MONITOR-GCSF DLBCL subanalysis: Treatment patterns/outcomes with biosimilar filgrastim for chemotherapy-induced/febrile neutropenia prophylaxis

Perspectives toward biosimilars among oncologists: A Malaysian survey

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars confer significant cost-saving advantages and expand patients' access to biologic therapies in cancer care. In line with the increasing availability of antineoplastic biosimilars, it is pertinent to understand the oncologists' view on the adoption of biosimilars in their clinical practice. The study aimed to assess (i) the prevalence of biosimilar use, (ii) perception towards biosimilars, (iii) factors influencing the use of biosimilars and (iv) knowledge about biosimilars among Malaysian oncologists.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among clinical oncologists and medical oncologists in Malaysia between January 2020 and February 2021 using a structured 31-item questionnaire.

RESULTS

Among the 121 oncologists registered in the country, 36 responded (response rate  =  30%). A total of 64% of the respondents prescribed biosimilars either often or always. Most oncologists (72%) agreed or strongly agreed that switching will not have a significant effect on the treatment benefit, with lower percentages saying that they agreed or strongly agreed that it will not lead to the emergence of additional adverse effects (56%) or harmful immunogenicity (64%). Patients' preferences (40%) and the non-availability of biosimilars in hospitals (34%) are the major barriers cited to the prescribing of biosimilars. Cost differences and robust pharmacovigilance activities are the two most important factors that would influence the prescribing of biosimilars. The mean score of knowledge in biosimilar among respondents was 3.81 (± 0.86) out of a maximum possible score of 6.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified gap in prescribing and the use of biosimilars among Malaysian oncologists warrant educational intervention and robust pharmacovigilance activities to facilitate the prescribing of biosimilars and ultimately increase the accessibility to biologics in cancer treatment.

Extrapolation in Practice: Lessons from 10 Years with Biosimilar Filgrastim

Biosimilar filgrastim (Sandoz) was approved in Europe in 2009 and, in 2015, was the first biosimilar approved in the USA. These authorizations were based on the "totality of evidence" concept, an approach that considers data from structural and functional characterization and comparability analysis and non-clinical and clinical studies. For biosimilar filgrastim, phase III confirmatory clinical studies were performed in the most sensitive population, patients with breast cancer undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In Europe and the USA, approval was granted for all indications of the reference biologic. Hence, stem cell mobilization and severe chronic neutropenia indications were approved on the basis of extrapolation, with no clinical data available at the time of market authorization in the EU. Although extrapolation is well-accepted in biologic development and regulatory contexts, it remains a misunderstood part of the biosimilarity concept in the medical community. Since approval, more than a decade of obtained clinical experience supports the totality of evidence and reassures clinicians regarding the efficacy and safety of biosimilar filgrastim. This includes real-world data from MONITOR-GCSF, a multicenter, prospective, observational study describing treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of patients with cancer (n = 1447) receiving biosimilar filgrastim for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in solid tumors and hematological malignancies. Evidence is also available from unrelated healthy donors and those with severe chronic neutropenia. Together, the experience from a decade of use of biosimilar filgrastim includes over 24 million patient-days of exposure, which can help reassure oncologists that extrapolation is based on strong scientific evidence and works in practice.

Biosimilars in oncology: A decade of experience with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and its implications for monoclonal antibodies

Biosimilars offer the potential for improved sustainability of cancer care. In oncology, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and erythropoiesis-stimulating agent biosimilars have been available for almost a decade, with biosimilars of monoclonal antibodies a more recent development. Sandoz biosimilar filgrastim was approved based on Phase III confirmatory studies conducted in patients with breast cancer experiencing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, with other indications granted based on extrapolation. Despite the fact that extrapolation is a well-established scientific principle in regulation of biological medicines, it is a commonly misunderstood part of the biosimilar concept. Broad experience from almost a decade of use of Sandoz biosimilar filgrastim includes >21 million patient-days exposure and >9 years of real-world clinical evidence, indicates extrapolation successfully at work. Together, this can help reassure oncologists that extrapolation is based on sound scientific principles. Efforts to improve understanding of extrapolation are critical to ensure the acceptance of future oncology biosimilar monoclonal antibodies.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving biosimilar filgrastim for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced/febrile neutropaenia: Results from the MONITOR-GCSF study

Objective

Real‐world evidence data on the use of granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor (G‐CSF) in patients with non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited. MONITOR‐GCSF is a pan‐European, multicentre, prospective, non‐interventional study designed to describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients receiving biosimilar filgrastim in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy‐induced neutropaenia (CIN) and febrile neutropaenia (FN).

Methods

In this subanalysis, patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes are described for 345 patients with stage 3 or 4 NSCLC, receiving up to six chemotherapy cycles. Patients were treated with biosimilar filgrastim as per their treating physician's best judgement.

Results

CIN (any grade) occurred in 13.6% of patients in Cycle 1 and in 36.5% of patients in all cycles. FN occurred in 1.4% of patients in Cycle 1 and in 5.2% of patients in all cycles. Grade 3–4 FN occurred in 1.2% of patients in Cycle 1 and in 3.8% of patients in all cycles.

Conclusion

Results show that in real‐life practice in patients with NSCLC, biosimilar filgrastim has similar effectiveness and safety to the known effectiveness and safety profile of reference filgrastim, supporting the use of biosimilar filgrastim for the real‐world treatment of neutropaenia in patients with NSCLC.