Pure red cell aplasia induced by epoetin zeta

Biosimilars for the Treatment of Psoriasis: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials and Observational Studies

Importance

Biosimilars have the potential to reduce costs for the management of moderate-to-severe psoriasis compared with originators. However, the extrapolation of evidence enables the approval of a biosimilar for use in indications held by the originator without directly being studied in clinical trials. Thus, biosimilars can be approved for psoriasis based on extrapolated evidence from other diseases. The availability of evidence for the effectiveness and safety of biosimilars for the treatment of psoriasis is therefore unclear.

Objective

To compare the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of biosimilars with originator biologics for the treatment of patients with psoriasis.

Evidence Review

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and The European Union Clinical Trials Register were searched in August 2022. Eligible studies were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and ROBINS-I tools. All analyses were conducted from September 2022 to November 2022.

Findings

Fourteen trials (10 adalimumab, 2 etanercept, 1 infliximab, and 1 ustekinumab) and 3 cohort studies (1 adalimumab, 1 etanercept, 1 infliximab and etanercept) were included. Twelve trials compared biosimilars with originators in originator-naive patients (starters), and 11 trials compared switching from originator to biosimilar (switchers) with continuous originator treatments. There was no clinically or statistically significant difference in rates of achieving 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores and risks of adverse events (AEs) at week 16 and week 52 between the comparators. Two cohort studies showed no difference in effectiveness and safety outcomes between originators and biosimilars, whereas 1 study reported more AEs in patients who switched to biosimilars of adalimumab at 12 months. Three trials showed low risk of bias, whereas 11 trials had moderate risk of bias. All cohort studies had moderate to high risk of bias.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review, there was no clinically or statistically significant difference in the efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators for the treatment of patients with psoriasis. Most of the available evidence was based on randomized clinical trials, although high-quality real-world evidence was lacking. Future studies are needed to examine the long-term effectiveness and safety of biosimilars for the treatment of patients with psoriasis.

Will there still be a role for the originator erythropoiesis-simulating agents after the biosimilars and the hypoxia-inducible factor stabilizers approval?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss if there will still be a role for the originator ESAs after the already available biosimilars and the approval of HIF stabilizers in the near future.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current treatment with erythropoiesis-simulating agents (ESAs) is effective and generally well tolerated, but requires parenteral injections. It is also surrounded by safety concerns and is still expensive. Functional iron deficiency is the major obstacle for efficient ESA therapy. ESA resistance may develop, calling for high ESA doses, further increasing the side effects associated with ESA use. Biosimilars were introduced for reducing costs. In searching for an ideal antianemic drug, new investigational strategies have been proposed including the attractive alternative hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) stabilizers, which stimulate endogenous EPO production. However, we should caution in translating the historical results referring to the side effects of ESAs to current clinical practice, considering that hemoglobin targets and ESAs doses are now much lower. We could anticipate that side effects will be much less.

SUMMARY

According to preliminary data, orally administered HIF stabilizers could provide pharmacological advantages over the existing ESAs. These will need confirmation by the findings of large, phase-3, clinical trials. Finally, cost will be an important issue determining their future use.

Epoetin Biosimilars in the Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia: 10 Years' Experience Gained

High-quality, safe, and effective biosimilars have the potential to increase access to biological therapies worldwide and to reduce cancer care costs. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) was the first regulatory authority to establish legislative procedures for the approval of biosimilars when they published their guidelines on similar biological medicinal products in 2005. Biosimilar epoetins were first approved in 2007, and a wealth of data has been collected over the last decade. Two biosimilar epoetins (under five commercial names) have been approved by the EMA so far. The availability of epoetin biosimilars generated discussion among the oncology community regarding prescribing these products, their efficacy, and their safety. These agents are approved only if they are shown in extensive analytical and clinical testing to have comparable quality, safety, and efficacy to the reference medicine, and real-world studies provide further data that biosimilar epoetins are an effective and well-tolerated option for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia in patients with cancer. Other countries have adopted similar regulatory pathways to those in Europe and have approved epoetin biosimilars. The now extensive European experience with biosimilar epoetins should reassure regulators from other territories.

Pure red cell aplasia and anti-erythropoietin antibodies in patients on hemodialysis: a report of two cases and a literature review

Introduction:

Anemia is a frequent multifactorial complication of CKD seen in patients on dialysis derived mainly from impaired erythropoietin (EPO) production. A less common cause of anemia in individuals with CKD is pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) secondary to the production of anti-EPO antibodies.

Objective:

This paper aimed two describe two cases of PRCA secondary to the production of anti-EPO antibodies including choice of treatment, patient progression, and a literature review.

Materials:

This study included the cases of two patients with CKD on hemodialysis with severe anemia in need of specific investigation and management.

Results:

Patient 1 with CKD secondary to hypertension treated with EPO for 7 months showed persistent decreases in hemoglobin (Hb) levels despite the subcutaneous administration of increasing doses of EPO; the patient required recurring blood transfusions. Workup and imaging tests were negative for the main causes of anemia in individuals with CKD on dialysis. Patient 2 with CKD secondary to adult polycystic kidney disease had been taking EPO for 2 years. The patient developed severe abrupt anemia the month he was started on HD, and required recurring transfusions to treat the symptoms of anemia. Workup and imaging findings were inconclusive. Specific laboratory tests confirmed the patients had anti-EPO antibodies. After six months of immunosuppressant therapy (corticosteroids + cyclosporine) the patients were stable with Hb > 9.0 g/dl.

Conclusion:

PRCA is a rare condition among patients on dialysis treated with rhEPO and should be considered as a possible cause of refractory anemia. Treating patients with PRCA may be challenging, since the specific management and diagnostic procedures needed in this condition are not always readily available.