-
Cancer Treatment and Research... May 2024Myelosuppression, a challenge in cancer treatment, often results in severe complications. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, particularly... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Myelosuppression, a challenge in cancer treatment, often results in severe complications. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, particularly pegfilgrastim, mitigate chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. This narrative review evaluates the role of on-body injector (OBI) devices for pegfilgrastim administration. A comprehensive search strategy of PubMed and AI-powered intuitive search tools, complemented by authors' contributions, yielded a body of papers presenting evidence on OBI devices, their effectiveness and safety, the benefits and challenges of OBI versus pre-filled syringe administration, patient preferences for pegfilgrastim administration, and economic considerations.
DISCUSSION
OBI devices prove effective and safe, with advantages such as reduced clinic visits and enhanced adherence. Studies highlight cost-efficiency and expanded access, emphasizing the socioeconomic context. Patient and provider preferences underscore the potential of OBI devices in cancer care, with implications for healthcare resource utilization and pharmacoeconomics.
CONCLUSION
The value proposition of OBI devices lies in improving patient outcomes, convenience, resource optimization, and enhancing the overall cancer care experience. As biosimilar OBIs enter the market, they may offer cost savings, further influencing their adoption and their positioning as a cost-efficient alternative in cancer care. Ongoing research and technological advancements are expected to contribute to the broader acceptance of OBI devices in cancer care delivery.
PubMed: 38865836
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctarc.2024.100824 -
Cancer Research and Treatment Jul 2023We investigated the consistent efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim, a novel long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), in Koreans and Asians compared...
Eflapegrastim versus Pegfilgrastim for Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia in Korean and Asian Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Results from the Two Phase III ADVANCE and RECOVER Studies.
PURPOSE
We investigated the consistent efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim, a novel long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), in Koreans and Asians compared with the pooled population of two global phase 3 trials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two phase 3 trials (ADVANCE and RECOVER) evaluated the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose eflapegrastim (13.2 mg/0.6 mL [3.6 mg G-CSF equivalent]) compared to pegfilgrastim (6 mg based on G-CSF) in breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant docetaxel/cyclophosphamide. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of eflapegrastim compared to pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1, in Korean and Asian subpopulations.
RESULTS
Among a total of 643 patients randomized to eflapegrastim (n=314) or pegfilgrastim (n=329), 54 Asians (29 to eflapegrastim and 25 to pegfilgrastim) including 28 Koreans (14 to both eflapegrastim and pegfilgrastim) were enrolled. The primary endpoint, DSN in cycle 1 in the eflapegrastim arm was non-inferior to the pegfilgrastim arm in Koreans and Asians. The DSN difference between the eflapegrastim and pegfilgrastim arms was consistent across populations: -0.120 days (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.227 to -0.016), -0.288 (95% CI, -0.714 to 0.143), and -0.267 (95% CI, -0.697 to 0.110) for pooled population, Koreans and Asians, respectively. There were few treatment-related adverse events that caused discontinuation of eflapegrastim (1.9%) or pegfilgrastim (1.5%) in total and no notable trends or differences across patient populations.
CONCLUSION
This study may suggest that eflapegrastim showed non-inferior efficacy and similar safety compared to pegfilgrastim in Koreans and Asians, consistently with those of pooled population.
Topics: Female; Humans; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Filgrastim; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Neutropenia; Polyethylene Glycols; Republic of Korea; East Asian People
PubMed: 36701846
DOI: 10.4143/crt.2022.987 -
Hematology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Dec 2023There is no meta-analysis about the effects of pegfilgrastim on the occurrence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in pediatric/adolescent cancer patients. The study explored... (Meta-Analysis)
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, = 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.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Child; Filgrastim; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Polyethylene Glycols; Neoplasms; Febrile Neutropenia; Recombinant Proteins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36719297
DOI: 10.1080/16078454.2023.2172292 -
Advances in Therapy Nov 2023Pegfilgrastim-cbqv (UDENYCA; Coherus BioSciences, Redwood City, CA, USA) is a pegfilgrastim (Neulasta; Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA) biosimilar approved for... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
INTRODUCTION
Pegfilgrastim-cbqv (UDENYCA; Coherus BioSciences, Redwood City, CA, USA) is a pegfilgrastim (Neulasta; Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA) biosimilar approved for administration by prefilled syringe (PFS). The recently approved pegfilgrastim-cbqv prefilled autoinjector (AI) was developed as another method of self-administration and to aid in-office use, providing flexibility in drug delivery. The objectives of the study were to assess the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) to determine bioequivalence of the prefilled AI and the PFS for administration of pegfilgrastim-cbqv and to assess the safety profile of the prefilled AI.
METHODS
During this open-label, two-period crossover study, healthy adult males (N = 155) were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive a subcutaneous injection of pegfilgrastim-cbqv using a prefilled AI (n = 76) or a PFS (n = 79) in period 1. During period 2, participants received an injection using the other method. Primary PK and secondary PD parameters were calculated to assess the bioequivalence of the treatment as administered by the two delivery methods. Safety and immunogenicity were also assessed.
RESULTS
The 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios for the PK and PD parameters were within the required range (80-125%), demonstrating bioequivalence between the pegfilgrastim-cbqv prefilled AI and PFS. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 75% and 74.1% of participants in the prefilled AI and PFS groups, respectively. The most common TEAEs in both treatment groups were myalgia, bone pain, and headache. AI-device-related TEAEs were injection site pain (1.4%) and injection site bruising (0.7%). The incidence of antidrug antibodies and neutralizing antibodies was low and was similar in both treatment sequences.
CONCLUSIONS
The bioequivalence of pegfilgrastim-cbqv administered using a prefilled AI and a PFS was established. The safety, including immunogenicity profiles, of pegfilgrastim-cbqv administered using the prefilled AI and the PFS were similar, with no new safety findings.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Male; Therapeutic Equivalency; Syringes; Cross-Over Studies; Injections, Subcutaneous; Healthy Volunteers; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Injection Site Reaction; Pain
PubMed: 37707674
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-023-02636-5 -
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice :... Oct 2023The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (The James) uses daily subcutaneous filgrastim as the inpatient granulocyte colony-stimulating factor of choice....
INTRODUCTION
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (The James) uses daily subcutaneous filgrastim as the inpatient granulocyte colony-stimulating factor of choice. The coordination of care associated with filgrastim can often be a barrier to patient discharge. The purpose of this study was to compare the inpatient cost of daily filgrastim to single dose pegfilgrastim and biosimilars.
METHODS
Adult patients admitted to The James who received at least one dose of filgrastim between June 1, 2021 and August 31, 2021 were retrospectively identified. This study compared the inpatient cost of filgrastim and biosimilars associated with one chemotherapy cycle to the potential inpatient cost of pegfilgrastim and biosimilars based on average sales price (ASP). Additionally, the number and duration of discharge prescriptions for filgrastim was determined.
RESULTS
Of the 44 unique patient encounters that met inclusion criteria, 19 received 300-mcg doses of filgrastim and 25 received 480-mcg doses. The median number of doses administered per admission was eight. If each of these patients were to instead receive the most inexpensive biosimilar, pegfilgrastim reference product, the cost would be 216% higher than with filgrastim-sndz. At discharge, 15 patients (34%) received a prescription for filgrastim to be continued for a median duration of 6 days.
CONCLUSION
Based on ASP, pegfilgrastim was more costly than filgrastim. Potential rebates and negotiation power may alter the financial outlook of adding pegfilgrastim to inpatient formulary. Exploration of delays in discharge due to insurance coordination for filgrastim continuation in the outpatient setting may also impact formulary decisions.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Filgrastim; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Retrospective Studies; Inpatients; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Polyethylene Glycols; Febrile Neutropenia; Costs and Cost Analysis; Recombinant Proteins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36544396
DOI: 10.1177/10781552221147658 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Sep 2023Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of all approved granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, as primary...
PURPOSE
Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of all approved granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk regimens (in those with additional patient risk factors). Previous studies have examined G-CSF cost-effectiveness by cancer type in patients with a high baseline risk of FN. This study evaluated patients with breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving therapy who were at intermediate risk for FN and compared primary prophylaxis (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) using biosimilar filgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim in Austria, France, and Germany.
METHODS
A Markov cycle tree-based model was constructed to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL receiving therapy over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty.
RESULTS
Results demonstrated that using biosimilar filgrastim as PP compared to SP resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below the most commonly accepted WTP threshold of €30,000. Across all three countries, PP in NSCLC had the lowest cost per QALY, and in France, PP was both cheaper and more effective than SP. Similar results were found using biosimilar pegfilgrastim, with ICERs generally higher than those for filgrastim.
CONCLUSIONS
Biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis are cost-effective approaches to avoid FN events in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL at intermediate risk for FN in Austria, France, and Germany.
Topics: Humans; Female; Filgrastim; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Lung Neoplasms; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Breast Neoplasms; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Febrile Neutropenia; Granulocytes
PubMed: 37728795
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-08043-4 -
Cancer Medicine Oct 2023Pegfilgrastim is indicated to decrease the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. It is the first granulocyte-colony stimulating factor approved for...
INTRODUCTION
Pegfilgrastim is indicated to decrease the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. It is the first granulocyte-colony stimulating factor approved for prophylactic use regardless of carcinoma type and is marketed in Japan as G-LASTA (Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). MD-110 is a biosimilar of pegfilgrastim. This phase III, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study investigated the efficacy and safety of MD-110 in early-stage breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
METHODS
A total of 101 patients received the study drug. Each patient received docetaxel 75 mg/m and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m (TC) for four cycles on day 1 of each cycle. MD-110 (3.6 mg) was administered subcutaneously on day 2 of each cycle. The primary efficacy endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia during cycle 1 (days with absolute neutrophil count < 500/mm ). The safety endpoints were adverse events and the presence of antidrug antibodies.
RESULTS
The mean (SD) duration of severe neutropenia for MD-110 was 0.2 (0.4) days. The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean duration of severe neutropenia was 0.2 days, below the predefined threshold of 3.0 days. The incidence of febrile neutropenia, the secondary efficacy endpoint, was 6.9% (7/101). Adverse events, occurring in more than 50% of patients, were alopecia, constipation, and malaise, which are common side effects of TC chemotherapy. Antidrug antibodies were negative in all patients.
CONCLUSION
MD-110 was effective against chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. No additional safety concern, compared with the originator, was observed in patients with breast cancer receiving TC chemotherapy.(JapicCTI-205230).
Topics: Female; Humans; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Breast Neoplasms; Filgrastim; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Neutropenia; Polyethylene Glycols
PubMed: 37824431
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6519