Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia: comparisons from real-world clinical experience

Management of cancer-associated anemia with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: ASCO/ASH clinical practice guideline update

PURPOSE

To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/American Society of Hematology (ASH) recommendations for use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in patients with cancer.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs in patients with cancer published from January 31, 2010, through May 14, 2018. For biosimilar ESAs, the literature search was expanded to include meta-analyses and RCTs in patients with cancer or chronic kidney disease and cohort studies in patients with cancer due to limited RCT evidence in the cancer setting. ASCO and ASH convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed.

RESULTS

The primary literature review included 15 meta-analyses of RCTs and two RCTs. A growing body of evidence suggests that adding iron to treatment with an ESA may improve hematopoietic response and reduce the likelihood of RBC transfusion. The biosimilar literature review suggested that biosimilars of epoetin alfa have similar efficacy and safety to reference products, although evidence in cancer remains limited.

RECOMMENDATIONS

ESAs (including biosimilars) may be offered to patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia whose cancer treatment is not curative in intent and whose hemoglobin has declined to < 10 g/dL. RBC transfusion is also an option. With the exception of selected patients with myelodysplastic syndromes, ESAs should not be offered to most patients with nonchemotherapy-associated anemia. During ESA treatment, hemoglobin may be increased to the lowest concentration needed to avoid transfusions. Iron replacement may be used to improve hemoglobin response and reduce RBC transfusions for patients receiving ESA with or without iron deficiency. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.hematology.org/guidelines.

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.

Efficacy and safety of biosimilar epoetin alpha in patients with chronic lymphoid neoplasms and chemotherapy-induced anaemia: An observational, retrospective, monocentric analysis

Epoetin biosimilars are an alternative to originator erythropoietic agents in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anaemia; however, their effects in patients with lymphoproliferative disorders remain unclear. This analysis examined the response of patients with lymphoproliferative disorders experiencing chemotherapy-induced anaemia to 4- or 8-week treatment with the biosimilar epoetin alpha. Treatment was initiated at first occurrence of haemoglobin (Hb) < 10 g/dL during chemotherapy and was stopped when Hb was >11 g/dL, when chemotherapy was completed, or in case of transfusion dependency. Response to epoetin alpha was defined as an increase in Hb of >1 g/dL or as an Hb > 11 g/dL. Stability was defined as change in Hb of ±1 g/dL, and no response was indicated by a decrease in Hb of >1 g/dL or acquired transfusion dependence. Overall, 65 patients were enrolled (median age 69 years; 47.7% ≥ 70 years old). Mean Hb levels at the initiation of epoetin alpha was 9.3 ± 0.5 g/dL. Mean Hb levels reached 10.7 ± 1.4 and 10.6 ± 1.5 g/dL at weeks 4 and 8, respectively, in patients on first-line chemotherapy and 11.4 ± 1.6 and 9.7 ± 1.3 g/dL in those on a second- or higher-line regimen. Overall, 70.8% of patients responded, 26.1% had stable Hb, and 3.1% did not respond. Delays or interruption of any chemotherapy cycle due to anaemia occurred in 18 patients. The biosimilar epoetin alpha was well tolerated and allowed patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or chronic lymphoproliferative disorders to continue their course of chemotherapy by effectively increasing and maintaining adequate concentrations of Hb.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (biosimilars vs originators) in clinical practice: a population-based cohort study in Italy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefit/risk profile of epoetin α biosimilar with the erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) originators when administered to naïve patients from clinical practice.

DESIGN

Population-based observational cohort study.

SETTING

All residents in the Lazio Region, Italy, with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or cancer retrieved from the Electronic Therapeutic Plan (ETP) Register for ESA between 2012 and 2014.

PARTICIPANTS

Overall, 13 470 incident ESA users were available for the analysis, 8161 in the CKD and 5309 in the oncology setting, respectively.

INTERVENTIONS

ESAs identified through the ATC B03XA were divided into 3 groups: (1) biosimilars; (2) epoetin α originator and (3) other originators. Patients were exposed to ESAs from the date of activation of the ETP, until the end of a 6-month follow-up period.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness (all-cause mortality and blood transfusion) and safety (major cardiovascular events, blood dyscrasia). A composite outcome including all-cause mortality, blood transfusion and major cardiovascular events was predefined. HRs of any outcome were estimated through Cox regression.

RESULTS

We found no differences between patients on biosimilars or all originators with regard to the risk estimates of all-cause mortality, blood transfusion, major cardiovascular events and blood dyscrasia in the CKD setting. The composite outcome confirmed these results (biosimilars vs epoetin α originators: adjusted HR=1.02, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.33; biosimilars vs other originators: adjusted HR=1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41). Comparable risk estimates were observed between biosimilars and all originators in the oncology setting.

CONCLUSIONS

In both settings, our findings are suggestive of no difference between biosimilars and originators on relevant effectiveness and safety outcomes. This study may contribute to settling future drug policy for the health services and provides reassurance on the approval pathway for biosimilars. The oncology setting merits further research, taking into account tumour types, tumour stage and anticancer chemotherapy administered.

Management of anaemia in oncohaematological patients treated with biosimilar epoetin alfa: results of an Italian observational, retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Many patients with solid tumours or nonmyeloid haematopoietic tumours develop symptomatic anaemia, which has a major impact on quality of life (QoL). The efficacy of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in improving QoL and reducing blood transfusions has been widely demonstrated. Binocrit® (biosimilar epoetin alfa) is an ESA indicated in the European Union for treating chemotherapy-induced anaemia. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of Binocrit® on haemoglobin (Hb) levels in anaemic cancer patients in Italian clinical practice.

METHODS

The ANEMONE study was a national, longitudinal, retrospective, multicentre observational study. Patients had to be 18 years or older, with a solid tumour or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease or multiple myeloma, receiving chemotherapy, and treated with Binocrit® to manage chemotherapy-induced anaemia. The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with a Hb increase ⩾1 g/dl during the first 4 weeks and with a Hb increase ⩾2 g/dl during the first 12 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 245 patients were enrolled and 215 patients were evaluable for statistical analysis. In the first 4 weeks, 49.3% of patients showed an increase in Hb of ⩾1 g/dl: 45.5% in patients with solid tumours and 52.1% in patients with haematological malignancies. In the first 12 weeks, 51.6% of patients showed an increase in Hb of ⩾2 g/dl (48.4% solid tumours, 54.2% haematological diseases). Treatment with Binocrit® was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm the effectiveness and safety of Binocrit® for chemotherapy-induced anaemia in routine practice in patients with solid tumours, lymphoma and myeloma.

Pharmacoutilization of epoetins in naïve patients with hematological malignancies in an unselected Italian population under clinical practice setting: a comparative analysis between originator and biosimilars

Aim

The purpose of this study was to assess the prescription of epoetins and consumption of health care resources (in terms of drug treatments) in naïve patients with hematological malignancies in a real-world setting; in particular, we compared the results between reference product and biosimilar products.

Methods

An observational retrospective study based on administrative and laboratory databases of three local health units was conducted. All adults diagnosed with hematological malignancies and who had received at least one epoetin (either reference product or biosimilars) prescription for the first time between 1 January 2010 and 30 April 2012 (enrollment period) were included. The date of the first prescription of epoetin within the enrollment period was defined as index date (ID). Patients were followed up for 4 weeks after ID (follow-up period) and were investigated for the 1-year period before the ID. The difference between the last hemoglobin (Hb) measurement after ID and the one prior to ID (ΔHb) was evaluated. The drug cost analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Italian National Health System.

Results

Overall, 69 patients were included in the study; 48 of them received reference epoetin product and 21 received biosimilars as first prescription. Among reference product users, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 62.5±14.7 years; this cohort of patients was slightly significantly younger than the biosimilar users (71.8±11.8 years). The mean ± SD overall Hb level prior to treatment was lower among patients who started with biosimilar products (9.6±1.1 g/dL) compared to those who started with a reference product (10.1±2.1 g/dL). No significant differences in ΔHb were observed between biosimilar and originator groups during the followup period. The mean ± SD cost per patient was €667.98±573.93 and €340.85±235.73 for the reference product and biosimilar users, respectively (p=0.065).

Conclusion

Our study showed that the use of biosimilar products might contribute to controlling health care costs (in terms of drug treatments) for patients with hematological malignancies being maintained by high-quality anemia therapy. Our findings also showed some discordances regarding the most appropriate therapeutic approach in daily clinical practice.

Comparative Effectiveness of Biosimilar, Reference Product and Other Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (ESAs) Still Covered by Patent in Chronic Kidney Disease and Cancer Patients: An Italian Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Since 2007 biosimilars of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are available on the Italian market. Very limited post-marketing data exist on the comparative effectiveness of biosimilar and originator ESAs.

AIM

This population-based study was aimed to compare the effects of biosimilars, reference product and other ESAs still covered by patent on hemoglobinemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and cancer patients in a Local Health Unit (LHU) from Northern Italy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted during the years 2009-2014 using data from Treviso LHU administrative database. Incident ESA users (no ESA dispensing within 6 months prior to treatment start, i.e. index date (ID)) with at least one hemoglobin measurement within one month prior to ID (baseline Hb value) and another measurement between 2nd and 3rd month after ID (follow-up Hb value) were identified. The strength of the consumption (as total number of defined daily dose (DDD) dispensed during the follow-up divided by days of follow-up) and the difference between follow-up and baseline Hb values [delta Hb (ΔHb)] were evaluated. Based on Hb changes, ESA users were classified as non-responders (ΔHb≤0 g/dl), responders (0<ΔHb≤2 g/dl), and highly responders (ΔHb>2 g/dl). A multivariate ordinal logistic regression model to identify predictors for responsiveness to treatment was performed. All analyses were stratified by indication for use and type of dispensed ESA at ID.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,003 incident ESA users (reference product: 252, 25.1%; other ESAs covered by patent: 303, 30.2%; biosimilars: 448, 44.7%) with CKD or cancer were eligible for the study. No statistically significant difference in the amount of dose dispensed during the follow-up among biosimilars, reference product and other ESAs covered by patent was found in both CKD and cancer. After three months from treatment start, all ESAs increased Hb values on average by 2g/dl. No differences in ΔHb as well as in frequency of non-responders, responders and highly responders among different types of ESAs were observed in both indications of use. Overall, around 15-20% of ESA users were non-responders. Strength of treatment, but no type of dispensed ESAs was found to be predictor of responsiveness to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference on the effects on hemoglobinemia among users of either biosimilars or reference product or ESAs covered by patent was observed in a general population from Northern Italy, despite a comparable dispensed dose of the different ESAs during the first three months of treatment.