To evaluate the safety in the interchangeability of biosimilar products approved for cancer treatment from a pharmaceutical perspective.
Methods
A literature review was carried out using the descriptors “Biosimilar”, “Oncology Therapy”, “Interchangeable drugs” and “Biological Products”, in the Sciencedirect, MEDLINE, and CAPLUS databases.
Results
Fifty-one articles were selected, which addressed the importance of establishing standards that prove the efficacy and safety of biosimilars with reference products, as well as the growing interest of the pharmaceutical industry in the development of biosimilars and the impact on costs and changes in the perspective of the treatment of cancer patients.
Conclusions
As they are large and complex molecules, it is impossible to obtain identical copies of their reference products, which generates conflicts and concerns on the part of the pharmaceutical class regarding the safety in the interchangeability of these products, highlighting the importance of pharmacovigilance in this process.
Ferreira PMP and Pessoa C. Molecular biology of human epidermal receptors, signaling pathways and targeted therapy against cancers: new evidences and old challenges. Braz J Pharm Sci 2017; 53: 1–17.
2.
HirataBKBOdaJMMGuembarovskiRL, et al.
Molecular markers for breast cancer: prediction on tumor behavior. Dis Markers2014;
2014: 513158.
3.
WangJXuB.Targeted therapeutic options and future perspectives for HER2-positive breast cancer. Signal Transduct Target Ther2019;
4: 34.
4.
ScavoneCRafanielloCBerrinoL, et al.
Strengths, weaknesses and future challenges of biosimilars ’ development. An opinion on how to improve the knowledge and use of biosimilars in clinical practice. Pharmacol Res2017;
126: 138–142.
5.
TkaczukKHRJacobsIA.Biosimilars in oncology: from development to clinical practice. Semin Oncol2014;
41: S3–S12.
BuiLATaylorC.Developing clinical trials for biosimilars. Semin Oncol2014;
41: S15–S25.
8.
HenryDTaylorC.Pharmacoeconomics of cancer therapies: considerations with the introduction of biosimilars. Semin Oncol2014;
41: S13–S20.
9.
AhmedIKasparBSharmaU.Biosimilars: impact of biologic product life cycle and European experience on the regulatory trajectory in the United States. Clin Ther2012;
34: 400–419.
10.
KleinAVWangJBedfordP.Subsequent entry biologics (biosimilars) in Canada: approaches to interchangeability and the extrapolation of indications and uses. Generics Biosimilars Initiat J2014;
3: 150–154.
Crespi-LoftonJSkeltonJB.The growing role of biologics and biosimilars in the United States: perspectives from the APhA biologics and biosimilars stakeholder conference. J Am Pharm Assoc2017;
57: e15–e27.
13.
ChirinoAJMire-SluisA.Characterizing biological products and assessing comparability following manufacturing changes. Nat Biotechnol2004;
22: 1383–1391.
14.
DudzinskiDMKesselheimAS.Scientific and legal viability of follow-on protein drugs. N Engl J Med2008;
358: 843–849.
BennettCLChenBHermansonT, et al.
Regulatory and clinical considerations for biosimilar oncology drugs. Lancet Oncol2014;
15: e594–e605.
19.
KwonOJoungJParkY, et al.
Considerations of critical quality attributes in the analytical comparability assessment of biosimilar products. Biologicals2017;
48: 101–108.
WeiseM.From bioequivalence to biosimilars: how much do regulators dare?Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes2019;
140: 58–62.
23.
DuivelshofBLJiskootWBeckA, et al.
Glycosylation of biosimilars: recent advances in analytical characterization and clinical implications. Anal Chim Acta2019;
1089: 1–18.
24.
HigelFSeidlASörgelF, et al.
N-glycosylation heterogeneity and the influence on structure, function and pharmacokinetics of monoclonal antibodies and Fc fusion proteins. Eur J Pharm Biopharm2016;
100: 94–100.
25.
LiWYangBZhouD, et al.
Discovery and characterization of antibody variants using mass spectrometry-based comparative analysis for biosimilar candidates of monoclonal antibody drugs. J Chromatogr B2016;
1025: 57–67.
26.
ANVISA AN de VS-. Intercambialidade entre produtos registrados pela via de desenvolvimento por comparabilidade (“biossimilares”) e o produto biológico comparador. ANVISA, www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br (2017, accessed 17 April 2021).
27.
U.S. FDA. Food and drug administration. Considerations in demonstrating interchangeability with a reference product guidance for industry. Draft guidance. Silver Spring: Author. 2017.
28.
O’BrienGLO’MahonyCCookeK, et al.
