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

Filgrastim biosimilar (EP2006): A review of 15 years' post-approval evidence

Filgrastim is approved for several indications, including reduction of the incidence and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and for stem cell mobilization. The filgrastim biosimilar, EP2006, has been available in Europe since 2009, and in the United States since 2015. In this time, preclinical and clinical data used to support the approval of EP2006 have been published. These data established the biosimilarity of EP2006 to reference filgrastim in terms of structure, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Additional real-world evidence studies have also demonstrated equivalent efficacy and safety of EP2006 compared with reference filgrastim, both in the reduction of neutropenia and in stem cell mobilization in clinical practice. This review summarizes these preclinical, clinical, and real-world data, as well as the available cost-effectiveness data, for EP2006 since its approval 15 years ago.

Comparative Study of Adverse Drug Reactions Associated with Filgrastim and Pegfilgrastim Using the EudraVigilance Database

Simple Summary

The most commonly reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to filgrastim (FIL) and pegfilgrastim (PEG-F) were obtained and analyzed from the European EudraVigilance (EV) database. Frequently reported ADRs for FIL and PEG-F are pyrexia, bone pain, back pain, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. No statistical difference in the probability of bone pain between FIL and PEG-F was observed. To further depict the safety of FIL and PEG-F, there is a further need to examine the real-life data.

Abstract

The primary prophylaxis with filgrastim (FIL) and pegfilgrastim (PEG-F) is recommended to decrease the severity of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). The commonly reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) with FIL and PEG-F is bone pain. ADRs pertaining to FIL and PEG-F were extracted from the European EudraVigilance (EV) database. The Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) obtained from EV database that reported FIL and PEG-F as the suspected drug were analyzed. Registered ADRs (from the groups “General disorders and administration site conditions”, “Blood and lymphatic system disorders”, “Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders” and “Investigations”) for FIL and PEG-F were collected from EV database from 2007 to 5 June 2021. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) was used to calculate ICSRs with most common ADRs related to FIL and PEG-F. A total of 17,403 ICSRs described the incidence of most common ADRs of FIL and PEG-F. The commonly reported ADRs for both drugs were pyrexia, bone pain, back pain, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. The odds ratio of ICSRs belonging to the System Organ Class (SOC) “Investigations” (ROR 1.01 (CI 0.93–1.10)) revealed no significant difference in FIL and PEG-F. However, for the SOCs (General disorders and administration site conditions” and “Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders” ((ROR 1.14 (CI 1.06–1.21); ROR 1.21 (CI 1.18–1.32), respectively), an increased reporting probability with PEG-F was found. The authors reported a lower reporting probability for the SOC “Blood and lymphatic system disorders” for FIL versus PEG-F (ROR 0.75 (CI 0.70–0.80)). Our results have demonstrated that the occurrence of bone pain was similar with FIL and PEG-F. For the incidence of pyrexia and back pain, PEG-F was associated with a higher reporting probability as compared to FIL. However, the incidence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia was higher in FIL compared to PEG-F. Further evaluation of data from real life is needed.

Efficacy and immunogenicity of insulin biosimilar compared to their reference products: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To ascertain the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity from existing evidence via conducting a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials between biosimilar and originator insulins.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrails.gov were searched to identify head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compare the efficacy and safety of biosimilar insulin and its originator. Efficacy was assessed by change of HbA1C, fasting plasma glucose (laboratory or self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)), and change all mean of 7 points- or 8 points- SMBG. Safety was assessed by change in proportion hypoglycemia and serious hypoglycemia. The occurrence of anti-insulin antibodies (AIAs) was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs with 6188 patients from different countries were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model and were expressed as the mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI). In efficacy, Insulin biosimilar products showed similar in change of HbA1C at weeks 26 and 52, the MD were 0.03 (95% CI - 0.02 to 0.07, p = 0.28), and 0.05 (95% CI - 0.05 to 0.15, p = 0.36), respectively. The proportion of HbA1C less than 7% at endpoint, the OR were 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.20, p = 0.64). The change of fasting plasma glucose (laboratory or SMBG) mmol/L in 24-52 weeks and change all mean of 7 points-/8 points- SMBG mmol/L in 24-52 weeks, the MD were 0.02 (95% CI - 0.20 to 0.24, p = 0.87) and - 0.34 (95% CI - 1.35 to 0.67, p = 0.51), respectively. In occurrence of hypoglycemia (≥ 1 events) and severe hypoglycemia, the OR were 0.96 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.09, p = 0.52) and 1.06 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.31, p = 0.62). The AIA was 1.02 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.16, p = 0.76). Analysis stratified by type of diabetes and duration of insulin. There was no significant difference between the biosimilar and their reference group in a different type of diabetes and different duration of insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin biosimilar showed comparable characteristics with the reference drug in terms of efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, through comprehensive and specific conventional meta-analysis.

