Biosimilars/Research
Comparison of biosimilar filgrastim versus other G-CSF formulations after autologous stem cell transplantation
Introduction
Only limited data have been so far published about the use of biosimilar filgrastim in haematologic recovery after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Despite the limitation due to retrospective analysis performed on a limited number of patients, all these studies suggest a substantially similar efficacy of biosimilar products, when compared to originators in the febrile neutropenia prophylaxis of lymphoma and myeloma patients post-ASCT. The aim of this study was to compare the biosimilar filgrastim Zarzio with the other available formulations of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in terms of efficacy and safety [1].
Extrapolation of indications in biosimilars: filgrastim
Extrapolation* of indications for biosimilars is a contentious issue and has been met with concern by physicians. Members of the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) Biosimilar Medicinal Products Working Party (BMWP) address these concerns using extrapolation of indications in biosimilar filgrastim as an example [1].
Biosimilars: when indications can be extrapolated
Extrapolation* is already a well-established and accepted scientific and regulatory principle, according to members of the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) Biosimilar Medicinal Products Working Party (BMWP) [1].
Predicting the response of diabetes patients to biosimilar insulin
For patients with type 1 diabetes, the quality of the insulin they take is a matter of life and death. The situation is similar for patients with type 2 diabetes. The question is what will these patients think about switching from their current brand-name insulins to new biosimilar versions? The question is important right now with the imminent arrival of biosimilar insulins on the market.
Biosimilars: similar but not identical
One reason for distrust among physicians over using biosimilars in extrapolated* indications could be the fact that it is frequently cited that biosimilars are ‘similar but not identical’ compared to small molecule generics, which are often referred to as ‘identical’.
Study results show safety of switching to biosimilar infliximab
US-based Epirus Biopharmaceuticals (Epirus) announced on 23 September 2014 positive week 58 follow-up data from its global phase III study for its biosimilar infliximab (BOW015). Results of the open label phase, which was carried out in rheumatoid arthritis patients, demonstrated comparable safety and efficacy compared to the originator product (Remicade).
Extrapolation for biosimilars
Regarding extrapolation* of indications for biosimilars, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has stated that ‘if clinical similarity can be shown in a key indication, extrapolation of efficacy and safety data to other indication(s) of the reference product may be possible’ under certain conditions [1].
Biosimilar bevacizumab similar to Avastin in preclinical assessments
Preclinical assessments have demonstrated the similarity of biologicals major Amgen’s biosimilar bevacizumab candidate (ABP 215) to Avastin [1].
Mobilization of stem cells by biosimilar Nivestim and Neupogen
Comparison of biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), Nivestim and originator G-CSF, Neupogen (filgrastim), showed no statistical differences when used for the mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in patients treated for haematological malignancies [1].
Phase III study of biosimilar adalimumab meets primary endpoint
Biologicals major Amgen announced on 8 October 2014 the first late-stage data from its biosimilars programme. Primary efficacy analysis from a phase III trial of Amgen’s adalimumab biosimilar (ABP 501) compared with Humira (adalimumab) has demonstrated ‘clinical equivalence’.
