Aortitis after switching short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in a lymphoma patient with HLA-B52

Aortitis is a rare adverse event of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) treatment. Several previous studies have described recurrent aortitis caused by re-administration of the same G-CSF. However, no previous studies have examined the safety of switching between short-acting G-CSFs in patients who develop aortitis. We report the case of a 55-year-old man with refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, who developed G-CSF-associated aortitis. The aortitis was triggered by filgrastim and recurred after treatment with lenograstim. The patient possessed human leukocyte antigen B52, which has been implicated in Takayasu arteritis. In addition, a drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation test for lenograstim performed upon detection of recurrent G-CSF-associated aortitis produced a positive result. Our case suggests that switching from one short-acting G-CSF to another does not prevent recurrence of G-CSF-associated aortitis. Although the etiology of G-CSF-associated aortitis has not been fully elucidated, our case also suggests that some patients may be genetically predisposed to aortitis.

Optimal timing of prophylactic pegylated G-CSF after chemotherapy administration for patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022

INTRODUCTION

The timing of prophylactic pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration during cancer chemotherapy varies, with Day 2 and Days 3-5 being the most common schedules. Optimal timing remains uncertain, affecting efficacy and adverse events. This systematic review sought to evaluate the available evidence on the timing of prophylactic pegylated G-CSF administration.

METHODS

Based on the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development, we searched the PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and Cochrane Library databases for literature published from January 1990 to December 2019. The inclusion criteria included studies among the adult population using pegfilgrastim. The search strategy focused on timing-related keywords. Two reviewers independently extracted and assessed the data.

RESULTS

Among 300 initial search results, only four articles met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis for febrile neutropenia incidence suggested a potential higher incidence when pegylated G-CSF was administered on Days 3-5 than on Day 2 (odds ratio: 1.27, 95% CI 0.66-2.46, p = 0.47), with a moderate certainty of evidence. No significant difference in overall survival or mortality due to infections was observed. The trend of severe adverse events was lower on Days 3-5, without statistical significance (odds ratio: 0.72, 95% CI 0.14-3.67, p = 0.69) and with a moderate certainty of evidence. Data on pain were inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

Both Day 2 and Days 3-5 were weakly recommended for pegylated G-CSF administration post-chemotherapy in patients with cancer. The limited evidence highlights the need for further research to refine recommendations.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Characteristics of Tripegfilgrastim, a Pegylated G-CSF, in Pediatric Patients with Solid Tumors

A long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, tripegfilgrastim, was approved in Korea for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in adult patients. In this study, we evaluated the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of tripegfilgrastim in pediatric patients. A phase I, open-label, single ascending-dose study was performed in pediatric patients with solid tumors or lymphoma (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02963389). The patients were stratified according to age groups (aged 6 to 12 or 12 to 19 years) and received a single subcutaneous dose of tripegfilgrastim 60 μg/kg or 100 μg/kg. Tripegfilgrastim was administered 24 hours after the end of the chemotherapy, and serial blood sampling and safety monitoring were conducted. Twenty-seven patients with solid tumors were enrolled in this study. Tripegfilgrastim was detectable in plasma for an extended period (terminal half-life > 40 hours), and plasma concentrations increased slightly less than dose proportionally. The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia was reduced as the average tripegfilgrastim concentration during the initial neutrophil recovery process increased. No substantial differences in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses were observed between the two age groups. When stratified by body weight, weighing more than 45 kg has a higher risk of a prolonged neutropenia period when receiving the lower dose (60 μg/kg) of tripegfilgrastim. Tripegfilgrastim was generally safe and well-tolerated in the pediatric patients. These results justify further clinical investigations of tripegfilgrastim at 100 μg/kg dose in pediatric patients.

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.

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.

Predicting Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia and Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Response Using Model-Based In Vitro to Clinical Translation

The ability to predict the incidence of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in early drug development can inform risk monitoring and mitigation strategies, as well as decisions on advancing compounds to clinical trials. In this report, a physiological model of granulopoiesis that incorporates the drug's mechanism of action on cell cycle proliferation of bone marrow progenitor cells was extended to include the action of the cytotoxic agents paclitaxel, carboplatin, doxorubicin, and gemcitabine. In vitro bone marrow studies were conducted with each compound, and results were used to determine the model's drug effect parameters. Population simulations were performed to predict the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and incidence of neutropenia for each compound, which were compared to results reported in the literature. In addition, using the single agent in vitro study results, the model was able to predict ANC time course in response to paclitaxel plus carboplatin in combination, which compared favorably to the results reported in a phase 1 clinical trial of 46 patients (r2 = 0.70). Model simulations were used to compare the relative risk (RR) of neutropenia in patients with high baseline ANCs for five chemotherapeutic regimens: doxorubicin (RR = 0.59), paclitaxel plus carboplatin combination (RR = 0.079), carboplatin (RR = 0.047), paclitaxel (RR = 0.031), and gemcitabine (RR = 0.013). Finally, the model was applied to quantify the reduced incidence of neutropenia with coadministration of pegfilgrastim or filgrastim, for both paclitaxel and the combination of paclitaxel plus carboplatin. The model provides a framework for predicting clinical neutropenia using in vitro bone marrow studies of anticancer agents that may guide drug development decisions.

Administration of docetaxel plus ramucirumab with primary prophylactic pegylated-granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for pretreated non-small cell lung cancer: a phase II study

PURPOSE

Although docetaxel plus ramucirumab has shown superior treatment efficacy over docetaxel monotherapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the high rate of febrile neutropenia (FN) presents a clinical problem. This study aimed to validate the primary prophylactic use of pegfilgrastim with docetaxel and ramucirumab treatment in Japanese patients with NSCLC.

METHODS

Patients with NSCLC with progression after at least one round of chemotherapy were enrolled and administered docetaxel (60 mg/m2) plus ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) intravenously on day 1, followed by pegylated-granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (3.6 mg) on day 2 of a 21-day treatment cycle. The primary study endpoint was the percentage of patients who developed FN. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, progression-free survival, overall response rate, and safety.

RESULTS

Overall, 20 patients (15 men and 5 women) were enrolled, of whom one developed FN, resulting in an overall FN rate of 5%. The response and disease control rates were 40% and 85%, respectively. The median progression-free survival was 6.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-NR) months. The median overall survival was 18.4 (95% CI, 2.2-11.0) months. Six patients aged over 75 years were included in this study, and although most adverse events were durable, ramucirumab-associated adverse events occurred more frequently in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a 5% FN rate using primary prophylactic pegylated-granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with docetaxel plus ramucirumab in Japanese patients with NSCLC. While most adverse events were durable, elderly patients should be closely monitored.

Economic modeling for the US of the cost-efficiency and associated expanded treatment access of conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez from reference pegfilgrastim

Aims: For this economic analysis, we aimed to model: (1) the cost-efficiency of prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) compared to reference pegfilgrastim, and (2) the expanded access to CIN/FN prophylaxis and anti-neoplastic treatment that could be achieved with biosimilar cost-savings on a budget-neutral basis.Methods: In a hypothetical panel of 20,000 cancer patients receiving CIN/FN prophylaxis and using the average sales price (ASP) for the second quarter of 2019 for reference pegfilgrastim, we: conducted an ex ante simulation from the payer perspective of the cost-savings of 10-100% conversion from reference to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez using drug price discounting ranging from 10-35%; estimated the budget-neutral expanded access to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez enabled by these cost-savings; and estimated the budget-neutral expanded access to anti-neoplastic treatment with pembrolizumab. The simulations were replicated using fourth quarter 2019 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for reference pegfilgrastim and biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez in a post facto analysis.Results: In ASP simulations, cost-savings of using pegfilgrastim-bmez over reference pegfilgrastim in a 20,000 patient panel range from $1.3 M (at 15% price discount) to $3 M (35%) at 10% conversion rate and from $6.4 M to $14.9 M, respectively, at 50% conversion. These savings could provide prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim-bmez to an additional 352 (15% discount) to 1,076 patients (35%) at 10% conversion or 1,764-5,384, respectively, at 50% conversion. Alternatively, savings could be reallocated for anti-neoplastic treatment with pembrolizumab to 3 (15% discount) to 9 (35%) patients at 10% conversion or 19-45, respectively, at 50% conversion. When utilizing WAC, cost-savings range from $4.6 M (10% conversion) to $23.1 M (50%) which could provide pegfilgrastim-bmez to an additional 1,174 (10% conversion) to 5,873 patients (50%).Conclusions: Prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez increases the value of cancer care by generating significant cost-savings that could be reallocated to provide expanded access to CIN/FN prevention and anti-neoplastic therapy on a budget-neutral basis.

Myocarditis and carotidynia caused by Granulocyte-Colony stimulating factor administration

A 59 year-old woman was treated with adjuvant chemotherapy for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) stage IB. She received pegfilgrastrim as secondary prophylaxis of neutropenia. After administration of pegfilgrastrim on day 11, she was hospitalised because of carotidynia and myocarditis that improved with antibiotics and steroids as an infection was suspected. Once she was recovered, another cycle of chemotherapy with pegfilgrastrim was administrated. At this time, the patient presented to our hospital with fever, odynophagia and chest pain, with diagnosis of myocarditis coupled with cardiogenic shock. She received antibiotics and steroids, advanced life support and also a pericardial window was done, with recovery of her condition. After a complete evaluation and exclusion of other possible aetiologies, we concluded that pegfilgrastrim was responsible for inducing carotidynia and myocarditis. Few cases have been published about Granulocyte-Colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) induced carotidynia and aortitis. However, this is the first reported case about G-CSF induced myocarditis and carotidynia.

Biosimilar Uptake in Medicare Part B Varied Across Hospital Outpatient Departments and Physician Practices: The Case of Filgrastim

OBJECTIVES

To examine the uptake of filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio), the first biosimilar to launch in the United States, in the Medicare Part B fee-for-service program from its launch in September 2015 to December 2017 and compare characteristics of patients and facilities that used filgrastim-sndz or originator filgrastim (Neupogen).

METHODS

The 20% sample of Medicare Part B fee-for-service administrative claims data was used to extract information on claims for any filgrastim product between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017.

RESULTS

The utilization of filgrastim-sndz in Medicare Part B increased sharply between January and August 2016, surpassing filgrastim by November 2017, contributing to a 30% decrease in overall spending on this drug since 2015. Uptake was faster and larger in physician practices compared with hospital outpatient departments. About 77% of patients receiving filgrastim-sndz were new users. Utilization patterns indicated that product selection occurred at the facility level, rather than being at the discretion of the prescribing physician or driven by patient characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Uptake of biosimilar filgrastim in the Medicare Part B program occurred despite multiple challenges to the adoption of biosimilars in the US market, suggesting that substantial potential savings could be generated by improving biosimilar uptake. Our findings indicated that physician practices and hospital outpatient departments have distinctive biosimilar uptake patterns. Thus policy makers aiming to contain Medicare Part B spending might consider focusing on incentivizing biosimilar uptake among hospital outpatient departments.

Febrile neutropenia hospitalization due to pegfilgrastim on-body injector failure compared to single-injection pegfilgrastim and daily injections with reference and biosimilar filgrastim: US cost simulation for lung cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Background: Guidelines recommend febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis following myelotoxic chemotherapy with either daily injections of filgrastim (Neupogen^®) or biosimilar filgrastim-sndz (Zarzio/Zarxio^®), single-injection pegfilgrastim (Neulasta^®), or pegfilgrastim administered through an on-body injector (PEG-OBI; Neulasta^® Onpro^®). PEG-OBI failure rates up to 6.9% have been reported, putting patients at incremental risk for FN and FN-related hospitalization. Our objective was to estimate, from a US payer perspective, the incremental costs of FN hospitalizations and the total incremental costs associated with PEG-OBI prophylaxis at varying device failure rates over assured FN prophylaxis with daily injections of filgrastim or filgrastim-sndz or a single injection of pegfilgrastim.Methods: Cost simulations comparing prophylaxis with PEG-OBI at failure rates of 1-10% versus assured prophylaxis in cycle 1 of chemotherapy were performed for panels of 10,000 patients with lung cancer treated with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (1 analysis) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) treated with CHOP or CNOP (2 analyses). Daily injection scenarios were 4.3, 5, and 11 injections for lung cancer and 5, 6.5, and 11 for NHL. The analyses are from the US payer perspective.Results: For lung cancer, the total incremental cost of PEG-OBI prophylaxis at varying failure rates and durations ranged from $6,691,969‒$31,765,299 over filgrastim and $18,901,969‒$36,538,299 over filgrastim-sndz. For NHL, in scenario 1, the total incremental costs ranged from $6,794,984‒$30,361,345 over filgrastim and $19,004,984‒$35,911,345 over filgrastim-sndz; in scenario 2, the incremental costs ranged from $7,003,657‒$32,448,067 over filgrastim and $19,213,657‒$37,998,067 over filgrastim-sndz.Conclusions: In this simulation, the incremental costs of FN-related hospitalization due to PEG-OBI failure in cycle 1 compared to assured prophylaxis with reference pegfilgrastim, reference filgrastim, and biosimilar filgrastim-sndz varied depending upon the PEG-OBI failure rate and the alternative G-CSF prophylaxis option. Biosimilar filgrastim-sndz offers the greatest cost-efficiency.

The use of granulocyte colony stimulating factor after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Restrospective study to evaluate the efficacy of early vs. delayed initiation of G-CSF after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) in patients with lymphoid malignancies.

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is commonly used after AHSCT to accelerate stem cell engraftment to minimize the morbidity and mortality associated with prolonged neutropenia. However, there is no consensus on the optimal timing of G-CSF after HSCT.

METHODS

A total of 117 patients with lymphoid malignancies who underwent AHSCT were included. All patients received G-CSF (filgrastim 5 μg/kg s.c.) daily after AHSCT (43 patients on day 6-8 and 74 patients on day 3 or 4). All patients received standard conditioning regimen for the underlying disease, and standard supportive treatment, including treatment of febrile neutropenia.

RESULTS

The incidence of severe neutropenia was 81 % vs 17 %, and very severe neutropenia 61 % vs 4 % in the delayed and early G-CSF groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). The rate of fungal infection was higher in the group of patients who received delayed G-CSF (p < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

An early administration of G-CSF after AHSCT (on day 3 or 4) accelerates neutophil engraftment; decreases the incidence of severe neutropenia and the risk of infectious complications (especially fungal infections) (Tab. 1, Fig. 3, Ref. 22).

