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:AIMS:This 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. METHODS:The 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). RESULTS:Overall, 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. CONCLUSIONS:PK/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: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: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.

Project description:Background:Following 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 methods:LA-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. Results:A 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. Conclusions:This 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 numbers:NCT01735175 and NCT01516736.

Project description:IntroductionLimited real-world data are available comparing multiple biologics on their adherence, persistence, and the use of concomitant biologics in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in clinical practice. The objective was to compare persistence of and adherence to ixekizumab (IXE) treatment, as monotherapy or with concomitant medication, versus patients receiving other commonly prescribed biologics.MethodsPatients who newly initiated IXE, adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETN), secukinumab (SEC), or ustekinumab (UST) in IBM MarketScan® databases with diagnosis of psoriasis were identified. Treatment comparisons on medication persistence, adherence, and monotherapy were based on balanced samples after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).ResultsA higher proportion of patients receiving IXE had had previous biologic therapies (50.3%) versus other biologics (ADA: 9.1%, ETN: 10.9%, SEC: 33.9%, UST: 19.7%). Patients treated with IXE showed statistically (p < 0.001) greater persistence than patients treated with SEC, ADA, UST, or ETN at both 1-year follow-up and up to 3 years of follow-up. Adherence for patients treated with IXE was significantly (p < 0.001) higher compared to ADA, ETN, and UST at both 1-year follow-up and up to 3 years of follow-up. There was no significantly higher adherence in patients treated with IXE compared to those treated with SEC at 1-year follow-up, but IXE had higher adherence than SEC (p < 0.05) at 1-3 year follow-up. IXE showed longer time on monotherapy than ADA (p < 0.001), ETN (p < 0.001), SEC (p < 0.05), and UST (p < 0.001) for both 1-year and 1-3 year follow-up. Sensitivity analyses on persistence, adherence, and monotherapy with further model adjustments after IPTW confirmed the findings.ConclusionsPatients treated with IXE were more persistent on and adherent to treatment and remained on monotherapy longer compared to those on all other commonly prescribed biologics combined or with individual biologics.

Project description:Despite the availability of various osteoporosis treatments, adherence remains suboptimal. One contributing factor may be patient experience with therapy. This US, multicenter, combined retrospective chart review and patient questionnaire study included postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture and is the first study to describe real-world patient experience with abaloparatide (ABL) injection. Eight geographically diverse secondary care sites in the United States participated (n = 193). Mean ± SD age was 67.4 ±8.62 years. Most patients (86%) were satisfied with the ABL regimen, especially with ease of preparation (82%), ease of storage (87%), and storage convenience (89%), an attribute 83% of the patients thought was important. The majority of patients reported complete satisfaction with the ABL regimen allowing for their ability to conduct daily activities (85%) and convenience to fit into their daily schedule (84%). All reported taking ABL as directed, by injection in the lower abdomen, and 83% of patients reported medium or high adherence. Patients were satisfied with the needle size (76% completely satisfied), and 93% reported never deliberately missing a dose. Although injecting medication (18%) and higher out-of-pocket costs (17%) were deemed the most bothersome attributes, the majority (69%) noted their healthcare team understands how osteoporosis impacts their lives. In multivariable analyses, ease of preparation (OR = 2.62; 95% CI, 1.01-6.81; p = 0.048) and fracture history (OR = 1.72; 95% CI, 1.03-2.86; p = 0.037) were significantly associated with overall satisfaction. Ease of preparation was a predictor of higher satisfaction with treatment convenience (coefficient = 13.60; 95% CI, 8.08-19.12; p = 0.00). Remembering to take the medication was a significant predictor of self-reported adherence (OR = 16.66; 95% CI, 3.30-84.24; p = 0.001). In conclusion, the majority of patients were satisfied with ABL and found it convenient/easy to prepare and store. High self-reported adherence may be associated with positive patient experience including ease of use and adequate support from healthcare providers. © 2020 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Project description:Pembrolizumab has been approved in the United States for treating advanced melanoma for >4 years. We examined real-world pembrolizumab use and associated outcomes in US oncology clinical practices, including patients who would not be eligible for clinical trials.Flatiron Health longitudinal database was used to identify adult patients with advanced melanoma initiating ?1 dose of pembrolizumab from September 4, 2014, through December 31, 2016, with follow-up through December 31, 2017. Patients in any clinical trial during the study period were excluded. Overall survival (OS) and time on treatment from pembrolizumab initiation were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine OS for several patient characteristics including Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status >1, brain metastases, and corticosteroids before pembrolizumab initiation.Pembrolizumab was administered to 315 (59%), 152 (29%), and 65 (12%) patients as first-, second-, and third-line/later therapy. Median age at pembrolizumab initiation was 68 years (range, 18-84); most patients were male (66%) and white (94%). Of those with available data, 38% had BRAF-mutant melanoma, 21% had elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, and 23% had ECOG?>1. Overall, 18% had brain metastases, and 23% were prescribed corticosteroids <3 months before initiating pembrolizumab. Median study follow-up was 12.9 months (range, 0.03-39.6). Median OS was 21.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.8-29.1); KM 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 61% and 48%, respectively; and median time on pembrolizumab treatment was 4.9 months (95% CI 3.7-5.5). Median OS for first-line pembrolizumab was not reached, and for second-line and third-line/later was 13.9 and 12.5 months, respectively (log-rank P?=?.0095). Significantly better OS (all P ?.0014, log-rank test) was evident for patients with ECOG performance status (PS) of 0 to 1 (vs?>1), normal (vs elevated) LDH level, and no (vs yes) corticosteroid prescription <3 months before. No difference was recorded in OS by brain metastases (log-rank P?=?.22) or BRAF mutation status (log-rank P?=?.90).These findings support effectiveness of pembrolizumab in the real-world clinical setting and provide important insights into patient characteristics and outcomes associated with pembrolizumab therapy for a heterogeneous patient population with advanced melanoma, including patients who would not be eligible for clinical trials.