Originator Product Research Articles

Pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence of two pomalidomide capsules in healthy chinese subjects under fasting and fed conditions.

Imnovid® is an immunomodulatory drug with antineoplastic activity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the bioequivalence and safety of the generic drug pomalidomide (Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd) and its originator product Imnovid® (Celgene Europe Ltd) in the fasting and fed states, respectively. The research consisted of two parts: one with a dose of 1mg and the other with a dose of 4mg. 48 healthy subjects were included in each study and were divided into two groups (fasting group and fed group) at a 1:1 ratio to administrate study drugs orally. The plasma drug concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The 90% CI of GMR for main pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters (Cmax, AUC0 - t and AUC0-∞) met the requirements of bioequivalence standards. The incidence and severity of AEs associated with pomalidomide and Imnovid® were similar. The results proved the PK parameters of pomalidomide and Imnovid® were similar and bioequivalent. Both drugs showed safety profile well.

TNF-alpha inhibitors biosimilar use in France: a nationwide population-based study using the French National Health Data System

TNF-alpha inhibitors have revolutionized the therapeutic care in chronic inflammatory diseases. Several biosimilar products were commercialized at their patent expiry, substantially decreasing the cost of treatment. This longitudinal descriptive study aimed at assessing infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab biosimilar penetration rates using data of the French National Health Data System. A total of 207,118 new or prevalent users from the date of first biosimilar commercialization in France (respectively January 2015, May 2016 and October 2018) were included in the study and followed until September 30, 2021. Biosimilars represented respectively 78%, 46% and 53% of the overall initiations, and 94%, 66% and 60% last year’s initiations. A total of 46%, 19% and 17% of originator product prevalent users switched for a biosimilar during the follow-up. Biosimilar penetration rate was much higher for infliximab than for its counterparts, due to its hospital delivery modality. Biosimilar initiation and originator-to-biosimilar switch tended to be observed more in rheumatology than in the other specialties. Biosimilar use was mostly consistent across patient socio-demographic characteristics. Biosimilar initiation rate increased rapidly from their market arrival and originator-to-biosimilar switch rate remained moderate, highlighting the need and usefulness of political action and biosimilar use tracking.

Identification of Barriers Preventing Biosimiliar Oncology Medication Adoption.

(1) Background: A biosimilar is a biologic medical product that has been approved by the United States Food and Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and is an almost identical copy of an original biologic product yet manufactured by a different company. Biosimilars are often assumed to be the same as generic medications, while often made from living organisms. Through clinical trials, biosimilars have been shown to be both as safe and as effective as their originator products. Biosimilars have also proven they can reduce the costs to both insurance companies and patients in many circumstances. However, despite their cost savings, biosimilar manufacturers continue to face barriers in having oncologists and cancer centers prescribe them for their patients. This review aims to identify barriers associated with medical provider prescriptive behaviors related to biosimilars for patients. (2) Methods: Reviewers analyzed 27 articles and identified common themes. (3) Results: After a thorough literature review, the researchers identified seven barriers to prescribing of biosimilars: physician comfort in originators instead of biosimilars, patient reluctance to switch from a current biologic to a biosimilar, provider profits associated with an originator biologic, lack of stakeholder education on biosimilars, lack of provider team knowledge of biosimilars, lack of knowledge surrounding the biosimilar FDA approval process, and hesitancy to stock multiple drugs for a specific indication. (4) Conclusions: This review's findings of identified barriers to use of biosimilars provides insight for healthcare providers and organizations surrounding prescribing practices and potential treatment benefits for cancer patients who may benefit from biosimilar treatment medications.

Comparison of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and immunogenicity of teriparatide biosimilar with EU- and US-approved teriparatide reference products in healthy men and postmenopausal women

SummaryBiosimilar teriparatide (INTG-8) was tested in a healthy population of males and postmenopausal females to assess pharmacokinetic bioequivalence to originator teriparatide comparator products. Primary pharmacokinetic comparison confirmed bioequivalence. Pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability were comparable to the originator products. INTG-8 was therefore confirmed to be biosimilar to originator products.IntroductionThe purpose of this present study was to demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence of a biosimilar teriparatide (INTG8) to EU- and US-approved teriparatide reference products in healthy men and postmenopausal women. Secondary objectives included comparison of the pharmacodynamics (PD), safety, and tolerability.MethodsOne hundred and five subjects randomly (1:1:1) received single subcutaneous 20 μg injection of teriparatide biosimilar, EU- and US-teriparatide on 3 consecutive days in this assessor-blind, three-period, single-dose, crossover study. Maximum serum concentration (Cmax), area under the curve (AUC) from time zero to t (AUC0-t), and AUC from time zero extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞) were primary PK parameters, analyzed by non-compartmental methods. The secondary PD endpoints were maximum observed effect (Emax), area under the effect curve (AUE) from time zero to the last measurable concentration (AUE0–t), and time to maximum observed effect (Tmax) for total serum calcium levels. Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity were also evaluated. This study was registered with ctri.nic.in/ (CTRI/2020/10/028627) on 26 October 2020.ResultsBaseline demographics were similar across the three-treatment sequence groups. The 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the geometric mean ratios (test:reference) of Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ were within the predefined bioequivalence criterion of 80.00% to 125.00%, which demonstrated PK equivalence of teriparatide biosimilar to EU- and US-teriparatide for all primary endpoints. The PD comparability was demonstrated by similar serum calcium levels. Study treatments were generally well tolerated and showed no meaningful differences in safety or immunogenicity profiles. There were no deaths, or serious AEs were reported during this study.ConclusionThe study demonstrated PK bioequivalence of teriparatide biosimilar to the EU- and US-teriparatide reference products with comparable PD, safety, and immunogenicity profiles.

The Role of PD Biomarkers in Biosimilar Development - To Get the Right Answer One Must First Ask the Right Question.

The potential for pharmacodynamic (PD) biomarkers to improve the efficiency of biosimilar product development and regulatory approval formed the premise for the virtual workshop Pharmacodynamic Biomarkers for Biosimilar Development and Approval hosted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Duke Margolis, September 2021. Although the possibility of PD biomarkers replacing the to-date routine comparative phase III confirmatory study currently expected by the FDA was discussed, the motivation and feasibility for biosimilar sponsors developing such markers and the regulatory risks entailed largely were not. Even more fundamental is the already established greater comparative value of the pharmacokinetic (PK) study as the most sensitive clinical assay for detecting subtle differences between two products. Consequently, the comparative analytical assessment and the head-to-head PKs will have already answered the core questions as to the biosimilarity of the candidate product to its reference. No further actionable information is obtained with either a PD study or a comparative clinical phase III study even as they may provide some reassurance of what is already known. When a suitable PD biomarker is available for the originator reference product they have already been used for biosimilar development. We must carefully consider the core requirements and timelines inherent in biosimilar development and how they occur in parallel rather than in the series we see for originator products. In order to improve the efficiency of biosimilar development, we need to ask the right questions based on a full understanding of how biosimilars have been developed to date and can be in the future.

Biosimilars: Science, Implications, and Potential Outlooks in the Middle East and Africa

Biosimilars are biological products that efficiently replicate the function of the originator products. They have changed the prognosis of millions of patients with many serious conditions. The main engine beyond their development is to bring competition into the marketplace, accordingly further the healthcare systems’ sustainability. Furthermore, by lowering financial obstacles to biological treatments, biosimilars play a critical role in budgetary redistribution and, hence, promote better allocation of scarce healthcare resources. Today, biosimilars have become a substantial component of effective biological therapies anywhere in the world. Alike, most Middle East and African countries are encouraging the domestic biosimilars industry, and the whole region is aware of the biosimilars’ importance. However, constraints to increasing biosimilars uptake should be addressed.

Comparing efficacy and safety of P013, a proposed pertuzumab biosimilar, with the reference product in HER2-positive breast cancer patients: a randomized, phase III, equivalency clinical trial

