Search

ObjectivesTo evaluate the possible changes of the oral microbiome during myelosuppressive chemotherapy (CT) and to investigate the potential relationship between the oral microbiome, the presence of oral mucositis (OM) and febrile neutropenia (FN).MethodsA prospective, longitudinal, observational study was conducted in patients receiving myelosuppressive CT for a solid tumor or lymphoma. Oral rinsing samples were retrieved before, during and after the start of CT, but also when OM or FN was present. The samples were analyzed using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing and statistical analysis was performed using alpha (Shannon) and beta (PERMANOVA) diversity analyses. Furthermore, differential abundances were analyzed using ALDEx2v1.32.0. Differences between groups were calculated using the Mann Whitney U-test, Kruskal-Wallis test and Wilcoxon Signed Rank using R.ResultsForty-six patients, with a mean follow up of 114 days, were included for analysis and a total of 138 oral rinsing samples were available in the CLR-transformed data for PERMANOVA and 137 samples—for alpha diversity calculation. Significant changes in alpha diversity were seen when OM or FN was present. Moreover, significant changes were seen in beta diversity during the course of the CT treatment and when OM was present. Genera showing substantial changes in relative abundance were Streptococcus during the course of CT treatment and Prevotella, Fusobacterium, Selenomonas, Actinomyces and Leptotrichia when OM was present.ConclusionChanges in the oral microbiome were observed during the CT-regimen and when OM was present. Furthermore, changes of the oral microbiota during FN episodes were observed; however, larger studies should be performed to substantiate our results.

Administering myelosuppressive chemotherapy to patients with aggressive malignant hematologic disorders typically poses serious infectious complications, which can be exacerbated by the presence of active COVID-19 infection. We report on a case of a successfully treated fit elderly woman with refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who also had mild COVID-19 infection and detectable viral load at the time she was found to have recurrent disease. Prior to initiation of reinduction treatment with cytarabine/idarubicin, this 2-dose COVID-19-vaccinated patient received antiviral therapy with remdesivir with resolution of upper respiratory symptoms. This was followed by sotrovimab on the third day of chemotherapy. Throughout her hospital course, she remained hemodynamically stable with one episode of neutropenic fever without other identified infections. Symptomatic reactivation of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing COVID-19 was not observed. After achieving biopsy-confirmed morphologic remission of AML and with neutrophil recovery, the patient gradually cleared the virus, eventually testing negative on polymerase chain reaction test of the nasopharynx. This case underlines the importance of considering initiation of timely chemotherapy, although myelosuppressive, in appropriate patients with aggressive hematologic malignancies and concomitant SARS-CoV-2. It demonstrates management of active COVID-19 infection in this group of patients and the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 viral load during leukemia treatment.

Purpose: Guidelines recommend primary prophylactic (PP) granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) for prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with high risk (HR: > 20%), or intermediate risk (IR:10–20%) of FN and ≥ 1 patient risk factor (e.g., age ≥ 65y). The current retrospective cohort study describes patterns of PP-G-CSF in older Medicare patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy with HR/IR of FN. Methods: Patients aged ≥ 66y initiating chemotherapy regimens with HR/IR of FN to treat breast, colorectal, lung, or ovarian cancer, or Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma were selected using Medicare 20% sample (2013–2015) and 100% cancer patient (2014–2017) data. PP-G-CSF use was identified in the first cycle. Timing of pegfilgrastim pre-filled syringe (PFS) administration, proportion of patients completing all cycles (adherence) with pegfilgrastim PFS or on-body injector (OBI), and duration of short-acting G-CSF (sG-CSF) was described across all cycles. Results: Of 64,893 patients receiving HR/IR for FN, 71% received HR and 29% IR regimens. Overall, PP-G-CSF use in the first cycle was 53% (HR: 74%; IR: 44%) and varied across cancers. Adherence with pegfilgrastim was slightly higher among OBI initiators (78%) than PFS (74%). Number of PP-sG-CSF administrations (mean [SD]) per cycle was 5.1 (SD: 2.7) overall, 5.4 (2.6) for HR, and 4.9 (2.7) for IR. Conclusion: Despite cancer treatment guidelines recommending PP-G-CSF use to reduce risk of FN associated with HR and IR (with ≥ 1 patient risk-factor) regimens, PP-G-CSF remains underutilized in older patients, across cancer types and regimens. Opportunities exist for improvement in use of PP-G-CSF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Administering myelosuppressive chemotherapy to patients with aggressive malignant hematologic disorders typically poses serious infectious complications, which can be exacerbated by the presence of active COVID-19 infection. We report on a case of a successfully treated fit elderly woman with refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who also had