Efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety of the biosimilar CT-P10 in comparison with rituximab in patients with previously untreated low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial

The comparison of safety and cost between reference drug of rituximab and its biosimilar Riximyo in lymphoproliferative disorders and other hematological diseases. Single center experience

Rituximab, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, has broad clinical application. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and cost of the original reference rituximab (MabThera) and its biosimilar (Riximyo). This retrospective analysis of 262 patients receiving Riximyo in the Department of Hematology of Wroclaw Medical University in Poland from the period of 1 October 2020 to 21 June 2021 focused on infusion-related reactions (IRRs), which occurred in 4,96% of patients (N = 13). 109 patients (41,6%) had previously been treated with the reference drug and 2 IRRs were reported after switching therapy. During the study period, after biosimilar introduction, the cost of rituximab decreased by 41%. Rixmyo while maintaining similar safety profile is much more cost-effective.

Efficacy and safety of two rituximab biosimilars for treating immune thrombocytopenia: a reference-product matched study

The emergence of rituximab biosimilars offers the prospect of significant savings to the healthcare system. However, these drugs have never been evaluated for treating immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). This was an observational, matched study. We included adults who received a rituximab biosimilar for ITP. Each rituximab-naïve biosimilar patient was matched with two controls from the historic ITP-ritux registry. For non-naïve patients, we compared the response to the biosimilar with that observed with the reference product. Response status was defined according to international criteria. We included 107 patients; 55 receiving Rixathon™ and 52 Truxima™. Three months after the first infusion of rituximab biosimilars, the overall response rate was 47/74 (63.5%) versus 76/142 (53.5%) for the matched controls receiving the reference product (p = .13). The 3-month overall response rate was 76.5% for Rixathon™ versus 51.5% for the matched control group (p = .01) and 21/40 (52.5%) for Truxima™ versus 41/74 (55.4%) for the matched controls (p = .81). For non-naïve patients, the response pattern was similar to that observed previously with the reference product. Safety was analogous to that observed with the reference product. Rituximab biosimilars seemed safe and effective for ITP treatment.

Clinical Benefit, Price, and Uptake for Cancer Biosimilars vs Reference Drugs in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

The high cost of biologics used to treat cancer has been an increasing burden in the world. In China, the recent approval of cancer biosimilar drugs to resolve this problem is promising, but evidence of clinical benefits, price, and uptake for these drugs is still lacking.

Objectives

To compare characteristics of pivotal clinical trials in China and other countries for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab and investigate the efficacy or effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity outcomes of cancer biosimilars compared with reference drugs by meta-analysis.

Data Sources

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for published studies from database inception to February 1, 2023, using the search topics (cancers) AND (biosimilars).

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies that included patients with cancer were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two authors independently extracted the outcome estimates and characteristics for each study. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to summarize the relative estimates with 95% CIs. This study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinical trial characteristics were collected for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. The relative estimates of efficacy or effectiveness (objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival), safety, and immunogenicity outcomes were analyzed for biosimilars vs reference drugs. The weighted average price and uptake rate were evaluated for biosimilars relative to their reference drugs between 2015 and 2022.

Results

A total of 39 RCTs (involving 18 791 patients) and 10 cohort studies (involving 1998 patients) were included. The biosimilars of bevacizumab (16 RCTs; risk ratio [RR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.01; P = .17), rituximab (12 RCTs; RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.08; P = .70), and trastuzumab (9 RCTs: RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12; P = .29) met equivalence with reference biologics in regard to the objective response rate. The results summarized from cohort studies were consistent with those from RCTs. In 2022, cancer biosimilars were priced at 69% to 90% of the costs for the reference drugs, and their uptake reached 54% to 83% in China.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that cancer biosimilars provided comparable clinical benefits at lower prices compared with reference drugs. These findings suggest the potential feasibility of expediting the transition from reference drugs to biosimilars to benefit more patients with cancer.

A non-interventional, post-marketing surveillance study evaluating the safety and effectiveness of biosimilar rituximab (CT-P10) during routine clinical practice in the Republic of Korea

BACKGROUND

CT-P10 was the first licensed rituximab biosimilar. This Korean post-marketing surveillance study evaluated CT-P10 safety and effectiveness in approved indications.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This prospective, open-label, observational, phase 4 study collected routine clinical practice data across 27 centers in the Republic of Korea. Patients received their first CT-P10 treatment, per prescribing information, for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), or microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) during the surveillance period (16 November 2016-15 November 2020). Safety (including adverse events [AEs] and adverse drug reactions [ADRs]) and disease-specific clinical response (by best overall response [NHL/CLL], Disease Activity Score in 28-joints [RA], or Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score for Wegener's Granulomatosis [GPA/MPA]) were assessed for ≤1 year (NHL/CLL) or ≤24 weeks (RA/GPA/MPA).

RESULTS

The safety population comprised 677 patients (604 NHL, 16 CLL, 42 RA, 7 GPA, 8 MPA). AEs/ADRs were reported for 68.4%/27.7% (NHL/CLL), 31.0%/14.3% (RA), and 86.7%/13.3% (GPA/MPA) of patients. Serious AEs and unexpected ADRs did not raise new safety signals. Pneumonia was the most frequent serious ADR overall. Positive effectiveness outcomes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings were consistent with the known CT-P10/reference rituximab safety profile, with high effectiveness observed in NHL/CLL and RA.

Comparative Safety Profiles of Oncology Biosimilars: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is crucial that the safety profiles of biosimilars are similar to those of the original biologics. A better understanding of biosimilars and their relative safety and immunogenicity profiles are required for healthcare providers to prescribe them to patients with life-threatening cancer diseases who receive chemotherapies with potentially serious adverse events (AEs).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to collate and analyze currently available safety and immunogenicity outcomes of biosimilars used in oncology and compare their safety information with those of the original biologics.

METHODS

The MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases were searched as at 28 February 2022. Four anti-cancer biosimilar molecules were considered: bevacizumab, trastuzumab, rituximab, and (peg)filgrastim. Through a systematic review, we selected the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing safety outcomes between the biosimilars and original biologics of the four molecules. As safety outcomes, various treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were collated, such as any TEAE, serious AE, and TEAE higher than grade 3. A risk ratio (RR) per category of TEAE was estimated through a meta-analysis. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was also conducted to compare the safety among the biosimilar brands for TEAEs over 25% with higher variability in addition to the serious AE cases.

RESULTS

Forty-nine RCTs were identified. The results from the meta-analysis showed that the safety and immunogenicity profiles of all four biosimilar molecules are comparable with that of the original biologics at the TEAE level without statistically significant differences, except for diarrhea for (peg)filgrastim. The incidence of diarrhea with (peg)filgrastim was less than that with the original biologic (RR 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.89). The NMA results showed similar safety profiles among the biosimilar brands for all four biosimilar molecules, except for the serious adverse event of a trastuzumab biosimilar (RR 0.296, 95% credible interval 0.109-0.840).

