RESUMEN
AIMS: Recombinant PEGylated human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (pegfilgrastim) is indicated for the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and prevention of febrile neutropenia. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim is expected to reduce the financial burden of this complication of chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to demonstrate biosimilarity between Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim and its US- and EU-approved reference biologics. METHODS: Phase I, randomized, double-blind, single-dose, 3-period, 6-sequence cross-over, multicentre study to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety and immunogenicity of Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim with US- and EU-references in healthy adults. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity was demonstrated between the 3 biologics, as the 90% confidence interval for all primary pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic endpoint comparisons were contained within the predefined similarity margins of 0.80-1.25. Safety, immunogenicity and tolerability were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim demonstrated pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity to both US- and EU-reference biologics. No meaningful differences in safety, local tolerability and immunogenicity were identified.
Asunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos , Adulto , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/efectos adversos , Estudios Cruzados , Método Doble Ciego , Filgrastim , Voluntarios Sanos , Humanos , Polietilenglicoles/efectos adversosRESUMEN
Aim: This analysis compares safety data for Sandoz proposed biosimilar (LA-EP2006) and reference pegfilgrastim from a Phase I pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study in healthy volunteers (HVs) and two Phase III confirmatory studies in patients with breast cancer (BC; total n = 808). Patients & methods: Baseline characteristics were summarized, and event rates of bone pain and headache calculated. Results: HVs in the Phase I pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study were generally younger, with lower mean body mass index, versus BC patients in PROTECT-1/-2. Bone pain was the most frequent adverse event with similar incidences with reference versus proposed biosimilar in all studies. Conclusion: No differences in adverse events were found between Sandoz proposed biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastim, notwithstanding some differences between HVs and BC patients.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/efectos adversos , Neoplasias de la Mama/tratamiento farmacológico , Neutropenia Febril Inducida por Quimioterapia/tratamiento farmacológico , Filgrastim/efectos adversos , Polietilenglicoles/efectos adversos , Adulto , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/administración & dosificación , Enfermedades Óseas/inducido químicamente , Enfermedades Óseas/epidemiología , Neoplasias de la Mama/sangre , Neutropenia Febril Inducida por Quimioterapia/etiología , Ensayos Clínicos Fase I como Asunto , Ensayos Clínicos Fase III como Asunto , Estudios de Equivalencia como Asunto , Femenino , Filgrastim/administración & dosificación , Voluntarios Sanos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dolor/inducido químicamente , Dolor/epidemiología , Polietilenglicoles/administración & dosificación , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of adverse events (AEs) in pivotal registration trials and ongoing postmarketing surveillance is important for all biologics, including biosimilars. A combined analysis of two pivotal registration studies was performed to strengthen evidence on safety for biosimilar filgrastim EP2006 in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, a sensitive clinical setting to confirm biosimilarity of filgrastim. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were combined from two phase III studies of biosimilar filgrastim EP2006. The U.S. registration study was a randomized, double-blind comparison of biosimilar and reference filgrastim in women aged ≥18 years with breast cancer, receiving (neo)adjuvant treatment with TAC (docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide). The European Union registration study was a single-arm, open-label study of biosimilar filgrastim in women aged ≥18 years with breast cancer receiving doxorubicin + docetaxel. Patients received filgrastim as a subcutaneous injection on day 2 of each cycle for <14 days or until the absolute neutrophil count reached 10 × 109/L after the expected nadir. Results were combined for cycles 1-4. RESULTS: A total of 277 patients received biosimilar filgrastim EP2006. Patients had a mean (± standard deviation) age of 51.1 (± 10.8) years, and 78.7% of patients had stage II or III breast cancer. A total of 46 (20.6%) patients receiving biosimilar filgrastim had AEs considered filgrastim-related. The most frequently reported filgrastim-related AEs were musculoskeletal or connective tissue disorders (15.2%), including bone pain (7.2%). One death (due to pulmonary embolism) occurred of a patient receiving biosimilar filgrastim (not considered filgrastim-related). No patient developed antidrug antibodies during the study. CONCLUSION: Biosimilar filgrastim has a safety profile consistent with previous filgrastim studies and is effective in preventing febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The biosimilar filgrastim EP2006 (Zarzio, Zarxio, biosimilar filgrastim-sndz) has been approved in Europe since 2009 and in the U.S. since 2015. This combined analysis of two phase III studies provides additional clinical evidence that the biosimilar filgrastim EP2006 has a safety profile consistent with previous studies of reference filgrastim and supports large postmarketing studies of EP2006 in Europe. Strengthening the evidence for biosimilar filgrastim can help improve acceptance of biosimilars and increase patient access to biologics.
Asunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias de la Mama/tratamiento farmacológico , Filgrastim/uso terapéutico , Fármacos Hematológicos/uso terapéutico , Neutropenia/prevención & control , Adulto , Anciano , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/efectos adversos , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Ensayos Clínicos Fase III como Asunto , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Filgrastim/efectos adversos , Fármacos Hematológicos/efectos adversos , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Terapia Neoadyuvante , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Neutropenia/inducido químicamente , Seguridad , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
AIMS: This study aimed to demonstrate that the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profile of Sandoz proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006) matches reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta® ) in healthy subjects. Safety and immunogenicity were also assessed. METHODS: The phase I, randomized, double-blind, two-period crossover study consisted of two treatment periods separated by an 8-week washout period. Healthy subjects aged 18-45 were randomized to either proposed biosimilar/reference pegfilgrastim or reference pegfilgrastim/proposed biosimilar. Proposed biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastim were administered on Day 1 of each treatment period (single 6 mg subcutaneous injection). Blood samples for PK/PD analysis were taken predose and ≤336 h postdose. PK/PD similarity was claimed if 90% (PK) and 95% (PD) confidence intervals (CI) for geometric mean ratios of the area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) from time of dosing and extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-inf ), or to the last measurable concentration (AUC0-last ), maximum observed serum concentration (Cmax ), absolute neutrophil count (ANC) area under the effect curve from the time of dosing to the last measurable concentration (AUEC0-last ) and ANC maximum effect attributable to the therapy under investigation (Emax ) were completely contained within the predefined margin (0.8 to 1.25). RESULTS: Overall, 169 subjects completed the study. PK/PD similarity was demonstrated; 90% CIs of geometric mean ratio of proposed biosimilar/reference for PK: AUC0-inf (1.0559-1.2244), AUC0-last (1.0607-1.2328), Cmax (1.0312-1.1909) and 95% CIs for PD (ANC): AUEC0-last (0.9948-1.0366), Emax (0.9737-1.0169) were completely contained within predefined margin of 0.8 to 1.25. Both biologics had similar safety profiles, were well tolerated and had low incidence of anti-drug antibodies. No neutralizing or clinically relevant antibodies were detected. CONCLUSIONS: PK/PD similarity of Sandoz proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim and reference pegfilgrastim was confirmed. No clinically meaningful differences in safety, tolerability and immunogenicity were observed in healthy subjects.
Asunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/farmacocinética , Filgrastim/farmacocinética , Polietilenglicoles/farmacocinética , Adulto , Estudios Cruzados , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Filgrastim/efectos adversos , Filgrastim/inmunología , Filgrastim/farmacología , Voluntarios Sanos , Humanos , Masculino , Polietilenglicoles/efectos adversos , Polietilenglicoles/farmacologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Biosimilar granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have been available in the European Union since 2008, and Sandoz' biosimilar filgrastim was approved in the United States in March 2015 for all of the reference product's indications except acute radiation syndrome. Biosimilar G-CSFs have been largely embraced by the medical community, except for some reservations about healthy-donor stem cell mobilization, for which use outside of clinical studies was cautioned against by some members of the scientific community. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In a two-center safety surveillance study (National Clinical Trial NCT01766934), 245 healthy volunteer stem cell donors were enrolled. Of 244 donors who began mobilization with twice-daily Sandoz biosimilar filgrastim, 242 received a full (n = 241) or partial (n = 1) course of G-CSF and underwent apheresis. Efficacy and safety were assessed and are reported here. RESULTS: Biosimilar filgrastim was accompanied by the typical G-CSF class-related adverse effects of expected frequency and severity. Median mobilization for CD34-positive stem cells was 97/µL (range, 20-347/µL); after one apheresis (91%) or two aphereses (9%) from all but three donors (1.2%), cell doses in excess of the typical 4 × 106 CD34-positive cells/kg of the recipient had been collected (range, 3-52 × 106 /kg). Biochemical and hematologic alterations were consistent with previous reports; all had normalized by the first follow-up 1 month after mobilization. Stem cell products engrafted with typical probability and kinetics for G-CSF-mobilized stem cell products. CONCLUSION: These data support the use of biosimilar filgrastim for healthy-donor stem cell mobilization as safe and effective.
Asunto(s)
Factor Estimulante de Colonias de Granulocitos/uso terapéutico , Movilización de Célula Madre Hematopoyética/métodos , Antígenos CD34/análisis , Eliminación de Componentes Sanguíneos , Monitoreo Epidemiológico , Filgrastim , Supervivencia de Injerto/efectos de los fármacos , Factor Estimulante de Colonias de Granulocitos/efectos adversos , Voluntarios Sanos , Movilización de Célula Madre Hematopoyética/normas , Humanos , Polietilenglicoles , Proteínas Recombinantes/efectos adversos , Proteínas Recombinantes/uso terapéutico , Donantes de Tejidos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The totality-of-evidence approach requires that similarity between a proposed biosimilar and a reference biologic is demonstrated across a range of analytical, preclinical, and clinical parameters to establish biosimilarity. We describe the totality of evidence for Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006 [marketed as Ziextenzo]) that supported its regulatory approval in Europe and the United States. METHODS: Analytical similarity to the reference biologic [marketed by Amgen as Neulasta] was first investigated with regard to physiochemical quality attributes such as primary structure, pegylation, higher-order structures, variants and impurities, molecular size variants, and formulation (protein content, pH, excipients, etc.). In vitro biological activity studies were performed to examine the primary mechanism of action of pegfilgrastim. Bioequivalence (clinical pharmacokinetics [PK] and pharmacodynamics [PD]) of Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim to the reference biologic was studied in healthy volunteers; efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were assessed during confirmatory clinical efficacy studies in patients undergoing treatment for breast cancer. RESULTS: No meaningful or relevant differences were identified between Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim and the reference biologic during analytical testing. Similar receptor binding and induction of cellular proliferation in vitro confirmed no functional differences between the biologics. Clinical studies in healthy adult participants demonstrated PK/PD biosimilarity and a similar safety profile between biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastim. Clinical studies in a sensitive patient population also demonstrated similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity between Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim and the reference biologic. CONCLUSIONS: The totality of evidence confirms that Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim matches the reference biologic and will therefore provide equivalent efficacy and safety in all eligible indications.
Asunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos , Adulto , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/efectos adversos , Filgrastim/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Polietilenglicoles/uso terapéutico , Equivalencia Terapéutica , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
A meta-analysis using data from 3 phase 1 studies evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of Sandoz biosimilar versus US- and EU-reference pegfilgrastim. The studies included a single-dose, double-blind, 3-arm, parallel-group study (study 1); a single-dose, double-blind, 2-way crossover study (study 2); and a single-dose, double-blind, 3-way, 6-sequence crossover study (study 3). Healthy male and female subjects were randomized to receive the proposed biosimilar (all studies), US-reference biologic (studies 1 and 3), or EU-reference biologic (studies 1, 2, and 3). For PK parameters (area under the serum concentration-time curve from time of dosing and extrapolated to infinity, area under the serum concentration-time curve from the time of dosing to the last measurable concentration, and maximum observed serum concentration) and PD parameters (absolute neutrophil count area under the effect curve from the time of dosing to the last measurable concentration and maximum measured absolute neutrophil count) geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for treatment comparisons were calculated using the meta-analysis approach with a fixed-effects model. PK/PD biosimilarity was concluded if the 90%CIs were within the equivalence margins of 0.80 to 1.25. The 90%CIs for the geometric mean ratios for the PK/PD parameters were all within the equivalence margins. Safety and tolerability were similar between the proposed biosimilar and the US- and EU-reference pegfilgrastim in healthy subjects. This meta-analysis of 3 phase 1 studies supports PK/PD similarity of Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim to US- and EU-reference pegfilgrastim. No clinically meaningful differences in safety or tolerability were observed.
Asunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/farmacocinética , Ensayos Clínicos Fase I como Asunto/métodos , Filgrastim/farmacocinética , Polietilenglicoles/farmacocinética , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto/métodos , Adolescente , Adulto , Estudios Cruzados , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical physicians support drug development in various capacities and contribute tremendously to the healthcare system. However, there is lack of substantial information on career progression of pharmaceutical physicians in India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional survey involved distribution of a questionnaire via internet, to be self-administered and returned electronically from March 1, 2018, to May 31, 2018 (3 months). Respondents were pharmaceutical physicians from India. RESULTS: Of the 410 surveyed across 32 specialties, 197 completed responses (48%) were analyzed. Top physician specialty noted was Pharmacology. Medical Advisors constituted bulk responders. Oncology and Medical Affairs were the preferred therapeutic segment and portfolio, respectively. Medical affairs also recorded the highest physician recruitment and retention figures. Majority cited a need for Pharmaceutical Medicine as a specialty curriculum in India. 'MBA' was perceived to be nonenabling for entry-level hires; sensitization through 'industry apprenticeship' was highly recommended in this regard. Better work-life balance and aversion to clinical work were top reasons for physician influx in the industry. Important challenges at workplace included diversified work and difficult colleagues. Work-related issues were a common basis for most job attritions. Annual compensation figures ranged from INR 10-20 Lakhs (at entry-level) to INR 30-40 Lakhs (at senior-manager level); however, salary dissatisfaction was prevalent (58%). Lack of information and aversion to corporate work culture were top reasons for physician hesitancy when considering career options in the pharmaceutical industry. CONCLUSION: A career in pharmaceutical medicine has tremendous scope for young medical graduates. One should thoroughly explore such career option and inculcate a learner-centric approach.
RESUMEN
Innovative medicinal products are required to achieve progress in oncology; however, these are associated with high financial investments, extensive development times, and significant risk of potential failure in the pivotal clinical trials required for marketing authorization. With increasing budgetary constraints and requirements to demonstrate value, effective strategies to develop and commercialize innovative oncology products are more important than ever. Strategies that have proved successful in other industries require major revision for use in the oncology field, both during preclinical and clinical development as well as in the post approval value chain. This paper will examine how medicinal product strategy development differs from other industries. In particular, it will look at how the global trend toward value-based healthcare requires strategies that are based on an in-depth scientific understanding of the disease area and product-specific characteristics supported by clinical evidence. The findings are complemented by a review of the available literature and a survey of industry representatives.
Asunto(s)
Desarrollo de Medicamentos , Oncología Médica , Proyectos de Investigación , Terapias en InvestigaciónRESUMEN
Transitioning into 'pharma' is a challenging career decision since it is very different from working in individual patient care. However, for many, the opportunity to develop innovative medicines, communicate their benefits, and, thus, influence the care of thousands of patients at a time is a rewarding alternative. The current paper explores the "Why-What-How" of successful physician careers within the pharmaceutical industry, realizing both professional and philosophical perspectives.