How Do Hospital Pharmacists Approach Substitution of Nanomedicines? Insights from a Qualitative Pilot Study and a Quantitative Market Research Analysis in Five European Countries.

We conducted research to assess hospital pharmacists' familiarity with/interpretation of data requirements for the different regulatory approval frameworks and the impact of this on their approach to substitution in the formulary. The online questionnaire included a small molecule (acetylsalicylic acid-follow-ons approved via the generic pathway), two biologic drugs (insulin glargine and etanercept-follow-ons approved via the biosimilar pathway), a non-biologic complex drug (NBCD; glatiramer acetate-follow-ons approved via the hybrid pathway) and a nanomedicine, ferric carboxymaltose (no follow-ons approved as yet). The study was conducted in two phases: an initial qualitative pilot study with 30 participants, followed by a quantitative stage involving 201 pharmacists from five European countries. Most expected negligible safety/efficacy differences between reference and follow-on products. Head-to-head clinical data showing therapeutic equivalence as a prerequisite for reference product/follow-on substitution was perceived to be needed most for biologics (47%), followed by NBCDs (44%)/nanomedicines (39%) and small molecules (23%). Overall, 28% did not know the data requirements for follow-on approval via the hybrid pathway; 16% were familiar with this pathway, compared with 50% and 55% for the generic and biosimilar pathways, respectively. Overall, 19% of respondents thought the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was responsible for defining the substitutability of follow-ons. Education is required to increase hospital pharmacist's knowledge of regulatory approval frameworks and their relevance to substitution practices.

Tackling the challenges of nanomedicines: are we ready?

PURPOSE: This review provides an overview of the proceedings of the symposium "Tackling the Challenges of Nanomedicines: Are We Ready?" organized by the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) Hospital Pharmacy Section and Non-Biological Complex Drugs (NBCDs) Working Group at the 2019 FIP World Congress of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. Debate centered on reasons underlying the current complex regulatory landscape for nanomedicines and their follow-on products (referred to as nanosimilars) and the pivotal role of hospital pharmacists in selecting, handling, and guiding usage of nanomedicines and nanosimilars. SUMMARY: The evaluation and use of nanomedicines are recognized among scientific, pharmaceutical, and regulatory bodies as complex. Interchangeability and substitutability of nanomedicines and nanosimilars are confounded by a lack of pharmaceutical and pharmacological equivalence, reflecting the inherent complex nature of these drug products and manufacturing processes. Consequences include implications for clinical safety and efficacy and, ultimately, comparability. Local regulatory approvals of some nanomedicines have occurred, but there is no standard to ensure streamlined evaluation and use of consistent measures of therapeutic equivalence of reference products and their nanosimilars. Hospital pharmacists are expected to be experts in the selection, handling, and substitution of nanomedicines and familiarize themselves with the limitations of current methods of assessing pharmaceutical and clinical equivalence of nanosimilars in order to ensure informed formulary decision-making and eventual patient benefit. CONCLUSION: Supportive guidance for pharmacists focusing on the substitutability and/or interchangeability of nanomedicines and their nanosimilars is needed. Current FIP guidance for pharmacists on therapeutic interchange and substitution should be extended to include nanomedicines and nanosimilars.

Revision of the International Pharmaceutical Federation's Basel Statements on the future of hospital pharmacy: From Basel to Bangkok.

PURPOSE: The processes used to revise the 2008 Basel Statements on the future of hospital pharmacy are summarized, and the revised statements are presented. METHODS: The process for revising the Basel Statements followed an approach similar to that used during their initial development. The Hospital Pharmacy Section (HPS) of the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) revised the 2008 FIP Basel Statements in four phases, including a survey of hospital pharmacists worldwide, an internal review, online forums, and a face-to-face "World Café" workshop in Bangkok, Thailand. RESULTS: The global survey on the initial Basel Statements included input from 334 respondents from 62 countries. The majority of respondents agreed that most of the initial Basel Statements were acceptable as written and did not require revision. In total, 11 statements were judged by more than 10% of respondents as needing revision or deletion. The FIP HPS executive committee used the survey results to develop 69 initial revised draft statements. After an online discussion with the international hospital pharmacy community, including individuals from 28 countries representing all six World Health Organization regions, a final set of draft statements was prepared for the live discussion involving participants from 20 countries. The final 65 revised Basel Statements were voted on and accepted. CONCLUSION: Systematic revision of the FIP Basel Statements resulted in an updated reflection of aspirational goals for the future of hospital pharmacy practice. While this revision reflects the development of new goals for hospital pharmacy practice, the core principles of the Basel Statements remain an essential foundation for the discipline.