Deep learning reconstruction for turbo spin echo to prospectively accelerate ankle MRI: A multi-reader study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a deep learning reconstruction for turbo spin echo (DLR-TSE) sequence of ankle magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in terms of acquisition time, image quality, and lesion detectability by comparing with conventional TSE. METHODS: Between March 2023 and May 2023, patients with an indication for ankle MRI were prospectively enrolled. Each patient underwent a conventional TSE protocol and a prospectively undersampled DLR-TSE protocol. Four experienced radiologists independently assessed image quality using a 5-point scale and reviewed structural abnormalities. Image quality assessment included overall image quality, differentiation of anatomic details, diagnostic confidence, artifacts, and noise. Interchangeability analysis was performed to evaluate the equivalence of DLR-TSE relative to conventional TSE for detection of structural pathologies. RESULTS: In total, 56 patients were included (mean age, 32.6 ± 10.6 years; 35 men). The DLR-TSE (233 s) protocol enabled a 57.4 % reduction in total acquisition time, compared with the conventional TSE protocol (547 s). DLR-TSE images had superior overall image quality, fewer artifacts, and less noise (all P < 0.05), compared with conventional TSE images, according to mean ratings by the four readers. Differentiation of anatomic details, diagnostic confidence, and assessments of structural abnormalities showed no differences between the two techniques (P > 0.05). Furthermore, DLR-TSE demonstrated diagnostic equivalence with conventional TSE, based on interchangeability analysis involving all analyzed structural abnormalities. CONCLUSION: DLR can prospectively accelerate conventional TSE to a level comparable with a 4-minute comprehensive examination of the ankle, while providing superior image quality and similar lesion detectability in clinical practice.

A Regulatory Perspective on Biosimilar Medicines.

By definition, biosimilar medicinal products are biological medicinal products that are similar to other biological medicinal products that are already on the market-the reference medicinal products. Access to biosimilar medicines is a current reality. However, to achieve this goal, it is extremely important to consistently and scientifically substantiate the regulatory requirements necessary for biosimilar medicines when accessing the market. Based on an analysis of the raw materials and the type of methods used in the manufacturing processes of biological medicines, it is known that this tends to be more complex for the quality of the finished product than the manufacture of molecules obtained through a chemical process. It is then relevant to highlight the main differences between both products: biological medicines manufactured using biotechnology and the current generics containing active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) obtained from synthetic processes. Once arriving at the approval process of these medicinal products, it is imperative to analyse the guidance documents and the regulatory framework that create the rules that allow these biosimilar medicinal products to come to the market. The present review aimed at documenting comparatively the specific provisions of European legislation, through the European Medicines Agency (EMA), as well as the legislation of the United States of America, through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This was then translated into a critical appraisal of what concerns the specific criteria that determine the favourable evaluation of a biosimilar when an application for marketing authorisation is submitted to different regulatory agencies. The gathered evidence suggests that the key to the success of biosimilar medicines lies in a more rigorous and universal regulation as well as a greater knowledge, acceptance, and awareness of health professionals to enable more patients to be treated with biological strategies at an earlier stage of the disease and with more affordable medicines, ensuring always the safety and efficacy of those medicines.

A comparison of Scansys and Sirius tomography in healthy eyes.

PURPOSE: To assess the level of agreement and evaluate the reliability of measurements between two Scheimpflug imaging modalities, Scansys (MediWorks, China) and Sirius (CSO, Italy), in quantifying the anterior segment parameters in healthy eyes. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, the right eyes of 38 healthy participants without any ocular or systemic diseases were examined. A range of anterior segment parameters including anterior and posterior flat and steep keratometry, central corneal thickness (CCT), thinnest corneal thickness (TCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), anterior chamber angle (ACA), corneal volume, anterior chamber volume, and horizontal white to white diameter, derived from the sagittal curvature maps were measured. To evaluate the reliability of the measurements, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and correlation coefficient were measured. Additionally, Bland-Altman plots were employed to examine the agreement in mean (bias line) and 95% limits of agreement between the two devices. RESULTS: The mean age was 31.5 ± 6.9 (range: 19-47) years. The ICC indicated that the majority of anterior segment parameters had an excellent or good level of reliability, surpassing the threshold of 0.9. Nevertheless, CCT and ACA exhibited a moderate level of reliability, with ICC values of 0.794 and 0.728, respectively. The correlation analysis showed a strong correlation for all the variables tested. The Bland-Altman plots revealed that the bias line was near zero and the 95% limits of agreement were narrow for most variables, except for the anterior flat and steep keratometry, which were found to range from - 0.57 to 0.84 D and - 0.68 to 0.87 D, respectively. CONCLUSION: Scansys and Sirius devices can be effectively used interchangeably for the evaluation of most anterior segment parameters; however, for anterior corneal curvatures, CCT and ACA, their alternative use is not recommended.

Relevance of Adalimumab Product Attributes to Patient Experience in the Biosimilar Era: A Narrative Review.

Adalimumab (ADL, Humira®, reference product), an anti-TNF-α biologic, has transformed the treatment of chronic, immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. However, the high cost of ADL therapy has driven the development of more affordable ADL biosimilars, agents with no clinically meaningful differences from the reference product. This review summarizes the product attributes of reference ADL and the nine ADL biosimilars approved and available in the USA in relation to patient experience of injection-site pain (ISP). Product formulation, delivery volume and device features (e.g., type and needle gauge size) influence patient experience of ISP with potential clinical consequences. Citrate-free formulations generally cause less ISP; injection volumes of > 1.5 ml may be associated with increased ISP. Reference ADL and all ADL biosimilars offer a citrate-free formulation, and reference ADL and four ADL biosimilars offer a high-concentration solution that allows a smaller injection volume. All available ADL products are injected subcutaneously using either a pre-filled pen (PFP) or pre-filled syringe (PFS). Patients prefer the PFP, but the PFS permits better control over the speed and duration of injection. Smaller (29-gauge) needle outer diameter is associated with less ISP; reference ADL and seven ADL biosimilars offer a device with a 29-gauge needle. In the USA, an approved biosimilar can be designated "interchangeable," allowing pharmacy-level substitution, where state law permits. In the USA, two ADL biosimilars have received interchangeability designation; others are seeking interchangeability designation from the Food and Drug Administration (n = 2), are being evaluated in clinical studies to support interchangeability (n = 2), or do not have/are not seeking interchangeability designation (n = 3). Product-related attributes influence patient experience of ISP caused by subcutaneous ADL injection. Reference ADL and ADL biosimilar products differ in their attributes, so discussion with patients about treatment options is essential to optimize adherence and outcomes.

Immunogenicity of RV1 and RV5 vaccines administered in standard and interchangeable mixed schedules: a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority clinical trial in Mexican infants.

Introduction: Rotavirus-associated diarrheal diseases significantly burden healthcare systems, particularly affecting infants under five years. Both Rotarix™ (RV1) and RotaTeq™ (RV5) vaccines have been effective but have distinct application schedules and limited interchangeability data. This study aims to provide evidence on the immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety of mixed RV1-RV5 schedules compared to their standard counterparts. Methods: This randomized, double-blind study evaluated the non-inferiority in terms of immunogenicity of mixed rotavirus vaccine schedules compared to standard RV1 and RV5 schedules in a cohort of 1,498 healthy infants aged 6 to 10 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned to one of seven groups receiving various combinations of RV1, and RV5. Standard RV1 and RV5 schedules served as controls of immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety analysis. IgA antibody levels were measured from blood samples collected before the first dose and one month after the third dose. Non-inferiority was concluded if the reduction in seroresponse rate in the mixed schemes, compared to the standard highest responding scheme, did not exceed the non-inferiority margin of -0.10. Reactogenicity traits and adverse events were monitored for 30 days after each vaccination and analyzed on the entire cohort. Results: Out of the initial cohort, 1,365 infants completed the study. Immunogenicity analysis included 1,014 infants, considering IgA antibody titers ≥20 U/mL as seropositive. Mixed vaccine schedules demonstrated non-inferiority to standard schedules, with no significant differences in immunogenic response. Safety profiles were comparable across all groups, with no increased incidence of serious adverse events or intussusception. Conclusion: The study confirms that mixed rotavirus vaccine schedules are non-inferior to standard RV1 and RV5 regimens in terms of immunogenicity and safety. This finding supports the flexibility of rotavirus vaccination strategies, particularly in contexts of vaccine shortage or logistic constraints. These results contribute to the global effort to optimize rotavirus vaccination programs for broader and more effective pediatric coverage.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02193061.

An Overview of Biosimilars-Development, Quality, Regulatory Issues, and Management in Healthcare.

Biological therapies have transformed high-burden treatments. As the patent and exclusivity period for biological medicines draws to a close, there is a possibility for the development and authorization of biosimilars. These products boast comparable levels of safety, quality, and effectiveness to their precursor reference products. Biosimilars, although similar to reference products, are not identical copies and should not be considered generic substitutes for the original. Their development and evaluation involve a rigorous step-by-step process that includes analytical, functional, and nonclinical evaluations and clinical trials. Clinical studies conducted for biosimilars aim to establish similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, rather than demonstrating a clinical benefit, as with the reference product. However, although the current knowledge regarding biosimilars has significantly increased, several controversies and misconceptions still exist regarding their immunogenicity, extrapolation, interchangeability, substitution, and nomenclature. The development of biosimilars stimulates market competition, contributes toward healthcare sustainability, and allows for greater patient access. However, maximizing the benefits of biosimilars requires cooperation between regulators and developers to ensure that patients can benefit quickly from access to these new therapeutic alternatives while maintaining high standards of quality, safety, and efficacy. Recognizing the inherent complexities of comprehending biosimilars fully, it is essential to focus on realistic approaches, such as fostering open communication between healthcare providers and patients, encouraging informed decision-making, and minimizing risks. This review addresses the regulatory and manufacturing requirements for biosimilars and provides clinicians with relevant insights for informed prescribing.

A phase 4, open-label study to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of DTaP5-HBV-IPV-Hib in children previously vaccinated with DTaP2-HBV-IPV-Hib or DTaP5-HBV-IPV-Hib (V419-016).

DTaP5-HBV-IPV-Hib (Vaxelis®) is a hexavalent combination vaccine (HV) indicated in infants and toddlers for the prevention of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis, and invasive disease due to Haemophilus influenzae type b. Switching between HVs during the childhood vaccination series is sometimes necessary due to, for example, vaccine availability, health-care provider preference, and/or tender awards. The purpose of this study was to describe the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a booster dose of Vaxelis® in participants who previously received a primary infant series of either DTaP2-HBV-IPV-Hib (Hexyon®) or Vaxelis®. Healthy participants approximately 11-13 months of age who previously received a two-dose primary series of Hexyon® (HHV group) or Vaxelis® (VVV group) all received a Vaxelis® booster dose. Immunogenicity was evaluated by measuring antibody levels to individual vaccine antigens approximately 30 days following booster vaccination. Safety was evaluated as the proportion of participants with adverse events (AEs). The proportions of participants with antibody-specific responses for antigens contained in both Vaxelis® and Hexyon® at 30 days post-toddler-booster vaccination with Vaxelis® were comparable between groups, and higher in the VVV group for Vaxelis® antigens PRN and FIM2/3. The overall proportions of participants with AEs were generally comparable between groups. Following a booster dose of Vaxelis®, immune responses were comparable between groups for all shared antigens, and higher in the VVV group for antigens found only in Vaxelis®. The booster was well tolerated in both groups. These data support the use of Vaxelis® as a booster in mixed HV regimens.

Adalimumab Persistence and Its Biosimilar in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Real-World Study.

