Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background F-627 (efbemalenograstim alfa) is a novel long acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) that contains two human G-CSF fused to a human immunoglobulin G2 (hIgG2) -Fc fragment with a peptide linker. This studyevaluated the efficacy and safety of F-627, also known as efbemalenograstim alfa (Ryzneuta®) in reducing neutropenia compared with filgrastim (GRAN®). Methods This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled non-inferiority study. Two hundred thirty nine (239) patients were enrolled in thirteen centers and received the chemotherapy with epirubicin (100 mg/m 2 ) and cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m 2 ) on day 1 of each cycle for a maximum of four cycles. Patients were randomized to receive either a single 20 mg subcutaneous (s.c.) injection of F-627 on day 3 of each cycle or daily s.c. injection of filgrastim 5 µg/kg/d starting from day 3 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was the duration of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia in cycle 1. The safety profile was also evaluated. Results The mean (SD) duration of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia in cycle 1 was 0.68 (1.10) and 0.71 (0.95) days for the F-627 and the filgrastim groups, respectively. The Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the between-group median difference (F-627 vs filgrastim) in the duration of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia in cycle 1 was 0 day and the upper limit of the one-sided 97.5% CI was 0 day, which was within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1-day. Results for all efficacy endpoints in cycles 2 − 4 were consistent with the results in cycle 1, however a trend towards a lower incidence and a shorter duration of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and grade 4 neutropenia was observed in the F-627 group compared with the filgrastim group. The ANC nadir in the F-627 group was significantly higher than that in the filgrastim group in each cycle. A single fixed dose of F-627 was well tolerated and as safe as standard daily filgrastim. Conclusions A single fixed dose of 20 mg of F-627 in each cycle was as safe and effective as a daily dose of filgrastim 5 µg/kg/d in reducing neutropenia and its complications in patients who received four cycles of EC. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04174599, on 22/11/2019.

This phase 2 study evaluated the impact of pegfilgrastim, a single-dose, long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, on the steady-state mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells into peripheral blood in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) or malignant lymphoma (ML). Efficacy and safety, along with CD34-positive cell mobilization outcomes were assessed in patients with MM, who were randomly assigned to pegfilgrastim ( n  = 30) or daily filgrastim ( n  = 31), and ML (pegfilgrastim only, n  = 13) cohorts. In the MM cohort, CD34-positive cell counts ≥ 2 × 10 6 /kg were achieved in 100% of patients in the pegfilgrastim group and 96.7% in the filgrastim group (difference: 3.3%; 80% confidence interval: −0.9–7.5%), demonstrating the non-inferiority of pegfilgrastim to filgrastim. All patients in the ML cohort achieved ≥ 2 × 10 6 /kg CD34-positive cell counts. The plerixafor administration rates in the MM cohort were 50.0% and 63.3% in the pegfilgrastim and filgrastim groups, respectively, and 91.7% in the ML cohort. There were no major differences in safety measures between the two groups. Although the sample size was small, particularly in the ML cohort, a single dose of pegfilgrastim demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to daily doses of filgrastim, indicating its potential for clinical use while reducing patient burden. Trial Registration: jRCT2011210029, NCT05007652.

Purpose Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia poses a significant risk to cancer patients, with pegfilgrastim being commonly used for its prevention. While pegfilgrastim can be administered via prefilled syringe or pen device, patient preferences and experiences with these delivery methods remain unclear. Methods We conducted a prospective, open-label, randomized, observational trial (NCT05910164) at the Rafael Institute, France, comparing patient preferences for pegfilgrastim administration using a prefilled syringe versus a prefilled pen device. Patients undergoing chemotherapy and requiring pegfilgrastim were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to receive either syringe or pen first, with crossover administration. Questionnaires assessed patient preferences, learning experiences, autonomy, pain levels, emotional responses, satisfaction with nursing care, and empowerment. Results Among 150 randomized patients (mean age 58 years; 69% female), both groups showed a preference for the pen device, with significantly higher mean scores favoring pen administration (4.94 ± 1.70 vs. 4.27 ± 1.84; p  = 0.00106). Patients reported significantly lower perceived pain with pen administration and stronger positive emotions compared to syringe use. Satisfaction with nursing care was higher with syringe use. Empowerment levels were similar across groups but significantly stronger when using the pen in complete autonomy. Conclusion A preference for pegfilgrastim administration via the pen device was observed, though this may have been influenced by the administration sequence and the absence of syringe self-administration. The insights gained can help inform clinical decision-making and improve patient-centered care in managing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Trial registration NCT05910164 on June 15, 2023.

Background The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and side effects of a single dose (Pegfilgrastim or PDL) or repeated six daily injections (Filgrastim or PDG) during chemotherapy courses in breast cancer patients in a non-inferiority clinical trial. Methods In this randomized clinical trial, 80 patients were recruited and allocated randomly to two equal arms. In one group, a single subcutaneous dose of PDL was injected the day after receiving the chemotherapy regimen in each cycle. The second arm received a subcutaneous injection of PDG for six consecutive days in each cycle of treatment. The side effects of GCF treatment and its effect on blood parameters were compared in each cycle and during eight cycles of chemotherapy. Results Hematologic parameters showed no significant differences in any of the treatment courses between the two study groups. The comparison of WBC ( p  = 0.527), Hgb ( p  = 0.075), Platelet ( p  = 0.819), Neutrophil ( p  = 0.575), Lymphocyte ( p  = 705) and ANC ( p  = 0.675) changes during the eight courses of treatment also revealed no statistically significant difference between the two study groups. Side effects including headache, injection site reaction and muscle pain had a lower frequency in patients receiving PDL drugs. Conclusion It seems that PDL is non-inferior in efficacy and also less toxic than PDG. Since PDL can be administered in a single dose and is also less costly, it can be regarded as a cost-effective drug for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Trial registration IRCT20190504043465N1 , May 2019.

Background Three comparative clinical studies assessed the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), immunogenicity and safety of PF-06881893 (filgrastim-aafi; Nivestym™), a filgrastim biosimilar, versus US-licensed reference product (filgrastim; US-Neupogen ® ) in healthy volunteers (HVs). Methods Two separate open-label, crossover-design PK/PD studies were conducted: a single-dose study ( n  = 24) and a multiple-dose study ( n  = 60). In each study, HVs were randomized to Nivestym followed by US-Neupogen, or vice versa. Study drug (5 μg/kg) was administered subcutaneously as a single injection or as five consecutive daily injections. Primary PK and PD endpoints were area under the filgrastim serum concentration–time curve, maximum observed concentration, area under the effect curve (AUEC) for absolute neutrophil count (ANC), maximum observed ANC, AUEC for cluster of differentiation (CD)-34 + count, and maximum observed CD34 + count. In an open-label, parallel-design, non-inferiority, comparative immunogenicity study, HVs were randomized ( n  = 128/treatment) to Nivestym or US-Neupogen. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with a negative baseline antidrug antibody (ADA) test result and one or more confirmed post-dose positive ADA result. Results Overall demographics were as follows: female ( n  = 162/340); White ( n  = 274/340), Black ( n  = 58/340), and other ( n  = 8/340); age (18–65 years); and weight (50.8–96.5 kg). All primary PK and PD endpoints met the pre-specified criteria for PK and PD equivalence. The primary endpoint in the comparative immunogenicity study met pre-specified criteria for non-inferiority. Conclusions Nivestym demonstrated PK and PD equivalence in single and multiple subcutaneous-dose settings and non-inferiority for immunogenicity to US-Neupogen, with a comparable safety profile, supporting the demonstration of biosimilarity. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov C1121002 (NCT02766647); C1121003 (NCT02766634); C1121012 (NCT02923791).

