objective

This phase I study aimed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD), and immunogenicity of eflapegrastim following a single subcutaneous administration to healthy Japanese and Caucasian subjects.

Methods

A randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, dose-escalation study was conducted in healthy Japanese and Caucasian subjects. Eligible subjects randomly received a single subcutaneous administration of eflapegrastim (1.1, 3.3, 10, 45, 135, and 270 μg/kg), pegfilgrastim 6 mg, or placebo in a ratio of 6:2:2 (Cohorts 1–2, Caucasian subjects only) or 12:2:2 (Cohorts 3–6, Japanese and Caucasian subjects). Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study. Serial blood samples were collected predose and up to day 22 postdose for PK and PD analyses. PK assessments were performed in the 45, 135, and 270 µg/kg dose groups. Antidrug antibodies to eflapegrastim were determined at baseline up to day 42 after the first dose for immunogenicity.

Results

A total of 84 subjects (42 males and 42 females) were enrolled, and 78 (31 Japanese and 47 Caucasian subjects) completed the study as planned. Japanese and Caucasian subjects showed similar PK and PD profiles. In the 45, 135, and 270 µg/kg dose groups, the maximum serum concentration (C_max) of eflapegrastim exhibited a dose-proportional increase, whereas its exposure increased greater than dose proportional in both ethnic groups. The mean area under the effect-time curve (AUEC_last) and maximum serum concentration of both absolute neutrophil count (ANC_max) and CD34⁺ cell count (CD34⁺_max) increased in a dose-dependent manner. There were no significant adverse events attributable to eflapegrastim or pegfilgrastim in both Japanese and Caucasian subjects. No neutralizing antibodies against G‐CSF were detected.

Conclusions

Eflapegrastim was safe and well tolerated at doses up to 270 μg/kg in healthy Japanese and Caucasian subjects. In both ethnic groups, eflapegrastim showed dose-dependent PK and the exposure to eflapegrastim was positively correlated with ANC and CD34⁺ cell count. The comparable PK and PD profiles of eflapegrastim in Japanese and Caucasian subjects may indicate the same dosage regimen is acceptable.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01037543 (23 December 2009).

[G-CSF for prophylaxis of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, anemia in cancer : Guidelines on supportive treatment part 1]

Infections in patients with neutropenia following chemotherapy are mostly manifested as fever (febrile neutropenia, FN). Some of the most important determinants of the risk of FN are the type of chemotherapy, the dose intensity and patient-specific factors. When the risk of FN is 20% or more granulopoiesis is prophylactically stimulated with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) after the treatment. Anemia should always be clarified and if necessary be treated according to the cause when symptomatic. If an absolute or functional iron deficiency is present, intravenous iron substitution is mostly necessary. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents can be used after chemotherapy with hemoglobin (Hb) levels less than 10 g/dl (6.2 mmol/l). In cases of chronic anemia and Hb levels less than 7-8 g/dl (<4.3-5.0 mmol/l) the indications for transfusion of erythrocyte concentrates should be assessed primarily based on the individual clinical symptoms.

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.

Comparison of Primary and Secondary Prophylaxis Using PEGylated Recombinant Human Granulocyte-Stimulating Factor as a Cost-Effective Measure in Malignant Neoplasms: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

Purpose: The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PEGylated recombinant human granulocyte-stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) as a means of achieving primary and secondary prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced neutropenia cancer cases. Methods: Individuals who underwent PEG-rhG-CSF therapeutics were monitored for 12 months, together with thorough examination of individual medical records for extracting medical care costs. Both prophylaxis-based therapeutic options (primary/secondary) were scrutinized for cost-effectiveness, using a decision-making analysis model which derived the perspective of Chinese payers. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess the robustness of the model. Results: In summary, 130 clinical cases treated using PEG-rhG-CSF prophylaxis were included in this study: 51 within the primary prophylaxis (PP) group and 79 within the secondary prophylaxis (SP) group. Compared with SP, PP-based PEG-rhG-CSF successfully contributed to a 14.3% reduction in febrile neutropenia. In general, PP was estimated to reduce costs by $4,701.81 in comparison to SP, with a gain of 0.02 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Equivalent results were found in differing febrile neutropenia (FN) risk subgroups. Sensitivity analyses found the model outputs to be most affected for the average time of hospitalization and for the cost of FN. Conclusion: From the perspective of Chinese payers, PP with PEG-rhG-CSF should be considered cost-effective compared to SP strategies in patients who received chemotherapy regimens with a middle- to high-risk of FN.