BackgroundBreast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading reason for cancer-related death among women. Neoadjuvant treatment with dual-HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) blockade has shown promising effects in this regard. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of a proposed pertuzumab biosimilar with the reference pertuzumab.MethodsThis randomized, phase III, multicenter, equivalency clinical trial was conducted on chemotherapy-naive women with HER2-positive breast cancer. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive six cycles of either P013 (CinnaGen, Iran) or the originator product (Perjeta, Roche, Switzerland) along with trastuzumab, carboplatin, and docetaxel every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified by cancer type (operable, locally advanced, inflammatory) and hormone receptor status. The primary endpoint was breast pathologic complete response (bpCR). Secondary endpoints included comparisons of total pCR, overall response rate (ORR), breast-conserving surgery (BCS), safety, and immunogenicity.ResultsTwo hundred fourteen patients were randomized to treatment groups. bpCR rate in the per-protocol population was 67.62% in the P013 and 71.57% in the reference drug groups. Based on bpCR, P013 was equivalent to the reference pertuzumab with a mean difference of − 0.04 (95% CI: − 0.16, 0.09). Secondary endpoints were also comparable between the two groups.ConclusionsThe proposed biosimilar P013 was equivalent to the reference product in terms of efficacy. The safety of both medications was also comparable.

Under the Umbrella of Clinical Pharmacology: Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Infliximab and Adalimumab, and a Bridge to an Era of Biosimilars.

Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) have revolutionized the treatment of many chronic inflammatory diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). IBD is a term that comprises two quite similar, yet distinctive, disorders—Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Two blockbuster MAbs, infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADL), transformed the pharmacological approach of treating CD and UC. However, due to the complex interplay of pharmacology and immunology, MAbs face challenges related to their immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safety. To ease the burden of IBD and other severe diseases, biosimilars have emerged as a cost-effective alternative to an originator product. According to the current knowledge, biosimilars of IFX and ADL in IBD patients are shown to be as safe and effective as their originators. The future of biosimilars, in general, is promising due to the potential of making the health care system more sustainable. However, their use is accompanied by misconceptions regarding their effectiveness and safety, as well as by controversy regarding their interchangeability. Hence, until a scientific consensus is achieved, scientific data on the long-term effectiveness and safety of biosimilars are needed.

Antihypertensive medicine use differs between Ghana and Nigeria

BackgroundNon-communicable diseases are a growing burden in many African countries; cardiovascular disease is the main disease. Antihypertensive medicines (AHM) are a common treatment option but we know little about community use in most low- and medium-income countries (LMIC). We aimed to describe the use of antihypertensive medicines (AHM) in Ghana and Nigeria using a novel data source.MethodsWe used data from mPharma—a health and pharmaceutical company which distributes pharmaceuticals to hospital and retail pharmacies. We extracted data using the anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) classification codes and calculated use in defined daily doses and explored patterns by class, medicines, dose, and originator or generic product.ResultsAHM use differed between Ghana and Nigeria. The most used classes in Ghana were angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) followed by calcium channel blockers (CCB) and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi). The five most used products were 16 mg candesartan, 30 mg nifedipine, 10 mg lisinopril, 5 mg amlodipine and 50 mg losartan. In Nigeria ARB, CCB and diuretics were widely used; the top five products were 50 mg losartan, 10 mg lisinopril, 30 mg nifedipine, 40 mg furosemide, and 5 mg amlodipine. More originator products were used in Ghana than Nigeria.ConclusionThe differences between Ghana and Nigeria may result from a combination of medical, contextual and policy evidence and reflect factors related to clinical guidance (e.g. standard treatment guidelines), accessibility to prescribers and the role of community pharmacies, and structure of the health system and universal health coverage including funding for medicines. We show the feasibility of using novel data sources to gain insights on medicines use in the community.

The Price and Market Share Evolution of the Original Biologics and Their Biosimilars in Finland.

