Motola Domenico, Vaccheri Alberto, Roncadori Andrea, Donati Monia, Bonaldo Giulia, Covezzoli Anna, Polidori Piera, Bianchi Stefano
Unit of Pharmacology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, via Irnerio 48, 40126, Bologna, Italy.
CINECA - Interuniversity Consortium - Health Department, via Magnanelli 6/3, 40033, Casalecchio di Reno, BO, Italy.
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jun;74(6):805-810. doi: 10.1007/s00228-018-2428-2. Epub 2018 Feb 10.
PURPOSE: The aim of this multicenter prospective study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) vs originator, based on data from clinical practice in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: We collected data of the patients with diagnosis of CKD on conservative treatment from nine Italian structures. Patients were enrolled applying different exclusion criteria, and various individual parameters were registered at the beginning for descriptive analysis. Patients were treated with epoetin alfa, beta, and darbepoetin as originator and epoetin zeta as biosimilar. Hemoglobin levels have been analyzed at baseline and after 3, 6, and 12 months. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results. RESULTS: At baseline, 47 patients were in the biosimilar group and 57 in the originator; the basal level of hemoglobin was similar between the groups (mean Hb 9.4 and 9.3 g/dL, respectively). Median age, weight, and comorbidities were almost comparable. After 3 months, 44 patients remained in the biosimilar group and 48 in the originator; hemoglobin increase was significantly greater in patients treated with biosimilar [absolute increase 1.6 vs 1.0 g/dL, p < 0.001]. After 6 and 12 months, number of patients fall furthermore. Hemoglobin levels increased more in the biosimilar group after 6 months (2.1 vs 1.1 g/dL, p < 0.001) and 12 months (2.0 vs 1.0 g/dL, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilar ESAs have similar risk/benefit profile compared to originators. Our data are in agreement with relevant scientific literature and, on the other hand, they are in contrast with common thought that considers biosimilar less efficacious and less safe than originators.
目的:这项多中心前瞻性研究的目的是,基于慢性肾脏病(CKD)患者临床实践数据,评估生物类似物促红细胞生成素(ESA)与原研药相比的疗效和安全性。 方法:我们收集了来自意大利九个机构的接受保守治疗的CKD患者的数据。患者入组时应用了不同的排除标准,并在开始时记录了各种个体参数以进行描述性分析。患者分别接受原研药阿法依泊汀、贝他依泊汀和达贝泊汀,以及生物类似物zeta依泊汀治疗。在基线时以及3、6和12个月后分析血红蛋白水平。使用描述性统计分析结果。 结果:在基线时,生物类似物组有47名患者,原研药组有57名患者;两组之间血红蛋白的基础水平相似(平均血红蛋白分别为9.4和9.3 g/dL)。中位年龄、体重和合并症几乎具有可比性。3个月后,生物类似物组有44名患者,原研药组有48名患者;接受生物类似物治疗的患者血红蛋白增加明显更大[绝对增加1.6 vs 1.0 g/dL,p < 0.001]。6个月和12个月后,患者数量进一步减少。生物类似物组在6个月后(2.1 vs 1.1 g/dL,p < 0.001)和12个月后(2.0 vs 1.0 g/dL,p < 0.001)血红蛋白水平升高更多。 结论:与原研药相比,生物类似物ESA具有相似的风险/获益情况。我们的数据与相关科学文献一致,另一方面,它们与认为生物类似物比原研药疗效更低、安全性更差的普遍观点形成对比。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014-12-8
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023-2-13
Clin Rheumatol. 2016-12
Pril (Makedon Akad Nauk Umet Odd Med Nauki). 2016
Lancet Oncol. 2015-12-23
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014-12-8