M Brito1, S Esteves2, R André3,4, M Isidoro5, A Moreira3,2. 1. Medical Oncology Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia Francisco Gentil, Rua Prof. Lima Basto, 1099-023, Lisbon, Portugal. margarida.brito@gmail.com. 2. Clinical Research Unit, Instituto Português de Oncologia Francisco Gentil, Lisbon, Portugal. 3. Medical Oncology Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia Francisco Gentil, Rua Prof. Lima Basto, 1099-023, Lisbon, Portugal. 4. Oncology Department, Novartis Farma SA, Lisbon, Portugal. 5. Pharmacy Department, Instituto Português de Oncologia Francisco Gentil, Lisbon, Portugal.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Biosimilars are supported by limited clinical data at the time of approval. Recently, Nivestim™, a biosimilar of reference of filgrastim, was approved for prevention of chemotherapy-related febrile neutropenia (FN). To add clinical experience to this new biosimilar, we performed a study to compare the effectiveness of Nivestim™ with reference filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in FN prevention in patients receiving high-risk FN chemotherapy. METHODS: This is a comparative cohort study, with retrospective data collection. Three cohorts were identified according to the type of primary prophylaxis employed over different time periods: reference filgrastim (2004-2006), pegfilgrastim (2007-2008) and biosimilar filgrastim (2011-2012). The study included female patients with early breast cancer that received FN primary prophylaxis during (neo)adjuvant docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (TAC). RESULTS: Reference filgrastim cohort included 147 patients and pegfilgrastim and biosimilar filgrastim cohorts 139 and 134 patients, respectively. FN rates per patient/cycle were 16 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 10.2-22.5 %)/3 % (95 % CI 2.1-4.7 %) in the reference filgrastim group, 9 % (95 % CI 4.5-14.6 %)/2 % (95 % CI 1.3-3.6 %) in the pegfilgrastim group and 16 % (95 % CI 10.0-22.9 %)/4 % (95 % CI 2.5-5.3 %) in the biosimilar filgrastim cohort. The median absolute neutrophil count (ANC) at FN presentation was lower in the biosimilar group in comparison with reference filgrastim. FN episodes with ANC < 100 cells/μL were more frequent in the biosimilar group (50 %) when compared with reference filgrastim (4 %) and pegfilgrastim (6 %). No differences concerning FN complications were seen, with the exception of more chemotherapy delays in the biosimilar group when compared with pegfilgrastim. CONCLUSION: No differences in biosimilar effectiveness were detected. The clinical relevance of the profound neutropenia found in the biosimilar cohort needs further attention.
PURPOSE: Biosimilars are supported by limited clinical data at the time of approval. Recently, Nivestim™, a biosimilar of reference of filgrastim, was approved for prevention of chemotherapy-related febrile neutropenia (FN). To add clinical experience to this new biosimilar, we performed a study to compare the effectiveness of Nivestim™ with reference filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in FN prevention in patients receiving high-risk FN chemotherapy. METHODS: This is a comparative cohort study, with retrospective data collection. Three cohorts were identified according to the type of primary prophylaxis employed over different time periods: reference filgrastim (2004-2006), pegfilgrastim (2007-2008) and biosimilar filgrastim (2011-2012). The study included female patients with early breast cancer that received FN primary prophylaxis during (neo)adjuvant docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (TAC). RESULTS: Reference filgrastim cohort included 147 patients and pegfilgrastim and biosimilar filgrastim cohorts 139 and 134 patients, respectively. FN rates per patient/cycle were 16 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 10.2-22.5 %)/3 % (95 % CI 2.1-4.7 %) in the reference filgrastim group, 9 % (95 % CI 4.5-14.6 %)/2 % (95 % CI 1.3-3.6 %) in the pegfilgrastim group and 16 % (95 % CI 