Cost minimization analysis of intravenous or subcutaneous trastuzumab treatment in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer in Ireland. Clin Breast Cancer2019;
19: e440–e451.
29.
CuellarSMcBrideAMedinaP.Pharmacist perspectives and considerations for implementation of therapeutic oncology biosimilars in practice. Am J Heal Pharm2019;
76: 1725–1738.
30.
MarkusRLiuJRamchandaniM, et al.
Developing the totality of evidence for biosimilars: regulatory considerations and building confidence for the healthcare community. BioDrugs2017;
31: 175–187.
31.
LaiZNoceA.La. Key design considerations on comparative clinical efficacy studies for biosimilars: adalimumab as an example. Rheum Musculoskelet Dis2016;
2: 1–13.
32.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration – FDA. Scientific considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity to a reference product, www.fda.gov/media/82647/download (2015, accessed 30 April 2021).
WeiseMKurkiPWolff-HolzE, et al.
Biosimilars: the science of extrapolation. Blood2014;
124: 3191–3196.
36.
BraudELCrossJDDavenport-EnnisN, et al.
NCCN biosimilars white paper: regulatory, scientific, and patient safety perspectives. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw2011;
9: S1–S22.
37.
WhalenJ.Recognizing and addressing challenges to the adoption of trastuzumab biosimilars and HER2-targeted therapies. Am J Manag Care2020;
26: S23–S31.
38.
KonstantinidouSPapaspiliouAKokkotouE.Current and future roles of biosimilars in oncology practice. Oncol Lett2020;
19: 45–51.
39.
Saleem T, Qurashi H, Jamali M, et al. Biosimilars as a future, promising solution for financial toxicity: a review with emphasis on bevacizumab. Cureus 2020; 12: e9300.
40.
TrapaniDCuriglianoG.How can biosimilars change the trajectory of breast cancer therapy? Expert review of anticancer therapy. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther2020;
20: 325–328.
41.
Waller CF and Friganovic A. Biosimilars in oncology: key role of nurses in patient education. Futur Oncol 2020; 16: 1931–1939.
42.
Krendyukov A and Schiestl M. Biosimilars in oncology: a decade of experience with granulocyte colonystimulating factor and its implications for monoclonal antibodies. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2019; 23: 102785.
43.
AaproMBokemeyerCLudwigH, et al.
Chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim in elderly versus non-elderly cancer patients : Patterns, outcomes, and determinants (MONITOR-GCSF study). J Geriatr Oncol2017;
8: 86–95.
44.
DamajGLBenbrahimOHaciniM, et al.
ZOHé: a prospective study of the use of biosimilar filgrastim zarzio in clinical practice in patients treated with chemotherapy for lymphoid malignancies. Clin Lymphoma, Myeloma Leuk2017;
17: 362–369.
45.
DanyleskoISareliRBloom-VardaN, et al.
Biology of blood and marrow transplantation biosimilar filgrastim (tevagrastim, XMO2) for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell mobilization and transplantation in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia/myelodysplastic syndromes. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant2016;
22: 277–283.
46.
KayikçiOTekgunduzEKayaAH, et al.
Biosimilar filgrastim (leucostim®) have similar efficacy in steady-state hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization compared to original filgrastim (neupogen®) and lenograstim (granocyte®): a retrospective multicenter study. Transfus Apher Sci2017;
56: 832–835.
47.
SivginSKarakusEKaynarL, et al.
The comparison of filgrastim (neupogen Ò), biosimilar filgrastim (leucostim Ò) and lenograstim (granocyte Ò) as a first line peripheral blood stem cell mobilization strategy in autologous hematopoieitic stem cell tr. Transfus Apher Sci2013;
48: 315–320.
48.
SivginSKarakusEKeklikM, et al.
Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of original filgrastim (neupogen ®), biosimilar filgrastim (leucostim ®) and lenograstim (granocyte ®) in CD34 + peripheral hematopoietic stem cell mobilization procedures for a. Transfus Apher Sci2016;
54: 410–415.
49.
TamuraKHashimotoKNishikawaK.Clinical safety and efficacy of “filgrastim biosimilar 2” in Japanese patients in a post-marketing surveillance study. J Infect Chemother2018;
24: 363–369.
50.
GatzemeierUCiuleanuTDediuM, et al.
XM02, the first biosimilar G-CSF, is safe and effective in reducing the duration of severe neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients with small cell. J Thorac Oncol2009;
4: 736–740.
51.
BotteriEKrendyukovACuriglianoG.Comparing granulocyte colony e stimulating factor filgrastim and pegfilgrastim to its biosimilars in terms of efficacy and safety : a Meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials in breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer2018;
89: 49–55.
