OBJECTIVE: To assess the agreement between Anterion AS-OCT and three optical devices in measuring the white-to-white (WTW) diameter in candidates for refractive surgery.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional prospective study, 129 right eyes of 129 normal individuals underwent consecutive scans with the Anterion, the Pentacam AXL, the IOLMaster 700, and the Orbscan IIz. Mean difference (MD), 95% limits of agreement (LoA), and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) were calculated to assess agreement and interchangeability.
RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 30.4 ± 5.9 (range: 21-47) years. The mean WTW distance measured by the different instruments was as follows: 12.00 ± 0.42 mm (range, 10.57 to 13.05) using the Anterion, 11.87 ± 0.34 (11.10 to 12.80) using the Pentacam, 12.12 ± 0.44 (11.00 to 13.30) using the IOLMaster, and 11.73 ± 0.37 (11.00 to 13.10) using the Orbscan. The MD and 95% LoA for Anterion vs. Pentacam, IOLMaster, or Orbscan were [0.11; -0.31 to 0.54 mm], [-0.13; -0.93 to 0.66], and [0.25; -0.28 to 0.78], respectively. The corresponding CCCs were 0.803, 0.514, and 0.631.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found weak agreement between Anterion and Pentacam AXL, IOLMaster 700, and Orbscan IIz devices regarding WTW distance measurements in refractive surgery candidates. Therefore, it is not recommended to use Anterion\'s WTW measurements interchangeably with the other three devices, particularly for phakic intraocular lens sizing.

UNASSIGNED: To compare the interocular symmetry and investigate the intermachine reproducibility of optic disc and macular data measured by spectral-domain high-definition optical coherence tomography (HD-OCT) Cirrus HD-OCT 4000 and HD-OCT 5000 from healthy subjects.
UNASSIGNED: Forty-three volunteers were examined with both HD-OCT 4000 and HD-OCT 5000 at the same visit. Optic nerve head (ONH) and macular data were acquired using ONH Cube 200×200 scans and macular volume cube 512×128 scans, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: The average age of the participants was 33 ± 8.6 years. Interocular OCT parameters of ONH and macula showed a high correlation between the right and left eyes regardless of HD-OCT models, displaying a low coefficient of variation (CV). However, the average retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) was thicker (96.67±11.19µm vs 95.3±10.89µm, p<0.01), and the average central subfield thickness (261.51±17.45µm vs 262.51±17.39 µm, p<0.01) and cube average thickness (283.91± 13.59µm vs 286.55±13.09µm, p<0.05) were thinner when measured by Cirrus 4000 compared to 5000. Intermachine reproducibility and reliability of RNFL and macular parameters exhibited a high intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (0.985) and low CV (2.4%). Ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) measured by two OCT models showed similar values with an average thickness of 85 µm and had high intermachine reproducibility with high ICC (0.993) and low CV (1.2%).
UNASSIGNED: High interocular symmetry was observed across both HD-OCT models. Intermachine reproducibility for RNFL and all macular parameters was also high. GCIPL showed minimal intermachine differences with high reproducibility and reliability. Thus, the results imply that GCIPL values measured by two Cirrus OCT models may be used interchangeably.

By definition, biosimilar medicinal products are biological medicinal products that are similar to other biological medicinal products that are already on the market-the reference medicinal products. Access to biosimilar medicines is a current reality. However, to achieve this goal, it is extremely important to consistently and scientifically substantiate the regulatory requirements necessary for biosimilar medicines when accessing the market. Based on an analysis of the raw materials and the type of methods used in the manufacturing processes of biological medicines, it is known that this tends to be more complex for the quality of the finished product than the manufacture of molecules obtained through a chemical process. It is then relevant to highlight the main differences between both products: biological medicines manufactured using biotechnology and the current generics containing active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) obtained from synthetic processes. Once arriving at the approval process of these medicinal products, it is imperative to analyse the guidance documents and the regulatory framework that create the rules that allow these biosimilar medicinal products to come to the market. The present review aimed at documenting comparatively the specific provisions of European legislation, through the European Medicines Agency (EMA), as well as the legislation of the United States of America, through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This was then translated into a critical appraisal of what concerns the specific criteria that determine the favourable evaluation of a biosimilar when an application for marketing authorisation is submitted to different regulatory agencies. The gathered evidence suggests that the key to the success of biosimilar medicines lies in a more rigorous and universal regulation as well as a greater knowledge, acceptance, and awareness of health professionals to enable more patients to be treated with biological strategies at an earlier stage of the disease and with more affordable medicines, ensuring always the safety and efficacy of those medicines.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the level of agreement and evaluate the reliability of measurements between two Scheimpflug imaging modalities, Scansys (MediWorks, China) and Sirius (CSO, Italy), in quantifying the anterior segment parameters in healthy eyes.
METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, the right eyes of 38 healthy participants without any ocular or systemic diseases were examined. A range of anterior segment parameters including anterior and posterior flat and steep keratometry, central corneal thickness (CCT), thinnest corneal thickness (TCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), anterior chamber angle (ACA), corneal volume, anterior chamber volume, and horizontal white to white diameter, derived from the sagittal curvature maps were measured. To evaluate the reliability of the measurements, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and correlation coefficient were measured. Additionally, Bland-Altman plots were employed to examine the agreement in mean (bias line) and 95% limits of agreement between the two devices.
RESULTS: The mean age was 31.5 ± 6.9 (range: 19-47) years. The ICC indicated that the majority of anterior segment parameters had an excellent or good level of reliability, surpassing the threshold of 0.9. Nevertheless, CCT and ACA exhibited a moderate level of reliability, with ICC values of 0.794 and 0.728, respectively. The correlation analysis showed a strong correlation for all the variables tested. The Bland-Altman plots revealed that the bias line was near zero and the 95% limits of agreement were narrow for most variables, except for the anterior flat and steep keratometry, which were found to range from - 0.57 to 0.84 D and - 0.68 to 0.87 D, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Scansys and Sirius devices can be effectively used interchangeably for the evaluation of most anterior segment parameters; however, for anterior corneal curvatures, CCT and ACA, their alternative use is not recommended.

Adalimumab (ADL, Humira®, reference product), an anti-TNF-α biologic, has transformed the treatment of chronic, immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. However, the high cost of ADL therapy has driven the development of more affordable ADL biosimilars, agents with no clinically meaningful differences from the reference product. This review summarizes the product attributes of reference ADL and the nine ADL biosimilars approved and available in the USA in relation to patient experience of injection-site pain (ISP). Product formulation, delivery volume and device features (e.g., type and needle gauge size) influence patient experience of ISP with potential clinical consequences. Citrate-free formulations generally cause less ISP; injection volumes of > 1.5 ml may be associated with increased ISP. Reference ADL and all ADL biosimilars offer a citrate-free formulation, and reference ADL and four ADL biosimilars offer a high-concentration solution that allows a smaller injection volume. All available ADL products are injected subcutaneously using either a pre-filled pen (PFP) or pre-filled syringe (PFS). Patients prefer the PFP, but the PFS permits better control over the speed and duration of injection. Smaller (29-gauge) needle outer diameter is associated with less ISP; reference ADL and seven ADL biosimilars offer a device with a 29-gauge needle. In the USA, an approved biosimilar can be designated \"interchangeable,\" allowing pharmacy-level substitution, where state law permits. In the USA, two ADL biosimilars have received interchangeability designation; others are seeking interchangeability designation from the Food and Drug Administration (n = 2), are being evaluated in clinical studies to support interchangeability (n = 2), or do not have/are not seeking interchangeability designation (n = 3). Product-related attributes influence patient experience of ISP caused by subcutaneous ADL injection. Reference ADL and ADL biosimilar products differ in their attributes, so discussion with patients about treatment options is essential to optimize adherence and outcomes.

Biological therapies have transformed high-burden treatments. As the patent and exclusivity period for biological medicines draws to a close, there is a possibility for the development and authorization of biosimilars. These products boast comparable levels of safety, quality, and effectiveness to their precursor reference products. Biosimilars, although similar to reference products, are not identical copies and should not be considered generic substitutes for the original. Their development and evaluation involve a rigorous step-by-step process that includes analytical, functional, and nonclinical evaluations and clinical trials. Clinical studies conducted for biosimilars aim to establish similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, rather than demonstrating a clinical benefit, as with the reference product. However, although the current knowledge regarding biosimilars has significantly increased, several controversies and misconceptions still exist regarding their immunogenicity, extrapolation, interchangeability, substitution, and nomenclature. The development of biosimilars stimulates market competition, contributes toward healthcare sustainability, and allows for greater patient access. However, maximizing the benefits of biosimilars requires cooperation between regulators and developers to ensure that patients can benefit quickly from access to these new therapeutic alternatives while maintaining high standards of quality, safety, and efficacy. Recognizing the inherent complexities of comprehending biosimilars fully, it is essential to focus on realistic approaches, such as fostering open communication between healthcare providers and patients, encouraging informed decision-making, and minimizing risks. This review addresses the regulatory and manufacturing requirements for biosimilars and provides clinicians with relevant insights for informed prescribing.

DTaP5-HBV-IPV-Hib (Vaxelis®) is a hexavalent combination vaccine (HV) indicated in infants and toddlers for the prevention of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis, and invasive disease due to Haemophilus influenzae type b. Switching between HVs during the childhood vaccination series is sometimes necessary due to, for example, vaccine availability, health-care provider preference, and/or tender awards. The purpose of this study was to describe the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a booster dose of Vaxelis® in participants who previously received a primary infant series of either DTaP2-HBV-IPV-Hib (Hexyon®) or Vaxelis®. Healthy participants approximately 11-13 months of age who previously received a two-dose primary series of Hexyon® (HHV group) or Vaxelis® (VVV group) all received a Vaxelis® booster dose. Immunogenicity was evaluated by measuring antibody levels to individual vaccine antigens approximately 30 days following booster vaccination. Safety was evaluated as the proportion of participants with adverse events (AEs). The proportions of participants with antibody-specific responses for antigens contained in both Vaxelis® and Hexyon® at 30 days post-toddler-booster vaccination with Vaxelis® were comparable between groups, and higher in the VVV group for Vaxelis® antigens PRN and FIM2/3. The overall proportions of participants with AEs were generally comparable between groups. Following a booster dose of Vaxelis®, immune responses were comparable between groups for all shared antigens, and higher in the VVV group for antigens found only in Vaxelis®. The booster was well tolerated in both groups. These data support the use of Vaxelis® as a booster in mixed HV regimens.

