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

Improving the Therapeutic Potential of G-CSF through Compact Circular PEGylation Based on Orthogonal Conjugations

In this study, a circular conjugate of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was prepared by conjugating the two end-chains of poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) to two different sites of the protein. For the orthogonal conjugation, a heterobifunctional PEG chain was designed and synthesized, bearing the dipeptide ZGln-Gly (ZQG) at one end-chain, for transglutaminase (TGase) enzymatic selective conjugation at Lys41 of G-CSF, and an aldehyde group at the opposite end-chain, for N-terminal selective reductive alkylation of the protein. The cPEG-Nter/K41-G-CSF circular conjugate was characterized by physicochemical methods and compared with native G-CSF and the corresponding linear monoconjugates of G-CSF, PEG-Nter-G-CSF, and PEG-K41-G-CSF. The results demonstrated that the circular conjugate had improved physicochemical and thermal stability, prolonged pharmacokinetic interaction, and retained the biological activity of G-CSF. The PEGylation strategy employed in this study has potential applications in the design of novel protein-based therapeutics.

An observational study of dose dense chemotherapy with lipegfilgrastim support in early breast cancer

PURPOSE

Breast cancer is one of the most prevalent malignant diseases in women. The development of dose dense chemotherapy regimens has improved clinical outcomes but has been associated with increased hematological toxicity. Currently there is a paucity of data on the use of lipegfilgrastim in dose dense AC treatment in early breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to assess the use of lipegfilgrastim in the treatment of early breast cancer and to examine the incidence of treatment-related neutropenia during the dose dense AC phase and subsequent paclitaxel treatment.

METHODS

This was a single arm, non-interventional, prospective study. The primary endpoint was to determine the rate of neutropenia defined as ANC of < 1.0 × 10⁹/L, during four cycles of dose dense AC with lipegfilgrastim support. The secondary endpoints were the incidence of febrile neutropenia, (temperature > 38 °C and ANC < 1.0 × 10⁹/L), treatment delays, premature treatment cessation and toxicity.

RESULTS

Forty-one participants were included in the study. Of the 160 planned dose dense AC treatments, 157 were administered, and 95% (152/160) of these were given on time. The rate of treatment delay was 5% (95% CI 2.2 to 9.9%) due to infection (4) and mucositis (1). Four (10%) patients developed febrile neutropenia. The most frequently occurring adverse event was grade 1 bone pain.

CONCLUSION

Lipegfilgrastim is an effective option in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, and its use in everyday anti-cancer treatment can be considered.

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

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

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.

Monocentric Analysis of the Effectiveness and Financial Consequences of the Use of Lenograstim versus Filgrastim for Mobilization of Peripheral Blood Progenitor Cells in Patients with Lymphoma and Myeloma Receiving Chemotherapy and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

Purpose

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are widely used to mobilize CD34⁺ stem cells and to support the engraftment after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). A budget impact analysis and an incremental cost-effectiveness study of two G-CSFs (Lenograstim and Filgrastim biosimilar), considering engraftment, number of hospitalization days and number of G-CSF vials administered were performed.

Patients and Methods

Between 2009 and 2016, 248 patients undergoing autologous HSCT have been evaluated and divided into three groups (100 Leno-Leno, 93 Leno-Fil, 55 Fil-Fil) according to the type of G-CSF used for hematopoietic stem cell mobilization and hematopoietic stem cell recovery after transplant.

Results

The following statistically significant differences have been observed between Leno-Leno, Leno-Fil, Fil-Fil groups: a higher number of harvested CD34⁺ cells (10.56 vs 8.00 vs 7.20; p=0.0003) and a lower number of G-CSF vials (8 vs 8 vs 9; p=0.00020) used for full bone marrow recovery favoring Lenograstim. No statistically significant differences were found regarding the number of G-CSF vials used for mobilization, apheresis number and CD34⁺ cell peak. The post-transplant hematological recovery was faster in Lenograstim group than Filgrastim group: median time to neutrophil count engraftment (>500/mmc) was 12 vs 13 days; median time for platelets recovery (>20.000/mmc) was 12 vs 15 days (p=0.0001). The use of Lenograstim achieved cost savings of €566/patient over Filgrastim biosimilar, related to a decreased number of days of hospitalization (16 vs 17 days; p=0.00012), a lower overall incidence of adverse events, laboratory tests, transfusions for platelet recovery following discharge.

Conclusion

In our experience, Lenograstim outperforms Filgrastim in terms of effectiveness and lower cost. This study shows a clinical superiority of Lenograstim over Filgrastim suggesting a potential cost savings favoring Lenograstim.

