Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of lipegfilgrastim in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving myelosuppressive therapy

The impact of rhG-CSF on risk of recurrence after postoperative chemotherapy in NSCLC Patients: A retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) is widespread in the prevention and treatment of blood-related toxic effects associated with chemotherapy. This study aimed to explore the correlation between rhG-CSF and the recurrence of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients who have undergone postoperative chemotherapy.

METHODS

Our study encompassed 517 NSCLC patients at pathological stage I-III, who underwent surgical removal and subsequent chemotherapy from January 2012 to December 2019 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University. The research focused on evaluating the separate impact of rhG-CSF on the likelihood of postoperative recurrence. The analysis employed both univariate and multivariate Cox regression models.

RESULTS

Of 517 NSCLC patients, 123 patients did not receive rhG-CSF, while 394 patients received rhG-CSF. Unexpectedly, it was discovered that rhG-CSF usage correlated with the emergence of distant metastasis (HR: 1.8, 95 %CI 1.2-2.7, p = 0.005), though not with local recurrence (HR: 1.4, 95 %CI 0.9-2.3, p = 0.142). By multifactorial Cox analysis, rhG-CSF was an independent risk factor for distant metastasis (adjusted HR: 1.7, 95 %CI 1.0-2.6, p = 0.033). We additionally discovered that rhG-CSF could increase the risk of brain metastasis (adjusted HR: 3.9, 95 %CI 1.5-9.8, p = 0.005) and bone metastasis (adjusted HR: 3.1, 95 %CI 1.2-8.2, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that rhG-CSF independently contributes to the risk of distant metastasis, yet it shows no correlation with local recurrence. Furthermore, employing rhG-CSF played a crucial role in predicting brain metastasis and bone metastasis after postoperative chemotherapy in NSCLC patients.

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia with lipegfilgrastim in patients with lung cancer: final results from the non-interventional study NADIR

OBJECTIVE

Real-world evidence on the application of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor lipegfilgrastim for the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) is limited. The NADIR study aimed to evaluate effectiveness and safety of lipegfilgrastim as primary or secondary prophylaxis in patients with lung cancer undergoing chemotherapy in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

The non-interventional study NADIR (German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) Number DRKS00005711) enrolled 156 patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and 145 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who received lipegfilgrastim during chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was the incidence of severe neutropenia (CTCAE grade 3/4) and FN. The analysis was stratified for age groups (≤65 years vs. >65 years).

RESULTS

Approximately half of the patients were aged >65 years (SCLC 54.5%; NSCLC 46.9%). Intention of antineoplastic treatment was mostly palliative (SCLC 89.1%; NSCLC 73.1%). Patients with high FN risk (SCLC 44.9%; NSCLC 28.3%) mostly received lipegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis (SCLC 81.4%; NSCLC 70.7%). FN was reported in 1.9% SCLC and 1.4% NSCLC patients. At least one severe neutropenia was documented in 30.1% SCLC and 17.9% NSCLC patients. For NSCLC patients aged >65 years, less severe neutropenia was reported as compared to younger patients (14.7% vs. 20.8%). Lipegfilgrastim-related adverse events were reported in 10.3% SCLC and 7.7% NSCLC patients.

CONCLUSION

Lipegfilgrastim in routine clinical practice of patients with lung cancer showed similar effectiveness and safety as compared to the pivotal trial. Interestingly, in older patients severe neutropenia was reported less frequently. While most patients with high FN risk received lipegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis as recommended, there are still 20-30% of patients at high FN risk without primary prophylaxis who could benefit from better adherence to guidelines.

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.

rhG-CSF is associated with an increased risk of metastasis in NSCLC patients following postoperative chemotherapy

Background

Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) reduces neutropenia events and is widely used in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. However, the effects of rhG-CSF on distant organ metastasis (DOM) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients following postoperative chemotherapy are not clear.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed on NSCLC patients who underwent complete surgical resection and postoperative systemic chemotherapy at The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2017. The effect of rhG-CSF on DOM was assessed with other confounding factors using Cox regression analyses.

Results

We identified 307 NSCLC patients who received postoperative systemic chemotherapy (n = 246 in the rhG-CSF group, n = 61 in the No rhG-CSF group). The incidence of DOM in postoperative NSCLC patients with rhG-CSF treatment was observably higher than in patients without rhG-CSF treatment (48.3% vs. 27.9%, p < 0.05). Univariate regression analysis revealed that rhG-CSF and pathological stage were independent risk factors for metastasis-free survival (MFS) (p < 0.05). RhG-CSF users had a higher risk of DOM (adjusted HR: 2.33, 95% CI: 1.31–4.15) than nonusers of rhG-CSF. The association between rhG-CSF and the risk of DOM was significant only in patients presenting with myelosuppression (HR: 3.34, 95% CI: 1.86–6.02) and not in patients without myelosuppression (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.17–2.94, Interaction p-value< 0.01). The risk increased with higher dose density of rhG-CSF compared to rhG-CSF versus no users (p for trend< 0.001).

