Comparing safety information of biosimilars with their originators: a cross-sectional analysis of European risk management plans.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Biosimilars have been available in the European Union (EU) since 2006. However, their uptake in routine care is heterogeneous across countries. The aim of the present study was to compare the safety information of biosimilars and their originators based on the information in the European risk management plan (RMP). METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis on publicly available regulatory documents (RMPs and Summaries of Product Characteristics) of biosimilars and corresponding originators up to 1 November 2015 was performed. The safety concerns were extracted and merged into general safety concerns, and clinical relevance was assessed. The frequency of safety concerns and the representation of these safety concerns per general safety concern were assessed by either comparing RMPs of biosimilars and originators (if available for both) or comparing RMPs with the Summary of Product Characteristics of the originator. RESULTS: Nineteen biosimilars and six originators were included. Overall, 55 general safety concerns (12 low, 21 medium and 22 highly clinically relevant) were identified. For all active substances, except for infliximab, no or only one difference was found in the listed general safety concerns. Comparison of regulatory documents for infliximab identified three medium clinically relevant general safety concerns more for infliximab biosimilars and two general safety concerns more for its originator. CONCLUSION: Based on publicly available information filed for regulatory purposes, no substantial differences were observed in the reporting of safety information for biosimilars and related originators. A direct comparison between biosimilars and related originators through formal postmarketing studies is needed to evaluate specific safety issues emerging during the products' life cycle.

Kounis Syndrome: An analysis of spontaneous reports from international pharmacovigilance database.

INTRODUCTION: The coincidental occurrence of a cardiac symptomatology (e.g. an acute coronary syndrome or a myocardial infarction), during an anaphylactic or anaphylactoid episode is known as Kounis Syndrome. A variety of drugs, substances, food and environmental exposures are associated with this reaction. There is an exponential increase in the number of published scientific articles reports on this syndrome, but since it is rare, the largest case series published so far included only 10 and 6 patients. METHODS: We searched the global World Health Organization database called VigiBase™ to detect all cases of Kounis Syndrome ever reported (last update December 31st 2014). RESULTS: We identified 51 cases of Kounis Syndrome reported to International Pharmacovigilance Agency (VigiBase™). All these cases were reported in the period 2010-2014 and almost half cases (22 reports) belonged to the year 2014. Most cases occurred in the USA and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were the most frequent trigger drugs. DISCUSSION: We collected pharmacovigilance international data representing the largest case series ever published on the recently identified Kounis Syndrome.

Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms (DRESS): A National Analysis of Data from 10-Year Post-marketing Surveillance.

INTRODUCTION: Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a rare, severe and potentially fatal cutaneous adverse drug reaction (the mortality rate is up to 10 %) associated with numerous and apparently heterogeneous drugs. The aetiology is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To report Italian cases of DRESS over a 10-year period. METHODS: We searched the National Pharmacovigilance Network (NPN) for the term 'drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms' from 1 January 2004 to 1 January 2014, to identify all reports of DRESS. Each case was checked to avoid duplication. RESULTS: In the NPN, we identified 91 serious cases of DRESS: 68 were spontaneous, still-unpublished reports, while 23 additional cases were derived from screening of the scientific literature, performed by marketing authorization holders. Notably, the single common element linking all cases of DRESS was intake of a drug containing an aromatic ring. CONCLUSION: Thanks to the largest national DRESS case series ever reported, we were able to hypothesize, for the first time, that there is an association between use of drugs containing an aromatic ring in their chemical structure and DRESS. This might aid understanding of the aetiology of DRESS and facilitate diagnosis.

Drug-induced anaemia: a decade review of reporting to the Italian Pharmacovigilance data-base.