BackgroundBiological drugs are generally expensive and produce a continuously growing share of drug costs. Yet they are essential in the treatment of many chronic diseases. Biosimilars, clinically equivalent to biological originator products, are expected to restrain drug costs in the biological market.ObjectiveThis study aimed to examine the impact of the biosimilar market entry on the prices of the reference products in outpatient care in Finland, investigate the impact of biosimilar market entries on price competition among biological medicinal products, and examine how the prices and market shares of outpatient biosimilars have developed in Finland during 2009–2020.MethodsThis retrospective register study applied data from IQVIA covering national community pharmacy wholesale data between 1 January, 2009, and 31 August, 2020, for somatropin, epoetin, filgrastim, follitropin, insulin glargine, insulin lispro, etanercept, pegfilgrastim, adalimumab, teriparatide, and enoxaparin biosimilars and their reference products, in addition to two relevant insulin products. We determined the monthly wholesale amounts in defined daily doses and wholesale weighted average prices (excluding value-added tax) per defined daily dose for each product. We analyzed the evolution of the price and market shares. We performed a linear segmented regression analysis to examine the impact of the market entry of biosimilars on the prices of reference products.ResultsThe prices of the reference products mainly decreased after the biosimilar entered the market. If the reference product price was not reduced, it was no longer reimbursable after evaluation under the Health Insurance Act, leading to marginal market shares. The changes in the prices of biosimilars were not as remarkable as the changes in the prices of reference products after the biosimilar market entry. For most active substances, biosimilar prices were stable or decreased. The utilization of biosimilars varied widely between different active substances at the end of the observation period.ConclusionsChanges in pricing policy and the public reimbursement scheme related to the market entry of biosimilars were the main reasons for the decrease in the prices of reference products. Therefore, biosimilars did not generate genuine price competition between biological products. In many of the drug groups examined, the market shares of biosimilars have growth potential in the future.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-022-00540-y.

Efficacy and safety of the biosimilar denosumab candidate (Arylia) compared to the reference product (Prolia®) in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a phase III, randomized, two-armed, double-blind, parallel, active-controlled, and noninferiority clinical trial

Background/objectiveOsteoporosis is a global health concern with an increasing prevalence worldwide. Denosumab is an antiresoptive agent that has been demonstrated to be effective and safe in osteoporotic patients. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the biosimilar denosumab candidate (Arylia) to the originator product (Prolia®) in postmenopausal osteoporotic patients.MethodsIn this randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, noninferiority trial, postmenopausal osteoporotic patients received 60 mg of subcutaneous Arylia or Prolia® at months 0, 6, and 12 and were followed up for 18 months. The primary endpoint was the noninferiority of the biosimilar product to the reference product in the percentage change of bone mineral density (BMD) in 18 months at the lumbar spine (L1-L4), total hip, and femoral neck. The secondary endpoints were safety assessment, the incidence of new vertebral fractures, and the trend of bone turnover markers (BTMs).ResultsA total of 190 patients were randomized to receive either biosimilar (n = 95) or reference (n = 95) denosumab. In the per-protocol (PP) analysis, the lower limits of the 95% two-sided confidence intervals of the difference between Arylia and Prolia® in increasing BMD were greater than the predetermined noninferiority margin of − 1.78 at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck sites (mean differences [95% CIs] of 0.39 [− 1.34 to 2.11], 0.04 [− 1.61 to 1.69], and 0.41 [− 1.58 to 2.40], respectively). The two products were also comparable in terms of safety, new vertebral fractures, and trend of BTMs.ConclusionThe efficacy of the biosimilar denosumab was shown to be noninferior to that of the reference denosumab, with a comparable safety profile at 18 months.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03293108; Registration date: 2017–09-19.

Hospitalization rate differences among cancer patients on biologics and biosimilars.

e13530 Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN), a severe adverse effect of many cancer treatments, often results in emergency hospitalizations. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF; filgrastim and pegfilgrastim) have proven efficacy in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and are associated with reducing FN and hospitalizations. Clinical studies have shown that biosimilars are comparable to their originator products; however, no real-world studies on the impact of biosimilar G-CSF on FN hospitalizations exist. We hypothesize that no difference in FN-related hospitalizations between biosimilar and originator biologic G-CSF will occur. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients receiving either biologic G-CSF or biosimilar G-CSF from 5/1/2018 through 4/30/2021. Patients were followed from their initial G-CSF fill during the study period until 30 days following the last dose received. Patients were excluded if they switched exposure groups during the study period or did not maintain eligibility for the duration of follow-up. The primary outcome was FN hospital admission rate between the two groups, defined as any inpatient claims with the primary diagnosis ICD-10 code D70.1 or R50.2. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were conducted to account for confounding between the groups. Incidence rates were calculated per 1000 person-years of exposure (PY); p-values < 0.05 were considered significant. Results: A total of 13,670 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 6,939 (50.8%) receiving biologic G-CSF. Biosimilar patients were younger (Mean [standard deviation (SD)]: 63.8 [13.4] vs. 65.5 [13.0] p < 0.05), male (40.0% vs. 37.2%; p < 0.05), had more G-CSF claims (Mean [SD]: 5.6 [6.8] vs. 4.5 [4.3]; p < 0.05) and were more likely to utilize a specialty pharmacy (10.1% vs. 4.7%; p < 0.05). Pegfilgrastim was the most common G-CSF medication overall (73.5%); however, filgrastim use was significantly more common in biosimilar patients (43.2% vs. 10.4%; p < 0.05). FN hospitalizations were rare, with 1.1% of patients experiencing an event. No difference in hospitalizations were noted (biosimilars: 1.1%, biologics: 1.0%; p = 0.39). After regression, no factors analyzed were associated with FN-related hospitalizations. Crude FN incidence rates were 45.9 cases per 1000 PY (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 35.6-56.1 per 1000 PY) among biosimilar patients compared to 37.5 cases per 1000 PY (95% CI: 28.6-46.4 per 1000 PY) among biologic patients, resulting in a rate difference of 8.3 cases per 1000 PY (95% CI: 5.2-22.0 cases per 1000 PY; p = 0.22). Conclusions: In a large real-world analysis, biosimilar G-CSF demonstrated similar effectiveness in preventing FN hospitalization as originator biologic G-CSF agents.

Patents And Regulatory Exclusivities On Inhalers For Asthma And COPD, 1986-2020.

Inhalers are the mainstay of treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These products face limited generic competition in the US and remain expensive. To better understand the strategies that brand-name inhaler manufacturers have employed to preserve their market dominance, we analyzed all patents and regulatory exclusivities granted to inhalers approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 1986 and 2020. Of the sixty-two inhalers approved, fifty-three were brand-name products, and these brand-name products had a median of sixteen years of protection from generic competition. Only one inhaler contained an ingredient with a new mechanism of action. More than half of all patents were on the inhaler devices, not the active ingredients or other aspects of these drug-device combinations. Manufacturers augmented periods of brand-name market exclusivity by moving active ingredients from one inhaler device into another ("device hops"). The median time from approval of an originator product to the last-to-expire patent or regulatory exclusivity of branded follow-ons was twenty-eight years (across device hops on fourteen originator products). Regulatory and patent reform is critical to ensure that the rewards bestowed on brand-name inhaler manufacturers better reflect the added clinical benefit of new products.

Bioequivalence Studies of New Generic Formulations of Vildagliptin and Fixed-Drug Combination of Vildagliptin and Metformin Versus Respective Originator Products in Healthy Volunteers.

IntroductionVildagliptin and metformin are two well-established oral antidiabetics with a complementary mechanism of action. Two new generic products, vildagliptin and its fixed-drug combination (FDC) with metformin, were tested for bioequivalence versus the approved originator reference products (Galvus® and Eucreas®).MethodsThree randomized studies with two-treatment, two-period, two-sequence crossover design were conducted in healthy adults. One study evaluated vildagliptin 50 mg tablets as single dose under fasting conditions. Vildagliptin–metformin FDC tablet strengths of 50/850 mg and 50/1000 mg were evaluated in separate studies as single dose under fed conditions, given 30 min after a standardized high-fat, high-calorie breakfast following 10 h overnight fasting. Blood samples for analysis were collected until 24 h after dosing in each study period. Bioequivalence between test (T) and reference (R) products required 90% confidence interval (CIs) for the geometric least square (LS) mean T/R ratio to be within 80–125% for the pharmacokinetic parameters, maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), and area under the curve (AUC0–t).ResultsThe 90% CIs of geometric LS means of T/R ratio for Cmax and AUC0–t with vildagliptin tablets of 50 mg were 92.22–103.94% and 99.00–102.66%, respectively; corresponding results with FDC tablets for 50/850 mg tablets were 94.81–115.41% and 95.28–106.00% for vildagliptin and 90.87–101.18% and 90.56–100.09% for metformin; for 50/1000 mg tablets Cmax and AUC0–t were 105.56–122.30% and 98.30–107.55%, respectively, for vildagliptin and 92.14–103.73% and 94.60–101.81%, respectively, for metformin. Other parameters such as AUC0–∞, time to maximum concentration (Tmax), and terminal half-life (t1/2) were comparable between test and reference products. Adverse events (AEs), mainly vomiting, were reported without relevant difference between test and reference products in each study. AEs were generally mild and transient. No severe or serious AEs occurred.ConclusionsThe new generic drug products of vildagliptin and the FDCs of vildagliptin and metformin demonstrated bioequivalence to the approved originator products and are therefore expected to provide similar therapeutic effects.

