Biosimilar epoetins and other "follow-on" biologics: update on the European experiences

Use of budget savings from patent expiration of cancer drugs to improve affordability and accessibility

BACKGROUND

The introduction of generics after the loss of patent exclusivity plays a major role in budget savings by significantly decreasing drug prices. The aims of this study were to estimate the budget savings from off-patent cancer drugs in 2020-2024 and to inform decision makers on how these savings could be used to improve the affordability of innovative cancer treatments in South Korea.

METHODS

A model was developed to calculate budget savings from off-patent cancer drug use in Korea over 5 years (2020-2024). Cancer drugs with one or more valid patents that expire between 2020 and 2024 in Korea were selected. Key input parameters in the model included market share of generics, market growth, and prices of originators and generics. To reflect market dynamics after patent expiration, the trends of the off-patent market were estimated using historical sales volume data of IQVIA from 2012 to 2018. The study assumed that the prices of off-patent drugs decreased according to the price regulations set by the Korean government and that the off-patent market sales volume did not grow. Sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the uncertainty in model input parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 24 cancer drugs which met selection criteria were identified. In the base case analysis, patent expiration of cancer drugs between 2020 and 2024 could lead to a spending reduction of ₩234,429 million ($203 million), which was 20% of the cancer drug expenditure in the 5-year period. The savings ranged from ₩157,633 million ($136 million) to ₩434,523 million ($376 million) depending on the scenarios in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that patent loss of cancer drugs could lead to a 20% reduction in spending on cancer drugs over the next 5 years in South Korea. The savings could be used to improve the affordability of innovative, advanced cancer drugs for 94,000 cancer patients by reallocating the budget savings from patent expiration.

Budget Impact of Switching to Biosimilar Trastuzumab (CT-P6) for the Treatment of Breast Cancer and Gastric Cancer in 28 European Countries

BACKGROUND

As the economic burden of treating cancer patients has been soaring in European countries, performing a budget impact analysis is becoming one of the requirements for payers' application dossiers.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of introducing the biosimilar trastuzumab (CT-P6) from the payer's perspective and to determine the number of additional patients who could be treated with resulting savings in 28 European countries.

METHODS

A budget impact model was developed to analyze the financial impact of switching from originator trastuzumab to biosimilar CT-P6 in the treatment of early and metastatic breast cancer and metastatic gastric cancer with a time horizon of 1-5 years. Budgetary savings and the number of patients potentially affected were measured based on epidemiological and sales volume data. The base-case analysis assumed that the price of CT-P6 is 70% of the originator price, the switching rate of originator to CT-P6 in the first year is 20%, and the annual growth in the switching rate for each subsequent year is 5%.

RESULTS

For analyses using the base-case scenario following CT-P6 introduction, the total estimated budgetary savings over a 5-year period (depending on the scenario) ranged from €1.13 billion to €2.27 billion based on epidemiological data, or from €0.91 billion to €1.82 billion based on sales volume data. In the first year only, the projected budgetary savings ranged from €58 million to €136 million, and the number of additional patients who could be treated using the savings ranged from 3503 to 7078 by sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The conducted budget impact analysis assessing a switch from originator trastuzumab to biosimilar CT-P6 in 28 European countries indicates that budget savings could be between €0.91 billion and €2.27 billion over the next 5 years. These savings could be used to help improve patient access to local biologics in their respective countries while simultaneously strengthening the overall public health landscape across the European Union.

Are Biosimilars the Future of Oncology and Haematology?

Biological drugs are vital but often high-cost components of cancer treatment. Several biosimilar versions of these drugs have been approved in Europe and/or the USA, with many more in development. However, there is some disconnect between the biosimilars that are approved for use and those accessible in clinical practice, with availability impacted by factors including patent litigation and complex healthcare insurance policies, particularly in the USA. Provided the barriers to widespread uptake can be overcome, biosimilars offer potential benefits including cost savings and improved patient access versus the reference product (RP). This article provides an up-to-date and focused perspective on the development and use of biosimilars in the haemato-oncology setting. European and US regulatory pathways governing biosimilar licensing demand that there are no clinically meaningful differences between a biosimilar and its RP. Pathways are rigorously enforced and involve comprehensive non-clinical evaluations and clinical trials in selected indications to establish the equivalence or non-inferiority of efficacy, and the comparability of safety, of the biosimilar versus its RP. 'Indication extrapolation' is only permitted if scientifically justifiable considering mechanism(s) of action, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity and safety in relevant patient populations. Switching treatment from RP to biosimilar is supported by most available data, predominantly from indications other than cancer, and post-marketing pharmacovigilance programmes are warranted. Notably, the potential benefits of biosimilar cancer treatment may extend beyond direct cost savings: for example, the availability of biosimilars of common regimen components may help incentivise the evaluation and/or clinical use of new treatment approaches and novel drugs.

Generic Substitution of Orphan Drugs for the Treatment of Rare Diseases: Exploring the Potential Challenges

Generic drugs are important components of measures introduced by healthcare regulatory authorities to reduce treatment costs. In most patients and conditions the switch from a branded drug to its generic counterpart is performed with no major complications. However, evidence from complex diseases suggests that generic substitution requires careful evaluation in some settings and that current bioequivalence criteria may not always be adequate for establishing the interchangeability of branded and generic products. Rare diseases, also called orphan diseases, are a group of heterogeneous diseases that share important characteristics: in addition to their scarcity, most are severe, chronic, highly debilitating, and often present in early childhood. Finding a treatment for a rare disease is challenging. Thanks to incentives that encourage research and development programs in rare diseases, several orphan drugs are currently available. The elevated cost of orphan drugs is a highly debated issue and a cause of limited access to treatment for many patients. As patent protection and the exclusivity period of several orphan drugs will expire soon, generic versions of orphan drugs should reach the market shortly, with great expectations about their impact on the economic burden of rare diseases. However, consistent with other complex diseases, generic substitution may require thoughtful considerations and may be even contraindicated in some rare conditions. This article provides an overview of rare disease characteristics, reviews reports of problematic generic substitution, and discusses why generic substitution of orphan drugs may be challenging and should be undertaken carefully in rare disease patients.

Use and costs of originator and biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia: real-world evidence from an Italian hospital

The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate adherence, switch and costs a year after the start of treatment with different erythropoietin-stimulating agents. There were 277 patients, 200 were originators (72.20%) and 77 (27.80%) were biosimilars. Adherence to treatment for originators is 0.84 ± 0.22 versus 0.76 ± 0.27 for biosimilars (p = 0.3241). Medication adherence was calculated as ratio between received daily dose to prescribed daily dose. The optimum value is 1, values less than 1 indicate loss of adherence.  The cost of treatment per year is €7365 per patient for the use of the originator drug versus €2587 for biosimilars, with a difference of €4777 per patient.