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.

BBCIC Research Network Analysis of First-Cycle Prophylactic G-CSF Use in Patients Treated With High-Neutropenia Risk Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is prevented or minimized with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs). Several G-CSF biosimilars are approved in the United States. The Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) is a nonprofit initiative whose objective is to provide scientific evidence on real-world use and comparative safety and effectiveness of biologics and biosimilars using the BBCIC distributed research network (DRN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We describe real-world G-CSF use in patients with breast or lung cancer receiving first-cycle chemotherapy associated with high FN risk. We assessed hospitalizations for FN, availability of absolute neutrophil counts, and G-CSF-induced adverse events to inform future observational comparative effectiveness studies of G-CSF reference products and their biosimilars. A descriptive analysis of 5 participating national health insurance plans was conducted within the BBCIC DRN.

RESULTS

A total of 57,725 patients who received at least one G-CSF dose were included. Most (92.5%) patients received pegfilgrastim. FN hospitalization rates were evaluated by narrow (<0.5%), intermediate (1.91%), and broad (2.99%) definitions. Anaphylaxis and hyperleukocytosis were identified in 1.15% and 2.28% of patients, respectively. This analysis provides real-world evidence extracted from a large, readily available database of diverse patients, characterizing G-CSF reference product use to inform the feasibility of future observational comparative safety and effectiveness analyses of G-CSF biosimilars. We showed that the rates of FN and adverse events in our research network are consistent with those reported by previous small studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Readily available BBCIC DRN data can be used to assess G-CSF use with the incidence of FN hospitalizations. Insufficient laboratory result data were available to report absolute neutrophil counts; however, other safety data are available for assessment that provide valuable baseline data regarding the effectiveness and safety of G-CSFs in preparation for comparative effectiveness studies of reference G-CSFs and their biosimilars.

A phase II study of FOLFIRINOX with primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim for chemotherapy-naïve Japanese patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Although FOLFIRINOX is currently one of the standard therapies for chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC), the high rate of febrile neutropenia (FN) presents a clinical problem. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim with FOLFIRINOX in Japanese MPC patients.

METHODS

FOLFIRINOX (intravenous oxaliplatin 85 mg/m², irinotecan 180 mg/m², levofolinate 200 mg/m², 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) bolus 400 mg/m² and 5-FU 46 h infusion 2400 mg/m²) and pegfilgrastim 3.6 mg on day 4 or 5, every 2 weeks was administered to previously untreated MPC patients. The primary endpoint was the incidence of FN during the first 3 cycles. The planned sample size was 35 patients, but the trial was predefined to discontinue enrollment for safety if 4 patients developed FN.

RESULTS

At the enrollment of 22 patients, 4 patients developed FN in the first cycle, resulting in an incidence of FN of 18% {95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-40.3%}, and enrollment was discontinued early. The incidence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia was 36.4%. Median relative dose intensities during the initial 3 cycles of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, bolus 5-FU, infusional 5-FU, and levofolinate maintained high (100%, 89.0%, 100%, 66.0%, and 100%, respectively). Response rate and median overall survival were 54.5% (95% CI 32.7-74.9) and 15.7 months (95% CI 7.9-18.8), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This phase II study could not demonstrate any reduction in the incidence of FN, nevertheless some patients experience benefits for efficacy by maintaining dose intensity using prophylactic pegfilgrastim.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index-j.htm , UMIN000017538. Date of registration: May/13/2015.

