Search

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., (© 2021 AlphaMed Press.)

Erythropoisis stimulating agent (ESA) use was addressed in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Oncology Drug Advisory Committee (ODAC) meetings between 2004 and 2008. FDA safety-focused regulatory actions occurred in 2007 and 2008. In 2007, black box warnings advised of early death and venous thromboembolism (VTE) risks with ESAs in oncology. In 2010, a Risk Evaluation Strategies (REMS) was initiated, with cancer patient consent that mortality and VTE risks were noted with ESAs. We report warnings and REMS impacts on ESA utilization among Veterans Administration (VA) cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). Data were from Veterans Affairs database (2003-2012). Epoetin and darbepoetin use were primary outcomes. Segmented linear regression was used to estimate changes in ESA use levels and trends, clinical appropriateness, and adverse events (VTEs) among chemotherapy-treated cancer patients. To estimate changes in level of drug prescription rate after policy actions, model-specific indicator variables as covariates based on specific actions were included. ESA use fell by 95% and 90% from 2005, for epoetin and darbepoetin, from 22% and 11%, respectively, to 1% and 1%, respectively, among cancer patients with CIA, respectively (p<0.01). Following REMS in 2010, mean hematocrit levels at ESA initiation decreased from 30% to 21% (p<0.01). Black box warnings preceded decreased ESA use among VA cancer patients with CIA. REMS was followed by reduced hematocrit levels at ESA initiation. Our findings contrast with privately- insured and Medicaid insured cancer patient data on chemotherapy-induced anemia where ESA use decreased to 3% to 7% by 2010-2012. By 2012, the era of ESA administration to VA to cancer patients had ended but the warnings remain relevant and significant. In 2019, oncology/hematology national guidelines (ASCO/ASH) recommend that cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia should receive ESAs or red blood cell transfusions after risk-benefit evaluation., Competing Interests: The authors have read the journal’s policy and have the following competing interests to declare: LB is a paid employee of Oncology Analytics in Plantation, Florida (https://www.oncologyanalytics.com/). There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Oncology-associated adverse drug/device reactions can be fatal. Some clinicians who treat single patients with severe oncology-associated toxicities have researched case series and published this information. We investigated motivations and experiences of select individuals leading such efforts. Clinicians treating individual patients who developed oncology-associated serious adverse drug events were asked to participate. Inclusion criteria included having index patient information, reporting case series, and being collaborative with investigators from two National Institutes of Health funded pharmacovigilance networks. Thirty-minute interviews addressed investigational motivation, feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers, FDA personnel, and academic leadership, and recommendations for improving pharmacovigilance. Responses were analyzed using constant comparative methods of qualitative analysis. Overall, 18 clinicians met inclusion criteria and 14 interviewees are included. Primary motivations were scientific curiosity, expressed by six clinicians. A less common theme was public health related (three clinicians). Six clinicians received feedback characterized as supportive from academic leaders, while four clinicians received feedback characterized as negative. Three clinicians reported that following the case series publication they were invited to speak at academic institutions worldwide. Responses from pharmaceutical manufacturers were characterized as negative by 12 clinicians. One clinician's wife called the post-reporting time the "Maalox month," while another clinician reported that the manufacturer collaboratively offered to identify additional cases of the toxicity. Responses from FDA employees were characterized as collaborative for two clinicians, neutral for five clinicians, unresponsive for negative by six clinicians. Three clinicians endorsed developing improved reporting mechanisms for individual physicians, while 11 clinicians endorsed safety activities that should be undertaken by persons other than a motivated clinician who personally treats a patient with a severe adverse drug/device reaction. Our study provides some of the first reports of clinician motivations and experiences with reporting serious or potentially fatal oncology-associated adverse drug or device reactions. Overall, it appears that negative feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers and mixed feedback from the academic community and/or the FDA were reported. Big data, registries, Data Safety Monitoring Boards, and pharmacogenetic studies may facilitate improved pharmacovigilance efforts for oncology-associated adverse drug reactions. These initiatives overcome concerns related to complacency, indifference, ignorance, and system-level problems as barriers to documenting and reporting adverse drug events- barriers that have been previously reported for clinician reporting of serious adverse drug reactions., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Biosimilar filgrastims are primarily indicated for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia prevention. They are less expensive formulations of branded filgrastim, and biosimilar filgrastim was the first biosimilar oncology drug administered in European Union (EU) countries, Japan, and the U.S. Fourteen biosimilar filgrastims have been marketed in EU countries, Japan, the U.S., and Canada since 2008, 2012, 2015, and 2016, respectively. We reviewed experiences and policies for biosimilar filgrastim markets in EU countries and Japan, where uptake has been rapid, and in the U.S. and Canada, where experience is rapidly emerging. U.S. regulations for designating biosimilar interchangeability are under development, and such regulations have not been developed in most other countries. Pharmaceutical substitution is allowed for new filgrastim starts in some EU countries and in Canada, but not Japan and the U.S. In EU countries, biosimilar adoption is facilitated with favorable hospital tender offers. U.S. adoption is reportedly 24%, while the second filgrastim biosimilar is priced 30% lower than branded filgrastim and 20% lower than the first biosimilar filgrastim approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Utilization is about 60% in EU countries, where biosimilar filgrastim is marketed at a 30%-40% discount. In Japan, biosimilar filgrastim utilization is 45%, primarily because of 35% discounts negotiated by Central Insurance and hospital-only markets. Overall, biosimilar filgrastim adoption barriers are small in many EU countries and Japan and are diminishing in Canada in the U.S. Policies facilitating improved U.S. adoption of biosimilar filgrastim, based on positive experiences in EU countries and Japan, including favorable insurance coverage; larger price discount relative to reference filgrastim pricing; closing of the "rebate trap" with transparent pricing information; formal educational efforts of patients, physicians, caregivers, and providers; and allowance of pharmaceutical substitution of biosimilar versus reference filgrastim, should be considered. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: We reviewed experiences and policies for biosimilar filgrastims in Europe, Japan, Canada, and the U.S. Postmarketing harmonization of regulatory policies for biosimilar filgrastims has not occurred. Acceptance of biosimilar filgrastims for branded filgrastim, increasing in the U.S. and in Canada, is commonplace in Japan and Europe. In the U.S., some factors, accepted in Europe or Japan, could improve uptake, including acceptance of biosimilars as safe and effective; larger cost savings, decreasing "rebate traps" where pharmaceutical benefit managers support branded filgrastim, decreased use of patent litigation/challenges, and allowing pharmacists to routinely substitute biosimilar for branded filgrastim., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2019.)

Although the availability of generic oncology drugs allows access to contemporary care and reduces costs, there is international variability in the safety of this class of drugs. In this Series paper, we review clinical, policy, safety, and regulatory considerations for generic oncology drugs focusing on the USA, Canada, the European Union (EU), Japan, China, and India. Safety information about generic formulations is reviewed from one agent in each class, for heavy metal drugs (cisplatin), targeted agents (imatinib), and cytotoxic agents (docetaxel). We also review regulatory reports from Japan and the USA, countries with the largest pharmaceutical expenditures. Empirical studies did not identify safety concerns in the USA, Canada, the EU, and Japan, where regulations and enforcement are strong. Although manufacturing problems for generic pharmaceuticals exist in India, where 40% of all generic pharmaceuticals used in the USA are manufactured, increased inspections and communication by the US Food and Drug Administration are occurring, facilitating oversight and enforcement. No safety outbreaks among generic oncology drugs were reported in developed countries. For developing countries, oversight is less intensive, and concerns around drug safety still exist. Regulatory agencies should collaboratively develop procedures to monitor the production, shipment, storage, and post-marketing safety of generic oncology drugs. Regulatory agencies for each country should also aim towards identical definitions of bioequivalence, the cornerstone of regulatory approval., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Biological oncology products are integral to cancer treatment, but their high costs pose challenges to patients, families, providers, and insurers. The introduction of biosimilar agents-molecules that are similar in structure, function, activity, immunogenicity, and safety to the original biological drugs-provide opportunities both to improve health-care access and outcomes, and to reduce costs. Several international regulatory pathways have been developed to expedite entry of biosimilars into global marketplaces. The first wave of oncology biosimilar use was in Europe and India in 2007. Oncology biosimilars are now widely marketed in several countries in Europe, and in Australia, Japan, China, Russia, India, and South Korea. Their use is emerging worldwide, with the notable exception of the USA, where several regulatory and cost barriers to biosimilar approval exist. In this Review, we discuss oncology biosimilars and summarise their regulatory frameworks, clinical experiences, and safety concerns., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

To explain a bimodal relapse hazard among early stage breast cancer patients treated by mastectomy we postulated that relapses within 4 years of surgery resulted from something that happened at about the time of surgery to provoke sudden exits from dormant phases to active growth. Relapses at 10 months appeared to be surgery-induced angiogenesis of dormant avascular micrometastases. Another relapse mode with peak about 30 months corresponded to sudden growth from a single cell. Late relapses were not synchronized to surgery. This hypothesis could explain a wide variety of breast cancer observations. We have been looking for new data that might provide more insight concerning the various relapse modes. Retrospective data reported in June 2010 study of 327 consecutive patients compared various perioperative analgesics and anesthetics in one Belgian hospital and one surgeon. Patients were treated with mastectomy and conventional adjuvant therapy. Follow-up was average 27.3 months with range 13-44 months. Updated hazard as of September 2011 for this series is now presented. NSAID ketorolac, a common analgesic used in surgery, is associated with far superior disease-free survival in the first few years after surgery. The expected prominent early relapse events are all but absent. In the 9-18 month period, there is fivefold reduction in relapses. If this observation holds up to further scrutiny, it could mean that the simple use of this safe and effective anti-inflammatory agent at surgery might eliminate most early relapses. Transient systemic inflammation accompanying surgery could be part of the metastatic tumor seeding process and could have been effectively blocked by perioperative anti-inflammatory agents. In addition, antiangiogenic properties of NSAIDs could also play a role. Triple negative breast cancer may be the ideal group with which to test perioperative ketorolac to prevent early relapses.

A 7-year-old patient with Stage III-c ovarian cancer was subjected to 8 cycles, approximately four weeks apart, of chronobiologically-optimized treatments with combination of three anti-cancer agents: Four cycles at AM, Cytoxan and PM, cis-Platinum; four cycles at AM, Adriamycin and PM, cis-Platinum. A second look laporoscopy revealed clean intestines, no definite masses in the pelvis area although there was an apparent mass in the right upper pelvis and several slightly enlarged lymph nodes in the base of mesentery. Six cycles of Taxol were administered at about Noon. Seven months remission appeared evident as judged by no changes in monthly examinations, in blood work or in CA-125 marker levels which remained below 12 U/ml. During the eight month the CA-125 marker began to rise, 36 then to 52 U/ml. A second 6 cycle series of Taxol was initiated but the CA-125 marker continued to rise, 57, 65, 72, 86, and 87 U/ml level. The patient declined in spirit, in well-being and expired 2 weeks later, 31 months after the initial diagnosis of cancer. Blood hematology, chemistry, and cytokines variables were analyzed at about weekly intervals. Significant reductions in total WBC, neutrophiles and platelet levels were evident during the second week of all cycle treatments, while increases were noted in serum levels of IL-2, IL-6 and IL-10 following Cytoxan-cis-Platinum-Adriamycin, but not Taxol. After each infusion moderate and temporary increases in RBC levels were noted. The treatments impact on hematology, chemistry, cytokine variables and on the integrity of the patient, are presented and briefly discussed.

The circadian timing of surgery, anticancer drugs, radiation therapy, and biologic agents can result in improved toxicity profiles, tumor control, and host survival. Optimally timed cancer chemotherapy with doxorubicin or pirarubicin (06:00h) and cisplatin (18:00h) enhanced the control of advanced ovarian cancer while minimizing side effects, and increased the response rate in metastatic endometrial cancer. Therapy of metastatic bladder cancer with doxorubicin-cisplatin was made more tolerable by this same circadian approach resulting in a 57% objective response rate. This optimally timed therapy is also effective in the adjuvant setting, decreasing the expected frequency of metastasis from locally advanced bladder cancer. Circadian fluorodeoxyuridine (FUDR) continuous infusion (70% of the daily dose given between 15:00h and 21:00h) has been shown effective for metastatic renal cell carcinoma resulting in 29% objective response and stable disease of more than 1 yr duration in the majority of patients. Toxicity is reduced markedly when FUDR infusion is modulated to circadian rhythms. In a multicenter trial in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer, patients were randomized to a flat or a circadian-modified FUDR infusion. This study confirmed a significant difference in toxicity and dose intensity, favoring the circadian-modified group. Hormone refractory metastatic prostate cancer has been treated with circadian-timed FUDR chemotherapy; however, without objective response. Biological agents such as interferon-alpha and IL-2 have shown low but effective disease control in metastatic renal cell cancer, however, with much toxicity. Each of these cytokines shows circadian stage dependent toxicity and efficacy in model systems. In summary, the timing of anthracycline, platinum, and fluoropyrimidine-based drug therapies during the 24h is relevant to the toxic therapeutic ratio of these agents in the treatment of gynecologic and genitourinary cancers.

Cicadian variation in drug metabolism and tissue sensitivity to drugs impacts their activity and toxicity. A growing body of data suggests that therapy may be improved and toxicity reduced, by administering antineoplastic agents at carefully selected times of the day. This article gives background information that supports the predictable and exploitable nonlinear dynamic relationship between dose and effect that occurs each day, explores the ways in which clinical research must determine when to treat, wrestles with the question of the stability of circadian time structure in chronically ill cancer patients, and discusses the implications of the principles outlined to anticancer drug development.

Temporal coordination of biologic processes with an approximately 24-hour cycle (circadian) is ubiquitous throughout the animal and plant kingdoms. In each organism studied, the capability to keep biologic time is an inherited characteristic. These biological clocks anticipate, get the organism ready for, regular environmental changes. The immense selective environmental pressure to keep time accurately is reflected in the parallel evolution of different molecular strategies for biologic timekeeping that have apparently arisen independently several times throughout evolution. The anatomic, biochemical, and molecular mechanisms of the clock are currently being defined. Circadian temporal organization at the cellular, organ, and organismic levels results in predictable differences in the capacity of plants, animals, and human beings to respond to therapeutic interventions administered at different times throughout this daily cycle. The biologic basis for these time-of-day differences in therapeutic outcome derive from the circadian dependence of drug pharmacology and the circadian physiology of both normal and malignant tissues. In the treatment of cancer, circadian timing of anticancer drugs, radiation therapy, and biologic agents can result in improved toxicity profiles, enhanced tumor control, and improved host survival. The routine clinical application of such principles is facilitated by the availability of programmable drug delivery devices.

Circadian variation in drug metabolism and tissue sensitivity to drugs affects their activity and toxicity. A growing body of data suggests that therapy may be improved and toxicity reduced by administering antineoplastic agents at carefully selected times of the day. Here I briefly review molecular, cellular, and organismic time-keeping mechanisms as well as cytokinetic, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic data, which support the predictable and exploitable nonlinear dynamic relation between dose and effect that occurs each day.

Purpose and Design: To review briefly the growing body of published data about circadian variation in cytotoxic drug metabolism and tissue sensitivity to chemotherapeutic agents. The suggestion that toxicity may be reduced and anticancer efficacy improved by administering antineoplastic agents at carefully selected times of the day was assessed., Results and Conclusion: The medical literature describing molecular, cellular, and organismic time-keeping mechanisms, as well as circadian rhythms, in cytokinetic, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic parameters relevant to cancer chemotherapy, which support the predictable rhythmic relationship between dose and effect that occurs during each day, were reviewed. Advantages for optimal circadian scheduling have been demonstrated for diminishing side effects and increasing maximal safe dose-intensity of drugs of diverse class. The use of the predictable circadian relationship of dose and response provides another increment of progress in the treatment of cancer patients.

After a large recognition of experiments and concepts developed in the centuries on the pharmacological treatment of human diseases, the article concisely provides the state of the art on chronotherapy of cancer. The techniques and results are illustrated. The perspectives of optimizing cancer therapy via optimal circadian schemes of pharmacological agents are clearly suggested.

The toxicity and/or efficacy of more than twenty anticancer agents have been shown in various experimental systems to be dependent upon the circadian timing of their bolus administration or the circadian shaping of their continuous infusion. In cancer patients, the toxicity of several single agents, given either as bolus or infusion, and a growing number of drug combinations have been shown to similarly depend upon their timing. While clinical trials currently underway demonstrate that the circadian stage of drug toxicity and dose intensity each depend upon their circadian timing, definitive investigations of whether or not cancer control and patient survival are similarly dependent upon circadian treatment timing are currently under way. Both clinical trials of treatment timing and chronotherapy depend totally upon the development and use of programmable wearable and implantable, single-channel and multi-channel, open and eventually closed loop delivery systems. First generation intelligent delivery systems are currently available, work well, are economical and are destined, for economic reasons, to be more widely used. When used, each system requires temporal input, making it impossible to avoid specification of drug sequence, interval between drugs or treatment cycles and circadian treatment timing. The advent of biological therapy with cytokines and growth factors makes it likely that the precise timing of cancer therapies will be of growing importance.

Animal studies have indicated that the time of administration of adriamycin and cisplatin, two widely used anticancer drugs, has a profound effect on their toxicity. This effect in cancer chemotherapy was studied in 31 patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Patients received at least eight monthly courses of adriamycin that were followed 12 hours later by cisplatin, with adriamycin randomly administered at either 6 a.m. or 6 p.m. The results show that in the group receiving adriamycin in the evening and cisplatin in the morning (i) twice as many patients required reductions in dosage and delays in treatment, (ii) four times as many treatments had to be delayed, (iii) drug dosages had to be modified downward three times as often, and (iv) even with more dose attenuation and treatment delays, treatment complications were still about two times more common as in the group receiving adriamycin in the morning and cisplatin in the evening. These findings show that the circadian stage at which anticancer drugs are given to patients should be carefully considered.