Search

Background: Randomized trials comparing chemomobilization efficiency between lenograstim and biosimilar filgrastim are lacking. Our previous retrospective study suggested that lenograstim could be more effective than biosimilar filgrastim when used at the same conventional dosage (5 µg/kg) only in lymphoma patients undergoing peripheral blood stem cell mobilization. We planned a prospective randomized study comparing lenograstim 5 µg/kg with biosimilar filgrastim 10 µg/kg to verify the hypothesis of lenograstim superiority even at half the dosage (stress test). Herein we report data after enrolling 60% of planned patients., Study Design and Methods: From October 2014 to November 2017, a total of 42 of 70 planned patients with lymphoma were randomly assigned to receive lenograstim 5 µg/kg (21) or biosimilar filgrastim 10 µg/kg (21). Patients were stratified according to treatment line at the time of mobilization (1 or ≥2). Primary endpoint was the rate of achievement of the CD34+ cell collection target dose (≥ 4 × 10 6 /kg). An improvement by 23% was expected to validate the hypothesis of lenograstim superiority., Results: The two cohorts were balanced for all the baseline features. We observed an identical rate of patients able to reach the targeted CD34+ cell dose and of mobilization failures (90.4 and 4.8% in both cohorts) and a perfect equivalence in any of the secondary collection outcomes. The hypothesis of lenograstim superiority was not corroborated at interim analysis., Conclusion: Lenograstim at conventional dosage has failed to demonstrate its superiority over biosimilar filgrastim at double the dosage at interim analysis in their first head-to-head trial., (© 2018 AABB.)

Data about biosimilar Peg-filgrastim (bioPEG) in autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) are still scarce. The aim of this study has been to assess efficacy and safety of bioPEG among lymphoma and myeloma patients undergoing ASCT, comparing these data with historical controls receiving other G-CSFs. Furthermore, an economic evaluation has been included to estimate the savings by using bioPEG. This is a prospective cohort study comparing lymphoma and myeloma patients undergoing ASCT and receiving bioPEG (n = 73) with three historical consecutive cohorts collected retrospectively who received other G-CSFs (Lenograstim — Leno — n = 101, biosimilar Filgrastim — bioFIL n = 392, and originator Peg-filgrastim — oriPEG n = 60). We observed a significantly shorter time to neutrophils and platelet engraftment (p < 0.001) in patients treated with bioPEG and oriPEG. Moreover, patients who received bioPEG showed a shorter hospitalization time (p < 0.001) and a lower transfusion need (p < 0.001). We did not observe any significant difference in terms of transplant-related mortality, mucositis, and diarrhea among the four groups. No serious adverse events were associated with bioPEG. Similar data were obtained after running a stratified analysis for lymphomas and myeloma separately conducted by using a propensity score matching. The average total cost per patient of bioPEG was € 18218.9 compared to € 23707.8, € 20677.3 and € 19754.9 of Leno, oriPEG, and bioFIL, respectively. In conclusion, bioPEG seems to be as effective as the originator and more effective than short-acting G-CSFs in terms of post-transplant engraftment in myeloma and lymphoma patients undergoing ASCT. Moreover, bioPEG was cost-effective when compared with the other G-CSFs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on biosimilar filgrastim versus lenograstim for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in lymphoma and myeloma patients. It states that adult lymphoma and myeloma patients underwent peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cells (PBSC) mobilization after regulation of chemotherapy plus biosimilar filgrastim. It mentions that filgrastim reduces motility in human neutrophilis, whereas lenograstim preserve the functional status of neutrophilis as in the basal condition.