Mean Duration Of Severe Neutropenia Research Articles

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

PurposeThe aim of this study was to demonstrate lipegfilgrastim superiority versus placebo in adults with non-small cell lung cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.MethodsThis phase III, double-blind study randomized chemotherapy-naive patients to receive cisplatin and etoposide with either lipegfilgrastim 6 mg or placebo. Because of the placebo control, patients at individual high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN; ≥20%) were excluded. Study drug was administered on day 4 (24 h after chemotherapy) of a 21-day cycle for ≤4 cycles. Primary efficacy measure was FN incidence in cycle 1. Secondary assessments included duration of severe neutropenia (DSN), absolute neutrophil count (ANC) profile, and adverse events (AEs).ResultsThe study included 375 patients (lipegfilgrastim, n = 250; placebo, n = 125). Lipegfilgrastim superiority for FN incidence in cycle 1 was not achieved but incidence was lower (2.4%) versus placebo (5.6%). Cycle 1 mean DSN was significantly shorter for lipegfilgrastim (0.6 ± 1.1 days) versus placebo (2.3 ± 0.5 days; p < 0.0001). Incidence of severe neutropenia was significantly lower for lipegfilgrastim versus placebo overall and in each cycle (all, p < 0.0001). Mean ANC nadir was lowest in cycle 1 but significantly higher for lipegfilgrastim (1.60 ± 1.64) than placebo (0.67 ± 0.85; p < 0.0001). Mean time to ANC recovery was shorter with lipegfilgrastim in each cycle. Treatment-emergent AEs were similar between treatment groups.ConclusionsLipegfilgrastim was not statistically superior to placebo for incidence of FN in cycle 1, but was more effective in reducing incidence of severe neutropenia, DSN, and time to ANC recovery, with an acceptable safety profile.Controlled-trials.com identifier: ISRCTN55761467.

A Comparison of Proposed Biosimilar and Originator Filgrastim for the Prevention of Neutropenia in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Myelosuppressive Adjuvant or Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial (The PIONEER study)

Introduction:Biosimilars are biologics which have demonstrated highly similar safety, potency and purity to an originator product. Several biosimilars of recombinant human filgrastim, based on the originator Neupogen®, have become available in Europe since 2008 and are now in clinical use for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and hematopoietic stem cell mobilization.Filgrastim biosimilars are presently being developed for the U.S. market.Study design:A randomized, double-blind, four-group, multi-center phase III non-inferiority trial was performed with breast cancer patients treated with myleosuppressive chemotherapy. The two filgrastim products – proposed biosimilar, EP2006 (“biosimilar”) vs. originator (U.S.-licensed Neupogen®) - were compared regarding efficacy and safety.Patients included: women ≥18 years with histologically-proven breast cancer eligible for neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with docetaxel 75 mg/m2, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 (TAC regimen) given for 6 cycles. Other key inclusion criteria included: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2 and adequate bone marrow function.Eligible patients were randomized to 4 groups with 2 of these groups alternating between the biosimilar and the originator filgrastim at the end of each cycle: 1) EP: treatment with EP2006 in all cycles; 2) EPNEU: EP2006 in Cycle 1, alternating between Neupogen and EP2006 in the following cycles; 3) NEUEP: Neupogen in Cycle 1, alternating between EP2006 and Neupogen in the following cycles; 4) NEU: treatment with Neupogen in all cycles.Patients received either biosimilar or originator filgrastim subcutaneously (daily dose of 5 µg/kg body weight) starting on Day 2 of each chemotherapy cycle until the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovered to 10×109/L after nadir or up to 14 days. Total duration of the study was 25 weeks: 3 weeks screening, 18 weeks treatment (total 6 cycles, 3 weeks each) and a follow-up visit 4 weeks after the last study drug administration.Primary objective was to assess the efficacy of the biosimilar compared to the originator with respect to mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) following Cycle 1 chemotherapy. A one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the mean DSN calculated using ANCOVA model with factors “treatment” and “kind of therapy” and covariates “baseline ANC” was to be considered non-inferior if lower limit of this CI lies entirely above non-inferiority margin of -1 day. All secondary efficacy endpoints and safety endpoints were analyzed descriptively by treatment group.The study was conducted between December 2011 and June 2013.Results:Enrolled were 258 patients in 27 centers, of which 218 patients were randomized to treatment. The baseline characteristics were balanced between different groups. The per-protocol set included 204 patients out of 218 randomized patients. The safety set included 214 patients who received at least one dose of study drug.On average each patient received treatment for 8-9 days per cycle.The mean DSN in Cycle 1 was 1.17±1.11 days (biosimilar) and 1.20±1.02 days (originator); the mean difference in DSN was 0.04 days (97.5% CI, lower limit -0.26 days). The pre-defined non-inferiority criteria were met and the biosimilar was considered non-inferior to the originator filgrastim.The incidence of febrile neutropenia over all 6 cycles chemotherapy was comparably low in all treatment groups (EP: 2/40, 5.0%, EPNEU: 5/45, 11.1%, NEUEP: 1/44, 2.3%, NEU: 0/46, 0.0%).There was no obvious difference in incidences of treatment emergent adverse events between the treatment arms. Twelve patients experienced serious adverse events (EP: 5/53, 9.4% patients; EPNEU: 4/54, 7.4%; NEUEP: 1/55, 1.8%; NEU: 2/52, 3.8%). None of them were study drug related, including one death (in the EP treatment group due to pulmonary embolism). No subjects developed anti-drug antibodies.Conclusion:This large clinical study showed that efficacy and safety of the biosimilar was comparable to the originator filgrastim in prevention of neutropenia in patients with breast cancer. Repeated switching between the biosimilar and the originator filgrastim did not impact efficacy, safety or immunogenicity.Acknowledgment:The authors acknowledge the other investigators of the PIONEER study and acknowledge Gabor Stiegler, Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals for the medical writing. DisclosuresBlackwell:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Semiglazov:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Gascon:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Nakov:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Employment. Kramer:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Employment. Schwebig:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Employment. Harbeck:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Consultancy.

