Safety of polyethylene glycol recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in treating non-small cell lung cancer patients at I b stage

New insight into strategies used to develop long-acting G-CSF biologics for neutropenia therapy

Over the last 20 years, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have become the major therapeutic option for the treatment of patients with neutropenia. Most of the current G-CSFs require daily injections, which are inconvenient and expensive for patients. Increased understanding of G-CSFs' structure, expression, and mechanism of clearance has been very instrumental in the development of new generations of long-acting G-CSFs with improved efficacy. Several approaches to reducing G-CSF clearance via conjugation techniques have been investigated. PEGylation, glycosylation, polysialylation, or conjugation with immunoglobulins or albumins have successfully increased G-CSFs' half-lives. Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) has been successfully approved and marketed for the treatment of patients with neutropenia. The rapidly expanding market for G-CSFs has increased demand for G-CSF biosimilars. Therefore, the importance of this review is to highlight the principle, elimination's route, half-life, clearance, safety, benefits, and limitations of different strategies and techniques used to increase the half-life of biotherapeutic G-CSFs. Understanding these strategies will allow for a new treatment with more competitive manufacturing and lower unit costs compared with that of Neulasta.

Safety and efficacy of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during concurrent chemoradiotherapy for small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective, cohort-controlled trial

Objective

To investigate pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) safety and efficacy in preventing hematological toxicity during concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC).

Methods

We retrospectively assessed 80 SCLC patients treated with CCRT from January 2013 to December 2018 who received PEG-rhG-CSF within 48 hours after the end of chemotherapy, defined as prophylactic use, as the experimental group. An additional 80 patients who were not treated with PEG-rhG-CSF were matched 1:1 by the propensity score matching method and served as the control group. The main observations were differences in hematological toxicity, neutrophil changes, febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence and adverse reactions. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed with regular assessment and follow-up.

Results

The leukocyte, neutrophil, erythrocyte, and platelet counts and hemoglobin level decreased after CCRT, but the experimental group had slightly higher leukocyte and neutrophil counts than the control group (P < 0.05). The incidences of grade III-IV leukopenia (18.75% vs. 61.25%) and neutropenia (23.75% vs. 67.5%) in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < 0.05). The absolute neutrophil count was 4.17 ± 0.79 (× 10⁹/L) on day 1 and peaked 6.81 ± 2.37 (× 10⁹/L) on day 10 in the experimental group; the value in the control group was 2.81 ± 0.86 (× 10⁹/L) on day 1. It decreased significantly and reached the minimum 0.91 ± 0.53 (× 10⁹/L) on day 10 (P < 0.05). The experimental group had a lower FN incidence than the control group (P < 0.05). There was also no significant acute esophagitis or pulmonary toxicity. The treatment had no significant effect on PFS (11.4 months vs. 8.7 months, P = 0.958) or OS (23.9 months vs. 17.3 months, P = 0.325) over an 18.6-month median follow-up time.

Conclusion

PEG-rhG-CSF has good efficacy and safety in preventing hematological toxicity in SCLC patients during CCRT and has no significant effects on PFS or OS.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09644-8.

Long-acting versus short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors among cancer patients after chemotherapy in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) include long-acting ones and short-acting ones. They have been mainly applied in Chinese clinical practice for years to prevent neutropenia. However, which type of G-CSF is more superior has not been conclusively determined.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WAN FANG databases for related studies published till August 2021. Revman 5.3 software was used to assess the effectiveness and safety of these 2 types of G-CSFs in patients undergoing chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Ten studies involving 1916 patients were included in our meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of long-acting G-CSFs and short-acting G-CSFs. We found that the incidence of febrile neutropenia (relative risk [RR] 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-1.17), the recovery time of the absolute neutrophil count (mean difference -0.23; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.03), and the fatigue rate (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.62-1.07) were similar between the long- and the short-acting G-CSFs. However, the long-acting G-CSFs significantly decreased the incidence (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.76-0.96) and shortened the duration (mean difference -0.19; 95% CI -0.38 to 0.00) of severe (grade ≥3) neutropenia, and decreased the rate of bone and/or muscle pain (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.58-0.98).

CONCLUSION

Primary prophylaxis with long-acting G-CSFs was more effective and safer than primary prophylaxis with short-acting G-CSFs in Chinese adults undergoing chemotherapy.

Mecapegfilgrastim in Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia: A Profile of Its Use in China

Mecapegfilgrastim (HHPG-19K) is a long-acting pegylated recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) that is administered subcutaneously as prophylaxis once per chemotherapy cycle as a weight-adjusted dose of 100 µg/kg or as a 6 mg fixed dose. It is approved in China to reduce the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anti-cancer therapy associated with a clinically significant incidence of febrile neutropenia. In phase III trials, once per cycle prophylaxis with mecapegfilgrastim was more effective than placebo in reducing the incidence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia in cycle 1 in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and was more effective than filgrastim at reducing the mean duration of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia in cycle 1 in patients with breast cancer. The tolerability and safety profiles of mecapegfilgrastim were similar to those of filgrastim, with no unexpected adverse events (AEs); most adverse reactions in cycle 1 were mild or moderate in severity. Thus, mecapegfilgrastim is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment option for patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and extends the options available for managing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in China.

Efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with breast cancer: a randomized, multicenter, active-controlled phase III trial

Background

Neutropenia is a common complication from chemotherapy. Mecapegfilgramtim (code name HHPG-19K), a long-acting recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF), has been developed. This study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim for reducing neutropenia compared with filgrastim.

Methods

This was a randomized, controlled non-inferiority study. A total of 339 breast cancer patients who were eligible for (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy were randomized assigned into three groups to receive mecapegfilgrastim 100 µg/kg, mecapegfilgrastim fixed dose of 6 mg or filgrastim 5 µg/kg/day in the first cycle of chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the duration of grade ≥3 neutropenia in cycle 1. The secondary endpoints included the duration of grade ≥3 neutropenia in cycles 2-4, incidence of grade ≥3 neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia (FN). The safety profile was also evaluated.

Results

The mean duration of grade ≥3 neutropenia was 1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65, 1.26] days in mecapegfilgrastim 100 µg/kg group, 1.23 (95% CI: 0.84, 1.88) days in mecapegfilgrastim 6 mg group, and 2.06 (95% CI: 1.66, 2.46) days in the filgrastim group. The mean difference between mecapegfilgrastim 100 µg/kg and filgrastim was -1.00 (95% CI: -1.52, -0.48), the mean difference between mecapegfilgrastim 6 mg and filgrastim was -0.83 (95% CI: -1.36, -0.30). The upper bounds of 95% CI for the difference between mecapegfilgrastim and filgrastim were all <1 day (the predefined non-inferiority margin). For the incidence of grade ≥3 and grade 4 neutropenia, the mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia, mecapegfilgrastim showed better performance compared with filgrastim. For the incidence of FN, there was no difference between patients treated with mecapegfilgrastim and filgrastim. For safety profile, mecapegfilgrastim of two doses groups were all well-tolerated. Fixed 6 mg dose of mecapegfilgrastim exhibited comparable efficacy and safety in comparison with 100 µg/kg during 4 cycles.

Conclusions

Long-acting mecapegfilgrastim (100 µg/kg and fixed 6 mg) is very effective and well tolerated when administered in the primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy induced neutropenia and in consecutive-cycle treatment. In some clinical parameters, mecafilgrastim is non-inferior and even superior to filgrastim. The fixed 6 mg-dose regimen showed similar efficacy and safety profile compared with 100 µg/kg regimen, and would be the preference in clinical practice, due to the convenient once-per-cycle administration and high-degree treatment compliance for the patients. This study provided new evidence for the novel long-acting rhG-CSF, mecapegfilgrastim, which would be a new alternative for clinical practice for prophylaxis of chemotherapy induced neutropenia.

A randomized multicenter phase II trial of mecapegfilgrastim single administration versus granulocyte colony-stimulating growth factor on treating chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in breast cancer patients

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim (HHPG-19K) with different doses compared to granulocyte colony-stimulating growth factor (G-CSF) in treating chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in breast cancer patients.

Methods

A total of 182 breast cancer patients were enrolled in this multi-center, randomized, phase II trial and developed neutropenia after first cycle chemotherapy. Patients were then assigned as 1:1:1 ratio to receive 100 µg/kg HHPG-19K single injection (HHPG-19K-N group), 150 µg/kg HHPG-19Ksingle injection (HHPG-19K-H group) and 5 µg/kg G-CSF daily injection (G-CSF group) at day 3 of the second cycle (cycle 2) chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade ≥3 neutropenia during cycle 2. Study drug-related adverse events during cycle 2 were recorded for safety assessment.

Results

During cycle 2 chemotherapy, both HHPG-19K-N and HHPG-19K-H groups exhibited lower incidence of grade ≥3 neutropenia compared with G-CSF group, while no difference was observed between HHPG-19K-N and HHPG-19K-H groups. Also, better outcomes were observed in HHPG-19K-N and HHPG-19K-H groups compared with G-CSF group regarding to grade 4 neutropenia, duration of grade ≥3 neutropenia, duration of grade 4 neutropenia, incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and rescue application of G-CSF, time to ANC recovery, while no difference of these outcomes between HHPG-19K-N and HHPG-19K-H groups was observed. For safety analysis, the incidences of hematologic and non-hematologic adverse events were similar among the 3 groups.

Conclusions

HHPG-19K presents with better clinical efficacy as well as equal tolerance compared with G-CSF in treating chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in breast cancer patients.

A Randomized Multicenter Phase III Study of Single Administration of Mecapegfilgrastim (HHPG-19K), a Pegfilgrastim Biosimilar, for Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

BACKGROUND

Mecapegfilgrastim (code name HHPG-19K) is a biosimilar to pegylated recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF). The efficacy and safety of mecapegfilgrastim, using a regimen of once-per-cycle injection of 100-μg/kg or a fixed 6-mg dose, were evaluated for the prophylactic therapy for neutropenia in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized (1:1:1) blindly to 3 treatment arms to receive a single injection of mecapegfilgrastim 100 μg/kg, a 6-mg fixed dose of mecapegfilgrastim, or saline (control) in cycle 1. In cycles 2 to 4 following unblinding at the end of cycle 1, patients in the control arm received daily injections of short-acting rhG-CSF at a dose of 5 μg/kg, whereas patients in the 2 mecapegfilgrastim arms continued the same treatment as in cycle 1. All patients received 4 chemotherapy cycles of docetaxel combined with cisplatin or carboplatin every 21 days. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia in cycle 1.

RESULTS

A single dose of 100 μg/kg or a fixed 6-mg dose of mecapegfilgrastim per cycle effectively reduced chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and was comparable to daily rhG-CSF with regard to all efficacy endpoints, including incidence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, incidence of febrile neutropenia, duration of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, and time to neutrophil recovery. No difference in efficacy parameters was observed between the 2-dose regimens of mecapegfilgrastim across all cycles. Mecapegfilgrastim was well-tolerated and was as safe as daily rhG-CSF.

CONCLUSION

Once-per-cycle injection of mecapegfilgrastim is as effective and safe as daily rhG-CSF for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with NSCLC. Mecapegfilgrastim (fixed 6-mg dose) is recommended in clinical practice for its convenient dose management.