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.

Introduction Filgrastim, a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, is commonly used in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCTs) to assist with peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) collection and to support stem cell engraftment. In the United States, tbo-filgrastim is approved under its own Biologic License Application and is limited to a single indication excluding the HSCT population. Methods Approximately one year after a system-wide formulary change to tbo-filgrastim for all on- and off-label indications, our institution conducted an IRB-approved retrospective comparison of tbo-filgrastim to filgrastim in the autologous HSCT setting. The study included 71 patients who received an autologous HSCT from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2016 with a documented administration of tbo-filgrastim or filgrastim. Results There were no statistically significant differences noted on CD34 + counts during stem cell mobilization, neutrophil engraftment, infection rates during the engraftment phase, nor duration of hospitalization during the engraftment phase. More patients in the tbo-filgrastim group received plerixafor per protocol resulting in more patients meeting their PBPC collection goal in one day with fewer collection days overall, a result potentially confounded by institutional protocol changes. Utilizing tbo-filgrastim offered an average cost savings per patient of $2664.26 ($1907.33 for PBPC mobilization and $756.93 for stem cell engraftment) when comparing dollars spent on granulocyte colony-stimulating factor products only. Conclusion Tbo-filgrastim demonstrates comparable efficacy with a cost savings benefit compared to filgrastim for autologous PBPC mobilization and stem cell engraftment.

This phase 2, multicenter, open-label trial investigated the safety and tolerability of tbo- filgrastim in pediatric patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In total, 50 patients 1 month to below 16 years of age with solid tumors without bone marrow involvement were stratified into 3 age groups (2 infants, 30 children, 18 adolescents) and prophylactically administered tbo-filgrastim 5 µg/kg body weight once daily subcutaneously. The administration started after the last chemotherapy treatment in week 1 of the first cycle and continued until the expected neutrophil nadir had passed, and the neutrophil count had recovered to 2.0×10/L. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability of tbo-filgrastim ; secondary endpoints included efficacy. The mean (SD) number of doses administered was 9.2 (2.83) in children and 7.3 (1.88) in adolescents. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 24% of patients ; the most common were febrile neutropenia (FN) (12%), anemia (8%), and thrombocytopenia (8%). Nine patients (18%) experienced mild treatment- related treatment-emergent adverse events ; the most common were musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (8%). No deaths or withdrawals occurred. The incidence of severe neutropenia (SN) was 52% and the mean (SD) duration of SN was 1.8 (2.21) days ; FN incidence was 26%. A daily dose of tbo-filgrastim 5 μg/kg body weight administered to pediatric patients demonstrated a safety profile consistent with the safety profile in adult patients. The incidence of FN was on the lower end of the range reported in the literature and the SN results provide supportive data on the efficacy of tbo-filgrastim in pediatric patients.

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.

e19000 Background: Studies have reported that use of filgrastim (G) or any biosimilar result in similar stem cell yield during hematopoietic stem cell mobilization, but little is known on the effect of these biosimilars on length of hospitalization for the transplant procedure, engraftment, and long term survival of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients. Beginning January 2017, the Henry Ford Cancer Institute (HFCI) began utilizing tbo-filgrastim (TBO) and filgrastim-sndz (SNDZ) as part of mobilization. This study was conducted to evaluate transplant specific outcomes in HSCT patients comparing biosimilar and reference filgrastim products. Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated all patients treated at HFCI who received G-CSF based mobilization for HSCT between 1/2017 and 11/2018. Patient-, mobilization- and transplant specific variables were collected and analyzed. Results: A total of 113 patients underwent stem cell mobilization followed by collection and autologous HSCT. Of the 73 patients analyzed, 62% had a diagnosis of Multiple Myeloma (MM), 22% had Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL). Approximately 45% of patients received TBO, 44% received G and remainder received SNDZ. The percentage of patients who proceeded to HSCT was 86%. There was no difference in adequate CD34+ yield among the three G-CSF products (P = 0.074). There was no difference in mobilization associated complications including bone pain and thrombocytopenia. Plerixafor use was similar among the groups (P = 0.55). Actual CD34+ (P = 0.31) and the number of apheresis sessions required to collect an adequate CD34+ yield (P = 0.30) were not different among the groups. No significant differences were noted in time to neutrophil (P = 0.96) or platelet engraftment (P = 0.91) and hospital length of stay (P = 0.78). We found similar rates of infection, febrile neutropenia, and mucositis among the three groups. Relapse rates were also similar among the groups. Conclusions: In our institution transplant related outcomes were similar among patients who received TBO, SNDZ, and G as part of their pre-transplant mobilization protocol.

After a hospital-wide formulary change resulted in the replacement of filgrastim with TBO-filgrastim for all on- and off-label indications, we performed a retrospective comparison of patients with myeloma receiving 200 mg/m(2) melphalan with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation to see whether the type of growth factor used post-transplant made a difference. One hundred and eighty-two consecutive patients with myeloma were studied, 91 receiving filgrastim immediately prior to the change and 91 receiving TBO-filgrastim afterward. The CD34(+) cell dose was comparable, as were other characteristics. Although the overall time to neutrophil recovery was similar for both groups, early engraftment (≤ 12 d) occurred more often (p = 0.05), and late engraftment (≥ 14 d) less often (p = 0.09) in filgrastim-treated patients. The number of documented infections was significantly less in the TBO-filgrastim group. Day 100 mortality and hospital stay were similar for the two groups. These data indicate that there is no material difference between filgrastim and TBO-filgrastim in this clinical setting.