Efficacy and Safety of Balugrastim Compared With Pegfilgrastim in Patients With Breast Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy

BackgroundRecombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) reduce the incidence and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia when given as adjunct therapy to patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Balugrastim is a long-acting G-CSF composed of a genetic fusion between recombinant human serum albumin and G-CSF. We compared the efficacy and safety of balugrastim and pegfilgrastim, a long-acting pegylated recombinant G-CSF, in patients with breast cancer who were scheduled to receive chemotherapy. Patients and MethodsIn this double-blind randomized phase III trial, patients with ≥ 1.5 × 109 neutrophils/L were randomly assigned to subcutaneous injections of balugrastim 40 mg (n = 153) or pegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 151). The primary efficacy end point was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) (days with an absolute neutrophil count [ANC] < 0.5 × 109 cells/L) during cycle 1. Efficacy analyses were performed in the per-protocol (PP) population. In a separate open-label single-arm study, newly recruited patients (n = 77) received balugrastim 40 mg and were included in the safety analysis. ResultsThe mean DSN in cycle 1 was 1.1 days in the balugrastim group and 1.0 days in the pegfilgrastim group (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.13-0.37). Two and 4 patients, respectively, had febrile neutropenia during cycle 1. Twenty percent of patients in the balugrastim group and 19% in the pegfilgrastim group had adverse events (AEs) considered to be related to study medication; 3.9% and 4.7% of patients, respectively, experienced serious AEs. ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the comparable safety and efficacy profile of balugrastim and pegfilgrastim and the noninferiority of balugrastim for reduction in DSN. There were no unexpected safety events.

Efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim: a randomized, multicenter, active-control phase 3 trial in patients with breast cancer receiving doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy

BackgroundLipegfilgrastim is a novel glyco-pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in development for neutropenia prophylaxis in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. This phase III, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, noninferiority trial compared the efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in chemotherapy-naïve breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy.MethodsPatients with high-risk stage II, III, or IV breast cancer and an absolute neutrophil count ≥1.5 × 109 cells/L were randomized to a single 6-mg subcutaneous injection of lipegfilgrastim (n = 101) or pegfilgrastim (n = 101) on day 2 of each 21-day chemotherapy cycle (4 cycles maximum). The primary efficacy endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia during cycle 1.ResultsCycle 1: The mean duration of severe neutropenia for the lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim groups was 0.7 and 0.8 days, respectively (λ = −0.218 [95% confidence interval: –0.498%, 0.062%], p = 0.126), and no severe neutropenia was observed in 56% and 49% of patients in the lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim groups, respectively. All cycles: In the efficacy population, febrile neutropenia occurred in three pegfilgrastim-treated patients (all in cycle 1) and zero lipegfilgrastim-treated patients. Drug-related adverse events in the safety population were reported in 28% and 26% of patients i006E the lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim groups, respectively.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that lipegfilgrastim 6 mg is as effective as pegfilgrastim in reducing neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.Trial RegistrationEudra EEACTA200901599910The study protocol, two global amendments (Nos. 1 and 2), informed consent documents, and other appropriate study-related documents were reviewed and approved by the Ministry of Health of Ukraine Central Ethics Committee and local independent ethics committees (IECs).

Efficacy and safety of balugrastim in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: Integrated analysis of two randomized phase III studies.

e17572 Background: Balugrastim is a recombinant fusion protein composed of human serum albumin and human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, which allows for once-per-chemotherapy cycle administration. We present a combined analysis of two double-blind, randomized Phase III studies comparing efficacy and safety of balugrastim vs pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy (CTx). Methods: All patients were treated with doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 followed by docetaxel 75 mg/m2 administered by i.v. infusion on Day 1 of a 21-day cycle for up to 4 cycles. For each cycle, patients received a single s.c. injection of balugrastim approximately 24 hours after administration of CTx. The primary endpoint for both studies was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in Cycle 1. Safety of balugrastim was assessed by evaluating the type, frequency, and severity of adverse events (AEs); changes in laboratory parameters and vital signs, and immunogenicity over time. Analyses were performed in the per-protocol population. Results: A total of 469 patients were randomized to receive balugrastim 40 mg (N=235) or pegfilgrastim 6 mg (N=234). Mean DSN in Cycle 1 was 1.1±1.11 days in patients receiving balugrastim (n=236) and 1.0±1.14 days in patients receiving pegfilgrastim (n=234). Non-inferiority was demonstrated by statistical analysis for balugrastim vs pegfilgrastim for reduction in DSN across studies. Patients treated with balugrastim had a significantly shorter time to ANC recovery in Cycle 1 vs pegfilgrastim (2.0 vs 2.3 days; P=0.015). No other significant differences were seen between treatment groups in either study for any other secondary endpoints in Cycles 1–4. The safety profile was similar for both drugs, with the incidence of AEs consistent with the underlying medical condition and administration of myelosuppressive CTx. Conclusions: In both Phase III studies, non-inferiority was clearly demonstrated for balugrastim 40 mg vs pegfilgrastim 6 mg. Balugrastim is a safe and effective alternative to long-acting pegfilgrastim for reducing DSN in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: 2010-019001-42.

Autologous stem cell transplantation in Kuwait cancer control centre: Review of infections in the first thirty days post-transplant

Autologous peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) following high-dose chemotherapy is established in Kuwait Cancer Control Center since 2000. We studied the incidence of microbial infections during the first 30 days following autologous PBSC transplantation in 120 consecutive patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and acute myeloid leukemia. The incidence and consequences of these infections are reported. All the patients received antibiotic prophylaxis and hematopoietic growth factors during neutropenia. The mean duration of severe neutropenia was 7 days (range 5-9) in all the patients, and the median time to myeloid engraftment was 11 days. The incidence of culture-proven infections in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and multiple myeloma patients was similar. Infections could be documented clinically only in 67 patients (72.8%) where they had culture-negative infections. In 25 patients clinical infection was supported by positive cultures. The isolated organisms included Gram-negative organisms in 56%, Gram positive in 24%, and both Gram negative and Gram positive in 16% of the patients. In 4% of the patients fungi were isolated. The most common sites of infections were central line (catheter) infection (68%). Among central line infections, isolates were Gram positive in 35.3%, Gram negative in 41.2%, both Gram negative and Gram positive in one patient and fungi in one patient. Although the overall incidence of infections among autologous SCT recipients is modest, because patients tended to have rapid recovery of their immune system, infections remain a significant cause of morbidity stressing the importance of prevention and management of infectious diseases.

Efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer who are receiving chemotherapy.

e19587 Background: Cancer chemotherapy frequently causes neutropenia, leading to an increased risk of infections and delays in subsequent chemotherapy treatments. Pegfilgrastim is a pegylated recombinant form of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) that extends the half-life and requires less frequent dosing than nonpegylated G-CSF. Lipegfilgrastim is a glycosylated and pegylated G-CSF. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim in chemotherapy-naïve patients with breast cancer who are candidates to receive docetaxel/doxorubicin. Methods: In this double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, noninferiority trial, patients with high-risk stage II, III, or IV breast cancer and an absolute neutrophil count ≥1.5x109 cells/L were randomly assigned to lipegfilgrastim 6 mg (n=101) or pegfilgrastim 6 mg (n=101). Study medication was injected subcutaneously on day 2 of the chemotherapy cycle (4 cycles maximum). Primary efficacy endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia (days with an absolute neutropenia count &lt;0.5x109 cells/L) during cycle 1. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of febrile neutropenia. Efficacy analysis population included patients who were randomized but did not have major protocol violations. Results: Overall, 37%, 46%, and 17% of patients had stage II, III, and IV breast cancer, respectively. The mean duration of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 was 0.7 days in the lipegfilgrastim group and 0.8 days in the pegfilgrastim group (poisson regression least squares mean [95% CI] -0.218 [-0.498 to 0.062]). 56% and 49%, respectively, did not experience severe neutropenia in cycle 1. Three patients experienced febrile neutropenia; all were in the pegfilgrastim group during cycle 1. 28% of patients in the lipegfilgrastim group and 26% in the pegfilgrastim group had adverse events that the investigator considered to be related to study medication. Three and 7 patients, respectively had serious adverse events. Conclusions: The results of this study confirm that the efficacy of lipegfilgrastim is comparable with pegfilgrastim. No unexpected safety events were observed.

Efficacy and safety of balugrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer who are receiving chemotherapy.

9125 Background: Patients receiving cancer chemotherapy are at an increased risk of neutropenia. Recombinant granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have been developed to stimulate proliferation and differentiation of neutrophils. Pegfilgrastim is a pegylated recombinant G-CSF that allows for once-per-cycle dosing. Balugrastim is a long-acting G-CSF composed of a genetic fusion between recombinant human serum albumin and G-CSF. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of balugrastim and pegfilgrastim in patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed breast cancer who were scheduled to receive doxorubicin and docetaxel. Methods: In this double-blind, randomized, active-comparator, noninferiority trial, patients with ≥1.5x109 neutrophils/L, and ≥100x109 platelets/L were randomly assigned to subcutaneous injections of balugrastim 40 mg (n=153) or pegfilgrastim 6 mg (n=151) with stratifications for weight, prior chemotherapy exposure, and global location. The primary efficacy endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia (days with an absolute neutrophil count &lt;0.5x109 cells/L) during the cycle 1 for the population of patients who did not have major protocol violations. Results: Mean duration of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 was 1.1 days in the balugrastim group and 1.0 days in the pegfilgrastim group (95% CI for difference between groups -0.13 to 0.37). Fifty-eight percent of patients in the balugrastim group and 59% in the pegfilgrastim group had severe neutropenia during cycle 1 (95% CI for difference between groups -11.98% to 10.41%). Two and 4 patients, respectively, had febrile neutropenia during cycle 1; no patients in either group had febrile neutropenia during cycles 2-4. Twenty percent of patients in the balugrastim group and 19% in the pegfilgrastim group had adverse events that the investigator considered to be related to study medication. Six and 7 patients, respectively, had serious adverse events. Conclusions: The results of this study support the noninferiority of balugrastim versus pegfilgrastim, demonstrating that both compounds have comparable efficacy. There were no unexpected safety events.

A randomized, noninferiority study of recombinant human G-CSF/human serum albumin fusion (CG-10639) and pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive therapy.

