Hartmut Link1, G Illerhaus2, U M Martens3, A Salar4, R Depenbusch5, A Köhler6, M Engelhardt7, S Mahlmann8, M Zaiss9, A Lammerich10, P Bias10, A Buchner10. 1. Private Practice Hematology Medical Oncology, Finkenhain 8, 67661, Kaiserslautern, Germany. hlink@kabelmail.de. 2. Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine Clinic, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany. 3. Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine Clinic, SLK-Clinics, Heilbronn, Germany. 4. Hospital del Mar Paseo Marítimo, Hematology, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Oncology Practice, Gütersloh, Gütersloh, Germany. 6. Hematology and Oncology Collective Practice, Asklepios Clinic Specialist Medical Centre Langen, Langen, Germany. 7. Internal Medicine Clinic I, Hematology, Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation, University Clinic, Faculty of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 8. Hematology/Oncology and Nephrology Clinic, Friedrich-Ebert-Hospital Neumünster, Neumünster, Germany. 9. Interdiscliplinary Practice for Oncology and Hematology, Freiburg, Germany. 10. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ulm, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lipegfilgrastim has been shown to be non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for reduction of the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in breast cancer patients. This open-label, non-inferiority study assessed the efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in elderly patients with aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) at high risk for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. PATIENT AND METHODS: One hundred and one patients (median age, 75 years) were randomized to lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim (6 mg/cycle) during six cycles of R-CHOP21. RESULTS: Lipegfilgrastim was non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for the primary efficacy endpoint, reduction of DSN in cycle 1. In the per-protocol population, mean (standard deviation) DSN was 0.8 (0.92) and 0.9 (1.11) days in the two groups, respectively; the adjusted mean difference between groups was - 0.3 days (95% confidence interval, - 0.70 to 0.19). Non-inferiority was also demonstrated in the intent-to-treat population. The incidence of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 was 51% (21/41) in the lipegfilgrastim group and 52% (23/44) in the pegfilgrastim group. Very severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.1 × 109/L) in cycle 1 was reported by 5 (12%) patients in the lipegfilgrastim group and 8 (18%) patients in the pegfilgrastim group. However, over all cycles, febrile neutropenia (strict definition) was reported by only 1 (2%) patient in each treatment group (during cycle 1 in the lipegfilgrastim group and cycle 6 in the pegfilgrastim group). The mean time to absolute neutrophil count recovery (defined as ≥ 2.0 × 109/L) was 8.3 and 9.4 days in the two groups, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred in 46% of patients in each group; none were considered treatment-related. Eight patients died during the study (2 in the lipegfilgrastim group, 5 in the pegfilgrastim group, and 1 who died before starting study treatment). No deaths occurred during the treatment period, and all were considered to be related to the underlying disease. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows lipegfilgrastim to be non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for the reduction of DSN in elderly patients with aggressive B cell NHL receivingmyelosuppressive chemotherapy, with a comparable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02044276; EudraCT number 2013-001284-23.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Lipegfilgrastim has been shown to be non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for reduction of the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in breast cancerpatients. This open-label, non-inferiority study assessed the efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in elderly patients with aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) at high risk for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. PATIENT AND METHODS: One hundred and one patients (median age, 75 years) were randomized to lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim (6 mg/cycle) during six cycles of R-CHOP21. RESULTS: Lipegfilgrastim was non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for the primary efficacy endpoint, reduction of DSN in cycle 1. In the per-protocol population, mean (standard deviation) DSN was 0.8 (0.92) and 0.9 (1.11) days in the two groups, respectively; the adjusted mean difference between groups was - 0.3 days (95% confidence interval, - 0.70 to 0.19). Non-inferiority was also demonstrated in the intent-to-treat population. The incidence of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 was 51% (21/41) in the lipegfilgrastim group and 52% (23/44) in the pegfilgrastim group. Very severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.1 × 109/L) in cycle 1 was reported by 5 (12%) patients in the lipegfilgrastim group and 8 (18%) patients in the pegfilgrastim group. However, over all cycles, febrile neutropenia (strict definition) was reported by only 1 (2%) patient in each treatment group (during cycle 1 in the lipegfilgrastim group and cycle 6 in the pegfilgrastim group). The mean time to absolute neutrophil count recovery (defined as ≥ 2.0 × 109/L) was 8.3 and 9.4 days in the two groups, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred in 46% of patients in each group; none were considered treatment-related. Eight patientsdied during the study (2 in the lipegfilgrastim group, 5 in the pegfilgrastim group, and 1 who died before starting study treatment). No deaths occurred during the treatment period, and all were considered to be related to the underlying disease. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows lipegfilgrastim to be non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for the reduction of DSN in elderly patients with aggressive B cell NHL receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, with a comparable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02044276; EudraCT number 2013-001284-23.
Authors: M S Aapro; J Bohlius; D A Cameron; Lissandra Dal Lago; J Peter Donnelly; N Kearney; G H Lyman; R Pettengell; V C Tjan-Heijnen; J Walewski; Damien C Weber; C Zielinski Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-11-20 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Bertrand Coiffier; Eric Lepage; Josette Briere; Raoul Herbrecht; Hervé Tilly; Reda Bouabdallah; Pierre Morel; Eric Van Den Neste; Gilles Salles; Philippe Gaulard; Felix Reyes; Pierre Lederlin; Christian Gisselbrecht Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-01-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David Cunningham; Eliza A Hawkes; Andrew Jack; Wendi Qian; Paul Smith; Paul Mouncey; Christopher Pocock; Kirit M Ardeshna; John A Radford; Andrew McMillan; John Davies; Deborah Turner; Anton Kruger; Peter Johnson; Joanna Gambell; David Linch Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lynne I Wagner; Jennifer L Beaumont; Beiying Ding; Jennifer Malin; Amy Peterman; Elizabeth Calhoun; David Cella Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2007-07-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Hartmut Link; Stephen F Thompson; Marc Tian; Jennifer S Haas; Dominic Meise; Christopher Maas; Stamen Dimitrov Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-09-08 Impact factor: 3.359