Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37824143›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2023

Clinical Benefit, Price, and Uptake for Cancer Biosimilars vs Reference Drugs in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Xingxian Luo, Xin Du, Zhuangqi Li, Jingwen Liu, Xufeng Lv, Haoran Li, Qixiang Guo, Cen Wang, Xuecai Xue, Kaidi Le and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. An Overview and Trend Analysis of Biosimilar Approvals in China.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

13 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Xingxian LuoSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Xin DuSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Zhuangqi LiSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Jingwen LiuSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Xufeng LvCenter for Drug Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China.
Haoran LiSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Qixiang GuoSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Cen WangSchool of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Xuecai XueDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
Kaidi LeDepartment of Pharmacy, Cancer Institute & Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Xiaomeng JiangSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Lin HuangDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yue YangSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
National Medical Products Administration · CNTsinghua University · CNCenter for Life Sciences · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNFudan University · CNPeking University · CNPeking University People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The high cost of biologics used to treat cancer has been an increasing burden in the world. In China, the recent approval of cancer biosimilar drugs to resolve this problem is promising, but evidence of clinical benefits, price, and uptake for these drugs is still lacking. Objectives: To compare characteristics of pivotal clinical trials in China and other countries for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab and investigate the efficacy or effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity outcomes of cancer biosimilars compared with reference drugs by meta-analysis. Data Sources: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for published studies from database inception to February 1, 2023, using the search topics (cancers) AND (biosimilars). Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies that included patients with cancer were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two authors independently extracted the outcome estimates and characteristics for each study. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to summarize the relative estimates with 95% CIs. This study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical trial characteristics were collected for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. The relative estimates of efficacy or effectiveness (objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival), safety, and immunogenicity outcomes were analyzed for biosimilars vs reference drugs. The weighted average price and uptake rate were evaluated for biosimilars relative to their reference drugs between 2015 and 2022. Results: A total of 39 RCTs (involving 18 791 patients) and 10 cohort studies (involving 1998 patients) were included. The biosimilars of bevacizumab (16 RCTs; risk ratio [RR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.01; P = .17), rituximab (12 RCTs; RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.08; P = .70), and trastuzumab (9 RCTs: RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12; P = .29) met equivalence with reference biologics in regard to the objective response rate. The results summarized from cohort studies were consistent with those from RCTs. In 2022, cancer biosimilars were priced at 69% to 90% of the costs for the reference drugs, and their uptake reached 54% to 83% in China. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that cancer biosimilars provided comparable clinical benefits at lower prices compared with reference drugs. These findings suggest the potential feasibility of expediting the transition from reference drugs to biosimilars to benefit more patients with cancer.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsNeoplasmsBevacizumabHumansRituximabTrastuzumabBevacizumabBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsRituximabTrastuzumab

Identifiers

PMID37824143
PMCPMC10570888
OpenAlexW4387563505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.