9083 Background: Teva’s CG-10639 is a long-acting recombinant human albumin-human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor under investigation to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim (PEGF), CG-10639 stimulates neutrophil and hematopoietic stem cell mobilization from bone marrow to peripheral blood. No clinically relevant immunogenicity with CG-10639 has been observed to date. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of CG-10639 versus PEGF in breast cancer patients (BCA pts) receiving myelosuppressive therapy. Methods: This phase II/III study was a randomized, multi-center, active controlled trial in 334 BCA pts receiving doxorubicin/docetaxel (DOX/DOC). The study included a pilot dose escalation phase to identify two CG-10639 doses with similar effects to PEGF (6mg), and a main phase powered for efficacy (non-inferiority). During the pilot phase, patients were randomized to receive CG-10639 30mg or PEGF one day after DOX/DOC followed by additional cohorts receiving CG-10639 40mg, 50mg. The main phase of the study used a randomized, 3-arm parallel design comparing two doses of CG-10639 and PEGF following DOX 60mg/m2 and DOC 75mg/m2 IV on day 1 for up to four 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) during cycle 1 in days (d). Results: In the pilot phase (n=78) DSN, secondary efficacy parameters and safety were similar across all treatments. CG-10639 40mg and 50mg doses were selected for further investigation. In the main phase (n=256), there were no statistically significant differences in mean DSN between CG-10639 40mg (1.0d), CG-10639 50mg (1.3d), and PEGF (1.2d) in Cycle 1. In each cycle, efficacy was comparable based on ANC nadir and recovery, the incidence and duration of Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, and the incidence of febrile neutropenia. The type and frequency of treatment emergent AEs were similar across treatment groups. Conclusions: These results support the conclusion that CG-10639 is non-inferior to PEGF based on mean DSN in BCA pts receiving myelosuppressive therapy. The overall safety profile was similar for CG-10639 and PEGF. A phase III, confirmatory study comparing CG-10639 40mg to PEGF 6mg is underway.

A Phase III Randomized Equivalence Study of Biosimilar Filgrastim versus Amgen Filgrastim in Patients Receiving Myelosuppressive Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

Background: Filgrastim was developed to treat chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. This phase III study was designed to demonstrate bioequivalence of Amgen filgrastim and a biosimilar filgrastim developed by Hospira (Study GCF071; sponsored by Hospira). Patients and Methods: Breast cancer patients suitable for treatment with doxorubicin and docetaxel in the neoadjuvant/adjuvant or first-line metastatic setting were enrolled at 37 European centers. Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive Hospira filgrastim or Amgen filgrastim, after the end of chemotherapy. Filgrastim (5 µg/kg/day) was administered under double-blind conditions. Primary endpoint to demonstrate bioequivalence was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1. Results: 184 patients were randomized to Hospira filgrastim and 95 to Amgen filgrastim. Mean DSN in cycle 1 was similar with Hospira filgrastim (1.6 days; n = 165) and Amgen filgrastim (1.3 days; n = 85), meeting predefined criteria for bioequivalence. Secondary endpoints supporting bioequivalence included mean time to absolute neutrophil count recovery and incidence of febrile neutropenia. The most common treatment-related adverse event with Hospira filgrastim was grade 1–2 bone pain. Conclusions: Hospira filgrastim and Amgen filgrastim are bioequivalent in efficacy with similar safety profiles. Hospira filgrastim may be useful for the prophylaxis of complications related to neutropenia caused by chemotherapy.

3053 Management of anaemia in oncology: use and efficacy of Darbepoetin alfa in CIA patients

Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors such as Neupogen are used to treat chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The aim of the study was to show that a new granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, XM02, is as safe and effective as Neupogen in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with small cell or non-small cell lung cancer.A total of 240 patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized in cycle 1 to treatment with daily injections (subcutaneous 5 µg/kg/d) of XM02 (n = 160) or Filgrastim Neupogen (n = 80) for at least 5 days and a maximum of 14 days. In subsequent cycles, all patients received XM02.The mean duration of severe neutropenia was 0.5 and 0.3 days in cycle 1 for XM02 and Filgrastim, respectively. In the analysis of covariance for duration of severe neutropenia in cycle 1, the estimated treatment difference “XM02 minus Filgrastim” was 0.157 days, with 95% confidence level (−0.114 days, 0.428 days), which was included in the prespecified equivalence range (−1, 1). There was no statistically significant difference of the end point incidence of febrile neutropenia in cycle 1 between XM02 and Filgrastim (p = 0.2347). The adverse event profile was similar between XM02 and Filgrastim.XM02 demonstrated similar efficacy and safety profile as the reference medication Filgrastim in cycle 1. In conclusion, treatment with XM02 is beneficial in ameliorating severe neutropenia and febrile neutropenia in lung cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. XM02 is safe and well tolerated in the doses applied in this study.

