Advertisement

BioDrugs

pp 1–15 | Cite as

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilar Rituximab and Originator Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

  • Soohyun Lee
  • Heeyoung Lee
  • EunYoung KimEmail author
Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

Rituximab is a biologic medicine widely used for the treatment of autoimmune diseases and lymphoma. Several biosimilars of rituximab have been developed and marketed with the expiration of the originator rituximab’s patent; thus, systematic combination and analysis of the latest data on the efficacy and safety of biosimilars and the demonstration of the interchangeability of biosimilar agents are required.

Objective

The objective of this study was to collate available data from head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and evaluate the efficacy and safety of biosimilar rituximab compared with the reference drug in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL).

Methods

The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify head-to-head RCTs that directly compare the efficacy and safety of biosimilar rituximab and its originator. The efficacy outcome for RA was the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates and the outcome for NHL was the response rate. The occurrence of adverse events (AEs) and anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) were evaluated for the safety outcome. Data on the pharmacokinetic profile were also included as a secondary outcome.

Results

Eleven head-to-head RCTs with 3163 patients were included (1744 patients with RA and 1419 patients with NHL). Biosimilars of rituximab showed similar efficacy in the clinical response in both RA and NHL. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of the ACR 20% response rate (ACR20) response in patients with RA at weeks 24 and 48 was 0.99 (p = 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92–1.06) and 1.04 (p = 0.73, 95% CI 0.83–1.31), respectively. The pooled RR of the overall response at week 24 in NHL patients was 1.02 (p = 0.31, 95% CI 0.98–1.07). No significant differences were found in the formation of ADAs (RR 0.86, p = 0.20, 95% CI 0.68–1.08) or AEs (RR 1.04, p = 0.30, 95% CI 0.97–1.12).

Conclusion

This systematic review and conventional meta-analysis demonstrated the overall similarity of the long-term efficacy and safety of biosimilar rituximab to those of originator rituximab in RA and NHL patients by combining direct evidence from head-to-head trials.

PROSPERO registration No. CRD42019125138.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Chung-Ang University Research Scholarship Grants, 2018 (Soohyun Lee) and by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2018R1D1A1B07046564).

Author contributions

SL and EK designed the study. SL and HL carried out data extraction and data analysis. SL wrote the initial manuscript. All the authors contributed to the revision of the article and approved the submission of the final manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This research is supported by the 2019 Chung-Ang University Research Scholarship Grants (Soohyun Lee) and by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2018R1D1A1B07046564).

Conflicts of interest

Soohyun Lee, Heeyoung Lee, and Eunyoung Kim declare that they have no competing interests related to this study.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not applicable for this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data availability

All the materials used in this systematic review and meta-analysis have been fully referenced.

Supplementary material

40259_2019_376_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (2.8 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 2821 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    FDA. Rituxan: highlights of prescribing information. 2019. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2019/103705s5454lbl.pdf. Accessed 3 Mar 2019.
  2. 2.
    EMA. MabThera: summary of product characteristics. 2019. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/mabthera-epar-product-information_en.pdf. Accessed 22 Mar 2019.
  3. 3.
    EvaluatePharma® world preview 2018, outlook to 2024. 2018. http://www.evaluate.com/thought-leadership/pharma/evaluatepharma-world-preview-2018-outlook-2024. Accessed 20 Mar 2019.
  4. 4.
    Kozlowski S, Woodcock J, Midthun K, Sherman RB. Developing the nation’s biosimilars program. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):385–8.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1107285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baer WH II, Maini A, Jacobs I. Barriers to the access and use of rituximab in patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a physician survey. Pharmaceuticals. 2014;7(5):530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gulacsi L, Brodszky V, Baji P, Kim H, Kim SY, Cho YY, et al. Biosimilars for the management of rheumatoid arthritis: economic considerations. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2015;11:S43–52.  https://doi.org/10.1586/1744666x.2015.1090313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nabhan C, Parsad S, Mato AR, Feinberg BA. Biosimilars in oncology in the United States: a review. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(2):241–7.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mehr SR, Brook RA. Biosimilars in the USA: will new efforts to spur approvals and access spur uptake and cost savings? Pharm Med. 2019;33(1):1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-018-00262-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    EMA. Guideline on similar biological medicinal products. 2014. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/similar-biological-medicinal-products. Accessed 20 Mar 2019.
  10. 10.
    FDA. Scientific considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity to a reference product. 2015. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM291128.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2019.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    EMA. Trixima EPAR summary for the public. 2016. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/truxima. Accessed 23 Mar 2019.
  14. 14.
    FDA. FDA approves first biosimilar for treatment of adult patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. 2018. https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm627009.htm. Accessed 24 Feb 2019.
  15. 15.
    Leonard E, Wascovich M, Oskouei S, Gurz P, Carpenter D. Factors affecting health care provider knowledge and acceptance of biosimilar medicines: a systematic review. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019;25(1):102–12.  https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2019.25.1.102.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chingcuanco F, Segal JB, Kim SC, Alexander GC. Bioequivalence of biosimilar tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors compared with their reference biologics: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(8):565–74.  https://doi.org/10.7326/m16-0428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Komaki Y, Yamada A, Komaki F, Kudaravalli P, Micic D, Ido A, et al. Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of biosimilars of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents in rheumatic diseases; a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Autoimmun. 2017;79:4–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaut.2017.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Komaki Y, Yamada A, Komaki F, Micic D, Ido A, Sakuraba A. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the efficacy and safety of CT-P13, a biosimilar of anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha agent (infliximab), in inflammatory bowel diseases. Aliment Pharm Ther. 2017;45(8):1043–57.  https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.13990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moots RJ, Curiale C, Petersel D, Rolland C, Jones H, Mysler E. Efficacy and safety outcomes for originator TNF inhibitors and biosimilars in rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis trials: a systematic literature review. BioDrugs. 2018;32(3):193–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-018-0283-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Botteri E, Krendyukov A, Curigliano G. Comparing granulocyte colony-stimulating factor filgrastim and pegfilgrastim to its biosimilars in terms of efficacy and safety: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials in breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2018;89:49–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.10.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Amato L, Addis A, Saulle R, Trotta F, Mitrova Z, Davoli M. Comparative efficacy and safety in ESA biosimilars vs. originators in adults with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nephrol. 2018;31(3):321–32.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-017-0419-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chiumente M, Mengato D, Messori A. Rituximab biosimilar evaluated by network meta-analysis. Haematologica. 2017;102(12):e497–8.  https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2017.175042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chiumente M, Messori A. Rituximab biosimilar in rheumatoid arthritis: an enhanced-evidence assessment to evaluate equivalence with the originator based on network meta-analysis. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2017;9(10):271–3.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1759720x17721151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bae SC, Lee YH. Comparative efficacy and safety of biosimilar rituximab and originator rituximab in combination with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019;57(4):188–96.  https://doi.org/10.5414/cp203360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thorlund K, Mills EJ. Sample size and power considerations in network meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):41.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:9.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [software]. Hamilton: McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.); 2015.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ, et al. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336(7651):995–8.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.BE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M, Bombardier C, Furst D, Goldsmith C, et al. American college of rheumatology preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38(6):727–35.  https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780380602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fransen J, van Riel P. The Disease Activity Score and the EULAR response criteria. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23(5):S93–9.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Felson DT, LaValley MP. The ACR34 and defining a threshold for response in rheumatic diseases: too much of a good thing. Arthritis Res Ther. 2014;16(1):101.  https://doi.org/10.1186/ar4428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bredemeier M, de Oliveira FK, Rocha CM. Low- versus high-dose rituximab for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014;66(2):228–35.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Park W, Bozic-Majstorovic L, Milakovic D, Berrocal-Kasay A, El-Khouri EC, Irazoque-Palazuelos F, et al. Comparison of biosimilar CT-P10 and innovator rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial. mAbs. 2018;2018:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2018.1487912.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Suh CH, Yoo DH, Berrocal Kasay A, Chalouhi El-Khouri E, Cons Molina FF, Shesternya P, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of biosimilar CT-P10 versus innovator rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis: 48-week results from a randomized phase III trial. BioDrugs. 2019;33(1):79–91.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-018-00331-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Eremeeva A, Chernyaeva E, Ivanov R, Nasonov E, Knyazeva L. Comparison of efficacy and safety of rituximab biosimilar, BCD-020, and innovator rituximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to TNFa inhibitors. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75:513–4.  https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-eular.1715.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yoo DH, Suh CH, Shim SC, Jeka S, Cons-Molina FF, Hrycaj P, et al. A multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of CT-P10 and innovator rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;76(3):566–70.  https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yoo DH, Suh CH, Shim SC, Jeka S, Molina FFC, Hrycaj P, et al. Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of up to two courses of the rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 versus innovator rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results up to week 72 of a phase I randomized controlled trial. BioDrugs. 2017;31(4):357–67.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-017-0232-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cohen S, Emery P, Greenwald M, Yin D, Becker JC, Melia LA, et al. A phase I pharmacokinetics trial comparing PF-05280586 (a potential biosimilar) and rituximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;82(1):129–38.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.12916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Smolen JS, Cohen SB, Tony HP, Scheinberg M, Kivitz A, Balanescu A, et al. A randomised, double-blind trial to demonstrate bioequivalence of GP2013 and reference rituximab combined with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(9):1598–602.  https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-211281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kim WS, Buske C, Ogura M, Jurczak W, Sancho JM, Zhavrid E, et al. Efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety of the biosimilar CT-P10 compared with rituximab in patients with previously untreated advanced-stage follicular lymphoma: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4(8):e362–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30120-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ogura M, Sancho JM, Cho SG, Nakazawa H, Suzumiya J, Tumyan G, et al. Efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety of the biosimilar CT-P10 in comparison with rituximab in patients with previously untreated low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2018;5(11):e543–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-3026(18)30157-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jurczak W, Moreira I, Kanakasetty GB, Munhoz E, Echeveste MA, Giri P, et al. Rituximab biosimilar and reference rituximab in patients with previously untreated advanced follicular lymphoma (ASSIST-FL): primary results from a confirmatory phase 3, double-blind, randomised, controlled study. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4(8):e350–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-3026(17)30106-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pfizer. A study of PF-05280586 (rituximab-Pfizer) or MabThera® (rituximab-EU) for the first-line treatment of patients with CD20-positive, low tumor burden, follicular lymphoma (REFLECTIONS B328–06) [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02213263]. National Institutes of Health, ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02213263. Accessed 22 Mar 2019.
  49. 49.
    Faltinsen EG, Storebo OJ, Jakobsen JC, Boesen K, Lange T, Gluud C. Network meta-analysis: the highest level of medical evidence? BMJ Evid Based Med. 2018;23(2):56–9.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2017-110887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Papageorgiou SN, Tsiranidou E, Antonoglou GN, Deschner J, Jäger A. Choice of effect measure for meta-analyses of dichotomous outcomes influenced the identified heterogeneity and direction of small-study effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(5):534–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.00.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schechtman E. Odds ratio, relative risk, absolute risk reduction, and the number needed to treat—which of these should we use? Value Health. 2002;5(5):431–6.  https://doi.org/10.1046/J.1524-4733.2002.55150.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Seta T, Takahashi Y, Noguchi Y, Shikata S, Sakai T, Sakai K, et al. Effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori eradication in the prevention of primary gastric cancer in healthy asymptomatic people: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing risk ratio with risk difference. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0183321.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Citrome L. Relative vs. absolute measures of benefit and risk: what’s the difference? Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2010;121(2):94–102.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2009.01449.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    FDA. Clinical review(s): BLA 761088. 2018. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2018/761088Orig1s000MedR.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2019.
  55. 55.
  56. 56.
    EMA. Immunogenicity assessment of biotechnology-derived therapeutic proteins. 18 May 2017. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/immunogenicity-assessment-biotechnology-derived-therapeutic-proteins. Accessed 29 Feb 2019.
  57. 57.
    Strand V, Balsa A, Al-Saleh J, Barile-Fabris L, Horiuchi T, Takeuchi T, et al. Immunogenicity of biologics in chronic inflammatory diseases: a systematic review. BioDrugs. 2017;31(4):299–316.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-017-0231-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    EMA. Similar biological medicinal products containing monoclonal antibodies; non-clinical and clinical issues. 2012. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/similar-biological-medicinal-products-containing-monoclonal-antibodies-non-clinical-clinical-issues. Accessed 3 Mar 2019.
  59. 59.
    FDA. FDA considerations in demonstrating interchangeability with a reference product. https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/General/ucm444891.htm. Accessed 3 Mar 2019.
  60. 60.
    Mulcahy AW, Hlavka JP, Case SR. Biosimilar cost savings in the United States: initial experience and future potential. Rand Health Q. 2018;7(4):3.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gulacsi L, Brodszky V, Baji P, Rencz F, Pentek M. The rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 in rheumatology and cancer: a budget impact analysis in 28 European countries. Adv Ther. 2017;34(5):1128–44.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-017-0522-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Treadwell JR, Uhl S, Tipton K, Shamliyan T, Viswanathan M, Berkman ND, et al. Assessing equivalence and noninferiority. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(11):1144–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health, Social and Clinical Pharmacy, College of PharmacyChung-Ang UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.College of PharmacyGachon UniversityInchonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations