In 2016, the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency switched from the brand-name filgrastim, Neupogen, to a biosimilar, Apotex’s Grastofil, for stem cell mobilization prior to autologous stem cell transplants. In a study presented at the American Society of Hematology’s Annual Meeting, researchers sought to determine the safety and efficacy of using a biosimilar for this setting.
In 2016, the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency switched from the brand-name filgrastim, Neupogen, to a biosimilar, Apotex’s Grastofil, for stem cell mobilization prior to autologous stem cell transplants (ASCT).
In a study presented at the American Society of Hematology’s Annual Meeting, held from December 1 to 4, 2018, in San Diego, California, researchers sought to determine the safety and efficacy of using a biosimilar for this setting.
In order to analyze the efficacy of the 2 products, the study’s authors reviewed patient charts and compared the efficacy of CD34+ collection in 170 patients who received the brand-name filgrastim with 47 patients who received the biosimilar between 2012 and 2018.
They found that the brand-name and the biosimilar demonstrated similar efficacy for stem cell mobilization, as 92.4% of the patients treated with the brand name had a successful harvest (as defined as a collection of 2x106 or more CD34+ cells for patients planned for 1 stem cell transplant and 4x106 or more CD34+ cells for patients planned for 2 transplants) compared with 100% of the patients taking the biosimilar.
In addition, the study’s authors also looked at the efficacy of mobilization with both filgrastim products, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy, in patients requiring more than 1 apheresis day and requiring the stem cell—stimulating agent, plerixafor. Clinical efficacy was defined in this portion of the study by using time to engraftment and length of hospital stay post-ASCT as parameters.
Importantly, the 2 products did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in plerixafor requirement when patients had a low CD34+ count. There was also no statistically significant difference between each patient group that required more than 1 day of apheresis. In total, 59.4% of patients mobilized with the branded product required more than 1 apheresis day compared with 76.9% of patients mobilized with the biosimilar (P = .11).
Similarly, the researchers found that 42.5% of patients in the reference product group received chemotherapy, as compared with 38.1% in the biosimilar group, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .71).
In analyzing differences in length of hospital stay for patients, the researchers found that, again, there was no statistically significant difference. In patients taking the reference without chemotherapy, the median length of stay was 18.5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 17.0-21.0) compared with 19.0 days (IQR, 17.0-22.0) for patients taking the biosimilar without chemotherapy (P = .10). For patients also taking chemotherapy, lengths of hospital stays increased, but not in a statistically significant manner.
Based on these findings, the researchers determined that, when using either the biosimilar or the reference product for ASCT, each medication has similar efficacy. The study authors concluded that, due to the similar efficacy, prescribing a biosimilar over a reference product would be able to “provide substantial cost savings to the healthcare system.”
Reference
Stakiw J, Sabry W, Elemary M, et al. Biosimilar G-CSF versus originator G-CSF for autologous peripheral blood stem cell mobilization: a comparative analysis of mobilization and engraftment. Presented at the 60th Annual Meeting and Exposition of the American Society of Hematology, December 1-4, 2018; San Diego, California. Abstract 3345. ash.confex.com/ash/2018/webprogram/Paper115341.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.