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.
Budget Impact Analysis of Biosimilar Natalizumab in the US
Projected savings from biosimilar natalizumab were $452,611 over 3 years, driven by decreased drug acquisition costs and a utilization shift from reference to biosimilar natalizumab.
Biosimilars in America: Overcoming Barriers and Maximizing Impact
July 21st 2024Join us as we explore the complexities of the US biosimilars market, discussing legislative influences, payer and provider adoption factors, and strategies to overcome industry challenges with expert insights from Kyle Noonan, PharmD, MS, value & access strategy manager at Cencora.
Eye on Pharma: BI Cyltezo Partnership; Europe Ustekinumab Launch; Mexico Biosimilar Approval
July 24th 2024Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) partners with GoodRx to offer its unbranded adalimumab biosimilar to patients at an exclusive low price; a new ustekinumab biosimilar launches in Europe; and Mexican officials approve a bevacizumab biosimilar.
Biosimilars Oncology Roundup for June 2024—Podcast Edition
July 7th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we review biosimilar news coming out of June, with clinical trial results from conferences and a study showcasing how to overcome economic and noneconomic barriers to oncology biosimilars.
Real-World Study: No Increase in Health Resource Costs After Infliximab Biosimilar Introduction
July 20th 2024Although biosimilars reduce drug purchasing costs for hospitals, it’s unclear whether those savings might be offset by increased health resource utilization following a non-medical switching initiative.