Data sources for drug utilization research in Latin American countries—A cross-national study: DASDUR-LATAM study

Purpose: Drug utilization research (DUR) contributes to inform policymaking and to strengthen health systems. The availability of data sources is the first step for conducting DUR. However, documents that systematize these data sources in Latin American (LatAm) countries are not known. We compiled the potential data sources for DUR in the LatAm region. Methods: A network of DUR experts from nine LatAm countries was assembled and experts conducted: (i) a website search of the government, academic, and private health institutions; (ii) screening of eligible data sources, and (iii) liaising with national experts in pharmacoepidemiology (via an online survey). The data sources were characterized by accessibility, geographic granularity, setting, sector of the data, sources and type of the data. Descriptive analyses were performed. Results: We identified 125 data sources for DUR in nine LatAm countries. Thirty-eight (30%) of them were publicly and conveniently available; 89 (71%) were accessible with limitations, and 18 (14%) were not accessible or lacked clear rules for data access. From the 125 data sources, 76 (61%) were from the public sector only; 46 (37%) were from pharmacy records; 43 (34%) came from ambulatory settings and; 85 (68%) gave access to individual patient-level data. Conclusions: Although multiple sources for DUR are available in LatAm countries, the accessibility is a major challenge. The procedures for accessing DUR data should be transparent, feasible, affordable, and protocol-driven. This inventory could permit a comparison of drug utilization between countries identifying potential medication-related problems that need further exploration.Fil: Lopes, Luciane C.. University Of Sorocaba; BrasilFil: Salas, Daiana Maribel. University of Pennsylvania; Estados UnidosFil: Osorio de Castro, Claudia Garcia Serpa. Fundación Oswaldo Cruz; BrasilFil: Freitas Leal, Lisiane. McGill University; CanadáFil: Doubova, Svetlana V.. Mexican Institute of Social Security; MéxicoFil: Cañás, Martín. Universidad Nacional Arturo Jauretche; Argentina. Federación Médica de la Provincia de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Dreser, Anahi. Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública; MéxicoFil: Acosta, Angela. Universidad ICESI; ColombiaFil: Oliveira Baldoni, Andre. Federal University of São João Del-Rei; BrasilFil: de Cássia Bergamaschi, Cristiane. University of Sorocaba; BrasilFil: Marques Mota, Daniel. Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency; BrasilFil: Gómez Galicia, Diana L.. Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos; MéxicoFil: Sepúlveda Viveros, Dino. Universidad de Chile; ChileFil: Narvaez Delgado, Edgard. No especifíca;Fil: da Costa Lima, Elisangela. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Chandia, Felipe Vera. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; ChileFil: Ferre, Felipe. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; BrasilFil: Marin, Gustavo Horacio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Plata; ArgentinaFil: Olmos, Ismael. State Health Services Administration; UruguayFil: Zimmermann, Ivan R.. Universidade do Brasília; BrasilFil: Fulone, Izabela. University of Sorocaba; BrasilFil: Roldán Saelzer, Juan. Instituto de Salud Pública; ChileFil: Sánchez Salgado, Juan Carlos. No especifíca;Fil: Castro Pastrana, Lucila I.. Universidad de Las Américas de Puebla; MéxicoFil: de Souza, Luiz Jupiter Carneiro. Fundación Oswaldo Cruz; BrasilFil: Machado Beltrán, Manuel. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; ColombiaFil: Tolentino Silva, Marcus. University of Sorocaba; BrasilFil: Mena, María Belén. Universidad Central del Ecuador; EcuadorFil: de França Fonteles, Marta Maria. Universidade Federal do Ceara; BrasilFil: Urtasun, Martín Alejandro. Universidad Nacional Arturo Jauretche; Argentina. Federación Médica de la Provincia de Buenos Aires; Argentin

Biosimilars approvals by thirteen regulatory authorities: A cross-national comparison

