Dataset Information

Switching Reference Medicines to Biosimilars: A Systematic Literature Review of Clinical Outcomes.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:To evaluate the possibility that switching from reference biologic medicines to biosimilars could lead to altered clinical outcomes, including enhanced immunogenicity, compromised safety, or diminished efficacy for patients, a systematic literature review was conducted of all switching studies between related biologics (including biosimilars). METHODS:A systematic search was conducted using the Medline® and Embase® databases up to 30 June 2017 employing specific medical subject heading terms. Additionally, the snowball method and a hand search were also applied. Publications were considered if they contained efficacy or safety information related to a switch from a reference medicine to a biosimilar. Non-English, non-human studies, editorials, notes, and short surveys were excluded. RESULTS:Primary data were available from 90 studies that enrolled 14,225 unique individuals. They included protein medicines used in supportive care as well as those used as therapeutic agents. The medicines contained seven different molecular entities that were used to treat 14 diseases. The great majority of the publications did not report differences in immunogenicity, safety, or efficacy. The nature and intensity of safety signals reported after switching from reference medicines to biosimilars were the same as those already known from continued use of the reference medicines alone. Three large multiple switch studies with different biosimilars did not show differences in efficacy or safety after multiple switches between reference medicine and biosimilar. Two publications reported a loss of efficacy or increased dropout rates. CONCLUSIONS:While use of each biologic must be assessed individually, these results provide reassurance to healthcare professionals and the public that the risk of immunogenicity-related safety concerns or diminished efficacy is unchanged after switching from a reference biologic to a biosimilar medicine.

SUBMITTER: Cohen HP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5854749 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Switching Reference Medicines to Biosimilars: A Systematic Literature Review of Clinical Outcomes.

Cohen Hillel P HP Blauvelt Andrew A Rifkin Robert M RM Danese Silvio S Gokhale Sameer B SB Woollett Gillian G

Drugs 20180301 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>To evaluate the possibility that switching from reference biologic medicines to biosimilars could lead to altered clinical outcomes, including enhanced immunogenicity, compromised safety, or diminished efficacy for patients, a systematic literature review was conducted of all switching studies between related biologics (including biosimilars).<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search was conducted using the Medline<sup>®</sup> and Embase<sup>®</sup> databases up to 30 June 2017 em ...[more]

PMID: 29500555

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionA systematic literature review was conducted to review and summarize the economic impact of non-medical switching (NMS) from biologic originators to their biosimilars (i.e., switching a patient's medication for reasons irrelevant to the patient's health).MethodsEnglish publications reporting healthcare resource utilization (HRU) or costs associated with biosimilar NMS were searched in PubMed and EMBASE over the past 10 years and from selected scientific conferences over the past 3 years, along with gray literature for all biologics with an approved biosimilar (e.g., tumor-necrosis factor inhibitors, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, insulin and hormone therapies).ResultsA total of 1311 publications were retrieved, where 54 studies met the selection criteria. Seventeen studies reported increased real-world HRU or costs related to biosimilar NMS, e.g., higher rates of surgery (11%), steroid use (13%) and biosimilar dose escalating (6-35.4%). Among the studies that the estimated cost impact associated with NMS, 33 reported drug costs reduction, 12 reported healthcare costs post-NMS without a detailed breakdown, and 5 reported NMS setup and managing costs. Cost estimation/simulation studies demonstrated the cost reduction associated with NMS. However, variation across studies was substantial because of heterogeneity in study designs and assumptions (e.g., disease areas, scenarios of drug price discount rates, cost components, population size, study period, etc.).ConclusionReal-world studies reporting the economic impact of biosimilar NMS separately from drug costs are emerging, and those that reported such results found increased HRU in patients with biosimilar NMS. Studies of cost estimation have been largely limited to drug prices. Comprehensive evaluation of the economic impact of NMS should incorporate all important elements of healthcare service needs such as drug price, biologic rebates, HRU, NMS program setup, administration and monitoring costs.FundingAbbVie.

Project description:BackgroundBiologic drugs such as adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab represent major first-line and second-line treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, their high cost poses a massive burden on healthcare systems worldwide. The expiration of patents for these biologics has driven the production of biosimilar drugs, which are potentially less costly and remarkably similar, albeit not identical to the reference molecules. This paper aims to outline the protocol of a systematic review that will investigate the efficacy and safety profile of biosimilars compared to biologics (objective 1) and the impact of switching between biosimilar drugs and reference biologics on the management of RA patients (objective 2).MethodsWe will investigate the effects of any biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on RA patients. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs to assess efficacy and safety outcomes and RCTs with two- or multiple-part designs to evaluate the consequences of switching from reference biologics to biosimilar drugs (and vice-versa). Electronic searches will be performed through MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL (from inception to April 2021). Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data, and evaluate the risk of bias. The latter will be carried out considering specific domains from equivalence trials and switching studies. Random-effects models will be fitted to obtain summary estimates using either relative risk or standardized mean difference as a metric. The primary outcome will be the rate of treatment success according to the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20), and the co-primary outcome will be the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Conclusions will be based on equivalence hypothesis testing using predefined margins of equivalence elicited from a group of experienced rheumatologists and prior studies. The overall certainty of the evidence will be assessed based on the GRADE system.DiscussionThe present investigation proposes a comprehensive, clinician-oriented approach to assess the equivalence and the impact of switching between biosimilars and biologics on the management of patients with RA. Our results will elucidate the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity of biosimilars, and the clinical consequences of substituting biologics with biosimilars in the management of RA.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019137152 and CRD42019137155.

Project description:ImportanceThe high cost of biologics used to treat cancer has been an increasing burden in the world. In China, the recent approval of cancer biosimilar drugs to resolve this problem is promising, but evidence of clinical benefits, price, and uptake for these drugs is still lacking.ObjectivesTo compare characteristics of pivotal clinical trials in China and other countries for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab and investigate the efficacy or effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity outcomes of cancer biosimilars compared with reference drugs by meta-analysis.Data sourcesFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for published studies from database inception to February 1, 2023, using the search topics (cancers) AND (biosimilars).Study selectionRandomized clinical trials and cohort studies that included patients with cancer were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently extracted the outcome estimates and characteristics for each study. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to summarize the relative estimates with 95% CIs. This study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline.Main outcomes and measuresClinical trial characteristics were collected for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. The relative estimates of efficacy or effectiveness (objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival), safety, and immunogenicity outcomes were analyzed for biosimilars vs reference drugs. The weighted average price and uptake rate were evaluated for biosimilars relative to their reference drugs between 2015 and 2022.ResultsA total of 39 RCTs (involving 18 791 patients) and 10 cohort studies (involving 1998 patients) were included. The biosimilars of bevacizumab (16 RCTs; risk ratio [RR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.01; P = .17), rituximab (12 RCTs; RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.08; P = .70), and trastuzumab (9 RCTs: RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12; P = .29) met equivalence with reference biologics in regard to the objective response rate. The results summarized from cohort studies were consistent with those from RCTs. In 2022, cancer biosimilars were priced at 69% to 90% of the costs for the reference drugs, and their uptake reached 54% to 83% in China.Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that cancer biosimilars provided comparable clinical benefits at lower prices compared with reference drugs. These findings suggest the potential feasibility of expediting the transition from reference drugs to biosimilars to benefit more patients with cancer.

Project description:IntroductionNumerous therapeutic agents specifically targeting the mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) oncogene are being developed.ObjectiveThe aim of the current review was to systematically identify and analyze clinical trials that have evaluated MET inhibitors in various cancer types and to provide an overview of their clinical outcomes.MethodsAn electronic literature search was carried out in the PubMed and Embase databases to identify published clinical trials related to MET inhibitors. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement was followed for the systematic appraisal of the literature. Data related to clinical outcomes, including progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and overall tumor response, were extracted.ResultsIn total, 49 publications were included. Among these, 51.02% were phase II studies, 14.28% were randomized controlled trials, three were phase III studies, two were prospective observational studies, and the remainder were either phase I or Ib studies. The majority (44.89%) of articles reported the clinical outcomes of MET inhibitors, including small molecules, monoclonal antibodies, and other agents, in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring MET alterations. MET amplification, overexpression, and MET exon 14 skipping mutations were the major MET alteration types reported across the included studies. Clinical responses/outcomes varied considerably.ConclusionThis systematic literature review provides an overview of the literature available in Embase and PubMed regarding MET-targeted therapies. MET-selective tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (capmatinib, tepotinib, and savolitinib) may become a new standard of care in NSCLC, specifically with MET exon 14 skipping mutations. A combination of MET TKIs with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) TKIs (osimertinib + savolitinib, tepotinib + gefitinib) may be a potential solution for MET-driven EGFR TKI resistance. Further, MET alteration (MET amplification/overexpression) may be an actionable target in gastric cancer and papillary renal cell carcinoma.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the evidence available of poor-quality (counterfeit and substandard) medicines in the literature.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesDatabases used were EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, including articles published till January 2013.Eligibility criteriaPrevalence studies containing original data. WHO definitions (1992) used for counterfeit and substandard medicines.Study appraisal and synthesisTwo reviewers independently scored study methodology against recommendations from the MEDQUARG Checklist. Studies were classified according to the World Bank classification of countries by income.Data extractionData extracted: place of study; type of drugs sampled; sample size; percentage of substandard/counterfeit medicines; formulations included; origin of the drugs; chemical analysis and stated issues of counterfeit/substandard medicines.Results44 prevalence studies were identified, 15 had good methodological quality. They were conducted in 25 different countries; the majority were in low-income countries (11) and/or lower middle-income countries (10). The median prevalence of substandard/counterfeit medicines was 28.5% (range 11-48%). Only two studies differentiated between substandard and counterfeit medicines. Prevalence data were limited to antimicrobial drugs (all 15 studies). 13 studies involved antimalarials, 6 antibiotics and 2 other medications. The majority of studies (93%) contained samples with inadequate amounts of active ingredients. The prevalence of substandard/counterfeit antimicrobials was significantly higher when purchased from unlicensed outlets (p<0.000; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.32). No individual data about the prevalence in upper middle-income countries and high-income countries were available.LimitationsStudies with strong methodology were few. The majority did not differentiate between substandard and counterfeit medicines. Most studies assessed only a single therapeutic class of antimicrobials.ConclusionsThe prevalence of poor-quality antimicrobial medicines is widespread throughout Africa and Asia in lower income countries and lower middle-income countries . The main problem identified was inadequate amounts of the active ingredients.

Dataset Information

Switching Reference Medicines to Biosimilars: A Systematic Literature Review of Clinical Outcomes.

Publications

Switching Reference Medicines to Biosimilars: A Systematic Literature Review of Clinical Outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets