Skip to main content
Login | Suomeksi | På svenska | In English

Browsing by Subject "efficacy"

Sort by: Order: Results:

  • Mäkinen, Arttu (2018)
    This is a systematic review aiming to investigate the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of biosimilars in the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases. Biosimilar drugs used to treat inflammatory bowel diseases include biosimilar infliximab and biosimilar adalimumab. Biosimilar infliximab has been authorized by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2013 and by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2016. Biosimilar adalimumab has been authorized by EMA and FDA in 2017 and, at the time the literary search for this systematic review was conducted no studies were found regarding the treatment of adalimumab biosimilar for inflammatory bowel diseases. To acquire marketing authorization for biosimilars, it must be proven that the biosimilar is biologically similar to the original medicinal product. Bioequivalence is demonstrated through physicochemical trials and clinical trials. However, clinical trials do not have to be performed with all of the indications for which the original medical product is registered. After proving bioequivalence with one or more indication it is possible to extrapolate the biosimilar to be used in all of the original medical products indications. This has raised the question of whether biosimilars are really comparable to the originator in indications for which no clinical trials have been conducted. This systematic review was implemented using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and Interventions. Systematic literature searches were made in Cochrane, Medline (Ovid®), PubMed and Scopus databases on 12.05.2017. 14 observational studies, one systematic review and a randomized clinical trial that met the inclusion criteria were included in the systematic review. The quality of the publications was evaluated using the STROBE-, NOS- and CONSORT-checklists and information regarding the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of biosimilars was extracted. CD-patients receiving tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors for the first time, the clinical response was achieved in 50.0 % to 97.2 % of patients depending on patient population and the duration of treatment. Similarly, for UC-patients, the clinical response was achieved in 62.2 % to 100.0 %. The clinical remission was achieved among 28.9 % to 84.4 % of CD-patients and among 28.9 % to 84.4 % of UC-patients, depending on patient population and treatment follow-up. After the switch from original infliximab to biosimilar, the proportion of patients in clinical remission during follow-up ranged from 62.3 % to 100.0 % in CD-patients and from 45.5 % to 100.0 % in UC-patients. Clinical remission was sustained throughout the whole follow-up in 70 % to 100 % of CD-patients and 66.7 % to 92.0 % of UC-patients. The incidence of adverse events leading to the discontinuation of drug treatment was between 0.0 % and 25.0 %, and the incidence of all adverse events ranged from 0.0 % to 93.6 % in CD- and UC-patients. Biosimilar infliximab seems to be comparable to the original product regarding the efficacy, effectiveness and safety. This result is supported by the systematic literature review published earlier. Conducting a meta-analysis of the information contained in this systematic literature review could have led to a more final decision considering efficacy, effectiveness and safety of biosimilar-infliximab in the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases.
  • Peltoniemi, Jonne (2020)
    Erenumab (Aimovig®) is a first-in-class calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitor approved for the preventive treatment of migraine by the FDA in May 2018 and by European Commission (EC) in July 2018. It is a human monoclonal antibody (mAb) binding to the CGRP receptor, antagonizing the effect of CGRP. The marketing authorization of Aimovig® was based on two phase II and two phase III clinical trials. In all trials, erenumab with doses 70 mg/mL and 140 mg/mL was found to have a significantly superior effect compared to placebo, with a similar safety profile between all groups. These conclusions are mainly in line with studies conducted post marketing authorization. However, questions about the optimal dose, and the frequency and types of adverse events in larger patient populations remain to be studied. A European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) and Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) are required by the European Commission for each human medicine with a marketing authorization within the European Union. The SmPC is produced by the applicant and it should contain all relevant information of the medicinal product as distilled during the assessment process. The SmPC can thus be viewed as a kind of summarized version of the EPAR. The aim of this study was to investigate the post-marketing efficacy and safety information of erenumab from three perspectives: 1) the EPAR was compared with recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and safety of erenumab, 2) all existing literature on the efficacy and safety of erenumab on different subgroups of migraine patients was assessed and summarized, and 3) the efficacy and safety information of the EPAR was compared to those of the SmPC, to resolve whether important information is missing. This review found several points regarding the efficacy and safety of erenumab. First, the status of erenumab was further established as a safe and effective treatment for the prevention of migraine. Second, meta-analyses (n=3) with more extensive cohorts compared to those of the EPAR and SmPC, present a further case for the superiority of the 140 mg dose compared to the 70 mg dose. The difference in dose effect is addressed in the EPAR but its assessment may be based on limited information. Third, different subgroups seem to respond differently to erenumab treatment. This aspect should be further investigated by head-to-head studies. Lastly, the safety information of the SmPC seems insufficient due to lack of mention of upper respiratory infections. This adverse event was among the most common in all of the four clinical trials and has since been observed in a real-world study. Based on these findings, neither the EPAR nor the SmPC of erenumab seem to be fully up to date and information related to the dose and upper respiratory infections as a risk should be reconsidered.