Adalimumab biosimilar experience is still recent. Interchangeability differences could reduce persistence times. Our goal was to compare biosimilar persistence differences with a reference. A retrospective observational study was performed in three groups divided according to the adalimumab received. The primary outcome measure was persistence, represented with Kaplan-Meier analysis, and we secondarily evaluated security, efficacy, and biomarkers. We obtained approval from the regional ethical committee, and the study was conducted following the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013. Data from 104 patients were collected: 50 received the biosimilar, 29 received the reference, and 25 switched from the original to the biosimilar. After a follow-up of 12 months, the biosimilar's persistence was higher, without differences in mild adverse events per group. In contrast, there were differences in severe events, with the switched group's frequency being higher. Biomarkers were reduced at similar proportions in all groups, and 43% had a clinical response at week 20 without differences. Adalimumab biosimilars are a valuable option for IBD based on clinical equivalence that are less expensive than the original drug. Their use does not have a detrimental influence on disease, although there are a few nuances in terms of interchangeability. These results support increasing confidence in using biosimilars, thus promoting the better sustainability of health systems.

The level of agreement between the numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale for assessing pain intensity in adults with chronic pain.

The numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale are used to quantify pain intensity. However, it has not yet been explored whether these scores are interchangeable in adults with chronic pain. Data from the prospective multicentre cross-sectional INTERVAL study were used to evaluate the one-dimensionality and agreement between numerical rating scale scores and visual analogue scale scores in adults with chronic pain. Pain intensity scores using the numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale were provided by 366 patients with chronic pain for current, average, minimal and maximal pain. To evaluate whether pain intensity scales are completed in accordance with each other, the proportion of patients who satisfied the following condition was calculated: minimal pain intensity ≤ maximal pain intensity. A factor analysis confirmed the one-dimensionality of the pain measures. A significant difference was found between numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale scores for average, current, minimum and maximum pain. Intra-class correlation coefficient estimates ranged from 0.739 to 0.858 and all measures failed to show sufficient and acceptable agreement at the 95% level. The strength of agreement between pain severity categories was classified as 'moderate' for average and minimal pain and 'substantial' for current and maximal pain. The proportion of patients who scored minimal pain ≤ maximal pain was 97.5% for the numerical rating scale and 89.5% for the visual analogue scale. This study failed to show an acceptable agreement between the numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale when pain intensity was rated by adults with chronic pain, despite showing both scales measure the same information.

The Impact of Biosimilar Use on Total Cost of Care and Provider Financial Performance in the Medicare Oncology Care Model: A Population-Based Simulation Study.

INTRODUCTION: Payment for oncology care is increasingly moving from fee-for-service to value-based payment (VBP). VBPs are agreements in which providers are held accountable for total cost of care (TCOC) through risk-sharing arrangements with payers that tie reimbursement levels to TCOC benchmarks. Oncology biosimilars may play an important role in managing financial risk in the VBPs like Medicare's Oncology Care Model (OCM), but there has been limited research in this area. The objective of this study is to estimate the impact of biosimilar adoption on TCOC and oncology provider financial performance under the terms of the Medicare OCM. METHODS: We conducted a population-based simulation study using the Medicare Limited Data Set (LDS) and the methodology of Medicare's OCM. The primary outcome was the simulated average change in TCOC per 6-month episode of care attributable to use of biosimilars as an alternative to reference products. The study population consisted of episodes of care in 2020 and using the reference product or corresponding biosimilar for bevacizumab, rituximab, trastuzumab, epoetin alfa, filgrastim, or pegfilgrastim. TCOC was calculated for each episode of care with use of reference products only and compared with TCOC with corresponding biosimilars. The simulation calculated TCOC outcomes in cohorts of 100 episodes sampled from the Medicare LDS study population using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations. RESULTS: Among the total of 8281 6-month oncology care episodes identified in the study period (initiating January 2020 to July 2020) in Medicare claims, 1586 (19.2%) episodes met OCM and study criteria and were included. Applying the simulation methods to these observed episodes, biosimilar substitution reduced mean TCOC per episode by $1193 (95% CI $583-1840). The cost reduction from biosimilars represented 2.4% of the average TCOC benchmark and led to a 15% reduction in the risk of providers needing to pay recoupments to Medicare for exceeding TCOC benchmarks. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our simulation study using observed Medicare claims and OCM criteria, we found that biosimilar substitution for reference products can significantly lower episode TCOC and improve provider financial performance under the terms of the largest value-based payment model implemented to date.

Pharmacokinetic similarity of switching SAR341402 insulin aspart biosimilar and NovoLog insulin aspart versus continuous use of NovoLog in adults with type 1 diabetes: The GEMELLI X trial.

AIM: To assess whether multiple switches between SAR341402 biosimilar insulin aspart (SAR-Asp) and the insulin aspart reference product (NovoLog; NN-Asp) leads to equivalent pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure compared with continuous use of NN-Asp in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study randomized (1:1) 210 subjects with T1D treated with once-daily insulin glargine U100 as basal insulin to four 4-week periods of alternating multiple daily injections of SAR-Asp and NN-Asp (NN-Asp for the first 4 weeks, SAR-Asp in the last 4 weeks; switching group) versus 16 weeks of continuous NN-Asp (non-switching group). At week 16, a single dose (0.15 U/kg) of SAR-Asp in the switching group (n = 95) or NN-Asp in the non-switching group (n = 105) was given in the morning before breakfast. Primary PK endpoints were area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) of SAR-Asp versus NN-Asp after the single dose at week 16. RESULTS: The extent of PK exposure was similar between the two treatments (SAR-Asp in the switching group and NN-Asp in the non-switching group) at week 16, with point estimates of treatment ratios close to 1. The 90% confidence intervals for AUC treatment ratios were contained within 0.8-1.25. For Cmax in the primary analysis set, the upper confidence limit was 1.32. This was because of the profiles of three participants with implausible high values. A prespecified sensitivity analysis excluding implausible values showed results contained within 0.8-1.25. CONCLUSIONS: PK exposure of SAR-Asp (switching group) and reference NN-Asp (non-switching group) were similar, supporting interchangeability between these two insulin aspart products.

Accuracy of Heart-Rate-Recovery Parameters Assessed From a Wrist-Worn Photoplethysmography Monitor (Polar Unite).

PURPOSE: The accuracy of heart rate (HR) measured with a wrist-worn photoplethysmography (PPG) monitor is altered during rest-exercise and exercise-rest transitions, which questions the validity of postexercise HR-recovery (HRR) parameters estimated from this device. METHODS: Thirty participants (50% female) randomly performed two 13-minute sequences (3' rest, 5' submaximal-intensity exercise, and 5' passive recovery) on treadmill and bicycle ergometers. HR was measured concomitantly with a 10-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and a wrist-worn PPG monitor (Polar Unite). HRR was assessed by calculating Δ60 (the difference between HR during exercise and HR 60 s after exercise cessation) and by fitting HRR data into a monoexponential model. RESULTS: By focusing on Δ60 and τ (the time constant of the monoexponential curve), levels of association (r) of the Unite versus the 10-lead ECG were high to very high (.73 < r < .93), and coefficients of variation were >20% (in absolute value), except for Δ60 in the bicycle ergometer condition (11.7%). In 97% of cases, the decrease in HR after exercise appeared later with the Unite. By adjusting the time window used for the analysis according to this time lag, coefficients of variation of Δ60 decreased below 10% in the bicycle ergometer condition. CONCLUSIONS: If a wrist-worn PPG monitor is used to assess HRR, we recommend performing the submaximal-intensity exercise on a bicycle ergometer and focusing on Δ60. Furthermore, to obtain a more accurate Δ60, the time lag between the end of the exercise and the effective decrease in HR should also be considered before the calculation.

Biosimilars for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Riding the 2023 Wave [Podcast].

This article discusses some of the queries and concerns that patients may have about initiating or switching to treatment with a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis following the US 2023 release of several biosimilars of the adalimumab reference product, also known by the brand name, Humira. The article also covers the difference between a generic medicine and a biosimilar, and the clinical evidence to support the safety and efficacy of adalimumab biosimilars in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Clinical Similarity of Biosimilars and Reference Drugs: A Comprehensive Review and New Hope for Public Health in a New Frontier.

BACKGROUND: Patents and exclusive rights on reference biologics contribute to the emergence of biosimilars. Regulatory bodies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), World Health Organization (WHO), and EMA (European Medicines Agency) for assessing clinical safety, effectiveness, and consequences between biosimilars and reference medications, have established guidelines. Since generic small molecules from reference can be easily swapped, biosimilars cannot be used interchangeably and may not always indicate interchangeability due to highly restrictive properties. It can be replaced with a reference without the healthcare provider's help under the interchangeability context. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study is to analyze and compare evidence-based clinical safety, therapeutic potential, and importance (outcomes) of several biosimilars with their references along with clinical uses in chronic diseases. METHODS: Through a comprehensive systemic literature review of more than 100 articles involving medicinally important drugs whose bio-similarity works optimally, safety-efficacy parameters have been analyzed. Analysis of biosimilar usage, approval, and safety-efficacy aspects are majorly focused upon herein in this review. RESULTS: From this systemic review, it can be stated that the majority of biosimilars are clinically and statistically equivalent to their originators. As biosimilars have good safety-efficacy aspects with lower prices, their utilization can be more encouraged, which was already done by the FDA with the establishment of a public online database entitled "Purple Book," which includes all information regarding biological drugs. CONCLUSION: To conclude, we suggest widespread use of high-grade biosimilars in clinical practice, maybe via changing, exchanging, or switching, with appropriate clinical monitoring and pharmacovigilance to improve patient accessibility to modern medicines, as it provides similar efficacy and safety parameters across all the accumulated clinical trials and studies.

Practical Management of Biosimilar Use in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD): A Global Survey and an International Delphi Consensus.

As the patents for biologic originator drugs expire, biosimilars are emerging as cost-effective alternatives within healthcare systems. Addressing various challenges in the clinical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains crucial. To shed light on physicians' current knowledge, beliefs, practical approaches, and concerns related to biosimilar adoption-whether initiating a biosimilar, transitioning from an originator to a biosimilar, or switching between biosimilars (including multiple switches and reverse switching)-a global survey was conducted. Fifteen physicians with expertise in the field of IBD from 13 countries attended a virtual international consensus meeting to develop practical guidance regarding biosimilar adoption worldwide, considering the survey results. This consensus centered on 10 key statements covering biosimilar effectiveness, safety, indications, rationale, multiple switches, therapeutic drug monitoring of biosimilars, non-medical switching, and future perspectives. Ultimately, the consensus affirmed that biosimilars are equally effective and safe when compared to originator drugs. They are considered suitable for both biologic-naïve patients and those who have previously been treated with originator drugs, with cost reduction being the primary motivation for transitioning from an originator drug to a biosimilar.

Consensus statement on the use of biosimilar drugs in immune-mediated diseases in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To improve knowledge about biosimilar medicines and to generate a consensus framework on their use. METHODS: Qualitative study. A multidisciplinary group of experts in biosimilar medicines was established (1dermatologist, 1hospital pharmacist, 1rheumatologist, and 1gastroenterologist) who defined the sections and topics of the document. A narrative literature review was performed in Medline to identify articles on biosimilar medicines. Systematic reviews, controlled, pre-clinical, clinical, and real-life studies were selected. Based on the results of the review, several general principles and recommendations were generated. The level of agreement was tested in a Delphi that was extended to 66 health professionals who voted from 1 (totally disagree) to 10 (totally agree). Agreement was defined if at least 70% of the participants voted ≥7. RESULTS: The literature review included 555 articles. A total of 10 general principles and recommendations were voted upon. All reached the level of agreement established. The document includes data on the main characteristics of biosimilar medicines (definition, development, approval, indication extrapolation, interchangeability, financing, and traceability); published evidence (biosimilarity, efficacy, effectiveness, safety, immunogenicity, efficiency, switch); barriers and facilitators to its use; and data on information for patients. CONCLUSIONS: Authorized biosimilar medicines meet all the characteristics of quality, efficacy, and safety. They also significantly help improve patient access to biological therapies and contribute to health system sustainability.

