Lipegfilgrastim: pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics for body-weight-adjusted and 6 mg fixed doses in two randomized studies in healthy volunteers

A comparative assessment of neutropenia events, healthcare resource use, and costs among cancer patients treated with lipegfilgrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in Germany

PURPOSE

We assessed the occurrence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) and the associated healthcare resource in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in combination with pegfilgrastim versus lipegfilgrastim.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis using a German health insurance claims database. Adults receiving chemotherapy with a prescription code for pegfilgrastim (n = 734) or lipegfilgrastim (n = 346) were observed over a 1-year follow-up period. Patient subgroups were analyzed according to cancer type and FN risk. FN risk was based on the chemotherapy regimen and any additional neutropenia risk factors. Outcomes were adjusted via regression analysis.

RESULTS

Most patients were classified as high FN risk (70.0% pegfilgrastim; 65.6% lipegfilgrastim cohort). The mean age was 58.2 years in the pegfilgrastim cohort and 58.0 years in the lipegfilgrastim cohort, with more female patients than male patients (77.3% vs 79.8%, respectively), and the majority had breast cancer (64.9% and 68.8%, respectively). Overall, 10.0% and 10.4% of patients receiving pegfilgrastim or lipegfilgrastim experienced a neutropenia event (p = 0.82), with 4.4% and 3.5% of patients experiencing a FN event (p = 0.49). The mean neutropenia event-related healthcare costs were €604 and €441 for the pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim cohorts; among patients with lymphoma, these costs were significantly greater (p = 0.03) with pegfilgrastim (€1,612) versus lipegfilgrastim (€382). The mean all-cause hospitalizations were significantly (p < 0.01) higher for lymphoma patients receiving pegfilgrastim (2.76) versus lipegfilgrastim (1.60).

CONCLUSION

Overall, patients treated with pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable in terms of neutropenia occurrences in the 1-year follow-up. In patients with lymphoma, neutropenia event-related healthcare costs and all-cause hospitalizations were significantly higher with pegfilgrastim compared with lipegfilgrastim in this study; however, this should be interpreted with caution in light of the limited sample size and the absence of clinical information.

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.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Characteristics of Tripegfilgrastim, a Pegylated G-CSF, in Pediatric Patients with Solid Tumors

A long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, tripegfilgrastim, was approved in Korea for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in adult patients. In this study, we evaluated the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of tripegfilgrastim in pediatric patients. A phase I, open-label, single ascending-dose study was performed in pediatric patients with solid tumors or lymphoma (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02963389). The patients were stratified according to age groups (aged 6 to 12 or 12 to 19 years) and received a single subcutaneous dose of tripegfilgrastim 60 μg/kg or 100 μg/kg. Tripegfilgrastim was administered 24 hours after the end of the chemotherapy, and serial blood sampling and safety monitoring were conducted. Twenty-seven patients with solid tumors were enrolled in this study. Tripegfilgrastim was detectable in plasma for an extended period (terminal half-life > 40 hours), and plasma concentrations increased slightly less than dose proportionally. The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia was reduced as the average tripegfilgrastim concentration during the initial neutrophil recovery process increased. No substantial differences in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses were observed between the two age groups. When stratified by body weight, weighing more than 45 kg has a higher risk of a prolonged neutropenia period when receiving the lower dose (60 μg/kg) of tripegfilgrastim. Tripegfilgrastim was generally safe and well-tolerated in the pediatric patients. These results justify further clinical investigations of tripegfilgrastim at 100 μg/kg dose in pediatric patients.

A multi-centre study comparing granulocyte-colony stimulating factors to antibiotics for primary prophylaxis of docetaxel-cyclophosphamide induced febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin or granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) is recommended with docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (TC) chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer (EBC). A pragmatic randomised trial compared the superiority of G-CSF to ciprofloxacin and a cost-utility analysis were conducted.

METHODS

EBC patients receiving TC chemotherapy were randomised to ciprofloxacin or G-CSF. The primary outcome was a composite of FN and non-FN treatment-related hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes included; rates of FN, non-FN treatment-related hospitalisation, chemotherapy dose reductions/delays/discontinuations. Primary analysis was performed with the intention to treat population. Cost-utility analyses were conducted from the Canadian public payer perspective.

RESULTS

458 eligible patients were randomised: 228 to ciprofloxacin and 230 to G-CSF. For the primary endpoint there was non-statistically significant difference (Risk difference = -6.7%, 95%CI = -13.5%-0.1%, p = 0.061) between ciprofloxacin patients (46,20.2%) and G-CSF (31,13.5%). Patients receiving ciprofloxacin were more likely to experience FN (36/228, 15.8% vs 13/230, 5.7%) than patients receiving G-CSF (p < 0.001). Non-FN treatment-related hospitalisation occurred in 40/228 (17.5%) of ciprofloxacin patients vs 28/230 (12.2%) of G-CSF patients (p = 0.12). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. G-CSF was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of C$1,760,796 per one quality-adjusted life year gained.

CONCLUSION

The primary endpoint of superiority of G-CSF over ciprofloxacin was not demonstrated. While there were reduced FN rates with G-CSF, there were no differences in chemotherapy dose delays/reductions or discontinuations. With the commonly used willingness to pay value of C$50,000/QALY, G-CSF use was not cost-effective compared to ciprofloxacin and deserves scrutiny from the payer perspective.

Pooled Analysis on the Effectiveness and Safety of Lipegfilgrastim in Patients With Urological Malignancies in the Real-World Setting

Lipegfilgrastim is a long-acting glycopegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) approved for the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. In general, there is little information on the use of any G-CSFs specifically in patients with urological malignancies receiving chemotherapy. This report combines information from two prospective non-interventional studies on the prophylactic use of lipegfilgrastim in urological cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in the real-world setting. Data were derived from two phase IV studies (NADIR and LEOS) with similar protocols conducted in nine European countries. Analysis included 228 patients (142 prostate, 50 testicular, 27 bladder, and 9 other urological cancers). Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia risk was classified as high (43.0%), intermediate (49.1%), or low (7.5%). Lipegfilgrastim was administered as primary (n=180, 78.9%) or secondary (n=29, 12.7%) prophylaxis. The incidence of febrile neutropenia over all chemotherapy cycles (n=998) and first cycles (n=228) for which lipegfilgrastim was administered for prophylaxis was 2.6% and 1.3%, respectively. Corresponding results for Grade 3/4 neutropenia were 2.2% and 0.9%, respectively. Adverse drug reactions occurred in 24 patients (10.5%): those in more than one patient were bone pain (n=6, 2.6%) and pyrexia (n=3, 1.3%). The use of lipegfilgrastim for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia was effective and well tolerated in patients with urological malignancies in the real-world setting.

Effect of lipegfilgrastim administration as prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia on dose modification and incidence of neutropenic events: real-world evidence from a non-interventional study in Belgium and Luxembourg

Objectives: This study evaluated the effect of lipegfilgrastim, a glycopegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, used as primary (PP) or secondary prophylaxis (SP) on chemotherapy (CT) treatment modifications, as well as the incidence of CT-induced neutropenic events in adult patients receiving cytotoxic CT with or without biological therapy (BT) for solid and hematological tumors, in routine clinical practice. Other objectives were to characterize the population of lipegfilgrastim-treated cancer patients and safety assessment. Methods: This phase 4, prospective, observational study was conducted at 15 centers from Belgium and Luxembourg, between 2015 and 2017. Results: Of 139 patients, 82.7% had breast cancer and 54.7% were treated with dose-dense regimens. Most received lipegfilgrastim as PP (82.0%) and were at high-risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) (68.3%). FN and grade III/IV neutropenia were reported for 7.9% and 22.3% patients. Among 123 evaluated patients, CT/BT dose modifications were recorded for 33.3% (PP) and 52.4% (SP) of patients receiving lipegfilgrastim; dose reductions, followed by dose delays, were more frequent than omissions. Among 45 patients with dose modifications, FN was reported for 8.8% and 9.1% patients and grade IV neutropenia for 17.6% and 18.2% of patients when lipegfilgrastim was applied for PP and SP, respectively. Adverse events related to lipegfilgrastim occurred for 55 (39.6%) patients; bone pain and back pain were more frequent. Lipegfilgrastim-related serious adverse events were reported for 9 (6.5%) patients. Conclusion: Use of lipegfilgrastim in real-world settings resulted in limited CT dose modifications and low incidences of neutropenic events, with no new safety concerns arising.

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.

Comparison of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and lipegfilgrastim added to chemotherapy for mobilization of CD34+ cells in non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients

BACKGROUND

Data are limited on the long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) pegfilgrastim (PEG) and lipegfilgrastim (LIPEG) compared with filgrastim (FIL) regarding the mobilization efficiency of CD34⁺ cells, graft cellular composition, and engraftment.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In this prospective nonrandomized study, 36 patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma received FIL, 67 received PEG, and 16 patients received LIPEG as a cytokine after chemotherapy. We analyzed the mobilization and collection of CD34⁺ cells, cellular composition of blood grafts, and hematologic recovery after auto-SCT according to the type of G-CSF used.

