Dataset Information

A retrospective review of the real-world experience of the Pegfilgrastim biosimilar (Lapelga®) to the reference biologic (Neulasta®).

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy are vulnerable to febrile neutropenia (FN) which contributes to poor treatment outcomes. The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors is administered to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The introduction of biosimilars has allowed for greater cost-savings while maintaining safety and efficacy. This retrospective study assessed the incidence of FN and related treatment outcomes and the cost minimization of a pegfilgrastim biosimilar and its reference.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of breast cancer patients receiving (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy from February 2017 to May 2020 was conducted. The endpoints included the incidence of FN, the occurrence of dose reduction (DR), dose delay (DD) and pain. A cost minimization analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective.

Results

One hundred Neulasta® and 74 Lapelga® patients were included in the first-cycle analysis. The rate of FN in cycle 1 for Neulasta® and Lapelga® was 2/100 and 4/74, respectively; risk difference (RD) = 3.4%; 95% CI: -2.4 to 9.2%. Eighty-three Neulasta® and 59 Lapelga® patients were included in the all-cycle analyses, where DR was reported in 76 (15%) Neulasta® cycles vs 33 (10%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = -3.6, 95% CI: -10.2 to 2.9). DD was reported in 20 (4%) Neulasta® cycles vs. 11 (3.5%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = -0.3; 95% CI: -2.7 to 2.0). Adverse events were similar between groups. Cost minimization using a cohort of 20,000 patients translated into an incremental savings of $21,606,800 CAD for each cycle.

Conclusion

The biosimilar pegfilgrastim was non-inferior to the reference biologic based on FN incidence in addition to related outcomes including DR and DD.

SUBMITTER: Wong G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8669212 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThis study aimed to demonstrate that the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profile of Sandoz proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006) matches reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta® ) in healthy subjects. Safety and immunogenicity were also assessed.MethodsThe phase I, randomized, double-blind, two-period crossover study consisted of two treatment periods separated by an 8-week washout period. Healthy subjects aged 18-45 were randomized to either proposed biosimilar/reference pegfilgrastim or reference pegfilgrastim/proposed biosimilar. Proposed biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastim were administered on Day 1 of each treatment period (single 6 mg subcutaneous injection). Blood samples for PK/PD analysis were taken predose and ≤336 h postdose. PK/PD similarity was claimed if 90% (PK) and 95% (PD) confidence intervals (CI) for geometric mean ratios of the area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) from time of dosing and extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-inf ), or to the last measurable concentration (AUC0-last ), maximum observed serum concentration (Cmax ), absolute neutrophil count (ANC) area under the effect curve from the time of dosing to the last measurable concentration (AUEC0-last ) and ANC maximum effect attributable to the therapy under investigation (Emax ) were completely contained within the predefined margin (0.8 to 1.25).ResultsOverall, 169 subjects completed the study. PK/PD similarity was demonstrated; 90% CIs of geometric mean ratio of proposed biosimilar/reference for PK: AUC0-inf (1.0559-1.2244), AUC0-last (1.0607-1.2328), Cmax (1.0312-1.1909) and 95% CIs for PD (ANC): AUEC0-last (0.9948-1.0366), Emax (0.9737-1.0169) were completely contained within predefined margin of 0.8 to 1.25. Both biologics had similar safety profiles, were well tolerated and had low incidence of anti-drug antibodies. No neutralizing or clinically relevant antibodies were detected.ConclusionsPK/PD similarity of Sandoz proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim and reference pegfilgrastim was confirmed. No clinically meaningful differences in safety, tolerability and immunogenicity were observed in healthy subjects.