mild COVID-19 infection and detectable viral load at the time she was found to have recurrent disease. Prior to initiation of reinduction treatment with cytarabine/idarubicin, this 2-dose COVID-19-vaccinated patient received antiviral therapy with remdesivir with resolution of upper respiratory symptoms. This was followed by sotrovimab on the third day of chemotherapy. Throughout her hospital course, she remained hemodynamically stable with one episode of neutropenic fever without other identified infections. Symptomatic reactivation of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing COVID-19 was not observed. After achieving biopsy-confirmed morphologic remission of AML and with neutrophil recovery, the patient gradually cleared the virus, eventually testing negative on polymerase chain reaction test of the nasopharynx. This case underlines the importance of considering initiation of timely chemotherapy, although myelosuppressive, in appropriate patients with aggressive hematologic malignancies and concomitant SARS-CoV-2. It demonstrates management of active COVID-19 infection in this group of patients and the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 viral load during leukemia treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Several options for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia are available to patients worldwide. We have developed a novel patient-reported outcome measure, the Satisfaction and Experience Questionnaire for G-CSF (SEQ-G-CSF), to help understand patients’ perspectives of and satisfaction with different G-CSF options. Results Three oncology nurses and 40 adult oncology patients in the United States were enrolled and participated in focus group discussions to develop and refine the SEQ-G-CSF. Nurses had ≥ 5 years of experience treating oncology patients and were currently involved in the management of oncology patients receiving G-CSF prophylaxis. The patients had breast cancer, lung cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or prostate cancer (10 patients in each group) and were receiving G-CSF prophylaxis via injection or the on-body injector (OBI) device. The preliminary SEQ-G-CSF contained an item relevance questionnaire and three SEQ modules (sociodemographic, medical history, and G-CSF–related healthcare characteristics questionnaires). Twenty-one patients (53% of total sample size) discussed their experience and satisfaction with G-CSF. Their most common experiences were G-CSF effectiveness, convenience and benefits of the OBI, and relationships with healthcare providers. Side effects and having to undergo additional treatment were also reported. Satisfaction with aspects of G-CSF included the OBI and effectiveness of G-CSF treatment; dissatisfaction included inconvenience (having to return to the clinic the next day and administration of the injection) and the insurance approval process. The SEQ-G-CSF was finalized after three rounds of cognitive interviews and includes five domains related to general satisfaction (one item), treatment burden (four items), travel burden (two items), time burden (four items), and treatment compliance (two items). Conclusions The SEQ-G-CSF is a novel instrument that quantifies a patient’s experience and satisfaction with different G-CSF options using 13 easy-to-understand items. This study provides evidence for the content validity of SEQ-G-CSF. Although further psychometric testing is required, the SEQ-G-CSF may be a useful addition to clinical trials, observational studies, and clinical practice.

IntroductionFebrile neutropenia (FN) is a potential life-threatening complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, particularly when induced by infection. There is evidence that FN can originate from the oral cavity, but its contribution to FN is largely understudied in patients treated for solid tumors. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of FN in these patients and to evaluate its relation with dental foci and oral mucositis.Material and MethodsA prospective longitudinal observational study was conducted. Patients diagnosed with solid tumors and lymphoma scheduled to be treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy with an intermediate risk of developing FN were included. A pre-chemotherapy dental examination was performed and patients were followed during and after chemotherapy regimen. During subsequent hospital visits for chemotherapy administration, the oral cavity was inspected and oral mucositis (OM) was scored using the CTC-AE version 3.0. When patients presented with fever, a comprehensive full body examination including laboratory/microbiological/imaging investigation was performed.ResultsEighty-eight patients were included. Pre-chemotherapy, 39 patients (44.3%) were diagnosed with a dental focus. During chemotherapy, 46 patients developed OM (53.4%), of which 15 patients had a maximum score of grade II (ulcerative mucositis). Ten patients developed FN during the follow-up period. Patients with FN more often suffered from ulcerative OM compared to patients without FN; both FN and mucositis risk was associated with the myelotoxicity of chemotherapy. However, no relation could be established between the presence of dental foci prior to chemotherapy and the development of FN (p > 0.05).ConclusionA significant relation was identified between ulcerative OM and FN, but no robust conclusions could be drawn with respect to a relationship between the presence of dental foci and FN.

