Effectiveness and safety of adalimumab biosimilar in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Adalimumab biosimilar MSB11022 (Idacio ®) has been approved for the same indications as its originator (Humira ®), based on findings from clinical trials in plaque psoriasis. Data on its efficacy and safety in inflammatory bowel disease, however, are scarce. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study of 44 patients with inflammatory bowel disease: 30 were treated with originator adalimumab, 5 were directly started on MSB11022, and 9 switched from originator to biosimilar adalimumab. To evaluate the effectiveness of the use of adalimumab in inflammatory bowel disease, both laboratory markers (fecal calprotectin and C-reactive protein) and scales that measure the activity of inflammatory bowel disease using specific scales (Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI) have been usEd.) for Crohn's disease and Mayo Score for Ulcerative Colitis. Efficacy was evaluated by recording the adverse effects that could occur with the administration of adalimumab (original or biosimilar). The success of the switch was determined by analyzing meaningful differences in effectiveness and safety criteria. Concomitant therapy and the need for dose intensification were also analyzed. Objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of biosimilar adalimumab in adalimumab-naïve patients and patients switched from originator adalimumab. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in clinical disease activity (P=.317) or biochemical parameters [fecal calprotectin (P=.445) and C-reactive protein P=.661)] after the switch from the originator adalimumab to MSB11022. There was not a significant reduction in the concomitant use of corticosteroids and thiopurines (P=.157). No emergency room visits or hospitalizations were observed during the study period and none of the patients experienced serious adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Between originator adalimumab and biosimilar-start cohorts, no differences were observed, between originator adalimumab and switch cohorts, no significant differences were found either, and with the pre- and post-switch to biosimilar comparison, 2 of the 9 patients experienced AEs after the switch. The biosimilar showed a favorable safety profile (one patient with a serious adverse effect (rash) with biosimilar discontinued treatment) and no significant changes to clinical or biochemical parameters were observed after the switch.

Medicamentos bioterapéuticos: uso de toxinas botulínicas en la era de biosimilares

Introducción: Las toxinas botulínicas son medicamentos bioterapéuticos con grandes aplicaciones en el campo de la neurología, como la cefalea y los movimientos anormales. Debido a la importancia médica y al incremento de las indicaciones terapéuticas de la toxina botulínica, este artículo pretende hacer claridad acerca de la terminología básica con respecto a la naturaleza de este medicamento, a las diferencias estructurales con medicamentos convencionales y aspectos importantes en relación con su potencia biológica e inmunogenicidad, para así comprender las potenciales diferencias entre las toxinas disponibles y conceptuar en torno a la no intercambiabilidad o sustitución de una toxina por otra. Materiales y métodos: Revisión no sistemática, según lo recomendado en la Escala para la Verificación de los Artículos Revisiones Narrativas (Sanra). Conclusiones: Los medicamentos biológicos no son intercambiables entre sí, aunque demuestren bioequivalencia. No se pueden evaluar como medicamentos genéricos intercambiables porque son biológicos; no existen estudios comparativos cabeza a cabeza; son diferentes, debido al proceso individual de manufactura.

Introduction: Botulinum toxins are biotherapeutic drugs with great applications in the field of neurology such as headache and abnormal movements. Due to the medical importance and the increase in therapeutic indications of botulinum toxin, this article aims to clarify the basic terminology regarding the nature of this drug, the structural differences with conventional drugs and important aspects in relation to its biological potency and immunogenicity in order to understand the potential differences between the available toxins and conceptualize regarding the non-interchangeability or substitution of one toxin for another. Materials and methods: Non-systematic review as recommended in the Scale for the Verification of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA). Conclusions: Biological drugs are not interchangeable with each other, even if they demonstrate bioequi-valence. They cannot be evaluated as interchangeable generic drugs because they are biologics. There are no head-to-head comparative studies. They are different due to the individual manufacturing process.

Effectiveness and safety in the management of chronic inflammatory diseases with etanercept and infliximab biosimilars in Colombian patients

Objective: To determine the effectiveness and safety of infliximab and etanercept biosimilar drugs in patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, and psoriasis in a specialized institution in Colombia, between 2015 and 2019. Methods: A retrospective study in patients treated with infliximab and etanercept biosimilar drugs treated in an institution specializing in the management of rheumatological diseases, to verify the clinimetric indicators of effectiveness and reports of adverse drug reactions. Clinical, sociodemographic, and pharmacological variables were identified over 5 years of follow-up. Results: 207 patients were identified with a mean age of 48.7 ± 15.1 years, 61.4% were women. Of the patients, 58.0% (n = 120) used infliximab and 42.0% (n = 87) etanercept. It was found that 46 (22.2%) patients had adverse drug reactions. At the end of the observation period, 61.6% (n = 72) of the patients with RA had achieved control of the disease (mild activity or remission), and 57.9% (n = 117) had problems with access to and persistence with therapy. Conclusion: In a group of patients treated in Colombia, the biosimilars of infliximab and etanercept showed proportions of effectiveness and safety comparable to the reference drugs, but lack of adherence to treatment was quite common.

