Phase II, randomized, open-label study of pegfilgrastim-supported VDC/IE chemotherapy in pediatric sarcoma patients.
ABSTRACT: This multicenter, randomized, open-label study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of a single subcutaneous pegfilgrastim injection with daily subcutaneous filgrastim administration in pediatric patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for sarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Forty-four patients with previously untreated, biopsy-proven sarcoma stratified into three age groups (0-5, 6-11, and 12-21 years) were randomly assigned in a 6:1 randomization ratio to receive a single pegfilgrastim dose of 100 microg/kg (n = 38) or daily filgrastim doses of 5 microg/kg (n = 6) after chemotherapy (cycles 1 and 3: vincristine-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide; cycles 2 and 4: ifosfamide-etoposide). The duration of grade 4 neutropenia, time to neutrophil recovery, incidence of febrile neutropenia, and adverse events were recorded. Results Pegfilgrastim and filgrastim were similar for all efficacy and safety end points, and their pharmacokinetic profiles were consistent with those in adults. Younger children experienced more protracted neutropenia and had higher median pegfilgrastim exposure than older children. CONCLUSION A single dose of pegfilgrastim at 100 microg/kg administered once per chemotherapy cycle is comparable to daily injections of filgrastim at 5 microg/kg for pediatric sarcoma patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Myelosuppressive chemotherapy can lead to dose-limiting febrile neutropenia. Prophylactic use of recombinant human G-CSF such as daily filgrastim and once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim may reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. This comparative study examined the effect of pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim on the risk of hospitalization. METHODS: This retrospective United States claims analysis utilized 2004-2009 data for filgrastim- and pegfilgrastim-treated patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) or breast, lung, ovarian, or colorectal cancers. Cycles in which pegfilgrastim or filgrastim was administered within 5 days from initiation of chemotherapy (considered to represent prophylaxis) were pooled for analysis. Neutropenia-related hospitalization and other healthcare encounters were defined with a "narrow" criterion for claims with an ICD-9 code for neutropenia and with a "broad" criterion for claims with an ICD-9 code for neutropenia, fever, or infection. Odds ratios (OR) for hospitalization and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by generalized estimating equation (GEE) models and adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Per-cycle healthcare utilization and costs were examined for cycles with pegfilgrastim or filgrastim prophylaxis. RESULTS: We identified 3,535 patients receiving G-CSF prophylaxis, representing 12,056 chemotherapy cycles (11,683 pegfilgrastim, 373 filgrastim). The mean duration of filgrastim prophylaxis in the sample was 4.8 days. The mean duration of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in the sample was 1.0 day, consistent with the recommended dosage of pegfilgrastim - a single injection once per chemotherapy cycle. Cycles with prophylactic pegfilgrastim were associated with a decreased risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization (narrow definition: OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.16-1.13; broad definition: OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.24-0.59) and all-cause hospitalization (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.35-0.72) versus cycles with prophylactic filgrastim. For neutropenia-related utilization by setting of care, there were more ambulatory visits and hospitalizations per cycle associated with filgrastim prophylaxis than with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. Mean per-cycle neutropenia-related costs were also higher with prophylactic filgrastim than with prophylactic pegfilgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative effectiveness study, pegfilgrastim prophylaxis was associated with a reduced risk of neutropenia-related or all-cause hospitalization relative to filgrastim prophylaxis.
