Meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison of lipegfilgrastim with pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia-related events

Pegfilgrastim on febrile neutropenia in pediatric and adolescent cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

There is no meta-analysis about the effects of pegfilgrastim on the occurrence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in pediatric/adolescent cancer patients. The study explored the efficacy of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in preventing FN in children/adolescents with cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published before April 7, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of FN. Effect size (ES) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the outcome. The ES represented the rate of FN, and the STATA 'metaprop' command was used to synthesize the rate.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included, comprising 167 patients and 550 courses of treatment. There was no difference between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the rate of FN in children receiving chemotherapy (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.20-2.23, P = 0.520). In patients receiving pegfilgrastim, the rate of FN was 25.6% (95% CI: 14.9%-36.3%), the rate of grade 4 FN was 38.3% (95% CI: 19.2%-59.5%), the rate of severe neutropenia (SN) was 40.5% (95% CI: 35.1%-46.1%), and the rate of treatment delays due to FN was 4.8% (95% CI: 0.8%-11.3%).

DISCUSSION

The number of studies that could be included was small; therefore, a specific type of cancer or a specific treatment could be studied. Heterogeneity was high.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the rate of FN. The use of pegfilgrastim was still associated with rates of FN, grade 4 FN, severe neutropenia, and treatment delays due to FN in pediatric cancer patients.

Effectiveness of single-dose 6 mg pegfilgrastim in mobilizing peripheral blood stem cells in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation donors

A single injection of 12 mg pegfilgrastim was used to mobilize peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPCs) from healthy donors in some studies. The purpose of this study was to determine if 6 mg of pegfilgrastim was effective and safe for mobilizing CD34+ cells in donors for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. We conducted a retrospective case-matched design. A single dosage of 6 mg pegfilgrastim was used to mobilize PBPCs from 60 healthy donors. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF, 10 μg/kg) was administered daily to the matched donors. Leukapheresis was scheduled to commence on day 4 of the mobilization regimen. The median yielded CD34+ cell in the pegfilgrastim group was higher than those in the G-CSF group, at 5.06 × 106/kg recipient weight. The 73.3% of donors mobilized with pegfilgrastim yielded >4 × 106 cells/kg CD34+ cells in a single apheresis procedure when compared to the 33.3% of donors mobilized with G-CSF (P < 0.001). The myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) proportion in the pegfilgrastim group was significantly higher than that in the G-CSF group (P < 0.001). The cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) was higher in the G-CSF group than that in the pegfilgrastim group (26.7% vs. 11.7%), without statistical difference. In comparison to the G-CSF group, the pegfilgrastim group had a reduced median pain intensity numerical rating scale score (1 vs. 2). A single 6 mg dosage of pegfilgrastim is effective and safe for allogeneic PBPCs collection from healthy donors. Pegfilgrastim may decrease the incidence of aGVHD by boosting MDSCs, which need further investigation.

Open-labeled, multicenter phase II study of prophylactic administration of pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received pomalidomide-based regimens (KMM170)

Introduction

Pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has been widely used for preventing febrile neutropenia in various types of cancer treatment. In the present study, we prospectively evaluated the safety and efficacy of pegfilgrastim as a primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia and infection among patients with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treated with pomalidomide-based regimens.

Methods

Thirty-three patients with RRMM who received pomalidomide and dexamethasone (Pd) with or without cyclophosphamide (PCd) were enrolled in this study. Twenty-eight patients were treated with PCd and 5 patients were treated with Pd. All patients were given pegfilgrastim subcutaneously with a single administration performed on the first day of each cycle as primary prophylaxis until the fourth cycle.

Results

The median age of the patients was 75 (range 56-85), and the median prior line of therapy was 2 (range 2-6). Seventeen patients (51.5%) had any grade of neutropenia and 20 (60.6%) had any grade of thrombocytopenia before starting pomalidomide treatment. During the 4 cycles of treatment, grade 3 or more neutropenia occurred in 17 patients (51.5%), and 4 (12.1%) experienced grade 3 or more febrile neutropenia. Grade 3 or more infections occurred in 5 patients (15.2%). Interestingly, the patients with markedly increased ANC of more than 2 x 109/L compared to baseline ANC after 7 days of pegfilgrastim at 1st cycle of treatment showed a significantly lower incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia. The most common adverse event of pegfilgrastim was fatigue, and all the adverse events caused by pegfilgrastim were grade 1 or 2. And there was no significant change in the immune cell population and cytokines during the administration of pegfilgrastim.

Discussion

Considering that this study included elderly patients with baseline neutropenia, pegylated G-CSF could be helpful to prevent severe neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, or infection in patients with RRMM.

Efficacy and safety of PEG-rhG-CSF versus rhG-CSF in preventing chemotherapy-induced-neutropenia in early-stage breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

To compare the clinical value of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) and pegylated rhG-CSF(PEG-rhG-CSF) in early-stage breast cancer (EBC) patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, compare the efficacy of PEG-rhG-CSF with different dose and explore the timing of rhG-CSF rescue treatment.

METHODS

Patients in two PEG-rhG-CSF subgroups were given 3 mg or 6 mg PEG-rhG-CSF within 24 ~ 48 h after chemotherapy for preventing myelosuppression, while patients in the rhG-CSF group were given rhG-CSF. Observation indicators include the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and grade 3/4 chemotherapy-induced-neutropenia (CIN), the overall levels and nadir values of white blood cells (WBC) and absolute neutrophil count (ANC), comparison of WBC and ANC curves over time, the incidence of CIN-related complications, the incidence of adverse events in each group and the timing of rescue treatment for rhG-CSF.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the incidence of FN in the first cycle among the groups (P = 0.203). But the incidence of ≥ 3 grade CIN in two PEG-rhG-CSF subgroups was significantly lower than that in the rhG-CSF group (P < 0.001). The overall WBC and ANC levels in the PEG-rhG-CSF group were significantly higher than those in the rhG-CSF group (P < 0.001). In terms of CIN-related complications, less chemotherapy delay rate (1.1 vs. 7.5%, P = 0.092), less dose reduction rate (6.9 vs. 7.5%, P = 1.000), less antibiotic use rate (3.4 vs. 17.5%, P = 0.011) and less proportion of rhG-CSF rescue therapy (24.1 vs. 85.0%, P < 0.001) in the PEG-rhG-CSF group, and there were no significant differences between PEG-rhG-CSF subgroups. In the incidence of adverse events among the groups, there were no statistical differences. All patients undergoing rhG-CSF rescue treatment were mainly 4 grade (63.6%) and 3 grade (25.5%) CIN, and 10.9% of patients with 1 ~ 2 grade CIN who had high infection risk or had been infected.

CONCLUSION

PEG-rhG-CSF has better efficacy and equal tolerance compared with rhG-CSF in preventing CIN in EBC patients receiving EC regimen. Moreover, a half-dose 3 mg PEG-rhG-CSF also had good efficacy. Last, patients with ≥ 3 grade CIN and others who have been assessed to be at high risk of infection or have co-infection should consider rhG-CSF or even antibiotic rescue treatment.

Prophylaxis of Neutropenia with Lipegfilgrastim in Breast Cancer Patients with Dose-Dense Chemotherapy: Results of a Noninterventional Study on Therapeutic Routine in Germany (NADENS)

Introduction

Noninterventional study (NIS) on application and effectiveness of primary G-CSF prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim in primary breast cancer patients undergoing dose-dense (dd) or intense-dose-dense (idd) chemotherapy (CTx) regimen in daily clinical practice.

Methods

Prospective, multicenter, single-arm, NIS in 41 private practices and 27 hospitals in Germany.

Results

Data analysis of 282 patients with a mean age of 49 years (93.6% of patients <65 years) was performed. Hormone receptor status was triple negative in 29.8% of patients, and 81.9% of patients were HER2 negative. A total of 73.8% of patients received "EC dd → taxane CTx." Patients received lipegfilgrastim prophylaxis in 97.5% of 1,121 documented dd/idd cycles. Overall, the study registered 275 events of SN (CTCAE grade 3 or 4) and 9 events of FN. During the first dd cycle, SN occurred in 33.3% and FN in 1.1% of patients. CTx delay or dose reduction due to neutropenia was required in 2.5% of patients during the 4 dd cycles with lipegfilgrastim support. Overall, 314 adverse events (AEs) were reported from 107 patients and 27 serious AEs from 21 patients. None of the SAEs was "fatal," and CTCAE grade was mostly (89.6%) assessed as "1" or "2." According to the treating physicians, 99.3% of all patients benefitted from lipegfilgrastim prophylaxis, and tolerability was mostly rated "very good" or "good."