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.

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions in Asians: Trends observed in culprit anti-seizure medicines using VigiBase®

PURPOSE

Diverse ethnic genetic populations display variability in the risk regarding anti-seizure medicine (ASM)-induced severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs). However, clinical and epidemiological data on ASM-induced SCARs in Asians is limited.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, post-market study until April 30, 2020 using VigiBase® for demographic characteristics, causative ASMs, complications and mortality. The study included adverse events as classified by Standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) queries of SCARs, mainly Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), and SJS/TEN overlap reported for ASMs.

RESULTS

A total of 694,811 adverse events were reported across the world while using ASMs. Of this, skin and subcutaneous tissue adverse events were 122,885 (17.6%). Among ASM-induced skin and subcutaneous tissue adverse events, SJS, TEN, DRESS and SJS/TEN overlap represented 11,181 (9.1%), 3,645 (3.0%), 5,106 (4.1%) and 6 (0.004%) cases, respectively. Female SJS/TEN/DRESS patients were 54.1%, and 75% of them were adults (>18Y). Nearly 64% of the ASM-induced SCARs were serious and culminated in death (3.5%), life-threatening conditions (11.5%), and hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization (43.5%) of patients on ASM therapy. Carbamazepine (31.6%), phenytoin (29.6%), lamotrigine (24.3%), valproic acid (6.4%) and phenobarbital (5.7%) are the most commonly used ASMs linked with SCARs. ASMs associated with significantly higher risk of SCARs in Asians were carbamazepine [n = 3265, ROR 3.55 (95% CI 3.38-3.72, P < 0.0001)], lamotrigine [n = 1253, ROR 3.90 (95% CI 3.63-4.18, P < 0.0001)], gabapentin [n = 85, ROR 3.58 (95% CI 2.79-4.60, P < 0.0001)], pregabalin [n = 68, ROR 3.16 (95% CI 2.40-4.16, P < 0.0001)], clonazepam [n = 53, ROR 3.19 (95% CI 2.31-4.41, P < 0.0001)], lorazepam [n = 31, ROR 3.07 (95% CI 2.06-4.59, P < 0.0001)] and acetazolamide [n = 28, ROR 3.90 (95% CI 2.45-6.21, P < 0.0001)].

CONCLUSION

Based on our study, carbamazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, pregabalin, clonazepam, lorazepam, and acetazolamide are the most common causative ASMs for SCARs in the Asian population.

Effectiveness of Herbal Medicine for Leukopenia/Neutropenia Induced by Chemotherapy in Adults with Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective:

To evaluate the effectiveness of Chinese Herbal Medicine (CHM) on leukopenia/neutropenia induced by chemotherapy in adults with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods:

Eight electronic databases were searched from their inception to June 2020. Randomized controlled trials with clarified sequence generation were qualified. Two reviewers independently conducted the screening and data extraction. Methodological quality was assessed using the Risk of Bias tool. RevMan 5.4 was applied to the meta-analysis.

Results:

Twenty-seven studies involving 1867 participants were qualified, of which 26 were included in the quantitative synthesis. Meta-analysis showed that CHM significantly reduced the incidence of leukopenia induced by chemotherapy (RR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.59-0.82), as well as the grade 3/4 leukopenia (RR = 0.71; 95% CI 0.55-0.90). Meanwhile,CHM decreased the occurrence of neutropenia (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.35-0.77), especially for the grades 3/4 neutropenia (RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.27-0.64). Twenty-six of the included studies focused on the adverse events related to CHM.