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis and NMA for all four biosimilars showed that the safety and immunogenicity profiles of biosimilar products in oncology are generally comparable with that of the original biologics at the TEAE level. However, additional evidence needs to be collected since several TEAEs of specific biosimilars were out of the equivalent range. The results of this study provide comparative safety information and a better understanding of oncology biosimilars for healthcare providers to prescribe them to patients.

Interchangeability and adverse events in originator-rituximab and its biosimilar (CT-P10) among rheumatic patients: a real-life experience

Biosimilars offer cost-effective and safe treatment options both for patients and healthcare systems. CT-P10 is the first biosimilar of rituximab approved in Europe for use in all indications of originator rituximab (oRTX). This study aimed to provide real-life data on treatment changes and adverse events in patients who received oRTX or CT-P10. We retrospectively reviewed treatment-related adverse events [infusion-related reactions (IRRs), infections, hypogammaglobulinemia] in patients treated with at least one dose of oRTX (MabThera^®) or CT-P10 (Truxima^®) between 2020 and 2021 and had at least 6 months follow-up after rituximab infusion in a rheumatology clinic. The switches between oRTX and CT-P10 were performed according to drug availability at the hospital pharmacy at the time of infusion according to the local hospital procedure. Physicians were not involved in the decision of biosimilar selection. A total of 128 patients (CT-P10, n = 64; oRTX, n = 64) were included. CT-P10 was switched in 52 (40.6%) patients who had previously used oRTX, and 48 (37.5%) patients remained on oRTX. We demonstrated no difference between patients treated with oRTX or CT-P10 in the rates of IRRs, in which all reactions were grade 1 and 2. Comparable rates of infections (p > 0.05) and the rate of hypogammaglobulinemia (p > 0.05) were found in both groups with no significant difference. CT-P10 provides a safe treatment alternative in patients who require rituximab therapy. The rational use of biosimilars can be supported by evolving evidence on interchangeability and switching in real-life settings, which will help clinicians in decision-making.

Agents contributing to secondary immunodeficiency development in patients with multiple myeloma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A systematic literature review

Introduction

Patients with hematological malignancies (HMs), like chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), multiple myeloma (MM), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), have a high risk of secondary immunodeficiency (SID), SID-related infections, and mortality. Here, we report the results of a systematic literature review on the potential association of various cancer regimens with infection rates, neutropenia, lymphocytopenia, or hypogammaglobulinemia, indicative of SID.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in 03/2022 using PubMed to search for clinical trials that mentioned in the title and/or abstract selected cancer (CLL, MM, or NHL) treatments covering 12 classes of drugs, including B-lineage monoclonal antibodies, CAR T therapies, proteasome inhibitors, kinase inhibitors, immunomodulators, antimetabolites, anti-tumor antibiotics, alkylating agents, Bcl-2 antagonists, histone deacetylase inhibitors, vinca alkaloids, and selective inhibitors of nuclear export. To be included, a publication had to report at least one of the following: percentages of patients with any grade and/or grade ≥3 infections, any grade and/or grade ≥3 neutropenia, or hypogammaglobulinemia. From the relevant publications, the percentages of patients with lymphocytopenia and specific types of infection (fungal, viral, bacterial, respiratory [upper or lower respiratory tract], bronchitis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, skin, gastrointestinal, and sepsis) were collected.

Results

Of 89 relevant studies, 17, 38, and 34 included patients with CLL, MM, and NHL, respectively. In CLL, MM, and NHL, any grade infections were seen in 51.3%, 35.9% and 31.1% of patients, and any grade neutropenia in 36.3%, 36.4%, and 35.4% of patients, respectively. The highest proportion of patients with grade ≥3 infections across classes of drugs were: 41.0% in patients with MM treated with a B-lineage monoclonal antibody combination; and 29.9% and 38.0% of patients with CLL and NHL treated with a kinase inhibitor combination, respectively. In the limited studies, the mean percentage of patients with lymphocytopenia was 1.9%, 11.9%, and 38.6% in CLL, MM, and NHL, respectively. Two studies reported the proportion of patients with hypogammaglobulinemia: 0-15.3% in CLL and 5.9% in NHL (no studies reported hypogammaglobulinemia in MM).

Conclusion

This review highlights cancer treatments contributing to infections and neutropenia, potentially related to SID, and shows underreporting of hypogammaglobulinemia and lymphocytopenia before and during HM therapies.

Efficacy and safety of rituximab biosimilars or reference product as first-line treatment in patients with low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

The role of rituximab in the first-line treatment of low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma (LTB-FL) has been supported by a large number of data. However, whether rituximab biosimilars have the same efficacy and safety as the reference drug (MabThera) is still controversial.

METHODS

Electronic databases and the ClinicalTrail.gov website were extensively searched using relevant search criteria. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the RoB 2 assessment scale, and the RevMan 5.4 statistical software was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 1223 patients were included in four clinical randomized controlled trials. There was no statistical difference in efficacy between biosimilars and MabThera groups (the objective response rate: RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.93-1.08, p = 0.92; the progression-free survival: RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.96-1.12, p = 0.30; the overall survival: RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.03, p = 0.76; the serious adverse events: RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.69-1.89, p = 0.59; the infusion-related reaction: RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.77-1.09, p = 0.32). In terms of safety, there was also no significant difference between two groups.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Our study concluded that the efficacy and safety of rituximab biosimilars in the treatment of LTB-FL are highly similar to those of the original drug.

Real-world clinical effectiveness and safety of CT-P10 in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: An observational study in Europe

The rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 is approved for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Previous studies have demonstrated clinical similarity between CT-P10 and reference rituximab. However, real-world data relating to treatment in patients with DLBCL with rituximab biosimilars are limited. This study collected real-world data relating to the effectiveness and safety of CT-P10 treatment from the medical records of 389 patients with DLBCL (24 centers, five European countries). For the primary outcome (clinical effectiveness), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and best response (BR) were assessed. The percentage (95% confidence interval [95% CI]) of patients alive at 12-, 18-, and 30 months postindex (initiation of CT-P10) was 86% (82.4%-89.4%), 81% (76.9%-84.9%), and 76% (71.2%-80.1%), respectively. The PFS rate (percent, [95% CI]) at 12-, 18-, and 30 months postindex was 78% (74.2%-82.5%), 72% (67.9%-76.9%), and 67% (61.9%-71.7%), respectively. Median OS/PFS was not reached. For 82% (n = 312) of patients, the BR to CT-P10 was a complete response. Adverse events were consistent with known effects of chemotherapy. This international, multicenter study provides real-world data on the safety and effectiveness profile of CT-P10 for DLBCL treatment and supports the adoption of CT-P10 for the treatment of DLBCL.

Comparison of Long-Term Use of Low Dose Rituximab and Mycophenolate Mofetil in Chinese Patients With Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder

Background

Several studies have reported the efficacy and safety of rituximab (RTX) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of long-term use of low-dose RTX and MMF in Chinese patients with NMOSD.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed data from patients with NMOSD in our hospital. The enrolled patients were administrated different immunosuppressive agents. We accessed annual relapse rate (ARR), neurological disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale, EDSS), time to the next relapse, and adverse events.