Conclusion

These results suggest that primary lipegfilgrastim prophylaxis is effective and safe in clinical routine and is beneficial in primary breast cancer patients undergoing dd/idd-ETC CTx.

A multinational, drug utilization study of lipegfilgrastim use in real-world setting in Europe

PURPOSE

Lipegfilgrastim (Lonquex, Teva Pharma B.V.) is approved for reduction in neutropenia duration and febrile neutropenia incidence. In the framework of lipegfilgrastim regulatory approval in the EU, the Health Authorities requested a drug utilization study. This study was conducted to characterize prescribing patterns of lipegfilgrastim and quantify the extent of on- and off-label use of lipegfilgrastim in real-world setting in Europe.

METHODS

Information on lipegfilgrastim use between January 2014 and March 2020 was abstracted from medical records in hospital and outpatient clinical settings. Indication for lipegfilgrastim was classified either as on-label or off-label use according to pre-determined criteria. The primary endpoint was the extent of lipegfilgrastim off-label use based on the most recent lipegfilgrastim cycle.

RESULTS

Records of 481 patients were obtained from five European countries. Lipegfilgrastim was most commonly prescribed for prevention of neutropenia by oncologists and hematologists. Patients who were administered lipegfilgrastim were primarily ≥ 55 years old (65.1%) and female (65.7%). The most frequent underlying diagnosis was breast cancer (38.3%). For the most recent lipegfilgrastim cycle, on-label use was recorded in 452/459 patients with no missing data (98.5%), while off-label use was recorded in 7/459 patients (1.5%). The majority of off-label use was attributed to use with non-cytotoxic chemotherapy (57.1%). Off-label use of lipegfilgrastim across all treatment cycles with no missing data was 11/1547 cycles (0.7%).

CONCLUSION

Using real-world data, these findings confirm the low rate of lipegfilgrastim off-label use as reported in a preceding feasibility study, indicating very high adherence to the approved indication.

Lipegfilgrastim may cause hyperleukocytosis

INTRODUCTION

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) are utilized both in the treatment and prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Lipegfilgrastim is a long-acting G-CSF. Albeit it provides ease of administration compared to short-acting GCSFs, some lipegfilgrastim-related adverse events may occur. Bone pain, widespread body pain, and feeling of fever are among common adverse effects, while rare but more serious adverse effects such as leukocytosis, spleen rupture, interstitial pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, capillary leak syndrome, hypokalemia, and glomerulonephritis may occur as well.

CASE REPORT

We reported a case of hyperleukocytosis that developed due to prophylactic administration of lipegfilgrastim following the first course of neoadjuvant pertuzumab (840-420 mg), trastuzumab (8-6mg/kg), and docetaxel (75 mg/m2) in a 45-year-old female patient with a diagnosis of breast invasive ductal carcinoma. The patient, who presented with weakness, loss of appetite, and oral intake disorder, had elevated white blood cell (WBC), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and uric acid levels in her test results. Peripheral smear (PS) had a left shift.

MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME

Intravenous 0.9% NaCl and peroral allopurinol were started to be administered to the patient. On the ninth day of hospitalization, the patient's clinical manifestation improved, and her WBC, LDH, uric acid, and PS returned to normal. Besides, the progression to tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) was prevented by appropriate hydration and allopurinol treatment. In subsequent chemotherapies (CTs), lipegfilgrastim was discontinued and filgrastim was started. The patient whose hyperleukocytosis did not recur was operated on following neoadjuvant CT. The patient's routine follow-up continues without any problems.

DISCUSSION

Although lipegfilgrastim-induced hyperleukocytosis has not been reported in the literature, it should be borne in mind that hyperleukocytosis and related complications may occur, as in our case.

[G-CSF for prophylaxis of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, anemia in cancer : Guidelines on supportive treatment part 1]

Infections in patients with neutropenia following chemotherapy are mostly manifested as fever (febrile neutropenia, FN). Some of the most important determinants of the risk of FN are the type of chemotherapy, the dose intensity and patient-specific factors. When the risk of FN is 20% or more granulopoiesis is prophylactically stimulated with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) after the treatment. Anemia should always be clarified and if necessary be treated according to the cause when symptomatic. If an absolute or functional iron deficiency is present, intravenous iron substitution is mostly necessary. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents can be used after chemotherapy with hemoglobin (Hb) levels less than 10 g/dl (6.2 mmol/l). In cases of chronic anemia and Hb levels less than 7-8 g/dl (<4.3-5.0 mmol/l) the indications for transfusion of erythrocyte concentrates should be assessed primarily based on the individual clinical symptoms.

Efficacy and cost of G-CSF derivatives for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients underwent autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacies and costs between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim prophylaxis for FN post-ASCT for lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients.

METHODS

43 patients who received pegfilgrastim (6 mg) were compared to a retrospective cohort of 129 patients that had received filgrastim post-ASCT. Hematopoietic recovery time, FN incidence and treatment costs were assessed and compared.

RESULTS

The mean time to absolute neutrophil count engraftment was 8.72 ± 2.38 days for the prospective pegfilgrastim group and 9.87 ± 3.13 days for the retrospective filgrastim group (P = 0.027). The incidence of FN was 18.60% and 50.39% in prospective pegfilgrastim and retrospective filgrastim groups, respectively (P = 0.000). The mean cost of filgrastim was $617.22 ± 37.87, compared with $525.78 for pegfilgrastim (P = 0.032).

DISCUSSION

Convenience, effectiveness, and safety of prophylaxis for FN in the prospective pegfilgrastim group were significantly improved compared to the retrospective filgrastim group in ASCT patients.

CONCLUSION

Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis was more effective and convenient than filgrastim for FN prophylaxis in patients post-ASCT, especially for MM patients.

Underutilisation of prophylactic G-CSF in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant docetaxel/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy

Docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC) is a widely used adjuvant chemotherapy regimen, especially in patients with node-negative or low-risk node-positive breast cancer. Guidelines recommend the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to prevent febrile neutropenia. In this study, we aimed to explore the use of G-CSF as a primary prophylactic and determine the factors influencing its use. This retrospective study used nationwide claims data from the National Inpatient Sample compiled by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service in South Korea from 2018. The claims data included 10% of inpatients admitted at least once in 2018 and 1% of outpatients who were not admitted. Female patients with breast cancer who received an adjuvant TC regimen after surgery were selected. Primary prophylactic G-CSF was defined as G-CSF prescribed within two days of the first cycle of TC. The factors influencing its utilisation were investigated using the chi-square test and a multiple logistic regression model. A total of 229 patients were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients who received primary prophylactic G-CSF treatment after the first cycle of TC was 55.5%. The factors positively influencing G-CSF utilization were patients' age ≥65 years, location (i.e. metropolitan areas), and the type of healthcare facility (i.e. non-tertiary hospitals). The use of prophylactic G-CSF in patients with breast cancer who received the adjuvant TC regimen was insufficient. The use of primary G-CSF prophylaxis should be emphasised to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia among patients receiving a myelosuppressive TC regimen.

Long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor pegfilgrastim (lipegfilgrastim) for stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard of care in newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Several studies before the introduction of novel therapies in MM, demonstrated a pegylated G-CSF to be successful in mobilizing peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs). Lipegfilgrastim is a novel long-acting G-CSF that is produced by the conjugation of a single 20-kDa polyethelene glycol to the natural O-glycosylation site of G-CSF. Twenty-four MM patients were included for PBSCs mobilization with a single SC injection of 6 mg lipegfilgrastim. PBSC collection was started when the CD34⁺ count was > 10 × 10⁶ cells/L. The target progenitor cells were 6 × 10⁶ cells/kg. The median day of apheresis was + 3 (range 2-5) following lipegfilgrastim. Median peripheral blood CD34⁺ count pre-mobilization was of 22.65 (range 3.36-105) × 10⁶ cells/L. The median number of leukaphaeresis procedures was 2 (range 1-4). The median mobilized CD34⁺ cells/kg were 8.26 (range 0.77-12.42). One patient failed to mobilize and two patients mobilized < 6 × 10⁶ cells/kg. Toxicity was mild and transient. Twenty-three patients underwent ASCT following high dose melphalan. All patients engrafted. As lipegfilgrastim is administered only once, it is conceivable that it improves both compliance and quality-of-life (NCT02488382).

Protroca: A Noninterventional Study on Prophylactic Lipegfilgrastim against Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia in Nonselected Breast Cancer Patients

Background

Protroca evaluated the efficacy and safety of primary and secondary prophylaxis of neutropenia with lipegfilgrastim (Lonquex®) in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy (CT).

Patients and Methods

Of the 255 patients enrolled, 248 patients were evaluable for the intent-to-treat (ITT) and 194 patients for the per-protocol set. Primary and secondary end points after lipegfilgrastim treatment were assessed.

Results

Nine patients of the ITT set receiving lipegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis (n = 222) had febrile neutropenia of grade 3-4 (5 patients) or infection of grade 3-4 (4 patients); 1/26 of those receiving secondary prophylaxis had an event. Dose reductions were performed in 9.5% of the patients. Postponement of cancer CT cycles for >3 days occurred in <15% of patients; 10.8% (92/851 AEs) and 8% (2/25 SAEs) of documented adverse events and serious adverse events, respectively, were related to lipegfilgrastim.

Conclusions

Application of lipegfilgrastim was effective as primary and secondary prophylaxis in the prevention of CT-induced neutropenia in breast cancer.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in children with acute leukaemia

AIMS

This open-label, phase I study evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in children with acute leukaemia.

METHODS

PEG-rhG-CSF was administered as a single 100 mcg/kg (3 mg maximum dose) subcutaneous injection at the end of each chemotherapy period when neutropenia occurred. Blood samples were obtained from patients treated with PEG-rhG-CSF. PEG-rhG-CSF serum concentrations were determined by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Population pharmacokinetic (PPK) analysis was implemented using the nonlinear mixed-effects model. Short-term safety was evaluated through adverse events collection (registered at clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 03844360).

RESULTS

A total of 16 acute leukaemia patients (1.8-13.6 years) were included, of whom two (12.5%) had grade 3 neutropenia, six (37.5%) had grade 4 neutropenia, and eight (50.0%) had severe neutropenia. For PPK modelling, 64 PEG-rhG-CSF serum concentrations were obtainable. A one-compartment model with first-order elimination was used for pharmacokinetic data modelling. The current weight was a significant covariate. The median (range) of clearance (CL) and area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) were 5.65 (1.49-14.45) mL/h/kg and 16514.75 (6632.45-54423.30) ng·h/mL, respectively. Bone pain, pyrexia, anaphylaxis and nephrotoxicity were not observed. One patient died 13 days after administration, and the objective assessment of causality was that an association with PEG-rhG-CSF was "possible".

CONCLUSIONS

The AUC of PEG-rhG-CSF (100 mcg/kg, 3 mg maximum dose) in paediatric patients with acute leukaemia were similar to those of PEG-rhG-CSF (100 mcg/kg) in children with sarcoma. PEG-rhG-CSF is safe, representing an important therapeutic option for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in paediatric patients with acute leukaemia.

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.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Lipegfilgrastim in Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Myelosuppressive Chemotherapy in a Real-World Setting: Results of an Analysis of Pooled Data from Two Non-Interventional European Studies

BACKGROUND/AIM

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a common and serious complication in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This analysis was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim, a glycoPEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, in lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

Data from two European non-interventional studies (NIS NADIR and NIS LEOS) investigating lipegfilgrastim for primary and secondary prophylaxis were pooled. Outcomes included the incidence of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN), use of anti-infectives and antimycotics, and adverse events and their relationship to lipegfilgrastim.

RESULTS

The safety population included 361 patients with lung cancer (median age, 66 years [range, 36-88]), of whom 322 had received 2 or more consecutive cycles of lipegfilgrastim (efficacy population [primary prophylaxis, 75.5%; secondary prophylaxis, 16.5%]). Almost 40% of the patients were considered to have a high risk (>20%) of FN, and around 60% had an intermediate risk (10-20%). For all cycles, FN was reported in 3 patients (0.9%), neutropenia in 14 (4.3%), and grade 4 neutropenia in 9 (2.8%). Anti-infectives were used in 27 patients (8.4%) and antimycotics in 6 (1.9%). The incidence rates were lower for the patients' first cycle (FN, 0.4%; neutropenia, 0.8%; grade 4 neutropenia, 0.8%; anti-infectives, 0.6%; antimycotics, 0.6%). Adverse drug reactions considered lipegfilgrastim related were reported in 35 patients (9.7%), and serious adverse drug reactions in 10 (2.8%). None of the fatal events reported in 28 patients (7.8%) were lipegfilgrastim related.

CONCLUSION

Lipegfilgrastim administered to patients with lung cancer undergoing chemotherapy in real-world clinical practice showed similar effectiveness and safety to that reported in published pivotal trials.

Is PEGylated G-CSF superior to G-CSF in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

PEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a safe alternative to G-CSF to improve chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). This superiority has resulted in its increased use by physicians; however, the superiority of PEGylated G-CSF for CIN in breast cancer has not been conclusively determined.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the superiority of PEGylated G-CSF for CIN in breast cancer in terms of effectiveness and safety via a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed for eligible studies published from database inception to December 2019. All studies comparing PEGylated G-CSF and G-CSF for CIN of breast cancer were reviewed. After literature selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was conducted using Revman, version 5.2.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials were finally identified. The publication bias of these studies was acceptable. For the endpoint of effectiveness, analysis of the incidence/duration of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, the duration of grade 4 neutropenia, the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), and the time to absolute neutrophil count recovery showed no advantage of PEGylated G-CSF over G-CSF for CIN of breast cancer (P > 0.05), with the premise of a sufficient dose of G-CSF according to the guidelines. No significant differences in grade 4 adverse events were observed between the groups (P = 0.29), and PEGylated G-CSF did not increase the incidence of skeletal and/or muscle pain compared with G-CSF (P = 0.32).

CONCLUSION

PEGylated G-CSF was as effective and safe as G-CSF to reduce CIN in breast cancer but did not show an obvious superiority. However, in clinical practice, PEGylated G-CSF has an obvious advantage in terms of convenience, which could improve patient's quality of life.

Introduction of biosimilar pegfilgrastim in France: Economic analysis of switching from originator

Objectives

To assess the economic impact of introducing biosimilar pegfilgrastim compared to the current standard granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) practice in France.

Methods

A budget impact model was developed to investigate the impact of introducing pegfilgrastim biosimilar over 5 years. The model analysed drug acquisition costs, ambulatory costs, as well as costs associated with poor outcomes, and compared the current standard practice of long-acting and short-acting G-CSF to a revised practice including pegfilgrastim biosimilar in addition to standard practice treatments. The cost of switching to pegfilgrastim biosimilar, within a pharmacy setting, was analysed within the model using data from a survey of French pharmacists.

Results

The budget impact model calculated a cost saving of €51,007,531 over 5 years switching from the current standard practice to pegfilgrastim biosimilar. A sensitivity analysis accounting for variation in pegfilgrastim biosimilar uptake of 1) 15% in year 1 and 1% in years 2–5 and 2) 15% in years 1–5, estimated savings ranging between €29,377,784 and €79,847,194, respectively. A further analysis predicted cost savings of €287,344,835 over 5 years with the extension of pegfilgrastim biosimilar, at an uptake of 15% in year 1 and 7% in years 2–4, to both long-acting and short-acting G-CSF groups compared to unchanged current practice.

Conclusions

The introduction of pegfilgrastim biosimilar will help to reduce cost and alleviate some of the financial pressure on the French healthcare system.

Efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in elderly patients with aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL): results of the randomized, open-label, non-inferiority AVOID neutropenia study

Background

Lipegfilgrastim has been shown to be non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for reduction of the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in breast cancer patients. This open-label, non-inferiority study assessed the efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in elderly patients with aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) at high risk for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

Patient and methods

One hundred and one patients (median age, 75 years) were randomized to lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim (6 mg/cycle) during six cycles of R-CHOP21.

Results

Lipegfilgrastim was non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for the primary efficacy endpoint, reduction of DSN in cycle 1. In the per-protocol population, mean (standard deviation) DSN was 0.8 (0.92) and 0.9 (1.11) days in the two groups, respectively; the adjusted mean difference between groups was − 0.3 days (95% confidence interval, − 0.70 to 0.19). Non-inferiority was also demonstrated in the intent-to-treat population. The incidence of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 was 51% (21/41) in the lipegfilgrastim group and 52% (23/44) in the pegfilgrastim group. Very severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.1 × 10⁹/L) in cycle 1 was reported by 5 (12%) patients in the lipegfilgrastim group and 8 (18%) patients in the pegfilgrastim group. However, over all cycles, febrile neutropenia (strict definition) was reported by only 1 (2%) patient in each treatment group (during cycle 1 in the lipegfilgrastim group and cycle 6 in the pegfilgrastim group). The mean time to absolute neutrophil count recovery (defined as ≥ 2.0 × 10⁹/L) was 8.3 and 9.4 days in the two groups, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred in 46% of patients in each group; none were considered treatment-related. Eight patients died during the study (2 in the lipegfilgrastim group, 5 in the pegfilgrastim group, and 1 who died before starting study treatment). No deaths occurred during the treatment period, and all were considered to be related to the underlying disease.

Conclusions

This study shows lipegfilgrastim to be non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for the reduction of DSN in elderly patients with aggressive B cell NHL receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, with a comparable safety profile.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02044276; EudraCT number 2013-001284-23

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-020-05711-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A comparative effectiveness study of lipegfilgrastim in multiple myeloma patients after high dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant

G-CSF administration after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has been shown to expedite neutrophil recovery. Several studies comparing filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in the post-ASCT setting concluded that the two are at least equally effective. Lipegfilgrastim (LIP) is a new long-acting, once-per-cycle G-CSF. This multicentric, prospective study aimed to describe the use of LIP in multiple myeloma patients receiving high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and compare LIP with historic controls of patients who received short-acting agent (filgrastim [FIL]). Overall, 125 patients with a median age of 60 years received G-CSF after ASCT (80 patients LIP on day 1 post-ASCT and 45 patients FIL on day 5 post-ASCT). The median duration of grade 4 neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] < 0.5 × 10 [9]/L) was 5 days in both LIP and FIL groups, whereas the median number of days to reach ANC ≥ 0.5 × 10 [9]/L was 10% lower in the LIP than in the FIL group (10 vs 11 days), respectively. Male sex was significantly associated with a faster ANC ≥ 0.5 × 10 [9] L response (p = 0.015). The incidence of FN was significantly lower in the LIP than in the FIL group (29% vs 49%, respectively, p = 0.024). The days to discharge after ASCT infusion were greater in patients with FN (p < 0.001). The study indicates that LIP had a shorter time to ANC recovery and is more effective than FIL for the prevention of FN in the ASCT setting.

Efficacy and tolerability of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in cancer patients after chemotherapy: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

The optimum granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) treatment for cancer patients after being treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy remains unknown. Therefore, a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of 11 G-CSF drugs on patients after chemotherapy. A total of 73 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) containing 15,124 cancer patients were included for the final network meta-analysis. Compared with pegfilgrastim, there were a higher risk with filgrastim for incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) (OR [95% CI]: 1.63 [1.07, 2.46]), and a higher risk with short-acting G-CSF (S-G-CSF) biosimilar and lenograstim for incidence of bone pain (BP) (OR [95% CI]: 6.45 [1.10, 65.73], 5.12 [1.14, 26.12], respectively). Mecapegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim and balugrastim were best G-CSF drugs in reducing FN (cumulative probabilities: 58%, 15%, 11%, respectively). S-G-CSF biosimilar, empegfilgrastim, and long-acting G-CSF (L-G-CSF) biosimilar were best G-CSF drugs in reducing severe neutropenia (SN) (cumulative probabilities: 21%, 20%, 15%, respectively). Mecapegfilgrastim, balugrastim, lipegfilgrastim and L-G-CSF biosimilar were best G-CSF drugs in reducing BP (cumulative probabilities: 20%, 14%, 8%, 8%, respectively). Mecapegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim and balugrastim might be the most appreciate G-CSF drugs with both good efficacy and tolerability when treating cancer patients after cytotoxic chemotherapy.