Long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor pegfilgrastim (lipegfilgrastim) for stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard of care in newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Several studies before the introduction of novel therapies in MM, demonstrated a pegylated G-CSF to be successful in mobilizing peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs). Lipegfilgrastim is a novel long-acting G-CSF that is produced by the conjugation of a single 20-kDa polyethelene glycol to the natural O-glycosylation site of G-CSF. Twenty-four MM patients were included for PBSCs mobilization with a single SC injection of 6 mg lipegfilgrastim. PBSC collection was started when the CD34⁺ count was > 10 × 10⁶ cells/L. The target progenitor cells were 6 × 10⁶ cells/kg. The median day of apheresis was + 3 (range 2-5) following lipegfilgrastim. Median peripheral blood CD34⁺ count pre-mobilization was of 22.65 (range 3.36-105) × 10⁶ cells/L. The median number of leukaphaeresis procedures was 2 (range 1-4). The median mobilized CD34⁺ cells/kg were 8.26 (range 0.77-12.42). One patient failed to mobilize and two patients mobilized < 6 × 10⁶ cells/kg. Toxicity was mild and transient. Twenty-three patients underwent ASCT following high dose melphalan. All patients engrafted. As lipegfilgrastim is administered only once, it is conceivable that it improves both compliance and quality-of-life (NCT02488382).

A clinical study of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) in preventing neutropenia during concurrent chemoradiotherapy of cervical cancer

Purpose

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) in preventing neutropenia during chemoradiotherapy in patients with cervical cancer.

Methods

From August 2018 to April 2020, 60 patients who were pathologically confirmed as cervical cancer were randomly divided into two groups at a ratio of 2:1: PEG-modified-rhG-CSF experimental group and control group. The primary endpoints were the incidence of grade 3–4 neutropenia. Secondary endpoints included the duration of grade 3–4 neutropenia, the incidence of grade 4 neutropenia, the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), delay rate of chemotherapy, prolonged time of chemotherapy, time to complete radiotherapy and safety.

Results

The incidence of grade 3–4 neutropenia in the experimental group was significantly lower than the control group (10% vs. 77.78%, P < 0.001). However, there was no statistical significance between the two groups in the duration of grade 3–4 neutropenia (3.75 days vs. 5.07 days, P = 0.871). The experimental group was better than the control group in the incidence of grade 4 neutropenia, the incidence of FN and delay rate of chemotherapy, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Besides, the prolonged time of chemotherapy and the time to complete radiotherapy in the experimental group were less than those in the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The incidence of adverse events in the experimental group and control group were 55.00 and 94.44%, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.003).

Conclusion

PEG-rhG-CSF preventive treatment used in the course of chemoradiotherapy for patients with cervical cancer can reduce the incidence of neutropenia and improve the incidence of delayed chemotherapy cycles.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04542356. Registered 9 September 2020 - Retrospectively registered.

G-CSF as a suitable alternative to GM-CSF to boost dinutuximab-mediated neutrophil cytotoxicity in neuroblastoma treatment

BACKGROUND

Current immunotherapy for patients with high-risk neuroblastoma involves the therapeutic antibody dinutuximab that targets GD2, a ganglioside expressed on the majority of neuroblastoma tumors. Opsonized tumor cells are killed through antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC), a process mediated by various immune cells, including neutrophils. The capacity of neutrophils to kill dinutuximab-opsonized tumor cells can be further enhanced by granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), which has been shown in the past to improve responses to anti-GD2 immunotherapy. However, access to GM-CSF (sargramostim) is limited outside of Northern America, creating a high clinical need for an alternative method to stimulate dinutuximab responsiveness in the treatment of neuroblastoma. In this in vitro study, we have investigated whether clinically well-established granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) can be a potentially suitable alternative for GM-CSF in the dinutuximab immunotherapy regimen of patients with neuroblastoma.

METHODS

We compared the capacity of neutrophils stimulated either in vitro or in vivo with GM-CSF or G-CSF to kill dinutuximab-opsonized GD2-positive neuroblastoma cell lines and primary patient tumor material. Blocking experiments with antibodies inhibiting either respective Fc gamma receptors (FcγR) or neutrophil integrin CD11b/CD18 demonstrated the involvement of these receptors in the process of ADCC. Flow cytometry and live cell microscopy were used to quantify and visualize neutrophil-neuroblastoma interactions.

RESULTS

We found that G-CSF was as potent as GM-CSF in enhancing the killing capacity of neutrophils towards neuroblastoma cells. This was observed with in vitro stimulated neutrophils, and with in vivo stimulated neutrophils from both patients with neuroblastoma and healthy donors. Enhanced killing due to GM-CSF or G-CSF stimulation was consistent regardless of dinutuximab concentration, tumor-to-neutrophil ratio and concentration of the stimulating cytokine. Both GM-CSF and G-CSF stimulated neutrophils required FcγRIIa and CD11b/CD18 integrin to perform ADCC, and this was accompanied by trogocytosis of tumor material by neutrophils and tumor cell death in both stimulation conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our preclinical data support the use of G-CSF as an alternative stimulating cytokine to GM-CSF in the treatment of high-risk neuroblastoma with dinutuximab, warranting further testing of G-CSF in a clinical setting.

Pooled Analysis on the Effectiveness and Safety of Lipegfilgrastim in Patients With Urological Malignancies in the Real-World Setting

Lipegfilgrastim is a long-acting glycopegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) approved for the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. In general, there is little information on the use of any G-CSFs specifically in patients with urological malignancies receiving chemotherapy. This report combines information from two prospective non-interventional studies on the prophylactic use of lipegfilgrastim in urological cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in the real-world setting. Data were derived from two phase IV studies (NADIR and LEOS) with similar protocols conducted in nine European countries. Analysis included 228 patients (142 prostate, 50 testicular, 27 bladder, and 9 other urological cancers). Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia risk was classified as high (43.0%), intermediate (49.1%), or low (7.5%). Lipegfilgrastim was administered as primary (n=180, 78.9%) or secondary (n=29, 12.7%) prophylaxis. The incidence of febrile neutropenia over all chemotherapy cycles (n=998) and first cycles (n=228) for which lipegfilgrastim was administered for prophylaxis was 2.6% and 1.3%, respectively. Corresponding results for Grade 3/4 neutropenia were 2.2% and 0.9%, respectively. Adverse drug reactions occurred in 24 patients (10.5%): those in more than one patient were bone pain (n=6, 2.6%) and pyrexia (n=3, 1.3%). The use of lipegfilgrastim for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia was effective and well tolerated in patients with urological malignancies in the real-world setting.

Incidence and predictive risk factors of neutropenic sepsis in post-chemotherapy febrile patients in emergency department: A single-center retrospective longitudinal study

Introduction:

Neutropenic sepsis is an emergency sequela in post-chemotherapy fever. Its definition comprises of spectrums of diseases with variable quoted mortality. This study aims to evaluate the incidence of “modified” neutropenic sepsis, with a more stringent definition employed. Predictive risk factors toward occurrence of “modified” neutropenic sepsis among Chinese patients would also be explored.

Methods:

A single-center retrospective longitudinal study was conducted in a medium-sized regional hospital in Hong Kong. All patients with diagnoses of post-chemotherapy fever fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria were recruited. Baseline characteristics and outcome variables of each case subject were collected. Six potential predictive risk factors were chosen for further analysis. Case subjects were followed up for the inpatient progress and outcomes. Relative risks of each risk factor to “modified” neutropenic sepsis were calculated.

Results:

A total of 135 case subjects were recruited. Five developed “modified” neutropenic sepsis, that is, incidence 3.70% (95% confidence interval = 1.59%–8.38%). Only background hematological malignancy was found to be significantly associated with the outcome of “modified” neutropenic sepsis (Relative Risk [RR] 13.2, 95% confidence interval = 1.56–115.70, p = 0.010), with an incidence of 12.9% (95% confidence interval = 5.14%–28.85%). Hematological malignancy was also found to be significantly associated with lower median absolute neutrophil counts (0.95 × 109/L vs 2.3 × 109/L, p = 0.005) and longer median hospital stay (8 days vs 6 days, p < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Incidence of “modified” neutropenic sepsis is low. Hematological malignancy is associated with significantly higher rate of “modified” neutropenic sepsis.

