Effectiveness of biosimilar filgrastim vs. original granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in febrile neutropenia prevention in breast cancer patients

Is PEGylated G-CSF superior to G-CSF in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

PEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a safe alternative to G-CSF to improve chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). This superiority has resulted in its increased use by physicians; however, the superiority of PEGylated G-CSF for CIN in breast cancer has not been conclusively determined.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the superiority of PEGylated G-CSF for CIN in breast cancer in terms of effectiveness and safety via a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed for eligible studies published from database inception to December 2019. All studies comparing PEGylated G-CSF and G-CSF for CIN of breast cancer were reviewed. After literature selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was conducted using Revman, version 5.2.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials were finally identified. The publication bias of these studies was acceptable. For the endpoint of effectiveness, analysis of the incidence/duration of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, the duration of grade 4 neutropenia, the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), and the time to absolute neutrophil count recovery showed no advantage of PEGylated G-CSF over G-CSF for CIN of breast cancer (P > 0.05), with the premise of a sufficient dose of G-CSF according to the guidelines. No significant differences in grade 4 adverse events were observed between the groups (P = 0.29), and PEGylated G-CSF did not increase the incidence of skeletal and/or muscle pain compared with G-CSF (P = 0.32).

CONCLUSION

PEGylated G-CSF was as effective and safe as G-CSF to reduce CIN in breast cancer but did not show an obvious superiority. However, in clinical practice, PEGylated G-CSF has an obvious advantage in terms of convenience, which could improve patient's quality of life.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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