Comparing incidences of infusion site reactions between brand‐name and generic vinorelbine in patients with non‐small cell lung cancer

Aim This study aimed to compare the incidence of infusion site reactions (ISRs) induced by intravenous administration of brand‐name and generic vinorelbine (VNR) for treating non‐small cell lung cancer. Method This single‐centre retrospective cohort study was conducted by medical chart review of VNR infusions. ISRs were defined as symptoms around the infusion site, including pain, redness and swelling. ISRs requiring treatment were defined as ISRs requiring treatments including steroid ointments, vein repuncture and local steroid injections. Results In all, 1973 VNR infusions were administered to 340 patients (brand‐name 141 patients, generic 199 patients). ISRs and ISRs requiring treatment were observed in 161 and 100 patients, respectively. The ISR incidence per patient and per injection was significantly higher in generic VNR‐treated patients than in brand‐name VNR‐treated patients (53.3% vs 39.0%, P = 0.0112 and 15.0% vs 9.9%, P = 0.0008, respectively). The frequency of ISRs requiring treatment was also significantly higher in the generic group (per patient 36.7% vs 19.2%, P = 0.0005; per injection 11.3% vs 5.5%, P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that generic VNR was significantly associated with an increased risk of ISRs (per patient adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.775, P = 0.0155; per injection AOR 1.672, P = 0.004) and ISRs requiring treatment (per patient AOR 2.422, P = 0.0012; per injection AOR 2.286, P = 0.001). Conclusion Intravenous infusion of generic VNR was associated with an increased risk of ISRs. Further research is needed to elucidate the mechanism underlying the increased incidence of ISRs with generic VNR.