Rituximab biosimilar RTXM83 versus reference rituximab in combination with CHOP as first-line treatment for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a randomized, double-blind study

Quality of life assessment in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in REFLECT: a prospective, non-interventional, multicenter, German study, assessing Sandoz rituximab in combination with CHOP

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data are important indicators of health status in patients with lymphoma. The objective of this analysis was to assess the impact of treatment with Sandoz rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) on HRQoL in treatment-naïve adult patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) included in the prospective, real-world REFLECT study. REFLECT is the first prospective study to assess HRQoL in patients with DLBCL treated with a rituximab biosimilar. HRQoL was assessed via the patient-reported European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life questionnaire at baseline, mid-treatment (month 3), end of treatment (month 6), and follow-up (months 9 and 12). Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the influence of baseline characteristics on HRQoL, and associations between baseline HRQoL and treatment response. HRQoL was assessed in 169 patients. Mean global health status score remained stable from baseline (54.8) to mid-treatment (month 3; 54.7), before steadily improving through to end of treatment (month 6; 61.4), and follow-up month 9 (64.9) and month 12 (68.8). Similar trends were observed across most functional and symptom subscales. Higher cognitive, physical, or role functioning, and less appetite loss, diarrhea, fatigue, or pain at baseline, were all associated with an improved likelihood of reaching a complete versus partial response at the end of treatment. Overall, these findings confirm the HRQoL benefits of R-CHOP therapy in treatment-naïve adult patients with DLBCL, and suggest that baseline HRQoL may be predictive of treatment response.

Monoclonal antibody biosimilars for cancer treatment

Monoclonal antibodies are important cancer medicines. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved 48 and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 56 anticancer monoclonal antibody-based therapies. Their high prices burden healthcare systems and hamper global drug access. Biosimilars could retain costs and expand the availability of monoclonal antibodies. In Europe, five rituximab biosimilars, six trastuzumab biosimilars, and eight bevacizumab biosimilars are available as anti-cancer drugs. To gain insight into the biosimilar landscape for cancer treatment, we performed a literature search and analysis. In this review, we summarize cancer monoclonal antibodies' properties crucial for the desired pharmacology and point out sources of variability. The analytical assessment of all EMA-approved bevacizumab biosimilars is highlighted to illustrate this variability. The global landscape of investigational and approved biosimilars is mapped, and the challenges for access to cancer biosimilars are identified.

Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of Rituximab Biosimilar RTXM83: A Retrospective Extension Study in Brazilian Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

INTRODUCTION

RTXM83, a biosimilar of rituximab, was approved after physicochemical, functional, non-clinical, and clinical studies demonstrated their similarity; these studies included RTXM83-AC-01-11, a multicentric double-blind international prospective pivotal study. Long-term data on biosimilars can potentially elucidate their clinical robustness and facilitate their broader adoption.

METHODS

In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed a dataset from a Brazilian cohort previously randomized in the RTXM83-AC-01-11 study followed by the assessment of long-term outcomes in an observational extension phase from randomization in the RTXM83-AC-01-11 study to the last recorded evaluation. Patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) received either reference rituximab (R) or RTXM83 plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) as adjuvant treatment.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 77.0 months. Patients with initial DLBCL stages III and IV comprised 50% of the R-CHOP group and 40% of the biosimilar group. Five (18.5%) patients, including two RTXM83-CHOP-treated and three R-CHOP-treated individuals, experienced late adverse events (AEs) of interest. No new safety signs were established. At the final assessment, the progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 93.3% and 50.0% in the RTXM83-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively. Median PFS was not achieved in the RTXM83-CHOP group, which was 40.5 months in the R-CHOP group. The overall survival (OS) rates were 100% and 66.7% in the RTXM83-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively. The median OS was not reached in any group.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the long-term safety and effectiveness of RTXM83 in treating DLBCL; outcomes comparable to those of the reference product and potentially improved access to treatment have been indicated. However, further research with more diverse patient groups can validate these findings and advocate the broader adoption of biosimilars in cancer care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04928573. June 16, 2021, "retrospectively registered".

An evaluation of the utilisation of biosimilar monoclonal antibody drugs in Ireland and barriers to their usage

BACKGROUND

While biologic drugs have demonstrated efficacy across a range of indications, patient access to these drugs is constrained due to their high cost. Biosimilars provide a means to increase patient access while reducing the financial burden.

AIMS

The primary objective was to determine the current usage of biosimilar and reference trastuzumab and rituximab in four Irish hospitals. A secondary objective involved determining barriers to biosimilar usage.

METHODS

This project involved a retrospective chart review to analyse the usage of reference and biosimilar versions of trastuzumab and rituximab. Additionally, a prospective cross-sectional study identified barriers to the usage of biosimilars via the distribution of a novel questionnaire to patients, pharmacists, doctors and students.

RESULTS

The utilisation of biosimilar intravenous trastuzumab and rituximab ranged from 39 to 100%, and 0 to 89%, respectively. A total of n = 479 questionnaire responses were included. Biosimilar awareness was significantly lower among 'Doctors and Medical Students' (45.3%; 95% [CI, 33.8-57.3%]) compared to 'Pharmacists and Pharmacy Students' (97.1%; 95% [CI, 94-98.8%; comparison p < 0.001]). A significant majority of healthcare professionals agreed biosimilars should have consistent nomenclature (p < 0.001). A significant majority of patients (87.3%, 95% [CI, 81.3-92%; p < 0.001]) indicated that they would agree to commence using a biosimilar medicine.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilar versions of trastuzumab and rituximab were in use to a variable extent. There remains a considerable opportunity to further increase the usage to maximise their potential benefits. A series of challenges were identified including reduced awareness among the medical profession and lack of clear nomenclature.

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.

REFLECT: prospective multicenter non-interventional study evaluating the effectiveness and safety of Sandoz rituximab (SDZ-RTX; Rixathon®) in combination with CHOP for the treatment of patients with previously untreated CD20-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Background

REFLECT is the first prospective study of Sandoz biosimilar rituximab (SDZ-RTX) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Objective

To evaluate the 2-year effectiveness and safety of SDZ-RTX as first-line treatment for DLBCL.

Design

Real-world, multicenter, open-label, single-arm, non-interventional, post-approval study of SDZ-RTX in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in patients with treatment-naïve CD20‑positive DLBCL.

Methods

Treatment-naïve, CD20-positive adult patients (⩾18 years) with DLBCL eligible for therapy with R-CHOP were treated with SDZ-RTX-CHOP every 2 or 3 weeks for 6-8 cycles. The effectiveness of SDZ-RTX was measured by the complete response (CR) rate at the end of R-CHOP treatment, as assessed by the treating physician. Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed at 24 months.

Results

A total of 169 patients [52.1% female, median (range) age 70 (24-94) years] with DLBCL were included in the full analysis set. At baseline, 19.5% and 24.3% of patients had Ann Arbor disease stage III or IV, respectively, and most patients (80.5%) had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 0 or 1. A total of 100 (59.2%) patients completed the 24-month observation period. In total, 110 [65.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 57.4-72.3] patients achieved CR as best response and 50 (29.6%; 95% CI: 22.8-37.1) patients achieved partial response. Overall best response rate was 94.7% (95% CI: 90.1-97.5). One-year PFS was 84.9% (95% CI: 78.2-89.6), while 2-year PFS was 78.5% (95% CI: 70.9-84.4); median PFS was not reached within the observational period. A total of 143 (84.6%) patients experienced ⩾1 adverse event, 53 (31.4%) of which were suspected to be related to study drug.

Conclusion

This real-world, 2-year study reconfirms that first-line treatment of CD20-positive DLBCL with R-CHOP using SDZ-RTX is effective and well tolerated.

Registration

N/A.

Adverse event reporting of marketed biosimilar and biological monoclonal antibody cancer treatments in the United States

BACKGROUND

By 8 September 2022, 10 biological monoclonal antibody (mAb) biosimilar products for cancer treatment had been approved and marketed in the United States (US). This study examined adverse event (AE) reporting patterns and disproportionate reporting signals for mAb biosimilars in the US compared to their originator biologics.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The US Food and Drug Adverse Event Reporting System database was used to identify AE reports for biological rituximab, bevacizumab, trastuzumab, and their marketed biosimilars. Proportions of patient age, sex and type of reporters of AEs were described for these reports. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to compare reporting disproportionality in serious, death, and specific AEs between mAb biologics/biosimilars (index) and all other drugs. Breslow-Day statistic was used to determine homogeneity in RORs between each mAb biologic-biosimilar pair at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

We observed no risk signals of serious or death AE reporting for all three mAb biosimilars. A signal of disproportionate reporting of death was detected between biological and biosimilar bevacizumab (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the similarity in signals of disproportionate AE reporting between mAb originator biologics and biosimilars, except for death between biological and biosimilar bevacizumab.

