Treatment patterns and outcomes in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia with biosimilar filgrastim (the MONITOR-GCSF study)

Filgrastim biosimilar (EP2006): A review of 15 years' post-approval evidence

Filgrastim is approved for several indications, including reduction of the incidence and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and for stem cell mobilization. The filgrastim biosimilar, EP2006, has been available in Europe since 2009, and in the United States since 2015. In this time, preclinical and clinical data used to support the approval of EP2006 have been published. These data established the biosimilarity of EP2006 to reference filgrastim in terms of structure, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Additional real-world evidence studies have also demonstrated equivalent efficacy and safety of EP2006 compared with reference filgrastim, both in the reduction of neutropenia and in stem cell mobilization in clinical practice. This review summarizes these preclinical, clinical, and real-world data, as well as the available cost-effectiveness data, for EP2006 since its approval 15 years ago.

Clinical decision support for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia using a hybrid pharmacodynamic/machine learning model

Consensus guidelines recommend use of granulocyte colony stimulating factor in patients deemed at risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, however, these risk models are limited in the factors they consider and miss some cases of neutropenia. Clinical decision making could be supported using models that better tailor their predictions to the individual patient using the wealth of data available in electronic health records (EHRs). Here, we present a hybrid pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PKPD)/machine learning (ML) approach that uses predictions and individual Bayesian parameter estimates from a PKPD model to enrich an ML model built on her data. We demonstrate this approach using models developed on a large real-world data set of 9121 patients treated for lymphoma, breast, or thoracic cancer. We also investigate the benefits of augmenting the training data using synthetic data simulated with the PKPD model. We find that PKPD-enrichment of ML models improves prediction of grade 3-4 neutropenia, as measured by higher precision (61%) and recall (39%) compared to PKPD model predictions (47%, 33%) or base ML model predictions (51%, 31%). PKPD augmentation of ML models showed minor improvements in recall (44%) but not precision (56%), and data augmentation required careful tuning to control overfitting its predictions to the PKPD model. PKPD enrichment of ML shows promise for leveraging both the physiology-informed predictions of PKPD and the ability of ML to learn predictor-outcome relationships from large data sets to predict patient response to drugs in a clinical precision dosing context.

G-CSF filgrastim biosimilar-Sandoz reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving chemotherapy regimens with rest periods not exceeding 14 days: A French, multicenter, prospective, non-interventional study

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to describe filgrastim biosimilar-Sandoz modalities of use in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens with a rest period of ≤14 days and to investigate the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a French, multicenter, prospective and descriptive, non-interventional study including patients with breast, lung, gastrointestinal cancer or a lymphoma initiating filgrastim biosimilar-Sandoz treatment and in the context of cytotoxic chemotherapy with a rest period not exceeding 14 days. Data were collected during two routine clinical visits on the modalities of use of filgrastim biosimilar-Sandoz, on the incidence of neutropenia events and on adverse events.

RESULTS

Between November 2015 and June 2018, 1080 patients were enrolled in the study in 129 centers. Overall, 941 patients were evaluable for efficacy and 937 for safety. Of the 941 patients, 84.8% had a solid tumor and 15.2% had a lymphoid hemopathy. Filgrastim biosimilar-Sandoz was prescribed as primary prophylaxis in 74.0% of the patients and as secondary prophylaxis in 22.4% of the patients. FN was reported in 1.5% of patients with a solid tumor and 12.6% of patients with a lymphoma. A chemotherapy relative dose intensity of over 85% with regard to the reference dose was achieved by more than 80% of the patients in all tumor localizations.

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed that filgrastim biosimilar-Sandoz is safe to use and effective in preventing FN and in allowing to maintain the dose intensity of chemotherapy.

Cost-efficiency analysis of conversion to biosimilar filgrastim for supportive cancer care and resultant expanded access analysis to supportive care and early-stage HER2+ breast cancer treatment in Saudi Arabia: simulation study

AIMS

This study estimated, for Saudi Arabia, the cost-efficiency of converting patients from reference Neupogen and Neulastim to one of two filgrastim biosimilars (Nivestim, Zarzio); the budget-neutral expanded access to supportive care with biosimilar filgrastim and therapeutic care to ado-trastuzumab emtansine thus afforded; and the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to provide supportive or therapeutic treatment to one patient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Replicating prior studies, we modeled the cost-efficiencies gained from converting varying proportions of a hypothetical panel of 4,000 patients undergoing six cycles of cancer treatment from Neupogen or Neulastim to one of the two biosimilar G-CSF formulations, using national cost inputs. Cost-savings in USD were used to estimate the additional doses of biosimilar G-CSF and expanded access to ado-trastuzumab emtansine on a budget-neutral basis, and NNC to purchase one additional dose of supportive or therapeutic treatment.

RESULTS

Savings from conversion from reference to a biosimilar filgrastim were $3,086,400 (Nivestim) and $3,460,800 (Zarzio). With reference pegfilgrastim, savings from conversion were $11,712,240 (Nivestim) and $12,086,640 (Zarzio). Biosimilar conversion from reference to biosimilar filgrastim enabled expanded access to ado-trastuzumab emtansine ranging from 61 patients (5 days, Nivestim) to 191 patients (14 days, Zarzio). For supportive care, biosimilar conversion enabled expanded access ranging from 8,244 patients (5 days, Nivestim) to 25,882 patients (14 days, Zarzio). For biosimilar conversion from daily filgrastim, the NNC for treatment with ado-trastuzumab emtansine decreased as days of injections increased [5 days: 395 (Nivestim), 352 (Zarzio); 14 days: 141(Nivestim), 126 (Zarzio)]. Alternately, for biosimilar conversion from single-injection pegfilgrastim to daily biosimilar filgrastim, the NNC for treatment with ado-trastuzumab emtansine rose as days of injections increased, being highest under the 14-day scenario (146, Nivestim; 130, Zarzio).

CONCLUSION

This simulation study demonstrated significant potential cost-savings from biosimilar conversion. These savings provide budget-neutral increased access to supportive and therapeutic cancer care.

Pegfilgrastim Biosimilars in US Supportive Oncology: A Narrative Review of Administration Options and Economic Considerations to Maximize Patient Benefit

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biologics, such as pegfilgrastim, are a standard of care in supportive cancer treatment that are administered once per chemotherapy cycle to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. The high cost of these biologics in the United States can be a limiting factor to accessing care; however, lower-cost pegfilgrastim biosimilars have been available for several years for patients requiring prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Different options for pegfilgrastim administration are also now available to accommodate specific patient preferences. As patients may want to minimize the risk of both neutropenia and SARS-CoV-2 infection, same-day administration is a pertinent option during the present COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, individualized, patient-centered approaches and risk-management strategies should be considered when selecting the treatment and administration method for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Three methods of administration would minimize hospital or clinic visits while also providing the prophylactic effect of G-CSF: same-day administration after chemotherapy, use of the US Food and Drug Administration–approved on-body injector delivering pegfilgrastim approximately 27 h after chemotherapy, or self-administration by the patient or caregiver > 24 h after chemotherapy. Choice of the specific administration option should be based on the patient’s specific needs, while also considering mitigating factors, such as the economic burden associated with biologic medications and the risk of COVID-19. Pegfilgrastim biosimilars can minimize the additional financial burden on patients and the health care system during this pandemic and beyond.

Patterns of primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in older Medicare patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend primary prophylactic (PP) granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) for prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with high risk (HR: > 20%), or intermediate risk (IR:10-20%) of FN and ≥ 1 patient risk factor (e.g., age ≥ 65y). The current retrospective cohort study describes patterns of PP-G-CSF in older Medicare patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy with HR/IR of FN.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 66y initiating chemotherapy regimens with HR/IR of FN to treat breast, colorectal, lung, or ovarian cancer, or Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma were selected using Medicare 20% sample (2013-2015) and 100% cancer patient (2014-2017) data. PP-G-CSF use was identified in the first cycle. Timing of pegfilgrastim pre-filled syringe (PFS) administration, proportion of patients completing all cycles (adherence) with pegfilgrastim PFS or on-body injector (OBI), and duration of short-acting G-CSF (sG-CSF) was described across all cycles.

RESULTS

Of 64,893 patients receiving HR/IR for FN, 71% received HR and 29% IR regimens. Overall, PP-G-CSF use in the first cycle was 53% (HR: 74%; IR: 44%) and varied across cancers. Adherence with pegfilgrastim was slightly higher among OBI initiators (78%) than PFS (74%). Number of PP-sG-CSF administrations (mean [SD]) per cycle was 5.1 (SD: 2.7) overall, 5.4 (2.6) for HR, and 4.9 (2.7) for IR.

CONCLUSION

Despite cancer treatment guidelines recommending PP-G-CSF use to reduce risk of FN associated with HR and IR (with ≥ 1 patient risk-factor) regimens, PP-G-CSF remains underutilized in older patients, across cancer types and regimens. Opportunities exist for improvement in use of PP-G-CSF.

Pegfilgrastim-apgf (Nyvepria): Biosimilar USFDA approval for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and current updates on clinical trials

Pegfilgrastim-apgf (nyvepria) was currently approved by FDA for the treatment of febrile neutropenia associated with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs. It was developed by Pfizer, USA. It is a PEGylated leukocyte growth stimulating factor indicated to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving anticancer drugs. Nyvepria is biosimilar to pegfilgrastim, approved by FDA on June 10, 2020. It is the fourth FDA-approved drug for the treatment of infection exhibiting febrile neutropenia. This review abridges the indicators in the development of nyvepria foremost to approval for the treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN), a biosimilar regulatory framework and current updates on the clinical trials (CTs).

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

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

Real-world burden of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in patients with small cell lung cancer: a retrospective analysis of electronic medical data from community cancer care providers

AIMS

Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression, which commonly exhibits as neutropenia, anemia, or thrombocytopenia, represents a substantial burden for patients with cancer that affects health-related quality of life and increases healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). We evaluated the burden of myelosuppression among chemotherapy-treated patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) using real-world data from community cancer care providers in the Western United States.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational analysis of electronic medical records (EMRs) from Providence St. Joseph Health hospital-associated oncology clinics between January 2016 and December 2019. Patient demographics were assessed from the date of first SCLC diagnosis in adult patients with chemotherapy-induced grade ≥3 myelosuppression in first-line (1L) or second-line-and-beyond (2L+) treatment settings. Myelosuppressive adverse events (AEs), treatment patterns, and HCRU were assessed from the date of chemotherapy initiation (index date) until 12 months, date of the last visit, date of death, or study end, whichever occurred earliest.

RESULTS

Of 347 eligible patients with SCLC who had received chemotherapy (mean age 66; 49% female), all had received at least 1L treatment, and 103 (29.7%) had a 2L + treatment recorded within the EMR during the study period. Of 338 evaluable patients with longitudinal laboratory data, 206 (60.9%) experienced grade ≥3 myelosuppressive AEs, most commonly neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (44.9, 41.1, and 25.4 per 100 patients, respectively). Rates of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use and red blood cell transfusions were 47.0 and 41.7 per 100 patients, respectively. There was a trend toward increasing the use of supportive care interventions and visits to inpatient and outpatient facilities in patients with myelosuppressive AEs in more than one cell lineage.

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression places a substantial real-world burden on patients with SCLC in the community cancer care setting. Innovations to protect bone marrow from chemotherapy-induced damage have the potential to reduce this burden.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Prophylaxis and treatment strategies for optimizing chemotherapy relative dose intensity

INTRODUCTION

A decrease in relative-dose intensity (RDI) of chemotherapy has been shown to be associated with poor patient outcomes in solid tumors and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The actual delivered chemotherapy dose received by patients can be influenced by dose reductions and treatment delays, often due to toxicities, most commonly chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN).

AREAS COVERED

We review seminal evidence and more recent studies that have shown an association between higher RDI and improved patient survival. A smaller number of studies has shown no association between RDI and outcomes. These differences may be due to study limitations, including low power, differences in patient and disease characteristics, or the chemotherapeutic regimen. We describe guidelines recommendations to prevent and treat CIN with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and describe novel approaches to prevent neutropenia that are being developed that may provide greater value and be associated with fewer adverse events than standard G-CSF options.

EXPERT OPINION

Maintaining RDI is important to ensure optimal patient outcomes. This can be achieved through the proper administration of G-CSF prophylaxis and treatment. Newer agents in development to treat and/or prevent CIN are entering regulatory review and may potentially change the treatment landscape for CIN in the future.

Conversion to supportive care with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv enables budget-neutral expanded access to R-CHOP treatment in non-Hodgkin lymphoma

This pharmacoeconomic simulation (1) assessed the cost-efficiency of converting a panel of 20,000 patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv; (2) estimated how savings can be used to provide budget-neutral expanded access to R-CHOP therapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients; and 3) determined the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to purchase one additional dose of R-CHOP (US payer perspective). Model inputs included biosimilar conversion from pre-filled syringe [PFS] or on-body injector [OBI] reference pegfilgrastim; age-proportional blended costs for reference pegfilgrastim PFS and OBI, pegfilgrastim-cbqv and R-CHOP; medication administration costs; biosimilar conversion rates of 10-100 %; and 1-6 cycles of prophylaxis. Cost-savings were used to estimate the number of doses of R-CHOP that could be purchased and the NNC to purchase one additional dose. Converting a panel of 20,000 patients requiring CIN/FN prophylaxis to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv from a low of 1 cycle and 10 % conversion to a high of 6 cycles and 100 % conversion yielded savings from $1,567,195 to $96,668,126. The budget-neutral acquisition of R-CHOP doses afforded by these savings ranged from 227 to 13,999 doses, the latter enabling 2333 patients to receive 6 cycles of R-CHOP treatment with no additional cost to the payer. These results are achieved if all 20,000 panel patients requiring GCSF support are prophylacted with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv for 6 cycles, yielding an NNC of 1.43 patients per additional R-CHOP dose. This simulation underscores the clinic-economic benefit of prophylaxis with biosimilar growth factor and pegfilgrastim-cbqv specifically.

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.

Neuroprotection through G-CSF: recent advances and future viewpoints

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), a member of the cytokine family of hematopoietic growth factors, is 19.6 kDa glycoprotein which is responsible for the proliferation, maturation, differentiation, and survival of neutrophilic granulocyte lineage. Apart from its proven clinical application to treat chemotherapy-associated neutropenia, recent pre-clinical studies have highlighted the neuroprotective roles of G-CSF i.e., mobilization of haemopoietic stem cells, anti-apoptotic, neuronal differentiation, angiogenesis and anti-inflammatory in animal models of neurological disorders. G-CSF is expressed by numerous cell types including neuronal, immune and endothelial cells. G-CSF is released in autocrine manner and binds to its receptor G-CSF-R which further activates numerous signaling transduction pathways including PI3K/AKT, JAK/STAT and MAP kinase, and thereby promote neuronal survival, proliferation, differentiation, mobilization of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells. The expression of G-CSF receptors (G-CSF-R) in the different brain regions and their upregulation in response to neuronal insult indicates the autocrine protective signaling mechanism of G-CSF by inhibition of apoptosis, inflammation, and stimulation of neurogenesis. These observed neuroprotective effects of G-CSF makes it an attractive target to mitigate neurodegeneration associated with neurological disorders. The objective of the review is to highlight and summarize recent updates on G-CSF as a therapeutically versatile neuroprotective agent along with mechanisms of action as well as possible clinical applications in neurodegenerative disorders including AD, PD and HD.

Conversion from pegfilgrastim with on-body injector to pegfilgrastim-jmdb: cost-efficiency analysis and budget-neutral expanded access to prophylaxis and treatment

AIMS

Therapeutic guidelines recommend prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN). Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), biosimilar pegfilgrastim-jmdb (Fulphila), and pegfilgrastim with on-body injector (OBI; Neulasta Onpro) are options for CIN/FN prophylaxis. We aimed to simulate the cost-savings and budget-neutral expanded access to CIN/FN prophylaxis or anticancer treatment achieved through conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to pegfilgrastim-jmdb and to evaluate the economic impact of FN-related hospitalization costs due to pegfilgrastim-OBI failure.

METHODS

Cost-savings from conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-jmdb were simulated in a panel of 15,000 patients with cancer from the US payer perspective. The primary analyses included conversion rates of 10% to 100%. Adjusted analyses also considered OBI device failure rates of 1% to 7% and associated costs of FN-related hospitalization. Simulations of budget-neutral expanded access to prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim-jmdb or to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) were also performed.

RESULTS

In a 15,000-patient panel, conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to pegfilgrastim-jmdb resulted in cost-savings ranging from $481,259 (10% conversion) to $4,812,585 (100% conversion) in a single cycle. Over 6 cycles at 100% conversion, savings were $28,857,510 and could provide 9,191 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 4,463 cycles of R-CHOP to patients with DLBCL. Adjusted for OBI failure, cost-savings over 6 cycles ranged from $2,935,565 (10% conversion; pegfilgrastim-OBI failure rate of 1%) to $32,236,499 (100% conversion; 7% failure). These cost-savings could provide 943 doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 454 doses of R-CHOP (10% conversion; 1% pegfilgrastim-OBI failure) or provide 10,261 doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 4,982 cycles of R-CHOP (100% conversion; 7% failure).

CONCLUSION

Conversion from pegfilgrastim to pegfilgrastim-jmdb is associated with significant cost-savings which increase markedly when also accounting for pegfilgrastim-OBI failure and associated FN-related hospitalizations. These general and failure-related cost-savings could be allocated on a budget-neutral basis to provide more patients with additional CIN/FN prophylaxis or antineoplastic treatment.

Cost-efficiency and expanded access of prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia: economic simulation analysis for the US of conversion from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv

AIMS

In this pharmacoeconomic simulation, we: (1) modeled the cost-efficiency of converting patients from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) from the US payer perspective, (2) simulated how savings enable, on a budget-neutral basis, expanded access to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, and (3) estimated the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv.

METHODS

In a hypothetical panel of 20,000 patients, we modeled cost-savings utilizing: two reference formulations (pre-filled syringe [PFS] and on-body injector [OBI]), three medication cost inputs (average sales price [ASP], wholesale acquisition cost [WAC], and an age-proportionate blended ASP/WAC rate), administration cost for injection (PFS) and device application (OBI), conversion rates of 10-100%, and 1-6 cycles of prophylaxis. Cost-savings were used to estimate additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv that could be purchased and the NNC to purchase one additional dose.

RESULTS

Using ASP and 10% conversion from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, savings range from $326,744 (1 cycle) to $2.0M (6 cycles) which could provide 93-556 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv, respectively; the NNC to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv ranges from 21.6 (1 cycle) down to 3.6 patients (6 cycles). The WAC model saves $41.1M per cycle and $246.7M over 6 cycles at 100% conversion from reference PFS which could provide 9,709-58,253 additional pegfilgrastim-cbqv doses; the NNC ranges from 2.1 (1 cycle) to 0.3 (6 cycles). Using the blended ASP/WAC rate, converting 50% from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv would save $10.2M per cycle and $60.9M over 6 cycles providing 2,638-15,829 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv; NNCs are 3.8 (1 cycle) and 0.6 patients (6 cycles).

CONCLUSIONS

Converting 20,000 patients from reference to pegfilgrastim-cbqv over 6 cycles can generate savings up to $246.7M, enough to purchase up to 58,253 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv. This simulation provides economic justification for prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv.

Commentary - A comprehensive safety understanding of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor biosimilars and Intended Copy Biologics in treating chemotherapy associated febrile neutropenia

Filgrastim, human white cell growth factor, Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), is a core medicine in the WHO list of Essential Medicines. For this reason, recent reporting of statistically significant safety and efficacy differences between reference and Biosimilar brands of filgrastim by Rastogi and the Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology in 2020 is of great concern [Shruti Rastogi et al. Towards a comprehensive safety understanding of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor biosimilars in treating chemotherapy associated febrile neutropenia: Trends from decades of data. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology Volume 395, 15 May 2020, 114,976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2020.114976]. This commentary shows that the alarming report is a result of incorrect statistical tests misapplied to inappropriate data sets compounded by a further problem relating to the strict regulatory definition of a Biosimilar Medicine as opposed that of an Intended Copy Biologic. In contrast, the body of evidence from more than seven and a half thousand participants in Confirmatory Clinical Studies and Post Approval Clinical Studies as well as the Periodic Safety Update Reports confirms that European approved filgrastim Biosimilars show no meaningful difference in quality, safety or efficacy compared to the reference brand.

Biosimilars in oncology: Effects on economy and therapeutic innovations

AIM

The introduction of new and innovative treatment options for cancer patients is accompanied by a tremendous increase in healthcare costs. Consequently, new financing approaches are strongly needed to reduce the burden on the healthcare system. The introduction of biosimilars - biological drugs containing the active substance of an already approved reference biological drug - can potentially relieve the burden on healthcare systems. Calculating the costs for three frequently used biosimilars, we simulated the health-economic impact of biosimilars in the real world for the German healthcare system.

METHODS

Based on available health-economic analyses, the actual prescription and cost containment potential of biosimilars compared to the originator were calculated exemplarily for the cost-intensive therapies trastuzumab in breast cancer, rituximab in follicular lymphoma and G-CSF in supportive care. Incidence calculations were based e.g. on data from the Robert-Koch-Institution, Munich Cancer Registry, and quality indicators of certified centres. Cost calculation was based on Lauer-Taxe® (official reference for pharmaceutical price information).

RESULTS

The application of biosimilars would generate potential annual savings for the chosen examples of up to 4.9 Mio EUR for rituximab in follicular lymphoma, 40.5 Mio EUR for filgrastim, 56.4 Mio EUR for pegfilgrastim, and between 95.9 and 120.5 Mio EUR for trastuzumab.

CONCLUSIONS

The consequent use of biosimilars allows a considerable reduction of overall treatment costs, especially for cost-intensive long-term maintenance treatments and therapies with high incidences. If the option of biosimilar usage is fully exploited, enormous resources could be released within the healthcare system in order to offset financing new innovative therapies.

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.

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.

Primary Prophylaxis Indication for Docetaxel Induced Febrile Neutropenia in Elderly Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

In advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the reported incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) caused by docetaxel (DTX) is 10-20% in clinical trial data. However, FN incidence caused by DTX in real-world setting remains unclear. We evaluated FN incidence caused by DTX and identify risk factors of FN in real-world setting. One hundred and seventy-one NSCLC patients treated with DTX were retrospectively analyzed and 44 (26%) developed FN. Multivariate analysis identified higher age (≥65 years) and prior history of FN as independent risk factors for FN. Primary prophylaxis for FN might be recommended in elderly patients with/without prior history of FN.

A survey of global biosimilar implementation practice conducted by the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners

Background

The International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP) Biosimilars Task Force was charged to develop educational activities and resources to assist members when implementing biosimilar medicines into their local practice. To facilitate the process, the task force conducted a survey in order to understand biosimilar implementation practice by ISOPP members across the world and the challenges that oncology pharmacists face when adopting biosimilars into their clinical practice.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted between 20 April 2019 and 27 May 2019. Members of ISOPP and a number of national oncology pharmacy groups were invited to complete the survey. The survey contained 29 items and consisted of three sections: respondents’ demographics, respondents’ institutional practice relating to biosimilar implementation and post implementation practice at the respondents’ institutions. Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze the survey results.

Results

A total of 265 ISOPP members were surveyed, with 50 members providing a response (response rate = 19%). In addition, 40 nonmembers participated in the survey, bringing the total to 90 respondents. The most common factors that influence the decision to implement use of a biosimilar as reported by respondents are medication costs/pricing (92%), available clinical data (73%), and product availability (63%). Respondents also commented on the barriers to biosimilar implementation at their institutions, which included a reluctance of prescribers to use biosimilars (due to the lack of familiarity or perceived inferiority), a reluctance to switch established patients from an originator to a biosimilar and the preferences of insurance companies or funding bodies.

Conclusion

The results of this survey reinforce the need for greater education and training for health care professionals in the use of biosimilars, the importance of sharing good practice, and a need for standardization.

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.

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.

Clinical role of filgrastim in the management of patients at risk of prolonged severe neutropenia: An evidence-based review

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing chemotherapy are at risk of toxicity, especially of haematological origin. Granulocyte depletion, although often underestimated, can lead to the occurrence of an event defined as febrile neutropenia (FN). Neutropenic fever syndromes are dangerous because they cause major complications in around 25%-30% of patients and have a mortality rate of up to 11%. Treatment for FN was limited to antibiotics and supportive therapies until filgrastim was approved for use in the 1990s.

OBJECTIVES

The present systematic review focuses on the efficacy and safety of this haematopoietic growth factor.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

For this review, a systematic literature search of electronic databases and references from recent reviews up to December 2018 was carried out to identify clinical trials, observational studies and case reports evaluating filgrastim efficacy and safety. English language was defined as a restriction. Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs), case reports and reviews analysing the effects of filgrastim on severe neutropenia and its limits were considered. Four review authors independently selected the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted study data.

RESULTS

As reported in ASCO guidelines, the efficacy of filgrastim with respect to placebo or no treatment in RCTs is based on its prevention of FN. A recent meta-analysis analysed nine RCTs with 2197 patients, revealing a reduction in the incidence of FN with filgrastim (risk ratio [RR] 0.63, 95% CI 0.53-0.75). These findings were further confirmed in two observational studies. Bone pain is the most commonly reported adverse event with filgrastim, while other toxicities are associated with filgrastim efficacy and with an increased neutrophil count.

KEY FINDINGS

In conclusion, our findings attest to the previous results on the efficacy and safety of filgrastim.

The Comparison of The Efficacy and Safety of Original and Biosimilar Filgrastim in Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia in Children with Cancer

Objective

In adults and children, the duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and associated complications has decreased because of the prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs). Biosimilar G-CSFs can play an important role in reducing treatment costs in daily practice. However, some concerns regarding the efficacy and safety of new biosimilar products exist among clinicians. This study compared the efficacy and safety of original and biosimilar filgrastims for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in children.

Materials and Methods

Thirty children receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy were enrolled in this study. Filgrastims (5 μg/kg/day) were subcutaneously administered in Group A (biosimilar, Leucostim®; Dem İlaç) and Group B (original drug, Neupogen®; Roche). Hemoglobin, white blood cell (WBC) count, platelet count, transfusion requirements, duration of hospitalization, and frequency and duration of adverse events including fever, neutropenia, and mucositis were evaluated following 25 treatment cycles in both groups.

Results

The hemoglobin value, WBC count, and platelet count on days 1, 5, and 10, and the red blood cell and platelet transfusion requirements, frequency, duration, and severity of mucositis, and durations of fever, febrile neutropenia, and hospitalization were similar in both groups. Although the mean WBC counts on days 1 and 5 were lower in Group A, the difference was statistically insignificant.

Conclusion

The biosimilar filgrastim, Leucostim, is as effective and safe as the original drug for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in children.

Risk assessment of febrile neutropenia and evaluation of G-CSF use in patients with cancer: a real-life study

PURPOSE

The guidelines suggest using granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) for febrile neutropenia (FN) as prophylaxis in chemotherapy protocols with the risk of 10-20% after assessment of patient's risk factors. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the risk of FN by using the Patient Risk Score (PRS) and evaluating G-CSF use and its side effects by a clinical pharmacist at an outpatient clinic.

METHODS

The study was conducted from May 2017 until November 2017 at the University Hospital oncology outpatient clinic. Patients who receive chemotherapy protocols with FN risk of 10-20% and > 20% and were initiated G-CSF were included. The patients' risk factors were assessed by the PRS, and the side effects were monitored for 3 months by a clinical pharmacist via a patient self-reported monitoring card.

RESULTS

A total of 118 patients were included (286 interviews) in the study. There was a significant increase between the first and third visits on the PRS total scores of patients (p = 0.034). The patterns of G-CSF use showed that 34.7% undertreated, 22.8% overtreated, and 42.3% of patients were correctly treated for the prophylaxis. The severity of G-CSF-related musculoskeletal pain was increased on the second and third days of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of G-CSFs for FN prophylaxis is recommended; however, there may be a group of patients who are inadequately or unnecessarily treated. Therefore, patients should be assessed for the risk of developing FN in each cycle of chemotherapy and a regular risk assessment by using the PRS can be implemented in the monitoring process.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving biosimilar filgrastim for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced/febrile neutropaenia: Results from the MONITOR-GCSF study

Objective

Real‐world evidence data on the use of granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor (G‐CSF) in patients with non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited. MONITOR‐GCSF is a pan‐European, multicentre, prospective, non‐interventional study designed to describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients receiving biosimilar filgrastim in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy‐induced neutropaenia (CIN) and febrile neutropaenia (FN).

Methods

In this subanalysis, patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes are described for 345 patients with stage 3 or 4 NSCLC, receiving up to six chemotherapy cycles. Patients were treated with biosimilar filgrastim as per their treating physician's best judgement.

Results

CIN (any grade) occurred in 13.6% of patients in Cycle 1 and in 36.5% of patients in all cycles. FN occurred in 1.4% of patients in Cycle 1 and in 5.2% of patients in all cycles. Grade 3–4 FN occurred in 1.2% of patients in Cycle 1 and in 3.8% of patients in all cycles.

Conclusion

Results show that in real‐life practice in patients with NSCLC, biosimilar filgrastim has similar effectiveness and safety to the known effectiveness and safety profile of reference filgrastim, supporting the use of biosimilar filgrastim for the real‐world treatment of neutropaenia in patients with NSCLC.

Safety and efficacy of alternating treatment with EP2006, a filgrastim biosimilar, and reference filgrastim: a phase III, randomised, double-blind clinical study in the prevention of severe neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

Background

In 2015, the biosimilar filgrastim EP2006 became the first biosimilar approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for commercial use in the United States, marketed as Zarxio® (Sandoz). This phase III randomised, double-blind registration study in patients with breast cancer receiving (neo)adjuvant myelosuppressive chemotherapy (TAC; docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide) compares reference filgrastim, Neupogen® (Amgen), with two groups receiving alternating treatment with reference and biosimilar every other cycle.

Patients and methods

A total of 218 patients receiving 5 µg/kg/day filgrastim over six chemotherapy cycles were randomised 1: 1: 1: 1 into four arms. Two arms received only one product, biosimilar or reference (unswitched), and two arms (switched) received alternating treatments every other cycle (biosimilar then reference or vice versa over six cycles). Since the switch occurred from cycle 2 onwards, this analysis compared pooled switched groups to the unswitched reference group for efficacy during cycles 2-6. Safety was also assessed. Non-inferiority in febrile neutropenia (FN) rates between groups for cycles 2-6 was shown if 95% were within a pre-defined margin of - 15%.

Results

A total of 109 patients switched treatment, and 52 patients received reference in all cycles. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The incidence of FN was 0% (reference) versus 3.4% (n = 3, switched) across cycles 2-6, with a difference of - 3.4% (95% confidence interval: -9.65% to 4.96%), showing non-inferiority. Infections occurred in 9.3% (switched) versus 9.9% (reference). Hospitalisation due to FN was low (one patient in cycle 6; switched). Adverse events related to filgrastim were reported in 42.1% (switched) versus 39.2% (reference) (all cycles). Musculoskeletal/connective tissue disorders related to filgrastim occurred in 35.5% (switched) versus 39.2% (reference) (all cycles), including bone pain (30.8% versus 33.3%). No neutralising antibodies were detected.

Conclusions

There were no clinically meaningful results regarding efficacy, safety or immunogenicity when switching from reference to biosimilar filgrastim/EP2006, or vice versa.

Safety analysis of proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar in Phase I and Phase III studies

Aim: This analysis compares safety data for Sandoz proposed biosimilar (LA-EP2006) and reference pegfilgrastim from a Phase I pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study in healthy volunteers (HVs) and two Phase III confirmatory studies in patients with breast cancer (BC; total n = 808). Patients & methods: Baseline characteristics were summarized, and event rates of bone pain and headache calculated. Results: HVs in the Phase I pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study were generally younger, with lower mean body mass index, versus BC patients in PROTECT-1/-2. Bone pain was the most frequent adverse event with similar incidences with reference versus proposed biosimilar in all studies. Conclusion: No differences in adverse events were found between Sandoz proposed biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastim, notwithstanding some differences between HVs and BC patients.

Filgrastim prophylaxis in elderly cancer patients in the real-life setting: a French multicenter observational study, the TULIP study

Purpose

Few studies are currently available among elderly patients, justifying the need for better understanding of daily medical practices in terms of use of growth factors to prevent chemotherapy (CT)-induced neutropenia. The primary objective of this study was to describe the use of filgrastim in the elderly.

Methods

Cancer patients aged 65 years and above, undergoing CT and initiating a prophylactic treatment with filgrastim, were enrolled. Patients were followed according to routine medical practice from filgrastim initiation until the end of the CT or after a maximum of 6 cycles.

Results

One thousand one hundred nineteen evaluable patients were documented in the study (mean age 73.9 ± 6.2 years, 52.1% men). The majority were suffering from solid tumor (73%) with ECOG 0–1 for 80% of them. Approximately two-third had a global risk for FN ≥ 20%, and one third < 20%. Through all CT cycles, no differences were observed between age classes ([65–74], [75–85], or > 85) in dose, duration, and time to first injection from CT start. Most patients (84%) received primary prophylaxis (PP) and 70% were administered during the first CT cycle. The median time from CT start until filgrastim was 4 days. The median duration of filgrastim treatment was 5 days. Dose reductions and CT delays were less frequent in patients receiving PP (4.8% and 7.1% respectively) than secondary prophylaxis (9.2% and 13.3% respectively).

Conclusions

Filgrastim use was consistent with French Market Authorization terms. No difference was shown compared with younger patients. Safety data were consistent with the known safety profile.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-019-04725-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia/febrile neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim in solid tumors versus hematological malignancies: MONITOR-GCSF study

Aim: This study aimed to report patterns of biosimilar filgrastim prophylaxis and outcomes of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN)/febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with hematological malignancies or solid tumors. Patients & methods: MONITOR-GCSF is a real-world study of 1447 cancer patients receiving CIN/FN prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim (solid tumors: 77.2%; hematological malignancies: 22.8%). Results: Differences in prophylaxis intensity and day of initiation relative to guideline recommendations were observed. In hematology patients, higher rates of CIN and FN occurred at cycle level, and rate of FN was higher at patient level (9.1 vs 5.0% in solid tumor patients). Conclusion: Adequate GCSF support in hematology and solid tumor patients is important to prevent CIN/FN and related hospitalizations and chemotherapy disturbances.

