Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2022
A prospective, open-label, randomised, parallel design study of 4 generic formulations of intramuscular L-asparaginase in childhood precursor B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL).
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Johnson Suja, Dhamne Chetan, Sankaran Hari, Gandhi Khushboo A, Rane Pallavi, Moulik Nirmaly Roy, Jadhav Shraddha Mahesh, Gurjar Murari, Narula Gaurav, Banavali Shripad, Gota Vikram
Аннотация
AIMS: L-asparaginase is an essential medicine for childhood ALL. The quality of generic L-asparaginase available in India is a matter of concern. We compared four commonly used generic formulations of L-asparaginase in India.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, open-label, randomised trial of four generic formulations of asparaginase for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed intermediate-risk B-ALL. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive generic asparaginase at a dose of at 10,000 IU/m 2 on days 9, 12, 15, and 18 of a 35-day cycle (Induction treatment). The primary end points were to determine the difference in the asparaginase activity and asparagine depletion. Historical patients who received L-asparaginase Medac (innovator) served as controls.
RESULTS: A total of 48 patients underwent randomization; 12 patients each in the four arms. Failure to achieve predefined activity threshold of 100 IU/L was observed in 9/40 samples of Generic A (22·5%), 23/40 of Generic B (57·5%), and 43/44 (98%) each of Generic C and D. All 27 samples from seven historical patients who were administered Medac had activity > 100 IU/L. The average activity was significantly higher for Genericm A, 154 (70·3, 285·4) IU/L followed by Generic B 84·5(44·2, 289·1) IU/L, Generic C 45(14·4, 58·4) IU/L, and Generic D 20·4(13, 35) IU/L. Only 6 patients had asparaginase activity > 100 IU/L on each of the four occasions (Generic A = 5; Generic B = 1), and none of them developed Anti-Asparaginase Antibodies (AAA). On the other hand, AAA was observed in 12/36 patients who had at least one level < 100 IU/L (P < 0·05): Generic A 3/5, Generic B = 3/9, Generic D (4/11), and Generic C (5/11).
CONCLUSION: Generic A and B had better trough asparaginase activity compared to Generic D and C. Overall, generic formulations had lower asparaginase activity which raises serious clinical concerns regarding their quality. Until strict regulatory enforcement improves the quality of these generics, dose adaptive approaches coupled with therapeutic drug monitoring need to be considered.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, open-label, randomised trial of four generic formulations of asparaginase for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed intermediate-risk B-ALL. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive generic asparaginase at a dose of at 10,000 IU/m 2 on days 9, 12, 15, and 18 of a 35-day cycle (Induction treatment). The primary end points were to determine the difference in the asparaginase activity and asparagine depletion. Historical patients who received L-asparaginase Medac (innovator) served as controls.
RESULTS: A total of 48 patients underwent randomization; 12 patients each in the four arms. Failure to achieve predefined activity threshold of 100 IU/L was observed in 9/40 samples of Generic A (22·5%), 23/40 of Generic B (57·5%), and 43/44 (98%) each of Generic C and D. All 27 samples from seven historical patients who were administered Medac had activity > 100 IU/L. The average activity was significantly higher for Genericm A, 154 (70·3, 285·4) IU/L followed by Generic B 84·5(44·2, 289·1) IU/L, Generic C 45(14·4, 58·4) IU/L, and Generic D 20·4(13, 35) IU/L. Only 6 patients had asparaginase activity > 100 IU/L on each of the four occasions (Generic A = 5; Generic B = 1), and none of them developed Anti-Asparaginase Antibodies (AAA). On the other hand, AAA was observed in 12/36 patients who had at least one level < 100 IU/L (P < 0·05): Generic A 3/5, Generic B = 3/9, Generic D (4/11), and Generic C (5/11).
CONCLUSION: Generic A and B had better trough asparaginase activity compared to Generic D and C. Overall, generic formulations had lower asparaginase activity which raises serious clinical concerns regarding their quality. Until strict regulatory enforcement improves the quality of these generics, dose adaptive approaches coupled with therapeutic drug monitoring need to be considered.