Efficacy and safety of biosimilar Peg-filgrastim after autologous stem cell transplant in myeloma and lymphoma patients: a comparative study with biosimilar Filgrastim, Lenograstim, and originator Peg-filgrastim.

Data about biosimilar Peg-filgrastim (bioPEG) in autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) are still scarce. The aim of this study has been to assess efficacy and safety of bioPEG among lymphoma and myeloma patients undergoing ASCT, comparing these data with historical controls receiving other G-CSFs. Furthermore, an economic evaluation has been included to estimate the savings by using bioPEG. This is a prospective cohort study comparing lymphoma and myeloma patients undergoing ASCT and receiving bioPEG (n = 73) with three historical consecutive cohorts collected retrospectively who received other G-CSFs (Lenograstim - Leno - n = 101, biosimilar Filgrastim - bioFIL n = 392, and originator Peg-filgrastim - oriPEG n = 60). We observed a significantly shorter time to neutrophils and platelet engraftment (p < 0.001) in patients treated with bioPEG and oriPEG. Moreover, patients who received bioPEG showed a shorter hospitalization time (p < 0.001) and a lower transfusion need (p < 0.001). We did not observe any significant difference in terms of transplant-related mortality, mucositis, and diarrhea among the four groups. No serious adverse events were associated with bioPEG. Similar data were obtained after running a stratified analysis for lymphomas and myeloma separately conducted by using a propensity score matching. The average total cost per patient of bioPEG was € 18218.9 compared to € 23707.8, € 20677.3 and € 19754.9 of Leno, oriPEG, and bioFIL, respectively. In conclusion, bioPEG seems to be as effective as the originator and more effective than short-acting G-CSFs in terms of post-transplant engraftment in myeloma and lymphoma patients undergoing ASCT. Moreover, bioPEG was cost-effective when compared with the other G-CSFs.

The Italian Multicentric Randomized OPTkIMA Trial on Fixed vs Progressive Intermittent TKI Therapy in CML Elderly Patients: 3-Years of Molecular Response and Quality of Life Monitoring After Completing the Treatment Plan.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is an option for elderly chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients who are often candidates for life-long treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Italian phase III multicentric randomized Optimize TKIs Multiple Approaches (OPTkIMA) study aimed to evaluate if a progressive de-escalation of TKIs is able to maintain the molecular remission (MR)3.0 and to improve Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in CML elderly patients. RESULTS: A total of 215 patients in stable MR3.0/MR4.0 were randomized to receive an intermittent TKI schedule 1 month ON-1 month OFF for 3 years (FIXED arm; n = 111) vs. a progressive de-escalation TKI dose up to one-third of the starting dose at the 3rd year (PROGRESSIVE arm; n = 104). Two hundred three patients completed the 3rd year of OPTkIMA study. At the last follow-up, MR3.0 loss was 27% vs. 46% (P = .005) in the FIXED vs PROGRESSIVE arm, respectively. None of these patients experienced disease progression. The 3-year probability of maintaining the MR3.0 was 59% vs. 53%, respectively (P = .13). HRQoL globally improved from the baseline to the 3rd year, without any significant difference between the 2 arms. After the 3rd year, the proportion of patients who was address to TKI discontinuation in the 2 arms was 36% (FIXED) vs. 58% (PROGRESSIVE) (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: The intensification of intermittent TKI therapy is associated with a higher incidence of MR3.0 loss, but those patients who maintain the MR3.0 molecular response at the end of the study have been frequently considered eligible for TFR. The HRQoL generally improved during the de-escalation therapy in both randomization arms.