BackgroundTo compare the risk of severe hepatotoxicity with anidulafungin versus caspofungin and micafungin in hospitalized adults.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study combined data from two large US- based hospital electronic medical record databases. Severe hepatotoxicity was a Grade ≥ 3 liver function test (LFT) post-echinocandin initiation. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated for anidulafungin versus caspofungin and micafungin, overall and in patients with normal baseline LFT (Grade 0).ResultsTreatments included anidulafungin (n = 1700), caspofungin (n = 4431), or micafungin (n = 6547). The proportions with LFT Grade ≥ 3 pre-echinocandin initiation were: anidulafungin 40.4% versus caspofungin 25.9% (p <  0.001) and micafungin 25.6% (p <  0.001). Rates of severe underlying diseases or comorbidities were: critical care admissions: 75.3% versus 52.6 and 48.6%; and organ failures: 69.4% versus 46.7 and 51.5%. Adjusted IRRs of severe hepatotoxicity for anidulafungin versus caspofungin and micafungin were 1.43 (p = 0.002) and 1.19 (p = 0.183) overall, and 0.88 (P = 0.773) and 0.97 (P = 0.945) for normal baseline LFT, respectively.ConclusionsAccounting for confounders, severe hepatotoxicity risk was not significantly different across echinocandins in this real-world head-to-head study. Anidulafungin was used more frequently in patients with more comorbidities. Those with normal baseline LFT (least susceptible to confounding by indication), showed no elevated hepatotoxicity risk for anidulafungin.

Background Voriconazole is an extended-spectrum antifungal agent approved for the treatment and prophylaxis of invasive aspergillosis and other serious fungal infections. In 2014, additional risk minimization measures (aRMM) consisting of a Healthcare Professional (HCP) Question and Answer (Q&A) Brochure, HCP Checklist, and Patient Alert Card were implemented on a rolling basis across the European Union (EU) to mitigate three key risks with voriconazole: phototoxicity, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the skin, and hepatotoxicity. The risks of phototoxicity and hepatotoxicity have been documented in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) since voriconazole was first approved in the EU in 2002. However, the risk of SCC of the skin was a more recent addition to the SmPC (added in 2010). Objectives We evaluated the effectiveness of the aRMM, as per EU Good Pharmacovigilance Practices Module XVI, via a survey of HCPs. Methods An online survey was conducted among specialty care HCPs in 10 EU countries who had received by mail aRMM tools 12 months previously. Survey questions evaluated HCPs' receipt and utilization of aRMM tools, and knowledge of the three risks. Results Of 27,396 HCPs invited to participate, 332 eligible respondents completed the survey (response rate: 447/26,735; 1.7%). In total, 19.6% of respondents recalled receiving the HCP Q&A Brochure, 22.6% the HCP Checklist, and 25.9% the Patient Alert Card. HCPs had a high level of knowledge of phototoxicity and hepatotoxicity; however, knowledge of SCC was lower. Knowledge of the three risks and self-reported risk minimization behavior was slightly improved in those who had read the HCP Q&A Brochure compared with those who had not. Conclusion The effectiveness of the voriconazole aRMM cannot be meaningfully inferred from the results due to the low survey response rate. The assessment indirectly points to the SmPC or other resources being the main source of risk information for HCPs. Engaging HCPs before designing and implementing an aRMM program is crucial to ensure an effective and focused program. (EU PAS registration number: EUPAS12624).

Background Three comparative clinical studies assessed the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), immunogenicity and safety of PF-06881893 (filgrastim-aafi; Nivestym™), a filgrastim biosimilar, versus US-licensed reference product (filgrastim; US-Neupogen ® ) in healthy volunteers (HVs). Methods Two separate open-label, crossover-design PK/PD studies were conducted: a single-dose study ( n = 24) and a multiple-dose study ( n = 60). In each study, HVs were randomized to Nivestym followed by US-Neupogen, or vice versa. Study drug (5 μg/kg) was administered subcutaneously as a single injection or as five consecutive daily injections. Primary PK and PD endpoints were area under the filgrastim serum concentration–time curve, maximum observed concentration, area under the effect curve (AUEC) for absolute neutrophil count (ANC), maximum observed ANC, AUEC for cluster of differentiation (CD)-34 + count, and maximum observed CD34 + count. In an open-label, parallel-design, non-inferiority, comparative immunogenicity study, HVs were randomized ( n = 128/treatment) to Nivestym or US-Neupogen. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with a negative baseline antidrug antibody (ADA) test result and one or more confirmed post-dose positive ADA result. Results Overall demographics were as follows: female ( n = 162/340); White ( n = 274/340), Black ( n = 58/340), and other ( n = 8/340); age (18–65 years); and weight (50.8–96.5 kg). All primary PK and PD endpoints met the pre-specified criteria for PK and PD equivalence. The primary endpoint in the comparative immunogenicity study met pre-specified criteria for non-inferiority. Conclusions Nivestym demonstrated PK and PD equivalence in single and multiple subcutaneous-dose settings and non-inferiority for immunogenicity to US-Neupogen, with a comparable safety profile, supporting the demonstration of biosimilarity. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov C1121002 (NCT02766647); C1121003 (NCT02766634); C1121012 (NCT02923791). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-019-00343-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction: PF-06881894 is a proposed biosimilar to pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Ò). This study evaluated the pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic (PD/PK) equivalence, immunogenicity, and safety of PF-06881894 vs pegfilgrastim reference products (US-and EU-Neulasta Ò) in healthy volunteers. Methods: A phase 1, open-label, randomized, crossover study was conducted to assess the pharmacologic equivalence and safety of a single 6-mg dose of PF-06881894, pegfilgrastim-US, and pegfilgrastim-EU. The primary PD endpoints were area under the effect-versus-time curve for absolute neutrophil count (ANC) from dose administration to 288 h postdose, and maximum observed ANC value among subjects confirmed negative for anti-pegfilgrastim antibodies. Primary PK variables included area under the serum pegfilgrastim-versus-time curve from the time of dose administration to time infinity and maximum observed serum pegfilgrastim concentration. A second phase 1, open-label, randomized (1:1), parallel-group, non-inferiority study was conducted to assess the immunogenicity and safety of multiple 6-mg doses of PF-06881894 versus pegfilgrastim-US. The primary endpoint for the immunogenicity study was the proportion of subjects with both negative baseline and confirmed positive postdose anti-pegfilgrastim antibodies at any time during the study. Results: Across the single-and multiple-dose studies (N = 153 and N = 420 treated subjects, respectively), demographics for age (18-65 years), male gender (n = 264/573), and white race (n = 423/573) were similar. Three-way PD/ PK equivalence of PF-06881894, pegfilgrastim-US, and pegfilgrastim-EU was demonstrated with the primary PD endpoints and primary PK variables being completely contained within the predefined 90% confidence interval acceptance limits (80-125%). The non-inferiority of PF-06881894 versus pegfilgrastim-US in terms of Digital Features To view digital features for this article go to

Purpose To evaluate the pharmacodynamics (PD), pharmacokinetics (PK), and safety of single and multiple doses of PF-06881894 (pegfilgrastim-apgf; Nyvepria™), a biosimilar to reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®), in women with non-distantly metastatic breast cancer. Methods In Phase I (Cycle 0) of this Phase I/II study, the PD response (absolute neutrophil count [ANC]; CD34 + count), PK profile, and safety of a single 3- or 6-mg subcutaneous dose of PF-06881894 were assessed in chemotherapy-naïve patients before definitive breast surgery. In Phase II (Cycles 1–4), the PD response (duration of severe neutropenia [DSN, Cycle 1], ANC [Cycles 1 and 4]) and PK profile (Cycles 1 and 4) of single and multiple 6-mg doses of PF-06881894 concomitant with chemotherapy and after definitive breast surgery were assessed. Results Twenty-five patients (mean age 59 years) were enrolled (Cycle 0, n = 12; Cycles 1–4, n = 13). In Cycle 0, PD responses and PK values were lower with 3-mg versus 6-mg PF-06881894. In Cycles 1 and 4, mean DSN was 0.667 days after single or multiple 6-mg doses of PF-06881894, respectively. In Cycle 4 versus Cycle 1, PD responses were more robust; PK values (mean area under the curve, maximum concentration) were lower; and clearance values were higher. The safety profile of PF-06881894 was similar to that for reference pegfilgrastim. Conclusion PF-06881894 as a single 3- or 6-mg dose prior to definitive surgery, or multiple 6-mg/cycle doses postoperatively, with/without myelosuppressive chemotherapy, was consistent with the clinical pharmacology and safety profile of reference pegfilgrastim. Trial registration October 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02650193. EudraCT Number: 2015-002057-35.