METHODS: This research aims to compare evaluation practice on biosimilar and novel BTPs at the Biological Product Registration Section in Malaysia. Evaluation activities were studied in terms of evaluation questions, evaluation timeline, nonclinical and clinical requirements, and local requirements on product label (including package insert). Six biosimilar product dossiers and 6 novel BTP dossiers evaluated in 2013-2015 were sampled. Parameters for comparison were determined and analyzed using data collection forms. Specific to the biosimilar products, the evaluation practice on labels and package inserts were dissected and described in a qualitative arm of this research.
RESULTS: Generally, the registration requirements of novel BTPs and biosimilar products are in agreement with international regulatory practices. However, some labeling and package insert requirements, and registration conditions are unique to the Malaysian regulatory context.
CONCLUSIONS: Study findings revealed some similarities and differences in current evaluation practice (timeline and requirements) for biosimilar versus novel BTPs. The findings of this research also provide an insight on current evaluation practice on biosimilar product labeling.
METHODS: A subgroup analysis was performed on the 24-month data comparing the Asian cohort (AC) to non-Asian cohort (NAC).
RESULTS: AC included 49 patients with 77 lesions. AC was significantly younger (65.6 vs 70.3 years, p < 0.05), had more diabetes (87.8% vs 45.3%, p < 0.05), and was more likely to present with CLTI (73.5% vs 35.3%, p < 0.001) compared to NAC. They had significantly longer mean target lesions (115 vs 86.9 mm, p = 0.006), and received significantly higher paclitaxel doses (10.7 vs 7.2 mg, p = 0.0005). Device, technical and procedural successes were 125/125(100%), 95/97(97.5%) and 45/49(91.8%), respectively. There was no significant difference in target lesion revascularization rates between groups (10.5% vs 12%, p = 0.91). However, the AC had more major adverse events (30.2% vs 16.1%, p = 0.001), amputations (26.3% vs 6.2%, p < 0.05) and mortality (37.9% vs 10.6%, p < 0.05) at 24 months.
CONCLUSION: Passeo-18 Lux™ use was efficacious in Asians, but was associated with higher adverse events, amputations and mortality rates, likely attributable to poorer patient comorbidities and more extensive PAD.
METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, prospective, international, multicenter, open-label, randomized control clinical trial that plans to recruit 80 patients, who require fistuloplasty from dysfunctional arteriovenous fistula (AVF) from CAS. Eligible participants are randomly assigned to receive treatment with SG and PCB or PCB alone in a 1:1 ratio post-angioplasty (n = 40 in each arm). Randomization is stratified by de novo or recurrent lesion, and the participants are followed up for 1 year. The primary endpoints of the study are target lesion primary patency (TLPP) and access circuit primary patency (ACPP) rates at 6-months. The secondary endpoints are TLPP and ACPP at 3- and 12-month; target lesion and access circuit assisted primary and secondary patency rates at 3, 6, and 12-months and the total number of interventions; complication rate; and cost-effectiveness.
DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of combination SG and PCB implantation compared to PCB alone in the treatment of CAS for hemodialysis patients.