Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-stimulating Factor Research Articles

Comparison of Biosimilar Filgrastim (Nivestym) Versus Originator Filgrastim (Neupogen) for Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization for Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Background: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an optimal and potentially curative therapy for patients with hematologic malignancies. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is used for the mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) in allogeneic donors, and an optimal CD34 cell dose plays a critical role in successful transplantation. Nivestym, a biosimilar G-CSF to the originator Filgrastim (Neupogen), is now used by multiple institutions as it has become more available; however, there is a lack of data in this regard among healthy donors for allogeneic HSCT mobilization. In this study, we aim to compare the efficacy of Nivestym compared to Neupogen for allogeneic donor PBSC mobilization. Methods: For this retrospective single-center study, we included all (n=541) adult allogeneic HSCT donors at the University of Kansas Medical Center receiving Nivestym (January 2013-July 2020) or Neupogen (July 2020-June 2023) for donor PBSC mobilization. We conducted a bivariate analysis utilizing the ANOVA test. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 28. Statistical significance was determined at p<0.05. Results: Our study included 541 allogeneic HSCT donors who received Neupogen (n=345, 64%) or Nivestym (n=196, 36%) for PBSC mobilization. The median age was 47 (range 17-76) years. The median donor weight was 86 (95% CI 87-91) kilograms. Donors receiving Neupogen had similar pre-GCSF WBC count (median 45 vs 47 K/uL, p=0.739), pre-GCSF CD34 percentages (median 17% vs 17%, p=0.527), and pre-GCSF circulating CD34 count (median 74 vs 74 million cells/kg, p=0.842) compared to donors receiving Nivestym. Neupogen recipients had similar median PBSC product total neutrophil count (TNC, 6.8 vs 6.5 K/uL, p=0.347), product CD34 percentage (75% vs 79%, p=0.068), absolute CD34 count (503 vs 533 million cells, p=0.636), and final CD34 dose (6.1 vs 6.3 million cells/kg, p=0.365) compared to Nivestym recipients. Seven percent (n=28) of donors needed two days of PBSC collection to achieve the target PBSC dose, with a statistically similar proportion noted in Neupogen (n=25, 7.3%) and Nivestym (n=13, 6.6%) cohorts. In a subgroup analysis stratified by age, donors aged 35 or older (n=154) had similar responses in all mentioned variables (p>0.05); however, for donors under the age of 35 years, the CD34 dose was higher in donors receiving Neupogen compared to Nivestym (median 6.9 vs 6.3 million cells/kg, p=0.044). Most of the PBSC collections (98%) were completed in one day, except for five donors in both Neupogen (5%) and Nivestym (8.5%) cohorts. Conclusions: Biosimilar G-CSF (Nivestym) demonstrated similar efficacy for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization compared to the originator G-CSF (Neupogen) among allogeneic HSCT donors. In donors aged 35 years or younger, a slightly lower PBSC product CD34 count was noted with Nivestym compared to Neupogen.

Provider barriers in uptake of biosimilars: case study on filgrastim.

In this article, we used administrative claims data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse and American Hospital Association Annual Survey data to examine associations between hospital characteristics and uptake of biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatments. We found that 340B-participating hospitals and non-rural referral center (RRC) hospitals that reported owning rural health clinics were less likely to administer the lower-cost biosimilars, whereas the opposite was true for hospitals that are RRCs. To our knowledge, our study offers a first look at an underappreciated source of disparities in access to lower-cost medications such as biosimilars. Results from our study reveal opportunities for targeted policies to encourage adoption of lower-cost treatments, particularly among hospitals that serve rural communities where patients often have fewer choices in care site.

The Role of Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor Biosimilars for Supportive Cancer Care: A Year in Review

This year-in-review article provides insights into clinical updates relating to granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilars research presented at five key congresses in 2022. These include the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 55th Annual Meeting (3rd–7th June 2022, Chicago, Illinois, USA), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress (9th–13th September 2022, Paris, France), ESMO Asia Congress (2nd–4th December 2022, Singapore), San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS; 6th–10th December 2022, Texas, USA), and American Society of Hematology (ASH) 64th Annual Meeting and Exposition (10th–13th December 2022, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA). Alongside reviewing the current research presented at these key congresses, with a focus on the use of G-CSF agents and biosimilars in patients undergoing treatment for breast, colorectal, and gynaecological cancers, this article provides an overview of current guidelines on the use of G-CSF in supportive cancer care to manage chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and explores trends in G-CSF biosimilars research.

A Systematic Review to Compare Costs and Outcomes of Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations of Conventional and Biosimilars G-CSFs

Introduction: The presence of biosimilars in the field of oncology is regarded as a key approach to attain sustainable healthcare. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a drug mostly prescribed after chemotherapy to avoid neutropenia. There are several G-CSF biosimilars approved to help reduce the significant economic burden on healthcare stakeholders through cost saving and to increase patient access. To date, no systematic assessment of the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of G-CSF biosimilars has been performed. The aim of this study is to synthesize evidence from economic evaluations (EEs) of G-CSF biosimilars published articles to provide essential data for involved stakeholders and policy makers. Materials and methods: PRISMA-guided systematic searches of PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE databases were conducted. Search was done up to April 2023 using predefined keywords. Articles were screened for relevant publications about EEs of G-CSF biosimilars that were used as prophylactic and or as a treatment for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). We included articles for cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and budget impact analysis (BIA) Exclusion criteria were case reports, abstracts, letters to the editor, conference presentations, editorials, and studies written in languages other than English and articles of other types of pharmacoeconomic analysis. Risk of bias assessments were undertaken to assess data strength and validity. Results: We identified a total of six EEs studies (one cost-effectiveness analysis, two studies reported both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis and three budget impact analyses). Three studies were from United State (US), two from France and one from Singapore. The six studies met > 80% of the JBI quality assessment criteria. The primary prophylaxis with filgrastim biosimilar in breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma provided an additional 0.102-0.118 FN event avoided, 0.065-0.144 Lys, 0.057-0.13 QALYs at an incremental cost of 651 US$-2463 US$. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranged from 5660 US$-20806 US$ per FN event avoided, 5123 US$ - 31077 US$ per LY gained, and 7213 US$ - 35563 US$ per QALY gained. The NSCLC has the lowest ICERs. Conclusions: Evaluated studies showed that G-CSF biosimilars are cost effective compared to the references as primary and secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy induced neutropenia among oncology patients

Supportive therapies in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and appropriate use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: a Delphi consensus statement

PurposeData indicate that the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) in routine practice is not consistent with guideline recommendations. The initiative “supportive care for febrile neutropenia prevention and appropriateness of G-CFS use” was undertaken to address the issue of inappropriate prescription of G-CSFs and to improve guideline adherence in the treatment of FN.MethodsIn a two-round Delphi procedure, 36 medical oncologists reviewed clinically relevant recommendations on risk assessment, the appropriate use of G-CSFs, and the prevention of FN based on available literature and individual clinical expertise.ResultsThe consensus was reached on 16 out of 38 recommendations, which are backed by evidence from randomised clinical trials and routine clinical practice. The medical oncologists agreed that the severity of neutropenia depends on patients’ characteristics and chemotherapy intensity, and therefore, the risk of severe neutropenia or FN should be assessed at each chemotherapy cycle so as to initiate prophylaxis with G-CSFs if required. The use of biosimilar G-CSFs, with similar efficacy and safety profiles to the originator biologic, has improved the availability and sustainability of cancer care. The timing of supportive therapy is crucial; for example, long-acting G-CSF should be administered 24–72 h after chemotherapy administration. Each biological agent has a recommended administration dose and duration, and it is important to follow these recommendations to avoid complications associated with under-prophylaxis.ConclusionIt is hoped that these statements will help to increase adherence to guideline recommendations for appropriate G-CSF use and improve patient care.

