Open Access

Clinical pharmacology of tyrosine kinase inhibitors becoming generic drugs: the regulatory perspective

  • Niels Eckstein1Email author,
  • Lea Röper1,
  • Bodo Haas1,
  • Henrike Potthast1,
  • Ulrike Hermes1,
  • Christoph Unkrig1,
  • Frauke Naumann-Winter1 and
  • Harald Enzmann1
Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research201433:15

DOI: 10.1186/1756-9966-33-15

Received: 27 January 2014

Accepted: 3 February 2014

Published: 7 February 2014

Abstract

Over the last decades, billions have been spent and huge efforts have been taken in basic and clinical cancer research [CA Cancer J Clin 63: 11-30]. About a decade ago, the arms race between drugs and cancer cells reached a new level by introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) into pharmacological anti-cancer therapy. According to their molecular mechanism of action, TKI in contrast to so-called “classic” or “conventional” cytostatics belong to the group of targeted cancer medicines, characterized by accurately fitting with biological structures (i.e. active centers of kinases). Numerous (partly orphan) indications are covered by this new class of substances. Approximately ten years after the first substances of this class of medicines were authorized, patent protection will end within the next years. The following article covers clinical meaning and regulatory status of anti-cancer TKI and gives an outlook to what is expected from the introduction of generic anti-cancer TKI.

Keywords

Narrow therapeutic index drugs (NTID) Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) Orphan drug status

Introduction

Pharmacological cancer therapy for decades was performed with non-targeted mostly DNA-interacting cytostatic drugs. Administration of these so-called conventional cytostatics usually is entailed with severe side-effects [1]. One of the main disadvantages of those substances is that they do not specifically target cancer cells but all (also benign) rapidly dividing cells. This non-specific mechanism of action was the rationale to develop specifically targeted anti-cancer TKI. Initially, great expectations were associated with these drugs; some were met, others not. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) are a very worthy additional option for physicians in clinical management of certain types and lines of cancer treatment (refer to Table 1 for a tabular overview). However, the initial expectation of a new era of cancer-therapy with substantially less side effects was not fulfilled. TKI have numerous, partly severe side effects eventually entailed with fatal outcome (Table 2). On the other hand, when a tumor becomes resistant to conventional or targeted anti-cancer therapy, TKI serve as additional options in second-, third- and/or fourth-line therapy regimes according to their approved indications. For instance Sunitinib is approved after Imatinib resistance formation in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), and Lapatinib after non-responding to antracycline- or taxane-based chemotherapy in combination with Trastuzumab in HER-2 positive breast cancer. Taken together, TKI are a valuable extension of the cancer drug armamentarium [2, 3].
Table 1

General information on anti-cancer TKI

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (INN)

Branded name

Market Authorization Holder (MAH)

Target tyrosine kinases

Indication(s)

European birth date

CMA

Orphan designation

Bosutinib

Bosulif®

Pfizer

BCR-ABL,SRC

Patients with CML for which Imatinib, Nilotinib, and Dasatinib are not appropriate

27th March 2013

Yes

CML

Dasatinib

Sprycel®

Bristol-Myers Squibb

BCR-ABL

CML

23th December 2005

No

CML, ALL

Erlotinib

Tarceva®

Hoffman-La Roche

EGFR

NSCLC, pancreatic cancer

19th September 2005

No

No

Gefitinib

Iressa®

Astra Zeneca

EGFR

NSCLC in carriers of activating EGFR-mutations

24th June 2010

No

No

Imatinib

Glivec®

Novartis

BCR-ABL, KIT, PDGFR-A, PDGFR-B

CML, GIST, BCR-ABL- positive ALL, dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, myeloproliferative neoplasms, hypereosinophilic syndromes

7th of November 2001

No

Expired and withdrawn

Lapatinib

Tyverb®

Glaxo Smith Kline

ERBB2 (HER-2)

HER-2 positive breast cancer

10th June 2008

Yes

No

Nilotinib1

Tasigna®

Novartis

BCR-ABL, KIT,PDGFR-A, PDGFR-B

CML

19th November 2007

No

CML

Pazopanib

Votrient®

Glaxo Smith Kline

VEGFR, PDGFR, KIT

Renal cell carcinoma, STS

14th June 2010

No

Withdrawn

Ponatinib2

Iclusig®

Ariad

BCR-ABL

Patients with CML for which Imatinib, Nilotinib, and Dasatinib are not appropriate (or patients carrying a T315I single-point-mutation)

1st July 2013

 

CML, ALL

Sorafenib

Nexavar®

Bayer

VEGFR-2,VEGFR-3

Renal cell carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma

19th July 2006

No

Renal cell carcinoma, Hepatocellular carcinoma

Sunitinib

Sutent®

Pfizer

VEGFR 1-3, PDGFR-A, PDGFR-B; KIT, FLT3

Renal cell carcinoma, GIST, pNET

19th July 2006

Initially, then full approval

Withdrawn

ALL, acute lymphatic leukemia; CML, chronic myeloid leukemia ; CMA, Conditional Marketing Authorization (none of the above mentioned is currently authorized under exceptional circumstances, according to European Medicines Agency (EMA) website accessed in Sept 2013 [15]); GIST, gastrointestinal stromal tumor; MA, Marketing Authorization; MAH, Marketing Authorization Holder; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; pNET, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors; STS, soft tissue sarcoma; 1Nilotinib is similar to Imatinib according to the orphan regulation; 2US-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked the manufacturer of Ponatinib to suspend marketing due to the risk of life-threatening blood clots and severe narrowing of blood vessels; source of information: European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) of the above mentioned TKI [15].

