Indian Biosimilars and Vaccines at Crossroads-Replicating the Success of Pharmagenerics

Biosimilars in the Era of Artificial Intelligence-International Regulations and the Use in Oncological Treatments

This research is based on three fundamental aspects of successful biosimilar development in the challenging biopharmaceutical market. First, biosimilar regulations in eight selected countries: Japan, South Korea, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, and South Africa, represent the four continents. The regulatory aspects of the countries studied are analyzed, highlighting the challenges facing biosimilars, including their complex approval processes and the need for standardized regulatory guidelines. There is an inconsistency depending on whether the biosimilar is used in a developed or developing country. In the countries observed, biosimilars are considered excellent alternatives to patent-protected biological products for the treatment of chronic diseases. In the second aspect addressed, various analytical AI modeling methods (such as machine learning tools, reinforcement learning, supervised, unsupervised, and deep learning tools) were analyzed to observe patterns that lead to the prevalence of biosimilars used in cancer to model the behaviors of the most prominent active compounds with spectroscopy. Finally, an analysis of the use of active compounds of biosimilars used in cancer and approved by the FDA and EMA was proposed.

Unveiling the Biosimilar Paradox of Oncologists' Perceptions and Hesitations in South Korea: A Web-Based Survey Study

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars offer a cost-effective alternative to original biopharmaceuticals with comparable efficacy and safety. The perception and familiarity of prescribers toward biosimilars play a critical role in their market penetration. Yet, few studies have explored the perception of oncologists toward biosimilars, much less in Asia.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to understand barriers of adopting biosimilars among oncologists and explore strategies to promote their use in clinical practice settings.

METHODS

A web-based survey was conducted among Korean oncologists from September to October 2022, assessing their perception of biosimilars and prescribing practices.

RESULTS

Among the 118 surveyed oncologists, 75.4% (89 out of 118) had previously prescribed biosimilars. When asked about their preference, 48.3% (57 out of 118) of the respondents preferred originators to biosimilars, whereas 16.1% (19 out of 118) favored biosimilars over the originators. The primary reason for preferring the originators was trust in safety and efficacy (94.7%, 54 out of 57). Still, a paradox was noted as 87.0% (47 out of 54) and 85.2% (46 out of 54) of these also acknowledged the comparable efficacy and safety of biosimilars. A relatively small number of the respondents (16.1%, 19 out of 118) did not consider prescribing biosimilars to biologic-naïve patients at all, and up to 56.8% (67 out of 118) expressed reluctance to switch prescriptions from originators to biosimilars. However, 90.7% (107 out of 118) of respondents considered changing their prescription to biosimilars if patients faced financial stress. Concerns regarding the efficacy when switching to biosimilars were expressed by 42.7% (38 out of 89) of oncologists with biosimilar prescribing experience, increasing to 69.0% (20 out of 29) among those without such experience.

CONCLUSION

Korean oncologists perceived biosimilars to be as safe and effective as originators. However, there is a notable mismatch between this perception and their prescribing practices, particularly among those who have not prescribed biosimilars before. The financial burden of patients served as a significant driver for prescribing biosimilars, yet marginal price differences between originators and biosimilars may be associated with the low adoption rate of biosimilars in Korea. Active price competition may enhance market penetration of biosimilars.

Human health implications of emerging diseases and the current situation in India's vaccine industry

Emerging diseases are infectious diseases that pose significant threat to human health, causing millions of deaths and disabilities in the upcoming days. Periodic epidemics of new infections and old reinfections increase the global burden of disease prevalence. They can be caused by new pathogens or evolving ones, which change human behavior and environmental factors. Researchers have studied the dynamic connections between microbes, hosts, and the environment, but new infectious diseases like coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), re-emerging diseases, and deliberately disseminated diseases persist despite earlier hopes of elimination. With heavy privatesector investments, Indian pharmacology now provides core Expanded Programme on Immunization vaccines to United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, producing previously unattainable vaccines for diseases like meningitis, hepatitis B, pneumococcal conjugate, rotavirus, influenza A (H1N1), and COVID-19. India's vaccine sector has emerged, among the oriented leaders of the Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India, Panacea Biotech and Biological E. Specifically, the technology transferred from Western countries has benefited the sector, which produces 1.3 billion doses annually. The Serum Institute is the world's largest manufacturer of vaccines, providing measles and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines to United Nations. The Serum Institute has developed several vaccines, including Nasovac, MenAfriVac, Pentavac, and an inactivated polio vaccine. India's success in vaccinations can be attributed to attractive investment conditions, government assistance, international alliances, and rising domestic technical talent. Despite its booming economy and technical advances, India's disproportionate share of the world's child mortality rate remains unchanged. However, the growing production and distribution of vaccinations in developing nations has initiated a new era, leading to a worldwide decline in childhood death and disease.

Nanoadjuvants: Promising Bioinspired and Biomimetic Approaches in Vaccine Innovation

Adjuvants are the important part of vaccine manufacturing as they elicit the vaccination effect and enhance the durability of the immune response through controlled release. In light of this, nanoadjuvants have shown unique broad spectrum advantages. As nanoparticles (NPs) based vaccines are fast-acting and better in terms of safety and usability parameters as compared to traditional vaccines, they have attracted the attention of researchers. A vaccine nanocarrier is another interesting and promising area for the development of next-generation vaccines for prophylaxis. This review looks at the various nanoadjuvants and their structure-function relationships. It compiles the state-of-art literature on numerous nanoadjuvants to help domain researchers orient their understanding and extend their endeavors in vaccines research and development.