Biosimilars for the Treatment of Cancer: A Systematic Review of Published Evidence

Indian Biosimilars and Vaccines at Crossroads-Replicating the Success of Pharmagenerics

BACKGROUND

The global pharma sector is fast shifting from generics to biologics and biosimilars with the first approval in Europe in 2006 followed by US approval in 2015. In the form of Hepatitis B vaccine, India saw its first recombinant biologics approval in 2000. Around 20% of generic medications and 62% of vaccines are now supplied by the Indian pharmaceutical industry. It is this good position in biologics and biosimilars production that could potentially improve healthcare via decreased treatment cost. India has witnessed large investments in biosimilars over the years. Numerous India-bred new players, e.g., Enzene Biosciences Ltd., are keen on biosimilars and have joined the race alongside the emerging giants, e.g., Biocon and Dr. Reddy's. A very positive sign was the remarkable disposition during the COVID-19 pandemic by Bharat Biotech and the Serum Institute of India. India's biopharmaceutical industry has been instrumental in producing and supplying preventives and therapeutics to fight COVID-19. Despite a weak supply chain and workforce pressure, the production was augmented to provide reasonably priced high-quality medications to more than 133 nations. Biosimilars could cost-effectively treat chronic diseases involving expensive conventional therapies, including diabetes, respiratory ailments, cancer, and connective tissue diseases. Biologics and biosimilars have been and are being tested to treat and manage COVID-19 symptoms characterized by inflammation and respiratory distress.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although India boasts many universities, research centers, and a relatively skilled workforce, its global University-Industry collaboration ranking is 24, IPR ranking remains 47 and innovation ranking 39. This reveals a wide industry-academia gap to bridge. There are gaps in effective translational research in India that must be promptly and appropriately addressed. Innovation demands strong and effective collaborations among universities, techno-incubators, and industries.

METHODOLOGY

Many successful research findings in academia do not get translation opportunities supposedly due to low industrial collaboration, low IP knowledge, and publication pressure with stringent timelines. In light of this, a detailed review of literature, including policy papers, government initiatives, and corporate reviews, was carried out, and the compilation and synthesis of the secondary data were meticulously summarized for the easy comprehension of the facts and roadmap ahead. For easy comprehension, charts, figures, and compiled tables are presented.

RESULTS

This review assesses India's situation in the biosimilar space, the gaps and areas to improve for Indian investment strategies, development, and innovation, addressing need for a more skilled workforce, industrial collaboration, and business models.

CONCLUSIONS

This review also proposes forward an approach to empowering technopreneurs to develop MSMEs for large-scale operations to support India in taking innovative thoughts to the global level to ultimately realize a self-reliant India. The limitations of the compilation are also highlighted towards the end.

Identification of Barriers Preventing Biosimiliar Oncology Medication Adoption

(1) Background: A biosimilar is a biologic medical product that has been approved by the United States Food and Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and is an almost identical copy of an original biologic product yet manufactured by a different company. Biosimilars are often assumed to be the same as generic medications, while often made from living organisms. Through clinical trials, biosimilars have been shown to be both as safe and as effective as their originator products. Biosimilars have also proven they can reduce the costs to both insurance companies and patients in many circumstances. However, despite their cost savings, biosimilar manufacturers continue to face barriers in having oncologists and cancer centers prescribe them for their patients. This review aims to identify barriers associated with medical provider prescriptive behaviors related to biosimilars for patients. (2) Methods: Reviewers analyzed 27 articles and identified common themes. (3) Results: After a thorough literature review, the researchers identified seven barriers to prescribing of biosimilars: physician comfort in originators instead of biosimilars, patient reluctance to switch from a current biologic to a biosimilar, provider profits associated with an originator biologic, lack of stakeholder education on biosimilars, lack of provider team knowledge of biosimilars, lack of knowledge surrounding the biosimilar FDA approval process, and hesitancy to stock multiple drugs for a specific indication. (4) Conclusions: This review’s findings of identified barriers to use of biosimilars provides insight for healthcare providers and organizations surrounding prescribing practices and potential treatment benefits for cancer patients who may benefit from biosimilar treatment medications.

