Journal Information
Vol. 43. Issue S3.
Pages S2-S3 (November 2021)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 43. Issue S3.
Pages S2-S3 (November 2021)
Sp02
Open Access
GENERIC IMATINIB VS GLEEVEC
Visits
3625
Katia Borgia Barbosa Pagnano
Hematology and Hemotherapy Center – University of Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil
This item has received

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Special issue
This article is part of special issue:
Vol. 43. Issue S3
More info
Full Text

The tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) used in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treatment have dramatically changed the disease outcome. Glivec/Gleevec (branded imatinib) was the first TKI developed and has proven to be effective and safe in the long term (Hochhaus et al., 2017).

After the Glivec patent expired, many countries approved generic imatinib for CML treatment. Generic formulations are less expensive and, therefore, more affordable and available for limited resources countries.

Generic formulations of imatinib are used in India since the early 2000s (Parikh et al. 2002) and in most countries since 2016. In Brazil, generics replaced Glivec in 2013 in the first-line treatment patients with CML treated at the Public Health System.

There are still conflicting results about safety and efficacy in the published studies. Regarding pharmacological properties and bioequivalence, several studies compared branded with generic imatinib showing similarity (Malhotra et al., 2014; Arora et al., 2016, Natarajan et al., 2019).

Switching from branded to generic imatinib appears to maintain efficacy and safety (Skazan et al., 2019; Scalzulli et al., 2019; Dalle et al., 2019; Gemelli et al., 2020). However, some studies showed that patients reported new or worsening side effects after switching, primarily mild and moderate, such as nausea, edema, diarrhea, and fatigue (Abudalli et al., 2019, Scalzulli et al., 2020).

In the first-line setting, retrospective and prospective studies compared branded with generic imatinib. A recent study from China compared 236 pts treated with generic with 206 pts treated in first line with branded imatinib and did not find differences in toxicity, responses and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival in 4 years (Dou, 2020). An updated analysis of a Brazilian study compared the outcomes of a retrospective cohort treated with Glivec with a prospective cohort treated with generics. There was a similar rate of major molecular responses and toxicity at 12 months, OS and PFS survival. (personnal communication).

In terms of health care costs, real-life studies demonstrated that generics use reduced the cost of CML treatment and are more cost-effective than branded imatinib. In the last ELN 2020 recommendations, generic imatinib is indicated as one of the options for first-line treatment in CML, if the drug has quality control of production, similar bioavailability, and efficacy (Hochaus 2020). Monitoring of the short and long-term efficacy and safety is essential.

References

  • 1.

    Abou Dalle I, Kantarjian H, Burger J, et al. Efficacy and safety of generic imatinib after switching from original imatinib in patients treated for chronic myeloid leukemia in the United States. Cancer Med. 2019 Nov;8(15):6559-6565.

    2. Arora R, Sharma M, Monif T, Iyer S. A Multi-centric Bioequivalence Trial in Ph+ Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patients to Assess Bioequivalence and Safety Evaluation of Generic Imatinib Mesylate 400 mg Tablets. Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Jul;48(3):1120-9. doi: 10.4143/crt.2015.436. Epub 2016 Feb 12.

  • 3.

    Eskazan AE, Elverdi T, Yalniz FF, et al. The efficacy of generic formulations of imatinib mesylate in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma.

    4. Gemelli M, Elli EM, Elena C, Iurlo A, et al. Use of generic imatinib as first-line treatment in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML): the GIMS (Glivec to Imatinib Switch) study. Blood Res. 2020 Sep 30;55(3):139-145.

  • 5.

    Hochhaus A, Larson RA, Guilhot F, et al (2017) Long-Term Outcomes of Imatinib Treatment for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia. N Engl J Med 376:. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1609324

  • 6.

    Hochhaus, A., Baccarani, M., Silver, R.T. et al. European LeukemiaNet 2020 recommendations for treating chronic myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 34, 966–984 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-020-0776-2

  • 7.

    Malhotra H, Sharma P, Bhargava S, et al. Correlation of plasma trough levels of imatinib with molecular response in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014 Nov;55(11):2614-9.

  • 8.

    Natarajan H, Kumar L, Bakhshi S, et al. Imatinib trough levels: a potential biomarker to predict cytogenetic and molecular response in newly diagnosed patients with chronic myeloid leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Feb;60(2):418-425.

    9. Parikh P. Report of chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase from Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, 2002-2008. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 2013 Jul;34(3):164-7.

  • 10.

    Scalzulli, E., Colafigli, G., Latagliata, R. et al. Switch from branded to generic imatinib: impact on molecular responses and safety in chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia patients. Ann Hematol99, 2773–2777 (2020).

  • 11.

    Xuelin Dou, Yazhen Qin, Yueyun Lai, et al. Comparable Efficacy and Safety of Generic Imatinib and Branded Imatinib in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Chronic Myeloid Leukemia With a Consideration of Socioeconomic Characteristics: A Retrospective Study From a Single Center, Clinical Lymphoma Myeloma and Leukemia, Volume 20, Issue 6,2020,Pages e304-e315.

Idiomas
Hematology, Transfusion and Cell Therapy
Article options
Tools