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and immunogenicity of Pelmeg®, a pegfilgrastim biosimilar in healthy subjects

A pharmacokinetics (PK)/pharmacodynamics (PD) study (EudraCT number 2015-002966-21) was conducted to investigate the biosimilarity of Pelmeg® (pegfilgrastim), a biosimilar to EU-authorized Neulasta®, which is used in the clinic for prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The single-dose, randomized, double-blind, two-way crossover study comprised 171 healthy male subjects, receiving Pelmeg and Neulasta (6 mg as subcutaneous injection) in a sequential manner. Primary PK endpoints were the area under the concentration curve from time zero to last measurable concentration (AUC0-last) and the maximum concentration (Cmax). The primary PD endpoint was the area under the effect curve (AUEC0-last) for absolute neutrophil count (ANC). Safety and immunogenicity were also assessed. Comparability was demonstrated for both PK endpoints, with geometric mean ratios (test/reference) for AUC0-last and Cmax of 95.2% and 92.8%, respectively. The corresponding confidence intervals (CIs; 94.3%) were [86.6%;104.7%] for AUC0-last and [84.4%;102.2%] for Cmax, both being within the equivalence margin of 80.0% to 125.0%. Likewise, PD comparability was demonstrated, with the geometric mean ratio (test/reference) of AUEC0-last of 100.2%, with a corresponding CI (95%) of 98.7%-101.8%. No clinically meaningful differences were observed for safety and immunogenicity between Pelmeg and Neulasta. Pelmeg was found to be highly similar to the reference product.

Pharmacodynamics, safety, and immunogenicity of Pelmeg®, a pegfilgrastim biosimilar in healthy subjects

A pharmacodynamics (PD) and immunogenicity study was conducted to investigate biosimilarity of Pelmeg®, a pegfilgrastim biosimilar to EU-authorized Neulasta®. The multiple-dose, randomized, double-blind, two-sequence, and three-period cross-over study comprised 96 healthy male subjects, receiving Pelmeg (Test [T]) and Neulasta (Reference [R]) in a sequential manner (T-T-R vs R-R-T). Subjects were dosed with 3 mg pegfilgrastim, as this dose was previously shown to be in the ascending part of the dose-response curve for PD. The primary PD endpoint was the area under the effect curve (AUEC0-last) for absolute neutrophil count (ANC). The primary immunogenicity endpoint was proportion of anti-drug antibody (ADA)-positive subjects at the end of Period 2 (ie, after administration of two doses of the same study drug). Comparability was demonstrated for the PD endpoint, with the geometric mean ratio (T/R) of AUEC0-last being 101.59%, with a corresponding 95% CI of [99.58; 103.63]. Of note, when using tighter acceptance limits (90.00%-111.00%), comparability between test and reference was shown as well. Only two confirmed ADA positive samples were detected, one after treatment with Pelmeg and one after Neulasta. These had a low ADA titer, no filgrastim reactivity, and no neutralizing capacity. No clinically meaningful differences in safety between Pelmeg and Neulasta were observed. Overall, the results from this study confirmed the biosimilarity of Pelmeg and Neulasta for PD and immunogenicity, as shown already at the bioanalytical level and in the pivotal PK/PD study with Pelmeg.

Differential role of r-met-hu G-CSF on male reproductive function and development in prepubertal domestic mammals

The understanding of mammalian spermatogenesis niche factors active during sexual development may be leveraged to impact reproduction in farm animals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of r-met-hu/G-CSF (filgrastim) on prepubertal sexual development of guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) and ram lambs (Ovis aries). Individuals of both species were administered r-met-hu/G-CSF daily for 4 days. During and after administration protocols, testicular function and development were assessed through hematological responses, hormonal profiles (gonadotropins, testosterone and cortisol) testicular morphometry and germ cell kinetics. As expected, r-met-hu/G-CSF acutely mobilized white-lineage blood cells in both species. LH was increased by r-met-hu/G-CSF in guinea pigs (P<0.01) but T remained unchanged. In ram lambs gonadotropins and T increased in dose-response fashion (P<0.01) while cortisol values were stable and similar in treated and control animals (P>0.05). In guinea pigs there were no differences in testicular weights and volumes 2-mo after r-met-hu/G-CSF application (P>0.05). However, ram lambs showed a dose-response effect regarding testis weight (P<0.05). 66.66% of ram lambs had initial testes not yet in meiosis or starting the first spermatogenic wave. After 60-days only 25% of control animals were pubertal while all treated animals (1140-μg) had reached puberty. We propose an integrated hypothesis that G-CSF can stimulate spermatogenesis through two possible ways. 1) r-met-hu/G-CSF may go through the brain blood barrier and once there it can stimulate GnRH-neurons to release GnRH with the subsequent release of gonadotrophins. 2) a local testicular effect through stimulation of steroidogenesis that enhances spermiogenesis via testosterone production and a direct stimulation over spermatogonial stem cells self-renewal. In conclusion, this study shows that r-met-hu/G-CSF differentially affects prepubertal sexual development in hystricomorpha and ovine species, a relevant fact to consider when designing methods to hasten sexual developmental in mammalian species.

Large-vessel vasculitis associated with PEGylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor

A 71-year-old female with advanced endometrial cancer was treated with pegfilgrastim. She developed a fever within seven days, and contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans repeated within three days revealed rapidly progressive thickening of the aortic wall. When clinicians administer PEGylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) to cancer patients, drug-associated vasculitis should be suspected. This report discusses the manifestation of G-CSF-associated large-vessel vasculitis (LVV).

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia with lipegfilgrastim in 2489 cancer patients: final results from the non-interventional study NADIR

Objectives: The non-interventional study (NIS) NADIR (DRKS00005711) evaluated the effectiveness and safety of prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim, a glycopegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, in 2500 patients undergoing chemotherapy in routine clinical practice. Primary objective was the incidence of chemotherapy-induced severe neutropenia, febrile neutropenia (FN), and neutropenia-associated complications. Methods: NADIR was a prospective NIS conducted in 201 study centers in Germany. Results: The analysis included 2489 patients. Main tumor types were breast cancer (n = 1198, 48.1%), lung cancer (n = 303, 12.2%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL; n = 337, 13.5%), and prostate cancer (n = 111, 4.5%). Nine hundred and ten (36.6%) patients were aged ≥65 years (regarded as "elderly" patients). Severe neutropenia (CTCAE grade 3/4) was reported in 26.8% (n = 666) and 25.2% (n = 229) of the total population and elderly patients, respectively. FN was documented in 2.7% (n = 68) of the total population vs 3.0% (n = 27) of elderly patients. Primary prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim among patients with high risk of FN (>20%) was documented in 83.5% of the total population and 75.1% of elderly patients. Infections (CTCAE grade 3/4) were documented in 99 patients (4.0%) in the total population vs 47 (5.1%) elderly patients. Fatal infections were reported in 14 (0.6%) patients in the total population vs 11 (1.2%) elderly patients. Overall, most frequent lipegfilgrastim-related adverse events (AEs) included bone pain (8.0%), anemia (3.2%), leucocytosis (2.7%), and thrombocytopenia (2.5%). Of the patients, 18.0% had ≥1 documented serious AE; none of the fatal events (2.7%) was lipegfilgrastim-related. Conclusions: Lipegfilgrastim administered to patients with solid tumor/NHL undergoing chemotherapy in routine clinical practice showed similar effectiveness and safety compared to the pivotal trials.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with early discontinuation of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis: a retrospective evaluation using Medicare claims

BACKGROUND

Two recent evaluations reported that many cancer chemotherapy patients discontinue pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (PP) following the first cycle, and that these patients have a higher subsequent risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Such evidence is based principally on the experience of younger adults with private healthcare coverage, and the generalizability of results to elderly Medicare patients is unknown.

