Recommendations on how to ensure the safety and effectiveness of biosimilars in Latin America: a point of view

Practical Issues Concerning the Approval and Use of Biosimilar Drugs for the Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis in Latin America

The use of biosimilar drugs for multiple sclerosis (MS) has become widespread in Latin America, with the goal of reducing costs of treatments, promoting the sustainability of healthcare systems, and improving patient access to these therapies. There is currently a need to define and comply with requirements to guarantee the efficacy, safety, and quality of these drugs. Thus, the objective of the present study was to compile up-to-date information from each Latin American country assessed on (a) approval of biosimilar drugs by regulatory agencies; (b) use of biosimilar drugs, pharmacovigilance plans, risk management; and (c) update in the knowledge on different molecules. To do so, a group of experts from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela met to discuss the current situation regarding good practices and risks associated with the use of biosimilar drugs in their respective countries. Regulation, risk management plans, and pharmacovigilance in the whole continent must guide the strategies on the commercialization and access of biosimilar drugs and copies of complex molecules. Current regulations must be implemented for the registration of biosimilar drug products and complex molecules. It is paramount to ensure that new products follow the best quality standards at all stages beyond being safe and efficient. Uncontrolled interchangeability between original biological and biosimilar should be avoided. Latin America requires the implementation and full use of strong pharmacovigilance programs. National and multinational clinical studies are required to demonstrate the similarity in safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity profiles of complex molecules, as well as biological and biosimilar products. Plain language summary available for this article.

The Breakthrough of Biosimilars: A Twist in the Narrative of Biological Therapy

The coming wave of patent expiries of first generation commercialized biotherapeutical drugs has seen the global market open its doors to close copies of these products. These near perfect substitutes, which are termed as “biosimilars”, do not need to undergo intense clinical trials for their approval. However, they are mandated to produce identical similarity from their reference biologics in terms of clinical safety and efficacy. As such, these biosimilar products promise to foster unprecedented access to a wide range of life-saving biologics. However, seeing this promise be fulfilled requires the development of biosimilars to be augmented with product trust, predictable regulatory frameworks, and sustainable policies. It is vital for healthcare and marketing professionals to understand the critical challenges surrounding biosimilar use and implement informed clinical and commercial decisions. A proper framework of pharmacovigilance, education, and scientific exchange for biologics and biosimilars would ensure a dramatic rise in healthcare access and market sustainability. This paper seeks to collate and review all relevant published intelligence of the health and business potential of biosimilars. In doing so, it provides a visualization of the essential steps that are required to be taken for global biosimilar acceptance.

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.

Safety of Biologics, Including Biosimilars: Perspectives on Current Status and Future Direction

In recent years, marketing of highly innovative and costly biologics improved the management of high-burden diseases such as autoimmune diseases, cancers, and chronic renal failure. Several widely prescribed biologics have recently lost or will shortly lose their patents, thus opening avenues to the marketing of a growing number of biosimilars worldwide, which are products similar in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to already licensed reference products, thus allowing for potential savings in pharmaceutical expenditure. Numerous debates about the interchangeability between biosimilars and reference products are still ongoing, owing to concerns about potential immunogenicity raised by switching, which may cause a lack of effect and toxicity. Patients successfully treated with biologic therapy may theoretically receive biosimilars to contain costs, if reference product and related biosimilar are judged as interchangeable. However, the positions of regulatory agencies on the interchangeability and automatic substitution of biologics with biosimilars are very different. The benefit-risk profile of biosimilars has been often questioned by clinicians owing to the limited amount of pre-marketing information on clinical efficacy and safety, despite biosimilarity being based on a comparability exercise with the reference product to gain the biosimilar approval. Nevertheless, after more than 10 years of marketing from the first biosimilar approval in Europe, no proof of differences in terms of the safety profile of biosimilars and originators has been reported. In this context, post-marketing evaluation of both biologics and biosimilars safety profiles through analyses from spontaneous reporting databases and claims databases is crucial. An important issue for the pharmacovigilance of biologics concerns the traceability, indicating the brand name and batch number in spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports, but this requirement is not frequently addressed. This review aims to provide an overview of the characteristics and potential challenges in the safety profile assessment of biologics with a focus on the post-marketing setting.

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.

Mexican rheumatology: where do we stand?

The aim of this review was to provide an overall overview of the past, present, and future situations and main challenges that are facing Mexican Rheumatology as a medical subspecialty in the context of their national healthcare system, where a deficit of workforce at the national level coexists with a shortage of specialists in the less-developed southern states of the country and a great surplus of professionals within large metropolitan areas. We also analyzed the prevalence and burden of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs), the structural composition and distribution of Mexican Rheumatology, and the clinical profile of the Mexican Rheumatologist. Last, we examined comorbidities, education and training programs and one scenario for Mexican Rheumatology wherein the principal main threats and opportunities are determined.

The biosimilars journey: current status and ongoing challenges

Biosimilar products are already approved and marketed in several countries. The Food and Drug Administration has approved ten different biosimilars, and the European Medicines Agency has approved 40. Even though this scenario has provided important experience with biosimilar products, there are still challenges and unanswered questions. Up to now, a good amount of knowledge has been gathered in order to support the importance of the totality of evidence and the construction of a biosimilarity exercise for regulatory approval. In addition, the extrapolation of indications has been proved viable when a careful analysis is performed. The models for clinical trials and the use of the most sensible populations have been extensively discussed, and there is apparent homogeneity in manufacturer choices for study designs. However, some challenges remain. The lack of regulatory harmony, especially concerning naming, the marketed intended copies, the interchangeability, and the biosimilars in orphan diseases are some of those and are the focus of discussion in this review.

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.