Biosimilar filgrastim treatment patterns and prevention of febrile neutropenia: a prospective multicentre study in France in patients with solid tumours (the ZOHé study)

Background

The ZOHé study was a prospective, non-interventional, multicentre study in France to assess the use of biosimilar filgrastim Zarzio® (Sandoz filgrastim) in routine clinical practice in patients at risk of neutropenia-inducing chemotherapy (CT).

Methods

Patients ≥ 18 years undergoing CT for a malignant disease and with a first prescription for Zarzio® were enrolled in two cohorts according to tumour type: solid tumour or haematological malignancy; results from the solid tumour cohort are reported here. Analyses primarily described the prescription and use of Zarzio® in current practice, and also included identification of factors linked to prescription for primary prophylaxis and comparison of Zarzio® use in relation to European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines.

Results

Responses were obtained from 125 physicians and 1179 patients with solid tumours, allowing robust statistical analysis of the data. Use of Zarzio® in clinical practice was relatively standardised and followed label indication. The patient profile was in line with EORTC guidelines for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis, and the majority of patients had ≥ 1 EORTC factor(s) for increased risk of febrile neutropenia. Some patients (10.8%) received Zarzio® despite receiving CT regimens categorised in guidelines as low (< 10%) FN risk (‘over prophylaxis’). Nearly half of patients’ CT regimens did not have a recommended FN risk category. Zarzio® was commonly initiated as primary prophylaxis; initiation in Cycle ≥ 2 of the current line of CT was associated more with a history of neutropenia. The safety profile of Zarzio® was confirmed.

Conclusions

Use of Zarzio® in routine clinical practice is generally in line with EORTC guidelines for prophylaxis of CT-induced neutropenia. Patient-related risk factors appear to be a stronger driver of clinicians’ decision to initiate Zarzio® than CT risk category for FN. The intrinsic risk of FN associated with a specific CT protocol is often miscategorised by physicians. In contrast to earlier reports of underuse of G-CSF prophylaxis, over prophylaxis is observed in a small subgroup of patients with FN risk of < 10%.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4986-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) occurrence outside of clinical trials: occurrence and predictive factors in adult patients treated with chemotherapy and an expected moderate FN risk. Rationale and design of a real-world prospective, observational, multinational study

Background

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common occurrence during chemotherapy. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) can significantly reduce the risk of FN. International guidelines recommend G-CSF for patients receiving chemotherapy with FN risk of ≥20% or 10% to 20% with defined risk factors. Prophylaxis is not typically recommended for FN risk of < 10%; however, few studies have investigated FN incidence in lower-risk patients in real-world settings and tried to identify higher-risk subgroups.

Methods

This real-world prospective, observational, multinational study aims to estimate the rate of development of FN with a chemotherapy line expected to be associated with a 10% to 20% risk of FN. Eligible patients (> 18 years of age) will have a solid tumour or Hodgkin/non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a planned chemotherapy regimen with expected risk of FN of 10% to 20% (according to published guidelines). Patients will be observed for the duration of the chemotherapy line (first cycle administered without FN prophylaxis). Primary endpoint is incidence of FN after the first chemotherapy cycle. Secondary outcomes include: FN-associated morbidity and mortality; time to first FN occurrence; other FN risk factors and impact of FN on quality of life. A risk model using occurrence of FN as a binary outcome will be developed. Data will be stratified by age, comorbidities and other risk factors.

Discussion

This study will provide insight into the real FN risk for common chemotherapy regimens and predictive factors for FN, including patients generally excluded from randomised clinical trials, from which reported FN rates have been variable. This study builds on knowledge of predictive factors from other research and will provide information on patients with 10% to 20% FN risk.

Incidence of febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy among patients with nonmyeloid cancer receiving filgrastim vs a filgrastim biosimilar

Background

Filgrastim and other granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are recommended to decrease febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence among patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy. Data comparing biosimilar filgrastim-sndz with reference filgrastim (filgrastim-ref) are limited outside of clinical trials in the US.

Objective

To compare the incidence of FN across chemotherapy cycles 1-6 between patients treated with filgrastim-sndz vs filgrastim-ref.

Materials and methods

This was a retrospective claims analysis of patients with nonmyeloid cancer enrolled in commercial or Medicare Advantage plans from March 2015 to June 2016 and receiving filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim-ref during ≥1 completed chemotherapy cycle. Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, pregnant patients, and those with missing data were excluded. FN was identified using the diagnosis codes for neutropenia + fever, neutropenia + bacterial/fungal infection, and neutropenia + infection + fever. Equivalence testing for FN incidence at the cycle level across chemotherapy cycles 1-6 was conducted for filgrastim-sndz vs filgrastim-ref after adjusting for baseline characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results were considered equivalent if the 90% CIs for between-cohort differences were within ±6.0%.

Results

The analysis included 3,459 patients (162 filgrastim-sndz and 3,297 filgrastim-ref). Before weighting, the filgrastim-sndz cohort was younger than filgrastim-ref and had a higher proportion of men, a higher proportion with commercial insurance, and lower proportions with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis or metastatic cancer. After weighting, baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts. Adjusted FN incidence was equivalent for filgrastim-sndz vs filgrastim-ref, respectively: neutropenia + fever, 0.81% vs 0.61% (difference [90% CI]=0.20 [-0.57 to 1.56]); neutropenia + infection, 1.21% vs 1.33% (difference [90% CI]=-0.12 [-1.17 to 2.28]); neutropenia + infection + fever, 0.0% vs 0.14% (difference=-0.14; CI not calculated because filgrastim-sndz had 0 events).

Conclusion

Filgrastim-sndz and filgrastim-ref are statistically equivalent for preventing FN across chemotherapy cycles 1-6 among patients with nonmyeloid cancer.

Clinical Outcomes of Treatment with Filgrastim Versus a Filgrastim Biosimilar and Febrile Neutropenia-Associated Costs Among Patients with Nonmyeloid Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors such as filgrastim are used to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) among patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Although the biosimilar filgrastim-sndz has been approved in the United States since 2015, limited real-world comparisons of filgrastim-sndz versus reference filgrastim (filgrastim-ref) have been conducted.

OBJECTIVE

To compare FN incidence and assess overall FN-related health care resource utilization and medical costs among U.S. patients with non-myeloid cancer who received filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim-ref during their first chemotherapy cycle.

METHODS

This was a retrospective claims analysis of patients with non-myeloid cancer who were enrolled in commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance plans from March 2015 through June 2016 and received filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim-ref during their first observed chemotherapy cycle. Patients with evidence of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or pregnancy and those with missing demographic information were excluded. FN was defined on the basis of diagnosis codes for neutropenia and fever (N/F); neutropenia and infection (N/I); and neutropenia, infection, and fever (N/I/F). Cohorts were adjusted for differences in baseline patient characteristics using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method, and equivalence testing was used to compare the proportion of patients who developed FN between weighted cohorts. On the basis of the range of neutropenic fever incidence found in the PIONEER clinical trial, FN incidence was considered equivalent if 90% CIs for between-cohort differences were within ± 6%. Mean FN-related health care resource utilization and total FN-related medical costs were calculated for the overall study population.

RESULTS

A total of 3,542 patients were included in the study (172 filgrastim-sndz; 3,370 filgrastim-ref; mean ages 62.1 years and 64.7 years, respectively). After IPTW, there were 162 patients in the filgrastim-sndz cohort and 3,297 in the filgrastim-ref cohort (mean age 64.5 years for both). FN incidence in the weighted filgrastim-sndz versus filgrastim-ref cohorts, respectively, was 1.4% versus 0.9% for N/F, 2.3% versus 1.7% for N/I, and 0.0% versus 0.3% for N/I/F; FN incidence was statistically equivalent between treatment cohorts. Among patients in either treatment cohort who developed FN, the proportion with FN-related inpatient stays during the first chemotherapy cycle ranged from 35.0% for N/I to 70.0% for N/I/F. Mean (SD) FN-related total medical costs across all patients who developed FN were $11,977 ($18,383) for N/F, $8,040 ($14,809) for N/I, and $21,733 ($30,003) for N/I/F, in 2015 U.S. dollars. For all 3 definitions of FN, the largest proportions (73.5%-93.4%) of medical costs were inpatient related.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world study of patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy, the incidence of FN was statistically equivalent between individuals treated with filgrastim-sndz versus filgrastim-ref during their first chemotherapy cycle. FN-related health care resource utilization and medical costs among patients who developed FN were substantial.

DISCLOSURES

This work was funded by Sandoz, which participated in the study design, data interpretation, writing and revision of the manuscript, and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Balu and Campbell are employees of Sandoz, which is the manufacturer of the filgrastim biosimilars Zarzio and Zarxio. DeLeon was an employee of Sandoz at the time this study was conducted. Lal, Brekke, Elliott, and Korrer are employees of Optum, which was contracted by Sandoz to conduct this study.

Safety Profile of Biosimilar Filgrastim (Zarzio/Zarxio): A Combined Analysis of Phase III Studies

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of adverse events (AEs) in pivotal registration trials and ongoing postmarketing surveillance is important for all biologics, including biosimilars. A combined analysis of two pivotal registration studies was performed to strengthen evidence on safety for biosimilar filgrastim EP2006 in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, a sensitive clinical setting to confirm biosimilarity of filgrastim.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were combined from two phase III studies of biosimilar filgrastim EP2006. The U.S. registration study was a randomized, double-blind comparison of biosimilar and reference filgrastim in women aged ≥18 years with breast cancer, receiving (neo)adjuvant treatment with TAC (docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide). The European Union registration study was a single-arm, open-label study of biosimilar filgrastim in women aged ≥18 years with breast cancer receiving doxorubicin + docetaxel. Patients received filgrastim as a subcutaneous injection on day 2 of each cycle for <14 days or until the absolute neutrophil count reached 10 × 10⁹/L after the expected nadir. Results were combined for cycles 1-4.

RESULTS

A total of 277 patients received biosimilar filgrastim EP2006. Patients had a mean (± standard deviation) age of 51.1 (± 10.8) years, and 78.7% of patients had stage II or III breast cancer. A total of 46 (20.6%) patients receiving biosimilar filgrastim had AEs considered filgrastim-related. The most frequently reported filgrastim-related AEs were musculoskeletal or connective tissue disorders (15.2%), including bone pain (7.2%). One death (due to pulmonary embolism) occurred of a patient receiving biosimilar filgrastim (not considered filgrastim-related). No patient developed antidrug antibodies during the study.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilar filgrastim has a safety profile consistent with previous filgrastim studies and is effective in preventing febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The biosimilar filgrastim EP2006 (Zarzio, Zarxio, biosimilar filgrastim-sndz) has been approved in Europe since 2009 and in the U.S. since 2015. This combined analysis of two phase III studies provides additional clinical evidence that the biosimilar filgrastim EP2006 has a safety profile consistent with previous studies of reference filgrastim and supports large postmarketing studies of EP2006 in Europe. Strengthening the evidence for biosimilar filgrastim can help improve acceptance of biosimilars and increase patient access to biologics.

The Impact of Biosimilars in Supportive Care in Cancer

Collapse

A Phase II Randomized Controlled Trial: Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy with Docetaxel Plus Cisplatin versus 5-Fluorouracil plus Cisplatin in Patients with Oesophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with docetaxel plus cisplatin (DP regimen) versus 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin (PF regimen) in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Patients and Methods: In this phase II randomized controlled trial, eighty-six patients with clinical stage II - IVa ESCC were randomized to receive radiotherapy concurrently with two cycles of the PF or DP regimen at 3-week intervals. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary end points included the overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and treatment-related toxicities. Results: The ORRs were 84.4% in the DP group and 87.3% in the PF group (P = 0.653). After a median follow-up time of 25.1 months, the 1- and 2-year OS rates were 93.7% and 86.2% for the PF group and 87.3% and 69.1% for the DP group, respectively (P = 0.364). The 1- and 2-year PFS rates were 77.4% and 55.0% for the PF group and 78.8% and 69.4% for the DP group, respectively (P = 0.845). Grade 3/4 leukocytopenia/neutropenia (68.9% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.001) was significantly more common in the DP group. Conclusion: The treatment response, OS and PFS associated with using CCRT with the DP regimen were not superior to those associated with using CCRT with the PF regimen as a first-line treatment in patients with ESCC. Additionally, the DP regimen was associated with more severe haematological toxicities. This trial has been registered with the US National Institute of Health (clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier NCT 02969473).

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.

Expanded access to cancer treatments from conversion to neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim-sndz

Aim: Biosimilar medicines offer significant cost-savings potential over their reference products, which can be re-allocated to provide access to other cancer treatments on a budget-neutral basis. Methods: Simulation study using cost data for the USA under consideration of several prophylaxis patterns. Results: Potential savings from conversion from reference filgrastim to biosimilar filgrastim-sndz are significant. These savings expand budget-neutral access to novel immunotherapies (obinutuzumab; pembrolizumab) or supportive care (filgrastim-sndz). Conclusion: The combination of biosimilar savings and expanded access increases the value of cancer care as the same supportive care is provided at lower cost, additional cancer care is enabled at no additional cost, and more patients will have access to cancer care.

Refining the role of pegfilgrastim (a long-acting G-CSF) for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: consensus guidance recommendations

Purpose

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) causes treatment delays and interruptions and can have fatal consequences. Current guidelines provide recommendations on granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) for prevention of FN, but guidance is unclear regarding use of short- vs long-acting G-CSF (e.g., filgrastim vs pegfilgrastim/lipegfilgrastim, respectively). An international panel of experts convened to develop guidance on appropriate use of pegfilgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN.

Methods

Guidance recommendations were developed following a literature review, survey, evaluation of current practice, and an expert meeting. Consensus was established using an anonymous Delphi-based approach.

Results

Guidance recommendations for prevention of treatment-associated FN were as follows: for treatment with curative intent, maintenance of dose intensity using G-CSF to prevent dose delays/reduction should be standard of care; for treatment-associated FN risk ≥ 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given from cycle 1 onwards; and for treatment-associated FN risk < 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given if factors suggest overall risk (including treatment-related and patient-related risk factors) is ≥ 20%. It was agreed that pegfilgrastim and 11 days’ filgrastim have similar efficacy and safety and that pegfilgrastim is preferred to < 11 days’ filgrastim (and may be preferred to ≥ 11 days’ filgrastim based on adherence and convenience); pegfilgrastim is not appropriate in weekly chemotherapy; in split-dose chemotherapy, pegfilgrastim is recommended 24 h after last chemotherapy dose; and during palliative chemotherapy, patient adherence and convenience may favor pegfilgrastim.

Conclusion

In this era of targeted therapies, additional trials with G-CSF are still required. These recommendations should be used with existing guidelines to optimize pegfilgrastim use in clinical practice.

Efficacy and safety of biosimilar filgrastim in primary and secondary prevention of febrile neutropenia

Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) are among the most common side effects/complications of chemotherapy. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the practice of the use of biosimilar filgrastim in the primary and secondary prevention of FN, and assess its efficacy and safety. A multi-center, non-interventional epidemiological study of 170 cancer patients aged 23-82 years was conducted. Data were collected via a questionnaire completed based on medical documentation and patient examination over five chemotherapy visits. The risk of FN related to the chemotherapy protocol used was in the range of 10-20% in >50% of the patients (53.5%) and a majority (74.7%) had additional FN risk factors. 60% of the patients received filgrastim as primary prevention of FN, and 40% received it as secondary prevention. In 40.6% of cases, six cycles of chemotherapy were used. More than 90% of patients continued chemotherapy according to the initial recommended dose. In majority of patients, no FN was observed following the final cycle of chemotherapy. Median neutrophil count at visit 1 was 2.2×103/µl and did not fall below that level. Majority of patients (>70%) performed self-injections of filgrastim, and 86.3% of patients were continuing therapy with this drug at the last visit. No treatment-related side effects were recorded. The use of biosimilar filgrastim in the primary and secondary prevention of FN allows to maintain initial chemotherapy dosage. Furthermore, the use of biosimilar filgrastim is safe and tolerable, and has a high acceptance by patients.

Comparison of biosimilar filgrastim, originator filgrastim, and lenograstim for autologous stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) originators such as filgrastim (Neupogen) and lenograstim (Granocyte) are widely used for peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilization. In recent years, biosimilar agents have been approved for the same indications. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the mobilization efficiency of the three G-CSF variants originator filgrastim, lenograstim, and the biosimilar Filgrastim Hexal in a homogeneous group of multiple myeloma (MM) patients in first-line therapy.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Overall mobilization data of 250 patients with MM were included. Of these patients, 74 (30%), 131 (52%), and 45 (18%) were mobilized with originator filgrastim, biosimilar Filgrastim Hexal, or lenograstim, respectively, at a dose of 5 to 10 µg/kg body weight subcutaneously starting from Day 5 after chemomobilization with CAD (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) until completion of PBSC collection.

RESULTS

All but one patient reached the collection goal of a minimum of at least 2 × 10⁶ CD34+ cells/kg body weight during a median of one (range, one to three) leukapheresis session. No significant differences in CD34+ mobilization and collection yields between the filgrastim-mobilized (median, 10.5; range, 2.7-40.4), Filgrastim Hexal-mobilized (median, 9.9; range, 0.2-26.0), and lenograstim-mobilized (median, 10.7; range, 3.1-27.9 CD34+ cells × 10⁶ /kg body weight) patients were observed.

CONCLUSION

Concerning the clinically relevant efficiencies of PBSC mobilization and in terms of reaching the individual collection target, this retrospective study did not detect any significant differences between the three G-CSF variants in the analyzed patient cohort.

Comparative study of the number of report and time-to-onset of the reported adverse event between the biosimilars and the originator of filgrastim

PURPOSE

The objective of this study is to specify the most reported adverse events as preferred terms (PTs) and to compare the reported adverse events about some properties including the number of report and time-to-onset (TTO) distribution of the originator of filgrastim Neupogen® and its biosimilars in Europe, using VigiBase®.

METHODS

We identified the biosimilar which was reported as the suspected drug in more than 100 individual case safety reports in Europe. Then, we specified the top ranking 10 PTs in the cases reported with Neupogen® or each biosimilar as the suspected drug. We also compared the TTO of the most reported PTs using the data about the onset date of the PT and the start date of filgrastim. We used Kolmogorov-Smirnov method to detect significant difference.

RESULTS

The total ICSR numbers with Neupogen® and 3 biosimilars, Zarzio®, Nivestim®, and Tevagrastim® were 1,301, 295, 156, and 127, respectively, in Europe. The most reported PTs with Neupogen® were bone pain, pyrexia, and dyspnoea. The TTO of bone pain and pyrexia with Zarzio® (N: 22 and 16, median: 1 and 0.5 days) were significantly shorter than those with Neupogen® (P < 0.01, N: 72 and 33, median: 3.5 and 3 days), respectively. The most reported PTs with biosimilars were drug ineffective and neutropenia.

CONCLUSION

The difference in the TTO was identified between originator filgrastim Neupogen and its biosimilar regarding some PTs, which may suggest the difference in their safety profile. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Over- and under-prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia relative to evidence-based guidelines is associated with differences in outcomes: findings from the MONITOR-GCSF study

PURPOSE

In the MONITOR-GCSF study of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia with biosimilar filgrastim, 56.6% of patients were prophylacted according to amended EORTC guidelines, but 17.4% were prophylacted below and 26.0% above guideline recommendations.

METHODS

MONITOR-GCSF is a prospective, observational study of 1447 evaluable patients from 140 cancers centers in 12 European countries treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy for up to 6 cycles receiving biosimilar GCSF prophylaxis. Patients were classified as under-, correctly-, or over-prophylacted with GCSF relative to guideline recommendations based on their chemotherapy risk, individual risk factors, and type of GCSF prophylaxis (primary versus secondary).

RESULTS

Differences between under- (17.4%), correctly- (56.6%), or over-prophylacted (26.0%) groups were found in terms of patient risk factors (age, performance status, history of FN, comorbid conditions) as well as prophylaxis patterns (type of prophylaxis, day of GCSF initiation, and GCSF duration). Rates of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) (all grades), FN, and CIN-related hospitalizations were consistently lower in over-prophylacted patients relative to under- and correctly-prophylacted patients. No differences were observed between under- and correctly-prophylacted patients except for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbances. No GCSF safety differences were found between groups (except for headaches).

CONCLUSIONS

The real-world evidence provided by the MONITOR-GCSF study indicates that providing GCSF support may yield better CIN, FN, and CIN/FN-related hospitalization outcomes if patients are prophylacted at levels above guideline recommendations. Patients who are under-prophylacted are at higher risk for disturbances to their chemotherapy regimens. Our findings support the guideline recommendation that CIN/FN risk be assessed at the beginning of each chemotherapy cycle.