XM02, the First Biosimilar G-CSF, is Safe and Effective in Reducing the Duration of Severe Neutropenia and Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Small Cell or Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Receiving Platinum-Based Chemotherapy

Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors such as Neupogen are used to treat chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The aim of the study was to show that a new granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, XM02, is as safe and effective as Neupogen in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with small cell or non-small cell lung cancer. A total of 240 patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized in cycle 1 to treatment with daily injections (subcutaneous 5 microg/kg/d) of XM02 (n = 160) or Filgrastim Neupogen (n = 80) for at least 5 days and a maximum of 14 days. In subsequent cycles, all patients received XM02. The mean duration of severe neutropenia was 0.5 and 0.3 days in cycle 1 for XM02 and Filgrastim, respectively. In the analysis of covariance for duration of severe neutropenia in cycle 1, the estimated treatment difference "XM02 minus Filgrastim" was 0.157 days, with 95% confidence level (-0.114 days, 0.428 days), which was included in the prespecified equivalence range (-1, 1). There was no statistically significant difference of the end point incidence of febrile neutropenia in cycle 1 between XM02 and Filgrastim (p = 0.2347). The adverse event profile was similar between XM02 and Filgrastim. XM02 demonstrated similar efficacy and safety profile as the reference medication Filgrastim in cycle 1. In conclusion, treatment with XM02 is beneficial in ameliorating severe neutropenia and febrile neutropenia in lung cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. XM02 is safe and well tolerated in the doses applied in this study.

XM02, the first granulocyte colony-stimulating factor biosimilar, is safe and effective in reducing the duration of severe neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving chemotherapy

Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) such as filgrastim or lenograstim are being used to treat chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The aim of the present study was to investigate a new G-CSF, XM02, in comparison to filgrastim in terms of safety and efficacy in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in non-Hodgkin-lymphoma (NHL). A total of 92 patients receiving chemotherapy were randomised in cycle 1 to treatment with daily injections (subcutaneous 5 µg/kg/day) of XM02 (n = 63) or filgrastim (n = 29) for at least 5 days and a maximum of 14 days. In subsequent cycles, all patients received XM02. The mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) was 0.5 and 0.9 days in cycle 1 for XM02 and filgrastim, respectively (p = 0.1055). In cycle 1, the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) was 11.1% for XM02 and 20.7% for filgrastim (p = 0.1232). The adverse event profile was similar between XM02 and filgrastim. XM02 demonstrated equivalent efficacy and similar safety profile as the reference medication filgrastim. Treatment with XM02 is as beneficial as filgrastim in ameliorating severe neutropenia and FN in patients with NHL receiving chemotherapy. XM02 is safe and well tolerated in the doses applied in this study.

XM02 is superior to placebo and equivalent to Neupogen™ in reducing the duration of severe neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in cycle 1 in breast cancer patients receiving docetaxel/doxorubicin chemotherapy

BackgroundRecombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) such as Filgrastim are used to treat chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. We investigated a new G-CSF, XM02, and compared it to Neupogen™ after myelotoxic chemotherapy in breast cancer (BC) patients.MethodsA total of 348 patients with BC receiving docetaxel/doxorubicin chemotherapy were randomised to treatment with daily injections (subcutaneous 5 μg/kg/day) for at least 5 days and a maximum of 14 days in each cycle of XM02 (n = 140), Neupogen™ (n = 136) or placebo (n = 72). The primary endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1.ResultsThe mean DSN in cycle 1 was 1.1, 1.1, and 3.9 days in the XM02, Neupogen™, and placebo group, respectively. Superiority of XM02 over placebo and equivalence of XM02 with Neupogen™ could be demonstrated. Toxicities were similar between XM02 and Neupogen™.ConclusionXM02 was superior to placebo and equivalent to Neupogen™ in reducing DSN after myelotoxic chemotherapy.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN02270769

Abstract

Abstract