BioDrugs最新文献

Background: Fatigue is a common problem in immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) patients, significantly impacting their quality of life.

Objectives: In this study, we describe the pattern and characteristics of fatigue as a patient-reported adverse drug reaction (ADR) of biologics, and compared patient and treatment characteristics with patients reporting other ADRs or no ADRs.

Methods: In this cohort event monitoring study, the description and characteristics of fatigue reported as a possible ADR in the Dutch Biologic Monitor were assessed and analysed for commonly recurring themes or patterns. Baseline and treatment characteristics of patients with fatigue and patients reporting other ADRs or no ADRs were compared.

Results: Of 1382 participating patients, 108 patients (8%) reported fatigue as an ADR of a biologic. Almost half of these patients (50 patients, 46%) described episodes of fatigue during or shortly after biologic injection, which often recurred following subsequent injections. Patients with fatigue were significantly younger than patients with other ADRs or patients without ADRs (median age for patients with fatigue, 52 years; median age for patients with other ADRs, 56 years; and median age for patients without ADRs, 58 years); significantly more often smoked (25% vs. 16% and 15%); used infliximab (22% vs. 9% and 13%), rituximab (9% vs. 3% and 1%) or vedolizumab (6% vs. 2% and 1%); and significantly more often had Crohn's disease (28% vs. 13% and 13%) and other comorbidities (31% vs. 20% and 15%). Patients with fatigue significantly less frequently used etanercept (12% vs. 29% and 34%) or had rheumatoid arthritis (30% vs. 45% and 43%).

Conclusions: IMID patients may experience fatigue as a postdosing effect of biologics.

The last decade has seen significant developments in the field of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Translational research borne from knowledge of the pathophysiology of type 2 inflammatory disease of the lower airways and the strong association with CRSwNP, has led to major therapeutic breakthroughs, with phase 3 trials of four biologics completed at the time of writing, and more underway. This article explores the evidence behind biologics for CRSwNP, the guidance on their use and the health economic factors influencing their position amongst the established therapeutic options for this common chronic condition.

Background: Biosimilars have been introduced with the goal of competing with high-priced biologic therapies, yet their adoption has been slower than expected and resulted in limited efficiency gains. We aimed to explore factors associated with biosimilar coverage relative to their reference products by commercial plans in the United States (US).

Methods and data: We identified 1181 coverage decisions for 19 commercially available biosimilars, corresponding to 7 reference products and 28 indications from the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database. We also drew on the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry for cost-effectiveness evidence, and the Merative™ Micromedex^® RED BOOK^® for list prices. We summarized the coverage restrictiveness as a binary variable based on whether the product is covered by the health plan, and if covered, the difference of payers' line of therapy between the biosimilar and its reference product. We used a multivariate logistic regression to examine the association between coverage restrictiveness and a number of potential drivers of coverage.

Results: Compared with reference products, health plans imposed coverage exclusions or step therapy restrictions on biosimilars in 229 (19.4%) decisions. Plans were more likely to restrict biosimilar coverage for the pediatric population (odds ratio [OR] 11.558, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.906-34.203), in diseases with US prevalence higher than 1,000,000 (OR 2.067, 95% CI 1.060-4.029), and if the plan did not contract with one of the three major pharmacy benefit managers (OR 1.683, 95% CI 1.129-2.507). Compared with the reference product, plans were less likely to impose restrictions on the biosimilar-indication pairs if the biosimilar was indicated for cancer treatments (OR 0.019, 95% CI 0.008-0.041), if the product was the first biosimilar (OR 0.225, 95% CI 0.118-0.429), if the biosimilar had two competitors (reference product included; OR 0.060, 95% CI 0.006-0.586), if the biosimilar could generate annual list price savings of more than $15,000 per patient (OR 0.171, 95% CI 0.057-0.514), if the biosimilar's reference product was restricted by the plan (OR 0.065, 95% CI 0.038-0.109), or if a cost-effectiveness measure was not available (OR 0.066, 95% CI 0.023-0.186).

Conclusion: Our study offered novel insights on the factors associated with biosimilar coverage by commercial health plans in the US relative to their reference products. Cancer treatment, pediatric population, and coverage restriction of the reference products are some of the most significant factors that are associated with biosimilar coverage decisions.

Collectively, genetic disorders affect approximately 350 million individuals worldwide and are a major global health burden. Despite substantial progress in identification of new disease-causing genes, variants, and molecular etiologies, nearly all rare diseases have no targeted therapeutics that can address their underlying molecular causes. Base editing (BE) and prime editing (PE), two newly described iterations of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing, represent potential therapeutic strategies that could be used to precisely, efficiently, permanently, and safely correct patients' pathogenic variants and ameliorate disease sequelae. Unlike "standard" CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing, these technologies do not rely on double-strand break (DSB) formation, thus improving safety by decreasing the likelihood of undesired insertions and deletions (indels) at the target site. Here, we provide an overview of BE and PE, including their structures, mechanisms, and differences from standard CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing. We describe several examples of the use of BE and PE to improve rare and common disease phenotypes in preclinical models and human patients, with an emphasis on in vivo editing efficacy, safety, and delivery method. We also discuss recently developed delivery methods for these technologies that may be used in future clinical settings.

Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cells have proven to be a game changer for treating several hematologic malignancies. Randomized controlled trials have highlighted potential life-threatening adverse drug reactions (ADRs), including cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Acute renal failure (ARF) has also been reported in 20% of the patients treated. However, an analysis of renal safety supported by large-scale real-life data seems warranted.

Patients and methods: We queried VigiBase® for all reports of the Standardised MedDRA Query "acute renal failure" (ARF) involving a CAR-T cell, registered until 24 July 2022. Disproportionality for this ADR was analyzed through calculation of the Information Component [IC (95% confidence interval)]. A positive lower end of the 95% confidence interval of the IC is the threshold used in statistical signal detection in VigiBase®. The same analysis was carried out for various hydroelectrolytic disorders.