Project description:BackgroundMultiple switches (transitions) between biosimilars of the same reference biologic are now a reality, and they are expected to become more common in the future as more biosimilars enter the market. Switching between two biosimilars of the same reference biologic is generally driven by affordability, formulary requirements, or the relocation/travel of the patient. Evidence of whether switching between biosimilars of the same reference biologic provides similar safety and efficacy profiles is reviewed here.MethodsA systematic search was undertaken using electronic databases (to December 2021): Biosis, Embase, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews/Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Ovid. Publications were evaluated for effectiveness and/or safety data linked to switching from one biosimilar to another.ResultsThe systematic search yielded 982 citations. After eliminating duplicates, 626 citations remained for the initial title/abstract screening phase. Following the initial screening, 240 records were chosen; more thorough examination yielded 35 citations. After comprehensive screening and expert advice, 23 studies were selected, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder have been published as abstracts. Overall, 3657 patients were included in these studies. All studies were observational in nature; no randomized clinical trials were identified. The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints. Across the studies, data are provided on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns. The majority of studies examined switches between biosimilar infliximabs, although switches between biosimilar adalimumabs, etanercepts, and rituximabs were also identified. Two use-pattern studies and one case report were also detected and are discussed.ConclusionWithin the limitations of this systematic review, available data suggests that biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching is a safe and effective clinical practice, although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance. No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date.

Project description:ImportanceBiosimilar drugs are potentially lower-cost versions of biologics that may improve access to therapy. However, there is a lack of adequate systematic reviews demonstrating equivalence between these drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity associated with biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab compared with their reference biologics in patients with RA.Data sourcesMEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and LILACS databases were searched from inception to September 2021.Study selectionHead-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab and their biologic reference drugs for RA were assessed.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently abstracted all data. Meta-analysis was conducted with bayesian random effects using relative risks (RRs) for binary outcomes and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and trial sequential analysis. Specific domains were assessed for the risk of bias in equivalence and noninferiority trials. This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline.Main outcomes and measuresEquivalence was tested using prespecified margins for the American College of Rheumatology criteria, with at least 20% improvement in the core set measures (ACR20) (ie, RR, 0.94 to 1.06), and for the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (ie, SMD, -0.22 to 0.22). Secondary outcomes included 14 items measuring safety and immunogenicity.ResultsA total of 25 head-to-head trials provided data on 10 642 randomized patients with moderate to severe RA. Biosimilars met equivalence with reference biologics in terms of ACR20 response (24 RCTs with 10 259 patients; RR, 1.01; 95% CrI, 0.98 to 1.04; τ2 = 0.000) and change of HAQ-DI scores (14 RCTs with 5579 patients; SMD, -0.04; 95% CrI, -0.11 to 0.02; τ2 = 0.002) considering prespecified margins of equivalence. Trial sequential analysis found evidence for equivalence for ACR20 since 2017 and HAQ-DI since 2016. Overall, biosimilars were associated with similar safety and immunogenicity profiles compared with reference biologics.Conclusion and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, biosimilars of adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept were associated with clinically equivalent treatment effects compared with their reference biologics for the treatment of RA.

Project description:IntroductionPF-06881894 is a proposed biosimilar to pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®). This study evaluated the pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic (PD/PK) equivalence, immunogenicity, and safety of PF-06881894 vs pegfilgrastim reference products (US- and EU-Neulasta®) in healthy volunteers.MethodsA phase 1, open-label, randomized, crossover study was conducted to assess the pharmacologic equivalence and safety of a single 6-mg dose of PF-06881894, pegfilgrastim-US, and pegfilgrastim-EU. The primary PD endpoints were area under the effect-versus-time curve for absolute neutrophil count (ANC) from dose administration to 288 h postdose, and maximum observed ANC value among subjects confirmed negative for anti-pegfilgrastim antibodies. Primary PK variables included area under the serum pegfilgrastim-versus-time curve from the time of dose administration to time infinity and maximum observed serum pegfilgrastim concentration. A second phase 1, open-label, randomized (1:1), parallel-group, non-inferiority study was conducted to assess the immunogenicity and safety of multiple 6-mg doses of PF-06881894 versus pegfilgrastim-US. The primary endpoint for the immunogenicity study was the proportion of subjects with both negative baseline and confirmed positive postdose anti-pegfilgrastim antibodies at any time during the study.ResultsAcross the single- and multiple-dose studies (N = 153 and N = 420 treated subjects, respectively), demographics for age (18-65 years), male gender (n = 264/573), and white race (n = 423/573) were similar. Three-way PD/PK equivalence of PF-06881894, pegfilgrastim-US, and pegfilgrastim-EU was demonstrated with the primary PD endpoints and primary PK variables being completely contained within the predefined 90% confidence interval acceptance limits (80-125%). The non-inferiority of PF-06881894 versus pegfilgrastim-US in terms of immunogenicity was established according to the prespecified non-inferiority margin (≤10%). Overall, there were no clinically meaningful differences in safety profiles among or between study groups.ConclusionsSingle-dose PF-06881894 demonstrated PD/PK equivalence and comparable safety with US- and EU-pegfilgrastim reference products. Multiple-dose PF-06881894 demonstrated immunogenicity non-inferiority to pegfilgrastim-US with comparable safety. Both studies contributed to the totality of evidence supporting biosimilarity.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02629289; NCT03273842 (C1221005).

