Barriers towards effective pharmacovigilance systems of biosimilars in rheumatology: A Latin American survey

Biosimilars approvals by thirteen regulatory authorities: A cross-national comparison

Biosimilars are biological medicines highly similar to a previously licensed reference product and their licensing is expected to improve access to biological therapies. This study aims to present an overview of biosimilars approval by thirteen regulatory authorities (RA). The study is a cross-national comparison of regulatory decisions involving biosimilars in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Canada, Colombia, Europe, Hungary, Guatemala, Italy, Mexico, Peru and United States. We examined publicly available documents containing information regarding the approval of biosimilars and investigated the publication of public assessment reports for registration applications, guidelines for biosimilars licensing, and products approved. Data extraction was conducted by a network of researchers and regulatory experts. All the RA had issued guidance documents establishing the requirements for the licensing of biosimilars. However, only three RA had published public assessment reports for registration applications. In total, the investigated jurisdictions had from 19 to 78 biosimilars approved, most of them licensed from 2018 to 2020. In spite of the advance in the number of products in recent years, some challenges still persist. Limited access to information regarding the assessment of biosimilars by RA can affect confidence, which may ultimately impact adoption of these products in practice.

The whole experience of public hospital physicians from several specialties with biopharmaceutical effectiveness, safety, adverse drug reactions and interchangeability: A qualitative study

Background

Although there is increasing support for biosimilar medicines by the Iraqi Ministry of Health (MOH), there is scarce information about whether physicians accept these medicines and support movement toward replacing reference medicines with their biosimilar counterparts.

Objectives

The study objectives were to 1) explore in-depth the perceptions of Iraqi physicians working in public hospitals about the difference in effectiveness and safety between biosimilar medicines and their reference biological counterparts, 2) evaluate physicians' barriers to prescribing biosimilar medicines, 3) assess the adherence of physicians to the new pharmacovigilance regulations on reporting biopharmaceutical adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and 4) identify any barriers facing physicians to reporting biopharmaceutical- ADRs.

Methods

This qualitative study included face-to-face and virtual semi-structured interviews involving physicians from different disciplines who had experience with biological or biosimilar medicines. The interviews were conducted between November 6, 2020, and February 7, 2021. Thematic analyses were used to analyze qualitative data generated from the interviews.

Results

The study sample included 36 physicians (6 women and 30 men) from seven different specialties at ten governmental hospitals mainly in Baghdad, and one physician was from Mosul, Iraq. Because most physicians had insufficient experience with biosimilar medications and were not sure about their effectiveness, the majority were hesitant to prescribe them. Most physicians preferred to prescribe reference biological medicines initially. However, the initial prescribing and switching between a reference and counterpart biosimilar relies on its availability. They chose biosimilar medications that have been approved by the U.S. FDA or EMA. Most physicians were unaware about the new pharmacovigilance regulations to report adverse biopharmaceutical reactions. The physicians tended to underreport biopharmaceutical ADRs and believed that inadequate physician-pharmacist collaboration negatively impacts preventing and reporting ADRs.

Conclusions

Medicine procurement in healthcare settings should focus on sustainably securing high-quality biopharmaceuticals rather than looking only at costs to enhance physician experience and patient clinical outcomes. Promoting documentation, monitoring, and physician-pharmacist collaboration is pivotal to prevent, monitor, and treat biopharmaceutical ADRs.

•

It explored the experience of physicians with the safety and effectiveness of biopharmaceutical medications.

•

It was the first in-depth, field-based study investigating the facilitators and barriers of biosimilar medicines prescribing among Iraqi physicians.

•

The study findings help to assess the impact of the regulations of the Iraqi Pharmacovigilance Center regarding biopharmaceuticals.

•

The study can explain in depth the barriers facing physicians to report ADRs related to biopharmaceutical medications

•

It can assist health officials to approve and procure biopharmaceuticals in a way helps physicians and satisfy patient needs

Equivalence and switching between biosimilars and reference molecules in rheumatoid arthritis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic drugs such as adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab represent major first-line and second-line treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, their high cost poses a massive burden on healthcare systems worldwide. The expiration of patents for these biologics has driven the production of biosimilar drugs, which are potentially less costly and remarkably similar, albeit not identical to the reference molecules. This paper aims to outline the protocol of a systematic review that will investigate the efficacy and safety profile of biosimilars compared to biologics (objective 1) and the impact of switching between biosimilar drugs and reference biologics on the management of RA patients (objective 2).

METHODS

We will investigate the effects of any biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on RA patients. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs to assess efficacy and safety outcomes and RCTs with two- or multiple-part designs to evaluate the consequences of switching from reference biologics to biosimilar drugs (and vice-versa). Electronic searches will be performed through MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL (from inception to April 2021). Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data, and evaluate the risk of bias. The latter will be carried out considering specific domains from equivalence trials and switching studies. Random-effects models will be fitted to obtain summary estimates using either relative risk or standardized mean difference as a metric. The primary outcome will be the rate of treatment success according to the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20), and the co-primary outcome will be the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Conclusions will be based on equivalence hypothesis testing using predefined margins of equivalence elicited from a group of experienced rheumatologists and prior studies. The overall certainty of the evidence will be assessed based on the GRADE system.

DISCUSSION

The present investigation proposes a comprehensive, clinician-oriented approach to assess the equivalence and the impact of switching between biosimilars and biologics on the management of patients with RA. Our results will elucidate the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity of biosimilars, and the clinical consequences of substituting biologics with biosimilars in the management of RA.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019137152 and CRD42019137155.

