A Critical Evaluation of Safety Signal Analysis Using Algorithmic Standardised MedDRA Queries.

INTRODUCTION: Algorithmic Standardised MedDRA® Queries (aSMQs) are increasingly used to enhance the efficiency of safety signal detection. The manner that aSMQs affect capture of potential safety cases is unclear. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to characterise the performance of aSMQs with respect to their potential for double counting, the likelihood of events in aSMQ positive cases being clinically related, how frequently terms are used for algorithmically positive cases, and the face validity of positive cases based on the drug inducing events. We were also interested in what effect requiring symptoms to overlap temporally would have on performance. METHODS: We reviewed adverse event (AE) datasets of New Drug Applications and Biological License Applications and compiled a database including preferred terms and corresponding SMQs, SMQ term categories, AE start day, AE duration, drug name, and Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical class. Two reviewers independently determined if the algorithm was met and, if so, whether the broad terms overlapped temporally. RESULTS: A total of 107 marketing applications were reviewed, including 103,928 patients and 277,430 AEs. Use of algorithms condensed the number of AEs to between 5 and 8% and the incidence to about 1.5% relative to when the SMQs are used without the algorithm. Certain aSMQs exhibited a potential for overcounting. Requiring symptoms to temporally overlap helped to eliminate irrelevant cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that algorithmic and temporal assessment increased specificity of case retrieval, though the reduction in the number of terms or incidence seemed excessive for certain aSMQs. Evaluating the day of AE onset and duration improve specificity through identification of outlying events. Identification of drug classes known to cause the aSMQ's clinical condition provides face validity for this tool, yet detection of cases associated with novel classes may provide new understanding of these disorders. Improvements in some of the SMQ term lists may improve the performance of SMQs in general.

Efficacy and safety of biosimilar insulins compared to their reference products: A systematic review.

IMPORTANCE: For nearly a century, no generic form of insulin has been available in the United States. However, the first biosimilar insulin, Basaglar, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2015, and subsequently Admelog and Lusduna in 2017. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the scientific evidence comparing the safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of biosimilar and reference insulin products. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences, South Asian Database of Controlled Clinical Trials, and IndiaMED from their inception through January 14, 2018. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing safety, clinical efficacy, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of any biosimilar insulin with a reference product in adults regardless of sample size and location. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two researchers independently reviewed all titles, abstracts and text; extracted data; and performed quality assessments. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of biosimilar and reference insulin products. RESULTS: Of 6945 articles screened, 11 studies were included in the data synthesis. LY2963016, Basalog, Basalin, and MK-1293 were compared to Lantus while SAR342434 was compared to Humalog. Three trials enrolled healthy volunteers, five enrolled type 1 diabetics, and two enrolled type 2 diabetics. One study enrolled both healthy and type 1 diabetics. Of the eleven studies, six examined pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic parameters and five examined clinical efficacy and immunogenicity. All studies included adverse events. All PK and/or PD studies showed that comparable parameters of biosimilar and reference products were within the pre-specified equivalence margins. Clinical studies suggested similar clinical efficacy and immunogenicity. Adverse events were similar between the groups across all studies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Few published studies have compared biosimilar and reference insulins, though those that did suggest that the biosimilars have comparable safety and clinical efficacy as its reference product.