Adalimumab biosimilar experience is still recent. Interchangeability differences could reduce persistence times. Our goal was to compare biosimilar persistence differences with a reference. A retrospective observational study was performed in three groups divided according to the adalimumab received. The primary outcome measure was persistence, represented with Kaplan-Meier analysis, and we secondarily evaluated security, efficacy, and biomarkers. We obtained approval from the regional ethical committee, and the study was conducted following the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013. Data from 104 patients were collected: 50 received the biosimilar, 29 received the reference, and 25 switched from the original to the biosimilar. After a follow-up of 12 months, the biosimilar\'s persistence was higher, without differences in mild adverse events per group. In contrast, there were differences in severe events, with the switched group\'s frequency being higher. Biomarkers were reduced at similar proportions in all groups, and 43% had a clinical response at week 20 without differences. Adalimumab biosimilars are a valuable option for IBD based on clinical equivalence that are less expensive than the original drug. Their use does not have a detrimental influence on disease, although there are a few nuances in terms of interchangeability. These results support increasing confidence in using biosimilars, thus promoting the better sustainability of health systems.

The numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale are used to quantify pain intensity. However, it has not yet been explored whether these scores are interchangeable in adults with chronic pain. Data from the prospective multicentre cross-sectional INTERVAL study were used to evaluate the one-dimensionality and agreement between numerical rating scale scores and visual analogue scale scores in adults with chronic pain. Pain intensity scores using the numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale were provided by 366 patients with chronic pain for current, average, minimal and maximal pain. To evaluate whether pain intensity scales are completed in accordance with each other, the proportion of patients who satisfied the following condition was calculated: minimal pain intensity ≤ maximal pain intensity. A factor analysis confirmed the one-dimensionality of the pain measures. A significant difference was found between numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale scores for average, current, minimum and maximum pain. Intra-class correlation coefficient estimates ranged from 0.739 to 0.858 and all measures failed to show sufficient and acceptable agreement at the 95% level. The strength of agreement between pain severity categories was classified as \'moderate\' for average and minimal pain and \'substantial\' for current and maximal pain. The proportion of patients who scored minimal pain ≤ maximal pain was 97.5% for the numerical rating scale and 89.5% for the visual analogue scale. This study failed to show an acceptable agreement between the numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale when pain intensity was rated by adults with chronic pain, despite showing both scales measure the same information.

Payment for oncology care is increasingly moving from fee-for-service to value-based payment (VBP). VBPs are agreements in which providers are held accountable for total cost of care (TCOC) through risk-sharing arrangements with payers that tie reimbursement levels to TCOC benchmarks. Oncology biosimilars may play an important role in managing financial risk in the VBPs like Medicare\'s Oncology Care Model (OCM), but there has been limited research in this area. The objective of this study is to estimate the impact of biosimilar adoption on TCOC and oncology provider financial performance under the terms of the Medicare OCM.
We conducted a population-based simulation study using the Medicare Limited Data Set (LDS) and the methodology of Medicare\'s OCM. The primary outcome was the simulated average change in TCOC per 6-month episode of care attributable to use of biosimilars as an alternative to reference products. The study population consisted of episodes of care in 2020 and using the reference product or corresponding biosimilar for bevacizumab, rituximab, trastuzumab, epoetin alfa, filgrastim, or pegfilgrastim. TCOC was calculated for each episode of care with use of reference products only and compared with TCOC with corresponding biosimilars. The simulation calculated TCOC outcomes in cohorts of 100 episodes sampled from the Medicare LDS study population using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.
Among the total of 8281 6-month oncology care episodes identified in the study period (initiating January 2020 to July 2020) in Medicare claims, 1586 (19.2%) episodes met OCM and study criteria and were included. Applying the simulation methods to these observed episodes, biosimilar substitution reduced mean TCOC per episode by $1193 (95% CI $583-1840). The cost reduction from biosimilars represented 2.4% of the average TCOC benchmark and led to a 15% reduction in the risk of providers needing to pay recoupments to Medicare for exceeding TCOC benchmarks.
On the basis of our simulation study using observed Medicare claims and OCM criteria, we found that biosimilar substitution for reference products can significantly lower episode TCOC and improve provider financial performance under the terms of the largest value-based payment model implemented to date.