Biosimilars in Oncology: Latest Trends and Regulatory Status

Assessment of patterns and predictors of medical device-related adverse events among oncology patients: a cross-sectional study at a tertiary care hospital

BACKGROUND

This study aims to identify patterns and predictors of medical device-related adverse events (MDAEs) among radiotherapy patients. Understanding MDAEs is crucial for optimizing patient safety during radiotherapy.

METHODOLOGY

An observational study conducted from August to December 2023 involved 139 patients undergoing radiotherapy. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and AE reports were collected from patient datasheets and analyzed using SPSS Version 28.

RESULTS

Study findings revealed that patients with head and neck cancer were significantly associated with higher rates of skin (OR: 3.56, CI: 1.59-7.96) and mucous membrane reactions. Specific dose ranges, particularly 800-2800 cGy, also predict mucous membrane reactions (OR: 11.12, CI: 3.42-36.1). Furthermore, smokeless habits significantly influenced both skin (OR: 6.04, CI: 1.99-18.3) and mucous membrane reactions (OR: 8.77, CI: 2.57-29.9). In contrast, head and neck cancer patients had reduced likelihoods of pharynx reactions (OR: 0.37, CI: 0.13-1.00), particularly with doses between 2801 and 4800 cGy (OR: 0.45, CI: 0.96-21.6).

CONCLUSION

This study identified a few significant predictors for the occurrence of various types of MDAEs among patients undergoing radiotherapy. Reporting MDAEs can prevent adverse effects caused by medical devices and enhance radiotherapy safety.

Biosimilars: A Critical Review of Development, Regulatory Landscape, and Clinical Implications

The biopharmaceutical industry has witnessed significant growth in the development and approval of biosimilars. These biosimilars aim to provide cost-effective alternatives to expensive originator biosimilars, alleviating financial pressures within healthcare. The manufacturing of biosimilars is a highly complex process that involves several stages, each of which must meet strict regulatory standards to ensure that the final product is highly similar to the reference biologic. To gain regulatory approval, biosimilars must undergo rigorous analytical characterization including in vitro assays, bioanalytical evaluations, and clinical similarity studies like pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD) assessments-to demonstrate safety, efficacy, quality comparability with reference products. Leading regulatory agencies such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) have established stringent guidelines for biosimilar evaluation and post-marketing surveillance. Despite this regulatory clarity, challenges around interchangeability, market exclusivity, and patent protection often delay market access and limit adoption, particularly in regions where automatic substitution is restricted. Case studies of biosimilars such as rituximab, adalimumab, filgrastim, and trastuzab reveal both advancements and ongoing hurdles in achieving broader market integration. The introduction of biosimilars has shown potential to reduce healthcare costs; for example, a recent analysis indicates a 20-30% cost reduction in the U.S. due to biosimilar adoption. As the biosimilar market expands, collaborative efforts among regulatory bodies, industry stakeholders, and healthcare providers are essential to enhance access to biologic therapies. This collaboration is poised to improve patient outcomes and catalyse transformative change in global healthcare systems.

Globalization of clinical trials in oncology: a worldwide quantitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Over the past two decades, the globalization of oncology clinical trials has expanded, yet significant disparities persist across countries. This study aimed to evaluate these geographical inequalities, the evolution of trial phases, and the adherence to ethical standards according to the World Bank's income group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The ClinicalTrials.gov database was searched and recorded in June 2024. We analyzed data from 87 748 oncology clinical trials conducted between 2000 and 2021, across high-income (HICs), upper-middle-income (UMICs), lower-middle-income (LMICs), and low-income countries. Key metrics included trial density, funding sources, registration timing, and trial phase distribution.

RESULTS

The number of oncology trials increased significantly, with a mean absolute annual rise of 266.6 trials, with China currently being the leading site of early- and validation-phase trials. While HICs still present the highest trial densities, UMICs showed a notable increase in early-phase trials, reflecting a shift in research dynamics. However, despite these advances, 76.4% of countries still had no new trials initiated by 2024. Additionally, ethical practices saw improvement from 2005 to 2021 with an increase in pre-commencement registration (from 9.2% to 58%, P < 0.0001), and more validation-phase trials with a survival variable as the primary outcome (from 40% to 59.6%, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the growth in oncology clinical trials, significant disparities in trial distribution and access remain, especially in LMICs. Continued investments in research infrastructure and adherence to ethical standards are crucial to ensure that clinical research benefits are equitably distributed, particularly in regions with the greatest need for advanced cancer therapies.

Real-world clinical efficacy of bevacizumab biosimilar in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Background

Bevacizumab is extensively used in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Numerous clinical trials have proven the clinical efficacies of bevacizumab biosimilars (BB).

