Biosimilars: what the oncologist should know

Safety of marketed biosimilar monoclonal antibody cancer treatments in the US: a disproportionality analysis using the food and drug administration adverse event reporting system (FAERS) database

BACKGROUND

By 31 December 2022, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 12 biosimilar monoclonal antibody cancer treatments. This study detected disproportionate adverse event (AE) reporting signals and compared safety profile of individual biosimilars to their originator biologics and between each pair of biosimilars.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System data (6/1/2018-12/31/2022) were used to identify AE reports for rituximab, bevacizumab, trastuzumab, and their marketed biosimilars. Reporting odds ratios and empirical Bayesian geometric mean were computed to detect reporting disproportionality in serious, death, and specific AEs between studied biologics/biosimilars and all other drugs.

RESULTS

Significant AE reporting signals were identified: 1) death for biological rituximab, pruritus for biosimilar rituximab-pvvr, and infusion-related reactions for biological rituximab and biosimilar rituximab-pvvr (significantly higher ROR for rituximab-pvvr than biological rituximab, p < .0001); 2) death for biological bevacizumab and biosimilar bevacizumab-bvzr (significantly higher ROR for bevacizumab-bvzr than biological bevacizumab, p < .0001), hypertension, platelet count decreased (PCD), and proteinuria for biological bevacizumab and biosimilar bevacizumab-awwb (significantly higher ROR of PCD for bevacizumab-awwb than originator bevacizumab, p = .001); and 3) rash for biosimilar trastuzumab-anns.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings call for large, longitudinal studies to examine causality of certain AEs with rituximab-pvvr and bevacizumab biosimilars.

Factors influencing bioequivalence evaluation of insulin biosimilars based on a structural equation model

Objective: This study aimed to explore the factors affecting the bioequivalence of test and reference insulin preparations so as to provide a scientific basis for the consistency evaluation of the quality and efficacy of insulin biosimilars.

Methods: A randomized, open, two-sequence, single-dose, crossover design was used in this study. Subjects were randomly divided into TR or RT groups in equal proportion. The glucose infusion rate and blood glucose were measured by a 24-h glucose clamp test to evaluate the pharmacodynamic parameters of the preparation. The plasma insulin concentration was determined by liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to evaluate pharmacokinetic parameters. WinNonlin 8.1 and SPSS 23.0 were applied for PK/PD parameter calculation and statistical analysis. The structural equation model (SEM) was constructed to analyze the influencing factors of bioequivalence by using Amos 24.0.

Results: A total of 177 healthy male subjects aged 18–45 years were analyzed. Subjects were assigned to the equivalent group (N = 55) and the non-equivalent group (N = 122) by bioequivalence results, according to the EMA guideline. Univariate analysis showed statistical differences in albumin, creatinine, Tmax, bioactive substance content, and adverse events between the two groups. In the structural equation model, adverse events (β = 0.342; p &lt; 0.001) and bioactive substance content (β = −0.189; p = 0.007) had significant impacts on the bioequivalence of two preparations, and the bioactive substance content significantly affected adverse events (β = 0.200; p = 0.007).

Conclusion: A multivariate statistical model was used to explore the influencing factors for the bioequivalence of two preparations. According to the result of the structural equation model, we proposed that adverse events and bioactive substance content should be optimized for consistency evaluation of the quality and efficacy of insulin biosimilars. Furthermore, bioequivalence trials of insulin biosimilars should strictly obey inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure the consistency of subjects and avoid confounding factors affecting the equivalence evaluation.

Prescriber Perspectives on Biosimilar Adoption and Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology: A Workshop Summary

The approval and adoption of biosimilar products are essential to contain increasing healthcare costs and provide more affordable choices for patients. Despite steady progress in the number of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) biosimilar approvals over the years, biosimilar adoption in the United States has been slow and gradual, largely driven by payers rather than clinicians. In order to better understand the barriers to biosimilar adoption in the clinic, the University of Maryland Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (M-CERSI) and the FDA jointly hosted a virtual workshop on April 13, 2022, titled "Biosimilars: A Decade of Experience and Future Directions - Strategies for Improving Biosimilar Adoption and the Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology." This summary documents the experiences of four leading academic clinicians with specialties in oncology, rheumatology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology and their perspectives on how to increase biosimilar adoption, including the role of clinical pharmacology. Besides systemic changes in pricing and reimbursement, there is a need for additional education of a broad range of providers, including advanced care practitioners, and patients themselves. Educational efforts highlighting the rigor of the studies that support the approval of biosimilars-including the clinical pharmacology studies-and the benefits of biosimilars, can play a major role in improving biosimilar acceptance.

