Comparison of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim to prevent neutropenia and maintain dose intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer

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

BACKGROUD

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Prescription patterns of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in patients with breast cancer: A real-world study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Myelosuppressive chemotherapy is effective for breast cancer but carries a potential risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Clinical practice guidelines have recommended prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to reduce the incidence of FN in patients receiving chemotherapy. We aimed to examine the use of G-CSFs for primary prophylaxis for FN and to see whether it follows the guidelines. In addition, we examined the changes in the use of long-acting and short-acting G-CSFs in patients with breast cancer over the past ten years.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational real-world study. The data were obtained from the clinical research database of three hospitals affiliated with Taipei Medical University. Patients with breast cancer who initiated their first chemotherapy regimen between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2020, were identified by the ICD codes and their use of filgrastim or pegfilgrastim was identified by the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical codes. Whether and how G-CSF was prescribed during the study patients' first chemotherapy regimen was examined, and the annual change in the total number of short- and long-acting G-CSFs prescribed to the study patients from 2011 to 2020 was analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 2,444 patients who were prescribed at least one of the examined 15 breast cancer chemotherapy drugs, 1,414 did not use any G-CSFs during their first chemotherapy regimen while 145 used G-CSFs for primary prophylaxis and 185 for treatment. Among the patients receiving high FN risk regimens, only 8.6% used G-CSF for primary prophylaxis. The average (± SD) number of days for short-acting G-CSF use was 2.3 (± 1.5) days with a median of 2 days. In addition, it was found that there was a significant reduction in long-acting G-CSF use (p = 0.03) whereas the changes in short-acting G-CSF use over time were not significant (p = 0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results show that G-CSFs are used for primary prophylaxis in a small percentage of patients with breast cancer and the duration of short-acting G-CSF use is relatively short. Considering the significant clinical and economic impact of FN, it is hoped that the prescription patterns of G-CSFs observed can provide an important reference for future clinical practice and reimbursement policy.

A Review of Protein- and Peptide-Based Chemical Conjugates: Past, Present, and Future

Over the past few decades, the complexity of molecular entities being advanced for therapeutic purposes has continued to evolve. A main propellent fueling innovation is the perpetual mandate within the pharmaceutical industry to meet the needs of novel disease areas and/or delivery challenges. As new mechanisms of action are uncovered, and as our understanding of existing mechanisms grows, the properties that are required and/or leveraged to enable therapeutic development continue to expand. One rapidly evolving area of interest is that of chemically enhanced peptide and protein therapeutics. While a variety of conjugate molecules such as antibody-drug conjugates, peptide/protein-PEG conjugates, and protein conjugate vaccines are already well established, others, such as antibody-oligonucleotide conjugates and peptide/protein conjugates using non-PEG polymers, are newer to clinical development. This review will evaluate the current development landscape of protein-based chemical conjugates with special attention to considerations such as modulation of pharmacokinetics, safety/tolerability, and entry into difficult to access targets, as well as bioavailability. Furthermore, for the purpose of this review, the types of molecules discussed are divided into two categories: (1) therapeutics that are enhanced by protein or peptide bioconjugation, and (2) protein and peptide therapeutics that require chemical modifications. Overall, the breadth of novel peptide- or protein-based therapeutics moving through the pipeline each year supports a path forward for the pursuit of even more complex therapeutic strategies.

A Rare Case of Large-Vessel Vasculitis following Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy and Pegfilgrastim

Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) and pegfilgrastim, a long-acting growth factor agent, are vital components of current cancer treatments. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) such as colitis and pneumonitis are well-established toxicities associated with CPI therapy. However, large-vessel vasculitis secondary to CPI utilization is reported only in rare case reports and case series. Interestingly, large-vessel vasculitis has also been reported as a rare complication of pegfilgrastim use. We present a 59-year-old female with left stage IIA (cT2N0M0) triple-negative breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant decitabine and pembrolizumab prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). NAC included standard-of-care dose dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) supported with pegfilgrastim use followed by weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel. After receiving her second cycle of ddAC with pegfilgrastim, the patient reported five days of left shoulder and arm pain. Subsequent CT imaging demonstrated wall thickening and inflammatory changes surrounding the left subclavian artery, aortic arch, left carotid artery, proximal innominate arteries, and the mid internal carotid arteries and its branching vessels. These findings were extremely concerning for large-vessel vasculitis. Excluding CPI therapy and pegfilgrastim use, no additional inciting event or medication that the patient was exposed to was noted to be associated with large-vessel vasculitis. We present this case to report on this rare but severe complication from commonly utilized agents in cancer treatment. We also extend the possibility of large-vessel vasculitis development in relation to the COVID-19 vaccine due to shared ingredients found in both the vaccine and pegfilgrastim. It is important to outline the treatment used for such a complication as no standardized treatment has been established for large-vessel vasculitis caused by CPI therapy or pegfilgrastim use.

G-CSF, the guardian of granulopoiesis

A considerable amount of continuous proliferation and differentiation is required to produce daily a billion new neutrophils in an adult human. Of the few cytokines and factors known to control neutrophil production, G-CSF is the guardian of granulopoiesis. G-CSF/CSF3R signaling involves the recruitment of non-receptor protein tyrosine kinases and their dependent signaling pathways of serine/threonine kinases, tyrosine phosphatases, and lipid second messengers. These pathways converge to activate the families of STAT and C/EBP transcription factors. CSF3R mutations are associated with human disorders of neutrophil production, including severe congenital neutropenia, neutrophilia, and myeloid malignancies. More than three decades after their identification, cloning, and characterization of G-CSF and G-CSF receptor, fundamental questions remain about their physiology.

Biosimilars accessible in the market for the treatment of cancer

Biosimilars are the biological product clinically identical to a biologic reference standard regarding their strength, purity, and safety. A large segment of biosimilars has been developed for the treatment of cancer. This review aims to discuss various facets of biosimilars and explicates on biosimilars accessible in the market for cancer clinical intervention. It also illustrates the outcomes of recent clinical trial studies concerning biosimilars. Further, it also crosstalk the safety profiles, regulatory approval requirements, and allied challenges therein. The work will be of significant interest to researchers working in the field of biologics and biosimilars.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Trial registration

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

Prophylactic pegfilgrastim to prevent febrile neutropenia among patients receiving biweekly (Q2W) chemotherapy regimens: a systematic review of efficacy, effectiveness and safety

Background

Pegfilgrastim, a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), is commonly used to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN), a potentially life-threatening complication, following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. The FDA label for pegfilgrastim specifies that it should not be administered 14 days before or within 24 h of administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, precluding the use of pegfilgrastim in biweekly (Q2W) regimens. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines support the use of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens. The objective of this study was to systematically review evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that describe the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in preventing FN among patients receiving Q2W regimens.

Methods

An Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library literature search was conducted to evaluate the evidence regarding efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim versus no prophylactic pegfilgrastim or prophylaxis with other G-CSF in patients who were receiving Q2W chemotherapy regimens with high (> 20%) or intermediate (10–20%) risk of FN for a non-myeloid malignancy. Studies that addressed absolute or relative risk of FN, grade 1–4 neutropenia, all-cause or any hospitalization, dose delays or dose reductions, adverse events, or mortality were included. Studies where the comparator was a Q3W chemotherapy regimen with primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim were also included.

Results

The initial literature search identified 2258 publications. Thirteen publications met the eligibility criteria, including eight retrospective, one prospective, one phase 1 dose escalation study, and three RCTs. In nine of the 13 studies reporting incidence of FN, and in seven of the nine studies reporting incidence of neutropenia, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens resulted in decreased or comparable rates of FN or neutropenia compared with patients receiving filgrastim, no G-CSF, lipefilgrastim or pegfilgrastim in Q3W regimens. In six of the nine studies reporting safety data, lower or comparable safety profiles were observed between pegfilgrastim and comparators.

Conclusions

In a variety of non-myeloid malignancies, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim was efficacious in reducing the risk of FN in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk Q2W regimens, with an acceptable safety profile.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration no: CRD42019155572.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08258-w.

A retrospective review of the real-world experience of the Pegfilgrastim biosimilar (Lapelga®) to the reference biologic (Neulasta®)

Introduction

Cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy are vulnerable to febrile neutropenia (FN) which contributes to poor treatment outcomes. The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors is administered to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The introduction of biosimilars has allowed for greater cost-savings while maintaining safety and efficacy. This retrospective study assessed the incidence of FN and related treatment outcomes and the cost minimization of a pegfilgrastim biosimilar and its reference.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of breast cancer patients receiving (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy from February 2017 to May 2020 was conducted. The endpoints included the incidence of FN, the occurrence of dose reduction (DR), dose delay (DD) and pain. A cost minimization analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective.

Results

One hundred Neulasta® and 74 Lapelga® patients were included in the first-cycle analysis. The rate of FN in cycle 1 for Neulasta® and Lapelga® was 2/100 and 4/74, respectively; risk difference (RD)  =  3.4%; 95% CI: –2.4 to 9.2%. Eighty-three Neulasta® and 59 Lapelga® patients were included in the all-cycle analyses, where DR was reported in 76 (15%) Neulasta® cycles vs 33 (10%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = –3.6, 95% CI: –10.2 to 2.9). DD was reported in 20 (4%) Neulasta® cycles vs. 11 (3.5%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = –0.3; 95% CI: –2.7 to 2.0). Adverse events were similar between groups. Cost minimization using a cohort of 20,000 patients translated into an incremental savings of $21,606,800 CAD for each cycle.

Conclusion

The biosimilar pegfilgrastim was non-inferior to the reference biologic based on FN incidence in addition to related outcomes including DR and DD.

Recent advances in the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in Italy

During the National Congress of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology, which was held in Rome, Italy, October 2019, experts met to discuss advantages of febrile neutropenia prevention based on biosimilar G-CSF. This issue is of paramount importance in oncology as recent biological products may be of great benefit, provided that costs are sustainable.

Neutropenic complications in the PANTHER phase III study of adjuvant tailored dose-dense chemotherapy in early breast cancer

Introduction: Myelosuppresion is a common side effect of chemotherapy and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is often used to reduce the risk of neutropenic events. The purpose of this exploratory analysis was to investigate neutropenic complications in the phase III PANTHER trial of standard 3-weekly chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide plus docetaxel (FEC/D) versus bi-weekly tailored dose-dense EC/D adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.Patients and methods: Febrile neutropenia, neutropenic infection and infection grade 3-4 according to CTC AE 3.0, were explored in relation to G-CSF use. Per cycle analysis was performed concerning dose reduction and dose delays in conjunction with G-CSF administration.Results: In the experimental group, 98.9% of patients received primary G-CSF support during EC and 97.4% during docetaxel, compared with 49.7% during FEC and 63.88% during docetaxel in the standard group. Overall, the use of G-CSF was associated with a lower risk for developing neutropenic events (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.35-0.55, p < .001). Chemotherapy delays due to neutropenia and leukopenia were significantly decreased among patients that received G-CSF (OR 0.098, 95% CI 0.06-0.15 and OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18-0.58, respectively).Discussion: In conclusion, G-CSF support reduces neutropenic events and permits increased relative dose intensity, which is essential for improved survival outcomes.

Efficacy of pegfilgrastim to support neoadjuvant dose-dense epirubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in breast cancer

PURPOSE

The role of long-acting hematopoietic growth factor in supporting dose-dense chemotherapy and minimizing hematologic toxicity has not been established. We investigated the efficacy and safety of once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant dose-dense epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddEC).

METHODS

Newly diagnosed stage I to III breast cancer patients received four cycles of ddEC (E, 100 mg/m² and C, 600 mg/m² every 2 weeks) and 6 mg of subcutaneous pegfilgrastim on day 2 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the incidence of chemotherapy delay. Secondary endpoints include the incidences of febrile neutropenia (FN) and grade 3/4 neutropenia during the four ddEC cycles.

RESULTS

A total of 240 patients were enrolled and 913 ddEC cycles were administered in the study. Chemotherapy delay occurred in 15 patients (6.3% of patients, 95% CI 3.2-9.4%) for 17 cycles (1.9% of cycles, 95% CI 1.0-2.8%). The most frequent cause of chemotherapy delay was transaminase elevation (10 patients, 12 cycles). A total of 12 patients (5.0%, 95% CI 2.2-7.8%) developed 13 episodes of FN. Of the 221 patients that completed four ddEC cycles with pegfilgrastim support, 209 patients (94.6%, 95% CI 91.6-97.6%) had a 100% relative dose intensity (RDI). A RDI ≥ 85% was achieved in 217 of 221 patients (98.2%, 95% CI 96.5-99.9%). Bone pain of any grade was recorded in 85 of 220 evaluable patients (38.6%, 95% CI 32.2-45.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Pegfilgrastim is effective and safe in facilitating four cycles of neoadjuvant ddEC, with low incidences of chemotherapy delay and febrile neutropenia.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Short- versus Long-Acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors for Reduction of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia

Introduction

Short- and long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are approved for the reduction of febrile neutropenia. A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs reporting the use of G-CSFs following chemotherapy treatment.

Methods

Medline^®/Medline in-process, Embase^®, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between January 2003 and June 2016. A hand-search of relevant conference proceedings was conducted for meetings held between 2012 and 2016. Eligible studies were restricted to those reporting a direct, head-to-head comparison of short- versus long-acting G-CSFs for reduction of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Risk-of-bias assessments were performed for full publications only.

Results

The search strategy yielded 4044 articles for electronic screening. Thirty-six publications were evaluated for the meta-analysis: 11 of 12 RCTs and 2 of 24 non-RCTs administered doses of the short-acting G-CSF filgrastim for ≥ 7 days. In RCT studies, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes of interest between short- and long-acting G-CSFs. In non-RCTs, the overall risk was lower with long-acting G-CSF than with short-acting G-CSF for incidence of febrile neutropenia [overall relative risk (RR) = 0.67, P  = 0.023], hospitalizations (overall RR = 0.68, P  < 0.05), and chemotherapy dose delays (overall RR = 0.68, P  = 0.020).

Conclusions

Overall, the weight of evidence from RCTs indicates little difference in efficacy between the short- and long-acting G-CSFs if dosed according to recommended guidelines. There is some evidence for greater efficacy for long-acting G-CSFs in non-RCTs, which may be a result of under-dosing of short-acting G-CSFs in general practice in real-world usage.

Funding

Hospira Inc, which was acquired by Pfizer Inc in September 2015, and Pfizer Inc.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0798-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Pooled analysis of two randomized, double-blind trials comparing proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in breast cancer

Background

Following the functional and physicochemical characterization of a proposed biosimilar, comparative clinical studies help to confirm biosimilarity by demonstrating similar safety and efficacy to the reference product in a sensitive patient population.

Patients and methods

LA-EP2006 is a proposed biosimilar that has been developed for pegfilgrastim, a long-acting form of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for the prevention of neutropenia. The current analysis reports data pooled from two independent, multinational, prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind phase III studies of similar design comparing the safety and efficacy of reference pegfilgrastim with LA-EP2006 in patients with breast cancer receiving myelotoxic (neo)adjuvant TAC (docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy and requiring granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

Results

A total of 624 patients were randomized in the PROTECT-1 and PROTECT-2 studies (NCT01735175; NCT01516736) (LA-EP2006: n = 314; reference: n = 310). Baseline characteristics of patients were well balanced across treatment groups. The primary end point, mean duration of severe neutropenia in the first chemotherapy cycle was similar in both the LA-EP2006 and reference groups (1.05 ± 1.055 days versus 1.01 ± 0.958 days), with a treatment difference of - 0.04 days [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.19 to 0.11] that met the equivalence criteria (the 95% CI were within the defined margin of ±1 day). Secondary end points, such as the nadir of absolute neutrophil count and the incidence of febrile neutropenia, were also similar between LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim. The safety and tolerability profile of LA-EP2006 was similar to that observed with reference pegfilgrastim, and there were no reports of neutralizing antibodies.

