Providers should feel confident using Mvasi, a bevacizumab biosimilar, for all indications of the reference product (Avastin), reviewers stated.
Reviewers evaluating the “totality of evidence” for the bevacizumab biosimilar Mvasi (ABP 215) found “no clinically meaningful differences” between the biosimilar and its reference product, and they also concluded “robust data” from multiple trials support extrapolation to all indications of the reference product.
Mvasi is approved in the United States and European Union for several oncology indications, including metastatic colorectal cancer, metastatic cervical cancer, and metastatic nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The authors stated they had no role in any of the human or animal studies included in their review.
Mvasi, an Amgen product, is a monoclonal antibody that binds with vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A) to retard blood vessel growth that contributes to tumor development. Mvasi was the first bevacizumab biosimilar approved in the United States (2017) and European Union (2018). In the United States, the biosimilar was launched in July 2019.
Analytical Similarity
According to the authors, analytical tests that compared Mvasi with reference product samples from the United States and European Union showed biosimilarity in physicochemical properties, including primary structure, secondary structure, and thermal stability.
Functional properties also were similar. The authors outlined studies that demonstrated Mvasi’s comparable binding affinity to VEGF, inhibition of VEGF binding to its receptor, and inhibition of proliferation of endothelial cells in vitro. “These findings indicate that [Mvasi] and the [reference product] have the same mechanism of action (MOA),” the authors wrote.
Pharmacokinetics
The authors cited 2 studies in healthy individuals that indicated comparable pharmacokinetic properties between Mvasi and its reference product. Safety and tolerability in these studies also were similar. None of the enrollees developed binding or neutralizing antidrug antibodies, investigators said.
Comparative Clinical Study
A comparative clinical trial (MAPLE) involving 642 patients with stage IV or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC who also received carboplatin and paclitaxel also demonstrated biosimilarity. The primary efficacy end point was the risk ratio of objective response rate (ORR, defined as best overall response). Objective responses were observed in 39.0% and 41.7% of patients receiving Mvasi and reference product, respectively, and the 2-sided confidence interval for ORR fell within the prespecified margin, indicating similar clinical efficacy.
Safety and immunogenicity indicators were also similar between groups. Among patients receiving Mvasi, 26.2% experienced a serious adverse event (AE), vs 23.0% for the reference product cohort; 18.8% and 17.2% of patients on Mvasi and the reference product, respectively, experienced an AE leading to discontinuation.
Anti-VEGF toxicities, such as hypertension, gastrointestinal perforation, or wound healing complications were similar between groups. Immunogenicity was low in both treatment groups, with 1.4% in the Mvasi group and 2.5% in the reference product group developing antidrug antibodies, which were transient in 1.0% and 1.1% of subjects, respectively. No patients tested positive for neutralizing antibodies.
Totality of Evidence
The authors concluded the totality of evidence supports the extrapolation of Mvasi to all approved indications of the reference product, as “no clinically meaningful differences were found in function, purity, potency, PK, clinical efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity.”
They said these studies “should provide oncologists with assurance about using [Mvasi] in treating all approved indications per the prescribing information in their country or region.”
Panelists Call for Consistent Education, Support to Improve Patient Comfort With Biosimilars
May 15th 2024At the Festival of Biologics USA, panelists stressed the need for patient-centered communication and education to boost comfort with biosimilars, emphasizing consistent support from health care providers despite restrictive payer policies.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for April 2024—Podcast Edition
May 5th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® glances back at all the major biosimilar policy updates from April, including 2 FDA approvals, 1 European approval, and several insights into possible policy changes from the Festival of Biologics USA conference.
Partnering for Biosimilar Security: India's Role in US Health Care Savings, Supply Chain Stability
May 9th 2024As Indian pharmaceutical companies supplied 4 of every 10 prescriptions in the US in 2022, generating $1.3 trillion in health care savings, a new IQVIA report highlights concerns about supply chain risks and advocates for partnerships to bolster biosimilar security and overall supply chain resilience.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
Cencora Analysis Shows Differences in Payer Coverage Between G-CSF Biosimilars
May 2nd 2024Data from a Cencora study showed some misalignment in payer coverage of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilars, highlighting that while filgrastim biosimilars are often favored over the originator, reference pegfilgrastim still dominates over its biosimilars.