Search

OBJECTIVE: The adalimumab originator Humira® introduced a new citrate-free formulation in 2016, before the patent expiry that occurred in the European Union in October 2018. Some of the adalimumab biosimilars that were subsequently marketed are citrate-free, while others are not. Since citrate as an excipient is associated with pain at the injection site, recent anecdotical reporting in Italy raised the issue of possible prescription biases related to the differences in formulation existing among the various adalimumab products. In this study, we analyzed the data obtained from the ‘Rete Nazionale di Farmacovigilanza’ (Pharmacovigilance National Network) to investigate whether, and to what extent, the differences in the formulation of the various adalimumab versions had an impact on the rate of injection site reactions reported in Italy in the period 2016-2019. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search was conducted based on 3 search criteria: (1) time frame; (2) suspected drugs, and (3) adverse reaction type. Reports classified in the System Organ Class “Administration site conditions” were analyzed by year, product, and type of adverse event (whether including or not ‘pain’). Data were reported both as absolute numbers, as well as signaling rates, considering the consumption data expressed as defined daily doses (DDD). RESULTS: We found that: (1) The change in Humira® formulation introduced in august 2016 was followed by a decrease in the reports of injection site reactions (from 45 in 2016 to 12, 12 and 8 in 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively); (2) after the introduction of biosimilars during 2018, in 2019 a marked shift in reporting toward biosimilars was observed (52 out of 60; 87%). CONCLUSIONS: While the decrease in Humira® reports is consistent with the improved tolerability of the new formulation, the huge increase in biosimilar reporting may be only in part explained by the differences in formulation and cannot be accounted for by a parallel increase in exposure, since 58.3% of total DDDs provided in 2019 were still attributed to Humira®. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Natural health products are promoted to the public as equally or more effective and less toxic than conventional drugs. However, some 'natural' medicines are known to have adverse effects. From April 2002 to August 2007, 18 suspected adverse reactions associated with propolis-containing products were reported to the national surveillance system of natural health products, coordinated by the Italian National Health Institute. Sixteen reports concerned allergic reactions (with dermatological or respiratory symptoms), while two concerned the digestive tract. Some of the reactions were serious: six patients were admitted to hospital or visited an emergency department and in two of these a life-threatening event was reported. In seven patients (four of whom were children), an allergic predisposition was indicated. Propolis, a resinous substance collected by honeybees from the buds of living plants, has been used for several purposes (dermatitis, laryngitis, oral ulcers) because of its wide range of suggested activities (antibacterial, antiviral, antifungal, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant and chemopreventive actions). However, propolis is also a potent sensitizer and should not be used in patients with an allergic predisposition, in particular an allergy to pollen. In Italy, products containing bee derivatives (bee pollen, royal jelly or propolis) are available to the public as food supplements. No label warning of possible adverse reactions is found on the packaging, although it is well known that atopic and asthmatic individuals may be at an increased risk of allergic reactions after using these products. The public and healthcare practitioners should be aware of the risk of allergic reactions to products derived from bees and a warning should be added to the packaging of these products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]