Comparing granulocyte colony–stimulating factor filgrastim and pegfilgrastim to its biosimilars in terms of efficacy and safety: A meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials in breast cancer patients

Achieving white blood cell equity: are the safety profiles of biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastims comparable?

Biosimilars can provide choices for patients and may provide cost savings; however, their uptake has been slow in the USA, in part due to limited knowledge. To provide additional confidence in US pegfilgrastim biosimilars, this narrative review compared the safety profiles of biosimilar pegfilgrastims, currently approved or filed for approval in the USA, with the EU- and US-approved reference pegfilgrastims. Headache and bone pain were common to biosimilars and reference products and occurred at a similar incidence. Clinical trial data on the safety profiles of biosimilar pegfilgrastims and reference products have demonstrated similarity and comparability, with no unexpected safety outcomes. Overall, the safety profiles of biosimilar pegfilgrastims and reference pegfilgrastims demonstrated a high degree of similarity and comparability.

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.

The Real-World Experience of the Biosimilar (Grastofil®) to the Reference Biologic (Neupogen®) in Breast Cancer and Lymphoma: A Canadian Single-Centre Retrospective Study

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common side effect of cytotoxic chemotherapy that may result in poor treatment outcomes. The short acting granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) act to stimulate granulocytes to increase production of white blood cells. The filgrastim biosimilar is useful, as it may provide a cheaper and equally effective treatment to FN. This study explored the usage of the filgrastim biosimilar (Grastofil^®) and the reference biologic (Neupogen^®) in breast cancer and lymphoma patients. A retrospective chart review of patients receiving Grastofil^® from January 2017 to June 2019 or Neupogen^® for primary prophylaxis of FN from January 2013 to December 2017 was conducted. The endpoints included the incidence of FN and the occurrence of dose reduction (DR) and dose delay (DD). One hundred and fifty-three Grastofil^® patients were matched to 153 Neupogen^® patients. This cohort was further split into breast cancer (n = 275) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (n = 31) cohorts. After adjusting for chemotherapy cycles, the biosimilar filgrastim was non-inferior to the reference biologic based on FN incidence in addition to related outcomes including DR and DD.

Prophylaxis and management of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: The role of myeloid growth factors

Febrile neutropenia is a serious chemotherapy-related adverse event that can lead to complications and death and it could be a significant burden on the organization of the health care system. The risk for febrile neutropenia is determined by chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression and the presence of patient-related risk factors. In the literature, various patient-related risk factors are taken into consideration. It was suggested that the patient age is the one of the most important ones. If the estimated risk for the febrile neutropenia is high, prophylactic use of myeloid growth factors (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor) is recommended. In patients with solid tumors and lymphomas it was shown that the prophylactic use of myeloid growth factors significantly reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia, early mortality during chemotherapy and infection-induced mortality. In patients who develop febrile neutropenia, there is less evidence for the therapeutic use of myeloid growth factors compared to prophylactic use, although there is a clear benefit in reducing the time to neutrophil count recovery. There is a clear benefit for hospitalized patients, also, in reducing duration of hospitalization. In patients with febrile neutropenia who have not been previously treated with prophylactic myeloid factors, assessment of risk factors for the complications is advised. In patients with high-risk febrile neutropenia therapeutic use of growth should be considered.

Phase I/II study to assess the clinical pharmacology and safety of single ascending and multiple subcutaneous doses of PF-06881894 in women with non-distantly metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the pharmacodynamics (PD), pharmacokinetics (PK), and safety of single and multiple doses of PF-06881894 (pegfilgrastim-apgf; Nyvepria™), a biosimilar to reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®), in women with non-distantly metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

In Phase I (Cycle 0) of this Phase I/II study, the PD response (absolute neutrophil count [ANC]; CD34 + count), PK profile, and safety of a single 3- or 6-mg subcutaneous dose of PF-06881894 were assessed in chemotherapy-naïve patients before definitive breast surgery. In Phase II (Cycles 1-4), the PD response (duration of severe neutropenia [DSN, Cycle 1], ANC [Cycles 1 and 4]) and PK profile (Cycles 1 and 4) of single and multiple 6-mg doses of PF-06881894 concomitant with chemotherapy and after definitive breast surgery were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients (mean age 59 years) were enrolled (Cycle 0, n = 12; Cycles 1-4, n = 13). In Cycle 0, PD responses and PK values were lower with 3-mg versus 6-mg PF-06881894. In Cycles 1 and 4, mean DSN was 0.667 days after single or multiple 6-mg doses of PF-06881894, respectively. In Cycle 4 versus Cycle 1, PD responses were more robust; PK values (mean area under the curve, maximum concentration) were lower; and clearance values were higher. The safety profile of PF-06881894 was similar to that for reference pegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSION

PF-06881894 as a single 3- or 6-mg dose prior to definitive surgery, or multiple 6-mg/cycle doses postoperatively, with/without myelosuppressive chemotherapy, was consistent with the clinical pharmacology and safety profile of reference pegfilgrastim.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

October 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02650193. EudraCT Number: 2015-002057-35.

Efficacy and Safety of Filgrastim and Its Biosimilars to Prevent Febrile Neutropenia in Cancer Patients: A Prospective Study and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

Febrile neutropenia is the serious side-effect associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Filgrastim, the first granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of neutropenia. Subsequently, pegfilgrastim (long-acting G-CSF) and filgrastim biosimilars were developed to have comparable efficacy to filgrastim. Therefore, it is necessary to produce a systematic review and meta-analysis that provides evidence that filgrastim is more efficacious than placebo/no-treatment, as it provides evidence on the comparable efficacy of filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim and biosimilar filgrastim.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to identify, assess, meta-analyze and summarize the comparative effectiveness and safety of filgrastim in head-to-head trials with placebo/no treatment, pegfilgrastim (and biosimilar filgrastim to update advances in the field. Methods: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses PRISMA statement were applied, and a random-effect model was used. Primary endpoints were the rate and duration of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, and an incidence rate of febrile neutropenia. Secondary endpoints were time to absolute neutrophil count ANC recovery, depth of ANC nadir (lowest ANC), neutropenia-related hospitalization and other neutropenia-related complications. For filgrastim versus biosimilar filgrastim comparison, the primary efficacy endpoint was the mean difference in duration of severe neutropenia DSN. Results: A total of 56 studies were considered that included data from 13,058 cancer patients. The risk of febrile neutropenia in filgrastim versus placebo/no treatment was not statistically different. The risk ratio for febrile neutropenia was 0.58, a 42% reduction in favor of filgrastim. The most reported adverse event with FIL was bone pain. For pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim, no statistically significant difference was noted. The risk ratio was 0.90 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.12). The overall difference in duration of severe neutropenia between filgrastim and biosimilar filgrastim was not statistically significant. The risk ratio was 1.03 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.13). Conclusions: Filgrastim was effective and safe in reducing febrile neutropenia and related complications, compared to placebo/no treatment. No notable differences were found between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim in terms of efficacy and safety. However, a similar efficacy profile was observed with FIL and its biosimilars.

BBCIC Research Network Analysis of First-Cycle Prophylactic G-CSF Use in Patients Treated With High-Neutropenia Risk Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is prevented or minimized with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs). Several G-CSF biosimilars are approved in the United States. The Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) is a nonprofit initiative whose objective is to provide scientific evidence on real-world use and comparative safety and effectiveness of biologics and biosimilars using the BBCIC distributed research network (DRN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We describe real-world G-CSF use in patients with breast or lung cancer receiving first-cycle chemotherapy associated with high FN risk. We assessed hospitalizations for FN, availability of absolute neutrophil counts, and G-CSF-induced adverse events to inform future observational comparative effectiveness studies of G-CSF reference products and their biosimilars. A descriptive analysis of 5 participating national health insurance plans was conducted within the BBCIC DRN.

RESULTS

A total of 57,725 patients who received at least one G-CSF dose were included. Most (92.5%) patients received pegfilgrastim. FN hospitalization rates were evaluated by narrow (<0.5%), intermediate (1.91%), and broad (2.99%) definitions. Anaphylaxis and hyperleukocytosis were identified in 1.15% and 2.28% of patients, respectively. This analysis provides real-world evidence extracted from a large, readily available database of diverse patients, characterizing G-CSF reference product use to inform the feasibility of future observational comparative safety and effectiveness analyses of G-CSF biosimilars. We showed that the rates of FN and adverse events in our research network are consistent with those reported by previous small studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Readily available BBCIC DRN data can be used to assess G-CSF use with the incidence of FN hospitalizations. Insufficient laboratory result data were available to report absolute neutrophil counts; however, other safety data are available for assessment that provide valuable baseline data regarding the effectiveness and safety of G-CSFs in preparation for comparative effectiveness studies of reference G-CSFs and their biosimilars.

Meta-analysis of Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Results of 3 Phase 1 Studies with Biosimilar Pegfilgrastim

A meta‐analysis using data from 3 phase 1 studies evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of Sandoz biosimilar versus US‐ and EU‐reference pegfilgrastim. The studies included a single‐dose, double‐blind, 3‐arm, parallel‐group study (study 1); a single‐dose, double‐blind, 2‐way crossover study (study 2); and a single‐dose, double‐blind, 3‐way, 6‐sequence crossover study (study 3). Healthy male and female subjects were randomized to receive the proposed biosimilar (all studies), US‐reference biologic (studies 1 and 3), or EU‐reference biologic (studies 1, 2, and 3). For PK parameters (area under the serum concentration–time curve from time of dosing and extrapolated to infinity, area under the serum concentration–time curve from the time of dosing to the last measurable concentration, and maximum observed serum concentration) and PD parameters (absolute neutrophil count area under the effect curve from the time of dosing to the last measurable concentration and maximum measured absolute neutrophil count) geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for treatment comparisons were calculated using the meta‐analysis approach with a fixed‐effects model. PK/PD biosimilarity was concluded if the 90%CIs were within the equivalence margins of 0.80 to 1.25. The 90%CIs for the geometric mean ratios for the PK/PD parameters were all within the equivalence margins. Safety and tolerability were similar between the proposed biosimilar and the US‐ and EU‐reference pegfilgrastim in healthy subjects. This meta‐analysis of 3 phase 1 studies supports PK/PD similarity of Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim to US‐ and EU‐reference pegfilgrastim. No clinically meaningful differences in safety or tolerability were observed.

Anti-cancer therapy made easier: a 25-year update

In 1993, the Internal Medicine Journal published ‘Chemotherapy made easier’, outlining developments in supportive care of patients undergoing chemotherapy. This described the contemporary state of anti‐emetics, colony stimulating factors, cardiac toxicity, neurotoxicity, development of drug analogues and venous access devices. Twenty‐five years later, we update the measures that improve the tolerability of the plethora of new anti‐cancer therapies, which have extended well beyond traditional chemotherapy agents to include immunotherapy and targeted therapies. Optimisation of supportive care is paramount to allow safe delivery with the least possible impact on quality of life of these new treatments, many of which have resulted dramatically improved outcomes across multiple cancer types. This state of the art update summarises advances in supportive care therapies relating to improving the patient experience during and after anti‐cancer treatment, including new anti‐emetics, hair preservation techniques, bone marrow support and improved venous access devices; the ongoing challenge of neurotoxicity; and the advent of multidisciplinary sub‐specialised fields such as cardio‐oncology and oncofertility. Supportive care medications for immuno‐oncology therapies is a new section; these highly effective (although not universally so) agents were a mere illusion in 1993.

Can biosimilar products be interchangeable? Pharmaceutical perspective in the implementation of biosimilars in oncology

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety in the interchangeability of biosimilar products approved for cancer treatment from a pharmaceutical perspective.

METHODS

A literature review was carried out using the descriptors "Biosimilar", "Oncology Therapy", "Interchangeable drugs" and "Biological Products", in the Sciencedirect, MEDLINE, and CAPLUS databases.

RESULTS

Fifty-one articles were selected, which addressed the importance of establishing standards that prove the efficacy and safety of biosimilars with reference products, as well as the growing interest of the pharmaceutical industry in the development of biosimilars and the impact on costs and changes in the perspective of the treatment of cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

As they are large and complex molecules, it is impossible to obtain identical copies of their reference products, which generates conflicts and concerns on the part of the pharmaceutical class regarding the safety in the interchangeability of these products, highlighting the importance of pharmacovigilance in this process.

Is PEGylated G-CSF superior to G-CSF in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

PEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a safe alternative to G-CSF to improve chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). This superiority has resulted in its increased use by physicians; however, the superiority of PEGylated G-CSF for CIN in breast cancer has not been conclusively determined.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the superiority of PEGylated G-CSF for CIN in breast cancer in terms of effectiveness and safety via a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed for eligible studies published from database inception to December 2019. All studies comparing PEGylated G-CSF and G-CSF for CIN of breast cancer were reviewed. After literature selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was conducted using Revman, version 5.2.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials were finally identified. The publication bias of these studies was acceptable. For the endpoint of effectiveness, analysis of the incidence/duration of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, the duration of grade 4 neutropenia, the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), and the time to absolute neutrophil count recovery showed no advantage of PEGylated G-CSF over G-CSF for CIN of breast cancer (P > 0.05), with the premise of a sufficient dose of G-CSF according to the guidelines. No significant differences in grade 4 adverse events were observed between the groups (P = 0.29), and PEGylated G-CSF did not increase the incidence of skeletal and/or muscle pain compared with G-CSF (P = 0.32).