Results

EDSS and ARR were both reduced after RTX and MMF treatment. Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that patients treated with RTX had a longer time to next relapse compared other immunosuppressive agents before RTX (log-rank test: p < 0.001). Furthermore, we evaluated the change of EDSS and ARR in RTX and MMF, and patients treated with RTX showed a better reduction. Eleven relapses from seven patients in group RTX and 20 relapses from 14 patients in group MMF were reported during follow-up.

Conclusion

Long-term using of low dose of RTX and MMF were effective and tolerable in Chinese patients with NMOSD. Compared with MMF, RTX showed a better way to reduce the ARR.

Characteristics of Clinical Trials Evaluating Biosimilars in the Treatment of Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Biologics account for almost half of US drug spending but may be subject to competitive pricing pressures by US Food and Drug Administration-approved biosimilars. The extent of the preapproval clinical testing that is needed and how these biosimilars compare with the originator biologic products remain critical issues in establishing a vibrant biosimilar market.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the design of cancer biosimilar efficacy studies compared with the reference drug pivotal trials and provide summary risk ratio estimates for each cancer type drug subgroup.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search was performed of articles and abstracts published using Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated April 18, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies or abstracts in English comparing a disease-modifying cancer biologic and its biosimilar and reporting efficacy or surrogate efficacy results were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Outcome estimates and study characteristics were extracted from each study. Among biosimilar efficacy studies, random-effects meta-analyses were performed for each cancer type molecule outcome subgroup, calculating pooled relative estimates and 95% CIs.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Study characteristics, such as population size, blinding, and randomization, were compared between biosimilar trials and those of reference drugs. Risk ratio estimates for relative change to surrogate measures (eg, progression-free survival) were collected for biosimilars and their reference products.

RESULTS

A total of 31 cancer biosimilar studies of 3 reference products involving 12 310 patients were included. In all 7 subgroups, the biosimilars analyzed were indistinguishable from their reference drug on surrogate efficacy. Six reference drug trials were included, involving 1811 patients. On average, biosimilar studies involved more patients than reference drug trials (mean number of patients, 397 vs 302), were more likely to be randomized clinical trials rather than single-group or observational studies (100% [31 of 31] vs 50% [3 of 6]), and were more likely to be double blind rather than open label (84% [26 of 31] vs 17% [1 of 6]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that the biosimilars for the cancer drugs in this sample were subjected to rigorous clinical evaluations, and the results were statistically indistinguishable from those of original products across drugs, cancer types, and outcome measures.

A Developer's Perspective on Clinical Evidence and Benefits for Rituximab Biosimilar Uptake, with a Focus on CT-P10

To date, four rituximab biosimilars have received regulatory approval from the European Medicines Agency and/or US Food and Drug Administration. CT-P10 was the first rituximab biosimilar to be approved by each agency, in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Regulatory approval of CT-P10 followed demonstration of pharmacokinetic equivalence to the reference product in a phase I study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Phase III pivotal studies of CT-P10 subsequently demonstrated equivalence or non-inferiority of pharmacokinetics and efficacy between CT-P10 and reference rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, advanced-stage follicular lymphoma, and low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma. Almost 5 years after its initial regulatory approval, significant real-world experience has accumulated with CT-P10 use, particularly in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, one of the indications approved by extrapolation. This article summarises the pivotal data underlying regulatory approval for the four licensed rituximab biosimilars, before focusing on real-world data gathered with CT-P10. These data provide further support for the safety and effectiveness of CT-P10 and should boost healthcare professional and patient confidence in its use. Pharmacoeconomic analyses support the potential healthcare system cost savings offered by rituximab biosimilar uptake, which could lead to improved patient access to biologic treatments. Opportunities arising from biosimilar uptake extend further, potentially enabling innovative investigator-led research and therapeutic advances.

The safety and clinical effectiveness of rapid infusion with CT-P10 in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A retrospective non-interventional post-authorization safety study in Europe

Rapid infusion (RI) of the rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 is currently only an approved treatment regimen for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Although both CT-P10 and reference rituximab are known to be frequently administered using a RI regimen (≤90 min) in clinical practice, published data on the safety of RI of CT-P10 in patients with NHL and CLL are limited. Hence, this study collected real-world safety and effectiveness data on RI-CT-P10 from the medical records of 196 patients with NHL or CLL in 10 European centers, 6 months after the date of the first RI (index date); the infusion-related reaction (IRR) rate was compared to previously published data. Ten percent (95% confidence interval 6%-15%; n = 20/196) of patients experienced an infusion-related reaction (IRR) on day 1-2 post-index, which was not significantly different (p = 0.45) to the IRR rate for rituximab described in a previous meta-analysis (8.8%). During the observation period, 2% of patients experienced grade 3-5 IRRs and 85% (n = 166) experienced an adverse event (non-IRR). The most common reason for discontinuation of first-line CT-P10 was planned treatment completion (81%; n = 158). Complete response and partial response to CT-P10 was observed in 74% (n = 142/192) and 22% (n = 42/192) of patients, respectively. The results of this real-world study demonstrate that the safety and effectiveness profile of RI-CT-P10 is similar to RI of reference rituximab and therefore support the current use of RI-CT-P10 in patients with NHL and CLL.

Switching from Biologic to Biosimilar Products: Insight from an Integrated Health Care System

Biologics are indicated for the treatment of a wide range of conditions and have transformed care in several therapeutic areas; however, they are expensive for both health care systems and patients. The use of biosimilars, which are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as being "highly similar" to the originator biologic, has the potential to change the health care landscape in the biologic space through considerable cost savings for both payors and patients. With the introduction of biosimilars, organizations are increasingly evaluating how to switch patients from originator biologics to biosimilars. While published studies have evaluated the outcomes of patients switched from originator biologics to biosimilars, there are few publications describing the process health care systems have used to adopt and switch patients to biosimilars. Since 2016, Kaiser Permanente Colorado (KPCO) has undertaken several biosimilar switches starting with the first biosimilar introduced to the market, filgrastim, and has been able to successfully switch 91.8% of patients receiving infliximab, 99.8% receiving rituximab, and 100% receiving filgrastim, trastuzumab, and bevacizumab originator biologics to their respective biosimilars. In an effort to support other health care systems and provide a framework for implementing biosimilar switches, the purpose of this paper is to describe the biosimilar switch model and share learnings from the KPCO experience.

Assessment of rituximab-abbs, a biosimilar, and rituximab outcomes in patients with CLL or NHL: A real-world UK study

BACKGROUND

Rituximab (chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) treatment is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Rituximab-abbs (first biosimilar approved in 2017) is expected to significantly reduce healthcare economic burden due to lower acquisition costs. This non-interventional, non-comparative study assessed real-world effectiveness and tolerability of rituximab-abbs and rituximab in treatment-naive patients with CLL or NHL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Via an online physician survey, 46 UK-registered hematologists and oncologists retrospectively reported on randomly selected patients aged ≥18 years with CLL or NHL with rituximab-abbs or rituximab as first-line immunotherapy. Overall, 201 patient charts were examined across 4 cohorts: rituximab-abbs in CLL, rituximab-abbs in NHL, rituximab in CLL, rituximab in NHL.

RESULTS

Demographic profiles across cohorts were similar. Most patients (94 %-100 %) received combination therapy (rituximab-abbs or rituximab mainly with chemotherapy). For both treatments, overall response rate (94 %-98 %) and 1-year overall survival (98 %-100 %) were very high for patients with CLL or NHL. Most common serious adverse events were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia and infusion reactions. The majority of patients (54 %-66 %) did not experience a grade ≥3 adverse event. Healthcare resource utilization was similarly high across cohorts, driven by diagnostic testing, oncologist office visits, and day-case hospital admissions; many patients required supportive medical therapies. Mean annual savings of ∼£1000/patient driven by acquisition costs occurred with rituximab-abbs versus rituximab, administration costs were similar.

CONCLUSION

Rituximab-abbs and rituximab demonstrated similar effectiveness and tolerability in treating CLL and NHL in routine UK clinical practice and demonstrate the utility of the biosimilar as a cost-saving alternative treatment.

Long-term efficacy and safety of CT-P10 or rituximab in untreated advanced follicular lymphoma: a randomized phase 3 study

Rituximab biosimilars are a cornerstone of treatment of advanced-stage follicular lymphoma (FL). This double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial randomized (1:1) adults (≥18 years) with stage III to IV indolent B-cell lymphoma, including grades 1 to 3a FL, to receive CT-P10 or rituximab (375 mg/m2 IV), with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone, every 3 weeks for 8 cycles (induction period). Patients achieving complete response (CR), unconfirmed CR, or partial response (PR) received CT-P10 or rituximab maintenance for 2 years (375 mg/m2, every 8 weeks). Primary end points were previously reported, proving noninferiority of efficacy and pharmacokinetic equivalence of CT-P10 to rituximab. Secondary end points included overall response rate (PR+CR) during the induction period per 2007 International Working Group (IWG) criteria, survival analyses, and overall safety. Between 28 July 2014 and 29 December 2015, 140 patients were randomized (70 per group). Median follow-up was 39.9 months (interquartile range, 36.7-43.5). Per 1999 IWG criteria, 4-year Kaplan-Meier estimates (95% confidence interval [CI]) for CT-P10 and rituximab were 61% (47% to 73%) and 55% (36% to 70%) for progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 0.67-2.63]; P=.409), respectively, and 88% (77% to 94%) and 93% (83% to 97%) for overall survival (5.29 [0.84-33.53]; P=.077). Overall, 90% (CT-P10) and 86% (rituximab) of patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events. Long-term safety profiles were similar between groups. Findings confirm favorable outcomes for CT-P10-treated patients with advanced-stage FL and demonstrate comparable long-term efficacy and overall safety between CT-P10 and rituximab. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02162771.

Efficacy and Safety of CT-P10 Versus Rituximab in Untreated Low-Tumor-Burden Follicular Lymphoma: Final Results of a Randomized Phase III Study

INTRODUCTION

This double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled phase III trial (NCT02260804) assessed CT-P10 and rituximab safety and efficacy in patients with previously untreated low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma (LTBFL), including after a single switch from rituximab to CT-P10.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

LTBFL patients were randomized (1:1) to receive CT-P10 or rituximab (375 mg/m² intravenously; day 1 of 4 7-day cycles). Patients achieving disease control entered a 2-year maintenance period. CT-P10 or rituximab were administered every 8 weeks (6 cycles) in year 1; all patients could receive CT-P10 (every 8 weeks; 6 cycles) in year 2. Secondary endpoints (reported here) were overall response rate (ORR) during the study period, progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). Safety and immunogenicity were evaluated.

RESULTS

Between  November 9, 2015 and  January 4, 2018, 258 patients were randomized (130 for CT-P10; 128 for rituximab). ORR was similar between groups over the study period (CT-P10: 88%; rituximab: 87%). After 29.2 months' median follow-up, median PFS, TTP, and OS were not estimable; 24-month Kaplan-Meier estimates suggested similarity between groups. Overall, 114 (CT-P10: 88%), and 104 (rituximab: 81%) patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events. The single switch was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

These updated data support therapeutic similarity of CT-P10 and rituximab and support the use of CT-P10 monotherapy for previously untreated LTBFL.

Biosimilar Use in Breast Cancer Treatment: A National Survey of Brazilian Oncologists' Opinions, Practices, and Concerns

PURPOSE

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in Brazilian women, with 66,280 new cases in 2020 (with 20% overexpressing human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]). The trastuzumab biosimilar was the first oncology biosimilar approved in Brazil for HER2-positive breast cancer treatment. This study aimed to assess the current level of knowledge of biosimilars, comfort of use, extrapolation indications, and switching of practices among oncologists in Brazil.

METHODS

A 24-question survey was developed using an online platform that sought information regarding responders' characteristics and use of biosimilars. The survey analyzed the basic knowledge of biosimilars, trastuzumab biosimilars, level of comfort with extrapolation, switching treatment regimens, and opinions concerning the cost of HER2-positive breast cancer therapy. Data were collected between July and September 2019 and included 144 oncologists from five Brazilian regions.

RESULTS

In total, 95% of respondents could identify the most appropriate definition of biosimilars and 96% felt comfortable prescribing trastuzumab biosimilars. Although 63% of respondents would use the biosimilar in all settings wherein the reference biologic was approved, 35% would use the biosimilar for cases involving metastatic disease. Although 82% of oncologists were in favor of switching from a reference biologic to a biosimilar, 18% would avoid switching regimens. The lack of studies detailing switching to other regimens and the correct timing to switch was the major concern. The cost of HER2 therapy was a significant concern for most oncologists.

CONCLUSION

Oncologists demonstrated a high level of knowledge of biosimilars and encouraging levels of prescriber use; however, extrapolation and switching treatment regimens are barriers to the effective use of biosimilars in cancer treatment. Efforts should be concentrated on strategies involving medical education programs on biosimilars.

Progress in oncology biosimilars till 2020: Scrutinizing comparative studies of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies

Stupendous elevation in the healthcare costs has followed with the inception of the current unconventional options of treatment available for cancer patients. There is a dire need of innovative financing approaches to lessen the financial load on healthcare system. Biosimilars are biological drugs consisting of an active ingredient from a reference biological drug that has a great potential of relieving financial load. Strict requirements from regulatory point of view are required as biosimilars are exceedingly similar to but not identical to the reference product. This provides with a certainty that no consequential differences from clinical point of view as compared to the respective biologics exists with regards to efficacy, safety and purity. Safety and effectiveness of biosimilars have been disclosed since more than 10 years of affirmations. However, there is a need to educate the healthcare professionals to abolish potential misconceptions and coalesce biosimilars into regular clinical practice. The present review focuses on providing an overview of regulatory aspects and requirements for biosimilars, the main challenges in the selection and development of biosimilars and the economic impact and financial savings observed in recent studies carried out in different parts of the world. In addition, we have discussed the different successful comparative studies which have been done in different parts of the world to depict the biosimilarity for monoclonal antibodies such as bevacizumab, trastuzumab and rituximab.

