American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: Biosimilars in Oncology

QL1209 (pertuzumab biosimilar) versus reference pertuzumab plus trastuzumab and docetaxel in neoadjuvant treatment for HER2-positive, ER/PR-negative, early or locally advanced breast cancer: A multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, parallel-controlled, phase III equivalence trial

BACKGROUND

This randomized, parallel-controlled, double-blinded, phase III equivalence study evaluated the equivalence of a proposed pertuzumab biosimilar QL1209 to the pertuzumab (Perjeta®) each with trastuzumab and docetaxel in neoadjuvant treatment of early or locally advanced breast cancer patients with HER2-positive, ER/PR-negative.

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomly (1:1) assigned to receive 4 cycles of neoadjuvant QL1209 or pertuzumab each with trastuzumab and docetaxel, and adjuvant treatment. The primary endpoint was total pathologic complete response (tpCR), with equivalence margins of 0.76 to 1.32.

RESULTS

Among the 585 patients enrolled, 257 and 259 patients were assigned to the QL1209 and pertuzumab groups, respectively. The tpCR rates were comparable in the QL1209 (109/255, 42.75%; 90% CI 37.65 to 47.84) and pertuzumab (117/259, 45.17%; 90% CI 40.09 to 50.26) groups. The tpCR risk ratio was 0.95 (90% CI, 0.80 to 1.11), and the 90% CI fell within the predefined equivalence margin. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse event was decreased neutrophil count (10. 9% vs. 12.7%) in the QL1209 and pertuzumab groups.

CONCLUSIONS

QL1209 demonstrated equivalent efficacy and comparable safety profile to the reference pertuzumab in neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive, ER/PR-negative, early, or locally advanced breast cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinadrugtrials.org CTR20201073; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04629846.

Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of Rituximab Biosimilar RTXM83: A Retrospective Extension Study in Brazilian Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

INTRODUCTION

RTXM83, a biosimilar of rituximab, was approved after physicochemical, functional, non-clinical, and clinical studies demonstrated their similarity; these studies included RTXM83-AC-01-11, a multicentric double-blind international prospective pivotal study. Long-term data on biosimilars can potentially elucidate their clinical robustness and facilitate their broader adoption.

METHODS

In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed a dataset from a Brazilian cohort previously randomized in the RTXM83-AC-01-11 study followed by the assessment of long-term outcomes in an observational extension phase from randomization in the RTXM83-AC-01-11 study to the last recorded evaluation. Patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) received either reference rituximab (R) or RTXM83 plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) as adjuvant treatment.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 77.0 months. Patients with initial DLBCL stages III and IV comprised 50% of the R-CHOP group and 40% of the biosimilar group. Five (18.5%) patients, including two RTXM83-CHOP-treated and three R-CHOP-treated individuals, experienced late adverse events (AEs) of interest. No new safety signs were established. At the final assessment, the progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 93.3% and 50.0% in the RTXM83-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively. Median PFS was not achieved in the RTXM83-CHOP group, which was 40.5 months in the R-CHOP group. The overall survival (OS) rates were 100% and 66.7% in the RTXM83-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively. The median OS was not reached in any group.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the long-term safety and effectiveness of RTXM83 in treating DLBCL; outcomes comparable to those of the reference product and potentially improved access to treatment have been indicated. However, further research with more diverse patient groups can validate these findings and advocate the broader adoption of biosimilars in cancer care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04928573. June 16, 2021, "retrospectively registered".

Outcomes of Rituximab-abbs versus Rituximab in Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in a Noninferiority Study

BACKGROUND

Rituximab with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) is one of the first line treatments for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Rituximab comprises most of the treatment cost for this regimen; therefore, biosimilars, such as rituximab-abbs are crucial to provide affordable care. Although rituximab-abbs was studied primarily in follicular lymphoma, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved this drug for all indications of the reference product on the basis of extrapolation. Effectiveness and safety data surrounding the use of rituximab-abbs in DLBCL is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rituximab-abbs and reference product rituximab as R-CHOP treatment for patients with DLBCL.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This noninferiority (NI) study compared the 2-year overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and incidence of adverse events (AEs) between rituximab-abbs and its reference product (RP) in R-CHOP among adult patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL. The study inclusion period was from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020. Analyses were performed on the basis of a noninferiority lower limit of 10% for OS and ORR, and an upper limit of 10% for serious AEs.

RESULTS

There were 240 patients who received RP rituximab, while 295 patients received rituximab-abbs. The cohort had a mean age of 63.7±12.2 years and 43% were female. The 2-year OS was 81.0% and 79.6% (NI p < 0.01) while the ORR was 80.0% and 69.6% (NI p < 0.01), among the rituximab-abbs and rituximab groups, respectively. The incidence of infusion reaction AEs (NI p < 0.01) and noninfusion reaction AEs (NI p < 0.01) also met noninferiority.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that rituximab-abbs was noninferior to rituximab in both effectiveness and safety among patients receiving R-CHOP for DLBCL in this study. Long-term follow-up would be needed to confirm these results.

Use of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review of Published Position Statements and Recommendations from Health Organisations and Societies

BACKGROUND

Hesitation about using biosimilars still exists among healthcare professionals (HCPs), despite extensive experience with their use. Globally, several health organisations and societies from various specialties have issued biosimilar position statements to guide the use of biosimilars in their specialties. However, it is uncertain how similar or different their positions or recommendations are or whether these positions have evolved with the increased experience and availability of new evidence.

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to describe and assess the recommendations of published position statements regarding several aspects of biosimilars across specialties and determine whether these positions have changed with the emergence of new evidence.

METHODS

We systematically searched for published position statements of biosimilars in online databases and included statements written in English. The search was from the inception of the databases until May 2023. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Only position statements that included recommendations to guide the use of biosimilars in clinical practice and were issued by health organisations and societies, including expert panels, were included. We synthesised recommendations on five aspects: prescribing practice, extrapolation of indication, interchangeability, treatment initiation with biosimilars in biologic-naïve patients, and pharmacovigilance.

RESULTS

The review included 25 papers involving eight specialties, 16 of which were from European countries, 1 from an international organisation representing 49 countries, and 6 from various countries. The papers were published between 2009 and 2020, with 19 published between 2015 and 2020. Of the five aspects of biosimilars assessed, nearly half (11 of 25) of the papers at the time they were published did not base their positions on a scientific or evidence-based approach. Only 4 of the 25 position papers were identified as revisions of their previous papers. With increasing experience in biosimilars and the emergence of new evidence, about 60% (16 of 25) of the papers contained outdated recommendations, particularly on two aspects. They were extrapolations of indications and interchangeability (including switching). The recommendations for most papers for three other aspects were still appropriate. These were prescribing biosimilars by their brand name and active ingredient, initiating treatment with biosimilars in biologic-naïve patients, and monitoring the long-term safety of biosimilars through pharmacovigilance. For four of the revised papers, their position evolved from opposing indication extrapolation for biosimilars to accepting it, while the position of two papers shifted from not recommending biosimilar switching to permitting the practice. Meanwhile, most papers were against automatic substitution by pharmacists because the evidence for this practice was still limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Across specialties, the variability among the position statements is seen for extrapolation of indications for biosimilars and interchangeability (including switching). This requires a revision, considering the latest evidence and growing experience with the use of biosimilars in extrapolated indications and with switching.

Real-world clinical scenarios during introduction of trastuzumab biosimilar for HER2-positive breast cancer in the European Union

Aim: Trastuzumab-anns is an intravenously administered biosimilar to trastuzumab approved by the EMA and US FDA for treatment of HER2+ early and metastatic breast cancer as well as metastatic gastric cancer. Lack of real-world characterization of biosimilar use has hindered uptake. Methods: This observational chart review characterizes 488 patients who received trastuzumab-anns in EU clinical practice settings. Results: Approximately 2/3rds of patients initiated trastuzumab-anns in adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings and most were naive new starters (70%). 30% were switchers from another trastuzumab, among whom 48% switched from trastuzumab iv. reference product. Common reasons for trastuzumab-anns discontinuation were a switch to another biosimilar product (34.8%, n = 85) or to trastuzumab reference product (15.6%, n = 38). Conclusion: Trastuzumab-anns was widely used in various treatment settings for HER2+ breast cancer.

An Overview of Biosimilars-Development, Quality, Regulatory Issues, and Management in Healthcare

Biological therapies have transformed high-burden treatments. As the patent and exclusivity period for biological medicines draws to a close, there is a possibility for the development and authorization of biosimilars. These products boast comparable levels of safety, quality, and effectiveness to their precursor reference products. Biosimilars, although similar to reference products, are not identical copies and should not be considered generic substitutes for the original. Their development and evaluation involve a rigorous step-by-step process that includes analytical, functional, and nonclinical evaluations and clinical trials. Clinical studies conducted for biosimilars aim to establish similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, rather than demonstrating a clinical benefit, as with the reference product. However, although the current knowledge regarding biosimilars has significantly increased, several controversies and misconceptions still exist regarding their immunogenicity, extrapolation, interchangeability, substitution, and nomenclature. The development of biosimilars stimulates market competition, contributes toward healthcare sustainability, and allows for greater patient access. However, maximizing the benefits of biosimilars requires cooperation between regulators and developers to ensure that patients can benefit quickly from access to these new therapeutic alternatives while maintaining high standards of quality, safety, and efficacy. Recognizing the inherent complexities of comprehending biosimilars fully, it is essential to focus on realistic approaches, such as fostering open communication between healthcare providers and patients, encouraging informed decision-making, and minimizing risks. This review addresses the regulatory and manufacturing requirements for biosimilars and provides clinicians with relevant insights for informed prescribing.

The Nocebo Effect

Adverse nocebo responses can cause harm to patients and interfere with treatment adherence and effects in both clinic practice and clinical trials. Nocebo responses refer to negative outcomes to active medical treatments in clinical trials or practice that cannot be explained by the treatment's pharmacologic effects. Negative expectancies and nocebo effects are less known than placebo responses. Nocebo effects can be triggered by verbal suggestions, prior negative experiences, observation of others experiencing negative outcomes, and other contextual and environmental factors. As research advances over the years, mechanistic knowledge is accumulating on the neurobiological mechanisms of nocebo effects. This review summarizes studies on different facets of nocebo effects and responses and discusses clinical implications, ethical considerations, and future directions.

Efficacy and safety of the proposed bevacizumab biosimilar BAT1706 compared with reference bevacizumab in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer: A randomized, double-blind, phase III study

BACKGROUND

BAT1706 is a proposed biosimilar of bevacizumab (Avastin®). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of BAT1706 with that of EU-sourced reference bevacizumab (EU-bevacizumab) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to BAT1706 plus paclitaxel and carboplatin (BAT1706 arm) or EU-bevacizumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin (EU-bevacizumab arm) given every 3 weeks for six cycles, followed by maintenance therapy with BAT1706 or EU-bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was overall response rate at week 18 (ORR18 ). Clinical equivalence was demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the BAT1706:EU-bevacizumab ORR18 risk ratio was contained within the predefined equivalence margins of 0.75-1.33 (China National Medical Products Administration requirements), or 0.73-1.36 (US Food and Drug Administration), or if the 95% CI of the ORR18 risk difference between treatments was contained within the predefined equivalence margin of -0.12 to 0.15 (EMA requirements).

RESULTS

In total, 649 randomized patients (BAT1706, n = 325; EU-bevacizumab, n = 324) received at least one cycle of combination treatment. The ORR18 was comparable between the BAT1706 and EU-bevacizumab arms (48.0% and 44.5%, respectively). The ORR18 risk ratio of 1.08 (90% CI: 0.94-1.24) and the ORR18 risk difference of 0.03 (95% CI: -0.04 to 0.11) were within the predefined equivalence margins, demonstrating the biosimilarity of BAT1706 and EU-bevacizumab. The safety profile of BAT1706 was consistent with that of EU-bevacizumab and no new safety signals were observed.

CONCLUSION

In patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC, BAT1706 demonstrated clinical equivalence to EU-bevacizumab in terms of efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity.

Patients' Perceptions of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically summarize and evaluate the findings of existing studies about patients' perceptions of biosimilars by assessing their attitudes and knowledge.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of published studies concerning patients' perceptions of biosimilars, using databases of China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers screened a total of 2197 Chinese or English papers published between 1 January 2018, and 1 October 2022. We assessed the quality of the included studies by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were included in the review, with the majority originating from Europe (n = 22) and North America (n = 10). Of these studies, 37 were cross-sectional quantitative studies, three were quasi-experimental studies, and the remaining three were qualitative studies based on semi-structured interviews. The sample sizes of the included studies ranged from 9 to 6554 patients. Twenty-two out of 31 studies investigating patients' acceptance of biosimilars found that most participants expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars. However, doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway could negatively influence patients' attitudes. The majority of patients understood the economic advantages of biosimilars; however, some incorrectly connected lower prices with lower quality. Patients generally lacked knowledge about biosimilars. There were 6-51% of participants who were familiar with biosimilars, and 25-58% thought they did not know enough about biosimilars. Physicians, pharmacists, medicines agencies, academia, and patient associations were identified as the main sources of information on biosimilars for patients. Healthcare providers not informing or advising patients about switching may hinder patients from acquiring enough knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars, but limited knowledge continued to impede their perceptions. Doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway were identified as major factors that negatively influenced patients' attitudes towards biosimilars, while the impact of a price advantage was mixed. It is essential to maintain a focus on educating healthcare professionals about biosimilars, including their clinical outcomes and the regulatory pathway, which equips them to provide comprehensive and informed guidance to patients.

Changing Tides? Anticancer Biologic and Biosimilar Use in Medicare Part B, 2019-2021

Anticancer biosimilar use is rising but significant potential savings remain unrealized @alison_mcclean @ChrisLuPhD

Real-world outcomes among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated first line with a bevacizumab biosimilar (bevacizumab-awwb)

Background

Bevacizumab-awwb (MVASI®) was the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved biosimilar to Avastin® (reference product [RP]) for the treatment of several different types of cancers, including metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), an indication approved based on extrapolation.

Objectives

Evaluate treatment outcomes in mCRC patients who received first-line (1L) bevacizumab-awwb at treatment initiation or as continuing bevacizumab therapy (switched from RP).

Design

A retrospective chart review study.

Methods

Adult patients who had a confirmed diagnosis of mCRC (initial presentation of CRC on or after 01 January 2018) and initiated 1L bevacizumab-awwb between 19 July 2019 and 30 April 2020 were identified from the ConcertAI Oncology Dataset. A chart review was conducted to evaluate patient baseline clinical characteristics and effectiveness and tolerability outcomes during the follow-up. Study measures were reported stratified by prior use of RP: (1) naïve patients and (2) switchers (patients who switched to bevacizumab-awwb from RP without advancing the line of therapy).