Analytical Similarity Assessment of Biosimilars: Global Regulatory Landscape, Recent Studies and Major Advancements in Orthogonal Platforms

Biopharmaceuticals are one of the fastest-growing sectors in the biotechnology industry. Within the umbrella of biopharmaceuticals, the biosimilar segment is expanding with currently over 200 approved biosimilars, globally. The key step towards achieving a successful biosimilar approval is to establish analytical and clinical biosimilarity with the innovator. The objective of an analytical biosimilarity study is to demonstrate a highly similar profile with respect to variations in critical quality attributes (CQAs) of the biosimilar product, and these variations must lie within the range set by the innovator. This comprises a detailed comparative structural and functional characterization using appropriate, validated analytical methods to fingerprint the molecule and helps reduce the economic burden towards regulatory requirement of extensive preclinical/clinical similarity data, thus making biotechnological drugs more affordable. In the last decade, biosimilar manufacturing and associated regulations have become more established, leading to numerous approvals. Biosimilarity assessment exercises conducted towards approval are also published more frequently in the public domain. Consequently, some technical advancements in analytical sciences have also percolated to applications in analytical biosimilarity assessment. Keeping this in mind, this review aims at providing a holistic view of progresses in biosimilar analysis and approval. In this review, we have summarized the major developments in the global regulatory landscape with respect to biosimilar approvals and also catalogued biosimilarity assessment studies for recombinant DNA products available in the public domain. We have also covered recent advancements in analytical methods, orthogonal techniques, and platforms for biosimilar characterization, since 2015. The review specifically aims to serve as a comprehensive catalog for published biosimilarity assessment studies with details on analytical platform used and critical quality attributes (CQAs) covered for multiple biotherapeutic products. Through this compilation, the emergent evolution of techniques with respect to each CQA has also been charted and discussed. Lastly, the information resource of published biosimilarity assessment studies, created during literature search is anticipated to serve as a helpful reference for biopharmaceutical scientists and biosimilar developers.

Building better biobetters: From fundamentals to industrial application

Biological drugs or biopharmaceuticals off patent open a large market for biosimilars and biobetters, follow-on biologics. Biobetters, in particular, are new drugs designed from existing ones with improved properties such as higher selectivity, stability, half-life and/or lower toxicity/immunogenicity. Glycosylation is one of the most used strategies to improve biological drugs, nonetheless bioconjugation is an additional alternative and refers to the covalent attachment of polymers to biological drugs. Extensive research on novel polymers is underway, nonetheless PEGylation is still the best alternative with the longest clinical track record. Innovative trends based on genetic engineering techniques such as fusion proteins and PASylation are also promising. In this review, all these alternatives wereexplored as well as current market trends, legislation and future perspectives.

Invasive Fungal Diseases in Children with Hematological Malignancies Treated with Therapies That Target Cell Surface Antigens: Monoclonal Antibodies, Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and CAR T-Cell Therapies

Since 1985 when the first agent targeting antigens on the surface of lymphocytes was approved (muromonab-CD3), a multitude of such therapies have been used in children with hematologic malignancies. A detailed literature review until January 2021 was conducted regarding pediatric patient populations treated with agents that target CD2 (alefacept), CD3 (bispecific T-cell engager [BiTE] blinatumomab), CD19 (denintuzumab mafodotin, B43, BiTEs blinatumomab and DT2219ARL, the immunotoxin combotox, and chimeric antigen receptor [CAR] T-cell therapies tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel), CD20 (rituximab and biosimilars, 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab), CD22 (epratuzumab, inotuzumab ozogamicin, moxetumomab pasudotox, BiTE DT2219ARL, and the immunotoxin combotox), CD25 (basiliximab and inolimomab), CD30 (brentuximab vedotin and iratumumab), CD33 (gemtuzumab ozogamicin), CD38 (daratumumab and isatuximab), CD52 (alemtuzumab), CD66b (90Y-labelled BW 250/183), CD248 (ontuxizumab) and immune checkpoint inhibitors against CTLA-4 (CD152; abatacept, ipilimumab and tremelimumab) or with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade (CD279/CD274; atezolizumab, avelumab, camrelizumab, durvalumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab). The aim of this narrative review is to describe treatment-related invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) of each category of agents. IFDs are very common in patients under blinatumomab, inotuzumab ozogamicin, basiliximab, gemtuzumab ozogamicin, alemtuzumab, and tisagenlecleucel and uncommon in patients treated with moxetumomab pasudotox, brentuximab vedotin, abatacept, ipilimumab, pembrolizumab and avelumab. Although this new era of precision medicine shows promising outcomes of targeted therapies in children with leukemia or lymphoma, the results of this review stress the necessity for ongoing surveillance and suggest the need for antifungal prophylaxis in cases where IFDs are very common complications.

