Comparison of the efficacy and safety of Chinese generic imatinib and branded imatinib in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in consideration of demographic characteristics
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2019.11.008
- VernacularTitle: 结合人口学特征比较国产和原研伊马替尼治疗慢性髓性白血病慢性期患者的有效性和安全性
- Author:
Xuelin DOU
1
;
Lu YU
;
Yazhen QIN
;
Hongxia SHI
;
Yueyun LAI
;
Yue HOU
;
Xiaojun HUANG
;
Qian JIANG
Author Information
1. Peking University People's Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, Beijing 100044, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Leukemia, myeloid, chronic;
Imatinib;
Treatment outcome
- From:
Chinese Journal of Hematology
2019;40(11):924-931
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objectives:To compare the efficacy and safety of Chinese generic imatinib with branded imatinib as frontline therapy in adults with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) (Frontline group) , and to explore the efficacy and safety of Chinese generic imatinib in CML-CP patients switching from branded imatinib (Switching group) .
Methods:Frontline group: Data of adults with newly diagnosed CML-CP receiving Chinese generic imatinib (Xinwei®) or branded imatinib (Glivec®) between October 2013 and August 2018 were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Switching group: Data of adults diagnosed with CML-CP who received branded imatinib and then switched to Chinese generic imatinib after achieving at least complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) were retrospectively collected and analyzed.
Results:Frontline group: In total, 409 adult patients receiving Chinese generic imatinib (n=201) or Glivec (n=208) were included in this study. Median age was 42 years (range, 18-83 years) . Comparison of baseline showed significant difference on demographic characteristics among two cohorts: lower education level (P<0.001) , and divorced or widowed status (P=0.004) and rural household registration (P<0.001) were more common in the generic imatinib cohort than those in the Glivec cohort. There was no significant difference on age, gender, Sokal risk score, WBC and HGB between the 2 cohorts. With a median follow-up of 25 months (range, 3-62 months) , there was no significant difference on the 3-year cumulative incidence of achieving CCyR (97.5% vs 94.5%, P=0.592) , major molecular response (MMR) (84.3% vs 93.1%, P=0.208) , molecular response4.0 (MR4.0) (42.7% vs 41.7%, P=0.277) , molecular response4.5 (MR4.5) (25.4% vs 33.0%, P=0.306) as well as the 3-year probabilities of failure free survival (FFS) (76.7% vs 81.0%, P=0.448) , progression free survival (PFS) (91.8% vs 96.3%, P=0.325) and overall survival (OS) (95.8% vs 98.5%, P=0.167) between the generic and branded imatinib cohorts. Multivariate analysis showed the type of imatinib was not associated with treatment responses and outcomes. The incidences of adverse effects were comparable in the 2 cohorts. Switching group: In total, 39 patients switching from branded imatinib to Chinese generic imatinib after achieving at least CCyR were included in this study. Median age was 42 years (range, 23-80 years) . With a median follow-up of 39 months (range, 6-63 months) , molecular responses were maintained in 23 (58.9%) patients and improved in 12 (39.8%) patients. Adverse effects were tolerable.
Conclusion:Demographic characteristics might influence the choice of the type of TKI used in CML-CP patients. There was a comparable efficacy and safety between the Chinese generic imatinib and the branded imatinib in adults with newly diagnosed CML-CP under standard management and closely monitoring. Patients could safely switch from the branded imatinib to the Chinese generic imatinib.
