Mobilization of PBSC for allogeneic transplantation by the use of the G-CSF biosimilar XM02 in healthy donors

Medical and ethical considerations on hematopoietic stem cells mobilization for healthy donors

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is a common procedure potentially beneficial to many individuals with cancer, hematological, or inherited disorders, and has highlighted the need of related or unrelated donors to perform allograft. Donation of hematopoietic stem cells, either through bone marrow harvest or peripheral blood stem cell collection, is well-established and widespread. Over the past two decades, the peripheral blood stem cell collection by aphaeresis has become the main source of hematopoietic stem cells for transplantation, due to faster engraftment and practicability and lower risk of relapse for high-risk patients. For peripheral blood stem cell donation, donors require mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells from bone marrow into the blood stream. This is performed by growth factors injections. This article is a review of reported applications of growth factors (original granulocyte colony stimulating factor and its biosimilars), for healthy donors' peripheral blood stem cell mobilization, in terms of toxicity, side effects, efficacy and follow-up. There is still an ethical dilemma for clinicians involved in allograft, because they expose healthy donors to drugs. It is important to dispel some of the critical concerns regarding their use in healthy volunteers, particularly because they receive no personal therapeutic benefit from this procedure.

Autologous Stem Cell Mobilization and Collection

Peripheral blood stem cell collection is an effective approach to obtain a hematopoietic graft for stem cell transplantation. Developing hematopoietic stem/progenitor cell (HSPC) mobilization methods and collection algorithms have improved efficiency, clinical outcomes, and cost effectiveness. Differences in mobilization mechanisms may change the HSPC content harvested and result in different engraftment kinetics and complications. Patient-specific factors can affect mobilization. Incorporating these factors in collection algorithms and improving assays for evaluating mobilization further extend the ability to obtain sufficient HSPCs for hematopoietic repopulation. Technological advance and innovations in leukapheresis have improved collection efficiency and reduced adverse effects.

Evaluation of a biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (filgrastim XM02) for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization and transplantation: a single center experience in Japan

Background

Biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has recently been introduced into clinical practice. G-CSFs are used to mobilize CD34⁺ cells and accelerate engraftment after transplantation. However, in Asia, particularly in Japan, data for peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilization by this biosimilar G-CSF are currently lacking. Therefore, the clinical efficacy and safety of biosimilar G-CSF for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation needs to be evaluated in a Japanese context.

Materials and methods

The subjects included two groups of patients with malignant lymphoma and multiple myeloma. All patients received chemotherapy priming for the mobilization of PBSCs. All patients were treated with chemotherapy followed by the administration of either the biosimilar G-CSF, filgrastim XM02 (FBNK), or the originators, filgrastim, or lenograstim.

Results

There were no significant differences among FBNK, filgrastim, and lenograstim treatments in the numbers of CD34⁺ cells in harvested PBSCs, the scores for granulocyte/macrophage colony forming units, or for malignant lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients evaluated as separate or combined cohorts. In addition, there were no significant differences in safety, side effects, complications, or the time to engraftment after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Conclusion

Biosimilar FBNK shows the same efficacy and safety as originator G-CSFs for facilitating bone marrow recovery in Japanese malignant lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients undergoing stem cell transplantation. In addition, it is less expensive than the originators, reducing hospitalization costs.

Update on biosimilars of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor - when no news is good news

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the approval of the first biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), biosimilars - copies of therapeutic biologicals whose patent protection has expired - have finally reached the US healthcare market. Its advent is an occasion for a closer look at recent insights into biosimilar G-CSF and an attempt at prognosticating the future (future role) of biosimilars in general.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature regarding biosimilar G-CSF orbits significantly around patient access and effects on healthcare expenditure. The advent of biosimilar G-CSF has induced unexpectedly large price reductions for short-acting G-CSF. On the clinical side, little excitement is tangible, probably appropriately so, since clinical data indicate nothing short of biological similarity. Although formal clinical trials are few, the plethora of case series and historic comparisons which have come forth offer reassurance about the appropriateness of the regulators' assessment of biosimilar G-CSF as indeed in all respects biologically similar to the originator.

SUMMARY

All evidence points to an overwhelming similarity of originator and biosimilar G-CSF in all indications. Overall clinical acceptance, albeit possibly significantly dictated by economic pressures, is good. Price reductions exceed predictions and may jeopardize the economic viability of biosimilar programs. A concurrent shift towards long-acting G-CSF ('biobetters') is observed in Europe.

Tbo-Filgrastim: A Review in Neutropenic Conditions

Tbo-filgrastim (filgrastim XM02; Biograstim(®), Ratiograstim(®), Tevagrastim(®)) is approved in the EU as a biosimilar of filgrastim (Neupogen(®)) for use in all indications for which reference filgrastim is approved, including chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, neutropenia in patients undergoing myeloablative therapy followed by bone marrow transplantation, mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs), severe chronic neutropenia, and neutropenia in HIV infection. Tbo-filgrastim (Granix(®)) is also approved as a biologic in the USA for neutropenia associated with chemotherapy. Tbo-filgrastim has demonstrated bioequivalence to reference filgrastim in terms of its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. In phase III trials, tbo-filgrastim was equivalent to reference filgrastim in ameliorating severe neutropenia in patients receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer, lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In addition, the efficacy of tbo-filgrastim for PBSC mobilization in the allogeneic and autologous settings has been demonstrated in several small studies. Tbo-filgrastim was generally well tolerated, with a similar safety profile to that of reference filgrastim. Most adverse events were of mild or moderate severity. Biosimilars such as tbo-filgrastim have the potential to reduce healthcare costs compared with those of reference filgrastim; this may provide patients with more cost-effective treatment options. Current evidence indicates that tbo-filgrastim is a useful alternative to reference filgrastim in patients requiring filgrastim therapy for various neutropenic conditions.

Mobilization of autologous and allogeneic peripheral blood stem cells for transplantation in haematological malignancies using biosimilar G-CSF

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Biosimilars of the granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) filgrastim were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for registered indications of the originator G-CSF, including prevention and treatment of neutropenia, as well as mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in 2008. Nevertheless, there is still an ongoing debate regarding the quality, efficacy and safety of biosimilar G-CSF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This article is a meta-analysis of clinical studies on the use of biosimilar G-CSF for mobilization and transplantation of haematopoietic stem cells as available in public databases. All data sets were weighted for the number of patients and parameters and then subjected to statistical meta-analysis employing the Mann-Whitney U-test followed by the Hodges-Lehmann estimator to assess differences between biosimilar and originator G-SCF.

RESULTS

A total of 1892 individuals, mostly with haematological malignancies but also including 351 healthy donors have been successfully mobilized for autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation using biosimilar G-CSF (Zarzio(TM) : 1239 individuals; Ratiograstim(TM) /Tevagrastim(TM) : 653 individuals). A total of 740 patients with multiple myeloma, 491 with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), 150 with Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) and other diseases are included in this meta-analysis, as well as 161 siblings and 190 volunteer unrelated donors. For biosimilar and originator G-CSF, bioequivalence was observed for the yield of CD34+ stem cells as well as for the engraftment of the transplants.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilar G-CSF has equivalent effects and safety as originator G-CSF.

Use of Biosimilars in Paediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Position Statement of the ESPGHAN Paediatric IBD Porto Group

Because the patents for biopharmaceutical monoclonal antibodies have or soon will expire, biosimilars are coming to the market. This will most likely lead to decreased drug costs and so easier access to these expensive agents. Extrapolation, however, of the limited available clinical data from adults with rheumatologic diseases to children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) should be done with caution and needs some considerations.Postmarketing surveillance programs for efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity should become mandatory in children with IBD using biosimilars, as for all biological drugs.

Tbo-Filgrastim versus Filgrastim during Mobilization and Neutrophil Engraftment for Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

There are limited data available supporting the use of the recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), tbo-filgrastim, rather than traditionally used filgrastim to mobilize peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) or to accelerate engraftment after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). We sought to compare the efficacy and cost of tbo-filgrastim to filgrastim in these settings. Patients diagnosed with lymphoma or plasma cell disorders undergoing G-CSF mobilization, with or without plerixafor, were included in this retrospective analysis. The primary outcome was total collected CD34(+) cells/kg. Secondary mobilization endpoints included peripheral CD34(+) cells/μL on days 4 and 5 of mobilization, adjunctive use of plerixafor, CD34(+) cells/kg collected on day 5, number of collection days and volumes processed, number of collections reaching 5 million CD34(+) cells/kg, and percent reaching target collection goal in 1 day. Secondary engraftment endpoints included time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment, number of blood product transfusions required before engraftment, events of febrile neutropenia, and length of stay. A total of 185 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients receiving filgrastim (n = 86) collected a median of 5.56 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg, compared with a median of 5.85 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg in the tbo-filgrastim group (n = 99; P = .58). There were no statistically significant differences in all secondary endpoints with the exception of apheresis volumes processed (tbo-filgrastim, 17.0 liters versus filgrastim, 19.7 liters; P < .01) and mean platelet transfusions (tbo-filgrastim, 1.7 units versus filgrastim, 1.4 units; P = .04). In conclusion, tbo-filgrastim demonstrated similar CD34(+) yield compared with filgrastim in mobilization and post-transplantation settings, with no clinically meaningful differences in secondary efficacy and safety endpoints. Furthermore, tbo-filgrastim utilization was associated with cost savings of approximately $1406 per patient utilizing average wholesale price.