Abstract Background Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, are associated with bone pain, potentially impacting treatment adherence. This study hypothesized that a 5-day regimen of filgrastim would result in less bone pain than single-dose pegfilgrastim in patients receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Methods In this multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial, patients requiring prophylactic G-CSF during chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either 5-day filgrastim or pegfilgrastim. The primary outcome was patient-reported bone pain, assessed as area under the curve of daily pain scores (0 = no pain to 10 = worst pain) over the first 5 days following G-CSF in cycle 1. Secondary outcomes included bone pain in cycles 2-4, febrile neutropenia, hospitalizations, chemotherapy delays, dose reductions, early discontinuations, chemotherapy-related deaths, health-related quality of life, and health-care resource utilization. Results From June 2021 to March 2023, a total of 233 patients were randomly assigned, with 219 analyzed (110 filgrastim and 109 pegfilgrastim) after excluding those who withdrew before receiving treatment. Adjusting for stratification factors and prespecified baseline covariates using repeated measures linear regression, the mean area under the curve (0-40) for cycle 1 bone pain was 10.2 (11.2) for 5-day filgrastim and 10.2 (9.81) for pegfilgrastim, with an adjusted mean difference of 0.70 (95% confidence interval = 1.62 to 3.02; P = .556). Although no clinically significant differences were observed in most secondary outcomes, the 5-day filgrastim group exhibited a numerically higher incidence of febrile neutropenia (6.4% vs 0.9%, P = .065) and hospitalization (10.0% vs 3.7%, P = .106). Conclusion There was no significant difference in bone pain between 5-day filgrastim and pegfilgrastim.

Background and Objective INTP5 has been developed as a pegfilgrastim biosimilar. Single-dose, crossover study compared the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) of INTP5 (pegfilgrastim biosimilar) with reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta ® , pegfilgrastim-ref) and a multiple-dose, parallel-group study compared the immunogenicity of INTP5 with pegfilgrastim-ref in healthy subjects as part of a complete clinical development plan. Methods In the PK/PD study, subjects received a single subcutaneous 6 mg dose of INTP5 and pegfilgrastim-ref ( N  = 142) separated by a 6-week washout period. The primary endpoints were area under the serum concentration-time curve measured from time zero to infinity (AUC 0-∞ ) and maximum measured serum concentration ( C max ) of pegfilgrastim and area under the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) versus time curve from time zero to t (AUEC 0-t ) and maximum measured ANC ( E max ) of baseline non-adjusted ANCs. In the immunogenicity study, subjects received two 6 mg doses of INTP5 ( N  = 100) or pegfilgrastim-ref ( N  = 100) separated by 21 days. The primary endpoints were incidence of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) in the two treatment groups. Results The primary PK endpoints [AUC 0-∞ (90% CI 108.59–123.11) and C max (106.24–118.99)] and the primary PD endpoints [AUEC 0-t (99.07–102.32) and E max (100.24–104.25)] met the acceptance criteria of 80–125%. The incidence of ADAs was 10.6% in the INTP5 arm and 9.0% in the pegfilgrastim-ref arm. The 90% CI for risk difference of the ADA incidence between INTP5 and pegfilgrastim-ref was 1.64% (− 5.40 to 8.68) and was within the 10% margin. No neutralizing antibodies were reported. Immunogenicity did not impact PK/PD parameters and subjects with aberrant PK/PD/safety did not show immunogenicity concerns. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar with INTP5 and pegfilgrastim-ref in both studies. The most common AEs were musculoskeletal pain and headache. Conclusion INTP5 showed PK/PD equivalence with pegfilgrastim-ref following a single dose, no clinically meaningful difference in the immune response following multiple doses, and a comparable safety profile.

