Summary of Research: Switching Between Adalimumab Reference Product and BI 695501 in Patients with Chronic Plaque Psoriasis (VOLTAIRE-X): A Randomized Controlled Trial

This Summary of Research overviews the results of the VOLTAIRE-X study (NCT03210259), which looked at what happened when people with plaque psoriasis continually took the adalimumab reference product (adalimumab RP; known by the brand name Humira®) or switched three times between taking the adalimumab RP and BI 695501 (adalimumab-adbm, known by the brand name Cyltezo®), an adalimumab biosimilar. The VOLTAIRE-X study showed that the pharmacokinetics of adalimumab were similar in people who stayed continuously on adalimumab RP and people who switched between adalimumab RP and adalimumab-adbm. There were no differences in effectiveness, side effects, or antibodies to adalimumab when comparing people who stayed continuously on adalimumab RP with those who switched between adalimumab RP and the adalimumab biosimilar adalimumab-adbm. On the basis of these results, adalimumab-adbm was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as interchangeable with adalimumab RP, meaning that a pharmacist can substitute the biosimilar adalimumab-adbm for adalimumab RP without requiring permission from the original prescriber (unless required to by state law).

The First 2 Years of Biosimilar Epoetin for Cancer and Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia in the U.S.: A Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions

Biosimilars are biologic drug products that are highly similar to reference products in analytic features, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy. Biosimilar epoetin received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2018. The manufacturer received an FDA nonapproval letter in 2017, despite receiving a favorable review by FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) and an FDA nonapproval letter in 2015 for an earlier formulation. We discuss the 2018 FDA approval, the 2017 FDA ODAC Committee review, and the FDA complete response letters in 2015 and 2017; review concepts of litigation, naming, labeling, substitution, interchangeability, and pharmacovigilance; review European and U.S. oncology experiences with biosimilar epoetin; and review the safety of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. In 2020, policy statements from AETNA, United Health Care, and Humana indicated that new epoetin oncology starts must be for biosimilar epoetin unless medical need for other epoetins is documented. Empirical studies report that as of 2012, reference epoetin use decreased from 40%-60% of all patients with cancer with chemotherapy-induced anemia to <5% of such patients because of safety concerns. Between 2018 and 2020, biosimilar epoetin use varied, increasing to 81% among one private insurer's patients covered by Medicare whose cancer care is administered with Oncology Analytics and to 41% with the same private insurer's patients with cancer covered by commercial health insurance and administered by the private insurer, to 0% in several Veterans Administration Hospitals, increasing to 100% in one large county hospital in California, and with yet-to-be-reported data from most oncology settings. We conclude that biosimilar epoetin appears to have overcome some barriers since 2015, although current uptake in the U.S. is variable. Pricing and safety considerations for all erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are primary determinants of biosimilar epoetin oncology uptake. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Few oncologists understand substitution and interchangeability of biosimilars with reference drugs. Epoetin biosimilar is new to the market, and physician and patient understanding is limited. The development of epoetin biosimilar is not familiar to oncologists.

Safety evaluation of the interchangeable use of robenacoxib in commercially-available tablets and solution for injection in cats

Background

Robenacoxib (Onsior™) is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug developed for canine and feline use for the control of pain and inflammation. It is available as both tablets and solution for injection.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of the interchangeable use of commercially available robenacoxib formulations when administered to cats orally using 6 mg tablets and subcutaneously using a solution for injection containing 20 mg/mL. Thirty-four naïve healthy 4-month old cats were enrolled in this 37-day study and were randomized to four groups (three robenacoxib and one control). One robenacoxib group received the maximum recommended dose (MRD) rate of each formulation, while the other two received two and three times this dose rate. The cats underwent three 10-day treatment cycles comprised of seven days of once daily oral administration followed by three days of subcutaneous administration. The third cycle was followed by an additional seven days of oral treatment. The control group received oral empty gelatin capsules or subcutaneous saline injections. Assessment of safety was based on general health observations, clinical observations, physical, ophthalmic, electrocardiographic and neurological examinations, clinical pathology evaluations, food consumption, body weight, and macroscopic and microscopic examinations. Blood samples were collected for toxicokinetic evaluation.