Project description:Pegfilgrastim is a pegylated form of the granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, filgrastim. Herein, we report the results of a multicentre, randomized, double-blind phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of pegfilgrastim with filgrastim in patients with malignant lymphoma. Patients were randomized to receive either a single subcutaneous dose of pegfilgrastim or daily subcutaneous doses of filgrastim on day 4 after the completion of cyclophosphamide, cytarabine, etoposide and dexamethasone ± rituximab (CHASE(R); day 1-3) chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN), defined as the number of days with neutrophil count <0·5 × 10(9) /l in the first cycle of chemotherapy. A total of 111 lymphoma patients were randomized to either the pegfilgrastim or filgrastim group. 109 patients received either pegfilgrastim (n = 54) or filgrastim (n = 55). Efficacy data were available for 107 patients (pegfilgrastim: n = 53, filgrastim: n = 54). Both groups were well balanced in terms of gender, age, performance status and other variables. The mean DSN (±S.D.) was 4·5 (±1·2) and 4·7 (±1·3) d in the pegfilgrastim and filgrastim groups. No significant difference in safety was observed. This trial verified the non-inferiority of a single subcutaneous dose of pegfilgrastim compared with daily subcutaneous doses of filgrastim, considering DSN as an indicator.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer must make frequent visits to the clinic not only for chemotherapy but also for the management of treatment-related adverse effects. Neutropenia, the most common dose-limiting toxicity of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, has substantial clinical and economic consequences. Colony-stimulating factors such as filgrastim and pegfilgrastim can reduce the incidence of neutropenia, but the clinic visits for these treatments can disrupt patients' routines and activities. METHODS: We surveyed patients to assess how clinic visits for treatment with chemotherapy and the management of neutropenia affect their time and activities. RESULTS: The mean amounts of time affected by these visits ranged from approximately 109 hours (hospitalization for neutropenia) and 8 hours (physician and chemotherapy) to less than 3 hours (laboratory and treatment with filgrastim or pegfilgrastim). The visits for filgrastim or pegfilgrastim were comparable in length, but treatment with filgrastim requires several visits per chemotherapy cycle and treatment with pegfilgrastim requires only 1 visit. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides useful information for future modelling of additional factors such as disease status and chemotherapy schedule and provides information that should be considered in managing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.
Project description:Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are often neutropenic as a result of their disease. Furthermore, these patients typically experience profound neutropenia following induction and/or consolidation chemotherapy and this may result in serious, potentially life-threatening, infection. This randomized, double-blind, phase 2 clinical trial compared the efficacy and tolerability of pegfilgrastim with filgrastim for assisting neutrophil recovery following induction and consolidation chemotherapy for de novo AML in patients with low-to-intermediate risk cytogenetics.Patients (n = 84) received one or two courses of standard induction chemotherapy (idarubicin + cytarabine), followed by one course of consolidation therapy (high-dose cytarabine) if complete remission was achieved. They were randomized to receive either single-dose pegfilgrastim 6 mg or daily filgrastim 5 mug/kg, beginning 24 hours after induction and consolidation chemotherapy.The median time to recovery from severe neutropenia was 22.0 days for both pegfilgrastim (n = 42) and filgrastim (n = 41) groups during Induction 1 (difference 0.0 days; 95% CI: -1.9 to 1.9). During Consolidation, recovery occurred after a median of 17.0 days for pegfilgrastim versus 16.5 days for filgrastim (difference 0.5 days; 95% CI: -1.1 to 2.1). Therapeutic pegfilgrastim serum concentrations were maintained throughout neutropenia. Pegfilgrastim was well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to that of filgrastim.These data suggest no clinically meaningful difference between a single dose of pegfilgrastim and multiple daily doses of filgrastim for shortening the duration of severe neutropenia following chemotherapy in de novo AML patients with low-to-intermediate risk cytogenetics.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00114764.
Project description:The study aims to assess the relative efficacy of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) products administered as primary prophylaxis (PP) to patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.A systematic literature review identified publications (January 1990 to September 2013) of randomized controlled trials evaluating PP with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, lenograstim, or lipegfilgrastim in adults receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for solid tumors or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Direct, indirect, and mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) were used to estimate the odds ratio and 95 % credible interval of febrile neutropenia (FN) during cycle 1 and all cycles of chemotherapy combined without adjusting for differences in relative dose intensity (RDI) between study treatment arms.Twenty-seven publications representing 30 randomized controlled trials were included. Using MTC over all chemotherapy cycles, PP with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, lenograstim, and lipegfilgrastim versus no G-CSF PP or placebo were associated with statistically significantly reduced FN risk. FN risk was also significantly reduced with pegfilgrastim PP versus filgrastim PP. Over all chemotherapy cycles, there was a numerical but statistically nonsignificant increase in the FN risk for lipegfilgrastim PP versus pegfilgrastim PP. Using MTC in cycle 1, PP with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and lipegfilgrastim versus no G-CSF PP or placebo were associated with statistically significantly reduced FN risk.In this meta-analysis, using MTC without adjustment for RDI, PP with all G-CSFs evaluated reduced the FN risk in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Future studies are needed to assess the influence of RDI on FN outcomes and to eliminate potential bias between G-CSF arms receiving more intensive chemotherapy than control arms.
Project description:Background:Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a common result of myelosuppressive chemotherapy treatment. Infections such as febrile neutropenia (FN) are sensitive to the duration of neutropenia as well as the depth of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) at nadir. Filgrastim, a granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), can stimulate the function of mature neutrophils. Pegfilgrastim, a long-acting form of filgrastim, has been shown to reduce FN to a greater extent compared to filgrastim. G-CSF agents have been recommended for prophylactic administration with chemotherapy. Apotex developed a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar. This study was conducted to confirm that no clinically meaningful efficacy or safety differences exist between Apotex's proposed biosimilar and its reference product. Methods:589 breast cancer patients were randomized and dosed with the proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar, US-licensed pegfilgrastim reference product, or EU-approved pegfilgrastim reference product. The primary endpoint assessed was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) and secondary endpoints included rate of FN and ANC nadir. Results:Data showed that the mean DSN, the primary endpoint measured, was comparable across all three treatments. The As Treated arm had a 95% confidence interval within the equivalence range for the proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar with the US-licensed and EU-approved pegfilgrastim reference products. Secondary endpoints, which included depth and peak of ANC nadir, time to ANC recovery post-nadir and rates of FN, also showed similarity between the three different treatment groups. The adverse event incidence was similar across treatment arms and there were no unexpected safety events. Conclusions:Overall, these results show that the proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar is similar to Amgen's US-licensed and EU-approved pegfilgrastim reference products with regard to the clinical efficacy and safety endpoints assessed.Trial registration EMA: European Union Clinical Trials Register: (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=eudract_number:2011-002678-21) Eudract # 2011-002678-21 Registered: 01/10/2012.
Project description:AIM:The objective of the present study was to use pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling to characterize the effects of chemotherapy on the granulopoietic system and to predict the absolute neutrophil counts (ANCs) for patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia treated with filgrastim and pegfilgrastim. METHODS:Data were extracted from 10 phase I-III studies conducted in 110 healthy adults, and 618 adult and 52 paediatric patients on chemotherapy following administration of filgrastim or pegfilgrastim. The structural model accounted for ANC dynamics and the effects of filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, chemotherapy and corticosteroids. The impact of neutrophils on drug disposition was based on a drug receptor-binding model that assumed quasi-equilibrium and stimulation of the production and maturation of neutrophils upon treatment. The chemotherapy and corticosteroid effects were represented by kinetic-pharmacodynamic-type models, where chemotherapy stimulated elimination of neutrophil precursors at the mitotic stage, and corticosteroids stimulated neutrophil production. RESULTS:The systemic half-lives of filgrastim (2.6 h) and pegfilgrastim (10.1 h) were as expected. The effective half-life of chemotherapy was 9.6 h, with a 2-day killing effect. The rate of receptor elimination from mitotic compartments exhibited extreme interindividual variability (% coefficient of variation >200), suggesting marked differences in sensitivity to chemotherapy effects on ANCs. The stimulatory effects of pegfilgrastim were significantly greater than those of filgrastim. Model qualification confirmed the predictive capability of this model. CONCLUSION:This qualified model simulates the time course of ANC in the absence or presence of chemotherapy and predicts nadir, time to nadir and time of recovery from different grades of neutropenia upon treatment with filgrastim and pegfilgrastim.
Project description:Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of chemotherapy, which can cause significant morbidity and mortality, result in dose delays and reductions and, ultimately, reduce cancer survival. Over the past decade, the availability of biosimilar filgrastim (short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) has transformed patient access, with clear evidence of clinical benefit at preventing FN at reduced costs. In 2019, seven biosimilar pegfilgrastims (long-acting G-CSFs) were licensed, creating optimal market conditions and choice for prescribers. FN affects up to 117 per 1000 cancer patients, with mortality rates in the range of 2-21%. By reducing FN incidence and improving chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI), G-CSF has been associated with a 3.2% absolute survival benefit. Guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis and that filgrastim be administered for 10-14 days, while pegfilgrastim is administered once per cycle. When taken according to the guidelines, pegfilgrastim and filgrastim are equally effective. However, in routine clinical practice, filgrastim is often under-dosed (<?7 days) and has been shown to be inferior to pegfilgrastim at reducing FN incidence, hospitalisations and maintaining RDI. Once-per-cycle administration with pegfilgrastim might also aid patient adherence. The introduction of biosimilar pegfilgrastim should instigate a rethink of neutropenia management. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim offers countries using biosimilar filgrastim opportunities to improve adherence and thus cancer survival, whilst offering economic benefits for countries using reference pegfilgrastim. These benefits can be realised in full if biosimilar pegfilgrastim becomes part of routine clinical practice supported by drug and therapeutic committees implementing guidelines with multidisciplinary support in the hospital.
Project description:Background Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are effective at reducing the risk and duration of neutropenia. The current meta-analysis compared the neutropenia-related efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim to those of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim. Methods Embase was searched for trials examining the efficacy/safety of lipegfilgrastim, pegfilgrastim, or filgrastim. Outcomes included febrile neutropenia, severe neutropenia, duration of severe neutropenia, time to recovery of absolute neutrophil count, and incidence of bone pain. Direct comparisons were made using random-effects models. No trials directly compared lipegfilgrastim and filgrastim. Indirect comparisons were made between lipegfilgrastim and filgrastim with pegfilgrastim as the common comparator. Results This meta-analysis included a total of 5769 patients from 24 studies. Over all cycles, lipegfilgrastim showed a lower, nonsignificant risk of febrile neutropenia compared with pegfilgrastim. Lipegfilgrastim has a lower risk of febrile neutropenia versus filgrastim but was also not statistically significant. The risk ratio for severe neutropenia in cycle 1 was 0.80, a 20% reduction in favor of lipegfilgrastim. For cycles 2-4, the risk ratio was 0.53 (0.35, 0.79) for lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim. The risk of severe neutropenia in cycles 2-4 was also significantly lower for lipegfilgrastim (risk ratio 0.45, 0.27, 0.75, respectively). No significant differences were found for febrile neutropenia and severe neutropenia in cycle 1. However, in cycles 2-4, lipegfilgrastim was associated with significant and clinically meaningful reductions in risk of severe neutropenia versus either pegfilgrastim or filgrastim. Conclusions Compared with pegfilgrastim or filgrastim, lipegfilgrastim has a statistically significantly lower absolute neutrophil count recovery time; however, differences in duration of severe neutropenia and bone pain were nonsignificant.
Project description:Pegfilgrastim is widely used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. In highly regulated markets, there are currently no approved biosimilars of pegfilgrastim. Pegfilgrastim Randomized Oncology (Supportive Care) Trial to Evaluate Comparative Treatment (PROTECT-2) was a confirmatory efficacy and safety study designed to compare proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta, Amgen) in early-stage breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant or neoadjuvant myelosuppressive chemotherapy.A total of 308 patients were randomized to LA-EP2006 or reference pegfilgrastim. Each patient received TAC (intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2)) on day 1 of each cycle, for six or more cycles. Pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006 or reference) was given subcutaneously (6 mg in 0.6 mL) on day 2 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) during cycle 1 (number of consecutive days with an absolute neutrophil count <0.5 × 10(9)/L), with equivalence confirmed if 90% and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were within a 1-day margin.Baseline characteristics were well balanced. DSN was equivalent between groups at mean ± SD 1.36 ± 1.13 (LA-EP2006, n = 155) and 1.19 ± 0.98 (reference, n = 153) in cycle 1. With a treatment difference (reference minus LA-EP2006) of -0.16 days (90% CI -0.36 to 0.04; 95% CI -0.40 to 0.08), LA-EP2006 was equivalent to reference pegfilgrastim. Secondary efficacy parameters were similar between groups during cycle 1 and across cycles. Safety profiles were also similar between groups. No neutralizing antibodies against pegfilgrastim, filgrastim, or polyethylene glycol were detected.LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim were therapeutically equivalent and comparable regarding efficacy and safety in the prevention of neutropenia in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving TAC.The granulocyte colony-stimulating factor pegfilgrastim is widely used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Biosimilars are biologics with similar quality, safety, and efficacy to a reference product that may increase the affordability of treatment compared with their reference compounds. There are currently no approved biosimilars of pegfilgrastim in highly regulated markets. No previous phase III studies have been performed with LA-EP2006. PROTECT-2 was conducted to confirm the similarity of the proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 to pegfilgrastim. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006) may benefit oncology patients by offering increased access to biological treatments that may improve clinical outcomes. This means that patients could potentially be treated prophylactically with biologics rather than only after complications have occurred.