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

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.

Initial testing of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Onpro) on-body injector in multiple radiological imaging environments.

PURPOSE: An increasing number of implantable or external devices can impact whether patients can receive radiological imaging examinations. This study examines and tests the Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) Onpro on-body injector in multiple imaging environments. METHODS: The injector was analyzed for four imaging modalities with testing protocols and strategies developed for each modality. In x-ray and computed tomography (CT), scans with much higher exposure than clinical protocols were performed with the device attached to an anthropomorphic phantom. The device was monitored until the completion of drug delivery. For magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the device was assessed using a hand-held magnet and underwent the magnetically induced displacement testing in a 1.5T clinical MRI scanner room. For ultrasound, magnetic field changes were measured around an ultrasound scanner system with three transducers. RESULTS: For x-ray and CT no sign of device error was identified during or after the high radiation exposure scans. Drug delivery was completed at expected timing with expected volume. For MRI the device showed significant attractive force towards the hand-held magnet and a 50-degree deflection angle at 50 cm from the opening of the scanner bore. No further assessment from the gradient or radiofrequency field was deemed necessary. For ultrasound the maximum magnetic field change from baseline was measured to be +11.7 µT in comparison to +74.2 µT at 4 inches from a working microwave. CONCLUSIONS: No device performance issue was identified under the extreme test conditions in x-ray or CT. The device was found to be MR Unsafe. Magnetic field changes around an ultrasound system met the limitation set by manufacture. Patient ultrasound scanning is considered safe as long as the transducers do not inadvertently loosen the device.

Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Clinical practice guidelines recommend routine prophylactic coverage with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-such as pegfilgrastim-for most patients receiving chemotherapy with an intermediate to high risk for FN. Patterns of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis during the chemotherapy course and associated FN risks in US clinical practice have not been well characterized. METHODS: A retrospective cohort design and data from two commercial healthcare claims repositories (01/2010-03/2016) and Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files (01/2007-09/2015) were employed. Study population included patients who had non-metastatic breast cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and received intermediate/high-risk regimens. Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis use and FN incidence were ascertained in each chemotherapy cycle, and all cycles were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios for FN were estimated for patients who did versus did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in that cycle. RESULTS: Study population included 50,778 commercial patients who received 190,622 cycles of chemotherapy and 71,037 Medicare patients who received 271,944 cycles. In cycle 1, 33% of commercial patients and 28% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, and adjusted odds of FN were 2.6 (95% CI 2.3-2.8) and 1.6 (1.5-1.7), respectively, versus those who received pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. In cycle 2, 28% (commercial) and 26% (Medicare) did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis; corresponding adjusted FN odds were comparably elevated (1.9 [1.6-2.2] and 1.6 [1.5-1.8]). Results in subsequent cycles were similar. Across all cycles, 15% of commercial patients and 23% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis despite having FN in a prior cycle, and prior FN increased odds of subsequent FN by 2.1-2.4 times. CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding clinical practice guidelines, a large minority of patients did not receive G-CSF prophylaxis, and FN incidence was substantially higher among this subset of the population. Appropriate use of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis may reduce patient exposure to this potentially fatal but largely preventable complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

The effects of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on MR images of bone marrow.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) analogs such as filgrastim/pegfilgrastim are increasingly used to enhance neutrophilic recovery after chemotherapy. It is widely known that, physiologically, pegfilgrastim stimulates marrow mitotic activity and induces marrow reconversion from fatty to cellular. However, there is limited literature discussing the effects of pegfilgrastim on musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging, with the consensus that marrow reconversion secondary to pegfilgrastim therapy is easily confounded with a malignant process, especially in patients with a history of cancer. We attempt to discuss the expected changes and MRI findings after pegfilgrastim therapy through a summary of current literature. Additionally, we provide images from our own practice to support the previously established findings. G-CSF-stimulated reconversion can appear as patchy expansions of baseline hematopoietic marrow, but can also appear to be diffusely homogeneous, adding to its ambiguity. We conclude that using a baseline MRI, clinical information, and assessing sequential MRI changes in conjunction with pegfilgrastim therapy may aid the differentiation between benign and pathological change. We expand our discussion to include the effects of novel technologies, such as whole-body MRI, chemical shift imaging, and contrast agents in helping the distinction.

Safety and Efficacy of Pegfilgrastim When Given Less Than 14 Days Before the Next Chemotherapy Cycle: Review of Every 14-Day Chemotherapy Regimen Containing 5-FU Continuous Infusion.

BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim should not be given <14 days from the next chemotherapy because of concerns for cytopenias. Some clinicians are prescribing pegfilgrastim to be given <14 days in patients receiving 5-fluorouracil continuous infusion (5-FUCI) regimens. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and safety of pegfilgrastim administered <14 days from the next chemotherapy in patients receiving 5-FUCI administered >46 hours. METHODS: Single-institution retrospective cohort study of patients who received 5-FUCI administered >46 hours from June 2013 to December 2015. The unit of measurement was chemotherapy cycles. End points included the safety and efficacy of giving pegfilgrastim <14 days from the next chemotherapy (Pegfilgrastim-Less-Than-14-Days-Group) and comparing that to pegfilgrastim given ≥14 days (Pegfilgrastim-More-Than-14-Days-Group), filgrastim only (Filgrastim-Group), and no colony stimulating factors (No-CSF-Group). Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to compare mean absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and white blood cell count (WBC). Poisson regression models with GEE were used to estimate relative risk (RR) for neutropenia. RESULTS: There were no incidences of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia (FN), or hospitalizations for FN with the Pegfilgrastim-Less-Than-14-Days-Group. There was also a high mean ANC of 9.9 (5.7) × 109/L. Mean ANC and WBC were statistically significantly less with the Filgrastim-Group, No-CSF-Group, and Pegfilgrastim-More-Than-14-Days-Group compared with the Pegfilgrastim-Less-Than-14-Days-Group. The Filgrastim-Group and the No-CSF-Group had a 32% (1.10-1.56, P = 0.002) and 8% (1.04-1.12, P < 0.001) increased risk of incidence of neutropenia, respectively, compared with the Pegfilgrastim-Less-Than-14-Days-Group. The risk of incidence of neutropenia was the same with the Pegfilgrastim-More-Than-14-Days-Group and Pegfilgrastim-Less-Than-14-Days-Group (0.95-1.04, P = 0.821). CONCLUSION: This study shows a promising possibility that administering pegfilgrastim <14 days from the next chemotherapy cycle could be a safe and effective practice. However, better controlled clinical trials are needed.

When Hydromorphone Is Not Working, Try Loratadine: An Emergency Department Case of Loratadine as Abortive Therapy for Severe Pegfilgrastim-Induced Bone Pain.

BACKGROUND: Intractable bone pain is a notorious adverse effect of granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), such as pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, which are given to help prevent neutropenia in patients who are undergoing chemotherapy. G-CSF-induced bone pain is surprisingly common and often refractory to treatment with conventional analgesics. CASE REPORT: This article describes an emergency department case of opiate and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-resistant pegfilgrastim-induced bone pain that was successfully alleviated with 10 mg of oral loratadine, allowing for discharge home. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: This case suggests that loratadine may be an easy to implement, safe, and effective therapy in the emergency department management of intractable bone pain caused by G-CSF use. Emergency physicians should be aware that loratadine may successfully relieve otherwise intractable G-CSF-induced bone pain and allow for discharge home.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with early discontinuation of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice.

PURPOSE: Accumulating evidence suggests that not all cancer chemotherapy patients who receive first-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis continue to receive it in subsequent cycles and that these patients may be subsequently at higher risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Additional evidence from US clinical practice is warranted. METHODS: Data from two US private healthcare claims repositories were employed. The source population comprised adults who received "intermediate-risk" or "high-risk" chemotherapy regimens for solid cancers or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and first-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. From the source population, all patients who did not receive second-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis ("comparison patients") were matched (1:1) to those who received it ("pegfilgrastim patients") based on cancer, regimen, and propensity score. Odds ratios (OR) for FN-broad and narrow definitions-during the second chemotherapy cycle were estimated for comparison patients versus pegfilgrastim patients using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: A total of 2245 comparison patients (5.3 % of source population) were matched to pegfilgrastim patients; cohorts were well-balanced on baseline characteristics. Second-cycle FN incidence proportions for comparison and pegfilgrastim patients were 3.8 versus 2.2 % based on broad definition and 2.6 versus 0.8 % based on narrow definition; corresponding OR were 1.7 (95 % CI 1.2-2.5, p = 0.002) and 3.5 (95 % CI 2.0-6.0, p < 0.001). Results were similar within cancer/regimen-subgroups and were robust when using alternative methods for confounding adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective evaluation of cancer chemotherapy patients who received first-cycle pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice, a clinically relevant minority did not receive second-cycle prophylaxis. Second-cycle FN odds among this subset were significantly higher than they were among those who continued prophylaxis.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in cancer patients receiving pegfilgrastim prophylaxis: does timing of administration matter?

PURPOSE: Contrary to the approved indication for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, some patients receive it on the same day as the last administration of chemotherapy in clinical practice, which could adversely impact risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). An evaluation of the timing of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis and FN risk was undertaken. METHODS: A retrospective cohort design and data from two US private health care claims repositories were employed. Study population comprised adults who received intermediate/high-risk chemotherapy regimens for solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and received pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in ≥1 cycle; all cycles with pegfilgrastim were pooled for analyses. Odds ratios (OR) for FN during the cycle were estimated for patients who received pegfilgrastim on the same day (day 1) as the last administration of chemotherapy versus days 2-4 from chemotherapy completion. RESULTS: The study population included 45,592 patients who received pegfilgrastim in 179,152 cycles (n = 37,095 in cycle 1); in 12 % of cycles, patients received pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy. Odds of FN were higher for patients receiving pegfilgrastim prophylaxis on the same day as chemotherapy versus days 2-4 from chemotherapy in cycle 1 (OR = 1.6, 95 % CI = 1.3-1.9, p < 0.001) and all cycles (OR = 1.5, 95 % CI = 1.3-1.6, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale evaluation of adults who received intermediate/high-risk regimens for solid tumors or NHL in US clinical practice, FN incidence was found to be significantly higher among those who received pegfilgrastim prophylaxis on the same day as chemotherapy completion versus days 2-4 from chemotherapy completion, underscoring the importance of adhering to the indicated administration schedule.

Delayed hypersensitivity reaction related to the use of pegfilgrastim.

Filgrastim and pegfilgrastim are granulocyte colony-stimulating factor products, which have been part of the supportive treatment of cancer patients for years to increase the white blood cell count and absolute neutrophil count with the objective of preventing neutropenic fever in patients at risk because of chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is a glycosylated form of filgrastim with a prolonged duration of effect, a reduced renal clearance, and relatively fewer side effects. We present a patient with early breast cancer who developed a rash more than a week after the use of pegfilgrastim. Clinicians must be aware of the possibility of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction as the application of this drug is increasing and an adverse event can result in delay of chemotherapy treatment.

Effects of combined ciprofloxacin and Neulasta therapy on intestinal pathology and gut microbiota after high-dose irradiation in mice.

Introduction: Treatments that currently exist in the strategic national stockpile for acute radiation syndrome (ARS) focus on the hematopoietic subsyndrome, with no treatments on gastrointestinal (GI)-ARS. While the gut microbiota helps maintain host homeostasis by mediating GI epithelial and mucosal integrity, radiation exposure can alter gut commensal microbiota which may leave the host susceptible to opportunistic pathogens and serious sequelae such as sepsis. To mitigate the effects of hematopoietic ARS irradiation, currently approved treatments exist in the form of colony stimulating factors and antibiotics: however, there are few studies examining how these therapeutics affect GI-ARS and the gut microbiota. The aim of our study was to examine the longitudinal effects of Neulasta and/or ciprofloxacin treatment on the gut microbiota after exposure to 9.5 Gy 60Co gamma-radiation in mice. Methods: The gut microbiota of vehicle and drug-treated mice exposed to sham or gamma-radiation was characterized by shotgun sequencing with alpha diversity, beta diversity, and taxonomy analyzed on days 2, 4, 9, and 15 post-irradiation. Results: No significant alpha diversity differences were observed following radiation, while beta diversity shifts and taxonomic profiles revealed significant alterations in Akkermansia, Bacteroides, and Lactobacillus. Ciprofloxacin generally led to lower Shannon diversity and Bacteroides prevalence with increases in Akkermansia and Lactobacillus compared to vehicle treated and irradiated mice. While Neulasta increased Shannon diversity and by day 9 had more similar taxonomic profiles to sham than ciprofloxacin-or vehicle-treated irradiated animals. Combined therapy of Neulasta and ciprofloxacin induced a decrease in Shannon diversity and resulted in unique taxonomic profiles early post-irradiation, returning closer to vehicle-treated levels over time, but persistent increases in Akkermansia and Bacteroides compared to Neulasta alone. Discussion: This study provides a framework for the identification of microbial elements that may influence radiosensitivity, biodosimetry and the efficacy of potential therapeutics. Moreover, increased survival from H-ARS using these therapeutics may affect the symptoms and appearance of what may have been subclinical GI-ARS.

A Case of Revelation Due to Pegfilgrastim.

