Search

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.)

Background: On 30 January 2012, the US FDA approved vismodegib (Erivedge ® , Genentech, CA, USA) for the management of both metastatic and locally advanced basal cell carcinoma., Objective: Our objective was to identify evidence of hepatotoxicity with vismodegib in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) in treated patients in two National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Centers., Methods: FAERS was searched for reports dated 1 January 2009 through 31 December 2015 using terms including hedgehog pathway and vismodegib and hepatic-related terms such as liver, jaundice, and hepatitis, among others. Disproportionality analyses with estimates of proportional reporting ratio and empirical Bayesian geometric mean were conducted. A comprehensive literature review was conducted, and the clinical databases at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University were searched., Results: Two cases of severe liver dysfunction were published (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] class III), and 94 reports of adverse events (AEs) were detected in FAERS, 35 of which were serious AEs. Safety notifications related to hepatotoxicity have not been issued by the manufacturer or the FDA, although vismodegib is listed in LiverTox and the European Medicines Agency website., Conclusion: We identified a detectable safety signal for hepatotoxicity for vismodegib within 4 years of FDA approval. Vismodegib should be used in patients with severe liver disease only after careful consideration, and concomitant hepatotoxic medications should be avoided. Rapid dissemination of such safety concerns is expected to result in fewer serious hepatotoxic AEs and more optimal outcomes for patients with cancer receiving vismodegib.

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.)

Objective: To identify and summarize FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) associated with biological and targeted cancer therapies (BTCT) that were approved between 2009 and 2015., Methods: FAERS was searched using each BTCT name as primary or secondary suspect drug and the adverse reaction of PML. Among BTCTs with >2 case reports of PML, proportional reporting ratios (PRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated., Results: Among 49 new BTCTs, 82 cases of PML were found for 16 drugs. Significant PRR signals were found among 7 (14.6%) BTCTs including: brentuximab (24.5, CI:14.8-40.6), ofatumumab (16.3, CI:9.6-27.4), alemtuzumab (9.9, CI:6.0-16.4), obinutuzumab (7.4, CI:2.4-22.8), ibrutinib (5.6 CI:3.0-10.5), belimumab (4.5 CI:2.3-9.0), and idelalisib (4.1, CI:1.3-12.6). Among the 82 cases with significant signals, confirmation of the diagnosis of PML using objective criteria was found in 56% of the cases. A limitation of FAERS data is that missing data are common., Conclusions: When using BTCTs, clinicians and patients consider the risk of PML versus the therapeutic benefit, particularly when used in combination with other drugs which may cause PML, such as rituximab. It is important to recognize that PML may occur in some conditions, such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia, regardless of drug therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interest Funding was received by National Cancer institute, 1 RO1 CA165609-01A1. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

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.)

The incidences of life-threatening toxicities such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are inconsistently reported. The potential association of anticancer agents with SJS or TEN has not been systematically investigated. We searched the literature (Ovid: 1950 to June 2013 and PubMed: 1948 to June 2013) using terms for SJS/TEN and anticancer therapies. Primary case reports, case series, and clinical trials were included. In addition, MedWatch, the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), was searched (1968 to August 2012) for SJS/TEN reports associated with anticancer therapies. Proportional reporting ratios (PRR>2, N>3), empirical Bayes geometric mean (EBGM>2, N>3), and lower 95% confidence interval (EBGM0.05>2) were used as thresholds to constitute a signal of association between SJS/TEN and anticancer drugs. There were 46 SJS and 37 TEN cases associated with 18 and 22 anticancer drugs in the literature, respectively. Among cases in the FAERS, significant signals were associated with SJS for bendamustine and with TEN for bendamustine, busulfan, chlorambucil, fludarabine, lomustine, and procarbazine. Several drugs reported in the published literature to be associated with SJS/TEN were not found to have significant signals in FAERS. Proactive pharmacovigilance to detect and define safety signals serves to aid oncology practitioners in the recognition of possible, yet uncommon, serious, and/or life-threatening skin reactions.

Purpose: To determine the relationship between boxed warnings issuance by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the proportional reporting rates of the associated adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) for multiple myeloma (MM) drugs., Methods: We compiled a list of all FDA approved MM drugs and identified their associated ADR boxed warnings, through FDA's website and physician desk reference. Drugs that were issued boxed warnings after their market launch were included in the analysis, i.e., melphalan, thalidomide, vincristine, carmustine and doxorubicin. For each drug/ADR boxed warning combination, we retrieved all reported cases from the FAERS and calculated their Empiric Bayes Geometric Means (EBGMs), in pre- and post-boxed warning periods. Chi-square tests were performed to compare serious adverse drug events before and after boxed warnings for all drug/ADR combinations., Results: A total of 10 drug/ADR boxed warning combinations were identified, of which EBGM signals increased for six combinations after a boxed warning was issued. Reports of serious adverse drug events also increased significantly (p < 0.05)., Conclusion: Boxed warnings were associated with increased FAERS reporting, indicating increased awareness of ADRs for MM drugs. Proactive pharmacovigilance programs, such as the FDA's Mini-Sentinel Project, may improve timeliness of detection of rare ADRs.

Purpose: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have been recently associated with hip fractures. We present a case series of breast cancer survivors and a systematic review of bone health care in breast cancer., Experimental Design: We completed clinical assessments and bone density testing (BMD) of hip fractures from January 2005 to December 2008. Prefracture and 12-month functional status was obtained. Systematic review included case reports and review of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FDA AERS) from January 1998 to December 2008 (search terms: breast cancer, bone loss, osteopenia, osteoporosis, malignancy, cancer treatment, menopause, adriamycin, cytoxan, tamoxifen, and AIs)., Results: Median age was 53.5 years; five women had osteopenia, one osteoporosis. Five cases were ER (+), and received surgery, XRT chemotherapy, and anastrozole. Functional decline was noted at 12 months, with difficulty in performing heavy housekeeping, climbing stairs, and shopping. The FDA AERS database included 228 cases of fractures associated with breast cancer therapy; 77/228 (29.4%) were hip or femur fractures. Among mid-life women under the age of 64 years there were 78 fractures; 15/228 (19%) were hip and femur fractures. AIs were the most common drug class associated with fractures (n = 149, 65%)., Conclusions: Cancer treatment induced bone loss results in hip fractures among mid-life women with breast cancer. Hip fractures occur at younger ages and higher BMD than expected for patients in this age group without breast cancer. Hip fractures result in considerable functional decline. Greater awareness of this adverse drug effect is needed., (©2011 AACR.)

More than half of all serious adverse reactions are identified 7 or more years after a drug receives approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In 2002, 9 months after the intravenous bisphosphonate zoledronic acid received regulatory approval for marketing, the FDA received reports of nine patients with cancer, who were treated with zoledronic acid, who unexpectedly developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. During the next 2 years, three oral surgeons described 104 patients with cancer with osteonecrosis of the jaw in the medical literature and identified intravenous bisphosphonate therapy as being common to the care of these patients. In subspecialty medical, radiology, and dental journals, case reports and case series described clinical features of osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with cancer who were treated with bisphosphonates. Manufacturer-sponsored epidemiological studies reported the first estimates of the incidence of this toxic effect, ranging from 0.1% to 1.8%. By contrast, independent epidemiological efforts from clinicians and the International Myeloma Foundation reported incidence estimates between 5% and 10%. Between 2003 and 2005, warnings about the risks of bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis were disseminated by national regulatory agencies, the manufacturers of bisphosphonates, and the International Myeloma Foundation. From 2006, independent clinical recommendations for diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of this toxic effect have been disseminated by manufacturers, national regulatory authorities, the International Myeloma Foundation, and medical specialty organisations. Furthermore, independent efforts by pharmaceutical manufacturers, dental and medical professionals, a non-profit organisation (the International Myeloma Foundation), patients, and regulatory authorities has led to the rapid identification and dissemination of safety information for this serious adverse reaction. Better coordination of safety-related pharmacovigilance initiatives is now needed.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) was approved for marketing in 2000 by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for older patients with relapsed acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Four months later, 14 phase II clinical trial participants who received novel GO-containing combination chemotherapy regimens developed an unexpected hepatic toxicity termed sinusoidal obstructive syndrome (SOS) or hepatic veno-occlusive disease (VOD). Investigators associated with the Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports (RADAR) project reviewed safety reports for GO included in reports of clinical trials and observational studies, interim reports from an FDA mandated Prospective Observational Registry, and the Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System. Medline searches provided incidence estimates of GO-associated SOS and comparative rates of SOS without GO. SOS is characterized by hyperbilirubinemia, painful hepatomegaly, ascites, and sudden weight gain developing at a median of 10 days following GO administration for patients who did not undergo an allogeneic SCT procedure and 13 days following an allogeneic SCT for patients who had previously received GO. Among adult AML patients who received GO in clinical trials, SOS incidence was 3% at doses < or =6 mg/m(2) if administered as monotherapy or in combination with non-hepatotoxic agents versus 28% if administered with thioguanine and 15% when administered as monotherapy at a dose of 9 mg/m(2). Observational studies identified SOS rates between 15% and 40% if an SCT is performed within 3 months of GO administration. The FDA mandated Prospective Observational Registry of patients who receive care at 60 medical centers has identified GO-associated SOS rates of 14% if an SCT is performed and 9% otherwise. Caution is advised when administering GO in routine clinical practice, particularly if administered with other hepatotoxic agents, at doses and schedules more intensive than those approved by the FDA, or within 3 months of a SCT procedure.

Purpose: To describe the clinical findings, occurrence rates, causality evidence, and dissemination media for serious cancer drug-associated adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported in the postmarketing setting., Methods: ADRs were termed serious if they resulted in death or severe organ failure. ADR information for oncology drugs from package insert (PI) revisions, so-called Dear Doctor letters, and journal articles was evaluated to identify serious ADRs reported from 2000 to 2002. Timing and content of information disseminated was assessed., Results: Twenty-five serious ADRs associated with 22 oncology drugs were identified after approval. Approximately half of these serious ADRs are associated with drugs approved before 1995. ADRs were described in articles in medical journals (17 ADRs), PI revisions (18 ADRs), and Dear Doctor letters (12 ADRs). PI revisions occurred less than 1 year after peer-reviewed publication for four ADRs. These revisions often differed for similar ADRs that occurred with drugs of the same class. Five of the seven ADRs lacking PI changes occurred with off-label use, for which PI change is not recommended by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy. No cancer drug was withdrawn from the market during the observation period., Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that serious ADRs may be discovered as long as 36 years after a drug receives FDA approval. This suggests a need for continued vigilance and efficient strategies for dissemination of information about ADRs associated with cancer drugs.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare health-care resource utilization and outcomes among children treated for low-risk febrile neutropenia (FN) in a hospital-based setting with those treated in a home-care-based setting., Methods: The perspective of this retrospective, cohort study was the health payer. We collected health-care utilization and treatment outcome data from medical records of 63 children (26 boys and 37 girls) with low-risk, chemotherapy-induced FN who were treated at the University of Arizona (27 children, the hospital-based group) and University of New Mexico (36 children, the home-care-based group). We identified 144 FN episodes (72 episodes in each group). Health-care utilization included physician visits, home-care visits, laboratory visits, outpatient visits, hospital days, intensive care unit days, medical tests and studies, and medications used to manage FN (e.g., filgrastim, antimicrobials, and ancilliary drugs and supplies). We applied uniform charges, based on those used at the University of New Mexico in 1998. We collected outcomes of the FN treatment (success vs. failure and time to resolution, defined as number of days of antibiotic therapy). Rates of positive blood cultures during treatment were also compared. Data were analyzed using nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous data and chi-square analysis for categorical data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying the amount of total resource utilization, as well as utilization of specific health-care resources., Results: There was no difference in outcome; all episodes of treatment in both groups resulted in successful recovery from FN. Time to resolution of FN was 8.3 +/- 2.7 days for home-care FN episodes versus 7.3 +/- 3.6 days for hospital FN episodes (P =.064). Median charge per FN episode was significantly (P<.001) greater when managed in the hospital compared to home care (9392 US dollars vs. 5893 US dollars). There was greater use of laboratory and radiographic studies in the hospital-based patients (P <.01). However, children in the home-care-based group were more often treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (filgrastim, median charge 1085 US dollars vs. 451 US dollars, P <.001), and median antibiotic charges were higher (2523 US dollars vs. 1526 US dollars, P <.001). Positive blood cultures were more common among the hospital-based FN treatments (30.6 vs. 11.1%, P=.012)., Conclusions: We found that management of low-risk FN in a home-care-based setting was associated with significantly lower median total charges with no differences in outcome.

Objectives: We undertook the review of all available cases of hypersensitivity reactions after placement of a drug-eluting stent (DES) and classified potential causes. Background: Six months after the approval of the first DES, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported 50 hypersensitivity reactions after stent placement but later concluded these were due to concomitantly prescribed medications such as clopidogrel. Nevertheless, the FDA continued to receive reports of hypersensitivity. Methods: Reports available from April 2003 through December 2004 for hypersensitivity-like reactions associated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (CYPHER, Cordis Corp., Miami Lakes, Florida) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (TAXUS, Boston Scientific Corp., Natick, Massachusetts) were reviewed. Sources of reports included the FDA’s adverse-device-event database, the published literature, and investigators from the Research on Adverse Drug/Device events And Reports (RADAR) project. Causality was assessed using standardized World Health Organization criteria. Results: Of 5,783 reports identified for the DES in the FDA database, 262 unique events included hypersensitivity symptoms. Of these reports, 2 were certainly and 39 unlikely caused by clopidogrel and 1 was certainly, 9 probably, and 13 unlikely caused by the DES. From all sources, we identified 17 distinct cases that were probably or certainly caused by the stent, of which 9 had symptoms that lasted longer than four weeks. Four autopsies confirmed intrastent eosinophilic inflammation, thrombosis, and lack of intimal healing. Conclusions: The FDA reports and autopsy findings suggest that DES may be a cause of systemic and intrastent hypersensitivity reactions that, in some cases, have been associated with late thrombosis and death. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]