Comparative Safety of Originator and Biosimilar Epoetin Alfa Drugs: An Observational Prospective Multicenter Study

Background: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are biological molecules approved for the treatment of anemia associated with chronic renal failure. Biosimilars were licensed for use in Europe in 2007. Aim: This study aimed to compare the safety profile of biosimilars with respect to the reference product in a nephrology setting. Methods: A prospective study was conducted in four Italian regions between 1 October 2013 and 30 June 2015. The study population included patients aged 65 18 years undergoing hemodialysis and treated with epoetins as per the clinical practice of the participating centers. The two comparison cohorts included patients treated with either an originator or a biosimilar epoetin alfa. Each patient was followed up until occurrence of any safety outcome of interest (grouped into three major categories), switch to a different ESA product, transplant or peritoneal dialysis, death, or end of the study period, whichever came first. Results: Overall, 867 subjects were included in the study (originator: N = 423; biosimilar: N = 444). Biosimilar users were older than originator users (median age of 76 vs 64 years, respectively), more frequently affected by arrhythmia (29.3 vs 22.5%), and less frequently candidates for transplantation (3.8 vs 18.2%). Cox-regression analysis showed no increase in risk of safety outcomes in biosimilar users, even after adjusting for confounding factors: 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7\u20131.3) for any outcomes; 1.1 (95% CI 0.7\u20131.8) for problems related to dialysis device; 0.9 (95% CI 0.6\u20131.5) for cardio- and cerebro-vascular conditions; 0.9 (95% CI 0.6\u20131.5) for infections. Conclusion: This study confirms the comparable safety profiles of originator and biosimilar epoetin alfa drugs when used in patients receiving dialysis

High-dose ivermectin for early treatment of COVID-19 (COVER study): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase II, dose-finding, proof-of-concept clinical trial

: High concentrations of ivermectin demonstrated antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of high-dose ivermectin in reducing viral load in individuals with early SARS-CoV-2 infection. This was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase II, dose-finding, proof-of-concept clinical trial. Participants were adults recently diagnosed with asymptomatic/oligosymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Exclusion criteria were: pregnant or lactating women; CNS disease; dialysis; severe medical condition with prognosis <6 months; warfarin treatment; and antiviral/chloroquine phosphate/hydroxychloroquine treatment. Participants were assigned (ratio 1:1:1) according to a randomised permuted block procedure to one of the following arms: placebo (arm A); single-dose ivermectin 600 μg/kg plus placebo for 5 days (arm B); and single-dose ivermectin 1200 μg/kg for 5 days (arm C). Primary outcomes were serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs) and change in viral load at Day 7. From 31 July 2020 to 26 May 2021, 32 participants were randomised to arm A, 29 to arm B and 32 to arm C. Recruitment was stopped on 10 June because of a dramatic drop in cases. The safety analysis included 89 participants and the change in viral load was calculated in 87 participants. No SADRs were registered. Mean (S.D.) log10 viral load reduction was 2.9 (1.6) in arm C, 2.5 (2.2) in arm B and 2.0 (2.1) in arm A, with no significant differences (P = 0.099 and 0.122 for C vs. A and B vs. A, respectively). High-dose ivermectin was safe but did not show efficacy to reduce viral load