Clinical Similarity of Biosimilars and Reference Drugs: A Comprehensive Review and New Hope for Public Health in a New Frontier.

Mansi D Adatiya, Aanal A Devani, Vishal N Dudhia, Mehul R Chorawala, Vishvas N Patel, Manish P Patel
{"title":"Clinical Similarity of Biosimilars and Reference Drugs: A Comprehensive Review and New Hope for Public Health in a New Frontier.","authors":"Mansi D Adatiya,&nbsp;Aanal A Devani,&nbsp;Vishal N Dudhia,&nbsp;Mehul R Chorawala,&nbsp;Vishvas N Patel,&nbsp;Manish P Patel","doi":"10.2174/0125899775246113231018080526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patents and exclusive rights on reference biologics contribute to the emergence of biosimilars. Regulatory bodies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), World Health Organization (WHO), and EMA (European Medicines Agency) for assessing clinical safety, effectiveness, and consequences between biosimilars and reference medications, have established guidelines. Since generic small molecules from reference can be easily swapped, biosimilars cannot be used interchangeably and may not always indicate interchangeability due to highly restrictive properties. It can be replaced with a reference without the healthcare provider's help under the interchangeability context.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of our study is to analyze and compare evidence-based clinical safety, therapeutic potential, and importance (outcomes) of several biosimilars with their references along with clinical uses in chronic diseases.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Through a comprehensive systemic literature review of more than 100 articles involving medicinally important drugs whose bio-similarity works optimally, safety-efficacy parameters have been analyzed. Analysis of biosimilar usage, approval, and safety-efficacy aspects are majorly focused upon herein in this review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From this systemic review, it can be stated that the majority of biosimilars are clinically and statistically equivalent to their originators. As biosimilars have good safety-efficacy aspects with lower prices, their utilization can be more encouraged, which was already done by the FDA with the establishment of a public online database entitled \"Purple Book,\" which includes all information regarding biological drugs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To conclude, we suggest widespread use of high-grade biosimilars in clinical practice, maybe via changing, exchanging, or switching, with appropriate clinical monitoring and pharmacovigilance to improve patient accessibility to modern medicines, as it provides similar efficacy and safety parameters across all the accumulated clinical trials and studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":37008,"journal":{"name":"Current Drug Research Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Drug Research Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/0125899775246113231018080526","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patents and exclusive rights on reference biologics contribute to the emergence of biosimilars. Regulatory bodies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), World Health Organization (WHO), and EMA (European Medicines Agency) for assessing clinical safety, effectiveness, and consequences between biosimilars and reference medications, have established guidelines. Since generic small molecules from reference can be easily swapped, biosimilars cannot be used interchangeably and may not always indicate interchangeability due to highly restrictive properties. It can be replaced with a reference without the healthcare provider's help under the interchangeability context.

Objective: The purpose of our study is to analyze and compare evidence-based clinical safety, therapeutic potential, and importance (outcomes) of several biosimilars with their references along with clinical uses in chronic diseases.

Methods: Through a comprehensive systemic literature review of more than 100 articles involving medicinally important drugs whose bio-similarity works optimally, safety-efficacy parameters have been analyzed. Analysis of biosimilar usage, approval, and safety-efficacy aspects are majorly focused upon herein in this review.

Results: From this systemic review, it can be stated that the majority of biosimilars are clinically and statistically equivalent to their originators. As biosimilars have good safety-efficacy aspects with lower prices, their utilization can be more encouraged, which was already done by the FDA with the establishment of a public online database entitled "Purple Book," which includes all information regarding biological drugs.

Conclusion: To conclude, we suggest widespread use of high-grade biosimilars in clinical practice, maybe via changing, exchanging, or switching, with appropriate clinical monitoring and pharmacovigilance to improve patient accessibility to modern medicines, as it provides similar efficacy and safety parameters across all the accumulated clinical trials and studies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生物仿制药和参考药物的临床相似性:一个全面的综述和新领域公共卫生的新希望。
背景:参考生物制剂的专利和专有权促成了生物仿制药的出现。食品药品监督管理局(FDA)、世界卫生组织(世界卫生组织)和欧洲药品管理局(EMA)等监管机构已经制定了指南,以评估生物仿制药和参考药物之间的临床安全性、有效性和后果。由于参考文献中的通用小分子可以很容易地交换,因此生物仿制药不能互换使用,并且由于高度限制性的特性,可能并不总是显示出互换性。在互换性上下文下,它可以在没有医疗保健提供者帮助的情况下用引用替换。目的:我们研究的目的是分析和比较几种生物仿制药的循证临床安全性、治疗潜力和重要性(结果)及其参考文献以及在慢性病中的临床应用。方法:通过对100多篇涉及生物相似性最佳的重要药物的文章进行全面系统的文献综述,分析其安全性和疗效参数。本综述主要集中分析生物仿制药的使用、批准和安全有效性方面。结果:从这篇系统综述中可以看出,大多数生物仿制药在临床和统计上与它们的原始药物相当。由于生物仿制药具有良好的安全性和有效性,价格较低,因此可以更鼓励其使用,美国食品药品监督管理局已经建立了一个名为“紫皮书”的公共在线数据库,其中包括有关生物药物的所有信息。结论:总之,我们建议在临床实践中广泛使用高级生物仿制药,可能通过改变、交换或转换,并进行适当的临床监测和药物警戒,以提高患者获得现代药物的机会,因为它在所有累积的临床试验和研究中提供了相似的疗效和安全性参数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Current Drug Research Reviews
Current Drug Research Reviews Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
Advances in Human Brain Organoids: Methodological Innovations and Future Directions for Drug Discovery. Advancing Green Chemistry in Antiviral Therapeutics: A Comprehensive Review. Arbutin's Potential in Neuroprotection: A Promising Role in Mitigating Neurodegenerative Diseases. Ralstonia mannitolilytica Infections: A Systematic Review of Case Reports Unveiling Clinical Patterns and Therapeutic Insights. Synergistic Outcomes in Drug Delivery: Exploring Harmonious Architectures of Interpenetrating Polymer Networks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1