The Regulation of Biosimilars in Latin America

This article summarizes the regulatory scenario on biological medications in Latin America focusing on comparability studies, extrapolation of indications, interchangeability and pharmacovigilance issues. In the case of comparability studies, what is being discussed is the possibility of decreasing the clinical trials requirement, but that the molecule should be well characterized in the studies of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. With the worldwide-level approval of the first monoclonal antibody biosimilar, infliximab, extrapolation of indications are being discussed, since the behavior of the Latin America regulatory agencies has been different with regard to such issue. Another issue discussed by the regulatory agencies is the interchangeability between biological medications and their biosimilars, mainly due to the fact that there is a clear confusion on interchangeability and substitution concepts. Finally, the pharmacovigilance debate, according to what takes place globally, is related to the need for identifying and differentiating the reference biological medication and its biosimilars for traceability purposes.

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

Latin American countries view biosimilar agents as an effective approach to curtail health-care expenditures while maintaining the safety and efficacy profile of their branded innovator comparators. To understand the complexities of the regulatory landscape and key therapeutic issues for use of biosimilars to treat moderate to severe psoriasis in Latin America, the International Psoriasis Council convened dermatology experts from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico in October 2015 to review the definition, approval, marketing and future of biosimilars in each country and develop a consensus statement. The regulatory framework for marketing approval of biosimilars in Latin America is currently a mosaic of disparate, country-specific, regulatory review processes, rules and standards, with considerable heterogeneity in clarity and specificity. Regulations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico have undergone multiple refinements whereas Colombia is finalizing draft guidelines. Verification of the similarity in quality, safety and efficacy of biosimilars to the innovator biologic remains a key challenge for policy makers and regulatory authorities. Other key regulatory challenges include: naming of agents and traceability, pharmacovigilance, extrapolation of indications, and interchangeability and substitution. An urgent need exists for more Latin American countries to establish national psoriasis registries and to integrate their common components into a multinational psoriasis network, thereby enhancing their interpretative power and impact. A Latin American psoriasis network similar to PSONET in Europe would assist health-care providers, pharmaceutical companies, regulators and patients to fully comprehend specific products being prescribed and dispensed and to identify potential regional trends or differences in safety or outcomes.

Safety reporting through a comprehensive and pragmatic pharmcovigilance process for India and emerging markets: an industry perspective

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacovigilance (PV) deals with the drug-related adverse reactions ensuring patients' safety. Emerging markets of India, South East Asia (SEA), Russia, Latin America (LA), Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have developed their own PV programs. However, under/manual reporting accompanied with lack of awareness regarding adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are major drawbacks that continue to exist due to lack of co-ordination and disparity in the regulatory approach.

AREAS COVERED

Of the 118 studies identified using various databases, 60 were included for the review. The authors discuss the present PV scenario of India, SEA, Russia, LA and MENA, and explain a basic process for uniform PV data input-output across industry, which includes data collection, analysis, processing, causality assessment and data distribution systems.

EXPERT OPINION

As the number of clinical trials conducted are rising in the emerging markets, there is a need to understand and implement a robust PV system, where electronically globalized, evidence based, public health oriented and regulatory compliant PV system is established. This would also improve transparency in system and ensure enhancement in safety data reporting ensuring premature and trouble-free detection of ADRs. It might result in implementing various PV boosting activities, which could yield robust patient safety data from India and emerging markets.

Clinical and regulatory perspectives on biosimilar therapies and intended copies of biologics in rheumatology

Biologics are vital to the management of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory and autoimmune conditions. Nevertheless, access to these highly effective treatments remains an unmet medical need for many people around the world. As patents expire for existing licensed biologic (originator) products, biosimilar products can be approved by regulatory authorities and enter clinical use. Biosimilars are highly similar copies of originator biologics approved through defined and stringent regulatory processes after having undergone rigorous analytical, non-clinical, and clinical evaluations. The introduction of high-quality, safe, and effective biosimilars has the potential to expand access to these important medicines. Biosimilars are proven to be similar to the originator biologic in terms of safety and efficacy and to have no clinically meaningful differences. In contrast, “intended copies” are copies of originator biologics that have not undergone rigorous comparative evaluations according to the World Health Organization recommendations, but are being commercialized in some countries. There is a lack of information about the efficacy and safety of intended copies compared with the originator. Furthermore, they may have clinically significant differences in formulation, dosages, efficacy, or safety. In this review, we explore the differences between biosimilars and intended copies and describe key concepts related to biosimilars. Familiarity with these topics may facilitate decision making about the appropriate use of biosimilars for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

Biosimilars in rheumatology: current perspectives and lessons learnt

Biosimilars, based on biopharmaceuticals approved by regulatory agencies that are no longer under patent protection, have efficacy and safety comparable to their reference products, and are a new therapeutic option to treat inflammatory diseases. Biosimilars must be distinguished from 'biomimics' or 'biocopies', which are marketed in some countries but have not been evaluated according to the stringent regulatory pathway used for biosimilars. CT-P13, based on infliximab, was the first biosimilar approved for the treatment of inflammatory diseases; however, some countries did not allow extrapolation of indications to all eight diseases for which the reference drug infliximab is approved. Antidrug antibodies can reduce drug levels and affect clinical efficacy, but although available data suggest that biosimilars and their reference products have comparable immunogenicity, this important property might differ between individual biopharmaceuticals. This Review discusses biosimilars already approved within the past 3 years to treat rheumatic diseases, as well as others that are currently under development. The main challenges posed by biosimilars are also addressed, such as the extrapolation of indications to diseases only studied for the reference drug, and the definition of strategies for adequate pharmacovigilance to monitor biosimilars after marketing approval.