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.

Skin toxicity after Filgrastim treatment for an Ewing's sarcoma patient.

INTRODUCTION: Filgrastim is a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GSCF) used in some chemotherapy regimen to prevent febrile neutropenia. Most common reaction of filgrastim are aches and pain including headaches, nausea and skin rash. CASE REPORT: We report the case of a patient who developed unusual, non-commonly reported adverse toxidermy to filgrastim. At first the eruption was limited to the lower members and genetics organs. Then it slowly spread across the whole body presenting as a polymorphic exanthematous-pustulosis lesions. MANAGEMENT & OUTCOME: A cutaneous biopsy was done, identifying a toxidermy modified by systemic treatment. A pharmacological study linked the role of filgrastim to these lesions. After switching from filgrastim to lénograstim, his lesions are completely gone and haven't flared up again. Thus, clearly imputing the use of filgrastim. DISCUSSION: The cutaneous reaction that has reported with use of GSCF are sweet syndrome, erythema nodosum, pyoderma nodosum and pyoderma gangrenosum. As far as we know, no acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis due to GSCF has been reported.

Lenograstim versus filgrastim in mobilization before autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma and lymphoma - Single center experience.

OBJECTIVE: Peripheral blood stem cell transplantation is frequently used in the treatment of various hematological malignancies after intensive chemotherapy. The primary aim of our study is to compare the amount of collected CD34+ cells and engraftment times in patients mobilized with filgrastim or lenograstim. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Demographic and clinical data of multiple myeloma (MM) and lymphoma patients who underwent autologous transplantation and mobilized with G-CSF (filgrastim or lenograstim) without chemotherapy were collected retrospectively. RESULTS: One hundred eleven MM and 58 lymphoma patients were included in the study. When mobilization with filgrastim and lenograstim was compared in MM patients, there was no significant difference in neutrophil and thrombocyte engraftment times of lenograstim and filgrastim groups (p = 0.931 p = 0.135, respectively). Similarly, the median number of CD34+ cells collected in patients receiving filgrastim and lenograstim was very similar (4.2 × 106/kg vs 4.3 × 106/kg, p = 0.977). When compared with patients who received lenalidomide before transplantation and patients who did not receive lenalidomide, the CD34+ counts of the two groups were similar. However, neutrophil and platelet engraftment times in the group not receiving lenalidomide tended to be shorter (p = 0.095 and p = 0.12, respectively). When lymphoma patients mobilized with filgrastim and lenograstim were compared, neutrophil engraftment time (p = 0.498), thrombocyte engraftment time (p = 0.184), collected CD34+ cell counts (p = 0.179) and mobilization success (p = 0.161) of the groups mobilized with filgrastim and lenograstim were similar. CONCLUSION: The superiority of the two agents to each other could not be demonstrated. Multi-center prospective studies with larger numbers of patients are needed.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-associated aortitis in the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is the standard-of-care therapy for chemotherapy-associated neutropenia in patients with malignancies. Recent case reports have implied that G-CSF treatment may be associated with the development of aortitis, but the precise nature of the relationship is unclear. We investigated the association between G-CSF and risk for aortitis in patients with various malignancies. METHODS: We performed an observational study of 102,014 subjects with malignant neoplasms documented in the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) database between April 2004 and February 2018. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for aortitis in patients treated and not treated with G-CSF were estimated using multivariate logistic regression with R software. RESULTS: Among the 102,014 subjects, 25 developed aortitis. Of the 3409 and 98,630 subjects treated and not treated with G-CSF, 16 (0.47% [95% CI; 0.27, 0.76]) and 9 (0.01% [0.00, 0.02]) developed aortitis, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression indicated an association between G-CSF and aortitis (adjusted OR 45.87 [19.16, 109.8], p < 0.001). The values for filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and lenograstim were 0.25% (0.07, 0.63), 1.58% (0.79, 2.81), and 0.24% (0.05, 0.69), respectively. CONCLUSION: G-CSF treatment was associated with a signal of increased risk for aortitis among patients with malignant neoplasms. Three different G-CSF agents were associated with such risk, implying that it is a class effect. However, we do not recommend changing G-CSF prescriptions, because our results may have been influenced by the limitations of the JADER database and because the benefit of G-CSF treatment outweighs the potential risk.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of lenograstim for hematopoietic stem cell mobilization: a prospective randomized study for optimal apheresis.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the correlation between the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (lenograstim) and the impact of initiation time of apheresis on stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients with multiple myeloma were randomized into one of the two groups (early vs. late). Lenograstim at 10 µg/kg/day once daily was injected for at least 4 consecutive days. Apheresis was initiated 2 hours after the fourth dose of lenograstim in the early collection group and 16 hours after the fourth dose of lenograstim in the late collection group. Blood sampling for pharmacokinetics was performed within 30 minutes before, and 1, 2, 6, and 24 hours after the fourth dose of lenograstim. RESULTS: Overall, the two groups (early vs. late, n = 10 vs. 14) exhibited similar baseline characteristics including age, sex, subtype of myeloma, stage distribution, and myeloma-associated symptoms. No correlation was found between plasma lenograstim concentration and peripheral blood (PB) CD34+ cell counts or hematopoietic progenitor cells. In the late collection group, the median number of apheresis procedures for minimal collection was significantly lower (early vs. late: 2 vs. 1; p = 0.04) and there was a higher number of total collected PB CD34+ cells in a single session of apheresis (1.4 vs. 3.1; p = 0.06). There were no differences in median overall PB stem cell collection efficiency. CONCLUSION: Late collection positively impacted the number of apheresis procedures for minimal collection, with numerically improved PB stem cell collection efficiency at first apheresis in patients with multiple myeloma.

