Eflapegrastim, a Long-Acting Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor for the Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia: Results of a Phase III Trial.
Antineoplastic Agents
/ therapeutic use
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ adverse effects
Breast Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Female
Filgrastim
/ therapeutic use
Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor
/ therapeutic use
Humans
Neutropenia
/ chemically induced
Neutrophils
Polyethylene Glycols
/ adverse effects
Recombinant Proteins
/ therapeutic use
Breast cancer
Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia
Eflapegrastim
Pegfilgrastim
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
received:
10
02
2020
accepted:
07
05
2020
pubmed:
2
6
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
2
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Eflapegrastim, a novel, long-acting recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF), consists of a rhG-CSF analog conjugated to a human IgG4 Fc fragment via a short polyethylene glycol linker. Preclinical and phase I and II pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data showed increased potency for neutrophil counts for eflapegrastim versus pegfilgrastim. This open-label phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim with pegfilgrastim for reducing the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Patients with early-stage breast cancer were randomized 1:1 to fixed-dose eflapegrastim 13.2 mg (3.6 mg G-CSF) or standard pegfilgrastim (6 mg G-CSF) following standard docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for 4 cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate the noninferiority of eflapegrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN; grade 4) in cycle 1. Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to study arms (eflapegrastim, n = 196; pegfilgrastim, n = 210). The incidence of cycle 1 severe neutropenia was 16% (n = 31) for eflapegrastim versus 24% (n = 51) for pegfilgrastim, reducing the relative risk by 35% (p = .034). The difference in mean cycle 1 DSN (-0.148 day) met the primary endpoint of noninferiority (p < .0001) and also showed statistical superiority for eflapegrastim (p = .013). Noninferiority was maintained for the duration of treatment (all cycles, p < .0001), and secondary efficacy endpoints and safety results were also comparable for study arms. These results demonstrate noninferiority and comparable safety for eflapegrastim at a lower G-CSF dose versus pegfilgrastim. The potential for increased potency of eflapegrastim to deliver improved clinical benefit warrants further clinical study in patients at higher risk for CIN. Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) remains a significant clinical dilemma for oncology patients who are striving to complete their prescribed chemotherapy regimen. In a randomized, phase III trial comparing eflapegrastim to pegfilgrastim in the prevention of CIN, the efficacy of eflapegrastim was noninferior to pegfilgrastim and had comparable safety. Nevertheless, the risk of CIN remains a great concern for patients undergoing chemotherapy, as the condition frequently results in chemotherapy delays, dose reductions, and treatment discontinuations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Eflapegrastim, a novel, long-acting recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rhG-CSF), consists of a rhG-CSF analog conjugated to a human IgG4 Fc fragment via a short polyethylene glycol linker. Preclinical and phase I and II pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data showed increased potency for neutrophil counts for eflapegrastim versus pegfilgrastim. This open-label phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim with pegfilgrastim for reducing the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients with early-stage breast cancer were randomized 1:1 to fixed-dose eflapegrastim 13.2 mg (3.6 mg G-CSF) or standard pegfilgrastim (6 mg G-CSF) following standard docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for 4 cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate the noninferiority of eflapegrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN; grade 4) in cycle 1.
RESULTS
Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to study arms (eflapegrastim, n = 196; pegfilgrastim, n = 210). The incidence of cycle 1 severe neutropenia was 16% (n = 31) for eflapegrastim versus 24% (n = 51) for pegfilgrastim, reducing the relative risk by 35% (p = .034). The difference in mean cycle 1 DSN (-0.148 day) met the primary endpoint of noninferiority (p < .0001) and also showed statistical superiority for eflapegrastim (p = .013). Noninferiority was maintained for the duration of treatment (all cycles, p < .0001), and secondary efficacy endpoints and safety results were also comparable for study arms.
CONCLUSION
These results demonstrate noninferiority and comparable safety for eflapegrastim at a lower G-CSF dose versus pegfilgrastim. The potential for increased potency of eflapegrastim to deliver improved clinical benefit warrants further clinical study in patients at higher risk for CIN.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) remains a significant clinical dilemma for oncology patients who are striving to complete their prescribed chemotherapy regimen. In a randomized, phase III trial comparing eflapegrastim to pegfilgrastim in the prevention of CIN, the efficacy of eflapegrastim was noninferior to pegfilgrastim and had comparable safety. Nevertheless, the risk of CIN remains a great concern for patients undergoing chemotherapy, as the condition frequently results in chemotherapy delays, dose reductions, and treatment discontinuations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32476162
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2020-0105
pmc: PMC7418343
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Recombinant Proteins
0
Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor
143011-72-7
Polyethylene Glycols
3WJQ0SDW1A
Filgrastim
PVI5M0M1GW
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1233-e1241Informations de copyright
© 2020 Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.
Références
Support Care Cancer. 2015 Apr;23(4):1137-43
pubmed: 25576433
Support Care Cancer. 2012 Oct;20(10):2523-30
pubmed: 22252548
Drugs. 2002;62 Suppl 1:1-15
pubmed: 12479591
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2008 Feb;6(2):109-18
pubmed: 18319047
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Dec 15;21(24):4524-31
pubmed: 14673039
Ann Oncol. 2002 Jun;13(6):903-9
pubmed: 12123336
BioDrugs. 2013 Apr;27(2):149-58
pubmed: 23359067
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jun 10;28(17):2914-24
pubmed: 20385991
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Apr;26(4):1323-1334
pubmed: 29147854
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2012 Feb;81(2):136-50
pubmed: 21507676
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jul 20;25(21):3158-67
pubmed: 17634496
Ann Oncol. 2003 Jan;14(1):29-35
pubmed: 12488289
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Dec 1;24(34):5381-7
pubmed: 17135639
Ann Oncol. 2008 Mar;19(3):454-60
pubmed: 18083689
Exp Ther Med. 2011 Sep;2(5):859-866
pubmed: 22977589
BioDrugs. 2015 Jun;29(3):185-98
pubmed: 25998211
J Oncol Pract. 2019 Jan;15(1):27-29
pubmed: 30629898
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Apr 20;36(12):1260-1265
pubmed: 29443651
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2003 Jul;1(3):440-54
pubmed: 19761076
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 10;27(8):1177-83
pubmed: 19204201
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 May 3;2(5):e192535
pubmed: 31050774
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Jan;26(1):7-20
pubmed: 28939926
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Nov 1;22(21):4302-11
pubmed: 15381684
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015 Nov;13(11):1383-93
pubmed: 26553767
J Clin Oncol. 2002 Feb 1;20(3):727-31
pubmed: 11821454
Cancer Med. 2018 May;7(5):1660-1669
pubmed: 29573207
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jun 1;30(16):1974-9
pubmed: 22508813