Can biosimilar products be interchangeable? Pharmaceutical perspective in the implementation of biosimilars in oncology

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety in the interchangeability of biosimilar products approved for cancer treatment from a pharmaceutical perspective.

METHODS

A literature review was carried out using the descriptors "Biosimilar", "Oncology Therapy", "Interchangeable drugs" and "Biological Products", in the Sciencedirect, MEDLINE, and CAPLUS databases.

RESULTS

Fifty-one articles were selected, which addressed the importance of establishing standards that prove the efficacy and safety of biosimilars with reference products, as well as the growing interest of the pharmaceutical industry in the development of biosimilars and the impact on costs and changes in the perspective of the treatment of cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

As they are large and complex molecules, it is impossible to obtain identical copies of their reference products, which generates conflicts and concerns on the part of the pharmaceutical class regarding the safety in the interchangeability of these products, highlighting the importance of pharmacovigilance in this process.

Chemotherapy-Free Management of Follicular and Marginal Zone Lymphoma

Many patients with follicular (FL) or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) are not eligible to receive immunochemotherapy due to advanced age or comorbidities. Recent innovations in the treatment of these indolent lymphomas provide options for multiple lines of chemotherapy-free management. More research is needed to determine which older patients are best served by a chemotherapy-free approach in the context of geriatric vulnerabilities. In the first line, regardless of disease burden, rituximab monotherapy can provide high rates of disease control with minimal toxicity, while judicious use of brief maintenance extends the duration of response. Radioimmunotherapy using ibritumomab tiuxetan is an effective and safe post-rituximab consolidation for older patients who have <25% bone marrow involvement. The combination of rituximab and lenalidomide, although “chemotherapy-free”, does not improve tolerability over immunochemotherapy. However, studies support lower doses and shorter duration of lenalidomide exposure as a means to improve safety without materially compromising efficacy for older individuals. Extranodal MZL can often be effectively controlled with low-dose radiation therapy, and splenic MZL has excellent outcomes with rituximab monotherapy. For many patients with relapsed FL/MZL, simple retreatment with anti-CD20 antibodies will prove sufficient. Other currently available options for relapsed/refractory disease include ibritumomab tiuxetan, lenalidomide with rituximab, umbralisib as a potentially less toxic PI3K inhibitor, ibrutinib (for MZL), and tazemetostat (for FL, especially with EZH2 mutation). Emerging data with novel forms of immunotherapy (antibody-drug conjugates like polatuzumab vedotin or loncastuximab tesirine; T-cell-engaging bispecific antibodies like mosunetuzumab or epcoritamab; and chimeric antigen receptor CAR T-cells like axicabtagene ciloleucel) suggest that immune-directed approaches can produce very high and potentially durable responses in FL/MZL with limited toxicities, further obviating the need for chemotherapy.

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).

Safety of switching between rituximab biosimilars in onco-hematology

Comparable clinical efficacy and safety of the reference rituximab (MABTHERA) and its biosimilars has been established in randomized trials. However, safety concerns are often raised when switching from reference to biosimilar products and between different biosimilars. In this prospective observational study we aimed at evaluating the safety of switching between reference and biosimilar rituximab (TRUXIMA and RIXATHON) at Trento General Hospital (Italy). All patients (n = 83) with Non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL, n = 72) and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL, n = 11) who received rituximab between March 2018 and March 2019 were asked to take part in the study. In 2017 and 2018 two tenders were carried out and two different biosimilars became available in the hospital, these were used sequentially. Thus, patients with or without previous treatments with the originator rituximab either received a biosimilar or were switched between different biosimilars. The incidence of adverse events in these groups of patients is described. The study population received 465 rituximab infusions and all received biosimilars. Fifty patients (60%) experienced at least one switch between different biosimilars or between rituximab originator and biosimilar, whereas 33 (40%) received one of the two biosimilars and one patient received reference rituximab. Adverse events (n = 146) were reported in 71 patients (84.5%). Treatment-related grade 3–4 events were reported in 5 patients (5.9%), whereas grade 1 rituximab related infusion events were observed in 6 patients (7.1%). No safety signal emerged in association with the use of a specific biosimilar nor with the practice of switching. Adverse events were similar, in terms of seriousness and frequency, to those described in the literature, providing further support to the clinical safety of rituximab biosimilars.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Efficacy and Safety Study of PF-05280586 (a Rituximab Biosimilar) Compared with Rituximab Reference Product (MabThera®) in Subjects with Previously Untreated CD20-Positive, Low-Tumor-Burden Follicular Lymphoma (LTB-FL)

Background

Biosimilars are highly similar to the licensed biologic (“reference product”), with no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, or potency between the two products.

Objective

This comparative 52-week clinical study evaluated the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of PF-05280586 (Ruxience™ [a rituximab biosimilar]) versus rituximab reference product sourced from the EU (MabThera^®; rituximab-EU).

Patients and Methods

Subjects with CD20-positive, low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma (LTB-FL) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1 were randomized (1:1) to PF-05280586 or rituximab-EU (375 mg/m² intravenously [once weekly for 4 weeks at days 1, 8, 15, and 22]), stratified using the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index 2 classification. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) at week 26 (percentage of subjects achieving complete response [CR] or partial response [PR]). Therapeutic equivalence was concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in ORR between groups was within the prespecified margin (± 16%). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), CR rate, safety, immunogenicity, PK, and PD.

Results

A total of 394 subjects were randomized: PF-05280586 (n = 196) or rituximab-EU (n = 198). ORR at week 26 was 75.5% (PF-05280586) versus 70.7% (rituximab-EU), for a difference of 4.66%; 95% CI (− 4.16 to 13.47), which was entirely within the prespecified equivalence margin. Rates of CR were 29.3% (PF-05280586) versus 31.0% (rituximab-EU). Estimated 1-year PFS rates were 78.2% (95% CI 70.2–84.2) and 83.0% (95% CI 75.0–88.6) for PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU, respectively. Safety, immunogenicity, and mean serum concentrations were similar between groups.

Conclusions

The efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, PK, and PD of PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU were similar up to week 52 in subjects with previously untreated CD20-positive LTB-FL.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02213263 and EudraCT (2014-000132-41).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-019-00398-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Real-world intensive safety monitoring of biosimilars rituximab and trastuzumab in a Portuguese oncology hospital

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the safety profiles of two biosimilar medicines (rituximab and trastuzumab) in the treatment of cancer patients within a Portuguese oncology hospital.