Objective

Our study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between bevacizumab reference product (RP) and BB among advanced NSCLC patients in a real-world setting.

Design

We retrospectively analyzed stage IV metastatic NSCLC patients who were treated with bevacizumab as part of a combination therapy. Patients were categorized into chemotherapy (CT) and epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) groups. We compared the patients' characteristics, treatment efficacy, and adverse events between RP and BB in the two treatment groups.

Methods

From January 2020 to July 2022, a total of 171 patients who underwent combination therapy with bevacizumab were screened. Seventy-nine of these patients met the study's inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the final analysis. We utilized the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and the log-rank test to compare PFS between groups. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify predictors of PFS.

Results

Within the CT cohort, 34 patients were treated with RP in combination with platinum and pemetrexed, and 25 patients received a combination regimen with BB. The median PFS was 6.9 months in the RP group and 8.9 months in the BB group (p = 0.255). Within the EGFR-TKI cohort, 20 patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC received first-line treatment with EGFR-TKI plus bevacizumab. Of these patients, 9 were treated with a combination regimen that included RP, and 11 patients received EGFR-TKI in combination with BB. The median PFS was 18.4 months for the RP group and 13.6 months for the BB group (p = 0.363).

Conclusion

In our advanced NSCLC patients, we found no difference in clinical outcomes when receiving treatment with RP or BB. Given a combination regimen, BB was as effective as RP together with either CT or EGFR-TKIs.

Deciphering the US Regulatory Framework: Comparison Between Oncology Biosimilars and Reference Biologics

Biological oncology agents are vital in cancer care, but their exorbitant expenses present obstacles for patients, families, healthcare professionals, and insurance providers. The advent of biosimilars represents a transformative solution, offering more affordable alternatives after the expiration of biologics patents. Biosimilar agents, similar to biological agents in structure, function, safety, and immunogenicity, enhance healthcare accessibility, improve outcomes, and reduce costs. Thus, the safety of biosimilars in clinical settings is of utmost importance. This review provides a detailed overview of the United States (US) regulatory framework for biosimilars along with a comparative analysis of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved biosimilar products. The FDA's "Biosimilar product information" database and "FDA's Purple Book" database were used to retrieve data on approved biosimilars and reference biologicals respectively. The study compares biosimilars and their reference products, examining their physiological action, pharmacokinetics, indications, adverse reactions, and immunogenicity test results and concludes that biosimilars do not have significant variations from their reference biologic products. This analysis will offer critical insights for medical practitioners, clinicians, and patients. It empowers stakeholders to make informed decisions, assessing whether biosimilars offer an equivalent level of safety compared to their reference products. Biosimilars are endorsed as credible substitutes for originator biologics, improving accessibility and affordability in cancer care, and benefiting patients and healthcare systems.

QL1701 (a proposed trastuzumab biosimilar) versus reference trastuzumab plus docetaxel as first-line therapy for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, parallel-controlled, phase III equivalence trial

BACKGROUND

QL1701 is a proposed biosimilar to the reference trastuzumab (Herceptin®). This trial compared the efficacy and safety of QL1701 with the reference trastuzumab in first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomized, double-blinded, parallel-controlled, phase III equivalence trial was conducted in 73 centers in China. Eligible patients with histologically or cytologically diagnosed HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to receive either QL1701 or reference trastuzumab in combination with docetaxel (every 3 weeks) for eight cycles as the first-line treatment. Then, in patients with objective responses or stable disease, the QL1701 or reference trastuzumab with or without docetaxel was maintained for totally up to 12 months if tolerated. The primary endpoint was 24-week objective response rate (ORR) assessed by an independent review committee (IRC). The equivalence margin was 0.80-1.25 with a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ORR ratio (QL1701 to reference trastuzumab).

RESULTS

Between 29 April 2020 and 15 March 2022, 474 patients were randomized, and 473 received either QL1701 (n = 236) or reference trastuzumab (n = 237). The risk ratio for 24-week ORR was 1.07 (90% CI 0.94-1.21). The 90% CI fell within the pre-specified equivalence margin of 0.80-1.25. The 24-week ORR assessed by IRC was 59.7% (95% CI 53.2% to 66.1%) versus 56.1% (95% CI 49.5% to 62.5%) in QL1701 and the reference trastuzumab, respectively. As of 12 April 2023, there were no notable differences in progression-free survival (median: 8.3 versus 8.4 months) and overall survival (1-year rate: 95.1% versus 93.3%) between the two groups. Safety, pharmacokinetic (PK), and immunogenicity profiles were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

QL1701 demonstrated equivalent efficacy and similar safety to the reference trastuzumab when combined with docetaxel in the first-line treatment of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, with similar PK and immunogenicity profiles.

