What do oncologists need to know about biosimilar products?

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.

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.

Variability of Biologics and its Impact on Biosimilar Development

This symposium took place during the International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma (ICML) in Lugano, Switzerland, June 2019, and focussed on scientific aspects associated with development and approval of rituximab biosimilars in lymphoma. The symposium began with an overview presented by Dr Cornes detailing the urgent economic need for biosimilars to improve access to these biologic treatments in oncology and other therapy areas. Prof Schellekens, author of the first paper on biosimilars in 2002, discussed how regulatory strategies for biosimilars were shaped, and how these have evolved in the intervening years. Today, the emphasis of biosimilar development is placed on extensive analytical testing to demonstrate a match with the reference medicine at a fundamental level. Clinical testing plays a confirmatory role, removing any residual uncertainty regarding potential clinical differences between biosimilar and reference medicine. Dr Schiestl presented further detail on analytical perspectives on biosimilars. Development of biosimilars is complicated by the inherent variability of biological synthesis techniques employed in the manufacture of biologics. This variability is further increased by ongoing changes to manufacturing processes, which can result in changes in biological activity. Consistent quality is therefore a cornerstone of biosimilar development. Prof Jurczak provided a comprehensive overview of the factors that must be considered during clinical development of a biosimilar. Clinical trials for biosimilars have a confirmatory role in the development process, rather than the pivotal role played by clinical trials for reference medicines. Therefore, these trials have markedly different objectives compared with reference clinical trials, resulting in differences in the chosen endpoints. In biosimilar trials, response endpoints, which provide rapid and sensitive assessments of equivalence, are preferred to survival endpoints, which require large and lengthy trials for adequate evaluation. Prof Jurczak illustrated this using data from the Phase III clinical trials of the Sandoz rituximab biosimilar. In this trial, Sandoz rituximab demonstrated an equivalent response rate to reference rituximab. Increasing economic pressure on healthcare systems means that biosimilars are likely to play an increasing role in the treatment of cancer in coming years, requiring clinicians to increase their familiarity with these important medicines.

Epoetin Biosimilars in the Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia: 10 Years' Experience Gained

High-quality, safe, and effective biosimilars have the potential to increase access to biological therapies worldwide and to reduce cancer care costs. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) was the first regulatory authority to establish legislative procedures for the approval of biosimilars when they published their guidelines on similar biological medicinal products in 2005. Biosimilar epoetins were first approved in 2007, and a wealth of data has been collected over the last decade. Two biosimilar epoetins (under five commercial names) have been approved by the EMA so far. The availability of epoetin biosimilars generated discussion among the oncology community regarding prescribing these products, their efficacy, and their safety. These agents are approved only if they are shown in extensive analytical and clinical testing to have comparable quality, safety, and efficacy to the reference medicine, and real-world studies provide further data that biosimilar epoetins are an effective and well-tolerated option for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia in patients with cancer. Other countries have adopted similar regulatory pathways to those in Europe and have approved epoetin biosimilars. The now extensive European experience with biosimilar epoetins should reassure regulators from other territories.

Epoetin Biosimilars in the Treatment of Renal Anemia: What Have We Learned from a Decade of European Experience?

Biosimilars are biological medicines that are approved via stringently defined regulatory pathways on the basis that comparable safety, efficacy, and quality have been demonstrated to their reference medicine. The advantage of biosimilar drugs is that they may be less expensive than the reference medicine, allowing for greater patient access and cost savings in already stretched healthcare budgets. Biosimilar epoetins have been available in Europe for a decade. Complementing in vitro and preclinical characterization, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies, clinical trials provided the additional data needed to reassure European authorities that biosimilar epoetins were sufficiently similar to the reference epoetin to warrant approval. Post-approval, real-world studies have provided further evidence that biosimilar epoetins are an effective and well-tolerated option for the treatment of renal anemia, with ongoing pharmacovigilance and observational studies monitoring for any unexpected long-term signals that have not been identified in clinical development studies. As the evidence and experience with these products increase, many of the initial concerns are being alleviated. Nephrologists can be increasingly confident that European Medicines Agency-approved biosimilars offer high-quality, affordable, effective alternatives to existing reference medicines used to treat renal anemia, and may help yield cost savings and improve patient access.