Prophylaxis of neutropenia with mecapegfilgrastim in patients with non-myeloid malignancies: a real-world study

Background

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is commonly encountered in clinical practice. The management of neutropenia has been evolving from short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) to long-acting G-CSFs. However, an evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of long-acting G-CSFs in clinical practice is still lacking.

Methods

This multicenter, non-interventional study was aimed at exploring the safety and effectiveness of mecapegfilgrastim in different cancer patients in China. All patients provided written informed consent prior to the study and were treated according to routine clinical practice. Different prophylactic strategies (primary or secondary prophylaxis) were also compared.

Results

This study included 638 patients from May 2019 to November 2020. More than half of the participants were breast cancer patients. The mean age of all the patients was 56 years. White blood cell increase (6.2%) was the most frequently reported adverse event (AE) possibly related to the study drug. No unexpected AEs were reported. Grade ≥3 neutropenia in chemotherapy treatment cycle 1 was reported in 36 (5.6%) patients. Incidence of grade ≥3 neutropenia in cycle 1 in the primary and secondary prophylaxis subgroups were of 4.3% and 9.2%, respectively. A decreasing trend of severe neutropenia incidence was observed from cycle 1 to cycle 4.

Conclusions

Mecapegfilgrastim was generally well tolerated, and no unexpected AEs were observed in this study. Primary administration of mecapegfilgrastim led to a lower incidence of neutropenia than did secondary administration. Continuous administration of mecapegfilgrastim could keep the incidence of neutropenia to a relatively low level.

Comparing the efficacy and side-effects of PDLASTA® (Pegfilgrastim) with PDGRASTIM® (Filgrastim) in breast cancer patients: a non-inferiority randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and side effects of a single dose (Pegfilgrastim or PDL) or repeated six daily injections (Filgrastim or PDG) during chemotherapy courses in breast cancer patients in a non-inferiority clinical trial.

METHODS

In this randomized clinical trial, 80 patients were recruited and allocated randomly to two equal arms. In one group, a single subcutaneous dose of PDL was injected the day after receiving the chemotherapy regimen in each cycle. The second arm received a subcutaneous injection of PDG for six consecutive days in each cycle of treatment. The side effects of GCF treatment and its effect on blood parameters were compared in each cycle and during eight cycles of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Hematologic parameters showed no significant differences in any of the treatment courses between the two study groups. The comparison of WBC (p = 0.527), Hgb (p = 0.075), Platelet (p = 0.819), Neutrophil (p = 0.575), Lymphocyte (p = 705) and ANC (p = 0.675) changes during the eight courses of treatment also revealed no statistically significant difference between the two study groups. Side effects including headache, injection site reaction and muscle pain had a lower frequency in patients receiving PDL drugs.

CONCLUSION

It seems that PDL is non-inferior in efficacy and also less toxic than PDG. Since PDL can be administered in a single dose and is also less costly, it can be regarded as a cost-effective drug for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

IRCT20190504043465N1 , May 2019.

Comparison of Long-Acting G-CSF (PD-Lasta) with Short-Acting G-CSF (PD-Grastim) in Neutrophil Recovery Following Consolidation Chemotherapy with High-Dose Cytarabine in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients are often neutropenic as a result of their disease alone or following their chemotherapy. In this randomized clinical trial the efficacy of Iranian short-acting (PD-Grastim) and long-acting G-CSF (PD-Lasta) were compared in term of time to recovery from neutropenia in de novo AML patients following the consolidation chemotherapy.

Materials andMethods: Patients (n = 51) received one or two courses of Cytarabine and Daunorubicin as an induction. If complete remission was achieved, the treatment was followed by high-dose Cytarabine as consolidation chemotherapy. Twenty- four hours after the consolidation chemotherapy, patient were randomized to receive either daily short-acting G-CSF (PD-Grastim) (300 µg/kg) or single-dose long-acting G-CSF (PD-Lasta) (6 mg).

