Dataset Information

Biosimilarity and Interchangeability: Principles and Evidence: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The efficacy, safety and immunogenicity risk of switching between an originator biologic and a biosimilar or from one biosimilar to another are of potential concern. OBJECTIVES:The aim was to conduct a systematic literature review of the outcomes of switching between biologics and their biosimilars and identify any evidence gaps. METHODS:A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception to June 2017. Relevant societal meetings were also checked. Peer-reviewed studies reporting efficacy and/or safety data on switching between originator and biosimilar products or from one biosimilar to another were selected. Studies with fewer than 20 switched patients were excluded. Data were extracted on interventions, study population, reason for treatment switching, efficacy outcomes, safety and anti-drug antibodies. RESULTS:The systematic literature search identified 63 primary publications covering 57 switching studies. The reason for switching was reported as non-medical in 50 studies (23 clinical, 27 observational). Seven studies (all observational) did not report whether the reasons for switching were medical or non-medical. In 38 of the 57 studies, fewer than 100 patients were switched. Follow-up after switching went beyond 1 year in eight of the 57 studies. Of the 57 studies, 33 included statistical analysis of disease activity or patient outcomes; the majority of these studies found no statistically significant differences between groups for main efficacy parameters (based on P < 0.05 or predefined acceptance ranges), although some studies observed changes for some parameters. Most studies reported similar safety profiles between groups. CONCLUSIONS:There are important evidence gaps around the safety of switching between biologics and their biosimilars. Sufficiently powered and appropriately statistically analysed clinical trials and pharmacovigilance studies, with long-term follow-ups and multiple switches, are needed to support decision-making around biosimilar switching.

SUBMITTER: McKinnon RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5814534 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Biosimilarity and Interchangeability: Principles and Evidence: A Systematic Review.

McKinnon Ross A RA Cook Matthew M Liauw Winston W Marabani Mona M Marschner Ian C IC Packer Nicolle H NH Prins Johannes B JB

BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy 20180201 1

<h4>Background</h4>The efficacy, safety and immunogenicity risk of switching between an originator biologic and a biosimilar or from one biosimilar to another are of potential concern.<h4>Objectives</h4>The aim was to conduct a systematic literature review of the outcomes of switching between biologics and their biosimilars and identify any evidence gaps.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception to June 2017. Relevant socie ...[more]

PMID: 29344876

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceGenomic newborn screening (gNBS) may optimize the health and well-being of children and families. Screening programs are required to be evidence based, acceptable, and beneficial.ObjectivesTo identify what has been discovered following the reporting of the first gNBS pilot projects and to provide a summary of key points for the design of gNBS.Evidence reviewA systematic literature review was performed on April 14, 2021, identifying 36 articles that addressed the following questions: (1) what is the interest in and what would be the uptake of gNBS? (2) what diseases and genes should be included? (3) what is the validity and utility of gNBS? and (4) what are the ethical, legal, and social implications? Articles were only included if they generated new evidence; all opinion pieces were excluded.FindingsIn the 36 articles included, there was high concordance, except for gene disease inclusion, which was highly variable. Key findings were the need for equitable access, appropriate educational materials, and informed and flexible consent. The process for selecting genes for testing should be transparent and reflect that parents value the certainty of prediction over actionability. Data should be analyzed in a way that minimizes uncertainty and incidental findings. The expansion of traditional newborn screening (tNBS) to identify more life-threatening and treatable diseases needs to be balanced against the complexity of consenting parents of newborns for genomic testing as well as the risk that overall uptake of tNBS may decline. The literature reflected that the right of a child to self-determination should be valued more than the possibility of the whole family benefiting from a newborn genomic test.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this systematic review suggest that implementing gNBS will require a nuanced approach. There are gaps in our knowledge, such as the views of diverse populations, the capabilities of health systems, and health economic implications. It will be essential to rigorously evaluate outcomes and ensure programs can evolve to maximize benefit.

Project description:BackgroundAs the use of technology to deliver health services is increasing rapidly and has further intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, these initiatives may fail if ethical impacts are not fully identified and acted upon by practitioners. Ignoring the ethical impacts of information and communication technology health service delivery creates an unintended risk for patients and can lead to reduced effectiveness, noncompliance, and harm, undermining the best intentions of governments and clinicians.ObjectiveOur aim was to explore how ethical considerations or impacts may be different, greater, or more variable in information and communication technology methods versus face-to-face health care delivery models, and how they may be applied in practice.MethodsWe undertook a systemic literature review to provide a critical overview of existing research into the incorporation of ethical principles into telehealth practice. Six databases were searched between March 2016 to May 2016 and again in December 2020 to provide the benefit of currency. A combination of broad terms ("ethics," "ethical," "health," and "care") with the restrictive terms of "telehealth" and "telemedicine" was used in keyword searches. Thematic analysis and synthesis of each paper was conducted, aligned to the framework developed by Beauchamp and Childress.ResultsFrom the 49 papers reviewed, authors identified or discussed the following ethical principles in relation to telehealth practice: autonomy (69% of authors, 34/49), professional-patient relationship (53% of authors, 26/49), nonmaleficence (41% of authors, 20/49), beneficence (39%, of authors, 19/49), and justice (39% of authors, 19/49).ConclusionsAlthough a small number of studies identified ethical issues associated with telehealth practice and discussed their potential impact on service quality and effectiveness, there is limited research on how ethical principles are incorporated into clinical practice. Several studies proposed frameworks, codes of conduct, or guidelines, but there was little discussion or evidence of how these recommendations are being used to improve ethical telehealth practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The predominant treatment for epilepsy is pharmacotherapy, yet 20-40% do not respond to anti-epileptic drugs. After becoming pharmacoresistant, some patients are worked-up to determine candidacy for epilepsy surgery. Despite the 2009 American Epilepsy Society guidelines, there is no broadly accepted criteria for the investigatory pathway and principles of patient selection for epilepsy surgery candidates. The objective of this systematic review is to elucidate what diagnostic pathways clinicians globally utilize. METHODS:Utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and the Cochrane Handbook of Systemic Reviews of Interventions, we conducted a systematic review through MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. RESULTS:From 2092 screened articles, 14 met inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. Structural MRI was required in all investigatory pathways. All but two articles required neuropsychological assessment. Six required neuropsychiatric assessment. Two protocols mentioned assessing the patient's support network. Three other protocols mentioned discussing expectations with patients. One also motioned conducing an occupational evaluation and making all surgery decisions in a multidisciplinary management conference. fMRI and the Wada test were required assessments in seven of the protocols. [18F]FDG-PET and SPECT were ancillary for all but three articles (where they were required). MEG and intracranial EEG were only mentioned as ancillary. Magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopy was required at two institutes. With regards to the actual indication for selecting patients to begin the investigatory pathway, seven of the articles used a variation of the International League Against Epilepsy definition of refectory epilepsy, while one incorporated patient social history. CONCLUSIONS:Despite attempts to standardize patient selection and investigatory pathways, no two protocols were identical. Scalp video/EEG telemetry, structural MRI, and neuropsychological assessment were the only assessments utilized in nearly all protocols. Socioeconomic restrictions appear to play a role in determining which tests are utilized in the investigatory pathway-not just for developing countries. However, cost-effective assessments, such as assessing patient support network and providing realistic expectation of outcomes, were only utilized in few protocols. In addition, no advanced imaging technologies (i.e., qMRI, 3D-MMI) were utilized. Overall, even amongst expert examiners there is significant variation throughout epilepsy centers globally, in selecting candidates and working up patients.

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, mHealth has increasingly been used to deliver behavioral interventions for disease prevention and self-management. Computing power in mHealth tools can provide unique functions beyond conventional interventions in provisioning personalized behavior change recommendations and delivering them in real time, supported by dialogue systems. However, design principles to incorporate these features in mHealth interventions have not been systematically evaluated.ObjectiveThe goal of this review is to identify best practices for the design of mHealth interventions targeting diet, physical activity, and sedentary behavior. We aim to identify and summarize the design characteristics of current mHealth tools with a focus on the following features: (1) personalization, (2) real-time functions, and (3) deliverable resources.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic search of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for studies published since 2010. First, we will use keywords that combine mHealth, interventions, chronic disease prevention, and self-management. Second, we will use keywords that cover diet, physical activity, and sedentary behavior. Literature found in the first and second steps will be combined. Finally, we will use keywords for personalization and real-time functions to limit the results to interventions that have reported these design features. We expect to perform narrative syntheses for each of the 3 target design features. Study quality will be evaluated using the Risk of Bias 2 assessment tool.ResultsWe have conducted a preliminary search of existing systematic reviews and review protocols on mHealth-supported behavior change interventions. We have identified several reviews that aimed to evaluate the efficacy of mHealth behavior change interventions in a range of populations, evaluate methodologies for assessing mHealth behavior change randomized trials, and assess the diversity of behavior change techniques and theories in mHealth interventions. However, syntheses on the unique features of mHealth intervention design are absent in the literature.ConclusionsOur findings will provide a basis for developing best practices for designing mHealth tools for sustainable behavior change.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021261078; https://tinyurl.com/m454r65t.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/39093.

Dataset Information

Biosimilarity and Interchangeability: Principles and Evidence: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Biosimilarity and Interchangeability: Principles and Evidence: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets