Search

Background: It is crucial that the safety profiles of biosimilars are similar to those of the original biologics. A better understanding of biosimilars and their relative safety and immunogenicity profiles are required for healthcare providers to prescribe them to patients with life-threatening cancer diseases who receive chemotherapies with potentially serious adverse events (AEs). Objectives: The purpose of this study was to collate and analyze currently available safety and immunogenicity outcomes of biosimilars used in oncology and compare their safety information with those of the original biologics. Methods: The MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases were searched as at 28 February 2022. Four anti-cancer biosimilar molecules were considered: bevacizumab, trastuzumab, rituximab, and (peg)filgrastim. Through a systematic review, we selected the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing safety outcomes between the biosimilars and original biologics of the four molecules. As safety outcomes, various treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were collated, such as any TEAE, serious AE, and TEAE higher than grade 3. A risk ratio (RR) per category of TEAE was estimated through a meta-analysis. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was also conducted to compare the safety among the biosimilar brands for TEAEs over 25% with higher variability in addition to the serious AE cases. Results: Forty-nine RCTs were identified. The results from the meta-analysis showed that the safety and immunogenicity profiles of all four biosimilar molecules are comparable with that of the original biologics at the TEAE level without statistically significant differences, except for diarrhea for (peg)filgrastim. The incidence of diarrhea with (peg)filgrastim was less than that with the original biologic (RR 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.50–0.89). The NMA results showed similar safety profiles among the biosimilar brands for all four biosimilar molecules, except for the serious adverse event of a trastuzumab biosimilar (RR 0.296, 95% credible interval 0.109–0.840). Conclusion: The meta-analysis and NMA for all four biosimilars showed that the safety and immunogenicity profiles of biosimilar products in oncology are generally comparable with that of the original biologics at the TEAE level. However, additional evidence needs to be collected since several TEAEs of specific biosimilars were out of the equivalent range. The results of this study provide comparative safety information and a better understanding of oncology biosimilars for healthcare providers to prescribe them to patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the early SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, four major vaccines were approved despite limited efficacy and safety data through short regulatory review periods. Thus, it is necessary to assess the benefit-risk (BR) profiles of the COVID-19 vaccines. We conducted a quantitative BR assessment for four COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA-based: mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2; viral vector-based: Ad26.COV.2 and ChAdOx1-S) using multi-criteria decision analysis. Three benefit criteria and two risk criteria were considered: preventing COVID-19 infection for (1) adults aged ≥18 years; (2) seniors aged 60 years or older; and (3) severe COVID-19, adverse events (AEs), and serious AEs. Data were retrieved from clinical trials, observational studies, and county-specific AE monitoring reports. Based on the collected data, vaccines were scored for each criterion. 22 professionals weighted each criterion. The overall BR score was calculated using scores and weights. mRNA-1273 was the most preferred vaccine in pre-authorization and BNT162b2 in post-authorization. We found that the mRNA vaccine had a good balance between the benefits and risks. Using this BR assessment, the benefit-risk profile of COVID-19 vaccines can be updated with cumulated data. It will contribute to building evidence for decision making by policy makers and health professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In order to look beyond the cost-effectiveness analysis, this study used a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), which reflects societal values with regard to reimbursement decisions. This study aims to elicit societal preferences of the reimbursement decision criteria for anti cancer drugs from public and healthcare professionals.Methods: Eight criteria were defined based on a literature review and focus group sessions: disease severity, disease population size, pediatrics targets, unmet needs, innovation, clinical benefits, cost-effectiveness, and budget impacts. Using quota sampling and purposive sampling, 300 participants from the Korean public and 30 healthcare professionals were selected for the survey. Preferences were elicited using an analytic hierarchy process.Results: Both groups rated clinical benefits the highest, followed by cost-effectiveness and disease severity, but differed with regard to disease population size and unmet needs. Innovation was the least preferred criteria.Conclusions: Clinical benefits and other social values should be reflected appropriately with cost-effectiveness in healthcare coverage. MCDA can be used to assess decision priorities for complicated health policy decisions, including reimbursement decisions. It is a promising method for making logical and transparent drug reimbursement decisions that consider a broad range of factors, which are perceived as important by relevant stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]