Synthetic polypeptides using a biologic as a reference medicinal product - the European landscape of regulatory approvals.

Recent advances in synthetic drug manufacturing have introduced a new dynamic to the European regulatory system, with chemically synthesized polypeptide products using biological originator products as their reference medicine. Whereas biosimilars are subject to a dedicated regulatory framework in the EU, synthetically produced follow-on products are not eligible for assessment through this pathway, requiring approval via the traditional generic pathway under Article 10 (1), or via the hybrid pathway under Article 10 (3). This review presents an overview of recent developments in the field of synthetic peptides referencing biological originators in the EU. The use of different regulatory procedures can have potential implications for regulatory assessments, clinical practice and pharmacovigilance. As more complex synthetic products referencing recombinant originator products are expected in the coming years, this study promotes more transparency as well as global alignment about regulatory procedures for chemically synthesised products referencing biological originator products to ensure approval of safe and high-quality generics.

The Global Landscape of Manufacturers of Follow-on Biologics: An Overview of Five Major Biosimilar Markets and 15 Countries.

BACKGROUND: Current knowledge is limited about which manufacturers are active in the global field of biopharmaceutical product development and how many unique follow-on biologics are approved in global markets. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide a cross-sectional overview of manufacturers of follow-on biologics approved in 15 large countries from different regions of the world, as well as in five major biosimilar markets with long established biosimilar frameworks. METHODS: We screened national drug databases to identify follow-on biologics and their manufacturers approved in 15 countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the rest of the world, as well as five major biosimilar markets: the European Union (including the UK), USA, Canada, Australia and Japan. RESULTS: This study identified a total of 304 follow-on biologics from different manufacturers for 18 active substance classes included in the analysis. Of these, 67 products are approved as biosimilars in at least one of the five major biosimilar markets. A total of 140 (46%) follow-on biologics are manufactured in India or China, of which only eight (seven from India and one from China) are approved as biosimilars in any of the five major biosimilar markets. This study found that the majority of follow-on biologics are only approved in the respective country of manufacturing. A small number of manufacturers, primarily from India and Argentina, supply their products to other regions in the world. As some countries have less stringent regulatory approaches for biosimilars, or have only recently implemented biosimilar guidance in line with World Health Organization standards, follow-on biologics could have been approved that would not be considered biosimilars according to the World Health Organization standards. CONCLUSIONS: With this study, we try to contribute to discussions on creating more transparency about global approvals of follow-on biologics and promoting access to high-quality biosimilars in countries around the world.

Clinical Pharmacology in Denmark in 2016 - 40 Years with the Danish Society of Clinical Pharmacology and 20 Years as a Medical Speciality.

The Danish Society of Clinical Pharmacology was founded in 1976, and mainly thanks to the persistent efforts of the society, clinical pharmacology became an independent medical speciality in Denmark in 1996. Since then, clinical pharmacology has gone from strength to strength. In the Danish healthcare system, clinical pharmacology has established itself as an indispensible part of the efforts to promote the rational, safe and economic use of drugs. Clinical pharmacologists are active in drug committees both in hospitals and in the primary sector. All clinical pharmacology centres offer a local medicines information service. Some centres have established an adverse drug effect manager function. Only one centre offers a therapeutic drug monitoring service. Clinical pharmacologists are responsible for the toxicological advice at the Danish Poison Information Centre at Bispebjerg University Hospital in the Capital Region. The Department of Clinical Pharmacology at Aarhus University Hospital works closely together with forensic toxicologists and pathologists, covering issues regarding illicit substances, forensic pharmacology, post-mortem toxicology, expert testimony and research. Therapeutic geriatric and psychiatric teach-inns for specialist and junior doctors are among the newest initiatives organized by clinical pharmacologists. Clinical pharmacologists work also in the Danish Medicines Agency and in the Danish pharmaceutical industry, and the latter has in particular a great growth potential for creating new jobs and career opportunities for clinical pharmacologists. As of July 2016, the Danish Society of Clinical Pharmacology has 175 members, and 70 of these are specialists in clinical pharmacology corresponding to approximately 2.5 specialists per 1000 doctors (Denmark has in total 28,000 doctors) or approximately 12 specialists per one million inhabitants.

Efficacy and safety of bifeprunox in patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, dose-finding study.

RATIONALE: Bifeprunox is a partial dopamine agonist with a unique receptor-binding profile and potential antipsychotic properties. OBJECTIVES: The current study evaluated the efficacy and safety of bifeprunox in patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 589 patients were randomly assigned to once-daily treatment with bifeprunox 5, 10, or 20 mg, placebo, or risperidone 6 mg. Efficacy was assessed by changes in symptom rating scales [Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total and subscale scores; PANSS-derived BPRS scores; Clinical Global Impression--Severity (CGI--S) and Clinical Global Impression--Improvement (CGI--I) scores]. Safety and tolerability were assessed by monitoring adverse events, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), laboratory values, electrocardiograms, prolactin levels, and weight. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, bifeprunox 20 mg produced a statistically significantly greater reduction from baseline to last assessment in the primary efficacy variable (PANSS total score; effect size = -0.339), as well as most secondary efficacy measures. No statistically significant differences in efficacy were seen with lower doses of bifeprunox. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) noted with bifeprunox were gastrointestinal; no clear dose-related trend in the incidence of any TEAE was observed in the bifeprunox groups. Compared to placebo, treatment with bifeprunox led to small but statistically significant decreases in weight and prolactin levels. EPS were comparable between bifeprunox and placebo. The active reference in this study, risperidone 6 mg, showed statistically significant differences from placebo for the primary efficacy parameter (effect size = -0.628) and all secondary efficacy parameters. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that 20 mg of bifeprunox may be efficacious in improving symptoms in patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Bifeprunox appeared to be safe and well tolerated by patients in this 6-week study.

