Similar and mimics: Latin America biosimilar regulations

Biosimilar Versus Originator Pegfilgrastim for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia: A Phase III Randomized, Multicenter, Evaluator-Blinded, Noninferiority Study

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilar pegfilgrastim (PegFilBS) and originator pegfilgrastim (PegFilOR) in patients with stage 2-4 breast cancer.

METHODS

This phase III randomized, multicenter, evaluator-blinded, noninferiority study recruited women with stage 2-4 breast cancer in Argentina who were scheduled to receive chemotherapy. Stratification was based on the breast cancer stage. The primary end point was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN, noninferiority margin: 1 day) in the first chemotherapy cycle. Secondary end points assessed were incidence of severe neutropenia, grade 3 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, infections, postchemotherapy hospitalization and duration, and the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned to receive PegFilBS (58 patients) or PegFilOR (62 patients). Severe neutropenia occurred in 52 of 283 cycles (18.4%) for 27 patients who received PegFilBS and in 48 of 297 cycles (16.2%) for 20 patients who received PegFilOR (P = .48). During the first cycle, severe neutropenia occurred in 16 patients who received PegFilBS (DSN: 0.78 ± 1.53 days) and in 11 patients who received PegFilOR (DSN: 0.53 ± 1.25 days; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.76 days). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean DSN values were 0.90 ± 1.79 days for the PegFilBS group and 0.50 ± 1.21 for the PegFilOR group (95% CI, -0.15 to 0.95 days). No significant differences were observed for the secondary efficacy end points. Three patients experienced seven ADRs in the PegFilBS group while 10 patients experienced 31 ADRs in the PegFilOR group. The most common ADR was myalgia.

CONCLUSION

Relative to PegFilOR, PegFilBS provided noninferior efficacy outcomes in Argentinian women with stage 2-4 breast cancer who were treated using myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of Biosimilar Etanercept (Enerceptan) Versus Its Original Form in Combination With Methotrexate in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized, Multicenter, Evaluator-Blinded, Noninferiority Study

BACKGROUND

Enerceptan (EtaBS) has been developed as a proposed biosimilar of etanercept.

METHODS

This randomized, multicenter, evaluator-blinded, noninferiority study conducted in Argentina included adults with active, moderate, and severe rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to methotrexate. Subjects were randomly assigned to 32 weeks treatment with EtaBS (n = 99) or etanercept (n = 51) at a weekly 50-mg dose administered subcutaneously. Patients were categorized according to prior use of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and concomitant use of steroids. The primary efficacy endpoint was ACR20 response rate at week 32. Safety, immunogenicity, and steady-state concentration of both drugs were evaluated. The noninferiority margin for ACR20 was estimated at 12%.

RESULTS

In the per-protocol population, 85 subjects (92.4%) treated with EtaBS and 44 subjects (93.6%) treated with etanercept achieved ACR20 (difference, -1.2%; 95% confidence interval, -10.1% to 7.6%). Frequent adverse drug reactions occurred in 34.3% and 38% of subjects treated with EtaBS and etanercept, respectively. The most common reaction was upper respiratory tract infection. Six and 3 serious adverse events occurred in 4 and 3 subjects treated with EtaBS and etanercept, respectively. Injection site reactions occurred in 67.7% and 66.0% of subjects treated with EtaBS and etanercept, respectively. Two subjects treated with EtaBS and 1 subject treated with etanercept developed antibodies by week 32.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy outcomes for EtaBS were noninferior to original etanercept in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to methotrexate. Safety and immunogenicity results were comparable between the two. This study is a major step toward improving access to biologics in Latin America.