P006 Rituximab biosimilar switching shows non-inferior outcomes in routine clinical practice

Abstract Background/Aims Biosimilar biologic therapy has been widely implemented in recent years. However, little data exists outwith clinical trials to confirm patient response to therapy and any safety signal following switch from originator products or between biosimilars. This study reviewed all rheumatoid arthritis patients prescribed biosimilar rituximab in a ‘real world' clinical practice setting to a certain clinical response following switching. Methods Retrospective review of clinical data from medical record was undertaken across three hospital sites in the UK. Patients were identified from biologic database and infusion facility records. Basic demographics were collected. The current biosimilar brand of rituximab, previous brands including originator were also collected and previous record of biologic and steroid therapy. The DAS-28 ESR was recorded pre- and post-biosimilar switch along with any note of infusion reactions. Results The database screening of 925 patients on biologic therapy identified 64 patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking rituximab biosimilar therapy. 48 female and 16 male patients with mean disease duration of 7.7 years were identified. 78% of patients were seropositive and all were on 6-monthly pulse infusions of 1g rituximab, 2 weeks apart. 34 (52%) patients were also taking methotrexate, (mean dose of 15mg/wk). Nine patients (14%) were taking concurrent oral prednisolone. Mean current DAS-28 ESR was 3.23. At biosimilar initiation DAS-28 was 4.00 (19% fall, non-significant). There were 14 adverse events, of which 11 were infusion-related reactions, six of which were for truxima, the remainder were with mabthera and rixathon. No anaphylaxis was recorded, although one patient had a hypersensitivity reaction. 38 (59%) patients had rituximab as first biologic. Conclusion This ‘real-life’ clinical review found similar clinical efficacy of rituximab biosimilar to originator product based on the DAS-28 ESR score. There were no notable safety or infusion differences. Disclosure J. Bilan: None. X. Chew: None. M.E. Perry: Honoraria; Lilly, Celltrion, Gilead, Abbvie, Biogen, Jaansen.

"Biosimilar, so it looks alike, but what does it mean?" A qualitative study of Danish patients' perceptions of biosimilars.

Biosimilars are highly similar follow‐on products for biologics that can foster biologics competition. Questionnaire studies have attempted to gauge the patient perspective on biosimilars, but none have delved deeper into how patients view biologics and switching of these. Considering Denmark has one of the highest biosimilar uptakes worldwide, the aim of this study was to investigate how Danish patients with psoriasis, arthritic diseases or inflammatory bowel disease perceive biosimilars. Twelve participants were semi‐structurally interviewed in either a focus group or an internet‐based, individual interview between May 2019 and July 2019. Content analysis was inductively applied. Participants on originators voiced more reluctance towards using biosimilars than those already using them. Both participants using originator and biosimilar products expressed concerns about reoccurrence of disease symptoms due to differences in effectiveness and safety. Participants generally struggled with understanding biosimilarity, and they voiced a need to be well‐informed about switching. They were all aware of and accepted how healthcare budget restrictions played a role in the push to use biosimilars. To improve biosimilar uptake and willingness to switch to a biosimilar, patient‐centred information on efficacy and safety and explanation of the societal benefits of the savings from using biosimilars must be carefully communicated.

Streamlining the Characterization of Disulfide Bond Shuffling and Protein Degradation in IgG1 Biopharmaceuticals Under Native and Stressed Conditions.

