Search

In 2008, tbo-filgrastim was approved as a biosimilar in Europe and then approved in the United States by the FDA in 2012 as a biologic product with 1 similar indication to filgrastim. Because tbo-filgrastim was less expensive than filgrastim, and clinical information and expert opinion supported similarity, the PharmacyTherapeutics Committee of a large health care system approved tbo-filgrastim as the preferred granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) product in March 2014.To (a) assess the use of filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim products by comparing baseline characteristics, setting of care, indication for use, and payer type and (b) understand potential barriers of conversion to tbo-filgrastim.A retrospective evaluation of filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim use was conducted on all patients (N = 204) who received the drugs between July 2015 and December 2015 at the 2 largest hospitals in the health system. Baseline characteristics, indication requiring use of filgrastim or tbo-filgrastim, setting of care, and payer information were collected from electronic medical records, and descriptive analyses were conducted.Overall, G-CSFs were administered to 204 patients for 261 episodes of care (filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim were used in 65 and 196 episodes of care, respectively). Baseline characteristics were similar between the 59 patients who received filgrastim and the 174 patients who received tbo-filgrastim. G-CSF was primarily used in the inpatient setting (163 episodes of care, 63%) with 90% of patients using tbo-filgrastim. In the outpatient setting (98 episodes of care, 38%), filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim were each used by 50% of patients. Tbo-filgrastim was the preferred G-CSF by clinical providers for all indications, except for stem cell mobilization, where filgrastim use was higher (55% vs. 45% of 71 episodes of care). In the outpatient setting, analysis by payers showed that the majority of patients on commercial plans were using filgrastim (58%), while half of Medicare patients were using filgrastim (50%, n = 12). Twelve patients were self-paid, and all were using tbo-filgrastim. Subgroup analysis by hospital showed differences in utilization patterns.Although tbo-filgrastim was the preferred G-CSF in our formulary, 29% of patients continued to receive filgrastim. Conversion to tbo-filgrastim has been largely successful, but extra steps may be needed to achieve full conversion to biosimilars.No outside funding supported this study. Agboola was employed by Partners Healthcare at the time of the study. The authors have nothing to disclose. Study concept and design were contributed equally by Agboola and Reddy. Agboola collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by both authors. The manuscript was written primarily by Agboola, with assistance from Reddy. Both authors revised the manuscript.

The biologic medication filgrastim is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to mobilize hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs) for collection by leukapheresis for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). The FDA-approved biologic tbo-filgrastim is currently used off-label for this indication in both autologous and allogeneic HSCT at the Tennessee Valley Healthcare System. The purpose of this review is to compare the efficacy of filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim for this indication. The primary outcomes were the proportion of autologous patients and allogeneic donors with a CD34+ count ≥15 × 103 cells/uL on day 4 of filgrastim or tbo-filgrastim mobilization. The secondary outcome was the use of plerixafor in the autologous population. A total of 469 subjects were identified for inclusion; 367 underwent mobilization for autologous HSCT and 102 for allogeneic HSCT donation. The primary outcome was achieved in 47.5% of patients who received filgrastim compared to 50.2% who received tbo-filgrastim in the autologous population (p = 0.67). Among donors for allogeneic HSCT, there was no difference between those eligible for collection on day 4 of filgrastim or tbo-filgrastim administration (97.6% vs. 100%, p = 0.41). No significant difference was identified in the number of patients requiring plerixafor use in the autologous HSCT population. The use of the biosimilar tbo-filgrastim for mobilization in either autologous HSCT patients or allogeneic HSCT donors has comparable outcomes to that of the biotherapeutic reference product filgrastim at a reduced cost to the healthcare system.

