Biosimilars as a Future, Promising Solution for Financial Toxicity: A Review with Emphasis on Bevacizumab

Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab biosimilar compared with reference bevacizumab in locally advanced and advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients: A retrospective study

Background

Bevacizumab has played an important role in the systemic treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without gene mutation. In recent years, bevacizumab biosimilar has received marketing approval based on the results of phase III clinical studies. However, more clinical data are needed to verify the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab biosimilar in clinical application.

Materials and methods

We identified 946 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who were treated with bevacizumab biosimilar or bevacizumab from January 1, 2019 to November 30, 2021. Comparisons and statistical analyses of bevacizumab biosimilar and bevacizumab were made in terms of efficacy and safety. Efficacy evaluation was performed directly in accordance with RECIST v1.1. Adverse events were graded following the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0.

Results

The objective response rates (ORRs) were 28.9% in the biosimilar group (n=551) and 30.9% in the reference group (n=395; unstratified ORR risk ratio: 0.934, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.677-1.138; unstratified ORR risk difference: -0.020, 95% CI: -0.118-0.035). The estimated median progression-free survival (mPFS) were 6.27 (95% CI: 5.53-7.01) and 4.93 (95% CI: 4.24-5.62) months in the biosimilar and reference groups, respectively (P=0.296). The number of treatment lines, combined treatment regimens and with or without radiotherapy were significant factors affecting the PFS of both groups (P<0.001, P=0.001, P=0.039). Different genetic mutations and dose intensity were not the main factors affecting PFS (P=0.627, P=0.946). The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 76.41% in the biosimilar group and 71.65% in the reference group (P=0.098). The incidences of grade 3 or higher TEAEs were 22.14% and 19.49% in the biosimilar and reference groups, respectively (P=0.324).

Conclusions

Bevacizumab biosimilar is equivalent in efficacy to bevacizumab in patients with locally advanced and advanced NSCLC. It showed acceptable toxicity profile and no new adverse events. Patients who were excluded by clinical trials can also benefit from bevacizumab biosimilar.

Evolving Perceptions, Utilization, and Real-World Implementation Experiences of Oncology Monoclonal Antibody Biosimilars in the USA: Perspectives from Both Payers and Physicians

BACKGROUND

The adoption of oncology biosimilars has been slow in the USA, which may be attributed in part to stakeholder perceptions and lack of operational guidance that supports favorable access to biosimilars.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to understand the real-world implementation experiences with oncology biosimilars of US payers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) as their experience with biosimilars has evolved.

METHODS

In-depth qualitative interviews with payers (n = 20) and HCPs (n = 17 physicians, n = 3 practice managers) were conducted. Payers included managed care organizations (MCOs), integrated delivery networks, and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Physicians were affiliated with a healthcare network or were community based, specialized in hematology/oncology, and had prescribed oncology biosimilars. Audio transcripts of the interviews were coded using MaxQDA software to enable descriptive analysis of the qualitative data.

RESULTS

Over 80.0% of physicians perceived the efficacy and safety of biosimilars to be highly comparable to that of originators. Up to 87.5% of physicians reported using biosimilars in > 50% of their treatment-naïve patients and were comfortable using biosimilars in all approved indications. To encourage utilization, 75.0% of MCOs/PBMs preferred biosimilars over originators in treatment-naïve patients and implementation via step therapy. Physician involvement in choosing biosimilars was minimal, which was largely dependent on practice protocols or insurance preferences. The major factor influencing payers' coverage decisions and biosimilar adoption was potential cost savings.

CONCLUSIONS

US payers and physicians who have experience with biosimilars have favorable views of oncology biosimilars, particularly for treatment-naïve patients. A framework for integrating biosimilars into oncology practice is developing, primarily driven by insurance coverage, contracting, and cost benefits.

Safety, Immunogenicity and Interchangeability of Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies and Fusion Proteins: A Regulatory Perspective

Background

Biosimilars have been used for 15 years in the European Union (EU), and have been shown to reduce costs and increase access to important biological medicines. In spite of their considerable exposure and excellent safety record, many prescribers still have doubts on the safety and interchangeability of biosimilars, especially monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and fusion proteins.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to analyse the short- and long-term safety and interchangeability data of biosimilar mAbs and fusion proteins to provide unbiased information to prescribers and policy makers.