Biosimilars are biological medicines highly similar to a previously licensed reference product and their licensing is expected to improve access to biological therapies. This study aims to present an overview of biosimilars approval by thirteen regulatory authorities (RA). The study is a cross-national comparison of regulatory decisions involving biosimilars in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Canada, Colombia, Europe, Hungary, Guatemala, Italy, Mexico, Peru and United States. We examined publicly available documents containing information regarding the approval of biosimilars and investigated the publication of public assessment reports for registration applications, guidelines for biosimilars licensing, and products approved. Data extraction was conducted by a network of researchers and regulatory experts. All the RA had issued guidance documents establishing the requirements for the licensing of biosimilars. However, only three RA had published public assessment reports for registration applications. In total, the investigated jurisdictions had from 19 to 78 biosimilars approved, most of them licensed from 2018 to 2020. In spite of the advance in the number of products in recent years, some challenges still persist. Limited access to information regarding the assessment of biosimilars by RA can affect confidence, which may ultimately impact adoption of these products in practice.Fil: Machado, Fernanda Lacerda da Silva. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Cañás, Martín. Universidad Nacional Arturo Jauretche; ArgentinaFil: Doubova, Svetlana V.. Mexican Institute Of Social Security; MéxicoFil: Urtasun, Martín Alejandro. Universidad Nacional Arturo Jauretche; ArgentinaFil: Marin, Gustavo Horacio. Universidad Nacional de La Plata; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Osorio de Castro, Claudia Garcia Serpa. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz; BrasilFil: Albuquerque, Flavia Caixeta. Sorocaba University; BrasilFil: Ribeiro, Tatiane Bonfim. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Pont, Lisa. University of Technology Sydney; AustraliaFil: Crisóstomo Landeros, José. Instituto de Salud Pública de Chile; ChileFil: Roldán Saelzer, Juan. Instituto de Salud Pública de Chile; ChileFil: Sepúlveda Viveros, Dino. Universidad del Desarrollo; Chile. Universidad Autónoma de Chile; ChileFil: Acosta, Angela. Universidad Icesi; ColombiaFil: Machado Beltrán, Manuel A.. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; ColombiaFil: Gordillo Alas, Lily Iracema. Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance; GuatemalaFil: Orellana Tablas, Lourdes Abigail. Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance; GuatemalaFil: Benko, Ria. University of Szeged; HungríaFil: Convertino, Irma. University of Pisa; ItaliaFil: Bonaso, Marco. University of Pisa; ItaliaFil: Tuccori, Marco. University of Pisa; ItaliaFil: Kirchmayer, Ursula. Lazio Regional Health Service; ItaliaFil: Contreras Sánchez, Saúl E.. Mexican Institute of Social Security; MéxicoFil: Rodríguez Tanta, L. Yesenia. Universidad Cientifica del Sur;Fil: Gutierrez Aures, Ysabel. Ministry of Health of Peru; PerúFil: Lin, Boya. University of Florida; Estados UnidosFil: Alipour Haris, Golnoosh. University of Florida; Estados UnidosFil: Eworuke, Efe. Real World Solutions; Estados UnidosFil: Lopes, Luciane Cruz. Sorocaba University; Brasi

An overview of biosimilars approvals by thirteen regulatory authorities: A cross national comparison

Biosimilars are biological medicines highly similar to a previously licensed reference product and their licensing is expected to improve access to biological therapies. This study aims to present an overview of biosimilars approval by thirteen regulatory authorities (RA). The study is a cross-national comparison of regulatory decisions involving biosimilars in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Canada, Colombia, Europe, Hungary, Guatemala, Italy, Mexico, Peru and United States. We examined publicly available documents containing information regarding the approval of biosimilars and investigated the publication of public assessment reports for registration applications, guidelines for biosimilars licensing, and products approved. Data extraction was conducted by a network of researchers and regulatory experts. All the RA had issued guidance documents establishing the requirements for the licensing of biosimilars. However, only three RA had published public assessment reports for registration applications. In total, the investigated jurisdictions had from 19 to 78 biosimilars approved, most of them licensed from 2018 to 2020. In spite of the advance in the number of products in recent years, some challenges still persist. Limited access to information regarding the assessment of biosimilars by RA can affect confidence, which may ultimately impact adoption of these products in practice.Facultad de Ciencias Médica