Lenograstim 5 µg/kg is not superior to biosimilar filgrastim 10 µg/kg in lymphoma patients undergoing peripheral blood stem cell mobilization after chemotherapy: preliminary results from a prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials comparing chemomobilization efficiency between lenograstim and biosimilar filgrastim are lacking. Our previous retrospective study suggested that lenograstim could be more effective than biosimilar filgrastim when used at the same conventional dosage (5 µg/kg) only in lymphoma patients undergoing peripheral blood stem cell mobilization. We planned a prospective randomized study comparing lenograstim 5 µg/kg with biosimilar filgrastim 10 µg/kg to verify the hypothesis of lenograstim superiority even at half the dosage (stress test). Herein we report data after enrolling 60% of planned patients. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: From October 2014 to November 2017, a total of 42 of 70 planned patients with lymphoma were randomly assigned to receive lenograstim 5 µg/kg (21) or biosimilar filgrastim 10 µg/kg (21). Patients were stratified according to treatment line at the time of mobilization (1 or ≥2). Primary endpoint was the rate of achievement of the CD34+ cell collection target dose (≥ 4 × 106 /kg). An improvement by 23% was expected to validate the hypothesis of lenograstim superiority. RESULTS: The two cohorts were balanced for all the baseline features. We observed an identical rate of patients able to reach the targeted CD34+ cell dose and of mobilization failures (90.4 and 4.8% in both cohorts) and a perfect equivalence in any of the secondary collection outcomes. The hypothesis of lenograstim superiority was not corroborated at interim analysis. CONCLUSION: Lenograstim at conventional dosage has failed to demonstrate its superiority over biosimilar filgrastim at double the dosage at interim analysis in their first head-to-head trial.

Effectiveness of biosimilar filgrastim vs. original granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in febrile neutropenia prevention in breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to describe the effectiveness of biosimilar filgrastim and original granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), lenograstim and pegfilgrastim, in febrile neutropenia (FN) prevention in breast cancer patients receiving docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (TAC) as adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment and to analyze their treatment patterns. METHODS: A pharmacoepidemiology cohort study was developed in a university hospital (with 23 healthcare centers) with retrospective data collection (2012-2014). Effectiveness of G-CSFs was assessed by the FN incidence. Other parameters analyzed were as follows: moderate and severe neutropenia incidence, neutropenia-related hospitalizations, dosage, and duration. Data was analyzed using each cycle as a unit of analysis. RESULTS: We identified 98 patients representing 518 chemotherapy cycles, 215 with original G-CSFs (35 lenograstim and 180 pegfilgrastim) and 303 with biosimilar filgrastim. The FN incidence was similar in both groups (3.7% original vs. 3.3% biosimilar; p = 0.79). No statistically significant differences were found in moderate and severe neutropenia incidence (4.7 vs. 6.3%; p = 0.43) or neutropenia-related hospitalizations (3.3 vs. 3.6%; p = 0.19). When the three drugs were evaluated separately, a higher FN incidence was observed with lenograstim than with pegfilgratim or biosimilar (p = 0.024). The dosage and duration of biosimilar were lower than lenograstim (4.9 vs. 5.7 µg/kg/day; 5 vs. 7 days; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: An abbreviated 5-day course of biosimilar filgrastim provided optimal primary prophylaxis against FN post-chemotherapy TAC in patients with breast cancer. The clinical relevance of the highest FN incidence in the lenograstim cohort needs further attention.