Rituximab biosimilar for the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a phase 3 randomized study in India

PURPOSE

Very few studies have demonstrated the rituximab biosimilarity in terms of efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in India. Therefore, we compared the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and immunogenicity of our biosimilar rituximab with the reference rituximab (Ristova, Roche products [India] Pvt. Ltd) in patients with DLBCL in India.

METHODS

A phase 3, randomized, assessor-blind, parallel-group, two-arm study was conducted across 28 sites in India. A total of 153 newly diagnosed DLBCL patients were randomized to receive either biosimilar rituximab or reference rituximab. The study drugs were administered at a dose of 375 mg/m² by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks for six cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at the end of Cycle 6. Secondary end points included: pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety assessment.

RESULTS

The ORR at the end of Cycle 6 was 82.14% in the biosimilar rituximab and 85.71% in the reference rituximab group. The risk difference (90% CIs) was - 3.57 (- 14.80, 7.66). It met the non-inferiority margin of - 20%. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters were comparable between the two treatment groups. The incidence rate of immunogenicity was very low and similar in both the treatment groups. The safety profile of both the treatments was comparable with no major difference in terms of nature, frequency and severity of TEAEs.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated the biosimilarity between the biosimilar rituximab and the reference rituximab. Our biosimilar rituximab could add to the cost-effective treatment alternatives for patients with DLBCL in India.

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.

Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in Chile: The Impact of Combined CHOP Plus Rituximab in the Public Health System

PURPOSE

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common lymphoma subtype. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical features, prognostic factors, and results of DLBCL that was treated in the cancer centers of the public health system in Chile and compare cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) with rituximab with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients age > 15 years who were treated in 18 cancer centers in the country between 2001 and 2017 were included. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate overall survival (OS), and Cox proportional hazard regression modeling was used to evaluate the effect of the addition of rituximab to CHOP on OS.

RESULTS

A total of 1,807 patients were evaluated. The median age at diagnosis was 62 (range, 15-95) years, with a female predominance (53%). Half of the patients were age ≥ 60 years. Serology for HIV infection was positive in 5% of cases (96 cases). International Prognostic Index scores were available for 90% of patients, of which 45% had low-risk, 25% low-intermediate-risk, 18% high-intermediate-risk, and 11% high-risk scores. CHOP was administered to 986 patients (55%; median follow-up, 13.2 years) and R-CHOP to 821 patients (45%; median follow-up, 8.4 years). R-CHOP was associated with superior OS compared with CHOP (5-year 66% v 48%, and 10-year 53% v 35%; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Rituximab improved the survival of patients with DLBCL diagnosed and treated in Chile. The benefit was sustained over time, with curative rates of > 50%. This intervention shows that the inclusion of this biological drug justified the expenses incurred by the Ministry of Health in the National Lymphoma Protocols in Chile.

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.

Rituximab biosimilar HLX01 versus reference rituximab in the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: Real-world clinical experience

INTRODUCTION

HLX01 is the first rituximab biosimilar produced in China and the first monoclonal antibody biosimilar marketed in China. The purpose of this study was to comprehensively evaluate whether HLX01 is clinically consistent with the original drug based on real-world data to provide evidence for the clinical substitution of biosimilars in China.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective study was conducted to select patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who met the inclusion criteria and were treated with HLX01 or reference rituximab. Baseline characteristics, efficacy and safety results were recorded, and the corresponding statistical analysis was performed for various indicators.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma were included and divided into two groups that received HLX01 or reference rituximab. The results showed no significant difference in the overall response rate (86.7% vs. 88.9%; p = 1.000) or complete response rate (46.7% vs. 55.6%; p = 0.889) between the two groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves also showed no significant difference in time-to-event variables between the two groups (log-rank = 0.244). Safety was also comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

HLX01 is a suitable replacement for reference rituximab in the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and is relatively inexpensive, thereby reducing the economic burden of patients. Nevertheless, the conclusion of this study still needs to be further validated by large-sample real-world data and explored for HLX01 in other indications, such as follicular lymphoma.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

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.

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.

Current state and comparison of the clinical development of bevacizumab, rituximab and trastuzumab biosimilars

Monoclonal antibodies are highly complex, large and biologic products with a substantial impact on the clinical management of a variety of diseases including cancer. The expiry of patents for essential monoclonal antibodies in cancer care such as bevacizumab, rituximab and trastuzumab, has prompted the global development of biosimilars to balance the biologics market. However, an understanding of the different approach of biosimilar development compared with its reference medicinal product, especially in the context of clinical trial design and end point selection may help oncologists integrating biosimilars into clinical practice. Herein, we reviewed the clinical development of biosimilars in oncology comparing the available clinical data of proposed biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab and trastuzumab.

Efficacy and Safety of the Biosimilar IBI301 Plus Standard CHOP (I-CHOP) in Comparison With Rituximab Plus CHOP (R-CHOP) in Patients with Previously Untreated Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Phase 3 Trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have limited access to rituximab. IBI301 is a recombinant chimeric murine/human anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and is a candidate biosimilar to rituximab. This study aimed to assess the therapeutic equivalence of IBI301 and rituximab in previously untreated patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial compared IBI301 and rituximab, both plus the chemotherapy of doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vindesine, and prednisone (CHOP), was conducted in 68 centers across China. Eligible patients with untreated CD20 positive (CD20⁺) DLBCL randomly received IBI301 (375 mg/m²) plus the standard CHOP or rituximab (375 mg/m²) plus the standard CHOP for six cycles of a 21-day cycle. The primary end point was the overall remission rate (ORR). Efficacy equivalence was defined if 95% CIs for the ORR difference between the two groups were within a ± 12.0% margin.

RESULTS

Between August 22, 2016, and September 5, 2018, 419 patients were randomly allocated into the IBI301 group (N = 209) and rituximab group (N = 210). In the full analysis set, the ORR was 89.9% and 93.8% in the IBI301 and rituximab groups, respectively, and the ORR difference was -3.9% (95% CI - 9.1%-1.3%), falling within a ± 12.0% margin. The occurrences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (100% vs. 99.0%) and AEs of grade ≥ 3 (87.1% vs. 83.3%) were similar in the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

IBI301 had a non-inferiority efficacy and a comparable safety compared with rituximab. IBI301 plus CHOP could be suggested as a candidate treatment regimen for untreated patients with CD20⁺ DLBCL.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02867566).

Rituximab in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Background

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most frequent non-Hodgkin lymphoma worldwide. The current standard of care is chemoimmunotherapy with an R-CHOP regimen. We aim to review the role of this regimen after two decades of being the standard of care.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review of DLBCL, including the epidemiology, trials defining R-CHOP as the standard of care, as well as dose intensification and dose reduction schemes. Additionally, we briefly review the development of rituximab biosimilars and the addition of targeted drugs to R-CHOP in clinical trials.

Discussion

R-CHOP cures approximately 70% of DLBCL patients. Dose-dense regimens do not show a benefit in response and increase toxicity. Dose reduction, particularly in elderly patients or with comorbidities, may be a treatment option. DLBCL constitutes a group of diseases that activate different biological pathways. Matching specific treatments to a defined genetic alteration is under development. Rituximab biosimilars have become available to a broader population, particularly in developing countries, where access to treatment is limited because of economic resources.

Conclusion

DLBCL landscape is heterogeneous. R-CHOP immunochemotherapy has been a standard of care for two decades and cures approximately 70% of cases. Molecular characterization of patients is evolving and may have critical therapeutic implications.

Real-world intensive safety monitoring of biosimilars rituximab and trastuzumab in a Portuguese oncology hospital

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the safety profiles of two biosimilar medicines (rituximab and trastuzumab) in the treatment of cancer patients within a Portuguese oncology hospital.

