Randomized phase I trial of antigen-specific tolerizing immunotherapy with peptide/calcitriol liposomes in ACPA+ rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUNDAntigen-specific regulation of autoimmune disease is a major goal. In seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA), T cell help to autoreactive B cells matures the citrullinated (Cit) antigen-specific immune response, generating RA-specific V domain glycosylated anti-Cit protein antibodies (ACPA VDG) before arthritis onset. Low or escalating antigen administration under "sub-immunogenic" conditions favors tolerance. We explored safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunological and clinical effects of s.c. DEN-181, comprising liposomes encapsulating self-peptide collagen II259-273 (CII) and NF-κB inhibitor 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol.METHODSA double-blind, placebo-controlled, exploratory, single-ascending-dose, phase I trial assessed the impact of low, medium, and high DEN-181 doses on peripheral blood CII-specific and bystander Cit64vimentin59-71-specific (Cit-Vim-specific) autoreactive T cell responses, cytokines, and ACPA in 17 HLA-DRB1*04:01+ or *01:01+ ACPA+ RA patients on methotrexate.RESULTSDEN-181 was well tolerated. Relative to placebo and normalized to baseline values, Cit-Vim-specific T cells decreased in patients administered medium and high doses of DEN-181. Relative to placebo, percentage of CII-specific programmed cell death 1+ T cells increased within 28 days of DEN-181. Exploratory analysis in DEN-181-treated patients suggested improved RA disease activity was associated with expansion of CII-specific and Cit-Vim-specific T cells; reduction in ACPA VDG, memory B cells, and inflammatory myeloid populations; and enrichment in CCR7+ and naive T cells. Single-cell sequencing identified T cell transcripts associated with tolerogenic TCR signaling and exhaustion after low or medium doses of DEN-181.CONCLUSIONThe safety and immunomodulatory activity of low/medium DEN-181 doses provide rationale to further assess antigen-specific immunomodulatory therapy in ACPA+ RA.TRIAL REGISTRATIONAnzctr.org.au identifier ACTRN12617001482358, updated September 8, 2022.FUNDINGInnovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (grant agreement 777357), supported by European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations; Arthritis Queensland; National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Research Fellowship; and NHMRC grant 2008287.

G-CSF primary prophylaxis use and outcomes in patients receiving chemotherapy at intermediate risk for febrile neutropenia: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a major dose-limiting toxicity of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and several patients receiving chemotherapy are at intermediate risk of developing FN. However, the guidelines remain less clear regarding the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for this population and insights about real-world prophylaxis patterns and FN outcomes are needed. AREAS COVERED: This scoping review summarizes the variability in real-world G-CSF prophylaxis treatment patterns, incidence of FN, and associated outcomes among patients receiving chemotherapy at intermediate risk of FN. G-CSF PP use varied across the included studies (N = 23). Overall, there was a trend for reduced FN incidence among patients who received G-CSF PP vs. those who did not. G-CSF PP was also associated with a lower incidence of FN-related dose delays and reductions and fewer hospitalization days. Gaps in the literature of real-world studies exist, particularly around incorporating FN risk factor assessment, patient-reported outcomes, and health economic outcomes. EXPERT OPINION: Further studies are warranted to determine the impact of G-CSF PP use on clinical, quality of life, and economic outcomes in patients with intermediate FN risk, which could optimize care for this subgroup of patients, resulting in better population-based FN-related outcomes.

Safety and effectiveness of Omnitrope® (somatropin) in PATRO Children: a multi-center, post-marketing surveillance study comparison of US and international cohort data.

There are known geographical differences in growth hormone deficiency (GHD) patient populations and treatment practices. Here, we present a comparison of safety and effectiveness data from patients treated with recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) in the USA versus other countries. PAtients TReated with Omnitrope® (PATRO) Children is an international, non-interventional study with Omnitrope® (somatropin, Sandoz Inc.). All visits and assessments are carried out according to routine clinical practice, and doses of Omnitrope® are given according to country-specific prescribing information. By September 2018, 294 patients had been enrolled in the USA (53% rhGH-naïve) and 6206 patients had been enrolled across 13 other countries (international group; 86% rhGH-naïve). The most common indication in both groups was GHD. Overall, 194 US patients (66%) and 2977 international patients (48%) experienced adverse events (AEs; 886 and 11,716 events, respectively), most of which were of mild or moderate intensity. The AEs were suspected to be treatment-related in five US patients (1.7%) and 452 international patients (7.3%). All reported neoplasms were benign, non-serious, and considered unrelated to rhGH therapy. No cases of diabetes mellitus or hyperglycemia were reported. In rhGH-naïve GHD patients, after 3 years of rhGH therapy, the improvement in mean height SD score from baseline was + 1.25 and + 1.35 in US and international patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Omnitrope® treatment appears to be well tolerated and effective in US patients and those from other countries. Across the pediatric indications included, there was no evidence of an increased risk of developing uncommon or unexpected AEs with rhGH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NA. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Continued monitoring of patients treated with recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) is important, particularly in terms of diabetogenic potential and the risk of malignancies. • The PAtients TReated with Omnitrope® (PATRO) Children study is a long-term, post-marketing surveillance program for the rhGH Omnitrope®. WHAT IS NEW: • Omnitrope® is well tolerated and effective in US patients, and those from other countries. • Across all indications included, there were no unexpected adverse events and there was no evidence of an increased risk of developing malignancies or diabetes.

