Comparison of pharmacokinetics and safety of pegfilgrastim administered by two delivery methods: on-body injector and manual injection with a prefilled syringe

• Published in: Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology Vol. 75; no. 6; pp. 1199 - 1206
• Main Authors: Yang, Bing-Bing, Morrow, Phuong Khanh, Wu, Xikun, Moxness, Michael, Padhi, Desmond
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.06.2015; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Area Under Curve; Cancer Research; Female; Filgrastim; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor - administration & dosage; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor - adverse effects; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor - pharmacokinetics; Healthy Volunteers; Humans; Injections, Subcutaneous - methods; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Neutropenia - drug therapy; Oncology; Original Article; Pharmacology/Toxicology; Polyethylene Glycols; Recombinant Proteins - administration & dosage; Recombinant Proteins - adverse effects; Recombinant Proteins - pharmacokinetics; Syringes; Young Adult; Pegfilgrastim; Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; Pharmacokinetics; On-body injector
• ISSN: 0344-5704; 1432-0843; 1432-0843
• DOI: 10.1007/s00280-015-2731-x

Purpose For patients with clinically significant risk of febrile neutropenia, pegfilgrastim administration should occur the day after myelosuppressive chemotherapy; however, a variety of factors may preclude patients from returning to the clinic the next day for pegfilgrastim administration, necessitating other strategies. This study compared the pharmacokinetics and safety of pegfilgrastim administered via an on-body injector applied to the subject’s skin versus manual injection using a prefilled syringe. Methods Healthy subjects aged 18–50 years were randomized 1:1 to receive a single 6-mg subcutaneous pegfilgrastim dose from an on-body injector or a prefilled syringe. Blood for pharmacokinetic measurements was collected at baseline and prespecified time points after pegfilgrastim administration; safety was assessed throughout the 6-week study. Primary endpoints were maximum concentration ( C max ) and area under the concentration curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC 0–inf ). Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity. Results Pegfilgrastim mean AUC 0–inf values for the on-body injector ( n  = 125) and manual injection ( n  = 128) were 10,900 and 11,100 h ng/mL, respectively; mean C max values were 248 and 262 ng/mL, respectively. The least squares geometric mean ratios were 0.97 for C max and 1.00 for AUC 0–inf ; the corresponding 90 % CIs were within the prespecified range (0.80–1.25), indicating comparable pegfilgrastim pharmacokinetics between delivery methods. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were similar between groups (injector, 86 %; manual, 85 %). Injector- or syringe-related AEs were more prevalent with the injector (13 %; manual, 4 %); none were serious. No pegfilgrastim-neutralizing antibodies were detected. Conclusions Pegfilgrastim pharmacokinetics and safety were comparable between the on-body injector and manual injection groups.