Comparison of biosimilar filgrastim, originator filgrastim, and lenograstim for autologous stem cell mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) originators such as filgrastim (Neupogen) and lenograstim (Granocyte) are widely used for peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilization. In recent years, biosimilar agents have been approved for the same indications. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the mobilization efficiency of the three G-CSF variants originator filgrastim, lenograstim, and the biosimilar Filgrastim Hexal in a homogeneous group of multiple myeloma (MM) patients in first-line therapy. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Overall mobilization data of 250 patients with MM were included. Of these patients, 74 (30%), 131 (52%), and 45 (18%) were mobilized with originator filgrastim, biosimilar Filgrastim Hexal, or lenograstim, respectively, at a dose of 5 to 10 µg/kg body weight subcutaneously starting from Day 5 after chemomobilization with CAD (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) until completion of PBSC collection. RESULTS: All but one patient reached the collection goal of a minimum of at least 2 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg body weight during a median of one (range, one to three) leukapheresis session. No significant differences in CD34+ mobilization and collection yields between the filgrastim-mobilized (median, 10.5; range, 2.7-40.4), Filgrastim Hexal-mobilized (median, 9.9; range, 0.2-26.0), and lenograstim-mobilized (median, 10.7; range, 3.1-27.9 CD34+ cells × 106 /kg body weight) patients were observed. CONCLUSION: Concerning the clinically relevant efficiencies of PBSC mobilization and in terms of reaching the individual collection target, this retrospective study did not detect any significant differences between the three G-CSF variants in the analyzed patient cohort.

Biosimilar G-CSF versus filgrastim and lenograstim in healthy unrelated volunteer hematopoietic stem cell donors.

The World Marrow Donor Organization recommends original granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) for the mobilization of stem cells in healthy unrelated hematopoietic stem cell donors. We report the comparison of a biosimilar G-CSF (Zarzio) with two original G-CSFs (filgrastim and lenograstim) in mobilization in unrelated donors. We included data of 313 consecutive donors who were mobilized during the period from October 2014 to March 2016 at the Medical University of Warsaw. The primary endpoints of this study were the efficiency of CD34+ cell mobilization to the circulation and results of the first apheresis. The mean daily dose of G-CSF was 9.1 µg/kg for lenograstim, 9.8 µg/kg for biosimilar filgrastim, and 9.3 µg/kg for filgrastim (p < 0.001). The mean CD34+ cell number per microliter in the blood before the first apheresis was 111 for lenograstim, 119 for biosimilar filgrastim, and 124 for filgrastim (p = 0.354); the mean difference was even less significant when comparing CD34+ number per dose of G-CSF per kilogram (p = 0.787). Target doses of CD34+ cells were reached with one apheresis in 87% donors mobilized with lenograstim and in 93% donors mobilized with original and biosimilar filgrastim (p = 0.005). The mobilized apheresis outcomes (mean number of CD34+ cells/kg of donor collected during the first apheresis) was similar with lenograstim, biosimilar filgrastim, and filgrastim: 6.2 × 106, 7.6 × 106, and 7.3 × 106, respectively, p = 0.06. There was no mobilization failure in any of the donors. Biosimilar G-CSF is as effective in the mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells in unrelated donors as original G-CSFs. Small and clinically irrelevant differences seen in the study can be attributed to differences in G-CSF dose and collection-related factors. Active safety surveillance concurrent to clinical use and reporting to donor outcome registry (e.g., EBMT donor outcome registry or WMDA SEAR/SPEAR) might help to evaluate the possible short- and long-term complications of biosimilar G-CSF.

Prevalence of granulocyte antibodies in never allo-exposed female and male donors.

BACKGROUND: Foetal/neonatal allo-immune neutropenia (FNAIN) is a serious condition usually resulting from immunisation of the mother to paternally inherited neutrophil antigens of the foetus. Understanding the biology of female immunisation against neutrophils could help predict or prevent FNAIN. OBJECTIVES: To quantify differences in the prevalence of specific and pan-reactive granulocyte antibodies, between allo-exposed and never allo-exposed male and female blood donors. METHODS/MATERIALS: We previously reported the prevalence of granulocyte antibodies in healthy male and female blood donors. Here, we compare specific vs. pan-reactive antibodies. RESULTS: The prevalence of specific granulocyte antibodies was similar in male [1.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70-1.4] and female nulliparous blood donors (0.87%; CI: 0.029-1.7) and doubled after pregnancies (1.8%; CI: 0.52-3.0). In contrast, pan-reactive antibodies were almost three times less common in male (0.81%; CI: 0.50-1.1) compared to female nulliparous blood donors (2.3%; CI: 0.91-3.8) and were half as high after pregnancies (1.1%; CI: 0.58-1.7). CONCLUSION: We found unexpected differences between male and female blood donors. Determining the clinical relevance of the pan-reactive antibodies requires further research, but none of the tested blood donors experienced any symptoms of neutropenia.

Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rG-CSF) in the management of neutropenia induced by anthracyclines and ifosfamide in patients with soft tissue sarcomas (NEUSAR).

PURPOSE: Anthracycline and ifosfamide-based chemotherapy represents a widely used regimen both in early and advanced settings in soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the severity of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of biosimilar G-CSF in these patients. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2013, 67 patients with soft tissue tumors under epirubicin and ifosfamide (EI) treatment receiving biosimilar filgrastim (Zarzio®), originator filgrastim (Granulokine®, Neupogen®), and lenograstim (only originator Myelostim®) as primary prophylaxis for a total of 260 cycles of therapy were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline patient characteristics were summarized in a propensity score (PS). RESULTS: The incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) was 44.0 % in biosimilar filgrastim, 40.0 % in originator filgrastim, and 45.5 % in the lenograstim groups (p = 0.935). All grade and G4 neutropenia were similar in the three groups with the same safety profile. The use of biosimilar filgrastim achieved cost savings of €225.25 over originator filgrastim and €262.00 over lenograstim. CONCLUSION: Biosimilar G-CSF was effective in preventing FN and in reducing the need for hospitalization in STS patients undergoing EI treatment. It also proved comparable to its reference products from both a clinical and cost-effective standpoint.

Biosimilar filgrastim (leucostim®) have similar efficacy in steady-state hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization compared to original filgrastim (neupogen®) and lenograstim (granocyte®): A retrospective multicenter study.

Biosimilar filgrastim (Leucostim®) was shown to be similar in terms of efficacy and safety in hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization (HPCM) compared to originator filgrastim (Neupogen®) and lenograstim (Granocyte®) in healthy donors and chemomobilization settings. Here we report our retrospective experience with Leucostim® (n: 43) compared to Neupogen® (n: 71) and Granocyte® (n: 32) in steady-state mobilization of patients presenting with Hodgkin lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma. The median age of patients on Leucostim® (56) arm was significantly higher compared to patients who received Neupogen® (50) and Granocyte® (49) (p: 0.039). Patients who underwent HPCM with Leucostim® received less chemotherapy lines (p: 0.026) and courses (p: 0.046) compared to others. Otherwise the study cohort was homogenous in terms of gender, primary diagnosis and various risk factors for mobilization failure. Mobilization failure was defined as failure to achieve a minimum threshold (10/µL) for peripheral blood CD34+ cell concentration to initiate leukapheresis or 0.5×106/kg, 0.8×106/kg and 2×106/kg CD34+ cells in first, second and fourth days of apheresis, respectively. The study groups were similar in terms of median number of CD34+ progenitor cell yield (×106/kg) (Neupogen®: 6.18, Granocyte®: 6.2 and Leucostim®: 6.2) (p: 0.959) and median number of leukapheresis sessions (p: 0.615). The treatment arms were also similar in terms of mobilization failure (Neupogen® 11.3% - Granocyte® 21.9% - Leucostim® 16.3%; p: 0.366). No patient experienced any severe adverse effect during HPCM. Leucostim® is equally effective and safe in HPCM compared to originator G-CSF (Neupogen®) and lenograstim (Granocyte®) in steady-state HPCM setting.

Fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and idarubicin for relapsed childhood acute myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: The combination of fludarabine (Flu), high-dose cytarabine (Ara-C) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; FLAG), with anthracyclines has become standard chemotherapy for refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in European children and adults. To clarify the efficacy and the safety of FLAG-idarubicin (IDA) for children prospectively, we planned a multicenter phase II study (AML-R11) by the Japanese Pediatric Leukemia/Lymphoma Study Group. METHODS: Patients with AML aged between 2 and 20 years old, who had the first bone marrow (BM) relapse or induction failure, were enrolled. The FLAG-IDA regimen consisted of Flu 30 mg/m2 for 5 days, Ara-C 2 g/m2 for 5 days, G-CSF (lenograstim) 5 µg/kg for 6 days and IDA 10 mg/m2 for 3 days. The primary endpoint was remission rate after therapy. RESULTS: Due to drug supply issues, the trial was suspended after the inclusion of seven eligible patients. There were six cases of early relapse within 1 year of the first remission. All seven patients completed the therapy and no early death was observed. Hematological toxicity was common, and one patient developed grade 4 non-hematological toxicity of bacterial meningitis. Although only one patient with late relapse achieved complete remission, minimal residual disease was positive on both flow cytometry and Wilms' tumor 1 mRNA. Two patients were alive in remission following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, whereas the other five patients died of either the disease or treatment-related causes. CONCLUSION: FLAG-IDA might be tolerable for children with refractory AML although the efficacy should be further investigated.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of original filgrastim (Neupogen®), biosimilar filgrastim (Leucostim®) and Lenograstim (Granocyte®) in CD34(+) peripheral hematopoietic stem cell mobilization procedures for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant donors.

OBJECTIVES AND AIM: In this study, we aimed to compare the potency of different G-CSF agents including original filgrastim (Neupogen®), biosimilar filgrastim (Leucostim®) and Lenograstim (Granocyte®) on CD34(+) cell mobilization in patients that underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The data of 243 donors for alloHSCT recipients diagnosed with mostly acute leukemia and myelodsyplastic syndromes (MDS) were analyzed, retrospectively. Data for stem cell mobilization have been recorded from patients' files. Donors who received Filgrastim (Neupogen®, Group I), biosimilar Filgrastim (Leucostim®, Group II) and Lenograstim (Granocyte®, Group III) were analyzed for total CD34(+) cell count at the end of mobilization procedures. RESULTS: A total of 243 donors and patients for alloHSCT were analyzed retrospectively. The diagnosis of the patients were; acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (110 patients, 45.2%), acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL) (61 patients, 25.1%), aplastic anemia (AA) (38 patients, 15.6%), lymphomas (14 patients, 5.7%) and others (20 patients, 8.4%). The median number of total collected PB CD34(+) cells (×10(6)/kg) was 7.12 (min-max: 5.38-7.90) in the Neupogen® group, 7.27 (min-max: 6.79-7.55) in the Leucostim® group and 7.15 (min-max: 5.34-7.58) in the Granocyte® group. There was no statistically significant difference among groups in terms of total collected PB CD34(+) cells (p = 0.919). The median doses of G-CSF agents (µg/kg/day) in PBSC collection in Neupogen® group was; 11.00 (10.00-12.00) in Leucostim® group10.35 (min-max: 10.00-11.10) and in Granocyte® group11.00 (min-max: 10.00-11.00). There was no statistical significance among groups (p = 0.215). CONCLUSION: Biosimilar filgrastim (Leucostim®) was found comparable to original Filgrastim (Neupogen®) and Lenograstim (Granocyte®) for PBSC mobilization in donors of the patients that underwent alloHSCT.

