Medicamentos bioterapéuticos: uso de toxinas botulínicas en la era de biosimilares / Biotherapeutic medicines: use of botulinum toxins in the era of biosimilars

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.

Taxas de descontinuação do tratamento após a troca de um biológico originador por um biossimilar em pacientes com doenças inflamatórias intestinais: revisão sistemática e metanálise / Discontinuation rates following a switch from a reference to a biosimilar biologic in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Biologics have revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, these drugs had a significant influence on treatment-related costs, which resulted in the development of biosimilars. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the drug discontinuation rate in the IBD population who switched from originator to biosimilars in real-world switching studies and address potential nocebo effects as reasons for drug discontinuation. METHODS: Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and abstract databases of selected congresses were screened for reports of monoclonal antibody (mAb) switching with a minimum post-switch follow-up of >6 months or three infusions. All available information on discontinuation rates was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 30 observational studies were included, involving 3,594 patients with IBD. Twenty-six studies reported a switch from infliximab to CT-P13, two studies involved a switch to SB2, and switching information was not available in two studies. The discontinuation rates were 8%, 14%, and 21% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. The main reasons for drug discontinuation and their respective risks were: disease worsening (2%), remission (4%), loss of adherence (4%), adverse events (5%), and loss of response (7%). The quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low depending on the outcome analyzed. Subjective symptoms leading to drug discontinuation were infrequently reported, and the nocebo effect was clearly assessed in just one of the included papers. CONCLUSION: Discontinuation rates following a switch to a biosimilar in patients with IBD increase over time. However, it was not possible to confirm the nocebo effect as a reason for discontinuation. Therefore, long-term studies evaluating the use of biosimilars to monitor adverse events and potential nocebo effects in post-marketing surveillance are still needed.

RESUMO CONTEXTO: Os biológicos revolucionaram o tratamento da doença inflamatória intestinal (DII). Ademais, esses medicamentos influenciaram os custos relacionados ao tratamento. Tal aumento significativo nos gastos com o tratamento motivou desenvolvimento dos biossimilares. OBJETIVO: Esta revisão sistemática e metanálise objetivou avaliar a taxa de descontinuação de medicamentos na população com DII que foi submetida à troca do biológico originador para um biossimilar, em estudos observacionais que abordaram possíveis razões para a descontinuação do tratamento. MÉTODOS: Tendo como base de dados Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Library e resumos de congressos médicos, foram rastreados artigos com relatos de troca de um biológico originador por um biossimilar, com acompanhamento pós-troca de no mínimo 6 meses ou três infusões. Todas as informações disponíveis sobre as taxas de descontinuação foram avaliadas. RESULTADOS: Foram incluídos no total 30 estudos observacionais, envolvendo 3.594 pacientes com DII. Vinte e seis estudos relataram uma mudança do infliximabe para CT-P13, dois estudos envolveram uma mudança para o SB2, e as informações sobre a troca não estavam disponíveis em dois estudos. As taxas de descontinuação foram de 8%, 14% e 21% aos 6, 12 e 24 meses, respectivamente. Os principais motivos para a descontinuação do medicamento e seus respectivos riscos foram: agravamento da doença (2%), remissão (4%), perda de adesão (4%), eventos adversos (5%) e perda de resposta (7%). A qualidade da evidência variou de baixa a muito baixa, dependendo do resultado analisado. Os sintomas subjetivos que levaram à descontinuação do medicamento foram relatados com pouca frequência, e o efeito nocebo foi claramente avaliado em apenas um dos artigos incluídos. CONCLUSÃO: As taxas de descontinuação após a mudança para um biossimilar em pacientes com DII aumentam com o tempo. No entanto, não foi possível confirmar o efeito nocebo como motivo da descontinuação. Portanto, ainda são necessários estudos em longo prazo avaliando o uso de biossimilares para monitorar eventos adversos e potenciais efeitos nocebo na vigilância pós-comercialização.

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)

Conceptos fundamentales de bioequivalencia y biosimilitud en la normativa chilena y controversias sobre intercambiabilidad / Chilean legislation on bioequivalence and biosimilarity and current controversies related to drug interchangeability

Los medicamentos constituyen un bien económico que forma parte del gasto público y privado y de la toma de decisiones en salud. El aseguramiento de su calidad, eficacia y seguridad resulta fundamental. Sin embargo, la variada oferta disponible en el mercado chileno, donde se reconocen productos innovadores y genéricos, constituye un escenario confuso para consumidores y proveedores en salud. En esta revisión pretendemos aclarar los conceptos de fármacos bioequivalentes (aplicable a compuestos de tamaño molecular pequeño) y fármacos biosimilares (para compuestos biológicos de mayor complejidad molecular). En ambos casos, el comportamiento en el organismo del principio activo debe ser demostrado mediante estudios realizados para este fin. Una aplicación directa del concepto de bioequivalencia es la intercambiabilidad, definida como la posibilidad de utilizar un producto de un mismo principio activo, mientras la forma farmacéutica y esquema de dosificación sean iguales. Las normas relativas a esta materia y los organismos públicos encargados, no solo debieran garantizar la seguridad y la eficacia en el intercambio entre productos, sino también aspectos relacionados con el costo, la accesibilidad a los fármacos y la implementación de una guía de homogeneización de conceptos y criterios de intercambiabilidad basados en la evidencia, lo cual impactaría en una mejor educación para los usuarios, reduciendo la asimetría de información entre el usuario y la industria. La importancia de la intercambiabilidad destaca en Chile en el contexto del Plan de Garantías Explícitas en Salud (GES) y la Ley de Protección Financiera para Diagnósticos y Tratamientos de Alto Costo en Salud (Ley Ricarte Soto). Sin embargo, no es posible garantizar que todos los productos alternativos al innovador presentes en el mercado chileno son bioequivalentes. El conocimiento disponible en esta temática puede impactar y contribuir a la toma de decisiones en los prescriptores y usuarios, así como en la elaboración de políticas públicas en torno a los productos farmacéuticos bioequivalentes y biosimilares en nuestro país.

Medicines are an economic good and a fundamental component of public and private health spending and decision-making. Assurance of their quality, efficiency, and safety is essential. In Chile, the wide variety of available drugs, including innovator products, and generics­some of which are certified as bioequivalent, while others are not­creates a potentially confusing scenario for both consumers and health providers. In this review, we intend to shed light on the concepts of bioequivalency (the standard permitting interchangeability for small-molecule drugs) and biosimilarity (the standard permitting interchangeability for biological compounds of greater molecular complexity). In both cases, how the active substance interacts with the host organism must be demonstrated by studies designed and carried out for this purpose. Interchangeability is defined as the possibility of using a product of the same active principle, as long as the pharmaceutical form and dosage scheme are the same. Regulations related to bioequivalence and biosimilarity must not only guarantee safety and efficacy when products are interchanged but also facilitate cost savings and access to medicines. Implementation of evidence-based guidelines that standardize concepts of interchangeability could lead to more educated usage and reduced information asymmetry between patients (users) and industry. Drug interchangeability is particularly relevant in two government health initiatives in Chile: the Explicit Guarantees in Health Care (GES) plan, and the Law on Financial Protection for High-Cost Diagnostics and Treatment in Health Care (also known as the "Ricarte Soto Law"). Nonetheless, it is not possible to guarantee that all alternative drug products on the Chilean market are bioequivalents of the reference product. Synthesis of the available knowledge on bioequivalent and biosimilar pharmaceutical products in Chile could facilitate and contribute to stakeholder decision-making and the development of better health policies.

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)

Knowledge and Viewpoints on Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies among Asian Physicians: Comparison with European Physicians / 대한소화기학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Current knowledge and viewpoints regarding biosimilars among physicians in Asia are unknown, even though these were investigated by European Crohn's and Colitis Organization (ECCO) members in 2013 and 2015. Thus, this study conducted a multinational survey to assess the awareness of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies among Asian physicians.METHODS: A 17-question multiple-choice anonymous web survey was conducted with the logistic support of the Asian Organization of Crohn's and Colitis (AOCC). Randomly selected AOCC members were invited by e-mail to participate between February 24, 2017 and March 26, 2017.RESULTS: In total, 151 physicians from eight Asian countries responded to the survey. Most of the participants were gastroenterologists (96.6%), and 77.5% had cared for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) patients for more than 5 years. The majority of the respondents (66.2%) were aware that a biosimilar is similar but not equivalent to the originator. The majority of respondents (77.5%) considered cost saving to be the main advantage of biosimilars, but a high percentage of respondents (38.4%) were concerned about a different immunogenicity from that of the originator (92.4% and 27.1% respectively in ECCO 2015). Only 19.2% considered that the originator and biosimilars were interchangeable, and only 6.0% felt very confident in the use of biosimilars (44.4% and 28.8% respectively in ECCO 2015).CONCLUSIONS: Asian gastroenterologists in 2017 are generally well informed about biosimilars. On the other hand, compared to the ECCO members surveyed in 2015, Asian gastroenterologists had more concerns and less confidence about the use of biosimilars in clinical practice. Thus, IBD-specific data on the comparison of the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in Asian patients are needed.

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.

Comparative safety assessments of the biosimilar APZ001 and Erbitux in pre-clinical animal models

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate the toxicity of Erbitux as well as its biosimilar APZ001 antibody (APZ001) in pre-clinical animal models including mice, rabbits and cynomolgus monkeys. Methods: We performed analysis of normal behavior activity, autonomic and non-autonomic nervous functions, nervous-muscle functions, nervous excitability and sensorimotor functions on CD-1 mice. Subsequently, we studied that effects of APZ001 and Erbitux on respiratory system, cardiovascular system and kidney in Cynomolgus monkey models and performed local tolerance experiments on New Zealand rabbits. Results: The comparisons between APZ001 and Erbitux showed no significant differences in mice autonomic nervous system, nervous muscle functions, non-autonomic nervous functions, nervous excitability and sensorimotor functions between treated and untreated group (p>0.05). APZ001 and Erbitux showed negative effect on CD-1 mice in the present of pentobarbital sodium anesthesia (p>0.05). Single administrations of high, medium or low doses of APZ001 did not lead to monkey urine volume alterations (p>0.05). In human tissues, APZ001 and Erbitux showed positive signals in endocardium, lung type II alveolar epithelial cell and surrounding vessels, but showed negative results in kidney and liver tissues. No hemolysis phenomenon and serious side-effects in vessels and muscles were observed in rabbits when administrated with APZ001 and Erbitux respectively. Conclusion: The safety comparisons between APZ001 antibody and Erbitux showed that these two antibodies showed highly similarities in mice, rabbits and cynomolgus monkey animal models in consideration of pharmaceutical effects, indicating APZ001 might be a suitable substitute for Erbitux.

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.

Comparison of generic and original imatinib in the treatment of newly diagnosed patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia in chronic phase: a multicenter retrospective clinical study / 中华血液学杂志

Objective@#To evaluate the efficacy and safety of generic imatinib (Genike, Chiatai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd.) and imatinib (Glevic, Novartis, Switzerland) in newly diagnosed patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) .@*Methods@#A retrospective study of 323 CML-CP patients (205 in Glivec treatment group and 118 in Genike group) who were ≥ 18 years old receiving imatinib monotherapy over the period of June 2013 to March 2016 was done to compare the differences of cytogenetics, molecular curative effect, survival, and adverse reactions between the two groups. The beginning dosage of imatinib was 400mg per day. There was no statistically difference between the two groups of patients on baseline.@*Results@#①The median duration of imatinib treatment was 13 (0.5-36) months in Glevic group and 11 (1-31) months in Genike group. ②The rate of complete hematological remission (CHR) had no statistically difference between Glivec and Genike treatment groups[98% (201/205) vs 97.5% (115/118) , χ2=0.123, P=0.725]. ③Cumulative rates of major cytogenetic responses (MCyR) at 3, 6 and 12 months after imatinib treatment in Gleevec and Genike groups were (59.7±3.5) % vs (79.8±3.1) %, (89.2±2.6) % vs (59.1±4.7) %, (80.3±4.1) % vs (87.1±4.3) %, respectively, the difference was not statistically significant (χ2=0.084, P=0.772) . Cumulative rates of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) at 3, 6 and 12 months after imatinib treatment in Gleevec and Genike groups were (32.9±3.4) % vs (58.3±3.7) %, (87.4±3.0) % vs (35.2±4.5) %, (64.8±4.8) % vs (87.3±4.7) %, respectively, the difference was not statistically significant (χ2=0.660, P=0.417) . ④Cumulative rates of major molecular responses at 6, 12 months after imatinib treatment in Glevic and Genike groups were (24.9±3.3) % vs (57.0±4.1) %, (16.3±4.0) % vs (55.3±7.7) %, respectively, there was no statistical significance (χ2=1.617, P=0.204) . Cumulative rates of molecular response 4.5 (MR4.5) at 12 months after imatinib treatment in Glevic and Genike groups were (14.9±3.2) % vs (8.1±2.1) % (χ2=3.628, P=0.057) , respectively. ⑤At a median follow-up of 12 months, the difference of progression-free survival (PFS) in Glevic and Genike groups had no statistical significance[ (96.6±1.4) % vs (93.3±2.5) %, χ2=2.293, P=0.130]. The difference of event-free survival (EFS) had no statistical significance, either[ (95.6±1.5) % vs (93.3±2.4) %, χ2=2.124, P=0.145]. ⑥Genike was well tolerated in patients with CML-CP and had no statistically significant difference in adverse events compared with Glevic group.@*Conclusion@#There were no statistically significant differences in efficacy and safety between Glevic and Genike treatment in newly diagnosed patients with CML-CP.

Generic versus branded enoxaparin in prophylaxis and treatment of vein thrombosis / Enoxaparina genérica versus padrão-ouro na terapia e profilaxia de trombose venosa

Objectives: to compare the biological efficacy of generic enoxaparin (HeptronTM) versus branded Sanofi-Aventis enoxaparin for prophylaxis and treatment of lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in a prospective, randomized, open-label study. Methods: patients with diagnosed lower-extremity DVT (therapeutic branch, n=57) and patients requiring venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis after arterial vascular surgery or major lower-extremity amputations (prophylactic branch, n=57) were randomized to receive generic or branded enoxaparin for up to seven days. Enoxaparin activity was measured by estimating blood anti-factor Xa levels at the peak plasma concentration. As secondary outcomes, development or progression of VTE events, major adverse events and major bleeding events were considered for efficacy and safety comparisons. Results: DVT therapy: twenty-five patients received generic enoxaparin while 32 received branded enoxaparin (subcutaneous, 1 mg/kg BID). Mean percentages of anti-factor Xa levels within the target ranges were 62 ± 35.4% and 67.5 ± 24.7%, respectively (p= .035 for non-inferiority). No patient presented DVT progression, clinically detectable pulmonary embolism, or major bleeding events in any subgroup. DVT prophylaxis: Thirty patients received generic enoxaparin and 27 received branded enoxaparin (subcutaneous, 40 mg/day). Mean percentages of anti-factor Xa levels within the target ranges were 77.9 ± 30.9% and 77.8 ± 32.9%, respectively (p = .009 for non-inferiority). There were no cases of VTE or major bleeding events in any subgroup. Conclusion: generic and branded enoxaparins exhibited similar in vivo responses as measured by the anti-factor Xa activity, as well as similar clinical efficacy and safety outcomes. .

Objetivos: comparar a eficácia biológica da enoxaparina genérica (HeptronTM) versus enoxaparina Sanofi-Aventis na profilaxia e no tratamento da trombose venosa profunda (TVP) de membros inferiores em ensaio prospectivo, randomizado e não cego. Método: pacientes com diagnóstico de TVP de membros inferiores (grupo terapêutico, n = 57) e pacientes com indicação de profilaxia de tromboembolismo venoso (TEV), após cirurgias vasculares de grande porte ou amputações maiores (grupo profilático, n = 57), foram randomizados para receber a enoxaparina sob teste (HeptronTM) ou a droga padrão-ouro (Sanofi-Aventis). A atividade da enoxaparina foi mensurada pela análise diária da atividade antifator-Xa no pico de concentração plasmática das drogas. Foram coletados dados de ocorrência ou progressão de TVP/TEV, eventos adversos graves e sangramentos graves; e foram utilizados para a análise de eficácia e segurança clínica como objetivos secundários. Resultados: grupo terapêutico: 25 pacientes receberam enoxaparina genérica, e 32, a droga padrão-ouro (via subcutânea, 1 mg/kg, a cada 12 horas). Os percentuais médios de atividade antifator-Xa dentro dos limites terapêuticos foram de 62 ± 35,4% e 67,5 ± 24,7%, respectivamente (p = 0,035, para não inferioridade). Nenhum paciente apresentou progressão da TVP, embolia pulmonar clinicamente detectável ou sangramentos maiores. Grupo profilático: trinta pacientes receberam enoxaparina genérica, e 27, a droga padrão-ouro (via subcutânea, 40 mg/dia). Os percentuais médios de atividade antifator-Xa dentro dos limites terapêuticos foram de 77,9 ± 30.9% e 77,8 ± 32,9%, respectivamente (p = 0,009, para não inferioridade). Nenhum paciente desenvolveu TVP ou apresentou sangramentos maiores. Conclusão: enoxaparinas genéricas e de marca apresentaram respostas semelhantes em estudos in vivo, quando medidas pela atividade do anti-fator Xa, assim como eficácia clínica e dados de segurança similares. .