Superior physical and mental health of healthy volunteers before and five\xa0years after mobilized stem cell donation

BackgroundSafety, tolerability and efficacy of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for mobilization of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) from healthy donors have been conclusively demonstrated. This explicitly includes, albeit for smaller cohorts and shorter observation periods, biosimilar G-CSFs. HSPC donation is non-remunerated, its sole reward being “warm glow”, hence harm to donors must be avoided with maximal certitude. To ascertain, therefore, long-term physical and mental health effects of HSPC donation, a cohort of G-CSF mobilized donors was followed longitudinally.MethodsWe enrolled 245 healthy volunteers in this bi-centric long-term surveillance study. 244 healthy volunteers began mobilization with twice-daily Sandoz biosimilar filgrastim and 242 underwent apheresis after G-CSF mobilization. Physical and mental health were followed up over a period of 5-years using the validated SF-12 health questionnaire.ResultsBaseline physical and mental health of HSPC donors was markedly better than in a healthy reference population matched for ethnicity, sex and age. Physical, but not mental health was sharply diminished at the time of apheresis, likely due to side effects of biosimilar G-CSF, however had returned to pre-apheresis values by the next follow-up appointment after 6 months. Physical and mental health slightly deteriorated over time with kinetics reflecting the known effects of aging. Hence, superior physical and mental health compared to the general healthy non-donor population was maintained over time.ConclusionsHSPC donors are of better overall physical and mental health than the average healthy non-donor. Superior well-being is maintained over time, supporting the favorable risk–benefit assessment of volunteer HSPC donation.Trial registration National Clinical Trial NCT01766934

Association of primary prophylactic (PP) granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) use with chemotherapy dose modifications and relative dose intensity (RDI) among breast cancer patients receiving high-risk regimens for febrile neutropenia (FN).

314 Background: FN is a primary driver of chemotherapy modification and reduced RDI. Breast cancer patients often receive regimens with high risk ( > 20%) for FN. PP G-CSF use is recommended to decrease incidence of infection, as manifested by FN. Real-world evidence describing the association of G-CSF with reduced RDI in breast cancer patients is lacking. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed Flatiron Health Electronic Health Record data from 2011 to 2019 of adult female breast cancer patients initiating high-risk for FN chemotherapy regimens. PP G-CSF (pegfilgrastim, filgrastim, or biosimilars) use was assessed in the first and subsequent cycles of chemotherapy overall and by modality (on-body injector [OBI] vs. pre-filled syringe [PFS]). Standard dose was defined by NCCN guidelines. RDI was defined with respect to dose and timing of delivery: (delivered dose intensity/standard dose intensity)*100 and categorized as < 85% vs ≥85%. Characteristics were described by G-CSF use and adjusted relative risks (ARRs) were estimated for the association between G-CSF use and RDI, adjusting for age, serum hemoglobin, ECOG, HER2 status, and HR status. Results: There were 27,812 breast cancer patients included with a median age of 57 years. Most (90%) received PP-G-CSF. Four cycles of TC (docetaxel + cyclophosphamide) was the most common regimen prescribed (36%) and 82% of these patients received PP-G-CSF support in the first cycle, with OBI given more often than PFS (62% vs 38%). Second most common was dd AC-T Q1W (doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel) and 98% of these patients received PP G-CSF (59% OBI vs 41% PFS). 80% of G-CSF users (vs 48% of those with no G-CSF) completed 4 or more cycles of chemotherapy (all regimens had ≥4 planned cycles). G-CSF users had a significant reduction in risk of RDI < 85% in Cycle 1 (ARR: 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 – 0.85) and Cycle 2 (ARR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.59 – 0.97). At the overall chemotherapy course level, the risk of RDI < 85% was not significantly different by G-CSF use (ARR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.63 - 1.08). There was no significant difference in risk of reduced RDI between OBI and PFS (ARR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.94 - 1.35). Conclusions: This study revealed that 90% of breast cancer patients receiving high-risk for FN chemotherapy received PP-G-CSF support and completed more cycles than those who did not receive G-CSF. G-CSF users had lower risk of a reduced RDI in Cycles 1 and 2.