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Cancer Biosimilars Worldwide: A Systematic Review

Background and Purpose: The availability of oncology biosimilars is deemed as a fundamental strategy to achieve sustainable health care. However, there is scarce systematic evidence on economic effectiveness of cancer biosimilars. We aimed to synthesize evidence from pharmacoeconomic evaluation of oncology biosimilars globally, provide essential data and methodological reference for involved stakeholders. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted in PubMed, embase, the Cochrane library, CRD, ISPOR and NICE utill December 31, 2019. Information on basic characteristics, evaluation methodology and results were extracted. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Checklist. Results: For 17 studies identified (13 from Europe and four from United States), the overall quality was generally acceptable. A total of seven biological molecules involved with filgrastim, EPOETIN α, and trastuzumab leading the three. The mostly common evaluation perspective was payer, but the time horizon varied greatly. There were ten studies which adopted cost minimization analysis to evaluate efficiency while seven studies adopted budget impact analysis to address affordability, with cost ratio and cost saving being its corresponding primary endpoint. Although the comparability of included studies was limited and specific results were largely affected by uptake and price discount rates of the oncology biosimilar, the comprehensive results consistently favored its promotion. Conclusion: Globally, the economic evaluation of cancer biosimilars is in its initial phase. However, limited evidence from developed countries consistently supported both cost-effectiveness of efficiency and affordability of oncology biosimilars, while they were largely affected by uptake and price discount rate.

Rituximab biosimilars in hematologic malignancies: the need for a real-world approach

The introduction of rituximab biosimilars into healthcare systems can potentially help to control healthcare costs for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. However, there are currently several barriers to the uptake of biosimilars. This review discusses barriers to the adoption of rituximab biosimilars by stakeholders including patients and healthcare providers. We outline the importance of utilizing real-world evidence in providing additional clinical experience on rituximab biosimilars in hematologic malignancies to improve stakeholder confidence regarding their efficacy and safety. We conclude by offering recommendations for designing and conducting effective real-world studies. Such studies can provide evidence to help achieve lower-priced biologics and improved patient access to help sustain the treatment of hematologic malignancies with biologics, including rituximab biosimilars.

The biosimilar pathway in the USA: An analysis of the innovator company and biosimilar company perspectives and beyond

In order to improve access to costly biological treatments, a biosimilar pathway in the United States of America (USA) was enacted under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCI Act) of 2009. The aim of the present study was to investigate how the health policy, the establishment of the biosimilar pathway, influenced related companies by studying their respective perspectives and strategies revealed in literatures and publicly available resources. Perspectives of companies reveal the points of concern for the biosimilar pathway, such as data requirements, patents, interchangeability, naming, and exclusivity. Innovator companies may utilize expedited programs for serious conditions, enhance patent protection, launch programs for life-cycle extension, and develop biosimilars as well. The biosimilar companies overcoming technical barriers might need to gather convincing evidence to facilitate market penetration as well as to distinguish their products from those of other biosimilar competitors. More challenges are expected for innovator companies if international harmonization takes place, which might be worth further investigation.

Biosimilar Trastuzumab in Clinical Trials: Differences or Not?

In the last decade, cancer therapies have increasingly taken the form of combination treatments in which biologic agents play a crucial role. In breast cancer, the treatment strategy is adjusted to intrinsic subtypes such as human epidermal growth factor receptor-2(HER2)-positive. With the introduction of trastuzumab, a monoclonal antibody against HER2, survival has significantly improved in early and metastatic breast cancer. Trastuzumab's patent has now expired and biosimilars are moving into the market. Several clinical trials have led to the approval of 5 different biosimilar trastuzumabs. Results proved similarity between the proposed biosimilar and the reference product without significant differences in efficacy and safety, although follow-up has been short. However, the shorter drug development process with its goal of showing similarity rather than patient benefit uses surrogate endpoints such as pathologic complete response and overall response rate, not survival endpoints in terms of the 'gold standarD' in evaluating cancer therapies. The aim of this article is to give insight into how to plan and perform a clinical trial to prove equivalence between a biosimilar trastuzumab and its reference product and to elucidate the setup and outcome of published clinical trials.

