Efficacy and Safety of Anti-cancer Biosimilars Compared to Reference Biologics in Oncology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Clinical Benefit, Price, and Uptake for Cancer Biosimilars vs Reference Drugs in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

The high cost of biologics used to treat cancer has been an increasing burden in the world. In China, the recent approval of cancer biosimilar drugs to resolve this problem is promising, but evidence of clinical benefits, price, and uptake for these drugs is still lacking.

Objectives

To compare characteristics of pivotal clinical trials in China and other countries for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab and investigate the efficacy or effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity outcomes of cancer biosimilars compared with reference drugs by meta-analysis.

Data Sources

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for published studies from database inception to February 1, 2023, using the search topics (cancers) AND (biosimilars).

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies that included patients with cancer were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two authors independently extracted the outcome estimates and characteristics for each study. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to summarize the relative estimates with 95% CIs. This study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinical trial characteristics were collected for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. The relative estimates of efficacy or effectiveness (objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival), safety, and immunogenicity outcomes were analyzed for biosimilars vs reference drugs. The weighted average price and uptake rate were evaluated for biosimilars relative to their reference drugs between 2015 and 2022.

Results

A total of 39 RCTs (involving 18 791 patients) and 10 cohort studies (involving 1998 patients) were included. The biosimilars of bevacizumab (16 RCTs; risk ratio [RR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.01; P = .17), rituximab (12 RCTs; RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.08; P = .70), and trastuzumab (9 RCTs: RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12; P = .29) met equivalence with reference biologics in regard to the objective response rate. The results summarized from cohort studies were consistent with those from RCTs. In 2022, cancer biosimilars were priced at 69% to 90% of the costs for the reference drugs, and their uptake reached 54% to 83% in China.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that cancer biosimilars provided comparable clinical benefits at lower prices compared with reference drugs. These findings suggest the potential feasibility of expediting the transition from reference drugs to biosimilars to benefit more patients with cancer.

Changing Tides? Anticancer Biologic and Biosimilar Use in Medicare Part B, 2019-2021

Anticancer biosimilar use is rising but significant potential savings remain unrealized @alison_mcclean @ChrisLuPhD

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Controlled Phase I Study Comparing the Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Immunogenicity of SCT510 to Bevacizumab (Avastin®) in Healthy Chinese Males

BACKGROUND

SCT510 is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which is intended as a candidate biosimilar of bevacizumab that is approved for various metastatic cancers.Please confirm change in wording to match definition for VEGF belowYes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics profiles, safety, and immunogenicity of SCT510 to bevacizumab (Avastin^®) in healthy Chinese males.

METHODS

This was a single-center, double-blind, parallel-group phase I study. A total of 84 participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a single 3 mg/kg infusion of either SCT510 or bevacizumab and followed up for 99 days. Primary endpoints were area under the serum concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC_0-∞), area under the serum concentration-time curve from time 0 to last quantifiable concentration (AUC_0-t), and the maximum observed concentration (C_max). Secondary endpoints included safety and immunogenicity.Kindly check and confirm the edit made in the article title.Yes.

RESULTS

A total of 82 subjects completed the study. Geometric means ratios (GMR) for AUC_0-∞, AUC_0-t, and C_max were 0.88, 0.89, and 0.97, respectively, for SCT510 versus bevacizumab (USA). The 90% confidence intervals for GMRs of AUC_0-∞, AUC_0-t, and C_max were all within the prespecified criteria (80-125%). No adverse events (AEs) led to study termination, and no serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported. None of the anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) identified were found to be neutralizing antibodies (NAbs), and only one subject from the SCT510 group tested positive for the ADA at the day 99 visit.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that the pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity of SCT510 were equivalent to bevacizumab (Avastin^®). As a proposed biosimilar drug to bevacizumab, SCT510 was well tolerated in healthy Chinese males.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT05113511.

Comparative Safety Profiles of Oncology Biosimilars: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is crucial that the safety profiles of biosimilars are similar to those of the original biologics. A better understanding of biosimilars and their relative safety and immunogenicity profiles are required for healthcare providers to prescribe them to patients with life-threatening cancer diseases who receive chemotherapies with potentially serious adverse events (AEs).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to collate and analyze currently available safety and immunogenicity outcomes of biosimilars used in oncology and compare their safety information with those of the original biologics.

METHODS

The MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases were searched as at 28 February 2022. Four anti-cancer biosimilar molecules were considered: bevacizumab, trastuzumab, rituximab, and (peg)filgrastim. Through a systematic review, we selected the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing safety outcomes between the biosimilars and original biologics of the four molecules. As safety outcomes, various treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were collated, such as any TEAE, serious AE, and TEAE higher than grade 3. A risk ratio (RR) per category of TEAE was estimated through a meta-analysis. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was also conducted to compare the safety among the biosimilar brands for TEAEs over 25% with higher variability in addition to the serious AE cases.

RESULTS

Forty-nine RCTs were identified. The results from the meta-analysis showed that the safety and immunogenicity profiles of all four biosimilar molecules are comparable with that of the original biologics at the TEAE level without statistically significant differences, except for diarrhea for (peg)filgrastim. The incidence of diarrhea with (peg)filgrastim was less than that with the original biologic (RR 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.89). The NMA results showed similar safety profiles among the biosimilar brands for all four biosimilar molecules, except for the serious adverse event of a trastuzumab biosimilar (RR 0.296, 95% credible interval 0.109-0.840).

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis and NMA for all four biosimilars showed that the safety and immunogenicity profiles of biosimilar products in oncology are generally comparable with that of the original biologics at the TEAE level. However, additional evidence needs to be collected since several TEAEs of specific biosimilars were out of the equivalent range. The results of this study provide comparative safety information and a better understanding of oncology biosimilars for healthcare providers to prescribe them to patients.

Trends in the utilization of medicines sold in the private sector post- registration in South Africa and the implications for similar countries

BACKGROUND

Regulatory authorities register medicines for patients to access them within a reasonable period of time. There is a paucity of available data regarding the extent to which registered medicines reach the public after market authorisation is granted by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA). This is important since time spent by SAHPRA assessing medicines that are subsequently not launched onto the South African market means time wasted, which could be spent on assessing new medicines that address an unmet need in the country. Consequently, we initially analysed the time taken for registered medicines to reach patients and the relationship between medicines registered at SAHPRA and those subsequently dispensed in private pharmacies. The extent of registration of multiple sourced versus new patented medicines was also explored.

METHODS

A retrospective, descriptive and quantitative investigation was conducted for medicines registered between 2014 and 2019. Registered and dispensed medicines were compared to establish accessibility post registration. Data sources included SAHPRA and IQVIA datasets. Microsoft Excel and SAS were used for data storage, analysis, and computation of descriptive statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Of (N = 2175) registered medicines, only 358 (16.5%; 95% CI 15.0%-18.1%) were dispensed to patients, and out of 1735 medicines registered between 2015 and 2019, only 57 (3.3%; 95% CI 2.5%-4.2%) were dispensed during the study period. Medicines acting on the central nervous system were registered and dispensed the most at 21.0% and 18.0%, respectively, whereas antineoplastic and immunomodulation agents were registered and dispensed only 11% and 5%, respectively. A concern was that only 13.0% of registered medicines were originators, with most either as generics, including branded generics, or pseudo-generics.

CONCLUSION

Regulatory measures should be implemented to ensure increased medicine access post-registration for new originators, especially for priority disease areas that benefit patients. Mental health diseases and improved access to oncology medicines require special attention and further investigation in South Africa.

Oncology biosimilars: New developments and future directions

Biologicals have become an integral part of cancer treatment both as therapeutic agents and as supportive care agents. It is important to know that biologics are large, complex molecular entities requiring extensive immunogenicity testing and pharmacovigilance strategies to ensure no immune response is evoked in the body. Oncology's pharmacological market is dominated by biologics; however, their high development and manufacturing costs are burdensome to health care systems. Biologics being the most expensive prescription drugs on the market limit the accessibility for necessary treatment in the case of many patients. As biologics patents expire, the development of biosimilars is underway in an effort to lower costs and enable patients to access new cancer therapies. Regulatory guidelines for biosimilars have now been established and are constantly being revised to address any issues, facilitating their robust development. Moreover, many scientific societies offer guidance to help stakeholders better understand current regulations and biosimilar's safety. Despite the potential cost benefits, lack of knowledge about biosimilars, and the possibility of immunogenicity have created an uncertain environment for healthcare professionals and patients. In this review, we provide an overview of relevant legislation and regulations, pharmacoeconomics, and stakeholder perceptions regarding biosimilars. The article also describes biosimilars in development, as well as the ones currently available on the market.

Switching Among Biosimilars: A Review of Clinical Evidence

Biological medicines have improved patients' outcomes, but their high costs may limit access. Biosimilars, alternatives that have demonstrated high similarity in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to an already licensed originator biological product, could increase competition and decrease prices. Given the expanding number of biosimilars, patients may switch from originator to biosimilar or among biosimilars. Randomized trials and observational studies conducted with multiple biosimilars over many disease areas confirmed the safety and efficacy of switching from originator to biosimilar. This study summarizes evidence on switching between biosimilars for which there are concerns to provide future guidance. A systematic search (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) for studies on anti-TNF agents, assessing clinical efficacy and safety of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch in chronic inflammatory diseases, was performed. We retrieved 320 records and included 19 clinical studies. One study with historical control compared switching between biosimilars to maintenance of the same biosimilar. Ten were controlled cohort studies comparing switching between two biosimilars vs. switching from originator to a biosimilar or vs. multiple switches. Eight were single-arm cohort studies, where participants switched from one biosimilar to another, and the outcomes were compared before and after the switch. Overall, these studies did not highlight significant concerns in switching between biosimilars. Therefore, switching studies seem difficult to perform and unnecessary with the body of evidence suggesting no real problems in practice coupled with stringent regulatory requirements. Monitoring the use of biosimilars in clinical practice could support clinical decision-making, rational use of biological medicines, and help to further realize possible savings.

Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab Biosimilars Compared With Reference Biologics in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Bevacizumab biosimilars are slowly making their way into cancer treatment, but the data on their efficacy and safety in cancer patients are still poor. We systematically summarized the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab biosimilars in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods: This review searched CNKI, VIP, PubMed, Medline (Ovid), Embase, and Cochrane Library (Ovid) for randomized controlled trials of bevacizumab biosimilars treated in adults with advanced NSCLC or metastatic CRC. A pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian network meta-analysis based on the random-effect model were performed to summarize the evidence. We rated the certainty of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.

Results: Ten eligible trials with a total of 5526 patients were included. Seven trials (n = 4581) were for the NSCLC population, while three trials (n = 945) were for patients with CRC. According to the pairwise meta-analysis, the efficacy (objective response rate: risk ratio (RR) 0.98 [0.92–1.04], p = 0.45; progression-free survival: hazard ratio (HR) 1.01 [0.92–1.10], p = 0.85; and overall survival: HR 1.06 [0.94–1.19], p = 0.35) and safety (incidence of grade 3–5 adverse events: odds ratio (OR) 1.03 [0.91–1.16], p = 0.65) of bevacizumab biosimilars performed no significant difference with reference biologics in patients with NSCLC as well as metastatic CRC patients (objective response rate: RR 0.97 [0.87–1.09], p = 0.60; overall survival: HR 0.94 [0.70–1.25], p = 0.66; incidence of grade 3–5 adverse events: OR 0.78 [0.59–1.02], p = 0.73). Network estimates displayed 7 types of bevacizumab biosimilars in the medication regime of NSCLC patients who had no significant difference among each other in terms of efficacy and safety. The certainty of the evidence was assessed as low to moderate. Three types of biosimilars were found to be clinically equivalent to each other in the patients with CRC, which were evaluated with very low to moderate certainty.

Conclusion: In patients with advanced NSCLC or metastatic CRC, the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab biosimilars were found to be comparable with those of reference biologics and each other.

Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies in China: A patent review

Biosimilars play an important role in reducing the burden on patients and increasing the market competition. Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies are currently one of the hotspots of research and development in China with policies support. With the continuous improvement of policies, the enthusiasm for the research and development of biosimilars has increased year by year. The policy requirements in different periods have different degrees of impact on the patent applications of pharmaceutical companies. This review introduces the biosimilar monoclonal antibodies market status and approval process in China, analyzes the patents in this field, and helps pharmaceutical companies protect their intellectual property rights.

Characteristics of Clinical Trials Evaluating Biosimilars in the Treatment of Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Biologics account for almost half of US drug spending but may be subject to competitive pricing pressures by US Food and Drug Administration-approved biosimilars. The extent of the preapproval clinical testing that is needed and how these biosimilars compare with the originator biologic products remain critical issues in establishing a vibrant biosimilar market.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the design of cancer biosimilar efficacy studies compared with the reference drug pivotal trials and provide summary risk ratio estimates for each cancer type drug subgroup.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search was performed of articles and abstracts published using Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated April 18, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies or abstracts in English comparing a disease-modifying cancer biologic and its biosimilar and reporting efficacy or surrogate efficacy results were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Outcome estimates and study characteristics were extracted from each study. Among biosimilar efficacy studies, random-effects meta-analyses were performed for each cancer type molecule outcome subgroup, calculating pooled relative estimates and 95% CIs.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Study characteristics, such as population size, blinding, and randomization, were compared between biosimilar trials and those of reference drugs. Risk ratio estimates for relative change to surrogate measures (eg, progression-free survival) were collected for biosimilars and their reference products.

RESULTS

A total of 31 cancer biosimilar studies of 3 reference products involving 12 310 patients were included. In all 7 subgroups, the biosimilars analyzed were indistinguishable from their reference drug on surrogate efficacy. Six reference drug trials were included, involving 1811 patients. On average, biosimilar studies involved more patients than reference drug trials (mean number of patients, 397 vs 302), were more likely to be randomized clinical trials rather than single-group or observational studies (100% [31 of 31] vs 50% [3 of 6]), and were more likely to be double blind rather than open label (84% [26 of 31] vs 17% [1 of 6]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that the biosimilars for the cancer drugs in this sample were subjected to rigorous clinical evaluations, and the results were statistically indistinguishable from those of original products across drugs, cancer types, and outcome measures.

Regulatory Evaluation of Biosimilars: Refinement of Principles Based on the Scientific Evidence and Clinical Experience

The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs; also called biosimilars) were adopted by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) in 2009. In 2019, the ECBS considered that a more tailored and potentially reduced clinical data package may be acceptable in cases where this was clearly supported by the available scientific evidence. The goal of this publication is to review the current clinical experience and scientific evidence and to provide an expert perspective for updating the WHO guidelines to provide more flexibility and clarity. As the first step, the relevant guidelines by other regulatory bodies were reviewed in order to identify issues that might help with updating the WHO guidelines. Next, a literature search was conducted for information on the long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars to identify possible long-term problems. Finally, a search for articles concerning the role of clinical studies in the benefit-risk evaluation of biosimilars was conducted. The analysis of other guidelines suggested that the WHO guidelines may need more emphasis on the importance of the state-of-the-art physicochemical and structural comparability exercise and in vitro functional testing. The use of "foreign" reference product will also need clarifications. The value of in vivo toxicological tests in the development of biosimilars is questionable, and the non-clinical part needs revisions accordingly. The concepts of "totality of evidence," "stepwise development," and "residual uncertainty" were applied in the evaluation of the clinical sections of the guideline. The review of long-term safety and efficacy demonstrated the robustness of the current biosimilar development concept. The analysis of the roles of different development phases suggested that the large efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity studies are, in most cases, redundant. The residual uncertainty of safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of biosimilars that has shaped the current regulatory guidelines is now substantially reduced. This will allow the re-evaluation of the non-clinical and clinical requirements of the current WHO main guideline. The shift of the relative impact of the development phases towards physico-chemical and in vitro functional testing will provide a relief to the manufacturers and new challenges to the regulators.

Biochemistry, structure, and cellular internalization of a four nanobody-bearing Fc dimer

VHH stands for the variable regions of heavy chain only of camelid IgGs. The VHH family forms a set of interesting proteins derived from antibodies that maintain their capacity to recognize the antigen, despite their relatively small molecular weight (in the 12,000 Da range). Continuing our exploration of the possibilities of those molecules, we chose to design alternative molecules with maintained antigen recognition, but enhanced capacity, by fusing four VHH with one Fc, the fragment crystallizable region of antibodies. In doing so, we aimed at having a molecule with superior quantitative antigen recognition (×4) while maintaining its size below the 110 kDa. In the present paper, we described the building of those molecules that we coined VHH₂ -Fc-VHH₂ . The structure of VHH₂ -Fc-VHH₂ in complex with HER2 antigen was determined using electronic microscopy and modeling. The molecule is shown to bind four HER2 proteins at the end of its flexible arms. VHH₂ -Fc-VHH₂ also shows an internalization capacity via HER2 receptor superior to the reference anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody, Herceptin®, and to a simple fusion of two VHH with one Fc (VHH₂ -Fc). This new type of molecules, VHH₂ -Fc-VHH₂ , could be an interesting addition to the therapeutic arsenal with multiple applications, from diagnostic to therapy.

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.

Comparative efficacy and safety of trastuzumab biosimilars to the reference drug: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

To assess efficacy and safety of trastuzumab biosimilars in comparison to the reference drug through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Open Grey and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Dichotomous data for efficacy and safety outcomes were pooled to obtain the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-analysis was performed with the Mantel-Haenszel method using Revman 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Eight phase III RCTs including a total of 3913 patients with HER2 + breast cancer were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled results for the comparison of trastuzumab biosimilars to the reference drug showed no differences of objective response rate (ORR) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98-1.12, P = 0.20) or overall survival (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61-1.09, P = 0.17) in the intention-to-treat population, as well as no difference of ORR (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97-1.10, P = 0.30) in the per-protocol population. Similarly, no significant difference was detected in any type of adverse event reported in at least three RCTs, including any serious treatment-emergent adverse effects (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76-1.25, P = 0.83), heart failure (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.69-3.14, P = 0.32), neutropenia (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96-1.15, P = 0.26), and infusion-related reaction (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.89-1.36, P = 0.38).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis provides compelling evidence of clinical comparability between trastuzumab biosimilars and the originator product in terms of both efficacy and safety for the treatment of HER2 + breast cancer.

Efficacy and Safety of Supportive Care Biosimilars Among Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologics are widely used to manage the side effects of cancer treatment (e.g., epoetin alfa is used to treat chemotherapy-induced anemia [CIA] and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors [G-CSFs] are used to treat chemotherapy-induced neutropenia [CIN]). As several patents for biologics used in cancer treatment have expired, a number of companies have developed supportive care biosimilars (e.g., epoetin alfa biosimilar, filgrastim biosimilar, pegfilgrastim biosimilar).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to synthesize current evidence on the efficacy and safety of supportive care biosimilars compared with their reference biologics in oncology.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISI Web of Science and several Chinese databases from their inception dates to December 31, 2018 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or comparative observational studies that compared the efficacy and safety of supportive care biosimilars and their reference biologics in oncology. We pooled results separately for RCTs and observational studies, as such studies involve different patient populations and are designed differently. We pooled binary outcomes using risk ratios (RR) with confidence intervals (CIs) and continuous outcomes using weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% CIs, then conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

We identified 28 studies that compared biosimilars of G-CSF or epoetin alfa: one RCT and five cohort studies (total N = 2816) of epoetin alfa biosimilars, and 13 RCTs and 9 cohort studies (total N = 23,043) of G-CSF biosimilars [corrected]. Despite involving different populations, RCTs and observational studies comparing biosimilars and reference biologics indicated similar efficacy and safety results. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in any efficacy or safety outcomes between any biosimilars and their corresponding original biologics (all p > 0.05). The quality of GRADE evidence of efficacy and safety outcomes was moderate or low. Findings were robust for all prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Existing evidence suggests highly comparable efficacy and safety profiles for supportive care biosimilars and their reference biologics in oncology.