Conclusion

These analyses indicate that rhG-CSF use is related to DOM following postoperative chemotherapy in NSCLC.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia with lipegfilgrastim in 2489 cancer patients: final results from the non-interventional study NADIR

Objectives: The non-interventional study (NIS) NADIR (DRKS00005711) evaluated the effectiveness and safety of prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim, a glycopegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, in 2500 patients undergoing chemotherapy in routine clinical practice. Primary objective was the incidence of chemotherapy-induced severe neutropenia, febrile neutropenia (FN), and neutropenia-associated complications. Methods: NADIR was a prospective NIS conducted in 201 study centers in Germany. Results: The analysis included 2489 patients. Main tumor types were breast cancer (n = 1198, 48.1%), lung cancer (n = 303, 12.2%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL; n = 337, 13.5%), and prostate cancer (n = 111, 4.5%). Nine hundred and ten (36.6%) patients were aged ≥65 years (regarded as "elderly" patients). Severe neutropenia (CTCAE grade 3/4) was reported in 26.8% (n = 666) and 25.2% (n = 229) of the total population and elderly patients, respectively. FN was documented in 2.7% (n = 68) of the total population vs 3.0% (n = 27) of elderly patients. Primary prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim among patients with high risk of FN (>20%) was documented in 83.5% of the total population and 75.1% of elderly patients. Infections (CTCAE grade 3/4) were documented in 99 patients (4.0%) in the total population vs 47 (5.1%) elderly patients. Fatal infections were reported in 14 (0.6%) patients in the total population vs 11 (1.2%) elderly patients. Overall, most frequent lipegfilgrastim-related adverse events (AEs) included bone pain (8.0%), anemia (3.2%), leucocytosis (2.7%), and thrombocytopenia (2.5%). Of the patients, 18.0% had ≥1 documented serious AE; none of the fatal events (2.7%) was lipegfilgrastim-related. Conclusions: Lipegfilgrastim administered to patients with solid tumor/NHL undergoing chemotherapy in routine clinical practice showed similar effectiveness and safety compared to the pivotal trials.

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia with lipegfilgrastim in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NADIR study)

OBJECTIVE

The prospective non-interventional study (NIS) NADIR was designed to evaluate both effectiveness and safety of prophylactic use of lipegfilgrastim (Lonquex^® ), a glycopegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, in cancer patients with different tumor entities undergoing chemotherapy in routine clinical practice. The primary objective was incidence of severe neutropenia, febrile neutropenia (FN), and neutropenia-associated complications.

METHOD

NADIR was a national, multicenter, prospective NIS.

RESULTS

Here, we present the data on patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Final analysis comprised 337 NHL patients having received ≥1 administration of lipegfilgrastim. Primary prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim was documented in 78.7% of patients with high risk to develop FN. In total, ≥1 severe neutropenia (grade 3/4) was reported in 115 (34.1%) patients and ≥1 event of FN documented in 15 (4.5%) patients. Grade 3/4 infections were reported in 22 (6.5%) patients overall. Most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) related to lipegfilgrastim in total were bone pain (5.4%), leukocytosis (2.1%), back pain (1.8%), platelet count decreased (1.2%), and myalgia (1.2%). Fatal serious AEs were documented in 9 (2.7%) patients; none were attributable to lipegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSION

Prophylaxis or therapeutic intention with lipegfilgrastim in NHL patients in routine clinical practice showed similar effectiveness and safety as demonstrated in the pivotal trials.

Refining the role of pegfilgrastim (a long-acting G-CSF) for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: consensus guidance recommendations

Purpose

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) causes treatment delays and interruptions and can have fatal consequences. Current guidelines provide recommendations on granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) for prevention of FN, but guidance is unclear regarding use of short- vs long-acting G-CSF (e.g., filgrastim vs pegfilgrastim/lipegfilgrastim, respectively). An international panel of experts convened to develop guidance on appropriate use of pegfilgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN.

Methods

Guidance recommendations were developed following a literature review, survey, evaluation of current practice, and an expert meeting. Consensus was established using an anonymous Delphi-based approach.

Results

Guidance recommendations for prevention of treatment-associated FN were as follows: for treatment with curative intent, maintenance of dose intensity using G-CSF to prevent dose delays/reduction should be standard of care; for treatment-associated FN risk ≥ 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given from cycle 1 onwards; and for treatment-associated FN risk < 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given if factors suggest overall risk (including treatment-related and patient-related risk factors) is ≥ 20%. It was agreed that pegfilgrastim and 11 days’ filgrastim have similar efficacy and safety and that pegfilgrastim is preferred to < 11 days’ filgrastim (and may be preferred to ≥ 11 days’ filgrastim based on adherence and convenience); pegfilgrastim is not appropriate in weekly chemotherapy; in split-dose chemotherapy, pegfilgrastim is recommended 24 h after last chemotherapy dose; and during palliative chemotherapy, patient adherence and convenience may favor pegfilgrastim.

Conclusion

In this era of targeted therapies, additional trials with G-CSF are still required. These recommendations should be used with existing guidelines to optimize pegfilgrastim use in clinical practice.

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

Background

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are effective at reducing the risk and duration of neutropenia. The current meta-analysis compared the neutropenia-related efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim to those of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim.

Methods

Embase was searched for trials examining the efficacy/safety of lipegfilgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or filgrastim. Outcomes included febrile neutropenia, severe neutropenia, duration of severe neutropenia, time to recovery of absolute neutrophil count, and incidence of bone pain. Direct comparisons were made using random-effects models. No trials directly compared lipegfilgrastim and filgrastim. Indirect comparisons were made between lipegfilgrastim and filgrastim with pegfilgrastim as the common comparator.

Results

This meta-analysis included a total of 5769 patients from 24 studies. Over all cycles, lipegfilgrastim showed a lower, nonsignificant risk of febrile neutropenia compared with pegfilgrastim. Lipegfilgrastim has a lower risk of febrile neutropenia versus filgrastim but was also not statistically significant. The risk ratio for severe neutropenia in cycle 1 was 0.80, a 20% reduction in favor of lipegfilgrastim. For cycles 2–4, the risk ratio was 0.53 (0.35, 0.79) for lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim. The risk of severe neutropenia in cycles 2–4 was also significantly lower for lipegfilgrastim (risk ratio 0.45, 0.27, 0.75, respectively). No significant differences were found for febrile neutropenia and severe neutropenia in cycle 1. However, in cycles 2–4, lipegfilgrastim was associated with significant and clinically meaningful reductions in risk of severe neutropenia versus either pegfilgrastim or filgrastim.

Conclusions

Compared with pegfilgrastim or filgrastim, lipegfilgrastim has a statistically significantly lower absolute neutrophil count recovery time; however, differences in duration of severe neutropenia and bone pain were nonsignificant.

A pharmacokinetic study of lipegfilgrastim in children with Ewing family of tumors or rhabdomyosarcoma

PURPOSE

Neutropenia is a common complication from chemotherapy, limiting optimal dosing and treatment. Lipegfilgrastim is a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor developed for the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The objectives of this phase 1, multinational, open-label, single-arm study were to characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of a single body weight-adjusted dose of lipegfilgrastim and to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the drug in children with Ewing family of tumors or rhabdomyosarcoma treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

METHODS

Enrolled patients received lipegfilgrastim (100 µg/kg) 24 h after the last chemotherapy treatment in week 1. Patients were stratified into three age groups: 2 to <6, 6 to <12, and 12 to <18 years. Blood samples for PK analyses were obtained at baseline and at 3, 8, 24, 30, 48, 72, 96, 144, and 240 h postdose for the two oldest groups and up to 144 h in the youngest group.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients were enrolled and received lipegfilgrastim, seven in each age group. Lipegfilgrastim exposure levels were comparable across age groups, with concentrations maintained over a prolonged period after a single injection. Differences in PD were mainly associated with chemotherapy type. Most investigator-reported adverse events were attributed to chemotherapy and not to lipegfilgrastim. Severe adverse events were noted in 57% of patients; febrile neutropenia, leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia were more frequent among the oldest patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Results support the use of a body weight-adjusted dose to achieve equivalent initial peak exposure levels of lipegfilgrastim in children of various ages.

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.

Incidence of bone pain in patients with breast cancer treated with lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim: an integrated analysis from phase II and III studies

PURPOSE

Lipegfilgrastim is a once-per-cycle, fixed-dose, glycoPEGylated recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) recently approved in Europe to reduce the duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. Bone pain-related (BPR) adverse events are commonly associated with G-CSF therapy. This post hoc analysis examined BPR treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in two comparative studies of lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim in patients receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis was conducted using integrated data from two double-blind randomized studies in patients with breast cancer receiving docetaxel and doxorubicin and treated prophylactically with subcutaneous lipegfilgrastim 6 mg or pegfilgrastim 6 mg once per cycle. BPR TEAEs were defined as arthralgia, back pain, bone pain, musculoskeletal chest pain, musculoskeletal discomfort, musculoskeletal pain, myalgia, neck pain, noncardiac chest pain, and pain in extremity. Relationship of BPR TEAEs to study treatment or chemotherapy was also reported by the investigators.

RESULTS

The analysis included 306 patients (lipegfilgrastim: n = 151; pegfilgrastim: n = 155). The proportion of patients experiencing BPR TEAEs was similar with lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim (25.2 vs 21.9%, respectively), as was the proportion of patients experiencing BPR treatment-emergent adverse drug reactions (TEADRs) (18.5 vs 16.8%, respectively). No BPR TEADRs were serious, and none led to discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonsevere BPR TEAEs and TEADRs were observed in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy and G-CSF; rates of BPR events were similar between lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim. The similar BPR safety profile of lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim provides support for use in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.