Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · South Asian J Cancer 2021; 10(03): 172-174
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1729446
Original Article: Leukemia - Lymphoma and Myeloma

Innovator Filgrastim versus Generic Filgrastim in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Mobilization

Sadik Husian
1   Department of Pharmacology, Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University, New Delhi, India
,
Preethi Jeyaraman
2   Division of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplant, Saket, New Delhi, India
,
S. K. Gupta
1   Department of Pharmacology, Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University, New Delhi, India
,
Reeta Rai
3   Division of Transfusion Medicine, Department of Lab Medicine Transfusion Medicine, Max Super Specialty Hospital, Saket, New Delhi, India
,
Sangeeta Pathak
3   Division of Transfusion Medicine, Department of Lab Medicine Transfusion Medicine, Max Super Specialty Hospital, Saket, New Delhi, India
,
Nitin Dayal
4   Department of Lab Medicine, Max Super Specialty Hospital, Saket, New Delhi, India
,
Rahul Naithani
2   Division of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplant, Saket, New Delhi, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Methods This is a retrospective study. G-CSF was administered in the dose of 10 μg/kg subcutaneous as a single dose for 4 days. On day 5, peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) apheresis was performed using Haemonetics MCS plus or COBE Spectra apheresis machine through a double-lumen central venous catheter. Primary outcome parameters were the total number of CD34+ HSCs/kg of recipient weight mobilized in peripheral blood and the number of days required for neutrophil and platelets engraftment, respectively.

Objective We compared the effectiveness and safety of innovator filgrastim versus generic filgrastim in patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

Results A total of 91 stem cell mobilizations was analyzed. There were 58 normal healthy donors for allogeneic HSCT and 33 patients for autologous HSCT. There was no statistically significant difference among groups in terms of total collected CD34+ cells value (p = 0.609). The mean time to neutrophil engraftment was 13.7 days in the innovator group and 13.2 days in the Grafeel group (p = 0.518). The mean time to platelet engraftment was 16.2 days in the innovator group and 14.8 days in the generic group (p = 0.435). The patient who received generic filgrastim had more febrile episodes during the course of transplantation (p = 0.020).

Conclusion Generic filgrastim was found to be comparable to original filgrastim for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in normal healthy donors for allogeneic HSCT and patients for autologous HSCT.

Keywords

bone marrow transplant - CD34 - granulocyte colony-stimulating factor - mobilization


Publication History

Article published online:
04 September 2021

© 2021. MedIntel Services Pvt Ltd. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Majhail NS, Farnia SH, Carpenter PA. et al Indications for autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: guidelines from the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2015; 21 (11) 1863-1869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Giralt S, Costa L, Schriber J. et al Optimizing autologous stem cell mobilization strategies to improve patient outcomes: consensus guidelines and recommendations. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2014; 20 (03) 295-308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Schmitt M, Hoffmann JM, Lorenz K, Publicover A, Schmitt A, Nagler A. Mobilization of autologous and allogeneic peripheral blood stem cells for transplantation in haematological malignancies using biosimilar G-CSF. Vox Sang 2016; 111 (02) 178-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nupur N, Singh SK, Narula G, Rathore AS. Assessing analytical comparability of biosimilars: GCSF as a case study. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 2016; 1032: 165-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Naithani R, Dayal N, Dixit G. Single versus dual platform analysis for hematopoietic stem cell enumeration using ISHAGE protocol. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus 2017; 33 (03) 370-374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Naithani R, Dayal N, Pathak S, Rai R. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation using non-cryopreserved peripheral blood stem cells graft is effective in multiple myeloma and lymphoma. Bone Marrow Transplant 2018; 53 (09) 1198-1200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sivgin S, Karakus E, Keklik M. et al Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of original filgrastim (Neupogen), biosimilar filgrastim (Leucostim) and Lenograstim (Granocyte) in CD34(+) peripheral hematopoietic stem cell mobilization procedures for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant donors. Transfus Apheresis Sci 2016; 54 (03) 410-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Pham T, Patil S, Fleming S. et al Comparison of biosimilar filgrastim with originator filgrastim for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization and engraftment in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. Transfusion 2015; 55 (11) 2709-2713
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Publicover A, Richardson DS, Davies A. et al Use of a biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization: an analysis of mobilization and engraftment. Br J Haematol 2013; 162 (01) 107-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bassi S, Stroppa EM, Moroni CF. et al Safety and efficacy of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor biosimilars in engraftment after autologous stem cell transplantation for haematological malignancies: a 4-year, single institute experience with different conditioning regimens. Blood Transfus 2015; 13 (03) 478-483
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Manko J, Walter-Croneck A, Jawniak D. et al A clinical comparison of the efficacy and safety of biosimilar G-CSF and originator G-CSF in haematopoietic stem cell mobilization. Pharmacol Rep 2014; 66 (02) 239-242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pahnke S, Egeland T, Halter J. et al Working Group Medical of the World Marrow Donor Association. Current use of biosimilar G-CSF for haematopoietic stem cell mobilisation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2019; 54 (06) 858-866
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar