4.3 Review

Biosimilars for the treatment of psoriasis

期刊

EXPERT OPINION ON BIOLOGICAL THERAPY
卷 19, 期 10, 页码 993-1000

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14712598.2019.1636963

关键词

Biosimilars; biologics; adalimumab; etanercept; infliximab; interchangeability; switching; TNF inhibitors; psoriasis; hidradenitis suppurativa

资金

  1. Abbvie
  2. Almirall
  3. Amgen
  4. Baxalta
  5. Biogen
  6. Boehringer Ingelheim
  7. Celgene
  8. Gebro
  9. Janssen
  10. Leo-Pharma
  11. Lilly
  12. Merck-Serono
  13. MSD
  14. Mylan
  15. Novartis
  16. Pfizer
  17. Regeneron
  18. Roche
  19. Sandoz
  20. Samsung-Bioepis
  21. Sanofi
  22. UCB

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Biosimilars are biological products that are very similar to their originators, with no meaningful differences in terms of efficacy, safety, and purity. Since the patents of some of the biologics used to treat patients with psoriasis have expired, uptake of biosimilars provides a good opportunity to reduce the cost of treatment. Areas covered: In this review we summarize the stages in development of a biosimilar product, the main differences with the originator biologic, and their potential implications. We have also reviewed clinical trials of biosimilars approved for the treatment of psoriasis. Expert opinion: Because of efficacy and convenience of administration, adalimumab biosimilars will be used to greater extent than etanercept or infliximab to treat patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. The pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of approved biosimilars are equivalent to those of their reference products in clinical trials, and multiple-switch studies are intended to provide evidence in support of FDA-required interchangeability. Non-medical switching is expected to become frequent, and the nocebo effect will be relevant. Traceability of biologics is an essential requirement to gather relevant information on their long-term efficacy and safety, especially when multiple switches occur.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据