Abstract Background Chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT) is a potentially serious complication that can lead to chemotherapy dose delays, dose reductions, or discontinuation, and increases the risk of serious bleeding events. The objectives of this study were to characterize the incidence, clinical consequences, and economic costs of CIT in current US clinical practice. Methods A retrospective cohort design and data from two US private healthcare claims repositories (01/2010–12/2016) were employed. Study population comprised adults who received selected myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens for solid tumors or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. CIT was identified based on: diagnosis code for thrombocytopenia or bleeding; procedure code for platelet transfusion or bleeding control; or drug code for thrombopoietin-receptor agonist. Incidence of CIT was evaluated during the chemotherapy course (max. no. cycles = 8), and associated consequences and costs (2016US$) were evaluated during the cycle of the CIT episode. Results Among 215,508 cancer chemotherapy patients, CIT incidence during the course (mean no. cycles = 4.6) was 9.7% (95% CI: 9.6–9.8), and ranged from 6.1% (5.9–6.3) for regimens containing cyclophosphamide to 13.5% (12.7–14.3) for regimens containing gemcitabine; among all patients, incidence was 2.7% (2.6–2.8) in cycle 1, 2.7% (2.6–2.8) in cycle 2, and 2.9% (2.9–3.0) in cycles thereafter. One-third of CIT episodes were managed in hospital, and for the subset of patients hospitalized with a first-listed diagnosis of CIT, mean length of stay was 4.6 (4.4–5.0) days and mean cost of inpatient care was $36,448 (32,332-41,331). Across cycles with CIT, mean cost of CIT-related care was $2179 (2029-2329), comprising $1024 (881–1167) for inpatient care and $1153 (1119-1187) for outpatient care. Conclusions In this retrospective evaluation of cancer chemotherapy patients, CIT incidence was high, especially among patients receiving gemcitabine-based regimens, and the costs of CIT-related care were substantial. Accordingly, interventions aimed at identifying and targeting high-risk patients for preventative measures may yield substantial clinical and economic benefits.

Background: Several options for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia are available to patients worldwide. We have developed a novel patient-reported outcome measure, the Satisfaction and Experience Questionnaire for G-CSF (SEQ-G-CSF), to help understand patients' perspectives of and satisfaction with different G-CSF options. Results: Three oncology nurses and 40 adult oncology patients in the United States were enrolled and participated in focus group discussions to develop and refine the SEQ-G-CSF. Nurses had ≥ 5 years of experience treating oncology patients and were currently involved in the management of oncology patients receiving G-CSF prophylaxis. The patients had breast cancer, lung cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or prostate cancer (10 patients in each group) and were receiving G-CSF prophylaxis via injection or the on-body injector (OBI) device. The preliminary SEQ-G-CSF contained an item relevance questionnaire and three SEQ modules (sociodemographic, medical history, and G-CSF–related healthcare characteristics questionnaires). Twenty-one patients (53% of total sample size) discussed their experience and satisfaction with G-CSF. Their most common experiences were G-CSF effectiveness, convenience and benefits of the OBI, and relationships with healthcare providers. Side effects and having to undergo additional treatment were also reported. Satisfaction with aspects of G-CSF included the OBI and effectiveness of G-CSF treatment; dissatisfaction included inconvenience (having to return to the clinic the next day and administration of the injection) and the insurance approval process. The SEQ-G-CSF was finalized after three rounds of cognitive interviews and includes five domains related to general satisfaction (one item), treatment burden (four items), travel burden (two items), time burden (four items), and treatment compliance (two items). Conclusions: The SEQ-G-CSF is a novel instrument that quantifies a patient's experience and satisfaction with different G-CSF options using 13 easy-to-understand items. This study provides evidence for the content validity of SEQ-G-CSF. Although further psychometric testing is required, the SEQ-G-CSF may be a useful addition to clinical trials, observational studies, and clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Describe temporal changes in use of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor, and neutropenia-related hospitalization, in commercially insured patients. Methods: Using a large commercial administrative database, we identified annual cohorts of adult patients diagnosed with breast or lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma and initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy during 2005–2017. We described yearly changes in proportions of myelosuppressive chemotherapy by febrile neutropenia risk category (high, intermediate, unclassified) and proportion of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor use and unadjusted incidence of neutropenia-related hospitalization in the first cycle of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Results: Annual cohorts included 4383–5888 eligible patients during 2005–2017. The proportion of eligible patients aged ≥ 65 years increased from 26.0% in 2005 to 58.2% in 2017. Myelosuppressive chemotherapy use with regimens with high risk for febrile neutropenia increased from 15.1% in 2005 to 31.0% in 2017; and regimens with intermediate risk for febrile neutropenia decreased from 63.7% to 48.1% in 2017. Prophylactic colony-stimulating factor use increased from 41.6% in 2005 to 54.3% in 2017. Crude incidence of neutropenia-related hospitalization for all cancers increased from 2.0% to 3.1%, with a substantial increase in neutropenia-related hospitalization observed among non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients (2.8% to 8.5%) during 2005–2017. Conclusion: Among adult patients with breast and lung cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, use of regimens with high risk for febrile neutropenia increased, as did the use of prophylactic colony-stimulating factors after 2005. Incidence of neutropenia-related hospitalization increased slightly, particularly among non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Further studies are required to understand this increasing trend of neutropenia-related hospitalization, changing patient-level risk factors, and febrile neutropenia management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PurposeThe purposes of this study, in children who were assessed 1 week after the administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy were: to compare the total and subscale scores on a generic measure of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) to normative data from healthy children and describe the relationships between demographic, clinical, and symptom characteristics of children with cancer and generic and disease-specific dimensions of HRQOL.MethodsPatients (n = 61) were predominantly male (52.5%), minority (63.9%), and 14.7 years of age. Children completed the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale for 10- to 18-year olds, the PedsQL™ Generic and Cancer Modules, and the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) scale 1 week after the start of a chemotherapy cycle.ResultsThe mean number of symptoms per patient was 10.6. Compared with the normative sample, children with cancer reported significantly lower scores for the total scale and all of the subscales except emotional and social functioning. No significant differences were found between any demographic characteristics and total or subscale scores on the generic or disease-specific measures of HRQOL. Lower KPS scores were associated with poorer generic and disease-specific HRQOL scores. In addition, a higher number of symptoms was associated with poorer generic and disease-specific HRQOL scores. Finally, higher symptom distress scores were associated with poorer generic and disease-specific HRQOL scores.ConclusionAmong the demographic, clinical, and symptom characteristics studied, poorer functional status and higher symptom burden were associated with significant decreases in HRQOL in children who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Abstract Background Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common occurrence during chemotherapy. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) can significantly reduce the risk of FN. International guidelines recommend G-CSF for patients receiving chemotherapy with FN risk of ≥20% or 10% to 20% with defined risk factors. Prophylaxis is not typically recommended for FN risk of 18 years of age) will have a solid tumour or Hodgkin/non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a planned chemotherapy regimen with expected risk of FN of 10% to 20% (according to published guidelines). Patients will be observed for the duration of the chemotherapy line (first cycle administered without FN prophylaxis). Primary endpoint is incidence of FN after the first chemotherapy cycle. Secondary outcomes include: FN-associated morbidity and mortality; time to first FN occurrence; other FN risk factors and impact of FN on quality of life. A risk model using occurrence of FN as a binary outcome will be developed. Data will be stratified by age, comorbidities and other risk factors. Discussion This study will provide insight into the real FN risk for common chemotherapy regimens and predictive factors for FN, including patients generally excluded from randomised clinical trials, from which reported FN rates have been variable. This study builds on knowledge of predictive factors from other research and will provide information on patients with 10% to 20% FN risk.

Evaluate the relationship between duration of primary prophylactic short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PP-sG-CSF) and risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization (NRH) in older patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Using the Medicare claims database, we conducted a nested case-control study in a cohort of patients aged ≥66 years with breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, or prostate cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma who initiated a first cycle of any myelosuppressive chemotherapy January 1, 2008–September 30, 2016, and received PP-sG-CSF. We matched up to four controls to each NRH case by age, cancer type, regimen febrile neutropenia (FN) risk category, and year using incidence density sampling. We used conditional logistic regression adjusted for race, sex, and modified Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) to estimate relative risk of NRH related to duration of PP-sG-CSF categorized as <5 and ≥ 5 days. Of 2148 patients receiving PP-sG-CSF, 108 (5%) experienced NRH in the first cycle. We matched 333 controls to 96 cases. Cases were similar to controls in mean age, tumor type, and intermediate/high-risk regimen, but were more likely to have CCI ≥5 and less likely to use PP-sG-CSF ≥5 days (31% vs. 39%). Adjusted ORs (95% CI) for NRH were 0.69 (0.40–1.19) for ≥5 vs. <5 days of PP-sG-CSF among patients receiving any myelosuppressive chemotherapy, 0.43 (0.21–0.89) for intermediate/high-risk regimen, and 0.42 (0.19–0.89) for any myelosuppressive chemotherapy with all agents given on cycle day one only. Among older patients with cancer who are receiving PP-sG-CSF, ≥5 days of use was associated with substantial reduction in NRH risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: PF-06881894 is a proposed biosimilar to pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®). This study evaluated the pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic (PD/PK) equivalence, immunogenicity, and safety of PF-06881894 vs pegfilgrastim reference products (US- and EU-Neulasta®) in healthy volunteers.Methods: A phase 1, open-label, randomized, crossover study was conducted to assess the pharmacologic equivalence and safety of a single 6-mg dose of PF-06881894, pegfilgrastim-US, and pegfilgrastim-EU. The primary PD endpoints were area under the effect-versus-time curve for absolute neutrophil count (ANC) from dose administration to 288 h postdose, and maximum observed ANC value among subjects confirmed negative for anti-pegfilgrastim antibodies. Primary PK variables included area under the serum pegfilgrastim-versus-time curve from the time of dose administration to time infinity and maximum observed serum pegfilgrastim concentration. A second phase 1, open-label, randomized (1:1), parallel-group, non-inferiority study was conducted to assess the immunogenicity and safety of multiple 6-mg doses of PF-06881894 versus pegfilgrastim-US. The primary endpoint for the immunogenicity study was the proportion of subjects with both negative baseline and confirmed positive postdose anti-pegfilgrastim antibodies at any time during the study.Results: Across the single- and multiple-dose studies (N = 153 and N = 420 treated subjects, respectively), demographics for age (18-65 years), male gender (n = 264/573), and white race (n = 423/573) were similar. Three-way PD/PK equivalence of PF-06881894, pegfilgrastim-US, and pegfilgrastim-EU was demonstrated with the primary PD endpoints and primary PK variables being completely contained within the predefined 90% confidence interval acceptance limits (80-125%). The non-inferiority of PF-06881894 versus pegfilgrastim-US in terms of immunogenicity was established according to the prespecified non-inferiority margin (≤10%). Overall, there were no clinically meaningful differences in safety profiles among or between study groups.Conclusions: Single-dose PF-06881894 demonstrated PD/PK equivalence and comparable safety with US- and EU-pegfilgrastim reference products. Multiple-dose PF-06881894 demonstrated immunogenicity non-inferiority to pegfilgrastim-US with comparable safety. Both studies contributed to the totality of evidence supporting biosimilarity.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02629289; NCT03273842 (C1221005). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, pegfilgrastim, is efficacious though expensive for prophylactic treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. Biologics available and accessible today, having acceptable safety-efficacy profiles, require postapproval studies for better understanding of such drugs in clinical settings. Aim: This postmarketing surveillance study evaluated the safety of prophylactic Peg-grafeel™ (pegfilgrastim) in cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Settings and Design: This prospective, noninterventional, single-arm, open-label study was conducted at 10 study sites in India. Methods: Patients received subcutaneous 6 mg Peg-grafeel™ approximately 24 h following chemotherapy as part of routine patient care. Statistical Analysis: Data were summarized descriptively. Results: The study included 250 patients (male: female = 36.4%:63.6%; median age, 54 [16–80] years). Most patients had Stage III (33.2%) or IV (41.6%) cancers and received cyclophosphamide (37.2%) and doxorubicin (31.6%) as chemotherapy. On an average, 4 Peg-grafeel™ doses were administered per patient. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported in 115 (46%) patients, the most common being vomiting (11.6%), pain (11.2%), nausea (8.4%), and constipation (8.4%). Peg-grafeel™-related AEs included pain (3.2%), asthenia (2.4%), and arthralgia (1.2%). Bone pain (0.4%) and extremity pain (1.2%) were rare. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia occurred in 4 (1.6%) and 3 (1.2%) patients, respectively. Serious AEs included vomiting (2.8%) and pyrexia (2%). No new safety concerns were identified. None of the five deaths was considered related to Peg-grafeel™. Conclusion: The overall safety profile of Peg-grafeel™ was consistent with the expected safety profile of pegfilgrastim in patients with advanced malignancies in a clinical setting.

Abstract A pharmacodynamics (PD) and immunogenicity study was conducted to investigate biosimilarity of Pelmeg®, a pegfilgrastim biosimilar to EU‐authorized Neulasta®. The multiple‐dose, randomized, double‐blind, two‐sequence, and three‐period cross‐over study comprised 96 healthy male subjects, receiving Pelmeg (Test [T]) and Neulasta (Reference [R]) in a sequential manner (T‐T‐R vs R‐R‐T). Subjects were dosed with 3 mg pegfilgrastim, as this dose was previously shown to be in the ascending part of the dose‐response curve for PD. The primary PD endpoint was the area under the effect curve (AUEC0‐last) for absolute neutrophil count (ANC). The primary immunogenicity endpoint was proportion of anti‐drug antibody (ADA)‐positive subjects at the end of Period 2 (ie, after administration of two doses of the same study drug). Comparability was demonstrated for the PD endpoint, with the geometric mean ratio (T/R) of AUEC0‐last being 101.59%, with a corresponding 95% CI of [99.58; 103.63]. Of note, when using tighter acceptance limits (90.00%‐111.00%), comparability between test and reference was shown as well. Only two confirmed ADA positive samples were detected, one after treatment with Pelmeg and one after Neulasta. These had a low ADA titer, no filgrastim reactivity, and no neutralizing capacity. No clinically meaningful differences in safety between Pelmeg and Neulasta were observed. Overall, the results from this study confirmed the biosimilarity of Pelmeg and Neulasta for PD and immunogenicity, as shown already at the bioanalytical level and in the pivotal PK/PD study with Pelmeg.

Abstract A pharmacokinetics (PK)/pharmacodynamics (PD) study (EudraCT number 2015‐002966‐21) was conducted to investigate the biosimilarity of Pelmeg® (pegfilgrastim), a biosimilar to EU‐authorized Neulasta®, which is used in the clinic for prevention of chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia. The single‐dose, randomized, double‐blind, two‐way crossover study comprised 171 healthy male subjects, receiving Pelmeg and Neulasta (6 mg as subcutaneous injection) in a sequential manner. Primary PK endpoints were the area under the concentration curve from time zero to last measurable concentration (AUC0‐last) and the maximum concentration (Cmax). The primary PD endpoint was the area under the effect curve (AUEC0‐last) for absolute neutrophil count (ANC). Safety and immunogenicity were also assessed. Comparability was demonstrated for both PK endpoints, with geometric mean ratios (test/reference) for AUC0‐last and Cmax of 95.2% and 92.8%, respectively. The corresponding confidence intervals (CIs; 94.3%) were [86.6%;104.7%] for AUC0‐last and [84.4%;102.2%] for Cmax, both being within the equivalence margin of 80.0% to 125.0%. Likewise, PD comparability was demonstrated, with the geometric mean ratio (test/reference) of AUEC0‐last of 100.2%, with a corresponding CI (95%) of 98.7%‐101.8%. No clinically meaningful differences were observed for safety and immunogenicity between Pelmeg and Neulasta. Pelmeg was found to be highly similar to the reference product.

A pharmacokinetics (PK)/pharmacodynamics (PD) study (EudraCT number 2015‐002966‐21) was conducted to investigate the biosimilarity of Pelmeg® (pegfilgrastim), a biosimilar to EU‐authorized Neulasta®, which is used in the clinic for prevention of chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia. The single‐dose, randomized, double‐blind, two‐way crossover study comprised 171 healthy male subjects, receiving Pelmeg and Neulasta (6 mg as subcutaneous injection) in a sequential manner. Primary PK endpoints were the area under the concentration curve from time zero to last measurable concentration (AUC0‐last) and the maximum concentration (Cmax). The primary PD endpoint was the area under the effect curve (AUEC0‐last) for absolute neutrophil count (ANC). Safety and immunogenicity were also assessed. Comparability was demonstrated for both PK endpoints, with geometric mean ratios (test/reference) for AUC0‐last and Cmax of 95.2% and 92.8%, respectively. The corresponding confidence intervals (CIs; 94.3%) were [86.6%;104.7%] for AUC0‐last and [84.4%;102.2%] for Cmax, both being within the equivalence margin of 80.0% to 125.0%. Likewise, PD comparability was demonstrated, with the geometric mean ratio (test/reference) of AUEC0‐last of 100.2%, with a corresponding CI (95%) of 98.7%‐101.8%. No clinically meaningful differences were observed for safety and immunogenicity between Pelmeg and Neulasta. Pelmeg was found to be highly similar to the reference product. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A pharmacokinetics (PK)/pharmacodynamics (PD) study (EudraCT number 2015‐002966‐21) was conducted to investigate the biosimilarity of Pelmeg® (pegfilgrastim), a biosimilar to EU‐authorized Neulasta®, which is used in the clinic for prevention of chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia. The single‐dose, randomized, double‐blind, two‐way crossover study comprised 171 healthy male subjects, receiving Pelmeg and Neulasta (6 mg as subcutaneous injection) in a sequential manner. Primary PK endpoints were the area under the concentration curve from time zero to last measurable concentration (AUC0‐last) and the maximum concentration (Cmax). The primary PD endpoint was the area under the effect curve (AUEC0‐last) for absolute neutrophil count (ANC). Safety and immunogenicity were also assessed. Comparability was demonstrated for both PK endpoints, with geometric mean ratios (test/reference) for AUC0‐last and Cmax of 95.2% and 92.8%, respectively. The corresponding confidence intervals (CIs; 94.3%) were [86.6%;104.7%] for AUC0‐last and [84.4%;102.2%] for Cmax, both being within the equivalence margin of 80.0% to 125.0%. Likewise, PD comparability was demonstrated, with the geometric mean ratio (test/reference) of AUEC0‐last of 100.2%, with a corresponding CI (95%) of 98.7%‐101.8%. No clinically meaningful differences were observed for safety and immunogenicity between Pelmeg and Neulasta. Pelmeg was found to be highly similar to the reference product. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Febrile neutropenia is generally recognised as a complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is commonly used as a primary or secondary prophylaxis to reduce the degree and duration of neutropenia in patients at risk of developing chemotherapy-induced neutropenic fever and infectious complications. G-CSF is known to decrease mortality and increase the possibility of maintaining adequate chemotherapy dose intensity and density, which is essential in curable malignancies. Common side effects are generally mild. However, potentially fatal adverse events have also been reported. Herein, we summarise previously reported and report two new independent cases of G-CSF-induced aortitis, both in patients treated with chemotherapy for breast cancer. The two cases, identified only a few months apart, share several common characteristics including type of cancer, gender, age, chemotherapy, G-CSF treatment regimen, and time span from G-CSF initiation to aortitis manifestation. The two cases were both diagnosed by CT scan and successfully treated with corticosteroids along with discontinuation of G-CSF. This case report highlights that although aortitis is a rare adverse event of G-CSF treatment, it should be considered in cases of unexplained fever and/or clinical and laboratory findings that do not respond to antibiotics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT) is a potentially serious complication that can lead to chemotherapy dose delays, dose reductions, or discontinuation, and increases the risk of serious bleeding events. The objectives of this study were to characterize the incidence, clinical consequences, and economic costs of CIT in current US clinical practice.Methods: A retrospective cohort design and data from two US private healthcare claims repositories (01/2010-12/2016) were employed. Study population comprised adults who received selected myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens for solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. CIT was identified based on: diagnosis code for thrombocytopenia or bleeding; procedure code for platelet transfusion or bleeding control; or drug code for thrombopoietin-receptor agonist. Incidence of CIT was evaluated during the chemotherapy course (max. no. cycles = 8), and associated consequences and costs (2016US$) were evaluated during the cycle of the CIT episode.Results: Among 215,508 cancer chemotherapy patients, CIT incidence during the course (mean no. cycles = 4.6) was 9.7% (95% CI: 9.6-9.8), and ranged from 6.1% (5.9-6.3) for regimens containing cyclophosphamide to 13.5% (12.7-14.3) for regimens containing gemcitabine; among all patients, incidence was 2.7% (2.6-2.8) in cycle 1, 2.7% (2.6-2.8) in cycle 2, and 2.9% (2.9-3.0) in cycles thereafter. One-third of CIT episodes were managed in hospital, and for the subset of patients hospitalized with a first-listed diagnosis of CIT, mean length of stay was 4.6 (4.4-5.0) days and mean cost of inpatient care was $36,448 (32,332-41,331). Across cycles with CIT, mean cost of CIT-related care was $2179 (2029-2329), comprising $1024 (881-1167) for inpatient care and $1153 (1119-1187) for outpatient care.Conclusions: In this retrospective evaluation of cancer chemotherapy patients, CIT incidence was high, especially among patients receiving gemcitabine-based regimens, and the costs of CIT-related care were substantial. Accordingly, interventions aimed at identifying and targeting high-risk patients for preventative measures may yield substantial clinical and economic benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To provide an understanding of darbepoetin alfa dose patterns in cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy starting from 2011. Study design This is a retrospective cohort study using a proprietary outpatient oncology database. Methods Metastatic, solid tumor cancer patients receiving concomitant myelosuppressive chemotherapy and darbepoetin alfa with an associated hemoglobin <10 g/dL during 2011–2015 were identified. The analysis was restricted to the first continuous exposure to chemotherapy agents (maximum allowable gap of 90 days between consecutive exposures) with darbepoetin alfa for each eligible patient. Initial, maintenance, weekly, and cumulative doses of darbepoetin alfa were examined across all darbepoetin alfa users. Subgroup analyses were conducted by chemotherapy type, baseline hemoglobin level, year of chemotherapy, solid tumor type, and initial dosing schedule. Differences in weekly doses across subgroups were evaluated using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Results Among 835 eligible patients, over 90% were 50 years or older. Mean chemotherapy course duration was 248 days, and mean duration of darbepoetin alfa treatment was 106 days. The mean weekly darbepoetin alfa dose was 110 µg. Patients received a mean of 4.3 darbepoetin alfa injections in the first chemotherapy course. There were no statistically significant differences (all P values > .05) in weekly dose by chemotherapy type, baseline hemoglobin level, year of chemotherapy, or solid tumor type. Conclusion The average weekly darbepoetin alfa dose among metastatic cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia from this study was 110 µg, which was lower than the labeled dosage for most adults. This estimate did not differ over time, across chemotherapy regimens, baseline hemoglobin levels, or solid tumor types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common occurrence during chemotherapy. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) can significantly reduce the risk of FN. International guidelines recommend G-CSF for patients receiving chemotherapy with FN risk of ≥20% or 10% to 20% with defined risk factors. Prophylaxis is not typically recommended for FN risk of < 10%; however, few studies have investigated FN incidence in lower-risk patients in real-world settings and tried to identify higher-risk subgroups.Methods: This real-world prospective, observational, multinational study aims to estimate the rate of development of FN with a chemotherapy line expected to be associated with a 10% to 20% risk of FN. Eligible patients (> 18 years of age) will have a solid tumour or Hodgkin/non-Hodgkin lymphoma and a planned chemotherapy regimen with expected risk of FN of 10% to 20% (according to published guidelines). Patients will be observed for the duration of the chemotherapy line (first cycle administered without FN prophylaxis). Primary endpoint is incidence of FN after the first chemotherapy cycle. Secondary outcomes include: FN-associated morbidity and mortality; time to first FN occurrence; other FN risk factors and impact of FN on quality of life. A risk model using occurrence of FN as a binary outcome will be developed. Data will be stratified by age, comorbidities and other risk factors.Discussion: This study will provide insight into the real FN risk for common chemotherapy regimens and predictive factors for FN, including patients generally excluded from randomised clinical trials, from which reported FN rates have been variable. This study builds on knowledge of predictive factors from other research and will provide information on patients with 10% to 20% FN risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate moderate (grade 2, hemoglobin <10 g/dl) and severe (grade 3+, hemoglobin <8 g/dl) anemia as potential risk factors for DDR in the first line course of chemotherapy. While chemotherapy-induced neutropenia has been shown to be associated with dose delay/reduction (DDR) in several studies, the effect of anemia is less well studied.Methods: We identified 3955 Kaiser Permanente patients diagnosed with incident non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n = 574), breast (n = 2043), lung (n = 463), gastric (n = 113), ovarian (n = 204), or colorectal cancers (n = 558) between 2010 and 2012. Generalized linear mixed effects models were used to study the effect of anemia in subsequent cycles, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, chemotherapy cycle, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and liver and renal function.Results: We found that moderate (grade 2) to severe (grade 3-4) anemia increased the risk of DDR in subsequent chemotherapy cycles [odds ratio (OR) = 1.46, 95 % CI (1.32, 1.62) and OR = 2.02 (1.41, 2.89)], respectively, compared to grade 1 or no anemia. Both stage I-III and IV patients with grade 2 or greater anemia were at higher risk for DDR than patients with grade 1 or no anemia [ORstage IV, grade 2 = 1.94 (1.58, 2.38); ORstage IV, grade 3/4 = 2.83 (1.42, 5.62) and ORstage I-III, grade 2 = 1.33 (1.18, 1.49); ORstage I-III, grade 3-4 = 1.81 (1.18, 2.76)].Conclusions: These results provide insight into novel risk factors for chemotherapy dose modification that may inform clinicians on management strategies to optimize treatment outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A phase 1 pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) study was conducted to demonstrate similarity of a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar to its reference product. In a single-dose, randomized, assessor-blinded, 2-way crossover, active-controlled PK/PD study, 66 healthy adults received the proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar and US-licensed pegfilgrastim reference product. Primary end points were pegfilgrastim AUCt and Cmax (PK), and absolute neutrophil count AUECt and Emax (PD). Safety and immunogenicity were also measured. Fifty-six subjects completed both arms of the study. Mean pegfilgrastim concentration-time profile for both products was similar, with the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the relative mean ratio for the primary end points falling within the predefined acceptance criteria of 80%-125% (91.7%-116.1% and 86.7%-110.2% for AUCt and Cmax, respectively). PD similarity was also demonstrated by the 95%CI of the relative mean ratio of the primary end point parameters within the predefined acceptance margins of 80%-125% (96.0%-101.6% and 92.6%-100.1% for AUECt and Emax, respectively). No statistically meaningful PK/PD differences were observed. No clinically meaningful safety or immunological differences were observed with the proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar that were not previously identified with the reference product. The proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar product is highly similar to the reference product with regard to PK/PD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]