Mobilization of hematopoietic progenitor cells from allogeneic healthy donors using a new biosimilar G-CSF (Zarzio®)

Is split-dose better than single-dose? Results of Turkish Stem Cell Coordination Center (TURKOK) donors in the era of rising biosimilar G-CSF

BACKGROUND

Turkish Stem Cell Coordination Center (TURKOK) carries out the procurement process of unrelated allogeneic hematopoietic stem cells in Turkey. This study aims to compare the efficacy of both once-daily and divided-dose G-CSF administration and the original and biosimilar G-CSF use and the frequency and severity of adverse events in TURKOK donors.

METHOD

The study was conducted retrospectively with 142 healthy TURKOK donors. For PBSC mobilization, two different subcutaneous G-CSF programs were used as 10 μ/kg/day single-dose and 5 μ/kg/12 h. Neupogen (Amgen, Puerto Rico) and Tevagrastim (Teva, Kfar Saba, Israel) were used as G-CSF. All donors started apheresis on the fifth day, and all side effects were recorded during the procedure.

RESULTS

Stem cell yield was similar between single-dose and divided-doses based on donor weight, favoring the split-dose based on recipient weight (P = .506 and P = .023, respectively). Both G-CSF posologies were comparable if the target CD34+ cell yield was ≥4 × 10⁶ /kg. CD34+ cell yield was equivalent when evaluated against recipient weight, significantly favoring Tevagrastim vs Neupogen by donor weight (P = .740 and P = .021, respectively). Side effects, duration of pain, and need for analgesia favor Tevagratim over Neupogen.

CONCLUSION

Split-dose may be recommended for cases where the need for large numbers of CD34+ cells to be harvested is anticipated due to significant cell yield relative to recipient weight. However, sufficient hematopoietic stem cells can be collected with both posology. Tevagrastim is non-inferiority effective to Neupogen. Side effects during administration are both low-grade and temporary.

Mobilization of Hematopoietic Stem Cells into Peripheral Blood for Autologous Transplantation Seems Less Efficacious in Poor Mobilizers with the Use of a Biosimilar of Filgrastim and Plerixafor: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis

Introduction

Biosimilars of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) have shown similar efficacy to originator filgrastim (Neupogen® [NEU]; Amgen Inc.) as prophylaxis in neutropenia and in the mobilization of stem cells in patients receiving combination chemotherapy with G-CSF.

Methods

This was a retrospective study in which the characteristics of stem cell mobilization treated with a G-CSF alone were compared in 216 patients and 56 donors. The two G-CSF compared were NEU and the biosimilar filgrastim Zarzio® (Sandoz GmbH) (referred to hereafter as BIO). Primary objectives were mobilization rate (minimum of 10 × 10³/ml CD34+ on day 4 of treatment [day +4]) and use of the immunostimulant plerixafor (PLEX) in each group.

Results

The general characteristics of the patients receiving NEU (n = 138) and those receiving BIO (n = 78) did not differ significantly. PLEX was used in 24% of BIO patients and in 25.7% of NEU patients. The median CD34+ cell count on day +4 was significantly lower in BIO patients who needed PLEX than in those who did not (2.4 vs. 4.8 × 10³/ml; p = 0.002), as was the final CD34+ cell count (2.5 vs. 3.3 × 10⁶/kg; p 0.03). Mobilization failure rate was higher in the BIO group than in the NEU group (20 vs. 0%; p = 0.01). With respect to donors, more than one apheresis was needed in three BIO donors, one of them with PLEX. The use of BIO was the only risk factor for mobilization failure in patients who needed PLEX (hazard ratio 10.3; 95% confidence interval 1.3–77.8).

Conclusion

The study revealed that BIO had a lower efficacy for stem cell mobilization when the only treatment was G-CSF, especially in poor mobilizers needing PLEX.

Extrapolation in Practice: Lessons from 10 Years with Biosimilar Filgrastim

Biosimilar filgrastim (Sandoz) was approved in Europe in 2009 and, in 2015, was the first biosimilar approved in the USA. These authorizations were based on the "totality of evidence" concept, an approach that considers data from structural and functional characterization and comparability analysis and non-clinical and clinical studies. For biosimilar filgrastim, phase III confirmatory clinical studies were performed in the most sensitive population, patients with breast cancer undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In Europe and the USA, approval was granted for all indications of the reference biologic. Hence, stem cell mobilization and severe chronic neutropenia indications were approved on the basis of extrapolation, with no clinical data available at the time of market authorization in the EU. Although extrapolation is well-accepted in biologic development and regulatory contexts, it remains a misunderstood part of the biosimilarity concept in the medical community. Since approval, more than a decade of obtained clinical experience supports the totality of evidence and reassures clinicians regarding the efficacy and safety of biosimilar filgrastim. This includes real-world data from MONITOR-GCSF, a multicenter, prospective, observational study describing treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of patients with cancer (n = 1447) receiving biosimilar filgrastim for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in solid tumors and hematological malignancies. Evidence is also available from unrelated healthy donors and those with severe chronic neutropenia. Together, the experience from a decade of use of biosimilar filgrastim includes over 24 million patient-days of exposure, which can help reassure oncologists that extrapolation is based on strong scientific evidence and works in practice.

Evaluation of a biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in Japanese healthy donors: a prospective study

A "biosimilar" is a biotechnological product with a lower cost profile and equivalent efficacy and safety to the originator, but post-marketing clinical evaluation of biosimilar products has not been adequately conducted. We prospectively investigated the utility of biosimilar filgrastim in 13 peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) donors from June 2014 to January 2017. In addition, we retrospectively compared these to another 13 PBSC donors mobilized with the originator filgrastim in the same period. Donor characteristics were equivalent between the groups. The median number of CD34⁺ cells per donor body weight (BW) and blood volume processed (BV) were 4.87 × 10⁶/kg and 25.5 × 10³/mL in the biosimilar group and 4.93 × 10⁶/kg and 16.6 × 10³/mL in the originator group, respectively. There were no significant differences between the groups in the number of CD34⁺ cells per donor BW or BV. All adverse events associated with G-CSF were permissive. The total G-CSF cost was significantly lower in the biosimilar group than in the originator group. These findings suggest that biosimilar filgrastim has the same efficacy and short-term safety as originator filgrastim for PBSC mobilization in healthy donors, with economic superiority. Longer follow-up studies are needed to evaluate the incidence of long-term adverse events.

Medical and ethical considerations on hematopoietic stem cells mobilization for healthy donors

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is a common procedure potentially beneficial to many individuals with cancer, hematological, or inherited disorders, and has highlighted the need of related or unrelated donors to perform allograft. Donation of hematopoietic stem cells, either through bone marrow harvest or peripheral blood stem cell collection, is well-established and widespread. Over the past two decades, the peripheral blood stem cell collection by aphaeresis has become the main source of hematopoietic stem cells for transplantation, due to faster engraftment and practicability and lower risk of relapse for high-risk patients. For peripheral blood stem cell donation, donors require mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells from bone marrow into the blood stream. This is performed by growth factors injections. This article is a review of reported applications of growth factors (original granulocyte colony stimulating factor and its biosimilars), for healthy donors' peripheral blood stem cell mobilization, in terms of toxicity, side effects, efficacy and follow-up. There is still an ethical dilemma for clinicians involved in allograft, because they expose healthy donors to drugs. It is important to dispel some of the critical concerns regarding their use in healthy volunteers, particularly because they receive no personal therapeutic benefit from this procedure.

What is the role of biosimilar G-CSF agents in hematopoietic stem cell mobilization at present?

Mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells, which has largely replaced bone marrow harvesting as a source of hematopoietic stem cells, using recombinant agents such as filgrastim or lenograstim has become a standard procedure in both patients and healthy donors prior to peripheral blood stem cell collection for autologous and allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Published literature data suggest that mobilization with recombinant granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is safe and mobilization outcomes are satisfactory. In recent years, besides G-CSF originators, biosimilar G-CSF agents have been approved by the regulatory agencies for the same indications. Current data showed that by using the biosimilar G-CSF, similar results regarding safety and efficacy of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization may be achieved compared to the originator G-CSF. Although the issues such as the similarity to a licenced biological medicine, differences in manufacturing processes, the potential to cause immunogenicity, extrapolation and interchangeability of these biosimilar products are still being discussed by the scientific area, however, more experience with these agents now exists in approved endications and there seems to be no reason to expect significant differences between biosimilar G-CSF and originator G-CSF regarding their efficacy and safety in both patients and healthy donors. Also, the significant cost savings of biosimilars in real life setting may enhance the use of these agents in the future. Nonetheless, the collection of long-term follow-up data is mandatory for both patients and healthy donors, and multicentre randomized clinical trials that directly compare biosimilar G-CSF with the originator G-CSF are needed in order to allow the transplant community to make informed decisions regarding the choice of G-CSF.

Mobilization of autologous and allogeneic peripheral blood stem cells for transplantation in haematological malignancies using biosimilar G-CSF

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Biosimilars of the granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) filgrastim were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for registered indications of the originator G-CSF, including prevention and treatment of neutropenia, as well as mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in 2008. Nevertheless, there is still an ongoing debate regarding the quality, efficacy and safety of biosimilar G-CSF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This article is a meta-analysis of clinical studies on the use of biosimilar G-CSF for mobilization and transplantation of haematopoietic stem cells as available in public databases. All data sets were weighted for the number of patients and parameters and then subjected to statistical meta-analysis employing the Mann-Whitney U-test followed by the Hodges-Lehmann estimator to assess differences between biosimilar and originator G-SCF.

RESULTS

A total of 1892 individuals, mostly with haematological malignancies but also including 351 healthy donors have been successfully mobilized for autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation using biosimilar G-CSF (Zarzio(TM) : 1239 individuals; Ratiograstim(TM) /Tevagrastim(TM) : 653 individuals). A total of 740 patients with multiple myeloma, 491 with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), 150 with Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) and other diseases are included in this meta-analysis, as well as 161 siblings and 190 volunteer unrelated donors. For biosimilar and originator G-CSF, bioequivalence was observed for the yield of CD34+ stem cells as well as for the engraftment of the transplants.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilar G-CSF has equivalent effects and safety as originator G-CSF.