Prevention of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients: Pegylated versus standard myeloid colony stimulating factors. Do we have a choice?

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.

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.

RGB-02 (biosimilar pegfilgrastim) in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

Pegfilgrastim is widely used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The development and use of biosimilar agents help to rationalize healthcare expenditure and improve access to modern therapies to all who need them. This review focuses on pegfilgrastims with important role in oncology supportive care. RGB-02 (Gedeon Richter) is a proposed biosimilar to pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (Neulasta^®, Amgen) with sustained release properties. The clinical analyses in three randomized clinical studies provided comparative data between RGB-02 and Neulasta, in a Phase III study patients receiving docetaxel-doxorubicin chemotherapy treatment equivalence was found. No difference was detected in any safety measure including immunogenicity; treatment switch, from the reference product to RGB-02 proved safe. Long-acting pegylated filgrastim RGB-02 has successfully accomplished various steps of biosimilar development.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Predictive modeling of the outcomes of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim (MONITOR-GCSF study)

BACKGROUND

Risk models of chemotherapy-induced (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN) have to date focused on determinants measured at the start of chemotherapy. We extended this static approach with a dynamic approach of CIN/FN risk modeling at the start of each cycle.

DESIGN

We applied predictive modeling using multivariate logistic regression to identify determinants of CIN/FN episodes and related hospitalizations and chemotherapy disturbances (CIN/FN consequences) in analyses at the patient ('ever' during the whole period of chemotherapy) and cycle-level (during a given chemotherapy cycle). Statistical dependence of cycle data being 'nested' under patients was managed using generalized estimation equations. Predictive performance of each model was evaluated using bootstrapped c concordance statistics.

RESULTS

Static patient-level risk models of 'ever' experiencing CIN/FN adverse events and consequences during a planned chemotherapy regimen included predictors related to history, risk factors, and prophylaxis initiation and intensity. Dynamic cycle-level risk models of experiencing CIN/FN adverse events and consequences in an upcoming cycle included predictors related to history, risk factors, and prophylaxis initiation and intensity; as well as prophylaxis duration, CIN/FN in prior cycle, and treatment center characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

These 'real-world evidence' models provide clinicians with the ability to anticipate CIN/FN adverse events and their consequences at the start of a chemotherapy line (static models); and, innovatively, to assess risk of CIN/FN adverse events and their consequences at the start of each cycle (dynamic models). This enables individualized patient treatment and is consistent with the EORTC recommendation to re-appraise CIN/FN risk at the start of each cycle. Prophylaxis intensity (under-, correctly-, or over-prophylacted relative to current EORTC guidelines) is a major determinant. Under-prophylaxis is clinically unsafe. Over-prophylaxis of patients administered chemotherapy with intermediate or low myelotoxicity levels may be beneficial, both in patients with and without risk factors, and must be validated in future studies.

Comparative effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors to prevent febrile neutropenia and related complications in cancer patients in clinical practice: A systematic review

Introduction

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious side-effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Several clinical trials and observational studies have evaluated the effects of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) on risk of FN and related complications; however, no systematic reviews have focused on effectiveness in routine clinical practice. Here, we perform a systematic review assessing the comparative effectiveness of prophylaxis with a long-acting G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) versus short-acting G-CSFs (filgrastim, lenograstim, and filgrastim biosimilars) in cancer patients in real-world clinical settings.

Methods

A systematic review was performed based on a pre-specified protocol and was consistent with the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook (2009) and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care (2011). MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles published from January 2002 to June 2014. Congress databases (MASCC/ASCO/ESMO) and Google Scholar were searched for abstracts published from January 2012 to August 2014. Filgrastim (NEUPOGEN®), lenograstim and nivestim (a filgrastim biosimilar) were the only short-acting G-CSFs and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) was the only long-acting G-CSF described in eligible studies. Outcomes of interest were FN, FN-related hospitalisation and other FN-related complications (death, chemotherapy dose delays and reductions, antimicrobial treatment, severe neutropenia and costs and resource use).

Results

Of 1259 unique records identified, 18 real-world observational studies met predefined inclusion criteria; 15 were retrospective studies, and 3 were prospective studies. Multiple tumour types, chemotherapy regimens and geographical regions were included. Seven studies provided statistical comparisons of the risk of FN; risk of FN among patients receiving prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus short-acting G-CSF was significantly lower in three studies, numerically lower in three studies, and numerically higher in one study. Six studies provided statistical comparisons of the risk of FN-related hospitalisation; risk of FN-related hospitalisation among patients receiving prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus short-acting G-CSF was significantly lower in all six studies, though some variation was seen in subanalyses. Data for other outcomes were sparse with available results being generally consistent with the results seen for risk of FN and FN-related hospitalisation.

Conclusions

Based on the findings from this review of real-world comparative effectiveness studies, risks of FN and FN-related complications were generally lower for prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus prophylaxis with short-acting G-CSFs.

Randomized, double-blind study comparing proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in breast cancer

AIM

This randomized, double-blind trial compared proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer (PROTECT-1).