Comparative effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors to prevent febrile neutropenia and related complications in cancer patients in clinical practice: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious side-effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Several clinical trials and observational studies have evaluated the effects of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) on risk of FN and related complications; however, no systematic reviews have focused on effectiveness in routine clinical practice. Here, we perform a systematic review assessing the comparative effectiveness of prophylaxis with a long-acting G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) versus short-acting G-CSFs (filgrastim, lenograstim, and filgrastim biosimilars) in cancer patients in real-world clinical settings. METHODS: A systematic review was performed based on a pre-specified protocol and was consistent with the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook (2009) and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care (2011). MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles published from January 2002 to June 2014. Congress databases (MASCC/ASCO/ESMO) and Google Scholar were searched for abstracts published from January 2012 to August 2014. Filgrastim (NEUPOGEN®), lenograstim and nivestim (a filgrastim biosimilar) were the only short-acting G-CSFs and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) was the only long-acting G-CSF described in eligible studies. Outcomes of interest were FN, FN-related hospitalisation and other FN-related complications (death, chemotherapy dose delays and reductions, antimicrobial treatment, severe neutropenia and costs and resource use). RESULTS: Of 1259 unique records identified, 18 real-world observational studies met predefined inclusion criteria; 15 were retrospective studies, and 3 were prospective studies. Multiple tumour types, chemotherapy regimens and geographical regions were included. Seven studies provided statistical comparisons of the risk of FN; risk of FN among patients receiving prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus short-acting G-CSF was significantly lower in three studies, numerically lower in three studies, and numerically higher in one study. Six studies provided statistical comparisons of the risk of FN-related hospitalisation; risk of FN-related hospitalisation among patients receiving prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus short-acting G-CSF was significantly lower in all six studies, though some variation was seen in subanalyses. Data for other outcomes were sparse with available results being generally consistent with the results seen for risk of FN and FN-related hospitalisation. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings from this review of real-world comparative effectiveness studies, risks of FN and FN-related complications were generally lower for prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim versus prophylaxis with short-acting G-CSFs.

Mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells with lenograstim in healthy donors: efficacy and safety analysis according to donor age.

We reviewed and analyzed safety and efficacy data after mobilization with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) according to healthy donor's (HDs) age as follows: <50 years (HDs-1, n = 161), aged 50 to 59 years (HDs-2, n = 62), and ≥60 years or over (HDs-3, n = 23). Two hundred forty-six HDs were evaluated, and their characteristics were well balanced among age groups: most were male, siblings, and HLA matched. According to age group, the median numbers of CD34(+) cells in the peripheral blood for HDs-1, HDs-2, and HDs-3 were, respectively, 44.5, 34.5, and 26 (HDs-1 versus HDs-2, P = .002; HDs-1 versus HDs-3, P = .036; HDs-2 versus HDs-3, P = n.s.) at day 4 and 65.5, 58, and 46 (HDs-1 versus HDs-2, P = .039; HDs-1 versus HDs-3, P = .002; HDs-2 versus HDs-3, P = n.s.) at day 5. With a median apheresis session of 1, the number of CD34(+) cells/kg recipient body weight collected was not significantly different (6.4 in HDs-1, 6.0 in HDs-2, and 5.7 in HDs-3, P = n.s.). Short- and long-term safety did not differ among age groups. Bone pain was reported as the most frequent short-term adverse event (76.5%). After a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the observed rate of solid tumors, hematological malignancies, and cardiovascular and autoimmune events was similar to the expected incidence for these diseases in Western countries. These results show that G-CSF is effective in the mobilization of older HDs. Moreover, our data contribute to the growing body of evidence in support of the long-term safety of G-CSF for allogeneic donor stem cell mobilization also for elderly HDs.