METHODS

A matched-cohort design and data from the Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files were employed. The source population comprised cancer patients aged ≥65 years who received chemotherapy with intermediate/high-risk for FN and first-cycle PP. From the source population, beginning with the second cycle, all patients who received PP in all previous cycles were identified. From this sub-set, patients who did not receive PP in the cycle of interest ("comparison patients") were matched to those who received PP in that cycle ("PP patients"); the same process was repeated for subsequent cycles. Odds ratios (OR) for FN (broad and narrow definitions) were estimated using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

Among 77,616 elderly patients in the source population, 5.3% did not receive second-cycle PP and were matched to those who did. In cycle 2, FN odds were significantly higher among comparison patients vs PP patients when employing the broad definition (OR = 1.9, p < .001) and the narrow definition (OR = 2.1, p < .001). Results for subsequent cycles (broad definition: OR = 2.0, p < .001; narrow definition: OR = 2.1, p < .001) and for the last cycle (broad definition: OR = 1.4, p = .060; narrow definition: OR = 1.7, p = .055) were largely comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large-scale evaluation of elderly Medicare patients who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and first-cycle PP in recent US clinical practice, FN risk was substantially lower among patients who continued to receive PP in subsequent cycles vs those who discontinued PP.

Patient-Administered Biologic and Biosimilar Filgrastim May Offer More Affordable Options for Patients with Nonmyeloid Malignancies Receiving Chemotherapy in the United States: A Budget Impact Analysis from the Payer Perspective

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are often administered to reduce the incidence, severity, and duration of febrile neutropenia (FN) in chemotherapy patients. Tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz represent a follow-on biologic and a biosimilar version, respectively, of the short-acting G-CSF filgrastim with comparable efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the budget impact of increasing use of patient-(home-) administered tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz from a U.S. payer perspective.

METHODS

An interactive budget impact model was developed to estimate the changes in drug cost associated with projected increases in the market share of tbo-filgrastim from 5% to 10% and of filgrastim-sndz from 10% to 12% (with a corresponding decrease in filgrastim market share from 85% to 78%) for a 1 million-member health plan among patients with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving chemotherapy with a high risk of FN. Patient self-administration at home was assumed for 20% of patients receiving short-acting G-CSF treatment; all products were purchased through the patient's pharmacy benefit and were assumed to have tier 3 formulary status with a patient copay of $54 per prescription. Base-case data were derived from publicly available resources. The total plan budget impact was calculated using a 1-year time horizon, along with the differences in per member per month and per member per year (PMPY) costs between the current and future scenarios.

RESULTS

The effective annual per-patient drug cost to the plan totaled between $16,961 and $27,199, depending on dosage and packaging, for tbo-filgrastim; between $16,216 and $26,015 for filgrastim-sndz; and between $19,134 and $30,663 for filgrastim. The estimated total annual plan cost associated with patient-administered short-acting G-CSFs was $53,298,217 (PMPY = $53.30) in the current scenario and $52,828,832 (PMPY = $52.82) in the future scenario. Cost savings totaled $469,385 (PMPY = $0.48). The model was most sensitive to changes in the percentage of patients self-administering G-CSF at home and to the wholesale acquisition cost for filgrastim.

CONCLUSIONS

The effective annual plan per-patient drug costs for tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz were 11% and 15% lower than filgrastim, respectively. The present analysis estimated an annual U.S. health plan cost savings approaching $0.5 million following increases in market shares of approximately 5% for tbo-filgrastim and 2% for filgrastim-sndz.

DISCLOSURES

This study was sponsored by Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R & D, which participated in the study design, data interpretation and analysis, the writing of the report, and the decision to submit. Aventine Consulting received consulting fees from Teva Pharmaceuticals and developed the cost model and provided data analysis support. Trautman and James are employed by Aventine Consulting. Szabo and Tang are employed by Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Phase 2 Study of Dose-Dense Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide Followed by Eribulin Mesylate With or Without Prophylactic Growth Factor for Adjuvant Treatment of Early-Stage Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Eribulin has significantly improved overall survival for patients with metastatic breast cancer who received ≥ 2 prior chemotherapy regimens for advanced disease. This trial assessed eribulin as adjuvant therapy for patients with early-stage breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, stage I to III breast cancer received doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 provided intravenously on day 1 of each 14-day cycle for 4 cycles, with pegfilgrastim on day 2, followed by 4 cycles of eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m2 provided intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. There were 2 cohorts, as follows: cohort 1: no prophylactic growth factor with eribulin (allowed at physician's discretion only); cohort 2: prophylactic filgrastim with eribulin. The primary end point was feasibility, defined as the percentage of patients who completed the eribulin portion of the regimen without a dose omission, delay, or reduction due to an eribulin-related adverse event. Relative dose intensity of eribulin and toxicities are summarized by cohort. Exploratory end points included 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients (cohort 1, n = 55; cohort 2, n = 26) entered the treatment phase; 88% completed treatment. Feasibility was 72.9 % (90% confidence interval, 60.4, 83.2) in cohort 1 and 60.0% (90% confidence interval, 41.7, 76.4) in cohort 2. The most frequent eribulin-related adverse events (all grades) were fatigue (75.9%), peripheral neuropathy (54.4%), nausea (39.2%), neutropenia (35.4% [31.5% of patients in cohort 1; 44.0% in cohort 2]), and arthralgia (26.6%).

CONCLUSION

The primary end point of > 80% feasibility was not met. No unexpected adverse events were observed, and 62% of patients received full dosing with no dose delay or reduction. Further investigation of this regimen with alternative dosing schedules or use of growth factors could be considered.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim prophylaxis among patients aged ≥65 years: a retrospective evaluation using Medicare claims

BACKGROUND

Two recent evaluations reported that risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) may be higher when pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (PP) is administered on same day as chemotherapy rather than per recommendation (1-3 days following chemotherapy). Such evidence is based largely on the experience of younger privately insured adults and may not be generalizable to older patients in US clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and data from Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files (January 2008-September 2015) were employed. Patients were aged ≥65 years, had breast cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, received chemotherapy with intermediate/high risk for FN, and received PP in ≥1 cycle; cycles with PP were stratified based on administration day (same-day ["Day 0"] vs. 1-3 days following chemotherapy ["Days 1-3"]) and were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for FN during the cycle were estimated for patients who received PP on Day 0 versus Days 1-3.

RESULTS

Study population included 65,003 patients who received PP in 261,184 cycles; in 5% of cycles, patients received PP on Day 0. Incidence proportion for FN in cycle 1 was 11.4% for Day 0 versus 8.4% for Days 1-3; adjusted OR was 1.4 (p < .001). Incidence proportion for FN when considering all cycles was 7.7% for Day 0 and 6.0% for Days 1-3; adjusted OR was 1.3 (p < .001). Adjusted ORs when considering all cycles and only inpatient FN episodes (1.3, p < .001) and the narrow definition for FN (1.5, p < .001) were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Among Medicare patients receiving chemotherapy and PP in US clinical practice, PP was administered before the recommended timing in 5% of cycles and FN incidence was significantly higher in these cycles. Along with prior research, study findings support recently updated US practice guidelines indicating that PP should be administered the day after chemotherapy.

Multicenter Prospective Phase II Trial of Neoadjuvant Dose-Dense Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin in Patients With Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer

Purpose Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy (RC) is a standard of care for the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Dose-dense cisplatin-based regimens have yielded favorable outcomes compared with standard-dose chemotherapy, yet the optimal neoadjuvant regimen remains undefined. We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of six cycles of neoadjuvant dose-dense gemcitabine and cisplatin (ddGC) in patients with MIBC. Patients and Methods In this prospective, multicenter phase II study, patients received ddGC (gemcitabine 2,500 mg/m2 on day 1 and cisplatin 35 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2) every 2 weeks for 6 cycles followed by RC. The primary end point was pathologic downstaging to non-muscle-invasive disease (< pT2N0). Patients who did not undergo RC were deemed nonresponders. Pretreatment tumors underwent next-generation sequencing to identify predictors of chemosensitivity. Results Forty-nine patients were enrolled from three institutions. The primary end point was met, with 57% of 46 evaluable patients downstaged to < pT2N0. Pathologic response correlated with improved recurrence-free survival and overall survival. Nineteen patients (39%) required toxicity-related dose modifications. Sixty-seven percent of patients completed all six planned cycles. No patient failed to undergo RC as a result of chemotherapy-associated toxicities. The most frequent treatment-related toxicity was anemia (12%; grade 3). The presence of a presumed deleterious DNA damage response (DDR) gene alteration was associated with chemosensitivity (positive predictive value for < pT2N0 [89%]). No patient with a deleterious DDR gene alteration has experienced recurrence at a median follow-up of 2 years. Conclusion Six cycles of ddGC is an active, well-tolerated neoadjuvant regimen for the treatment of patients with MIBC. The presence of a putative deleterious DDR gene alteration in pretreatment tumor tissue strongly predicted for chemosensitivity, durable response, and superior long-term survival.

An open-label, dose-ranging study of Rolontis, a novel long-acting myeloid growth factor, in breast cancer

This randomized, open‐label, active‐controlled study investigated the safety and efficacy of three doses of Rolontis (eflapegrastim), a novel, long‐acting myeloid growth factor, versus pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients being treated with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC). The primary efficacy endpoint was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) during the first cycle of treatment. Patients who were candidates for adjuvant/neoadjuvant TC chemotherapy were eligible for participation. TC was administered on Day 1, followed by 45, 135, or 270 μg/kg Rolontis or 6 mg pegfilgrastim on Day 2. Complete blood counts were monitored daily when the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) fell to <1.5 × 10⁹/L. Up to four cycles of TC were investigated. The difference in DSN (time from ANC <0.5 × 10⁹/L to ANC recovery ≥2.0 × 10⁹/L) between the Rolontis and pegfilgrastim groups was −0.28 days (confidence interval [CI]: −0.56, −0.06) at 270 μg/kg, 0.14 days (CI: −0.28, 0.64) at 135 μg/kg, and 0.72 days (CI: 0.19, 1.27) at 45 μg/kg. Noninferiority to pegfilgrastim was demonstrated at 135 μg/kg (P = 0.002) and 270 μg/kg (P < .001), with superiority demonstrated at 270 μg/kg (0.03 days; P = 0.023). The most common treatment‐related adverse events (AEs) were bone pain, myalgia, arthralgia, back pain, and elevated white blood cell counts, with similar incidences across groups. All doses of Rolontis were well tolerated, and no new or significant treatment‐related toxicities were observed. In Cycle 1, Rolontis demonstrated noninferiority at the 135 μg/kg dose and statistical superiority in DSN at the 270 μg/kg dose when compared to pegfilgrastim.

Predictive factors in patients eligible for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis focusing on RDI using ordered logistic regression analysis

Although pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is expected to maintain the relative dose intensity (RDI) of chemotherapy and improve safety, information is limited. However, the optimal selection of patients eligible for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis is an important issue from a medical economics viewpoint. Therefore, this retrospective study identified factors that could predict these eligible patients to maintain the RDI. The participants included 166 cancer patients undergoing pegfilgrastim prophylaxis combined with chemotherapy in our outpatient chemotherapy center between March 2015 and April 2017. Variables were extracted from clinical records for regression analysis of factors related to maintenance of the RDI. RDI was classified into four categories: 100% = 0, 85% or < 100% = 1, 60% or < 85% = 2, and < 60% = 3. Multivariate ordered logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictive factors in patients eligible for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis to maintain the RDI. Threshold measures were examined using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis curve. Age [odds ratio (OR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.11; P < 0.0001], anemia (grade) (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.10-2.84; P = 0.0184), and administration 24-72 h after chemotherapy (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.89; P = 0.0224) were factors that significantly correlated with RDI maintenance. ROC curve analysis of the group that failed to maintain the RDI indicated that the threshold for age was 70 years and above, with a sensitivity of 60.0% and specificity of 80.2% (area under the curve: 0.74). In conclusion, younger age, anemia (less), and administration of pegfilgrastim 24-72 h after chemotherapy were significant factors for RDI maintenance.

Model-based optimization of G-CSF treatment during cytotoxic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Although G-CSF is widely used to prevent or ameliorate leukopenia during cytotoxic chemotherapies, its optimal use is still under debate and depends on many therapy parameters such as dosing and timing of cytotoxic drugs and G-CSF, G-CSF pharmaceuticals used and individual risk factors of patients.

METHODS

We integrate available biological knowledge and clinical data regarding cell kinetics of bone marrow granulopoiesis, the cytotoxic effects of chemotherapy and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of G-CSF applications (filgrastim or pegfilgrastim) into a comprehensive model. The model explains leukocyte time courses of more than 70 therapy scenarios comprising 10 different cytotoxic drugs. It is applied to develop optimized G-CSF schedules for a variety of clinical scenarios.

RESULTS

Clinical trial results showed validity of model predictions regarding alternative G-CSF schedules. We propose modifications of G-CSF treatment for the chemotherapies 'BEACOPP escalated' (Hodgkin's disease), 'ETC' (breast cancer), and risk-adapted schedules for 'CHOP-14' (aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in elderly patients).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that we established a model of human granulopoiesis under chemotherapy which allows predictions of yet untested G-CSF schedules, comparisons between them, and optimization of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim treatment. As a general rule of thumb, G-CSF treatment should not be started too early and patients could profit from filgrastim treatment continued until the end of the chemotherapy cycle.

Pharmacovigilance of Biologics in a Multisource Environment

It is important that systems are in place to ensure that appropriate and comprehensive records are kept for use of all medications. It is fundamental to an effective pharmacovigilance system that patient medical records contain sufficient information to identify which medication has been prescribed, when it was administered, and at what dose. The availability of biologics from multiple sponsors has raised questions by some health care providers about the ability of current pharmacovigilance systems to trace specific biologics. In this article, periodic safety update reports were used to assess current postapproval safety monitoring for 3 biosimilars (epoetin alfa, somatropin, and filgrastim) that collectively represented nearly 350 million patient days of treatment worldwide. The reference products have each been marketed for over 10 years, forming a strong baseline of postmarketing safety data against which the safety of biosimilars can be compared. Published data from Denmark were also reviewed as additional evidence of how current pharmacovigilance systems are able to attribute adverse events to particular medicines. Collectively, the data show that spontaneous adverse drug reactions are reported by brand name in the majority of cases and are attributable to a specific medicine. Also discussed are the informational elements critical to monitoring biologics, or indeed any medicine, to ensure the availability of complete information so medicines that a patient has received can be quickly identified should a safety event occur. We support the addition of a single data element, the batch/lot number, to enhance the value of current pharmacovigilance systems. Adoption of 2-D barcodes in the European Union (EU) and standardized numerical identifiers in the United States addresses this need, since they include batch/lot numbers. These identifiers are already being implemented in the United States and the EU to improve patient safety, reduce medication errors, facilitate anticounterfeiting, and enable effective product recalls and adverse event reporting. Importantly, electronic identifiers will ameliorate safety reporting concerns with respect to biosimilars, while concurrently achieving these much broader public health objectives through more complete pharmacovigilance data.

DISCLOSURES

This work was funded by Sandoz, a Novartis division. The authors were fully responsible for the content, editorial decisions, and opinions expressed in this article. No author received an honorarium related to the development of this manuscript. Sagi and Cohen are employees of Sandoz, and Woollett is an employee of Avalere Health. Study concept and design were contributed by Sagi and Woollett, along with Cohen. Data were primarily collected by Sagi, along with Woollett, and data interpretation was provided by all the authors. The manuscript was written by Woollett, along with Sagi and Cohen, and revised by Sagi and Cohen, along with Woollett.