METHODS

This hospital-based prospective observational study followed a cohort event monitoring approach focused on signalling suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Patients undergoing treatment with rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 (Truxima®) or trastuzumab biosimilar CT-P6 (Herzuma®) were recruited over an 11-month and a 6-month period, respectively. Clinicians identified eligible patients and used paper-based forms to report all ADRs associated with biosimilar medicines. ADR case reports were assessed for seriousness, expectedness and causality in the Pharmacovigilance Unit of Coimbra.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients received biosimilar medicines (rituximab, n = 35; trastuzumab, n = 59). Of those, 4 patients (11.4%) experienced 16 ADRs with rituximab and 1 patient (1.7%) experienced 5 ADRs with trastuzumab. All case reports contained serious and expected ADRs that were at least probably related with biosimilar medicines under study. Based on the MedDRA PT coding, the most reported ADR for rituximab CT-P10 was chest discomfort (n = 4; 19.1%), followed by odynophagia (n = 2; 9.5%). Trastuzumab CT-P6 was associated with back pain, headache, pain in extremity, tachypnoea and tremor (each, n = 1; 4.8%).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that using biosimilar rituximab and biosimilar trastuzumab to treat cancer patients in the real-world clinical setting is associated with acceptable safety profiles. No new safety problems were identified.

Comparison of Rituximab Originator With CT-P10 Biosimilar in Patients With Primary Sjögren's Syndrome: A Retrospective Analysis in a Real-Life Setting

Introduction: Over the last two decades, rituximab (RTX) has been widely used, albeit off-label, in primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS). Several studies reported that B lymphocyte depletion with RTX is effective to treat some aspects within the disease spectrum, by reducing disease activity and affecting the inflammation and lymphoid organization that occur in target tissues. Notwithstanding, randomized controlled trials failed to confirm such evidence. With the recent release of several RTX biosimilars on the market, their efficacy and safety compared to the originator must be ascertained across different indications. This study aimed at comparing efficacy and safety of RTX originator and CT-P10 RTX biosimilar in pSS patients in a real-life setting.

Methods: Clinical and laboratory records of pSS patients referring to a tertiary rheumatology clinic were retrospectively evaluated. Patients having received at least two courses of either RTX originator or CT-P10 with complete data at baseline and after 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks of treatment were enrolled. Disease activity was assessed with the EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) and its clinical version without the biological domain (clinESSDAI). Patient-reported symptoms were assessed with the EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient-Reported Index (ESSPRI). Adverse events (AEs) occurring during the study period were also recorded.

Results: Nine patients who received RTX originator and eight patients who received CT-P10 were enrolled. Baseline clinical and serological features, including ESSDAI and ESSPRI, were similar in the two treatment groups. An efficient depletion of circulating CD19⁺ B lymphocytes was achieved in both treatment arms. Both RTX originator and CT-P10 significantly reduced ESSDAI and clinESSDAI by week 24, and no difference between the groups was observed at any timepoint. Conversely, changes of ESSPRI overtime did not differ between the two treatment arms and were not statistically significant compared to corresponding baseline values. With regard to safety, at 48 weeks of follow-up, only four mild AEs (two in the RTX originator and two in the CT-P10 group) were observed.

Conclusion: Our study provides the first evidence that, at 48 weeks of follow-up, RTX originator and CT-P10 display similar efficacy and safety profiles in pSS.

Rituximab biosimilars in hematologic malignancies: the need for a real-world approach

The introduction of rituximab biosimilars into healthcare systems can potentially help to control healthcare costs for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. However, there are currently several barriers to the uptake of biosimilars. This review discusses barriers to the adoption of rituximab biosimilars by stakeholders including patients and healthcare providers. We outline the importance of utilizing real-world evidence in providing additional clinical experience on rituximab biosimilars in hematologic malignancies to improve stakeholder confidence regarding their efficacy and safety. We conclude by offering recommendations for designing and conducting effective real-world studies. Such studies can provide evidence to help achieve lower-priced biologics and improved patient access to help sustain the treatment of hematologic malignancies with biologics, including rituximab biosimilars.

A Clinical Review of Biosimilars Approved in Oncology

Objective

To summarize and review the clinical data of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved biosimilars for use in treatment of cancer and the current challenges health care institutions face when implementing a newly approved biosimilar.

Data Sources

A literature search of the following databases was performed between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2019: PubMed, Google, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Search terms included the words biosimilar, bevacizumab, rituximab, and/or trastuzumab.

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Only primary literature on biosimilars with an ongoing or completed phase 3 trial and/or FDA approval were included in the final analysis. Primary literature consisted of peer-reviewed publications, published abstracts, and any results posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

Data Synthesis

Clinical trials of FDA-approved biosimilars for bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab showed no significant differences with respect to efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics when compared with their reference products.

Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice

The anticipated growth of biologics in oncology and the recent introduction of biosimilars over the past few years have placed a lot of emphasis on biosimilars as a significant source of cost savings for the health care system. Our article compiles and analyzes existing data on biosimilar efficacy, safety, and financial impact.

Conclusions

The major concerns of biosimilars revolve around their long-term efficacy and safety. Even with many questions to be answered, biosimilars have the potential for significant cost savings in the US health care system.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of IBI301 versus rituximab in patients with CD20+ B-cell lymphoma: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled study

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled trial aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) of IBI301 with rituximab in patients with CD20-positive (CD20⁺) B-cell lymphoma, who achieved a complete response/unconfirmed complete response after standard treatments. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive IBI301 or rituximab (375 mg/m², IV). Patients who continuously benefitted from the trial after the PK phase underwent the extension phase to receive up to three cycles of 3-month-cycle of rituximab/IBI301 maintenance therapy. PK was described using the area under the serum concentration–time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC_0-inf), AUC from time zero to last quantifiable concentration (AUC_0-t), and maximum serum concentration (C_max). Pharmacodynamics (PD), incidence of adverse events and immunogenicity were evaluated. PK was defined equivalent, if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for geometric mean ratios of PK endpoints fell within the margin of 0.8–1.25. Overall, 181 patients were enrolled in IBI301 (n = 89) and rituximab (n = 92) groups. Geometric mean ratios of AUC_0-inf, AUC_0-t, and C_max were 0.91 (90% CI 0.85, 0.97), 0.91 (90% CI 0.86, 0.97), and 0.96 (90% CI 0.92, 1.01) between treatment groups, all within the bioequivalence range. Peripheral CD19⁺ and CD20⁺ B-cell counts were similar at each prespecified time point between the groups. No difference in immunogenicity was observed. The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (84.3% vs. 83.5%) and treatment-related AEs (56.2% vs. 61.5%) were comparable (IBI301 vs. rituximab). IBI301 was PK bioequivalent to rituximab in patients with CD20⁺ B-cell lymphoma. The PD, safety, and immunogenicity profiles of IBI301 were similar to those of rituximab.