Table 2

Safety profiles of TKI

Small molecule TKI

CNS

Nerve disorders

Eye disorders

Heart disorders

Lung airways disorders

Thyroid disorders

Liver, Bile disorders

Bosutinib

 

XX

 

XX

XX

 

XX

Dasatinib

X

XX

XX

XX

XX

 

X

Erlotinib

X

XX

XX

 

XX

 

X

Gefitinib

  

XX

 

XX

 

XX

Imatinib

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

Lapatinib

X

XX

 

X

XX

 

XX

Nilotinib

X

XX

XX

XX

XX

 

XX

Pazopanib

 

XX

XX

X

XX

XX

XX

Ponatinib

 

XX

XX

XX

XX

 

XX

Sorafenib

X

XX

 

X

X

 

X

Sunitinib

X

XX

XX

X

XX

XX

X

Small molecule TKI

Gastrointestinal disorders

Renal disorders

Musculoskeletal and bone disorders

Blood and lymphatic system

Vascular disorders

Skin disorders

CMR

Bosutinib

XX

XX

XX

XX

 

XX

 

Dasatinib

XX

X

X

XX

XX

XX

XX

Erlotinib

XX

XX

 

X

 

XX

XX

Gefitinib

XX

XX

  

XX

XX

XX

Imatinib

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

XX

Lapatinib

XX

 

XX

 

XX

XX

XX

Nilotinib

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

XX

Pazopanib

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Ponatinib

XX

 

XX

XX

XX

XX

 

Sorafenib

X

X

X

XX

XX

XX

XX

Sunitinib

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX = common, very common; X = rare, uncommon; CMR, carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic for reproductive system; CNS, central nervous system; source of information: Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) of marketed TKI [16].

Molecular mechanism of action

Many chemotherapy-naive and nearly all drug resistant tumors are characterized by pronounced Receptor-Tyrosine-Kinase (RTK) signaling. This pattern is at least in part due to the fact that chemoresistance can be triggered by overexpression and/or activation of RTKs: ERB B1-4, IGF-1R, VEGFR 1-3, and PDGF-receptor family members [4, 5]. The underlying mechanisms of this over-activation are diverse and comprise at least the following mechanisms [6].

→ Formation of a self-sustaining autocrine loop with secreted growth factors such as EGF, VEGF, PDGF, amphiregulin or others [5].

→ Expression of intrinsically active RTK in the cell membrane [7].

→ Over-activation of downstream signaling by imbalance of tumor-suppressor genes (p53, PTEN) and (proto-) oncogenes (PI3K, monomeric G Proteins such as RAS, RAF and others) [8] etc.

In vitro investigations of cancer cell-lines derived from numerous tumor-entities regularly uncovered receptor tyrosine kinase (i.e. EGFR) activation by phosphorylation of specific residues located in the β-subunit [9, 10]. Downstream the adaptor protein GAB1 (Grb2-associated binder 1) recruits PI3 kinase to phosphorylated EGFR [11]. The main function of GAB1 is to enhance PI3K/AKT activation thereby prolonging MAPK signaling [12]. While RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling cascade usually ends up in cellular proliferation and tumorigenic transformation, enhanced AKT-kinase signaling usually is entailed with evasion of apoptosis, which is the turning-point in drug resistance formation [13]. Given this, TKI can interrupt signaling cascades evading apoptosis, thereby re-sensitizing cancer cells to induction of apoptosis. Figure 1 gives a schematic overview of the molecular mechanisms of action of TKI.
Figure 1

Schematic model of tumorigenic signaling pathways and their inhibition by anti-cancer-TKI.

Challenges of generic TKI drugs in cancer therapy

According to their European Birth Date during the past decade, these substances successively will be running off-patent within the next years (Table 1). From a regulatory point of view, this raises the question how marketing authorization applications (MAA) should be filed and especially, how therapeutic equivalence should be established for generic applications. In general, demonstrated bioequivalence (BE) allows generic medicinal products to refer to the efficacy and safety data of the originator medicinal product. It is easy to anticipate, that numerous questions in this regard will arise in the near future.

Aqueous (non-complicated) intravenously applied drug products have a 100% bioavailability directly per definition, thus, no BE studies are required for a MAA of such generic drugs. However, for orally applied drug products, BE with the originator product needs to be shown, which may be done using patients or healthy volunteers in respective in vivo studies or by means of comparative in-vitro investigations.

Since decades BE-acceptance criteria for AUC and Cmax require the 90% confidence intervals being completely within 80 - 125% (for AUC and Cmax) to assume BE. The acceptance range may be tightened to 90 - 111% for one or both pharmacokinetic characteristics according to the European BE-Guideline [14] in the case of narrow therapeutic index drugs (NTID). In cases of class I and III compounds having identified not to have a narrow therapeutic index – specific in-vitro dissolution data may substitute for human BE-studies considering also particular requirements on excipients. This concept follows the principles of the biopharmaceutical classification system (BCS) [14].

