Identifiability of Biologicals: An Analysis Using EudraVigilance, the European Union's Database of Reports of Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions.

The relevance of biological therapies for an increasing number of conditions is on the rise. Following the expiry of the initial period of market exclusivity, many of these successful therapies have seen the arrival of biosimilars on the market. The clear identification of the precise medicine responsible for an adverse drug reaction (ADR) report is an important element for pharmacovigilance, allowing timely detection of potential product-specific safety signals. We looked at the identifiability of biologicals up to the level of commercial product name in ADR reports received from European clinical practice between 2011 and December 2019. A good level of identification (91.5%) was observed overall, but at the same time a downward trend was observed in the last 5 years. This reduction in the level of identifiability of biological products (originators and biosimilars) at the commercial name level in general was driven by five widely used substances, whereas the identification of all other biologics stayed consistent over time (at over 90%). We observed that those five substances were used mostly within oncology. The introduction of the first biosimilar in the market did not appear to affect their identifiability. These results show that although the general level of identification at the commercial product name level in ADRs in Europe is robust and generally stable over time, decreasing trends can be down to a few commonly used substances, which need to be monitored to reverse the trend.

Does Similarity Breed Contempt? A Review of the Use of Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

The introduction of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies directed against tumor necrosis factor-α has revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) by improving quality of life, decreasing the frequency and length of hospital admissions, and reducing corticosteroid use. Nevertheless, biologics are very expensive, substantially contributing to the cost of care for patients with IBD. To reduce this cost and improve treatment access, biosimilars, which are therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (biologicals) similar to but not identical to the reference biologic, were introduced. Despite their potential benefits, the adoption and uptake of biosimilars have varied considerably across the USA and Europe. Here, we highlight the current biosimilar therapeutic landscape, discuss barriers to their use, and provide an overview of published studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of biosimilars in IBD.

The First WHO International Standard for Adalimumab: Dual Role in Bioactivity and Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.

The expanded availability of adalimumab products continues to widen patient access and reduce costs with substantial benefit to healthcare systems. However, the long-term success of these medicines is highly dependent on maintaining consistency in quality, safety and efficacy while minimizing any risk of divergence during life-cycle management. In recognition of this need and demand from global manufacturers, the World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee on Biological standardization established the WHO 1st International standard (IS) for Adalimumab (coded 17/236) in October 2019 with a defined unitage ascribed to each of the individual bioactivities evaluated in the study namely, TNF-α binding, TNF-α neutralization, complement dependent cytotoxicity and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. For development of the IS, two candidate standards were manufactured as per WHO recommendations. Analysis of extensive datasets generated by testing of a common set of samples including the candidate standards by multiple stakeholders including regulatory agencies using their own qualified assays in a large international collaborative study showed comparable biological activity for the tested candidates for the different activities. Use of a common standard significantly decreased the variability of bioassays and improved agreement in potency estimates. Data from this study clearly supports the utility of the IS as an important tool for assuring analytical assay performance, for bioassay calibration and validation, for identifying and controlling changes in bioactivity during life-cycle management and for global harmonization of adalimumab products. In addition, in a separate multi-center study which included involvement of hospital and clinical diagnostic laboratories, the suitability of the adalimumab IS for therapeutic drug monitoring assays was examined by analysis of data from testing of a common blind coded panel of adalimumab spiked serum samples representative of the clinical scenario along with the IS and in-house standards in diverse immunoassays/platforms. Both commercially available and in-house assays that are routinely used for assessing adalimumab trough levels were included. Excellent agreement in estimates for adalimumab content in the spiked samples was observed regardless of the standard or the method with inter-laboratory variability also similar regardless of the standard employed. This data, for the first time, provides support for the extended applicability of the IS in assays in use for therapeutic drug monitoring based on the mass content of the IS. The adalimumab IS, in fulfilling clinical demand, can help toward standardizing and harmonizing clinical monitoring assays for informed clinical decisions and/or personalized treatment strategies for better patient outcomes. Collectively, a significant role for the adalimumab IS in assuring the quality, safety and efficacy of adalimumab products globally is envisaged.

Iraqi regulatory authority current system and experience with biosimilars.

Biological medicines have significantly altered treatment for many patients with chronic diseases such as cancers, autoimmune diseases, and diabetes. However, the high cost of biological medicines has limited patients' access to them. Iraq is one of the countries that have decided to increase access to these medicines through biosimilars, which are copies of originator biological medicines. Prior to 2019, the Iraqi National Regulatory Authority (NRA) had no clear guidelines in place for biosimilars uptake. Therefore, approvals of many biosimilars were delayed. As a response to that, a new pivotal committee was found within this authority, and the first version of Iraqi basis and guidelines for the approval of biosimilars was enacted. With the implementation of the Iraqi biosimilars guidelines and escalating the cooperation within the Iraqi NRA, many benefits have been attained in a short time including the approval of many essential biosimilar products which has resulted in a total cost savings estimated to exceed 50 million USD in just the year 2020. However, there are still some barriers towards making the utmost benefit from biosimilars in Iraq, such as lack of familiarity of these products among the Iraqi health care providers which requires appropriate biosimilars-awareness enhancement strategies.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Hematopoietic Growth Factors, Version 1.2020.

Management of febrile neutropenia (FN) is an integral part of supportive care for patients undergoing cancer treatment. The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors provide suggestions for appropriate evaluation, risk determination, prophylaxis, and management of FN. These NCCN Guidelines are intended to guide clinicians in the appropriate use of growth factors for select patients undergoing treatment of nonmyeloid malignancies. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight important updates to the NCCN Guidelines regarding the incorporation of newly FDA-approved granulocyte-colony stimulating factor biosimilars for the prevention and treatment of FN.

Batch-to-Batch Consistency of SB4 and SB2, Etanercept and Infliximab Biosimilars.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilars must meet stringent regulatory requirements, both at the time of authorization and during their lifecycle. Yet it has been suggested that divergence in quality attributes over time may lead to clinically meaningful differences between two versions of a biologic. Therefore, this study investigated the batch-to-batch consistency across a range of parameters for released batches of the etanercept biosimilar (SB4) and infliximab biosimilar (SB2). METHODS: SB4 (Benepali®) and SB2 (Flixabi®) were both developed by Samsung Bioepis and are manufactured in Europe by Biogen at their facility in Hillerød, Denmark. A total of 120 batches of SB4 and 25 batches of SB2 were assessed for consistency and compliance with specified release parameters, including purity, post-translational glycosylation (SB4 only), protein concentration, and biological activity. RESULTS: The protein concentration, purity, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) binding, and TNF-α neutralization of all batches of SB4 and SB2 were within the strict specification limits set by regulatory agencies, as was the total sialic acid (TSA) content of all batches of SB4. CONCLUSIONS: Quality attributes of SB4 and SB2 batches showed little variation and were consistently within the rigorous specifications defined by regulatory agencies.

Understanding biosimilars and its regulatory aspects across the globe: an ophthalmology perspective.

PURPOSE: This article aims to analyse the key regulatory guidelines across the globe concerning biosimilars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Review of the current literature. RESULTS: Biosimilars are well regulated with the majority of regulators having enforced the guidelines for the development and approval, and new biosimilar drugs are appearing on the horizon to provide a therapeutic option to a wider population base because of its cost-effectiveness and proven safety. Due to their extensive analytical data, clinical data and pharmacovigilance studies, their development should not be considered similar to generic drugs. CONCLUSION: This review discusses the biosimilars, their regulation globally and their difference from generics from ophthalmic perspective.

Evaluation of a biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in Japanese healthy donors: a prospective study.

