The First 2 Years of Biosimilar Epoetin for Cancer and Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia in the U.S.: A Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions.

Biosimilars are biologic drug products that are highly similar to reference products in analytic features, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy. Biosimilar epoetin received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2018. The manufacturer received an FDA nonapproval letter in 2017, despite receiving a favorable review by FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) and an FDA nonapproval letter in 2015 for an earlier formulation. We discuss the 2018 FDA approval, the 2017 FDA ODAC Committee review, and the FDA complete response letters in 2015 and 2017; review concepts of litigation, naming, labeling, substitution, interchangeability, and pharmacovigilance; review European and U.S. oncology experiences with biosimilar epoetin; and review the safety of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. In 2020, policy statements from AETNA, United Health Care, and Humana indicated that new epoetin oncology starts must be for biosimilar epoetin unless medical need for other epoetins is documented. Empirical studies report that as of 2012, reference epoetin use decreased from 40%-60% of all patients with cancer with chemotherapy-induced anemia to <5% of such patients because of safety concerns. Between 2018 and 2020, biosimilar epoetin use varied, increasing to 81% among one private insurer's patients covered by Medicare whose cancer care is administered with Oncology Analytics and to 41% with the same private insurer's patients with cancer covered by commercial health insurance and administered by the private insurer, to 0% in several Veterans Administration Hospitals, increasing to 100% in one large county hospital in California, and with yet-to-be-reported data from most oncology settings. We conclude that biosimilar epoetin appears to have overcome some barriers since 2015, although current uptake in the U.S. is variable. Pricing and safety considerations for all erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are primary determinants of biosimilar epoetin oncology uptake. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Few oncologists understand substitution and interchangeability of biosimilars with reference drugs. Epoetin biosimilar is new to the market, and physician and patient understanding is limited. The development of epoetin biosimilar is not familiar to oncologists.

Characterization of collaborative practice agreements held by hematopoietic stem cell transplant pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Current workforce shortages within the hematopoietic stem cell transplant field necessitate capitalizing on the role of oncology-trained pharmacists. Working within an agreed-upon protocol, pharmacists are able to expand patient care delivery through optimal medication therapy management. METHODS: An electronic survey was developed by the Advocacy & Policy Working Committee of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Pharmacy Special Interest Group and distributed to pharmacists involved in the care of hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. The primary objective was to assess the current state of collaborative practice agreements in the hematopoietic stem cell transplant setting. RESULTS: Forty-eight responses representing 41 institutions were returned. Respondents were mostly female (67%) and practiced in the adult setting (83%). Reponses represented a range of practice experience in hematopoietic stem cell transplant with the majority of the hematopoietic stem cell transplant positions (83%) funded by the department of pharmacy at an academic medical center. Of the 48 responses, 22 (46%) respondents reported having collaborative practice agreements in place; 10 (21%) respondents did not currently have collaborative practice agreements, but were planning to implement them; and 16 (33%) respondents did not have collaborative practice agreements at their institution. Clinical activities performed under a collaborative practice agreement included medication selection and dosing modifications, therapeutic drug monitoring, supportive care management, and management of comorbid conditions and chronic diseases. The most commonly cited barrier to establishing collaborative practice agreements was the inability to secure reimbursement for services provided. No respondents reported a negative impact on job satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey provide the pharmacy community with a robust understanding of the current landscape of hematopoietic stem cell transplant pharmacy collaborative practice agreements.

Optimizing premedications in the prevention of bendamustine infusion-related reactions.

BACKGROUND: Bendamustine is indicated for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and rituximab refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Clinical trials have reported a 25% incidence of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) in patients receiving bendamustine. While these reactions are well documented, there is no consensus on the optimal premedication regimen for the prevention of these adverse effects. At our center, we utilize a regimen of ondansetron 16 mg orally and dexamethasone 10 mg IV push prior to each infusion of bendamustine. This report describes our experience with our current premedication regimen with regard to IRRs and the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 73 consecutive patients receiving bendamustine infusions at our institute from June 2008 to June 2010 to determine the incidence of IRRs and FN. The primary objective was to determine the incidence of IRRs. Secondary objectives included incidence of FN and hospital admission rate. RESULTS: A total of 478 infusions of bendamustine were administered to 73 consecutive patients. The median patient age was 69 years. IRRs affected 19% of our population, and 10.9% experienced FN. Notably, all IRRs were attributed to rituximab infusions and no patients experienced an IRR when receiving bendamustine alone. This compares favorably to the initial reported IRRs of 25% with bendamustine alone. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our experience with bendamustine, ondansetron and dexamethasone provide a safe and effective prevention of IRRs associated with bendamustine. By avoiding the use of other premedications, the likelihood of additional complications or adverse affects can be minimized.

High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of primary central nervous system lymphoma.

Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare B-cell lymphoid neoplasm for which current regimens utilizing standard-dose chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy lead to high relapse rates and/or unacceptable neurologic sequelae. High-dose chemotherapy followed by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation may overcome limitations of current treatment schemas. A search was performed of all English-language literature (1968 to June 2009) within the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant clinical trials using the terms stem cell transplantation, bone marrow transplantation, primary central nervous system lymphoma, and PCNSL. Bibliographies were reviewed to extract other relevant articles. Use of high-dose chemotherapy followed by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of PCNSL in a predominantly elderly population is feasible. Use of this treatment modality for newly diagnosed and recurrent or relapsed disease is burdened by a paucity of data guiding patient selection, optimal induction regimen, stem cell mobilization and conditioning chemotherapy. Data are also sparse and confounding regarding timing of initiation of this procedure relative to the natural history of the disease and timing of each chemotherapy regimen relative to each other. High-dose chemotherapy followed by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation remains an experimental procedure with insufficient data to guide clinicians. However, the data are encouraging and merit continued research to guide patient selection and treatment regimens which may produce optimal outcomes.

Impact of emerging clinical trends on overall cost of care and the role of the managed care pharmacist.

The cost of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) continues to rise; before the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in mTNBC, cumulative costs of treatment ranged from $51,070 for patients not treated with chemotherapy, up to $143,150 for patients who received three or more regimens. For those with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive mTNBC, expanding treatments continue to be approved for combination first-line therapy. Both combination atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel and pembrolizumab with chemotherapy have been recently approved for this population under accelerated approval. Managed care pharmacists should continue to emphasize evidence-based treatment that is consistent with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, as non-concordance has been associated with increased costs and worsened outcomes. There are several tools that can be used to assess the value of treatment, with significant heterogeneity among frameworks. Innovative programs that have the potential to decrease costs should be considered when evaluating payment models.

Reduced-intensity fludarabine/melphalan confers similar survival to busulfan/fludarabine myeloablative regimens for patients with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplasia.

Optimal conditioning chemotherapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) remains uncertain. Myeloablative regimens such as fludarabine/busulfan are favored over reduced-intensity fludarabine/melphalan (Flu/Mel); however, it is not known if Flu/Mel is inferior. We analyzed hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients with AML and MDS who received fludarabine with once-daily intravenous busulfan targeted to either area under the curve (AUC) 5300 µM*L/min (Flu/Bu 5300) (n = 246) or AUC 3500 µM*L/min (Flu/Bu 3500) (n = 81), or Flu/Mel (n = 69). Flu/Bu regimens were compared separately to Flu/Mel. After 2-year follow-up, no differences in overall or relapse-free survival were found between Flu/Bu 5300 or 3500 versus Flu/Mel though relapse rates were significantly higher; 33.1% (p = 0.024), 44.6% (p = 0.002), versus 19.4%, respectively. Flu/Bu 5300 (p = 0.008) and Flu/Bu 3500 (p < 0.001) groups were prognostic for relapse compared to Flu/Mel. Flu/Mel yields lower relapse rates and similar survival benefit when compared to Flu/Bu 3500 or 5300 µM*L/min.