Conclusion:

CHM may relieve neutropenia/leukopenia induced by chemotherapy in adults with colorectal cancer.

Progress in oncology biosimilars till 2020: Scrutinizing comparative studies of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies

Stupendous elevation in the healthcare costs has followed with the inception of the current unconventional options of treatment available for cancer patients. There is a dire need of innovative financing approaches to lessen the financial load on healthcare system. Biosimilars are biological drugs consisting of an active ingredient from a reference biological drug that has a great potential of relieving financial load. Strict requirements from regulatory point of view are required as biosimilars are exceedingly similar to but not identical to the reference product. This provides with a certainty that no consequential differences from clinical point of view as compared to the respective biologics exists with regards to efficacy, safety and purity. Safety and effectiveness of biosimilars have been disclosed since more than 10 years of affirmations. However, there is a need to educate the healthcare professionals to abolish potential misconceptions and coalesce biosimilars into regular clinical practice. The present review focuses on providing an overview of regulatory aspects and requirements for biosimilars, the main challenges in the selection and development of biosimilars and the economic impact and financial savings observed in recent studies carried out in different parts of the world. In addition, we have discussed the different successful comparative studies which have been done in different parts of the world to depict the biosimilarity for monoclonal antibodies such as bevacizumab, trastuzumab and rituximab.

Safety of Marketed Cancer Supportive Care Biosimilars in the US: A Disproportionality Analysis Using the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Database

BACKGROUND

Since the approval and availability of the first biosimilar in 2015 in the United States (US), evidence regarding the post-marketing safety of cancer supportive care biosimilars remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to explore the adverse event (AE) reporting patterns and detect disproportionate reporting signals for cancer supportive care biosimilars in the US compared to their originator biologics.

METHODS

The US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database (January 1, 2004-March 31, 2020) was used to identify AE reports for filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and epoetin alpha by type of product (originator biologics vs. biosimilars) and report characteristics. Plots of AE reports against years were used to reveal the reporting patterns. Disproportionality analyses using reporting odds ratios (RORs) were conducted to detect differences in serious and specific AEs between studied drugs and all other drugs. Breslow-Day tests were used to determine homogeneity between the originator biologic-biosimilar pair RORs for the same AE.

RESULTS

Total numbers of AEs for all studied biosimilars increased after marketing. More AE reports were from female patients for all of the studied drugs. More AEs for originator biologics and filgrastim biosimilar were reported by health professionals, while the highest proportion of reports came from consumers for pegfilgrastim and epoetin alpha biosimilars (29% and 44.1%, respectively). Signals of disproportionate reporting in serious AEs were detected for a pegfilgrastim biosimilar (Fulphila^®) compared to its originator biologic.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the similarity in the signals of disproportionate reporting between cancer supportive care originator biologics and biosimilars, except for Fulphila^®.

Commentary - A comprehensive safety understanding of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor biosimilars and Intended Copy Biologics in treating chemotherapy associated febrile neutropenia

Filgrastim, human white cell growth factor, Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), is a core medicine in the WHO list of Essential Medicines. For this reason, recent reporting of statistically significant safety and efficacy differences between reference and Biosimilar brands of filgrastim by Rastogi and the Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology in 2020 is of great concern [Shruti Rastogi et al. Towards a comprehensive safety understanding of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor biosimilars in treating chemotherapy associated febrile neutropenia: Trends from decades of data. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology Volume 395, 15 May 2020, 114,976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2020.114976]. This commentary shows that the alarming report is a result of incorrect statistical tests misapplied to inappropriate data sets compounded by a further problem relating to the strict regulatory definition of a Biosimilar Medicine as opposed that of an Intended Copy Biologic. In contrast, the body of evidence from more than seven and a half thousand participants in Confirmatory Clinical Studies and Post Approval Clinical Studies as well as the Periodic Safety Update Reports confirms that European approved filgrastim Biosimilars show no meaningful difference in quality, safety or efficacy compared to the reference brand.