The Challenges of Switching Therapies in an Evolving Multiple Biosimilars Landscape: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence

With the increasing availability of biosimilars, the practice of switching therapies for non-medical reasons between an originator biologic and an analogous biosimilar has become more common. The evidence to support this practice mostly comes from single-switch randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world (RW) evidence studies. However, as more biosimilars of the same originator enter the market, multiple switching events between originators and biosimilars is becoming a reality, despite limited evidence to support the efficacy and safety of such practice. Some countries have established guidelines, policies, or laws related to interchangeability and/or automatic substitution, whereas others have left these practices unregulated or controlled by other components of the healthcare system. Collectively, guidelines on single non-medical switching are often vague, with even less focus given to multiple non-medical switching, leaving this practice mostly unregulated. This narrative review will first discuss the current regulatory perspectives on non-medical switching and challenges associated with switching therapies, particularly with the availability of multiple biosimilars. We will then review the current evidence from RCTs and RW studies in the light of three different multiple-switch scenarios currently taking place in clinical practice: switching between an originator and a single biosimilar, switching between biosimilars of the same originator, and the clinical practice of switching back to the originator (i.e., switchbacks) after a failure of the initial non-medical switch to the analogous biosimilar.

Health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health technology assessment (HTA) should provide an assessment of a technology's effects on health and of the related social, economic, organisational and ethical issues. HTA reports on biosimilars can specifically assess their immunogenicity, their extrapolation to one or more conditions, and the risks of interchangeability and substitution. We aimed to complete a scoping review within the context of HTA organisations to synthesise HTA reports on biosimilars and to map the extension, scope and methodological practices.

MAIN BODY

A scoping review methodology was applied. The sources for biosimilars HTA reports were database searches and grey literature from HTA organisation websites up to June 2019. HTA reports of biosimilars were classified as full HTA, mini-HTA or rapid reviews. Data were extracted and recorded on a calibrated predefined data form. We identified 70 HTA reports of biosimilars of 16 biologic products (65.71% in 2015-2018) produced by 13 HTA organisations from 10 countries; 2 full HTAs, 4 mini-HTAs and 64 rapid reviews met the inclusion criteria. Almost all the rapid reviews gave no information regarding any evidence synthesis method and approximately half of the rapid reviews did not appraise the risk of bias of primary studies or the overall quality of evidence. All full-HTAs and mini-HTAs addressed organisational, ethical, social and legal considerations, while these factors were assessed in less than half of the rapid reviews. The immunogenicity and extrapolation of one or more conditions were often considered. The majority of full-HTAs and mini-HTAs contained an assessment of switching and a discussion of an educational approach about biosimilars. No HTA report rejected the adoption/reimbursement of the biosimilar assessed.

CONCLUSION

HTA of biosimilars are emerging in the context of HTA organisations and those that exist often duplicate reports of the same biosimilar. Most HTA reports of biosimilars do not conduct a systematic literature review or consider economic issues. No report has rejected the adoption/reimbursement of biosimilars. There is a need to standardise the minimum criteria for the development of HTA on biosimilars to ensure a better understanding and better decision-making.

Clinical and Regulatory Concerns of Biosimilars: A Review of Literature

Although biosimilars have been part of clinical practice for more than a decade, healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not fully accept them. This is because of the perception that biosimilars may not be like their originators in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. This study aims to evaluate the current knowledge and attitudes of healthcare professionals toward biosimilar prescription, and to elaborate on their concerns. We reviewed the literature using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct electronic databases in the period from 2018 to 2020. The knowledge and confidence of healthcare professionals vary between countries, between clinical profiles and between studies. Although most of the healthcare professionals had a positive attitude to prescribing biosimilars, they would still prefer to prescribe them in initial treatment. Generally, HCPs were against multiple switches and substitution of biosimilars at the pharmacy level. HCP's key concern was interchangeability, with eventual consequences on the clinical outcome of patients. HCPs still approach biosimilars with caution and stigma. HCPs need to have an unbiased coherent understanding of biosimilars at clinical, molecular and regulatory levels. It was also observed that most of their concerns are more theoretical than science-based. Physicians are in an excellent position to accept biosimilars, but they need the additional support of regulatory authorities to approve and take into consideration the available scientific data regarding biosimilars.

Barriers towards effective pharmacovigilance systems of biosimilars in rheumatology: A Latin American survey

Purpose

This review summarises the current status of regulatory guidelines for the approval of biosimilars in Latin America and highlights the main barriers to effective pharmacovigilance in this region. We also report results from a survey of Latin American rheumatologists assessing their understanding of prescribing biosimilars and the pharmacovigilance of these drugs.

Methods

We reviewed the current guidelines for the regulatory approval of biosimilars and barriers to effective pharmacovigilance in Latin American countries. Rheumatologists attending the II Pan‐American League of Rheumatology Associations PANLAR Review Course (Biosimilars update) in Lima, Peru were asked to complete a short survey to determine their knowledge of biosimilars.

Results

Many Latin American countries continue to lag behind Europe and the United States in establishing regulatory guidance and effective pharmacovigilance systems for biosimilars. Results from our survey also highlight a lack of awareness regarding the availability of biosimilars, their nomenclature, automatic substitution, and reporting adverse drug reactions because of these drugs.

Conclusions

The main barriers to effective pharmacovigilance in Latin America are the lack of consensus on the interchangeability of reference biologics and biosimilars, and the need for more suitably trained personnel to carry out effective postmarketing pharmacovigilance of biosimilars. Inconsistencies in biosimilar nomenclature make it difficult to adequately trace drugs and record adverse drug reactions associated with their use, creating a barrier to the global pharmacovigilance of biologics.