Evaluation of a fit-for-purpose assay to monitor antigen-specific functional CD4+ T-cell subpopulations in rheumatoid arthritis using flow cytometry-based peptide-MHC class-II tetramer staining.

Antigen-specific T cells can serve as a response biomarker in non-clinical or clinical immunotherapy studies in autoimmune disease. There are protocols with optimized multimer staining methods to detect peptide (p)MHCII+ CD4+ T cells, and some qualified and validated protocols for pMHCI+ CD8+ T cells. However, no protocol is fully or partially qualified to enumerate and characterize antigen-specific pMHCII+ CD4+ T cells from patient samples. Implementing such an assay requires a desired level of specificity and precision, in terms of assay repeatability and reproducibility. In transgenic type II collagen (CII)-immunized HLA-DR1/DR4 humanized mouse models of collagen-induced arthritis (CIA), CII259-273-specific T cells dominantly expand. Therefore antigen-specific T cells recognizing this epitope presented by rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-associated risk HLA-DR allomorphs are of interest to understand disease progression and responses to immunotherapy in RA patients. Using HLA-DRB1∗04:01 or ∗01:01-collagen type II (CII)259-273 tetramers, we evaluated parameters influencing precision and reproducibility of an optimized flow cytometry-based method for antigen-specific CD4+ T cells and eight specific subpopulations with and without tetramer positivity. We evaluated specificity, precision, and reproducibility for research environments and non-regulated laboratories. The assay has excellent overall precision with %CV<25% for intra-assay repeatability, inter-analyst precision, and inter-assay reproducibility. The precision of the assay correlated negatively with the cell viability after thawing, indicating that post-thaw viability is a critical parameter for reproducibility. This assay is suitable for longitudinal analysis of treatment response and disease activity outcome in RA patients, and adaptable for translational or immunotherapy clinical trial settings.

Economic Analysis on Adoption of Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors in Patients With Nonmyeloid Cancer at Risk of Febrile Neutropenia Within the Oncology Care Model Framework.

PURPOSE: Value-based programs, such as the Oncology Care Model (OCM), seek to improve care for patients undergoing chemotherapy, while reducing total costs. The purpose of this study is to quantify the impact of adopting biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for febrile neutropenia (FN) primary prophylaxis (PP) from a US practice perspective. METHODS: A 1-year economic analysis on real-world direct drug costs and health care resource utilization was conducted in a hypothetical cohort of 500 patients with nonmyeloid cancer receiving chemotherapy. The first model simulated total cost savings of biosimilar versus reference G-CSFs over six cycles of chemotherapy. The second model evaluated cost and outcome implications of expanding the use of biosimilar G-CSFs to an additional 10% of patients at intermediate FN risk. RESULTS: Based on real-world evidence over 1 year, a total of 121 of 500 patients received G-CSF prophylaxis resulting in cost savings that ranged from $0.54M US dollars (USD) (short-acting, eg, filgrastim) to $1.68M USD (long-acting, eg, pegfilgrastim) when switching from reference to biosimilar G-CSFs. Expanding the use of biosimilar G-CSFs allowed an additional 24 patients to receive prophylaxis of FN, leading to cost savings of $0.03M USD or $1.19M USD, with a reduction of $0.08M USD in FN-related resource utilization cost. The per-patient per-year cost saving for long-acting G-CSFs was about $3,000 USD. CONCLUSION: The implementation of biosimilar versus reference G-CSFs to OCM-participating practices results in a reduction of costs and facilitates achieving OCM metrics by improving patients' outcomes while expanding biosimilar G-CSFs access to patients at intermediate risk of chemotherapy-induced FN.

Primary Prophylaxis With Biosimilar Filgrastim for Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: Temporary COVID-19 guideline recommendations have recently been issued to expand the use of colony-stimulating factors in patients with cancer with intermediate to high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) with biosimilar filgrastim-sndz in patients with intermediate risk of FN compared with secondary prophylaxis (SP) over three different cancer types. METHODS: A Markov decision analytic model was constructed from the US payer perspective over a lifetime horizon to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with breast cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds for incremental cost per FN avoided, life year gained, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. RESULTS: Compared with SP, PP provided an additional 0.102-0.144 LYs and 0.065-0.130 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ranged from $5,660 in US dollars (USD) to $20,806 USD per FN event avoided, $5,123 to $31,077 USD per life year gained, and $7,213 to $35,563 USD per QALY gained. Over 1,000 iterations, there were 73.6%, 99.4%, and 91.8% probabilities that PP was cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $50,000 USD per QALY gained for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL, respectively. CONCLUSION: PP with a biosimilar filgrastim (specifically filgrastim-sndz) is cost-effective in patients with intermediate risk for FN receiving curative chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL. Expanding the use of colony-stimulating factors for patients may be valuable in reducing unnecessary health care visits for patients with cancer at risk of complications because of COVID-19 and should be considered for the indefinite future.

Economic and clinical outcomes of pegfilgrastim via prefilled syringe vs on-body injector: a real-world data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim is available as a prefilled syringe (PFS) and an on-body injector (OBI). Whether the administration method of pegfilgrastim affects the effectiveness and health care resources has not been evaluated in the setting of routine care. OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world clinical and economic outcomes between PFS and OBI methods of administration. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study in patients diagnosed with breast cancer or non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and prophylactic use of pegfilgrastim via PFS or OBI between January 1, 2017, and May 31, 2018, according to MarketScan research databases. A propensity score was used to match the PFS cohort 1:1 to the OBI cohort. Outcomes were compared among the matched cohorts using a generalized linear model and generalized estimating equations with log-link function. RESULTS: 3,152 patients were identified. After matching, the final sample included 2,170 patients, representing 1,085 in each cohort. The incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in the first chemotherapy cycle was 1.01% for OBI (95% CI = 0.56-1.82) vs 1.48% for PFS (95% CI = 0.91-2.39; P = 0.336). In all chemotherapy cycles (total cycles = 7,467), the FN incidence was 0.91% for OBI (95% CI = 0.64-1.30) vs 1.22% for PFS (95% CI = 0.90-1.64; P = 0.214). There was no statistically significant difference in adjusted per-member per-month all-cause total cost health care resource utilization (HCRU) for hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and pharmacy claims. CONCLUSIONS: In a matched cohort of patients representing real-world utilization, there was no statistically or clinically meaningful difference in FN incidence between OBI and PFS methods of pegfilgrastim administration. There was no difference in total HCRU or total costs. OBI and PFS methods of administration are both indicated for patients requiring prophylactic pegfilgrastim, which is important considering that biosimilar PFS options are now available. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sandoz, Inc. Wang, Li, and K. Campbell are employees of Sandoz, Inc. Schroader and D. Campbell are employees of Xcenda, which was contracted by Sandoz, Inc., to provide study and manuscript development. McBride reports receiving payment from Sandoz, Inc., as a consultant, unrelated to this study; Coherus for advisory board and speaker engagements; and Pfizer for advisory board participation during the time of this study.

PATRO children, a multi-center, non-interventional study of the safety and effectiveness of Omnitrope® (somatropin) treatment in children: update on the United States cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Omnitrope® (somatropin, Sandoz Inc.) is one of several recombinant human growth hormones (rhGH) approved in the United States (US) for use in pediatric indications, including growth hormone deficiency (GHD) and idiopathic short stature (ISS). We report data on the effectiveness and safety of Omnitrope® in the US cohort of the PATRO Children (international, longitudinal, non-interventional) study. METHODS: All visits and assessments are carried out according to routine clinical practice, and doses of Omnitrope® are given according to country-specific prescribing information. RESULTS: By September 2018, 294 US patients were recruited; the two largest groups were GHD (n=193) and ISS (n=62). Across all indications, HSDS improvement (ΔHSDS) from baseline at three years was +1.0 (rhGH-naïve, +1.2; pre-treated, +0.7). In pre-pubertal patients, ΔHSDS from baseline at three years was +0.94 (rhGH-naïve, +1.3; pre-treated, +0.7). Following three years of treatment, ΔHSDS from baseline was +1.3 in rhGH-naïve GHD patients and +1.1 in rhGH-naïve ISS patients. In pre-pubertal rhGH-naïve patients, ΔHSDS from baseline was +1.3 and +1.2 in GHD and ISS patients, respectively. Overall, 194 patients (66.0%) experienced adverse events (AEs; n=886 events); most were of mild-moderate intensity. Five patients (1.7%) had AEs that were suspected to be treatment-related (n=5 events). All reported neoplasms were benign, non-serious, and considered unrelated to rhGH therapy. No AEs of diabetes mellitus or hyperglycemia were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Omnitrope® appears to be well tolerated and effective in the majority of patients, without evidence of an increased risk of developing unexpected AEs, diabetes mellitus, or new malignancies during treatment.

The Impact of Baseline Risk Factors on the Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy with Pegfilgrastim Prophylaxis: A Real-World Data Analysis.

Background: There are sparse data addressing whether standard risk factors for febrile neutropenia (FN) are relevant in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy and primary prophylaxis for FN, which would have implications for variables to consider during real-world comparative analyses of FN incidence. Objective: To assess the impact of baseline patient-specific risk factors and regimen risk on the incidence of FN in patients receiving pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study in patients with breast cancer (BC) who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and prophylactic pegfilgrastim identified January 1, 2017-May 31, 2018 from MarketScan® research databases. The outcomes were defined as incidence of FN in the first cycle and among all cycles of chemotherapy using three different definitions for FN. Logistic regression and generalized estimating equations models were used to compare outcomes among patients with and without patient-specific risk factors and among those receiving regimens categorized as high-, intermediate-, or other-risk for FN (low-risk or undefinable by clinical practice guidelines). Results: A total of 4460 patients were identified. In the first cycle of therapy, patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens were at up to 2 times higher risk for FN across all definitions than those receiving high-risk regimens (P<0.01). The odds ratio for main FN among patients with ≥4 versus 0 risk factors was 15.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5, 169.4; P<0.01). Patients with ≥3 FN risk factors had significantly greater risks for FN across all cycles of treatment than those with no risk factors; this was true for all FN definitions. Discussion: The choice of FN definition significantly changed the impact of risk factors on the FN outcomes in our study, demonstrating the importance of evaluating all proxies for true FN events in a database study. This is particularly important during real-world study planning where potential missteps may lead to bias or confounding effects that render a study meaningless. Conclusions: In patients with BC receiving chemotherapy with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, patient-specific risk factors and regimen risk levels are determinants of FN risk. In real-world studies evaluating FN incidence, it is imperative to consider and control for these risk factors when conducting comparative analyses.

Economic modeling for the US of the cost-efficiency and associated expanded treatment access of conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez from reference pegfilgrastim.

Aims: For this economic analysis, we aimed to model: (1) the cost-efficiency of prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) compared to reference pegfilgrastim, and (2) the expanded access to CIN/FN prophylaxis and anti-neoplastic treatment that could be achieved with biosimilar cost-savings on a budget-neutral basis.Methods: In a hypothetical panel of 20,000 cancer patients receiving CIN/FN prophylaxis and using the average sales price (ASP) for the second quarter of 2019 for reference pegfilgrastim, we: conducted an ex ante simulation from the payer perspective of the cost-savings of 10-100% conversion from reference to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez using drug price discounting ranging from 10-35%; estimated the budget-neutral expanded access to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez enabled by these cost-savings; and estimated the budget-neutral expanded access to anti-neoplastic treatment with pembrolizumab. The simulations were replicated using fourth quarter 2019 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for reference pegfilgrastim and biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez in a post facto analysis.Results: In ASP simulations, cost-savings of using pegfilgrastim-bmez over reference pegfilgrastim in a 20,000 patient panel range from $1.3 M (at 15% price discount) to $3 M (35%) at 10% conversion rate and from $6.4 M to $14.9 M, respectively, at 50% conversion. These savings could provide prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim-bmez to an additional 352 (15% discount) to 1,076 patients (35%) at 10% conversion or 1,764-5,384, respectively, at 50% conversion. Alternatively, savings could be reallocated for anti-neoplastic treatment with pembrolizumab to 3 (15% discount) to 9 (35%) patients at 10% conversion or 19-45, respectively, at 50% conversion. When utilizing WAC, cost-savings range from $4.6 M (10% conversion) to $23.1 M (50%) which could provide pegfilgrastim-bmez to an additional 1,174 (10% conversion) to 5,873 patients (50%).Conclusions: Prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez increases the value of cancer care by generating significant cost-savings that could be reallocated to provide expanded access to CIN/FN prevention and anti-neoplastic therapy on a budget-neutral basis.

Effects of ustekinumab on spondylitis-associated endpoints in TNFi-naïve active psoriatic arthritis patients with physician-reported spondylitis: pooled results from two phase 3, randomised, controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The interleukin-12/23p40-subunit-inhibitor ustekinumab significantly improved spondylitis-related symptoms through Week 24 in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients with peripheral arthritis and physician-reported spondylitis (PA-PRS) in PSUMMIT-1&2. We further evaluated ustekinumab's effect on spondylitis-related endpoints in PSUMMIT-1&2 tumour necrosis factor-inhibitor (TNFi)-naïve patients with PA-PRS. METHODS: Patients with active PsA (≥5 swollen and ≥5 tender joints, C-reactive-protein ≥ 3.0 mg/L) despite conventional (PSUMMIT-1&2) and/or prior TNFi (PSUMMIT-2) therapy received subcutaneous ustekinumab 45 mg, 90 mg or placebo (Week 0, Week 4, Week 16). Changes in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) neck/back/hip pain question (#2) and modified BASDAI (mBASDAI, excluding PA) scores and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) responses were assessed at Weeks 12 and 24. RESULTS: The pooled PSUMMIT-1&2, TNFi-naïve (n=747), PA-PRS (n=223) subset (158 with human-leucocyte-antigen (HLA)-B27 results) presented with moderate-to-severe spondylitis-related symptoms (mean BASDAI-neck/back/hip pain-6.51, mBASDAI-6.54, BASDAI-6.51, ASDAS-3.81). Mean Week 24 changes were larger among ustekinumab than placebo-treated patients for both neck/back/hip pain (-1.99 vs -0.18) and mBASDAI (-2.09 vs -0.59). Improvements in neck/back/hip pain and fatigue appeared numerically greater in HLA-B27+ than HLA-B27 - patients; those for other domains were generally consistent. Greater proportions of ustekinumab versus placebo-treated patients achieved ASDAS clinically important improvement at Week 24 (decrease ≥ 1.1; 49.6% vs 12.7%; nominal p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in BASDAI neck/back/hip pain and mBASDAI among ustekinumab-treated, TNFi-naïve, PsA patients with PA-PRS were clinically meaningful and consistent across assessment tools. Numerically greater improvements in neck/back/hip pain in HLA-B27+ than HLA-B27 - patients, noted in the context of similar overall mBASDAI improvements between the subgroups, suggest ustekinumab may improve disease activity in TNFi-naïve PsA patients likely to exhibit axial disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: PSUMMIT 1, NCT01009086; PSUMMIT 2, NCT01077362.

Febrile neutropenia hospitalization due to pegfilgrastim on-body injector failure compared to single-injection pegfilgrastim and daily injections with reference and biosimilar filgrastim: US cost simulation for lung cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Background: Guidelines recommend febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis following myelotoxic chemotherapy with either daily injections of filgrastim (Neupogen®) or biosimilar filgrastim-sndz (Zarzio/Zarxio®), single-injection pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®), or pegfilgrastim administered through an on-body injector (PEG-OBI; Neulasta® Onpro®). PEG-OBI failure rates up to 6.9% have been reported, putting patients at incremental risk for FN and FN-related hospitalization. Our objective was to estimate, from a US payer perspective, the incremental costs of FN hospitalizations and the total incremental costs associated with PEG-OBI prophylaxis at varying device failure rates over assured FN prophylaxis with daily injections of filgrastim or filgrastim-sndz or a single injection of pegfilgrastim.Methods: Cost simulations comparing prophylaxis with PEG-OBI at failure rates of 1-10% versus assured prophylaxis in cycle 1 of chemotherapy were performed for panels of 10,000 patients with lung cancer treated with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (1 analysis) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) treated with CHOP or CNOP (2 analyses). Daily injection scenarios were 4.3, 5, and 11 injections for lung cancer and 5, 6.5, and 11 for NHL. The analyses are from the US payer perspective.Results: For lung cancer, the total incremental cost of PEG-OBI prophylaxis at varying failure rates and durations ranged from $6,691,969‒$31,765,299 over filgrastim and $18,901,969‒$36,538,299 over filgrastim-sndz. For NHL, in scenario 1, the total incremental costs ranged from $6,794,984‒$30,361,345 over filgrastim and $19,004,984‒$35,911,345 over filgrastim-sndz; in scenario 2, the incremental costs ranged from $7,003,657‒$32,448,067 over filgrastim and $19,213,657‒$37,998,067 over filgrastim-sndz.Conclusions: In this simulation, the incremental costs of FN-related hospitalization due to PEG-OBI failure in cycle 1 compared to assured prophylaxis with reference pegfilgrastim, reference filgrastim, and biosimilar filgrastim-sndz varied depending upon the PEG-OBI failure rate and the alternative G-CSF prophylaxis option. Biosimilar filgrastim-sndz offers the greatest cost-efficiency.