Documento de consenso sobre los medicamentos biosimilares en enfermedades inmunomediadas en España / Consensus statement on the use of biosimilar drugs in immune-mediated diseases in Spain

Objetivo: Mejorar el nivel de conocimiento sobre los medicamentos biosimilares y generar un marco consensuado sobre su uso. Métodos: Estudio cualitativo. Se seleccionó un grupo multidisciplinar de expertos en medicamentos biosimilares (una dermatóloga, un farmacéutico de hospital, un reumatólogo y un gastroenterólogo) que definieron los apartados y los temas del documento. Se realizó una revisión narrativa de la literatura en Medline para identificar artículos sobre los medicamentos biosimilares. Se seleccionaron revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura, estudios controlados pre-clínicos, clínicos y en vida real. Con esta información se generaron varios principios generales y recomendaciones. El grado de acuerdo con los mismos se estableció mediante un Delphi que se extendió a 66 profesionales de la salud que votaron de 1 (totalmente en desacuerdo) a 10 (totalmente de acuerdo). Se definió acuerdo si al menos el 70% de los participantes votaron ≥7. Resultados: La revisión de la literatura incluyó 555 artículos. Se votaron un total de 10 principios generales y recomendaciones. Todos alcanzaron el nivel de acuerdo establecido en el Delphi. El documento incluye datos sobre las características principales de los medicamentos biosimilares (definición, desarrollo, aprobación, extrapolación de indicaciones, intercambiabilidad, financiación y trazabilidad); sobre la evidencia publicada (biosimilitud, eficacia, efectividad, seguridad, inmunogenicidad, eficiencia, switch); sobre barreras y facilitadores a su uso, y datos sobre la información para pacientes. Conclusiones: Los medicamentos biosimilares autorizados reúnen todas las características de calidad, eficacia y seguridad. Además, ayudan significativamente a mejorar el acceso de los pacientes a las terapias biológicas y contribuyen a la sostenibilidad de los sistemas sanitarios. (AU)

Objective: To improve knowledge about biosimilar medicines and to generate a consensus framework on their use. Methods: Qualitative study. A multidisciplinary group of experts in biosimilar medicines was established (1dermatologist, 1hospital pharmacist, 1rheumatologist, and 1gastroenterologist) who defined the sections and topics of the document. A narrative literature review was performed in Medline to identify articles on biosimilar medicines. Systematic reviews, controlled, pre-clinical, clinical, and real-life studies were selected. Based on the results of the review, several general principles and recommendations were generated. The level of agreement was tested in a Delphi that was extended to 66 health professionals who voted from 1 (totally disagree) to 10 (totally agree). Agreement was defined if at least 70% of the participants voted ≥7. Results: The literature review included 555 articles. A total of 10 general principles and recommendations were voted upon. All reached the level of agreement established. The document includes data on the main characteristics of biosimilar medicines (definition, development, approval, indication extrapolation, interchangeability, financing, and traceability); published evidence (biosimilarity, efficacy, effectiveness, safety, immunogenicity, efficiency, switch); barriers and facilitators to its use; and data on information for patients. Conclusions: Authorized biosimilar medicines meet all the characteristics of quality, efficacy, and safety. They also significantly help improve patient access to biological therapies and contribute to health system sustainability. (AU)

Within-subject pharmacokinetic variability has a strong influence on individual exposure ratios in bioequivalence studies, hence on drug formulation interchangeability.