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.

e17550 Background: Tbo-filgrastim (Granix) and filgrastim (Neupogen) are commercially available, short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factors with comparable efficacy and tolerability for th...

e17540 Background: Medical products registered in the European Union (EU) are subject to Periodic Safety Update Reports (PSURs), which provide comprehensive worldwide safety data assessments and benefit-risk analyses. Methods: The present PSUR for tbo-filgrastim-containing products within the TEVA group (Tevagrastim, Biograstim, Ratiograstim [marketed in the US as Granix]) analyzed safety data accumulated between April 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013 in 38 countries. Cumulative data were collected from clinical trials and post-marketing sources from September 15, 2008 (initial approval) to the end of the current PSUR period, March 31, 2013. Data were collected from spontaneous reports from healthcare professionals, consumers, scientific literature, competent authorities, and solicited case reports. Adverse reactions were categorized by system organ class (SOC), source, and seriousness. Teva pharmacovigilance requires screening of all adverse reaction reports and antibody assessment for cases of suspected immun...

e13555 Background: Tbo-filgrastim is a G-CSF approved in the US as a biologic under the BLA 351(a) pathway, for reducing duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving chemotherapy (CTx) associated with a clinically significant incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN). Here, we summarize data from the development program (16 preclinical studies; 2 Phase I and 3 Phase III clinical studies). Methods: Preclinical: The PK, safety pharmacology, PD, and toxicology of tbo-filgrastim vs reference filgrastim were investigated in 3 in vitro studies and 13 animal model studies. Clinical: The PK/PD of tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim were compared in 2 Phase I studies in 200 healthy volunteers. The safety and efficacy of tbo-filgrastim were compared with filgrastim in 3 Phase III studies in 677 patients receiving CTx for breast cancer (BC), lung cancer (LC) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The BC study, in which DSN was the primary parameter, was placebo controlled. Results: Preclinical: Binding affinity to the human G-CSF receptor and growth-promoting activity were comparable between tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim in vitro. In vivo, no relevant differences were seen between tbo-filgrastim and reference filgrastim in PK, PD, safety, or tolerability in animal models. Clinical and laboratory findings, gross pathology and histopathology in animal models were similar to filgrastim. Clinical: tbo-Filgrastim was safe, effective, and comparable to filgrastim in the prevention of FN. DSN, absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir, and time to ANC recovery were comparable. The incidence of FN was low (mean of 12.1%, 15.0%, and 11.1% in Cycle 1 of the BC, LC, and NHL studies, respectively), with no significant differences between agents. In the BC study, in Cycle 1, DSN was 1.1 vs 3.9 days for tbo-filgrastim and placebo, respectively. The efficacy of tbo-filgrastim was independent of the myelotoxic potential of CTx. Immunogenicity and incidence of binding and neutralizing antibodies were low and comparable. Conclusions: The safety profiles of tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim were similar and characteristic of filgrastims. Tbo-filgrastim was superior to placebo and equivalent to filgrastim in reducing DSN after myelotoxic CTx. Clinical trial information: 2004-001452-36, 2004-001450-84, 2004-001449-13.

e13552 Background: Tbo-filgrastim is a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) approved for use in the US as a biologic under BLA 351(a) for reducing duration of severe neutropenia in patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy (CTx) associated with a clinically significant incidence of febrile neutropenia. Here, we report an integrated analysis of clinical safety data from three Phase III studies. Methods: Safety results from three Phase III studies in breast cancer (placebo-controlled), non-small cell lung cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma were integrated. All safety variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test (2-sided P-values). Changes in laboratory parameters from baseline were compared between the tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim treatment groups using the Wilcoxon test. Results: In the integrated analysis of CTx Cycle 1, 80.2% of 677 patients experienced a TEAE; 16.7% of these were related to study drug. The most commonly reported TEAEs were nausea, alopecia, neutropenia, diarrhea, asthenia, and vomiting, and most due to concomitant CTx. The most commonly reported drug-related TEAEs were bone pain (3.4%), diarrhea (2.2%), asthenia (2.2%), myalgia (1.9%), arthralgia (1.5%), headache (1.2%), and pyrexia (1.0%), all of which are characteristic of G-CSFs. Five patients had serious drug-related TEAEs; none caused reductions in the dose of study drug or scheduled CTx. There were 11 deaths across studies; none was considered drug related. There were no clinically significant differences between tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim in the overall incidence of deaths, serious or severe TEAEs, discontinuations due to TEAEs, or in laboratory safety variables. In all cycles of CTx, the most commonly reported TEAEs in patients treated with tbo-filgrastim correlated with those of the reference filgrastim. Conclusions: Tbo-filgrastim is safe and well tolerated in breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients undergoing CTx, with a safety profile similar to that of the reference filgrastim. Clinical trial information: 2004-001452-36, 2004-001450-84, 2004-001449-13.