Biosimilars/Research
Pharmacovigilance compliance for biocomparables in Mexico
Filgrastim is widely used in Mexico, as in other countries. Its patent has expired and hence several non-originator biologicals have appeared. Following WHO guidelines, the General Health Law of Mexico was modified in 2009 to provide a solid regulatory environment for biosimilars (or biocomparables as they are called in Mexico) [1].
Naming affects pharmacists’ perceptions and dispensing of biosimilars
A study of pharmacists, carried out jointly by the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) and the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA), found that pharmacists had a preference for distinguishable names. However, the study also found that using the same names for interchangeable biologicals would make pharmacists more likely to dispense biosimilars [1].
Positive phase III results for Boehringer’s adalimumab biosimilar
Germany-based biologicals specialist Boehringer Ingelheim (Boehringer) announced on 26 October 2016 positive results from its pivotal phase III study of its candidate adalimumab biosimilar.
Positive phase III results for Celltrion’s rituximab biosimilar
Phase III studies of a rituximab biosimilar from Celltrion have, according to the company, shown that the biosimilar is ‘equivalent’ to Roche’s MabThera/Rituxan (rituximab).
Positive results for etanercept and bevacizumab biosimilars
A phase III study of an etanercept biosimilar from Sandoz and a phase I study of a bevacizumab biosimilar from Boehringer Ingelheim have, according to the companies, shown the biosimilars to be ‘bioequivalent’ (bevacizumab) or have ‘equivalent’ safety and efficacy (etanercept) compared to their respective originator biologicals.
Biosimilars help reduce the costs of cancer care
The costs for cancer drugs have been increasing significantly in countries around the world. With the arrival of new therapies, the future of cancer care is exciting. But how will healthcare systems be able to pay for such innovations? In their commentary, Goldstein and co-authors discuss how biosimilars could help alleviate such challenges [1].
Safety differences in clinical trials for biosimilars
Differences in safety evaluations and findings between clinical trials for biosimilars are highlighted by researchers from the University of Massachusetts, USA and Newcastle University in the UK. This they argue is a reason for clinical trial design for biosimilars to be standardized [1].
Extrapolation of indications for biosimilar infliximab and etanercept
Biosimilar infliximab (Inflectra/Remsima) was approved in Europe in September 2013 for the same indications as the originator product (Remicade). More recently, biosimilar etanercept (Benepali) was approved in Europe in January 2016 for the same indications as the originator product (Enbrel) [1]. Researchers from the National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust and King’s College London, discuss the extrapolation of the indications for the biosimilars [2].
Trials for biosimilar etanercept
Biosimilar etanercept was approved in Europe in January 2016 [1]. Researchers from the National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust and King’s College London, discuss the trials that led to the approval of biosimilar etanercept [2].
Differences in efficacy assessment in clinical trials for biosimilars
Clinical trial design should be standardized according to researchers from the University of Massachusetts, USA and Newcastle University in the UK [1]. They argue that a ‘standard clinical trial design be adopted for all biosimilars of a particular [originator biological] in a given disease’.