Prescribing patterns from medical chart abstraction of patients administered lipegfilgrastim: a pilot study in Europe

Purpose: The objective of this pilot study was to explore the feasibility of conducting a drug utilization study of lipegfilgrastim in Europe using medical records and to examine the pattern of lipegfilgrastim on-label and off-label use.

Methods: Data on lipegfilgrastim use between September 2014 and April 2017 were abstracted from medical records by two independent medical abstractors. Lipegfilgrastim indication was categorized either as on-label or as one of four types of off-label (I–IV) according to pre-defined criteria. An inter-rater reliability analysis was conducted to measure the degree of abstractor agreement for on-label and off-label use.

Results: Information from 46 medical records was abstracted. Lipegfilgrastim use during the first chemotherapy treatment cycle was mostly indicated for prevention of neutropenia (82.6% of patients). On-label use was documented in 42 patients (91.3%), while off-label use was documented in two patients (4.3%); all events of off-label use were attributed to use with non-cytotoxic drugs. The remaining two patients (4.3%) had missing data. Overall agreement between the abstractors was high (91.6%). For three types (Types I–III) of off-label use, the kappa values suggested a perfect agreement (κ = 1). For Type IV off-label use (use in patients treated with non-cytotoxic drugs), κ = 0, suggesting a poor agreement.

Conclusions: While recruitment was challenging, the results of this pilot study confirm the feasibility and availability of medical records and the use of pharmacists as abstractors to assess on- and off-label use of lipegfilgrastim. Lipegfilgrastim was mainly prescribed according to the approved indications.

Key points

Findings from this pilot study confirm the feasibility and availability of medical records and the use of pharmacists as abstractors to assess on-label and off-label use of lipegfilgrastim in routine clinical practice.

Lipegfilgrastim was mainly prescribed according to the approved indications, and the proportion of off-label use was low.

The high inter-rater agreement between the two abstractors suggests that one abstractor is sufficient for conducting chart abstraction of on- and off-label use.

Additional data abstraction sources other than pharmacists will need to be identified to improve response rate and center recruitment.

Findings from this pilot study are important for the successful planning and execution of subsequent drug utilization studies.

Lenograstim and filgrastim in the febrile neutropenia prophylaxis of hospitalized patients: efficacy and cost of the prophylaxis in a retrospective survey

Purpose

We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and related costs of using two different molecules of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) (lenograstim - LENO or filgrastim - FIL) as primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in a hematological inpatient setting.

Methods

The primary endpoints of the analysis were the efficacy of the two G-CSFs in terms of the level of white blood cells, hemoglobin and platelets at the end of the treatment and the per capita direct medical costs related to G-CSF prophylaxis.

Results

Two hundred twelve patients (96 LENO, 116 FIL) have been evaluated. The following statistically significant differences have been observed between FIL and LENO: the use of a higher number of vials (11 vs 7; P<0.03) to fully recover bone marrow, a higher grade 3-4 neutropenia at the time of G-CSF discontinuation (29.3% vs 16.7%; P=0.031) and an increased number of days of hospitalization (8 vs 5; P<0.005). A longer hospital stay before discharge was necessary (12 vs 10), which reflects the higher final costs per patient (median treatment cost per cycle 10.706 € for LENO, compared to 12.623 € for FIL).

Conclusion

The use of LENO has been associated with a lower number of days of hospitalization, number of vials and less incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia at the time of G-CSF discontinuation. LENO seems to be cost-saving when compared with FIL (-15.2%).

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.

The Effectiveness of Febrile Neutropenia Prophylaxis with Lipegfilgrastim in Routine Clinical Practice

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common and potentially fatal complication of anticancer treatment, particularly in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. It has been shown that prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), especially its pegylated forms, significantly reduces the incidence of FN, the likelihood of chemotherapy dose intensity reduction and, also, the number of hospitalizations due to FN. This review discusses currently published results from clinical trials dealing with FN prophylaxis in routine clinical practice in patients with solid tumors and myeloproliferative malignancies with a focus on lipegfilgrastim, which is the newest modification of the original molecule filgrastim. The discussed results proved that prophylactic administration of lipegfilgrastim can almost eliminate the risk of FN and significantly reduce the risk of chemotherapy (CHT) dose reduction in routine clinical practice in cases of a clear high-risk chemotherapy regimen or in the presence of risk factors (such as age, comorbidities, performance status, etc.) in patients who received chemotherapy with medium risk of FN.