RESULTS

Patients in the LIPEG group had fewer apheresis sessions (1 vs. 2, p = 0.021 for FIL and p = 0.111 for PEG) as well as higher median blood CD34⁺ cell counts at the start of the first apheresis (LIPEG 74 × 10⁶ /L vs. FIL 31 × 10⁶ /L, p = 0.084 or PEG 27 × 10⁶ /L, p = 0.021) and CD34⁺ yields of the first apheresis (FIL 5.1 × 10⁶ /kg vs. FIL 2.3 × 10⁶ /kg, p = 0.105 or PEG 1.8 × 10⁶ /kg, p = 0.012). Also, the costs associated with G-CSF mobilization and apheresis were lower in the LIPEG group. The graft composition was comparable except for the higher infused CD34⁺ cell counts in the LIPEG group. The engraftment kinetics were significantly slower in the FIL group.

CONCLUSION

LIPEG appears to be more efficient compared with PEG after chemotherapy to mobilize CD34⁺ cells for auto-SCT demonstrated as fewer sessions of aphereses needed as well as 2.8-fold CD34⁺ cell yields on the first apheresis day. Early hematologic recovery was more rapid in the LIPEG group. Thus further studies on LIPEG in the mobilization setting are warranted.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Lipegfilgrastim Compared to Pegfilgrastim for the Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia in Patients with Stage II-IV Breast Cancer

Background: Lipegfilgrastim (Lonquex®) has demonstrated to be non-inferior to pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) in reducing the duration of severe neutropenia (SN) in patients with stage II-IV breast cancer. Compared to pegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim also demonstrated statistically significant lower time to ANC recovery in cycles 1-3, lower incidence of SN in cycle 2 and lower depth of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir in cycles 2 and 3. The aim of this study was to quantify the cost utility of lipegfilgrastim compared to pegfilgrastim in stage II-IV breast cancer patients, taking the perspective of the Belgian payer over a lifetime horizon. Methods: Two Markov models were developed to track on- and post-chemotherapy related complications, including SN, febrile neutropenia (FN), chemotherapy dose delay, chemotherapy relative dose intensity of less than 85%, infection, death rates, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Data on costs (2015 value) and effects were obtained from literature, national references, and complemented by a survey of clinical experts using a modified Delphi method. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out. Outcomes measures included costs, QALYs and life-years (LY). Results: At current equivalent price of €1,169, treatment with lipegfilgrastim was associated with overall costs of €9,845 vs. €10,208 for pegfilgrastim and overall QALYs of 13.977 vs. 13.925 for pegfilgrastim. Life expectancy was increased by 21 days (or 0.058 LY gained). The difference in costs stem from avoided infection, SN and FN cases in the lipegfilgrastim compared to the pegfilgrastim group. Similarly, the difference in QALYs was explained by the difference in the number of patients in the chemotherapy/G-CSF Markov state followed by infection and FN between lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim. The probability of lipegfilgrastim to be cost-effective compared to pegfilgrastim was 68, 79, and 83% at the willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTP) of €10,000, €30,000 and €50,000 per QALY gained, respectively. At a WTP threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained, lipegfilgrastim was cost-effective up to €1,500 across all age bands and cancer stages, compared to the current price. Conclusions: Lipegfilgrastim is a cost-effective use of health care resources in patients with stage II-IV breast cancer.

Immunogenicity Assessment of Lipegfilgrastim in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy

Lipegfilgrastim is a long-acting, once-per-cycle, glycopegylated recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) used to prevent neutropenia in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This integrated analysis examined the immunogenicity of lipegfilgrastim and its potential clinical impact in two double-blind randomized studies (phases II and III) of patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. Serum samples were analyzed using sequential assays for screening, confirmation, antibody titer, and characterization of antidrug antibodies (ADA). Neutropenia-related efficacy measures were reviewed for each ADA-positive patient. Among 255 patients receiving lipegfilgrastim (154 in phase II, 101 in phase III) and 155 patients receiving pegfilgrastim (54 in phase II, 101 in phase III), the incidence of treatment-emergent ADA was low and similar between the lipegfilgrastim (phase II: 1.3%; phase III: 1.0%) and pegfilgrastim (phase II: 1.9%; phase III: 1.0%) arms. None of the treatment-emergent ADA-positive samples exhibited neutralizing activity against lipegfilgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or glycosylated G-CSF in a cell-based neutralizing antibody assay. No changes were observed in neutropenia-related efficacy measures among ADA-positive patients, and no treatment-related hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis occurred. These results indicate that there is no apparent impact of ADA on lipegfilgrastim efficacy and safety.

Lipegfilgrastim in the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia of cancer patients

Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) are frequent and potentially fatal toxicities of myelosuppressive anticancer treatments. The introduction of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) in clinical practice has remarkably reduced the duration and severity of neutropenia, as well as the incidence of FN, thus allowing the administration of chemotherapeutic agents at the optimal dose and time with lower risk. The current scenario of G-CSFs in Europe includes filgrastim, lenograstim, some G-CSF biosimilars, and pegfilgrastim. Recently, a novel long-acting G-CSF, lipegfilgrastim, became available. Lipegfilgrastim is a glycopegylated G-CSF, alternative to pegfilgrastim, and has shown in randomized trials, to be equivalent to pegfilgrastim in reducing the incidence of severe neutropenia and FN in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy, with a similar safety profile. Furthermore, lipegfilgrastim was more effective than the placebo in reducing the incidence of severe neutropenia, its duration, and time to absolute neutrophil count recovery, in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving myelosuppressive therapy. Although the number of studies currently published is still limited, lipegfilgrastim seems to be a promising drug in the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

Pegfilgrastim for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with solid tumors

INTRODUCTION

Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia are the most common and most severe bone marrow toxicities of chemotherapy. Recombinant granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), both daily (filgrastim and biosimilars, and lenograstim) and long-acting (pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim) formulations, are currently available to counteract the negative consequences of these side effects.

AREAS COVERED

The purpose of this article is to review the physiopathology of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and its consequences, and the current evidence regarding the pharmacological properties, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim as a strategy to prevent chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with solid tumors.

EXPERT OPINION

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and its complications are still a major health-care concern, and the inappropriate employment of G-CSFs in clinical practice can partially explain its burden. Pegfilgrastim has pharmacological advantages over daily G-CSFs that makes it easily administrable, thus reducing the chance of incorrect delivery. The once-per-cycle administration might explain the findings derived from observational studies suggesting a possible superior efficacy of pegfilgrastim over daily G-CSFs. For patients at higher risk of failure with daily G-CSF prophylaxis (e.g. risk of non-compliance, difficulties on performing regular hemograms, high risk of developing febrile neutropenia), pegfilgrastim might be the most appropriate option.

Differential sensitivity of lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim to neutrophil elastase correlates with differences in clinical pharmacokinetic profile

To assess the basis of the different half-lives of long-acting human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) drugs, the effect of neutrophil elastase on lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim was investigated. Sensitivity to human neutrophil elastase (HNE) was evaluated by incubating the drugs with HNE followed by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE). Drugs were also incubated with isolated human neutrophils followed by Western blot analysis. Lipegfilgrastim was more resistant to degradation with HNE or neutrophils than pegfilgrastim and appeared more intact on SDS-PAGE gels and Western blots. Lipegfilgrastim retained more functional activity than pegfilgrastim after incubation with HNE (67% vs ∼ 9%, respectively) or neutrophils (80% vs ∼ 4%, respectively) as assessed in an NFS-60 cell-based [(3) H]-thymidine incorporation assay. The binding and affinity of untreated lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim for G-CSF receptors were evaluated using an NFS-60 competitive G-CSF receptor-binding assay and surface plasmon resonance. Untreated drugs were also evaluated in the functional NFS-60 thymidine incorporation assay. G-CSF receptor binding, receptor affinity, and functional activity were comparable between untreated drugs. The results showed a greater resistance to neutrophil elastase degradation and concomitant retention of functional activity of lipegfilgrastim compared with pegfilgrastim, which potentially explains the clinical observations of a longer half-life of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim.

Role of lipegfilgrastim in the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

Chemotherapy, irradiation, and other agents are widely used to target the process of cell division in neoplastic cells. However, while these therapies are effective against most cancers, the high proliferative rate of the cells of the hematopoietic system that produce billions of blood cells needed daily throughout life is extremely sensitive to these agents, resulting in loss of blood cell populations, which can be life threatening. Neutropenia is the most serious hematologic toxicity of chemotherapy, which can result in patient morbidity and mortality due to opportunistic infection and often is the limiting factor in dose escalation or duration of chemotherapeutic administration. Neutropenic patients often require hospitalization and incur substantial medical costs associated with anti-infective therapy. Treatment of iatrogenic and congenic neutropenia was changed in the early 1990s with the introduction of filgrastim (Neupogen^®) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta^®). With the expiration of patent lives of both of these drugs, biosimilars have begun to emerge. In this review, we will summarize the chemical characteristics, pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of lipegfilgrastim (Lonquex^®), the first long-acting biosimilar filgrastim to receive regulatory approval and enter the marketplace.