A Cross-National Comparison of Biosimilars Pricing in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Italy.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilar medicines are defined as biological products highly similar to an already licensed biological product (RP). The market entry of biosimilars is expected to reduce the costs of biological treatments. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the range of differences between the prices of biosimilars and the corresponding RP for biologicals approved in four countries. METHOD: This is a cross-national comparison of pricing of biosimilars in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Italy. The study examined online price databases provided by the national authorities of the investigated countries. Biosimilar price difference was calculated by subtracting the unit price of the biosimilar by the unit price of the RP, and then dividing it by the unit price of the RP. The results were presented as percentage. RESULTS: Brazil had the highest median price reduction (- 36.3%) in biosimilars price, followed by Italy (- 20.0%) and Argentina (- 18.6%). All the biosimilars in Italy were priced below the RP presenting a minimum reduction of 6.3%, while in Australia, most of the prices of biosimilars were equal to the RP. In Argentina, one infliximab-biosimilar displayed price above the RP (40.7%) while the lower priced brand had a reduction of 14.4%. Brazil had four biosimilars with prices above the respective RP, including isophane insulin (1), insulin glargine (1) and somatropin (2). CONCLUSION: The study revealed a marked dispersion in the price's differences between biosimilars and RP across the studied countries. Governments should evaluate whether their policies have been successful in improving affordability of biological therapies.

Lessons learnt from the preclinical discovery and development of ensitrelvir as a COVID-19 therapeutic option.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic stimulated the development of several therapeutic tools with several degrees of success. Ensitrelvir, a protease inhibitor that blocks the replication of SARS-CoV-2, can reduce the viral load and the severity of symptoms in infected patients and become available for emergency use in Japan. Clinical trials showed a good tolerability profile although the potential for interactions with substrates, inhibitors, and inducers of CYP3A must be considered. The occurrence of resistance is also a matter of investigation. AREAS COVERED: In this article, the authors describe the development of ensitrelvir starting from the identification of the molecule to the pre-clinical and clinical trials up to the post-authorization phase. EXPERT OPINION: Ensitrelvir was developed in a late phase of the pandemic when the availability of patients that can be candidate to enter the clinical trial was limited with consequences for the possibility of assessing certain outcomes and for the robustness of results. Although the evidence about the benefits of ensitrelvir in COVID-19 is not questionable, the problems of interactions with other drugs, emerging resistant variants, the availability of alternative therapeutic options, costs, and accessibility will concur to its probable limited clinical use in the future.

Assessing disease activity of rheumatoid arthritis patients and drug-utilization patterns of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in the Tuscany region, Italy.

Introduction: The disease activity associated with the drug-utilization patterns of biologic Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) is poorly investigated in real-world studies on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. To investigate the relationship between biologic DMARD initiation/discontinuations in RA patients identified in the healthcare administrative databases of Tuscany and the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) reported in the medical charts. Methods: This retrospective population-based study included RA's first-ever biologic DMARD users of the Pisa University Hospital from 2014 to 2016. Patients were followed up until 31 December 2019. We evaluated the DAS28 recorded before (T0) and after (T1) the biologic DMARD initiation and before (TD0) and after (TD1) discontinuations. Patients were classified as "off-target" (DAS28 > 3.2) or "in-target" (DAS28 ≤ 3.2). We described the disease activity trends at initiation and discontinuation. Results: Ninety-five users were included (73 women, mean age 59.6). Among 70 patients (74%) with at least three DAS28 measures, 28 (40.0%) were off-target at T0 and 38 (54.3%) in-target at T1. Thirty-three (47%) patients had at least one discontinuation, among those with at least three DAS28 assessments. In the disease activity trend, disease stability or improvement was observed in 28 out of 37 (75.7%) patients at initiation and in 24 out of 37 (64.9%) at discontinuation. Discussion: Biologic DMARD discontinuations identified in the healthcare administrative databasese of Tuscany are frequently observed in situations of controlled RA disease. Further studies are warranted to confirm that these events can be used in studies using healthcare administrative databases as proxies of treatment effectiveness.

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.

Drug-Utilization, Healthcare Facilities Accesses and Costs of the First Generation of JAK Inhibitors in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

This study is aimed at describing tofacitinib and baricitinib users by characterizing their prescription and healthcare histories, drug and healthcare utilization patterns, and direct costs from a healthcare system perspective. This retrospective cohort study was performed using Tuscan administrative healthcare databases, which selected two groups of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) incident users (index date) from 1st January 2018 to 31 December 2019 and from 1 January 2018 to 30 June 2019. We included patients ≥18 years old, at least 10 years of data, and six months of follow-up. In the first analysis, we describe mean time, standard deviation (SD), from the first-ever disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) to the JAKi, and costs of healthcare facilities and drugs in the 5 years preceding the index date. In the second analysis, we assessed Emergency Department (ED) accesses and hospitalizations for any causes, visits, and costs in the follow-up. In the first analysis, 363 incident JAKi users were included (mean age 61.5, SD 13.6; females 80.7%, baricitinib 78.5%, tofacitinib 21.5%). The time to the first JAKi was 7.2 years (SD 3.3). The mean costs from the fifth to the second year before JAKi increased from 4325 € (0; 24,265) to 5259 € (0; 41,630) per patient/year, driven by hospitalizations. We included 221 incident JAKi users in the second analysis. We observed 109 ED accesses, 39 hospitalizations, and 64 visits. Injury and poisoning (18.3%) and skin (13.8%) caused ED accesses, and cardiovascular (69.2%) and musculoskeletal (64.1%) caused hospitalizations. The mean costs were 4819 € (607.5; 50,493) per patient, mostly due to JAKi. In conclusion, the JAKi introduction in therapy occurred in compliance with RA guidelines and the increase in costs observed could be due to a possible selective prescription.

Tixagevimab + cilgavimab against SARS-CoV-2: the preclinical and clinical development and real-world evidence.

INTRODUCTION: Direct-acting SARS-CoV-2 antiviral monoclonal antibodies have been an integral part of therapeutic strategies against COVID-19 pandemic. The monoclonal strategy was jeopardized by the emergence of new variants and resistant strains, making many monoclonal antibodies quickly obsolete. Nevertheless, a possible strategy consists in the use of antibody cocktails and the development of the cilgavimab + tixagevimab in combination is placed in this context. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we describe the development of the cilgavimab + tixagevimab cocktail, from pre-clinical to real-world evidence. EXPERT OPINION: The pre-clinical and clinical development of cilgavimab + tixagevimab followed a similar path to that of the antibodies developed in the earlier stages of the pandemic. Both antibodies have been developed from convalescent plasma and have been shown to be effective in clinical trials in prophylaxis and in early therapy. This cocktail has found its position in therapy especially in immunocompromised subjects for whom vaccine prevention is not feasible. The cocktail strategy, together with a more stable pandemic situation, could ensure a certain longevity to the drug against resistance, especially when compared with that of other antibodies. Recently emerged Omicron sub-lineages have demonstrated the ability to escape this cocktail's activity and so the future of this treatment could be compromised.

Investigating a Signal of Acquired Hemophilia Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Case Review.

Acquired hemophilia A (AHA), a rare but life-threatening disorder, most commonly occurs in older people and during pregnancy. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination campaign, an unexpected number of newly diagnosed AHA patients have been identified in clinical practice that were temporally related to COVID-19 vaccination. We present the result of a signal detection analysis aimed at exploring a possible association between COVID-19 immunization and occurrence of AHA. A disproportionality analysis on the World Health Organization (WHO) database was performed to investigate the presence of a signal of risk for AHA associated with COVID-19 vaccines. Reports of AHA associated with any COVID-19 vaccine included in the WHO database were then integrated with those available on the Food and Drug Administration Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System and those published in the medical literature. The WHO database included 146 reports of AHA. The information component (IC) was significant for the association of AHA with all COVID-19 vaccines (IC025: 1.1) and with the vaccine product BNT162b2 (IC025: 1.6). After duplicate exclusion, 96 unique cases of AHA following COVID-19 vaccines have been reviewed. Median time to diagnosis was 18 days and 40% of cases documented the occurrence after the second dose. Overall, in 57% of the investigated cases, a preexisting condition predisposing to AHA was excluded. About 22% of cases occurred in subjects with age ≤65 years and there was no case associated with pregnancy. Mortality was 11%. Although we cannot exclude that the unexpected frequency of AHA diagnosis can be explained by a detection bias, the signal for COVID-19 vaccine-related AHA is robust and deserves further investigations.