Retrospective analysis of the safety and efficacy of Pembroria® during non-medical switching from the original drug Keytruda® in patients with advanced malignancies of various localizations in real clinical practice
- Authors: Zhukova L.G.1, Filonenko D.A.1, Polshina N.I.1, Smolin S.A.1, Pasechnyuk O.S.1
-
Affiliations:
- Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center
- Issue: Vol 26, No 3 (2024)
- Pages: 296-302
- Section: Articles
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/1815-1434/article/view/275821
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.26442/18151434.2024.3.203013
- ID: 275821
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
Introduction. The emergence of genetically engineered biological drugs is rightly considered a revolutionary event in medicine. In 2022, the first biosimilar of pembrolizumab, the Russian drug Pembroria®, was approved. One of the study types that can convincingly demonstrate the safety and efficacy of biosimilar is its use for switching from the original drug for non-medical indications (NMS, or non-medical switching) according to standard approaches of real clinical practice and the drug label.
Aim. To assess the safety of NMS switching in patients with advanced malignancies of various localizations from the original drug Keytruda® to the biosimilar Pembroria® and to evaluate its effectiveness in real clinical practice.
Materials and methods. We analyzed the data of 114 patients with advanced malignancies of various localizations and the last line of treatment with Keytruda® as monotherapy or in combination with other agents within the approved indications and switched to Pembroria® for NMS. After switching to Pemboria®, patients did not change treatment for another checkpoint inhibitor within this line of therapy.
Results. The incidence of immune-mediated adverse reactions (imARs) of any severity during treatment with comparators differed slightly: 57% with Keytruda® and 54% with Pembroria®. The majority of imARs with both Keytruda® and Pembroria® were Grade 1 in severity (69% and 86%, respectively). All serious ARs were resolved and did not result in drug discontinuation. When analyzing the best objective response to treatment with Keytruda®, complete response, partial response, and stabilization were observed in 9 (7.9%), 28 (24.6%), and 61 (53.5%) cases, respectively, during treatment with Pemboria® – in 8 (7%), 24 (21%), 52 (45.6%) cases, respectively.
Conclusion. The safety profile of Keytruda® and Pembroria® is acceptable and comparable: the imAR rate with Pembroria® when switching from Keytrada® did not exceed that with the original drug Keytruda®; in most patients, switching from Keytruda® to Pembroria® was not associated with an increase in the imAR rate or severity. The majority of patients maintained disease control when switched to Pembroria®.
Full Text
##article.viewOnOriginalSite##About the authors
Liudmila G. Zhukova
Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center
Author for correspondence.
Email: l.zhukova@mknc.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4848-6938
D. Sci. (Med.), Corr. Memb. RAS
Russian Federation, MoscowDaria A. Filonenko
Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center
Email: l.zhukova@mknc.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7224-3111
Cand. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, MoscowNatalya I. Polshina
Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center
Email: l.zhukova@mknc.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5417-0425
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowSergei A. Smolin
Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center
Email: l.zhukova@mknc.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8887-2660
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowOlga S. Pasechnyuk
Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center
Email: l.zhukova@mknc.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0002-8509-5944
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowReferences
- Barbier L, Ebbers HC, Declerck P, et al. The efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of switching between reference biopharmaceuticals and biosimilars: A systematic review. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;108(4):734-55. doi: 10.1002/cpt.1836
- Kirchhoff CF, Wang XM, Conlon HD, et al. Biosimilars: Key regulatory considerations and similarity assessment tools. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2017;114(12):2696-705. doi: 10.1002/bit.26438
- Triplitt C, Hinnen D, Valentine V. How similar are biosimilars? What do clinicians need to know about biosimilar and follow-on insulins? Clin Diabetes. 2017;35(4):209-16. doi: 10.2337/cd16-0072
- García JJ, Raez LE, Rosas D. A narrative review of biosimilars: A continued journey from the scientific evidence to practice implementation. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2020;9(5):2113-9. doi: 10.21037/tlcr-20-601
- Markus R, Liu J, Ramchandani M, et al. Developing the totality of evidence for biosimilars: Regulatory considerations and building confidence for the healthcare community. BioDrugs. 2017;31(3):175-87. doi: 10.1007/s40259-017-0218-5
- Niazi S. Scientific rationale for waiving clinical efficacy testing of biosimilars. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2022;16:2803-15. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S378813
- Joshi D, Khursheed R, Gupta S, et al. Biosimilars in oncology: Latest trends and regulatory status. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14(12):2721. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14122721
- van Overbeeke E, De Beleyr B, de Hoon J, et al. Perception of originator biologics and biosimilars: A survey among belgian rheumatoid arthritis patients and rheumatologists. BioDrugs. 2017;31(5):447-59. doi: 10.1007/s40259-017-0244-3
- Dylst P, Vulto A, Simoens S. Barriers to the uptake of biosimilars and possible solutions: A Belgian case study. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(7):681-91. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0163-9
- Ruiz-Argüello MB, Maguregui A, Ruiz Del Agua A, et al. Antibodies to infliximab in Remicade-treated rheumatic patients show identical reactivity towards biosimilars. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(9):1693-6. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-208684
- Faccin F, Tebbey P, Alexander E, et al. The design of clinical trials to support the switching and alternation of biosimilars. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2016;16(12):1445-53. doi: 10.1080/14712598.2017.1238454
- Schellekens H. Immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins: Clinical implications and future prospects. Clin Ther. 2002;24(11):1720-40; discussion 1719. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(02)80075-3
- Konstantinidou S, Papaspiliou A, Kokkotou E. Current and future roles of biosimilars in oncology practice. Oncol Lett. 2020;19(1):45-51. doi: 10.3892/ol.2019.11105
- Engert A, Griskevicius L, Zyuzgin Y, et al. XM02, the first granulocyte colony-stimulating factor biosimilar, is safe and effective in reducing the duration of severe neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving chemotherapy. Leuk Lymphoma. 2009;50(3):374-9. doi: 10.1080/10428190902756081
- Gatzemeier U, Ciuleanu T, Dediu M, et al. XM02, the first biosimilar G-CSF, is safe and effective in reducing the duration of severe neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients with small cell or non-small cell lung cancer receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4(6):736-40. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181a52964
- Verpoort K, Möhler TM. A non-interventional study of biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in a community oncology centre. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2012;4(6):289-93. doi: 10.1177/1758834012461330
- Blackwell K, Semiglazov V, Krasnozhon D, et al. Comparison of EP2006, a filgrastim biosimilar, to the reference: A phase III, randomized, double-blind clinical study in the prevention of severe neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(9):1948-53. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv281
- Kobayashi T, Kamada I, Komura J, et al. Comparative study of the number of report and time-to-onset of the reported adverse event between the biosimilars and the originator of filgrastim. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26(8):917-24. doi: 10.1002/pds.4218
- Herndon TM, Ausin C, Brahme NN, et al. Safety outcomes when switching between biosimilars and reference biologics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2023;18(10):e0292231. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292231
Supplementary files
