Tozinameran (BNT162b2) Vaccine: The Journey from Preclinical Research to Clinical Trials and Authorization.

Vaccination development and production was an essential question for the prevention and global control of COVID-19. The strong support from governing authorities such as Operation Warp Speed and robust funding has led to the development and authorization of the tozinameran (BNT162b2) vaccine. The BNT162b2 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated mRNA that encodes for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the main site for neutralizing antibodies. Once it binds with the host cells, the lipid nanoparticles enable the transfer of the RNA, causing S antigens' expression of the SARS-CoV-2, conferring immunity. The vaccine is administered as a 2-dose regime 21 days apart for individuals 16 years and older. Pfizer-BioNTech's BNT162b2 vaccine was the first candidate to receive FDA-Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) on December 11, 2020. During phase 2/3 clinical trials, 95% efficacy was reported among 37,706 participants over the age of 16 who received the BNT162b2 vaccination; additionally, 52% efficacy was noted 12 days following the administration of the first dose of BNT162b2, reflecting early protection of COVID-19. The BNT162b2 vaccine has exhibited 100% efficacy in clinical trials of adolescents between the ages of 12 and 15. Clinical trials in pregnant women and children under the age of 12 are expected to also exhibit promising results. This review article encompasses tozinameran (BNT162b2) vaccine journey, summarizing the BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 vaccines from preclinical studies, clinical trial phases, dosages, immune response, adverse effects, and FDA-EUA.

Regulatory reliance to approve new medicinal products in Latin American and Caribbean countries / Utilización de decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones para aprobar nuevos productos medicinales en países de América Latina y el Caribe / Uso de decisões regulatórias de outras jurisdições para aprovação de novas especialidades farmacêuticas em países da América Latina e Caribe

ABSTRACT Objective. To describe the current status of regulatory reliance in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) by assessing the countries' regulatory frameworks to approve new medicines, and to ascertain, for each country, which foreign regulators are considered as trusted regulatory authorities to rely on. Methods. Websites from LAC regulators were searched to identify the official regulations to approve new drugs. Data collection was carried out in December 2019 and completed in June 2020 for the Caribbean countries. Two independent teams collected information regarding direct recognition or abbreviated processes to approve new drugs and the reference (trusted) regulators defined as such by the corresponding national legislation. Results. Regulatory documents regarding marketing authorization were found in 20 LAC regulators' websites, covering 34 countries. Seven countries do not accept reliance on foreign regulators. Thirteen regulatory authorities (Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and the unique Caribbean Regulatory System for 15 Caribbean States) explicitly accept relying on marketing authorizations issued by the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada. Ten countries rely also on marketing authorizations from Australia, Japan, and Switzerland. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico are reference authorities for eight LAC regulators. Conclusions. Regulatory reliance has become a common practice in the LAC region. Thirteen out of 20 regulators directly recognize or abbreviate the marketing authorization process in case of earlier approval by a regulator from another jurisdiction. The regulators most relied upon are the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada.

RESUMEN Objetivo. Describir el estado actual de la utilización de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones en América Latina y el Caribe mediante la evaluación de los marcos regulatorios nacionales para la aprobación de nuevos medicamentos y establecer los organismos regulatorios extranjeros que se consideran autoridades regulatorias confiables para cada país. Métodos. Se realizaron búsquedas en los sitios web de las autoridades regulatorias de América Latina y el Caribe para identificar las regulaciones oficiales para la aprobación de nuevos medicamentos. La recopilación de datos se llevó a cabo en diciembre del 2019 y se completó en junio del 2020 para los países del Caribe. Dos equipos independientes recopilaron información sobre el reconocimiento directo o los procedimientos abreviados para la aprobación de nuevos medicamentos y los autoridades regulatorias de referencia (confiables) así definidos en la legislación nacional correspondiente. Resultados. Se encontraron documentos regulatorios sobre la aprobación de nuevos productos en los sitios web de veinte organismos regulatorios de América Latina y el Caribe, que abarcaban 34 países. Siete países no aceptan la utilización de decisiones de autoridades regulatorias extranjeras. Trece autoridades regulatorias (Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, México, Panamá, Paraguay, Perú, República Dominicana, Uruguay y el sistema regulador único para quince Estados del Caribe) aceptan de manera explícita confiar las decisiones para aprobación de nuevos medicamentos emitidas por la Agencia Europea de Medicamentos, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de Estados Unidos y Salud Canadá. Diez países aceptan también utilizar las autorizaciones para la comercialización de Australia, Japón y Suiza. Argentina, Brasil, Chile y México son autoridades de referencia para ocho autoridades regulatorias en la región. Conclusiones. La utilización de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones se han convertido en una práctica común en América Latina y el Caribe. Trece de veinte autoridades regulatorias reconocen directamente o abrevian el proceso de aprobación de nuevos medicamentos en caso de que hayan recibido previamente la aprobación por parte de un organismo regulatorio de otra jurisdicción. La Agencia Europea de Medicamentos, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de Estados Unidos y Salud Canadá son las autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones en las cuales los reguladores de América Latina y el Caribe confían más.

RESUMO Objetivo. Descrever a prática atual de uso de decisões regulatórias de outras jurisdições na América Latina e no Caribe (ALC) mediante avaliação os marcos regulatórios dos países para aprovação de novos medicamentos e verificar, para cada país, quais entidades reguladoras estrangeiras são consideradas autoridades reguladoras de confiança por cada país. Métodos. Foi realizada uma pesquisa nos sites das autoridades reguladoras da ALC para identificar as regulamentações oficiais para aprovação de novos medicamentos. A coleta de dados foi feita em dezembro de 2019 e concluída em junho de 2020 para os países do Caribe. Dois grupos independentes coletaram informações sobre o reconhecimento direto ou o procedimento abreviado para aprovação de novos medicamentos e as autoridades reguladoras de referência (de confiança) definidas como tal pela respectiva legislação nacional. Resultados. Documentos regulatórios relacionados à aprovação de novos produtos foram obtidos de 20 sites de órgãos reguladores da ALC, abrangendo 34 países. Sete países não admitem o uso de decisões regulatórias de entidades reguladoras externas. Treze autoridades reguladoras (na Argentina, Colômbia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Equador, Guatemala, México, Panamá, Paraguai, Peru, República Dominicana, Uruguai e o Sistema Regulador do Caribe unificado para 15 Estados caribenhos) admitem explicitamente a admissibilidade de decisões regulatórias para aprovação de novos medicamentos de outras jurisdições, quais sejam: Agência Europeia de Medicamentos (EMA), Agência Reguladora de Alimentos e Medicamentos (FDA) dos EUA e Health Canada. Dez países também aceitam decisões para autorização de comercialização da Austrália, Japão e Suíça. Argentina, Brasil, Chile e México são autoridades de referência para oito agências reguladoras. Conclusões. O uso de decisões regulatórias de outras jurisdições tornou-se prática comum na América Latina e Caribe. Treze das 20 agências reguladoras reconhecem diretamente ou abreviam o procedimento de aprovação de novos medicamentos no caso de tal aprovação já haver sido concedida por uma autoridade reguladora de outra jurisdição. A EMA, a FDA e a Health Canada são as autoridades estrangeiras nas quais as agências reguladoras da América Latina e Caribe mais confiam.

New drugs registered in Brazil from 2003 to 2013: analysis from the perspective of child health

This study aims to analyze the new drugs registered in Brazil from 2003 to 2013 from the perspective of childcare needs, drug safety and considering the disease burden of the country. This is a retrospective cohort study including new drugs registered in Brazil between 2003 and 2013. Drug indications were related to the Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) of the 2015 Global Burden of Disease Study. Association between the number of new drugs and DALY was determined by Spearman's coefficient. Post-marketing safety alerts specific to the pediatric population have been identified in the WHO Drug Information Bulletin and on websites of drug regulatory agencies. A total of 134 new drugs were included in the cohort and 46 (34.3%) had a pediatric indication. There was no evidence of an association between the disease burden in children in Brazil and the number of pediatric drugs. The safety alert data associated with the pediatric population published after registration of the new drugs were scarce. The number of new drugs launched in Brazil with a pediatric indication was small, reflecting the international challenges of developing effective and safe medicines for children. No association was found between the number of new drugs and the disease burden.

Medical cannabis: Risks related to its indication prior to approval. / Cannabis medicinal: riesgos relacionados con la indicación previa a su aprobación.

