Current state of biologic pharmacovigilance in the European Union: improvements are needed

References

• Giezen TJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Leufkens HG. Pharmacovigilance of biopharmaceuticals: challenges remain. Drug Saf. 2009;32:811–817.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casadevall N, Edwards IR, Felix T, et al. Pharmacovigilance and biosimilars: considerations, needs, and challenges. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2013;13:1039–1047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akers C Safety first - sizing up biologics side effects. 2014 Nov [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: https://themedicinemaker.com/fileadmin/user_upload/TMM_0314.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Biosimilars in the EU. Information guide for healthcare professionals. 2017 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Leaflet/2017/05/WC500226648.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. European Public assessment reports: biosimilars. 2019 [ cited 2019 Feb 11]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/search/search/ema_group_types/ema_medicine?search_api_views_fulltext=biosimilars
   Google Scholar
• Bennett CL, Luminari S, Nissenson AR, et al. Pure red-cell aplasia and epoetin therapy. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1403–1408.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKoy JM, Stonecash RE, Cournoyer D, et al. Epoetin-associated pure red cell aplasia: past, present, and future considerations. Transfusion. 2008;48:1754–1762.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamilvanan S, Raja NL, Sa B, et al. Clinical concerns of immunogenicity produced at cellular levels by biopharmaceuticals following their parenteral administration into human body. J Drug Target. 2010;18:489–498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haag-Weber M, Eckardt KU, Horl WH, et al. Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of subcutaneous biosimilar epoetin-alpha (HX575) in non-dialysis patients with renal anemia: a multi-center, randomized, double-blind study. Clin Nephrol. 2012;77:8–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seidl A, Hainzl O, Richter M, et al. Tungsten-induced denaturation and aggregation of epoetin alfa during primary packaging as a cause of immunogenicity. Pharm Res. 2012;29:1454–1467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macdougall IC, Casadevall N, Locatelli F, et al. Incidence of erythropoietin antibody-mediated pure red cell aplasia: the prospective immunogenicity surveillance registry (PRIMS). Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015;30:451–460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Binocrit. Summary of product characteristics. 2010 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/product-information/binocrit-epar-product-information_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Aapro M, Krendyukov A, Hobel N, et al. Development and 10-year history of a biosimilar: the example of Binocrit®. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2018;10:1758835918768419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. Pharmaceutical administration and regulations in Japan. 2017 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.jpma.or.jp/english/parj/pdf/2017.pdf
   Google Scholar
• The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2010/84/EU of the European parliament and of the council of 15 December 2010 amending, as regards pharmacovigilance, directive 2001/83/EC on the community code relating to medicinal products for human use. 2010 Dec [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-1/dir_2010_84/dir_2010_84_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: nonproprietary naming of biological products. 2017 Jan [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm459987.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sato D Perspectives on trends in the regulation of biopharmaceutical products in Europe and Asia (Japan). 2016 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.pmda.go.jp/files/000209781.pdf#page=1
   Google Scholar
• Lamanna WC, Holzmann J, Cohen HP, et al. Maintaining consistent quality and clinical performance of biopharmaceuticals. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2018;18:369–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casadevall N. Immune-response and adverse reactions: PRCA case example. 2009 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Presentation/2009/11/WC500011064.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Grampp G, Ramanan S. The diversity of biosimilar design and development: implications for policies and stakeholders. Biodrugs. 2015;29:365–372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markus R, Liu J, Ramchandani M, et al. Developing the totality of evidence for biosimilars: regulatory considerations and building confidence for the healthcare community. Biodrugs. 2017;31:175–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calvo B, Martinez-Gorostiaga J, Echevarria E. The surge in biosimilars: considerations for effective pharmacovigilance and EU regulation. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2018;9:601–608.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felix T, Johansson TT, Colliatie JA, et al. Biologic product identification and US pharmacovigilance in the biosimilars era. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:128–130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Authors: Members of the PDA Task Force Post Approval Changes for Innovation in Availability of Medicines, Ramnarine E, Busse U., et al. PDA points to consider: technical product lifecycle management: communication and knowledge exchange between marketing authorization holders and health authorities. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2017;71:163–169.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ICH harmonised tripartite guideline: comparability of biotechnological/biological products subject to changes in their manufacturing process Q5E. 2004 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines/quality/quality-single/article/comparability-of-biotechnologicalbiological-products-subject-to-changes-in-their-manufacturing-proc.html
   Google Scholar
• Declerck P, Farouk-Rezk M, Rudd PM. Biosimilarity versus manufacturing change: two distinct concepts. Pharm Res. 2016;33:261–268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grampp G, Felix T. Pharmacovigilance considerations for biosimilars in the USA. Biodrugs. 2015;29:309–321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Generic enoxaparin questions and answers. [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm220037.htm
   Google Scholar
• Grampp G, Bonafede M, Felix T, et al. Active and passive surveillance of enoxaparin generics: a case study relevant to biosimilars. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2015;14:349–360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lietzan EF, Sim LE, Alexander EA. Biosimilar naming: how do adverse event reporting data support the need for distinct nonproprietary names for biosimilars? Washington, DC: Food and Drug Law Institute; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Grampp G, Kozak RW, Schreitmueller T. Policy considerations for originator and similar biotherapeutic products. Pharm Policy Law. 2016;18:121–139.
   Google Scholar
• Vermeer NS, Giezen TJ, Zastavnik S, et al. Identifiability of biologicals in adverse drug reaction reports received from European clinical practice. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018. Epub ahead of print. doi:10.1002/cpt.1310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010 of the European parliament and of the council of 15 December 2010. Off J Eur Union. 2010;348:1–16.
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Legal framework. 2017 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/pharmacovigilance/legal-framework-pharmacovigilance
   Google Scholar
• The European Commission. Commission implementing regulation (EU) No 520/2012 of 19 June 2012 on the performance of pharmacovigilance activities provided for in regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European parliament and of the council and directive 2001/83/EC of the European parliament and of the council. 2012 Jun [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/eudralex/vol-1/reg_2012_520/reg_2012_520_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. Monitoring safety of medicines for patients. Pharmacovigilance activities related to medicines for human use in the EU. 2017 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/pharmacovigilance/pharmacovigilance-report-2012-2014.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. EMA pharmacovigilance system manual, version 1.2. 2016 Oct [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2014/07/WC500170226.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP). Product- or population-specific considerations II: biological medicinal products. 2016 Aug [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2016/08/WC500211728.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Calvo B, Zuniga L. EU’s new pharmacovigilance legislation: considerations for biosimilars. Drug Saf. 2014;37:9–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaeding M, Schmälter J, Klika C. Pharmacovigilance in the European Union: practical implementation across member states. Cham: Springer; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. EudraVigilance system overview. 2018 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/q_and_a/q_and_a_detail_000166.jsp
   Google Scholar
• Klein K, De Bruin ML, Broekmans AW, et al. Classification of recombinant biologics in the EU: divergence between national pharmacovigilance centers. Biodrugs. 2015;29:373–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermeer NS, Straus SM, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, et al. Traceability of biopharmaceuticals in spontaneous reporting systems: a cross-sectional study in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and EudraVigilance databases. Drug Saf. 2013;36:617–625.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amgen Inc. Docket Nos. FDA-2013-P-1153; FDA-2013-P-1398, respectively, non-proprietary naming of biosimilars. 2015 Mar 9 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FDA-2013-P-1398-0022
   Google Scholar
• Vermeer NS, Ebbers HC, Straus SM, et al. The effect of exposure misclassification in spontaneous ADR reports on the time to detection of product-specific risks for biologicals: a simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25:297–306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felix T WHO biological qualifier proposal: an important step toward global biologic stewardship. Open session to stakeholders: 60th consultation on international non-proprietary names (INN) for pharmaceutical substances. DIA Biosimilars Conference; 2017 October 24–25; Bethesda, MD, US.
   Google Scholar
• Arora A, Jalali RK, Vohora D. Relevance of the Weber effect in contemporary pharmacovigilance of oncology drugs. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2017;13:1195–1203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escher. Pharmacovigilance of biologics: workshop summary – 20th of May 2015. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2015 May [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.lygature.org/files/atoms/files/Escher-Report_20th_of_May_workshop_Final_document.docx.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Klein K, Scholl JH, Vermeer NS, et al. Traceability of biologics in the Netherlands: an analysis of information-recording systems in clinical practice and spontaneous ADR reports. Drug Saf. 2016;39:185–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lygature Escher. The Lygature platform for regulatory innovation. 2017 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.lygature.org/escher
   Google Scholar
• Lygature. The UK BIO-TRAC study. 2017 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.lygature.org/escher/uk-bio-trac-study
   Google Scholar
• Generics and Biosimilars Initiative. The Netherlands to track switching of biologicals. 2016 Oct [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.gabionline.net/Policies-Legislation/The-Netherlands-to-track-switching-of-biologicals
   Google Scholar
• Cohen HP, Blauvelt A, Rifkin RM, et al. Switching reference medicines to biosimilars: a systematic literature review of clinical outcomes. Drugs. 2018;78:463–478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen KK, Olsen IC, Goll GL, et al. Switching from originator infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 compared with maintained treatment with originator infliximab (NOR-SWITCH): a 52-week, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2017;389:2304–2316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moots R, Azevedo V, Coindreau JL, et al. Switching between reference biologics and biosimilars for the treatment of rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology inflammatory conditions: considerations for the clinician. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2017;19:37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKinnon RA, Cook M, Liauw W, et al. Biosimilarity and interchangeability: principles and evidence: a systematic review. Biodrugs. 2018;32:27–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lunddahl B Reducing the information gap among stakeholders. 14th Annual Biosimilars Medicines Group Conference; 2016 April 28–29; London, UK
   Google Scholar
• Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. About yellow card. 2017 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/the-yellow-card-scheme/
   Google Scholar
• Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Latest advice for medicines users. Drug Safety Update. 2012;6:1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Latest advice for all medicines users. Drug Safety Update. 2008;1:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. YellowCard FAQs. 2018 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/faqs/?page=2
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Biological qualifier: an INN proposal. 2015 Oct [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.who.int/medicines/services/inn/WHO_INN_BQ_proposal_2015.pdf?ua=1
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Guiding principles for the international pharmacovigilance cluster. 2015 May [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/internationalprograms/partnerships/ucm454588.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Robinson J What is the falsified medicines directive? 2016 Oct [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/your-rps/what-is-the-falsified-medicines-directive/20201820.article
   Google Scholar
• The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending directive 2001/83/EC on the community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products. 2011 Jun [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/eudralex/vol-1/dir_2011_62/dir_2011_62_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE). SCOPE joint action. 2017 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.scopejointaction.eu/
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Eleventh stakeholder forum on the pharmacovigilance legislation. 2017 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/events/2017/08/event_detail_001501.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c3
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Guidance on the format of the risk management plan (RMP) in the EU - in integrated format. 2017 Mar [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideline/2017/03/WC500224771.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency, Heads of Medicines Agencies. Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP): module V – risk management systems (rev 2). 2017 Mar [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2012/06/WC500129134.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Questions and answers on the risk management plan (RMP) summary. 2017 Mar [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2014/05/WC500166101.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Risk-management plans. 2018 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/document_listing/document_listing_000360.jsp
   Google Scholar
• Blackburn S, Dreyer NA, Starzyk K. Use of registries in product safety assessment. In: Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, Leavy MB, editors. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide [Internet]. 3rd ed. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014:91–112.
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Patient registries, 2018 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000658.jsp
   Google Scholar
• European Union. European commission. 2018 [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-commission_en
   Google Scholar
• European Patients’ Academy on Therapeutic Innovation. Fact sheet: examining the differences between regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making. 2016 Mar [cited 2019 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.eupati.eu/health-technology-assessment/health-technology-assessment-key-definitions/
   Google Scholar