Post translational modifications (PTMs) have been shown to negatively impact protein efficacy and safety by altering its native conformation, stability, target binding and/or pharmacokinetics. One PTM in particular, shuffled disulfide bonds, has been linked to decreased potency and increased immunogenicity of protein therapeutics. In an effort to gain more insights into the effects of shuffled disulfide bonds on protein therapeutics’ safety and efficacy, we designed and further optimized a semi-automated LC-MS/MS method for disulfide bond characterization on two IgG1 protein therapeutics—rituximab and bevacizumab. We also compared originator vs. biosimilar versions of the two therapeutics to determine if there were notable variations in the disulfide shuffling and overall degradation between originator and biosimilar drug products. From our resulting data, we noticed differences in how the two proteins degraded. Bevacizumab had a general upward trend in shuffled disulfide bond levels over the course of a 4-week incubation (0.58 ± 0.08% to 1.46 ± 1.10% for originator) whereas rituximab maintained similar levels throughout the incubation (0.24 ± 0.21% to 0.51 ± 0.11% for originator). When we measured degradation by SEC and SDS-PAGE, we observed trends that correlated with the LC-MS/MS data. Across all methods, we observed that the originator and biosimilar drugs performed similarly. The results from this study will help provide groundwork for comparative disulfide shuffling analysis by LC-MS/MS and standard analytical methodology implementation for the development and regulatory approval of biosimilars.

An Introduction to Biosimilars for the Treatment of Retinal Diseases: A Narrative Review.

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of disease across a number of therapeutic areas including retinal diseases. However, on occasion, such treatments may be relatively more expensive compared to small molecule therapies. This can restrict patient access and treatment length leading to suboptimal clinical outcomes. Several biosimilar candidates of ranibizumab and aflibercept are currently in development and the first biosimilar of ranibizumab received EMA approval in August and FDA approval in September 2021. Biosimilars are biological medicines that are highly similar to an already-approved biological medicine (reference product). The physicochemical and clinical similarity of a biosimilar is determined by a rigorous analytical and clinical program, including extensive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis with phase III equivalence studies where appropriate. These phase III studies are carried out in a patient population that is representative of all of the potential approved therapeutic indications of the originator product and the most sensitive for detecting potential differences between the biosimilar and the reference product. Biosimilars have been used successfully across a wide range of therapeutic areas for the past 15 years where they have achieved substantial cost savings that can be reinvested into healthcare systems without affecting the quality of patient care. The current review provides an introduction to biosimilars with the aim of preparing retinal specialists for discussing these products with their patients.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40123-022-00488-w.

Clinical Outcome and Medical Cost of Originator and Generic Antihypertensive Drugs: A Population-Based Study in Yinzhou, China.

Background: The substitution of generic drugs can effectively alleviate the rapid growth of drug costs; however, the clinical effectiveness and medical costs of originator products and generics were barely studied in China. Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs and hypertension-related medical costs between originator and generic initiators in Yinzhou, China. Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using the Chinese Electronic Health Records Research in Yinzhou (CHERRY), from July 1, 2011, to December 31, 2018. Hypertension patients initiating with originator products were compared with patients initiating with generic counterparts. We used 1:1 propensity score matching to pair the two groups based on sociodemographic, clinical, and health service utilization variables. Cox proportional regression was adopted to compare the rate of hospitalization for hypertension-related cardiovascular disease between matched originator and generic initiators. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test was used to compare annual hypertension-related medical costs. Results: Matched pairs (10,535) of patients were included in the comparative study of originator products and generics, corresponding to seven antihypertensive drugs including amlodipine, felodipine, nifedipine, irbesartan, losartan, valsartan, and metoprolol. The average age of patients included in the analysis was around 60 years (originator vs. generics initiators: from 59.0 vs. 59.1 years in losartan to 62.9 vs. 63.6 years in nifedipine). Higher hospitalization rates among originator initiators were observed for three calcium channel blockers (hazard ratio[95% CI]: amlodipine, 3.18[1.43, 7.11]; felodipine, 3.60[1.63, 7.98]; and nifedipine, 3.86[1.26, 11.81]; respectively). The remaining four out of seven drugs of the clinical endpoint estimates showed comparable outcomes between originator products and generics (hazard ratio[95% CI]: irbesartan, 1.19[0.50, 2.84]; losartan, 1.84[0.84, 4.07]; valsartan, 2.04[0.72, 5.78]; and metoprolol, 1.25[0.56, 2.80]; respectively). Higher median annual hypertension-related medical costs were observed in originator initiators (all p < 0.001), except for metoprolol (p = 0.646). Conclusion: We observed comparable or even better clinical outcomes and less medical cost associated with the use of antihypertensive generics compared to originator counterparts. This could help increase patient and provider confidence in the efficacy of generic medicines to manage hypertension diseases.

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.