A Systematic Literature Review of Overall Survival and Delivered Dose Intensity in Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy and G-CSF in Randomized Control Trials

IntroductionAdvances in cancer diagnosis, treatment and supportive care have contributed to improvements in overall survival (OS) in recent decades. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has been shown to reduce neutropenic complications associated with chemotherapy. G-CSF support may improve disease control and survival by minimizing dose reductions and treatment delays as well as enabling administration of dose-dense regimens, dose escalation and additional chemotherapeutic agents when indicated. With the introduction of biosimilar G-CSFs, the impact of G-CSF on OS reported in recent randomized clinical trials is of considerable interest. We undertook an updatedsystematic literature review to determine the impact of G-CSFon delivered dose intensity and OS in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tumors or malignant lymphoma.MethodsFollowing our previous review (Lyman G et al, Ann Oncol 2013;24:2475-84), relevant publications between September 1, 2012 and March 20, 2017 were identified according to best-practice principles and reported in compliance with PRISMA requirements. Randomized, controlled trials comparing primary G-CSF support vs no initial G-CSF and reporting survival measures or occurrence of secondary tumors including acute myeloid leukemia [AML] or myelodysplastic syndrome [MDS]) with a minimum follow-up of 24 months were identified. Following the initial treatment cycle, control subjects may have received no G-CSFs, G-CSFs at the discretion of the treating physician, or secondary use of G-CSFs. Exclusion criteria included non-random assignment to the treatment group; G-CSF administered from the start in all study arms; use of granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor; patients receiving stem cell or bone marrow transplantation, or a prior diagnosis of leukemia of any type.Full electronic search was undertaken of of Embase, Medline In-Process and Cochrane libraries. No language restrictions were imposed on the literature search. Abstracts of papers initially identified were evaluated independently by two investigators for eligibility using specified inclusion/exclusion criteria. All potentially relevant papers were evaluated in detail. Bibliographies of all identified relevant studies were used to perform a recursive search. Full papers were assessed independently by two investigators according to the predefined eligibility criteria. Any disagreement between investigators was resolved by discussion.A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the relative risk (RR) and risk difference for OS between patients who did or did not receive primary G-CSF support. As previously reported, four prospectively-defined study designs reflecting differing dosing schedules were evaluated for impact of primary G-CSF support.Statistical software R was utilized for these analyses.ResultsA total of2604 publications were identified. After removing duplicate reports and further screening, 14 recent studies met the inclusion criteria. Nine studies reported OS and 2 reported incidence of AML/MDS. Sample sizes ranged from 85 to 2091 patients with solid tumors or lymphoma at various stages.The updated meta-analysis showed that OS was significantly improved in patients receiving primary G-CSF vs patients who did not (relative risk [RR] of death during follow-up = 0.92; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.90, 0.95; p<0.0001) [Table]. Study design groups 2, 3 and 4 also had significant RRs favoring G-CSF (see table). Based on the reported and extracted data, it was not possible to make any conclusions regarding OS differences between originator and biosimilar G-CSF formulations.Of the 2 studies evaluating AML/MDS, 1 reported no cases during follow-up in either arm and the other reported 9 occurrences in the G-CSF arm and 2 in the control arm: RR = 1.85; 95% CI: 1.19, 2.88; p=0.0064.ConclusionsResults of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis confirm a modest but statistically significant increase in OS in patients undergoing chemotherapy with primary G-CSF support for solid tumors and lymphoma. [Display omitted] DisclosuresYau:Hexal: Employment. Nakov:Hexal: Employment. Krendyukov:Hexal: Employment.

Economic Analysis on Adoption of Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors in Patients With Nonmyeloid Cancer at Risk of Febrile Neutropenia Within the Oncology Care Model Framework.

PURPOSE:Value-based programs, such as the Oncology Care Model (OCM), seek to improve care for patients undergoing chemotherapy, while reducing total costs. The purpose of this study is to quantify the impact of adopting biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for febrile neutropenia (FN) primary prophylaxis (PP) from a US practice perspective.METHODS:A 1-year economic analysis on real-world direct drug costs and health care resource utilization was conducted in a hypothetical cohort of 500 patients with nonmyeloid cancer receiving chemotherapy. The first model simulated total cost savings of biosimilar versus reference G-CSFs over six cycles of chemotherapy. The second model evaluated cost and outcome implications of expanding the use of biosimilar G-CSFs to an additional 10% of patients at intermediate FN risk.RESULTS:Based on real-world evidence over 1 year, a total of 121 of 500 patients received G-CSF prophylaxis resulting in cost savings that ranged from $0.54M US dollars (USD) (short-acting, eg, filgrastim) to $1.68M USD (long-acting, eg, pegfilgrastim) when switching from reference to biosimilar G-CSFs. Expanding the use of biosimilar G-CSFs allowed an additional 24 patients to receive prophylaxis of FN, leading to cost savings of $0.03M USD or $1.19M USD, with a reduction of $0.08M USD in FN-related resource utilization cost. The per-patient per-year cost saving for long-acting G-CSFs was about $3,000 USD.CONCLUSION:The implementation of biosimilar versus reference G-CSFs to OCM-participating practices results in a reduction of costs and facilitates achieving OCM metrics by improving patients' outcomes while expanding biosimilar G-CSFs access to patients at intermediate risk of chemotherapy-induced FN.

Real World Clinical Experience of Biosimilar G-CSF (Grastofil) for Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization: Single Center Experience in Canada Following Early Adoption.

Introduction: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is the first line treatment for mobilization, most commonly using a regimen of daily filgrastim. The use of biosimilars can provide substantial cost savings to the health care system while delivering comparable efficacy outcomes. In 2016, the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency was a leader in Canada, instituting formulary changed from a G-CSF originator product to a cost savings alternative biosimilar for stem cell mobilization prior to autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and for engraftment. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical comparability of biosimilar G-CSF to its reference product in a real-world clinical setting and to validate use of the biosimilar in mobilization and engraftment—an indication which had been granted by extrapolation. Methods: A retrospective chart review was completed including all patients diagnosed with a hematological malignancy between 2012 and 2018 who underwent ASCT. To assess real-world outcomes across a diverse population, successful CD34+ stem cell collection was compared between patients mobilized with originator filgrastim, Neupogen, and biosimilar filgrastim, Grastofil. Additional comparisons included the number of apheresis required, time to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) engraftment, platelet engraftment, length of hospital stay, and Plerixafor use. Results: 217 patients were mobilized and transplanted during the study period. There was no statistically significant difference in success rate between patients mobilized with biosimilar filgrastim and those who had received originator G-CSF (100% vs. 92.4%, p = 0.075). Neither disease type, nor concurrent chemomobilization regimen resulted in a detectable difference between the two G-CSF products in successful stem cell harvest. Engraftment was highly similar between groups, as demonstrated by ANC recovery (11.6 days Neupogen vs. 11.6 days Grastofil), platelet recovery (14.0 days Neupogen vs. 14.2 days Grastofil), and total length of hospital stay (22.4 days Neupogen vs. 22.3 days Grastofil). No statistically significant difference in adjunctive use of Plerixafor® was observed between Neupogen and Grastofil patients (25.9% vs. 23.4%, p = 0.72). Conclusion: Extrapolation of indications for biosimilars is justified. This real-world evidence builds upon registrational studies to confirm that no clinically meaningful differences were detected between originator Neupogen and biosimilar Grastofil in the setting of PBSC mobilization and engraftment post ASCT. Biosimilars are as safe and effective as originator products. Implementation across all approved indications without hesitation maximizes cost savings to the provincial system, allowing for more optimal allocation of health care resources.

Recent advances in the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in Italy.

During the National Congress of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology, which was held in Rome, Italy, October 2019, experts met to discuss advantages of febrile neutropenia prevention based on biosimilar G-CSF. This issue is of paramount importance in oncology as recent biological products may be of great benefit, provided that costs are sustainable.

Comparative Analysis of the Biosimilar and Innovative G-CSF Modulated Pathways on Umbilical Cord Blood-Derived Mononuclear Cells.

