Two multicenter Phase I randomized trials to compare the bioequivalence and safety of a generic doxorubicin hydrochloride liposome injection with Doxil® or Caelyx® in advanced ovarian cancer
To compare the pharmacokinetic bioequivalence and safety of a generic pegylated liposomal doxorubicin formulation (SPIL DXR hydrochloride liposome injection) with that of the reference products, Caelyx or Doxil.
Two open-label, two-way reference crossover studies were conducted in patients with ovarian cancer. Cmax, AUC0 − t, and AUC0−∞, Vd, and Cl for total, free, and encapsulated DXR were evaluated in 18 blood samples taken pre-dose (t = 0), at increasing time intervals over the following 14 days. A washout period of 28 days was observed before crossing over.
Studies 1 and 2 were completed by 24/29 and 41/60 patients, respectively. Pharmacokinetic data from 24 patients from each study established bioequivalence for free DXR in study 2, and for total and encapsulated DXR in both studies. Data from 29 and 54 patients, respectively, were included in the safety evaluation. Of these, 37 patients experienced 81 post-dose adverse events (40 related to the test product and 41 related to the reference product). In study 1, four patients were withdrawn owing to adverse events. Eleven patients experienced serious adverse events and one death occurred in study 2.
Bioequivalence between the test and the reference products was established for total and encapsulated DXR in both studies, and for free DXR in the study with the larger sample size (study 2). There were no significant differences between the safety profiles of the generic formulation and the reference products. No correlation was found between drug level and adverse events.
Study 1 was registered retrospectively; registration number is NCT03055143, dated February 15, 2017. Study 2 registration number is NCT00862355, dated March 13, 2009.
KeywordsDoxorubicin HCl liposome injection Ovarian cancer Bioequivalence Anthracycline
Medical writing support was provided by Claire Aukim-Hastie and Diane Kwiatkoski of IQVIA. Funding for the study and for editorial assistance with this manuscript was provided by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited.
ShB was the clinical lead on this trial, involved in study design, protocol review, and study conduct. SB was the lead formulation development scientist on this trial, involved in product development starting from conceptualization to marketing of the product, and provided the investigational product. KM was a formulation development scientist on this trial and was involved in the development, manufacture, and provision of the investigational product. AC was involved in protocol development and authored the clinical study reports. PS was the clinical pharmacology lead, involved in analytical method development and pharmacokinetic bioanalysis. DJ was the project supervisor with regard to bioanalysis, method validation, and analytical method development. RT was the research and development head, and was involved in product development and provided clinical trial oversight. All authors helped write the manuscript and have read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding for the study and for editorial assistance with this manuscript was provided by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors were paid employees of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (SPIL) at the time the study was conducted. ShB, SB, KM, PS, and RT are shareholders in SPIL. ShB and KM are salaried employees of Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company (SPARC). KM also owns shares in SPARC.
The studies were approved by the Drug Controller General of India and performed at three (study 1) and five (study 2) sites across India in accordance with the Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and the Declaration of Helsinki. The study 1 protocol and informed consent form were approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the MNJ Institute of Oncology and Regional Cancer Center, Hyderabad, India; the Institutional Ethics Committee of Rajah Hospital, Madurai, India; and the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute, Kolkata, India. The study 2 protocols and informed consent forms were approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the MNJ Institute of Oncology and Regional Cancer Center, Hyderabad, India; the Institutional Ethics Committee of NRR Hospital, Bangalore, Karnataka, India; the Vadodara Ethics Committee of Kailash Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Goraj, Vadodara, India; the Medical Ethics Committee of Dr. Kamakshi Memorial Hospital, Chennai, India; and the Ethics Committee of Dr. G. Viswanathan Speciality Hospitals, Tamil Nadu, India.
For both studies, all patients provided written informed consent before participating in the study.
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
- 5.Ali SMSS, Ahmad A, Ahmad MU, Chen P, Paithankar M, Choudhury K, Makadia RD, Kumar A, Velavan K, Satheesh CT, Singh JK, Mamillapalli G, Saptarishi D, Kale P, Patel R, Barkate HV, Ahmad I (2016) Bioequivalence study of pegylated doxorubicin hydrochloride liposome (PEGADRIA) and DOXIL® in ovarian cancer patients: physicochemical characterization and pre-clinical studies. J Nanomed Nanotechnol 7:361. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7439.1000361 Google Scholar
- 6.Vici P, Colucci G, Giotta F, Sergi D, Filippelli G, Perri P, Botti C, Vizza E, Carpino A, Pizzuti L, Latorre A, Giannarelli D, Lopez M, Di Lauro L (2011) A multicenter prospective phase II randomized trial of epirubicin/vinorelbine versus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin/vinorelbine as first-line treatment in advanced breast cancer. A GOIM study. J Exp Clin Cancer Res: CR 30:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-9966-30-39 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Rahman AM, Yusuf SW, Ewer MS (2007) Anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity and the cardiac-sparing effect of liposomal formulation. Int J Nanomed 2(4):567–583Google Scholar
- 13.O’Brien ME, Wigler N, Inbar M, Rosso R, Grischke E, Santoro A, Catane R, Kieback DG, Tomczak P, Ackland SP, Orlandi F, Mellars L, Alland L, Tendler C (2004) Reduced cardiotoxicity and comparable efficacy in a phase III trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin HCl (CAELYX/Doxil) versus conventional doxorubicin for first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 15(3):440–449CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Keller AM, Mennel RG, Georgoulias VA, Nabholtz JM, Erazo A, Lluch A, Vogel CL, Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Henderson IC, Mellars L, Alland L, Tendler C (2004) Randomized phase III trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus vinorelbine or mitomycin C plus vinblastine in women with taxane-refractory advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 22(19):3893–3901. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2004.08.157 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Briasoulis E, Pentheroudakis G, Karavasilis V, Tzamakou E, Rammou D, Pavlidis N (2004) Weekly paclitaxel combined with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (CaelyxTM) given every 4 weeks: dose-finding and pharmacokinetic study in patients with advanced solid tumors. Ann Oncol 15(10):1566–1573. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdh404 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Batist G, Ramakrishnan G, Rao CS, Chandrasekharan A, Gutheil J, Guthrie T, Shah P, Khojasteh A, Nair MK, Hoelzer K, Tkaczuk K, Park YC, Lee LW (2001) Reduced cardiotoxicity and preserved antitumor efficacy of liposome-encapsulated doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide compared with conventional doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in a randomized, multicenter trial of metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19(5):1444–1454CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Schmid P, Krocker J, Jehn C, Michniewicz K, Lehenbauer-Dehm S, Eggemann H, Heilmann V, Kümmel S, Schulz CO, Dieing A, Wischnewsky MB, Hauptmann S, Elling D, Possinger K, Flath B (2005) Primary chemotherapy with gemcitabine as prolonged infusion, non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and docetaxel in patients with early breast cancer: final results of a phase II trial. Annals Oncol 16(10):1624–1631. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdi321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Tuscano JM, Martin SM, Ma Y, Zamboni W, O’Donnell RT (2010) Efficacy, biodistribution, and pharmacokinetics of CD22-targeted pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in a B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma xenograft mouse model. Clin Cancer Res 16(10):2760–2768. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-09-3199 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Markman M, Kennedy A, Webster K, Peterson G, Kulp B, Belinson J (2000) Phase 2 trial of liposomal doxorubicin (40 mg/m2) in platinum/paclitaxel-refractory ovarian and fallopian tube cancers and primary carcinoma of the peritoneum. Gynecol Oncol 78(3 Pt 1):369–372. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2000.5921 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Adams SF, Marsh EB, Elmasri W, Halberstadt S, VanDecker S, Sammel MD, Bradbury AR, Daly M, Karlan B, Rubin SC (2011) A high response rate to liposomal doxorubicin is seen among women with BRCA mutations treated for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 123(3):486–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.08.032 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 23.Strauss HG, Hemsen A, Karbe I, Lautenschlager C, Persing M, Thomssen C (2008) Phase II trial of biweekly pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in recurrent platinum-refractory ovarian and peritoneal cancer. Anti-cancer Drugs 19(5):541–545. https://doi.org/10.1097/CAD.0b013e3282fcbbf7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.European Medicines Agency (2010) Caelyx doxorubicin hydrochloride. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/000089/human_med_000683.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124. Accessed 10 July 2018
- 27.Lionberger R (2015) Pharmaceutical science for generic drugs: the science of equivalence. http://www.nipte.org/sites/default/files//documents/Lionberger.pdf. Accessed 23 Sept 2016
- 29.Davit BM, Nwakama PE, Buehler GJ, Conner DP, Haidar SH, Patel DT, Yang Y, Yu LX, Woodcock J (2009) Comparing generic and innovator drugs: a review of 12 years of bioequivalence data from the United States Food and Drug Administration. Ann Pharmacother 43(10):1583–1597. https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1M141 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Committee for Human Medicinal Products (CHMP) (2013) Reflection paper on the data requirements for intravenous liposomal products developed with reference to an innovator liposomal product. London, UKGoogle Scholar
- 31.US Food and Drug Administration (2017) Draft guidance on doxorubicin hydrochloride. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM199635.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2018
- 32.US Food and Drug Administration (2001) Guidance for industry. bioanalytical method validationGoogle Scholar
- 33.Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) (2010) Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence. London, UKGoogle Scholar
- 35.Burade V, Bhowmick S, Maiti K, Zalawadia R, Jain D, Rajamannar T (2017) Comparative plasma and tissue distribution of Sun Pharma’s generic doxorubicin HCl liposome injection versus Caelyx((R)) (doxorubicin HCl liposome injection) in syngeneic fibrosarcoma-bearing BALB/c mice and Sprague-Dawley rats. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 79(5):899–913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-017-3278-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 36.Burade V, Bhowmick S, Maiti K, Zalawadia R, Ruan H, Thennati R (2017) Lipodox(R) (generic doxorubicin hydrochloride liposome injection): in vivo efficacy and bioequivalence versus Caelyx(R) (doxorubicin hydrochloride liposome injection) in human mammary carcinoma (MX-1) xenograft and syngeneic fibrosarcoma (WEHI 164) mouse models. BMC cancer 17(1):405. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3377-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 37.Smith JA, Costales AB, Jaffari M, Urbauer DL, Frumovitz M, Kutac CK, Tran H, Coleman RL (2016) Is it equivalent? Evaluation of the clinical activity of single agent Lipodox(R) compared to single agent Doxil(R) in ovarian cancer treatment. J Oncol Pharm Pract 22(4):599–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155215594415 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar