Biosimilars approvals by thirteen regulatory authorities: A cross-national comparison.

Biosimilars are biological medicines highly similar to a previously licensed reference product and their licensing is expected to improve access to biological therapies. This study aims to present an overview of biosimilars approval by thirteen regulatory authorities (RA). The study is a cross-national comparison of regulatory decisions involving biosimilars in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Canada, Colombia, Europe, Hungary, Guatemala, Italy, Mexico, Peru and United States. We examined publicly available documents containing information regarding the approval of biosimilars and investigated the publication of public assessment reports for registration applications, guidelines for biosimilars licensing, and products approved. Data extraction was conducted by a network of researchers and regulatory experts. All the RA had issued guidance documents establishing the requirements for the licensing of biosimilars. However, only three RA had published public assessment reports for registration applications. In total, the investigated jurisdictions had from 19 to 78 biosimilars approved, most of them licensed from 2018 to 2020. In spite of the advance in the number of products in recent years, some challenges still persist. Limited access to information regarding the assessment of biosimilars by RA can affect confidence, which may ultimately impact adoption of these products in practice.

Data sources for drug utilization research in Latin American countries-A cross-national study: DASDUR-LATAM study.

PURPOSE: Drug utilization research (DUR) contributes to inform policymaking and to strengthen health systems. The availability of data sources is the first step for conducting DUR. However, documents that systematize these data sources in Latin American (LatAm) countries are not known. We compiled the potential data sources for DUR in the LatAm region. METHODS: A network of DUR experts from nine LatAm countries was assembled and experts conducted: (i) a website search of the government, academic, and private health institutions; (ii) screening of eligible data sources, and (iii) liaising with national experts in pharmacoepidemiology (via an online survey). The data sources were characterized by accessibility, geographic granularity, setting, sector of the data, sources and type of the data. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: We identified 125 data sources for DUR in nine LatAm countries. Thirty-eight (30%) of them were publicly and conveniently available; 89 (71%) were accessible with limitations, and 18 (14%) were not accessible or lacked clear rules for data access. From the 125 data sources, 76 (61%) were from the public sector only; 46 (37%) were from pharmacy records; 43 (34%) came from ambulatory settings and; 85 (68%) gave access to individual patient-level data. CONCLUSIONS: Although multiple sources for DUR are available in LatAm countries, the accessibility is a major challenge. The procedures for accessing DUR data should be transparent, feasible, affordable, and protocol-driven. This inventory could permit a comparison of drug utilization between countries identifying potential medication-related problems that need further exploration.