In recent years, the interest in medical cannabis prescription has increased significantly. This article provides information about the little scientific basis supporting the prescription of these products for a wide and diverse range of medical conditions. It is critical for any substance to be used in human beings to follow a strict scientific approval protocol, detached from any trend or individual outcome. Before prescribing any drug to human beings, it is necessary to have a clear picture of its uses, especially its safety, which is practically unknown in the case of medical cannabis.

En los últimos años, se ha observado un incremento significativo en el interés por la prescripción del cannabis medicinal. En el siguiente artículo, se informa acerca de la escasa base científica que avala la prescripción de estos compuestos en un listado amplio y diverso de patologías médicas. Se considera fundamental que cualquier sustancia que vaya a ser utilizada en humanos siga un protocolo de aprobación estricto y científico, que pueda desligarse de modas o de resultados individuales. Es necesario que, antes de la prescripción de una droga en personas, deba tenerse un panorama claro de cuáles son los usos del compuesto en cuestión, pero, sobre todo, de su seguridad, que es prácticamente desconocida en el cannabis medicinal.

Machine Learning in Drug Discovery and Development Part 1: A Primer.

Artificial intelligence, in particular machine learning (ML), has emerged as a key promising pillar to overcome the high failure rate in drug development. Here, we present a primer on the ML algorithms most commonly used in drug discovery and development. We also list possible data sources, describe good practices for ML model development and validation, and share a reproducible example. A companion article will summarize applications of ML in drug discovery, drug development, and postapproval phase.

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.

Partnership for productive development of biosimilar products: perspectives of access to biological products in the Brazilian market.

The manufacturing process for biological products is complex, expensive and critical to the final product, with an impact on their efficacy and safety. They have been increasingly used to treat several diseases, and account for approximately 50% of the yearly budget for the Brazilian public health system. As the patents of biological products expire, several biosimilars are developed. However, there are concerns regarding their efficacy and safety; therefore, the regulatory agencies establish rules to approve and monitor these products. In Brazil, partnership programs between national government-owned companies and private technology holders have been implemented, aiming at knowledge sharing, capacity-building and technological transfer. Such partnerships locally promote manufacturing of these strategic drugs at reduced costs to the public health system. These agreements offer mutual advantages to both the government and patent holders: for the former, a biotechnological development flow is established and enables potential cost reduction and self-sufficient production; whereas for the latter, exclusive sales of the product are ensured during technological transfer, for a fixed period.

Partnership for productive development of biosimilar products: perspectives of access to biological products in the Brazilian market / Parceria para o desenvolvimento produtivo com produtos biossimilares: perspectivas de acesso a produtos biológicos no mercado brasileiro

ABSTRACT The manufacturing process for biological products is complex, expensive and critical to the final product, with an impact on their efficacy and safety. They have been increasingly used to treat several diseases, and account for approximately 50% of the yearly budget for the Brazilian public health system. As the patents of biological products expire, several biosimilars are developed. However, there are concerns regarding their efficacy and safety; therefore, the regulatory agencies establish rules to approve and monitor these products. In Brazil, partnership programs between national government-owned companies and private technology holders have been implemented, aiming at knowledge sharing, capacity-building and technological transfer. Such partnerships locally promote manufacturing of these strategic drugs at reduced costs to the public health system. These agreements offer mutual advantages to both the government and patent holders: for the former, a biotechnological development flow is established and enables potential cost reduction and self-sufficient production; whereas for the latter, exclusive sales of the product are ensured during technological transfer, for a fixed period.

RESUMO O processo de manufatura de produtos biológicos é complexo, oneroso e crítico para o produto final, com impacto em sua eficácia e segurança. Seu uso está sendo cada vez mais ampliado no tratamento de diversas doenças, e cerca de 50% do orçamento anual do sistema de saúde público brasileiro é consumido por tais produtos. Com o término da proteção de patentes de produtos biológicos diversos, estão sendo desenvolvidos os biossimilares. Porém, há preocupações relacionadas com sua eficácia e segurança, fazendo com que os órgãos reguladores criem regulamentações para sua aprovação e monitoramento. No Brasil, estão sendo implantados programas de parceria entre laboratórios públicos nacionais e laboratórios detentores de tecnologia, objetivando a obtenção de conhecimento, capacitação profissional e transferência desta tecnologia. Tais parcerias visam à produção local destes medicamentos estratégicos a um custo reduzido para o Sistema Único de Saúde. Os acordos oferecem vantagens mútuas para o governo e o laboratório detentor da patente do produto biológico: ao primeiro, estabelece-se um fluxo de desenvolvimento biotecnológico, que possibilita potencial redução de custos e autossuficiência na produção, enquanto ao segundo garante-se a exclusividade da venda do produto durante a transferência da tecnologia por um prazo estabelecido.

[Dosing regimens in second medical use patents]. / Regimes de dosagem em patentes de segundo uso médico.

: In the pharmaceutical field, the development of new drugs requires sophisticated understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms in order to identify and characterize potential biomolecular targets and proceed with clinical trials. In this context, protection of research and development results is a vital stage for guaranteeing financial return on the heavy investments in the area. One strategy to achieve this objective is to exploit second-use patents, usually drafted in the format "use of compound X characterized by the fact that it is used in preparing a drug for disease Y". Considering the possible social impact and lack of specific guidelines in Brazil, this article reviews the principal cases related to dosing regimens in Europe and analyzes the positions of the European Patent Office (EPO) and German and UK judiciary systems on the requirements for patentability and scope of protection, aimed at contributing to the technical debate on the topic.

No campo farmacêutico, o desenvolvimento de novos fármacos exige um grau sofisticado de entendimento de mecanismos fisiopatológicos, a fim de identificar e caracterizar potenciais alvos biomoleculares e prosseguir com os estudos clínicos. Dentro desse contexto, a proteção dos resultados de Pesquisa & Desenvolvimento é uma etapa vital para garantir o retorno financeiro dos pesados investimentos na área. Uma das estratégias para atingir tal objetivo consiste na exploração de patentes de segundo uso médico, usualmente redigidas no formato "uso do composto X caracterizado pelo fato de ser empregado no preparo de medicamento para a doença Y". Considerando o possível impacto social e a ausência de diretrizes específicas no Brasil, o presente artigo revisa os principais casos relacionados a regimes de dosagem na Europa e analisa os posicionamentos do Escritório Europeu de Patentes (EPO) e judiciários alemão e do Reino Unido sobre os requisitos de patenteabilidade e escopo de proteção, visando a contribuir com o debate técnico sobre o assunto.

En el campo farmacéutico, el desarrollo de nuevos fármacos exige un grado de sofisticación en la comprensión de los mecanismos fisiopatológicos, con el fin de identificar y caracterizar potenciales objetivos biomoleculares y proseguir con los estudios clínicos. Dentro de este contexto, la protección de los resultados de Investigación y Desarrollo es una etapa vital para garantizar el retorno financiero de las costosas inversiones en este área. Una de las estrategias para alcanzar tal objetivo consiste en la explotación de patentes de segundo uso médico, habitualmente redactadas en el formato "uso del compuesto X, caracterizado por el hecho de ser empleado en la preparación del medicamento para la enfermedad Y". Considerando el posible impacto social, y la ausencia de directrices específicas en Brasil, el presente artículo revisa los principales casos relacionados con los regímenes de dosificación en Europa y analiza las posiciones adoptadas por la Oficina Europea de Patentes (EPO) y los sistemas judiciales alemanes y del Reino Unido sobre los requisitos de patentabilidad y alcance de la protección, con el objetivo de contribuir al debate técnico sobre este asunto.

Nonbioequivalent prescription drug interchangeability, concerns on patient safety and drug market dynamics in Brazil.

Since the enforcement of Generics Act (1999), three types of pharmaceutically equivalent products are marketed in Brazil: innovative reference (REF), "similar" (S) and generic (G) drugs. The S (brand name) and G (generic name) borrow from REF (brand name) clinical data on safety and efficacy and dosage regimen. G (but not S) is bioequivalent to and interchangeable with REF. Starting in 2003, Brazilian Sanitary Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) has required data on relative bioavailability tests (with REF) to approve (or renew registration of) S drugs. In 2014, Anvisa extended interchangeability notion to similar drugs with a "comparable" bioavailability, i.e., an "equivalent" similar drug (EQ). Drugs for chronic diseases and "critical dose medicines" are listed among the EQ drugs approved. Interchangeability of nonbioequivalent medicines raises deep concerns regarding therapeutic failures and adverse events. Concerns are even more worrisome if patients switch from one drug to another during an ongoing treatment for illnesses such as epilepsy, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes and/or substitutable drugs have a narrow therapeutic index.

