Considerations in the development of generic disease therapies for multiple sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis relapse rates and healthcare costs of two versions of glatiramer acetate

Objective: To compare relapse rates and healthcare costs in MS patients treated with Glatopa 20 mg (generic glatiramer acetate) versus Copaxone 20 mg in a US managed care population.Methods: A retrospective claims study was conducted using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Patients with ≥1 Glatopa or Copaxone claim between 01 April 2015 (Glatopa) or 01 January 2013 (Copaxone) and 30 April 2018 were included. Patients with prior Copaxone 40 mg use or <1 year continuous health plan enrollment were excluded. Patients who switched from Glatopa to Copaxone were censored. Glatopa users were matched to Copaxone users, and outcomes measured at 6-12 months follow-up.Results: A total of 357 Glatopa and 2291 Copaxone patients qualified for inclusion; 158 per cohort were retained after matching. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced (mean age 49.9 years, 75% female, mean 3.8 Copaxone fills). At baseline, 8% of patients had ≥1 relapse with mean annualized relapse rates (ARR) of 0.18; at follow-up, the relapse rates were 8% versus 15% (Glatopa versus Copaxone; p = .05), and ARRs were 0.12 versus 0.30 (p = .05). 45% of Glatopa patients switched (back) to Copaxone 20/40 mg and were censored at that point. Mean (SD) all-cause medical and pharmacy costs were $51,507 ($28,494) versus $55,085 ($37,061; p = .50). Mean MS-related costs were $45,379 ($24,732) versus $47,949 ($32,615; p = .67), of which mean disease modifying therapy costs were $42,926 ($23,196) versus $44,932 ($28,554; p = .59). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses.Conclusions: In this real-world study, MS patients treated with Glatopa experienced similar health outcomes and costs compared to those treated with Copaxone, with a trend towards lower relapse rates (borderline statistically significant) and cost savings (not statistically significant).

Enduring Clinical Value of Copaxone® (Glatiramer Acetate) in Multiple Sclerosis after 20 Years of Use

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic progressive neurodegenerative demyelinating disease affecting the central nervous system. Glatiramer acetate (GA; Copaxone®) was the first disease-modifying treatment (DMT) for MS successfully tested in humans (1977) and was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in December 1996. Since then, there have been numerous developments in the MS field: advances in neuroimaging allowing more rapid and accurate diagnosis; the availability of a range of DMTs including immunosuppressant monoclonal antibodies and oral agents; a more holistic approach to treatment by multidisciplinary teams; and an improved awareness of the need to consider a patient's preferences and patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life. The use of GA has endured throughout these advances. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the important developments in the MS field during the 20 years since GA was approved and to review clinical data for GA in MS, with the aim of understanding the continued and widespread use of GA. Both drug-related (efficacy versus side-effect profile and monitoring requirements) and patient factors (preferences regarding mode of administration and possible pregnancy) will be explored.

Follow-on products for treatment of multiple sclerosis in Latin America: An update

Both proprietary and non-proprietary medicines are expected to undergo rigorous pre-approval testing and both should meet stringent health authority regulatory requirements related to quality to obtain approval. Non-proprietary (also known as copy or generic) medicines, which base their authorization and use on the proprietary documentation and label, are often viewed as a means to help lower cost and thus increase patient access. If these medicines fail to meet quality standards, such as good manufacturing practice and bioequivalence (in humans), they are then defined as substandard copies and can pose serious risks to patients in terms of safety and efficacy. Availability of this type of compounds is more prevalent in regions where health authorities do not enforce registration regulations as stringent as those of the Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, or World Health Organization, including preestablished quality standard requirements. This article focuses on non-proprietary medicines for multiple sclerosis, that are not identical to proprietary versions and could thus fail to meet efficacy or have different impact on the safety of patients with multiple sclerosis.