METHODS

This hospital-based prospective observational study followed a cohort event monitoring approach focused on signalling suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Patients undergoing treatment with rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 (Truxima®) or trastuzumab biosimilar CT-P6 (Herzuma®) were recruited over an 11-month and a 6-month period, respectively. Clinicians identified eligible patients and used paper-based forms to report all ADRs associated with biosimilar medicines. ADR case reports were assessed for seriousness, expectedness and causality in the Pharmacovigilance Unit of Coimbra.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients received biosimilar medicines (rituximab, n = 35; trastuzumab, n = 59). Of those, 4 patients (11.4%) experienced 16 ADRs with rituximab and 1 patient (1.7%) experienced 5 ADRs with trastuzumab. All case reports contained serious and expected ADRs that were at least probably related with biosimilar medicines under study. Based on the MedDRA PT coding, the most reported ADR for rituximab CT-P10 was chest discomfort (n = 4; 19.1%), followed by odynophagia (n = 2; 9.5%). Trastuzumab CT-P6 was associated with back pain, headache, pain in extremity, tachypnoea and tremor (each, n = 1; 4.8%).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that using biosimilar rituximab and biosimilar trastuzumab to treat cancer patients in the real-world clinical setting is associated with acceptable safety profiles. No new safety problems were identified.

Treatment management of haematological malignancies in people living with HIV

Although the incidence of HIV-associated lymphomas decreased after the introduction of effective combination antiretroviral therapy, they became the most common AIDS-related cancer in high-income countries. Moreover, as people living with HIV live longer, a wide range of non-AIDS-related cancer has emerged, including other haematological malignancies. Nonetheless, combination antiretroviral therapy has offered people with HIV the opportunity to receive the same therapies as those provided to the general population, and intensive curative therapies have become the standard. However, several population-based studies highlight a major health-care disparity between people with HIV and those without, with people who are HIV positive often excluded from using innovative therapies and participating in prospective trials. In addition, patients from low-income countries frequently receive inappropriate treatment. The hope is that with increased awareness of effective curative options these disparities will decrease, and people with HIV will be given the same therapeutic opportunities and enrolled in clinical trials alongside patients who are HIV negative.

A Clinical Review of Biosimilars Approved in Oncology

Objective

To summarize and review the clinical data of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved biosimilars for use in treatment of cancer and the current challenges health care institutions face when implementing a newly approved biosimilar.

Data Sources

A literature search of the following databases was performed between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2019: PubMed, Google, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Search terms included the words biosimilar, bevacizumab, rituximab, and/or trastuzumab.

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Only primary literature on biosimilars with an ongoing or completed phase 3 trial and/or FDA approval were included in the final analysis. Primary literature consisted of peer-reviewed publications, published abstracts, and any results posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

Data Synthesis

Clinical trials of FDA-approved biosimilars for bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab showed no significant differences with respect to efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics when compared with their reference products.

Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice

The anticipated growth of biologics in oncology and the recent introduction of biosimilars over the past few years have placed a lot of emphasis on biosimilars as a significant source of cost savings for the health care system. Our article compiles and analyzes existing data on biosimilar efficacy, safety, and financial impact.

Conclusions

The major concerns of biosimilars revolve around their long-term efficacy and safety. Even with many questions to be answered, biosimilars have the potential for significant cost savings in the US health care system.

Rituximab biosimilars for lymphoma in Europe

Introduction: The approval of rituximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting CD20, revolutionized the treatment of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas and became an undisputed standard of care. However, as with all biologic medicines, the complex development and manufacturing process for rituximab have meant that the medicine attracts high treatment costs. Approved rituximab biosimilars have been comprehensively demonstrated to match the reference medicine. With the potential to increase access to biologic therapy, they have a key role in helping to improve patient outcomes in lymphoma care. Areas covered: In this review, we discuss the role of rituximab in the treatment of lymphoma. We explore development and regulatory requirements for biosimilar development and the potential impact of these medicines on access and sustainability. Focusing on biosimilars of rituximab, we examine in detail the evidence for biosimilarity for the two rituximab biosimilars that are approved in Europe and provide an overview of rituximab biosimilars currently in development. Expert opinion: We foresee a wider uptake of biosimilar medicines for lymphoma treatment over the next 5 years. The associated cost savings should be invested in broadening patient access to biological therapies, enabling wider use of more expensive treatment strategies and driving innovation in cancer care.