Results

At the end of study period, naïve patients (n = 129) had a median 1L progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.6-9.9] and a 12-month overall survival (OS) probability of 71.4% (95% CI, 61.0-79.5%). Switchers (n = 105) had a median 1L PFS of 14.1 months (95% CI, 12.1-15.8) and a 12-month OS probability of 87.6% (95% CI, 79.1-92.8%). During treatment with bevacizumab-awwb, 20 events of interest (EOIs) were reported in 18 naïve patients (14.0%) and 4 EOIs reported in 4 switchers (3.8%), of which the most commonly reported events were thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events. Most EOIs resulted in emergency department visit and/or treatment hold/discontinuation/switch. None of the EOIs resulted in death.

Conclusion

In this real-world cohort of mCRC patients who were treated 1L with a bevacizumab biosimilar (bevacizumab-awwb), the clinical effectiveness and tolerability data were as expected and consistent with previously published findings from real-world studies of bevacizumab RP in mCRC patients.

Biosimilar Use Among 38 ASCO PracticeNET Practices, 2019-2021

PURPOSE

Biosimilars offer increased patient choice and potential cost-savings, compared with originator biologics. We studied 3 years of prescribed biologics among US physician practices to determine the relationship of practice type and payment source to oncology biosimilar use.

METHODS

We acquired biologic utilization data from 38 practices participating in PracticeNET. We focused on six biologics (bevacizumab, epoetin alfa, filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab) for the period from 2019 to 2021. We complemented our quantitative analysis with a survey of PracticeNET participants (prescribers and practice leaders) to reveal potential motivators and barriers to biosimilar use. We implemented logistic regression to evaluate the biosimilar use for each biologic, with covariates including time, practice type, and payment source, and accounted for clusters of practices.

RESULTS

Use of biosimilars increased over the 3-year period, reaching between 51% and 80% of administered doses by the fourth quarter of 2021, depending on the biologic. Biosimilar use varied by practice, with independent physician practices having higher use of biosimilars for epoetin alfa, filgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab. Compared with commercial health plans, Medicaid plans had lower biosimilar use for four biologics; traditional Medicare had lower use for five biologics. The average cost per dose decreased between 24% and 41%, dependent on the biologic.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilars have, through increased use, lowered the average cost per dose of the studied biologics. Biosimilar use differed by originator biologic, practice type, and payment source. There remains further opportunity for increases in biosimilar use among certain practices and payers.

ASCO Policy Statement on Biosimilar and Interchangeable Products in Oncology

As the voice of cancer care clinicians and the patients they serve, ASCO has taken steps to elevate awareness about biosimilar products and their use in oncology. In 2018, ASCO released its Statement on Biosimilars in Oncology which was subsequently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology to serve as an educational tool which highlighted and provided guidance on several topical areas surrounding biosimilars. At the time of its publication, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had approved eight biosimilar products for use in the United States, including one product for use as a supportive care agent in the cancer setting and two products for use in the treatment for cancer. This number has risen dramatically (40 approvals), with a total of 22 cancer or cancer-related biosimilar products approved since 2015. Recently, the FDA also approved the four interchangeable biosimilar products for diabetes, certain inflammatory diseases, and certain ophthalmic diseases. Given the current market dynamics and the regulatory landscape, this ASCO manuscript now seeks to propose several policy recommendations across the scope of value, interchangeability, clinician barriers, and patient education and access. This policy statement is intended to guide ASCO's future activities and strategies and serves to affirm our commitment to providing education to the oncology community on the use of biosimilars in the cancer setting.

Medical Oncologists' Knowledge and Perspectives on the Use of Biosimilars in the United States

PURPOSE

Despite increasing availability of biosimilar cancer treatments, little is known about oncologists' knowledge and concerns regarding biosimilar use in the United States. We surveyed medical oncologists to examine their knowledge, attitudes, and experience with biosimilars.

METHODS

Oncologists recruited via the ASCO Research Survey Pool completed a 29-question survey in 2020 designed with input from clinical and health care system experts and literature review.

RESULTS

Of the 269 respondents, most treated patients with biosimilars (n = 236, 88%) and reported that biosimilars were required at their institution (n = 168, 63%). Approximately half (n = 140, 52%) of oncologists correctly responded that biosimilars were not the same as generic medicines. Commonly reported barriers to use of biosimilars included concerns regarding a perceived lack of relevant research (n = 85, 33% reporting quite a bit/very much), the potential for extrapolation (n = 83, 33%), and efficacy limitations (n = 77, 30%). More oncologists from university hospitals (n = 36, 22%) than from community/private hospitals (n = 28, 38%) or private practices (n = 13, 38%) were concerned about biosimilar efficacy. A high proportion of oncologists reported that information on safety (n = 259, 99%) and efficacy (n = 255, 99%) is important when considering whether to use biosimilars. Less than half reported that their institution provided education about biosimilars (n = 108, 40%).

CONCLUSION

In this sample of medical oncologists, knowledge about basic features of biosimilars was limited and access to information about biosimilars was insufficient. The present study determined that educational programs on biosimilars for oncologists are needed and identified priorities for such efforts.

Factors associated with the uptake of biosimilars for breast cancer treatment from the perspectives of physicians and patients-Evidence from China

Objective: To investigate the factors associated with the treatment of breast cancer with biosimilars from the perspectives of physicians and patients, and to generate evidence for promoting the uptake of biosimilars. Methods: This study targeted trastuzumab and its indicated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive breast cancer and included female HER2 positive breast cancer patients under treatment of trastuzumab at a provincial oncology medical center in southern China from 1 January 2021, to 31 December 2021. The study extracted patients' demographic, socioeconomic and clinical information and the basic information of their attending physicians from the hospital information system. We performed a bivariate multiple logistic regression analysis of predictive factors of the use of trastuzumab biosimilar. Results: A total of 446 patients (aged ranging between 26 and 74, 51.4 ± 9.06) were included in the analysis, and 19.1% chose biosimilar trastuzumab. Older patients, patients enrolled in the urban and rural resident health insurance program compared with those enrolled in the urban employee health insurance program, patients who initiated treatment after January 2021 when biosimilar entered clinical use compared with those who initiated treatment before, patients with female attending physicians, younger attending physicians and with chief attending physicians compared with deputy chief attending physicians were more likely to adopt biosimilar trastuzumab for treatment (p < 05). Controlling the other factors unchanged, when the patient's attending physician was deputy chief physician, increasing 1 year age of the patient was associated with an increased probability of adopting biosimilar by .8% (dy/dx = .008, 95%CI: .002-.01, p = .01). When the patient was aged between 26 and 60, the probability of adopting biosimilar for the patient whose attending physician was a chief physician was higher than for those whose attending physician was a deputy chief physician, and the gap was the largest when the patient was at the age of 45 (dy/dx = .20, 95%CI: .13-.27, p < .01). Conclusion: The uptake rate of biosimilars is still low at its initial development stage in China. Educational policies and physicians making recommendations to the indicated patients at the initiation stage of treatment are helpful to avoid reduced willingness to switch to biosimilars due to non-clinical reasons. Patients with lower ability-to-pay will have better accessibility to biologic regimens through the uptake of biosimilars. Official guidelines and professional training are critical to enhancing physicians' willingness and confidence in adopting biosimilars.

Prescriber Perspectives on Biosimilar Adoption and Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology: A Workshop Summary

The approval and adoption of biosimilar products are essential to contain increasing healthcare costs and provide more affordable choices for patients. Despite steady progress in the number of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) biosimilar approvals over the years, biosimilar adoption in the United States has been slow and gradual, largely driven by payers rather than clinicians. In order to better understand the barriers to biosimilar adoption in the clinic, the University of Maryland Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (M-CERSI) and the FDA jointly hosted a virtual workshop on April 13, 2022, titled "Biosimilars: A Decade of Experience and Future Directions - Strategies for Improving Biosimilar Adoption and the Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology." This summary documents the experiences of four leading academic clinicians with specialties in oncology, rheumatology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology and their perspectives on how to increase biosimilar adoption, including the role of clinical pharmacology. Besides systemic changes in pricing and reimbursement, there is a need for additional education of a broad range of providers, including advanced care practitioners, and patients themselves. Educational efforts highlighting the rigor of the studies that support the approval of biosimilars-including the clinical pharmacology studies-and the benefits of biosimilars, can play a major role in improving biosimilar acceptance.

Real-world use of IBI305, a bevacizumab biosimilar, in a tertiary caner-specialized hospital in China

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

To investigate and describe the real-world use of IBI305, a biosimilar of bevacizumab, across all approved indications in the first 12 months since its entry in National cancer center of China.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational study was carried out to describe the demographic and patient characteristics and treatment patterns of the adult patients who received IBI305 from December 2020 to December 2021.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Among 259 cases, 186 patients were non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 86 patients were metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), five patients were hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). More than half of the patients initiated IBI305 were bevacizumab-naive. In patients with NSCLC and mCRC, more than 40% of them received IBI305 as first-line therapy. Among pre-exposed patients, the majority of them were switched from reference product (RP) or other biosimilars to IBI305 within 28 days.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Early evidence from real world data suggests rapid clinical adoption of IBI305 in all approved tumour types.

Oncology biosimilars: New developments and future directions

Biologicals have become an integral part of cancer treatment both as therapeutic agents and as supportive care agents. It is important to know that biologics are large, complex molecular entities requiring extensive immunogenicity testing and pharmacovigilance strategies to ensure no immune response is evoked in the body. Oncology's pharmacological market is dominated by biologics; however, their high development and manufacturing costs are burdensome to health care systems. Biologics being the most expensive prescription drugs on the market limit the accessibility for necessary treatment in the case of many patients. As biologics patents expire, the development of biosimilars is underway in an effort to lower costs and enable patients to access new cancer therapies. Regulatory guidelines for biosimilars have now been established and are constantly being revised to address any issues, facilitating their robust development. Moreover, many scientific societies offer guidance to help stakeholders better understand current regulations and biosimilar's safety. Despite the potential cost benefits, lack of knowledge about biosimilars, and the possibility of immunogenicity have created an uncertain environment for healthcare professionals and patients. In this review, we provide an overview of relevant legislation and regulations, pharmacoeconomics, and stakeholder perceptions regarding biosimilars. The article also describes biosimilars in development, as well as the ones currently available on the market.

Retrospective Indication-Matched Cohort Study of Reference Product and Biosimilar: Bevacizumab Versus Bevacizumab-Awwb

Introduction: Due to the abbreviated approval pathway and extrapolation to non-studied indications, an increased importance is placed on post-marketing surveillance of biosimilars to supplement existing evidence and enhance patient and provider confidence. Bevacizumab-awwb (ABP 215, Mvasi) was the first biosimilar approved to bevacizumab (Avastin), a recombinant humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody that inhibits the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Purpose: To evaluate utilization, safety, and financial outcomes of bevacizumab-awwb compared to bevacizumab at a national cancer institute (NCI)-designated cancer center. Methods: A single center, retrospective, 1:1 indication-matched cohort study of adult patients who received bevacizumab or bevacizumab-awwb between October 1, 2019 and October 1, 2020 was performed. Thirty-four patients received bevacizumab-awwb during the study period and were matched by indication to 34 randomly selected patients who received bevacizumab. Indications for both groups included: colorectal cancer (n = 19), gynecologic cancer (n = 10), glioblastoma (n = 3), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 1), and lung cancer (n = 1). Results: Baseline and medication utilization characteristics were similar for this indication-matched cohort of 68 patients receiving bevacizumab-awwb or bevacizumab. Patients in the bevacizumab group had a higher proportion of public payer coverage (64.7% vs 38.2%, P = .029). A higher proportion of patients in the bevacizumab-awwb group remained on active treatment at the end of the study period (52.9%) as compared to the bevacizumab group (35.3%); however, differences in final treatment status and reasons for discontinuation were not statistically significant (P = .218). Rates of worsened hypertension (44.1% vs 44.1%) and worsened proteinuria (38.2% vs 23.5%, P = .077) were common in both groups. Grade 3 adverse drug events in the bevacizumab group included: gastrointestinal perforation (n = 1), gastrointestinal bleed (n = 1), hypertension (n = 2), and venous thromboembolism (n = 2). Grade 3 adverse drug events in the bevacizumab-awwb group included: epistaxis (n = 1), gastrointestinal bleed (n = 1), hypertension (n = 1), intracerebral hemorrhage (n = 1), venous thromboembolism (n = 3), and arterial thromboembolism (n = 1). One patient in the bevacizumab-awwb group experienced grade 4 hypertension. Median drug cost per dose and per milligram for bevacizumab-awwb was less than bevacizumab, representing a 15.8% and 12.1% discount, respectively. Conclusion: Utilization and safety outcomes were similar for this indication-matched cohort of 68 patients receiving bevacizumab or bevacizumab-awwb across a wide range of disease states.

Characterizing experiences of non-medical switching to trastuzumab biosimilars using data from internet-based surveys with US-based oncologists and breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

To characterize current experiences with communication and decision-making practices when non-medical switching to a biosimilar trastuzumab is proposed or required by cancer center or insurer.

METHODS

We developed and launched 60- and 51-item internet surveys to elicit US breast cancer patient and medical oncologist lived experiences with trastuzumab biosimilars and patient information needs and seeking practices. We recruited participants using social media and administered via REDCap in 2020-2021.

RESULTS

143 breast cancer patients and 33 medical oncologists completed the surveys. 63.9% patients reported having switched to a trastuzumab biosimilar and 40.8% reported receiving no prior notification about switching. 44% of patients reported learning about biosimilars primarily through self-directed learning and 41% wanting more time to discuss with oncologist. None of the oncologists reported that the decision to switch a patient to a biosimilar was initiated by them, but rather more frequently by the insurer (45.2%). About 54.8% reported not receiving any pharmaceutical manufacturer material related to the selected biosimilar. Patients and oncologists diverged in their responses to items regarding patient opportunities to ask questions, adequacy of resources, effectiveness of treatment, patient worry, and magnitude of change.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for tailored and effective patient and oncologist information and education on trastuzumab biosimilars, along with improved healthcare communication regarding switching. The discrepancy between patient-reported experiences and oncologist perceptions of the patient experience, suggests a lack of adequate information that may be a challenge not only to the uptake of trastuzumab biosimilars, but to the patient-oncologist relationship.

Webinar as an Informational Resource on Trastuzumab Biosimilars: Planning, Promotion, Execution, and Evaluation

Despite the incorporation of trastuzumab biosimilars (to treat HER2-positive breast cancer) in clinical practice guidelines, gaps remain such as patient and clinician education. We hosted a webinar comprised of a panel of biosimilars experts, oncologists, pharmacist, infusion nurse, patient advocate. The outcomes of the webinar include: audience responses to pre- and post-webinar questionnaires, educational benefits, real-time opportunities to ask questions, recorded webinar. Education needs to be tailored to the needs of both, patients and clinicians.

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.

Pegfilgrastim-apgf (Nyvepria): Biosimilar USFDA approval for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and current updates on clinical trials

Pegfilgrastim-apgf (nyvepria) was currently approved by FDA for the treatment of febrile neutropenia associated with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs. It was developed by Pfizer, USA. It is a PEGylated leukocyte growth stimulating factor indicated to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving anticancer drugs. Nyvepria is biosimilar to pegfilgrastim, approved by FDA on June 10, 2020. It is the fourth FDA-approved drug for the treatment of infection exhibiting febrile neutropenia. This review abridges the indicators in the development of nyvepria foremost to approval for the treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN), a biosimilar regulatory framework and current updates on the clinical trials (CTs).

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.

Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of PF-05280014 (a Trastuzumab Biosimilar) Treatment in Patients with HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: Updated Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind Study

Background

PF-05280014 was compared with trastuzumab sourced from the European Union (trastuzumab-EU), each plus paclitaxel, as first-line treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer in a phase III study. Equivalence between treatment groups was demonstrated.

Objective

The aim of this study was to report long-term safety and overall survival (OS) over 6 years after the first patient was screened.

Patients and methods

Randomized patients received intravenous PF-05280014 or trastuzumab-EU, each plus paclitaxel, until objective disease progression. OS, long-term safety, subgroup safety (patients ongoing after day 378), and time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) were assessed based on the final statistical analysis plan amended for the ad-hoc analyses.

Results

Of 707 randomized patients (n = 352, PF-05280014; n = 355, trastuzumab-EU), 252 (71.6%) in the PF-05280014 and 251 (70.7%) in the trastuzumab-EU group discontinued treatment due to objective progression. Overall, 451 (63.8%) patients completed the study. Between groups (PF-05280014; trastuzumab-EU), estimated median TTDs were 12.25 and 12.06 months (p = 0.692); 61 (17.3%) and 67 (18.9%) patients died; stratified hazard ratio for OS was 0.929 (95% confidence interval 0.656–1.316; p = 0.339); estimated survival rates were 82.3 and 77.4% at 2 years and 77.2 and 75.3% at 3 years. The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) overall (98.6%; 96.6%) and for grades ≥3 (41.0%; 43.1%) were comparable between groups. In patients (n = 265; n = 264) ongoing after day 378, the incidences of any TEAEs, grade ≥3 TEAEs, and serious TEAEs were comparable between the treatment groups.

Conclusion

Long-term safety and OS were consistent with previous results and demonstrated no clinically meaningful differences between treatment groups.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01989676 (21 November 2013); and EudraCT: 2013-001352-34 (18 December 2013).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-021-00513-7.

Use of Biosimilar Medications in Oncology

PURPOSE

The increased number and expanded utilization of biosimilars raise important considerations for their safe and appropriate use in oncology practice. This report provides an update on currently approved oncology biosimilars and identifies current knowledge gaps in the management of patients with cancer.

METHODS

An Expert Panel was convened to review the medical literature and to provide a practical summary of currently approved biosimilar therapeutics for cancer treatment or supportive care in the United States.

RESULTS

A total of 17 cancer or cancer-related biosimilar products have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 2015. Despite years of clinical experience with oncology biosimilars, variance in their use persists. ASCO supports that biosimilars and reference products are considered equally efficacious for the purpose of inclusion in ASCO clinical practice guideline recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The use of biosimilars might provide competitive, lower-cost alternatives to biologics used in cancer care, and specific mention in ASCO guidelines and other evidence products is supported where appropriate.

Real-world use of bevacizumab-awwb, a bevacizumab biosimilar, in US patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Aim: Evaluated real world use of bevacizumab-awwb (MVASI^®), a bevacizumab biosimilar, for treating metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Materials & methods: Adult mCRC patients who received bevacizumab-awwb during the first year after market availability were identified from the ConcertAI oncology dataset. Results: Of 304 patients, 47% initiated bevacizumab-awwb as reference product (RP) naive patients and 53% received bevacizumab-awwb with prior exposure to RP. Overall, 78% received bevacizumab-awwb as first-line therapy; the proportion was higher (91%) in RP-naive patients. Among RP-experienced patients, 83% were transitioned from RP to bevacizumab-awwb in the same line without disease progression; of those, the majority (83%) were transitioned within 28 days. Conclusion: Early evidence from US oncology practices suggests clinical adoption of bevacizumab-awwb in treating mCRC patients.

The formulary process for biosimilar additions at a comprehensive cancer center

Biological products may be used to diagnose, prevent, treat, and cure diseases and medical conditions, including cancer. Biosimilar agents, approved under an abbreviated 351(k) pathway, continue to increase in number and market share for biologic agents, especially for cancer care. Although biosimilars offer the potential for improved access to care, their introduction to the marketplace has created significant disruption. It is imperative that health systems providing care to patients with cancer develop a well-defined process to address the challenges associated with biosimilars. This descriptive article outlines pharmacy considerations for biosimilars and describes the current practices at The Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute at The Ohio State University. Biosimilars have and will continue to significantly impact oncology care. Organizations must understand the clinical, operational, and financial challenges associated with the use of these products.

BBCIC Research Network Analysis of First-Cycle Prophylactic G-CSF Use in Patients Treated With High-Neutropenia Risk Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is prevented or minimized with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs). Several G-CSF biosimilars are approved in the United States. The Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) is a nonprofit initiative whose objective is to provide scientific evidence on real-world use and comparative safety and effectiveness of biologics and biosimilars using the BBCIC distributed research network (DRN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We describe real-world G-CSF use in patients with breast or lung cancer receiving first-cycle chemotherapy associated with high FN risk. We assessed hospitalizations for FN, availability of absolute neutrophil counts, and G-CSF-induced adverse events to inform future observational comparative effectiveness studies of G-CSF reference products and their biosimilars. A descriptive analysis of 5 participating national health insurance plans was conducted within the BBCIC DRN.

RESULTS

A total of 57,725 patients who received at least one G-CSF dose were included. Most (92.5%) patients received pegfilgrastim. FN hospitalization rates were evaluated by narrow (<0.5%), intermediate (1.91%), and broad (2.99%) definitions. Anaphylaxis and hyperleukocytosis were identified in 1.15% and 2.28% of patients, respectively. This analysis provides real-world evidence extracted from a large, readily available database of diverse patients, characterizing G-CSF reference product use to inform the feasibility of future observational comparative safety and effectiveness analyses of G-CSF biosimilars. We showed that the rates of FN and adverse events in our research network are consistent with those reported by previous small studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Readily available BBCIC DRN data can be used to assess G-CSF use with the incidence of FN hospitalizations. Insufficient laboratory result data were available to report absolute neutrophil counts; however, other safety data are available for assessment that provide valuable baseline data regarding the effectiveness and safety of G-CSFs in preparation for comparative effectiveness studies of reference G-CSFs and their biosimilars.

