EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF THE PROPOSED BIOSIMILAR AFLIBERCEPT, SDZ-AFL, IN PATIENTS WITH NEOVASCULAR AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION: 52-Week Results From the Phase 3 Mylight Study.

PURPOSE: The Phase 3 Mylight study was designed to confirm clinical equivalence of proposed biosimilar aflibercept (SOK583A1; Sandoz [proposed biosimilar aflibercept, SDZ-AFL]) to its reference biologic (Eylea; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Bayer AG [reference aflibercept, Ref-AFL]). METHOD: Mylight was a prospective, double-masked, 2-arm, parallel Phase 3 study. Participants with neovascular age-related macular degeneration were randomized 1:1 to receive eight injections of SDZ-AFL (n = 244) or Ref-AFL (n = 240) over 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was mean change in best-corrected visual acuity score from baseline to Week 8. Secondary endpoints included anatomical outcomes, best-corrected visual acuity at Weeks 24 and 52, safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Similarity in mean change in best-corrected visual acuity score was established between SDZ-AFL (n = 235) and Ref-AFL (n = 226) at Week 8 (difference: -0.3 [90% CI, -1.5 to 1.0]) and Week 52. No clinically meaningful differences occurred between groups in anatomical outcomes. Safety profiles were similar, with comparable incidences of treatment-related adverse events (SDZ-AFL: 2.5%; Ref-AFL: 2.9%). The incidence of anti-drug antibodies was similar between groups. Systemic free aflibercept concentrations 24 hours postdose were low and comparable between SDZ-AFL and Ref-AFL. CONCLUSION: Proposed biosimilar aflibercept matched reference aflibercept in efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics in participants with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Therefore, this Phase 3 study confirmed biosimilarity of SDZ-AFL to Ref-AFL.

A randomized pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic trial of two regular human insulins demonstrates bioequivalence in type 1 diabetes and availability of biosimilar insulin may improve access to this medication.

AIMS: To compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) effects and safety of therapeutic dosages of a regular insulin (experimental drug) produced by Bioton S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) versus Humulin® R, a regular insulin (reference drug) produced by Eli Lilly (Indianapolis, Indiana). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a single-centre, randomized, double-blinded phase 1 crossover study, we used the manual euglycaemic clamp technique to compare PK and PD profiles between single subcutaneous doses (0.3 units/kg) of the two regular insulins in participants with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) with a washout period of 14 (± 7) days between tests. RESULTS: We evaluated 56 participants. The mean participant age and body mass index were 32.9 years and 22.9 kg/m2 , respectively. The ratios (experimental/reference) of the geometric means of maximum plasma insulin concentration and for plasma insulin area under the curve (AUC) were 0.909 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.822-1.01) and 0.993 (90% CI 0.944-1.04), respectively. The ratios of the geometric means of maximum glucose infusion rate (GIR) and for GIR AUC were 0.999 (95% CI 0.912-1.09) and 1.04 (95% CI 0.962-1.12), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The experimental product regular human insulin and comparator Humulin® R are bioequivalent in patients with T1DM. Wider entry to the pharmaceutical market of affordable, biosimilar regular insulins may substantially improve access to insulin for many socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with diabetes.