Objetivo: Determinar la efectividad y la seguridad de medicamentos biosimilares de infliximab y etanercept en pacientes con diagnóstico de artritis reumatoide, espondilitis anquilosante, colitis ulcerativa y psoriasis en una institución especializada de Colombia, entre los arios 2015 y 2019. Métodos: Estudio retrospectivo, en pacientes tratados con infliximab y etanercept biosimilares, atendidos en una institución especializada en el manejo de enfermedades reumatológicas, para verificar los indicadores clinimétricos de efectividad y reportes de reacciones adversas medicamentosas. Se identificaron variables clínicas, sociodemográficas y farmacológicas durante cinco años de seguimiento. Resultados: Se identificaron 207 pacientes, con una edad media de 48,7 ± 15,1 años, el 61,4% de los cuales eran mujeres. El 58% (n = 120) de los pacientes utilizó infliximab y el 42% (n = 87) etanercept. Se encontró que 46 (22,2%) pacientes presentaron reacciones adversas al medicamento. Al final del periodo de observación, un 61,6% (n = 72) de los pacientes con AR había alcanzado el control de la enfermedad (actividad leve o remisión) y, en general, el 57,9% (n = 117) tuvo problemas de acceso y persistencia a la terapia. Conclusión: En un grupo de pacientes tratados en Colombia, los biosimilares de infliximab y etanercept mostraron proporciones de efectividad y seguridad comparables a los medicamentos de referencia, pero fue bastante común la falta de adherencia al tratamiento.

A cost-consequence analysis of the preferential use of secukinumab versus adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficiency of secukinumab compared to adalimumab as first biologic treatment for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from the Spanish National Health System (SNHS) perspective. METHODS: A cost-consequence analysis of the cost and clinical response of two treatment strategies was conducted over a 2-year time horizon. A hypothetical cohort of 10 patients with PsA initiated treatment with secukinumab 150mg (cohort A) or adalimumab 40mg (cohort B), respectively. Patients achieving clinical response (ACR20/50/70) at week 24 continued the initial treatment, while patients with inadequate response switched to secukinumab 300mg. Pharmacological costs were calculated based on SmPC (notified ex-factory price). The lowest cost of adalimumab biosimilar was considered. Data on clinical response were extracted from the two matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) published comparing secukinumab vs adalimumab. Results were expressed as the cost difference between the two cohorts (€, 2019) and were calculated for each clinical response criteria (ACR20/50/70) and for each MAIC. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of potential discounts on the cost of adalimumab while maintaining the cost of secukinumab unchanged. RESULTS: Depending on the MAIC used, the cost of initiating biologic treatment for PsA with secukinumab 150mg was 18-33% lower than the one estimated for adalimumab 40mg, for ACR20, 18-28% for ACR50, and 16-23% for ACR70 response rate. Sensitivity analysis showed that it would be necessary a discount of 40-60%, 40-65% and 50-75% over the adalimumab cost to compensate for the differences in efficacy observed for ACR20/50/70, respectively, depending on the MAIC used. CONCLUSION: In patients with PsA, secukinumab could be considered a more efficient first-line biologic treatment compared to adalimumab, from the SNHS perspective.

A cost-consequence analysis of the preferential use of secukinumab versus adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis / Análisis de las consecuencias en materia de costos del uso preferencial del secukinumab en comparación con el adalimumab para el tratamiento de la artritis psoriásica

Objectives: To assess the efficiency of secukinumab compared to adalimumab as first biologic treatment for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from the Spanish National Health System (SNHS) perspective. Methods: A cost-consequence analysis of the cost and clinical response of two treatment strategies was conducted over a 2-year time horizon. A hypothetical cohort of 10 patients with PsA initiated treatment with secukinumab 150mg (cohort A) or adalimumab 40mg (cohort B), respectively. Patients achieving clinical response (ACR20/50/70) at week 24 continued the initial treatment, while patients with inadequate response switched to secukinumab 300mg. Pharmacological costs were calculated based on SmPC (notified ex-factory price). The lowest cost of adalimumab biosimilar was considered. Data on clinical response were extracted from the two matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) published comparing secukinumab vs adalimumab. Results were expressed as the cost difference between the two cohorts (€, 2019) and were calculated for each clinical response criteria (ACR20/50/70) and for each MAIC. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of potential discounts on the cost of adalimumab while maintaining the cost of secukinumab unchanged. Results: Depending on the MAIC used, the cost of initiating biologic treatment for PsA with secukinumab 150mg was 18–33% lower than the one estimated for adalimumab 40mg, for ACR20, 18–28% for ACR50, and 16–23% for ACR70 response rate. Sensitivity analysis showed that it would be necessary a discount of 40–60%, 40–65% and 50–75% over the adalimumab cost to compensate for the differences in efficacy observed for ACR20/50/70, respectively, depending on the MAIC used. Conclusion: In patients with PsA, secukinumab could be considered a more efficient first-line biologic treatment compared to adalimumab, from the SNHS perspective.(AU)

Objetivos: Evaluar la eficiencia de secukinumab comparado con adalimumab como primer tratamiento biológico para la artritis psoriásica desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud español. Métodos: Se realizó un análisis de coste-consecuencia considerando el coste y la respuesta clínica a dos estrategias de tratamiento, en un horizonte temporal de 2 años. Una cohorte hipotética de 10 pacientes con artritis psoriásica inició el tratamiento con secukinumab 150mg (cohorte A) o adalimumab 40mg (cohorte B), respectivamente. Los pacientes con respuesta clínica (ACR20/50/70) en la semana 24 continuaron el tratamiento inicial, mientras que los pacientes con respuesta inadecuada recibieron 300mg de secukinumab. Los costes farmacológicos se calcularon en base a la ficha técnica (precio notificado). Se consideró el coste más bajo de adalimumab biosimilar. Los datos de respuesta clínica se extrajeron de los dos estudios publicados de comparación indirecta ajustada entre secukinumab y adalimumab. Se calculó la diferencia de coste entre las dos cohortes (€, 2019) para cada criterio de respuesta (ACR20/50/70) y para cada estudio. El análisis de sensibilidad evaluó los resultados aplicando posibles descuentos sobre el coste de adalimumab, manteniendo constante el coste de secukinumab. Resultados: Dependiendo del estudio utilizado, el coste de iniciar el tratamiento biológico con secukinumab 150mg fue un 18-33% menor que el estimado para adalimumab 40mg, para ACR20, 18-28% para ACR50, y 16-23% para ACR70. El análisis de sensibilidad mostró que sería necesario un descuento del 40-60%, 40-65% y 50-75% sobre el coste del adalimumab para compensar las diferencias de eficacia observadas para ACR20/50/70, respectivamente.Conclusión: En pacientes con artritis psoriásica, la elección de secukinumab como terapia biológica inicial podría considerarse una opción más eficiente comparado con adalimumab desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud español.(AU)

Conocimientos, percepciones, actitud, barreras y facilitadores del uso de biosimilares entre médicos y farmacéuticos de hospital: Una encuesta española / Knowledge, perceptions, attitude, barriers and facilitators of biosimilars use across specialty physicians and hospital pharmacists: A national survey

Objetivo: Analizar el conocimiento, las percepciones, la actitud, lasbarreras y los facilitadores sobre el uso de los biosimilares entre los médicosque manejan enfermedades inmunológicas y los farmacéuticos de hospital.Método: Se diseñaron dos encuestas online anónimas, estructuradas y cerradas que se enviaron a 41 médicos (reumatólogos, dermatólogos y gastroenterólogos) y 32 farmacéuticos de hospital. Se recogieron variables sociodemográficas y relacionadas con la práctica clínica. También informaciónsobre el nivel de conocimiento e importancia de los biosimilares, el accesoa los mismos, la actitud en la práctica clínica, y las percepciones, barrerasy facilitadores con el uso de los mismos. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo.Resultados: La tasa de respuesta fue del 100% (farmacéuticos de hospital) y del 96% (médicos). Encontramos cierta falta de conocimiento sobre losbiosimilares en aspectos clave como el cambio de un biológico de referencia a un biosimilar, la extrapolación de indicaciones, la intercambiabilidado la sustitución. Hubo una gran variabilidad en los tipos y marcas comerciales de biosimilares entre hospitales. Observamos distintas preferencias,políticas y prácticas en los hospitales en relación con el uso de biosimilares.La percepción y actitud general hacia los biosimilares fue positiva. Los biosimilares se prescribían predominantemente en pacientes sin tratamiento biológico previo (esta indicación se consideraba adecuada y los participantes sesentían cómodos con ella). La reticencia al cambio en la práctica clínica fuecomún. Los principales obstáculos para el uso de biosimilares fueron la faltade confianza y de conocimientos. (AU)

Objective: To analyze knowledge, perceptions, attitude, barriers andfacilitators of biosimilars uptake across physicians managing immunediseases and hospital pharmacists.Method: Two structured and closed anonymous online surveys weredesigned and sent to 41 physicians (rheumatologists, dermatologists,gastroenterologists) and 32 hospital pharmacists. Sociodemographic andclinical practice related variables were collected. We also gathered information about biosimilars knowledge and importance, access, attitude inclinical practice and perceptions, barriers and facilitators to biosimilarsuptake. A descriptive analysis was performed.Results: Surveys response rate was 100% (hospital pharmacists) and96% (physicians). We found certain lack of biosimilars knowledge aboutkey aspects including switching, extrapolation, interchangeability or substitution. There was a great variability in the types and brands of biosimilarsdepending on the hospital. We observed several organization preferences, policies, and practices regarding biosimilars. General perceptionand attitude to biosimilars was positive. If used, biosimilars were predominantly prescribed in biologic treatment-naive patients (this indication wasconsidered adequate and participants felt comfortable with it). Reluctance to switch in clinical practice was common. The main barriers to biosimilarsuptake were the lack of confidence and knowledge. The main facilitatorswere the development of recommendations from professional associationsand societies and the demonstration of interchangeability efficacy. Wegathered concerns about biosimilar long term efficacy and safety, lackof real-life data, lack of biosimilars traceability or the risk of biologic reference medicines stock shortages. (AU)

Actualización del Documento de posicionamiento de la Sociedad Española de Reumatología sobre fármacos biosimilares / Update of the Position Paper of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on Biosimilar Drugs

En el año 2015 la Sociedad Española de Reumatología (SER) publicó su posicionamiento sobre fármacos biosimilares. En esta actualización, la SER, sigue manifestando su compromiso inequívoco con la sostenibilidad del sistema sanitario de nuestro país y se alinea con las medidas que, sin reducir la calidad asistencial, estén encaminadas a asegurar su sostenibilidad. Desde la publicación del anterior posicionamiento la Comisión Europea ha autorizado la comercialización de nuevos fármacos biosimilares, lo que abre una excelente oportunidad de avanzar en la eficiencia de la atención sanitaria. En este nuevo escenario de incremento de la oferta terapéutica de biológicos, la SER considera imprescindible preservar la libertad de prescripción de los médicos que realizan la indicación de fármacos basándose exclusivamente en las características y circunstancias individuales de cada paciente, sin olvidar los aspectos económicos que se derivan de dicha actuación.(AU)

In 2015 the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (Sociedad Española de Reumatología [SER]) published its position paper on biosimilar drugs. In this update, the SER, continues to manifest its unequivocal commitment to the sustainability of the health system of our country and is aligned with the measures that, without reducing quality of care, are aimed at ensuring its continuity. Since the publication of the previous position paper, the European Commission has authorized new biosimilar drugs, which provides an excellent opportunity to advance the efficiency of health care. In this new scenario of increased therapeutic offer of biologics, the SER considers it crucial to preserve the freedom of prescription of physicians who prescribe drugs based exclusively on the characteristics and individual circumstances of each patient, without forgetting the economic aspects there of.(AU)

Update of the Position Paper of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on Biosimilar Drugs. / Actualización del Documento de posicionamiento de la Sociedad Española de Reumatología sobre fármacos biosimilares.

In 2015 the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (Sociedad Española de Reumatología [SER]) published its position paper on biosimilar drugs. In this update, the SER, continues to manifest its unequivocal commitment to the sustainability of the health system of our country and is aligned with the measures that, without reducing quality of care, are aimed at ensuring its continuity. Since the publication of the previous position paper, the European Commission has authorized new biosimilar drugs, which provides an excellent opportunity to advance the efficiency of health care. In this new scenario of increased therapeutic offer of biologics, the SER considers it crucial to preserve the freedom of prescription of physicians who prescribe drugs based exclusively on the characteristics and individual circumstances of each patient, without forgetting the economic aspects there of.

A Cost-Consequence Analysis of the Preferential Use of Secukinumab Versus Adalimumab for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficiency of secukinumab compared to adalimumab as first biologic treatment for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from the Spanish National Health System (SNHS) perspective. METHODS: A cost-consequence analysis of the cost and clinical response of two treatment strategies was conducted over a 2-year time horizon. A hypothetical cohort of 10 patients with PsA initiated treatment with secukinumab 150mg (cohort A) or adalimumab 40mg (cohort B), respectively. Patients achieving clinical response (ACR20/50/70) at week 24 continued the initial treatment, while patients with inadequate response switched to secukinumab 300mg. Pharmacological costs were calculated based on SmPC (notified ex-factory price). The lowest cost of adalimumab biosimilar was considered. Data on clinical response were extracted from the two matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) published comparing secukinumab vs adalimumab. Results were expressed as the cost difference between the two cohorts (€, 2019) and were calculated for each clinical response criteria (ACR20/50/70) and for each MAIC. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of potential discounts on the cost of adalimumab while maintaining the cost of secukinumab unchanged. RESULTS: Depending on the MAIC used, the cost of initiating biologic treatment for PsA with secukinumab 150mg was 18-33% lower than the one estimated for adalimumab 40mg, for ACR20, 18-28% for ACR50, and 16-23% for ACR70 response rate. Sensitivity analysis showed that it would be necessary a discount of 40-60%, 40-65% and 50-75% over the adalimumab cost to compensate for the differences in efficacy observed for ACR20/50/70, respectively, depending on the MAIC used. CONCLUSION: In patients with PsA, secukinumab could be considered a more efficient first-line biologic treatment compared to adalimumab, from the SNHS perspective.

Immunopharmacology 2020. V International Congress on Immunopharmacology

The Organizing Committee of the V International Congress on Immunopharmacology (Immunopharmacology 2020) organized by the Cuban Society of Pharmacology, BioCubaFarma and the International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (IUPHAR) would like to invite you to participate in this important event, scheduled for June 9 to 13, 2020 at the Convention Centre of the Melia Marina Varadero Hotel, Varadero Beach, Matanzas, Cuba. The Congress will be formed by different workshops and symposia such as: Fifth workshop on new advances in immunopharmacology Fifth workshop on neuroimmunology, neuroimmunopharmacology and neuroimmunomodulation. Immunopharmacology of brain tumors Symposium on hereditary ataxias Fifth symposium on pharmacology of cytochrome P450 and transporters Fourth symposium on inflammation and pain 2nd symposium on NFkB Synthetic peptides as immunopharmacological tools Novel designs in clinical trials. Biosimilar pharmaceuticals Pharmacogenetics, pharmacogenomics, proteomics and phosphoproteomics Immune response in cancer First symposium on business and international cooperation on biologics Immunopharmacology 2020 is sponsored by: Cuban Society of Pharmacology (SCF) International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (IUPHAR) Latin-American Association of Pharmacology (ALF) PAHO / WHO BioCubaFarma National research centers: Finlay Vaccine Institute (IFV); Center of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB); Center of Molecular Immunology (CIM); Center for Control of Drugs, Equipment and Medical Devices (CECMED); National Center for Animal and Plant Health (CENSA); Tropical Medicine Institute "Pedro Kourí" (IPK); National Center for Biopreparations (BioCEN); Center for Drug Research and Development (CIDEM); Center for Clinical Trials (CENCEC); among others International Manufacturers and Companies The key objectives of the Congress are: To provide a progressive state-of-the-art report for scientists, manufacturers, governmental authorities and healthcare workers, who need to be updated about the latest scientific developments for human vaccines, including basic science, product development, market introduction, immunization programs and epidemiological surveillance. To promote the scientific collaboration among experts and institutions through the experience exchange, the presentation of results and the discussion on the conference topics. To accelerate progress in the development of vaccines and the acceptance and introduction of new methods and technologies. Opening lectures, oral presentations and posters will provide you the opportunity to be involved in a high quality congress to discuss about the progress in the field of immunology and pharmacology sciences(AU)

Terapias biológicas del cáncer: un enfoque a favor de la accesibilidad / Biological cancer therapies: an approach towards accessibility

RESUMEN Los anticuerpos monoclonales son una poderosa herramienta para el diagnóstico de laboratorio y un instrumento cada vez más utilizado en el tratamiento de diversas enfermedades, siendo uno de los grupos más importantes de drogas en el tratamiento del cáncer. La revolución en el mundo de los anticuerpos ocurre en 1975 cuando Milstein y Köhler desarrollan la técnica de las hibridomas en Cambridge. Objetivo Hacer una revisión del uso de anticuerpos monoclonales en medicina y, en particular, en el tratamiento del cáncer. Se busca aportar una visión generalizada del concepto de anticuerpo monoclonal para explicar su aplicabilidad terapéutica y abordar un enfoque económico y sociosanitario de la obtención y acceso a las nuevas terapias. Método En la caracterización del fenómeno de investigación se empleó el estudio descriptivo, de recolección de datos documental y la correlación entre las distintas fuentes. Discusión Son aún elevados los costos tanto para el paciente como para los sistemas de salud pública, y se ha de optimizar la valoración costo-efectividad de modo que la rentabilidad y el acceso a tiempo para los pacientes puedan ser compatibles. Se deja abierto el reto del desarrollo de nuevos mAbs dirigidos a nuevas dianas, mejorar el perfil de seguridad, evitando o reduciendo las reacciones adversas inmunes y conseguir el abaratamiento del coste de producción mediante mejoras en la biotecnología.(AU)

ABSTRACT Monoclonal antibodies are a useful tool for laboratory diagnosis and an instrument used in the treatment of various diseases and represent one of the most important groups of new drugs for the treatment of cancer. The revolution in the world occured in 1975 when Milstein and Köhler discovered monoclonal antibodies in Cambridge. Objective To review the use of monoclonal antibodies in medicine and in the treatment of cancer. To provide a generalized vision of the concept of monoclonal antibody to explain its therapeutic applicability, and to approach an economic, health-care approach to obtaining and accessing new therapies. Method In the characterization of the research phenomenon, the descriptive study, the collection of documentary data and the correlation between the different sources were used. Discussion However, the costs for both the patient and the public health systems are still high, and the cost-effectiveness assessment must be optimized so that cost-effectiveness and access to time for patients can be compatible. And the challenge of developing new mAbs aimed at new targets, improving the safety profile, avoiding, or reducing adverse immune reactions and achieving lower production costs through improvements in biotechnology, is left open.(AU)

Intercambialidade de produtos biológicos no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS): principais desafios regulatórios / Interchangeability of biological products in the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS): the main regulatory challenges / Intercambiabilidad de productos biológicos en el Sistema Único de Salud (SUS): principales desafíos regulatorios

Resumo: Produtos biológicos revolucionaram a terapêutica mundial. O alto custo desses medicamentos, no entanto, ameaça a sustentabilidade dos sistemas de saúde. O desenvolvimento de cópias é tido como uma alternativa econômica, mas devido à complexidade desses produtos, muitos conceitos utilizados para os medicamentos genéricos não se aplicam. A intercambialidade entre produtos biológicos representa um desafio regulatório a ser superado. Este ensaio discute os principais desafios regulatórios relacionados ao estabelecimento de critérios para intercambialidade entre produtos biológicos novos e suas cópias no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), considerando as diretrizes adotadas pelas principais agências reguladoras de medicamentos do mundo sobre a intercambialidade e o arcabouço regulatório vigente no Brasil para esta questão. Preocupações relacionadas à intercambialidade de produtos biológicos incluem substituição automática, nomenclatura, farmacovigilância, imunogenicidade e extrapolação das indicações terapêuticas e dos dados clínicos de produtos biológicos novos para suas cópias. Embora o sucesso clínico e os benefícios econômicos da alternância entre alguns produtos biológicos novos e seus biossimilares já tenham sido observados, a heterogeneidade das barreiras regulatórias para aprovação das cópias de produtos biológicos entre diferentes países deve ser considerada para a regulamentação da intercambialidade de produtos biológicos no Brasil.

Abstract: Biological products have sparked a worldwide therapeutic revolution. However, the high cost of these products threatens health systems' sustainability. The development of copies is considered an economic alternative, but due to the products' complexity, many concepts used in generic drugs do not apply. Interchangeability between biologicals poses a regulatory challenge. This essay discusses the main regulatory challenges for establishing criteria for interchangeability between new biologicals and their copies in the scope of the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS), considering the guidelines adopted by the world's main drug regulatory agencies concerning interchangeability and the prevailing Brazilian regulatory framework on this issue. Concerns related to the interchangeability of biologicals include automatic substitution, nomenclature, pharmacovigilance, immunogenicity, and extrapolation of therapeutic indications and clinical data from new biologicals to their copies. While the clinical success and economic benefits of switching from new biologicals to their biosimilars have already been observed, the heterogeneity between countries in the regulatory barriers to the approval of copies of biologicals should be taken into consideration during the regulation of interchangeability of biologicals in Brazil.

Resumen: Los productos biológicos revolucionaron la terapéutica mundial. El alto coste de estos medicamentos, no obstante, amenaza la sostenibilidad de los sistemas de salud. El desarrollo de copias se considera como una alternativa económica, pero debido a la complejidad de estos productos, muchos conceptos utilizados para los medicamentos genéricos no se aplican a los mismos. La intercambiabilidad entre productos biológicos representa un desafío regulatorio que se debe superar. Este trabajo discute los principales desafíos regulatorios, relacionados con el establecimiento de criterios para la intercambiabilidad entre productos biológicos nuevos y sus copias en el ámbito del Sistema Único de Salud (SUS), considerando las directrices adoptadas por las principales agencias regulatorias de medicamentos del mundo sobre la intercambiabilidad y el armazón regulatorio vigente en Brasil para esta cuestión. Las preocupaciones relacionadas con la intercambiabilidad de productos biológicos incluyen la sustitución automática, nomenclatura, farmacovigilancia, inmunogenicidad y extrapolación de las indicaciones terapéuticas, así como de los datos clínicos de productos biológicos nuevos para sus copias. A pesar de que el éxito clínico y los beneficios económicos de la alternancia entre algunos productos biológicos nuevos y sus biosimilares, ya se han observados, la heterogeneidad de las barreras regulatorias para la aprobación de las copias de productos biológicos entre los diferentes países debe ser considerada para la regulación de la intercambiabilidad de productos biológicos en Brasil.

Medicamentos biosimilares en Colombia: una revisión desde el consumo informado / Biosimilar Medicines in Colombia: An Approach from the Informed Consumption / Medicamentos biossimilares na Colômbia: uma revisão desde o consumo informado

Resumen Introducción: este artículo presenta un análisis sobre medicamentos biosimilares en Colombia con miras a establecer si existe un consumo informado respecto de estos fármacos, teniendo en cuenta la calidad y cantidad de información que circula en relación con su disponibilidad y acceso económico (precios). Desarrollo: el tipo de estudio es cualitativo con un diseño documental a partir de la revisión en bases de datos como Pubmed, Scopus, Scielo, Vlex y Redalyc, bases de información de registros sanitarios de agencias reguladoras de medicamentos (FDA, EMA e Invima) y el Sistema de Información de Vademecum Med Informática. Uno de los biosimilares autorizados en FDA y cuatro de la EMA se encuentran registrados en el Invima; sin embargo, son más los biosimilares no autorizados ni en FDA ni en EMA que se encuentran registrados en el Invima, los cuales aún no aparecen con esta clasificación de biosimilares ni en la agencia reguladora colombiana ni en ningún otro medio oficial o comercial. De los medicamentos biológicos de referencia de estos biosimilares, 12 tienen control de precios y 7 han sido autorizados al menos una vez vía judicial a los usuarios del sistema. Conclusiones: si bien, la reglamentación ha sido de gran avance en relación con el acceso a biosimilares y, en consecuencia, a sus biológicos pioneros, el sistema aún tiene barreras jurídicas, de información, disponibilidad y acceso que dificultan la protección y efectividad del derecho a la salud de la población en términos de un consumo informado de estos.

Abstract Introduction: This article presents an analysis of biosimilar drugs in Colombia, aiming at critically analyzing whether the consumption of biosimilar drugs in Colombia is fully informed or if it rather is characterized for its lack of information. Informed consumption in the sense of taking into account the quality and quantity of the information circulating in relation to the availability and affordability (prices) of biosimilar drugs. Development: This is a qualitative documentary analysis, based on the review of databases such as Pubmed, Scopus, Scielo, Vlex and Redalyc, and sanitary databases of drugs regulatory agencies (FDA, EMA and the Colombian Invima) and the Vademecum Med Informatica. One of the biosimilars authorized by FDA and four of those by EMA were also registered before by the Invima. However, the number of Invima authorized biosimilars is higher than that authorized by FDA and EMA. It is also important to highlight the fact that any biosimilar is not registered as such neither before the Invima nor before any other official or commercial source. Out of the biological reference products with biosimilars, twelve have regulated price and seven have been authorized at least once via court ruling. Conclusions: Although the regulations are progressive in relation to the access to biosimilars and, consequently, to their biological pioneers, the system still has legal, availability and information barriers that undermine the protection and effectiveness of the right to health.

Resumo Introdução: este artigo apresenta uma análise sobre medicamentos biossimilares na Colômbia com vista a estabelecer se existe um consumo informado respeito destes fármacos, tendo em conta a qualidade e quantidade de informação que circula em relação com a sua disponibilidade e acesso econômico (preços). Desenvolvimento: o tipo de estudo é qualitativo com um desenho documental a partir da revisão em bases de dados como Pubmed, Scopus, Scielo, Vlex e Redalyc, bases de informação de registros sanitários de agências reguladoras de medicamentos (FDA, EMA e Invima) e o Sistema de Informação de Vademecum Med Informática. Um dos biossimilares autorizados em FDA e 4 da EMA, se encontram registrados no Invima, no entanto são mais os biossimilares não autorizados nem na FDA nem na EMA que se encontram registrados no Invima, os quais ainda não aparecem com esta classificação de biossimilares nem na agência reguladora colombiana, nem em nenhum outro meio oficial ou comercial. Dos medicamentos biológicos de referência destes biossimilares, 12 têm controle de preços e 7 têm sido autorizados pelo menos uma vez via judicial aos usuários do sistema. Conclusões: se bem a regulamentação tem sido de grande avanço em relação com o acesso a biossimilares e, consequentemente, a seus biológicos pioneiros, o sistema ainda tem barreiras jurídicas, de informação, disponibilidade e acesso que dificultam a proteção e efetividade do direito à saúde da população em termos de um consumo informado dos mesmos.

Biosimilares: consenso de expertos de la Sociedad Latinoamericana de Psoriasis (SOLAPSO) en Argentina / Biosimilars: Expert consensus of the Latin American Society of Psoriasis (SOLAPSO) in Argentina

Con la aparición de los tratamientos biológicos, se ha modificado la terapéutica de muchas enfermedades, en especial las reumatológicas, dermatológicas y oncológicas. Debido al alto costo de estos productos y el vencimiento de las patentes, la industria farmacológica desarrolla los biosimilares, fármacos que son una versión (copia) de la sustancia de un medicamento biológico original, y que pueden facilitar el acceso a estos tratamientos. Son elaborados de acuerdo a exigencias específicas de organismos reguladores en cuanto a calidad, eficacia y seguridad, y debe demostrarse que son comparables al medicamento de referencia. Este trabajo revisa las normativas regulatorias internacionales y nacionales, las controversias que rodean a los biosimilares y presenta la posición de un grupo de expertos con respecto al uso de biosimilares.

With the appearance of biological treatments, therapeutics has changed in many rheumatological, dermatological and oncological diseases. Due to the high cost of these biological medicaments and the expiration of patents, the pharmacological industry develops biosimilars, drugs that are a version (copy) of the substance of the original biological medicine, with the aim of facilitating access to these treatments. These biosimilars are prepared according to the specific requirements of regulatory bodies in terms of quality, efficacy and safety, and must be shown they are comparable to the reference product. This paper reviews the international and national regulatory framework, the controversies surrounding biosimilars, and presents the position of a group of experts regarding the use of biosimilars.

[Knowledge about Biosimilars in Primary Care: a study by the Spanish Society of Primary Care Physicians (SEMERGEN)]. / Conocimiento sobre biosimilares en Atención Primaria: Un estudio de la Sociedad Española de Médicos de Atención Primaria (SEMERGEN).

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the awareness and training needs on biosimilar drugs in Primary Care (PC) physicians. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Descriptive cross-sectional study based on an on-line questionnaire with a total of 34 multiple choice questions, published on the SEMERGEN website. The main Knowledge areas were: biosimilar definition; regulatory and legal framework; prescription, traceability, interchangeability and pharmacovigilance; availability of biosimilars in the PC setting, and the biosimilars contribution to sustainability. The software used for the analysis and data processing was the Barbwin 7.5. RESULTS: An analysis was performed on the responses from 701 questionnaires completed. There was a slight majority (57%) of women participants. The majority of participant worked in urban centres (60.91%). The definition of biosimilar was not known by 58% of those that responded, and 73% were unaware that the management of biosimilars and generics was not comparable. Most (84%) of those that responded were not aware that the studies required for the approval of biosimilars is different from reference biological medicines. Around two-thirds (66%) those that responded did not know of any biosimilars available in PC setting, and the 94% were also unaware of the Spanish legal framework for the management of biosimilar medicines. CONCLUSIONS: The current knowledge about biosimilars among PC physicians is low. The critical areas in need of further training include specific information on biosimilars currently available in PC setting, as well as key aspects regarding prescription, interchangeability and pharmacovigilance requirements. Six out of ten doctors do not know of any biosimilar used in PC in Spain.

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.

Biosimilares en enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal: ¿será una alternativa útil en Chile? / Biosimilars for Inflammatory Bowel disease: would be an option in Chile?

Biological therapies have been essential for the management of inflammatory bowel disease; however, their high cost results in many patients being unable to access them. With time, commercial patents of many "original" biologics are reaching or almost in the point of reaching the expiration date of their licenses, which has allowed for the development of new agents known as biosimilars leading to a reduction of the cost of these therapies. The objective of this review is to explain what biosimilars are and show evidence of their effectiveness and safety.

Las terapias biológicas son parte fundamental en el manejo de la enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal, sin embargo los costos de éstas han hecho que muchos de los pacientes que tienen indicación de su uso, no puedan utilizarlas. Con el paso del tiempo, muchos biológicos "originales" están alcanzando o a punto de alcanzar el vencimiento de sus patentes, lo que ha llevado al desarrollo de nuevos agentes conocidos como biosimilares, determinando una disminución en los costos de estas terapias. Esta revisión tiene como objetivo explicar en qué consisten los biosimilares y la evidencia actual con respecto a su eficacia y seguridad.

Biosimilars: A new scenario in biologic therapies. / Fármacos biosimilares: un nuevo escenario en las terapias biológicas.

There is no doubt that biologic therapies provide added value for health systems. However, due to their special nature, they also raise some questions that make highly rigorous and demanding quality control and monitoring of their use indispensable. This circumstance is reinforced with the appearance on the scene of biosimilars, which, given their lower cost, are having an increasing impact on the international market. The purpose of this article is to review the major issues posed by their manufacture, distribution and control systems, as well as the most important aspects related to their safety in clinical practice. In this report, we assess the pharmacovigilance of these products, with special attention to traceability, as a key tool to enable earlier detection of adverse events.

El papel de los biosimilares en la enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal: una realidad en nuestro país / The Role of Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Reality in our Country

Resumen La enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (EII) es un término con el que se conocen varias entidades, las 2 más importantes son: la colitis ulcerativa idiopática (CUI) y la enfermedad de Crohn (EC), cuyo origen es multifactorial y se caracterizan por un fenómeno inflamatorio, crónico, recurrente con diferentes grados de severidad del tubo digestivo; pero además con afectación potencial de otros órganos. En la última década ha habido un renovado interés en dichas entidades, debido a una incidencia creciente de estas, pero también debido al desarrollo de medicamentos que por primera vez están cambiando la historia natural de estas enfermedades: son los medicamentos llamados biológicos, que son aquellos producidos o derivados de organismos vivos y representan el sector de mayor crecimiento en la industria farmacéutica mundial. Debido al interés comercial, se han desarrollado y sometido a las autoridades reguladoras productos no originadores; similares, pero no idénticos a los productos de referencia. La Agencia Europea de Medicamentos (EMA) aprobó el primer biosimilar del infliximab para todas las indicaciones en las cuales este estaba aprobado, incluidas: colitis ulcerativa moderada a severa en todas las edades, EC moderada a severa en todas las edades, al igual que EC fistulizante, artritis psoriásica (AP), psoriasis, espondilitis anquilosante (EA) y artritis reumatoide (AR) (1). En esta revisión nos proponemos definir lo que son estos productos al igual que algunos conceptos relacionados (extrapolación, sustitución e intercambiabilidad), además hacer una revisión histórica de su desarrollo, sus indicaciones actuales, las posiciones de las diferentes asociaciones científicas al respecto y, lo más importante, brindar datos de la vida real en cuanto a su efectividad, seguridad y costos en los diferentes países donde se han estado usando.

Abstract The term Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) is used to identify several entities, the two most important of which are Idiopathic Ulcerative Colitis (IUC) and Crohn's Disease (EC). Both are multifactorial in origin, are chronic and recurrent, are characterized by inflammation, have varying degrees of severity, and potentially involve other organs. In the last decade there has been renewed interest in these entities due to growing incidence and to the development of drugs called biologicals. For the first time, these drugs have changed the natural history of these diseases. They are produced or derived from living organisms and represent the fastest growing sector in the global pharmaceutical industry. Due to commercial interest, products similar but not identical to the original products have been developed and submitted to regulatory authorities. The European Medicines Agency has approved the first biosimilar for infliximab for all indications for which it has been approved. These include moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) at all ages, moderate to severe Crohn's disease (CD) at all ages, fistulizing Crohn's disease, Psoriasic arthritis, Psoriasis, Ankylosing Spondylitis, and Rheumatoid Arthritis. 1 In this review, we define what these products are, as well as some concepts coined for their usage including extrapolation, substitution and interchangeability. We also make a historical review of their development, current indications, the positions of various scientific associations with respect to them, and - most importantly - provide real-life data regarding their effectiveness, safety and costs in countries where they have been used.

[The patents game. Generic and biosimilar drugs]. / Juego de patentes. Sobre medicamentos genéricos y biosimilares.

The protection provided by patents on medicines has a limited duration. The expiry of patents expiration allows copies of the drugs to be released, competing with original. At first, they were identical to the original, known as generic drugs, but in recent years, due to the marketing of biological therapies and the expiry of many of their patents, biosimilar drugs have also emerged. These are not exact copies of the original, but, like generic drugs, biosimilar drugs have to demonstrate equivalence to the reference drugs in quality, safety and efficacy. Nevertheless, despite their importance and contribution to sustainability of health system, doctors are sometimes unaware of differences between them, and their impact in terms of clinical and economic effects. An attempt is made to review and clarify certain aspects often unknown by physicians, despite their involvement in their use.