Pegfilgrastim Biosimilars in US Supportive Oncology: A Narrative Review of Administration Options and Economic Considerations to Maximize Patient Benefit.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biologics, such as pegfilgrastim, are a standard of care in supportive cancer treatment that are administered once per chemotherapy cycle to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. The high cost of these biologics in the United States can be a limiting factor to accessing care; however, lower-cost pegfilgrastim biosimilars have been available for several years for patients requiring prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Different options for pegfilgrastim administration are also now available to accommodate specific patient preferences. As patients may want to minimize the risk of both neutropenia and SARS-CoV-2 infection, same-day administration is a pertinent option during the present COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, individualized, patient-centered approaches and risk-management strategies should be considered when selecting the treatment and administration method for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. Three methods of administration would minimize hospital or clinic visits while also providing the prophylactic effect of G-CSF: same-day administration after chemotherapy, use of the US Food and Drug Administration-approved on-body injector delivering pegfilgrastim approximately 27 h after chemotherapy, or self-administration by the patient or caregiver > 24 h after chemotherapy. Choice of the specific administration option should be based on the patient's specific needs, while also considering mitigating factors, such as the economic burden associated with biologic medications and the risk of COVID-19. Pegfilgrastim biosimilars can minimize the additional financial burden on patients and the health care system during this pandemic and beyond.

Real-world effectiveness of palonosetron-based antiemetic regimens: preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Aim: To evaluate real-world effectiveness of guideline-recommended palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens in patients receiving highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) chemotherapy. Patients & methods: This retrospective analysis used records of adults receiving first-line chemotherapy and a three-drug palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen for HEC or palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen for MEC (carboplatin). Results: A total of 1587 records were evaluated. For HEC and MEC, respectively, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) occurred in 40 versus 44% of patient cycles (p = 0.01), and unscheduled iv. antiemetics in 41 versus 35% (p < 0.05). A total of 48% of HEC patients versus 42% of MEC patients had CINV-related clinic visits (p = 0.05). Conclusion: Palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens may provide insufficient CINV control. Alternative regimens may improve patient quality of life and reduce healthcare resource utilization.

Hypersensitivity and infusion-site adverse events with intravenous fosaprepitant after anthracycline-containing chemotherapy: a retrospective study.

AIM: Fosaprepitant, an intravenous neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, contains polysorbate 80, which is associated with infusion-site adverse events (ISAEs) and hypersensitivity systemic reactions (HSRs). This study investigated ISAEs/HSRs following fosaprepitant with anthracycline-containing chemotherapy. PATIENTS & METHODS: This retrospective chart review noted ISAEs/HSRs following the anthracycline doxorubicin+cyclophosphamide and a three-drug fosaprepitant regimen, via peripheral line. RESULTS: 35/127 patients (28%) developed ISAEs/HSRs with chemotherapy and antiemetic therapy: 32 developed 137 individual ISAEs, primarily erythema, pain and catheter-site swelling; 16 developed 50 individual HSRs, primarily edema/swelling, erythema or dermatitis (no anaphylaxis). CONCLUSION: Fosaprepitant is associated with a significant ISAE/HSR rate following anthracycline-containing chemotherapy via peripheral line. Polysorbate 80-free intravenous neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist may provide a safer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis option.

Real-world efficacy: intravenous palonosetron three-drug regimen for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

AIM: Real-world palonosetron effectiveness was evaluated in an antiemetic regimen with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). PATIENTS & METHODS: In this Phase IV, prospective, multicenter observational study, HEC-treated cancer patients received palonosetron, a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone. Primary objective was to assess complete response (CR) for acute (≤24 h), delayed and overall (≤120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: Of 159 patients, 65.4% had breast cancer, 64.8% received anthracycline (doxorubicin)-plus-cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy; 155 completed one HEC cycle. CR was 60.0% acute, 39.4% delayed and 34.8% overall, and then increased (all phases) in 69 patients completing four HEC cycles. Anthracycline (doxorubicin) plus cyclophosphamide-receiving patients had especially low CR. CONCLUSION: Even within a recommended three-drug antiemetic regimen, palonosetron may provide suboptimal chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting control with HEC in real-world settings.

APF530 versus ondansetron, each in a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting due to anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens: a post hoc subgroup analysis of the Phase III randomized MAGIC trial.

BACKGROUND: APF530, a novel extended-release granisetron injection, was superior to ondansetron in a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen in preventing delayed-phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in the double-blind Phase III Modified Absorption of Granisetron In the prevention of CINV (MAGIC) trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This MAGIC post hoc analysis evaluated CINV prevention efficacy and safety of APF530 versus ondansetron, each with fosaprepitant and dexamethasone, in patient subgroup receiving an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen. Patients were randomized 1:1 to APF530 500 mg subcutaneously (granisetron 10 mg) or ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg intravenously (IV) (≤16 mg); stratification was by planned cisplatin ≥50 mg/m2 (yes/no). Patients were to receive fosaprepitant 150 mg IV and dexamethasone 12 mg IV on day 1, then dexamethasone 8 mg orally once daily on day 2 and twice daily on days 3 and 4. Patients were mostly younger females (APF530 arm, mean age 54.1 years, female, 99.3%; ondansetron arm, 53.8 years, female 98.3%). The primary end point was delayed-phase (>24-120 hours) complete response (CR). RESULTS: APF530 versus ondansetron regimens achieved numerically better CINV control in delayed and overall (0-120 hours) phases for CR, complete control, total response, rescue medication use, and proportion with no nausea. APF530 trends are consistent with the overall population, although not statistically superior given the underpowered AC subgroup analysis. The APF530 regimen in this population was generally well tolerated, with safety comparable to that of the overall population. CONCLUSION: APF530 plus fosaprepitant and dexamethasone effectively prevented CINV among patients receiving AC-based HEC, a large subgroup in whom CINV control has traditionally been challenging.

Autotransplantation versus HLA-matched unrelated donor transplantation for acute myeloid leukaemia: a retrospective analysis from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research.

Most acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) patients lack human leucocyte antigen-identical sibling donors for transplantation. Autotransplants and unrelated donor (URD) transplants are therapeutic options. To compare autologous versus URD transplantation for AML in first (CR1) or second complete remission (CR2), we studied the outcomes of 668 autotransplants were compared with 476 URD transplants reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Proportional hazards regression adjusted for differences in prognostic variables. In multivariate analyses transplant-related mortality (TRM) was significantly higher and relapse lower with URD transplantation. Adjusted 3-year survival probabilities were: in CR1 57 (53-61)% with autotransplants and 44 (37-51)% URD (P = 0.002), in CR2 46 (39-53)% and 33 (28-38)% respectively (P = 0.006). Adjusted 3-year leukaemia-free survival (LFS) probabilities were: CR1 53 (48-57)% with autotransplants and 43 (36-50)% with URD (P = 0.021), CR2 39 (32-46)% and 33 (27-38)% respectively (P = 0.169). Both autologous and URD transplantation produced prolonged LFS. High TRM offsets the superior antileukaemia effect of URD transplantation. This retrospective, observational database study showed that autotransplantation, in general, offered higher 3-year survival for AML patients in CR1 and CR2. Cytogenetics, however, were known in only two-thirds of patients and treatment bias cannot be eliminated.