BACKGROUND: Studies investigating drug-induced anaemia are relatively scarce and mostly related to specific drugs or patients with specific pathologies. OBJECTIVE: To analyse all reports of suspected drug-induced anaemias recorded in the National Pharmacovigilance Database of the Italian Medicines Agency. METHOD: The cases of suspected drug-induced anaemias analysed were those retrieved from the Italian National Pharmacovigilance Database from January 2001 to December 2013. RESULTS: The active substances involved were 375 in 3,305 reports of drug-induced anaemia; of these, 72 % were reported as serious. In 35 % of the reports patients were in polytherapy. In 24.3 % of the cases relevant DDIs were identified. We found a PRR value of 57.29 for peginterferon alfa-2a, of 12.57 for ribavirin, of 13 for flu vaccine for the occurrence of autoimmune haemolytic anaemia. The drugs mostly involved in the cases where the Naranjo causality was probable or possible were acetylsalicylic acid, warfarin, ribavirin, peginterferon alfa-2a, carboplatin and acenocoumarol. CONCLUSIONS: A possible signal was detected for peginterferon alfa-2a, ribavirin and flu vaccine in the occurrence of autoimmune haemolytic anaemia. A great involvement of clopidogrel, enoxaparin, warfarin, ticlopidine and acetylsalicylic acid in preventable DDI-induced anaemia was detected, highlighting a poor awareness among healthcare providers on this issue.

Safety profile of biological medicines as compared with non-biologicals: an analysis of the italian spontaneous reporting system database.

BACKGROUND: Biologicals are important treatment options for various chronic diseases. After the introduction of the first biosimilars, animated debate arose in the scientific community about the actual benefit-risk profile of these drugs. In this context, a comparative safety evaluation of biologicals and biosimilars in clinical practice is warranted. METHODS: We identified all suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) concerning biological/biosimilars (excluding vaccines, toxins, blood derivatives, and radio-pharmaceuticals), and further classified them into mechanistic classes. We described the frequency of biological/biosimilar class- and compound-specific ADRs by system organ class (SOC) and type of reporter. We also separately explored the traceability of biologicals and biosimilar-related ADR reports. RESULTS: Overall 171,201 ADR reports were collected during the observation period; 9,601 (5.6 %) of these concerned biologicals. Biological-related reports were mainly issued by hospital-based physicians (78.7 %). Most of these reports involved monoclonal antibodies and fusion proteins (66.3 %). Reported ADRs were mainly 'skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders' (21 %), 'general and administration site disorders' (17 %), and 'gastrointestinal disorders' (13.6 %). In terms of traceability, 94.8 % of biological-related reports included an identifiable product name, whilst only 8.6 % indicated the corresponding batch number. Regarding biosimilars, 298 reports were identified, with a low proportion indicating drug ineffectiveness (10.1 %). CONCLUSIONS: Most ADRs attributed to biologicals are 'skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders'. Anticancer monoclonal antibodies are most frequently associated with ADRs. A low proportion of ADR reports concern biosimilars.

Pharmacovigilance and the italian medicines agency.

The new European Union (EU) regulations on pharmacovigilance require that the national systems are strengthened in order to fit the new requirements. The Italian Pharmacovigilance System, coordinated by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA), is made by local and regional structures. In 2007, a program for funding active pharmacovigilance projects in the Italian Regions was established by the National law. The AIFA is responsible for the preparation of guidelines aimed at the identification of research areas and for the approval of the projects submitted by the regions. In April 2012, the AIFA started a program of visits at the regional pharmacovigilance centers (RPCs), aimed at monitoring their performances, evaluating the quality of the activities in order to understand the main differences and discrepancies and with a view to start a program of harmonization of the procedures in place. The outcome of the visits program highlighted major differences among the quality management systems of the various centers; hence, AIFA has decided to launch an initiative to promote in the next months the harmonization of procedures. The synergy among AIFA, regional structures, RPCs, and local structure responsible for pharmacovigilance is needed in order to establish a robust pharmacovigilance system working in full compliance with the provisions of the new EU legislation.

Biosimilars: the paradox of sharing the same pharmacological action without full chemical identity.

The use of biotech medicines is increasing, with consequent mounting expenses for National Health Systems (NHSs). Biosimilars should be considered an opportunity to improve access to care. On the other side, the general public might suspect to receive low-quality medicines to save money. Actually, no drugs with a lesser degree of pharmaceutical quality with respect to existing alternatives can be authorized on the ground of a lower price. Biosimilars can be authorized only if their quality is of the same level as that of the originator. There is no chemical identity between biosimilars and the originators: any differences in quality attributes must be justified and shown not to impact on the safety and efficacy of the biosimilar by scientific investigations including pre-approval nonclinical and/or clinical studies. The biosimilar safety profile may be different from the originator or change over time for the same product. Hence caveats limiting the widespread use of biosimilars yet exist and should be solved by education on the main biological issues of biotech medicines, and on continuous update of the rules set up by the Regulatory Authorities to assess biosimilarity and to monitor post-approval safety.