It is likely that numerous questions in regard to the appropriate data package will arise in the near future including questions on the appropriate study design, on the appropriate study population, nutrition status, single or repeated dose-design, appropriate BCS classification of the individual compound or the classification as NTID.

MAA for new generics may be processed via different regulatory authorizations routes, i.e. national procedures in European member states, decentralized procedures involving several European member states or centralized procedures for all European member states. As the latter is an option only for generics for which the originator medicinal products already obtained marketing authorization from a centralized procedure, this option may receive more attention with the increasing number of medicinal products with centralized authorizations that are running off data protection and patent in the next years.

With the intent to enable a consistent approach for these different routes the European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued an initiative to harmonize the data requirements throughout European Member States, i.e. EMA initiated a pro-active program “Product-specific Bioequivalence-Guidance for Generics” [15]. EMA defines the objective of this initiative as follows: “Product specific guidance for the bioequivalence assessment of immediate release generic formulations should a priori be defined.” Thus, applicants should be given a clear scientific guidance, how to design BE-studies and, thus, how to file generic applications. This program includes BCS-classifications for drug substances, so that a harmonized view on the BCS classification and consequently the appropriateness of a BCS-based biowaiver approach can be expected for respective products. Furthermore, the guidance provides information on the type of expected data, e.g. appropriate study population (patients or healthy volunteers), mode of administration (fasten or fed), single dose or steady state-design, appropriate dose strength and analytes, the classification as NTID. The first wave of 16 medicinal products is dominated by anti-infectives and TKI. Dasatinib, Erlotinib, Imatinib, Sorafenib and Sunitinib are covered in this first round of harmonization [15].

From a clinician’s point of view regarding drug safety (Table 2), one could be tempted to assume that all anti-cancer medicinal products including TKI are considered as NTID. However, this is not the case. Different definitions of NTID by different regulatory agencies do exist. US-FDA classification of narrow therapeutic ratio:
  • → Less than a 2-fold difference in median lethal dose (LD50) and median effective dose values (ED50), -or

  • → Less than 2-fold difference in the minimum toxic concentrations (MTC) and minimum effective concentrations (MEC) in the blood or

  • → Safe and effective use of the drug products require careful titration and patient monitoring.

In contrast to the US, for the EU no list of substances with NTID-designation is available. So far the consideration of a given substance as NTID is mainly based on national traditions. Only for a few medicinal substances (e.g. Ciclosporine, Tacrolimus) a harmonized EU decision was issued by a referral procedure. According to the draft “Product-specific Bioequivalence - Guidance for Generics” no drug is newly considered as NTID, only Tacrolimus is considered as such based on the previously finalized referral procedure.

According to the European BE-Guideline [14] clinical considerations are the basis for NTID decisions. Thus, safety-and efficacy profile have to be taken into account.

Most conventional cytotoxic medicinal products are given parenterally for a short duration in repeated cycles. They are mostly dosed on an individual basis (e.g. body surface or weight). The recommended dose is normally the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or close to it.

Marketed TKI drugs are typically given continuously via the oral route and at a flat dose. Although a most effective and durable target saturation is the primary objective for dose development of TKI drugs, it is obvious that for several TKI drugs the recommended dose is the same as the reported MTD, e.g. Bosutinib, Pazopanib, Ponatinib or Sunitinib (Table 3). The dose-limiting toxicities include grade 3 gastrointestinal and hepatic toxicities, grade 3 skin toxicities, grade 3 fatigue, and grade 3 hypertension. For Sunitinib grade 2 bullous skin toxicity, grade 3 fatigue, and grade 3 hypertension are reported as dose-limiting toxicities. Furthermore, at approx. twice the therapeutic concentration a grade 2 QT-prolongation is expected (Summary of Product Characteristics/SmPC Sutent® [16]).
Table 3

Clinical pharmakokinetic profiles of TKI marketed in the EU

TKI

tmax(h)

Bioavailability (oral, %)

Concomitant food intake effect on bioavailability

Concomitant food intake: FDA recommendation

V (L/kg) 70-kg subject assumed

Primary enzymes involved in metabolism

Major metabolites

Plasma half-life (h)

Plasma protein binding (%)

Suggested threshold for response or concentration attained in therapy (mg/L)

Bosutinib

6

18 [20] derived from colon tumor xenograft models

 

With food

131-214 [21]

CYP3A4

M2 (oxydechlorinated Bosutinib) M5 (N-desmethyl Bosutinib)

 

94-96

 

Dasatinib

0.5–3

<34

Increases AUC (14%)

With/without food

30-40

CYP3A4, FMO-3

M4 (BMS-582691), M5 (BMS-606181), M6 (BMS-573188)

3–5

92–97

0.01–0.1 [22]

Erlotinib

4

69-76

Increases bioavailability (24%–31%)

Without food

3

CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP1A2

NorErlotinib (OSI-420)