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:BackgroundFollowing the functional and physicochemical characterization of a proposed biosimilar, comparative clinical studies help to confirm biosimilarity by demonstrating similar safety and efficacy to the reference product in a sensitive patient population.Patients and methodsLA-EP2006 is a proposed biosimilar that has been developed for pegfilgrastim, a long-acting form of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for the prevention of neutropenia. The current analysis reports data pooled from two independent, multinational, prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind phase III studies of similar design comparing the safety and efficacy of reference pegfilgrastim with LA-EP2006 in patients with breast cancer receiving myelotoxic (neo)adjuvant TAC (docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy and requiring granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.ResultsA total of 624 patients were randomized in the PROTECT-1 and PROTECT-2 studies (NCT01735175; NCT01516736) (LA-EP2006: n = 314; reference: n = 310). Baseline characteristics of patients were well balanced across treatment groups. The primary end point, mean duration of severe neutropenia in the first chemotherapy cycle was similar in both the LA-EP2006 and reference groups (1.05 ± 1.055 days versus 1.01 ± 0.958 days), with a treatment difference of - 0.04 days [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.19 to 0.11] that met the equivalence criteria (the 95% CI were within the defined margin of ±1 day). Secondary end points, such as the nadir of absolute neutrophil count and the incidence of febrile neutropenia, were also similar between LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim. The safety and tolerability profile of LA-EP2006 was similar to that observed with reference pegfilgrastim, and there were no reports of neutralizing antibodies.ConclusionsThis pooled analysis confirms, as a part of totality of evidence approach, that the proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim LA-EP2006 has a comparable efficacy and safety profile to reference pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer receiving TAC chemotherapy.Clinical trial numbersNCT01735175 and NCT01516736.

Project description:IntroductionIn 2016, SB4 (Benepali®) became the first etanercept (ETN) biosimilar to obtain marketing authorisation in Europe. Despite robust analytical and clinical comparisons, outstanding questions remain on SB4 use in routine practice.MethodsA systematic search for publications on real-world evidence of SB4 effectiveness, safety and drug survival was undertaken using search terms (SB4 OR Benepali OR biosimilar etanercept OR innovator etanercept) in the BIOSIS® Toxicology, BIOSIS Previews®, Embase® and MEDLINE® databases up to 17 January 2019.ResultsOf 959 articles identified, eight journal articles, two journal letters and 23 congress abstracts were selected on criteria of original real-world evidence with a clinical focus. As expected with real-world evidence, quality scoring showed that the evidence had high external validity but lower internal validity. A total of 13,552 patients were described across nine European countries and all approved SB4 indications: 2499 were ETN-naïve and 11,053 switched from reference ETN to SB4 (switchers). Switch acceptance rates (a combination of clinicians offering and patients accepting initiation on SB4) ranged between 51.6% and 99.0%; patient support programmes positively contributed to acceptance. Disease activity was generally similar pre- and post-switch (typically 3-month timeframe). Retention rates across studies were at least 75% (up to 12 months follow-up). No new safety signals were identified. Differences in discontinuation rates versus historic controls reported in some studies may have been influenced by differences in treatment practices, lack of clinician confidence and nocebo effects.ConclusionNearly 2500 ETN-naïve patients have been initiated on SB4 and outcomes are similar to those patients receiving reference ETN. Overall this systematic review of real-world evidence provides additional reassurance that SB4 is as effective and safe as reference ETN in both switched and naïve patients.FundingBiogen International GmbH.