Conversion from Filgrastim to Tbo-filgrastim: Experience of a Large Health Care System

BACKGROUND

In 2008, tbo-filgrastim was approved as a biosimilar in Europe and then approved in the United States by the FDA in 2012 as a biologic product with 1 similar indication to filgrastim. Because tbo-filgrastim was less expensive than filgrastim, and clinical information and expert opinion supported similarity, the Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee of a large health care system approved tbo-filgrastim as the preferred granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) product in March 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) assess the use of filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim products by comparing baseline characteristics, setting of care, indication for use, and payer type and (b) understand potential barriers of conversion to tbo-filgrastim.

METHODS

A retrospective evaluation of filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim use was conducted on all patients (N = 204) who received the drugs between July 2015 and December 2015 at the 2 largest hospitals in the health system. Baseline characteristics, indication requiring use of filgrastim or tbo-filgrastim, setting of care, and payer information were collected from electronic medical records, and descriptive analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Overall, G-CSFs were administered to 204 patients for 261 episodes of care (filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim were used in 65 and 196 episodes of care, respectively). Baseline characteristics were similar between the 59 patients who received filgrastim and the 174 patients who received tbo-filgrastim. G-CSF was primarily used in the inpatient setting (163 episodes of care, 63%) with 90% of patients using tbo-filgrastim. In the outpatient setting (98 episodes of care, 38%), filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim were each used by 50% of patients. Tbo-filgrastim was the preferred G-CSF by clinical providers for all indications, except for stem cell mobilization, where filgrastim use was higher (55% vs. 45% of 71 episodes of care). In the outpatient setting, analysis by payers showed that the majority of patients on commercial plans were using filgrastim (58%), while half of Medicare patients were using filgrastim (50%, n = 12). Twelve patients were self-paid, and all were using tbo-filgrastim. Subgroup analysis by hospital showed differences in utilization patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Although tbo-filgrastim was the preferred G-CSF in our formulary, 29% of patients continued to receive filgrastim. Conversion to tbo-filgrastim has been largely successful, but extra steps may be needed to achieve full conversion to biosimilars.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. Agboola was employed by Partners Healthcare at the time of the study. The authors have nothing to disclose. Study concept and design were contributed equally by Agboola and Reddy. Agboola collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by both authors. The manuscript was written primarily by Agboola, with assistance from Reddy. Both authors revised the manuscript.

Management and cost analysis of cancer patients treated with G-CSF: a cohort study based on the French national healthcare insurance database

OBJECTIVES

To describe the management and costs associated with G-CSF therapy in cancer patients in France.

METHODS

This study analyzed a representative random population sample from the French national healthcare insurance database, focusing on 1,612 patients with hematological or solid malignancies who were reimbursed in 2013 or 2014 for at least one G-CSF treatment dispensed in a retail pharmacy. Patient characteristics and treatment costs were analyzed according to the type of cancer. Then the costs and characteristics of patients associated with the use of different G-CSF products were analyzed in the sub-set of breast cancer patients.

RESULTS

The most frequent malignancies in the database population were breast cancer (23.3%), hematological malignancies (22.2%), and lung cancer (12.4%). The reimbursed G-CSF was pegfilgrastim in 34.1% of cases, lenograstim in 26.7%, and filgrastim in 17.9%. More than one G-CSF product was reimbursed to 21.3% of patients. The total annual reimbursed health expenses per patient, according to the type of G-CSF, were €27,001, €24,511, and €20,802 for patients treated with filgrastim, lenograstim, and pegfilgrastim, respectively. Ambulatory care accounted for, respectively, 35%, 38%, and 41% of those costs. In patients with breast cancer, ambulatory care cost was €7,915 with filgrastim, €7,750 with lenograstim, and €6,989 with pegfilgrastim, and the respective cost of G-CSF was €1,733, €1,559, and €3,668.

CONCLUSION

All available G-CSF products have been shown to be effective in cancer patients, and both daily G-CSFs and pegylated G-CSF are recommended in international guidelines. Nevertheless, this analysis of G-CSF reimbursement indicates that the choice of product can markedly affect the total cost of ambulatory care.

[Effect of Pegfilgrastim Primary Prophylactic Administration on Relative Dose Intensity(RDI)in Postoperative Adjuvant Chemotherapy(TC Therapy)for Breast Cancer - A Single-Center, Retrospective Study]

This study assessed the effect of pegfilgrastim in patients with early stage breast cancer who were receiving docetaxel and cyclophosphamide(TC)therapy(75mg/m / 2 docetaxel plus 600 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide). In total, 17 patients who were to receive 4 planned cycles of TC therapy every 3 weeks were included in this study. Of the 17 patients, 10 who received pegfilgrastim after January 2016 formed the Peg-G group and 7 who did not receive pegfilgrastim until December 2015 formed the control group. We observed a high successful execution rate and relative dose intensity(RDI)with docetaxel in both groups. The successful execution rates were 100% in the Peg-G group and 42.8% in the control group. The RDI was 86.5%(65.4-100%)in the Peg-G group and 52.5%(48.0-58.0%)in the control group. This study showed that the use of pegfilgrastim results in a high successful execution rate and RDI in patients with early stage breast cancer undergoing TC therapy.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia by day of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice from 2010 to 2015

OBJECTIVE

Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (PP) is recommended 1-3 days following administration of chemotherapy during the cycle. Some patients, however, receive PP before or after the recommended timing. While evidence suggests that risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) may be lower when PP is administered per recommendation, such evidence is based on older data. We undertook a new study to compare FN risk between patients who received PP on the last day of chemotherapy ("day 0") or 4-5 days following chemotherapy ("days 4-5"), versus 1-3 days following chemotherapy ("days 1-3"), using recent data from US clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and data from two US private healthcare claims repositories (2010-2016) were employed. Patients received intermediate/high-risk chemotherapy regimens for solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and PP in ≥1 cycle; all cycles with PP were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) for FN during the cycle were estimated for patients who received PP on day 0 or days 4-5, vs. days 1-3, using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

The study population included 53,814 patients who received PP in 217,273 cycles; in 9% of cycles, patients received PP on day 0 (8%) or days 4-5 (<1%). Odds of FN in cycle 1 were significantly higher among patients receiving PP on day 0 (OR: 1.4 [95% CI: 1.2-1.7]) or days 4-5 (1.9 [1.2-3.0]), vs. days 1-3, in that cycle. Results for subsequent cycles of chemotherapy were comparable to those for the first cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large-scale retrospective evaluation of cancer chemotherapy patients receiving PP in recent US clinical practice, PP was administered before or after the recommended timing in 9% of cycles. FN incidence was significantly higher in these cycles providing additional real-world evidence that PP should be administered the day after chemotherapy in alignment with recently updated US practice guidelines.

Cost-efficiency analyses for the US of biosimilar filgrastim-sndz, reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim with on-body injector in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia

AIMS

Guidelines recommend prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) based on regimen myelotoxicity and patient-related risk factors. The aim was to conduct a cost-efficiency analysis for the US of the direct acquisition and administration costs of the recently approved biosimilar filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio EP2006) with reference to filgrastim (Neupogen), pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), and a pegfilgrastim injection device (Neulasta Onpro; hereafter pegfilgrastim-injector) for CIN/FN prophylaxis.

