Literature DB >> 23771794

Traceability of biopharmaceuticals in spontaneous reporting systems: a cross-sectional study in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and EudraVigilance databases.

Niels S Vermeer1, Sabine M J M Straus, Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse, Francois Domergue, Toine C G Egberts, Hubert G M Leufkens, Marie L De Bruin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of biopharmaceuticals can be batch or product specific, resulting from small differences in the manufacturing process. Detailed exposure information should be readily available in systems for postmarketing safety surveillance of biopharmaceuticals, including spontaneous reporting systems (SRSs), in which reports of ADRs are collected.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the current status of traceability of biopharmaceuticals in the US and the EU up to patient level in SRSs. DESIGN AND
SETTING: A cross-sectional study was conducted over the period 2004-2010, including ADR reports from two major SRSs: the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) in the US and EudraVigilance (EV) in the EU. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The availability of batch numbers was determined for biopharmaceuticals, and compared with small molecule drugs. For biopharmaceuticals for which a biosimilar has been approved for marketing in the EU, the identifiability of the product (i.e. the possibility of distinguishing the biosimilar from the reference biopharmaceutical) was determined.
RESULTS: A total of 2,028,600 unique ADR reports were identified in the FAERS, reporting a total of 591,380 biopharmaceuticals (of which 487,065 were suspected). In EV there were 2,108,742 unique ADR reports, reporting a total of 439,971 biopharmaceuticals (356,293 suspected). Overall, for 24.0 % of the suspected biopharmaceuticals in the FAERS and 7.4 % of the suspected small molecule drugs (p < 0.001) batch numbers were available. A similar pattern was seen in EV: for 21.1 % of the suspected biopharmaceuticals batch numbers were available, compared with only 3.6 % of the small molecule drugs (p < 0.001). In both SRSs, consumers were most likely to report a batch number for suspected biologicals (36.3 % in the FAERS and 40.7 % in EV). A total of 13,790 biopharmaceuticals (9,759 suspected) for which a biosimilar has been approved in the EU were identified in EV. For 90.4 % of these biopharmaceuticals and 96.2 % of the suspected biopharmaceuticals the product was clearly identifiable.
CONCLUSION: This study underlines the need for improving traceability of biopharmaceuticals, in particular with respect to individual batches, allowing better identification and monitoring of postmarketing safety issues related to biopharmaceuticals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23771794     DOI: 10.1007/s40264-013-0073-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drug Saf        ISSN: 0114-5916            Impact factor:   5.606


  27 in total

Review 1.  Bioequivalence and the immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals.

Authors:  Huub Schellekens
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 84.694

Review 2.  When biotech proteins go off-patent.

Authors:  H Schellekens
Journal:  Trends Biotechnol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 19.536

3.  Debate over details of US biosimilar pathway continues to rage.

Authors:  Jeffrey L Fox
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 54.908

4.  Former French ministers on trial for infected blood-products scandal.

Authors:  D D de Bousingen
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-02-20       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 5.  Immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins. Part 3: impact of manufacturing changes.

Authors:  Basant Sharma
Journal:  Biotechnol Adv       Date:  2007-01-30       Impact factor: 14.227

6.  Haemophilia patient had variant CJD agent in spleen.

Authors:  Lynn Eaton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-02-18

7.  Acceptable changes in quality attributes of glycosylated biopharmaceuticals.

Authors:  Martin Schiestl; Thomas Stangler; Claudia Torella; Tadej Cepeljnik; Hansjörg Toll; Roger Grau
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 54.908

Review 8.  Today's challenges in pharmacovigilance: what can we learn from epoetins?

Authors:  Hans C Ebbers; Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse; Ellen H M Moors; Huub Schellekens; Hubert G Leufkens
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2011-04-01       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 9.  Traceability in healthcare: crossing boundaries.

Authors:  C Lovis
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2008

10.  Worldwide experience with biosimilar development.

Authors:  Mark McCamish; Gillian Woollett
Journal:  MAbs       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 5.857

View more
  23 in total

1.  Ongoing challenges in pharmacovigilance.

Authors:  Gerald J Dal Pan
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 2.  Evaluating AE Reporting of Two Off-Patent Biologics to Inform Future Biosimilar Naming and Reporting Practices.

Authors:  Stella Stergiopoulos; Kenneth Getz
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 3.  Safety of Biologics, Including Biosimilars: Perspectives on Current Status and Future Direction.

Authors:  Ylenia Ingrasciotta; Paola M Cutroneo; Ilaria Marcianò; Thijs Giezen; Fabiola Atzeni; Gianluca Trifirò
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 4.  Pharmacoeconomics of Biosimilars: What Is There to Gain from Them?

Authors:  Filipe C Araújo; João Gonçalves; João Eurico Fonseca
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 4.592

5.  Safety profile of biological medicines as compared with non-biologicals: an analysis of the italian spontaneous reporting system database.

Authors:  Paola M Cutroneo; Valentina Isgrò; Alessandra Russo; Valentina Ientile; Laura Sottosanti; Giuseppe Pimpinella; Anita Conforti; Ugo Moretti; Achille P Caputi; Gianluca Trifirò
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 5.606

6.  Adverse Drug Reaction Case Safety Practices in Large Biopharmaceutical Organizations from 2007 to 2017: An Industry Survey.

Authors:  Stella Stergiopoulos; Mortiz Fehrle; Patrick Caubel; Louise Tan; Louise Jebson
Journal:  Pharmaceut Med       Date:  2019-12

Review 7.  Recommendations on how to ensure the safety and effectiveness of biosimilars in Latin America: a point of view.

Authors:  Carlos Pineda; Carlo V Caballero-Uribe; Marcia Gonclaves de Oliveira; Pedro Saul Lipszyc; Jose Julian Lopez; Marcelo Mario Mataos Moreira; Valderilio Feijo Azevedo
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2015-02-12       Impact factor: 2.980

8.  Nomenclature and traceability debate for biosimilars: small-molecule surrogates lend support for distinguishable nonproprietary names.

Authors:  Jingdong Chao; Martha Skup; Emily Alexander; Namita Tundia; Dendy Macaulay; Eric Wu; Parvez Mulani
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 3.845

Review 9.  The changing landscape of biosimilars in rheumatology.

Authors:  Thomas Dörner; Vibeke Strand; Paul Cornes; João Gonçalves; László Gulácsi; Jonathan Kay; Tore K Kvien; Josef Smolen; Yoshiya Tanaka; Gerd R Burmester
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 19.103

Review 10.  Clinical and regulatory perspectives on biosimilar therapies and intended copies of biologics in rheumatology.

Authors:  Eduardo Mysler; Carlos Pineda; Takahiko Horiuchi; Ena Singh; Ehab Mahgoub; Javier Coindreau; Ira Jacobs
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2016-02-27       Impact factor: 2.631

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.