Use of biosimilar filgrastim compared with lenograstim in autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplant and in sibling allogeneic transplant

OBJECTIVES

Biosimilar filgrastim was compared with lenograstim for autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplant (HSCT) in patients with haematological malignancies. Data from a separate group of sibling donors who underwent allogeneic HSCT are also reported.

METHODS

Patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma (MM) who underwent autologous HSCT with biosimilar filgrastim were compared with a historical control group of patients who received lenograstim. Peripheral blood (PB) cells counts were monitored after 7-8 consecutive days of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) injection and apheresis was performed on day 8 if PB CD34+ cell count was ⩾10 cells/µl. The target PB CD34+ cell doses were ⩾2.0 × 10(6)/kg (lymphoma), ⩾4.0 × 10(6)/kg (MM ⩾60 years old) or ⩾8.0 × 10(6)/kg (MM <60 years old).

RESULTS

A total of 259 patients were included in the autologous HSCT comparison (biosimilar filgrastim, n = 104; lenograstim, n = 155). In patients with lymphoma and older MM patients (⩾60 years old), no significant differences were observed between groups with regard to stem-cell mobilization parameters. However, in MM patients <60 years old, all parameters were significantly superior in the biosimilar filgrastim group, including the need for 1 rather than 2 apheresis procedures. No significant differences were observed between groups in median number of days to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) or platelet recovery. In the allogeneic setting, 47 sibling donors received biosimilar filgrastim. Mean CD34+ count at the first apheresis was 6.1 × 10(6)/kg. A total of 13 donors needed a second apheresis and 4 required a third. Among recipients, median days to ANC recovery was 16 (10-28) and to platelet recovery was 13 (9-54).

CONCLUSIONS

Biosimilar filgrastim is as effective as lenograstim for autologous HSCT in patients with lymphoma or MM patients ⩾60 years old. However, mobilization with biosimilar filgrastim appeared to be superior to that with lenograstim in younger MM patients.

Biosimilar granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor for healthy donor stem cell mobilization: need we be afraid?

Biosimilars are approved biologics with comparable quality, safety, and efficacy to a reference product. Unlike generics, which are chemically manufactured copies of small-molecule drugs with relatively simple chemical structures, the biosimilar designation is applied to drugs that are produced by living organisms, implying much more difficult to control manufacturing and purification procedures. To account for these complexities, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the US Food and Drug Administration, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration, and other regulatory authorities have devised and implemented specific, markedly more demanding pathways for the evaluation and approval of biosimilars. To date, several biosimilars have been approved, including versions of somatropin, erythropoietin, and granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), and several biosimilar monoclonal antibodies are currently in development. The reference G-CSF product (Neupogen, Amgen) has been used for many years for prevention and treatment of neutropenia and also for mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs). However, concerns have been raised about the safety and efficacy of biosimilar G-CSF during PBSC mobilization procedures, especially in healthy donors. This article reviews the available evidence on the use of biosimilar G-CSF in this setting. Aggregate clinical evidence supports the assessment by the EMA of biosimilar and originator G-CSF as highly biologically similar, with respect to desired and undesired effects.

Peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization for autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: guidelines from the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation

Peripheral blood progenitor cell mobilization practices vary significantly among institutions. Effective mobilization regimens include growth factor alone, chemotherapy and growth factor combined, and, more recently, incorporation of plerixafor with either approach. Many institutions have developed algorithms to improve stem cell mobilization success rates and cost-effectiveness. However, an optimal stem cell mobilization regimen has not been defined. Practical guidelines are needed to address important clinical questions, including which growth factor is optimal, what chemotherapy and dose is most effective, and when to initiate leukapheresis. We present recommendations, based on a comprehensive review of the literature, from the American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

A clinical comparison of the efficacy and safety of biosimilar G-CSF and originator G-CSF in haematopoietic stem cell mobilization

BACKGROUND

Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is widely used to mobilize haematopoietic stem cells. We compared the efficacy and safety of a biosimilar G-CSF (Zarzio(®), Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals) with the originator G-CSF (Neupogen(®), Amgen) in patients with haematological malignancies.

METHODS

A total of 108 patients were included in this study, 59 of whom were female (49 male), with an overall median age of 51 years (range 19-69). Patients had multiple myeloma (n=46), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n=28), Hodgkin's lymphoma (n=26), or other diagnosis (n=8). After administration of mobilizing regimens (primarily high-dose etoposide, high-dose cyclophosphamide, intermediate-dose Ara-C or ESHAP), patients were randomized to a standard daily 10 μg/kg dose of biosimilar G-CSF (n=54) or originator G-CSF (n=54).