41

92-95

>0.5

Gefitinib

3-7

57

No effect

With/without food

24

CYP3A4, CYP2D6, CYP3A5 (possibly CYP1A1)

NorGefitinib (M523595)

48

79

>0.2

Imatinib

2–4

98

No effect

With food

2–6 (Imatinib), 15–40 (NorImatinib)

CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP2C8

NorImatinib (CGP74588)

12–20 (Imatinib), 40–74 (NorImatinib)

95 (Imatinib and NorImatinib)

>1 (CML and GIST)

Lapatinib

3-5

-

Increases AUC (167%–325%)

Without food

31

CYP3A4, CYP3A5

Norlapatinib (GW690006)

14

>99

>0.5 mean concentration in patients prescribed 1500 mg once daily [23]

Nilotinib

3

30

Increases Cmax (112%) and AUC (82%)

Without food

10–15

CYP3A4, CYP2C8

-

15–17

98

>0.6 Cmin concentration applicable to quartile 1 from cytogenetic response [24]

Pazopanib

2.8

14-39

Increases AUC and Cmax (2-fold)

Without food

0.1-0.2

CYP3A4, CYP1A2, CYP2C8

Pazopanib M24, Pazopanib M26, Pazopanib M27

31

>99

>20

Ponatinib

   

With/without food

 

CYP3A4 (MRI PI)

inactive carboxylic acid

 

>99

 

Sorafenib

2-14

<50

Reduces bioavailability (29%)

Without food

3-6

CYP3A4, UGT1A9

Norsorafenib, Sorafenib N-oxide (BAY 67 3472)

20-40

>99

>3

Sunitinib

6-12

-

No effect

With/without food

30

CYP3A4

Norsunitinib (SU12662)

40–60 (Sunitinib), 80–110 (Norsunitinib)

95 (Sunitinib), 90 (Norsunitinib)

>0.05 (Sunitinib + Norsunitinib)

TKI

DLT

MTD

Clinical dose (as recommended by SmPC)

Dosage form

Human AUC at the clinical dose (ng*h/ml)

In vitro IC 50 values for target kinase inhibitor (ng/ml)

Dose-reduction

Liver

renal

Bosutinib

Grade 3 diarrhea, grade 3 rash [25]

500 mg, q.d

500 mg, q.d.

Tablet

2740 ± 790

250 nM [26]

 

Yes

Dasatinib

Grade 3 nausea, grade 3 fatigue, grade 3 rash [27]

>120 mg b.i.d

100 mg, q.d. (for chronic phase), 70 mg, b.i.d. (for accelerated phase and blast phase)

Tablet

398.8 (b.i.d. regimen)

0.0976

No, only in severe liver impairment

No

Erlotinib

Diarrhea [28]

150 mg, q.d.

150 mg, q.d.

Tablet

42679

0.787 [29]

No

No

Gefitinib

Nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, rash

700 mg, q.d.

250 mg, q.d.

Tablet

7251.5

12.1 [30]

No, only in severe liver impairment

No

Imatinib

Nausea, vomiting, fatigue, diarrhea

>1000 mg, b.i.d.

400 mg, q.d

Tablet

33200

12.3 [31]

Yes

No

Lapatinib

Rash, diarrhea, fatigue

1800 mg, q.d.

1250 mg, q.d.

Tablet

33836.5

6.02 [32]

Yes

No, only in severe renal impairment

Nilotinib

Liver function abnormalities, thrombocytopenia [33]

600 mg, b.i.d.

400 mg, b.i.d. (for chronic-phase and accelerated-phase of chronic myelogenous leukemia), 300 mg, b.i.d. (for newly diagnosed chronic-phase myelogenous leukemia)

Capsule

19000 (b.i.d. regimen)

not available

No

No

Pazopanib

Grade 3 aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevations, grade 3 malaise [34]

800 mg, q.d. [35, 36]

800 mg, q.d.

Tablet

650 ± 500 μg*h/ml

10, 30, 47, 71, 84 or 74 nM

Yes

No

Ponatinib

Rash, fatigue

45 mg, q.d

45 mg, q.d.

Tablet

77 (50%) or 1296 (48%)

0.4 or 2.0 nM

Yes

No

Sorafenib

Hand-foot skin syndrome (HFS) [37]

600 mg, b.i.d.

400 mg, b.i.d.

Tablet

36690 (b.i.d. regimen)

7.79 [38]

No

No

Sunitinib

Grade 3 fatigue, grade 3 hypertension, grade 2 bullous skin toxicity (HFS) [39]

50 mg, q.d.

50 mg, q.d.

Capsule

1406

0.797

No, only in severe liver impairment

No

AUC, area under the curve; b.i.d., twice daily; DLT, dose limiting toxicity; MTD, maximum tolerated dose; q.d., every day; tmax, time after administration when Cmax is reached; Source of information: Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) of marketed TKI [16] unless otherwise indicated.

From a clinical point of view there are arguments for consideration as an NTID for selective TKI which are elucidated for the example of Sunitinib: The dose of 50 mg/d is the recommended dose for renal cell carcinoma and the MTD at the same time. The documented adverse events (AE) and adverse drug reactions (ADR) are serious, and toxicity may be difficult to control due to long half-life of parent compound and main metabolite (40-60 h and 80-110 h, respectively). The described toxicity induces a high probability of dose reductions with the intent to reduce exposure. The patient safety may be impaired in case of an exchange between originator and generic medicinal product following dose reduction: Dose reductions of 12.5 mg represent a 25% and 33% decrease from the recommended dose for renal cell carcinoma and neuroendocrine tumors of pancreatic origin, respectively. In case of exchange of the originator for a generic drug the AUC from the reduced dose of the generic may be the same as the AUC from the normal dose of the originator if normal acceptance criteria for BE (90% CI for AUC and Cmax 80-125%) are applied.

From a safety point of view it should be mentioned that chronic exposure to a dose that was identified as the maximum tolerable dose in a short term study may render the tolerable short term toxicity into intolerable long term toxicity.

Safety of certain TKI

Dasatinib, Nilotinib & Bosutinib – CML-TKI with different safety profiles from a regulatory point of view and availability of second generation TKI

In general TKI are well tolerated in clinical practice, particularly, if compared with the toxicity of cytostatic drugs normally used in oncology. Often side-effects are only mild (grade 2 and lower) and occur early in the treatment course. Frequently they last only some days or weeks and resolve spontaneously. Moreover, even if drug-related toxicity requires drug discontinuation, re-exposition is often successful and permanent dose reduction is rarely necessary.

The advent of Imatinib in 2001 has dramatically changed the prognosis in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML): The five year survival rate of patients with chronic phase CML improved from approximately 20% in the pre-TKI era to more than 90% patients [17]. In those patients who achieve a stable cytogenetic response with Imatinib overall survival is reported with 95.2% at 8 years in the literature and thus does not differ statistically significantly from that of the general population [18]. Imatinib is still the most common TKI modality used as a frontline therapy in CML across the world. However, due to the occurrence of Imatinib resistance and intolerance, second generation TKI as Dasatinib, Nilotinib and Bosutinib have been developed. In non-clinical models they are 30 to 300 times more potent than Imatinib and can inhibit most Imatinib-resistant BCR-ABL mutations (EPARs for Imatinib, Dasatinib, and Nilotinib [15]). Comparable with the experience in anti-infective drugs, multidrug-resistant BCR/ABL mutations occur which preclude further use of the approved TKI. For example, patients with T315I mutation respond only on treatment with third generation TKI Ponatinib, which was specifically designed as a treatment option for these populations.

TKI indicated in CML have some side-effects in common as myelosuppression, gastrointestinal complaints, rash, fatigue, headache and peripheral and periorbital edema; however, intensity varies significantly between the different products. Other AE are peculiar of each drug: Imatinib has been uncommonly associated with severe heart failure, while Nilotinib is associated with QT prolongation, pancreatitis, increased rate of cardiovascular events, and occurrence of peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD). Dasatinib may cause pleural, pericardial and peritoneal effusions; additionally interaction with platelet function is discussed to explain higher rates of gastrointestinal bleeding observed in clinical practice. Bosutinib is associated with significant gastrointestinal toxicity (diarrhea) and hepatotoxicity. Serious AE observed with Ponatinib are an alarming high rate of arterial thrombosis, and cardiovascular events as well as hepatotoxicity.

Differences in the safety profiles of these TKI seem to be at least partially explained by the additional inhibition of other signaling pathways apart BCR-ABL [c-Kit, Src family kinases, PDGFR, and others].

However, it should be kept in mind that TKI treatment of CML has to be administered lifelong and knowledge about potential long-term risks and efficacy, especially for the second generation TKI Dasatinib, Nilotinib and Bosutinib, is still limited. Whether risks associated with Ponatinib treatment can be tolerated is currently under discussion again.

Not only from a regulatory perspective careful attention on recommended risk minimization measures as defined in the product information is at the end essential to avoid treatment complications that may completely jeopardize the sought treatment success.

Orphan drug status of TKI

The orphan regulation aims at fostering drug development for serious or life-threatening diseases with a prevalence of less than 5 in 10.000 people in the EU. A sponsor may apply for orphan designation any time prior to an application for marketing authorization (usually even before clinical development). The orphan drug status then needs to be confirmed during the marketing authorization procedure. The most important incentive of the regulation is ten year market exclusivity for an orphan medicinal product with respect to similar medicinal products. Neither EMA nor EU member states can authorize a product, which is regarded similar with respect to chemical structure and mode of action and therapeutic indication. Generics, by definition, fulfill all of these criteria.

Imatinib is the paradigm of targeted therapy with its target, the Philadelphia chromosome, occurring in two rare forms of cancer, CML and acute lymphatic leukemia (ALL) which remain rare in spite of recent advances for treatment. Other cancers, e.g. renal cell carcinoma, was recently reported to exceed the prevalence threshold of 5 in 10.000 people so that no further orphan designations are expected.