PATIENTS & METHODS

Women (≥18 years) were randomized to receive LA-EP2006 (n = 159) or reference (n = 157) pegfilgrastim (Neulasta(®), Amgen) for ≤6 cycles of (neo)-adjuvant TAC chemotherapy. Primary end point was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) during cycle 1 (number of consecutive days with absolute neutrophil count <0.5 × 10(9)/l) with equivalence confirmed if 90% and 95% CIs were within a ±1 day margin.

RESULTS

For DSN, LA-EP2006 was equivalent to reference (difference: 0.07 days; 90% CI: -0.09-0.23; 95% CI: -0.12-0.26).

CONCLUSION

LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim showed no clinically meaningful differences regarding efficacy and safety in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy-associated treatment burden in breast cancer patients receiving lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim: secondary efficacy data from a phase III study

PURPOSE

Lipegfilgrastim is a once-per-cycle glycoPEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Noninferiority of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim was demonstrated in a phase III trial in chemotherapy (CTx)-naïve breast cancer patients. Secondary outcomes relating to treatment burden are reported here.

METHODS

Patients with high-risk stage II, III, or IV breast cancer were randomized to receive lipegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 101) or pegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 101) subcutaneously on day 2 of each CTx cycle. Doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) commenced on day 1, for up to four cycles. Secondary end points included days in the hospital or intensive care unit (ICU), use of intravenous antibiotics for febrile neutropenia (FN) or related infections, and measures of CTx delivery (dose delays, reductions, and omissions).

RESULTS

One lipegfilgrastim recipient and two pegfilgrastim recipients were hospitalized in cycle 1 because of FN or associated infection. The lipegfilgrastim-treated patient spent 1 day in the ICU for FN, and the two pegfilgrastim-treated patients were hospitalized for FN for 5 and 6 days, respectively. All hospitalized patients received antibiotics. An additional pegfilgrastim-treated patient received antibiotics but was not hospitalized. Most patients received CTx as scheduled; over 98% received their planned doxorubicin and docetaxel doses in all cycles. In the lipegfilgrastim group, no patients had a CTx dose reduced or omitted; eight patients in the pegfilgrastim group had a CTx dose reduced or omitted during cycles 2-4.

CONCLUSIONS

The burden of treatment associated with myelosuppressive CTx was similar in breast cancer patients treated with lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim.

Clinical observation of the therapeutic effects of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with concurrent chemoradiotherapy-induced grade IV neutropenia

The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and side-effects of preventive treatment with pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) on concurrent chemoradiotherapy-induced grade IV neutropenia and to provide a rational basis for its clinical application. A total of 114 patients with concurrent chemoradiotherapy-induced grade IV neutropenia were enrolled. A randomized approach was used to divide the patients into an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group included three subgroups, namely a P-50 group, P-100 group and P + R group. The P-50 group had 42 cases, which were given a single 50-μg/kg subcutaneous injection of PEG-rhG-CSF. The P-100 group had 30 cases, which received a single 100-μg/kg subcutaneous injection of PEG-rhG-CSF. The P + R group comprised 22 cases, which were given a single 50-μg/kg subcutaneous injection of PEG-rhG-CSF and rhG-CSF 5 μg/kg/day; when the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) was ≥2.0×10⁹/l, the administration of rhG-CSF was stopped. The control group (RC group) comprised 20 patients, who received rhG-CSF 5 μg/kg/day by subcutaneous injection until the ANC was ≥2.0×10⁹/l. Changes in the neutrophil proliferation rate and ANC values over time, the neutropenic symptom remission time and incidence of adverse drug reactions were analyzed statistically in each group of patients. In the experimental group, the neutrophil proliferation rate and ANC values were significantly higher than those in the control group; the clinical effects began 12–24 h after treatment in the experimental group, and indicated that the treatment improved neutropenia in ~48 h after treatment. There was no significant difference in the neutrophil proliferation rate and ANC values between the P-50 and P+R groups. In the experimental group, the remission time of neutropenia-induced fever and muscle pain after administration was significantly shorter than that in the control group, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). The adverse drug reaction rates showed no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. PEG-rhG-CSF had good efficacy and safety in the treatment of concurrent chemotherapy-induced grade IV neutropenia. For the treatment of concurrent chemotherapy-induced grade IV neutropenia, a single subcutaneous injection of 50 μg/kg PEG-rhG-CSF is the recommended dose. The effects begin at 12–24 h; if the ANC values are not significantly improved during this time, no supplementary administration of rhG-CSF is necessary.

Prevention of neutropenia-related events in elderly patients with hematological cancer

The aging of the population makes it necessary to define more precisely the needs of elderly patients in terms of anticancer therapy as the number of older cancer patients is expected to increase. There is evidence that many elderly cancer patients can benefit from relatively aggressive treatments, provided major side effects can be prevented or treated. In patients with hematological malignancies, infection is the most common and threatening complication resulting from chemotherapy administration. Discussion of the prevention of infection in the setting described above is the aim of this paper.