A Systematic Literature Review of Gaps and Challenges in Value Assessment of Biosimilars: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to provide an overview of the gaps and challenges in the value assessment of biosimilars and to identify potential approaches to address them. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, international team of biosimilar experts identified gaps and challenges. A systematic review was conducted of the peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; and of the gray literature. Preliminary results were presented at ISPOR conferences and this article benefited from 2 review rounds among ISPOR Biosimilar Special Interest Group members. RESULTS: Given that a biosimilar is highly similar to its reference biologic, health technology assessment agencies should accept the comparability exercise approved by regulatory authorities and, thus, conduct a price comparison when biosimilar reimbursement is requested for the same indication as the reference biologic. If the reference biologic is not reimbursed or is not the standard of care, a full economic evaluation of the biosimilar versus a relevant comparator needs to be conducted. To date, little consideration has been given to specific challenges, such as how biosimilar value assessment can account for the nocebo effect, potential differences between biologic-naive and biologic-experienced patients, the availability of intravenous and subcutaneous administration forms or different administration devices for the same active compound, value-added services, and the contribution of biosimilars for generating health gain at the population level. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to gather further insights in the methodology of value assessment for biosimilars, and health technology assessment agencies need to develop more elaborate guidance on biosimilar value assessment in specific circumstances.

S-adenosyl methionine improves motor co-ordination with reduced oxidative stress, dopaminergic neuronal loss, and DNA methylation in the brain striatum of 6-hydroxydopamine-induced neurodegeneration in rats.

PURPOSE: Parkinson's disease (PD) is the most common age-related neurodegenerative disease worldwide. S-adenosyl methionine (SAMe), a methyl donor that plays an important role in DNA methylation, could replenish the cellular antioxidant glutathione (GSH). Herein, we investigated the neuroprotective effects of SAMe in 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA) rat models of PD and elucidated the underlying mechanism. METHODS: PD model rats were developed by injecting 6-OHDA stereotaxically into the striatum. In Phase 1 of the study, we performed the neurobehavioral tests, GSH assay, and histopathology to evaluate the neuroprotective effects of SAMe. The animals were treated with SAMe (150 or 300 mg/kg body weight) orally for 28 days. The positive control group received selegiline (5 mg/kg), whereas the disease control group received normal saline. In Phase 2, we evaluated the striatal dopamine levels and performed DNA methylation assay to uncover the mechanism of action of SAMe. In this phase, a higher dose of SAMe (300 mg/kg) was used. RESULTS: SAMe (300 mg/kg) treatment for 4 weeks significantly attenuated the abnormal circling behavior in PD rats (p < 0.05). Moreover, SAMe at both doses (150 and 300 mg/kg) enhanced the performance of PD rats in the open field test and stepping test (p < 0.05). SAMe treatment significantly increased the GSH levels, and at high dose, SAMe restricted neuronal loss in the striatum of PD-model rats (p < 0.05). Moreover, SAMe treatment led to a significant recovery in the dopamine levels and improved the DNA methylation status in the dopaminergic neurons (p < 0.05) of PD model rats. CONCLUSION: SAMe exhibits antioxidant activity and DNA methylation modulating effects in 6-OHDA model PD rats. Moreover, SAMe prevents neuronal loss in PD rats suggesting that SAMe has therapeutic potential in preventing PD development. The neuroprotective potential of SAMe is greater at high doses.

ICS/Ultra LABA in the Treatment of Obstructive Airway Diseases: A Consensus of Indian Experts.

Inhaled corticosteroid and ultra-long-acting beta-agonist (ICS/uLABA) combination is a recent advancement in the armamentarium against obstructive airways diseases (OADs). The combination of ICS/uLABA has several advantages, creating a favorable landscape for its utilization. Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol trifenatate (FF/Vi) is one such example of an ICS/uLABA. It offers several benefits from both drugs, such as a convenient once daily dosing schedule; high lipophilicity; high receptor affinity of fluticasone furoate along with high functional selectivity and a quick onset of action of vilanterol. However, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) as well as the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines do not clearly define the positioning of ICS/uLABA compared to conventional ICS/LABAs. There are a few areas of uncertainty especially around the appropriate reliever strategy with ICS/uLABA in Asthma. The current consensus was planned with a group of Indian pulmonology experts to provide more clarity on the potential use of FF/Vi in Asthma and COPD. The clinical statements highlighted in this consensus manuscript address crucial clinical questions revolving around the efficacy and safety of FF/Vi as compared to conventional ICS/LABAs and identify the ideal patient profile for its use. This consensus paper also sheds light upon the appropriate reliever to be used along with FF/Vi in Asthma and the utilization of FF/Vi-based triple therapy in OADs. Expert recommendations mentioned in this paper will serve as guidance to pulmonologists as well as consultant physicians who are involved in providing care to OAD patients and will help them weigh the various factors that need to be taken into account while prescribing ICS/uLABA combination.

A Cross-Sectional, Questionnaire-Based Study on Drug Treatment Awareness in Schizophrenia Patients and Caregivers: An Unexplored Avenue.

Background: Schizophrenia is associated with high relapse rates, and medication nonadherence is a major factor contributing toward relapse. Since medication adherence and treatment awareness are linked, an alarming need was felt to evaluate the level of drug treatment awareness in patients who have schizophrenia. Besides, patients who have schizophrenia are often dependent on their caregivers for medications. Hence, the current study was also designed to look into drug treatment awareness among caregivers. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study. Patients diagnosed with schizophrenia as per The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition were included, provided they had good insight and had been prescribed medications at the study center for at least three months. Caregivers were included using the Pollak and Perlick criteria. The sociodemographic profile of the patients and caregivers was recorded, and further assessment for treatment awareness was done using the prevalidated Drug Treatment Awareness Questionnaire (DTAQ). Results: A total of 166 patients and 157 caregivers were enrolled. Mean drug awareness scores among patients and caregivers did not show statistically significant differences (P= 0.22). Mean ± SD DTAQ awareness scores in patients and caregivers were 12.57 ± 1.81 and 12.84 ± 1.91, respectively. The majority of patients and caregivers (> 90%) possessed awareness in domains related to past medication records and in that of re-visit/re-contact instructions. Awareness was least commonly seen in relation to side effects of medications and details of the prescribed medications, where only about 50% of patients and caregivers possessed awareness. No clinically significant correlation was found between sociodemographic factors and drug treatment awareness scores. Conclusion: Drug treatment awareness in patients and caregivers was comparable and was not reliant on the sociodemographic factors. Special interventions should be conducted to raise drug treatment awareness among patients having insight and their caregivers.

Antipsychotic Drug Utilization and Adverse Drug Reaction Profiling in Patients With Schizophrenia at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Western India.

Introduction Prescription pattern studies conducted in patients with schizophrenia have shown variability in the utilization of antipsychotics based on the geographical location of the study setting. Moreover, there is only a sparse number of studies specifically related to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in schizophrenia. Hence, a need was felt to study the antipsychotic utilization pattern and adverse drug reactions in patients with schizophrenia in our setting. Methods This was a cross-sectional, observational study conducted at the psychiatry outpatient department (OPD) of a tertiary care hospital in India. Patients diagnosed to have schizophrenia as per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) were included in the study provided they had been prescribed antipsychotic medications at the study center for at least three months. The sociodemographic profile of the patients and caregivers was recorded, and prescription pattern assessment was done using WHO core drug use indicators. Information related to ADRs was recorded, and further assessment was done based on the causality, severity, and preventability of ADRs. Results A total of 250 patients were enrolled in the study. Risperidone (40.25%) and olanzapine (26.32%) were the most commonly prescribed antipsychotic drugs, while trihexyphenidyl was the most frequently prescribed concomitant medication. Among the 37 cases of adverse drug reactions that were recorded, amenorrhea, sedation, and weight gain were found to be the most common. The majority of ADRs were of mild severity in addition to being non-preventable. Conclusion It was observed that atypical antipsychotics were commonly prescribed in the study center, and the majority of the ADRs were mild and not preventable, which shows the adequacy of prescribing practices in the current setting.

Use of single-inhaler triple therapy in the management of obstructive airway disease: Indian medical experts' review.

Obstructive airway disease (OAD), which includes COPD and asthma, is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in India. Long-acting bronchodilators (long-acting ß2 agonists (LABAs) and/or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs)) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have a vital role in the management of patients with OAD. While symptom burden and exacerbations are common amongst treated patients, poor adherence to inhaler therapy is a frequent challenge. Better treatment options that optimise symptom control, improve quality of life, reduce exacerbation risk and improve adherence are desired. Triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) is recommended in the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2021 guidelines for symptomatic COPD patients on ICS/LABA or LABA/LAMA, and who are at increased risk for frequent or severe exacerbations. Similarly, add-on LAMA is recommended in uncontrolled asthma patients on medium- to high-dose ICS/LABA by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2021 guideline. In the real world, high-risk and overlapping phenotypes exist, which necessitate early initiation of triple therapy. We aim to provide an expert review on the use of single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) for OAD management in global and Indian settings, knowledge from which can be extrapolated for appropriate treatment of Indian patients. The OAD population in India may benefit from early optimisation to SITT characterised by a high burden of exacerbating OAD, nonsmoker COPD and asthma-COPD overlap.