Pathogenesis and Treatment Options of Cancer Related Anemia: Perspective for a Targeted Mechanism-Based Approach

Cancer-related anemia (CRA) is a common sign occurring in more than 30% of cancer patients at diagnosis before the initiation of antineoplastic therapy. CRA has a relevant influence on survival, disease progression, treatment efficacy, and the patients' quality of life. It is more often detected in patients with advanced stage disease, where it represents a specific symptom of the neoplastic disease, as a consequence of chronic inflammation. In fact, CRA is characterized by biological and hematologic features that resemble those described in anemia associated to chronic inflammatory disease. Proinflammatory cytokine, mainly IL-6, which are released by both tumor and immune cells, play a pivotal action in CRA etiopathogenesis: they promote alterations in erythroid progenitor proliferation, erythropoietin (EPO) production, survival of circulating erythrocytes, iron balance, redox status, and energy metabolism, all of which can lead to anemia. The discovery of hepcidin allowed a greater knowledge of the relationships between immune cells, iron metabolism, and anemia in chronic inflammatory diseases. Additionally, chronic inflammation influences a compromised nutritional status, which in turn might induce or contribute to CRA. In the present review we examine the multifactorial pathogenesis of CRA discussing the main and novel mechanisms by which immune, nutritional, and metabolic components affect its onset and severity. Moreover, we analyze the status of the art and the perspective for the treatment of CRA. Notably, despite the high incidence and clinical relevance of CRA, controlled clinical studies testing the most appropriate treatment for CRA are scarce, and its management in clinical practice remains challenging. The present review may be useful to indicate the development of an effective approach based on a detailed assessment of all factors potentially involved in the pathogenesis of CRA. This mechanism-based approach is essential for clinicians to plan a safe, targeted, and successful therapy, thereby promoting a relevant amelioration of patients' quality of life.

Comprehensive glycan analysis of twelve recombinant human erythropoietin preparations from manufacturers in China and Japan

Recombinant, human, erythropoietin (rhEPO) is a glycoprotein hormone which is prescribed throughout the world to treat anaemia caused by chronic kidney disease or chemotherapy. rhEPO is at the forefront of the recent emergence of biosimilar medicines, with numerous products now available worldwide. Due to its complex glycosylation profile, which has a crucial influence upon biological activity, therapeutic rhEPO preparations must be closely monitored to ensure consistency, safety and efficacy. Here, we have compared twelve rhEPO preparations from eleven manufacturers in China and one in Japan, measuring in vivo biological activity and exploring its relationship with glycosylation through sialic acid content determination, isoform distribution via capillary electrophoresis (CE), O-glycan profiling, and N-glycan mapping using a novel anion-exchange/hydrophilic interaction chromatography-mass spectrometry (AEX/HILIC-MS) approach. We observed differences between glycosylation profiles, including the varying occurrence of sialic acid O-acetylation, extension of N-glycan antennae with N-acetyllactosamine units, and the distribution of sialic acids across multi-antennary structures. The presence of unusually high levels of suspected penta- and hexa-anionic N-glycans in several samples is consistent with elevated rhEPO isoform acidity, which is reflected by slightly elevated in vivo bioactivities. This aside, the observed differences in glycosylation profile do not appear to have a significant influence upon biological activity in mice. Nonetheless, with the continued emergence of biosimilars, the study highlights the importance of monitoring glycosylation profiles in biological medicines, in order to detect and account for divergence between products, as well as the presence of unusual or unexpected glycans.

Biosimilars: Concepts and controversies

Biosimilars are copies of reference biological drugs, developed as the patents for original biologicals expire. They are thus developed to replicate an original biological medicine just a generics are intended to replicate a chemically-synthesized medicine; however, there are important technical and regulatory differences between the two. Unlike chemical drugs, molecular identity cannot generally be established for any two biological drugs. Accordingly, their pharmacological properties cannot be assumed to be the same. This is due to the complexity of the production of biologicals and to the presence of minor natural variations in the molecular structure (collectively known as microheterogeneity). Further, biological production yields slightly different versions of the drug over time, particularly when changes are introduced in the production process. In this case the prechange and postchange versions of the biological are analyzed in what is called a comparability exercise. The comparable versions thus validated are considered not to have any significant differences at the clinical level. Likewise, biosimilars are not identical copies but comparable versions of the original biological drug, also validated through a comparability exercise, although of a much broader scope. Although current knowledge about biosimilars has increased significantly, they still arise a number of controversies and misconceptions, particularly regarding issues like extrapolation of indications, immunogenicity and substitution. This review deals with concepts and controversies in the biosimilar field.

Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia and Oncologist Perception on Treatment: Results of a Web-Based Survey

Aims and background

Anemia prevalence and incidence in chemotherapy-treated patients is high. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are frequently employed in the management of chemotherapy-induced anemia. However, other treatments such as red blood transfusion or iron supplementation are normally used. Recent international guidelines raised some concern about ESAs employment with a possible impact in chemotherapy-induced anemia management and changes in clinical practice behavior.

Methods

To evaluate opinions about chemotherapy-induced anemia clinical management preference, the Associazione Italiana Oncologia Medica (AIOM) Lombardy section coordinators sent via email a 12-item questionnaire about their knowledge on CIA and usual therapeutic strategies to manage this adverse event to AIOM Lombardy onco-hematologist members.

Results

From January 2011 to March 2011, 81 questionnaires were collected with an approximated share of 30%. The survey was completed mainly by oncologists (91%) aged 35–50 years (50%). Chemotherapy-induced anemia was considered to have clinical impact in changing cancer therapeutic strategy by nearly 60% of the respondents. ESAs were administered largely (80%) with concomitant iron supplementation in 52%; 38% jointly used blood transfusion as part of the therapy. Nearly 20% of those who replied correctly employed transferrin saturation levels as a marker to guide iron supplementation. Physician prescribers strictly followed the guidelines to start and stop ESAs even if 14% were negatively influenced by new ASCO recommendations. ESA biosimilars were considered future substitutes of originators in 45% of the cases.

Conclusions

Chemotherapy-induced anemia was perceived as an adverse event with a mild impact on clinical practice. ESAs were largely employed, however the number of transfusions and lack of employment of markers of iron depletion suggested that adherence to guidelines could be theoretically met but with some discordances regarding the most appropriate strategies in daily clinical practice.

The Concept of Biosimilars: From Characterization to Evolution-A Narrative Review

Biologic agents are currently the fastest emerging segment of drug expenditure. Unlike chemically synthesized small-molecule drugs, biologics are more complex, medicinal products produced by a living organism. They have become part of the standard of care in the treatment of a large variety of diseases, such as growth disorders, autoimmune diseases, cancer, cardiovascular illnesses, hemophilia, and rare genetic conditions, to name a few. Biosimilars, which are copies of biologics that are highly similar, were introduced in the market with an aim to offer efficacy that is not clinically different from the originator or reference product, at lower prices. We aim to clarify the concept of biosimilar, from definitions, history, market entry, challenges faced, and future evolution. For that purpose, we performed a literature search on the sites of the medicines regulatory agencies and PubMed from 1990 to 2014 with the keywords "biosimilars," "market," and "regulatory." In 2006, the first biosimilar, somatropin [rDNA origin], was marketed and led the way for biosimilar drug manufacturing. As a result, manufacturers have entered a diversified competition, facing challenges in manufacturing these complex agents, such as immunogenicity and efficiency. Biosimilars are set to evolve differently in various markets, namely the U.S., Japan, the European Union, and the "pharmerging" economies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This article highlights the importance of biosimilars, as a cost-cutting strategy, in the delivery of state-of-the-art health care in developing countries, at a fraction of what a reference biological agent would cost.

Is there a reason for concern or is it just hype? - A systematic literature review of the clinical consequences of switching from originator biologics to biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

While prescribing biosimilars to patients naive to a biologic treatment is a well-accepted practice, switching clinically stable patients from an originator to a biosimilar is an issue for clinicians. Well-designed clinical trials and real-world data which study the consequences of switching from an originator biologic treatment to its biosimilar alternative are limited, especially for monoclonal antibodies. Areas covered: A systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed to identify evidence of the consequences of switching from original biologics to biosimilars. References of included papers were also scrutinized. After a title-, abstract- and full text screening, out of the 153 original hits and 77 additional ones from screening the references, 58 papers (12 empirical papers, 5 systematic reviews and 41 non-empirical papers) were included. Expert opinion: Preventing patients on biologic medicines from switching to biosimilars due to anticipated risks seems to be disproportional compared to the expected cost savings and/or improved patient access. Indeed, it is the opinion of the authors that the concern of switching to biosimilars is overhyped.

The Rituximab Biosimilar CT-P10 in Rheumatology and Cancer: A Budget Impact Analysis in 28 European Countries

Introduction

New biosimilars of monoclonal antibodies are anticipated to bring significant cost savings and increase access to treatment. The rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 has recently been approved in Europe in all indications held by reference rituximab (RTX), including rheumatoid arthritis, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We analyzed the budgetary impact of the introduction of CT-P10 into the European Union (EU) for use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and cancer diagnoses, using a budget impact analysis model.

Methods

The model used a base case scenario in which the 1-year uptake of CT-P10 was estimated at 30%, and the cost of CT-P10 was assumed to be 70% of the cost of RTX. A second 1-year scenario was also modeled, in which the market share of CT-P10 was assumed to be 50% (scenario 2). Finally, 3-year time horizon outcomes were calculated, in which the market share of CT-P10 was assumed to be 30%, 40%, and 50% in the first, second, and third years, respectively.

Results

In the base case scenario, the introduction of CT-P10 was associated with projected savings of €90.04 million in the first year, which would allow 7531 additional patients to access rituximab treatment. This was equivalent to a 6.4% increase in the number of rituximab-treated patients. In scenario 2, budget savings were €150.10 million, with a total of 12,551 additional patients able to access rituximab, equivalent to a 10.7% increase. Over a 3-year time horizon, projected budget savings were approximately €570 million, equating to 47,695 additional patients able to access rituximab.

Conclusions

The model predicted that the introduction of CT-P10 in the EU will be associated with significant budget savings, the reallocation of which will enable many more patients to access rituximab treatment. This is likely to have a significant impact on health gains at patient and societal levels.

Funding: CELLTRION Healthcare Co., Ltd. sponsored the development and analysis of the budget impact analysis model.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-017-0522-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

History of Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents, the Development of Biosimilars, and the Future of Anemia Treatment in Nephrology

BACKGROUND

Exogenous replacement of erythropoietin (EPO) by recombinant human EPO has been considered a standard of care for the treatment of anemia in patients with chronic kidney disease for more than 20 years. Genetically engineered biologic proteins derived from human, animal, or microorganism sources are a major area of growth in modern medical care, accounting for one-third of new drug approvals in the past decade. Despite benefit to patients, the use of biologics comes at a significant cost, representing one of the fastest growing segments of strained healthcare budgets around the world.

SUMMARY

Biosimilars, or biologic drugs that are designed to be highly similar to approved reference biologic drugs, have been available in Europe for more than 10 years with no unusual or unexpected effects compared to their reference biologics whose patents have expired. Given the success of the biosimilar approval pathway pioneered in Europe, it has served as a global reference for other regulatory authorities to establish and implement biosimilar licensure frameworks, including the United States (US), the largest pharmaceutical market in the world. Given 10 of the top 25 drugs sold in 2014 were biologics, and considering the rising costs of healthcare, biosimilars have the potential to become a significant part of the US market. Key Messages: For the nephrology community, the recent patent expiries for epoetin alfa (Epogen®, Amgen and Procrit®, Johnson & Johnson) have created the opportunity to develop biosimilar EPOs. And while no biosimilar in this therapeutic class is approved in the US, there are proposed biosimilars in development.

Biosimilars in rheumatic diseases: structural and functional variability that may impact clinical and regulatory decisions

Biologics as therapeutic interventions for human disease represent both a distinctly modern novelty and an echo of ancient, or at least old, medical practice. The similarity lies in the sense that in both the synthetic effort occurs in living organisms (an extract of a plant, animal tissue, or a cell culture) while the difference is apparent in the bioengineering required in modern methods and the corresponding flexibility to customize the therapeutic product. Although the concept of looking to living systems as a source of medically useful compounds either for research or for actual patient care has never vanished, the development of biochemistry and advances in medicinal chemistry made production by total synthesis the standard for a safe, reliable, and commercial drug production at sufficient scale. In this interval was where much of the modern apparatus for approving medical therapies came to be developed, and as such, the most proper extension of the regulatory regime to modern biologics is not entirely obvious. In particular, the notion of generics for off-patent conventional pharmaceuticals and their role in the marketplace with respect to increasing the accessibility of treatment is not congruent with the relationship between what are known as biosimilars and off-patent originating biologics. In this article, we review elements of the scientific basis for challenges in the production, use, and regulation of biosimilars. In light of these advances, we propose suggestions to modify constraints on biosimilar regulations in the interest of patient care and access to therapies.

Biosimilars: potential implications for clinicians

With the expiration of patent protection for several biologics looming, the production of highly similar therapeutic agents has begun to emerge on the pharmaceutical market. These alternative drugs are referred to as biosimilars. Many anticipate that the introduction of these agents will result in a reduction in health care costs, which may create a more affordable biopharmaceutical market and also improve patient access. In contrast to generics, which are exact copies of their original products, biosimilars are not identical to their reference products. Due to concern about the safety and efficacy of biosimilars, separate regulatory approval pathways have been developed and implemented by several countries, including the US and Europe. Europe has led the way in acceptance of biosimilars into mainstream clinical practice. Biosimilars are not generic products and require extensive clinical and nonclinical bioequivalence studies before receiving marketing approval. Not only is there a lengthy developmental process, but also they will likely be required to have postmarketing surveillance and ongoing safety monitoring to keep track of issues that may arise, such as immunogenicity. Although US Food and Drug Administration approved the first biosimilar product in March 2015, physicians remain unfamiliar about their indications.

Biosimilars: A Multidisciplinary Perspective

A biosimilar is an officially regulated and approved copy of an originator biologic therapy. Improved affordability and consequent wider patient access compared with biologics are a significant appeal of biosimilars. Regulatory guidelines for biosimilar development and approval are rigorous and undergoing constant refinement. The process of licensing approval for all biosimilars requires demonstration of comparability in quality, efficacy, and safety between the biosimilar and reference (originator) product, which is undertaken in a stepwise procedure of nonclinical and clinical evaluation. The approval of >20 biosimilars in Europe in several drug classes, including the first monoclonal antibody biosimilar, bears testimony to the increasing regulatory acceptance of these agents. In contrast, the clinical application of biosimilars remains underrecognized by physicians across therapy areas. Therefore, this article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the biosimilar development process and to provide multidisciplinary guidance on the potential therapeutic utility of biosimilars in clinical practice. Specifically, experts discuss clinical developments in the introduction of biosimilars across the disciplines of gastroenterology, nephrology, oncology, and rheumatology, and from a payer perspective, and also highlight a common need for ongoing pharmacovigilance, robust head-to-head clinical studies, and real-world data to establish the long-term risk-benefit profile of biosimilars. In conclusion, significant potential exists for biosimilars to revolutionize biologic therapy by widening patient access across therapy areas.

Current status of biosimilars in the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases

Introduction of biological therapies have led to dramatic changes in the management of debilitating immune-mediated inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) including ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. However, the long term use of these agents may be very expensive, placing a significant burden on National Healthcare Systems. The development of first biosimilar to infliximab, CT-P13 (Remsima; Celltrion Inc., Incheon, Korea and Inflextra; Hospiral, Lake Forest, Illinois, USA) has become another way to decrease the medical care cost and increase patient treatment option, but, actual equivalence of efficacy and safety of CT-P13 was investigated in rheumatic diseases only. The extrapolation of outcome from rheumatic trials to IBD and the interchangeability of CT-P13 with infliximab have come to be a matter of concern. Two recent retrospective studies reported the similarity of CT-P13 in terms of efficacy and safety. Infliximab biosimilars may be promising new treatment options for IBD patients, however, well-designed, prospective randomized non-inferiority trials should be needed to confidently integrate infliximab biosimilars into IBD treatment.

Cost savings from anemia management with biosimilar epoetin alfa and increased access to targeted antineoplastic treatment: a simulation for the EU G5 countries

AIM

We simulated the budget impact of biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) in EU G5 countries.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Three models were built to estimate the number of patients who could be provided with antineoplastic therapy with rituximab, bevacizumab or trastuzumab from cost savings of biosimilar erythropoietin use in a hypothetical panel of 100,000 patients. The associated number of patients needed to convert to biosimilar ESA to provide such treatments was also calculated.

RESULTS

Under fixed dosing, the savings from 100% conversion were €110,592,159, translating into an additional 9770 rituximab, 3912 bevacizumab, or 3713 trastuzumab treatments. Under weight-based dosing, the savings from 100% conversion were €146,170,333, corresponding to an additional 12,913 rituximab, 5171 bevacizumab or 4908 trastuzumab treatments. The number of patients needed to convert ranged from four to 51.

CONCLUSION

Using biosimilar ESA for supportive cancer care yields significant savings and increases accessibility to primary antineoplastic therapy in a budget neutral way.

Pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and tolerability of intravenous or subcutaneous GC1113, a novel erythropoiesis-stimulating agent

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

GC1113, a hybrid Fc-fused erythropoietin, is a novel erythropoiesis-stimulating agent that is expected to have an extended duration of action. The preclinical data showed that the hemoglobin increase lasted longer following GC1113 administration than it did following the administration of darbepoetin alfa (NESP®). This study aimed to investigate the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics and tolerability profiles of GC1113 in humans after single intravenous or subcutaneous administration and to compare the results with those for darbepoetin alfa.

METHODS

A dose-block randomized, placebo- and active-controlled, dose-escalation phase I clinical trial was conducted in 96 healthy volunteers. Blood samples were collected before and up to 672 h after drug administration and the serum erythropoietin concentration following the GC1113 or darbepoetin alfa administration was measured by an ELISA. The reticulocyte counts were measured for pharmacodynamic assessments. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters were determined using non-compartmental methods.

RESULTS

The reticulocyte count-time profiles in the intravenous GC1113 3-5 μg/kg groups were comparable with those of the darbepoetin alfa 30 μg group. After subcutaneous administration of GC1113, reticulocyte count peaked later and decreased more slowly than it did following darbepoetin alfa administration. GC1113 (0.3-5 μg/kg intravenous, 1-8 μg/kg subcutaneous) was well-tolerated in the volunteers, and no immunogenicity was observed.

CONCLUSION

GC1113 was tolerated and effective in the studied dose range; these findings could be applied to further clinical studies with patients.

Neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment as a sensitive setting for trastuzumab biosimilar development and extrapolation

ABSTRACT 

Aims: Identify sensitive end points and populations for similarity studies of trastuzumab and biosimilar monoclonal antibodies. Methods: We performed meta-analyses of trastuzumab clinical trials data: overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival in metastatic breast cancer (MBC), and total pathologic complete response (tpCR) and event-free survival in the neoadjuvant setting. Fitted models predicted the maximum loss in long-term efficacy for different similarity trial designs. Immunogenicity rates were investigated in different early breast cancer (EBC) study phases. Results: Using the same equivalence margins for ORR (MBC) and tpCR (EBC), the predicted maximum loss in long-term efficacy with a biosimilar candidate versus the reference product is smaller for tpCR than for ORR. In EBC this predicted loss could be controlled with feasible patient numbers for a typical clinical trial. Analyses suggested that a treatment-free follow-up phase is preferable for immunogenicity characterization. Conclusion: Treatment of patients with neoadjuvant breast cancer represents a sensitive setting for establishing biosimilarity of efficacy and immunogenicity. tpCR is a sensitive end point in this setting to establish biosimilarity between a biosimilar candidate and its reference product.

Regulatory and clinical considerations for biosimilar oncology drugs

Biological oncology products are integral to cancer treatment, but their high costs pose challenges to patients, families, providers, and insurers. The introduction of biosimilar agents-molecules that are similar in structure, function, activity, immunogenicity, and safety to the original biological drugs-provide opportunities both to improve health-care access and outcomes, and to reduce costs. Several international regulatory pathways have been developed to expedite entry of biosimilars into global marketplaces. The first wave of oncology biosimilar use was in Europe and India in 2007. Oncology biosimilars are now widely marketed in several countries in Europe, and in Australia, Japan, China, Russia, India, and South Korea. Their use is emerging worldwide, with the notable exception of the USA, where several regulatory and cost barriers to biosimilar approval exist. In this Review, we discuss oncology biosimilars and summarise their regulatory frameworks, clinical experiences, and safety concerns.

Etanercept biosimilars

Etanercept was the first tumour necrosis factor alpha antagonist approved in the USA for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, in 1998, and then for other diseases. With the etanercept patent set to expire in the EU in 2015, a number of etanercept copies have reached the production phase and are undergoing clinical trials, with the promise of being cheaper alternatives to the reference product. In a global scenario that is favourable to the entry of biosimilars, this article discusses the stage of development, manufacture, clinical trials and the regulatory process involved in the approval of etanercept biosimilars, compiling the literature data. Reducing treatment cost is the principal attraction for biosimilars to emerge in the global market. It is essential for the doctors’ decision on the prescription of these medications, as well as for payers, to have clearly defined studies of clinical equivalence, quality, and safety in order to better evaluate the various copies of etanercept. The authors discuss the need to harmonize different national regulations and the introduction of effective pharmacosurveillance systems for prompt recognition of adverse effects in copies of biopharmaceuticals that differ from those found in the reference products.

The approval process for biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agents

A biosimilar drug or follow-on biologic drug is defined by the Public Health Service Act as a product that is "highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically active components and there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biologic product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity and potency of the product." The advantage of biosimilar drugs is that they are significantly less expensive than the reference products, allowing for increased accessibility and cost savings. Recognizing these advantages, the US Congress passed the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act in 2009 as part of health care reform. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act allows sponsors of biosimilar agents to seek approval by showing structural and functional similarity to the reference agent, with the extent of required clinical studies to be determined on the basis of the degree of biosimilarity with the reference product. The goal is to bring biosimilar agents to the market more efficiently while still protecting the safety of the public. The European Union has had such a process in place for a number of years. Two biosimilar epoetin agents have been approved in the European Union since 2007, and their companies are conducting trials to seek approval in the United States, because Amgen's patent protection for epoetin alfa expires in 2014. Trials completed for European Union approval of both agents showed similar efficacy and safety to the reference epoetin alfa. As with all biologics, immunogenicity concerns may persist because of the fragility of the manufacturing process and the worldwide experience with pure red cell aplasia as a result of epoetin therapy. The uptake of biosimilar epoetins after approval in the United States will depend on the balance of cost advantage against safety concerns. Competition in the marketplace will likely decrease the cost of the reference agent as well.

Biosimilars in the therapy of inflammatory bowel diseases

A biosimilar is a copy of an approved biological medicine whose patent protections have expired. Biosimilars of antibodies to tumour necrosis factor α (TNFα) are becoming important in the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). The first one introduced commercially is an infliximab biosimilar. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of anti-TNFα biosimilars. The literature on biosimilars of monoclonal anti-TNFα antibodies was reviewed, including their manufacture and approval pathways, concerns about efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, extrapolation, switching and labelling. Previous experience with biosimilars of epoetin and other growth factors was also reviewed. The infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 was the first biosimilar monoclonal antibody registered for the treatment of IBD. The major advantage of biosimilars is the reduced cost of therapy. Concerns have arisen, however, about the efficacy and safety of CT-P13 in IBD, the extrapolation of results from rheumatologic trials to IBD and the free interchangeability of CT-P13 with infliximab. Experience with simple peptide biosimilars, such as epoetins and growth factors, has generally been positive, with these biosimilars having similar efficacy and safety as the original products, although immunogenicity remains a major concern. Upcoming postregistration studies will address concerns on biosimilars in IBD, including their efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, switching and interchangeability. Biosimilars active against the same epitopes, but with improved pharmacokinetic properties that enhance their efficacy and/or safety, may be the next stage in the development of biosimilars. Anti-TNFα biosimilars represent promising new treatment options for patients with IBD. However, data on their efficacy and safety in IBD are needed.

Epoetin zeta in the management of anemia associated with chronic kidney disease, differential pharmacology and clinical utility

Epoetin zeta was granted marketing authorization in October 2007 by the European Medicines Agency as a recombinant human erythropoietin erythropoiesis-stimulating agent to treat symptomatic anemia of renal origin in adult and pediatric patients on hemodialysis and adults on peritoneal dialysis, as well as for symptomatic renal anemia in adult patients with renal insufficiency not yet on dialysis. Currently, epoetin zeta can be administered either subcutaneously or intravenously to correct for hemoglobin concentrations ≤10 g/dL (6.2 mmol/L) or with dose adjustment to maintain hemoglobin levels at desired levels not in excess of 12 g/dL (7.5 mmol/L). This review article focuses on epoetin zeta indications in chronic kidney disease, its use in managing anemia of renal origin, and discusses its pharmacology and clinical utility.

Detection of peptidic erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in sport

Detection methods for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in sport can be classified into direct and indirect approaches. Direct methods comprise electrophoretic techniques (isoelectric focusing (IEF-), sodium-dodecylsulfate (SDS-), sarcosyl (SAR-) polyacrylamide gel-electrophoreses (-PAGE)), ELISAs and mass spectrometric methods. The haematological module of the Athlete Biological Passport is currently the only applied indirect approach. Newer developments include a mass spectrometric test for peginesatide, sequential exoglycosidase digestion of ertythropoietin (EPO) combined with electrophoresis (SDS/SAR-PAGE), a dipstick method (MAIIA), and a study on the differences in sialic acid O-acetylation of tryptic EPO O-glycopeptides. The focus of this article is on direct detection methods.

Developing oncology biosimilars: an essential approach for the future

The treatment of many diseases, particularly cancer, has been profoundly impacted by the introduction of biologic therapies (biologics), which are incorporated into the treatment algorithms of most oncology clinical practice guidelines. Biologics are large molecular weight, structurally complex proteins that are produced via complex manufacturing processes. With the patents of key biologics, including many widely used in oncology, set to expire in the near future, a number of pharmaceutical companies have focused on developing biosimilars. While the goal of development is to demonstrate that the biosimilar product is highly similar to the reference biologic product, biosimilars should not be viewed as "generic" biologics. Generic drugs are small chemical moieties that are identical to the patent-expired "reference" small-molecule drugs. It is not possible to produce an identical copy of a biologic, so the term "biosimilar" was chosen to define an appropriately similar biologic product. Improving patient access to cancer therapies such as biologics and reducing healthcare costs are key initiatives of the US Government; the integration of approved biosimilars into clinical practice will be instrumental in accomplishing these goals.

Potential impact of subsequent entry biologics in nephrology practice in Canada

Purpose of review

Subsequent entry biologics may soon be a reality in Canadian nephrology practice. Along with opportunities to reduce health care costs, these agents pose unique challenges that must be met for successful implementation. Understanding the experiences around the globe in both regulatory affairs and implementation will be a valuable guide for Canadian clinicians. This report provides an executive summary of the information required to guide decisions to use or implement subsequent entry biologics by comparing Canadian regulations to other developed nations, discussing their clinical issues and predicting their impact on the Canadian market and nephrology practice. We hope that this review will assist clinicians and policy makers to navigate this complex subject and to make informed decisions in the best interest of their patients.

Sources of information

Sources of information include published literature and reports available in the public domain including guidelines obtained from regulatory agencies and information shared by Pharmaceutical companies. Lastly, we generated information from our own focus group consisting of nephrologists, a regulatory body representative, a hospital formulary representative, a patient representative, a hospital administrator, and a health economist.

Findings

There exists a common and robust approach in the G20 countries for approval and regulation of subsequent entry biologics. Although by definition these agents do not have advantages (other than costs) or disadvantages compared to the original biologic, there are potential concerns and economic uncertainties regarding their implementation. Where SEBs are on the market, their market share is variable and modest.

Limitations

We did not purchase third party reports for up to the minute marketing data. Since there are no subsequent entry biologics currently on the Canadian market, the information is only predictive.

Implications

The nephrology community will have to work with patients, payers, and regulatory bodies to ensure safe and effective use of subsequent entry biologics. Cost savings can be achieved but these agents should only be used after fully understanding their unique challenges. At this time, they should not be automatically substitutable and only used for Health Canada-approved indications. Only through good pharmacovigilence will health care providers and patients become better informed.

Efficacy of once or twice weekly administration of epoetin κ in patients receiving hemodialysis: A retrospective study

Several clinically approved recombinant erythropoietin (rEPO) preparations, such as epoetin-β, epoetin-δ and the epoetin-α derivative, darbepoetin-α, have been commercially produced. Since the expiration of patent protection, a number of novel rEPO biosimilars have been approved on the world market. In 2010, epoetin-κ, which is biosimilar to epoetin-α, was clinically approved. Epoetin-κ is a biopharmaceutical product that is based on serum-free media following master cell bank preparation. The present study analyzes the results obtained during a six-month observation period, in which the administration of epoetin-β was switched to that of epoetin-κ. In a cohort of patients receiving chronic dialysis, who were clinically in a state of relative calm and were in control of their renal anemia, it was possible to sustain good control of the anemia by reducing the frequency of the epoetin-β administration from the conventional and empirically determined three times a week to twice a week, and further to once a week. Furthermore, the good control was maintained upon changing from the administration of epoetin-β to that of epoetin-κ. Moreover, three months subsequent to this switch, the degree of instability observed among the patients had decreased. Despite the fact that the situation following the changeover requires further investigation, it may be concluded that the results obtained in this study are indicative of the clinical equivalence and efficacy of epoetin-κ.

Review article: biosimilars are the next generation of drugs for liver and gastrointestinal diseases

BACKGROUND

A biosimilar is a copy version of an approved original biological medicine whose data protection has expired.

AIM

To provide an overview of the development of biosimilars worldwide.

METHODS

Literature review of manufacturing processes of biosimilars, differences and similarities between biosimilars and the reference product, approval pathways for biosimilars, challenges in clinical trial study design and available data from clinical trials.

RESULTS

Biosimilars have the same amino acid sequence and highly similar glycosylation patterns that overlap with the originator product. Both efficacy and toxicity are difficult to predict due to subtle molecular changes that might have profound effects on clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. Their main advantage is related to cost savings. Direct evidence of safety and benefit from clinical trials, post-marketing pharmacoviligance and unequivocal identification of the product as a biosimilar are requirements before approval. Non-inferiority or equivalence trials are required by regulatory agencies. Over the past years, several biosimilars have been approved such as erythropoietin or growth factors. Recently, two monoclonal antibodies, Remsima and Inflectra, have been shown to be equivalent to infliximab (INX) in safety and efficacy in rheumatologic conditions. Interchangeability, automatic substitution and switching are key issues when treating patients with biosimilars in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Biosimilars represent a new generation of drugs in liver and gastrointestinal diseases. On June 27, 2013, Hospira's Inflectra (INX) was the first biosimilar monoclonal antibody to receive positive opinion from European Medicines Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use for rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and plaque psoriasis.

Expression of functionally active sialylated human erythropoietin in plants

Recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO), a glycohormone, is one of the leading biopharmaceutical products. The production of rhEPO is currently restricted to mammalian cell expression systems because of rhEPO's highly complex glycosylation pattern, which is a major determinant for drug-efficacy. Here we evaluate the ability of plants to produce different glycoforms of rhEPO. cDNA constructs were delivered to Nicotiana benthamiana (N. benthamiana) and transiently expressed by a viral based expression system. Expression levels up to 85 mg rhEPO/kg fresh leaf material were achieved. Moreover, co-expression of rhEPO with six mammalian genes required for in planta protein sialylation resulted in the synthesis of rhEPO decorated mainly with bisialylated N-glycans (NaNa), the most abundant glycoform of circulating hEPO in patients with anemia. A newly established peptide tag (ELDKWA) fused to hEPO was particularly well-suited for purification of the recombinant hormone based on immunoaffinity. Subsequent lectin chromatography allowed enrichment of exclusively sialylated rhEPO. All plant-derived glycoforms exhibited high biological activity as determined by a cell-based receptor-binding assay. The generation of rhEPO carrying largely homogeneous glycosylation profiles (GnGnXF, GnGn, and NaNa) will facilitate further investigation of functionalities with potential implications for medical applications.

Gel electrophoretic methods for the analysis of biosimilar pharmaceuticals using the example of recombinant erythropoietin

Due to their versatility and cost-effectiveness, gel electrophoretic methods provide an important set of tools for the analysis of therapeutic proteins. As an increasing number of biosimilar pharmaceuticals are entering the market, techniques are required that allow reliable demonstration of comparability of these products with the reference products. Isoelectric focusing, SDS-PAGE, native PAGE and 2D electrophoresis (2D-PAGE) have been frequently applied for this purpose. Supplementary techniques are fluorophore-assisted carbohydrate electrophoresis and sarcosyl-PAGE. Of additional importance is the comparison of recombinant with endogenously synthesized glycoproteins. Reagent array analysis combined with SDS-PAGE and western blotting proved especially useful for this purpose. As an example for the application of these methods, the analysis of recombinant originator erythropoietins and some of their biosimilar counterparts is described.

Impact of erythropoietin on intensive care unit patients

Anemia is common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Red blood cell (RBC) transfusions are mainstays of their treatment and can be life-saving. Allogeneic blood components inherently bear risks of infection and immune reactions. Although these risks are rare in developed countries, recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEpo) and other erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have been considered alternative anti-anemia treatment options. As summarized herein, however, most of the clinical studies suggest that ESAs are not usually advisable in ICU patients unless approved indications exist (e.g., renal disease). First, ESAs act in a delayed way, inducing an increase in reticulocytes only after a lag of 3-4 days. Second, many critically ill patients present with ESA resistance as inflammatory mediators impair erythropoietic cell proliferation and iron availability. Third, the ESA doses used for treatment of ICU patients are very high. Fourth, ESAs are not legally approved for general use in ICU patients. Solely in distinct cases, such as Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse allogeneic blood transfusions due to religious beliefs, ESAs may be considered an exceptional therapy.

Differentiating factors between erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: an update to selection for anaemia of chronic kidney disease

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have become a hallmark of anaemia therapy in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although different ESAs are available for the treatment of renal anaemia, each nephrologist should select a single ESA for an individual patient. Epoetin alfa and epoetin beta have been used 1-3 times weekly but extended-interval dosing up to every 4 weeks is also effective in a substantial majority of CKD patients. However, the epoetin dose necessary to achieve or maintain target haemoglobin (Hb) levels increases substantially as the dosing interval increases. Subcutaneous administration of short-acting ESAs is more effective than the intravenous route of administration. Darbepoetin alfa and the continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (CERA) have been developed as a treatment for anaemia with extended administration intervals (every 2 weeks and every 4 weeks, respectively). Dose requirements for these long-acting ESAs are independent of the route of administration. Patents of short-acting ESAs have expired, which has opened the field for biosimilars. Epoetin biosimilars approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been shown to have a comparable efficacy and safety profile to their originators. An alarming increase in pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) in Thailand with follow-on epoetins manufactured in Asia (but also those manufactured in Latin America) indicates that stringent country-specific approval and pharmacovigilance protocols for ESAs manufactured in non-North American and non-EU European countries are urgently needed. Two PRCA cases occurring with subcutaneous HX575 (one certain, one likely) indicate that chances of inducing a more immunogenic product are unpredictable, even with a biosimilar epoetin approved under the EMA biosimilar approval pathway. Phase III clinical trials with peginesatide, a pegylated synthetic peptide-based ESA without any homology to erythropoietin raised safety concerns in non-dialysis CKD patients but not in dialysis patients.

ECCO position statement: the use of biosimilar medicines in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)

Biologics have become key agents for the management of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Biosimilars are biological medicines similar to previously authorized biologics and are already available in some countries. This ECCO Position Statement defines the collective view of European specialist in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) concerning biosimilars. Biosimilars are not comparable to generic small molecules, since both efficacy and toxicity are difficult to predict due to subtle molecular changes that can have profound effects on clinical efficacy and immunogenicity. Direct evidence of safety and benefit from clinical trials in IBD, post-marketing pharmacoviligance, and unequivocal identification of the product as a biosimilar should be requirements before approval. Switching from an established biologic to a biosimilar to save costs is likely to be as inappropriate and inefecctive as switching between current biologics that act on the same target, except when there is loss of response.

Physiology and pharmacology of erythropoietin

Human erythropoietin (Epo) is a 30.4 kDa glycoprotein hormone composed of a single 165 amino acid residues chain to which four glycans are attached. The kidneys are the primary sources of Epo, its synthesis is controlled by hypoxia-inducible transcription factors (HIFs). Epo is an essential factor for the viability and proliferation of erythrocytic progenitors. Whether Epo exerts cytoprotection outside the bone marrow still needs to be clarified. Epo deficiency is the primary cause of the anemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD). Treatment with recombinant human Epo (rhEpo, epoetin) can be beneficial not only in CKD but also for other indications, primarily anemia in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Considering unwanted events, the administration of rhEpo or its analogs may increase the incidence of thromboembolism. The expiry of the patents for the original epoetins has initiated the production of similar biological medicinal products ('biosimilars'). Furthermore, analogs (darbepoetin alfa, methoxy PEG-epoetin beta) with prolonged survival in circulation have been developed ('biobetter'). New erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are in clinical trials. These include compounds that augment erythropoiesis directly (e.g. Epo mimetic peptides or activin A binding protein) and chemicals that act indirectly by stimulating endogenous Epo synthesis (HIF stabilizers).

Colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia during cancer therapy

A 55-year-old, previously healthy woman received a diagnosis of diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma after the evaluation of an enlarged left axillary lymph node obtained on biopsy. She had been asymptomatic except for the presence of enlarged axillary lymph nodes, which she had found while bathing. She was referred to an oncologist, who performed a staging evaluation. A complete blood count and test results for liver and renal function and serum lactate dehydrogenase were normal. Positron-emission tomography and computed tomography (PET–CT) identified enlarged lymph nodes with abnormal uptake in the left axilla, mediastinum, and retroperitoneum. Results on bone marrow biopsy were normal. The patient’s oncologist recommends treatment with six cycles of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone with rituximab (CHOP-R) at 21-day intervals. Is the administration of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) with the first cycle of chemotherapy indicated?

Peginesatide for the treatment of renal disease-induced anemia

INTRODUCTION

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are the mainstay of treatment in anemic chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. A tailored ESA therapy should combine maximal efficacy and safety with greatest convenience in dosing. Peginesatide, recently approved in the US for once-monthly dosing in adult patients on dialysis, is a promising novel PEGylated erythropoietin-mimetic peptide for the treatment of renal disease-induced anemia.

AREAS COVERED

Published animal and human studies that evaluated the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy and safety of peginesatide were critically analyzed.

EXPERT OPINION

Peginesatide has a well-studied pharmacological and immunological profile, and latest published data favor the use of peginesatide in place of epoetin in dialysis patients. A more detailed evaluation of its safety profile particularly in trials with CKD patients not requiring dialysis is urgently needed, as peginesatide could be a perfect treatment solution for these patients. In addition, clinical long-term data and results from supplemental studies, e.g., with the PEGylated continuous erythropoietin receptor activator as comparator, should briefly follow. The fate of peginesatide on the highly competitive ESA market is currently not predictable and depends on safety and efficacy results of upcoming trials as well as finally on market and price policy.

Epoetin biosimilars in Europe: five years on

Biosimilars have been developed for several biologic therapeutic agents, including erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). However, biosimilars cannot be assumed to be completely identical to the reference product, nor can two different biosimilars of the same reference product be considered equivalent. Accordingly, standards for approving biosimilars are distinct from those for generic versions of conventional pharmaceuticals.By late 2007, two biosimilar epoetins (HX575 and SB309) had been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), following a series of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence studies, as well as phase 3 clinical comparability evaluations. Additionally, the results of a limited number of postauthorization interventional or observational studies and quality comparisons were published subsequently on both products.The reported differences in glycosylation profiles between these epoetin biosimilars and their reference product, as well as the lack of long-term safety and efficacy evaluation, could indicate a need to develop a more comprehensive analysis of the available data, and to evaluate the post-authorization real-life data, in order to gain a better understanding of any potential implications of molecular structural or formulation differences on longterm safety and effectiveness.Switching between an original reference ESA and a biosimilar (and possibly also switching between biosimilar versions of the same product) should be regarded as a change in clinical management. Clinicians need to be fully involved in such decisions. Prescribing by brand name will prevent unintentional substitution by pharmacists and allow for effective pharmacovigilance, in accordance with recent EU directives. In this review, the authors have analyzed most of the published information on the two epoetin biosimilars, HX575 and SB309, to highlight the points that healthcare providers may need to consider when assessing an epoetin biosimilar.

Biosimilars: what clinicians should know

Biosimilar medicinal products (biosimilars) have become a reality in the European Union and will soon be available in the United States. Despite an established legal pathway for biosimilars in the European Union since 2005 and increasing and detailed regulatory guidance on data requirements for their development and licensing, many clinicians, particularly oncologists, are reluctant to consider biosimilars as a treatment option for their patients. Major concerns voiced about biosimilars relate to their pharmaceutical quality, safety (especially immunogenicity), efficacy (particularly in extrapolated indications), and interchangeability with the originator product. In this article, the members and experts of the Working Party on Similar Biologic Medicinal Products of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) address these issues. A clear understanding of the scientific principles of the biosimilar concept and access to unbiased information on licensed biosimilars are important for physicians to make informed and appropriate treatment choices for their patients. This will become even more important with the advent of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies. The issues also highlight the need for improved communication between physicians, learned societies, and regulators.

Erythropoietin or darbepoetin for patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Anaemia associated with cancer and cancer therapy is an important clinical factor in the treatment of malignant diseases. Therapeutic alternatives are recombinant human erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) and red blood cell transfusions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ESAs to either prevent or treat anaemia in cancer patients.

SEARCH METHODS

This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004. We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE and other databases. Searches were done for the periods 01/1985 to 12/2001 for the first review, 1/2002 to 04/2005 for the first update and to November 2011 for the current update. We also contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials on managing anaemia in cancer patients receiving or not receiving anti-cancer therapy that compared the use of ESAs (plus transfusion if needed).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. One review author assessed quality assessment and extracted data, a second review author checked for correctness.

MAIN RESULTS

This update of the systematic review includes a total of 91 trials with 20,102 participants. Use of ESAs significantly reduced the relative risk of red blood cell transfusions (risk ratio (RR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.68, 70 trials, N = 16,093). On average, participants in the ESAs group received one unit of blood less than the control group (mean difference (MD) -0.98; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.78, 19 trials, N = 4,715). Haematological response was observed more often in participants receiving ESAs (RR 3.93; 95% CI 3.10 to 3.71, 31 trials, N = 6,413). There was suggestive evidence that ESAs may improve Quality of Life (QoL). There was strong evidence that ESAs increase mortality during active study period (hazard ratio (HR) 1.17; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.29, 70 trials, N = 15,935) and some evidence that ESAs decrease overall survival (HR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11, 78 trials, N = 19,003). The risk ratio for thromboembolic complications was increased in patients receiving ESAs compared to controls (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.74; 57 trials, N = 15,498). ESAs may also increase the risk for hypertension (fixed-effect model: RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.56; random-effects model: RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.33, 31 trials, N = 7,228) and thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.42; 21 trials, N = 4,507). There was insufficient evidence to support an effect of ESA on tumour response (fixed-effect RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.06, 15 trials, N = 5,012).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ESAs reduce the need for red blood cell transfusions but increase the risk for thromboembolic events and deaths. There is suggestive evidence that ESAs may improve QoL. Whether and how ESAs affects tumour control remains uncertain. The increased risk of death and thromboembolic events should be balanced against the potential benefits of ESA treatment taking into account each patient's clinical circumstances and preferences. More data are needed for the effect of these drugs on quality of life and tumour progression. Further research is needed to clarify cellular and molecular mechanisms and pathways of the effects of ESAs on thrombogenesis and their potential effects on tumour growth.

Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

High-dose or dose-intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy often causes myelosuppression and severe neutropenia among cancer patients. Severe neutropenia accompanied by fever, named febrile neutropenia (FN), is the most serious manifestation of neutropenia usually requiring hospitalization and intravenous antibiotics. FN and neutropenia can lead to chemotherapy treatment delays or dose reductions, which potentially compromises the effectiveness of cancer treatment and prospects for a cure. Granulocyte-macrophage (GM) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are administered during chemotherapy in order to prevent or reduce the incidence or the duration of FN and neutropenia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) in reducing the incidence and duration of FN, and all-cause and infection-related mortality during chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, HEALTHSTAR, International Health Technology Assessment, SOMED, AMED and BIOSIS up to 8 August 2011. We also searched three Chinese databases (VIP, CNKI, CBM), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and OpenGrey.eu up to August 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CSFs (any dose) with placebo or no treatment in patients with breast cancer at any stage, at risk of developing FN while undergoing any type of chemotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes. At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Trial authors were contacted for further details when information was unclear.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs involving 2156 participants with different stages of breast cancer and chemotherapy regimens. The trials were carried out between 1995 and 2008 and judged as being at least at moderate risk of bias. The strength of the evidence was weak for the majority of outcomes, which was mostly because of the small numbers of evaluable patients, varying definitions, as well as unclear measurements of the trials' outcomes and uncertain influences of supportive treatments on them. In most trials, the chemotherapy regimens had a risk of FN that was below the threshold at which current guidelines recommend routine primary prophylaxis with CSFs. Using CSFs significantly reduced the proportion of patients with FN (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12) but there was substantial heterogeneity which can be explained by possible differential effects of G-CSFs and GM-CSFs and different definitions of FN. A significant reduction in early mortality was observed in CSF-treated patients compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.77; NNTB 79). This finding was based on 23 fatal events in 2143 patients; wherein 19 of these 23 events occurred in one study and 17 events were attributed to progression of the disease by the study authors. For infection-related mortality, there were no significant differences between CSF and control groups (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29). In CSF-treated patients, the risk for hospitalization was significantly reduced (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.30; NNTB 13), as well as the use of intravenous antibiotics (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55; NNTB 18). The risks of severe neutropenia, infection or not maintaining the scheduled dose of chemotherapy did not differ between CSF-treated and control groups. CSFs frequently led to bone pain (RR 5.88; 95% CI 2.54 to 13.60; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 3) and injection-site reactions (RR 3.59; 95% CI 2.33 to 5.53; NNTH 3).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy, CSFs have shown evidence of benefit in the prevention of FN. There is evidence, though less reliable, of a decrease of all-cause mortality during chemotherapy and a reduced need for hospital care. No reliable evidence was found for a reduction of infection-related mortality, a higher dose intensity of chemotherapy with CSFs or diminished rates of severe neutropenia and infections. The majority of adverse events reported from CSF use were bone pain and injection-site reactions but no conclusions could be drawn regarding late-term side effects.

Pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors: a critical and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The pharmacoeconomics of the myeloid growth factors (MGFs) is an important topic that has received substantial attention in recent years. The use of the MGFs as primary prophylaxis to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN) has grown considerably over the past decade and professional guidelines regarding their use have broadened the settings in which these agents are indicated. Recent data also suggest a potential role for them in reducing infection-related and all-cause mortality. The cost and effectiveness of these agents will continue to gain visibility as companies pursue approval for biosimilar agents in the US, similar to their recent approval in Europe.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this paper is to review the available pharmacoeconomic literature on the MGFs, which is particularly timely in light of the recent passage of healthcare reform and the increasing focus on cost control. The cost of treating cancer in the US is rising faster than the already rapid increase in overall medical expenditure. The clinical utility and cost effectiveness of supportive care measures in oncology must therefore be weighed carefully. This review focuses on the use of different formulations of MGFs for primary and secondary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed to find studies that became available since the prior review of this topic was published in Pharmacoeconomics in 2003.

RESULTS

Acceptable cost-minimization estimates for primary prophylaxis with the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy have been provided by several studies in the US. Of the commonly used agents in the US, pegfilgrastim appears to be superior to the currently recommended dose and schedule of filgrastim in terms of cost minimization, and primary prophylaxis appears to be less costly than secondary prophylaxis. However, the cost benefits of primary prophylaxis in Europe are not as pronounced as in the US, due to the lower costs of medical care. Data continue to emerge suggesting a decreased risk of early mortality from averted infections as well as the possibility of a disease-specific mortality benefit through maintaining the relative dose intensity of chemotherapy with MGF support.

CONCLUSION

This evidence will prove valuable in assessing the overall cost effectiveness and cost utility of the MGFs in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.

Platform for analysis of anthranilic acid N-glycan derivatives utilizing multipolarity mode LC-MS with hydrophilic interaction chromatography separation and ion trap MS/MS

BACKGROUND

The structure of glycans is complex compared with linear polymers such as proteins and nucleic acids. Structural assignment of these compounds is particularly challenging to the bioanalyst. Here we present a multipolarity mode LC-MS platform for analysis of anthranilic acid-derivatized N-glycans.

RESULTS

Multipolarity mode LC-MS analysis of N-glycan anthranilic aid (2AA) derivatives, collected under conditions that stabilize sialyloligosaccharides, provided more complete structural coverage than either mode when used alone. Structural assignment was simplified by the use of 2AA, which localizes charge to the reducing end in both modes facilitating the production of reducing end fragment dominant spectra.

CONCLUSION

Multimode analysis of high-mannose, hybrid and complex N-glycans, under conditions used in this method, is superior to either mode when used alone.

Erythropoietin and erythropoiesis stimulating agents

Erythropoietin (EPO) is the main hormonal regulator of red blood cell production. Recombinant EPO has become the leading drug for treatment of anaemia from a variety of causes; however, it is sometimes misused in sport with the aim of improving performance and endurance. This paper presents an introductory overview of EPO, its receptor, and a variety of recombinant human EPOs/erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) available on the market (e.g. epoetins and their long acting analogs--darbepoetin alfa and continuous erythropoiesis receptor activator). Recent efforts to improve on EPO's pharmaceutical properties and to develop novel replacement products are also presented. In most cases, these efforts have emphasized a reduction in frequency of injections or complete elimination of intravenous or subcutaneous injections of the hormone (biosimilars, EPO mimetic peptides, fusion proteins, endogenous EPO gene activators and gene doping). Isoelectric focusing (IEF) combined with double immunoblotting can detect the subtle differences in glycosylation/sialylation, enabling differentiation among endogenous and recombinant EPO analogues. This method, using the highly sensitive anti-EPO monoclonal antibody AE7A5, has been accepted internationally as one of the methods for detecting misuse of ESAs in sport.