Biosimilars: Review of current applications, obstacles, and their future in medicine

Updated efficacy and safety of HLX02 versus reference trastuzumab in metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer: A randomized phase III equivalence trial

AIM

Equivalence between HLX02 and trastuzumab sourced from the European Union (EU-trastuzumab), in combination with docetaxel, was demonstrated in a phase III study. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety data after 3 years of follow-up.

METHODS

Patients with previously untreated, HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer received intravenous HLX02 or EU-trastuzumab (initial dose of 8 mg/kg, followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to 12 months) in combination with docetaxel. Primary endpoint was the overall response rate up to week 24 (ORR24). Secondary endpoints including updated overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), safety and immunogenicity are reported in this long-term follow-up analysis.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up duration of 35.0 months, 270 out of the 649 enrolled patients had died; 128 (39.5 %) in the HLX02 and 142 (43.7 %) in the EU-trastuzumab group. Median OS was 37.3 (95 % CI 36.2, not evaluable [NE]) months and not reached (95 % CI 34.2, NE) (stratified HR 0.86 [95 % CI 0.68, 1.10]; p = 0.229), with a 3-year OS rate of 57.5 % and 54.0 %, respectively. Median PFS at this long-term follow-up assessment was 11.7 (95 % CI 11.5, 12.1) months for the HLX02 group and 10.6 (95 % CI 9.5, 11.7) months for the EU-trastuzumab group (stratified HR 0.86 [95 % CI 0.69, 1.06]; p = 0.158). No new safety concerns were reported until the end of the survival follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Long-term efficacy and safety were consistent with the previous findings. No clinically meaningful differences between HLX02 and reference trastuzumab were demonstrated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinadrugtrials.org CTR20160526 (September 12, 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03084237 (March 20, 2017), EudraCT 2016-000206-10 (April 27, 2017).

An analysis of the trends in the usage of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme-subsidised cancer drugs in Australia from 2012 to 2022

PURPOSE

Cancer treatment remains a significant and escalating healthcare expense worldwide. Although annual reports on total cancer care costs are available, the potential impact of evolving treatment guidelines and the introduction of new drugs on future budgeting remains largely uncertain. The aim of this study was to examine the trends in the use of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS)-subsidised cancer drugs in Australia over the past decade.

METHODS

PBS codes for all PBS-subsidised cancer drugs that were listed in government-endorsed treatment protocols were obtained and used to retrieve usage data. Their patterns of use, represented by the number of prescriptions (services) processed by Services Australia, were analysed for the period between 2012 and 2022.

RESULTS

The overall prescribing of cancer drugs is outpacing Australia's population growth, primarily due to an ageing population and the accelerated rise in cancer diagnoses observed over the past decade. From 846 eviQ protocols, 141 cancer drugs were available on the PBS, of which kinase inhibitor (39 drugs) and monoclonal antibody drugs (24 drugs) had the highest increase in use during the study period; 16% and 23% respectively. Of the 8 drug classes, hormonal agents (20 drugs) were the most prescribed.

CONCLUSION

The utilisation of PBS-listed cancer drugs is increasing faster than population growth, especially for high-cost monoclonal antibody and kinase inhibitor drugs, indicating continued pressure on government spending.

Effectiveness and safety of GnRH antagonist originator and generic in real-world clinical practice: a retrospective cohort study

Objective

This study aims to determine whether the live birth rates were similar between GnRH antagonist original reference product Cetrotide® and generic Ferpront®, in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS).

Methods

This retrospective cohort study investigates COS cycles utilizing GnRH antagonist protocols. The research was conducted at a specialized reproductive medicine center within a tertiary care hospital, spanning the period from October 2019 to October 2021. Within this timeframe, a total of 924 cycles were administered utilizing the GnRH antagonist originator, Cetrotide® (Group A), whereas 1984 cycles were undertaken using the generic, Ferpront® (Group B).