Real-world use and acceptance of rituximab biosimilars in non-Hodgkin lymphoma in an oncologist network in Germany

Aim: Present real-world data for rituximab (biosimilar and reference)-containing regimens in extrapolated indications in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)/chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Patients & methods: Data collected from office-based oncologic practices in Germany (July 2017–June 2019). Results: Of 1741 patients, 1241 had NHL; 500 had CLL. Of 7595 therapy cycles, 28.3% used reference rituximab; 55.2% used rituximab biosimilars; 2.0% used subcutaneous rituximab; 14.5% used rituximab, not otherwise specified. Rituximab biosimilars were used across all indications; 57.3% of cycles were administered in extrapolated indications. Over 24 months, the proportion of rituximab prescriptions that were for biosimilars increased from 12.0 to 83.0%. Conclusion: Our real-world data in NHL and CLL depicts increasing use of rituximab biosimilars across multiple treatment protocols, including extrapolated indications.

Rituximab biosimilars for lymphoma in Europe

Introduction: The approval of rituximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting CD20, revolutionized the treatment of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas and became an undisputed standard of care. However, as with all biologic medicines, the complex development and manufacturing process for rituximab have meant that the medicine attracts high treatment costs. Approved rituximab biosimilars have been comprehensively demonstrated to match the reference medicine. With the potential to increase access to biologic therapy, they have a key role in helping to improve patient outcomes in lymphoma care. Areas covered: In this review, we discuss the role of rituximab in the treatment of lymphoma. We explore development and regulatory requirements for biosimilar development and the potential impact of these medicines on access and sustainability. Focusing on biosimilars of rituximab, we examine in detail the evidence for biosimilarity for the two rituximab biosimilars that are approved in Europe and provide an overview of rituximab biosimilars currently in development. Expert opinion: We foresee a wider uptake of biosimilar medicines for lymphoma treatment over the next 5 years. The associated cost savings should be invested in broadening patient access to biological therapies, enabling wider use of more expensive treatment strategies and driving innovation in cancer care.

The clinical outcomes of rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 (Truxima®) with CHOP as first-line treatment for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: real-world experience

We evaluated real-world effectiveness and safety of CT-P10 (Truxima^®) compared with originator rituximab in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treatment. Before and after the introduction of CT-P10 to our institute (November 2017), 221 newly-diagnosed DLBCL patients received rituximab with standard cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin and prednisone. Patients received originator rituximab throughout (n = 95), switched from originator rituximab to CT-P10 (n = 36), or received CT-P10 throughout (n = 90). There were no significant differences between groups in overall response rate (91.6% vs 94.4% vs 96.7%, respectively; p = 0.403) or complete response rate (84.2% vs 77.8% vs 86.7%, respectively; p = 0.467). Kaplan-Meier survival curves also showed no significant differences in progression-free survival and overall survival between groups (log-rank p = 0.794 and p = 0.955, respectively). Safety profiles were comparable between treatment groups. These data support the ability of CT-P10 to successfully replace originator rituximab in DLBCL treatment and, given the lowered financial barrier, to improve the overall prognosis for DLBCL patients.

Efficacy and safety of switching from rituximab to biosimilar CT-P10 in rheumatoid arthritis: 72-week data from a randomized Phase 3 trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of CT-P10, a rituximab biosimilar after a single switch, during a multinational, randomized, double-blind Phase 3 trial involving patients with RA.

Methods

Patients received 48 weeks’ treatment with CT-P10 or United States- or European Union-sourced reference rituximab (US-RTX and EU-RTX, respectively). Patients entering the extension period (weeks 48–72) remained on CT-P10 (CT-P10/CT-P10; n = 122) or US-RTX (US-RTX/US-RTX; n = 64), or switched to CT-P10 from US-RTX (US-RTX/CT-P10; n = 62) or EU-RTX (EU-RTX/CT-P10; n = 47) for an additional course. Efficacy endpoints included Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates, and quality of life-related parameters. Pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety were also assessed.

Results

At week 72, similar improvements were observed by disease activity parameters including DAS28 and ACR response rate in the four extension period treatment groups. Quality of life improvements at week 72 vs baseline were similarly shown during the extension period in all groups. Newly developed anti-drug antibodies were detected in two patients following study drug infusion in the extension period. Similar pharmacodynamic and safety profiles were observed across groups.

Conclusion

Long-term use of CT-P10 up to 72 weeks was effective and well tolerated. Furthermore, switching from reference rituximab to CT-P10 in RA was well tolerated and did not result in any clinically meaningful differences in terms of efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety.

Trail registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02149121.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Innovator Rituximab and its Biosimilars in Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma Patients: A Retrospective Analysis

Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma among adults, although it also affects the young and the elderly. DLBCL is treated with a chimeric monoclonal antibody against CD20, a B cell surface protein, named rituximab, in combination with a multidrug chemotherapeutic regimen. However, owing to its high cost, rituximab cannot be afforded by patients in developing or underdeveloped countries. In such cases, biosimilars of rituximab have been used instead of rituximab, with equivalent efficacy. In this single center, retrospective, observational study, we have compared patient outcomes such complete response (CR), partial response (PR), and overall response rate (ORR) in a cohort of 152 patients in an Indian hospital, who were treated either with innovator rituximab or Reditux, a biosimilar. We observed that the ORRs of both groups (88% in innnovator group and 82% in biosimilar group) were comparable. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of CR (p = 0.353), PR (p = 0.42), ORR (p = 0.23), unfavorable responses, and stable or progressive disease (p = 0.42). The number of patients who died due to complications were few, and there was no significant difference between the two groups. The differences in the 3-year event-free survival and overall survival were not statistically significant. Biosimilar rituximab can suitably and safely replace the innovator rituximab for treatment of diffuse large B cell lymphoma.

Advances in targeted therapy for malignant lymphoma

The incidence of lymphoma has gradually increased over previous decades, and it ranks among the ten most prevalent cancers worldwide. With the development of targeted therapeutic strategies, though a subset of lymphoma patients has become curable, the treatment of refractory and relapsed diseases remains challenging. Many efforts have been made to explore new targets and to develop corresponding therapies. In addition to novel antibodies targeting surface antigens and small molecular inhibitors targeting oncogenic signaling pathways and tumor suppressors, immune checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric antigen receptor T-cells have been rapidly developed to target the tumor microenvironment. Although these targeted agents have shown great success in treating lymphoma patients, adverse events should be noted. The selection of the most suitable candidates, optimal dosage, and effective combinations warrant further investigation. In this review, we systematically outlined the advances in targeted therapy for malignant lymphoma, providing a clinical rationale for mechanism-based lymphoma treatment in the era of precision medicine.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilar Rituximab and Originator Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rituximab is a biologic medicine widely used for the treatment of autoimmune diseases and lymphoma. Several biosimilars of rituximab have been developed and marketed with the expiration of the originator rituximab's patent; thus, systematic combination and analysis of the latest data on the efficacy and safety of biosimilars and the demonstration of the interchangeability of biosimilar agents are required.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to collate available data from head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and evaluate the efficacy and safety of biosimilar rituximab compared with the reference drug in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL).

