Time filter

Source Type

Neu-Ulm, Germany

Bondarenko I.M.,Dnipropetrovsk State Medical Academy | Bias P.,Teva Ratiopharm | Buchner A.,Merckle GmbH
Supportive Care in Cancer | Year: 2016

Purpose: Lipegfilgrastim is a once-per-cycle, fixed-dose, glycoPEGylated recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) recently approved in Europe to reduce the duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. Bone pain-related (BPR) adverse events are commonly associated with G-CSF therapy. This post hoc analysis examined BPR treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in two comparative studies of lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim in patients receiving chemotherapy. Methods: A post hoc analysis was conducted using integrated data from two double-blind randomized studies in patients with breast cancer receiving docetaxel and doxorubicin and treated prophylactically with subcutaneous lipegfilgrastim 6 mg or pegfilgrastim 6 mg once per cycle. BPR TEAEs were defined as arthralgia, back pain, bone pain, musculoskeletal chest pain, musculoskeletal discomfort, musculoskeletal pain, myalgia, neck pain, noncardiac chest pain, and pain in extremity. Relationship of BPR TEAEs to study treatment or chemotherapy was also reported by the investigators. Results: The analysis included 306 patients (lipegfilgrastim: n = 151; pegfilgrastim: n = 155). The proportion of patients experiencing BPR TEAEs was similar with lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim (25.2 vs 21.9 %, respectively), as was the proportion of patients experiencing BPR treatment-emergent adverse drug reactions (TEADRs) (18.5 vs 16.8 %, respectively). No BPR TEADRs were serious, and none led to discontinuation. Conclusions: Nonsevere BPR TEAEs and TEADRs were observed in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy and G-CSF; rates of BPR events were similar between lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim. The similar BPR safety profile of lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim provides support for use in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. © 2015, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Source

Volovat C.,Centrul de Oncologie Medicala | Gladkov O.A.,Chelyabinsk Regional Clinical Oncology Center | Bondarenko I.M.,Dnipropetrovsk State Medical Academy | Barash S.,Teva Biopharmaceuticals Inc | And 4 more authors.
Clinical Breast Cancer | Year: 2014

Background Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) reduce the incidence and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia when given as adjunct therapy to patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Balugrastim is a long-acting G-CSF composed of a genetic fusion between recombinant human serum albumin and G-CSF. We compared the efficacy and safety of balugrastim and pegfilgrastim, a long-acting pegylated recombinant G-CSF, in patients with breast cancer who were scheduled to receive chemotherapy. Patients and Methods In this double-blind randomized phase III trial, patients with ≥ 1.5 × 109 neutrophils/L were randomly assigned to subcutaneous injections of balugrastim 40 mg (n = 153) or pegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 151). The primary efficacy end point was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) (days with an absolute neutrophil count [ANC] < 0.5 × 109 cells/L) during cycle 1. Efficacy analyses were performed in the per-protocol (PP) population. In a separate open-label single-arm study, newly recruited patients (n = 77) received balugrastim 40 mg and were included in the safety analysis. Results The mean DSN in cycle 1 was 1.1 days in the balugrastim group and 1.0 days in the pegfilgrastim group (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.13-0.37). Two and 4 patients, respectively, had febrile neutropenia during cycle 1. Twenty percent of patients in the balugrastim group and 19% in the pegfilgrastim group had adverse events (AEs) considered to be related to study medication; 3.9% and 4.7% of patients, respectively, experienced serious AEs. Conclusions This study demonstrates the comparable safety and efficacy profile of balugrastim and pegfilgrastim and the noninferiority of balugrastim for reduction in DSN. There were no unexpected safety events. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Source

Gladkov O.,Chelyabinsk Regional Clinical Oncology Dispensary | Moiseyenko V.,Nn Petrov Research Institute Of Oncology | Bondarenko I.N.,Dnepropetrovsk Medical Academy | Shparyk Y.,Lviv Cancer Center | And 4 more authors.
Medical Oncology | Year: 2015

Balugrastim is a once-per-cycle, fixed-dose recombinant protein comprising human serum albumin and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor under development for prevention of severe neutropenia in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This phase II, multicenter, active-controlled, dose-finding pilot study evaluated balugrastim safety and efficacy versus pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients scheduled to receive myelosuppressive chemotherapy and investigated two doses with similar efficacy to pegfilgrastim for a subsequent phase III study. Patients received four cycles of doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy and with each successive cycle were randomized sequentially to escalating doses of balugrastim [30 (n = 11), 40 (n = 21), or 50 mg (n = 20)] or a fixed dose of pegfilgrastim [6 mg (n = 26)] post-chemotherapy. Balugrastim doses were escalated as planned. The incidence of adverse events was similar among the balugrastim groups and between all balugrastim doses and pegfilgrastim. The most frequently reported adverse events were neutropenia, alopecia, and nausea. During cycle 1, severe neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count of <0.5 × 109/L) occurred in 40, 67, and 50 % and febrile neutropenia occurred in 20.0, 9.5, and 10.0 % of patients receiving balugrastim 30, 40, and 50 mg, respectively; in patients receiving pegfilgrastim, 48 % experienced severe neutropenia and 8 % experienced febrile neutropenia. Duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) for each treatment group was 0.9, 1.6, 1.1, and 0.9 days, respectively. In the remaining three chemotherapy cycles, DSN was ≤1 day across all treatment groups. Balugrastim 50 mg was comparable to pegfilgrastim in terms of safety and overall efficacy in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. © 2015, Springer Science+Business Media New York. Source

Bondarenko I.,Dnipropetrovsk State Medical Academy | Gladkov O.A.,Chelyabinsk Regional Clinical Oncology Center | Elsaesser R.,Teva Ratiopharm | Buchner A.,Teva Ratiopharm | Bias P.,Teva Ratiopharm
BMC Cancer | Year: 2013

Background: Lipegfilgrastim is a novel glyco-pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in development for neutropenia prophylaxis in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. This phase III, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, noninferiority trial compared the efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in chemotherapy-naïve breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy.Methods: Patients with high-risk stage II, III, or IV breast cancer and an absolute neutrophil count ≥1.5 × 109 cells/L were randomized to a single 6-mg subcutaneous injection of lipegfilgrastim (n = 101) or pegfilgrastim (n = 101) on day 2 of each 21-day chemotherapy cycle (4 cycles maximum). The primary efficacy endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia during cycle 1.Results: Cycle 1: The mean duration of severe neutropenia for the lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim groups was 0.7 and 0.8 days, respectively (λ = -0.218 [95% confidence interval: -0.498%, 0.062%], p = 0.126), and no severe neutropenia was observed in 56% and 49% of patients in the lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim groups, respectively. All cycles: In the efficacy population, febrile neutropenia occurred in three pegfilgrastim-treated patients (all in cycle 1) and zero lipegfilgrastim-treated patients. Drug-related adverse events in the safety population were reported in 28% and 26% of patients i006E the lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim groups, respectively.Conclusion: This study demonstrates that lipegfilgrastim 6 mg is as effective as pegfilgrastim in reducing neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.Trial Registration: Eudra EEACTA200901599910. The study protocol, two global amendments (Nos. 1 and 2), informed consent documents, and other appropriate study-related documents were reviewed and approved by the Ministry of Health of Ukraine Central Ethics Committee and local independent ethics committees (IECs). © 2013 Bondarenko et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Source

Gladkov O.A.,Chelyabinsk Regional Clinical Oncology Dispensary | Buchner A.,Merckle GmbH | Bias P.,Teva Ratiopharm | Muller U.,Teva Ratiopharm | Elsasser R.,Teva Ratiopharm
Supportive Care in Cancer | Year: 2016

Purpose: Lipegfilgrastim is a once-per-cycle glycoPEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Noninferiority of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim was demonstrated in a phase III trial in chemotherapy (CTx)-naïve breast cancer patients. Secondary outcomes relating to treatment burden are reported here. Methods: Patients with high-risk stage II, III, or IV breast cancer were randomized to receive lipegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 101) or pegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 101) subcutaneously on day 2 of each CTx cycle. Doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m2 commenced on day 1, for up to four cycles. Secondary end points included days in the hospital or intensive care unit (ICU), use of intravenous antibiotics for febrile neutropenia (FN) or related infections, and measures of CTx delivery (dose delays, reductions, and omissions). Results: One lipegfilgrastim recipient and two pegfilgrastim recipients were hospitalized in cycle 1 because of FN or associated infection. The lipegfilgrastim-treated patient spent 1 day in the ICU for FN, and the two pegfilgrastim-treated patients were hospitalized for FN for 5 and 6 days, respectively. All hospitalized patients received antibiotics. An additional pegfilgrastim-treated patient received antibiotics but was not hospitalized. Most patients received CTx as scheduled; over 98 % received their planned doxorubicin and docetaxel doses in all cycles. In the lipegfilgrastim group, no patients had a CTx dose reduced or omitted; eight patients in the pegfilgrastim group had a CTx dose reduced or omitted during cycles 2–4. Conclusions: The burden of treatment associated with myelosuppressive CTx was similar in breast cancer patients treated with lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim. © 2015, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Source

Discover hidden collaborations