Aim: This integrated analysis examined the immunogenicity of tbo-filgrastim and its potential clinical impact in three Phase III randomized studies in patients with breast cancer, lung cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving chemotherapy. Results: Treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies (ADA) occurred in 3/213 (1.4%) breast cancer patients, 2/160 (1.3%) lung cancer patients and 1/63 (1.6%) patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. None of the treatment-emergent ADA showed cross-reactivity toward native granulocyte-colony stimulating factors or exhibited neutralizing activity against tbo-filgrastim. Among patients with treatment-emergent ADA, there was no treatment-related hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis and no evidence of loss of clinical efficacy. Conclusion: Tbo-filgrastim has demonstrated low immunogenicity in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and ADA response does not impact safety and efficacy in the patients.

Liat Adar,1 Noa Avisar,1 Andreas Lammerich,2 Robert B Kleiman,3 Ofer Spiegelstein1 1R&D, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Netanya, Israel; 2Biosimilars Clinical Development, CPP Teva ratiopharm, Merckle GmbH, Ulm,Germany; 3Global Cardiology, eResearch Technology Inc, Philadelphia, PA, USA Abstract: Tbo-filgrastim is a recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to reduce the duration of severe neutropenia in patients with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs associated with a clinically significant incidence of febrile neutropenia. We assessed the effect of tbo-filgrastim on cardiac conduction and repolarization in healthy subjects. A three-arm, parallel-group, active- and placebo-controlled, double-blind study randomized healthy adults to a single 5 µg/kg intravenous tbo-filgrastim infusion, a single intravenous placebo infusion, or a single 400 mg moxifloxacin oral dose. The primary end point was placebo-corrected time-matched change from baseline in QT interval corrected using a QT individual correction (QTcI) method. Secondary end points included heart rate, PR interval, QRS duration, change in electrocardiogram patterns, correlation between QTcI change from baseline (milliseconds) and tbo-filgrastim serum concentrations, and safety variables. A total of 145 subjects were enrolled (50 tbo-filgrastim, 50 placebo, 45 moxifloxacin). Peak placebo-corrected change from baseline for QTcI with tbo-filgrastim was 3.5 milliseconds, with a two-sided 95% upper confidence interval of 7.2 milliseconds, demonstrating no signal for any tbo-filgrastim effect on QTc. Concentration-effect modeling showed no evidence of an effect of tbo-filgrastim on cardiac repolarization. Tbo-filgrastim produced no clinically significant changes in other electrocardiogram parameters. Tbo-filgrastim was well tolerated. Keywords: tbo-filgrastim, electrocardiogram, QT interval, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor&nbsp

There are limited data available supporting the use of the recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), tbo-filgrastim, rather than traditionally used filgrastim to mobilize peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) or to accelerate engraftment after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). We sought to compare the efficacy and cost of tbo-filgrastim to filgrastim in these settings. Patients diagnosed with lymphoma or plasma cell disorders undergoing G-CSF mobilization, with or without plerixafor, were included in this retrospective analysis. The primary outcome was total collected CD34(+) cells/kg. Secondary mobilization endpoints included peripheral CD34(+) cells/μL on days 4 and 5 of mobilization, adjunctive use of plerixafor, CD34(+) cells/kg collected on day 5, number of collection days and volumes processed, number of collections reaching 5 million CD34(+) cells/kg, and percent reaching target collection goal in 1 day. Secondary engraftment endpoints included time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment, number of blood product transfusions required before engraftment, events of febrile neutropenia, and length of stay. A total of 185 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients receiving filgrastim (n = 86) collected a median of 5.56 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg, compared with a median of 5.85 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg in the tbo-filgrastim group (n = 99; P = .58). There were no statistically significant differences in all secondary endpoints with the exception of apheresis volumes processed (tbo-filgrastim, 17.0 liters versus filgrastim, 19.7 liters; P.01) and mean platelet transfusions (tbo-filgrastim, 1.7 units versus filgrastim, 1.4 units; P = .04). In conclusion, tbo-filgrastim demonstrated similar CD34(+) yield compared with filgrastim in mobilization and post-transplantation settings, with no clinically meaningful differences in secondary efficacy and safety endpoints. Furthermore, tbo-filgrastim utilization was associated with cost savings of approximately $1406 per patient utilizing average wholesale price.