Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33586299›Full record

ReviewThe oncologist2021

The First 2 Years of Biosimilar Epoetin for Cancer and Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia in the U.S.: A Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions.

Charles L Bennett, Sumimasa Nagai, Andrew C Bennett, Shamia Hoque, Chadi Nabhan, Martin W Schoen, William J Hrushesky, Stefano Luminari, Paul Ray, Paul R Yarnold and 13 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The oncologist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 62% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 12 institutions in 3 countries.

Charles L BennettToni Stephenson Lymphoma Center, the Hematologic Malignancies Research Institute, the Beckman Research Institute, of the City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California.
Sumimasa NagaiThe University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Andrew C BennettCollege of Pharmacy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Shamia HoqueDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering and Computing, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Chadi NabhanCollege of Pharmacy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Martin W SchoenSaint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri.
William J HrusheskyCollege of Pharmacy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Stefano LuminariHematology, AUSL IRCCS Reggio Emilia.
Paul RayCollege of Pharmacy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Paul R YarnoldCollege of Pharmacy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Bart WitherspoonCollege of Pharmacy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Josh RienteWilliam J Bryan Dorn Veterans Administration Medical Center, Columbia, South Carolina.
Laura BoboltsOncology Analytics, Atlanta, Georgia.
John BruskCollege of Pharmacy, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA.
Rebecca TomblesonCollege of Pharmacy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Kevin KnopfCollege of Pharmacy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Marc FishmanCollege of Pharmacy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Y Tony YangGeorge Washington University School of Nursing and Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, DC.
Kenneth R CarsonThe Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Rush University School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Benjamin DjulbegovicThe City of Hope, Beckman Research Institute, Department of Computational and Quantitative Medicine, Division of Health Analytics, Evidence-based Medicine & Comparative Effectiveness Research, Duarte, CA.
John RestainoCollege of Pharmacy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
James O ArmitageThe Department of Medicine, The University of Nebraska School of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska.
Oliver A SartorThe Department of Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana.
University of South Carolina · USNova Southeastern University · USBeckman Research InstituteIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITMilken Institute · USPiedmont Cancer Institute · USRush University · USSaint Louis University · USTulane University · USUniversity of Nebraska at Omaha · USUniversity of Tokyo Hospital · JPWm. Jennings Bryan Dorn VA Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biosimilars are biologic drug products that are highly similar to reference products in analytic features, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy. Biosimilar epoetin received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2018. The manufacturer received an FDA nonapproval letter in 2017, despite receiving a favorable review by FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) and an FDA nonapproval letter in 2015 for an earlier formulation. We discuss the 2018 FDA approval, the 2017 FDA ODAC Committee review, and the FDA complete response letters in 2015 and 2017; review concepts of litigation, naming, labeling, substitution, interchangeability, and pharmacovigilance; review European and U.S. oncology experiences with biosimilar epoetin; and review the safety of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. In 2020, policy statements from AETNA, United Health Care, and Humana indicated that new epoetin oncology starts must be for biosimilar epoetin unless medical need for other epoetins is documented. Empirical studies report that as of 2012, reference epoetin use decreased from 40%-60% of all patients with cancer with chemotherapy-induced anemia to <5% of such patients because of safety concerns. Between 2018 and 2020, biosimilar epoetin use varied, increasing to 81% among one private insurer's patients covered by Medicare whose cancer care is administered with Oncology Analytics and to 41% with the same private insurer's patients with cancer covered by commercial health insurance and administered by the private insurer, to 0% in several Veterans Administration Hospitals, increasing to 100% in one large county hospital in California, and with yet-to-be-reported data from most oncology settings. We conclude that biosimilar epoetin appears to have overcome some barriers since 2015, although current uptake in the U.S. is variable. Pricing and safety considerations for all erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are primary determinants of biosimilar epoetin oncology uptake. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Few oncologists understand substitution and interchangeability of biosimilars with reference drugs. Epoetin biosimilar is new to the market, and physician and patient understanding is limited. The development of epoetin biosimilar is not familiar to oncologists.

Indexed as

AnemiaAntineoplastic AgentsBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsNeoplasmsAgedEpoetin AlfaHumansMedicareUnited StatesAntineoplastic AgentsBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsEpoetin AlfaBiosimilarsEpoetinGuidelinesInterchangeableSubstitution

Identifiers

PMID33586299
PMCPMC8342584
OpenAlexW3131911105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.