IntroductionThe most effective duration of filgrastim as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in early breast cancer (EBC) patients is unknown. Despite significant differences in cost and toxicity, no prospective trial has been performed to optimize practice. We assessed the feasibility of using a novel pragmatic trial model to compare the most commonly used schedules of filgrastim.MethodsEarly breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy were randomized to 5, 7, or 10 days of filgrastim as primary FN prophylaxis. The trial methodology integrated broad eligibility criteria, simply defined endpoints, an integrated consent model incorporating oral consent, and web-based randomization in the clinic. Feasibility was reflected through a combination of primary endpoints including patient and physician engagement (if > 50% of appropriate patients approached agree to participate, and if > 50% of physicians approached patients for the study). Secondary endpoints included the first occurrence rates of FN, treatment-related hospital admission, or chemotherapy dose reductions/delays/discontinuation.ResultsFrom May 2015 to August 2016, 142/149 (95.3%) patients approached agreed to participate and were randomized. Seventeen of 24 (70.8%) medical oncologists approached and randomized patients. The 142 patients received a total of 495 cycles of chemotherapy. Aggregate incidences of a first event by patient were FN (8/142, 5.6%), treatment-related hospitalization (6/142, 4.2%), chemotherapy discontinuation (7/142, 4.9%), chemotherapy delays (5/142, 3.5%), and chemotherapy dose reduction (18/142, 12.7%). Overall, 31.7% (45/142) of patients and 9.0% (45/495) of chemotherapy cycles were associated with one of these first events.ConclusionThis study met its feasibility endpoints. This novel pragmatic trial approach offers a means of comparing standard of care treatments in a practical and cost-effective manner. The trial will now be expanded to compare rates of FN between the three filgrastim schedules.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02428114.

The aim of this cohort study was to compare a condensed schedule of consolidation therapy with high-dose cytarabine on days 1, 2 and 3 (HDAC-123) with the HDAC schedule given on days 1, 3 and 5 (HDAC-135) as well as to evaluate the prophylactic use of pegfilgrastim after chemotherapy in younger patients with acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission. One hundred and seventy-six patients were treated with HDAC-135 and 392 patients with HDAC-123 with prophylactic pegfilgrastim at days 10 and 8, respectively, in the AMLSG 07-04 and the German AML Intergroup protocol. Time from start to chemotherapy until hematologic recovery with white blood cells >1.0 G/l and neutrophils >0.5 G/l was in median 4 days shorter in patients receiving HDAC-123 compared with HDAC-135 ( P <0.0001, each), and further reduced by 2 days ( P <0.0001) by pegfilgrastim. Rates of infections were reduced by HDAC-123 ( P <0.0001) and pegfilgrastim ( P =0.002). Days in hospital and platelet transfusions were significantly reduced by HDAC-123 compared with HDAC-135. Survival was neither affected by HDAC-123 versus HDAC-135 nor by pegfilgrastim. In conclusion, consolidation therapy with HDAC-123 leads to faster hematologic recovery and less infections, platelet transfusions as well as days in hospital without affecting survival.

Background Regenerative therapies offer new approaches to improve cardiac function after acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Previous trials using bone marrow cells, selected stem cell populations, or cardiac stem cell progenitors require invasive procedures and had so far inconclusive results. A less invasive approach utilizes granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) to mobilize stem cells to circulating blood and induce neovascularization and differentiation into endothelial cells and cardiomyocytes. Stromal cell-derived factor 1 alpha (SDF-1α) is an important chemokine for initiating stem cell migration and homing to ischemic myocardium. SDF-1α concentrations can be increased by inhibition of CD26/DPP4. Dutogliptin, a novel DPP4 inhibitor, combined with stem cell mobilization using G-CSF significantly improved survival and reduced infarct size in a murine model. Methods We test the safety and tolerability and efficacy of dutogliptin in combination with filgrastim (G-CSF) in patients with STEMI (EF < 45%) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Preliminary efficacy will be analyzed using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) to detect > 3.8% improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LV-EF) compared to placebo. One hundred forty subjects will be randomized to filgrastim plus dutogliptin or matching placebos. Discussion The REC-DUT-002 trial is the first to evaluate dutogliptin in combination with G-CSF in patients with STEMI. Results will lay the foundation for an appropriately powered cardiovascular outcome trial to test the efficacy of this combined pharmacological strategy. Trial registration EudraCT no.: 2018-000916-75 . Registered on 7 June 2018. IND number: 123717