52.
ZhouCHuangYWangD, et al.
A randomized multicenter phase III study of single administration of mecapeg filgrastim (HHPG-19K), a peg fi lgrastim biosimilar, for prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-Induced neutropenia in patients with advanced non e small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Clin Lung Cancer2016;
17: 119–127.
53.
BrokxSScrocchiLShahN, et al.
Biologicals a demonstration of analytical similarity comparing a proposed biosimilar PEG filgrastim and reference peg filgrastim. Biologicals2017;
48: 28–38.
54.
SunDAndayaniTMAltyarA, et al.
Potential cost savings from chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with biosimilar filgrastim and expanded access to targeted antineoplastic treatment across the European Union G5 countries : a simulation study. Clin Ther2015;
37: 842–857.
55.
KorkmazSAltuntasF.Transfusion and apheresis science what is the role of biosimilar G-CSF agents in hematopoietic stem cell mobilization at present?Transfus Apher Sci2017;
56: 795–799.
56.
KimWSBuskeCOguraM, et al.
Efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety of the biosimilar CT-P10 compared with rituximab in patients with previously untreated advanced-stage follicular lymphoma: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol2017;
4: e362–e373.
57.
OguraMSanchoJMChoS, et al.
Efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety of the biosimilar CT-P10 in comparison with rituximab in patients with previously untreated low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol2018;
5: e543–e553.
58.
JurczakWMoreiraIKanakasettyGB, et al.
Rituximab biosimilar and reference rituximab in patients with previously untreated advanced follicular lymphoma (ASSIST-FL): primary results from a confirmatory phase 3, double-blind, randomised, controlled study. Lancet Haematol2017;
4: e350–e361.
59.
BrainECailletPN deG, et al.
HER2-targeted treatment for older patients with breast cancer: an expert position paper from the international society of geriatric oncology. J Geriatr Oncol2019;
10: 1003–1013.
60.
MeloISGrassiPOchoaF, et al.
N-glycosylation profile analysis of trastuzumab biosimilar candidates by normal phase liquid chromatography and MALDI-TOF MS approaches. J Proteomics2015;
127: 225–233.
61.
PivotXCurtitELeeYJ, et al.
A randomized phase I pharmacokinetic study comparing biosimilar candidate SB3 and trastuzumab in healthy male subjects. Clin Ther2016;
38: 1665–1673. DOI:doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2016.06.002.
62.
PivotXBondarenkoINoweckiZ, et al.
A, Phase III study comparing SB3 (a proposed trastuzumab biosimilar) and trastuzumab reference product in HER2-positive early breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant-adjuvant treatment: final safety, immunogenicity and survival results. Eur J Cancer2018;
93: 19–27.
63.
PivotXPegramMCortesJ, et al.
Three-year follow-up from a phase 3 study of SB3 (a trastuzumab biosimilar) versus reference trastuzumab in the neoadjuvant setting for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 e positive breast cancer. Eur J Cancer2019;
120: 1–9.
64.
Alexeev SM, Khorinko AV, Mukhametshina GZ, et al. Randomized double-blind clinical trial comparing safety and efficacy of the biosimilar BCD-022 with reference trastuzumab. BMC Cancer 2020; 20: 783.
65.
PivotXDeslypereJPParkLS, et al.
A randomized phase I study comparing the pharmacokinetics of HD201, a trastuzumab biosimilar, with european union – sourced herceptin. Clin Ther2018;
40: 396–405.
66.
MinckwitzGVon ColleoniMKolbergH, et al.
Efficacy and safety of ABP 980 compared with reference trastuzumab in women with HER2-positive early breast cancer (LILAC study): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol2018;
19: 987–998.
67.
KolbergH-CColleoniMDemetriouGS, et al.
Cardiac safety of the trastuzumab biosimilar ABP 980 in women with HER2-Positive early breast cancer in the randomized, double-blind, active-controlled LILAC study. Drug Saf2020;
43: 233–242.
68.
PerazaMARuleKEShiueMHI, et al.
Nonclinical assessments of the potential biosimilar PF-06439535 and bevacizumab. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol2018;
95: 236–243.
69.
RomeraAPeredpayaSShparykY, et al.
Bevacizumab biosimilar BEVZ92 versus reference bevacizumab in combination with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer : a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol2018;
3: 845–855.
70.
RezvaniHMortazavizadehSMAllahyariA, et al.
Efficacy and safety of proposed bevacizumab biosimilar BE1040V in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase III, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority clinical trial. Clin Ther2020;
42: 848–859.