Nonbioequivalent prescription drug interchangeability, concerns on patient safety and drug market dynamics in Brazil / Intercambialidade de medicamentos não-bioequivalentes, segurança do paciente e dinâmica do mercado farmacêutico no Brasil

Abstract Since the enforcement of Generics Act (1999), three types of pharmaceutically equivalent products are marketed in Brazil: innovative reference (REF), "similar" (S) and generic (G) drugs. The S (brand name) and G (generic name) borrow from REF (brand name) clinical data on safety and efficacy and dosage regimen. G (but not S) is bioequivalent to and interchangeable with REF. Starting in 2003, Brazilian Sanitary Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) has required data on relative bioavailability tests (with REF) to approve (or renew registration of) S drugs. In 2014, Anvisa extended interchangeability notion to similar drugs with a "comparable" bioavailability, i.e., an "equivalent" similar drug (EQ). Drugs for chronic diseases and "critical dose medicines" are listed among the EQ drugs approved. Interchangeability of nonbioequivalent medicines raises deep concerns regarding therapeutic failures and adverse events. Concerns are even more worrisome if patients switch from one drug to another during an ongoing treatment for illnesses such as epilepsy, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes and/or substitutable drugs have a narrow therapeutic index.

Resumo A partir da vigência da lei dos genéricos (1999), três tipos de produtos farmaceuticamente equivalentes são comercializados no Brasil: o medicamento inovador de refência (REF), o produto "similar" (S), e o genérico (G). O similar (nome de fantasia) e o genérico (nome genérico) tomam de empréstimo do REF (nome de fantasia) os dados clínicos de segurança e eficácia e a posologia. G (mas não S) é bioequivalente ao, e intercambiável com REF. Desde 2003, a Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (Anvisa) exige dados de testes de biodisponibilidade relativa para registrar (ou renovar o registro de) medicamentos S. Em 2014, a Anvisa estendeu o conceito de intercambialidade aos medicamentos similares com biodisponibilidade "comparável", i.e., um medicamento similar "equivalente" (EQ). Medicamentos para doenças crônicas e "fármacos de dose crítica" estão listados entre os produtos EQ aprovados. A intercambialidade de medicamentos não-bioequivalentes suscita grande preocupação quanto a falhas terapêuticas e eventos adversos. Os receios são ainda maiores se os pacientes trocam um medicamento por outro durante o tratamento de doenças como epilepsia, insuficiência cardíaca, hipertensão, diabetes e/ou os produtos farmacêuticos substituídos tem um índice terapêutico estreito.

Miracle drug: Brazil approves never-tested cancer medicine.

Background Brazil recently approved synthetic phosphoetanolamine, a popularly dubbed 'cancer pill', a substance that has been shown to kill cancer cells in lab animal models but was not yet formally accessed in humans, and thus despite the existence of any evidence of its efficacy and safety. Methods The authors describe the recent decision of Brazil to aprove phosphoetanolamine in the context of growing 'judicialization' to promote access to medicines and thus reinforcing a growing sense of legal uncertainty. Results The approval of phosphoetanolamine despite the existence of any evidence of its efficacy and safety represents to the authors one of the saddest and surrealistic episodes in Brazil's recent public health history. Brazil's current economic crisis is fueling the 'judicialization' to promote access to medicines and thus reinforcing a growing sense of legal uncertainty in the context of rising economic constrains and a progressive failing state. The authors state that the Phosphoetanolamine's approval bill violates current legal prohibition of commercialisation of drugs without the Brazilian national drug regulatory agency's approval and thus may represent a potential menace to Brazil's pharmacogovernance and the country's governance to health technology assessment at the Brazilian national health systems. Conclusion Phosphoetanolamine's approval illustrates that the combination of flawed decision making, economic crisis and political interference may threaten weak governance mechanisms for drug regulation and health technology assessment and thus representing an extra burden in the sustainability of universal access-based national health systems.

Regimes de dosagem em patentes de segundo uso médico / Dosing regimens in second medical use patents / Regímenes de dosificación en patentes de segundo uso médico

Resumo: No campo farmacêutico, o desenvolvimento de novos fármacos exige um grau sofisticado de entendimento de mecanismos fisiopatológicos, a fim de identificar e caracterizar potenciais alvos biomoleculares e prosseguir com os estudos clínicos. Dentro desse contexto, a proteção dos resultados de Pesquisa & Desenvolvimento é uma etapa vital para garantir o retorno financeiro dos pesados investimentos na área. Uma das estratégias para atingir tal objetivo consiste na exploração de patentes de segundo uso médico, usualmente redigidas no formato "uso do composto X caracterizado pelo fato de ser empregado no preparo de medicamento para a doença Y". Considerando o possível impacto social e a ausência de diretrizes específicas no Brasil, o presente artigo revisa os principais casos relacionados a regimes de dosagem na Europa e analisa os posicionamentos do Escritório Europeu de Patentes (EPO) e judiciários alemão e do Reino Unido sobre os requisitos de patenteabilidade e escopo de proteção, visando a contribuir com o debate técnico sobre o assunto.

Abstract: In the pharmaceutical field, the development of new drugs requires sophisticated understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms in order to identify and characterize potential biomolecular targets and proceed with clinical trials. In this context, protection of research and development results is a vital stage for guaranteeing financial return on the heavy investments in the area. One strategy to achieve this objective is to exploit second-use patents, usually drafted in the format "use of compound X characterized by the fact that it is used in preparing a drug for disease Y". Considering the possible social impact and lack of specific guidelines in Brazil, this article reviews the principal cases related to dosing regimens in Europe and analyzes the positions of the European Patent Office (EPO) and German and UK judiciary systems on the requirements for patentability and scope of protection, aimed at contributing to the technical debate on the topic.

Resumen: En el campo farmacéutico, el desarrollo de nuevos fármacos exige un grado de sofisticación en la comprensión de los mecanismos fisiopatológicos, con el fin de identificar y caracterizar potenciales objetivos biomoleculares y proseguir con los estudios clínicos. Dentro de este contexto, la protección de los resultados de Investigación y Desarrollo es una etapa vital para garantizar el retorno financiero de las costosas inversiones en este área. Una de las estrategias para alcanzar tal objetivo consiste en la explotación de patentes de segundo uso médico, habitualmente redactadas en el formato "uso del compuesto X, caracterizado por el hecho de ser empleado en la preparación del medicamento para la enfermedad Y". Considerando el posible impacto social, y la ausencia de directrices específicas en Brasil, el presente artículo revisa los principales casos relacionados con los regímenes de dosificación en Europa y analiza las posiciones adoptadas por la Oficina Europea de Patentes (EPO) y los sistemas judiciales alemanes y del Reino Unido sobre los requisitos de patentabilidad y alcance de la protección, con el objetivo de contribuir al debate técnico sobre este asunto.

Inhibition of Urease by Disulfiram, an FDA-Approved Thiol Reagent Used in Humans.

Urease is a nickel-dependent amidohydrolase that catalyses the decomposition of urea into carbamate and ammonia, a reaction that constitutes an important source of nitrogen for bacteria, fungi and plants. It is recognized as a potential antimicrobial target with an impact on medicine, agriculture, and the environment. The list of possible urease inhibitors is continuously increasing, with a special interest in those that interact with and block the flexible active site flap. We show that disulfiram inhibits urease in Citrullus vulgaris (CVU), following a non-competitive mechanism, and may be one of this kind of inhibitors. Disulfiram is a well-known thiol reagent that has been approved by the FDA for treatment of chronic alcoholism. We also found that other thiol reactive compounds (l-captopril and Bithionol) and quercetin inhibits CVU. These inhibitors protect the enzyme against its full inactivation by the thiol-specific reagent Aldrithiol (2,2'-dipyridyl disulphide, DPS), suggesting that the three drugs bind to the same subsite. Enzyme kinetics, competing inhibition experiments, auto-fluorescence binding experiments, and docking suggest that the disulfiram reactive site is Cys592, which has been proposed as a "hinge" located in the flexible active site flap. This study presents the basis for the use of disulfiram as one potential inhibitor to control urease activity.

Biosimilars in Developed and Developing East and Southeast Asian Countries: Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia-Overview, Evolution, and Regulations Assessment.

The development of biological products has experienced continuous growth over the past three decades. The expiration of patent protection for many biological medicines has led to the development of biosimilars in many countries around the world. This paper reviews the literature on biosimilar drugs and covers their therapeutic status, clinical trials, approved biosimilars, and regulatory guidelines in Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia. The literature suggests that biosimilars are comparable but not identical to the reference product. They are not a generic version of an innovative product and do not ensure therapeutic equivalence. Biosimilars present more challenges than conventional generics and their marketing approval is also much more complicated. Guidelines for biosimilars were published in Japan in July 2009 by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW), in South Korea in March 2009 by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS), and in Malaysia in July 2008 by the National Pharmaceutical Control Bureau (NPCB).

[Analysis of the evidence on the efficacy and safety of CYD-TDV dengue vaccine and its potential licensing and implementation through Mexico's Universal Vaccination Program]. / Análisis de la evidencia sobre eficacia y seguridad de la vacuna de dengue CYD-TDV y su potencial registro e implementación en el Programa de Vacunación Universal de México.

Dengue is a major global public health problem affecting Latin America and Mexico Prevention and control measures, focusing on epidemiological surveillance and vector control, have been partially effective and costly, thus, the development of a vaccine against dengue has created great expectations among health authorities and scientific communities worldwide. The CYD-TDV dengue vaccine produced by Sanofi-Pasteur is the only dengue vaccine evaluated in phase 3 controlled clinical trials. Notwithstanding the significant contribution to the development of a vaccine against dengue, the three phase 3 clinical studies of CYD-TDV and the meta-analysis of the long-term follow up of those studies, have provided evidence that this vaccine exhibited partial vaccine efficacy to protect against virologically confirmed dengue and lead to four considerations: a) adequate vaccine efficacy against dengue virus (DENV) infections 3 and 4, less vaccine efficacy against DENV 1 and no protection against infection by DENV 2; b) decreased vaccine efficacy in dengue seronegative individuals at the beginning of the vaccination; c) 83% and 90% protection against hospitalizations and severe forms of dengue, respectively, at 25 months follow-up; and d) increased hospitalization for dengue in the vaccinated group, in children under nine years of age at the time of vaccination, detected since the third year of follow-up. The benefit of the CYD-TDV vaccine can be summarized in the protection against infection by DENV 3 and 4, as well as protection for hospitalizations and severe cases in people over nine years, who have had previous dengue infection, working mainly as a booster. In this review we identified elements on efficacy and safety of this vaccine that must be taken into account in the licensing process and potential inclusion in the national vaccination program of Mexico. The available scientific evidence on the CYD-TDV vaccine shows merits, but also leads to relevant questions that should be answered to properly assess the safety profile of the product and the target populations of potential benefit. In this regard we consider it would be informative to complete the 6-year follow-up after starting vaccination, according to the company's own study protocol recommended by the World Health Organization. As with any new vaccine, the potential licensing and implementation of the CYD-TDV as part of Mexico's vaccination program, requires a clear definition of the balance between the expected benefits and risks. Particularly with a vaccine with variable efficacy and some signs of risk, in the probable case of licensing, the post-licensed period must involve the development of detailed protocols to immediately identify risks or any health event associated with vaccination.

Análisis de la evidencia sobre eficacia y seguridad de la vacuna de dengue CYD-TDV y su potencial registro e implementación en el Programa de Vacunación Universal de México / Analysis of the evidence on the efficacy and safety of CYD-TDV dengue vaccine and its potential licensing and implementation through Mexico's Universal Vaccination Program