Efficacy of biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor versus originator granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in de novo multiple myeloma patients.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Filgrastim and lenograstim are the standard granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) agents for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization (PBSC) in patients who undergo autologous stem cell transplantation. METHODS: To assess whether biosimilars are effective, we conducted a single-center, prospective study that included 40 consecutive de novo multiple myeloma patients who received cyclophosphamide 4 g/m(2) per day plus biosimilar filgrastim G-CSF to mobilize PBSC. These patients were compared with a group of 37 patients matched for age, diagnosis, previous chemotherapy and mobilization who had been treated with originator G-CSF. The mean number of CD34+ cells/µL in the peripheral blood was 199.6 ± 207.4 in the biosimilar and 192.8 ± 154.7 in the originator group (P = 0.87). The median number of CD34+ cells/kg recipient collected was 11.5 ± 5.8 and 12.3 ± 5.3 in the biosimilar and originator groups, respectively (P = 0.51). The mobilization failure rate was 2.5% and 2.7% in the biosimilar filgrastim and originator filgrastim cohorts (P = NS), respectively. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients in the biosimilar group and 28 patients in the originator group underwent autologous transplantation. There were no statistically significant differences between the biosimilar and originator G-CSF cohorts in terms of hematopoietic recovery parameters and transplant-related toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of biosimilar G-CSF appears to be equivalent to the reference G-CSF.

Mobilization of hematopoietic progenitor stem cells in allogeneic setting with lenograstim by subcutaneous injection, in daily or twice-daily dosing: a single-center prospective study with historical control.

BACKGROUND: Although the mobilization of hematopoietic progenitor stem cells from healthy donors (HDs) using granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor is widely used, the ideal method for the administration of the cytokine has not yet been determined. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Seventy-five consecutive HDs received lenograstim (LENO) as mobilization agent. LENO was given subcutaneously at a dose of 10 µg/kg in a once-daily dose (ODD) every 24 hours. Results were compared with a historical control group of 181 HDs treated with 5 µg/kg LENO twice-daily dose (TDD) with a time interval of 12 hours. RESULTS: CD34+ cell concentrations evaluated on Day 4 and on Day 5 were 45 × 10(6) (range, 6 × 10(6) -217 × 10(6) )/L and 75 × 10(6) (range, 7 × 10(6) -279 × 10(6) )/L with ODD versus 36 × 10(6) (range, 3 × 10(6) -200 × 10(6) )/L and 55 × 10(6) (range, 3 × 10(6) -738 × 10(6) )/L with TDD (p = 0.067 and p = 0.001). The collected CD34+ cell counts in first apheresis procedure were 5.6 × 10(6) ± 2.9 × 10(6) and 5.7 × 10(6) ± 3 × 10(6) /kg donor and recipient body weight in the ODD versus 5.4 × 10(6) ± 3.8 × 10(6) and 5.3 × 10(6) ± 3.5 × 10(6) /kg in the TDD cohort, respectively (p = 0.08 and p = 0.02). Five HDs (6.7%) mobilized CD34+ cells of fewer than 2 × 10(6) /kg recipient body weight in the ODD group compared with seven HDs (3.9%) in the TDD group (p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily administration of LENO is at least as effective as twice-daily administration for the mobilization of CD34+ cells in HDs.

Plerixafor on demand in ten healthy family donors as a rescue strategy to achieve an adequate graft for stem cell transplantation.

BACKGROUND: In allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) transplantation, the collection of an appropriate number of HSCs while maintaining a high level of safety for healthy donors is fundamental. Inadequate HSC mobilization can be seen with the standard use of granulocyte-colony-stimulating (G-CSF). Plerixafor (PL) is a chemokine receptor CXC Type 4-stromal-derived factor 1 inhibitor; its HSC-mobilizing properties are synergistic with G-CSF in poor mobilizing patients. The use of PL as adjuvant or alternative to G-CSF in healthy donors has shown a good safety profile but is so far off-label. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We report 10 healthy HSC donors treated with PL because of insufficient response to G-CSF alone or contraindication to G-CSF. Eight donors did not mobilize enough CD34+ cells with G-CSF alone because poor mobilizers or because insufficient HSCs were harvested according to the clinical need of the patient; in two cases G-CSF administration and marrow harvest were unfeasible or contraindicated in the donor. RESULTS: The use of PL for mobilization increased the number of circulating CD34+ cells by 2.8-fold and the CD34+/kg collection by 3.0-fold. Only mild adverse events were reported (bone pain or discomfort) and not univocally attributable to PL. Rate of engraftment and graft-versus-host disease were similar to those seen in recipients of grafts from G-CSF only-mobilized donors. CONCLUSION: We exposed 10 allogeneic donors to mobilization with PL. PL was well tolerated in all cases and ensured procurement of an adequate graft for transplantation resulting in a normal hematopoietic engraftment.