Responsiveness of Serum C-Reactive Protein, Interleukin-17A, and Interleukin-17F Levels to Ustekinumab in Psoriatic Arthritis: Lessons From Two Phase III, Multicenter, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the associations of C-reactive protein (CRP) and circulating Th17-associated cytokine levels with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) disease activity and therapeutic response to ustekinumab. METHODS: Interleukin-17A (IL-17A), IL-17F, IL-23, and CRP concentrations were measured in serum samples collected as part of the 2 PSUMMIT phase III studies of ustekinumab in PsA (n = 927). In post hoc analyses, relationships of IL-17A, IL-17F, and CRP levels at baseline, week 4, and week 24 with baseline skin and joint disease activity and response to therapy were evaluated using generalized linear models and Pearson's product-moment correlation tests. RESULTS: Baseline serum levels of IL-17A and IL-17F were positively correlated with baseline skin disease scores (r = 0.39-0.62). IL-23 levels were correlated with skin disease scores to a lesser extent (r = 0.26-0.31). No significant correlations were observed between these cytokine or CRP levels and baseline joint disease activity. There was no significant association of baseline levels of IL-17A, IL-17F, IL-23, or CRP with therapeutic response to ustekinumab in either the skin or joints. Significant reductions from baseline in levels of IL-17A, IL-17F, and CRP were seen in patients treated with ustekinumab compared to those treated with placebo. Ustekinumab-treated patients in whom 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score or 20% improvement according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria was achieved after 24 weeks of treatment had greater reductions in CRP level (geometric mean decreases of 51-58% versus 32-33%; P < 0.05), but not IL-17A or IL-17F levels, than nonresponders. CONCLUSION: Baseline serum IL-23/IL-17 levels correlated with skin, but not joint, disease activity, suggesting tissue-specific variation. However, neither baseline Th17-associated cytokine levels nor CRP level were predictive of therapeutic response to ustekinumab in the skin or joints, despite rapid reductions in their levels following ustekinumab therapy.

Three Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Studies Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Ustekinumab in Axial Spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in 3 randomized, placebo-controlled studies in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). Studies 1 and 2 included patients with radiographic axial SpA (anti-tumor necrosis factor [anti-TNF]-naive patients and patients with inadequate response or intolerance to anti-TNF, respectively); study 3 patients had nonradiographic axial SpA. METHODS: In all 3 studies, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous ustekinumab at 45 mg or 90 mg or placebo up to 24 weeks, after which placebo-treated patients were rerandomized to receive ustekinumab at 45 mg or 90 mg. The primary end point in studies 1 and 2 was the proportion of patients who met the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria for 40% improvement in disease activity (achieved an ASAS40 response). The primary end point in study 3 was the proportion of patients who achieved an ASAS20 response. Other disease activity and safety measures were also evaluated. A week 24 analysis of study 1 was preplanned to determine continuation of studies 2 and 3. RESULTS: For study 1, the primary and major secondary end points were not met, and the study was discontinued. As a result, studies 2 and 3 were prematurely discontinued before they were fully enrolled. For all 3 studies, neither ustekinumab dose group demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement over placebo on key efficacy end points. The proportion of patients experiencing adverse events in the ustekinumab groups was consistent with that in previous studies. CONCLUSION: In these 3 placebo-controlled trials, efficacy of ustekinumab in the treatment of axial SpA was not demonstrated. The safety profile was consistent with that of studies in other indications.

Incidence of febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy among patients with nonmyeloid cancer receiving filgrastim vs a filgrastim biosimilar.

