Neutralizing antibodies in multiple sclerosis patients on weekly intramuscular Avonex and biosimilar interferon beta-1a (CinnoVex): Comparing results of measurements in two different laboratories

Treatment of multiple sclerosis in special populations: The case of refugees

Multiple sclerosis was long considered a relatively rare entity in the Middle East, but research over the past 10 years and the publication of the Middle East North Africa Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis guidelines for multiple sclerosis have allowed diagnosis and treatment to occur more efficiently. Most of the first and second-line disease-modifying therapies approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicine Agency are available in the Middle East. However, the availability of disease-modifying therapies is quite variable, with some countries having access to all multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies, while in others there is only one therapeutic option. Economic limitations remain a challenge for the management of multiple sclerosis, especially in countries of war. Moreover, the burden of multiple sclerosis treatment in Syrian and Palestinian refugees is likely high due to the non-availability of funds to cover the high cost of disease-modifying therapies.

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.

Neutralizing antibody production against Rebif® and ReciGen® in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS) patients and its association with patient's disability

INTRODUCTION

Human recombinant interferon beta (IFN-β) is one of the first line treatments for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS). However, the production of neutralizing antibodies (NAb) can impair its function. The aim of this study was to investigate the production of neutralizing antibodies against Rebif® and ReciGen® (two brands of IFN-β-1a) and to evaluate its correlation with Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Serum samples of 71 RRMS patients (34 in ReciGen®, 37 in Rebif® group) were collected. Neutralizing antibody was measured by Myxo-virus resistance protein A (MxA) assay using A549 cell line. The MxA concentration was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit.

RESULTS

The median period of treatment with IFN-β-1a was 18 months in ReciGen® and 24 months in Rebif® arms. The percentage of patients with positive titer of neutralizing antibody (NAb+) had no statistically significant difference between groups (P = 0.6). In both ReciGen® and Rebif® groups, the increase in EDSS score was significantly higher in NAb+ patients compared to NAb- patients (p ≤ 0.05). The duration of using ReciGen® or Rebif® for >24 months was influential in the NAb positivity (OR = 3.78).

CONCLUSION

Receiving interferon beta-1a for >24 months is correlated with higher possibility of NAb production. The type of IFN-β used in the study had no significant impact on NAb positivity. In addition, both groups had comparable EDSS score changes, and NAb status of patients was correlated with their EDSS score.

Development of interferon beta-neutralising antibodies in multiple sclerosis--a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Interferon beta (IFN-β) is the drug of choice for treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis and is known to reduce the frequency and severity of relapses. This systematic review determines the occurrence of neutralising antibodies (NAbs) against different formulations of IFN-β: IFN-β-1a Avonex™, IFN-β-1a Rebif™ and IFN-β-1b Betaferon/Betaseron™.

METHODS

The databases used in the review included MEDLINE Ovid (from 1950 to March 2015), Embase Ovid (from 1980 to March 2015), CENTRAL on The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 4) and ClinicalTrials.gov (from 1997 to March 2015). All studies that compared the efficacy of the different formulations of IFN-β in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis including IFN-β-1a Avonex™, IFN-β-1a Rebif™, IFN-β-1b Betaferon/Betaseron™ and IFN-β-1b Extavia™ were included.

RESULTS

Assessment of randomised controlled trials demonstrated that Avonex™ was 76% less likely than Rebif™ to lead to the formation of NAbs. Avonex™ was 88% less likely than Betaferon/Betaseron™ to lead to the formation of NAbs. Similar findings were also observed in the non-randomised controlled studies, with Avonex™ having the lowest risk. The formation of NAbs was dose dependent: Avonex™ at 30 μg was 64% less risky than Avonex™ at 60 μg.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that 2.0-18.9% of patients developed NAbs to Avonex™, 16.5-35.4% of patients developed NAbs to Rebif™ and 27.3-53.3% of patients developed NAbs to Betaferon/Betaseron™.

Biosimilar: what it is not

A biosimilar is a high quality biological medicine shown to be in essence the same as an original product. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) paved the way in the regulatory arena by creating a safeguarding framework for the development of biosimilars. Biosimilar is thus a regulatory term that alludes to the evidence-based studies required to demonstrate such very high similarity. They are therefore not innovative products but the pathway laid down by the EMA for their approval represented a new paradigm. This has brought some confusion and has cast doubts among healthcare professionals about the scientific evidence behind their authorization. Many papers have been published to clarify the concept, and to reassure those professionals, but misconceptions frequently still arise. Unfortunately, this prevents biosimilars from deploying their full therapeutic added value. This paper is intended to approach those misconceptions from a new angle, by explaining what a biosimilar is not…and why. A biosimilar is neither a generic, nor an original product. It is not a biobetter or a 'stand-alone'. Therefore, it should not be managed as such therapeutically, commercially or from a healthcare policy viewpoint. The EMA's criteria were acknowledged by other agencies, but a significant regulatory gap with a vast majority of regulatory bodies still remains. This leaves room for the so-called non-original biologics (NOB), i.e. non-biosimilar biologics, to be launched in many regions. Raising awareness of what a biosimilar is and what it is not, will generate trust in biosimilars among healthcare professionals and will ultimately benefit patients.

Protective effect of tanreqing injection on axon myelin damage in the brain of mouse model for experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of Tanreqing injection on axon myelin in the mouse brain of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE).

METHODS

An EAE model was established by myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG)35-55 immunization in C57BL/6 mice. Mice were randomly divided into the following groups: normal, model, prednisone acetate (PA) (6 mg/kg), Tanreqing high dose (5.14 mL/kg), Tanreqing low dose (2.57 mL/kg). On the day of immunization, both Tanreqing groups were treated by intraperitoneal injection, with the PA group treated by intragastrical perfusion after T cell response, and the other groups treated with saline. Changes in body weight, neurological deficit score, incidence rate, mortality rate, and course of disease were observed for all mice. Brain tissue was isolated and stained with hematoxylin-eosin, and pathological investigations performed to evaluate axon myelin damage by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Myelin basic protein and microtubule associated protein-2 were analyzed by immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

Tanreqing injection significantly prolonged EAE latency and decreased the neurological deficit score, alleviated infiltration of inflammatory cells in the focus area, up-regulated hippocampal MBP expression at the acute stage and the remission stage, and increased microtubule associated protein-2 expression in the EAE brain to varying degrees in the acute stage. TEM analysis indicated that Tanreqing injection alleviates myelin damage in the EAE mouse and maintains the integrity of circular layer structures and alleviates axon mitochondrial swelling.

CONCLUSION

Tanreqing injection alleviates EAE symptoms.

Cost effectiveness analysis of Avonex and CinnoVex in Relapsing Remitting MS

INTRODUCTION

Multiple sclerosis is a chronic and degenerative neurological disease characterized by loss of myelin sheath of some neurons in brain and spinal cord. It is associated with high economic burden due to premature deaths and high occurrence of disabilities. The aim of the current study was to determine cost effectiveness of two major products of interferon 1a in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

Altogether, 140 patients who have consumed Avonex and CinnoVex in Relapsing Remitting MS for at least two years were randomly selected (70 patients in each group). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using the adopted MSQoL-54 instrument. Costs were measured and valued from Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MOHME) perspective. Two-way sensitivity analysis was used to check robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Patients in CinnoVex group reported significantly higher scores in both physical (69.5 vs. 50.9, P<0.001) and mental (63.3 vs. 56.6, P=0.03) aspects of HRQoL than Avonex group. On the other hand, annual cost of CinnoVex and Avonex were 2410 US$ and 4515US$ per patient, respectively (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that CinnoVex was dominant option over the study period. It is suggested that results of the current study should be considered in allocating resources to MS treatments in Iran. Of course, our findings should be interpreted with caution duo to short term horizon and lack of HRQoL scores at baseline (before the intervention).