14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Extrapolation in Practice: Lessons from 10 Years with Biosimilar Filgrastim

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Biosimilar filgrastim (Sandoz) was approved in Europe in 2009 and, in 2015, was the first biosimilar approved in the USA. These authorizations were based on the “totality of evidence” concept, an approach that considers data from structural and functional characterization and comparability analysis and non-clinical and clinical studies. For biosimilar filgrastim, phase III confirmatory clinical studies were performed in the most sensitive population, patients with breast cancer undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In Europe and the USA, approval was granted for all indications of the reference biologic. Hence, stem cell mobilization and severe chronic neutropenia indications were approved on the basis of extrapolation, with no clinical data available at the time of market authorization in the EU. Although extrapolation is well-accepted in biologic development and regulatory contexts, it remains a misunderstood part of the biosimilarity concept in the medical community. Since approval, more than a decade of obtained clinical experience supports the totality of evidence and reassures clinicians regarding the efficacy and safety of biosimilar filgrastim. This includes real-world data from MONITOR-GCSF, a multicenter, prospective, observational study describing treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of patients with cancer ( n = 1447) receiving biosimilar filgrastim for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in solid tumors and hematological malignancies. Evidence is also available from unrelated healthy donors and those with severe chronic neutropenia. Together, the experience from a decade of use of biosimilar filgrastim includes over 24 million patient-days of exposure, which can help reassure oncologists that extrapolation is based on strong scientific evidence and works in practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references63

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours.

          Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a major risk factor for infection-related morbidity and mortality and also a significant dose-limiting toxicity in cancer treatment. Patients developing severe (grade 3/4) or febrile neutropenia (FN) during chemotherapy frequently receive dose reductions and/or delays to their chemotherapy. This may impact the success of treatment, particularly when treatment intent is either curative or to prolong survival. In Europe, prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), such as filgrastim (including approved biosimilars), lenograstim or pegfilgrastim is available to reduce the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. However, the use of G-CSF prophylactic treatment varies widely in clinical practice, both in the timing of therapy and in the patients to whom it is offered. The need for generally applicable, European-focused guidelines led to the formation of a European Guidelines Working Party by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and the publication in 2006 of guidelines for the use of G-CSF in adult cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced FN. A new systematic literature review has been undertaken to ensure that recommendations are current and provide guidance on clinical practice in Europe. We recommend that patient-related adverse risk factors, such as elderly age (≥65 years) and neutrophil count be evaluated in the overall assessment of FN risk before administering each cycle of chemotherapy. It is important that after a previous episode of FN, patients receive prophylactic administration of G-CSF in subsequent cycles. We provide an expanded list of common chemotherapy regimens considered to have a high (≥20%) or intermediate (10-20%) risk of FN. Prophylactic G-CSF continues to be recommended in patients receiving a chemotherapy regimen with high risk of FN. When using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in 10-20% of patients, particular attention should be given to patient-related risk factors that may increase the overall risk of FN. In situations where dose-dense or dose-intense chemotherapy strategies have survival benefits, prophylactic G-CSF support is recommended. Similarly, if reductions in chemotherapy dose intensity or density are known to be associated with a poor prognosis, primary G-CSF prophylaxis may be used to maintain chemotherapy. Clinical evidence shows that filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim have clinical efficacy and we recommend the use of any of these agents to prevent FN and FN-related complications where indicated. Filgrastim biosimilars are also approved for use in Europe. While other forms of G-CSF, including biosimilars, are administered by a course of daily injections, pegfilgrastim allows once-per-cycle administration. Choice of formulation remains a matter for individual clinical judgement. Evidence from multiple low level studies derived from audit data and clinical practice suggests that some patients receive suboptimal daily G-CSFs; the use of pegfilgrastim may avoid this problem. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Blinded, randomized, multicenter study to evaluate single administration pegfilgrastim once per cycle versus daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II or stage III/IV breast cancer.

            This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-control study was designed to determine whether a single subcutaneous injection of pegfilgrastim (SD/01, sustained-duration filgrastim; 100 microg/kg) is as safe and effective as daily filgrastim (5 microg/kg/d) for reducing neutropenia in patients who received four cycles of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Sixty-two centers enrolled 310 patients who received chemotherapy with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each cycle for a maximum of four cycles. Patients were randomized to receive on day 2 either a single subcutaneous injection of pegfilgrastim 100 microg/kg per chemotherapy cycle (154 patients) or daily subcutaneous injections of filgrastim 5 microg/kg/d (156 patients). Absolute neutrophil count (ANC), duration of grade 4 neutropenia, and safety parameters were monitored. One dose of pegfilgrastim per chemotherapy cycle was comparable to daily subcutaneous injections of filgrastim with regard to all efficacy end points, including the duration of severe neutropenia and the depth of ANC nadir in all cycles. Febrile neutropenia across all cycles occurred less often in patients who received pegfilgrastim. The difference in the mean duration of severe neutropenia between the pegfilgrastim and filgrastim treatment groups was less than 1 day. Pegfilgrastim was safe and well tolerated, and it was similar to filgrastim. Adverse event profiles in the pegfilgrastim and filgrastim groups were similar. A single injection of pegfilgrastim 100 microg/kg per cycle was as safe and effective as daily injections of filgrastim 5 microg/kg/d in reducing neutropenia and its complications in patients who received four cycles of doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) and docetaxel 75 mg/m(2).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A randomized double-blind multicenter phase III study of fixed-dose single-administration pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

              We evaluated the efficacy of a single fixed 6 mg dose of pegfilgrastim (a pegylated version of filgrastim) per cycle of chemotherapy, compared with daily administration of filgrastim, in the provision of neutrophil support. Patients (n = 157) were randomized to receive either a single 6 mg subcutaneous (s.c.) injection of pegfilgrastim or daily 5 mg/kg s.c. injections of filgrastim, after doxorubicin and docetaxel chemotherapy (60 mg/m(2) and 75 mg/m(2), respectively). Duration of grade 4 neutropenia, depth of neutrophil nadir, incidence of febrile neutropenia, time to neutrophil recovery and safety information were recorded. A single 6 mg injection of pegfilgrastim was as effective as daily injections of filgrastim for all efficacy measures for all cycles. The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in cycle 1 was 1.8 and 1.6 days for the pegfilgrastim and filgrastim groups, respectively. Results for all efficacy end points in cycles 2-4 were consistent with the results from cycle 1. A trend towards a lower incidence of febrile neutropenia was noted across all cycles with pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim (13% versus 20%, respectively). A single fixed dose of pegfilgrastim was as safe and well tolerated as standard daily filgrastim. A single fixed dose of pegfilgrastim administered once per cycle of chemotherapy was comparable to multiple daily injections of filgrastim in safely providing neutrophil support during myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim may have utility in other clinical settings of neutropenia.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +41 22 366 91 36 , maapro@genolier.net
                Journal
                BioDrugs
                BioDrugs
                Biodrugs
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1173-8804
                1179-190X
                22 August 2019
                22 August 2019
                2019
                : 33
                : 6
                : 635-645
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Hematology-Oncology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
                [2 ]GRID grid.467675.1, ISNI 0000 0004 0629 4302, Hexal AG, ; Holzkirchen, Germany
                [3 ]GRID grid.418680.3, ISNI 0000 0004 0417 3996, Cancer Center, , Clinique de Genolier, ; Route du Muids 3, 1272 Genolier, Switzerland
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3570-8319
                Article
                373
                10.1007/s40259-019-00373-2
                6875156
                31440986
                6009e11f-0243-40d4-bf68-ed9f43bfcdd0
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                Categories
                Review Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

                Comments

                Comment on this article