BACKGROUND: Filgrastim and other granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are recommended to decrease febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence among patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy. Data comparing biosimilar filgrastim-sndz with reference filgrastim (filgrastim-ref) are limited outside of clinical trials in the US. OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of FN across chemotherapy cycles 1-6 between patients treated with filgrastim-sndz vs filgrastim-ref. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective claims analysis of patients with nonmyeloid cancer enrolled in commercial or Medicare Advantage plans from March 2015 to June 2016 and receiving filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim-ref during ≥1 completed chemotherapy cycle. Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, pregnant patients, and those with missing data were excluded. FN was identified using the diagnosis codes for neutropenia + fever, neutropenia + bacterial/fungal infection, and neutropenia + infection + fever. Equivalence testing for FN incidence at the cycle level across chemotherapy cycles 1-6 was conducted for filgrastim-sndz vs filgrastim-ref after adjusting for baseline characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results were considered equivalent if the 90% CIs for between-cohort differences were within ±6.0%. RESULTS: The analysis included 3,459 patients (162 filgrastim-sndz and 3,297 filgrastim-ref). Before weighting, the filgrastim-sndz cohort was younger than filgrastim-ref and had a higher proportion of men, a higher proportion with commercial insurance, and lower proportions with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis or metastatic cancer. After weighting, baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts. Adjusted FN incidence was equivalent for filgrastim-sndz vs filgrastim-ref, respectively: neutropenia + fever, 0.81% vs 0.61% (difference [90% CI]=0.20 [-0.57 to 1.56]); neutropenia + infection, 1.21% vs 1.33% (difference [90% CI]=-0.12 [-1.17 to 2.28]); neutropenia + infection + fever, 0.0% vs 0.14% (difference=-0.14; CI not calculated because filgrastim-sndz had 0 events). CONCLUSION: Filgrastim-sndz and filgrastim-ref are statistically equivalent for preventing FN across chemotherapy cycles 1-6 among patients with nonmyeloid cancer.

Clinical Outcomes of Treatment with Filgrastim Versus a Filgrastim Biosimilar and Febrile Neutropenia-Associated Costs Among Patients with Nonmyeloid Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors such as filgrastim are used to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) among patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Although the biosimilar filgrastim-sndz has been approved in the United States since 2015, limited real-world comparisons of filgrastim-sndz versus reference filgrastim (filgrastim-ref) have been conducted. OBJECTIVE: To compare FN incidence and assess overall FN-related health care resource utilization and medical costs among U.S. patients with non-myeloid cancer who received filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim-ref during their first chemotherapy cycle. METHODS: This was a retrospective claims analysis of patients with non-myeloid cancer who were enrolled in commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance plans from March 2015 through June 2016 and received filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim-ref during their first observed chemotherapy cycle. Patients with evidence of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or pregnancy and those with missing demographic information were excluded. FN was defined on the basis of diagnosis codes for neutropenia and fever (N/F); neutropenia and infection (N/I); and neutropenia, infection, and fever (N/I/F). Cohorts were adjusted for differences in baseline patient characteristics using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method, and equivalence testing was used to compare the proportion of patients who developed FN between weighted cohorts. On the basis of the range of neutropenic fever incidence found in the PIONEER clinical trial, FN incidence was considered equivalent if 90% CIs for between-cohort differences were within ± 6%. Mean FN-related health care resource utilization and total FN-related medical costs were calculated for the overall study population. RESULTS: A total of 3,542 patients were included in the study (172 filgrastim-sndz; 3,370 filgrastim-ref; mean ages 62.1 years and 64.7 years, respectively). After IPTW, there were 162 patients in the filgrastim-sndz cohort and 3,297 in the filgrastim-ref cohort (mean age 64.5 years for both). FN incidence in the weighted filgrastim-sndz versus filgrastim-ref cohorts, respectively, was 1.4% versus 0.9% for N/F, 2.3% versus 1.7% for N/I, and 0.0% versus 0.3% for N/I/F; FN incidence was statistically equivalent between treatment cohorts. Among patients in either treatment cohort who developed FN, the proportion with FN-related inpatient stays during the first chemotherapy cycle ranged from 35.0% for N/I to 70.0% for N/I/F. Mean (SD) FN-related total medical costs across all patients who developed FN were $11,977 ($18,383) for N/F, $8,040 ($14,809) for N/I, and $21,733 ($30,003) for N/I/F, in 2015 U.S. dollars. For all 3 definitions of FN, the largest proportions (73.5%-93.4%) of medical costs were inpatient related. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study of patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy, the incidence of FN was statistically equivalent between individuals treated with filgrastim-sndz versus filgrastim-ref during their first chemotherapy cycle. FN-related health care resource utilization and medical costs among patients who developed FN were substantial. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded by Sandoz, which participated in the study design, data interpretation, writing and revision of the manuscript, and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Balu and Campbell are employees of Sandoz, which is the manufacturer of the filgrastim biosimilars Zarzio and Zarxio. DeLeon was an employee of Sandoz at the time this study was conducted. Lal, Brekke, Elliott, and Korrer are employees of Optum, which was contracted by Sandoz to conduct this study.

Expanded access to cancer treatments from conversion to neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim-sndz.

AIM: Biosimilar medicines offer significant cost-savings potential over their reference products, which can be re-allocated to provide access to other cancer treatments on a budget-neutral basis. METHODS: Simulation study using cost data for the USA under consideration of several prophylaxis patterns. RESULTS: Potential savings from conversion from reference filgrastim to biosimilar filgrastim-sndz are significant. These savings expand budget-neutral access to novel immunotherapies (obinutuzumab; pembrolizumab) or supportive care (filgrastim-sndz). CONCLUSION: The combination of biosimilar savings and expanded access increases the value of cancer care as the same supportive care is provided at lower cost, additional cancer care is enabled at no additional cost, and more patients will have access to cancer care.

Cost-efficiency analyses for the US of biosimilar filgrastim-sndz, reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim with on-body injector in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia.

AIMS: Guidelines recommend prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) based on regimen myelotoxicity and patient-related risk factors. The aim was to conduct a cost-efficiency analysis for the US of the direct acquisition and administration costs of the recently approved biosimilar filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio EP2006) with reference to filgrastim (Neupogen), pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), and a pegfilgrastim injection device (Neulasta Onpro; hereafter pegfilgrastim-injector) for CIN/FN prophylaxis. METHODS: A cost-efficiency analysis of the prophylaxis of one patient during one chemotherapy cycle under 1-14 days' time horizon was conducted using the unit dose average selling price (ASP) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for subcutaneous prophylactic injection under four scenarios: cost of medication only (COSTMED), patient self-administration (SELFADMIN), healthcare provider (HCP) initiating administration followed by self-administration (HCPSTART), and HCP providing full administration (HCPALL). Two case studies were created to illustrate real-world clinical implications. The analyses were replicated using wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). RESULTS: Using ASP + CPT, cost savings achieved with filgrastim-sndz relative to reference filgrastim ranged from $65 (1 day) to $916 (14 days) across all scenarios. Relative to pegfilgrastim, savings with filgrastim-sndz ranged from $834 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1 day) under the COSTMED, SELFADMIN, and HPOSTART scenarios; and from $284 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1 day) under the HPOALL scenario. Similar to the cost-savings compared to pegfilgrastim, filgrastim-sndz achieved savings relative to pegfilgrastim-injector: from $834 (14 days) to $3,666 (1 day) under the COSTMED scenario, from $859 (14 days) to $3,692 (1 day) under SELFADMIN, from $817 (14 days) to $3,649 (1 day) under HPOSTART, and from $267 (14 days) to $3,649 (1 day) under HPOALL. Cost savings of filgrastim-sndz using WAC + CPT were even greater under all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis with filgrastim-sndz, a biosimilar filgrastim, was associated consistently with significant cost-savings over prophylaxis with reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim-injector, and this across various administration scenarios.

Guselkumab (an IL-23-specific mAb) demonstrates clinical and molecular response in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: IL-23 expression is increased in psoriatic lesions and might regulate TH17 T-cell counts in patients with psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: We sought to test a novel IL-23-specific therapeutic agent for the treatment of psoriasis. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study the safety, tolerability, and clinical response of guselkumab, an anti-IL-23-specific mAb, were evaluated in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. A total of 24 patients were randomized to receive a single dose of placebo or 10, 30, 100, or 300 mg of guselkumab. Clinical response was assessed by using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). Additionally, histologic analysis and gene expression in skin biopsy specimens from guselkumab-treated patients were compared with those from placebo-treated patients. RESULTS: At week 12, 50% (10 mg), 60% (30 and 100 mg), and 100% (300 mg) of guselkumab-treated patients, respectively, achieved a 75% improvement in PASI scores from baseline compared with 0% of placebo-treated patients. Improvements in PASI scores were generally maintained through week 24 in all guselkumab-treated patients. The proportion of patients experiencing an adverse event was comparable between the combined guselkumab (13/20 [65.0%]) and placebo (2/4 [50.0%]) groups through week 24. Analysis of lesional and nonlesional skin biopsy specimens demonstrated decreases in epidermal thickness and T-cell and dendritic cell expression in guselkumab-treated patients compared with values seen in placebo-treated patients. At week 12, significant reductions in psoriasis gene expression and serum IL-17A levels were observed in guselkumab-treated patients. CONCLUSION: IL-23 inhibition with a single dose of guselkumab results in clinical responses in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, suggesting that neutralization of IL-23 alone is a promising therapy for psoriasis.