A "biosimilar" is a biotechnological product with a lower cost profile and equivalent efficacy and safety to the originator, but post-marketing clinical evaluation of biosimilar products has not been adequately conducted. We prospectively investigated the utility of biosimilar filgrastim in 13 peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) donors from June 2014 to January 2017. In addition, we retrospectively compared these to another 13 PBSC donors mobilized with the originator filgrastim in the same period. Donor characteristics were equivalent between the groups. The median number of CD34+ cells per donor body weight (BW) and blood volume processed (BV) were 4.87 × 106/kg and 25.5 × 103/mL in the biosimilar group and 4.93 × 106/kg and 16.6 × 103/mL in the originator group, respectively. There were no significant differences between the groups in the number of CD34+ cells per donor BW or BV. All adverse events associated with G-CSF were permissive. The total G-CSF cost was significantly lower in the biosimilar group than in the originator group. These findings suggest that biosimilar filgrastim has the same efficacy and short-term safety as originator filgrastim for PBSC mobilization in healthy donors, with economic superiority. Longer follow-up studies are needed to evaluate the incidence of long-term adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of RGB-02, a pegfilgrastim biosimilar to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: results of a randomized, double-blind phase III clinical study vs. reference pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is accepted standard for prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. RGB-02 (Gedeon Richter) is a proposed biosimilar to pegylated G-CSF (Neulasta®, Amgen) with sustained release properties. This is a randomized, comparative, double-blind, multicenter study to evaluate efficacy and safety of RGB-02 in breast cancer patients receiving cytotoxic regimen. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-nine women presenting with breast cancer were randomized to RGB-02 (n = 121) and the reference product (n = 118). All patients received up to 6 cycles of docetaxel/doxorubicin chemotherapy combination and a once-per-cycle injection of a fixed 6 mg dose of pegfilgrastim. Primary endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.5 × 109/L) in Cycle 1 (2-sided CI 95%). Secondary endpoints included incidence and duration of severe neutropenia (in cycles 2-4), incidence of febrile neutropenia, time to ANC recovery, depth of ANC nadir, and safety outcomes. RESULTS: The mean duration of severe neutropenia in Cycle 1 was 1.7 (RGB-02) and 1.6 days (reference), with a difference (LS Mean) of 0.1 days (95% CI -0.2, 0.4). Equivalence could be established as the CI for the difference in LS Mean lay entirely within the pre-defined range of ±1 day. This positive result was supported by the analysis of secondary endpoints, which also revealed no clinical meaningful differences. Safety profiles were comparable between groups. No neutralizing antibodies against pegfilgrastim were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment equivalence in reducing the duration of chemotherapy induced neutropenia between RGB-02 and Neulasta® could be demonstrated. Similar efficacy and safety profiles of the once-per-cycle administration of RGB-02 and the pegfilgrastim reference were demonstrated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered prospectively, prior to study initiation. EudraCT number ( 2013-003166-14 ). The date of registration was 12 July, 2013.

Demystifying biosimilars: development, regulation and clinical use.

Biologics are an integral component in the treatment of various diseases. However, limited patient access to these medicines remains a significant global challenge, prompting development of safe and effective biosimilars. A biosimilar is 'highly similar to a reference (originator) product, for which there are no clinically meaningful differences between the two products in terms of safety, purity and potency'. Biosimilars have the potential to offer possible benefits, including lower treatment costs, thereby increasing patient access and clinical use, which may lead to better overall outcomes. Improved understanding of biosimilars may enhance confidence and trust in these agents. As increasing numbers of biosimilars achieve regulatory approval, this overview aims to address enduring knowledge gaps regarding the development and use of biosimilars.

To switch or not to switch: results of a nationwide guideline of mandatory switching from originator to biosimilar etanercept. One-year treatment outcomes in 2061 patients with inflammatory arthritis from the DANBIO registry.

OBJECTIVES: Real-world evidence on effectiveness of switching to biosimila r etanercept is scarce. In Denmark, a nationwide guideline of mandatory switch from 50 mg originator (ETA) to biosimilar (SB4) etanercept was issued for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) in 2016. Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes were studied in ETA-treated patients, who switched to SB4 (switchers) or maintained ETA (non-switchers). Retention rates were compared with that of a historic cohort of ETA-treated patients. Switchers who resumed ETA treatment (back-switchers) were characterised. METHODS: Observational cohort study based on the DANBIO registry. Treatment retention was explored by Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression (crude, adjusted). RESULTS: 1621 (79%) of 2061 ETA-treated patients switched to SB4. Disease activity was unchanged 3 months' preswitch/postswitch. Non-switchers often received 25 mg ETA (ETA 25 mg pens/syringes and powder solution were still available). One-year adjusted retention rates were: non-switchers: 77% (95% CI: 72% to 82%)/switchers: 83% (79% to 87%)/historic cohort: 90% (88% to 92%). Patients not in remission had lower retention rates than patients in remission, both in switchers (crude HR 1.7 (1.3 to 2.2)) and non-switchers (2.4 (1.7 to 3.6)). During follow-up, 120 patients (7% of switchers) back-switched to ETA. Back-switchers' clinical characteristics were similar to switchers, and reasons for SB4 withdrawal were mainly subjective. CONCLUSION: Seventy-nine per cent of patients switched from ETA to SB4. After 1 year, adjusted treatment retention rates were lower in switchers versus the historic ETA cohort, but higher than in non-switchers. Withdrawal was more common in patients not in remission. The results suggest that switch outcomes in routine care are affected by patient-related factors and non-specific drug effects.