Conclusions

This pooled analysis confirms, as a part of totality of evidence approach, that the proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim LA-EP2006 has a comparable efficacy and safety profile to reference pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer receiving TAC chemotherapy.

Clinical trial numbers

NCT01735175 and NCT01516736.

Adequate Neutrophil Responses and Non-Inferior Clinical Outcomes Can Be Achieved by a Two-Day Course of Low-Dose Filgrastim: A Retrospective Single Institution Experience

Background

Filgrastim is used in the setting of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia to stimulate recovery of bone marrow, which allows for further chemotherapy administration without delay. The recommended dose is 5 ug/kg. The commercially available vials of the drug come in two strengths; 300 ug and 480 ug. Due to these limitations in dosage formulations, it is a frequent occurrence to administer a lower dosage to patients weighing more than 60 kg, in whom the ideal dose would have been more than 300 ug but less than 480 ug. It is also a frequent practice to administer the drug for two consecutive days as it often leads to adequate response that will render patients eligible for their next cycle administration.

Objective

To determine whether a course of 300 ug of filgrastim administered daily for two consecutive days was as successful at reducing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia-related complications in patients with a higher weight (>60 kg) and hence receiving suboptimal dose as compared to those with weight less than 60 kg who are receiving the recommended dose.

Methods

We identified 91 patients from our facility with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia treated with 300 ug of filgrastim daily for two consecutive days, and we separated them into low, medium, and high weight groups. Multivariate logistic regression models examined correlations between outcomes (e.g., increases in absolute neutrophil count) and predictors (e.g., weight groups).

Results

The vast majority of encounters demonstrated rises in white blood cell (WBC) and absolute neutrophil count (ANC). Infection rates were not significantly different between low and medium weight groups (5% vs 0%; p = 0.1658), but the high weight group’s infection rate was significantly higher than the medium weight group (5% vs 33%; p = 0.001). The high weight group did have an increased rate of febrile neutropenia as compared to medium and low weight groups, but these differences were not significant. Incidences of chemotherapy delay and dose reduction were comparable across the three weight groups.

Limitations

Retrospective study, small sample size, heterogeneous cancer sites and different chemotherapy regimens administered limit generalizability of findings.

Conclusion

Patients with weights <85 kg receiving a two-day course of 300 ug of filgrastim have similar neutropenia-related complication rates with a potential percent cost-savings of roughly 43%.

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to describe the effectiveness of biosimilar filgrastim and original granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), lenograstim and pegfilgrastim, in febrile neutropenia (FN) prevention in breast cancer patients receiving docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (TAC) as adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment and to analyze their treatment patterns.

METHODS

A pharmacoepidemiology cohort study was developed in a university hospital (with 23 healthcare centers) with retrospective data collection (2012-2014). Effectiveness of G-CSFs was assessed by the FN incidence. Other parameters analyzed were as follows: moderate and severe neutropenia incidence, neutropenia-related hospitalizations, dosage, and duration. Data was analyzed using each cycle as a unit of analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 98 patients representing 518 chemotherapy cycles, 215 with original G-CSFs (35 lenograstim and 180 pegfilgrastim) and 303 with biosimilar filgrastim. The FN incidence was similar in both groups (3.7% original vs. 3.3% biosimilar; p = 0.79). No statistically significant differences were found in moderate and severe neutropenia incidence (4.7 vs. 6.3%; p = 0.43) or neutropenia-related hospitalizations (3.3 vs. 3.6%; p = 0.19). When the three drugs were evaluated separately, a higher FN incidence was observed with lenograstim than with pegfilgratim or biosimilar (p = 0.024). The dosage and duration of biosimilar were lower than lenograstim (4.9 vs. 5.7 μg/kg/day; 5 vs. 7 days; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

An abbreviated 5-day course of biosimilar filgrastim provided optimal primary prophylaxis against FN post-chemotherapy TAC in patients with breast cancer. The clinical relevance of the highest FN incidence in the lenograstim cohort needs further attention.

The effectiveness and safety of same-day versus next-day administration of long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) are commonly used in clinical practice to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN). US and EU prescribing information and treatment guidelines from the NCCN, ASCO, and EORTC specify that pegfilgrastim, a long-acting (LA) G-CSF, should be administered at least 24 h after myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Nevertheless, many patients receive LA G-CSFs on the same day as chemotherapy. This systematic literature review evaluated the relative merits of same-day versus next-day dosing of LA G-CSFs.

METHODS

A broad Ovid MEDLINE® and Embase® literature search was conducted that examined all publications indexed before May 9, 2016 that compared same-day versus next-day LA G-CSF administration. A congress abstract literature search included congresses from January 1, 2011 to April 6, 2016. The parameters for this review were prospectively delineated in a research protocol and adhered to the PRISMA Guidelines.

RESULTS

The first part of the systematic literature search identified 1736 publications. After elimination of duplicates, title/abstract screening was conducted on 1440 records, and full text review was conducted on 449 publications. Eleven publications met all criteria and are included in this systematic review; of these, four included data from randomized or single arm prospective studies, and seven were retrospective studies. In most studies included in this review and across a variety of tumor types, administration of pegfilgrastim at least 24 h after myelosuppressive chemotherapy resulted in improved patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from multiple publications support administration of pegfilgrastim at least 1 day after chemotherapy.

A phase I study of different doses and frequencies of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (PEG rhG-CSF) in patients with standard-dose chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

Objective

The recommended dose of prophylactic pegylated recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (PEG rhG-CSF) is 100 μg/kg once per cycle for patients receiving intense-dose chemotherapy. However, few data are available on the proper dose for patients receiving less-intense chemotherapy. The aim of this phase I study is to explore the proper dose and administration schedule of PEG rhG-CSF for patients receiving standard-dose chemotherapy.

Methods

Eligible patients received 3-cycle chemotherapy every 3 weeks. No PEG rhG-CSF was given in the first cycle. Patients experienced grade 3 or 4 neutropenia would then enter the cycle 2 and 3. In cycle 2, patients received a single subcutaneous injection of prophylactic PEG rhG-CSF on d 3, and received half-dose subcutaneous injection in cycle 3 on d 3 and d 5, respectively. Escalating doses (30, 60, 100 and 200 μg/kg) of PEG rhG-CSF were investigated.

Results

A total of 26 patients were enrolled and received chemotherapy, in which 24 and 18 patients entered cycle 2 and cycle 3 treatment, respectively. In cycle 2, the incidence of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia for patients receiving single-dose PEG rhG-CSF of 30, 60, 100 and 200 μg/kg was 66.67%, 33.33%, 22.22% and 0, respectively, with a median duration less than 1 (0-2) d. No grade 3 or higher neutropenia was noted in cycle 3 in all dose cohorts.

Conclusions

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of PEG rhG-CSF used in cancer patients were similar to those reported, as well as the safety. Double half dose administration model showed better efficacy result than a single dose model in terms of grade 3 neutropenia and above. The single dose of 60 μg/kg, 100 μg/kg and double half dose of 30 μg/kg were recommended to the phase II study, hoping to find a preferable method for neutropenia treatment.

Towards the next generation of biomedicines by site-selective conjugation

Bioconjugates represent an emerging class of medicines, which offer therapeutic opportunities overtaking those of the individual components. Many novel bioconjugates have been explored in order to address various emerging medical needs. The last decade has witnessed the exponential growth of new site-selective bioconjugation techniques, however very few methods have made the way into human clinical trials. Here we discuss various applications of site-selective conjugation in biomedicines, including half-life extension, antibody-drug conjugates, conjugate vaccines, bispecific antibodies and cell therapy. The review is intended to highlight both the progress and challenges, and identify a potential roadmap to address the gap.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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