ABSTRACT
Background
By 8 September 2022, 10 biological monoclonal antibody (mAb) biosimilar products for cancer treatment had been approved and marketed in the United States (US). This study examined adverse event (AE) reporting patterns and disproportionate reporting signals for mAb biosimilars in the US compared to their originator biologics.
Research design and methods
The US Food and Drug Adverse Event Reporting System database was used to identify AE reports for biological rituximab, bevacizumab, trastuzumab, and their marketed biosimilars. Proportions of patient age, sex and type of reporters of AEs were described for these reports. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to compare reporting disproportionality in serious, death, and specific AEs between mAb biologics/biosimilars (index) and all other drugs. Breslow-Day statistic was used to determine homogeneity in RORs between each mAb biologic–biosimilar pair at p < 0.05.
Results
We observed no risk signals of serious or death AE reporting for all three mAb biosimilars. A signal of disproportionate reporting of death was detected between biological and biosimilar bevacizumab (p < 0.05).
Conclusions
Our findings support the similarity in signals of disproportionate AE reporting between mAb originator biologics and biosimilars, except for death between biological and biosimilar bevacizumab.
Declaration of interest
The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.
Data availability statement
The US FDA FAERS data supporting the results reported in the article can be accessed and downloaded from https://fis.fda.gov/extensions/FPD-QDE-FAERS/FPD-QDE-FAERS.html.
Reviewer disclosures
Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.
Ethics statement
The study was granted exemption by the Auburn University Institutional Review Board, and the study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Author contributions
X Xue and J Qian had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis; Study concept and design: X Xue and J Qian; Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: X Xue, CB Truong and J Qian; Drafting of the paper: X Xue and J Qian; Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content: X Xue, CB Truong and J Qian; Statistical analysis: X Xue and CB Truong; Study supervision: J Qian.
Supplementary material
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2023.2189007