Interferon-free therapy for hepatitis C, how prepared is Australia for biosimilars?

The Hepatitis C virus (HCV) affects some 150 million people worldwide. However, unlike hepatitis A and B there is no vaccination for HCV and approximately 75% of people exposed to HCV develop chronic hepatitis. In Australia, around 226,700 people live with chronic HCV infection costing the government approximately $252 million per year. Historically, the standard approved/licenced treatment for HCV is pegylated interferon with ribavirin. There are major drawbacks with interferon-based therapy including side effects, long duration of therapy, limited access and affordability. Our previous survey of an at-risk population reported HCV treatment coverage of only 5%. Since April 2013, a new class of interferon-free treatments for chronic HCV is subsidised under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: boceprevir and telaprevir - estimated to cost the Australian Government in excess of $220 million over five years. Other biologic interferon-free therapeutic agents are scheduled to enter the Australian market. Use of small molecule generic pharmaceuticals has been advocated as a means of public cost savings. However, with the new biologic agents, generics (biosimilars) may not be feasible or straightforward, due to long patent life; marketing exclusivity; and regulatory complexity for these newer products.

A QUM partnership approach to regulating biosimilars in Australia

Despite the realisation of the potential implications from biosimilars is relatively recent, much has already been written about raising the awareness of differences between biosimilars and originating/ reference listed (innovator) pharmaceuticals. The European Medicines Agency has led the global charge in regulating biosimilars. Regardless of sufficient similarities across international regulations, differences do exist across jurisdictions. The consideration of regulating biosimilars demands a congruent approach across all stages: pre-registration (Australian copyright protection, patent, international obligations), registration (confidential information, international regulators, safety and efficacy), post-registration (Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme, prescriber and dispenser awareness). Our National Medicines Policy could provide the necessary congruent framework and function for national and international regulation of biosimilars. The Policy concedes that pharmaceuticals will be affected by financial policies and trade considerations, international treaty obligations, industrial policies, education policies and the need for public-private partnerships.

Is Australia ready for biosimilars?

The biosimilars market is potentially the single fastest growing pharmaceutical sector with an estimated worth of US$67bn in global sales by 2020. This market generally refers to larger molecule, biological, protein-based pharmaceuticals which have lost its patent. This has stimulated the emergence of non-conventional pharmaceutical investors such as Fujifilm and Samsung as well as host countries such as Brazil, Mexico, China, India, South Korea, Turkey and Russia, which view biosimilars as a key macroeconomic driver of growth. Internationally, the European Medicines Agency has led the regulation of the quality, safety and efficacy of biosimilars; however, many countries have developed their own biosimilar regulatory frameworks. Despite the similarity of these with European guidelines, differences do exist across jurisdictions and have implications for cross-jurisdictional registration and regulation. The consideration of biosimilar regulation, however, demands attention beyond quality, safety and efficacy. The potential implications of extended patent protection, international trade and globalisation require a congruent policy approach to their regulation. Notwithstanding the fact that Australia is a relatively small pharmaceutical market and that there are only 14 biosimilar products currently approved for use, Australia’s geographical proximity to pharm-emerging countries and its trade relation with the major pharmaceutical markets have positioned Australia in a unique position to influence international development and regulation of biosimilars. Australia’s National Medicines Policy (2000) potentially provides the foundation for a partnership approach to biosimilar regulation, minimise duplication of regulatory efforts while at the same time fostering a viable pharmaceutical industry.

Is Australia positioned to take advantage of biosimilars?

Australia currently has a small generic and biosimilar industry despite having a good track record in biomedical research and a sound reputation in producing high quality but small volume biological pharmaceuticals. In recent times, Australia has made incremental changes to its regulation of biosimilars – in patent registration, in the use of commercial confidential information, and in remuneration. These improvements, together with Australia’s geographical proximity and strong trade relationship with the Asian biocluster have positioned Australia to take advantage of potential public cost savings from the increased use of biosimilars.

Risk management plan and pharmacovigilance system - biopharmaceuticals: biosimilars.

Editor literario del libro, Giancarlo Nota - All chapters are Open Access articles distributed under the Creative Commons Non Commercial-Share Alike-Attribution 3.0 license, which permits to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt the work in any medium, so long as the original work is properly cited.

Entry strategies into biosimilars: assessment of entry modes into the field of biosimilars from the perspective of pharmaceuticals, generics and biologics companies

Indústria farmacêutica de hoje está em transição. Como grandes blockbuster drogas estão perdendo ou estão prestes a perder a proteção de patente, e as grandes empresas farmacêuticas não estão substituindo os produtos com novas drogas químicas inovadoras, a indústria busca novas áreas de crescimento. Uma dessas áreas é o mercado de biossimilares, que está sendo inseridos por produtos farmacêuticos, genéricos e empresas de produtos biológicos. Mesmo que o grande potencial de mercado será acordado por volta de 2020, quando importantes blockbusters biológicos perder a proteção de patente, as empresas precisam decidir logo se querem participar ou não devido a elevadas barreiras à entrada técnicos, bem como de desenvolvimento de longo prazos. Como todas as empresas vêm de diferentes origens, compreendem capacidades diferentes e têm diferentes incentivos de entrada, a questão que surge é se esses fatos estão relacionados com as suas estratégias de entrada correspondentes. A tese utiliza estudos de caso de cada segmento da indústria farmacêutica - produtos farmacêuticos, biológicos e genéricos - e examina através de entrevistas semi-estruturadas, por isso que os participantes do estudo de caso entrevistados explicitamente escolhido sua estratégia de entrada. Os dados de entrevistas será então ligada a quadros estratégicos da revisão da literatura e irá ser utilizado para uma comparação global e análise. O estudo revelou que o fundo do participante do mercado que influenciam a sua estratégia de entrada. Os principais pontos de influência derivam tanto as barreiras à entrada, bem como os incentivos de entrada. A tese não é possível determinar o sucesso futuro do modo de entrada analisados no novo mercado.

Biosimilar medicines in dermatology: key aspects.

Article reproduced (or made available) with permission of Practical Dermatology®, www.practicaldermatology.com.

Evolving brand-name and generic drug competition may warrant a revision of the Hatch-Waxman Act.

The evolution of pharmaceutical competition since Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman Act in 1984 raises questions about whether the act's intended balance of incentives for cost savings and continued innovation has been achieved. Generic drug usage and challenges to brand-name drugs' patents have increased markedly, resulting in greatly increased cost savings but also potentially reduced incentives for innovators. Congress should review whether Hatch-Waxman is achieving its intended purpose of balancing incentives for generics and innovation. It also should consider whether the law should be amended so that some of its provisions are brought more in line with recently enacted legislation governing approval of so-called biosimilars, or the corollary for biologics of generic competition for small-molecule drugs.

Productos Bioterapéuticos Similares (PBS). Panorama actual en América Latina en el contexto de la Artritis Reumatoide. Revisión sistemática de la literatura

Los productos bioterapéuticos han revolucionado la terapéutica de enfermedades como la artritis reumatoide (AR). Los altos costos y el vencimiento de las patentes de productos bioterapéuticos de referencia (innovadores) han promovido el interés en productos bioterapéuticos similares (PBS), también conocidos como biosimilares. METODOLOGÍA: revisión sistemática con el objetivo de presentar el panorama actual (a Octubre del 2012) de los PBS en Latinoamérica (LA) en el contexto de AR. Consulta de: bases de datos internacionales y latinoamericanas, sitios web gubernamentales, registros de ensayos clínicos, noticias y páginas web relevantes. Se siguieron las guías PRISMA. RESULTADOS: Bases de datos: Selección de 30 artículos según criterios de inclusión. Selección de 17 artículos según revisión detallada. Búsqueda manual: selección de 45 referencias. Consolidado de 62 documentos. Regulaciones vigentes sobre PBS: México, Cuba, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panamá, Venezuela, Perú, Brasil, Chile y Argentina. En Colombia se encontró una propuesta en desarrollo. PBS aprobados: Colombia (Etanar®, PBS de Etanercept), México (Kikuzubam®, PBS de Rituximab), Perú, Chile y Bolivia (En estos últimos 3 países, Reditux®, PBS de Rituximab). DISCUSIÓN: La situación regulatoria sobre PBS en LA ha mejorado en los últimos 6 años, sin embargo las regulaciones deben buscar mayor claridad. Deben desarrollarse esfuerzos para establecer regulaciones en los países de LA que no las tienen. Países como México, Cuba y Brasil tienen una industria biotecnológica creciente. La aprobación de PBS en LA ha generado controversia y opiniones divididas entre los diferentes actores. El ingreso de PBS es beneficioso pero debe seguir regulaciones claras que garanticen eficacia y seguridad.

Análisis de perdurabilidad de las Instituciones Prestadoras de Salud (IPS), especializadas en tratamiento de enfermedades de alto costo en el departamento de Antioquia, frente a las políticas de regulación de precios por medio de la Ley 1438 en Colombia

A partir de la reforma al sistema de salud, por medio de la Ley 1438 de 2011, se implementa en Colombia la política de regulación de precios de medicamentos y el ingreso al país de medicamentos biosimilares. Esta investigación analiza la perdurabilidad en las Instituciones de Prestación de Salud (IPS) especializadas en tratamiento de enfermedades del alto costo, como: Medicarte, Clínica Astorga, Clínica Vida, Helpharma, Audifarma, y Medex, para identificar finalmente, la cadena de valor en el departamento de Antioquia, buscando proponer alternativas para la toma de decisiones de tipo estratégico.

Human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (hG-CSF): cloning, overexpression, purification and characterization

Background: Biopharmaceutical drugs are mainly recombinant proteins produced by biotechnological tools. The patents of many biopharmaceuticals have expired, and biosimilars are thus currently being developed. Human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (hG-CSF) is a hematopoietic cytokine that acts on cells of the neutrophil lineage causing proliferation and differentiation of committed precursor cells and activation of mature neutrophils. Recombinant hG-CSF has been produced in genetically engineered Escherichia coli ( Filgrastim) and successfully used to treat cancer patients suffering from chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Filgrastim is a 175 amino acid protein, containing an extra N-terminal methionine, which is needed for expression in E. coli. Here we describe a simple and low-cost process that is amenable to scaling-up for the production and purification of homogeneous and active recombinant hG-CSF expressed in E. coli cells.Results: Here we describe cloning of the human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor coding DNA sequence, protein expression in E. coli BL21(DE3) host cells in the absence of isopropyl-beta-D-thiogalactopyranoside ( IPTG) induction, efficient isolation and solubilization of inclusion bodies by a multi-step washing procedure, and a purification protocol using a single cationic exchange column. Characterization of homogeneous rhG-CSF by size exclusion and reverse phase chromatography showed similar yields to the standard. The immunoassay and N-terminal sequencing confirmed the identity of rhG-CSF. The biological activity assay, in vivo, showed an equivalent biological effect (109.4%) to the standard reference rhG-CSF. The homogeneous rhG-CSF protein yield was 3.2 mg of bioactive protein per liter of cell culture.Conclusion: The recombinant protein expression in the absence of IPTG induction is advantageous since cost is reduced, and the protein purification protocol using a single chromatographic step should reduce cost even further for large scale production. The physicochemical, immunological and biological analyses showed that this protocol can be useful to develop therapeutic bioproducts. In summary, the combination of different experimental strategies presented here allowed an efficient and cost-effective protocol for rhG-CSF production. These data may be of interest to biopharmaceutical companies interested in developing biosimilars and healthcare community.

2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a major risk factor for infection-related morbidity and mortality and also a significant dose-limiting toxicity in cancer treatment. Patients developing severe (grade 3/4) or febrile neutropenia (FN) during chemotherapy frequently receive dose reductions and/or delays to their chemotherapy. This may impact the success of treatment, particularly when treatment intent is either curative or to prolong survival. In Europe, prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), such as filgrastim (including approved biosimilars), lenograstim or pegfilgrastim is available to reduce the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. However, the use of G-CSF prophylactic treatment varies widely in clinical practice, both in the timing of therapy and in the patients to whom it is offered. The need for generally applicable, European-focused guidelines led to the formation of a European Guidelines Working Party by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and the publication in 2006 of guidelines for the use of G-CSF in adult cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced FN. A new systematic literature review has been undertaken to ensure that recommendations are current and provide guidance on clinical practice in Europe. We recommend that patient-related adverse risk factors, such as elderly age (≥65 years) and neutrophil count be evaluated in the overall assessment of FN risk before administering each cycle of chemotherapy. It is important that after a previous episode of FN, patients receive prophylactic administration of G-CSF in subsequent cycles. We provide an expanded list of common chemotherapy regimens considered to have a high (≥20%) or intermediate (10-20%) risk of FN. Prophylactic G-CSF continues to be recommended in patients receiving a chemotherapy regimen with high risk of FN. When using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in 10-20% of patients, particular attention should be given to patient-related risk factors that may increase the overall risk of FN. In situations where dose-dense or dose-intense chemotherapy strategies have survival benefits, prophylactic G-CSF support is recommended. Similarly, if reductions in chemotherapy dose intensity or density are known to be associated with a poor prognosis, primary G-CSF prophylaxis may be used to maintain chemotherapy. Clinical evidence shows that filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim have clinical efficacy and we recommend the use of any of these agents to prevent FN and FN-related complications where indicated. Filgrastim biosimilars are also approved for use in Europe. While other forms of G-CSF, including biosimilars, are administered by a course of daily injections, pegfilgrastim allows once-per-cycle administration. Choice of formulation remains a matter for individual clinical judgement. Evidence from multiple low level studies derived from audit data and clinical practice suggests that some patients receive suboptimal daily G-CSFs; the use of pegfilgrastim may avoid this problem.

Prophylaxis of infectious complications with colony-stimulating factors in adult cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy-evidence-based guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Working Party AGIHO of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO).

BACKGROUND Current evidence on myelopoietic growth factors is difficult to overview for the practicing haematologist/oncologist. International guidelines are sometimes conflicting, exclude certain patient groups, or cannot directly be applied to the German health system. This guideline by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) gives evidence-based recommendations for the use of G-CSF, pegylated G-CSF, and biosimilars to prevent infectious complications in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, including those with haematological malignancies. METHODS We systematically searched and evaluated current evidence. An expert panel discussed the results and recommendations. We then compared our recommendations to current international guidelines. RESULTS We summarised the data from eligible studies in evidence tables, developed recommendations for different entities and risk groups. CONCLUSION Comprehensive literature search and expert panel consensus confirmed many key recommendations given by international guidelines. Evidence for growth factors during acute myeloid leukaemia induction chemotherapy and pegfilgrastim use in haematological malignancies was rated lower compared with other guidelines.