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify head-to-head RCTs that directly compare the efficacy and safety of biosimilar rituximab and its originator. The efficacy outcome for RA was the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates and the outcome for NHL was the response rate. The occurrence of adverse events (AEs) and anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) were evaluated for the safety outcome. Data on the pharmacokinetic profile were also included as a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Eleven head-to-head RCTs with 3163 patients were included (1744 patients with RA and 1419 patients with NHL). Biosimilars of rituximab showed similar efficacy in the clinical response in both RA and NHL. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of the ACR 20% response rate (ACR20) response in patients with RA at weeks 24 and 48 was 0.99 (p = 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.06) and 1.04 (p = 0.73, 95% CI 0.83-1.31), respectively. The pooled RR of the overall response at week 24 in NHL patients was 1.02 (p = 0.31, 95% CI 0.98-1.07). No significant differences were found in the formation of ADAs (RR 0.86, p = 0.20, 95% CI 0.68-1.08) or AEs (RR 1.04, p = 0.30, 95% CI 0.97-1.12).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and conventional meta-analysis demonstrated the overall similarity of the long-term efficacy and safety of biosimilar rituximab to those of originator rituximab in RA and NHL patients by combining direct evidence from head-to-head trials. PROSPERO registration No. CRD42019125138.

Targeting CD20: teaching an old dog new tricks

Rituximab was the first monoclonal antibody used for the treatment of a malignancy. In the 22 years since initial approval, it has become a vital component of therapy for a multitude of B-cell malignancies. Within the last several years, however, there has been a robust development of novel agents targeting CD20, including second generation anti-CD20 antibodies, biosimilar antibodies, and subcutaneous formulations that have been approved. The era of passive immunotherapy is now yielding to therapeutic approaches that actively engage the immune system. Emerging approaches leverage immunomodulatory drugs or novel checkpoint inhibitors to enhance CD20 therapy. Recent data sets on bispecific CD3/CD20 antibodies demonstrate exciting early findings, and CD20-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies are now entering clinical trials. Anti-CD20 therapies are a vital component of the treatment of B-cell malignancies, and there is a dynamic therapeutic environment with multiple new data sets reviewed here.

PF-06439535 (a Bevacizumab Biosimilar) Compared with Reference Bevacizumab (Avastin®), Both Plus Paclitaxel and Carboplatin, as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind Study

BACKGROUND

PF-06439535 is a bevacizumab biosimilar. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of PF-06439535 with that of reference bevacizumab (Avastin®) sourced from the EU (bevacizumab-EU), each with paclitaxel and carboplatin, in the first-line treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

In this double-blind, parallel-group study, we recruited patients from 159 centers in 27 countries. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive PF-06439535 plus paclitaxel and carboplatin or bevacizumab-EU plus paclitaxel and carboplatin on day 1 of each 21-day cycle for 4-6 cycles, followed by blinded monotherapy with PF-06439535 or bevacizumab-EU until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or the end of the study. Randomization was stratified by region, sex, and smoking history. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in accordance with RECIST 1.1, based on responses achieved by week 19 and confirmed by week 25.

RESULTS

Between 21 May 2015 and 14 November 2016, 719 patients were randomized to the PF-06439535 group (n = 358) or the bevacizumab-EU group (n = 361). As of data cutoff for analysis of the primary endpoint (8 May 2017), 45.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 40.01-50.57) of patients in the PF-06439535 group and 44.6% (95% CI 39.40-49.89) of patients in the bevacizumab-EU group achieved an objective response by week 19 that was confirmed by week 25. The unstratified ORR risk ratio was 1.015 (95% CI 0.863-1.193; 90% CI 0.886-1.163), and the unstratified ORR risk difference was 0.653% (95% CI - 6.608 to 7.908); all three CIs fell within pre-specified equivalence margins. Using final data after study completion (22 December 2017), no notable differences in progression-free survival or overall survival were observed between the groups. The most frequently reported grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were hypertension, neutropenia, and anemia. There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety, pharmacokinetics, or immunogenicity across treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC, PF-06439535 demonstrated similarity to bevacizumab-EU in terms of efficacy. Safety profiles for the two treatments were comparable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02364999.

FUNDING

Pfizer.

Are Biosimilars the Future of Oncology and Haematology?

Biological drugs are vital but often high-cost components of cancer treatment. Several biosimilar versions of these drugs have been approved in Europe and/or the USA, with many more in development. However, there is some disconnect between the biosimilars that are approved for use and those accessible in clinical practice, with availability impacted by factors including patent litigation and complex healthcare insurance policies, particularly in the USA. Provided the barriers to widespread uptake can be overcome, biosimilars offer potential benefits including cost savings and improved patient access versus the reference product (RP). This article provides an up-to-date and focused perspective on the development and use of biosimilars in the haemato-oncology setting. European and US regulatory pathways governing biosimilar licensing demand that there are no clinically meaningful differences between a biosimilar and its RP. Pathways are rigorously enforced and involve comprehensive non-clinical evaluations and clinical trials in selected indications to establish the equivalence or non-inferiority of efficacy, and the comparability of safety, of the biosimilar versus its RP. 'Indication extrapolation' is only permitted if scientifically justifiable considering mechanism(s) of action, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity and safety in relevant patient populations. Switching treatment from RP to biosimilar is supported by most available data, predominantly from indications other than cancer, and post-marketing pharmacovigilance programmes are warranted. Notably, the potential benefits of biosimilar cancer treatment may extend beyond direct cost savings: for example, the availability of biosimilars of common regimen components may help incentivise the evaluation and/or clinical use of new treatment approaches and novel drugs.

Rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Introduction: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by long-standing inflammation in multiple joints. Rituximab, a monoclonal antibody, which binds to CD20, is effective in suppressing disease activity and preventing joint damage in RA. CT-P10 was developed as a biosimilar of rituximab and approved for use to treat hematologic malignancies and immune diseases including RA. Area covered: This article describes the need for this biosimilar and summarizes the non-clinical studies verifying the physicochemical and biologic similarities and the clinical studies confirming the clinical similarity of CT-P10 to rituximab in patients with RA. Expert opinion: CT-P10 had been evaluated and proven the efficacy and safety in RA in Phase I and III randomized controlled trial with extension studies including a switching regimen. Therefore, CT-P10 is recommended in the treatment of RA.

Safety analysis of proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar in Phase I and Phase III studies

Aim: This analysis compares safety data for Sandoz proposed biosimilar (LA-EP2006) and reference pegfilgrastim from a Phase I pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study in healthy volunteers (HVs) and two Phase III confirmatory studies in patients with breast cancer (BC; total n = 808). Patients & methods: Baseline characteristics were summarized, and event rates of bone pain and headache calculated. Results: HVs in the Phase I pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study were generally younger, with lower mean body mass index, versus BC patients in PROTECT-1/-2. Bone pain was the most frequent adverse event with similar incidences with reference versus proposed biosimilar in all studies. Conclusion: No differences in adverse events were found between Sandoz proposed biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastim, notwithstanding some differences between HVs and BC patients.