Pros and cons of the immunogenicity of monoclonal antibodies in cancer treatment: a lesson from autoimmune diseases

The aim of this review is to report the current evidence on immunogenicity of monoclonal antibodies (moAbs) used in cancer compared with autoimmune diseases, focusing on local microenvironment. English abstracts were identified in Medline and www.clinicaltrials.gov . A total of 82 papers were selected. The percentage of immunogenicity of moAbs used for cancer therapy, evaluated as the serum concentration of antidrug antibodies, is significantly lower than that of moAbs used for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. This condition may rely on a different immunologic background characterized by a hyperactivation of immune cells in autoimmune diseases. The formation of complexes between antidrug antibodies and non-neutralizing moAbs bound to neoplastic antigens may allow more efficient elimination of cancer cells, but additional studies are needed.

The role of biosimilars in value-based oncology care

Biopharmaceuticals (biologics) represent one of the fastest growing sectors of cancer treatment. They are recommended for treating underlying cancer and as supportive care for management of treatment side effects. Given the high costs of cancer care and the need to balance health care provision and associated budgets, patient access and value are the subject of discussion and debate in the USA and globally. As the costs of biologics are high, biosimilars offer the potential of greater choice and value, increased patient access to treatment, and the potential for improved outcomes. Value-based care aims to improve the quality of care, while containing costs. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has developed value-based care programs as alternatives to fee-for-service reimbursement, including in oncology, that reward health care providers with incentive payments for improving the quality of care they provide. It is anticipated that CMS payments in oncology care will be increasingly tied to measured performance. This review provides an overview of value-based care models in oncology with a focus on CMS programs and discusses the contribution of biosimilars to CMS value-based care objectives. Biosimilars may provide an important tool for providers participating in value-based care initiatives, resulting in cost savings and efficiencies in the delivery of high-value care through expanded use of biologic treatment and supportive care agents during episodes of cancer care.

Global Acceptance of Biosimilars: Importance of Regulatory Consistency, Education, and Trust

Globally, biosimilars are expected to have a key role in improving patient access to biological therapies and addressing concerns regarding the escalating cost of health care. Indeed, in Europe, increased use of biologics and reduced drug prices have been observed after the introduction of biosimilars. Recently, several monoclonal antibody biosimilars of anticancer therapies have been approved, and numerous others are in various stages of clinical development. Biosimilars are authorized via a regulatory pathway separate from that used for generic drugs; they are also regulated separately from novel biologics. Biosimilar approval pathways in many major regulatory regions worldwide are, to a broad degree, scientifically aligned. However, owing to regional differences in health care priorities, policies, and resources, some important regulatory inconsistencies are evident. Acceptance of biosimilars by health care systems, health care professionals, and patients will be a key factor in the uptake of these therapies, and such regulatory variations could contribute to confusion and diminished confidence regarding the quality, efficacy, and reliability of these agents. Furthermore, the need for manufacturers to account for regulatory inconsistencies introduces inefficiencies and delays into biosimilar development programs. These issues should be addressed if biosimilars are to attain their maximal global potential. This review summarizes the evolution of the global biosimilar landscape and provides examples of inconsistencies between regulatory requirements in different regions. In addition, we review ongoing efforts to improve regulatory alignment and highlight the importance of education as a crucial factor in generating trust in, and acceptance of, biosimilars on a worldwide scale.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Biosimilars of monoclonal antibody anticancer therapies are beginning to emerge, and more are likely to become available for clinical use in the near future. The extent to which biosimilars can contribute to cancer care will depend on their level of acceptance by health care systems, health care professionals, and patients. A better understanding of the regulatory basis for the approval of biosimilars may enhance confidence and trust in these agents. In order to have informed discussions about treatment choices with their patients, oncologists should familiarize themselves with the biosimilar paradigm.

Concepts and Challenges of Biosimilars in Breast Cancer: The Emergence of Trastuzumab Biosimilars

With the development of anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) monoclonal antibodies, trastuzumab-based therapy has become the standard of care among patients with early or advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. However, real-world data have shown that up to a half of patients do not receive trastuzumab or any other HER2-targeted agent, mainly due to high treatments costs. The prospect of a more enlarged access to trastuzumab treatment lies in the use of biosimilars, as the European and the US patent of the reference products has or will soon expire. Biosimilars are biologics highly similar in terms of quality characteristics, biological activity, safety and efficacy to already approved biologics. The biosimilarity of any European Union (EU)-approved biosimilar is guaranteed based on the comprehensive comparability exercise which includes comparative analytical, non-clinical and clinical studies. In the matter of biosimilars’ interchangeability and substitution, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have adopted different positions, triggering various discussions on the potential immunogenicity and efficacy in individual patients. As more biosimilars are gaining approval, the present review aims to offer concise information for oncologists and pharmacists about the production, approval, interchangeability, and substitution policies of biosimilars used in breast cancer therapy, with a special focus on trastuzumab.

Biosimilar medicines used for cancer therapy in Europe: a review

This article provides an updated review of the biosimilar medicines approved for cancer therapy in the European Union (EU). First we discuss the most relevant aspects for the development and approval of biosimilar medicines. We then present the oncological biosimilar drugs currently used, which include epoetins (alpha and zeta), filgrastim, and monoclonal antibodies (rituximab, trastuzumab and bevacizumab). Among the clinical applications of biosimilar medicines, cancer therapy remains the main target area and more approved biosimilars are expected over the next few years, providing cost-effective drugs to more patients. Furthermore, comprehensive pharmacovigilance studies are going on, monitoring the marketed biosimilars, and providing more feasible information to clinicians regarding the safety and efficacy of these medications.

Antigenic response to CT-P13 and infliximab originator in inflammatory bowel disease patients shows similar epitope recognition

AIM

To test the cross-immunogenicity of anti-CT-P13 IBD patients' sera to CT-P13/infliximab originator and the comparative antigenicity evoked by CT-P13/infliximab originator sera.

METHODS

Sera of patients with IBD with measurable anti-CT-P13 antibodies were tested for their cross-reactivity to 5 batches of infliximab originator and CT-P13. Anti-drug antibody positive sera from treated patients were used to compare antigenic epitopes.

RESULTS

All 42 anti-CT-P13 and 37 anti-infliximab originator IBD sera were cross-reactive with infliximab originator and CT-P13 respectively. Concentration of anti-drug antibodies against infliximab originator or CT-P13 were strongly correlated both for IgG1 and IgG4 (P < 0.001). Anti-CT-P13 sera of patients with IBD (n = 32) exerted similar functional inhibition on CT-P13 or infliximab originator TNF binding capacity and showed reduced binding to CT-P13 in the presence of five different batches of CT-P13 and infliximab originator. Anti-CT-P13 and anti-infliximab originator IBD sera selectively enriched phage-peptides from the VH (CDR1 and CDR3) and VL domains (CDR2 and CDR3) of infliximab. Sera reactivity detected major infliximab epitopes in these regions of infliximab in 60%-79% of patients, and no significant differences were identified between CT-P13 and infliximab originator immunogenic sera. Minor epitopes were localised in framework regions of infliximab with reduced antibody reactivity shown, in 30%-50% of patients. Monoclonal antibodies derived from naïve individuals and ADA-positive IBD patients treated with CT-P13 provided comparable epitope specificity to five different batches of CT-P13 and infliximab originator.

CONCLUSIONS

These results strongly support a similar antigenic profile for infliximab originator and CT-P13, and point toward a safe switching between the two drugs in anti-drug antibody negative patients.

Biosimilars in oncology and inflammatory diseases: current and future considerations for clinicians in Latin America

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of several cancers and systemic immune-mediated inflammatory conditions. Expiry of patents protecting a number of biologics has provided the opportunity to commercialize highly similar versions, known as biosimilars. Biosimilars are approved by regulatory agencies via an independent pathway that requires extensive head-to-head comparison with the originator product. Biosimilars have the potential to provide savings to healthcare systems and expand patient access to biologics. In Latin American countries, regulatory frameworks for biosimilar approval have been introduced in recent years, and biosimilars of monoclonal antibody and fusion protein therapies are now emerging. However, the situation in this region is complicated by the presence of "non-comparable biotherapeutics" (also known as "intended copies"), which have not been rigorously compared with the originator product. We review the considerations for clinicians in Latin American countries, focusing on monoclonal antibody biosimilars relevant to oncology, rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer: Established Concepts and Emerging Strategies

In the last decade, the systemic treatment approach for patients with early breast cancer has partly shifted from adjuvant treatment to neoadjuvant treatment. Systemic treatment administration started as a 'one size fits all' approach but is currently customized according to each breast cancer subtype. Systemic treatment in a neoadjuvant setting is at least as effective as in an adjuvant setting and has several additional advantages. First, it enables response monitoring and provides prognostic information; second, it downstages the tumor, allowing for less extensive surgery, improved cosmetic outcomes, and reduced postoperative complications such as lymphedema; and third, it enables early development of new treatment strategies by using pathological complete remission as a surrogate outcome of event-free and overall survival. In this review we give an overview of the current standard of neoadjuvant systemic treatment strategies for the three main subtypes of breast cancer: hormone receptor-positive, triple-negative, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive. Additionally, we summarize drugs that are under investigation for use in the neoadjuvant setting.

Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing the Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of SB3 (Trastuzumab Biosimilar) and Reference Trastuzumab in Patients Treated With Neoadjuvant Therapy for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Positive Early Breast Cancer

Purpose

This phase III study compared SB3, a trastuzumab (TRZ) biosimilar, with reference TRZ in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive early breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02149524).

Patients and Methods

Patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant SB3 or TRZ for eight cycles concurrently with chemotherapy (four cycles of docetaxel followed by four cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide) followed by surgery, and then 10 cycles of adjuvant SB3 or TRZ. The primary objective was comparison of breast pathologic complete response (bpCR) rate in the per-protocol set; equivalence was declared if the 95% CI of the ratio was within 0.785 to 1.546 or the 95% CI of the difference was within ± 13%. Secondary end points included comparisons of total pathologic complete response rate, overall response rate, event-free survival, overall survival, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity.

Results

Eight hundred patients were included in the per-protocol set (SB3, n = 402; TRZ, n = 398). The bpCR rates were 51.7% and 42.0% with SB3 and TRZ, respectively. The adjusted ratio of bpCR was 1.259 (95% CI, 1.085 to 1.460), which was within the predefined equivalence margins. The adjusted difference was 10.70% (95% CI, 4.13% to 17.26%), with the lower limit contained within and the upper limit outside the equivalence margin. The total pathologic complete response rates were 45.8% and 35.8% and the overall response rates were 96.3% and 91.2% with SB3 and TRZ, respectively. Overall, 96.6% and 95.2% of patients experienced one or more adverse event, 10.5% and 10.7% had a serious adverse event, and 0.7% and 0.0% had antidrug antibodies (up to cycle 9) with SB3 and TRZ, respectively.

Conclusion

Equivalence for efficacy was demonstrated between SB3 and TRZ on the basis of the ratio of bpCR rates. Safety and immunogenicity were comparable.

A bibliometric analysis of the global research on biosimilars

Background

Biosimilars could be a promising option to help decrease healthcare costs and expand access to treatment. There is no previous evidence of a global bibliometric analysis on biosimilars. Therefore, we aimed to assess the quantity and quality of worldwide biosimilars research.

Methods

We performed a bibliometric analysis using documents about biosimilars published until December 2016 in journals indexed in Scopus. We extracted the annual research, languages, countries, journals, authors, institutions, citation frequency, and the metrics of journals. The data were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2013. Additional information about authors' participation was obtained using the R-package Bibliometrix. Publication activity was adjusted for the countries by population size. Also, author co-citation analysis and a term co-occurrence analysis with the terms included in the title and abstract of publications was presented as network visualization maps using VOSviewer.

Results

A total of 2330 biosimilar-related documents identified in the Scopus database, most of them were articles (1452; 62.32%). The number of documents published had an exponential increased between 2004 and 2016 (p < 0.001). The United States was the country with the highest production with 685 (29.40%) documents followed by Germany and UK with 293 (12.58%) and 248 (10.64%), respectively. Switzerland (11.05), Netherlands (5.85) and UK (3.83) showed the highest per capita ratio. The highest citation/article ratio were for the Netherlands (28.06), Spain (24.23), and France (20.11). Gabi Journal published 73 (3.13%) documents; both Biopharm International and Pharmaceutical Technology and Mabs, 41 (1.76%). Three out of top ten journals were Trade publications. Amgen Incorporated from the USA was the most prolific institution with 51 documents followed by Pfizer Inc. with 48. Terms about specific diseases and drugs were found in recent years, compared with terms such as legislation, structure, protein, dose and generic in the early years.

Conclusions

Research production and publication of documents on biosimilars are increasing. The majority of publications came from high-income countries. The trends in terminology use are according to state of the art in the topic, and reflects the interest in the utilization of biosimilars in diseases who are expected to obtain benefits of its use.

ESCMID Study Group for Infections in Compromised Hosts (ESGICH) Consensus Document on the safety of targeted and biological therapies: an infectious diseases perspective (Agents targeting lymphoid cells surface antigens [I]: CD19, CD20 and CD52)

BACKGROUND

The present review is part of the ESCMID Study Group for Infections in Compromised Hosts (ESGICH) Consensus Document on the safety of targeted and biological therapies.

AIMS

To review, from an Infectious Diseases perspective, the safety profile of agents targeting CD19, CD20 and CD52 and to suggest preventive recommendations.

SOURCES

Computer-based MEDLINE searches with MeSH terms pertaining to each agent or therapeutic family.

CONTENT

Although CD19-targeted agents (blinatumomab or inebilizumab) are not associated with an increased risk of infection, they may cause IgG hypogammaglobulinaemia and neutropenia. The requirement for prolonged intravenous infusion of blinatumomab may increase the risk of catheter-associated bloodstream infections. Infection remains the most common non-haematological adverse effect of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, including severe respiratory tract infection, hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation and varicella-zoster virus infection. Screening for chronic or resolved HBV infection is recommended for patients receiving anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. Antiviral prophylaxis should be offered for 12-18 months to hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive and HBsAg-negative/anti-hepatitis B core antibody (HBc)-positive patients. Anti-Pneumocystis prophylaxis should be considered in patients receiving concomitant chemotherapy, particularly steroids. Alemtuzumab (anti-CD52) increases the risk of infections, in particular among leukaemia and solid organ transplant patients. These populations benefit from anti-Pneumocystis prophylaxis, prevention strategies for cytomegalovirus infection, and screening for HBV, hepatitis C virus and tuberculosis. Antiviral prophylaxis for at least 6-12 months should be provided for HBsAg-positive patients.

IMPLICATIONS

As there are limited clinical data for many of the reviewed agents, special attention must be given to promptly detect and report emerging infectious complications.

Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in oncology

Biological medicines are derived from living cells and organisms. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are biological agents that are widely used to treat malignancies including non-Hodgkin's lymphomas and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. They are effective but expensive. The patents for many mAbs are expiring, so biosimilar medicines, which contain a version of the active ingredient of the original drug, are being developed. Biological medicines cannot be assessed in the same way as standard generic medications because they are difficult to copy and can change over time. A pathway regulates how biosimilars are assessed and compared with the original drug to ensure they are highly similar and have no clinically meaningful differences in terms of structure, function, pharmacodynamics and mechanism of action, pharmacokinetic properties, clinical efficacy and safety. Truxima^{® ▾}(rituximab), the first biosimilar monoclonal antibody to be approved for use in the UK in an oncology setting, is biosimilar to intravenous (IV) rituximab; rituximab improves the effectiveness of standard chemotherapy for lymphoma. The two drugs are comparable in efficacy and safety and have the same indications, dosing regimen and storage procedures.