El dengue es un importante problema de salud pública global, que afecta a América Latina y México. Las medidas de prevención y control centradas en vigilancia epidemiológica y control de vectores han resultado parcialmente efectivas y costosas, por lo que el desarrollo de una vacuna contra el dengue ha creado grandes expectativas entre las autoridades sanitarias y las comunidades científicas en el mundo. Sólo la vacuna CYD-TDV, producida por Sanofi-Pasteur, ha sido evaluada en ensayos clínicos controlados fase 3. No obstante a pesar de la importante contribución que esto significa para el desarrollo de una vacuna contra el dengue, los tres estudios clínicos fase 3 de CYD-TDV y el metaanálisis de seguimiento a largo plazo derivado de los mismos proporcionan evidencia de que esta vacuna tiene una eficacia parcial para proteger contra dengue virológicamente confirmado. Al respecto, surgen cuatro consideraciones: a) eficacia adecuada contra infecciones por virus de dengue (DENV) 3 y 4, menor eficacia contra infecciones por DENV 1 y prácticamente nula protección contra infecciones por DENV 2; b) disminución de la eficacia en individuos seronegativos a dengue al inicio de la vacunación; c) 83 y 90% de protección contra hospitalizaciones y formas de dengue grave, respectivamente, a 25 meses de seguimiento, y d) incremento de hospitalización por dengue, en el grupo de vacunados, en niños menores de nueve años de edad al momento de la vacunación, detectado a partir del tercer año de seguimiento. El beneficio de la vacuna CYD-TDV se puede resumir en la protección contra infecciones por DENV 3 y 4, así como en la protección de hospitalizaciones y casos graves en individuos mayores de nueve años y en quienes han tenido infección previa por dengue, pues funciona principalmente como una vacuna de refuerzo. En esta revisión se identificaron elementos sobre eficacia y seguridad de esta vacuna que deben ser tomados en cuenta ante el potencial registro e inclusión en el programa de vacunación en la población mexicana. La evidencia científica disponible sobre la vacuna CYD-TDV demuestra méritos, pero también da lugar a preguntas relevantes que deberían ser contestadas para evaluar apropiadamente el perfil de seguridad del producto, así como las poblaciones blanco de potencial beneficio. Al respecto, consideramos que sería informativo completar el seguimiento indicado de seis años después de iniciar la vacunación, de acuerdo con el protocolo propuesto en los propios estudios del fabricante como una recomendación de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. Al igual que con cualquier nueva vacuna, el potencial registro e implementación de uso de CYD-TDV en el programa nacional de vacunación de México requiere una definición clara de cuál es el balance entre los beneficios y riesgos esperados. En particular, ante una vacuna con eficacia variable y algunas señales de riesgo, en caso de aprobar el registro, se deben desarrollar protocolos de manejo de riesgos detallados que permitan identificar de manera oportuna cualquier evento de salud asociado con la vacunación.

Dengue is a major global public health problem affecting Latin America and Mexico Prevention and control measures, focusing on epidemiological surveillance and vector control, have been partially effective and costly, thus, the development of a vaccine against dengue has created great expectations among health authorities and scientific communities worldwide. The CYD-TDV dengue vaccine produced by Sanofi-Pasteur is the only dengue vaccine evaluated in phase 3 controlled clinical trials. Notwithstanding the significant contribution to the development of a vaccine against dengue, the three phase 3 clinical studies of CYD-TDV and the meta-analysis of the long-term follow up of those studies, have provided evidence that this vaccine exhibited partial vaccine efficacy to protect against virologically confirmed dengue and lead to four considerations: a) adequate vaccine efficacy against dengue virus (DENV) infections 3 and 4, less vaccine efficacy against DENV 1 and no protection against infection by DENV 2; b) decreased vaccine efficacy in dengue seronegative individuals at the beginning of the vaccination; c) 83% and 90% protection against hospitalizations and severe forms of dengue, respectively, at 25 months follow-up; and d) increased hospitalization for dengue in the vaccinated group, in children under nine years of age at the time of vaccination, detected since the third year of follow-up. The benefit of the CYD-TDV vaccine can be summarized in the protection against infection by DENV 3 and 4, as well as protection for hospitalizations and severe cases in people over nine years, who have had previous dengue infection, working mainly as a booster. In this review we identified elements on efficacy and safety of this vaccine that must be taken into account in the licensing process and potential inclusion in the national vaccination program of Mexico. The available scientific evidence on the CYD-TDV vaccine shows merits, but also leads to relevant questions that should be answered to properly assess the safety profile of the product and the target populations of potential benefit. In this regard we consider it would be informative to complete the 6-year follow-up after starting vaccination, according to the company's own study protocol recommended by the World Health Organization. As with any new vaccine, the potential licensing and implementation of the CYD-TDV as part of Mexico's vaccination program, requires a clear definition of the balance between the expected benefits and risks. Particularly with a vaccine with variable efficacy and some signs of risk, in the probable case of licensing, the post-licensed period must involve the development of detailed protocols to immediately identify risks or any health event associated with vaccination.