Lenograstim reduces the incidence of febrile episodes, when compared with filgrastim, in multiple myeloma patients undergoing stem cell mobilization

Efficacy of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization regimens in patients with hematological malignancies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Efficient mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) from bone marrow niche into circulation is the key to successful collection and transplantation in patients with hematological malignancies. The efficacy of various HSCs mobilization regimens has been widely investigated, but the results are inconsistent.

Methods

We performed comprehensive databases searching for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that comparing the efficacy of HSCs mobilization regimens in patients with hematological malignancies. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed with WinBUGS. Standard dose of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF SD) was chosen as the common comparator. Estimates of relative treatment effects for other regimens were reported as mean differences (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with associated 95% credibility interval (95% CrI). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were obtained to present rank probabilities of all included regimens.

Results

Databases searching and study selection identified 44 eligible RCTs, of which the mobilization results are summarized. Then we compared the efficacy of mobilization regimens separately for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) by including 13 eligible trials for network meta-analysis, involving 638 patients with MM and 592 patients with NHL. For patients with MM, data are pooled from 8 trials for 6 regimens, including G-CSF in standard dose (SD) or reduced dose (RD) combined with cyclophosphamide (CY), intermediate-dose cytarabine (ID-AraC) or plerixafor. The results show that compared with G-CSF SD alone, 3 regimens including ID-AraC + G-CSF SD (MD 14.29, 95% CrI 9.99–18.53; SUCRA 1.00), G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD (MD 4.15, 95% CrI 2.92–5.39; SUCRA 0.80), and CY + G-CSF RD (MD 1.18, 95% CrI 0.29–2.07; SUCRA 0.60) are associated with significantly increased total number of collected CD34⁺ cells (× 10⁶/kg), among which ID-AraC + G-CSF SD ranked first with a probability of being best regimen of 100%. Moreover, ID-AraC + G-CSF SD and G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD are associated with significantly higher successful rate of achieving optimal target (collecting ≥ 4–6 × 10⁶ CD34⁺ cells/kg). For patients with NHL, data are pooled from 5 trials for 4 regimens, the results show that compared with G-CSF SD alone, G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD (MD 3.62, 95% CrI 2.86–4.38; SUCRA 0.81) and G-CSF SD plus the new CXC chemokine receptor-4 (CXCR-4) antagonist YF-H-2015005 (MD 3.43, 95% CrI 2.51–4.35; SUCRA 0.69) are associated with significantly higher number of total CD34⁺ cells collected. These 2 regimens are also associated with significantly higher successful rate of achieving optimal target. There are no significant differences in rate of achieving optimal target between G-CSF SD + Plerixafor SD and G-CSF + YF-H-2015005.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ID-AraC plus G-CSF is associated with the highest probability of being best mobilization regimen in patients with MM. For patients with NHL, G-CSF in combination with plerixafor or YF-H-2015005 showed similar improvements in HSCs mobilization efficacy. The relative effects of other chemotherapy-based mobilization regimens still require to be determined with further investigations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13287-022-02802-6.

Advances in the pharmacological management of neutropenia in solid tumors: the advent of biosimilars

Introduction: Severe neutropenia and infections are potentially life-threatening complications of cytotoxic antineoplastic therapies and often require hospitalization with a severe economic impact. Furthermore, hematological toxicity frequently results in chemotherapy dose reductions and delays that could interfere with disease control.Areas covered: This review provides an overview of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) including pegylated molecules, as well as more recent biosimilar G-CSFs, focusing on the toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of these compounds.Expert opinion: The administration of hematopoietic growth factors in primary and secondary prophylaxis of neutropenia is a standard supportive care measure. Recently, several biosimilars have been developed. The market for biosimilar agents seems to be increasing over time thanks to their similar effectiveness and safety, compared with their originators, but lower costs.

Monocentric Analysis of the Effectiveness and Financial Consequences of the Use of Lenograstim versus Filgrastim for Mobilization of Peripheral Blood Progenitor Cells in Patients with Lymphoma and Myeloma Receiving Chemotherapy and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

Purpose

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are widely used to mobilize CD34⁺ stem cells and to support the engraftment after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). A budget impact analysis and an incremental cost-effectiveness study of two G-CSFs (Lenograstim and Filgrastim biosimilar), considering engraftment, number of hospitalization days and number of G-CSF vials administered were performed.

Patients and Methods

Between 2009 and 2016, 248 patients undergoing autologous HSCT have been evaluated and divided into three groups (100 Leno-Leno, 93 Leno-Fil, 55 Fil-Fil) according to the type of G-CSF used for hematopoietic stem cell mobilization and hematopoietic stem cell recovery after transplant.

Results

The following statistically significant differences have been observed between Leno-Leno, Leno-Fil, Fil-Fil groups: a higher number of harvested CD34⁺ cells (10.56 vs 8.00 vs 7.20; p=0.0003) and a lower number of G-CSF vials (8 vs 8 vs 9; p=0.00020) used for full bone marrow recovery favoring Lenograstim. No statistically significant differences were found regarding the number of G-CSF vials used for mobilization, apheresis number and CD34⁺ cell peak. The post-transplant hematological recovery was faster in Lenograstim group than Filgrastim group: median time to neutrophil count engraftment (>500/mmc) was 12 vs 13 days; median time for platelets recovery (>20.000/mmc) was 12 vs 15 days (p=0.0001). The use of Lenograstim achieved cost savings of €566/patient over Filgrastim biosimilar, related to a decreased number of days of hospitalization (16 vs 17 days; p=0.00012), a lower overall incidence of adverse events, laboratory tests, transfusions for platelet recovery following discharge.

Conclusion

In our experience, Lenograstim outperforms Filgrastim in terms of effectiveness and lower cost. This study shows a clinical superiority of Lenograstim over Filgrastim suggesting a potential cost savings favoring Lenograstim.

Lenograstim and filgrastim in the febrile neutropenia prophylaxis of hospitalized patients: efficacy and cost of the prophylaxis in a retrospective survey

Purpose

We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and related costs of using two different molecules of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) (lenograstim - LENO or filgrastim - FIL) as primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in a hematological inpatient setting.

Methods

The primary endpoints of the analysis were the efficacy of the two G-CSFs in terms of the level of white blood cells, hemoglobin and platelets at the end of the treatment and the per capita direct medical costs related to G-CSF prophylaxis.

Results

Two hundred twelve patients (96 LENO, 116 FIL) have been evaluated. The following statistically significant differences have been observed between FIL and LENO: the use of a higher number of vials (11 vs 7; P<0.03) to fully recover bone marrow, a higher grade 3-4 neutropenia at the time of G-CSF discontinuation (29.3% vs 16.7%; P=0.031) and an increased number of days of hospitalization (8 vs 5; P<0.005). A longer hospital stay before discharge was necessary (12 vs 10), which reflects the higher final costs per patient (median treatment cost per cycle 10.706 € for LENO, compared to 12.623 € for FIL).

Conclusion

The use of LENO has been associated with a lower number of days of hospitalization, number of vials and less incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia at the time of G-CSF discontinuation. LENO seems to be cost-saving when compared with FIL (-15.2%).

Which one is more effective, filgrastim or lenograstim, during febrile neutropenia attack in hospitalized patients with solid tumors?

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) with solid tumors causes mortality and morbidity at a significant rate. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of filgastrim and lenograstim started with the first dose of antibiotics in hospitalized patients diagnosed with FN.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between February 2009 and May 2012, 151 patients diagnosed with FN were evaluated, retrospectively. In those considered appropriate for hospitalization, convenient antibiotic therapy with granulocyte colony stimulating factors was started within first 30 minutes by completing necessary examinations in accordance with FEN guide recommendations.

RESULTS

In this study, 175 febrile neutropenia attacks in 151 patients were examined. Seventy three of the patients were male and 78 were female. The average age was 53.6 and 53.6, respectively. The most common solid tumor was breast carcinoma in 38 (25%) . One hundred and five FN patients (58%) were those who received granulocyte colony stimulating factors as primary prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

While studies comparing both drugs generally involve treatments started for prophylaxis, this study compared the treatment given during the febrile neutropenia attack. Compared to lenograstim, filgastrim shortens the duration of hospitalization during febrile neutropenia attack by facilitating faster recovery with solid tumors.

Prophylaxis of infectious complications with colony-stimulating factors in adult cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy-evidence-based guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Working Party AGIHO of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO)

BACKGROUND

Current evidence on myelopoietic growth factors is difficult to overview for the practicing haematologist/oncologist. International guidelines are sometimes conflicting, exclude certain patient groups, or cannot directly be applied to the German health system. This guideline by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) gives evidence-based recommendations for the use of G-CSF, pegylated G-CSF, and biosimilars to prevent infectious complications in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, including those with haematological malignancies.

METHODS

We systematically searched and evaluated current evidence. An expert panel discussed the results and recommendations. We then compared our recommendations to current international guidelines.

RESULTS

We summarised the data from eligible studies in evidence tables, developed recommendations for different entities and risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Comprehensive literature search and expert panel consensus confirmed many key recommendations given by international guidelines. Evidence for growth factors during acute myeloid leukaemia induction chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim use in haematological malignancies was rated lower compared with other guidelines.

Filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim in the mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells in patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies

Patients with lymphoproliferative disorders, candidate to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), require mobilization with chemotherapy and granulocyte colony -stimulating factor (G-CSF). This study looked for differences in hematopoietic peripheral stem cells (HPSCs) mobilization in response to the three available G-CSFs, namely lenograstim, filgrastim, and pegfilgrastim. Between 2000 and 2012, 146 patients (66 M and 80 F) who underwent ASCT for multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or Hodgkin's lymphoma were studied. All patients received induction therapy and then a mobilization regimen with cyclophosphamide plus lenograstim, or filgrastim, or pegfilgrastim. From days 12 to 14, HPSCs were collected by two to three daily leukaphereses. Our results show that high-dose cyclophosphamide plus lenograstim achieved adequate mobilization and the collection target more quickly and with fewer leukaphereses as compared to filgrastim and pegfilgrastim. No differences between the three regimens were observed regarding toxicity and days to WBC and platelet recovery. Thus, lenograstim may represent the ideal G-CSF for PBSC mobilization in patients with lymphoproliferative diseases. Further studies are needed to confirm these results and better understand the biological bases of these differences.

Optimal use of recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor with chemotherapy for solid tumors

Neutropenia is a frequent complication of anticancer chemotherapy (CT) often associated with life-threatening infections, hospitalization, dose reduction and/or delay in the administration of CT. Administration of recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rG-CSF) reduces the duration and the degree of CT-neutropenia. rG-CSF that stimulates both neutropoiesis and neutrophil function, has become an integral part of supportive care during cytotoxic CT, to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN), particularly in patients with a risk of FN ≥ 20%. International guidelines have standardized conditions for rG-CSF administration, however, some 'gray zones' still exist around optimal timing and tailoring of this therapy. We report here the results of a research project aimed to extend the consensus on the optimal use of rG-CSF in association with CT in patient with solid tumours. We also propose a recently developed pharmacodynamic model, based on the biological effects of CT and rG -CSF on bone marrow compartments that clearly indicates within the prophylactic rather than therapeutic setting the better way of rG-CSF administration.