10.0-22.9 %)/4 % (95 % CI 2.5-5.3 %) in the biosimilar filgrastim cohort. The median absolute neutrophil count (ANC) at FN presentation was lower in the biosimilar group in comparison with reference filgrastim. FN episodes with ANC < 100 cells/μL were more frequent in the biosimilar group (50 %) when compared with reference filgrastim (4 %) and pegfilgrastim (6 %). No differences concerning FN complications were seen, with the exception of more chemotherapy delays in the biosimilar group when compared with pegfilgrastim. CONCLUSION: No differences in biosimilar effectiveness were detected. The clinical relevance of the profound neutropenia found in the biosimilar cohort needs further attention.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Febrile neutropenia; Filgrastim; G-CSF biosimilar
Authors: Cornelius F Waller; Vladimir F Semiglazov; Sergei Tjulandin; Dmitry Bentsion; Stephen Chan; Rodeina Challand Journal: Onkologie Date: 2010-09-06
Authors: Jose L Passos-Coelho; Susana Esteves; Paula A Vieira; Miguel Isidoro; Manuel Ribeiro; João Oliveira; António R Moreira Journal: Breast J Date: 2011 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Johanna N Timmer-Bonte; Theo M de Boo; Hans J Smit; Bonne Biesma; Frank A Wilschut; Samia A Cheragwandi; Arien Termeer; Cornelis A Hensing; Janine Akkermans; Eddy M Adang; Geeben P Bootsma; Vivianne C Tjan-Heijnen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Miguel Martín; Miguel A Seguí; Antonio Antón; Amparo Ruiz; Manuel Ramos; Encarna Adrover; Ignacio Aranda; Alvaro Rodríguez-Lescure; Regina Grosse; Lourdes Calvo; Agustí Barnadas; Dolores Isla; Purificación Martinez del Prado; Manuel Ruiz Borrego; Jerzy Zaluski; Angels Arcusa; Montserrat Muñoz; José M López Vega; José R Mel; Blanca Munarriz; Cristina Llorca; Carlos Jara; Emilio Alba; Jesús Florián; Junfang Li; José A López García-Asenjo; Amparo Sáez; María José Rios; Sergio Almenar; Gloria Peiró; Ana Lluch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-12-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Miguel Martin; Tadeusz Pienkowski; John Mackey; Marek Pawlicki; Jean-Paul Guastalla; Charles Weaver; Eva Tomiak; Taher Al-Tweigeri; Linnea Chap; Eva Juhos; Raymond Guevin; Anthony Howell; Tommy Fornander; John Hainsworth; Robert Coleman; Jeferson Vinholes; Manuel Modiano; Tamas Pinter; Shou C Tang; Bruce Colwell; Catherine Prady; Louise Provencher; David Walde; Alvaro Rodriguez-Lescure; Judith Hugh; Camille Loret; Matthieu Rupin; Sandra Blitz; Philip Jacobs; Michael Murawsky; Alessandro Riva; Charles Vogel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-06-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: F A Holmes; S E Jones; J O'Shaughnessy; S Vukelja; T George; M Savin; D Richards; J Glaspy; L Meza; G Cohen; M Dhami; D R Budman; J Hackett; M Brassard; B B Yang; B C Liang Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: G von Minckwitz; S Kümmel; A du Bois; W Eiermann; H Eidtmann; B Gerber; J Hilfrich; J Huober; S D Costa; C Jackisch; S-T Grasshoff; S Vescia; T Skacel; S Loibl; K M Mehta; M Kaufmann Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2007-09-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Isabel Puértolas; Alberto Frutos Pérez-Surio; María Aránzazu Alcácera; Raquel Andrés; María Del Tránsito Salvador Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-11-19 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Wen-Yu Yang; Tian-Feng Liu; Xiao-Juan Chen; Ye Guo; Ting Li; Ben-Quan Qi; Fang Liu; Li-Xian Chang; Min Ruan; Xiao-Ming Liu; Li Zhang; Yao Zou; Yu-Mei Chen; Xiao-Fan Zhu Journal: Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi Date: 2020-11
Authors: Yan Qin; Xiaohong Han; Lin Wang; Ping Du; Jiarui Yao; Di Wu; Yuanyuan Song; Shuxiang Zhang; Le Tang; Yuankai Shi Journal: Chin J Cancer Res Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Paul Cornes; Pere Gascon; Stephen Chan; Khalid Hameed; Catherine R Mitchell; Polly Field; Mark Latymer; Luiz H Arantes Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2018-10-08 Impact factor: 3.845