Biosimilars in the Era of Artificial Intelligence-International Regulations and the Use in Oncological Treatments

This research is based on three fundamental aspects of successful biosimilar development in the challenging biopharmaceutical market. First, biosimilar regulations in eight selected countries: Japan, South Korea, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, and South Africa, represent the four continents. The regulatory aspects of the countries studied are analyzed, highlighting the challenges facing biosimilars, including their complex approval processes and the need for standardized regulatory guidelines. There is an inconsistency depending on whether the biosimilar is used in a developed or developing country. In the countries observed, biosimilars are considered excellent alternatives to patent-protected biological products for the treatment of chronic diseases. In the second aspect addressed, various analytical AI modeling methods (such as machine learning tools, reinforcement learning, supervised, unsupervised, and deep learning tools) were analyzed to observe patterns that lead to the prevalence of biosimilars used in cancer to model the behaviors of the most prominent active compounds with spectroscopy. Finally, an analysis of the use of active compounds of biosimilars used in cancer and approved by the FDA and EMA was proposed.

Monoclonal antibody biosimilars for cancer treatment

Monoclonal antibodies are important cancer medicines. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved 48 and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 56 anticancer monoclonal antibody-based therapies. Their high prices burden healthcare systems and hamper global drug access. Biosimilars could retain costs and expand the availability of monoclonal antibodies. In Europe, five rituximab biosimilars, six trastuzumab biosimilars, and eight bevacizumab biosimilars are available as anti-cancer drugs. To gain insight into the biosimilar landscape for cancer treatment, we performed a literature search and analysis. In this review, we summarize cancer monoclonal antibodies' properties crucial for the desired pharmacology and point out sources of variability. The analytical assessment of all EMA-approved bevacizumab biosimilars is highlighted to illustrate this variability. The global landscape of investigational and approved biosimilars is mapped, and the challenges for access to cancer biosimilars are identified.

The use of proteins and peptides-based therapy in managing and preventing pathogenic viruses

Therapeutic proteins have been employed for centuries and reached approximately 50 % of all drugs investigated. By 2023, they represented one of the top 10 largest-selling pharma products ($387.03 billion) and are anticipated to reach around $653.35 billion by 2030. Growth hormones, insulin, and interferon (IFN α, γ, and β) are among the leading applied therapeutic proteins with a higher market share. Protein-based therapies have opened new opportunities to control various diseases, including metabolic disorders, tumors, and viral outbreaks. Advanced recombinant DNA biotechnology has offered the production of therapeutic proteins and peptides for vaccination, drugs, and diagnostic tools. Prokaryotic and eukaryotic expression host systems, including bacterial, fungal, animal, mammalian, and plant cells usually applied for recombinant therapeutic proteins large-scale production. However, several limitations face therapeutic protein production and applications at the commercial level, including immunogenicity, integrity concerns, protein stability, and protein degradation under different circumstances. In this regard, protein-engineering strategies such as PEGylation, glycol-engineering, Fc-fusion, albumin conjugation, and fusion, assist in increasing targeting, product purity, production yield, functionality, and the half-life of therapeutic protein circulation. Therefore, a comprehensive insight into therapeutic protein research and findings pave the way for their successful implementation, which will be discussed in the current review.

Cancer treatment with biosimilar drugs: A review

Biosimilars are biological drugs created from living organisms or that contain living components. They share an identical amino-acid sequence and immunogenicity. These drugs are considered to be cost-effective and are utilized in the treatment of cancer and other endocrine disorders. The primary aim of biosimilars is to predict biosimilarity, efficacy, and treatment costs; they are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and have no clinical implications. They involve analytical studies to understand the similarities and dissimilarities. A biosimilar manufacturer sets up FDA-approved reference products to evaluate biosimilarity. The contribution of next-generation sequencing is evolving to study the organ tumor and its progression with its impactful therapeutic approach on cancer patients to showcase and target rare mutations. The study shall help to understand the future perspectives of biosimilars for use in gastro-entero-logic diseases, colorectal cancer, and thyroid cancer. They also help target specific organs with essential mutational categories and drug prototypes in clinical practices with blood and liquid biopsy, cell treatment, gene therapy, recombinant therapeutic proteins, and personalized medications. Biosimilar derivatives such as monoclonal antibodies like trastuzumab and rituximab are common drugs used in cancer therapy. Escherichia coli produces more than six antibodies or antibody-derived proteins to treat cancer such as filgrastim, epoetin alfa, and so on.