Results: We gathered 224 reports of ARF, and 125 reports of hydroelectrolytic disorders involving CAR-T cells. CAR-T cells were disproportionately reported with ARF [IC 1.5 (1.3-1.7)], even after excluding reports mentioning CRS. A significant disproportionate reporting was also found for hypernatremia [IC 3.1 (2.2-3.8)], hyperphosphatemia [IC 3.1 (1.8-3.9)], hypophosphatemia [IC 2.0 (0.6-2.9)], metabolic acidosis [IC 1.8 (1.2-2.2)], hyponatremia [IC 1.6 (1.1-2.0)], and hypercalcemia [IC 1.4 (0.5-2.1)]. There was no disproportionate reporting of dyskalemia.

Conclusions: This study is limited by the inherent flaws of pharmacovigilance approaches. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that ARF and an array of hydroelectrolytic disorders are potential ADRs of CAR-T cell therapy, in real-life settings and in a nonselected population.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the most common cause of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in children, causing approximately 3.6 million hospitalizations per year, and has been associated with long-term pulmonary sequelae for up to 30 years after infection, yet preventative strategies and active treatment options remain elusive. The associated morbidity and healthcare related costs could be decreased substantially with the development of these much-needed medications. After an initial false start in the development of an RSV vaccine, gradual progress is now being made with the development of multiple vaccine candidates using numerous different mechanisms of action. Furthermore, nirsevimab, a new monoclonal antibody for the prevention of RSV, has recently been registered in the European Union. New novel treatments for RSV infection are also in the pipeline, which would provide the clinician with much needed ammunition in the management of the acute disease. The next few years have the potential to change the landscape of LRTI forever through the prevention and management of RSV LRTI and thereby decrease the mortality and morbidity associated with it. In this review, we discuss these new approaches, current research, and clinical trials in monoclonal antibody and vaccine development against RSV.

Background: Biosimilar products of rituximab came to market in 2017. French pharmacovigilance centers have highlighted an excess of case reports of severe hypersensitivity reactions related to their use compared with the originator product.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the real-world association between biosimilar versus originator rituximab injections and hypersensitivity reactions, among initiators and switchers, at first injection and over time.

Methods: The French National Health Data System was used to identify all rituximab users between 2017 and 2021. A first cohort consisted of patients who initiated rituximab (originator or biosimilar), while a second cohort consisted of originator-to-biosimilar switchers, matched on age, sex, deliveries history, and pathology, with one or two patients still receiving the originator product. The event of interest was defined as a hospitalization for anaphylactic shock or serum sickness following a rituximab injection.

Results: A total of 91,894 patients were included in the initiation cohort-17,605 (19%) with the originator product and 74,289 (81%) with a biosimilar. At initiation, 86/17,605 (0.49%) and 339/74,289 (0.46%) events occurred in the originator and biosimilar groups, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio of biosimilar exposure associated with the event was 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-1.34), and the adjusted hazard ratio for biosimilar versus originator exposure was 1.15 (95% CI 0.93-1.42), showing no increased risk of event with biosimilar use at first injection, and over time. 17,123 switchers were matched to 24,659 non-switchers. No association was found between switch to biosimilars and occurrence of the event.

Conclusion: Our study does not support any association between exposure to rituximab biosimilars versus originator and hospitalization for a hypersensitivity reaction, either at initiation, at switch, or over time.

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) has been defined as an autoimmune disease characterised by immune-mediated destruction of the pancreatic β cells, leading to absolute insulin deficiency and hyperglycaemia. Current research has increasingly focused on immunotherapy based on immunosuppression and regulation to rescue T-cell-mediated β-cell destruction. Although T1DM immunotherapeutic drugs are constantly under clinical and preclinical development, several key challenges remain, including low response rates and difficulty in maintaining therapeutic effects. Advanced drug delivery strategies can effectively harness immunotherapies and improve their potency while reducing their adverse effects. In this review, we briefly introduce the mechanisms of T1DM immunotherapy and focus on the current research status of the integration of the delivery techniques in T1DM immunotherapy. Furthermore, we critically analyse the challenges and future directions of T1DM immunotherapy.

Interleukin (IL)-36 cytokines are members of the IL-1 superfamily of cytokines. IL-36 cytokines are composed of three agonists (IL-36α, IL-36β, and IL-36γ) and two antagonists (IL-36 receptor antagonist [IL36Ra] and IL-38). These work in innate and acquired immunity and are known to contribute to host defense and to the pathogenesis of autoinflammatory diseases, autoimmune diseases, and infectious diseases. In the skin, IL-36α and IL-36γ are mainly expressed by keratinocytes in the epidermis, although they are also produced by dendritic cells, macrophages, endothelial cells, and dermal fibroblasts. IL-36 cytokines participate in the first-line defense of the skin against various exogenous assaults. IL-36 cytokines play significant roles in the host defense system and in the regulation of inflammatory pathways in the skin, collaborating with other cytokines/chemokines and immune-related molecules. Thus, numerous studies have shown IL-36 cytokines to play important roles in the pathogenesis of various skin diseases. In this context, the clinical efficacy and safety profiles of anti-IL-36 agents such as spesolimab and imsidolimab have been evaluated in patients with generalized pustular psoriasis, palmoplantar pustulosis, hidradenitis suppurativa, acne/acneiform eruptions, ichthyoses, and atopic dermatitis. This article comprehensively summarizes the roles played by IL-36 cytokines in the pathogenesis and pathophysiology of various skin diseases and summarizes the current state of research on therapeutic agents that target IL-36 cytokine pathways.