A review emphasizes that bevacizumab biosimilars demonstrate comparable efficacy to the reference product (Avastin) in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) by tackling wound healing concerns in anorectal medicine.
Image credit: Dr_Microbe - stock.adobe.com
A review highlighted bevacizumab biosimilars as a promising treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) by targeting wound healing complications in anorectal medicine, showing that bevacizumab biosimilars had similar safety and efficacy compared with the reference product (Avastin).
The review, published in International Wound Journal, also found that bevacizumab biosimilars could lead to potential cost savings and enhanced quality of care for patients.
“Given the high cost of cancer treatment, the potential cost savings attributable to biosimilars, which do not compromise treatment efficacy, are substantial. In addition to ensuring the financial viability of health care systems, this may also make treatments accessible to a larger patient population,” wrote the authors.
Effective wound healing is often hindered by CRC and its treatments, posing a significant concern in managing the condition. Complications during wound healing can significantly prolong recovery and may require additional medical interventions, particularly impactful in anatomical medicine where surgeries are common and diligent wound care is crucial for patient recovery and overall well-being.
This present study was conducted to address the increasing global concern of CRC, its multifaceted origins, and the challenges associated with its treatment and early detection, particularly focusing on the potential of a bevacizumab biosimilar to improve patient outcomes by targeting wound healing complications.
Researchers searched 4 databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab biosimilars in patients with CRC. Of the 918 research articles originally detected, 9 studies were included in the analysis.
Studies consistently showed that experimental groups (patients received a biosimilar) outperformed control groups (patients received the originator), indicating the effectiveness of the interventions under investigation. Differences in mean durations and percentages between control and experimental groups varied across studies, with some demonstrating clear distinctions while others showed more modest contrasts.
In one study the biosimilar group had an average success rate of 87.6% compared with the reference product group's 71.4%, representing a notable difference of 16.2 percentage points. Similarly, another study reported a rise in the biosimilar group, which had a mean success rate of 92.6% compared with the reference product group's mean of 78.6%. However, another study revealed a smaller mean difference of 6.0% between the biosimilar and originator groups.
Regarding mean durations, some studies found significantly longer durations in the biosimilar group compared with the originator group, with differences ranging from 5.5 months to almost insignificant differences. Additionally, mean percentage differences varied substantially across studies, with some showing pronounced contrasts and others demonstrating more modest differences.
The authors noted that, “Individual results may vary, despite the fact that biosimilars generally maintain a comparable profile to the originator biologic, as evidenced by the variation in results across studies, particularly in terms of percentage disparities in therapeutic efficacy and duration. Outcomes can be affected by study design, patient demographics, CRC staging, and concurrent treatments.”
Reference
Li T, Mei Z, Shi L, et al. Evaluation of bevacizumab biosimilar on wound healing complications in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis in anorectal medicine. Int Wound J. 2024;21(1):e14638. doi:10.1111/iwj.14638
Biosimilars Oncology Roundup for June 2024—Podcast Edition
July 7th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we review biosimilar news coming out of June, with clinical trial results from conferences and a study showcasing how to overcome economic and noneconomic barriers to oncology biosimilars.
Biosimilar Approvals Streamlined With Advanced Statistics Amidst Differing Regulatory Requirements
February 25th 2025The FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) mandate high similarity between biosimilars and reference products, but their regulatory processes differ, especially with multiple reference products.
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.
CHMP Pushes 3 Biosimilars Forward, Spelling Hope for Ophthalmology, Supportive Care Markets
February 6th 2025The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) recommended 3 biosimilars and new indications for reference biologics, moving them closer to final European approval and expanding patient access.
The Biosimilar Void: 90% of Biologics Coming Off Patent Will Lack Biosimilars
February 5th 2025Of the 118 biologics losing exclusivity over the next decade, only 10% have biosimilars in development, meaning a vast majority of biologics have no pipeline, which limits savings potential for the health care system.