Enalapril dosage in progressive chronic nephropathy: a randomised, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: In chronic renal failure, clearance of enalapril is reduced. Hence, a renoprotective effect may be achieved with lower doses than conventionally used. Since marked inter-patient variation in concentrations of enalaprilat has been shown in patients with renal failure despite equivalent dosage of enalapril, a direct comparison of the effect of high versus low plasma concentrations of enalaprilat on the progression of renal failure was undertaken. METHODS: Forty patients with a median glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 17 (6-35) ml/min/1.73 m2 were studied in an open-label, randomised trial comparing patients with a high (>50 ng/ml) with patients with a low (<10 ng/ml) target trough plasma concentration of enalaprilat. The dose of enalapril was titrated accordingly. The patients were followed for 12 months or until they needed renal replacement therapy. GFR was measured at 3-month intervals by the plasma clearance of 51Cr-EDTA, and the individual rates of progression of renal failure were calculated as the slope of GFR versus time plot. RESULTS: In the high-concentration group, the median enalaprilat trough concentration was 92.9 ng/ml (21.8-371.0 ng/ml) and in the low-concentration group it was 9.1 ng/ml (2.5-74.8 ng/ml) at 3 months follow-up (P<0.001). The median daily doses of enalapril were 10 mg (2.5-30 mg) and 1.88 mg (1.25-5 mg) in the high and low groups, respectively (P<0.001). In the high-concentration group, the mean+/-SE decline in renal function was 6.1+/-1.5 ml/min/1.73 m2 per year and in the low-concentration group it was 4.3+/-14.4 ml/min/1.73 m2 per year (P=0.48). Five patients in the high-concentration group reached end-stage renal failure whereas none in the low-concentration group did (P=0.04). There were no statistically significant differences in blood pressure level, concomitant antihypertensive therapy or urinary albumin excretion. However, the high-enalaprilat concentration group had an overall higher plasma potassium concentration of 0.42 mmol/l than the low group (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency, a low concentration of enalaprilat afforded the same degree of renoprotection, blood pressure control and minimisation of proteinuria as a high concentration, during 12 months of follow-up. The high-dosage treatment was associated with a more pronounced tendency to hyperkalaemia. Thus, there seems to be no indication for increasing the daily dose of enalapril beyond what achieves adequate blood pressure control in this group of patients.

Blood pressure response to conventional and low-dose enalapril in chronic renal failure.

AIMS: In chronic renal failure, the clearance of most ACE inhibitors including enalapril is reduced. Hence, with conventional dosage, plasma enalaprilat may be markedly elevated. It is unclear whether this excess of drug exposure affords an improved control of blood pressure. The aim of the present study was to evaluate short-term blood pressure response to two different plasma levels of enalaprilat. METHODS: As part of an open, randomized, controlled trial of the effect of high and low dosage of enalapril on the progression of renal failure, short-term blood pressure response was evaluated. Data were analysed in all patients completing 3 months of follow-up. The patients were allocated to two trough plasma concentrations of enalaprilat, either above 50 ng ml(-1) (high) (n = 17) or below 10 ng ml(-1) (low) (n = 18), and the daily dose of enalapril titrated accordingly. RESULTS: Median (range) glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at baseline was 18 (7.9) in the high enalaprilat concentration group and 17 (7.3) ml min(-1) 1.73 m(2) in the low concentration group (NS). Nine patients in each group were on treatment with enalapril at baseline with a median daily dose of 5 mg in both the high (5-10) and low (2.5-20) concentration group. At 3 months' follow-up, the dose was 10 (2.5-30) and 1.9 (1.25-5) mg (P < 0.0001), respectively. After 3 months median trough concentrations of enalaprilat were 82.5 (22-244) ng ml(-1) and 9.1 (2.5-74.8) ng ml(-1) (P < 0.002). At baseline the median systolic blood pressures in the two groups were 140 (110-200) and 133 (110-165), in the high and low enalaprilat concentration groups, respectively, and after 3 months they were 135 (105-170) and 130 (105-170) mmHg (NS). Median diastolic blood pressure was 80 mmHg in each group both at baseline (65-100) and at follow-up (60-95) (NS). There was no difference between the groups in concomitant antihypertensive treatment (number of patients treated, mean daily dose) during the observation period. Proteinuria remained stable during the study period in both groups; patients in the high concentration group had higher plasma potassium concentrations at day 90 and patients in the low group experienced a slight increase in GFR. CONCLUSIONS: In moderate to severe chronic renal insufficiency the same degree of blood pressure control was achieved on low as well as moderate daily doses of enalapril. This was irrespective of concomitant antihypertensive treatment.