Biosimilar Versus Originator Pegfilgrastim for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia: A Phase III Randomized, Multicenter, Evaluator-Blinded, Noninferiority Study.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilar pegfilgrastim (PegFilBS) and originator pegfilgrastim (PegFilOR) in patients with stage 2-4 breast cancer. METHODS: This phase III randomized, multicenter, evaluator-blinded, noninferiority study recruited women with stage 2-4 breast cancer in Argentina who were scheduled to receive chemotherapy. Stratification was based on the breast cancer stage. The primary end point was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN, noninferiority margin: 1 day) in the first chemotherapy cycle. Secondary end points assessed were incidence of severe neutropenia, grade 3 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, infections, postchemotherapy hospitalization and duration, and the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned to receive PegFilBS (58 patients) or PegFilOR (62 patients). Severe neutropenia occurred in 52 of 283 cycles (18.4%) for 27 patients who received PegFilBS and in 48 of 297 cycles (16.2%) for 20 patients who received PegFilOR (P = .48). During the first cycle, severe neutropenia occurred in 16 patients who received PegFilBS (DSN: 0.78 ± 1.53 days) and in 11 patients who received PegFilOR (DSN: 0.53 ± 1.25 days; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.76 days). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean DSN values were 0.90 ± 1.79 days for the PegFilBS group and 0.50 ± 1.21 for the PegFilOR group (95% CI, -0.15 to 0.95 days). No significant differences were observed for the secondary efficacy end points. Three patients experienced seven ADRs in the PegFilBS group while 10 patients experienced 31 ADRs in the PegFilOR group. The most common ADR was myalgia. CONCLUSION: Relative to PegFilOR, PegFilBS provided noninferior efficacy outcomes in Argentinian women with stage 2-4 breast cancer who were treated using myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching: What is the Rationale and Current Experience?

Over time, clinicians have become increasingly comfortable embracing the prescription of biosimilars-highly similar versions of innovator or reference biological agents-for their patients with inflammatory diseases. Although a switch from a reference product to a licensed biosimilar version (or vice versa) is a medical decision robustly supported by the stepwise accumulation of clinical trial evidence concerning comparable safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy between these products, a switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference product, or a cross-switch, is not. Similarity among biosimilars of a reference product is not a regulatory agency concern and therefore is unlikely to be investigated in randomized controlled trials in the foreseeable future. Yet in clinical practice, across a diverse range of patients, the option to cross-switch from one biosimilar to another can and does arise for valid reasons such as convenience or tolerability issues, or driven by third parties (e.g., payers). In the absence of clinical trial data, clinicians must attempt to objectively evaluate the emerging real-world cross-switching evidence within the context of what is known about the science underpinning a designation of biosimilar. That knowledge then needs to be integrated with what clinicians know about their patients and their disease on a case-by-case basis. This review aims to consolidate relevant emerging real-world data and other key information about biosimilar-to-biosimilar cross-switching for prescribing clinicians. In the absence of clear clinical guidelines addressing this topic at present, this review may serve to facilitate discretionary and educated treatment decision making.

Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of a biosimilar recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (Folitime®) vs. Gonal-f® in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF: A randomized, multicenter, evaluator-blinded, non-inferiority study.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of a biosimilar recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (Folitime®) with Gonal-f® in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization. METHODS: This randomized (1:1), multicenter, assessor-blinded, non-inferiority, parallel-group, controlled study conducted at four infertility clinics in Argentina included infertile normogonadotropic women with ages below 39 years, with menstrual cycles of 25/35 days and a body mass index of 18-32 kg/m2 undergoing assisted reproductive technology therapy. During a 5-day fixed-dose phase, the women received 225 IU/day of Folitime® (n=49) or Gonal-f® (n=44), followed by a dose-adaptation phase up to a maximum of 450 IU/day. The non-inferiority margin for oocyte retrieval was estimated at -4 oocytes (one-sided test). Immunogenicity was investigated on days 9 and 84, following the start of treatment. RESULTS: The mean number of oocytes retrieved was 12.6 (SD 7.4) in the Folitime® group and 13.4 (SD 6.9) in the Gonal-f® group (per protocol analysis, 95% confidence interval = -3.82; 2.33), within the non-inferiority margin. Pregnancy rate at week 10 was 24.4% among subjects treated with Folitime® and 19.5% for subjects treated with Gonal-f®. One serious adverse drug reaction-late mild ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome and deep venous thrombosis in the left deep jugular vein-occurred in a subject treated with Folitime®. None of the subjects developed antibodies against the study drugs. There were no unexpected safety findings. CONCLUSIONS: Folitime® is non-inferior to Gonal-f®, with no differences in the safety profile and has been approved as a biosimilar in Argentina.

Can biosimilar products be interchangeable? Pharmaceutical perspective in the implementation of biosimilars in oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety in the interchangeability of biosimilar products approved for cancer treatment from a pharmaceutical perspective. METHODS: A literature review was carried out using the descriptors "Biosimilar", "Oncology Therapy", "Interchangeable drugs" and "Biological Products", in the Sciencedirect, MEDLINE, and CAPLUS databases. RESULTS: Fifty-one articles were selected, which addressed the importance of establishing standards that prove the efficacy and safety of biosimilars with reference products, as well as the growing interest of the pharmaceutical industry in the development of biosimilars and the impact on costs and changes in the perspective of the treatment of cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: As they are large and complex molecules, it is impossible to obtain identical copies of their reference products, which generates conflicts and concerns on the part of the pharmaceutical class regarding the safety in the interchangeability of these products, highlighting the importance of pharmacovigilance in this process.

Biosimilar medicines for psoriasis. Positioning of the Mexican Academy of Dermatology.

The development and marketing of biosimilars opens a new scenario in the treatment of many pathologies, including psoriasis. This article reflects the position of the Mexican Academy of Dermatology (AMD) on the use of biosimilar medicines for the treatment of psoriasis in Mexico. In summary, the AMD estates that there is sufficient evidence to accept comparability of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of some biosimilar medicines to adalimumab, infliximab and etanercept; this evidence does not sufficiently support interchangeability or indication extrapolation. It is essential to establish a close pharmacovigilance not only to guarantee compliance with the Cofepris rules in Mexico, but also to facilitate the effective monitoring of the adverse effects of biosimilar medicines. Although the goal of biotechnological drugs is to achieve substantial savings for patients and public institutions, no economic criteria should prevail over rigorous scientific criteria that guarantee maximum therapeutic efficacy and optimum safety for patients.

El desarrollo y comercialización de biocomparables abre un nuevo escenario en el tratamiento de muchas patologías, entre ellas la psoriasis. El presente artículo recoge la postura de la Academia Mexicana de Dermatología (AMD) respecto al uso de medicamentos biocomparables para el tratamiento de la psoriasis en México. En resumen, la AMD establece que existe suficiente evidencia para aceptar la comparabilidad farmacocinética y farmacodinámica entre algunos medicamentos biocomparables al adalimumab, el infliximab y el etanercept; esta evidencia no sustenta suficientemente su intercambiabilidad ni la extrapolación de indicaciones; es fundamental establecer una farmacovigilancia estrecha no solo para garantizar el cumplimiento de las reglas de la Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios en México, sino para facilitar un seguimiento efectivo de los efectos adversos de los medicamentos biocomparables. Si bien la meta de los medicamentos biotecnológicos es lograr un ahorro sustancial para los pacientes y las instituciones públicas, los criterios económicos no deben anteponerse a criterios científicos rigurosos que garanticen la máxima eficacia terapéutica y la óptima seguridad para los pacientes.

Barriers towards effective pharmacovigilance systems of biosimilars in rheumatology: A Latin American survey.

PURPOSE: This review summarises the current status of regulatory guidelines for the approval of biosimilars in Latin America and highlights the main barriers to effective pharmacovigilance in this region. We also report results from a survey of Latin American rheumatologists assessing their understanding of prescribing biosimilars and the pharmacovigilance of these drugs. METHODS: We reviewed the current guidelines for the regulatory approval of biosimilars and barriers to effective pharmacovigilance in Latin American countries. Rheumatologists attending the II Pan-American League of Rheumatology Associations PANLAR Review Course (Biosimilars update) in Lima, Peru were asked to complete a short survey to determine their knowledge of biosimilars. RESULTS: Many Latin American countries continue to lag behind Europe and the United States in establishing regulatory guidance and effective pharmacovigilance systems for biosimilars. Results from our survey also highlight a lack of awareness regarding the availability of biosimilars, their nomenclature, automatic substitution, and reporting adverse drug reactions because of these drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The main barriers to effective pharmacovigilance in Latin America are the lack of consensus on the interchangeability of reference biologics and biosimilars, and the need for more suitably trained personnel to carry out effective postmarketing pharmacovigilance of biosimilars. Inconsistencies in biosimilar nomenclature make it difficult to adequately trace drugs and record adverse drug reactions associated with their use, creating a barrier to the global pharmacovigilance of biologics.