Overcoming barriers to biosimilar adoption: real-world perspectives from a national payer and provider initiative

In response to a published national payer survey indicating striking needs for multistakeholder initiatives to increase biosimilar adoption, a focus workgroup meeting joining payers and providers was conducted in December 2019 in Boston, MA. Before the focus group meeting, a survey was sent to health care providers to collect perceptions about barriers to biosimilar adoption and gather input on best potential strategies for addressing these barriers. The focus group panel consisted of 5 managed care pharmacists and 3 physician experts in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology, representing large managed care organizations and health care systems in the Boston area. A clinical moderator facilitated discussions between the payers and providers regarding challenges to biosimilar adoption and potential collaborative strategies to overcome these barriers. The focus group participants identified hurdles to biosimilar adoption in 3 major areas: (1) the lack of confidence in biosimilar interchangeability and a need for education about biosimilars, (2) the lack of financial incentives to switch to biosimilars from the reference biologic product, and (3) administrative burdens that impair the prescription of biologics. Learning from their mutual experiences, the focus group participants formulated action plans to address these barriers. The top strategies recommended by the participants included advancing biosimilar education, facilitating administrative processes related to biosimilar prescriptions, and increasing provider reimbursement while reducing cost sharing to patients receiving biosimilars. DISCLOSURES: The study reported on in this article was part of a continuing education program funded by an independent educational grant that was awarded by Sandoz Inc., a Novartis Division, to PRIME Education, LLC. The grantor had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, or reporting. The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) received grant funding from PRIME to assist with participant recruitment and content review for the continuing education program. Bandekar, Cheifetz, Edgar, Helfgott, Hoye-Simek, Liu, and Smith received an honorarium from PRIME for serving as faculty for the continuing education program. Cheifetz has received research grants from Inform Diagnostics and consulting fees from AbbVie, Bacainn, BMS, Grifols, Janssen, Pfizer, Prometheus, Samsung, and Takeda unrelated to this work. Smith has received consulting fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, has served as an investigator on industry-initiated trials for AbbVie and Pfizer, and has served as an investigator on investigator-initiated trials for Novartis and Regeneron. Carter, Fajardo, and Simone have nothing to disclose.

Current status of biosimilars in Turkey: A survey among medical oncologists

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate biosimilar understanding and preference trends of medical oncologists in Turkey.

METHODS

A survey consisting of 24 multiple-choice questions with checkbox answers was conducted among medical oncologists. The questionnaire was divided into five parts to some intentions: demographic characteristics, general knowledge about biosimilars, knowledge about local approval and reimbursement issues, individual preference trends, and ranking the knowledge of their own. All answers were analyzed as whole cohort, specialists and fellows.

RESULTS

Fellows (n = 47) consisted 42%, and academic clinicians (n = 37) consisted 35% of the participants. In the whole cohort, the overall rate of correct answers was 55.1% in the general knowledge about the biosimilars part, and 26.7% in the local approval and reimbursement issues part. At all, 57.7% of the participants declared that they object to switch from a reference product to a biosimilar product. The rate of those who defined themselves as extremely knowledgeable decreased from 8.1% to 2.7% in the whole cohort at the end of the survey.

CONCLUSION

The need for more accurate and clarified local regulations and education emerging in the biotechnology era must be met.

Same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim-cbqv in patients with lymphoma receiving CHOP-like chemotherapy

Aim: To compare the incidence of febrile neutropenia and related outcomes of prophylactic same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim/pegfilgrastim-cbqv in patients with lymphoma receiving cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP)-like chemotherapy. Methods: Retrospective, real-world, single-institution study. Results: 93 patients received 460 cycles of CHOP-like chemotherapy. The incidence of febrile neutropenia and grade 3/4 chemotherapy-induced neutropenia was 5 and 16.5%, respectively. In 401 cycles pegfilgrastim was administered same-day versus 12 cycles next-day. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 17 cycles versus 0 cycles (p = 1.00) and grade 3/4 chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in 65 cycles (16.2%) versus 1 cycle (16.7%; p = 1.00) with same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim administration, respectively. Conclusion: Pegfilgrastim may be safely administered on the same day as chemotherapy in patients with lymphoma receiving CHOP-like chemotherapy.

The global landscape on interchangeability of biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars hold the potential to be an integral healthcare component that can significantly improve affordability and thereby accessibility of the otherwise expensive biotherapeutic products. Regulators, payors, and policymakers, each have a major role to play in successful adoption of biosimilars. One of the issues that has been a point of frequent discussion is that of interchangeability of biosimilars.

AREAS COVERED

This article aims to review the position that the major regulatory bodies have taken on interchangeability of biosimilars. Key issues that remain are also discussed. Adalimumab and etanercept have been chosen as real-world case studies to demonstrate interchangeability considerations. The need for gaining global harmonization on interchangeability is highlighted.

EXPERT OPINION

A global harmonization on the interchangeability can likely accelerate biosimilar adoption and result in better accessibility to biologics. Experience gained with real-world studies supports switching to biosimilars from originators however post-marketing pharmacovigilance should be in place to assess the risk-benefit profile of biosimilars in the long run.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Hematopoietic Growth Factors, Version 1.2020

Management of febrile neutropenia (FN) is an integral part of supportive care for patients undergoing cancer treatment. The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors provide suggestions for appropriate evaluation, risk determination, prophylaxis, and management of FN. These NCCN Guidelines are intended to guide clinicians in the appropriate use of growth factors for select patients undergoing treatment of nonmyeloid malignancies. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight important updates to the NCCN Guidelines regarding the incorporation of newly FDA-approved granulocyte-colony stimulating factor biosimilars for the prevention and treatment of FN.

A Bayesian adaptive design for biosimilar trials with time-to-event endpoint

A biosimilar drug is a biological product that is highly similar to and at the same time has no clinically meaningful difference from licensed product in terms of safety, purity, and potency. Biosimilar study design is essential to demonstrate the equivalence between biosimilar drug and reference product. However, existing designs and assessment methods are primarily based on binary and continuous endpoints. We propose a Bayesian adaptive design for biosimilarity trials with time-to-event endpoint. The features of the proposed design are twofold. First, we employ the calibrated power prior to precisely borrow relevant information from historical data for the reference drug. Second, we propose a two-stage procedure using the Bayesian biosimilarity index (BBI) to allow early stop and improve the efficiency. Extensive simulations are conducted to demonstrate the operating characteristics of the proposed method in contrast with some naive method. Sensitivity analysis and extension with respect to the assumptions are presented.

Improving oncology biosimilar launches in the EU, the USA, and Japan: an updated Policy Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions

The EU, the USA, and Japan account for the majority of biological pharmacotherapy use worldwide. Biosimilar regulatory approval pathways were authorised in the EU (2006), in Japan (2009), and in the USA (2015), to facilitate approval of biological drugs that are highly similar to reference products and to encourage market competition. Between 2007 and 2020, 33 biosimilars for oncology were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), 16 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and ten by the Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). Some of these approved applications were initially rejected because of manufacturing concerns (four of 36 [11%] with the EMA, seven of 16 [44%] with the FDA, none of ten for the PMDA). Median times from initial regulatory submission before approval of oncology biosimilars were 1·5 years (EMA), 1·3 years (FDA), and 0·9 years (PMDA). Pharmacists can substitute biosimilars for reference biologics in some EU countries, but not in the USA or Japan. US regulation prohibits substitution, unless the biosimilar has been approved as interchangeable, a designation not yet achieved for any biosimilar in the USA. Japan does not permit biosimilar substitution, as prescribers must include the product name on each prescription and that specific product must be given to the patient. Policy Reviews published in 2014 and 2016 in The Lancet Oncology focused on premarket and postmarket policies for oncology biosimilars before most of these drugs received regulatory approval. In this Policy Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions, we identify factors preventing the effective launch of oncology biosimilars. Introduction to the market has been more challenging with therapeutic than for supportive care oncology biosimilars. Addressing region-specific competition barriers and educational needs would improve the regulatory approval process and market launches for these biologics, therefore expanding patient access to these products in the EU, the USA, and Japan.

