Patients who are candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) require adequate collection of stem cells, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor agents (G-CSFs) are typically used for stem cell mobilization while plerixafor is used to increase the yield of mobilized stem cells. While the biosimilar filgrastim agent Zarxio has become a more widely used, cost-saving G-CSF option in this context, little research has been conducted on whether the use of the biosimilar rather than its reference, Neupogen, has an impact on plerixafor use in patients undergoing AHSCT.
Patients who are candidates for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) require adequate collection of stem cells, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor agents (G-CSFs) are typically used for stem cell mobilization while plerixafor is used to increase the yield of mobilized stem cells. While the biosimilar filgrastim agent Zarxio has become a more widely used, cost-saving G-CSF option in this context, little research has been conducted on whether the use of the biosimilar rather than its reference, Neupogen, has an impact on plerixafor use in patients undergoing AHSCT.
In research scheduled for presentation on December 3 at the 60th Annual Meeting and Exposition of the American Society of Hematology in San Diego, California, researchers will present findings from their retrospective, single-center study of whether there exists a difference in the rate of plerixafor use among patients whose stem cells were mobilized with the biosimilar versus the reference.
Using the Karmanos Cancer Institute’s blood and marrow transplantation database, the researchers collected data on 370 patients who underwent stem cell mobilization for AHSCT between 2015 and 2017. Patients received the biosimilar (n = 173) or reference (n = 197) filgrastim at a dose of 10µg/kg for 5 days, and also received plerixafor if their peripheral CD34+ cell count on the first day of collection was less than 20/µL.
There were no significant difference in the baseline patient characteristics of the patients in the 2 treatment groups other than a slightly lower median white blood cell count prior to mobilization in patients who received the reference filgrastim.
The researchers found that there was no statistically significant difference in plerixafor utilization between the biosimilar and the reference groups, with 45% of the patients receiving the reference requiring plerixafor treatment versus 43% of the patients in the biosimilar group requiring plerixafor (P = .794). Furthermore, there was no difference between the group in the peripheral CD34+ cell count on the first planned day of collection, the number of collected stem cells, the total days of apheresis, the need for a second mobilization, the rate of transplant, or the duration of transplant hospitalization. In fact, in a multivariate analysis, only older age and low platelet count adversely impacted patients’ ability to proceed to transplantation.
The researchers concluded that there was no difference in plerixafor use between the 2 patient groups, and given that the cost of the biosimilar was approximately 50% lower than that of the reference product, using the biosimilar G-CSF agent provided an opportunity for significant cost savings for stem cell mobilization.
Reference
Abdallah N, Kim S, Alavi A, et al. Does use of a biosimilar G-CSF change plerixafor utilization during stem cell mobilization for autologous stem cell transplantation? Presented at: 60th Annual Meeting and Exposition of the American Society of Hematology; December 1-4, 2018; San Diego, California. Abstract 4557. ash.confex.com/ash/2018/webprogram/Paper118400.html.
Addressing Patent Abuse, Reimbursement Models Key to Sustainable Biosimilar Market
April 25th 2025Sonia T. Oskouei, PharmD, emphasized strategies to streamline regulations and evolve to overcome barriers and expand the availability of cost-effective biosimilar treatments across more therapeutic areas.
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?
Decade of Biosimilars Yields $36 Billion in Savings and Strengthens Supply Chain
April 24th 2025Dracey Poore, MS, director of biosimilars and emerging therapies at Cardinal Health, highlighted that biosimilars saved $36 billion over the last decade by improving patient access and the supply chain, but continued education and a robust pipeline are crucial for future growth.
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.