Dataset Information

Type and Extent of Information on (Potentially Critical) Quality Attributes Described in European Public Assessment Reports for Adalimumab Biosimilars.

ABSTRACT: Regulatory approval of biosimilars predominantly relies on biosimilarity assessments of quality attributes (QAs), particularly the potentially critical QAs (pCQAs) that may affect the clinical profile. However, a limited understanding exists concerning how EU regulators reflect the biosimilarity assessments of (pC)QAs in European public assessment reports (EPARs) by different stakeholders. The type and extent of information on QAs and pCQAs in EPARs were evaluated for seven adalimumab biosimilars. Seventy-seven QAs, including 31 pCQAs, were classified and assessed for type (structural and functional attributes) and extent (biosimilarity interpretation and/or test results) of information in EPARs. Reporting on the QAs (35-75%) varied between EPARs, where the most emphasis was placed on pCQAs (65-87%). Functional attributes (54% QAs and 92% pCQAs) were reported more frequently than structural attributes (8% QAs and 22% pCQAs). About 50% (4 structural and 12 functional attributes) of pCQAs were consistently reported in all EPARs. Regulators often provided biosimilarity interpretation (QAs: 83% structural and 80% functional; pCQAs: 81% structural and 78% functional) but rarely include test results (QAs: 1% structural and 9% functional and pCQAs: 3% structural and 9% functional). Minor differences in structural attributes, commonly in glycoforms and charge variants, were often observed in adalimumab biosimilars but did not affect the functions and clinical profile. Despite the variability in reporting QAs in EPARs, the minor observed differences were largely quantitative and not essentially meaningful for the overall conclusion of biosimilarity of the seven adalimumab biosimilars.

SUBMITTER: Alsamil AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7996580 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe efficacy of adalimumab biosimilars is similar to that of brand-name adalimumab (Humira, hereinafter originator) in clinical trials. However, limited knowledge about real-world data exists for adalimumab biosimilars.ObjectiveTo assess the outcomes following a mandatory nonmedical switch from adalimumab originator to adalimumab biosimilars in patients with psoriasis.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study assesses the outcomes following a switch from adalimumab originator to an adalimumab biosimilar. Patients in the Biological Treatment in Danish Dermatology (DERMBIO) registry, a Danish nationwide registry of all patients treated with biologics (including biosimilars) for psoriasis since 2007, were assessed for eligibility. All patients who switched from adalimumab originator to an adalimumab biosimilar between November 1, 2018, and May 1, 2019, were included in the adalimumab biosimilar cohort. All patients with a visit between May 1, 2017, and November 1, 2017, treated with adalimumab originator were included in the adalimumab originator cohort. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2020, to October 10, 2021.ExposureSwitch from adalimumab originator to an adalimumab biosimilar.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was 1-year drug retention in patients switching to adalimumab biosimilars compared with patients treated with adalimumab originator. Crude and adjusted retention rates for the adalimumab biosimilar cohort were compared with the adalimumab originator cohort with Cox proportional hazards regression using robust variance.ResultsA total of 348 patients were included in the adalimumab biosimilar cohort (mean [SD] age, 52.2 [13.6] years; 251 [72.1%] male) and 378 patients in the adalimumab originator cohort (mean [SD] age, 51.1 [14.1] years; 272 [72.0%] male). The 1-year drug retention rates were 92.0% (95% CI, 89.0%-94.9%) for the adalimumab biosimilar cohort and 92.1% (95% CI, 89.4%-94.8%) for the adalimumab originator cohort. Similar hazard ratios were observed between the 2 cohorts. The crude hazard ratios were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.61-1.70; P = .94) for all causes of drug discontinuation, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.39-1.73; P = .60) for insufficient effect, and 1.41 (95% CI, 0.52-3.77; P = .50) for adverse events for the adalimumab biosimilar cohort when compared with the adalimumab originator cohort.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study from Denmark, a nonmedical switch from adalimumab originator to adalimumab biosimilars was not associated with drug retention.

Project description:AimsTo systematically assess the level of evidence for psychotropic drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).MethodsCross-sectional analysis of all European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and meta-analyses of the many studies reported in these EPARs. Eligible EPARs were identified from the EMA's website and individual study reports were requested from the Agency when necessary. All marketing authorisation applications (defined by the drug, the route of administration and given indications) for psychotropic medications for adults (including drugs used in psychiatry and addictology) were considered. EPARs solely based on bioequivalence studies were excluded. Our primary outcome measure was the presence of robust evidence of comparative effectiveness, defined as at least two 'positive' superiority studies against an active comparator. Various other features of the approvals were assessed, such as evidence of non-inferiority v. active comparator and superiority v. placebo. For studies with available data, effect sizes were computed and pooled using a random effect meta-analysis for each dose of each drug in each indication.ResultsTwenty-seven marketing authorisations were identified. For one, comparative effectiveness was explicitly considered as not needed in the EPAR. Of those remaining, 21/26 (81%) did not provide any evidence of superiority against an active comparator, 2/26 (8%) were based on at least two trials showing superiority against active comparator and three (11%) were based on one positive trial; 1/26 provided evidence for two positive non-inferiority analyses v. active comparator and seven (26%) provided evidence for one. In total, 20/27 (74%) evaluations reported evidence of superiority v. placebo with two or more trials. Among the meta-analyses of initiation studies against active comparator (57 available comparisons), the median effect size was 0.051 (range -0.503; 0.318). Twenty approved evaluations (74%) reported evidence of superiority v. placebo on the basis of two or more initiation trials and seven based on a single trial. Among meta-analyses of initiation studies against placebo (125 available comparisons), the median effect size was -0.283 (range -0.820; 0.091). Importantly, among the 89 study reports requested on the EMA website, only 19 were made available 1 year after our requests.ConclusionsThe evidence for psychiatric drug approved by the EMA was in general poor. Small to modest effects v. placebo were considered sufficient in indications where an earlier drug exists. Data retrieval was incomplete after 1 year despite EMA's commitment to transparency. Improvements are needed.

Project description:BackgroundTransparency and reproducibility are expected to be normative practices in clinical trials used for decision-making on marketing authorisations for new medicines. This registered report introduces a cross-sectional study aiming to assess inferential reproducibility for main trials assessed by the European Medicines Agency.MethodsTwo researchers independently identified all studies on new medicines, biosimilars and orphan medicines given approval by the European Commission between January 2017 and December 2019, categorised as 'main studies' in the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). Sixty-two of these studies were randomly sampled. One researcher retrieved the individual patient data (IPD) for these studies and prepared a dossier for each study, containing the IPD, the protocol and information on the conduct of the study. A second researcher who had no access to study reports used the dossier to run an independent re-analysis of each trial. All results of these re-analyses were reported in terms of each study's conclusions, p-values, effect sizes and changes from the initial protocol. A team of two researchers not involved in the re-analysis compared results of the re-analyses with published results of the trial.ResultsTwo hundred ninety-two main studies in 173 EPARs were identified. Among the 62 studies randomly sampled, we received IPD for 10 trials. The median number of days between data request and data receipt was 253 [interquartile range 182-469]. For these ten trials, we identified 23 distinct primary outcomes for which the conclusions were reproduced in all re-analyses. Therefore, 10/62 trials (16% [95% confidence interval 8% to 28%]) were reproduced, as the 52 studies without available data were considered non-reproducible. There was no change from the original study protocol regarding the primary outcome in any of these ten studies. Spin was observed in the report of one study.ConclusionsDespite their results supporting decisions that affect millions of people's health across the European Union, most main studies used in EPARs lack transparency and their results are not reproducible for external researchers. Re-analyses of the few trials with available data showed very good inferential reproducibility.Trial registrationhttps://osf.io/mcw3t/.

Dataset Information

Type and Extent of Information on (Potentially Critical) Quality Attributes Described in European Public Assessment Reports for Adalimumab Biosimilars.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets