IntroductionTo evaluate the possibility that switching from reference biologic medicines to biosimilars could lead to altered clinical outcomes, including enhanced immunogenicity, compromised safety, or diminished efficacy for patients, a systematic literature review was conducted of all switching studies between related biologics (including biosimilars).MethodsA systematic search was conducted using the Medline® and Embase® databases up to 30 June 2017 employing specific medical subject heading terms. Additionally, the snowball method and a hand search were also applied. Publications were considered if they contained efficacy or safety information related to a switch from a reference medicine to a biosimilar. Non-English, non-human studies, editorials, notes, and short surveys were excluded.ResultsPrimary data were available from 90 studies that enrolled 14,225 unique individuals. They included protein medicines used in supportive care as well as those used as therapeutic agents. The medicines contained seven different molecular entities that were used to treat 14 diseases. The great majority of the publications did not report differences in immunogenicity, safety, or efficacy. The nature and intensity of safety signals reported after switching from reference medicines to biosimilars were the same as those already known from continued use of the reference medicines alone. Three large multiple switch studies with different biosimilars did not show differences in efficacy or safety after multiple switches between reference medicine and biosimilar. Two publications reported a loss of efficacy or increased dropout rates.ConclusionsWhile use of each biologic must be assessed individually, these results provide reassurance to healthcare professionals and the public that the risk of immunogenicity-related safety concerns or diminished efficacy is unchanged after switching from a reference biologic to a biosimilar medicine.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40265-018-0881-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Background Lenalidomide and dexamethasone has been a standard of care in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The addition of a third drug to the combination is likely to improve treatment efficacy. KEYNOTE-185 assessed the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide and dexamethasone with and without pembrolizumab in patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma. Here, we present the results of an unplanned interim analysis done to assess the benefit-risk of the combination at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).Methods KEYNOTE-185 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at 95 medical centres across 15 countries (
Although all bortezomib-containing regimens produced good outcomes, VTD and VMP did not appear to offer an advantage over VD in transplantation-ineligible patients with myeloma treated in US community practice.
• The CHAMPION-1 study is the first clinical trial to investigate carfilzomib on a once-weekly dosing schedule with dexamethasone.• Once-weekly carfilzomib (30-minute infusion; 20 and 70 mg/m 2 ) with dexamethasone is feasible and effective in relapsed/refractory MM. , the most common grade ‡3 adverse events were fatigue (11%) and hypertension (7%). Overall response rate at 70 mg/m 2 was 77%. Median progression-free survival was 12.6 months. These findings merit additional evaluation of the once-weekly dosing regimen. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials. gov as #NCT01677858. (Blood. 2016;127(26):3360-3368)
Enzastaurin did not significantly improve DFS in patients with high-risk DLBCL after achieving complete response to R-CHOP. Achievement of a complete response may have abrogated the prognostic significance of cell of origin by immunohistochemistry.
The NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 is a descriptive terminology which can be utilized for Adverse Event (AE) reporting. A grading (severity) scale is provided for each AE term.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.