Are Biosimilars the Future of Oncology and Haematology?

Tailoring Neoadjuvant Therapy in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Early Breast Cancer: Recent Advances and Strategies

Neoadjuvant HER2 Therapy: Beyond one-size-fits-all.

A non-interventional, post-marketing surveillance study evaluating the safety and effectiveness of biosimilar rituximab (CT-P10) during routine clinical practice in the Republic of Korea

BACKGROUND

CT-P10 was the first licensed rituximab biosimilar. This Korean post-marketing surveillance study evaluated CT-P10 safety and effectiveness in approved indications.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This prospective, open-label, observational, phase 4 study collected routine clinical practice data across 27 centers in the Republic of Korea. Patients received their first CT-P10 treatment, per prescribing information, for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), or microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) during the surveillance period (16 November 2016-15 November 2020). Safety (including adverse events [AEs] and adverse drug reactions [ADRs]) and disease-specific clinical response (by best overall response [NHL/CLL], Disease Activity Score in 28-joints [RA], or Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score for Wegener's Granulomatosis [GPA/MPA]) were assessed for ≤1 year (NHL/CLL) or ≤24 weeks (RA/GPA/MPA).

RESULTS

The safety population comprised 677 patients (604 NHL, 16 CLL, 42 RA, 7 GPA, 8 MPA). AEs/ADRs were reported for 68.4%/27.7% (NHL/CLL), 31.0%/14.3% (RA), and 86.7%/13.3% (GPA/MPA) of patients. Serious AEs and unexpected ADRs did not raise new safety signals. Pneumonia was the most frequent serious ADR overall. Positive effectiveness outcomes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings were consistent with the known CT-P10/reference rituximab safety profile, with high effectiveness observed in NHL/CLL and RA.

Factors influencing bioequivalence evaluation of insulin biosimilars based on a structural equation model

Objective: This study aimed to explore the factors affecting the bioequivalence of test and reference insulin preparations so as to provide a scientific basis for the consistency evaluation of the quality and efficacy of insulin biosimilars.

Methods: A randomized, open, two-sequence, single-dose, crossover design was used in this study. Subjects were randomly divided into TR or RT groups in equal proportion. The glucose infusion rate and blood glucose were measured by a 24-h glucose clamp test to evaluate the pharmacodynamic parameters of the preparation. The plasma insulin concentration was determined by liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to evaluate pharmacokinetic parameters. WinNonlin 8.1 and SPSS 23.0 were applied for PK/PD parameter calculation and statistical analysis. The structural equation model (SEM) was constructed to analyze the influencing factors of bioequivalence by using Amos 24.0.

Results: A total of 177 healthy male subjects aged 18–45 years were analyzed. Subjects were assigned to the equivalent group (N = 55) and the non-equivalent group (N = 122) by bioequivalence results, according to the EMA guideline. Univariate analysis showed statistical differences in albumin, creatinine, Tmax, bioactive substance content, and adverse events between the two groups. In the structural equation model, adverse events (β = 0.342; p < 0.001) and bioactive substance content (β = −0.189; p = 0.007) had significant impacts on the bioequivalence of two preparations, and the bioactive substance content significantly affected adverse events (β = 0.200; p = 0.007).

Conclusion: A multivariate statistical model was used to explore the influencing factors for the bioequivalence of two preparations. According to the result of the structural equation model, we proposed that adverse events and bioactive substance content should be optimized for consistency evaluation of the quality and efficacy of insulin biosimilars. Furthermore, bioequivalence trials of insulin biosimilars should strictly obey inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure the consistency of subjects and avoid confounding factors affecting the equivalence evaluation.

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.

Biosimilars: Science, Implications, and Potential Outlooks in the Middle East and Africa

Biosimilars are biological products that efficiently replicate the function of the originator products. They have changed the prognosis of millions of patients with many serious conditions. The main engine beyond their development is to bring competition into the marketplace, accordingly further the healthcare systems' sustainability. Furthermore, by lowering financial obstacles to biological treatments, biosimilars play a critical role in budgetary redistribution and, hence, promote better allocation of scarce healthcare resources. Today, biosimilars have become a substantial component of effective biological therapies anywhere in the world. Alike, most Middle East and African countries are encouraging the domestic biosimilars industry, and the whole region is aware of the biosimilars' importance. However, constraints to increasing biosimilars uptake should be addressed.

Drug cost avoidance analysis of cancer clinical trials in Spain: a study on cost contributors and their impact

Objective

Analyze the cost contributors and their impact on the drug cost avoidance (DCA) resulting from cancer clinical trials over the period of 2015–2020 in a tertiary-level hospital in Spain (HCUVA).

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study of a total of 53 clinical trials with 363 patients enrolled. We calculated the DCA from the price of the best standard of care (i.e.: drugs that the institution would otherwise fund). A linear regression model was used to determine cost contributors and estimate their impact.

Results

The total DCA was ~ 4.9 million euros (31 clinical trials; 177 enrollees), representing ~ 30% and ~ 0,05% approximately of the annual pharmaceutical expenditures at the HCUVA and for the Spanish Health System, respectively. Cancer type analysis showed that lung cancer had the highest average DCA by trial, indicating that treatments in these trials were the most expensive. Linear regression analysis showed that the number of patients in a trial did not significantly affect that trial's DCA. Instead, cancer type, phase trials, and intention of treatment were significant cost contributors to DCA. Compared to digestive cancer trials, breast and lung trials were significantly more expensive, (p < 0.05 and p < 0.1, respectively). Phase III trials were more expensive than Phase II (p < 0.01) and adjuvant trials were less expensive than palliative (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

We studied cost contributors that significantly impacted the estimated DCA from cancer clinical trials. Our work provides the groundwork to explore DCA contributors with potential to enhance public relations material and serve as a negotiating tool for budgeting, thus playing an important role to inform decisions about resource allocation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08222-9.

A Developer's Perspective on Clinical Evidence and Benefits for Rituximab Biosimilar Uptake, with a Focus on CT-P10

To date, four rituximab biosimilars have received regulatory approval from the European Medicines Agency and/or US Food and Drug Administration. CT-P10 was the first rituximab biosimilar to be approved by each agency, in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Regulatory approval of CT-P10 followed demonstration of pharmacokinetic equivalence to the reference product in a phase I study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Phase III pivotal studies of CT-P10 subsequently demonstrated equivalence or non-inferiority of pharmacokinetics and efficacy between CT-P10 and reference rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, advanced-stage follicular lymphoma, and low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma. Almost 5 years after its initial regulatory approval, significant real-world experience has accumulated with CT-P10 use, particularly in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, one of the indications approved by extrapolation. This article summarises the pivotal data underlying regulatory approval for the four licensed rituximab biosimilars, before focusing on real-world data gathered with CT-P10. These data provide further support for the safety and effectiveness of CT-P10 and should boost healthcare professional and patient confidence in its use. Pharmacoeconomic analyses support the potential healthcare system cost savings offered by rituximab biosimilar uptake, which could lead to improved patient access to biologic treatments. Opportunities arising from biosimilar uptake extend further, potentially enabling innovative investigator-led research and therapeutic advances.

Analytical similarity as base for rituximab biosimilars in lymphoid malignancies in the clinic: a PF-05280586 case study

The availability of biosimilars in oncology has provided an opportunity for increased patient access to biologic therapies. However, healthcare professional perceptions concerning the relatively limited clinical data sufficient to support their regulatory approval may contribute to varied uptake and use. We review key aspects of the development program for the rituximab biosimilar PF-05280586 (Ruxience™) that supported its approval for lymphoid malignancies, to illustrate the rationale for an abbreviated clinical program. In particular, we describe the extensive analytical assessment, comprising sensitive techniques that established similarity with the reference product in key product attributes, underlying structure, function, potency, safety and quality, which formed the foundation for a successful development program, culminating in a confirmatory comparative clinical trial in patients with follicular lymphoma.

Health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health technology assessment (HTA) should provide an assessment of a technology's effects on health and of the related social, economic, organisational and ethical issues. HTA reports on biosimilars can specifically assess their immunogenicity, their extrapolation to one or more conditions, and the risks of interchangeability and substitution. We aimed to complete a scoping review within the context of HTA organisations to synthesise HTA reports on biosimilars and to map the extension, scope and methodological practices.

MAIN BODY

A scoping review methodology was applied. The sources for biosimilars HTA reports were database searches and grey literature from HTA organisation websites up to June 2019. HTA reports of biosimilars were classified as full HTA, mini-HTA or rapid reviews. Data were extracted and recorded on a calibrated predefined data form. We identified 70 HTA reports of biosimilars of 16 biologic products (65.71% in 2015-2018) produced by 13 HTA organisations from 10 countries; 2 full HTAs, 4 mini-HTAs and 64 rapid reviews met the inclusion criteria. Almost all the rapid reviews gave no information regarding any evidence synthesis method and approximately half of the rapid reviews did not appraise the risk of bias of primary studies or the overall quality of evidence. All full-HTAs and mini-HTAs addressed organisational, ethical, social and legal considerations, while these factors were assessed in less than half of the rapid reviews. The immunogenicity and extrapolation of one or more conditions were often considered. The majority of full-HTAs and mini-HTAs contained an assessment of switching and a discussion of an educational approach about biosimilars. No HTA report rejected the adoption/reimbursement of the biosimilar assessed.

CONCLUSION

HTA of biosimilars are emerging in the context of HTA organisations and those that exist often duplicate reports of the same biosimilar. Most HTA reports of biosimilars do not conduct a systematic literature review or consider economic issues. No report has rejected the adoption/reimbursement of biosimilars. There is a need to standardise the minimum criteria for the development of HTA on biosimilars to ensure a better understanding and better decision-making.