Dataset Information

Clinical and treatment characteristics of patients treated with the first therapeutic oncology biosimilars bevacizumab-awwb and trastuzumab-anns in the US.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In July 2019, bevacizumab-awwb and trastuzumab-anns were marketed in the USA as the first therapeutic oncology biosimilars. We aimed to investigate the initial real-world use of bevacizumab-awwb and trastuzumab-anns for cancer management in US oncology practices.

Methods

A retrospective, observational analysis of data from US cancer patients (⩾18 years of age) was carried out to describe the use of bevacizumab-awwb and trastuzumab-anns during the first 12 months following their market entry, using structured data from the Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived database.

Results

A total of 2952 and 2997 patients with recorded use of bevacizumab-awwb and trastuzumab-anns, respectively, were included in the analysis. The first use of bevacizumab-awwb and trastuzumab-anns was in a patient with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) within 10 days of market availability and in a patient with early stage breast cancer (eBC) within 4 days, respectively. The use of these biosimilars was observed across all approved cancer indications; 68% of bevacizumab-awwb users were those diagnosed with mCRC and 72% of trastuzumab-anns users were those diagnosed with eBC. Approximately half the patients were previously exposed to reference product (RP) prior to initiation of bevacizumab-awwb or trastuzumab-anns. Among pre-exposed patients, the majority received the biosimilars [bevacizumab-awwb (63-85%) or trastuzumab-anns (75-81%)] within 28 days of the last infusion of the RP. For both biosimilars, no major differences were observed in patient characteristics between RP-naïve and pre-exposed patients.

Conclusion

Initial evidence from the first 12 months following market entry suggests rapid clinical adoption of bevacizumab-awwb and trastuzumab-anns across all approved tumor types. Usage of these two biosimilars was observed in both RP-naïve patients and patients who were previously treated with RP, with no distinctive differences in patient characteristics between the two groups.A video abstract is available for this article as part of the Kanjintionline supplemental material.

SUBMITTER: Jin R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8734207 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBiologics account for almost half of US drug spending but may be subject to competitive pricing pressures by US Food and Drug Administration-approved biosimilars. The extent of the preapproval clinical testing that is needed and how these biosimilars compare with the originator biologic products remain critical issues in establishing a vibrant biosimilar market.ObjectivesTo analyze the design of cancer biosimilar efficacy studies compared with the reference drug pivotal trials and provide summary risk ratio estimates for each cancer type drug subgroup.Data sourcesA systematic search was performed of articles and abstracts published using Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated April 18, 2021.Study selectionAll studies or abstracts in English comparing a disease-modifying cancer biologic and its biosimilar and reporting efficacy or surrogate efficacy results were included.Data extraction and synthesisOutcome estimates and study characteristics were extracted from each study. Among biosimilar efficacy studies, random-effects meta-analyses were performed for each cancer type molecule outcome subgroup, calculating pooled relative estimates and 95% CIs.Main outcomes and measuresStudy characteristics, such as population size, blinding, and randomization, were compared between biosimilar trials and those of reference drugs. Risk ratio estimates for relative change to surrogate measures (eg, progression-free survival) were collected for biosimilars and their reference products.ResultsA total of 31 cancer biosimilar studies of 3 reference products involving 12 310 patients were included. In all 7 subgroups, the biosimilars analyzed were indistinguishable from their reference drug on surrogate efficacy. Six reference drug trials were included, involving 1811 patients. On average, biosimilar studies involved more patients than reference drug trials (mean number of patients, 397 vs 302), were more likely to be randomized clinical trials rather than single-group or observational studies (100% [31 of 31] vs 50% [3 of 6]), and were more likely to be double blind rather than open label (84% [26 of 31] vs 17% [1 of 6]).Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis found that the biosimilars for the cancer drugs in this sample were subjected to rigorous clinical evaluations, and the results were statistically indistinguishable from those of original products across drugs, cancer types, and outcome measures.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Monoclonal antibodies of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have been recommended as first-line therapy for patients with left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with wild-type RAS. The effect of tumour laterality on antivascular endothelial growth factor antibody and how to optimise targeted therapies for the right-sided cases remain controversial. PATIENTS AND METHODS:A comprehensive meta-analysis enrolling 16 first-line clinical trials was performed to evaluate the efficacy of chemotherapy alone and chemotherapy plus targeted therapies for patients with mCRC with right primary tumour site, and we validated the results in metastatic setting (14 trials containing 4306 patients with unresectable mCRC). RESULTS:Here, we found that progression-free survival (PFS) (combined HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.44) and overall survival (OS) (combined HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.62) of the right-sided patients were significantly inferior to the left-sided individuals receiving chemotherapy alone in overall population, regardless of race. Similar results were also observed in metastatic setting. OS of patients with left-sided mCRC receiving chemotherapy plus bevacizumab was superior to the right-sided individuals (combined median survival ratio (MSR)=1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.39 for overall population; combined MSR=1.23, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.45 for metastatic setting), especially for wild-type RAS and mixed population. Moreover, the right-sided patients benefited more from chemotherapy plus bevacizumab comparing with chemotherapy alone in both overall population and metastatic setting. Importantly, the RAS-wild right-sided patients achieved longer PFS (combined HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.88) and OS (combined HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.98) from chemotherapy plus bevacizumab comparing with chemotherapy associated with anti-EGFR agents. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with right-sided mCRC show impaired chemosensitivity, and chemotherapy plus bevacizumab can be an optimal first-line therapeutic regimen for the RAS-wild patients with right-sided mCRC.

Project description:BackgroundThe Avastin Registry: Investigation of Effectiveness and Safety (ARIES) study is a prospective, community-based observational cohort study that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of first-line treatment patterns, assessing the impact of chemotherapy choice and treatment duration.MethodsThe ARIES study enrolled patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving first-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab and followed them longitudinally. The protocol did not specify treatment regimens or assessments. Analyses included all patients who initiated bevacizumab in combination with either first-line oxaliplatin with infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX) or irinotecan with infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFIRI). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated with multivariate Cox regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounding factors.ResultsIn total, 1,550 patients with first-line mCRC were enrolled (median follow-up, 21 months) and most received FOLFOX-bevacizumab (n = 968) or FOLFIRI-bevacizumab (n = 243) as first-line therapy. The baseline characteristics and median treatment duration were generally similar between subgroups. There were no significant differences in the median PFS (10.3 months vs. 10.2 months) or OS (23.7 months vs. 25.5 months) time between the FOLFOX-bevacizumab and FOLFIRI-bevacizumab subgroups, respectively, by unadjusted analyses. Multivariate analyses showed FOLFIRI-bevacizumab resulted in a similar PFS (HR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.21) and OS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78-1.16) outcome as with FOLFOX-bevacizumab. The incidence proportions of bevacizumab-associated adverse events were similar for FOLFOX- and FOLFIRI-based therapies.ConclusionsIn first-line mCRC patients, the FOLFOX-bevacizumab and FOLFIRI-bevacizumab regimens were associated with similar treatment patterns and clinical outcomes.

Project description:PURPOSE:Fixed-dose rate gemcitabine plus docetaxel achieves objective response in 35% of patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS). This study aimed to determine whether the addition of bevacizumab to gemcitabine-docetaxel increases progression-free survival (PFS) in uLMS. PATIENTS AND METHODS:In this phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with chemotherapy-naive, metastatic, unresectable uLMS were randomly assigned to gemcitabine-docetaxel plus bevacizumab or gemcitabine-docetaxel plus placebo. PFS, overall survival (OS), and objective response rates (ORRs) were compared to determine superiority. Target accrual was 130 patients to detect an increase in median PFS from 4 months (gemcitabine-docetaxel plus placebo) to 6.7 months (gemcitabine-docetaxel plus bevacizumab). Treatment effects on PFS and OS were described by hazard ratios (HRs), median times to event, and 95% CIs. RESULTS:In all, 107 patients were accrued: gemcitabine-docetaxel plus placebo (n = 54) and gemcitabine-docetaxel plus bevacizumab (n = 53). Accrual was stopped early for futility. No statistically significant differences in grade 3 to 4 toxicities were observed. Median PFS was 6.2 months for gemcitabine-docetaxel plus placebo versus 4.2 months for gemcitabine-docetaxel plus bevacizumab (HR, 1.12; P = .58). Median OS was 26.9 months for gemcitabine-docetaxel plus placebo and 23.3 months for gemcitabine-docetaxel plus bevacizumab (HR, 1.07; P = .81). Objective responses were observed in 17 (31.5%) of 54 patients randomly assigned to gemcitabine-docetaxel plus placebo and 19 (35.8%) of 53 patients randomly assigned to gemcitabine-docetaxel plus bevacizumab. Mean duration of response was 8.6 months for gemcitabine-docetaxel plus placebo versus 8.8 months for gemcitabine-docetaxel plus bevacizumab. CONCLUSION:The addition of bevacizumab to gemcitabine-docetaxel for first-line treatment of metastatic uLMS failed to improve PFS, OS, or ORR. Gemcitabine-docetaxel remains a standard first-line treatment for uLMS.