Interchangeability of biosimilars: A study of expert views and visions regarding the science and substitution.

Healthcare systems have reached a critical point regarding the question of whether biosimilar substitution should become common practice. To move the discussion forward, the study objective was to investigate the views of experts from medicines agencies and the pharmaceutical industry on the science underpinning interchangeability of biosimilars. We conducted an empirical qualitative study using semi-structured interviews informed by a cross-disciplinary approach encompassing regulatory science, law, and pharmaceutical policy. In total 25 individuals with experience within biologics participated during September 2018-August 2019. Eight participants were EU national medicines authority regulators, and 17 had pharmaceutical industry background: five from two originator-only companies, four from two companies with both biosimilar and originator products, and eight from seven biosimilar-only companies. Two analysts independently conducted inductive content analysis, resulting in data-driven themes capturing the meaning of the data. The participants reported that interchangeability was more than a scientific question of likeness between biosimilar and reference products: it also pertained to regulatory practices and trust. Participants were overall confident in the science behind exchanging biosimilar products for the reference products via switching, i.e., with physician involvement. However, their opinions differed regarding the scientific risk associated with biosimilar substitution, i.e., without physician involvement. Almost all participants saw no need for additional scientific data to support substitution. Moreover, the participants did not believe that switching studies, as required in the US, were appropriate for obtaining scientific certainty due to their small size. It is unclear why biosimilar switching is viewed as scientifically safer than substitution; therefore, we expect greater policy debate on biosimilar substitution in the near future. We urge European and UK policymakers and regulators to clarify their visions for biosimilar substitution; the positions of these two frontrunners are likely to influence other jurisdictions on the future of biosimilar use.

Reducing the Risk of Withdrawal Symptoms and Relapse Following Clozapine Discontinuation-Is It Feasible to Develop Evidence-Based Guidelines?

Clozapine is the only antipsychotic that is effective in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. However, in certain clinical situations, such as the emergence of serious adverse effects, it is necessary to discontinue clozapine. Stopping clozapine treatment poses a particular challenge due to the risk of psychotic relapse, as well as the development of withdrawal symptoms. Despite these challenges for the clinician, there is currently no formal guidance on how to safely to discontinue clozapine. We assessed the feasibility of developing evidence-based recommendations for (1) minimizing the risk of withdrawal symptoms, (2) managing withdrawal phenomena, and (3) commencing alternatives treatment when clozapine is discontinued. We then evaluated the recommendations against the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II criteria. We produced 19 recommendations. The majority of these recommendation were evidence-based, although the strength of some recommendations was limited by a reliance of studies of medium to low quality. We discuss next steps in the refinement and validation of an evidence-based guideline for stopping clozapine and identify key outstanding questions.

OpenSAFELY: impact of national guidance on switching anticoagulant therapy during COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Health Service (NHS) recommended that appropriate patients anticoagulated with warfarin should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), requiring less frequent blood testing. Subsequently, a national safety alert was issued regarding patients being inappropriately coprescribed two anticoagulants following a medication change and associated monitoring. OBJECTIVE: To describe which people were switched from warfarin to DOACs; identify potentially unsafe coprescribing of anticoagulants; and assess whether abnormal clotting results have become more frequent during the pandemic. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study using routine clinical data from 24 million NHS patients in England. RESULTS: 20 000 of 164 000 warfarin patients (12.2%) switched to DOACs between March and May 2020, most commonly to edoxaban and apixaban. Factors associated with switching included: older age, recent renal function test, higher number of recent INR tests recorded, atrial fibrillation diagnosis and care home residency. There was a sharp rise in coprescribing of warfarin and DOACs from typically 50-100 per month to 246 in April 2020, 0.06% of all people receiving a DOAC or warfarin. International normalised ratio (INR) testing fell by 14% to 506.8 patients tested per 1000 warfarin patients each month. We observed a very small increase in elevated INRs (n=470) during April compared with January (n=420). CONCLUSIONS: Increased switching of anticoagulants from warfarin to DOACs was observed at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in England following national guidance. There was a small but substantial number of people coprescribed warfarin and DOACs during this period. Despite a national safety alert on the issue, a widespread rise in elevated INR test results was not found. Primary care has responded rapidly to changes in patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Determinants of treatment modification before and after implementation of the updated 2015 NICE guideline on type 2 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study.

AIMS: To identify patient-specific factors associated with early metformin treatment modification among type 2 diabetes patients before and after implementation of the updated 2015 NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) guideline. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database (2009-2016). Patients ≥ 18 years, newly treated with metformin only, during the period of valid data collection were included. The first prescription defined start of follow-up. Determinants of treatment modification in two cohorts (before and after implementation of the updated guideline) were studied by time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: After implementation of the updated guideline, patients were less likely to receive sulphonylureas (62.3% vs 41.3%) or thiazolidediones (4.7% vs 2.2%) and more likely to receive dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (15.8% vs 27.1%) or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (0.8% vs 9.9%). Some determinants influenced general practitioners' prescribing differently after implementation of the updated guideline compared to before, including a high body mass index and heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that a first step towards tailored prescribing has been made. However, not all determinants that are important to consider when prescribing second-line glucose-lowering agents were of influence on general practitioners' prescribing.

Antiretroviral Drugs for Treatment and Prevention of HIV Infection in Adults: 2020 Recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA Panel.

Importance: Data on the use of antiretroviral drugs, including new drugs and formulations, for the treatment and prevention of HIV infection continue to guide optimal practices. Objective: To evaluate new data and incorporate them into current recommendations for initiating HIV therapy, monitoring individuals starting on therapy, changing regimens, preventing HIV infection for those at risk, and special considerations for older people with HIV. Evidence Review: New evidence was collected since the previous International Antiviral (formerly AIDS) Society-USA recommendations in 2018, including data published or presented at peer-reviewed scientific conferences through August 22, 2020. A volunteer panel of 15 experts in HIV research and patient care considered these data and updated previous recommendations. Findings: From 5316 citations about antiretroviral drugs identified, 549 were included to form the evidence basis for these recommendations. Antiretroviral therapy is recommended as soon as possible for all individuals with HIV who have detectable viremia. Most patients can start with a 3-drug regimen or now a 2-drug regimen, which includes an integrase strand transfer inhibitor. Effective options are available for patients who may be pregnant, those who have specific clinical conditions, such as kidney, liver, or cardiovascular disease, those who have opportunistic diseases, or those who have health care access issues. Recommended for the first time, a long-acting antiretroviral regimen injected once every 4 weeks for treatment or every 8 weeks pending approval by regulatory bodies and availability. For individuals at risk for HIV, preexposure prophylaxis with an oral regimen is recommended or, pending approval by regulatory bodies and availability, with a long-acting injection given every 8 weeks. Monitoring before and during therapy for effectiveness and safety is recommended. Switching therapy for virological failure is relatively rare at this time, and the recommendations for switching therapies for convenience and for other reasons are included. With the survival benefits provided by therapy, recommendations are made for older individuals with HIV. The current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic poses particular challenges for HIV research, care, and efforts to end the HIV epidemic. Conclusion and Relevance: Advances in HIV prevention and management with antiretroviral drugs continue to improve clinical care and outcomes among individuals at risk for and with HIV.

[Treatment switch in diabetic macular edema: Literature review and management algorithm]. / Les switchs de traitement dans l'œdème maculaire diabétique : revue de la littérature et algorithme de prise en charge.

Initial management of diabetic macular edema (DME) is well-defined, but there is a lack of national or international consensus for patients who do not respond or respond only partially to these treatments. Several studies, mostly retrospective, have assessed medication switches, but currently, the literature contains no randomized studies. The goal of this article is to present an algorithm for switching medications, which can be proposed to DME patients treated with anti-VEGF agents, as defined by a group of French retina experts, supported by the existing literature on the subject. After initiation of an anti-VEGF treatment for DME, the response is usually assessed after 5 monthly injections. A partial anatomical response (reduction of central retinal thickness between 10 and 20%), seen in 30 to 40% of patients, is associated with a favorable visual prognosis according to randomized studies. Continuation of the anti-VEGF injections after the induction phase is thus possible. If the response remains incomplete after 3 additional anti-VEGF injections, a complete ophthalmologic examination should be performed, and a switch to another therapeutic class (corticosteroids) may be proposed in the absence of contraindications. If a complete non-response is seen initially (reduction of central retinal thickness<10%), the switch is proposed immediately after the induction phase.

Development and validation of psoriatic arthritis switch quality assessment tool (PASQAL) - an outcomes measurement tool to assess the quality of biologic switch decisions in psoriatic arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Switching between biologic therapies is a recommended strategy for Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) patients that show an insufficient response or adverse events. Although the choice of the subsequent biologic may be dependent on many factors, assessing the quality of the switch decision is of utmost relevance. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate two outcomes measurement tools (for patients with peripheral and axial PsA phenotypes) that address the quality of treatment decisions in PsA regarding the switch of biologic therapies in clinical practice. METHODS: A Task Force and an Expert Panel were specifically assembled for this purpose. The Psoriatic Arthritis Switch Quality Assessment tool (PASQAL) development comprised a modified-Delphi method in a four-step procedure: 1) literature search and experts' opinion collection about quality indicators for PsA management; 2) Delphi design to address the development of the measurement tool; 3) three Delphi questionnaire rounds; 4) final consensus meeting. This phase resulted in the definition of two measurement tools, one to evaluate the quality of biologic switch in peripheral (pPASQAL) and another one in axial PsA (axPASQAL). For the validation of PASQAL, 12 experienced rheumatologists were asked to evaluate and classify the biologic switch of 80 clinical cases (40 with predominant peripheral and 40 with predominant axial PsA). Clinical judgement was defined to be the "gold standard" against which the performance of PASQAL was assessed. The results were used to assess tools' performance (sensitivity/specificity analysis) and the agreement between the tools and the gold standard (Cohen's kappa). RESULTS: PASQAL consists of 6 domains (joint disease activity, dactylitis, enthesis, physical function, quality of life, and skin and nail manifestations), respective instruments and thresholds. The classification of the biologic switch was divided into three quality levels: "Good", based on treat-to-target thresholds; "Moderate", based on improvement from baseline; and the remaining as "Insufficient". pPASQAL was found to be highly sensitive (92%) with the "Good" quality level and specific (97%) with the "Insufficient" quality level. Whilst axPASQAL showed overall higher sensitivity and specificity for all quality levels, as well as a higher level of agreement between the tool and the gold standard than pPASQAL (k=0.87 vs k=0.71). CONCLUSION: PASQAL was developed and showed good criterion validity for the evaluation of the quality of switch in both peripheral and axial PsA phenotypes. These tools may be used in research as well as in clinical practice, to support rheumatologists in making more informed therapeutic decisions.

Combating drug shortages in China: surveillance warning and practice standardization.

Like other countries, China has been experiencing drug shortages during the past years, including drugs on the National Essential Medicine List and emergency drugs. Drug shortages have raised public concerns in China and have severe impacts on all stakeholders in the supply chain, especially patients and hospitals. Recently, Chinese governments have ramped up several measures to ensure a steady supply of essential and first-aid drugs. In this commentary, we share our experiences of addressing drug shortages at Hunan Province, central China. We focus on the establishment of a provincial drug shortage monitoring center, and the Center's efforts to standardize practices on the management of drug shortages and identify therapeutic alternatives for drugs in short supply based on international best practices.

Japanese guidance for use of biologics for psoriasis (the 2019 version).

As the first biologics for psoriasis in Japan, infliximab and adalimumab, anti-tumor necrosis factor-α antibodies, became available in the field of dermatology in 2010, followed by ustekinumab, an anti-interleukin (IL)-12/IL-23p40 antibody, which was launched in Japan in 2011. Since 2015, three IL-17 inhibitors of secukinumab and ixekizumab, anti-IL-17A antibodies, and brodalumab, an anti-IL-17 receptor antibody, and two anti-IL-23p19 antibodies of guselkumab and risankizumab, have also been launched. It is important for physicians to select appropriate biologic therapy for each psoriatic patient after due consideration of disease factors, treatment factors and patient background factors, sharing such information with patients. The following can be listed as points to be considered for the selection of biologics: drug effects (e.g. strength of effectiveness, time to onset of effectiveness, effectiveness against arthritis, primary failure, secondary failure), safety (e.g. infections, administration-related reactions and relationships with other comorbidities), convenience for patients (e.g. hospital visit intervals, self-injection, maintenance therapy at clinics, feasibility of drug discontinuation/re-administration) and payment (medical costs) borne by patients. This guidance has been prepared with the aim of allowing dermatologists experienced in the treatment of psoriasis to use biologics appropriately according to the circumstances of individual patients after consideration of the above-mentioned factors.

Steroid variability in pediatric inpatient asthmatics: survey on provider preferences of dexamethasone versus prednisone.

Objective: Our hospital's pediatric Emergency Department (ED) began using dexamethasone for treating asthma exacerbations after ED studies showed non-inferiority of dexamethasone compared to prednisone. However, providers have not reached consensus on optimal inpatient steroid regimen. This study evaluates provider preference for inpatient steroid treatment.Methods: A survey was distributed to providers who care for inpatient pediatric asthmatics. Respondents answered questions about steroid choice and timing. Data were summarized as percentages; bivariate comparisons were analyzed with Pearson's chi-squared test.Results: Ninety-two providers completed the survey (60% response rate). When patients received dexamethasone in the ED, subsequent inpatient management was variable: 44% continued dexamethasone, 14% switched to prednisone, 2% said no additional steroids, and 40% said it depended on the scenario. Hospitalists were more likely to continue dexamethasone than pulmonologists (61% and 15%, respectively; p < .001). Factors that influenced providers to switch to prednisone in the inpatient setting included severity of exacerbation (73%) and asthma history (47%). Fifty-one percent felt uncomfortable using dexamethasone because of "minimal data to support [its] use inpatient." In case-based questions, 28% selected dexamethasone dosing intervals outside the recommended range. Thirteen percent reported experiencing errors in clinical practice.Conclusions: Use of dexamethasone in the ED for asthma exacerbations has led to uncertainty in inpatient steroid prescribing practices. Providers often revert to prednisone, especially in severe asthma exacerbations, possibly due to experience with prednisone and limited research on dexamethasone in the inpatient setting. Further research comparing the effectiveness of dexamethasone to prednisone in inpatient asthmatic children with various severities of illness is needed.

Why Were More Than 200 Subjects Required to Demonstrate the Bioequivalence of a New Formulation of Levothyroxine with an Old One?

At the request of French Regulatory Authorities, a new formulation of Levothyrox® was licensed in France in 2017, with the objective of avoiding the stability deficiencies of an existing licensed formulation. Before launching the new formulation, an average bioequivalence (ABE) trial was conducted, having enrolled 204 subjects and selected for interpretation a narrow a priori bioequivalence range of 0.90-1.11. Bioequivalence was concluded. In a previous publication, we questioned the ability of an ABE trial to guarantee the switchability within patients of the new and old levothyroxine formulations. It was suggested that the two formulations should be compared using the conceptual framework of individual bioequivalence. The present paper is a response to those claiming that, despite the fact that ABE analysis does not formally address the switchability of the two formulations, future patients will nevertheless be fully protected. The basis for this claim is that the ABE study was established in a large trial and analyzed using a stringent a priori acceptance interval of equivalence. These claims are questionable, because the use of a very large number of subjects nullifies the implicit precautionary intention of the European guideline when, for a Narrow Therapeutic Index drug, it recommends shortening the a priori acceptance interval from 0.80-1.25 to 0.90-1.11.

Two drugs regimens for HIV.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As the evidence for two-drug regimens (2DR) for HIV treatment accumulates and 2DR start to enter consensus guidelines, this review covers the history, rationale and current evidence for 2DR in first-line and switch settings. RECENT FINDINGS: Until recently, most evidence for 2DR was for boosted protease inhibitor-based therapies but now we have large, randomized trials to support the use of dolutegravir (DTG)-based 2DR, both for initial therapy and suppressed switch, with high efficacy and no emergent resistance at failure. SUMMARY: 2DR will increasingly form part of the choice we are able to offer people with HIV but we must consider some of the limitations to ensure these regimens are used in the most clinically appropriate manner.

Optimizing Antiretroviral Therapy in Treatment-Experienced Patients Living with HIV: A Critical Review of Switch and Simplification Strategies. An Opinion of the HIV Practice and Research Network of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy.

Simplifying or switching antiretroviral therapy (ART) in treatment-experienced people living with HIV (PLWH) may improve adherence, tolerability, toxicities, and/or drug-drug interactions. The purpose of this review is to critically evaluate the literature for efficacy and safety associated with switching or simplifying ART in treatment-experienced PLWH. A systematic literature search using MEDLINE was performed from January 1, 2010 to April 30, 2018. References within articles of interest, the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines, and conference abstracts were also reviewed. Switch/simplification strategies were categorized as those supported by high-level clinical evidence and those with emerging data. Rates of virologic suppression were noninferior for several switch/simplification strategies when compared to baseline ART. Potential for reducing adverse events was also seen. Additional evidence for some strategies, including most 2-drug regimens, is needed before they can be recommended.

Beta-blocker choice and exchangeability in patients with heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an Italian register-based cohort study.

Clinical guidelines suggest that for patients with heart failure and concurrent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), metoprolol/bisoprolol/nebivolol should be preferred over carvedilol. However, studies suggest a high proportion of carvedilol usage that remains unexplained. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the predictors of carvedilol choice in patients with heart failure and COPD that were naïve to carvedilol or metoprolol/bisoprolol/nebivolol. Caserta Local Health Unit databases (Italy) were used as data sources. Age, sex, chronic/acute comorbidities, and co-medications were included in a logistic regression model to assess predictors of carvedilol choice. Chronic comorbidities include those defined in the Elixhauser comorbidity index and all hospitalizations within two years prior to the first beta-blocker prescription. Comedications include all redeemed prescriptions within one year prior to the beta-blocker prescription. Kernel density estimations were used to assess the overlap in propensity and preference scores distributions for receiving carvedilol and thereby potential beta-blocker exchangeability. Totally, 10091 patients composed the study population; 2011 were exposed to carvedilol. The overlapping of propensity scores distributions was 57%. Accordingly, the exchangeability was not reached. Atrioventricular block (Odds Ratio, OR 8.20; 95% Confidence Interval, 95% CI 1.30-51.80), cerebrovascular thrombosis (OR 7.06; 95% CI 1.14-43.68), chronic kidney disease (OR 4.32; 95% CI 1.16-16.02), and acute heart failure (OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.28-3.03) hospitalizations were statistically significantly associated with carvedilol choice. Analogously, human insulin (OR 3.00; 95% CI 1.24-7.24), fondaparinux (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.17-5.21) or strontium ranelate (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.06-3.90) redeemed prescriptions. In conclusion, this study suggests the absence of beta-blockers exchangeability and a preferential choice of carvedilol in patients with heart failure, COPD and concurrent chronic kidney disease, atrioventricular block, cerebrovascular thrombosis, acute heart failure or redeeming human insulin, fondaparinux or strontium ranelate prescriptions. Therefore, it suggests that choice of prescribing carvedilol over metoprolol/bisoprolol/nebivolol is driven by differences in comorbidities and co-treatments.

Analysis of the Impact of Antiretroviral Drug Changes on Survival of Patients with Advanced-Stage AIDS with Multidrug-Resistant HIV Infection.

OBJECTIVES: This article aims to elucidate the relationship between antiretroviral (ARV) medication changes and all-cause mortality using a total of 368 patients recruited from the United States (78%), United Kingdom (11%), and Canada (11%). METHODS: Data sources included demographic characteristics, ARV treatment history and modifications, and clinical biomarker data from the completed OPTions In Management with Antiretrovirals clinical trial. Descriptive analysis and graphical trajectory representation of ARV drug modifications and biomarker changes were undertaken. Three hypotheses aimed at assessing the impact of ARV modification parameters on clinical outcomes were tested. Kaplan-Meier survival techniques as well as Cox proportional hazard regression models were employed. RESULTS: Results from the analyses suggest that (1) switching therapy strategy from an intensified ARV regimen to a less intense one or vice versa, (2) having a moderate number (up to 2) of ARV drug changes per 6 months, and (3) changes based on clinical/HIV-related reasons or nonclinical reasons compared to ARV drug regimen changes due to clinical non-HIV reasons improved survival. CONCLUSION: Modifications in the ARV regimens of HIV-infected patients with multidrug resistance are associated with improved survival.

Healthy User Bias in Comparative Safety Studies for Brand-Name vs. Generic Products: The Example of Warfarin.

Warfarin was selected as a case study to examine confounding when comparing a product across different manufacturers because it is a narrow therapeutic index drug with prevalent beliefs for brand-name superiority. Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with atrial fibrillation and an incident outpatient warfarin prescription from July 2006 through July 2015 were included in the study population (N = 746,098). Substantial imbalances were observed between brand-name warfarin and generics for (i) clinical comorbidity, (ii) socioeconomic status, (iii) prescriber specialty, (iv) recent ambulatory and emergent care, (v) drug adherence, (vi) pharmacy setting (e.g., retail, mail-order), and (vii) risk scores for bleeding and thrombosis. Patients receiving brand-name warfarin were healthier than patients receiving generic manufactured warfarin. Utilization of generic warfarin products also differed by geographic region and pharmacy setting. Manufacturer-level comparative-safety studies for causal inference should carefully consider the presence of these imbalances and their potential for introducing healthy user bias.

Universal premedication and therapeutic drug monitoring for asparaginase-based therapy prevents infusion-associated acute adverse events and drug substitutions.

BACKGROUND: Asparaginase is a critical component of lymphoblastic leukemia therapy, with intravenous pegaspargase (PEG) as the current standard product. Acute adverse events (aAEs) during PEG infusion are difficult to interpret, representing a mix of drug-inactivating hypersensitivity and noninactivating reactions. Asparaginase Erwinia chrysanthemi (ERW) is approved for PEG hypersensitivity, but is less convenient, more expensive, and yields lower serum asparaginase activity (SAA). We began a policy of universal premedication and SAA testing for PEG, hypothesizing this would reduce aAEs and unnecessary drug substitutions. PROCEDURE: Retrospective chart review of patients receiving asparaginase before and after universal premedication before PEG was conducted, with SAA performed 1 week later. We excluded patients who had nonallergic asparaginase AEs. Primary end point was substitution to ERW. Secondary end points included aAEs, SAA testing, and cost. RESULTS: We substituted to ERW in 21 of 122 (17.2%) patients pre-policy, and 5 of 68 (7.4%) post-policy (RR, 0.427; 95% CI, 0.27-0.69, P = 0.028). All completed doses of PEG yielded excellent SAA (mean, 0.90 units/mL), compared with ERW (mean, 0.15 units/mL). PEG inactivation post-policy was seen in 2 of 68 (2.9%), one silent and one with breakthrough aAE. The rate of aAEs pre/post-policy was 17.2% versus 5.9% (RR, 0.342; 95% CI, 0.20-0.58, P = 0.017). Grade 4 aAE rate pre/post-policy was 15% versus 0%. Cost analysis predicts $125 779 drug savings alone per substitution prevented ($12 402/premedicated patient). CONCLUSIONS: Universal premedication reduced substitutions to ERW and aAE rate. SAA testing demonstrated low rates of silent inactivation, and higher SAA for PEG. A substantial savings was achieved. We propose universal premedication for PEG be standard of care.

Efficacy of three filgrastim-intended copies for hematopoietic stem cell mobilization in healthy adult and pediatric donors in Mexico.

INTRODUCTION: The use of filgrastim biosimilars for healthy adult and pediatric donor mobilization in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been met with increased safety and efficacy concerns in contrast to generic small molecule drugs. In Mexico, several filgrastim-intended copies (FIC) have been available and marketed since 2001, while no clinical comparability studies to evaluate their use in this setting have been published and thus are not considered to be true biosimilars. In this study, we report our experience using three different FIC products currently available (Filatil, Dextrifyl, and Biofilgran). METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 118 related donors of all ages who received any brand 5 µg/kg subcutaneously twice daily for 4 days and were harvested in a single apheresis system on day 5. RESULTS: Donors had a median age of 38 years (range, 1-69). A successful harvest defined as ≥2 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg of recipient weight was achieved in 95.8% of cases, with a median CD34+ cell dose of 9.4 × 106 /kg (range 1-42.8). A single apheresis session was performed in 89.8% of cases. No significant difference in cell yield between each brand was observed. All pediatric donors had a successful harvest with similar results to adult donors. No immediate severe adverse effects were documented in any case. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, three FICs available in Mexico were efficacious and without immediate severe adverse effects, resulting in significant cost savings. Evaluation of immunogenicity and establishment of a pharmacovigilance program with the use of FICs is warranted.

Generic substitution of drugs in hospitals / Generisk bytte av legemidler i sykehus.

BACKGROUND: Nurses are frequently required to undertake generic substitution of drugs in hospitals. According to the prevailing regulations, nurses may only undertake such substitution based on the Norwegian Medicines Agency's substitution list or the local substitution list in the hospital's quality system. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A total of 600 nurses in 23 surgical and 28 medical wards in three health trusts were invited to participate in an online questionnaire survey on the generic substitution of drugs in hospitals. The study was undertaken to assess how current practice functions with regard to risk factors, documentation and potential improvements. RESULTS: The response rate for the survey was 52 %. A total of 57 % of nurses undertook generic substitution of drugs on a daily basis, while 8 % equally often left the decision to the doctor. In six hypothetical examples of generic substitution, the median number of incorrect responses by the nurses was two; the local substitution list was used as the only source of information in 23 % of cases, and none of the nurses used the Norwegian Medicines Agency's online substitution list. Altogether 37 % responded that generic substitution was recorded in 80 % or more of cases, while 18 % responded that a double-check was performed in 80 % or more of cases. INTERPRETATION: Generic substitution in hospitals entails a significant possibility of errors. Safety and documentation of generic substitution should primarily be taken care of by computerised solutions, with the introduction of an electronic medication chart. Alternatively, the approved substitution list should be the only source used for substitution.

To switch or not to switch: results of a nationwide guideline of mandatory switching from originator to biosimilar etanercept. One-year treatment outcomes in 2061 patients with inflammatory arthritis from the DANBIO registry.

OBJECTIVES: Real-world evidence on effectiveness of switching to biosimila r etanercept is scarce. In Denmark, a nationwide guideline of mandatory switch from 50 mg originator (ETA) to biosimilar (SB4) etanercept was issued for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) in 2016. Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes were studied in ETA-treated patients, who switched to SB4 (switchers) or maintained ETA (non-switchers). Retention rates were compared with that of a historic cohort of ETA-treated patients. Switchers who resumed ETA treatment (back-switchers) were characterised. METHODS: Observational cohort study based on the DANBIO registry. Treatment retention was explored by Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression (crude, adjusted). RESULTS: 1621 (79%) of 2061 ETA-treated patients switched to SB4. Disease activity was unchanged 3 months' preswitch/postswitch. Non-switchers often received 25 mg ETA (ETA 25 mg pens/syringes and powder solution were still available). One-year adjusted retention rates were: non-switchers: 77% (95% CI: 72% to 82%)/switchers: 83% (79% to 87%)/historic cohort: 90% (88% to 92%). Patients not in remission had lower retention rates than patients in remission, both in switchers (crude HR 1.7 (1.3 to 2.2)) and non-switchers (2.4 (1.7 to 3.6)). During follow-up, 120 patients (7% of switchers) back-switched to ETA. Back-switchers' clinical characteristics were similar to switchers, and reasons for SB4 withdrawal were mainly subjective. CONCLUSION: Seventy-nine per cent of patients switched from ETA to SB4. After 1 year, adjusted treatment retention rates were lower in switchers versus the historic ETA cohort, but higher than in non-switchers. Withdrawal was more common in patients not in remission. The results suggest that switch outcomes in routine care are affected by patient-related factors and non-specific drug effects.