Results

Blood concentrations of robenacoxib confirmed systemic exposure of all treated cats. All cats were in good health through study termination and there were no serious adverse events during the study. There were no changes in body weight, food consumption, ophthalmic, physical or neurological examinations during the study. Treatment-related abnormalities were of low occurrence at all doses and included injection site changes (transient edema with minimal or mild, subacute/chronic inflammation histologically) and prolongation of the QT interval. These findings were consistent with previously observed findings in studies with robenacoxib administered separately orally or subcutaneously in cats. Thus, there were no adverse effects that could be attributed specifically to the interchangeable use of oral and injectable robenacoxib.

Conclusions

This 37-day laboratory study supports the safety of interchanging robenacoxib injection at a daily dose of 2 mg/kg with robenacoxib tablets at a daily dose of 1 mg/kg, or vice versa.

Community pharmacists' understanding and perceptions of FDA therapeutic equivalence standards

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists need to demonstrate knowledge of and have confidence in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) therapeutic equivalence (TE) standards to improve acceptance of generic medicines amongst patients and other healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate community pharmacists' understanding, interpretation and perceptions of the FDA TE standards to identify if further education is needed on this topic.

METHODS

An anonymous, 13-item survey was piloted and then distributed by e-mail to a random sample of 287 Indiana community pharmacists. The 5-min survey included demographic, knowledge-based, and perception-based questions on FDA TE criteria that participants were given one week to complete. Participants completed the survey using a Web-based survey tool (Qualtrics).

RESULTS

192 pharmacists completed the survey achieving a response rate of 66.9%. Only 7.3% of respondents correctly identified FDA bioequivalence criteria for approval of generic drug products. Two questions presented TE codes from the Orange Book and asked respondents to identify if a pair of drug products were therapeutically equivalent: 62.6% and 61.0% of respondents answered correctly. However, 89.4% of respondents correctly indicated that the Orange Book is the location of FDA TE evaluations. 74.9% of responding pharmacists indicated a positive perception of the rigor of FDA approval standards associated with generic medications and 66.0% believed that generic drug products made by different manufacturers are of similar quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that community pharmacists need additional education on the interpretation of TE codes and FDA bioequivalence criteria for approval of generic drug products. The safety and efficacy of generics are often questioned by patients and physicians. It is important for pharmacists to be knowledgeable of FDA TE standards as they are experts in medicines and need to be confident with the criteria to effectively convey them to patients and healthcare professionals.

Safety evaluation of the interchangeable use of robenacoxib (Onsior™) tablets and solution for injection in dogs

BACKGROUND

Robenacoxib (Onsior™) is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug developed for canine and feline use for the control of pain and inflammation. It is available as both tablets and solution for injection. The objective of this safety study was to investigate the interchangeable use of two robenacoxib formulations in dogs using a novel study design alternating between oral tablets and subcutaneous injections. Thirty-two naïve healthy 4-month dogs were enrolled in this 88-day study and were randomized among four groups to be untreated or to receive robenacoxib at the highest recommended or elevated dose rates. The dogs were administered three 20-day treatment cycles each separated by a 14-day washout period. Each 20-day cycle was comprised of 10 days of once daily oral administration, 3 days of subcutaneous administration, followed by further 7 days of oral administration (Groups 2 to 4). The control group (Group 1) received oral empty gelatin capsules or subcutaneous saline injections. Assessment of safety was based on general health observations, clinical observations, physical and neurological examinations including ophthalmological examinations, electrocardiographic examinations and clinical pathology evaluations, food and water consumption, body weight, and macroscopic and microscopic examinations. Blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic evaluation.

RESULTS

Blood concentrations of robenacoxib confirmed systemic exposure of all treated dogs. All dogs were in good health through study termination and there were no serious adverse events during the course of the study. No changes in body weight, food consumption, ophthalmic, neurological examinations, electrocardiograms, buccal mucosal blood times, clinical pathology or organ weight were attributable to robenacoxib formulation administration. Primary treatment-related abnormalities were of low incidence at all doses. They were confined to macroscopic and microscopic changes observed locally at the subcutaneous injection sites and microscopic findings within the gastrointestinal tract. These findings were as expected based on previous studies with robenacoxib solution for injection alone and the known properties of this class of compound and mode of administration. There were no adverse effects which could be attributed specifically to the interchangeable use of oral and injectable robenacoxib.

CONCLUSIONS

Alternating regimens of robenacoxib tablets and solution for injection were well tolerated in healthy young dogs.

Biomedical and Market Issues Surrounding the Advent of Biosimilars

As the patents associated with the biologics are set to expire in the near future, a new type of therapy appears on the horizon, and it is quite similar to the biologics. This commentary examines the biomedical and market issues surrounding the advent of biosimilars.