Clinical experience with Zarzio® in Europe: what have we learned?

Biosimilars are similar, but non-identical, versions of existing biological drugs for which patents have expired. Despite the rigorous approval process for biosimilars, concerns have been expressed about the efficacy and safety of these products in clinical practice. Biosimilars of filgrastim, based on the originator product Neupogen®, have been available since 2008 and are now in widespread clinical use in Europe and elsewhere. Three biosimilar G-CSFs have been approved based on a combination of physicochemical and biological protein characterisation, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assessment in healthy volunteers and efficacy and safety data in patients with cancer. To assess whether biosimilars are effective in the real-world clinical practice setting, a pooled analysis of five post-approval studies of biosimilar G-CSF (Zarzio®) that included 1,302 adult patients who received at least one cycle of chemotherapy with G-CSF support for the prevention of neutropenia was conducted. A total of 36 % of patients had a febrile neutropenia risk of >20 %, while 39.6 % had a risk of 10-20 % based on chemotherapy regimen. The occurrence of severe or febrile neutropenia was within the range of that observed in previous studies of originator G-CSF. In addition, the safety profile of Zarzio® was consistent with that reported for originator G-CSF and the known safety profile of G-CSF. Initial concerns about the use of biosimilars, at least with regard to biosimilar G-CSFs, appear to be unfounded. Adoption of cost-effective biosimilars should help reduce healthcare costs and improve patient access to biological treatments.

Promoting evidence-based management of anemia in cancer patients: background, development, and scientific validation of RESPOND, a web-based clinical guidance system based on the EORTC guidelines.

The 2006 EORTC guidelines for erythropoietic proteins in cancer-related anemia provide the most up-to-date assessment of the evidence base. Considering general concerns in medicine about clinicians' adoption of evidence-based guidelines, it is critical to find ways of bringing guidelines to the point of care. We describe the rationale behind RESPOND, a web-based clinical guidance system based on the EORTC guidelines, and the methodologies of two studies conducted to validate the system. In a first descriptive study, experts are asked to rate the accuracy of every algorithm derived from the guidelines. In a second step and using a hybrid matched pre-post design, separate retrospective and prospective patient cohorts matched by type of cancer and similarity of chemotherapy regimen (33 pairs) are used to examine the extent to which clinicians' practice patterns converge with the EORTC guidelines when they use or not use the RESPOND system. It is hypothesized that these studies will provide the necessary validation for RESPOND as an evidence-based clinical support tool.

Awareness, Knowledge, and Perceptions of Biosimilars Among Specialty Physicians.

INTRODUCTION: The Biosimilars Forum conducted a survey through an independent organization from November 20, 2015 to January 4, 2016 in order to assess current levels of awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of biosimilars among US specialty physicians who already prescribe biologics. The survey was intended to provide a baseline level of knowledge about biosimilars and will be repeated in 2-3 years in order to monitor trends over time. METHODS: A 19-question survey was created by the Biosimilars Forum and was administered by an independent third party. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 1201 US physicians across specialties that are high prescribers of biologics, including dermatologists, gastroenterologists, hematologist-oncologists, medical oncologists, nephrologists, and rheumatologists. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey highlight a significant need for evidence-based education about biosimilars for physicians across specialties. Five major knowledge gaps were identified: defining biologics, biosimilars, and biosimilarity; understanding the approval process and the use of "totality of evidence" to evaluate biosimilars; understanding that the safety and immunogenicity of a biosimilar are comparable to the originator biologic; understanding the rationale for extrapolation of indications; and defining interchangeability and the related rules regarding pharmacy-level substitution. FUNDING: Biosimilars Forum.

Switching to Omnitrope(®) from Other Recombinant Human Growth Hormone Therapies: A Retrospective Study in an Integrated Healthcare System.

INTRODUCTION: This study was conducted using an integrated retrospective database to evaluate the effectiveness of Omnitrope(®) (Sandoz) on children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD), idiopathic short stature (ISS), and Turner Syndrome (TS) who switched from a non-Omnitrope recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) preparation during routine clinical care. METHODS: This was a retrospective study which identified patients with GHD, ISS, and TS during the study time period of January 1, 2006 and July 31, 2011. Patients were included if they switched to Omnitrope from another non-Omnitrope rhGH therapy during the study time period, were <18 years of age at time of switch, and on a prior rhGH therapy for at least 15 months pre-switch and on Omnitrope for 15 months post-switch. Auxological parameters (height, height standard deviation score [HSDS], height velocity [HV], and height velocity standard deviation score [HVSDS]) were evaluated during post-switch. RESULTS: One hundred and three patients were identified: GHD (n = 57), ISS (n = 26), and TS (n = 20). There was continuous growth in height for all 103 patients with an average rate of 6.52 cm over the 15-month post-switch period. Patients with GHD grew an average rate of 6.30 cm, patients with ISS grew an average rate of 6.58 cm, and patients with TS grew an average rate of 6.52 cm over the 15-month post-switch period. The average rate of HSDS was increased by 0.04 for all patients. The HV and HVSDS demonstrated the expected decline with advancing age and prolonged duration of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The growth trajectories of rhGH-treated patients were not negatively impacted by switching to Omnitrope and growth rates remained as expected prior to the switch.