INTRODUCTION: Bioequivalence between a reference and a generic drug is based on the hypothesis that a ± 20% change in blood exposure (or ± 10% for drugs with narrow therapeutic index, NTI) following the generic/reference switch will not have any therapeutic consequences. However, the individual exposure ratio between generic and reference can be higher than 1.20 (or 1.10). This study aims to analyse the different parameters influencing the individual exposure ratio, hence the conditions for reference/generic interchangeability. METHODS: Bioequivalence studies with a double cross-over design for a virtual drug were simulated using 100 random sets of 12, 24, 48 or 100 pairs of areas under the curve (AUC), varying the generic/reference AUC geometric mean ratios between 0.80 and 1.25 and the within-subject exposure variance of the reference and the generic formulations. RESULTS: The proportion of subjects with an exposure generic/reference ratio outside the ± 10% or ± 20% acceptance intervals increases when (1) the reference within-subject variance increases; (2) the ratio of the generic within-subject variance on the reference within-subject variance increases; and (3) the generic/reference mean AUC ratio diverges from 1.0. When only considering replicated administrations of the reference, the individual exposure ratio increases with the within-subject variance, yielding values outside the usually accepted individual exposure ratio range of 0.5 to 2 for drugs with narrow therapeutic index as soon as the within-subject variance standard deviation is ≥ 0.25 (equivalent to within-patient CV% > 25%). CONCLUSIONS: Interchangeability between reference and generic formulations, especially for drugs with narrow therapeutic index can only be assumed if, the within-subject variance of generic is less or equal to the within-subject variance of reference or, if this is not the case, if the distribution of the generic/generic individual exposure ratios is included within the therapeutic margins of the reference drug.

Interchangeability of the Assays Used to Assess the Activity of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibodies.

The recent global COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 lasted for over three years. A key measure in combatting this pandemic involved the measurement of the monoclonal antibody (mAb)-mediated inhibition of binding between the spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) and hACE2 receptor. Potency assessments of therapeutic anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs typically include binding or cell-based neutralization assays. We assessed the inhibitory activity of five anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs using ELISA, surface plasmon resonance (SPR), and four cell-based neutralization assays using different pseudovirus particles and 293T or A549 cells expressing hACE2 with or without TMPRSS2. We assessed the interchangeability between cell-based and binding assays by applying the Bland-Altman method under certain assumptions. Our data demonstrated that the IC50 [nM] values determined by eight neutralization assays are independent of the cell line, presence of TMPRSS2 enzyme on the cell surface, and pseudovirus backbone used. Moreover, the Bland-Altman analysis showed that the IC50 [nM] and KD [nM] values determined by neutralization/ELISA or by SPR are equivalent and that the anti-spike mAb activity can be attributed to one variable directly related to its tertiary conformational structure conformation, rate dissociation constant Koff. This parameter is independent from the concentrations of the components of the mAb:RBD:hACE2 complexes and can be used for a comparison between the activities of the different mAbs.

Interchangeability and adverse events in originator-rituximab and its biosimilar (CT-P10) among rheumatic patients: a real-life experience.

Biosimilars offer cost-effective and safe treatment options both for patients and healthcare systems. CT-P10 is the first biosimilar of rituximab approved in Europe for use in all indications of originator rituximab (oRTX). This study aimed to provide real-life data on treatment changes and adverse events in patients who received oRTX or CT-P10. We retrospectively reviewed treatment-related adverse events [infusion-related reactions (IRRs), infections, hypogammaglobulinemia] in patients treated with at least one dose of oRTX (MabThera®) or CT-P10 (Truxima®) between 2020 and 2021 and had at least 6 months follow-up after rituximab infusion in a rheumatology clinic. The switches between oRTX and CT-P10 were performed according to drug availability at the hospital pharmacy at the time of infusion according to the local hospital procedure. Physicians were not involved in the decision of biosimilar selection. A total of 128 patients (CT-P10, n = 64; oRTX, n = 64) were included. CT-P10 was switched in 52 (40.6%) patients who had previously used oRTX, and 48 (37.5%) patients remained on oRTX. We demonstrated no difference between patients treated with oRTX or CT-P10 in the rates of IRRs, in which all reactions were grade 1 and 2. Comparable rates of infections (p > 0.05) and the rate of hypogammaglobulinemia (p > 0.05) were found in both groups with no significant difference. CT-P10 provides a safe treatment alternative in patients who require rituximab therapy. The rational use of biosimilars can be supported by evolving evidence on interchangeability and switching in real-life settings, which will help clinicians in decision-making.