Orphan similarity and market exclusivity

In addition to the incentive of the a.m. ten year market exclusivity intended by the European orphan regulation [19] there may be a probably unintended additional incentive. Special circumstances are conceivable under which the market exclusivity granted for orphan products may exclude marketing authorization of a generic product. These special circumstances first occurred when the orphan drug Tasigna® (Nilotinib) was assessed as “similar” to Glivec® (Imatinib). Glivec® was first authorized in the EU in 2003. The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) gave a positive opinion on its benefit risk balance, the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) confirmed the significant benefit and so Glivec® got the most important incentive for the development of medicines for orphan diseases – the market exclusivity. Under the condition of the European orphan drug regulation no medicinal product “similar” to Glivec® would get marketing authorization for ten years – unless the similar product had superior efficacy or safety or the MAH of the protected product gives consent to the marketing of the similar product.

Several years after marketing authorization of Glivec® was granted, similarity assessment of Tasigna® concluded that Tasigna® was a similar product to Glivec® and the market exclusivity of Glivec® would therefore be prohibitive for the authorization of Tasigna®. In the context of a similarity assessment, three characteristics of a given drug are decisive:
  1. 1)

    The chemical structure (respectively structural similarity to the innovator product)

     
  2. 2)

    The molecular mechanism of action, and

     
  3. 3)

    The indication(s).

     

In the first step of Tasigna® marketing authorization, this was not problematic, because Tasigna® was first authorized in second line after first line-therapy with Glivec®. However, with the extension of indications to first-line treatment of CML, Tasigna® was authorized only with the consent of the MAH of Glivec® (not surprisingly, as both medicines are products of Novartis). The COMP confirmed a significant benefit and thus Tasigna® received its ten own year market exclusivity beginning with the commission decision in 2007.

When data protection and orphan market exclusivity expired for Glivec® generic Imatinib products to the reference product Glivec® were submitted. There was, however, the previous regulatory decision that Glivec® and Tasigna® are similar products – including the assessment of Imatinib and Nilotinib as similar active substances based on their chemical structure and pharmacological mechanism. An authorization of a generic Imatinib product to the reference product Glivec® would therefore not be granted if it violated the 10 year market exclusivity of Tasigna® which began in 2007.

It is safe to assume that the European orphan legislation was never meant to preclude the authorization of generics after the data protection and the ten years orphan protection of the reference product had expired. And it also seems that this was not a deliberate abuse of a complicated legal and regulatory situation by Novartis but rather unintended. If that had been a wicked, albeit brilliant, marketing-driven strategy, the exact alignment of the indications of Glivec® and Tasigna® would have effectively prevented any Imatinib generics for many years. As the indications of Tasigna® and Glivec® overlap for the majority of patients but are not identical, a marketing authorization for Imatinib generics restricted to the indications not granted for Tasigna® became possible. This is why the indications of generic Imatinib products are different from the indications of the reference product Glivec®.

Conclusion

A decade ago, TKI were introduced into clinical anti-cancer therapy. At first sight, the molecular mechanism of action appears to comprise only a targeted approach in blocking tyrosine kinases. However, this should not be misleading; numerous closely interconnected signaling pathways are involved and the complexity of TKI molecular mechanism is far from being understood completely. For clinicians, TKI are a worthy new modality of tumor-therapy amending classical cytotoxic regimes. TKI are of substantial benefit in terms of efficacy with a tolerable safety profile. However, long-term safety issues might not be fully elucidated at present and, thus, cannot be finally judged upon. Throughout the next years, many of these substances will run off-patent. Thus, regulatory guidance will be required for instance on whether certain substances like Sunitinib fulfill the criteria of a narrow therapeutic index drug. Apart from that, most TKI are orally administered, thereby raising the question whether BCS-based biowaiver can apply. In addition, design and requirements of BE-studies will be an issue in the EMA-initiative of product specific guidance on anti-cancer-TKI.

Abbreviations

ADR: 

Adverse drug reaction

AUC: 

Area under the curve

ALL: 

Acute lymphatic leukemia

BCS: 

Biopharmaceutics Classification System

BE: 

Bioequivalence

b.i.d.: 

twice daily

CMA: 

Conditional marketing

Cmax: 

maximal plasma concentration

CML: 

Chronic myeloic leukemia

CHMP: 

Committee for medicinal products for human use

COMP: 

Committee for orphan medicinal products

CYP: 

Cytochrome P450

DLT: 

Dose limiting toxicity

EMA: 

European medicines agency

EPAR: 

European Public Assessment Report

FDA: 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

GIST: 

Gastrointestinal stromal tumor

HFS: 

Hand foot syndrome

MAA: 

Marketing authorization applications

MEC: 

Minimum effective concentrations

MTC: 

Minimum toxic concentrations

MTD: 

Maximal tolerated dose

NTID: 

Narrow therapeutic index drug

NSCLC: 

Non-small cell lung cancer

PAOD: 

Peripheral arterial occlusive disease

PK: 

Pharmakokinetic

pNET: 

pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

q.d.: 

every day

RTK: 

Receptor tyrosine kinase

STS: 

Soft tissue sarcoma

TKI: 

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor tmax, time after administration when Cmax is reached.

Declarations

Disclaimer

The opinions mentioned throughout the following article are personal views of the authors and do not reflect an official position of the Federal Institute of Drugs and Medical Devices or an EMA-committee or working party, respectively.

Funding

The support of Andreas Duda is gratefully acknowledged. This systematic review article was supported by intramural funding of the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Federal Institute of Drugs and Medical Devices

References

  1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013, 63: 11-30. 10.3322/caac.21166.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Laurie SA, Goss GD: Role of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in epidermal growth factor receptor wild-type non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013, 31: 1061-1069. 10.1200/JCO.2012.43.4522.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Hynes NE, Lane HA: ERBB receptors and cancer: the complexity of targeted inhibitors. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005, 5: 341-354. 10.1038/nrc1609.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Koberle B, Tomicic MT, Usanova S, Kaina B: Cisplatin resistance: preclinical findings and clinical implications. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1806, 2010: 172-182.Google Scholar
  5. Eckstein N, Servan K, Girard L, Cai D, Von JG, Jaehde U, Kassack MU, Gazdar AF, Minna JD, Royer HD: Epidermal growth factor receptor pathway analysis identifies amphiregulin as a key factor for cisplatin resistance of human breast cancer cells. J Biol Chem. 2008, 283: 739-750. 10.1074/jbc.M706287200.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Eckstein N: Platinum resistance in breast and ovarian cancer cell lines. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2011, 30: 91-10.1186/1756-9966-30-91.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Stommel JM, Kimmelman AC, Ying H, Nabioullin R, Ponugoti AH, Wiedemeyer R, Stegh AH, Bradner JE, Ligon KL, Brennan C, et al: Coactivation of receptor tyrosine kinases affects the response of tumor cells to targeted therapies. Science. 2007, 318: 287-290. 10.1126/science.1142946.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Engelman JA, Luo J, Cantley LC: The evolution of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinases as regulators of growth and metabolism. Nat Rev Genet. 2006, 7: 606-619.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Murray S, Karavasilis V, Bobos M, Razis E, Papadopoulos S, Christodoulou C, Kosmidis P, Fountzilas G: Molecular predictors of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2012, 31: 77-10.1186/1756-9966-31-77.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Wang F, Wang S, Wang Z, Duan J, An T, Zhao J, Bai H, Wang J: Phosphorylated EGFR expression may predict outcome of EGFR-TKIs therapy for the advanced NSCLC patients with wild-type EGFR. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2012, 31: 65-10.1186/1756-9966-31-65.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Mattoon DR, Lamothe B, Lax I, Schlessinger J: The docking protein Gab1 is the primary mediator of EGF-stimulated activation of the PI-3 K/Akt cell survival pathway. BMC Biol. 2004, 2: 24-10.1186/1741-7007-2-24.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kiyatkin A, Aksamitiene E, Markevich NI, Borisov NM, Hoek JB, Kholodenko BN: Scaffolding protein Grb2-associated binder 1 sustains epidermal growth factor-induced mitogenic and survival signaling by multiple positive feedback loops. J Biol Chem. 2006, 281: 19925-19938. 10.1074/jbc.M600482200.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ashkenazi A, Herbst RS: To kill a tumor cell: the potential of proapoptotic receptor agonists. J Clin Invest. 2008, 118: 1979-1990. 10.1172/JCI34359.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. European Medicines Agency: Guideline on the Investigation of Bioequivalence. 2010, London, CPMP/EWP/QWP/1401/98 Rev. 1/ Corr**Google Scholar
  15. European medicins agency. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/,
  16. HumanMRIndex. http://mri.medagencies.org/Human/,
  17. Quintas-Cardama A, Cortes JE: Chronic myeloid leukemia: diagnosis and treatment. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006, 81: 973-988. 10.4065/81.7.973.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gambacorti-Passerini C, Antolini L, Mahon FX, Guilhot F, Deininger M, Fava C, Nagler A, Della Casa CM, Morra E, Abruzzese E, et al: Multicenter independent assessment of outcomes in chronic myeloid leukemia patients treated with imatinib. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011, 103: 553-561. 10.1093/jnci/djr060.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Orphan Medicinal Products. 2013, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/,
  20. Golas JM, Lucas J, Etienne C, Golas J, Discafani C, Sridharan L, Boghaert E, Arndt K, Ye F, Boschelli DH, et al: SKI-606, a Src/Abl inhibitor with in vivo activity in colon tumor xenograft models. Cancer Res. 2005, 65: 5358-5364. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-2484.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Abbas R, Hug BA, Leister C, Gaaloul ME, Chalon S, Sonnichsen D: A phase I ascending single-dose study of the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of bosutinib (SKI-606) in healthy adult subjects. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2012, 69: 221-227. 10.1007/s00280-011-1688-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Birch M, Morgan PE, Handley S, Ho A, Ireland R, Flanagan RJ: Simple methodology for the therapeutic drug monitoring of the tyrosine kinase inhibitors dasatinib and imatinib. Biomed Chromatogr. 2013, 27: 335-342.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Burris HA, Taylor CW, Jones SF, Koch KM, Versola MJ, Arya N, Fleming RA, Smith DA, Pandite L, Spector N, et al: A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of oral lapatinib administered once or twice daily in patients with solid malignancies. Clin Cancer Res. 2009, 15: 6702-6708. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-0369.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Giles FJ, Yin OQ, Sallas WM, le Coutre PD, Woodman RC, Ottmann OG, Baccarani M, Kantarjian HM: Nilotinib population pharmacokinetics and exposure-response analysis in patients with imatinib-resistant or -intolerant chronic myeloid leukemia. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013, 69: 813-823. 10.1007/s00228-012-1385-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Daud AI, Krishnamurthi SS, Saleh MN, Gitlitz BJ, Borad MJ, Gold PJ, Chiorean EG, Springett GM, Abbas R, Agarwal S, et al: Phase I study of bosutinib, a src/abl tyrosine kinase inhibitor, administered to patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2012, 18: 1092-1100. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2378.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Vultur A, Buettner R, Kowolik C, Liang W, Smith D, Boschelli F, Jove R: SKI-606 (bosutinib), a novel Src kinase inhibitor, suppresses migration and invasion of human breast cancer cells. Mol Cancer Ther. 2008, 7: 1185-1194. 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-08-0126.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Demetri GD, Lo RP, MacPherson IR, Wang D, Morgan JA, Brunton VG, Paliwal P, Agrawal S, Voi M, Evans TR: Phase I dose-escalation and pharmacokinetic study of dasatinib in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2009, 15: 6232-6240. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-0224.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Bonomi P: Erlotinib: a new therapeutic approach for non-small cell lung cancer. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2003, 12: 1395-1401. 10.1517/13543784.12.8.1395.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Moyer JD, Barbacci EG, Iwata KK, Arnold L, Boman B, Cunningham A, DiOrio C, Doty J, Morin MJ, Moyer MP, et al: Induction of apoptosis and cell cycle arrest by CP-358,774, an inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase. Cancer Res. 1997, 57: 4838-4848.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wakeling AE, Guy SP, Woodburn JR, Ashton SE, Curry BJ, Barker AJ, Gibson KH: ZD1839 (Iressa): an orally active inhibitor of epidermal growth factor signaling with potential for cancer therapy. Cancer Res. 2002, 62: 5749-5754.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Druker BJ, Tamura S, Buchdunger E, Ohno S, Segal GM, Fanning S, Zimmermann J, Lydon NB: Effects of a selective inhibitor of the Abl tyrosine kinase on the growth of Bcr-Abl positive cells. Nat Med. 1996, 2: 561-566. 10.1038/nm0596-561.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Rusnak DW, Lackey K, Affleck K, Wood ER, Alligood KJ, Rhodes N, Keith BR, Murray DM, Knight WB, Mullin RJ, et al: The effects of the novel, reversible epidermal growth factor receptor/ErbB-2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, GW2016, on the growth of human normal and tumor-derived cell lines in vitro and in vivo. Mol Cancer Ther. 2001, 1: 85-94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kantarjian H, Le CP, Cortes J, Pinilla-Ibarz J, Nagler A, Hochhaus A, Kimura S, Ottmann O: Phase 1 study of INNO-406, a dual Abl/Lyn kinase inhibitor, in Philadelphia chromosome-positive leukemias after imatinib resistance or intolerance. Cancer. 2010, 116: 2665-2672.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Yau T, Chen PJ, Chan P, Curtis CM, Murphy PS, Suttle AB, Gauvin J, Hodge JP, Dar MM, Poon RT: Phase I dose-finding study of pazopanib in hepatocellular carcinoma: evaluation of early efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. Clin Cancer Res. 2011, 17: 6914-6923. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-0793.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Shibata SI, Chung V, Synold TW, Longmate JA, Suttle AB, Ottesen LH, Lenz HJ, Kummar S, Harvey RD, Hamilton AL, et al: Phase I study of pazopanib in patients with advanced solid tumors and hepatic dysfunction: a national cancer institute organ dysfunction working group study. Clin Cancer Res. 2013, 19: 3631-3639. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-3214.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Infante JR, Novello S, Ma WW, Dy GK, Bendell JC, Huff A, Wang Q, Suttle AB, Allen R, Xu CF, et al: Phase Ib trial of the oral angiogenesis inhibitor pazopanib administered concurrently with pemetrexed in patients with advanced solid tumors. Invest New Drugs. 2013, 31: 927-936. 10.1007/s10637-012-9900-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Moore M, Hirte HW, Siu L, Oza A, Hotte SJ, Petrenciuc O, Cihon F, Lathia C, Schwartz B: Phase I study to determine the safety and pharmacokinetics of the novel Raf kinase and VEGFR inhibitor BAY 43-9006, administered for 28 days on/7 days off in patients with advanced, refractory solid tumors. Ann Oncol. 2005, 16: 1688-1694. 10.1093/annonc/mdi310.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilhelm SM, Carter C, Tang L, Wilkie D, McNabola A, Rong H, Chen C, Zhang X, Vincent P, McHugh M, et al: BAY 43-9006 exhibits broad spectrum oral antitumor activity and targets the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway and receptor tyrosine kinases involved in tumor progression and angiogenesis. Cancer Res. 2004, 64: 7099-7109. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-1443.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Faivre S, Delbaldo C, Vera K, Robert C, Lozahic S, Lassau N, Bello C, Deprimo S, Brega N, Massimini G, et al: Safety, pharmacokinetic, and antitumor activity of SU11248, a novel oral multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006, 24: 25-35. 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.2194.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Eckstein et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.