PANLAR consensus statement on biosimilars.

INTRODUCTION: Biologics have improved the treatment of rheumatic diseases, resulting in better outcomes. However, their high cost limits access for many patients in both North America and Latin America. Following patent expiration for biologicals, the availability of biosimilars, which typically are less expensive due to lower development costs, provides additional treatment options for patients with rheumatic diseases. The availability of biosimilars in North American and Latin American countries is evolving, with differing regulations and clinical indications. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to present the consensus statement on biosimilars in rheumatology developed by Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology (PANLAR). METHODS: Using a modified Delphi process approach, the following topics were addressed: regulation, efficacy and safety, extrapolation of indications, interchangeability, automatic substitution, pharmacovigilance, risk management, naming, traceability, registries, economic aspects, and biomimics. Consensus was achieved when there was agreement among 80% or more of the panel members. Three Delphi rounds were conducted to reach consensus. Questionnaires were sent electronically to panel members and comments about each question were solicited. RESULTS: Eight recommendations were formulated regarding regulation, pharmacovigilance, risk management, naming, traceability, registries, economic aspects, and biomimics. CONCLUSION: The recommendations highlighted that, after receiving regulatory approval, pharmacovigilance is a fundamental strategy to ensure safety of all medications. Registries should be employed to monitor use of biosimilars and to identify potential adverse effects. The price of biosimilars should be significantly lower than that of reference products to enhance patient access. Biomimics are not biosimilars and, if they are to be marketed, they must first be evaluated and approved according to established regulatory pathways for novel biopharmaceuticals. KEY POINTS: • Biologics have improved the treatment of rheumatic diseases. • Their high cost limits access for many patients in both North America and Latin America. • Biosimilars typically are less expensive, providing additional treatment options for patients with rheumatic diseases. • PANLAR presents its consensus on biosimilars in rheumatology.

Real-world safety experience of tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim and tbo-filgrastim, short-acting recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factors.

PURPOSE: Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (rG-CSFs), such as filgrastim, are administered to prevent complications in patients receiving chemotherapy. In Europe, a biosimilar to filgrastim, tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim, was approved in 2008. In the USA, the same product was approved as tbo-filgrastim under a 351(a) biologic license application in 2012 with the brand name Granix®. Postmarket surveillance remains a priority for monitoring the safety of biologics and biosimilars to identify rare and immunogenicity-related events. We report the global and US pharmacovigilance data for tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim and tbo-filgrastim, respectively. METHODS: Cumulative exposure and adverse event data from initial approval in Europe to December 31, 2016, were collected globally from spontaneous reports submitted by healthcare professionals and consumers, scientific literature, competent authorities, and solicited case reports from non-interventional studies. A separate search was conducted on the global data set to identify reports originating from the USA and Puerto Rico to describe the US experience. RESULTS: Overall, the global safety profile of tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim in the postmarket, real-world setting was comparable to clinical trial experience. Postmarket safety experience of tbo-filgrastim in the USA was consistent with global data. The most common SAEs were febrile neutropenia and decreased white blood cell count. The most common non-serious event was bone pain. There was no evidence of immunogenicity. CONCLUSIONS: This pharmacovigilance analysis indicates that postmarket experience of tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim and tbo-filgrastim is consistent with clinical trials. Adverse reactions associated with the originator rG-CSF (capillary leak syndrome and glomerulonephritis) have not been observed with tevagrastim/ratiograstim/biograstim or tbo-filgrastim during the postmarket period.

Bevacizumab biosimilar BEVZ92 versus reference bevacizumab in combination with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: BEVZ92 is a proposed biosimilar to bevacizumab. The two molecules have similar physicochemical and functional properties in in-vitro and preclinical studies. In this clinical study, we compared the pharmacokinetic profile, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of BEVZ92 with reference bevacizumab as a first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label trial at 15 centres in Argentina, Brazil, India, Spain, and Ukraine. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had metastatic colorectal cancer with at least one measurable non-irradiated lesion for which first-line chemotherapy was indicated and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or less, had not received previous treatment for advanced disease, and whose bone marrow, hepatic, renal, and coagulation markers were all within normal ranges. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either BEVZ92 or reference bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle every 2 weeks) in combination with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI). Randomisation was done via a web service based on a stochastic minimisation algorithm and was stratified by chemotherapy regimen (FOLFOX vs FOLFIRI), previous adjuvant therapy (yes vs no), ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2), and study site. The primary endpoint was the area under the concentration-versus-time curve after a single infusion (AUC0-336h) and at steady state (AUCss)-ie, at cycle 7-in the assessable population, which comprised all treated patients for whom serum concentration measurements were available during the first seven cycles. Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CIs for the ratio of BEVZ92 to reference bevacizumab of the geometric means for AUC0-336h and AUCss were within the acceptance interval of 80-125%. Secondary endpoints included objective response, clinical benefit, and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population and immunogenicity and safety profiles in all treated patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02069704, and is closed to new participants, with follow-up completed. FINDINGS: 142 patients were randomly assigned, 71 to the BEVZ92 group and 71 to the reference bevacizumab group. Two participants assigned to BEVZ92 did not receive treatment (one withdrew consent, the other had a serious intestinal obstruction before starting treatment); therefore, the treated population comprised 69 patients in the BEVZ92 group and 71 in the reference bevacizumab group. The geometric mean ratio of AUC0-336h in the BEVZ92 versus the control group was 99·4% (90% CI 90·5-109·0) and of AUCss was 100·0% (90·2-112·0). Objective response (35 [49%] of 71 vs 40 [56%] of 71), clinical benefit (62 [87%] vs 65 [92%]), and progression-free survival (median 10·8 months [95% CI 7·4-11·5] vs 11·1 months [95% CI 8·0-12·8]) were similar in the BEVZ92 and reference bevacizumab groups. No relevant differences were noted between the safety profiles of the two study treatments. Neutropenia was the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event reported in the BEVZ92 (14 [20%] of 69 patients) and reference bevacizumab (19 [27%] of 71 patients) groups. Serious adverse events occurred in 19 (28%) patients in the BEVZ92 group and 21 (30%) in the reference bevacizumab group. Two patients died because of bevacizumab-related serious adverse events: a sudden death in the BEVZ92 group and a serious large intestinal perforation in the reference bevacizumab group. The occurrence of anti-drug antibodies was low and similar in both treatment groups (two patients in the BEVZ92 group and one in the reference bevacizumab group). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that BEVZ92 and reference bevacizumab are pharmacokinetically bioequivalent and have no appreciable differences in efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety profiles as first-line treatment in combination with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: mAbxience Research SL.

Efficacy and Safety of a Biosimilar Versus Branded Enoxaparin in the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism Following Major Abdominal Surgery: A Randomized, Prospective, Single-Blinded, Multicenter Clinical Trial.

Several biosimilar versions of enoxaparin are already approved and in use globally. Analytical characterization can establish good quality control in manufacturing, but they may not assure similarity in clinical outcomes between biosimilar and branded enoxaparin. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of biosimilar Cristália versus branded Sanofi enoxaparin in venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery at risk for VTE. In this randomized, prospective single-blind study, we compared Cristália enoxaparin (Ce), a biosimilar version, versus branded Sanofi enoxaparin (Se; at a dose of 40 mg subcutaneously per day postoperatively from 7 to 10 days) in 243 patients submitted to major abdominal surgery at risk for VTE for VTE prevention. The primary efficacy outcome was occurrence of VTE or death related to VTE. The principal safety outcomes were a combination of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Bilateral duplex scanning of the legs was performed from days 10 to 14, and follow-ups were performed up to 60 days after surgery. The incidence of VTE was 4.9% in the Cristália group and 1.1% in the Sanofi group (absolute risk difference = 3.80%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.4%-9.0%) yielding noninferiority since the 95% CI does not reach the prespecified value Δ = 20%. Clinically significant bleeding occurred in 9.9% in the Cristália group and in 5.5% in the Sanofi group (n.s. ). In conclusion, this study suggests that 40 mg once daily of Ce, a biosimilar enoxaparin, is as effective and safe as the branded Sanofi enoxaparin in the prophylaxis of VTE in patients submitted to major abdominal surgery at risk for VTE.

Current state of biosimilars in Mexico: The position of the Mexican College of Rheumatology, 2016. / Escenario actual de los medicamentos biocomparables en México: posicionamiento del Colegio Mexicano de Reumatología, 2016.

The present document is a position statement of the Mexican College of Rheumatology on the use of biosimilars in rheumatic diseases. This position considers that biosimilars should be considered as interchangeable, that automatic substitution without previous notice in stable patients during follow-up is not ethical, that the approval of a biosimilar should only be given after exhaustive review of preclinical and clinical data marked by Mexican regulations, that it should be clearly stated in the nomenclature of biologic drugs which is the innovator and which is the biosimilar, that it is not correct to choose a biosimilar as treatment based only on economic reasons or extrapolate indications based only on the approval of the innovator and in the absence of safety and efficacy data for the biosimilar.

Biosimilars in psoriasis: Clinical practice and regulatory perspectives in Latin America.

Latin American countries view biosimilar agents as an effective approach to curtail health-care expenditures while maintaining the safety and efficacy profile of their branded innovator comparators. To understand the complexities of the regulatory landscape and key therapeutic issues for use of biosimilars to treat moderate to severe psoriasis in Latin America, the International Psoriasis Council convened dermatology experts from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico in October 2015 to review the definition, approval, marketing and future of biosimilars in each country and develop a consensus statement. The regulatory framework for marketing approval of biosimilars in Latin America is currently a mosaic of disparate, country-specific, regulatory review processes, rules and standards, with considerable heterogeneity in clarity and specificity. Regulations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico have undergone multiple refinements whereas Colombia is finalizing draft guidelines. Verification of the similarity in quality, safety and efficacy of biosimilars to the innovator biologic remains a key challenge for policy makers and regulatory authorities. Other key regulatory challenges include: naming of agents and traceability, pharmacovigilance, extrapolation of indications, and interchangeability and substitution. An urgent need exists for more Latin American countries to establish national psoriasis registries and to integrate their common components into a multinational psoriasis network, thereby enhancing their interpretative power and impact. A Latin American psoriasis network similar to PSONET in Europe would assist health-care providers, pharmaceutical companies, regulators and patients to fully comprehend specific products being prescribed and dispensed and to identify potential regional trends or differences in safety or outcomes.

Biosimilars in inflammatory bowel diseases: an important moment for Brazilian gastroenterologists.

Biosimilars are not generic drugs. These are more complex medications than small molecules, with identical chemical structures of monoclonal antibodies that lost their patency over time. Besides identical to the original product at the end, the process of achieving its final forms differs from the one used in the reference products. These differences in the formulation process can alter final outcomes such as safety and efficacy of the drugs. Recently, a biosimilar of Infliximab was approved in some countries, even to the management of inflammatory bowel diseases. However, this decision was based on studies performed in rheumatologic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Extrapolation of the indications from rheumatologic conditions was done for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis based on these studies. In this article, the authors explain possible different mechanisms in the pathogenesis between rheumatologic conditions and inflammatory bowel diseases, that can lead to different actions of the medications in different diseases. The authors also alert the gastroenterological community for the problem of extrapolation of indications, and explain in full details the reasons for being care with the use of biosimilars in inflammatory bowel diseases without specific data from trials performed in this scenario.

Adverse drug reactions associated with the use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis / Reacciones adversas a medicamentos asociadas con el uso de fármacos antirreumáticos modificadores de la enfermedad en pacientes con artritis reumatoide

This study describes the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and their incidence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were treated in the Colombian health system. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using information from all patients who were diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and attended specialized health care centers in the cities of Bogotá, Cali, Manizales, Medellin, and Pereira between 1 December 2009 and 30 August 2013. The ADRs were obtained from medical records and the pharmacovigilance system registry and sorted by frequency and affected tissue according to World Health Organization Adverse Reaction Terminology (WHO-ART). A total of 949 reports of ADRs were obtained from 419 patients (32.8 ADRs per 100 patient-years); these patients were from a cohort of 1 364 patients being treated for rheumatoid arthritis and followed up for an average of 23.8 months (± 12.9). The cohort was mostly female (366, 87.4%) and had a mean age of 52.7 years (± 13.1). The highest numbers of ADRs were reported following the use of tocilizumab, rituximab, and infliximab (28.8, 23.1, and 13.3 reports per 100 patient-years respectively). The most frequently reported ADRs were elevated transaminase levels and dyspepsia. Overall, 87.7% of ADRs were classified as type A, 36.6% as mild, 40.7% as moderate, and 22.7% as severe. As a result, 73.2% of patients who experienced an ADR stopped taking their drugs. The occurrence of ADRs in patients treated for rheumatoid arthritis is common, especially in those associated with the use of biotechnologically produced anti-rheumatic drugs. This outcome should be studied in future research and monitoring is needed to reduce the risks in these patients.

Este estudio describe las reacciones adversas a medicamentos (RAM) y su incidencia en pacientes con artritis reumatoide y tratados en el sistema de salud colombiano. Se llevó a cabo un estudio retrospectivo de cohortes utilizando la información correspondiente a todos los pacientes con diagnóstico de artritis reumatoide que acudieron a centros especializados de atención de salud de las ciudades de Bogotá, Cali, Manizales, Medellín y Pereira entre el 1 de diciembre del 2009 y el 30 de agosto del 2013. Los casos de RAM se obtuvieron de las historias clínicas y del registro del sistema de farmacovigilancia, y se clasificaron por su frecuencia y el tejido afectado, según la Terminología de Reacciones Adversas de la Organización Mundial de la Salud ­ (WHO-ART). Se obtuvo un total de 949 informes de RAM en 419 pacientes (32,8 RAM por 100 pacientes-año); estos pacientes correspondían a una cohorte de 1 364 pacientes tratados por artritis reumatoide y seguidos durante un promedio de 23,8 meses (± 12,9). La cohorte estaba compuesta principalmente por mujeres (366, 87,4%) y la media de edad era de 52,7 años (± 13,1). El mayor número de casos de RAM se notificó tras el uso de tocilizumab, rituximab e infliximab (28,8, 23,1 y 13,3 notificaciones por 100 pacientes-año, respectivamente). Las RAM notificadas con mayor frecuencia fueron la elevación de los niveles de transaminasas y la dispepsia. En términos generales, 87,7% de las RAM se clasificaron como de tipo A, 36,6% como leves, 40,7% como moderadas y 22,7% como graves. Como consecuencia, 73,2% de los pacientes que presentaron una RAM dejaron de tomar sus medicamentos. La aparición de RAM en pacientes tratados por artritis reumatoide es frecuente, especialmente cuando se utilizan fármacos antirreumáticos de producción biotecnológica. Estos resultados deben ser objeto de estudio en futuras investigaciones y señalan la necesidad de actividades de vigilancia para reducir los riesgos en estos pacientes.

Randomized double-blind clinical trial of a new human epoetin versus a commercially available formula for anemia control in patients on hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVES: Anemia is a common complication among chronic kidney disease patients on hemodialysis, occurring mostly due to erythropoietin deficiency. This randomized noninferiority trial sought to compare the efficacy and safety of a new epoetin formulation developed by Bio-Manguinhos, a biologics manufacturer affiliated with the Brazilian government, with those of a commercially available product currently used in Brazil (a biosimilar epoetin formulation). METHODS: The sample size needed to enable demonstration of noninferiority with a statistical power of 85% for a between-group difference in hemoglobin levels of no more than 1.5 g/dL was calculated. In total, 74 patients were randomly assigned to receive the epoetin formulation from Bio-Manguinhos (n = 36) or the biosimilar epoetin formulation (n = 38) in a double-blind fashion. The inclusion criteria were current epoetin therapy and stable hemoglobin levels for at least 3 months prior to the study. The primary and secondary outcomes were mean monthly hemoglobin levels and safety, respectively. The dose was calculated according to international criteria and adjusted monthly in both groups according to hemoglobin levels and at the assistant physicians' discretion. Iron storage was estimated at baseline and once monthly. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01184495. RESULTS: The study was conducted for 6 months after randomization. The mean baseline hemoglobin levels were 10.9±1.2 and 10.96±1.2 g/dL (p = 0.89) in the Bio-Manguinhos epoetin and biosimilar epoetin groups, respectively. During the study period, there was no significant change in hemoglobin levels in either group (p = 0.055, ANOVA). The epoetin from Bio-Manguinhos was slightly superior in the last 3 months of follow-up. The adverse event profiles of the two formulations were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: The epoetin formulations tested in this study are equivalent in efficacy and safety.

Randomized double-blind clinical trial of a new human epoetin versus a commercially available formula for anemia control in patients on hemodialysis

OBJECTIVES: Anemia is a common complication among chronic kidney disease patients on hemodialysis, occurring mostly due to erythropoietin deficiency. This randomized noninferiority trial sought to compare the efficacy and safety of a new epoetin formulation developed by Bio-Manguinhos, a biologics manufacturer affiliated with the Brazilian government, with those of a commercially available product currently used in Brazil (a biosimilar epoetin formulation). METHODS: The sample size needed to enable demonstration of noninferiority with a statistical power of 85% for a between-group difference in hemoglobin levels of no more than 1.5 g/dL was calculated. In total, 74 patients were randomly assigned to receive the epoetin formulation from Bio-Manguinhos (n = 36) or the biosimilar epoetin formulation (n = 38) in a double-blind fashion. The inclusion criteria were current epoetin therapy and stable hemoglobin levels for at least 3 months prior to the study. The primary and secondary outcomes were mean monthly hemoglobin levels and safety, respectively. The dose was calculated according to international criteria and adjusted monthly in both groups according to hemoglobin levels and at the assistant physicians' discretion. Iron storage was estimated at baseline and once monthly. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01184495. RESULTS: The study was conducted for 6 months after randomization. The mean baseline hemoglobin levels were 10.9±1.2 and 10.96±1.2 g/dL (p = 0.89) in the Bio-Manguinhos epoetin and biosimilar epoetin groups, respectively. During the study period, there was no significant change in hemoglobin levels in either group (p = 0.055, ANOVA). The epoetin from Bio-Manguinhos was slightly superior in the last 3 months of follow-up. The adverse event profiles of the two formulations were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: The epoetin formulations tested in this study are equivalent in efficacy ...

Adverse drug reactions associated with the use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

This study describes the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and their incidence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were treated in the Colombian health system. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using information from all patients who were diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and attended specialized health care centers in the cities of Bogotá, Cali, Manizales, Medellin, and Pereira between 1 December 2009 and 30 August 2013. The ADRs were obtained from medical records and the pharmacovigilance system registry and sorted by frequency and affected tissue according to World Health Organization Adverse Reaction Terminology (WHO-ART). A total of 949 reports of ADRs were obtained from 419 patients (32.8 ADRs per 100 patient-years); these patients were from a cohort of 1,364 patients being treated for rheumatoid arthritis and followed up for an average of 23.8 months (± 12.9). The cohort was mostly female (366, 87.4%) and had a mean age of 52.7 years (± 13.1). The highest numbers of ADRs were reported following the use of tocilizumab, rituximab, and infliximab (28.8, 23.1, and 13.3 reports per 100 patient-years respectively). The most frequently reported ADRs were elevated transaminase levels and dyspepsia. Overall, 87.7% of ADRs were classified as type A, 36.6% as mild, 40.7% as moderate, and 22.7% as severe. As a result, 73.2% of patients who experienced an ADR stopped taking their drugs. The occurrence of ADRs in patients treated for rheumatoid arthritis is common, especially in those associated with the use of biotechnologically produced anti-rheumatic drugs. This outcome should be studied in future research and monitoring is needed to reduce the risks in these patients.