Comparative efficacy and safety of glycopyrronium/formoterol fixed-dose combination versus glycopyrronium monotherapy in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Background: The safety and efficacy of fixed-dose combination (FDC) of glycopyrronium bromide 12.5 µg/formoterol fumarate 12 µg (GB/FF) twice daily as dry powder inhalers (DPIs) compared to glycopyrronium 50 µg monotherapy (GLY) once daily as DPI in subjects with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were evaluated. Methods: This was a phase-3, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, superiority study conducted in India. COPD patients aged ≥40 to ≤65 years, current or ex-smokers with FEV1/FVC <0.70, using ICS, LAMA, or LABA for ≥1 month were included. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to GB/FF or GLY for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in peak FEV1 at the end of 12 weeks. The study is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2017/02/007814). Results: Between March 2017 and July 2018, 331 patients were enrolled and randomized into GB/FF FDC (165 patients) and GLY monotherapy (166 patients) groups. At week 12, the difference in change from baseline in the peak FEV1 for GB/FF DPI versus GLY was 0.115 L (SE = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.061, 0.170; P < 0.0001). Trough FEV1 increased significantly in the GB/FF group compared to the GLY group with a treatment difference of 0.078 L (SE = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.015, 0.14; P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in adverse events between the groups. Conclusion: FDC of GB/FF (12.5/12 µg twice daily) as a DPI provides superior bronchodilation and lung function improvement over GLY (50 µg once daily) monotherapy. It is safe and well tolerated in symptomatic COPD patients.

Critical appraisal of published research papers - A reinforcing tool for research methodology: Questionnaire-based study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Critical appraisal of published research papers is routinely conducted as a journal club (JC) activity in pharmacology departments of various medical colleges across Maharashtra, and it forms an important part of their postgraduate curriculum. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perception of pharmacology postgraduate students and teachers toward use of critical appraisal as a reinforcing tool for research methodology. Evaluation of performance of the in-house pharmacology postgraduate students in the critical appraisal activity constituted secondary objective of the study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in two parts. In Part I, a cross-sectional questionnaire-based evaluation on perception toward critical appraisal activity was carried out among pharmacology postgraduate students and teachers. In Part II of the study, JC score sheets of 2nd- and 3rd-year pharmacology students over the past 4 years were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-seven postgraduate students and 32 teachers participated in Part I of the study. About 118 (92.9%) students and 28 (87.5%) faculties considered the critical appraisal activity to be beneficial for the students. JC score sheet assessments suggested that there was a statistically significant improvement in overall scores obtained by postgraduate students (n = 25) in their last JC as compared to the first JC. CONCLUSION: Journal article criticism is a crucial tool to develop a research attitude among postgraduate students. Participation in the JC activity led to the improvement in the skill of critical appraisal of published research articles, but this improvement was not educationally relevant.

Sample Size and Sampling Considerations in Published Clinical Research Articles.

AIM: : Appropriate calculation of sample size and choosing the correct sampling technique are of paramount importance to produce studies that are capable of drawing clinically relevant conclusions with generalizability of results. The current study was planned with an objective to determine reporting of sample size and sampling considerations in clinical research articles published in the year 2017. METHODS: One high impact factor journal and one low impact factor journal belonging to the specialities of Medicine, Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Paediatrics and Pharmacology were selected and checked for adherence to reporting of sample size and sampling considerations. RESULTS: A total of 264 articles were examined. These consisted of 55 interventional studies and 209 observational studies. Interventional studies showed higher reporting of sample size calculation/justification for sample size selection (29.1%) compared to observational studies (14.8%). Only 33 out of 155 articles from high impact factor journals and 14 out of 109 articles from low impact factor journals mentioned about sample size calculation or justified the sample size. In addition to this, merely 68 out of 209 observational studies mentioned about sampling considerations such as sampling technique/participant follow up/matching details. CONCLUSION: The reporting of sample size and sampling considerations was found to be low in both high impact factor and low impact factor journals. Though interventional studies had better reporting compared to other study designs, the reporting was still not adequate and there is an immense scope for improvement.