CONCLUSION

PEGylated G-CSF was as effective and safe as G-CSF to reduce CIN in breast cancer but did not show an obvious superiority. However, in clinical practice, PEGylated G-CSF has an obvious advantage in terms of convenience, which could improve patient's quality of life.

Efficacy and safety of two pegfilgrastim biosimilars: Tripegfilgrastim and pegteograstim

Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of two recently developed biosimilars of pegfilgrastim, a pegylated form of the recombinant human granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor (G‐CSF) analog filgrastim with those of the reference pegfilgrastim. We retrospectively analyzed data from patients diagnosed with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who were treated with first‐line R‐CHOP chemotherapy and received pegylated G‐CSF for primary prophylaxis. The following pegylated G‐CSFs were analyzed in this study: reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta^®) and two of its biosimilars (tripegfilgrastim; Dulastin^® and pegteograstim; Neulapeg^®). In total, 296 patients were enrolled. The number of patients with at least one episode of neutropenia during R‐CHOP chemotherapy was the lowest in the reference cohort (pegfilgrastim: 127 of 193 patients, 65.8%; tripegfilgrastim: 64 of 69 patients, 92.8%; pegteograstim: 28 of 34 patients, 82.4%, P < .001). The number of patients with at least one episode of febrile neutropenia was also lowest in the reference cohort (pegfilgrastim: 67 of 193 patients, 34.7%; tripegfilgrastim: 38 of 69 patients, 55.1%; pegteograstim: 16 of 34 patients, 47.1%, P = .009). There were no differences in the duration of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia or treatment outcomes (rate of complete response or relapse and survival). There were no reports of grade 3 or higher adverse events requiring discontinuation of prophylactic pegylated G‐CSF in any group. The safety of the pegfilgrastim biosimilars for prophylactic purposes was comparable to that of the reference pegfilgrastim; however, in terms of their efficacy, the incidence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia tended to be higher than that when using pegfilgrastim. The clinical relevance of these results in the biosimilar cohorts should be explored.

Towards a comprehensive safety understanding of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor biosimilars in treating chemotherapy associated febrile neutropenia: Trends from decades of data

Filgrastim, a biopharmaceutical listed on WHO model list of essential medicines, was approved in USA in 1991 for patients with non-myeloid malignancies associated with severe neutropenia and fever. Several filgrastim biosimilars have now been approved in USA, Europe and elsewhere since 2008, based on the reference product which has lost patent exclusivity; however their immunogenicity and safety is controversial. We conducted a retrospective, post market study between 1991 and May 2018 using VigiBase®. The study included all adverse events with case reports ≥150. Overall, 11,183 adverse drugs reaction reports were identified during observation period; of which 5764; 51.5% reports concerned to Neupogen®, the originator, and rest consists of Leucostim® (N = 680), Zarzio® (N = 622), Grasin® (N = 545), Nivestim® (N = 359) and Tevagrastim® (N = 152) biosimilars. When compared with the originator, Grasin® was associated with higher reporting of pyrexia (11.5% vs 7.9%, ROR 1.52, IC₀₂₅ 1.12), myalgia (37% vs 2.2%, ROR 25.94, IC₀₂₅ 2.11) and back pain (11.3% vs 4%, ROR 3.09, IC₀₂₅ 2.32). Zarzio® was associated with increased reporting of arthralgia (4.5% vs 2.9%, ROR 1.59, IC₀₂₅ 1.25) and neutropenia (11.4% vs 4%, ROR 2.59, IC₀₂₅ 3.07). Bone pain was reported more often with Nivestim® (14.4% vs 8.3%, ROR 1.87, IC₀₂₅ 5.30). Drug ineffectiveness was reported in cases with Zarzio® (35.9%), Nivestim® (19.4%) and Tevagrastim® (42.2%). Authors observed significant differences among originator and biosimilars in particular to efficacy, adverse events reported and time to onset of occurrences. Large epidemiologic studies are needed to further confirm these finding and provide additional insights.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilar Rituximab and Originator Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rituximab is a biologic medicine widely used for the treatment of autoimmune diseases and lymphoma. Several biosimilars of rituximab have been developed and marketed with the expiration of the originator rituximab's patent; thus, systematic combination and analysis of the latest data on the efficacy and safety of biosimilars and the demonstration of the interchangeability of biosimilar agents are required.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to collate available data from head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and evaluate the efficacy and safety of biosimilar rituximab compared with the reference drug in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL).

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify head-to-head RCTs that directly compare the efficacy and safety of biosimilar rituximab and its originator. The efficacy outcome for RA was the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates and the outcome for NHL was the response rate. The occurrence of adverse events (AEs) and anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) were evaluated for the safety outcome. Data on the pharmacokinetic profile were also included as a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Eleven head-to-head RCTs with 3163 patients were included (1744 patients with RA and 1419 patients with NHL). Biosimilars of rituximab showed similar efficacy in the clinical response in both RA and NHL. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of the ACR 20% response rate (ACR20) response in patients with RA at weeks 24 and 48 was 0.99 (p = 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.06) and 1.04 (p = 0.73, 95% CI 0.83-1.31), respectively. The pooled RR of the overall response at week 24 in NHL patients was 1.02 (p = 0.31, 95% CI 0.98-1.07). No significant differences were found in the formation of ADAs (RR 0.86, p = 0.20, 95% CI 0.68-1.08) or AEs (RR 1.04, p = 0.30, 95% CI 0.97-1.12).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and conventional meta-analysis demonstrated the overall similarity of the long-term efficacy and safety of biosimilar rituximab to those of originator rituximab in RA and NHL patients by combining direct evidence from head-to-head trials. PROSPERO registration No. CRD42019125138.

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.

Safety analysis of proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar in Phase I and Phase III studies

Aim: This analysis compares safety data for Sandoz proposed biosimilar (LA-EP2006) and reference pegfilgrastim from a Phase I pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study in healthy volunteers (HVs) and two Phase III confirmatory studies in patients with breast cancer (BC; total n = 808). Patients & methods: Baseline characteristics were summarized, and event rates of bone pain and headache calculated. Results: HVs in the Phase I pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study were generally younger, with lower mean body mass index, versus BC patients in PROTECT-1/-2. Bone pain was the most frequent adverse event with similar incidences with reference versus proposed biosimilar in all studies. Conclusion: No differences in adverse events were found between Sandoz proposed biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastim, notwithstanding some differences between HVs and BC patients.

Proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim shows similarity in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics to reference pegfilgrastim in healthy subjects

AIMS

This study aimed to demonstrate that the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profile of Sandoz proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006) matches reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta® ) in healthy subjects. Safety and immunogenicity were also assessed.

METHODS

The phase I, randomized, double-blind, two-period crossover study consisted of two treatment periods separated by an 8-week washout period. Healthy subjects aged 18-45 were randomized to either proposed biosimilar/reference pegfilgrastim or reference pegfilgrastim/proposed biosimilar. Proposed biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastim were administered on Day 1 of each treatment period (single 6 mg subcutaneous injection). Blood samples for PK/PD analysis were taken predose and ≤336 h postdose. PK/PD similarity was claimed if 90% (PK) and 95% (PD) confidence intervals (CI) for geometric mean ratios of the area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) from time of dosing and extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-inf ), or to the last measurable concentration (AUC0-last ), maximum observed serum concentration (Cmax ), absolute neutrophil count (ANC) area under the effect curve from the time of dosing to the last measurable concentration (AUEC0-last ) and ANC maximum effect attributable to the therapy under investigation (Emax ) were completely contained within the predefined margin (0.8 to 1.25).

RESULTS

Overall, 169 subjects completed the study. PK/PD similarity was demonstrated; 90% CIs of geometric mean ratio of proposed biosimilar/reference for PK: AUC0-inf (1.0559-1.2244), AUC0-last (1.0607-1.2328), Cmax (1.0312-1.1909) and 95% CIs for PD (ANC): AUEC0-last (0.9948-1.0366), Emax (0.9737-1.0169) were completely contained within predefined margin of 0.8 to 1.25. Both biologics had similar safety profiles, were well tolerated and had low incidence of anti-drug antibodies. No neutralizing or clinically relevant antibodies were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

PK/PD similarity of Sandoz proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim and reference pegfilgrastim was confirmed. No clinically meaningful differences in safety, tolerability and immunogenicity were observed in healthy subjects.