Avaliação técnico-regulatória dos requisitos de qualidade para registro de medicamentos biológicos e biossimilares humanos: perspectivas e desafios no Brasil / Technical and regulatory evaluation of quality requirements for the registration of human biological and biosimilar drugs: perspectives and challenges in Brazil

Medicamentos biológicos são obtidos a partir de fluidos biológicos ou tecidos de origem animal por procedimentos biotecnológicos e, a partir do vencimento das suas patentes, surge a possibilidade da produção de suas cópias, os chamados biossimilares. Este tema, além de polêmico, por ainda apresentar divergências de entendimento da classe científica, também engloba 4 das 5 classes terapêuticas de medicamentos mais vendidas, e apresenta evolução crescente no mercado farmacêutico. Com o aumento da demanda, cresce o interesse na produção de medicamentos biológicos de alta qualidade, com a mesma eficácia, porém a preços mais baixos. Dessa forma, é possível entender a responsabilidade das regulamentações, principalmente no que diz respeito aos biossimilares, a fim de que eles respeitem os requisitos mínimos necessários para serem comparáveis ao seu medicamento biológico novo. Assim, este trabalho teve como objetivo avaliar questões técnico-regulatórias e os requisitos de qualidade para registro de medicamentos biológicos e biossimilares humanos frente a diferentes Autoridades Sanitárias mundiais. A análise foi baseada em três moléculas biológicas, sendo a clássica heparina e moléculas novas, filgrastim e infliximabe. Foi constatado que na teoria, a legislação brasileira é baseada em regulamentos internacionais, especialmente da Federal and Drug Administration (FDA) e European Medicines Agency (EMA), e que na prática, o Brasil tem se mostrado mais conservador na extrapolação de indicação e na aprovação dos biossimilares. Ainda, foi possível notar que independente do país, as Farmacopeias ainda necessitam de aprimoramento com relação a este tema, pois em sua maioria, não existe padronização dos parâmetros e testes a serem realizados. Pesquisa demonstrou que o conhecimento sobre biossimilares ainda não está consolidado entre profissionais médicos e que, portanto, há necessidade de programas para esclarecimentos, com a finalidade de estimular seu uso, quando possível e com custos mais interessantes

Biological drugs are obtained from biological fluids or animals tissues by biotechnological procedures and, from the expiration of their patents, the possibility of producing their "copies", the so-called biosimilars, arises. In addition to being a controversial subject, as it still presents divergences of understanding by the scientific class, it also encompasses 4 of the 5 therapeutic classes of best-selling drugs, and it presents an increasing evolution in the pharmaceutical market. As demand increases, interest in the production of high-quality biological drugs with the same effectiveness, but at lower prices, also increases. In this way, it is possible to understand the responsibility of regulations, especially with regard to biosimilars, so that they comply with the minimum requirements needed to be comparable to their reference biological medicine. Thus, the objective of this project was to evaluate technical and regulatory topics, as well as quality requirements for the registration of human biological and biosimilar medicines under the perspective of different Health Authorities around the world. The analysis was based on three biological molecules, being the classic heparin and new molecules, filgrastim and infliximab. It was found that in theory, Brazilian regulation is based on international regulations, especially the Federal and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and that in practice, Brazil has been more conservative in the extrapolation of indication and approval of biosimilars. Also, it was possible to note that, regardless the country, Pharmacopoeias still need to be improved for this topic, since in general, there is no standardization of the parameters and tests to be performed. Research showed that the knowledge about biosimilars is not yet consolidated among doctors and that, therefore, there is a need for clarification programs, with the purpose of stimulating their use, when possible and at lower costs

Approval Process: An Overview of Biosimilars in the Oncology Setting.

BACKGROUND: Following approval of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, biosimilars are gradually entering the market in the United States. With the introduction of more biosimilars into the marketplace, all healthcare providers should be familiar with the approval and evaluation process, the naming convention applied to these agents, and the importance of accurate pharmacovigilance. OBJECTIVES: This article aims to describe the approval process of biosimilars, including extrapolation, and to help healthcare providers understand when a biosimilar may be interchanged for the reference biologic and the naming convention used for biosimilars. In addition, this article explores how these topics affect confidence in dispensing and pharmacovigilance. METHODS: A literature review was conducted, and search terms and variation included biosimilar agents AND FDA approval, legislation, interchangeability, naming conventions, confidence in dispensing, and pharmacovigilance. FINDINGS: Healthcare providers involved in the dispensing and administration of biosimilar and interchangeable biologics need to be continually educated to ensure confidence, familiarity, and accuracy with the processes surrounding biosimilars.

Clinical Trials: Nursing Roles During the Approval Process and Pharmacovigilance of Biosimilars.

BACKGROUND: The development of biosimilars is occurring more rapidly as patents on biologics expire. Oncology nurses will have an integral role in the new era of biosimilars regarding administration and education. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to review the role of the oncology nurse during biosimilar clinical trials, including regulatory guidelines, comparability exercise, clinical trial designs, and extrapolation of clinical trial data. This article also reviews pharmacovigilance. METHODS: A literature search was performed using various databases, and U.S. regulatory agency websites were searched for guidelines. FINDINGS: The role of the oncology nurse during biosimilar clinical trials includes assessment, monitoring, and reporting of adverse drug reactions associated with a biosimilar. Oncology nurses have key roles in pharmacovigilance of biosimilars, particularly in tracing, monitoring, and accurate reporting of adverse events associated with a specific biosimilar. Oncology nurses and patients must be educated on the proper reporting of adverse events.

Nursing Roles: Clinical Implications Regarding Trends, Administration, and Education for Biosimilars in Oncology Practice.

BACKGROUND: With the advent of biosimilars into the U.S. healthcare market, knowledge deficits exist for nurses and patients regarding the regulatory approval process and key nursing considerations for each of these new medications. OBJECTIVES: This article provides essential clinical information for oncology nurses who are directly involved in patient care who will be administering U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved biosimilars for oncologic use. Oncology nurses must be informed on their therapeutic uses, mechanisms of action, and administration considerations. METHODS: An overview of biosimilars in the United States is given, and each FDA-approved oncology biosimilar medication is described in detail. FINDINGS: Oncology biosimilars are safe and effective treatment options that may increase patient access, decrease healthcare costs through competition, and improve the lives of patients with certain malignancies. Nurses are in key roles in patient care to foster the transition from previously patented, branded, and expensive medications to biosimilars that can achieve the same desired effects for a lower cost.

The use of biosimilar medicines in oncology - position statement of the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC).

A biosimilar is a biologic product that is similar to a reference biopharmaceutical product, the manufacturing process of which hinders the ability to identically replicate the structure of the original product, and therefore, it cannot be described as an absolute equivalent of the original medication. The currently available technology does not allow for an accurate copy of complex molecules, but it does allow the replication of similar molecules with the same activity. As biosimilars are about to be introduced in oncology practice, these must be evaluated through evidence-based medicine. This manuscript is a position paper, where the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC) aims to describe pertinent issues regarding the approval and use of biosimilars in oncology. As a working group on behalf of SBOC, we discuss aspects related to definition, labeling/nomenclature, extrapolation, interchangeability, switching, automatic substitution, clinical standards on safety and efficacy, and the potential impact on financial burden in healthcare. We take a stand in favor of the introduction of biosimilars, as they offer a viable, safe, and cost-effective alternative to the biopharmaceutical products currently used in cancer. We hope this document can provide valuable information to support therapeutic decisions that maximize the clinical benefit for the thousands of cancer patients in Brazil and can contribute to expedite the introduction of this new drug class in clinical practice. We expect the conveyed information to serve as a basis for further discussion in Latin America, this being the first position paper issued by a Latin American Oncology Society.