Pegfilgrastim is a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor used in non-myeloid cancer patients to prevent infections and neutropenic fevers. Although this medication is widely used to induce granulocytosis in pancytopenia patients, there are certain instances where such a situation can cause severe side effects. In this case, we present a patient with a history of metastatic colon cancer who is currently taking pegfilgrastim to counter the agranulocytosis caused by his chemotherapy treatment. However, the patient shortly developed localized left-sided jaw swelling, and upon further investigation, the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor revealed an underlying bacteremia. A discussion will also be held regarding the mechanism of action of how pegfilgrastim induced this patient's symptoms as well as the risks and benefits.

A Case of Concurrent Leukocytosis and Systemic Capillary Leak Syndrome Due to Pegfilgrastim.

Pegfilgrastim is a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor agent used in patients receiving myelosuppressive therapy with chemotherapy or radiation. Two adverse effects associated with this agent include capillary leak syndrome and leukocytosis. To our knowledge, this is the first case of a patient who developed both systemic capillary leak syndrome and leukocytosis greater than 100,000 cells/µL after receiving pegfilgrastim. This patient received early fluid resuscitation, vasopressor support, and methylprednisolone, which improved her clinical course during hospitalization.

PF-06881894, a Proposed Biosimilar to Pegfilgrastim, Versus US-Licensed and EU-Approved Pegfilgrastim Reference Products (Neulasta®): Pharmacodynamics, Pharmacokinetics, Immunogenicity, and Safety of Single or Multiple Subcutaneous Doses in Healthy Volunteers.

INTRODUCTION: PF-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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Across 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. CONCLUSIONS: Single-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 REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02629289; NCT03273842 (C1221005).

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with early discontinuation of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis: a retrospective evaluation using Medicare claims.

BACKGROUND: Two recent evaluations reported that many cancer chemotherapy patients discontinue pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (PP) following the first cycle, and that these patients have a higher subsequent risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Such evidence is based principally on the experience of younger adults with private healthcare coverage, and the generalizability of results to elderly Medicare patients is unknown. METHODS: A matched-cohort design and data from the Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files were employed. The source population comprised cancer patients aged ≥65 years who received chemotherapy with intermediate/high-risk for FN and first-cycle PP. From the source population, beginning with the second cycle, all patients who received PP in all previous cycles were identified. From this sub-set, patients who did not receive PP in the cycle of interest ("comparison patients") were matched to those who received PP in that cycle ("PP patients"); the same process was repeated for subsequent cycles. Odds ratios (OR) for FN (broad and narrow definitions) were estimated using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Among 77,616 elderly patients in the source population, 5.3% did not receive second-cycle PP and were matched to those who did. In cycle 2, FN odds were significantly higher among comparison patients vs PP patients when employing the broad definition (OR = 1.9, p < .001) and the narrow definition (OR = 2.1, p < .001). Results for subsequent cycles (broad definition: OR = 2.0, p < .001; narrow definition: OR = 2.1, p < .001) and for the last cycle (broad definition: OR = 1.4, p = .060; narrow definition: OR = 1.7, p = .055) were largely comparable. CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale evaluation of elderly Medicare patients who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and first-cycle PP in recent US clinical practice, FN risk was substantially lower among patients who continued to receive PP in subsequent cycles vs those who discontinued PP.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and immunogenicity of Pelmeg®, a pegfilgrastim biosimilar in healthy subjects.

A pharmacokinetics (PK)/pharmacodynamics (PD) study (EudraCT number 2015-002966-21) was conducted to investigate the biosimilarity of Pelmeg® (pegfilgrastim), a biosimilar to EU-authorized Neulasta®, which is used in the clinic for prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The single-dose, randomized, double-blind, two-way crossover study comprised 171 healthy male subjects, receiving Pelmeg and Neulasta (6 mg as subcutaneous injection) in a sequential manner. Primary PK endpoints were the area under the concentration curve from time zero to last measurable concentration (AUC0-last) and the maximum concentration (Cmax). The primary PD endpoint was the area under the effect curve (AUEC0-last) for absolute neutrophil count (ANC). Safety and immunogenicity were also assessed. Comparability was demonstrated for both PK endpoints, with geometric mean ratios (test/reference) for AUC0-last and Cmax of 95.2% and 92.8%, respectively. The corresponding confidence intervals (CIs; 94.3%) were [86.6%;104.7%] for AUC0-last and [84.4%;102.2%] for Cmax, both being within the equivalence margin of 80.0% to 125.0%. Likewise, PD comparability was demonstrated, with the geometric mean ratio (test/reference) of AUEC0-last of 100.2%, with a corresponding CI (95%) of 98.7%-101.8%. No clinically meaningful differences were observed for safety and immunogenicity between Pelmeg and Neulasta. Pelmeg was found to be highly similar to the reference product.