Home / Biosimilars / Research

Research

Quality, safety and efficacy of the epoetin alfa biosimilar Binocrit compared to Erypo/Eprex

A detailed checklist on the quality, safety and efficacy assessment of biopharmaceuticals was published by Professors Irene Krämer, Roger Tredree and Arnold Vulto in the 2008 EJHP Practice article Points to consider in the evaluation of biopharmaceuticals (Eur J Hosp Pharm Prac. 2008;14(1):73-6). The checklist was then used by Dr Carsten Brockmeyer and Dr Andreas Seidl of Sandoz/Hexal for Binocrit, the results of which were published in Eur J Hosp Pharm Prac. 2009;15(2):34-40.

Rejected biosimilars: the Alpheon case

On 28 June 2006 the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the EMEA recommended the refusal of marketing authorisation for Alpheon (interferon alfa-2a), which was intended for the treatment of adult patients with chronic hepatitis C in combination with the antiviral medicine ribavirin (except when patients could not take this).

Economic issues with follow-on protein products

The economic effects of the possible introduction of follow-on protein products have been the subject of recent debate. In a study by Mr Michael Lanthier, Ms Rachel Behrman and Mr Clark Nardinelli of the US FDA, it was aimed to explore the economic issues surrounding this debate using three measures: total sales, product complexity and patent expiry.

Biosimilars and biopharmaceuticals: the ERA-EDTA position

In a position paper by the European Renal Association - European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) Council in Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation written by Adrian Covic of the Parhon University Hospital in Iasi, Romania – who received financial gratitude for congress participation, lectures and clinical trials from: Amgen, Affimax, F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Janssen-Cilag – and co-authors, it is stated that biosimilars may offer considerable advantages to hard-pressed healthcare economies, as the costs of providing effective therapies in a variety of new and existing disease areas increase progressively. However, a decision to permit their use clinically should be balanced by a clear mandate to ensure as with all biopharmaceutical agents, that patients, physicians and pharmacists truly understand the complex arguments and decisions which apply to this new and challenging area. In particular, pharmacovigilance is a responsibility that is shared between the pharmaceutical industry, pharmacists and physicians, with appropriately informed and educated patients. Ease of tracing and identification of new/substituted agents especially when dealing with patients who may be exposed to injected therapies for many years is a pivotal requirement and one where new input into nomenclature decisions and systems is now urgently needed. Any decision to employ biosimilar biopharmaceuticals should be taken with appropriate knowledge and understanding of this complex area by the primary responsible physician, after a careful appraisal of the advantages and disadvantages of taking this course of action, and with appropriate systems for pharmacovigilance in place.

What physicians need to know about biosimilars

Physicians should become aware of potential differences between biopharmaceuticals (biologicals) and their generic versions (called biosimilars in the EU and follow-on protein products in the US) that will soon enter the market, and that the impact on safety and efficacy is critical for patient safety. “Healthcare professionals need to understand the critical issues surrounding the use of biosimilars to make informed treatment decisions”, states Professor Huub Schellekens in Biosimilar therapeutics – what do we need to consider in NDT Plus. 2009;2(Suppl 1):i27-i36.

Key issues with biosimilars: impact on patient safety

The primary safety concern for biosimilar agents is their potential immunogenicity. Using biopharmaceuticals to replace endogenous proteins that may be present at insufficient concentrations carries the serious risk of stimulating the immune system to develop anti-product antibodies (Abs), which may cross-react with endogenous protein.

The economics of follow-on drug research and development

The development of so-called ‘me-too’ or ‘follow-on’ drugs by the pharmaceutical industry has been viewed by some as duplicative and wasteful, while others have argued that these drugs often provide needed therapeutic options and inject some price competition into the marketplace.

The challenge of biosimilars

In a study by Professor Håkan Mellstedt of the Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm, Sweden, Professor Dietger Niederwieser of the University of Leipzig, Germany, and Heinz Ludwig of the Wilhelminenspital, Vienna, Austria – who all served as ad hoc scientific advisors to Amgen – issues associated with the introduction of alternative versions of biosimilars used in the oncology setting were reviewed.

Scientific and legal viability of follow-on protein drugs

Since recombinant human insulin (Humulin) became the first recombinant-protein drug approved by the FDA 25 years ago, nearly 100 recombinant-protein therapeutics including other hormones and monoclonal antibodies, have become part of clinical practice. Though small-molecule drugs are more common than recombinant-protein drugs – only one of the top 200 prescribed drugs of 2006 (on the basis of prescription volume) was a recombinant protein – protein-based therapeutics have been used to treat diabetes and anaemia, as well as relatively rarer conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, Gaucher's disease, and multiple sclerosis.

Developing biosimilars: potential risks and challenges

Biologicals and biosimilars may often be beneficial, but sometimes new products may also give rise to some risks. Therefore it is important that clinicians familiarise themselves with the relevant literature on the safety and efficacy of these agents in various patient populations.

Generics News Research General

more

Biosimilars News Research General

more