Expanding access to biotherapeutics in low-income and middle-income countries through public health non-exclusive voluntary intellectual property licensing: considerations, requirements, and opportunities

Biotherapeutics, such as recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies, have become mainstays of modern medicine as shown by their increasing number in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines. However, despite frequently offering clinical advantages over standards of care, they remain largely out of reach for populations in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), partly because of high costs. Accordingly, the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines Expert Committee has requested that the Medicines Patent Pool explore intellectual property licensing to address this challenge. We therefore investigated how licensing could successfully improve affordability of and timely access to biotherapeutics in LMICs, by leveraging expert consultations, literature analysis, and internal technical knowledge. The key elements identified as relevant to support access to affordable biosimilars in LMICs through licensing include: prioritising potential biotherapeutic targets according to their potential for public health impact; supporting biosimilar product and clinical development (including through technology transfer to expedite regulatory approval); and facilitating biosimilars' entry and use in LMICs (by meeting procurement, supply chain, and health system requirements).

The Profile of Use of Rituximab in Tertiary Care Hospitals of Central India

Background

Rituximab, one of the most commonly used biologics, was once approved by the United States Food and Drug Association (US FDA) for the management of different systemic autoimmune disorders, and it is now used extensively in managing off-label indications. There is a scarcity of data regarding its utilization pattern in India.

Objective

To assess rituximab usage pattern in two tertiary care hospitals of Central India.

Methods

A cross-sectional, retrospective study was performed to analyze the data of patients from two tertiary care centers of Central India who had received rituximab between 2019 and 2021. The usage was categorized either for FDA-approved indications or for off-label indications. Multiple logistic regression was applied to evaluate which factors would influence the use of rituximab for an FDA-approved indication.

Results

A total of 79 medical records of patients. The majority of the patients (77.2%) had received rituximab for an FDA-approved indication. The most common approved and off-label indications detected were non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and autoimmune disorders, respectively. The use of rituximab for an FDA-approved indication was associated with increased age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.99-1.1), male sex: AOR = 2.55, 95% CI = 0.74-9.93, malignancy: AOR = 9.39, 95% CI = 1.46-76.12, and diabetes: AOR = 1.38, 95% CI = 0.19-13.74.

Conclusions

The use of rituximab was more common for an FDA-approved indication rather than for an off-label indication. Factors such as advancing age, male sex, and malignancy were frequently associated with the FDA-approved use of rituximab.

Systematic Review on the Use of Biosimilars of Trastuzumab in HER2+ Breast Cancer

Trastuzumab is a monoclonal antibody used in the treatment of breast cancer in cases where the tumor overexpresses the HER2 receptor, a cell membrane receptor activated by the epidermal growth factor. Intravenous and subcutaneous administration of trastuzumab have comparable clinical and pharmacological characteristics, but trastuzumab biosimilars are currently only available in intravenous form. Trastuzumab biosimilars are ultimately preferred by a proportion of patients, especially in cases where co-administration of other chemotherapeutic agents, such as trastuzumab and tucatinib, a small molecule of tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is required in patients with HER-positive metastatic breast cancer. Oncologists should be well-aware of the advantages of intravenously administered trastuzumab biosimilars over subcutaneous administration, certainly also taking into account the patient’s preferences. Further cost-effectiveness analyses will be very important, along with expectations regarding successful concomitant subcutaneous administration of trastuzumab with other anticancer drugs, such as pertuzumab. This systematic review describes and analyzes the so-far published studies concerning the use of the available trastuzumab biosimilars in HER-positive early and metastatic breast cancer in terms of efficacy, safety, and cost–benefit ratio. An attempt was also made to draw some conclusions and to comment on future needs and perspectives.

Characterizing experiences of non-medical switching to trastuzumab biosimilars using data from internet-based surveys with US-based oncologists and breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

To characterize current experiences with communication and decision-making practices when non-medical switching to a biosimilar trastuzumab is proposed or required by cancer center or insurer.

METHODS

We developed and launched 60- and 51-item internet surveys to elicit US breast cancer patient and medical oncologist lived experiences with trastuzumab biosimilars and patient information needs and seeking practices. We recruited participants using social media and administered via REDCap in 2020-2021.

RESULTS

143 breast cancer patients and 33 medical oncologists completed the surveys. 63.9% patients reported having switched to a trastuzumab biosimilar and 40.8% reported receiving no prior notification about switching. 44% of patients reported learning about biosimilars primarily through self-directed learning and 41% wanting more time to discuss with oncologist. None of the oncologists reported that the decision to switch a patient to a biosimilar was initiated by them, but rather more frequently by the insurer (45.2%). About 54.8% reported not receiving any pharmaceutical manufacturer material related to the selected biosimilar. Patients and oncologists diverged in their responses to items regarding patient opportunities to ask questions, adequacy of resources, effectiveness of treatment, patient worry, and magnitude of change.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for tailored and effective patient and oncologist information and education on trastuzumab biosimilars, along with improved healthcare communication regarding switching. The discrepancy between patient-reported experiences and oncologist perceptions of the patient experience, suggests a lack of adequate information that may be a challenge not only to the uptake of trastuzumab biosimilars, but to the patient-oncologist relationship.

A review of the totality of evidence in the development of ABP 798, a rituximab biosimilar

ABP 798 (RIABNI™) is a biosimilar to rituximab reference product (RP), a monoclonal antibody that targets CD20. Approval of ABP 798 was based on the totality of evidence generated using a stepwise approach which began by showing that it is structurally and functionally similar to rituximab RP. This analytical assessment was followed by a demonstration of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic similarity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Comparative clinical efficacy and safety of ABP 798 with rituximab RP was demonstrated as a final step in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and in those with rheumatoid arthritis. Overall, the totality of evidence supported the conclusion that ABP 798 is highly similar to rituximab RP and provided scientific justification for extrapolation to other approved indications of rituximab RP.

Monoclonal antibodies used for the management of haematological disorders

INTRODUCTION

Monoclonal antibodies Ab (MoAb) are increasingly becoming part of therapeutic armamentarium for haematologists and haemato-oncologists. This review brings together commonly used antibodies in one place for brevity and novel understanding.

AREAS COVERED

Pubmed and Scopus databases were explored focusing on MoAb in clinical haematological practice. Emphasis was given to current review articles. The data base was searched from 1997 till present. 24 different antibodies, most of which are in use were discussed. Antibodies are used for diverse conditions i.e. malignant and benign haematological conditions, treatment at various phases of stem cell transplantation. These antibodies were used both alone or in combination with various chemotherapy, targeted small molecules or as immunoconjugates. Some of the side effect profiles of these antibodies were common and some were unique. Unusual infections or organ dysfunctions were noted. Improved function of antibodies by protein engineering is also advancing rapidly. Dosage, frequency and route of administration depended on the convenience and condition for which the antibody is used.

EXPERT OPINION

: MoAbs are increasingly used in haematology practice either alone or in combination with other types of therapy for improved out come in various haematological conditions.

Biosimilars accessible in the market for the treatment of cancer

Biosimilars are the biological product clinically identical to a biologic reference standard regarding their strength, purity, and safety. A large segment of biosimilars has been developed for the treatment of cancer. This review aims to discuss various facets of biosimilars and explicates on biosimilars accessible in the market for cancer clinical intervention. It also illustrates the outcomes of recent clinical trial studies concerning biosimilars. Further, it also crosstalk the safety profiles, regulatory approval requirements, and allied challenges therein. The work will be of significant interest to researchers working in the field of biologics and biosimilars.

Uptake of Trastuzumab Biosimilars for the Treatment of HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Real-World Experience from a Cancer Center

Background: The introduction of trastuzumab biosimilars in clinical practice plays an important role in promoting the sustainability of healthcare systems. By contrast, the switching process can be challenging to the clinics. This survey describes the switching process at a National Cancer Institute over a period of 2 years. Methods: Data regarding all trastuzumab-based regimens for breast cancer (BC) from 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020 were extracted from both adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reporting systems and electronic systems involved in inventory management, prescribing, dispensing, and administration. Both patients under monotherapy and combination treatment regimens were included. There were no exclusion criteria. Results and Conclusions: Overall 354 patients received at least one trastuzumab-based regimen for a total of 493 lines of treatment and 5769 administrations. Biosimilar were used in 34.3% of trastuzumab-based treatments. No differences between biosimilars and reference drug have been observed in terms of ADRs. The effective cost-saving of the first 2 years is greater than EUR 800,000 and it is estimated to increase over time.

Current state and comparison of the clinical development of bevacizumab, rituximab and trastuzumab biosimilars

Monoclonal antibodies are highly complex, large and biologic products with a substantial impact on the clinical management of a variety of diseases including cancer. The expiry of patents for essential monoclonal antibodies in cancer care such as bevacizumab, rituximab and trastuzumab, has prompted the global development of biosimilars to balance the biologics market. However, an understanding of the different approach of biosimilar development compared with its reference medicinal product, especially in the context of clinical trial design and end point selection may help oncologists integrating biosimilars into clinical practice. Herein, we reviewed the clinical development of biosimilars in oncology comparing the available clinical data of proposed biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab and trastuzumab.

Efficacy and Safety of the Biosimilar IBI301 Plus Standard CHOP (I-CHOP) in Comparison With Rituximab Plus CHOP (R-CHOP) in Patients with Previously Untreated Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Phase 3 Trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have limited access to rituximab. IBI301 is a recombinant chimeric murine/human anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and is a candidate biosimilar to rituximab. This study aimed to assess the therapeutic equivalence of IBI301 and rituximab in previously untreated patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial compared IBI301 and rituximab, both plus the chemotherapy of doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vindesine, and prednisone (CHOP), was conducted in 68 centers across China. Eligible patients with untreated CD20 positive (CD20⁺) DLBCL randomly received IBI301 (375 mg/m²) plus the standard CHOP or rituximab (375 mg/m²) plus the standard CHOP for six cycles of a 21-day cycle. The primary end point was the overall remission rate (ORR). Efficacy equivalence was defined if 95% CIs for the ORR difference between the two groups were within a ± 12.0% margin.

RESULTS

Between August 22, 2016, and September 5, 2018, 419 patients were randomly allocated into the IBI301 group (N = 209) and rituximab group (N = 210). In the full analysis set, the ORR was 89.9% and 93.8% in the IBI301 and rituximab groups, respectively, and the ORR difference was -3.9% (95% CI - 9.1%-1.3%), falling within a ± 12.0% margin. The occurrences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (100% vs. 99.0%) and AEs of grade ≥ 3 (87.1% vs. 83.3%) were similar in the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

IBI301 had a non-inferiority efficacy and a comparable safety compared with rituximab. IBI301 plus CHOP could be suggested as a candidate treatment regimen for untreated patients with CD20⁺ DLBCL.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02867566).

Totality of Evidence Supporting the Use of ABP 980, a Trastuzumab Biosimilar: Practical Considerations

ABP 980 (KANJINTI™, Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA; Amgen Europe B.V., The Netherlands) is a biosimilar to trastuzumab (Herceptin^®), a monoclonal antibody that selectively binds human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2). Here we provide a brief overview of the totality of evidence (including analytical [structural and functional] characterization, nonclinical evaluation, and human pharmacokinetic [PK], pharmacodynamic, and clinical assessment comparing ABP 980 with trastuzumab reference product [RP]) that supported the approval of ABP 980, along with practical considerations on the reconstitution and use of the lyophilized product to ensure safe and effective administration. ABP 980 has been shown to be highly similar to the RP, with similar mechanism of action, binding, and potency. Key PK parameters, geometric means ratio (GMR [90% CI]) of C_max and AUC_inf, are comparable and within the equivalence margin of 0.80 to 1.25 (ABP 980: 1.04 [0.99–1.08] versus trastuzumab US: 1.06 [1.00–1.12]; ABP 980: 0.99 [0.95–1.03] versus trastuzumab EU: 1.00 [0.95–1.06]). No clinically meaningful differences were found between ABP 980 and RP in a comparative clinical trial in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. Pathological complete response—ABP 980: 48% versus RP: 41% (risk difference [RD], 90% CI: 7.3%, 1.2–13.4; relative risk [RR], 90% CI: 1.188, 1.033–1.366). Sensitivity analyses per central pathology review—ABP 980: 48%; RP: 42% (RD: 5.8%, −0.5 to 12.0; RR: 1.142, 0.993–1.312), with RD and RR falling within predefined equivalence margins. Similar to trastuzumab RP, KANJINTI™ is supplied as a sterile, lyophilized cake to be reconstituted with bacteriostatic water for injection (BWFI) for multiple-dose injection or sterile WFI for single use. Stability data support storage of reconstituted solution at 2–8°C (36–46°F), up to 28 days. Reconstituted solution can be diluted in infusion bags containing 0.9% saline and stored for up to 24 h prior to intravenous administration.

The Totality of Evidence and Use of ABP 215, a Biosimilar to Bevacizumab

ABP 215 (MVASI™, Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA; MVASI™, Amgen Europe B.V., Netherlands) is a biosimilar to bevacizumab (Avastin^®, Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) reference product (RP), a monoclonal antibody targeting vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A). Here we provide a brief overview of the totality of evidence that supported the approval of ABP 215, along with practical considerations to ensure safe and effective administration.

ABP 215 has been shown to be highly similar to the RP, with similar mechanism of action, analytical (structural and functional) characteristics, binding, and potency. The similarity of PK parameters of ABP 215 and bevacizumab RP has been confirmed in healthy volunteers.

In a comparative clinical trial, patients with stage IV or recurrent non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer receiving carboplatin and paclitaxel were randomized to ABP 215 or bevacizumab RP. No clinically meaningful differences were found between ABP 215 and RP. The objective response rate (ORR) was 39% for ABP 215 and 41.7% for bevacizumab RP. The risk ratio for the ORR was 0.93 [90% confidence interval (CI), 0.80–1.09], which fell within the prespecified margin for equivalence of 0.67–1.5, indicating similar clinical efficacy.

Similar to bevacizumab RP, ABP 215 is supplied as a clear to slightly opalescent, colorless to pale yellow, sterile solution in a glass vial. It should be diluted in 0.9% sodium chloride in polyvinylchloride or polyolefin bags before administering as an intravenous infusion. The ABP 215 solution should be stored at 2–8 °C (36–46°F) prior to use. Physicochemical stability studies showed that there were no meaningful changes in purity or potency and no loss of protein after storage at 2–8 °C for 35 days followed by storage at 30 °C for 48 h.

Trastuzumab Biosimilars in the Therapy of Breast Cancer - "Real World" Experiences from four Bavarian University Breast Centres

Introduction With the introduction of the first trastuzumab biosimilar in the summer of 2018, biosimilar antibodies for breast cancer have found their way into the area of gynaecological oncology. The switch of anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapy from the reference drug Herceptin ^® to a biosimilar has presented challenges to the clinics. In addition to structural and organisational measures, training of employees as well as patient briefing and acceptance were major challenges. The study presented here records - within the context of quality assurance - how the switch to a trastuzumab biosimilar was implemented at four Bavarian university clinics in the Purchasing Association of Bavarian University Pharmacies. Materials/Methods Questionnaires on treatment figures and the switching process were sent to breast centres and pharmacies of four Bavarian university clinics between July and December 2019. The neoadjuvant, adjuvant and metastasised anti-HER2 therapy with trastuzumab with or without pertuzumab was recorded, evaluated and summarised. Results In the anti-HER2-therapy, trastuzumab was used intravenously (i. v.) and subcutaneously. Between July and December 2018, all four clinics in the Purchasing Association switched the i. v. trastuzumab therapy from the reference drug (Herceptin) to a biosimilar (for 2018: Kanjinti ^® ). Over 200 patients were treated with trastuzumab i. v. in each of the two half-years of 2018 (before and after the switch). The spectrum of side effects and pCR rates under therapy with the biosimilar were comparable to the experiences made with the reference drug. Three out of four clinics provided training to employees and informed patients by means of a defined information leaflet. Patient acceptance was high. Summary The anti-HER2 therapy could be switched successfully and safely to trastuzumab biosimilars at the Bavarian university hospitals. This may serve as guideline for the further implementation of biosimilars. The structures necessary for this initial switching process have been prepared with trastuzumab as an example.

Clinical and Regulatory Concerns of Biosimilars: A Review of Literature

Although biosimilars have been part of clinical practice for more than a decade, healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not fully accept them. This is because of the perception that biosimilars may not be like their originators in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. This study aims to evaluate the current knowledge and attitudes of healthcare professionals toward biosimilar prescription, and to elaborate on their concerns. We reviewed the literature using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct electronic databases in the period from 2018 to 2020. The knowledge and confidence of healthcare professionals vary between countries, between clinical profiles and between studies. Although most of the healthcare professionals had a positive attitude to prescribing biosimilars, they would still prefer to prescribe them in initial treatment. Generally, HCPs were against multiple switches and substitution of biosimilars at the pharmacy level. HCP's key concern was interchangeability, with eventual consequences on the clinical outcome of patients. HCPs still approach biosimilars with caution and stigma. HCPs need to have an unbiased coherent understanding of biosimilars at clinical, molecular and regulatory levels. It was also observed that most of their concerns are more theoretical than science-based. Physicians are in an excellent position to accept biosimilars, but they need the additional support of regulatory authorities to approve and take into consideration the available scientific data regarding biosimilars.

A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, single‑dose, pharmacokinetic bioequivalence study of INTP24 and bevacizumab in healthy adult men

PURPOSE

To demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence and to compare safety of INTP24 (bevacizumab biosimilar) with that of US-bevacizumab and EU-bevacizumab in healthy male subjects.

METHODS

In this randomized, parallel-group, double-blind study, male subjects were randomized (1:1:1) to receive a single 1 mg/kg intravenous infusion of either INTP24, US-bevacizumab, or EU-bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was area under serum concentration (AUC) from time zero to infinity (AUC_0-∞). Secondary endpoints were AUC from time zero to last quantifiable concentration (AUC_0-t), maximum concentration (C_max), other PK parameters, immunogenicity, and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 117 subjects (39/group) were dosed; 113 subjects (37, 37, and 39 in INPT24, US-bevacizumab, and EU-bevacizumab groups, respectively) completed the study and were included in the PK analysis. Baseline demographics were similar across the three groups. The 90% confidence intervals (CI) of geometric mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed AUC_0-∞ and C_max of INTP24 relative to US-bevacizumab and EU-bevacizumab were within the acceptance range of 80%-125% (INTP24 vs. US-bevacizumab, 96.55-112.51% and 99.16-112.79%: INTP24 vs. EU-bevacizumab, 94.84-110.17% and 96.32-109.28%). The 90% CIs of GMRs for AUC_0-t was also within 80-125% for INTP24 vs. US-bevacizumab and INTP24 vs. EU-bevacizumab. Safety and immunogenicity profiles were similar across the three groups. Twenty-one (17.95%) subjects experienced at least one AE and 9 (7.69%) were ADA positive. One treatment-related serious adverse event (varicella zoster infection) was reported in INTP24 group.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated PK bioequivalence of INTP24 to US-bevacizumab and EU-bevacizumab in healthy male subjects and showed similar safety and immunogenicity profiles across the treatment groups.

Totality of evidence in the development of ABP 215, an approved bevacizumab biosimilar

ABP 215 (MVASI™) is the first approved biosimilar to Avastin® (bevacizumab). It is approved in the USA and the European Union (EU) for all bevacizumab indications in these jurisdictions except for ovarian cancer in the USA due to orphan drug exclusivity. ABP 215 was shown to be structurally, functionally and clinically (pharmacokinetic, efficacy and safety) similar to the bevacizumab reference product; the pharmacokinetic study was conducted in healthy adult men (n = 202); safety and efficacy were evaluated in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 642). Together, these results comprise the totality of evidence that provides scientific justification for extrapolation to all approved indications of the reference product and supports the clinical value of ABP 215 as an additional treatment option.