Biosimilars of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) have been routinely introduced into clinical practice. However, not functional genomics characterization has been performed yet in comparison with the innovator G-CSF. This study aimed to evaluate the transcriptomic changes in an in vitro model of umbilical cord blood cells (UBC) exposed to G-CSF for the identification of their modulated pathways. Umbilical cord blood cells–derived mononuclear cells (MNCs) were treated with biosimilar and innovator G-CSF for further gene expression profiling analysis using a microarray-based platform. Comparative analysis of biosimilar and innovator G-CSF gene expression signatures allowed us to identify the most commonly modulated pathways by both drugs. In brief, we observed predominantly upmodulation of transcripts related to PI3K-Akt, NF-kappaB, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) signaling pathways as well as transcripts related to negative regulation of apoptotic process among others. In addition, hematopoietic colony-forming cell assays corroborate the G-CSF phenotypic effects over UBC-derived MNCs. In conclusion, our study suggests that G-CSF impacts UBC-derived cells through the modulation of several signaling pathways associated with cell survival, migration, and proliferation. The concordance observed between biosimilar and innovator G-CSF emphasizes their similarity in regards to their specificity and biological responses.

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.

Use of Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor for Mobilization in Autologous and Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

The biologic medication filgrastim is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to mobilize hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs) for collection by leukapheresis for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). The FDA-approved biologic tbo-filgrastim is currently used off-label for this indication in both autologous and allogeneic HSCT at the Tennessee Valley Healthcare System. The purpose of this review is to compare the efficacy of filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim for this indication. The primary outcomes were the proportion of autologous patients and allogeneic donors with a CD34+ count ≥15 × 103 cells/uL on day 4 of filgrastim or tbo-filgrastim mobilization. The secondary outcome was the use of plerixafor in the autologous population. A total of 469 subjects were identified for inclusion; 367 underwent mobilization for autologous HSCT and 102 for allogeneic HSCT donation. The primary outcome was achieved in 47.5% of patients who received filgrastim compared to 50.2% who received tbo-filgrastim in the autologous population (p = 0.67). Among donors for allogeneic HSCT, there was no difference between those eligible for collection on day 4 of filgrastim or tbo-filgrastim administration (97.6% vs. 100%, p = 0.41). No significant difference was identified in the number of patients requiring plerixafor use in the autologous HSCT population. The use of the biosimilar tbo-filgrastim for mobilization in either autologous HSCT patients or allogeneic HSCT donors has comparable outcomes to that of the biotherapeutic reference product filgrastim at a reduced cost to the healthcare system.

Strategies to generate functionally normal neutrophils to reduce infection and infection-related mortality in cancer chemotherapy.

Neutrophils form an essential part of innate immunity against infection. Cancer chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CCIN) is a condition in which the number of neutrophils in a patient's bloodstream is decreased, leading to increased susceptibility to infection. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) has been the only approved treatment for CCIN over two decades. To date, CCIN-related infection and mortality remain a significant concern, as neutrophils generated in response to administered GCSF are functionally immature and cannot effectively fight infection. This review summarizes the molecular regulatory mechanisms of neutrophil granulocytic differentiation and innate immunity development, dissects the biology of GCSF in myeloid expansion, highlights the shortcomings of GCSF in CCIN treatment, updates the recent advance of a selective retinoid agonist that promotes neutrophil granulocytic differentiation, and evaluates the benefits of developing GCSF biosimilars to increase access to GCSF biologics versus seeking a new mode to fundamentally advance GCSF therapy for treatment of CCIN.

The Comparison of The Efficacy and Safety of Original and Biosimilar Filgrastim in Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia in Children with Cancer.

