Biosimilars in psoriasis: Clinical practice and regulatory perspectives in Latin America

Selection of Quality Indicators for the Certification of Psoriasis Units: The CUDERMA Project Delphi Consensus Study

Defining quality indicators is a key strategy for ensuring the quality and standardization of health care. The CUDERMA project, an initiative of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venerology (AEDV), was undertaken to define quality indicators for the certification of specialized units in dermatology; the first 2 areas selected were psoriasis and dermato-oncology. The aim of this study was to reach a consensus on what should be assessed by the indicators used to certify psoriasis units. The structured process used to do this comprised a literature review to identify potential indicators, the selection of an initial set of indicators to be evaluated by a multidisciplinary group of experts and, finally, a Delphi consensus study. A panel of 39 dermatologists evaluated the selected indicators and classified them as either "essential" or "of excellence". Consensus was finally reached on 67 indicators, which will be standardized and used to develop the certification standard for psoriasis units.

[Translated article] Selection of Quality Indicators for the Certification of Psoriasis Units: The CUDERMA Project Delphi Consensus Study

Defining quality indicators is a key strategy for ensuring the quality and standardization of health care. The CUDERMA project, an initiative of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venerology (AEDV), was undertaken to define quality indicators for the certification of specialized units in dermatology; the first 2 areas selected were psoriasis and dermato-oncology. The aim of this study was to reach a consensus on what should be assessed by the indicators used to certify psoriasis units. The structured process used to do this comprised a literature review to identify potential indicators, the selection of an initial set of indicators to be evaluated by a multidisciplinary group of experts and, finally, a Delphi consensus study. A panel of 39 dermatologists evaluated the selected indicators and classified them as either "essential" or "of excellence". Consensus was finally reached on 67 indicators, which will be standardized and used to develop the certification standard for psoriasis units.

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.

Effectiveness of oral vitamin D supplementation in lessening disease severity among patients with psoriasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Many treatment modalities have been used to manage psoriasis; however, there is, to our knowledge, no pooled estimate for the effectiveness of oral vitamin D supplements in patients with psoriasis. Hence, the aim of the present study was to systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy of oral vitamin D supplementation in lessening disease severity of patients with psoriasis.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed on the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central and the gray literature for retrieving randomized controlled trials comparing oral vitamin D supplementation with placebo. The primary outcome was the change of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score. We used the random effects model for synthesizing the evidence.

RESULTS

Of the total 5018 search results, 4 studies were included in the qualitative and 3 studies in quantitative analysis. Vitamin D supplementation was effective in ameliorating the PASI score after 6 mo of intervention (mean difference [MD] = -0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.72 to -0.11). However, after the Hartung-Knapp adjustment, the results became non-significant (MD = -0.92, 95% CI = -2.21 to 0.38).

CONCLUSIONS

A favorable effect of oral vitamin D supplementation in patients with psoriasis could not be verified. More randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are needed to produce robust results.

Practical Guidance on Biosimilars, With a Focus on Latin America: What Do Rheumatologists Need to Know?

BACKGROUND/HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Availability of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) has improved clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis, but it also increased the cost of treatment. Biosimilars, the regulated copies of biologic products, have a potential to reduce health care costs and expand access to treatment. However, because of a complex development process, biosimilars can be considered only those noninnovator biologics with satisfactory supporting evidence (ranging from structural to clinical), as outlined in the recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO). In Latin America, a heterogeneous regulatory landscape and nonconsistent approval practices for biosimilars create decision-making challenges for practicing rheumatologists.

SUMMARY OF LITERATURE

Most Latin American countries either have adopted or are in the process of adopting guidelines for the approval of biosimilars. However, among several marketed bDMARDs in the region, currently there are only 2 products that could be considered true biosimilars, based on the WHO criteria. The rest can be considered only intended copies, whose safety and efficacy are not fully established. One such product had to be withdrawn from the market because of safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Practicing rheumatologists in Latin America need to understand the regulatory situation for biosimilars in their countries. When considering bDMARDs that are not innovator products, clinicians should use only those that have been approved according to the WHO recommendations. For clarification, local health authorities or professional associations should be contacted.

Biosimilars in oncology and inflammatory diseases: current and future considerations for clinicians in Latin America

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of several cancers and systemic immune-mediated inflammatory conditions. Expiry of patents protecting a number of biologics has provided the opportunity to commercialize highly similar versions, known as biosimilars. Biosimilars are approved by regulatory agencies via an independent pathway that requires extensive head-to-head comparison with the originator product. Biosimilars have the potential to provide savings to healthcare systems and expand patient access to biologics. In Latin American countries, regulatory frameworks for biosimilar approval have been introduced in recent years, and biosimilars of monoclonal antibody and fusion protein therapies are now emerging. However, the situation in this region is complicated by the presence of "non-comparable biotherapeutics" (also known as "intended copies"), which have not been rigorously compared with the originator product. We review the considerations for clinicians in Latin American countries, focusing on monoclonal antibody biosimilars relevant to oncology, rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology.

Differential efficacy of biologic treatments targeting the TNF-α/IL-23/IL-17 axis in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis

Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis cause significant physical and psychological burdens for afflicted individuals. An accelerated TNF-α/IL-23/IL-17 axis is their major pathomechanism; therefore, anti-TNF-α/IL-23/IL-17 biologics are very effective for the treatment of skin and joint lesions in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Given that the IL-17 signature is more upregulated in the skin than in synovium in psoriatic arthritis, anti-IL-23/IL-17 agents seem to be superior to anti-TNF-α remedies in the treatment of skin lesions. In this review, we focus on the differential efficacy of anti-TNF-α/IL-23/IL-17 biologics in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

Autoimmunity and autoimmune co-morbidities in psoriasis

Psoriasis is characterized by widespread scaly erythematous plaques that cause significant physical and psychological burdens for the affected individuals. Accelerated inflammation driven by the tumour necrosis factor-α/interleukin-23/interleukin-17 axis is now known to be the major mechanism in the development of psoriasis. In addition, psoriasis has an autoimmune nature that manifests as autoreactive T cells and is co-morbid with other autoimmune diseases, such as autoimmune bullous diseases, vitiligo, alopecia and thyroiditis. In this article, we review the recent topics on autoimmunity and autoimmune co-morbidities in psoriasis.

Biosimilars for psoriasis: worldwide overview of regulatory guidelines, uptake and implications for dermatology clinical practice

The introduction of biological drugs for the treatment of patients with psoriasis has revolutionized treatment paradigms and enabled numerous patients to achieve disease control with an acceptable safety profile. However, the high cost of biologics limits access to these medications for the majority of patients worldwide. In recent years, the introduction of biosimilars for inflammatory diseases has become a fast evolving field. The future use of biosimilars offers the potential for decreased cost and increased access to biologics for patients with psoriasis. For approval of biosimilars, different regulatory agencies use highly variable methods for definition, production, approval, marketing and postmarketing surveillance. Due to potential interchangeability between biologics and biosimilars, traceability and pharmacovigilance are required to collect accurate data about adverse events in patients with psoriasis; spontaneous reporting, registries and use of 'big data' should facilitate this process on a global basis. The current article describes biosimilar regulatory guidelines and examples of biosimilar uptake in clinical practice in several countries around the world. As it is apparent that biological therapy treatment decisions may become more physician independent, the International Psoriasis Council recommends that dermatologists should take an active role in the development of biosimilar prescribing policies with their respective healthcare settings and government agencies.