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.
Biosimilars Gastroenterology Roundup: March 2025
April 1st 2025As the biosimilar industry celebrates a decade of growth, the market continues to evolve with expanded treatment options, cost savings, and a flurry of new competitors—yet regulatory challenges, market dynamics, and patient accessibility remain key hurdles to unlocking its full potential.
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?
PBM Evolution Toward Value-Based Care Shifts to Transparent Pharmacy Pricing
March 30th 2025Josh Canavan, PharmD, RazorMetrics, and Chris O'Dell, Turquoise Health, predict pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) will evolve toward value-based care, mirroring the broader shift toward open-cost structures.
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.