Preparing for a new generation of biologic therapies: understanding the development and potential of biosimilar cancer therapeutics

Delivery of Fc-fusion Protein by a Recombinant Newcastle Disease Virus Vector

Fc-fusion proteins (FCPs), a new generation biological medicine, have revolutionized the practice of medicines that treat diseases. However, complex manufacturing techniques are required for FCP production, casting the affordability and accessibility issues in low- and middle-income economies (LMIEs). Virus-vectored system may serve as a simple and cost-effective platform for FCP delivery. As a proof-of-concept study, Newcastle disease virus (NDV), a widely-used vector for vaccine generation, was used as a vector to express and deliver a model FCP composed of the hemagglutinin (HA) and IgG Fc. A recombinant NDV expressing the HA-Fc fusion protein was generated using reverse genetics, which had comparable replication and virulence to the parental virus. High levels of expression of soluble HA-Fc were detected in cell culture and embryonated chicken eggs inoculated with the recombinant NDV. In addition, the recombinant NDV replicated in the lung of mouse, delivering the HA-Fc protein to this organ. The HA-Fc expressed by NDV specifically bound to murine FcγRI, which was dependent on the presence of the Fc tag. The recombinant NDV induced high vector-specific antibody response, whereas it failed to elicit H7N9-specific antibody immunity in mice. The absence of HA-specific antibodies may be attributed to deficient incorporation of the HA-Fc protein into NDV virion particles. Our results indicated that NDV may be potentially used as a vector for FCP expression and delivery. This strategy may help to enhance the affordability and equal accessibility of FCP biological medicines, especially in LIMEs.

Monoclonal antibodies and Fc-fusion protein biologic medicines: A multinational cross-sectional investigation of accessibility and affordability in Asia Pacific regions between 2010 and 2020

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibody (mAb) and Fc-fusion protein (FcP) are highly effective therapeutic biologics. We aimed to analyse consumption and expenditure trends in 14 Asia-Pacific countries/regions (APAC) and three benchmark countries (the UK, Canada, and the US).

METHODS

We analysed 440 mAb and FcP biological products using the IQVIA-MIDAS global sales database. For each year between 2010 and 2020 inclusive, we used standard units (SU) sold per 1000 population and manufacture level price (standardised in 2019 US dollars) to evaluate consumption (accessibility) and expenditure (affordability). Changes of consumption and expenditure were estimated using compound annual growth rate (CAGR). Correlations between consumption, country's economic and health performance indicators were measured using Spearman correlation coefficient.

FINDINGS

Between 2010 and 2020, CAGRs of consumption in each region ranged from 7% to 34% and the CAGRs of expenditure ranged from 9% to 31%. The median consumption of biologics was extremely low in lower-middle-income economies (0·29 SU/1000 population) compared with upper-middle-income economies (1·20), high-income economies (40·94) and benchmark countries (109·55), although the median CAGRs of biologics consumption in lower-middle-income economies (31%) was greater than upper-middle-income (14%), high-income economies (13%) and benchmark countries (9%). Consumption was correlated with GDP per capita [Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r) = 0·75, p < 0·001], health expenditure as a percentage of total (r = 0·83, p < 0·001) and medical doctors' density (r = 0·85, p < 0·001).

INTERPRETATION

There have been significant increases in mAb and FcP biologics consumption and expenditure, however accessibility of biological medicines remains unequal and is largely correlated with country's income level.

FUNDING

This research was funded by NHMRC Project Grant GNT1157506 and GNT1196900; Enhanced Start-up Fund for new academic staff and Internal Research Fund, Department of Medicine, LKS Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong.

Safety and effectiveness of biosimilar of Rituximab CT-P10 in the treatment of cryoglobulinemic vasculitis: the MARBLe study (Mixed cryoglobulinemiA Rituximab BiosimiLar)

Rituximab (RTX) represents a milestone in the treatment of mixed cryoglobulinemic vasculitis (MCV). Despite usually well-tolerated, RTX may induce different types of adverse drug reactions, including exacerbation of vasculitis. Recently, RTX biosimilar CT-P10 has been approved in Europe for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but no data are available about effectiveness and safety of CT-P10 in the treatment of MCV. In this multicenter open-label study, we analyzed the safety of CT-P10 in patients with MCV treated in first-line or after a shift by RTX originator. Fifty-one consecutive MCV patients (females/males 35/16, median age 68 years, median disease duration 42 months, 51% HCV positive) were included in the study between July and December 2018 and were treated with CT-P10 (group 1). Safety and effectiveness of CT-P10 were compared with a retrospective group (group 2) including 75 consecutive patients treated with RTX originator between July 2017 and July 2018. Thirty-six patients were treated with CT-P10 for the first time, while the other 15 switched from RTX originator. RTX was administrated with high or dosage schemes (375 mg/m² four times a week apart/1000 mg twice one week apart or 250 mg/m² twice one week apart). During a month period after the last infusion, 13/51 adverse events (AE) were observed in group 1 and 17/75 in group 2 (p not significant). Among them, 7/13 and 6/17 (in group 1 and 2, respectively) could be considered immune-mediated AE (p not significant). At univariate analysis patients with IM-AE were more frequently males (p = 0.04) and with a lower disease duration (p = 0.03), but both the parameters were not significant at logistic regression. About clinical response after 6 months by the end of the treatment, no differences were observed between patients treated with originator and CT-P10 regarding the response to the therapy. No differences were observed in safety and effectiveness between patients naïve at RTX or switching from originator. Despite the higher prevalence of immune-mediated AE among patients treated with CT-P10 than originator, we have observed no significant differences between the 2 groups. The use of a low-dosage regimen is more common in group 1 than in group 2, representing a possible bias of the study, possibly influencing the appearance of AE. Considering the cost/efficacy ratio of biosimilars, their use could be helpful to treat a large number of MCV patients with an effectiveness and safety comparable to originator. Multicenter studies including a large number of patients and the new RTX biosimilars could be useful to fully elucidate the possible risk of immune-mediated adverse events with biosimilar drugs. Considering the cost/efficacy ratio of CT-P10, its use could help to treat a large number of MCV patients with an effectiveness and safety comparable to originator.

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.

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.

Biosimilar medicines used for cancer therapy in Europe: a review

This article provides an updated review of the biosimilar medicines approved for cancer therapy in the European Union (EU). First we discuss the most relevant aspects for the development and approval of biosimilar medicines. We then present the oncological biosimilar drugs currently used, which include epoetins (alpha and zeta), filgrastim, and monoclonal antibodies (rituximab, trastuzumab and bevacizumab). Among the clinical applications of biosimilar medicines, cancer therapy remains the main target area and more approved biosimilars are expected over the next few years, providing cost-effective drugs to more patients. Furthermore, comprehensive pharmacovigilance studies are going on, monitoring the marketed biosimilars, and providing more feasible information to clinicians regarding the safety and efficacy of these medications.