The lancet oncology
-
Biosimilars are considered to be one of the solutions to combat the substantially increasing costs of cancer treatment, and its imminent introduction is expected to expand affordability worldwide. However, biosimilar monoclonal antibodies provide many challenges compared with first-generation biosimilars, growth factors, and hormones, because they have shown only a modest clinical effect, and are often used in combination with other more toxic therapies, making it difficult to design studies that allow appropriate efficacy and safety assessments compared with the original products. The value of comparative clinical trials for showing clinical equivalence of biosimilars that demonstrate a high degree of similarity in physical, chemical, structural, and biological characteristics with the original product is increasingly being questioned, and advances in analytical methods that provide robust non-clinical data might reduce the need for extensive clinical comparisons. In this Series paper, the third of three papers on drug safety in oncology, we review the safety and efficacy of biosimilars in oncology, assessing biosimilar monoclonal antibodies in relation to first-generation biosimilars, the issues surrounding interchangeability and extrapolation of biosimilars to other disease and patient indications, and reassessing the safety approval pathway in light of 10 years worth of biosimilar experience.
-
Although the availability of generic oncology drugs allows access to contemporary care and reduces costs, there is international variability in the safety of this class of drugs. In this Series paper, we review clinical, policy, safety, and regulatory considerations for generic oncology drugs focusing on the USA, Canada, the European Union (EU), Japan, China, and India. Safety information about generic formulations is reviewed from one agent in each class, for heavy metal drugs (cisplatin), targeted agents (imatinib), and cytotoxic agents (docetaxel). ⋯ For developing countries, oversight is less intensive, and concerns around drug safety still exist. Regulatory agencies should collaboratively develop procedures to monitor the production, shipment, storage, and post-marketing safety of generic oncology drugs. Regulatory agencies for each country should also aim towards identical definitions of bioequivalence, the cornerstone of regulatory approval.
-
The lancet oncology · Nov 2016
Review21st century pharmacovigilance: efforts, roles, and responsibilities.
In an era when the number of expedited and conditional review pathways for newly available brand-name drugs and biosimilar medicines to treat serious and life-threatening diseases is increasing, defining pharmacovigilance has never been more crucial. 21st century pharmacovigilance is not merely about uncovering, reporting, and addressing adverse events associated with already approved and marketed agents, but can be described as the systematic monitoring of the process of pre-market review and post-market surveillance, which includes the use of medicines in everyday practice. Pharmacovigilance identifies previously unrecognised adverse events or changes in the patterns of these effects, the quality and adequacy of drug supply, and should ensure effective communication with the public, health-care professionals, and patients about the optimum safety and effective use of medicines. In this paper, the first in a Series of three about drug safety in oncology, we discuss evolving challenges in the purview, roles, and responsibilities of the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency with respect to pharmacovigilance efforts, with a special emphasis on oncology treatment.
-
The lancet oncology · Nov 2016
ReviewAnalysing data from patient-reported outcome and quality of life endpoints for cancer clinical trials: a start in setting international standards.
Measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes generate important data in cancer randomised trials to assist in assessing the risks and benefits of cancer therapies and fostering patient-centred cancer care. However, the various ways these measures are analysed and interpreted make it difficult to compare results across trials, and hinders the application of research findings to inform publications, product labelling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. ⋯ This consortium, directed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), was convened to provide recommendations on how to standardise the analysis of HRQOL and other patient-reported outcomes data in cancer randomised trials. This Personal View discusses the reasons why this project was initiated, the rationale for the planned work, and the expected benefits to cancer research, patient and provider decision making, care delivery, and policy making.