Breakthroughs in modern cancer therapy and elusive cardiotoxicity: Critical research-practice gaps, challenges, and insights

To date, five cancer treatment modalities have been defined. The three traditional modalities of cancer treatment are surgery, radiotherapy, and conventional chemotherapy, and the two modern modalities include molecularly targeted therapy (the fourth modality) and immunotherapy (the fifth modality). The cardiotoxicity associated with conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy is well known. Similar adverse cardiac events are resurging with the fourth modality. Aside from the conventional and newer targeted agents, even the most newly developed, immune‐based therapeutic modalities of anticancer treatment (the fifth modality), e.g., immune checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T‐cell therapy, have unfortunately led to potentially lethal cardiotoxicity in patients. Cardiac complications represent unresolved and potentially life‐threatening conditions in cancer survivors, while effective clinical management remains quite challenging. As a consequence, morbidity and mortality related to cardiac complications now threaten to offset some favorable benefits of modern cancer treatments in cancer‐related survival, regardless of the oncologic prognosis. This review focuses on identifying critical research‐practice gaps, addressing real‐world challenges and pinpointing real‐time insights in general terms under the context of clinical cardiotoxicity induced by the fourth and fifth modalities of cancer treatment. The information ranges from basic science to clinical management in the field of cardio‐oncology and crosses the interface between oncology and onco‐pharmacology. The complexity of the ongoing clinical problem is addressed at different levels. A better understanding of these research‐practice gaps may advance research initiatives on the development of mechanism‐based diagnoses and treatments for the effective clinical management of cardiotoxicity.

Biosimilars: Implications for Clinical Practice

In 2015, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first biosimilar, filgrastim-sndz, a biosimilar of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor filgrastim. Since that time, the FDA has approved four additional biosimilar tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, and, in May 2017, the Oncology Drug Advisory Committee voted in favor of approval of an epoetin alfa biosimilar. The patents of several widely used biologic cancer therapies (including trastuzumab, rituximab, bevacizumab, cetuximab, and pegfilgrastim) are recently expired or due to expire in the near future, so the introduction of biosimilars into the oncology treatment armamentarium is imminent. However, their arrival also will introduce challenges, including pharmacy and supply chain management and the need for education of clinicians and patients about the efficacy and safety of these agents. These considerations, along with an overview of biosimilars in the oncology pipeline, will be discussed in this review.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2017

PURPOSE

Historical trends and factors likely to influence future pharmaceutical expenditures are discussed, and projections are made for drug spending in 2017 in nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors).

METHODS

Drug expenditure data through calendar year 2016 were obtained from the QuintilesIMS National Sales Perspectives database and analyzed. Other factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2017, including new drug approvals and patent expirations, were also reviewed. Expenditure projections for 2017 for nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors) were made based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion.

RESULTS

Total U.S. prescription sales in the 2016 calendar year were $448.2 billion, a 5.8% increase compared with 2015. More than half of the increase resulted from price hikes of existing drugs. Adalimumab was the top drug overall in 2016 expenditures ($13.6 billion); in clinics and nonfederal hospitals, infliximab was the top drug. Prescription expenditures in clinics and nonfederal hospitals totaled $63.7 billion (an 11.9% increase from 2015) and $34.5 billion (a 3.3% increase from 2015), respectively. In nonfederal hospitals and clinics, growth in spending was driven primarily by price increases of existing drugs and increased volume, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We project a 6.0-8.0% increase in total drug expenditures across all settings, an 11.0-13.0% increase in clinics, and a 3.0-5.0% increase in hospital drug spending in 2017. Health-system pharmacy leaders should carefully examine their own local drug utilization patterns to determine their own organization's anticipated spending in 2017.

An introduction to biosimilar cancer therapeutics: definitions, rationale for development and regulatory requirements

Monoclonal antibodies and other biologic drugs play important roles in the treatment of various hematological malignancies and solid tumors. However, such drugs are intrinsically more expensive to develop than small molecules and their clinical benefits are often accompanied by challenges relating to affordability and access. Patent expiry for ‘originator’ biologics is providing opportunities for a new generation of biosimilar drugs, potentially capable of relieving pressure on healthcare budgets. This article discusses key characteristics of biosimilars, distinguishes them from generics and noncomparable biologics and outlines the robust regulatory requirements that must be followed to establish biosimilarity with a reference product. The path to approval is discussed with reference to the rituximab biosimilar CT-P10, the first licensed monoclonal antibody biosimilar cancer therapeutic.