Development and 10-year history of a biosimilar: the example of Binocrit®

Patent expirations for several biological products have prompted the development of alternative versions, termed ‘biosimilars’, which have comparable quality, safety and efficacy to a licensed biological medicine (also referred to as the ‘reference’ medicine). The first biosimilars developed in oncology were the supportive-care agents filgrastim and epoetin. Binocrit^® (HX575) is a biosimilar version of epoetin alfa, indicated in the oncology setting for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). The process for development and approval of Binocrit^® as a biosimilar included extensive analytical characterization and comparison with the reference epoetin alfa. This was followed by a clinical development program comprising phase I pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies to show bioequivalence to the reference medicine and a confirmatory phase III study to confirm therapeutic effectiveness in CIA. Since its approval, Binocrit^® has been extensively used and studied in real-world clinical practice. The accumulated data confirm that Binocrit^® is an effective and well-tolerated option for the treatment of CIA in patients with cancer.

A randomized, single-blind, Phase I trial (INVICTAN-1) assessing the bioequivalence and safety of BI 695502, a bevacizumab biosimilar candidate, in healthy subjects

OBJECTIVES

This Phase I trial (INVICTAN®-1) evaluated three-way bioequivalence and safety of BI 695502 a bevacizumab biosimilar candidate, and reference product bevacizumab from two sources (US-approved Avastin®, Genentech; EU-approved Avastin, Roche).

METHODS

Healthy male subjects (N = 91) were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a single intravenous infusion of 1 mg/kg of BI 695502 or US- or EU-approved Avastin. An interim analysis was planned when ~50% of subjects were evaluable for the primary end point to determine if the prespecified criteria for bioequivalence were achieved; if demonstrated, the study could be stopped early. The primary end point was area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of the analyte in plasma from time zero extrapolated to infinity (AUC_0-∞). Other pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters, safety, and in vitro binding affinity were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The interim analysis demonstrated three-way bioequivalence for all comparisons. The confidence intervals around the geometric mean ratios of the primary and secondary PK parameters were within the predefined acceptance ranges. Study drugs were well tolerated with no clinically relevant differences in safety.

CONCLUSION

BI 695502 and US- and EU-approved Avastin showed three-way bioequivalence with similar safety profile.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01608087.

The Rituximab Biosimilar CT-P10 in Rheumatology and Cancer: A Budget Impact Analysis in 28 European Countries

Introduction

New biosimilars of monoclonal antibodies are anticipated to bring significant cost savings and increase access to treatment. The rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 has recently been approved in Europe in all indications held by reference rituximab (RTX), including rheumatoid arthritis, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We analyzed the budgetary impact of the introduction of CT-P10 into the European Union (EU) for use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and cancer diagnoses, using a budget impact analysis model.

Methods

The model used a base case scenario in which the 1-year uptake of CT-P10 was estimated at 30%, and the cost of CT-P10 was assumed to be 70% of the cost of RTX. A second 1-year scenario was also modeled, in which the market share of CT-P10 was assumed to be 50% (scenario 2). Finally, 3-year time horizon outcomes were calculated, in which the market share of CT-P10 was assumed to be 30%, 40%, and 50% in the first, second, and third years, respectively.

Results

In the base case scenario, the introduction of CT-P10 was associated with projected savings of €90.04 million in the first year, which would allow 7531 additional patients to access rituximab treatment. This was equivalent to a 6.4% increase in the number of rituximab-treated patients. In scenario 2, budget savings were €150.10 million, with a total of 12,551 additional patients able to access rituximab, equivalent to a 10.7% increase. Over a 3-year time horizon, projected budget savings were approximately €570 million, equating to 47,695 additional patients able to access rituximab.

Conclusions

The model predicted that the introduction of CT-P10 in the EU will be associated with significant budget savings, the reallocation of which will enable many more patients to access rituximab treatment. This is likely to have a significant impact on health gains at patient and societal levels.

Funding: CELLTRION Healthcare Co., Ltd. sponsored the development and analysis of the budget impact analysis model.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-017-0522-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.