Search

Background: Following the functional and physicochemical characterization of a proposed biosimilar, comparative clinical studies help to confirm biosimilarity by demonstrating similar safety and efficacy to the reference product in a sensitive patient population., Patients and Methods: LA-EP2006 is a proposed biosimilar that has been developed for pegfilgrastim, a long-acting form of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for the prevention of neutropenia. The current analysis reports data pooled from two independent, multinational, prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind phase III studies of similar design comparing the safety and efficacy of reference pegfilgrastim with LA-EP2006 in patients with breast cancer receiving myelotoxic (neo)adjuvant TAC (docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy and requiring granulocyte colony-stimulating factor., Results: A total of 624 patients were randomized in the PROTECT-1 and PROTECT-2 studies (NCT01735175; NCT01516736) (LA-EP2006: n = 314; reference: n = 310). Baseline characteristics of patients were well balanced across treatment groups. The primary end point, mean duration of severe neutropenia in the first chemotherapy cycle was similar in both the LA-EP2006 and reference groups (1.05 ± 1.055 days versus 1.01 ± 0.958 days), with a treatment difference of - 0.04 days [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.19 to 0.11] that met the equivalence criteria (the 95% CI were within the defined margin of ±1 day). Secondary end points, such as the nadir of absolute neutrophil count and the incidence of febrile neutropenia, were also similar between LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim. The safety and tolerability profile of LA-EP2006 was similar to that observed with reference pegfilgrastim, and there were no reports of neutralizing antibodies., Conclusions: This pooled analysis confirms, as a part of totality of evidence approach, that the proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim LA-EP2006 has a comparable efficacy and safety profile to reference pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer receiving TAC chemotherapy., Clinical Trial Numbers: NCT01735175 and NCT01516736., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background: Pegfilgrastim is widely used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. In highly regulated markets, there are currently no approved biosimilars of pegfilgrastim. Pegfilgrastim Randomized Oncology (Supportive Care) Trial to Evaluate Comparative Treatment (PROTECT-2) was a confirmatory efficacy and safety study designed to compare proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta, Amgen) in early-stage breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant or neoadjuvant myelosuppressive chemotherapy., Methods: A total of 308 patients were randomized to LA-EP2006 or reference pegfilgrastim. Each patient received TAC (intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2)) on day 1 of each cycle, for six or more cycles. Pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006 or reference) was given subcutaneously (6 mg in 0.6 mL) on day 2 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) during cycle 1 (number of consecutive days with an absolute neutrophil count <0.5 × 10(9)/L), with equivalence confirmed if 90% and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were within a 1-day margin., Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced. DSN was equivalent between groups at mean ± SD 1.36 ± 1.13 (LA-EP2006, n = 155) and 1.19 ± 0.98 (reference, n = 153) in cycle 1. With a treatment difference (reference minus LA-EP2006) of -0.16 days (90% CI -0.36 to 0.04; 95% CI -0.40 to 0.08), LA-EP2006 was equivalent to reference pegfilgrastim. Secondary efficacy parameters were similar between groups during cycle 1 and across cycles. Safety profiles were also similar between groups. No neutralizing antibodies against pegfilgrastim, filgrastim, or polyethylene glycol were detected., Conclusion: LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim were therapeutically equivalent and comparable regarding efficacy and safety in the prevention of neutropenia in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving TAC., Implications for Practice: The granulocyte colony-stimulating factor pegfilgrastim is widely used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Biosimilars are biologics with similar quality, safety, and efficacy to a reference product that may increase the affordability of treatment compared with their reference compounds. There are currently no approved biosimilars of pegfilgrastim in highly regulated markets. No previous phase III studies have been performed with LA-EP2006. PROTECT-2 was conducted to confirm the similarity of the proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 to pegfilgrastim. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006) may benefit oncology patients by offering increased access to biological treatments that may improve clinical outcomes. This means that patients could potentially be treated prophylactically with biologics rather than only after complications have occurred., (©AlphaMed Press.)