Results: The median time to recovery of neutrophils was 11.00 and 13.00 days for short-acting G-CSF (PD-Grastim) (n=22) and long-acting G-CSF (PD-Lasta) (n=29) groups, respectively (U=186.5, P>0.05 two-tailed). Incidence of adverse effects was similar in both short-acting G-CSF (PD-Grastim) and long-acting G-CSF (PD-Lasta) groups.

Conclusion: Overall, data show that Iranian long-acting G-CSF (PD-Lasta) was not significantly different with Iranian short-acting G-CSF (PD-Grastim).

Randomized and dose-escalation trials of recombinant human serum albumin /granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline-containing chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of recombinant human serum albumin /granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rHSA/G-CSF) in breast cancer following receipt of cytotoxic agents.

METHODS

The phase 1b trial assessed the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of dose-escalation, ranging from rHSA/G-CSF 1800 μg, 2100 μg, and 2400 μg. Randomized controlled phase 2b trial was further conducted to ensure the comparative efficacy and safety of rHSA/G-CSF 2400 μg and rhG-CSF 5 μg/kg. In multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel, phase 2 study, participants treated with anthracycline-containing chemotherapy were assigned in a ratio 1:1:1 to receive double delivery of rHSA/G-CSF 1200 μg, 1500 μg, and continuous rhG-CSF 5 μg/kg.

RESULTS

Between December 16, 2014, to July 23, 2018, a total of 320 patients were enrolled, including 25 individuals in phase 1b trial, 80 patients in phase 2b trial, and 215 participants in phase 2 study. The mean duration of agranulocytosis during the first chemotherapeutic intermission was observed as 1.14 ± 1.35 days in rHSA/G-CSF 1500 μg, which was comparable with that of 1.07 ± 0.97 days obtained in rhG-CSF control (P = 0.71). Safety profiles were assessed to be acceptable ranging from rHSA/G-CSF 1800 μg to 2400 μg, while the double delivery of HSA/G-CSF 2400 μg failed to meet the noninferiority in comparison with rhG-CSF.

CONCLUSION

The prospective randomized controlled trials demonstrated that rHSA/G-CSF was efficacious and well-tolerated with an approachable frequency and expense of application for prophylactic management of agranulocytosis. The double delivery of rHSA/G-CSF 1500 μg in comparisons with paralleling G-CSF preparations is warranted in the phase 3 trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02465801 (11/17/2014), NCT03246009 (08/08/2017), NCT03251768 (08/07/2017).

Long-term patient reported outcomes and hematologic toxicity among patients who received Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factors during chemotherapy for early breast cancer

We assessed long-term associations of Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factors (G-CSF) use with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and hematologic toxicity among chemotherapy-treated, early-stage breast cancer patients in CANTO (NCT01993498). Among 2920 patients longitudinally followed-up until year-4 after diagnosis, 49% used G-CSF. In multivariable-adjusted mixed-models, EORTC QLQ-C30 pain and summary score were not substantially different between groups (overall adjusted mean difference, use vs no-use [95%CI]: +1.27 [-0.33 to +2.87] and -1.01 [-1.98 to -0.04], respectively). PROs were slightly worse at year-4 among patients receiving G-CSF, although differences were of trivial clinical significance. No major differences were observed in leukocyte or platelet count over time.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in children with acute leukaemia

AIMS

This open-label, phase I study evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in children with acute leukaemia.

METHODS

PEG-rhG-CSF was administered as a single 100 mcg/kg (3 mg maximum dose) subcutaneous injection at the end of each chemotherapy period when neutropenia occurred. Blood samples were obtained from patients treated with PEG-rhG-CSF. PEG-rhG-CSF serum concentrations were determined by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Population pharmacokinetic (PPK) analysis was implemented using the nonlinear mixed-effects model. Short-term safety was evaluated through adverse events collection (registered at clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 03844360).