Costs to Medicare of Nonrecommended Bone-Modifying Agent Use for Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) do not prevent skeletal-related events among patients with castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC), but many patients receive BMAs unnecessarily. The costs to Medicare from overuse have not been assessed.

METHODS

We used linked SEER-Medicare data 2011-2015 to measure the frequency and number of doses of zoledronic acid (ZA) and denosumab received during CSPC (between diagnosis and initiation of metastatic, castration resistant prostate cancer therapy). We estimated excess BMA among patients who received BMA therapy for CSPC and did not have an indication for osteoporosis fracture prevention. We used the Medicare fee schedule for drug prices and peer-reviewed sources to estimate adverse event frequencies and costs.

RESULTS

Median CSPC duration was 387 days (IQR, 253-573), during which time 42% of patients received ≥one dose of denosumab (mean doses, 7) and 18% received ≥one dose of ZA (mean doses, 7). Thirty-eight percent of those receiving denosumab and 47% of those receiving ZA had a history of osteoporosis, osteopenia, spine or hip fracture, or hypercalcemia. The estimated, annual excess BMA cost to Medicare was $44,105,041 in US dollars (USD), composed of $43,303,078 USD and $45,512 USD in drug costs for denosumab and ZA, respectively, and $682,865 USD and $75,585 USD in adverse event costs, respectively. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the estimate was most sensitive to denosumab dosing frequency (estimate range, $28,469,237 USD-$98,830,351 USD) and duration of CSPC (estimate range, $36,823,311 USD-$99,015,908 USD).

CONCLUSION

BMA overuse in CSPC incurs substantial cost to Medicare, largely because of denosumab drug costs. Excess costs may be reduced by greater adherence to guideline-concordant BMA use.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the proposed biosimilar denosumab GP2411 and reference denosumab in healthy males

BACKGROUND

This Phase I study compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) similarity of GP2411 proposed denosumab biosimilar to reference denosumab (a monoclonal antibody for specific pro-resorptive conditions).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Healthy males (28-65 years, 50-90 kg) were randomized to a single sub-therapeutic subcutaneous injection of 35 mg GP2411, EU-Xgeva® or US-Xgeva®, and followed for 39 weeks. The primary endpoints were AUCinf, AUClast, and Cmax.

RESULTS

Four hundred ninety-two participants completed treatment. The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) (AUCinf, AUClast, and Cmax) and 95% CI of the geometric mean ratios of AUEC of % change from baseline in serum CTX were fully contained within the prespecified equivalence margins (0.80, 1.25), demonstrating similarity. The occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with GP2411, EU-Xgeva® and US-Xgeva® was similar (72.9%, 76.0%, and 71.0% of participants, respectively). Most were Grade 1 or 2, <30% were treatment-related, and there was only one TEAE-related study discontinuation. Rates of positive anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) were similar (57.8%, 64.9%, and 69.1% of participants respectively), but immunogenicity was only borderline detectable and of very low magnitude. Ninety-nine percent of positive ADAs were transient.

CONCLUSION

GP2411 demonstrated similarity with EU-Xgeva® and US-Xgeva® in PK, PD, safety, and immunogenicity in this population.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT 2019-001651-39.

Therapeutic targeting of angiopoietins in tumor angiogenesis and cancer development

The formation and progression of tumors in humans are linked to the abnormal development of new blood vessels known as neo-angiogenesis. Angiogenesis is a broad word that encompasses endothelial cell migration, proliferation, tube formation, and intussusception, as well as peri-EC recruitment and extracellular matrix formation. Tumor angiogenesis is regulated by angiogenic factors, out of which some of the most potent angiogenic factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor and Angiopoietins (ANGs) in the body are produced by macrophages and other immune cells within the tumor microenvironment. ANGs have a distinct function in tumor angiogenesis and behavior. ANG1, ANG 2, ANG 3, and ANG 4 are the family members of ANG out of which ANG2 has been extensively investigated owing to its unique role in modifying angiogenesis and its tight association with tumor progression, growth, and invasion/metastasis, which makes it an excellent candidate for therapeutic intervention in human malignancies. ANG modulators have demonstrated encouraging outcomes in the treatment of tumor development, either alone or in conjunction with VEGF inhibitors. Future development of more ANG modulators targeting other ANGs is needed. The implication of ANG1, ANG3, and ANG4 as probable therapeutic targets for anti-angiogenesis treatment in tumor development should be also evaluated. The article has described the role of ANG in tumor angiogenesis as well as tumor growth and the treatment strategies modulating ANGs in tumor angiogenesis as demonstrated in clinical studies. The pharmacological modulation of ANGs and ANG-regulated pathways that are responsible for tumor angiogenesis and cancer development should be evaluated for the development of future molecular therapies.