Aim: This randomized, double-blind trial compared proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer (PROTECT-1)., Patients & Methods: Women (≥18 years) were randomized to receive LA-EP2006 (n = 159) or reference (n = 157) pegfilgrastim (Neulasta(®), Amgen) for ≤6 cycles of (neo)-adjuvant TAC chemotherapy. Primary end point was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) during cycle 1 (number of consecutive days with absolute neutrophil count <0.5 × 10(9)/l) with equivalence confirmed if 90% and 95% CIs were within a ±1 day margin., Results: For DSN, LA-EP2006 was equivalent to reference (difference: 0.07 days; 90% CI: -0.09-0.23; 95% CI: -0.12-0.26)., Conclusion: LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim showed no clinically meaningful differences regarding efficacy and safety in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Background: Biosimilars of filgrastim are in widespread clinical use in Europe. This phase III study compares biosimilar filgrastim (EP2006), with the US-licensed reference product, Neupogen(®), in breast cancer patients receiving (neo)adjuvant myelosuppressive chemotherapy (TAC)., Patients and Methods: A total of 218 patients receiving 5 µg/kg/day filgrastim over six chemotherapy cycles were randomized 1:1:1:1 into four arms. Two arms received only one product (nonalternating), biosimilar or reference, and two arms (alternating) received alternating treatments during each cycle (biosimilar then reference or vice versa). The primary end point was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) during cycle 1., Results: The baseline characteristics were balanced between the four treatment arms. Noninferiority of biosimilar versus the reference was demonstrated: DSN (days) in cycle 1 was 1.17 ± 1.11 (biosimilar, N = 101) and 1.20 ± 1.02 (reference, N = 103), 97.5% confidence interval lower boundary for the difference was -0.26 days (above the predefined limit of -1 day). No clinically meaningful differences were observed regarding any other efficacy parameter: incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN); hospitalization due to FN; incidence of infections; depth and time of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir and time to ANC recovery during cycle 1 and across all cycles. The pattern and frequency of adverse events were similar across all treatments., Conclusion: This study demonstrates that biosimilar and the reference filgrastim are similar with no clinically meaningful differences regarding efficacy and safety in prevention of severe neutropenia. Biosimilar filgrastim could represent an important alternative to the reference product, potentially benefiting public health by increasing access to filgrastim treatment., Study Number: NCT01519700., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background The use of supportive granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to reduce the risk of neutropenic complications in high-risk cancer patients is consistently recommended by several clinical practice guidelines. However, in a previous meta-analysis, G-CSF prophylaxis was associated with an increased risk of secondary malignancies while reducing long-term mortality. We present here an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and methods A systematic literature search was carried out to identify randomized controlled trials of cancer patients receiving conventional-dose chemotherapy, assigned to primary G-CSF support or a control group without initial G-CSF, with at least 2 years of follow-up. Studies were categorized into one of the four groups, based on the chemotherapy regimen and study design. An updated meta-analysis was carried out; relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all-cause mortality and secondary malignancies were calculated. Results Of 2604 articles screened, 14 eligible studies were identified and combined with studies identified in the previous systematic literature searches. The updated meta-analysis included a total of 68 studies presenting 71 separate comparisons. Survival was significantly improved in patients receiving primary G-CSF support, compared with patients without primary G-CSF support (mortality RR=0.92; 95% CI 0.90–0.95; ARD=−3.3%; 95% CI −4.2–−2.4; P  <   0.0001). The largest improvement in survival was observed with dose-dense chemotherapy regimens with G-CSF support, compared with controls receiving no G-CSF support (mortality RR=0.86; 95% CI 0.80–0.92; P  <   0.0001). Patients who received primary G-CSF support experienced a significantly higher risk of secondary malignancies, compared with controls (RR=1.85; 95% CI 1.19–2.88; ARD=0.47; 95% CI 0.21–0.73; P  <   0.01). Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that overall survival is improved in patients receiving intensified chemotherapy with primary G-CSF support, compared with those receiving standard chemotherapy. Primary G-CSF support was also associated with a higher risk of developing secondary malignancies, including secondary acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]