METHODS

A cost-efficiency analysis of the prophylaxis of one patient during one chemotherapy cycle under 1-14 days' time horizon was conducted using the unit dose average selling price (ASP) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for subcutaneous prophylactic injection under four scenarios: cost of medication only (COSTMED), patient self-administration (SELFADMIN), healthcare provider (HCP) initiating administration followed by self-administration (HCPSTART), and HCP providing full administration (HCPALL). Two case studies were created to illustrate real-world clinical implications. The analyses were replicated using wholesale acquisition cost (WAC).

RESULTS

Using ASP + CPT, cost savings achieved with filgrastim-sndz relative to reference filgrastim ranged from $65 (1 day) to $916 (14 days) across all scenarios. Relative to pegfilgrastim, savings with filgrastim-sndz ranged from $834 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1 day) under the COSTMED, SELFADMIN, and HPOSTART scenarios; and from $284 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1 day) under the HPOALL scenario. Similar to the cost-savings compared to pegfilgrastim, filgrastim-sndz achieved savings relative to pegfilgrastim-injector: from $834 (14 days) to $3,666 (1 day) under the COSTMED scenario, from $859 (14 days) to $3,692 (1 day) under SELFADMIN, from $817 (14 days) to $3,649 (1 day) under HPOSTART, and from $267 (14 days) to $3,649 (1 day) under HPOALL. Cost savings of filgrastim-sndz using WAC + CPT were even greater under all scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with filgrastim-sndz, a biosimilar filgrastim, was associated consistently with significant cost-savings over prophylaxis with reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim-injector, and this across various administration scenarios.

Administration options for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis: patient and physician preferences from a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVE

Although clinical guidelines recommend administration of pegfilgrastim 1-4 days after a myelosuppressive chemotherapy cycle to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), some physicians administer pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy administration. A novel on-body injector (OBI) that automatically delivers pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy is also available. Our objective was to estimate patient and physician preferences among the pegfilgrastim administration options.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients receiving pegfilgrastim and physicians prescribing pegfilgrastim. Respondents' preferences for pegfilgrastim administration options were elicited using direct elicitation; the relative importance of features associated with the options was estimated in a point-allocation exercise. Physicians considered two hypothetical patient profiles when completing the exercises.

RESULTS

The samples included 200 patients and 200 physicians. Patients generally preferred the administration option with which they had experience. Among patients, 48.5% with previous in-clinic injections 24 hours after chemotherapy preferred this option; 56.8% with previous OBI administration preferred this option. For a clinically compromised patient, 37.5% of physicians preferred an in-clinic injection option; 49.5% preferred the OBI. For a less compromised patient, 55.5% preferred an in-clinic injection option; 28.0% preferred the OBI. Avoiding the need to return to the clinic was chosen most often as the most important treatment feature for patients and physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and physicians identified that returning clinic visits for pegfilgrastim administration may be burdensome. A potential solution to mitigate this burden is the OBI, which allows adherence to the labeled use of pegfilgrastim without return visits to the clinic.

Chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim in elderly versus non-elderly cancer patients: Patterns, outcomes, and determinants (MONITOR-GCSF study)

BACKGROUND

Myelotoxic chemotherapy is associated with chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN). The MONITOR-GCSF study evaluated biosimilar filgrastim (Zarzio®) prophylaxis patterns, associated outcomes, and determinants. We performed stratified analyses comparing elderly and non-elderly patients.

METHODS

Comparative (elderly/non-elderly) analysis of demographics and clinical status, prophylaxis, associated CIN/FN outcomes (CIN grade 4 [CIN4], FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalizations and chemodisturbances, composite), and, per hierarchical modeling, determinants thereof evaluated at the patient- and cycle-level.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between both cohorts in prophylaxis initiation/duration and associated outcomes, but proportionately more elderly patients were correctly-prophylacted and fewer over-prophylacted. Common determinants of poor CIN/FN outcomes included concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis, impaired performance status, and any grade CIN in a previous cycle, whereas common determinants of good outcomes included over-prophylaxis and prophylaxis initiation within 24-72h. In the elderly, female gender, liver/renal/cardiovascular disease, secondary prophylaxis, and under-prophylaxis were associated with poorer outcomes. In the non-elderly, CIN4 at baseline or in a prior cycle was associated with poorer CIN/FN outcomes, and higher biosimilar filgrastim dose and, perhaps counter-intuitively, under-prophylaxis with better outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Adequate GCSF support is essential for all patients, but especially for elderly patients with serious chronic disease, certainly, if concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated and if a CIN4 episode occurred in a prior cycle. The potential impact of impaired performance status, especially ECOG≥2 at chemotherapy start or a worsening to such during chemotherapy; under-prophylaxis, including inadequate secondary prophylaxis, should be considered in elderly patients. Timely GCSF initiation and over-prophylaxis is associated with lower rates of adverse CIN/FN events in elderly and non-elderly patients, and should be further evaluated in prospective randomized trials.

Mexican Biosimilar Filgrastim for Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Mobilization and Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Following the release of the initial presentation of filgrastim (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor), several biosimilars have been developed worldwide.

OBJECTIVE

To study the efficacy of a Mexican biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in a single transplant center.

METHODS

In a group of 19 consecutive patients with multiple sclerosis given autografts, we employed granulocyte colony-stimulating factors to mobilize stem cells from the bone marrow to the peripheral blood, either the original granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (n = 10) or a Mexican granulocyte colony-stimulating factor biosimilar (n = 9).

RESULTS

The efficacy of both agents was similar in mobilization capacity, white blood cell count rise, stem cell collection, and kinetics of auto-engraftment.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that both granulocyte colony-stimulating factor agents were similar in their efficacy to mobilize stem cells and usefulness in autografts.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of original filgrastim (Neupogen®), biosimilar filgrastim (Leucostim®) and Lenograstim (Granocyte®) in CD34(+) peripheral hematopoietic stem cell mobilization procedures for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant donors

OBJECTIVES AND AIM

In this study, we aimed to compare the potency of different G-CSF agents including original filgrastim (Neupogen®), biosimilar filgrastim (Leucostim®) and Lenograstim (Granocyte®) on CD34(+) cell mobilization in patients that underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The data of 243 donors for alloHSCT recipients diagnosed with mostly acute leukemia and myelodsyplastic syndromes (MDS) were analyzed, retrospectively. Data for stem cell mobilization have been recorded from patients' files. Donors who received Filgrastim (Neupogen®, Group I), biosimilar Filgrastim (Leucostim®, Group II) and Lenograstim (Granocyte®, Group III) were analyzed for total CD34(+) cell count at the end of mobilization procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 243 donors and patients for alloHSCT were analyzed retrospectively. The diagnosis of the patients were; acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (110 patients, 45.2%), acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL) (61 patients, 25.1%), aplastic anemia (AA) (38 patients, 15.6%), lymphomas (14 patients, 5.7%) and others (20 patients, 8.4%). The median number of total collected PB CD34(+) cells (×10(6)/kg) was 7.12 (min-max: 5.38-7.90) in the Neupogen® group, 7.27 (min-max: 6.79-7.55) in the Leucostim® group and 7.15 (min-max: 5.34-7.58) in the Granocyte® group. There was no statistically significant difference among groups in terms of total collected PB CD34(+) cells (p = 0.919). The median doses of G-CSF agents (µg/kg/day) in PBSC collection in Neupogen® group was; 11.00 (10.00-12.00) in Leucostim® group10.35 (min-max: 10.00-11.10) and in Granocyte® group11.00 (min-max: 10.00-11.00). There was no statistical significance among groups (p = 0.215).

CONCLUSION

Biosimilar filgrastim (Leucostim®) was found comparable to original Filgrastim (Neupogen®) and Lenograstim (Granocyte®) for PBSC mobilization in donors of the patients that underwent alloHSCT.