RESULTS

A total of 16 acute leukaemia patients (1.8-13.6 years) were included, of whom two (12.5%) had grade 3 neutropenia, six (37.5%) had grade 4 neutropenia, and eight (50.0%) had severe neutropenia. For PPK modelling, 64 PEG-rhG-CSF serum concentrations were obtainable. A one-compartment model with first-order elimination was used for pharmacokinetic data modelling. The current weight was a significant covariate. The median (range) of clearance (CL) and area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) were 5.65 (1.49-14.45) mL/h/kg and 16514.75 (6632.45-54423.30) ng·h/mL, respectively. Bone pain, pyrexia, anaphylaxis and nephrotoxicity were not observed. One patient died 13 days after administration, and the objective assessment of causality was that an association with PEG-rhG-CSF was "possible".

CONCLUSIONS

The AUC of PEG-rhG-CSF (100 mcg/kg, 3 mg maximum dose) in paediatric patients with acute leukaemia were similar to those of PEG-rhG-CSF (100 mcg/kg) in children with sarcoma. PEG-rhG-CSF is safe, representing an important therapeutic option for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in paediatric patients with acute leukaemia.

Advances in the pharmacological management of neutropenia in solid tumors: the advent of biosimilars

Introduction: Severe neutropenia and infections are potentially life-threatening complications of cytotoxic antineoplastic therapies and often require hospitalization with a severe economic impact. Furthermore, hematological toxicity frequently results in chemotherapy dose reductions and delays that could interfere with disease control.Areas covered: This review provides an overview of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) including pegylated molecules, as well as more recent biosimilar G-CSFs, focusing on the toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of these compounds.Expert opinion: The administration of hematopoietic growth factors in primary and secondary prophylaxis of neutropenia is a standard supportive care measure. Recently, several biosimilars have been developed. The market for biosimilar agents seems to be increasing over time thanks to their similar effectiveness and safety, compared with their originators, but lower costs.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Hematopoietic Growth Factors, Version 1.2020

Management of febrile neutropenia (FN) is an integral part of supportive care for patients undergoing cancer treatment. The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors provide suggestions for appropriate evaluation, risk determination, prophylaxis, and management of FN. These NCCN Guidelines are intended to guide clinicians in the appropriate use of growth factors for select patients undergoing treatment of nonmyeloid malignancies. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight important updates to the NCCN Guidelines regarding the incorporation of newly FDA-approved granulocyte-colony stimulating factor biosimilars for the prevention and treatment of FN.

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.

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.

[Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a prospective control trial]

OBJECTIVE

To study the pharmacokinetic characteristics, clinical effect, and safety of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

METHODS

A prospective study was performed on children with ALL who cyclophosphamide, cytarabine, and 6-mercaptopurine were used for consolidation therapy. PEG-rhG-CSF (PEG-rhG-CSF group) or rhG-CSF (rhG-CSF group) was injected after chemotherapy. The plasma concentration of PEG-rhG-CSF was measured, and clinical outcome and safety were observed for both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 17 children with ALL were enrolled, with 9 children in the PEG-rhG-CSF group and 8 children in the rhG-CSF group. In the PEG-rhG-CSF group, the peak concentration of PEG-rhG-CSF was 348.2 ng/mL (range 114.7-552.0 ng/mL), the time to peak was 48 hours (range 12-72 hours), and the half life was 14.1 hours (range 11.1-18.1 hours). The plasma concentration curve of PEG-rhG-CSF was consistent with the mechanism of neutrophil-mediated clearance. Compared with the rhG-CSF group, the PEG-rhG-CSF group had a significantly shorter median time to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery (P<0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in ANC nadir, incidence rate of febrile neutropenia, duration of grade IV neutropenia, incidence rate of infection, and length of hospital stay. No bone pain or muscle soreness was observed in either group (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacokinetic characteristics of PEG-rhG-CSF in children with ALL receiving consolidation chemotherapy are consistent with the mechanism of neutrophil-mediated clearance, with a short half life and fast recovery of ANC, and there are no significant differences in safety between PEG-rhG-CSF and rhG-CSF.