Literature DB >> 25894719

Comparison of pharmacokinetics and safety of pegfilgrastim administered by two delivery methods: on-body injector and manual injection with a prefilled syringe.

Bing-Bing Yang1, Phuong Khanh Morrow, Xikun Wu, Michael Moxness, Desmond Padhi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: For patients with clinically significant risk of febrile neutropenia, pegfilgrastim administration should occur the day after myelosuppressive chemotherapy; however, a variety of factors may preclude patients from returning to the clinic the next day for pegfilgrastim administration, necessitating other strategies. This study compared the pharmacokinetics and safety of pegfilgrastim administered via an on-body injector applied to the subject's skin versus manual injection using a prefilled syringe.
METHODS: Healthy subjects aged 18-50 years were randomized 1:1 to receive a single 6-mg subcutaneous pegfilgrastim dose from an on-body injector or a prefilled syringe. Blood for pharmacokinetic measurements was collected at baseline and prespecified time points after pegfilgrastim administration; safety was assessed throughout the 6-week study. Primary endpoints were maximum concentration (C max) and area under the concentration curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-inf). Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity.
RESULTS: Pegfilgrastim mean AUC0-inf values for the on-body injector (n = 125) and manual injection (n = 128) were 10,900 and 11,100 h ng/mL, respectively; mean C max values were 248 and 262 ng/mL, respectively. The least squares geometric mean ratios were 0.97 for C max and 1.00 for AUC0-inf; the corresponding 90 % CIs were within the prespecified range (0.80-1.25), indicating comparable pegfilgrastim pharmacokinetics between delivery methods. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were similar between groups (injector, 86 %; manual, 85 %). Injector- or syringe-related AEs were more prevalent with the injector (13 %; manual, 4 %); none were serious. No pegfilgrastim-neutralizing antibodies were detected.
CONCLUSIONS: Pegfilgrastim pharmacokinetics and safety were comparable between the on-body injector and manual injection groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25894719     DOI: 10.1007/s00280-015-2731-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol        ISSN: 0344-5704            Impact factor:   3.333


  17 in total

1.  Racial Differences in Accepting Pegfilgrastim Onpro Kit (On-Body Injector) Use Among Cancer Patients.

Authors:  M W Saif; D W Hackenyos; M H Smith; P Healey; V Relias; K Wasif
Journal:  Clin Oncol (Las Vegas)       Date:  2019-02-25

2.  Proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim shows similarity in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics to reference pegfilgrastim in healthy subjects.

Authors:  Roumen Nakov; Sreekanth Gattu; Jessie Wang; Maria Velinova; Gregor Schaffar; Andrej Skerjanec
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 4.335

3.  Measures of Treatment Workload for Patients With Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Alex C Cheng; Mia A Levy
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2019-02

4.  Administration options for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis: patient and physician preferences from a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  A Brett Hauber; Brennan Mange; Mark A Price; Daniel Wolin; Mark Bensink; James A Kaye; David Chandler
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 3.603

5.  Safety and Efficacy of Same-Day Administration of Pegfilgrastim in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy for Gastrointestinal Malignancies.

Authors:  Robert M Matera; Valerie Relias; Muhammad Wasif Saif
Journal:  Cancer Med J       Date:  2020-05-18

6.  First Analysis of Same-day Pegfilgrastim Use with Concurrent Capecitabine-based Regimens in Patients with Gastrointestinal Malignancies.

Authors:  Muhammad Wasif Saif; Nausheen Hakim; Jeffrey Chi; Hasan Rehman; Shreya Prasad Goyal; Coral Olazagasti; Patnita Forde Sheperd; Jyothi Jose
Journal:  Cancer Med J       Date:  2020-12-30

Review 7.  Design Rationale and Development Approach for Pegfilgrastim as a Long-Acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor.

Authors:  Tara Arvedson; James O'Kelly; Bing-Bing Yang
Journal:  BioDrugs       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.807

8.  Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Outcomes Associated With the Use of Pegfilgrastim On-body Injector in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy Requiring Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Support.

Authors:  Jolly Patel; Rebecca Ann Rainess; Miranda J Benfield; Kate M L Rogers; Donald C Moore; Chris Larck; Justin R Arnall
Journal:  Hosp Pharm       Date:  2019-08-02

9.  Meta-analysis of Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Results of 3 Phase 1 Studies with Biosimilar Pegfilgrastim.

Authors:  Sreekanth Gattu; Jessie Wang; Anne Bellon; Celine Schelcher; Roumen Nakov; Ramin Arani
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev       Date:  2021-08-04

10.  Pooled analysis of two randomized, double-blind trials comparing proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in breast cancer.

Authors:  K Blackwell; P Gascon; C M Jones; A Nixon; A Krendyukov; R Nakov; Y Li; N Harbeck
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 32.976

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.