Zarzio®, biosimilar of filgrastim, in prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in routine practice: a French prospective multicentric study

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a serious and potentially life-threatening consequence of cancer treatment. Prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) decreases the incidence of febrile neutropenia, the rate of hospitalization, and the use of antibiotics in patients at risk. The aim of this study was to assess efficacy, safety, and use of Zarzio(®)-biosimilar of Neupogen(®) (G-CSF; filgrastim)-in prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in current practice in cancer patients.

METHODS

We conducted an observational, prospective, longitudinal, and multicentric study in France. The incidence of neutropenia was evaluated at each cycle of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-four patients (women, 64.7 %; mean age, 61.7 years) with solid tumor (89.7 %; breast cancer, 50.5 %) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (10.3 %) were included. The risk of febrile neutropenia based on chemotherapy regimen was >20 % for 32.1 % of patients. No case of febrile neutropenia was reported. Neutropenia was the cause of hospitalization and/or antibiotic therapy in 10 patients. The most frequent adverse events related to Zarzio(®) were pain, in particular bone pain. No serious adverse event related to Zarzio(®) was reported.

CONCLUSION

The results obtained in real-life conditions confirm that Zarzio(®) is efficient and well tolerated in cancer patients.

The Effect of Radiation Dose and Variation in Neupogen® Initiation Schedule on the Mitigation of Myelosuppression during the Concomitant GI-ARS and H-ARS in a Nonhuman Primate Model of High-dose Exposure with Marrow Sparing

A nonhuman primate (NHP) model of acute high-dose, partial-body irradiation with 5% bone marrow (PBI/BM5) sparing was used to assess the effect of Neupogen® [granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)] to mitigate the associated myelosuppression when administered at an increasing interval between exposure and initiation of treatment. A secondary objective was to assess the effect of Neupogen® on the mortality or morbidity of the hematopoietic (H)- acute radiation syndrome (ARS) and concurrent acute gastrointestinal radiation syndrome (GI-ARS). NHP were exposed to 10.0 or 11.0 Gy with 6 MV LINAC-derived photons at approximately 0.80 Gy min. All NHP received medical management. NHP were dosed daily with control article (5% dextrose in water) initiated on day 1 post-exposure or Neupogen® (10 μg kg) initiated on day 1, day 3, or day 5 until recovery [absolute neutrophil count (ANC) ≥ 1,000 cells μL for three consecutive days]. Mortality in both the 10.0 Gy and 11.0 Gy cohorts suggested that early administration of Neupogen® at day 1 post exposure may affect acute GI-ARS mortality, while Neupogen® appeared to mitigate mortality due to the H-ARS. However, the study was not powered to detect statistically significant differences in survival. The ability of Neupogen® to stimulate granulopoiesis was assessed by evaluating key parameters for ANC recovery: the depth of nadir, duration of neutropenia (ANC < 500 cells μL) and recovery time to ANC ≥ 1,000 cells μL. Following 10.0 Gy PBI/BM5, the mean duration of neutropenia was 11.6 d in the control cohort vs. 3.5 d and 4.6 d in the day 1 and day 3 Neupogen® cohorts, respectively. The respective ANC nadirs were 94 cells μL, 220 cells μL, and 243 cells μL for the control and day 1 and day 3 Neupogen® cohorts. Following 11.0 Gy PBI/BM5, the duration of neutropenia was 10.9 d in the control cohort vs. 2.8 d, 3.8 d, and 4.5 d in the day 1, day 3, and day 5 Neupogen® cohorts, respectively. The respective ANC nadirs for the control and day 1, day 3, and day 5 Neupogen® cohorts were 131 cells μL, 292 cells μL, 236 cells μL, and 217 cells μL, respectively. Therefore, the acceleration of granulopoiesis by Neupogen® in this model is independent of the time interval between radiation exposure and treatment initiation up to 5 d post-exposure. The PBI/BM5 model can be used to assess medical countermeasure efficacy in the context of the concurrent GI- and H-ARS.

Neutrophil dynamics during concurrent chemotherapy and G-CSF administration: Mathematical modelling guides dose optimisation to minimise neutropenia

The choice of chemotherapy regimens is often constrained by the patient's tolerance to the side effects of chemotherapeutic agents. This dose-limiting issue is a major concern in dose regimen design, which is typically focused on maximising drug benefits. Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is one of the most prevalent toxic effects patients experience and frequently threatens the efficient use of chemotherapy. In response, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is co-administered during chemotherapy to stimulate neutrophil production, increase neutrophil counts, and hopefully avoid neutropenia. Its clinical use is, however, largely dictated by trial and error processes. Based on up-to-date knowledge and rational considerations, we develop a physiologically realistic model to mathematically characterise the neutrophil production in the bone marrow which we then integrate with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PKPD) models of a chemotherapeutic agent and an exogenous form of G-CSF (recombinant human G-CSF, or rhG-CSF). In this work, model parameters represent the average values for a general patient and are extracted from the literature or estimated from available data. The dose effect predicted by the model is confirmed through previously published data. Using our model, we were able to determine clinically relevant dosing regimens that advantageously reduce the number of rhG-CSF administrations compared to original studies while significantly improving the neutropenia status. More particularly, we determine that it could be beneficial to delay the first administration of rhG-CSF to day seven post-chemotherapy and reduce the number of administrations from ten to three or four for a patient undergoing 14-day periodic chemotherapy.

Outcomes of Substituting Oral Fludarabine for Intravenous Fludarabine in Combination with Cytarabine and Filgrastim for Treatment of Primary Refractory or Relapsed Acute Leukemias

BACKGROUND

Treatment of relapsed/refractory acute myeloid or lymphoid leukemia consists of salvage chemotherapy followed by allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Intravenous fludarabine, cytarabine, and filgrastim is an effective regimen in this setting. In view of the lack of availability of intravenous fludarabine in Mexico from 2009-2013, we substituted an equivalent oral fludarabine dose (40 mg) for the intravenous formulation.

OBJECTIVE

This is a retrospective comparison of the toxicity and effectiveness of oral fludarabine, cytarabine, and filgrastim versus intravenous fludarabine, cytarabine and filgrastim.

RESULTS

A total of 44 patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia or acute lymphoid leukemia treated in an academic medical center from 2005-2013 with oral fludarabine, cytarabine and filgrastim (21 patients) or intravenous fludarabine, cytarabine and filgrastim (23 patients) were included in the analysis. There was a trend towards a higher complete remission rate and a longer overall survival following intravenous fludarabine, cytarabine, and filgrastim as compared with oral fludarabine, cytarabine, and filgrastim: complete remission rates 39.1 vs. 23.8% (p = 0.342) and overall survival 6.14 vs. 10.78 months (p = 0.363), respectively. A higher incidence of neutropenic fever (100 vs. 76.2%; p = 0.019) and septic shock (34.8 vs. 0%; p = 0.003) and a longer hospitalization (26.8 vs. 19.4 days; p = 0.046) were observed with intravenous fludarabine, cytarabine, and filgrastim. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with a shorter survival were septic shock (HR: 3.93; 95% CI: 1.67-9.25; p = 0.002) and a higher number of previous treatments (HR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.26-4.99; p = 0.009). Complete remission was associated with better survival (HR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.08-0.44; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies are needed to determine the optimal dose and timing of oral fludarabine when given as part of the fludarabine, cytarabine, and filgrastim regimen for relapsed/refractory acute leukemia. Our data suggest that the dose of oral fludarabine used, 40 mg/m² per day for five days, may be a lower bioequivalent dose to the intravenous dose in fludarabine, cytarabine, and filgrastim.