Results

Ovarian reserve markers, including anti-Mullerian hormone, antral follicle number, and basal follicular stimulating hormone, were lower in Group A compared to Group B. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance these markers between the groups. After PSM, baseline clinical features were similar, except for a slightly longer infertile duration in Group A versus Group B (4.43 ± 2.92 years vs. 4.14 ± 2.84 years, P = 0.029). The duration of GnRH antagonist usage was slightly longer in Group B than in Group A (6.02 ± 1.41 vs. 5.71 ± 1.48 days, P < 0.001). Group B had a slightly lower number of retrieved oocytes compared to Group A (14.17 ± 7.30 vs. 14.96 ± 7.75, P = 0.024). However, comparable numbers of usable embryos on day 3 and good-quality embryos were found between the groups. Reproductive outcomes, including biochemical pregnancy loss, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rate, did not differ significantly between the groups. Multivariate logistic regression analyses suggested that the type of GnRH antagonist did not independently impact the number of oocytes retrieved, usable embryos, good-quality embryos, moderate to severe OHSS rate, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, or live birth rate.

Conclusion

The retrospective analysis revealed no clinically significant differences in reproductive outcomes between Cetrotide® and Ferpront® when used in women undergoing their first and second COS cycles utilizing the GnRH antagonist protocol.

Treatment persistence and switching patterns of ABP 501 in European patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Background

Approval of the adalimumab (ADA) biosimilar ABP 501 for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) indications was based on the principle of extrapolation, without indication-specific clinical trial data.

Objectives

To evaluate the real-world treatment patterns of ABP 501 in patients with IBD.

Design

Retrospective analysis of pharmacy claims data from Germany and France.

Methods

Continuously insured adult IBD patients who initiated ABP 501 between October 2018 and March 2020 were included. Treatment persistence, adherence, and post-ABP 501 switching patterns were evaluated for two mutually exclusive groups: ADA-naïve patients (i.e. no baseline use of ADA products) and ADA-experienced patients (i.e. previously treated with ADA products).

Results

A total of 3362 German patients and 733 French patients were included, with 54.4% and 65.3% being ADA-naïve patients, respectively. Median persistence (95% CI) on ABP 501 was 10.9 months (9.8-11.6) in ADA-naïve patients and 14.2 months (12.7-15.2) in ADA-experienced patients in Germany; for the French cohort, ADA-naïve and -experienced patients had median persistence of 12.8 months (10.2-14.7) and 11.5 months (8.8-14.4), respectively. During the first 12 months of ABP 501 initiation, 53.7% of German patients and 51.0% of French patients were adherent to the therapy. About 20% of patients in both countries switched from ABP 501 to another targeted therapy. In the German cohort, ADA-naïve patients most frequently switched to non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitor biologics, but ADA-experienced patients most commonly switched to reference product (RP); in the French cohort, patients most often switched to RP regardless of prior exposure to ADA products.

Conclusion

About 50% of patients persisted on and were adherent to ABP 501 therapy during the first 12 months after treatment initiation in two large European countries. Post-ABP 501, switching patterns varied between countries, indicating diversified treatment practices warranting further research on reason(s) for switching and potential overall treatment outcomes.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients Receiving Originator Follitropin Alfa and Follitropin Alfa Biosimilars in Real-world Clinical Practice: A Retrospective Study

Background

Biosimilar drugs have broadened the treatment options in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Real-world data comparing clinical outcomes of originator follitropin alfa (Gonal-f®) with its biosimilars are required to enrich the body of evidence for clinical decision-making on choice of drug.

Aims

To compare the ART outcomes in patients receiving originator follitropin (Gonal-f®) and its biosimilars in clinical setting.

Settings and Design

Medical records of 364 infertile women who underwent ART between 2016 and 2020 at Akanksha Hospital and Research Institute, Gujrat, India, were retrospectively analysed.

Materials and Methods

Participants were divided into two cohorts based on treatment (Gonal-f® cohort; N = 174 and biosimilar cohort; N = 190), each cohort further subdivided into group A (age <35 years) and group B (age ≥35 years). Fresh or frozen embryo transfer was performed as per the standard procedures of the clinic. Pregnancy rates and live birth rate (LBR) were the primary main outcome measures in this study.

Statistical Analysis Used

Descriptive statistics and Chi-square test were used for analysis.

Results

The number of oocytes retrieved from Gonal-f® and biosimilar cohorts were comparable (13.3 vs. 14.4). Compared to biosimilars, Gonal-f® treatment resulted in higher yield of cleavage stage and blastocyst stage embryos, and the proportion of women with good quality embryos was higher in the Gonal-f® cohort than the biosimilar cohort (83.3% vs. 69.5%). Patients receiving Gonal-f® reported higher pregnancy rates (59.2% vs. 39.7%) and LBR (43% vs. 17.7%) compared to those receiving biosimilars.

Conclusions

Gonal-f® (originator follitropin) treatment could result in higher pregnancy rates and LBR in comparison to biosimilars in real-world setting.

A Pharmacoeconomic Outlook of the Biological Drugs Marketed in India: A Cost Variance Analysis

Introduction Biologic drugs are used to treat various illnesses like autoimmune diseases, cancers, hormonal irregularities, anemia, etc., and to prevent various diseases as vaccines. Though various biologic drugs are already available, they are still not within reach of the common man due to financial constraints. Through many search engines, studies evaluating the cost variation of different brands of biologics were investigated; however, only a few studies that address this problem were found. Hence, this study was planned with the objective of addressing the cost variation of various brands of biologic medicines available in the Indian market. Methods The website for the Current Index of Medical Specialties (CIMS) for India's location was used to obtain the prices of the different brands of biologic medicines in Indian National Rupee (INR) currency, which different manufacturers market with identical forms in strength and dosage. The percentage cost variation and cost ratio were calculated with the help of the minimum and maximum prices of various brands of biologic drugs. Results The prices of biologics belonging to six different classes that are available in 23 formulations were analyzed. The highest cost variability was shown by pegfilgrastim 6 mg at 1,022.92%, and the minimum-cost variation was shown by darbepoetin alfa 200 mcg at 13.07%. Conclusion Our research found a vast variance in the costs of various brands of biologic medicines in India. The government should address this cost variation problem by developing various policies, such as breaking the monopoly of manufacturers, providing tax incentives to nonprofit generic medicine manufacturers, and incorporating more biologic drugs under the protection of the Drugs Prices Control Order (DPCO).

Biosimilars in Oncology: Latest Trends and Regulatory Status

Biologic-based medicines are used to treat a variety of diseases and account for around one-quarter of the worldwide pharmaceutical market. The use of biologic medications among cancer patients has resulted in substantial advancements in cancer treatment and supportive care. Biosimilar medications (or biosimilars) are very similar to the reference biologic drugs, although they are not identical. As patent protection for some of the most extensively used biologics begins to expire, biosimilars have the potential to enhance access and provide lower-cost options for cancer treatment. Initially, regulatory guidelines were set up in Europe in 2003, and the first biosimilar was approved in 2006 in Europe. Many countries, including the United States of America (USA), Canada, and Japan, have adopted Europe's worldwide regulatory framework. The use of numerous biosimilars in the treatment and supportive care of cancer has been approved and, indeed, the count is set to climb in the future around the world. However, there are many challenges associated with biosimilars, such as cost, immunogenicity, lack of awareness, extrapolation of indications, and interchangeability. The purpose of this review is to provide an insight into biosimilars, which include various options available for oncology, and the associated adverse events. We compare the regulatory guidelines for biosimilars across the world, and also present the latest trends and challenges in medical oncology both now and in the future, which will assist healthcare professionals, payers, and patients in making informed decisions, increasing the acceptance of biosimilars in clinical practice, increasing accessibility, and speeding up the health and economic benefits associated with biosimilars.

Determination of functional similarity of biosimilar H9P2S from an investigational CHO clone with Adalimumab

Biosimilars, which are replicas of innovator pharmaceuticals, constitute the most significant share of biopharmaceutical products. These products are associated with structural and manufacturing complexities and are hence considered as similar to innovator drugs. Adalimumab is a monoclonal antibody that has been approved by the US FDA for blocking TNF-α. Adalimumab, also known as Humira, is preferred over other anti-TNF-α mAbs because of its lower immunogenicity and enhanced clinical efficacy. As cost-effective mAb development is still a challenging area, we developed an in-house stable CHO-K1 cell line for the production of recombinant monoclonal mAb against TNF-α. This clone yielded H9P2S, as a biosimilar against TNF-α, for which several functional assays were conducted to prove its biosimilarity to Adalimumab. Two batches of H9P2S and their subsequent dilutions were compared with Adalimumab. H9P2S and Adalimumab showed highly similar TNF-α binding and neutralizing activities, confirming the suitability of our clone for yielding biosimilar drugs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13205-022-03384-z.

Identification of Barriers Preventing Biosimiliar Oncology Medication Adoption

(1) Background: A biosimilar is a biologic medical product that has been approved by the United States Food and Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and is an almost identical copy of an original biologic product yet manufactured by a different company. Biosimilars are often assumed to be the same as generic medications, while often made from living organisms. Through clinical trials, biosimilars have been shown to be both as safe and as effective as their originator products. Biosimilars have also proven they can reduce the costs to both insurance companies and patients in many circumstances. However, despite their cost savings, biosimilar manufacturers continue to face barriers in having oncologists and cancer centers prescribe them for their patients. This review aims to identify barriers associated with medical provider prescriptive behaviors related to biosimilars for patients. (2) Methods: Reviewers analyzed 27 articles and identified common themes. (3) Results: After a thorough literature review, the researchers identified seven barriers to prescribing of biosimilars: physician comfort in originators instead of biosimilars, patient reluctance to switch from a current biologic to a biosimilar, provider profits associated with an originator biologic, lack of stakeholder education on biosimilars, lack of provider team knowledge of biosimilars, lack of knowledge surrounding the biosimilar FDA approval process, and hesitancy to stock multiple drugs for a specific indication. (4) Conclusions: This review's findings of identified barriers to use of biosimilars provides insight for healthcare providers and organizations surrounding prescribing practices and potential treatment benefits for cancer patients who may benefit from biosimilar treatment medications.

Understanding US Physician and Pharmacist Attitudes Toward Biosimilar Products: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars account for 30-40% of biologic medications dispensed in the United States (US), yet healthcare providers in relevant medical specialties have limited awareness of biosimilars and their characteristics. Likewise, many providers perceive biosimilars as less safe and effective than original biologics and are more comfortable prescribing original biologics to patients.

METHODS

We conducted in-person focus groups at three clinical sites in California and Texas (n = 49) to explore the reasons behind US healthcare providers' limited understanding of, cautious attitudes toward, and reluctance to prescribe biosimilars. We conducted thematic analysis by having three researchers independently analyze verbatim transcripts and identify patterns in provider responses.

RESULTS

Providers' limited knowledge of and cautious attitudes toward biosimilars are driven by uncertainty about how biosimilarity is defined and operationalized as well as negative past experiences with generic drugs that did not perform as well as branded counterparts. Additionally, healthcare providers are unfamiliar with the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) approval pathway for biosimilars and are skeptical that an abbreviated approval process is rigorous enough to ensure biosimilars deliver the same efficacy and have the same side effect profiles as original biologics. Physicians also expressed concerns about pharmacy substitution of biosimilars and interchangeables, explaining they would be unaware of which medication was ultimately given to their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Educating physicians and pharmacists about biosimilars-including how biosimilarity is defined and operationalized, the structure of the biosimilar approval process, and how analytical data can ensure biosimilar safety and efficacy-will be important for reducing healthcare providers' concerns and increasing biosimilar adoption in the US.

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.

Trastuzumab in breast cancer treatment: the Era of biosimilars

BACKGROUND

The discovery of trastuzumab as anti-HER2 therapy markedly improved disease control and the survival rates of patients with HER2+ breast cancer. However, as trastuzumab is considered a complex molecule, the cost of production is usually elevated, which significantly affects health budgets and limits the treatment access for patients who live in underdeveloped countries. Recently, trastuzumab production became more accessible and sustainable due to the patents' expiration, allowing biosimilar versions of trastuzumab to be developed.

OBJECTIVE

Our main goal was to shed more light on the uses of biosimilars in breast cancer treatment, emphasizing trastuzumab.

METHOD

An integrative review was carried out in the PubMed, Scielo, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases using the terms "biosimilar," "breast cancer," "monoclonal antibody," and "trastuzumab." The time range included scientific articles published from 2015 to 2021.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The bibliographic survey showed the complexities in biological medicine manufacturing and how the monoclonal antibody's therapy with trastuzumab improved the patients' life expectancy, revolutionizing HER2+ breast cancer treatment. Nonetheless, despite its benefits, trastuzumab generates certain restrictions, especially from the economic perspective. Trastuzumab biosimilars have high selectivity and rarely cause adverse effects compared to conventional chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that trastuzumab biosimilars improve patients' accessibility to breast cancer treatment through a safe and effective therapy compared to the drug reference.

Long-term data on the proposed adalimumab biosimilar BCD-057 in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: A randomized controlled trial

Introduction

The objective of this study was to demonstrate that BCD-057 is similar to innovator adalimumab (iADA) in terms of efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics in steady state in the target population of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (NCT02762955).

Methods

Patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive 80 mg of BCD-057 or iADA at week 0 and 40 mg thereafter every other week from week 1. At week 24 patients from iADA group were re-randomized (1:1) to continue iADA or to be switched to BCD-057. The primary efficacy endpoint was 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index from baseline (PASI 75), secondary endpoints included PASI percent improvement and relative change in affected Body Surface Area (BSA) from baseline at weeks 16, 24, 33, and 55. Safety was assessed through monitoring of adverse events (AEs) and antidrug antibodies. Pharmacokinetics was evaluated at steady state.

Results

Overall, 346 adult patients were included in the study (174/172 patients in BCD-057/iADA arms, respectively). At week 16 PASI 75 was achieved by 60.34% and 63.37% of patients in BCD-057 and iADA arms, respectively (p = 0.5622). Bounds of the calculated 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between PASI 75 responses in arms [-13.26%; 7.2%] fall within the equivalence margin [-15% to 15%] demonstrating equivalent efficacy of BCD-057 and iADA. At week 55 81.61%, 85.56%, and 80.49% of patients in BCD-057, iADA and iADA/BCD-057 arms achieved PASI 75. Comparison of the secondary endpoints did not show significant differences between arms. A comparable pharmacokinetics was shown at steady state. Safety profiles and proportions of patients with antidrug antibodies were similar between arms. The switch from the iADA to BCD-057 did not affect the immunogenicity profile.

Conclusion

Obtained data demonstrate that BCD-057 and iADA are highly similar in clinical efficacy, pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Tracking the CAR-T Revolution: Analysis of Clinical Trials of CAR-T and TCR-T Therapies for the Treatment of Cancer (1997-2020)

Chimeric antigen receptor and T-cell receptor (CAR-T/TCR-T) cellular immunotherapies have shown remarkable success in the treatment of some refractory B-cell malignancies, with potential to provide durable clinical response for other types of cancer. In this paper, we look at all available FDA CAR-T/TCR-T clinical trials for the treatment of cancer, and analyze them with respect to different disease tissues, targeted antigens, products, and originator locations. We found that 627 of 1007 registered are currently active and of those 273 (44%) originated in China and 280 (45%) in the US. Our analysis suggests that the rapid increase in the number of clinical trials is driven by the development of different CAR-T products that use a similar therapeutic approach. We coin the term bioparallels to describe such products. Our results suggest that one feature of the CAR-T/TCR-T industry may be a robust response to success and failure of competitor products.

Healthcare system conversion to a biosimilar: Trials and tribulations

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

While biologic medications have transformed the care and management of millions of patients, they are a large financial strain on the healthcare system. Biosimilar medications present a great opportunity to improve care affordability. However, despite streamlined approval processes and the potential for cost savings, the acceptance and adaptation of biosimilars have been slow. This descriptive report illustrates the preparation for, challenges, and execution of an enterprise-wide biosimilar conversion within a large healthcare system. The 3 phases of biosimilar conversion utilized at our institution included selection of a biosimilar, pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committee approval, and implementation.

SUMMARY

When selecting a biosimilar, clinical data, medication safety, cost, institutional cost savings, payer coverage, patient assistance programs, and additional patient services should be taken into consideration to ensure patient care is not affected. Understanding and endorsement of biosimilar use by physician leadership, care managers, and pharmacists are crucial before implementation. P&T committee approval with clear delineation of the patient population (naive vs experienced), disease states, and whether the biosimilar would be the preferred medication should be obtained. Transparent communication of clear expectations to patients and coordination with the information technology (IT), contracting, and supply chain departments are necessary before the go-live date. Contracting and IT implementations should ideally take potential changes in biosimilar adaptation into consideration and have enough flexibility to account for these changes. Planned evaluations of patients' experiences with the change to the biosimilar should be incorporated as part of the implementation plan.

CONCLUSION

The barriers to biosimilar adaptation are plentiful. Careful planning, clear communication, and coordination with all affected disciplines can ensure successful biosimilar conversion.

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.

Effect of listing strategies on utilization of antitumor necrosis factor biologics infliximab and etanercept: a cross-sectional analysis from Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND: Use of costly biologic drugs for the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases has increased significantly in recent years. However, biosimilar drugs offer an opportunity to ensure health system sustainability with robust uptake. OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of formulary listing strategies on the use of infliximab and etanercept innovator and biosimilar biologics. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of individuals in Ontario, Canada, dispensed a biologic prescription for infliximab or etanercept through Ontario's public drug program between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2019. Quarterly utilization and costs were forecasted using Holt-Winters' exponential smoothing models to the second quarter (Q2) of 2022. Secondary analyses explored utilization for rheumatic conditions (RC) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). RESULTS: From Q1 2010 to Q2 2019, infliximab and etanercept users increased by 75.7% (n = 4,073 to 7,158), with a forecasted increase of 13.7% (n = 8,142; 95% CI = 7,438-8,847) by Q2 2022. Biosimilar users represented 13.8% (n = 539 of 3,905) of total infliximab users in Q2 2019, although this differed by indication with 6.9% for IBD (n = 187 of 2,712) and 26.6% for RC (n = 203 of 764). Etanercept biosimilar users represented 20.2% (n = 659 of 3,256) of total etanercept users for RC in Q2 2019. Biologics expenditures increased 109.7% during the study, amounting to $49.9 million in Q2 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differing reimbursement restrictions between innovator infliximab and etanercept biologics, the uptake of their biosimilars was low and not noticeably different in the treatment of RC. Dynamic policy strategies are needed to improve the uptake of biosimilars, particularly for IBD. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was contributed by the Ontario Ministry of Health. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A narrative review of biosimilars: a continued journey from the scientific evidence to practice implementation

Biologic agents have revolutionized the management of serious health conditions in the last two decades. The use of “targeted therapy” brings not only better progression free survivals and overall survivals, but also better toxicity profiles and quality of life benefits, compared to empirical palliative chemotherapy. However, given the high cost associated with biologic drugs and the sharp increases in biologic drug utilization, this drug category has significantly raised healthcare cost over the years. A similar phenomenon was previously experienced with branded simple chemical compound drugs, including chemotherapeutic agents, which was largely mitigated by the introduction of a generic approval pathway, decreasing the costs of the drugs, making them more affordable, given to the increase in competition among the drug makers. A similar opportunity presents years later with the completion of the full patent exclusivity period of many biologics. However, the ending of patent exclusivity, although enables more market competition, does not guarantee market penetration. Stakeholders, such as patients, providers and payers, must build trust and confidence in the science of biosimilars and the product specific studies leading to FDA approval in order to incorporate these products to practice and enable the biosimilar market at large to reach the potential to significantly contribute to reductions in drug cost. Dissemination of scientific and emerging biosimilar evidence is paramount in order to support stakeholder informed decision making and enable each to benefit from expanded treatment options. This paper describes the biosimilar development, approval process, and reviews a number of challenges with the marketing implementation of biosimilars.

Process and Clinical Outcomes of a Biosimilar Adoption Program with Infliximab-Dyyb

