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.
BioRationality: EMA Accepts Waiver of Clinical Efficacy Testing of Biosimilars
April 21st 2025Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, shares his latest citizen's petition to the FDA, calling on the agency to waive clinical efficacy testing in response to the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) efforts towards the same goal.
How AI Can Help Address Cost-Related Nonadherence to Biologic, Biosimilar Treatment
March 9th 2025Despite saving billions, biosimilars still account for only a small share of the biologics market—what's standing in the way of broader adoption and how can artificial intelligence (AI) help change that?
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
Latest Biosimilar Deals Signal Growth Across Immunology, Oncology Markets
April 14th 2025During Q1 2025, pharmaceutical companies accelerated biosimilar expansion through strategic acquisitions and partnerships in hopes of boosting patient access to lower-cost treatments in immunology and oncology.