A recent study, published in Transfusion, analyzed 3 granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor treatments in an attempt to compare the mobilization efficiency of 2 innovator G-CSF treatments with that of 1 biosimilar treatment.
In patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who are eligible for autologous blood stem cell transplantation, high-dose chemotherapy followed by transplantation is standard first-line therapy. After a patient receives 3 to 4 cycles of induction therapy, 1 cycle of mobilization-specific chemotherapy is typically followed by the administration of a granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) treatment to facilitate the mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) prior to collection.
A recent study, published in Transfusion, analyzed 3 G-CSF treatments in an attempt to compare the mobilization efficiency of 2 innovator G-CSF treatments with that of 1 biosimilar treatment.
The retrospective study compared the mobilization efficiency of reference filgrastim (Neupogen), lenograstim (Granocyte), and biosimilar filgrastim (Filgrastim Hexal) in a homogeneous group of 250 patients with MM in first-line treatment. Of this group, 30% (n = 73) received the reference filgrastim, 52% (n = 131) received biosimilar filgrastim, and 18% (n = 45) received lenograstim. Each patient received a subcutaneous dose of 5 to 10 µg per kilogram of body weight beginning at day 5 after chemomobilization until the collection of CD34-positive (CD34+) cells was complete.
The study found that there were no significant differences in mobilization of CD34+ cells or in collection yields among the reference filgrastim group (median: 10 CD34+ cells × 106/kg body weight; range: 2.7 to 40.4), the biosimilar filgrastim group (median: 9.9; range: 0.2 to 26.0) and the lenograsim group (median 10.7; range: 3.1 to 27.9). Overall, 249 of the 250 patients reached the collection goal of 2 × 106 CD34+ cells per kilogram of body weight during a median of 1 (range: 1 to 3) collection session.
The researchers concluded that there were no significant differences in PBSC mobilization or in reaching individual collection targets among innovator treatments and the biosimilar treatment in patients with MM.
Julie Reed: Why 2024 Is Important for Biosimilars
April 17th 2024Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, showcases how the biosimilar industry is expected to develop throughout 2024, including major policy changes and hope for continued improvement in market share for adalimumab biosimilars.
Alvotech’s Stelara Biosimilar, Selarsdi, Receives FDA Approval
April 16th 2024Alvotech’s Selarsdi (ustekinumab-aekn), a biosimilar referencing Stelara (ustekinumab), gained FDA approval, making it the second ustekinumab biosimilar and second for the company to be given the green light for the American market.
Decoding the Patent Puzzle: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Biosimilars
March 17th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Ha Kung Wong, JD, an intellectual patent attorney and partner at Venable LLP, details the confusing landscape that is the US patent system and how it can be improved to help companies overcome barriers to biosimilar competition.
BioRationality: Removing the Misconceptions Surrounding Interchangeability
April 15th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, outlines the current state of interchangeable biosimilars in the US and policy changes needed to clear up misconceptions surrounding the meaning behind interchangeability designations.
Sintilimab, Bevacizumab Biosimilar, HAIC Improves Survival in Patients With Unresectable HCC
April 14th 2024Positive results of sintilimab, IBI305, and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) treatment showed shrinking tumors and previously converting inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to resectable HCC with manageable adverse effects.