In adults and children, the duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and associated complications has decreased because of the prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs). Biosimilar G-CSFs can play an important role in reducing treatment costs in daily practice. However, some concerns regarding the efficacy and safety of new biosimilar products exist among clinicians. This study compared the efficacy and safety of original and biosimilar filgrastims for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in children. Thirty children receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy were enrolled in this study. Filgrastims (5 μg/kg/day) were subcutaneously administered in Group A (biosimilar, Leucostim®; Dem İlaç) and Group B (original drug, Neupogen®; Roche). Hemoglobin, white blood cell (WBC) count, platelet count, transfusion requirements, duration of hospitalization, and frequency and duration of adverse events including fever, neutropenia, and mucositis were evaluated following 25 treatment cycles in both groups. The hemoglobin value, WBC count, and platelet count on days 1, 5, and 10, and the red blood cell and platelet transfusion requirements, frequency, duration, and severity of mucositis, and durations of fever, febrile neutropenia, and hospitalization were similar in both groups. Although the mean WBC counts on days 1 and 5 were lower in Group A, the difference was statistically insignificant. The biosimilar filgrastim, Leucostim, is as effective and safe as the original drug for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in children.

Price competition and reimbursement of biosimilar granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in Hungary

ABSTRACTObjectives: We analyzed the bid approach of the Hungarian National Health Insurance Fund Administration (NHIFA) based on the results of two consecutive bids on colony stimulating factor (CSF).Methods: The Hungarian NHIFA database was used to analyze the changes in the number of patients treated with CSF and reimbursement paid by NHIFA, 12 months preceding and following the bids.Results: 13,974 patients received granulocyte-CSF treatment during 12 months prior to bidding. A 4.5% decrease (13,352) and further 1.3% decrease (13,185) in the total number of patients were observed during the first and second years, respectively. The annual health insurance subsidy paid during 12 months prior to the bids was. 7.49 billion Hungarian Forint (HUF) or 26.8 million Euro (EUR). In the first year following the bid, we found a 3.3 billion HUF (12.4 million EUR) decrease in health insurance subsidy (44% reduction). A further 7.9% reduction was observed during the second year, resulting in an annual health insurance subsidy of 3.59 billion HUF (12.1 million EUR).Conclusion: During the 2 years bid (public procurement procedure), the National Health Insurance Fund Administration managed to reduce the health insurance subsidy paid for the reimbursement of both original and biosimilar G-CSF products.

Biosimilar G-CSF Versus Originator G-CSF for Autologous Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Mobilization: A Comparative Analysis of Mobilization and Engraftment

Biologic agents are among the fastest-growing classes of therapeutic products. A biosimilar therapeutic product is defined as one that is similar to an already licensed reference product in regard to quality, safety, and efficacy and is often priced more competitively (Expert Committee on Biological Standardization, 2009; Publicover, et al., 2013).In 2016, the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency effectively changed from a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) brand name product (Neupogen®) to a biosimilar (Grastofil®) for stem cell mobilization prior to autologous stem cell transplants (ASCT). However, because its efficacy in this setting is currently unknown, many institutions continue to use the brand name product. To address this, we reviewed patient charts and compared the efficacy of CD34+ collection in 170 patients who received Neupogen® and 47 patients who received Grastofil® between 2012 and 2018.Additionally, we analyzed efficacy of mobilization with both G-CSF products either alone or in combination with chemotherapy, patients requiring more than one apheresis day and requirement for Plerixafor®. Time to engraftment, and length of stay in hospital post ASCT were used as clinical efficacy parameters. This analysis is important to ensure that patient outcome is not compromised upon use of Grastofil® as opposed to the already approved reference, Neupogen®. The increased use of biosimilars would allow for decreased costs and more sustainable healthcare.ResultsNeupogen® and Grastofil® had similar efficacy for stem cell mobilization as 92.4% of the patients harvested with the brand name had a successful harvest compared to 100% of the patients given the biosimilar. A successful harvest is defined as a collection of ≥2x106 CD34+ cells for patients planned for one stem cell transplant and ≥4x106 CD34+ cells for patients planned for two transplants. Additionally, the two drugs did not display a statistically significant difference in Plerixafor requirement in a situation with low CD34+ count. Amongst all 217 patients, 25.9% of patients given Neupogen® required Plerixafor® as compared to 23.4% of Grastofil® patients.As seen from Table 1, by using the Wilcoxon test to compare the efficacy of Neupogen® and Grastofil® without chemotherapy for stem cell mobilization, there was no significant difference seen with a p-value of 0.53. Similarly, in patients mobilized with chemotherapy in addition to either Neupogen® or Grastofil®, similar efficacy was seen between the groups given a p-value of 0.95.There was no statistically significant difference between the patient groups with respect to requiring more than 1 day of apheresis. 59.4% of patients mobilized with Neupogen® required more than 1 apheresis day compared to 76.9% of Grastofil® patients (p = 0.11). Similarly, of the Neupogen® and Grastofil® groups mobilized with chemotherapy, 42.5% and 38.1%, respectively, required more than one apheresis day which was not statistically different (p = 0.71). Table 2 presents the engraftment data which also suggests that the two drugs behave with similar efficacy in this respect.Length of stay in hospital post autologous stem cell transplant was an additional variable analyzed. Again, there was no significant difference in length of stay between patients who received Neupogen® (median=18.5 days, IQR=17.0-21.0) or Grastofil® (median=19.0 days, IQR =17.0-22.0) without chemotherapy (p = 0.75). When chemotherapy was added to the mobilizing regimen, lengths of stay post autologous stem cell transplant increased but there was no statistically significant difference in length of stay between Neupogen® plus chemotherapy mobilization (median=22.0, IQR =20.0-26.0) versus Grastofil® plus chemotherapy (median=24.0 days, IQR =21.0-29.0) mobilization (p-value =0.10).In conclusion, when comparing the use of either a Neupogen® or Grastofil® based mobilization regimen in terms of stem cell harvest success, Plerixafor® use, more than one apheresis day required, time to engraftment, and length of stay in hospital, no significant difference was found indicating that both products, the reference agent and its biosimilar have similar efficacy. The use of such biosimilars can provide substantial cost savings to the health care system. [Display omitted] DisclosuresElemary:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lundbeck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

