Meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison of lipegfilgrastim with pegfilgrastim and filgrastim for the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia-related events.
ABSTRACT: 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: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: 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: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: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.
Project description:PURPOSE:To evaluate patterns of primary prophylactic (PP) granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use following chemotherapy by cancer type and febrile neutropenia (FN) risk. METHODS:Using a commercial administrative database, we identified adult patients diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who initiated chemotherapy with high risk (HR) or intermediate risk (IR) for FN between January 1, 2013, and August 31, 2017. We describe use of PP-G-CSF, proportion completing all their cycles with pegfilgrastim, timing of pegfilgrastim, and duration of short-acting G-CSF. RESULTS:Among 22,868 patients (breast 11,513; colorectal 3765; lung 4273; ovarian 1287; and NHL 2030), 36.8% received HR and 63.2% received IR (64.4% of whom had ??1 risk factor [RF] for FN). Proportions of patients receiving PP-G-CSF in the first cycle were 76.1%, 28.2%, and 26.4% among patients receiving HR, IR, and IR plus ??1 RF, respectively. Among breast cancer patients receiving HR regimens and initiating PP-pegfilgrastim, 60.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 57.2-63.6%) initiating via on-body injector (OBI) and 51.9% (95% CI 48.0-55.8%) initiating via prefilled syringe (PFS) completed all their cycles with OBI and PFS, respectively. Among all cycles with PP-PFS, 8.5% received PFS on the same day as chemotherapy completion. Mean administrations/cycle were 3.2 (standard deviation [SD] 2.3) for filgrastim, 3.0 (SD 1.6) for filgrastim-sndz, and 4.3 (SD 2.5) for tbo-filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS:There is under- and mistimed use of PP-G-CSF among patients at HR for FN. Novel pegfilgrastim delivery devices could help breast cancer patients at HR for FN complete all their cycles with timely prophylaxis.
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: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:<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of no prophylaxis, primary prophylaxis (PP), or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), i.e., pegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6- and 11-day), or lenograstim (6- and 11-day), to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with stage II breast cancer receiving TC (docetaxel, cyclophosphamide) and in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) over a lifetime horizon from a Belgian payer perspective.<h4>Methods</h4>A Markov cycle tree tracked FN events during chemotherapy (3-week cycles) and long-term survival (1-year cycles). Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy, risk of reduced relative dose intensity (RDI), and the impact of RDI on mortality, utilities, and costs (in €; 2014 values) were estimated from public sources and the published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed for each strategy for costs per FN event avoided, life-year (LY) saved, and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) saved. LYs and QALYs saved were discounted at 1.5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSAs and PSAs) were conducted.<h4>Results</h4>Base-case ICERs for PP with pegfilgrastim relative to SP with pegfilgrastim were €15,500 per QALY and €14,800 per LY saved for stage II breast cancer and €7800 per QALY and €6900 per LY saved for NHL; other comparators were either more expensive and less effective than PP or SP with pegfilgrastim or had lower costs but higher ICERs (relative to SP with pegfilgrastim) than PP with pegfilgrastim. Results of the DSA for breast cancer and NHL comparing PP and SP with pegfilgrastim indicate that the model results were most sensitive to the cycle 1 risk of FN, the proportion of FN events requiring hospitalization, the relative risk of FN in cycles ?2 versus cycle 1, no history of FN, and the mortality hazard ratio for RDI (<90% vs ?90% [for NHL]). In the PSAs for stage II breast cancer and NHL, the probabilities that PP with pegfilgrastim was cost effective or dominant versus all other prophylaxis strategies at a €30,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold were 52% (other strategies ?24%) and 58% (other strategies ?24%), respectively.<h4>Conclusion</h4>From a Belgian payer perspective, PP with pegfilgrastim appears cost effective compared to other prophylaxis strategies in patients with stage II breast cancer or NHL at a €30,000/QALY threshold.
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:Pegfilgrastim is indicated for reducing the duration of neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Here, safety and efficacy of MYL-1401H, a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar, were investigated as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group equivalence trial of MYL-1401H vs European Union-sourced reference pegfilgrastim. Patients with newly diagnosed stage II/III breast cancer eligible to receive (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide every 3 weeks for 6 cycles were enrolled and randomized 2:1 to 6 mg of MYL-1401H or reference pegfilgrastim 24 h (+?2-h window after the first 24 h) after the end of chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 (i.e., days with absolute neutrophil count (ANC) <?0.5?×?109/L). Mean (standard deviation (SD)) duration of severe neutropenia in MYL-1401H and reference pegfilgrastim groups was 1.2 days (0.93) and 1.2 days (1.10), respectively. The 95% CI for least squares mean difference (-?0.285, 0.298) was within the predefined equivalence range of ±?1 day. Secondary endpoints, including grade ??3 neutropenia (frequency, 91% and 82% for MYL-1401H and reference pegfilgrastim, respectively), time to ANC nadir (mean (SD), 6.2 (0.98) and 6.3 (1.57) days), and duration of post-nadir recovery (mean (SD), 1.9 (0.85) and 1.7 (0.91) days) were comparable. Overall safety profiles of the study drugs were comparable. MYL-1401H demonstrated equivalent efficacy and similar safety to reference pegfilgrastim and may be an equivalent option for reducing incidence of neutropenia. ( ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02467868; EudraCT, 2014-002324-27).