BACKGROUND

In 2016, the FDA approved infliximab-dyyb (IFX-dyyb) as a biosimilar to infliximab (IFX). Deemed to have comparable efficacy and safety to IFX, IFX-dyyb is 20%-30% less expensive, allowing significant cost savings for institutions and some payers. In 2018, IFX was reported to be the drug with the highest spend since 2013, costing $3.8 billion; however, transition to IFX-dyyb would save $1.1 billion. Regardless, many institutions have not transitioned to IFX-dyyb or other IFX biosimilars (e.g., IFX-abda) because of concerns about clinical outcomes, uncertainty regarding financial impact, and barriers to operationalizing biosimilar adoption. At Boston Medical Center, a decision was made in March 2018 to adopt IFX-dyyb and transition patients who have been on IFX for ≥ 6 months for all indications to IFX-dyyb.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) describe a biosimilar adoption process of IFX-dyyb in patients on IFX for ≥ 6 months; (b) characterize cost savings of transitioning patients to IFX-dyyb; and (c) evaluate real-world clinical outcomes of adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who transitioned to IFX-dyyb.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients eligible for the IFX-dyyb switch from March 2018 to June 2019 at a large academic medical center. For process outcomes, we collected the proportion of patients who transitioned to IFX-dyyb and calculated the cost savings generated. To assess clinical outcomes of adult IBD patients who transitioned, we collected IFX and IFX-dyyb dosage, Harvey Bradshaw Index (HBI) or Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI) scores, c-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and colonoscopy results. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and McNemar's test were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Of 151 eligible patients, 146 (97%) successfully transitioned to IFX-dyyb. Based on our conversion rate to IFX-dyyb, our health system is forecasted to save approximately $500,000 annually. From March to June 2018, 63 of 75 (84%) eligible IBD patients transitioned from IFX to IFX-dyyb. In this cohort, of the 40 patients with HBI or SCCAI scores before and after transition, 36 (90%) maintained remission. For 32 patients, the mean CRP (SD) before transition was 11.2 (22) and 4.1 (4.8) after transition (P = 0.09). Since the IFX-dyyb transition, 9 patients had a colonoscopy, of which 5 (56%) were in endoscopic remission. As of October 2018, 56 (89%) patients continued with IFX-dyyb after transition. Of the 46 patients who had 12-15 months posttransition data, 38 (83%) remained on IFX-dyyb.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a biosimilar adoption program can be successful and result in significant cost savings without compromising clinical outcomes. A model that uses actionable strategies and embraces collaboration among stakeholders is described here, with outcomes demonstrating successful IFX-dyyb uptake and no changes in clinical outcomes of transitioned adult patients with IBD.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. Farraye reports advisory board fees from Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer. Shah reports speaker fees from Pfizer. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

A Simulation Approach to Evaluate the Impact of Patterns of Bioanalytical Bias Difference on the Outcome of Pharmacokinetic Similarity Studies

Pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity studies are vital to assess the biosimilarity of a biosimilar to a reference product. Systematic bias in a bioanalytical method that quantify products could be a potential source of error affecting the variability of the data and influencing the outcome of a PK similarity study. We investigated the impact of six varying patterns of bioanalytical bias difference (bias_diff ) between the similar products on the probability passing the PK similarity test. A population PK model was used to simulate concentration-time profiles for a biosimilar and a reference product and added bias_diff ranging from 030%. The probability of achieving the PK similarity criteria (90% confidence interval between 0.8 and 1.25) for the maximum serum concentration (C_max ) and area under the curve (AUC) was assessed. The data indicate that an increase in absolute bias_diff between products of ≥ 10% would decrease the power to assess the similarity criteria for C_max and AUC.

LBEC0101, an etanercept biosimilar for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Introduction: Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been revolutionized by the introduction of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. With patent expiry approaching for many expensive biologic molecules, such as etanercept, more affordable biosimilar drugs are being developed. LBEC0101 is an etanercept biosimilar approved in Japan and South Korea for all etanercept indications including RA. Areas covered: We discuss the pharmacological characteristics, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of LBEC0101 compared with the etanercept reference product (ETN-RP). Preclinical studies showed that the binding affinity to TNFα and biological activity of LBEC0101 were similar to those of the ETN-RP. The pharmacokinetic profile of LBEC0101 was also similar to that of the ETN-RP. A Phase III, randomized, double-blind, 54-week study showed that the efficacy of LBEC0101 was equivalent to that of the ETN-RP in RA patients. An extension study showed that efficacy was sustained long-term in patients receiving LBEC0101 and in those switching from the ETN-RP to LBEC0101. The safety profile of LBEC0101 was also confirmed to be comparable with the ETN-RP. Expert opinion: LBEC0101 has shown equivalent pharmacokinetics and efficacy and comparable safety to the ETN-RP, and the lower cost of LBEC0101 provides a good cost-benefit ratio.

Current and future roles of biosimilars in oncology practice

Biologics have been used increasingly in the treatment and supportive care of cancer; however, their high cost places a significant burden on healthcare systems. The expiration of patents for biologics has led to the development of biosimilars, with the aim of reducing cost and increasing accessibility to novel treatments, which are affordable for a greater number of patients. Biosimilars are highly similar but not identical to the reference products; therefore, strict regulatory requirements have been formed for their approval. This ensures that there are no clinically meaningful differences compared with respective biologics, with regard to purity, safety and efficacy. In 2003, a regulatory framework for the approval of biosimilars was established in Europe, whereas the USA did not implement a framework until 2009, when the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act was formed. A number of biosimilars have currently been approved in oncology and the number is expected to rise in the near future. More than 10 years of evidence has revealed that biosimilars are safe and effective; however healthcare professionals need to be further educated to eliminate potential misconceptions and integrate biosimilars into routine clinical practice. The present review aims to provide an overview of the biosimilars used in Europe and the USA, present their main benefits and challenges, and discuss their current and future roles in medical oncology.

Population pharmacokinetics of PF-05280014 (a trastuzumab biosimilar) and reference trastuzumab (Herceptin®) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer

Purpose

PF-05280014 is a biosimilar to trastuzumab (Herceptin^®). Following demonstration of pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity in healthy volunteers, a comparative clinical study in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) compared the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of PF-05280014 and trastuzumab sourced from the EU (trastuzumab-EU), both with paclitaxel.

Methods

Population PK of PF-05280014 and trastuzumab-EU was evaluated.

Results

Overall, 702 patients were treated: PF-05280014 (n = 349) and trastuzumab-EU (n = 353). Peak-and-trough serum drug concentration samples were collected (selected doses) following repeated intravenous administration of PF-05280014 or trastuzumab-EU. Population PK analysis was performed with drug concentration–time data to cycle 17 for each compound, using nonlinear mixed effect modeling. Potential baseline covariates (circulating HER2 concentrations, body weight, Japanese race, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, number of metastatic sites and antidrug antibody status) were evaluated. Concentration–time data of PF-05280014 and trastuzumab-EU were adequately described by a two-compartment model with first-order elimination, with inter-individual variability (IIV) on clearance (CL), volumes of distribution in central compartment (V₁) and peripheral compartments, and intercompartment clearance. Similar estimated PK parameters and IIV were obtained for both treatments. For PF-05280014 and trastuzumab-EU, baseline body weight was an influential covariate on CL and V₁; the magnitude was comparable between treatments. PK was consistent between the limited number of Japanese and non-Japanese patients for both compounds.

Conclusions

PF-05280014 and trastuzumab-EU had similar PK parameters and influential PK covariates in patients with HER2-positive mBC. These results provided further evidence in patients for PK similarity between PF-05280014 and trastuzumab-EU.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01989676.

Monoclonal Antibodies: Past, Present and Future

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are immunoglobulins designed to target a specific epitope on an antigen. Immunoglobulins of identical amino-acid sequence were originally produced by hybridomas grown in culture and, subsequently, by recombinant DNA technology using mammalian cell expression systems. The antigen-binding region of the mAb is formed by the variable domains of the heavy and light chains and contains the complementarity-determining region that imparts the high specificity for the target antigen. The pharmacokinetics of mAbs involves target-mediated and non-target-related factors that influence their disposition.Preclinical safety evaluation of mAbs differs substantially from that of small molecular (chemical) entities. Immunogenicity of mAbs has implications for their pharmacokinetics and safety. Early studies of mAbs in humans require careful consideration of the most suitable study population, route/s of administration, starting dose, study design and the potential difference in pharmacokinetics in healthy subjects compared to patients expressing the target antigen.Of the ever-increasing diversity of therapeutic indications for mAbs, we have concentrated on two that have proved dramatically successful. The contribution that mAbs have made to the treatment of inflammatory conditions, in particular arthritides and inflammatory bowel disease, has been nothing short of revolutionary. Their benefit has also been striking in the treatment of solid tumours and, most recently, as immunotherapy for a wide variety of cancers. Finally, we speculate on the future with various new approaches to the development of therapeutic antibodies.