A retrospective analysis comparing efficacy of filgastrim-sndz versus filgastrim for autologous, peripheral stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma and lymphoma.

e19505Background: Filgrastim-sndz was the first biosimilar granulocyte colony stimulating factor to be approved by the FDA for the same indications, including peripheral blood stem cell mobilizatio...

PCN198 - Utilization Patterns Of The First US Biosimilar, Filgrastim-Sndz, Observed Between 2015 And 2017 In A Medical Transcription Database

Filgrastim-sndz (FIL-SNDZ), the first US biosimilar, is replacing filgrastim (FIL) on a growing number of drug formularies since market entry in September 2015. The American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines recommend FIL-SNDZ as a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for preventing treatment-related febrile neutropenia in patients with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This study aimed to identify FIL-SNDZ utilization during patients’ healthcare encounters and to compare annual utilization versus other G-CSFs between 2015 and 2017. Physician records were extracted (1/1/2015–11/30/2017) from RealHealthData, a US nationwide medical transcription database providing data within 30 days of each patient visit to a participating provider. Records were queried for mention of FIL-SNDZ, tbo-filgrastim (TBO-FIL), FIL, or pegfilgrastim (PEG), with the annual percentage share of G-CSFs received by unique patients compared across years. Data will be refreshed in March 2018. Among 20,427 unique patients with 36,885 records mentioning a G-CSF between 2015 and 2017, G-CSF utilization patterns changed. In 2015, 65.7% of patients had a mention of PEG, 33.2% of FIL, and 1.2% of TBO-FIL; none mentioned FIL-SNDZ. In 2016, G-CSF mentions were 51.6% (PEG), 37.4% (FIL), 10% (TBO-FIL) and 1% (FIL-SNDZ). Values changed marginally in 2017 to 49.5% (PEG), 41.4% (FIL), 8% (TBO-FIL) and 1% (FIL-SNDZ). Notwithstanding broad geographic distribution of contributing providers, these trends may not represent G-CSF utilization across the United States and may vary when data through 12/31/2017 are added. Despite over 2 years on the US market and increasing emergence on commercial formularies since January 2017, this investigation of medical transcription records observed limited (~1%) utilization of the biosimilar FIL-SNDZ. The larger market share of long-acting PEG versus short-acting FIL may be a factor in the low uptake of FIL-SNDZ. Further research is warranted to understand why uptake of biosimilar G-CSF remains low in the United States.