RESULTS

Median duration of G-CSF administration was 8 days with both biosimilar G-CSF (range 4-17) and originator G-CSF (range 4-14). Both groups had a median of one apheresis with a median time until first apheresis of 11 days. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in the mean ± SD number of mobilized CD34+ cells/μL in peripheral blood or the number of CD34+ cells/kg body weight. Five patients (9%) in the originator G-CSF group and six patients in the biosimilar G-CSF group (11%) did not mobilize sufficient CD34+ cells. The adverse event profile was similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A biosimilar G-CSF (Zarzio(®)) demonstrated similar efficacy and safety as the reference originator G-CSF (Neupogen(®)) in hematopoietic stem cell mobilization in patients with haematological malignancies.

Biosimilar G-CSF based mobilization of peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cells for autologous and allogeneic stem cell transplantation

The use of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilars for peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cell (PBSC) mobilization has stimulated an ongoing debate regarding their efficacy and safety. However, the use of biosimilar G-CSF was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for all the registered indications of the originator G-CSF (Neupogen^®) including mobilization of stem cells. Here, we performed a comprehensive review of published reports on the use of biosimilar G-CSF covering patients with hematological malignancies as well as healthy donors that underwent stem cell mobilization at multiple centers using site-specific non-randomized regimens with a biosimilar G-CSF in the autologous and allogeneic setting.

A total of 904 patients mostly with hematological malignancies as well as healthy donors underwent successful autologous or allogeneic stem cell mobilization, respectively, using a biosimilar G-CSF (520 with Ratiograstim®/Tevagrastim, 384 with Zarzio®). The indication for stem cell mobilization in hematology patients included 326 patients with multiple myeloma, 273 with Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), 79 with Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL), and other disease. 156 sibling or volunteer unrelated donors were mobilized using biosimilar G-CSF. Mobilization resulted in good mobilization of CD34+ stem cells with side effects similar to originator G-CSF. Post transplantation engraftment did not significantly differ from results previously documented with the originator G-CSF. The side effects experienced by the patients or donors mobilized by biosimilar G-CSF were minimal and were comparable to those of originator G-CSF.

In summary, the efficacy of biosimilar G-CSFs in terms of PBSC yield as well as their toxicity profile are equivalent to historical data with the reference G-CSF.

Review article: biosimilars are the next generation of drugs for liver and gastrointestinal diseases

BACKGROUND

A biosimilar is a copy version of an approved original biological medicine whose data protection has expired.

AIM

To provide an overview of the development of biosimilars worldwide.

METHODS

Literature review of manufacturing processes of biosimilars, differences and similarities between biosimilars and the reference product, approval pathways for biosimilars, challenges in clinical trial study design and available data from clinical trials.

RESULTS

Biosimilars have the same amino acid sequence and highly similar glycosylation patterns that overlap with the originator product. Both efficacy and toxicity are difficult to predict due to subtle molecular changes that might have profound effects on clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. Their main advantage is related to cost savings. Direct evidence of safety and benefit from clinical trials, post-marketing pharmacoviligance and unequivocal identification of the product as a biosimilar are requirements before approval. Non-inferiority or equivalence trials are required by regulatory agencies. Over the past years, several biosimilars have been approved such as erythropoietin or growth factors. Recently, two monoclonal antibodies, Remsima and Inflectra, have been shown to be equivalent to infliximab (INX) in safety and efficacy in rheumatologic conditions. Interchangeability, automatic substitution and switching are key issues when treating patients with biosimilars in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Biosimilars represent a new generation of drugs in liver and gastrointestinal diseases. On June 27, 2013, Hospira's Inflectra (INX) was the first biosimilar monoclonal antibody to receive positive opinion from European Medicines Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use for rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and plaque psoriasis.

Use of a biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization: an analysis of mobilization and engraftment

Peripheral blood haematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization has become a standard procedure prior to autologous stem cell transplantation. Biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (GCSF) have recently been awarded European Union (EU) licences for stem cell mobilization but data for their use in this context remain limited. The biosimilar GCSF, Ratiograstim(®) (Ratiopharm, Ulm, Germany) was granted an EU licence in September 2008 and incorporated into clinical practice in the Wessex Blood and Marrow Transplantation Programme in December 2008. Data were retrospectively collected for 154 consecutive patients undergoing peripheral blood stem cell harvest between January 2009 and December 2011 using the biosimilar GCSF. 131 consecutive patients from the preceding 3 years, who had received Neupogen(®) , were used as a control. We analysed both parameters relevant to stem cell collection and engraftment data, where patients proceeded to transplantation. We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups when comparing CD34 predictors, total number of CD34(+) stem cells collected, number of days required for collection, or for time to engraftment. This is, to our knowledge, the largest direct comparison of a biosimilar GCSF with originator GCSF for stem cell mobilization. The use of biosimilar GCSF can produce a significant cost saving, allowing investment in other areas of stem cell transplantation.