Two innovative pharmaceutical forms of leuprorelin: results from 818 patients with advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study set out to examine the efficacy and tolerability of two innovative implant forms of leuprorelin acetate in men with advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer in everyday clinical practice. METHODS: Data were collected from 818 patients (from 273 centers across Germany) who were pretreated with slow-release luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist formulations and who were about to be switched to the leuprorelin implants. Patients received three injections of 1- or 3-month leuprorelin implant and physicians were asked to complete a case report form specific to each of the three clinic visits. Documented parameters included laboratory measurements, such as testosterone and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, adverse events, and patient- and physician-rated assessments of the therapy. RESULTS: Compared with baseline, a significant decrease in both testosterone and PSA levels were measured after the first and second injections of leuprorelin implant. These results were confirmed for both the 1-month and 3-month implants in separate analyses. Switching, without treatment interruption, from Trenantone® (Takeda Pharma GmBH, Aachen, Germany) to the leuprorelin implant resulted in a significant decrease in the mean serum testosterone concentrations (P < 0.05) and a nonsignificant increase in the proportion of patients reaching castrate testosterone levels, while the number of patients with PSA values ≤ 4 ng/mL significantly increased (P = 0.045). Similar results were obtained for patients previously treated with goserelin who switched to leuprorelin implant. For 94% of patients, treating physicians rated the efficacy of leuprorelin implant as "very good" or "good." Treatment with leuprorelin implant was well tolerated, with only 61 adverse events reported in 42 (5.1%) patients. Patients and physicians rated the tolerability of leuprorelin implant as "very good" or "good" in 95% and 91% of cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the efficacy, tolerability, and ease of use of the leuprorelin implants among a large population of men with advanced, hormone-dependent prostate cancer treated in a clinical practice setting.

A pharmacoepidemiological study of the multi-level determinants, predictors, and clinical outcomes of biosimilar epoetin alfa for renal anaemia in haemodialysis patients: background and methodology of the MONITOR-CKD5 study.

Prior longitudinal observational studies have examined the practice patterns and outcomes of anaemia management, including the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). Several dimensions of effectiveness remain unaddressed; especially considering the revised ESA label (target Hb levels between 10 and 12 g/dL), the recently published TREAT study, and the European approval of the first ESA biosimilar (HX575). Anecdotal evidence suggests that patient outcomes are influenced by physician-related variables and whether anaemia management is congruent with practice guidelines, but this has not been studied systematically. MONITOR-CKD5 is an international, prospective, observational, pharmacoepidemiological study evaluating the multi-level factors and outcomes of treatment with HX575 for renal anaemia in haemodialysis patients. Driven by a novel, integrated, multi-focal framework for post-approval observational studies, it examines determinants of response at both the patient and the physician level; integrates an advocated statistical methodology here to fore used mainly in the social and behavioural sciences; assesses factors potentially predictive of a poor treatment response; and evaluates the extent to which treatment is congruent with evidence-based guidelines, good practice evidence, and the revised ESA label. This pan-European study will recruit at least 1,000 patients from a minimum of 75 centres, and follow them for up to 24 months following initiation of anaemia management with biosimilar epoetin alfa. MONITOR-CKD5 will not only study the core issues addressed by prior observational studies but also aims to take knowledge discovery a step further by assessing outcomes across varying cohorts of patients, and examining the impact of evidence-based practice on clinical outcomes, differentiating, in the process, between physician-level and patient-level determinants.

The safety of switching between therapeutic proteins.

INTRODUCTION: The approval of several biosimilars in the past years has prompted discussion on potential safety risks associated with switching to and from these products. It has been suggested that switching may lead to safety concerns. However, data is limited on the clinical effects of switching. AREAS COVERED: In this review we provide an overview of data related to switching between human recombinant growth hormones, erythropoietins and granulocyte colony stimulating agents. We reviewed data from clinical trials, pharmacovigilance databases and an overview of the literature on the frequency of switching between these products. The review covers both switching between innovator products within the same product class and switching to and from biosimilars. EXPERT OPINION: Data on the frequency of switching in clinical practice is scarce, but it seems most frequent for erythropoietins. We have found no evidence from clinical trial data or post marketing surveillance data that switching to and from different biopharmaceuticals leads to safety concerns.

Background and methodology of MONITOR-GCSF, a pharmaco-epidemiological study of the multi-level determinants, predictors, and clinical outcomes of febrile neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar granulocyte-colony stimulating factor filgrastim.

The MONITOR-GCSF study is an international, prospective, observational, pharmaco-epidemiological study to evaluate the multi-level factors and outcomes associated with the use of Zarzio(®) in the prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients. Driven by a novel, integrated, multi-focal framework for post-approval observational studies, it examines determinants of response at both the patient and the physician level; integrates statistical methodologies from the social and behavioral sciences; assesses factors predictive of poor treatment response; and evaluates the congruence of treatment with EORTC guidelines and the approved label. This pan-European study will recruit at least 1000 patients from a minimum of 75 centers and follow them for maximum 6 cycles of chemotherapy. Apart from descriptive and associative procedures, statistical analysis will include variance attribution methods; hierarchical linear, logistic, and Poisson modeling; Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analysis, Mantel-Cox log-rank or generalized Wilcoxon-Breslow tests, and Cox proportional hazards modeling; and clustering and related data mining techniques.

Update on the MONITOR-GCSF study of biosimilar filgrastim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in cancer patients: Protocol amendments.

The MONITOR-GCSF study is an international, prospective, observational, pharmaco-epidemiological study to evaluate the multi-level factors and outcomes associated with the use of biosimilar filgrastim in the prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients. The background and methodology of this study are described in an article published concurrently in this journal. As important amendments have been made to the protocol, and the purpose of the prior article was to serve as a resource for future referencing, we detail these amendments in this present article: explicit statement about the use of biosimilar filgrastim for both primary and secondary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in the objectives and methodology of the study; length of observation; the addition of stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer and multiple myeloma to the tumor types studied; and the deletion of dose dense chemotherapy regimens as an exclusion criterion.

Bioequivalence studies of omnitrope, the first biosimilar/rhGH follow-on protein: two comparative phase 1 randomized studies and population pharmacokinetic analysis.

This article discusses the bioequivalence of Omnitrope (Sandoz's rhGH biosimilar) and Genotropin (reference rhGH product), assessed in the first 2 clinical phase 1 studies conducted during the development of Omnitrope. Both of these phase 1 studies were randomized, double-blind, crossover studies, each involving 24 healthy volunteers who underwent pituitary somatrope cell down-regulation using octreotide. Three different formulations of recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) were compared: Omnitrope lyophilisate, Omnitrope liquid and Genotropin (lyophilized powder for injection). Both pharmacokinetics (area under the curve [AUC], C(max), t(max) and t(1/2)) and pharmacodynamics (serum levels of insulin-like growth factor 1, insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 and non-esterified fatty acid) were assessed after a single subcutaneous injection of 5 mg rhGH. The 3 formulations had comparable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. All the 90% confidence intervals of the ratios of the least squares means for the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters AUC and C(max) were within the predefined FDA and EMEA acceptance range of 80%-125% for bioequivalence. In addition, a comparative population pharmacokinetic analysis further supports that Omnitrope lyophilisate, Omnitrope liquid and Genotropin can be regarded as equivalent in terms of pharmacokinetics. Therefore, Omnitrope lyophilisate was demonstrated to be bioequivalent to both Genotropin and the Omnitrope liquid formulation.

Managing cancer-related anaemia in congruence with the EORTC guidelines is an independent predictor of haemoglobin outcome: initial evidence from the RESPOND study.

PURPOSE: To model the relationship between scores for practicing in congruence (CSs; 0-10) with EORTC guidelines for erythropoietic proteins (EPs) and haemoglobin (Hb) outcomes observed in the validation study of the RESPOND system. METHODS: Thirty four patient pairs matched on cancer type and chemotherapy in pre- (retrospective; clinicians not using RESPOND) and post-cohorts (prospective; clinicians using RESPOND) followed over 4 months following EP treatment initiation. CSs quantify the extent that care was guideline-adherent. Linear and logistic regressions controlling for cohort examined Hb outcomes as a function of CSs. RESULTS: A one-point increase in CS was associated with 0.60g/dL increase in Hb at month 4 (R(2)=0.40) and 0.56g/dL increase in Hb change from month 1-4 (R(2)=0.33). Each one-point increase in CS increased the odds of reaching Hb>or=11g/dL by 3.14 (R(2)=0.42) and Hb>or=12g/dL by 2.77 (R(2)=0.45). CONCLUSION: Guideline-adherent EP treatment may improve Hb outcomes but specifically designed outcomes studies are necessary.

Intraclass correlation metrics for the accuracy of algorithmic definitions in a computerized decision support system for supportive cancer care.

As part of the development of a computerized clinical decision support system for anemia management in cancer patients, we applied psychometric principles and techniques to assess the accuracy of the algorithmic operationalizations of a set of evidence-based practice guidelines. In an iterative rating process, five medical and nursing experts rated 27 algorithmic sets derived from 18 guidelines, the objective being an intraclass coefficient (ICC) exceeding 0.90. The first round of review yielded an ICC of 1.00 for 22 sets. After revision and resubmission to the expert panel, an ICC of 1.00 was obtained for the additional five sets. The evolving decision support system is based on algorithms that accurately specify evidence-based guidelines for anemia management in cancer patients.