Methods

Data on the safety, immunogenicity and interchangeability of EU-licensed mAbs and fusion proteins were examined using European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and postmarketing safety surveillance reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). As recent biosimilar approvals allow self-administration by patients by the subcutaneous route, the administration devices were also analyzed.

Results

Prelicensing data of EPARs (six different biosimilar adalimumabs, three infliximabs, three etanercepts, three rituximabs, two bevacizumabs, and six trastuzumabs) revealed that the frequency of fatal treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), TEAEs leading to discontinuation of treatment, serious adverse events (SAEs), and main immune-mediated adverse events (AEs) were comparable between the biosimilars and their reference products. The availability of new biosimilar presentations and administration devices may add to patient choice and be an emerging factor in the decision to switch patients. Analysis of postmarketing surveillance data covering up to 7 years of follow-up did not reveal any biosimilar-specific adverse effects. No product was withdrawn for safety reasons. This is in spite of considerable exposure to biosimilars in treatment-naïve patients and in patients switched from the reference medicinal product to the biosimilar. Analysis of data from switching studies provided in regulatory submissions showed that single or multiple switches between the originator and its biosimilar versions had no negative impact on efficacy, safety or immunogenicity.

Conclusions

In line with previous reports of prelicensing studies of biosimilar mAbs and etanercepts, this study demonstrated comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity compared with the reference products. This is the first study to comprehensively analyze postmarketing surveillance data of the biosimilar mAbs and etanercept. An analysis of more than 1 million patient-treatment years of safety data raised no safety concerns. Based on these data, we argue that biosimilars approved in the EU are highly similar to and interchangeable with their reference products. Thus, additional systematic switch studies are not required to support the switching of patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40265-021-01601-2.

Intestinal Perforation: A Rare Complication of Treatment With Bevacizumab

Bevacizumab, a monoclonal immunoglobulin-G1 antibody directed against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), inhibits angiogenesis. Gastrointestinal perforation is a serious and often fatal adverse event related to bevacizumab use. Bevacizumab is indicated in the treatment of colorectal malignancies, certain subtypes of non-small cell lung carcinoma, metastatic renal cell carcinomas, and cervical cancers. It is also indicated in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) in adult patients as the sole treatment agent or in combination with other antineoplastic medications. We present a case of a patient on bevacizumab currently with glioblastoma multiforme and seizures, who was previously treated with radiation treatment and temozolomide. The patient presented to the emergency room with abdominal pain, seizures and was diagnosed to have an intestinal perforation.

Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency and hydroxychloroquine in the COVID-19 era: a mini review

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is until today a global health emergency. In an immense effort, effective drugs against COVID-19 are searched and intensive researches on possible repurposing of antiviral agents are performed. Since chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have shown in vitro anti- COVID-19 activities, the potential effect of CQ/HCQ to treat and/or prevent COVID-19 infection has caused global attention. However, concern regarding possible hemolysis in G6PD-deficient COVID-19 patients exists and for this reason, the association between HCQ and G6PD deficiency (G6PDD) is back in the limelight. This study aims to answer the question raised by Mastroianni et al. "Hydroxychloroquine: Culprit or Innocent Bystander in G6PD-Deficient Patients with COVID-19?", reporting all cases of HCQ in G6PD deficient COVID-19 patients published on PubMed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), in addition to the Mastroianni's patient. In our opinion, after an accurate revision of these cases and responding the question raised by Mastroianni et al., we believe that it is difficult to reach a final verdict about the definitive role of HCQ in these patients. The COVID-19 pandemic has reopened attention on HCQ use and G6PDD. G6PD status is extremely important in modulating the level of reactive oxygen species and many cellular immune responses such as enhanced production of the pro-inflammatory cytokine and inflammasome activation. Since these processes are involved in COVID-19 infection, acute hemolytic anemia, a severe complication of the G6PDD, can occur in these patients. In this context, the role of HCQ, usually effective, safe, and well tolerated in G6PD deficient patients, must be redefined in these patients with COVID-19.As consequence, answering the question: "Hydroxychloroquine: Culprit or Innocent Bystander in G6PD-Deficient Patients with COVID-19?", we state that it is risky to believe that HCQ may be an "innocent bystander" in G6PD-deficient COVID-19 patients.