Clinical and treatment characteristics of patients treated with the first therapeutic oncology biosimilars bevacizumab-awwb and trastuzumab-anns in the US

Background:

In July 2019, bevacizumab-awwb and trastuzumab-anns were marketed in the USA as the first therapeutic oncology biosimilars. We aimed to investigate the initial real-world use of bevacizumab-awwb and trastuzumab-anns for cancer management in US oncology practices.

Methods:

A retrospective, observational analysis of data from US cancer patients (⩾18 years of age) was carried out to describe the use of bevacizumab-awwb and trastuzumab-anns during the first 12 months following their market entry, using structured data from the Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived database.

Results:

A total of 2952 and 2997 patients with recorded use of bevacizumab-awwb and trastuzumab-anns, respectively, were included in the analysis. The first use of bevacizumab-awwb and trastuzumab-anns was in a patient with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) within 10 days of market availability and in a patient with early stage breast cancer (eBC) within 4 days, respectively. The use of these biosimilars was observed across all approved cancer indications; 68% of bevacizumab-awwb users were those diagnosed with mCRC and 72% of trastuzumab-anns users were those diagnosed with eBC. Approximately half the patients were previously exposed to reference product (RP) prior to initiation of bevacizumab-awwb or trastuzumab-anns. Among pre-exposed patients, the majority received the biosimilars [bevacizumab-awwb (63–85%) or trastuzumab-anns (75–81%)] within 28 days of the last infusion of the RP. For both biosimilars, no major differences were observed in patient characteristics between RP-naïve and pre-exposed patients.

Conclusion:

Initial evidence from the first 12 months following market entry suggests rapid clinical adoption of bevacizumab-awwb and trastuzumab-anns across all approved tumor types. Usage of these two biosimilars was observed in both RP-naïve patients and patients who were previously treated with RP, with no distinctive differences in patient characteristics between the two groups.

A video abstract is available for this article as part of the Kanjintionline supplemental material.

Epoetin alfa-epbx: a new entrant into a crowded market. a historical review of the role of erythropoietin stimulating agents and the development of the first epoetin biosimilar in the United States

Introduction: Erythropoietin stimulating agents (ESAs) have been established both to correct anemia and provide the clinical benefits of increased exercise capacity, reduced transfusion requirements, and improved quality of life. An increase in physician and patient adoption of biosimilars, as well as changes to healthcare reimbursement policies, have driven market competitors to innovate and expand the range of biosimilar products. While erythropoietin biosimilars have been approved by the EMA since 2007, the FDA's approval of epoetin alfa-epbx in 2018 marks the first erythropoietin biosimilar approved in the United States. Areas covered: In this article, we critically review the biology, clinical use, manufacturing, safety, and efficacy of ESAs and erythropoietin biosimilars. We then review the regulatory framework and potential impact on healthcare costs offered by erythropoietin biosimilars. Expert opinion: Due to the complex nature of manufacturing large-molecule biologics, it is important to recognize the challenges to quality assurance and overall safety posed by the introduction of biosimilars, which undergo much more limited clinical testing than their reference biologic product before coming to market. With many biologic therapies nearing patent expiration, biosimilars will become increasingly common in clinical practice. Ensuring patient safety with these products will require increased post-marketing surveillance and awareness from prescribers.

Navigating uncharted waters: Developing a standardized approach for evaluating and implementing biosimilar products at a comprehensive cancer center

PURPOSE

The processes for formulary implementation and electronic health record (EHR) integration of biosimilar products at a comprehensive cancer center are described. Implications for research protocols are also discussed.

SUMMARY

The existing literature focuses on practical considerations for formulary addition of biosimilar products, but there is a lack of guidance on how to implement the change, particularly within the EHR. Before building the ordering tools for biosimilars, the clinical and informatics teams should determine the role of biosimilars at the institution, identify drug-specific product characteristics that affect medication build, and characterize implications of future formulary changes or drug shortages. Leveraging an orderable record provides the ability to include logic that maps to multiple products and also allows for future implementation of changes within the medication record rather than requiring "swaps" at the treatment protocol level. The institutional review board should coordinate changes in affected research protocols and consent forms and work with principal investigators to amend protocols when necessary. Pharmacy leaders should develop processes to oversee inventory during the transition period and minimize the risk of errors.

CONCLUSION

The development of a standardized approach for evaluating and implementing biosimilar products improves efficiency and collaboration among the various team members responsible for the products' integration into existing workflows, including implications for clinical research. Implementing biosimilars for agents used to treat cancer will pose new challenges and require additional considerations. Partial implementation of biosimilars continues to pose multiple challenges in the provision of patient care.

A narrative review of biosimilars: a continued journey from the scientific evidence to practice implementation

Biologic agents have revolutionized the management of serious health conditions in the last two decades. The use of “targeted therapy” brings not only better progression free survivals and overall survivals, but also better toxicity profiles and quality of life benefits, compared to empirical palliative chemotherapy. However, given the high cost associated with biologic drugs and the sharp increases in biologic drug utilization, this drug category has significantly raised healthcare cost over the years. A similar phenomenon was previously experienced with branded simple chemical compound drugs, including chemotherapeutic agents, which was largely mitigated by the introduction of a generic approval pathway, decreasing the costs of the drugs, making them more affordable, given to the increase in competition among the drug makers. A similar opportunity presents years later with the completion of the full patent exclusivity period of many biologics. However, the ending of patent exclusivity, although enables more market competition, does not guarantee market penetration. Stakeholders, such as patients, providers and payers, must build trust and confidence in the science of biosimilars and the product specific studies leading to FDA approval in order to incorporate these products to practice and enable the biosimilar market at large to reach the potential to significantly contribute to reductions in drug cost. Dissemination of scientific and emerging biosimilar evidence is paramount in order to support stakeholder informed decision making and enable each to benefit from expanded treatment options. This paper describes the biosimilar development, approval process, and reviews a number of challenges with the marketing implementation of biosimilars.

Selection of Optimal Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Early Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

The aim of this work is to update key recommendations of the ASCO guideline adaptation of the Cancer Care Ontario guideline on the selection of optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer and adjuvant targeted therapy for breast cancer.

METHODS

An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review guided by a signals approach to identify new, potentially practice-changing data that might translate into revised guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

The Expert Panel reviewed abstracts from the literature review and identified one article for inclusion that reported results of the phase III, open-label KATHERINE trial. In the KATHERINE trial, patients with stage I to III human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer with residual invasive disease in the breast or axilla after completing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy were allocated to adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1; n = 743) or to trastuzumab (n = 743). Invasive disease-free survival was significantly higher in the T-DM1 group than in the trastuzumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.64; P < .001), and risk of distant recurrence was lower in patients who received T-DM1 than in patients who received trastuzumab (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.79). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 190 patients (25.7%) who received T-DM1 and in 111 patients (15.4%) who received trastuzumab.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Patients with HER2-positive breast cancer with pathologic invasive residual disease at surgery after standard preoperative chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy should be offered 14 cycles of adjuvant T-DM1, unless there is disease recurrence or unmanageable toxicity. Clinicians may offer any of the available and approved formulations of trastuzumab, including trastuzumab, trastuzumab and hyaluronidase-oysk, and available biosimilars.Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Revisiting same day administration of pegfilgrastim in the age of biosimilars: A review of literature

Purpose

Since 2018, several pegfilgrastim biosimilars were approved, which may affect insurance reimbursement. Guidelines recommend pegfilgrastim be administered the days following chemotherapy to prevent hematopoietic toxicity. To date, only the reference pegfilgrastim product has an available autoinjector-device. This has contributed to logistical issues in administering biosimilar agents per guideline recommendations. Administration on the same day as chemotherapy may be a potential alternative when logistical issues are present. This review will assess current evidence on this practice to inform clinical decisions. Data sources: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline for studies examining the administration of pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy. Data summary: Several studies were identified, including a systematic review, retrospective reviews, and insurance claim data. Studies had significant limitations, and chemotherapy regimens and cancer types varied among studies. Studies showed inconsistent results in terms of incidence, duration, and severity of febrile neutropenia. In studies with patients with head and neck, urothelial, gynecologic, gastrointestinal, and prostate cancer, no difference in outcomes was detected or outcomes supported the feasibility of same-day administration. In patients with breast cancer, outcomes were worse with same-day administration. Outcomes were mixed in studies with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and various solid tumors.

Conclusion

Administration of pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy may be safe and an acceptable alternative, if logistics prohibit a patient from receiving administration the days after chemotherapy. Clinicians should consider patient risk factors and prescribed chemotherapy regimens, along with available evidence when contemplating administration of same-day pegfilgrastim.

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.

Justification for a Fixed Dose of Eflapegrastim, a Long-Acting G-CSF, in Patients Receiving Docetaxel-Cyclophosphamide Chemotherapy

Eflapegrastim (Rolontis) is a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) produced by conjugating a human G-CSF analogue and a human immunoglobulin G4 Fc fragment, linked via a polyethylene glycol linker. Weight-based doses of 45 to 270 μg/kg eflapegrastim (12.3-73.6 μg/kg as G-CSF) were evaluated in a phase 2 study in patients. Based on these results, a fixed dose of 13.2 mg eflapegrastim (3.6 mg G-CSF) was compared with pegfilgrastim (6 mg G-CSF) in 2 phase 3 studies and in a pharmacokinetic single-arm multicenter study. Absolute neutrophil count (ANC) data from these 3 studies were evaluated in patients with early-stage breast cancer who were treated with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (n = 669). Serum concentrations of eflapegrastim were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Eflapegrastim systemic exposures were higher in cycle 1 than in cycle 3, likely attributable to the higher ANC in cycle 3, increasing neutrophil-mediated clearance. Eflapegrastim elicited a greater effect on ANC than pegfilgrastim in patients at ∼60% of the G-CSF dose. Body weight had no clinically significant effect on response, justifying administration of a fixed dose of eflapegrastim. The results from 2 phase 3 studies demonstrate that eflapegrastim at a fixed dose of 13.2 mg (3.6 mg G-CSF) administered once per chemotherapy cycle is effective in prophylactic treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

The Importance of Countering Biosimilar Disparagement and Misinformation

Biosimilar use is limited in some healthcare systems because biosimilars are not well understood by many healthcare professionals and patients. The knowledge gap is exacerbated by disparagement of biosimilars and dissemination of misinformation, whether intentional or otherwise. There are several different types of disparagement and misinformation directed towards biosimilars as a class, including statements about biosimilar science or policy that are factually incorrect; misleading information, where the information is correct, but is provided out of context; incomplete information, where only partial or a limited set of facts are provided; creation of a false narrative, especially in scientific and medical literature, that provides a set of references to support incorrect conclusions; and negative message framing of factual statements to create a negative perception. Disparagement and misinformation about biosimilars can be countered by educational efforts, appropriate oversight, and regulatory activities with the option of enforcement action by governmental agencies, if warranted. Balanced educational materials about biosimilars should be made easily accessible. Physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and patient advocacy groups should work together to provide patients with consistent, positive messages about the value of biosimilars.

Biologic Drug Quality Assurance to Optimize HER2 + Breast Cancer Treatment: Insights from Development of the Trastuzumab Biosimilar SB3

SB3 is a biosimilar of trastuzumab that has been approved for use in the treatment of human epidermal growth factor 2-positive breast cancer and human epidermal growth factor 2-positive gastric cancer. Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity is one of several critical quality attributes of trastuzumab. Data from the development of SB3 support the hypothesis of a relationship between antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity activity and clinical outcomes in terms of the response rate and long-term survival. Current analytic methods utilizing advanced technology allow the detection of small changes in other quality attributes that influence antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, such as glycosylation and FcγRIIIa binding. Use of such methods to monitor batch-to-batch consistency enables production of trastuzumab biosimilars with consistent quality. Trastuzumab biosimilars such as SB3 therefore have the potential to increase accessibility to trastuzumab-based therapy without compromising efficacy or safety.

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.

A comparison of eflapegrastim to pegfilgrastim in the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy (RECOVER): A Phase 3 study

Eflapegrastim (Rolontis^®) is a novel, long‐acting hematopoietic growth factor consisting of a recombinant human granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor (rhG‐CSF) analog conjugated to a human IgG4 Fc fragment via a short polyethylene glycol linker. We report results from a second pivotal, randomized, open‐label, Phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim to pegfilgrastim for reducing the risk of chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia. Patients with Stage I to IIIA early‐stage breast cancer (ESBC) were randomized 1:1 to fixed‐dose eflapegrastim 13.2 mg (3.6 mg G‐CSF) or pegfilgrastim (6 mg G‐CSF) administered one day after standard docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC) therapy for four cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority (NI) of eflapegrastim compared to pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN; Grade 4) in Cycle 1. A total of 237 eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either eflapegrastim (n = 118) or pegfilgrastim (n = 119). Cycle 1 severe neutropenia was observed in 20.3% (n = 24) of patients receiving eflapegrastim and 23.5% (n = 28) receiving pegfilgrastim. The DSN of eflapegrastim in Cycle 1 was noninferior to pegfilgrastim with a mean difference of −0.074 days (NI P‐value < .0001). Noninferiority was maintained throughout the four treatment cycles (P < .0001 in all cycles). Other efficacy endpoints results were comparable between treatment arms, and adverse events, irrespective of causality and grade, were comparable between treatment arms. The results demonstrate noninferior efficacy and comparable safety for eflapegrastim, at a lower G‐CSF dose, vs pegfilgrastim. The potential for the increased potency of eflapegrastim to deliver improved clinical benefit warrants further clinical study.

Biosimilars in supportive care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review covers recent publications relating to the use of biosimilar medicines in the supportive care of cancer patients, and broader publications focussed on the benefits and challenges of implementing biosimilars into clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

A metaanalysis and a number of systematic literature reviews have confirmed that the safety and efficacy of biosimilar versions of epoetin-α, filgrastim and infliximab are equivalent to those of their corresponding reference biologics. New guidelines have been issued concerning the interchangeability of biosimilars and the practice of substituting a biosimilar in place of a prescribed reference product. The introduction of biosimilars into a health system has been shown to improve patient access to treatment while also delivering cost savings, however, there are a number of barriers that can prevent or delay the adoption of biosimilars into clinical practice which must be overcome for the potential benefits of biosimilars to be realized.

SUMMARY

There is a large amount of data to demonstrate that supportive care biosimilars are well tolerated and effective, with over 10 years of experience in Europe. We can learn from the challenges faced when introducing biosimilars into supportive care to facilitate the introduction of newer biosimilars into the treatment setting.