Novel thalidomide analogues, “me too” drugs and the Brazilian law

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Paumgartten, Francisco José Roma
Data de Publicação: 2013
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Vigilância Sanitária em Debate
Texto Completo: https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/57
Resumo: In Brazil, thalidomide has been used virtually without interruption since it was launched as a new and revolutionary sedative drug in 1956. After 1965, when its efficacy to treat erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) was discovered, it was regarded as an essential drug because the prevalence of Hansen’s disease is high in the country. In the 1990s and thereafter myriad novel therapeutic uses for thalidomide (autoimmmune diseases, multiple myeloma, aphthous ulcers in AIDS, and others) have emerged owing to its immunomodulatory and antiangiogenic activities. Owing to a marked teratogenicity, however, the prescription and dispensing of thalidomide to patients is strictly controlled in Brazil and elsewhere. Notwithstanding the stringent regulations, a number of post-1965 cases of thalidomide embryopathy have occurred in Brazil. In 2003, a federal law (Law 10.651/2003) prohibited the sale and dispensing of thalidomide in commercial pharmacies. The law, however, made no provision for teratogenic drug analogues such as lenalidomide and pomalidomide, which have been cleared for marketing in the USA, Europe and other countries. Although they are much more expensive than thalidomide, the clinical superiority of novel ana-logues over thalidomide in multiple myeloma and other conditions remains unproven. Therefore, so far novel analogues can be considered as thalidomide “me too” drugs. This author strongly recommends that an amendment to the current law prohibiting the sale and dispensing of thalid-omide in commercial pharmacies be extended to thalidomide analogues. Moreover, we consider that a demonstration of clinical superiority over thalidomide (through gold-standard comparative efficacy trials) should be an essential requirement for registration of any teratogenic analogue.
id FIOCRUZ-9_11fe93f3fe5827ae6774689b34bc0db7
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br:article/57
network_acronym_str FIOCRUZ-9
network_name_str Vigilância Sanitária em Debate
repository_id_str
spelling Novel thalidomide analogues, “me too” drugs and the Brazilian lawNovel thalidomide analogues, “me too” drugs and the Brazilian lawlenalidomidapomalidomidacusto efetividademieloma múltiplomedicamentos teratogênicosembriopatia por talidomidalenalidomidepomalidomidecost effectivenessmultiple myelomateratogenic drugsthalidomide embryopathyIn Brazil, thalidomide has been used virtually without interruption since it was launched as a new and revolutionary sedative drug in 1956. After 1965, when its efficacy to treat erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) was discovered, it was regarded as an essential drug because the prevalence of Hansen’s disease is high in the country. In the 1990s and thereafter myriad novel therapeutic uses for thalidomide (autoimmmune diseases, multiple myeloma, aphthous ulcers in AIDS, and others) have emerged owing to its immunomodulatory and antiangiogenic activities. Owing to a marked teratogenicity, however, the prescription and dispensing of thalidomide to patients is strictly controlled in Brazil and elsewhere. Notwithstanding the stringent regulations, a number of post-1965 cases of thalidomide embryopathy have occurred in Brazil. In 2003, a federal law (Law 10.651/2003) prohibited the sale and dispensing of thalidomide in commercial pharmacies. The law, however, made no provision for teratogenic drug analogues such as lenalidomide and pomalidomide, which have been cleared for marketing in the USA, Europe and other countries. Although they are much more expensive than thalidomide, the clinical superiority of novel ana-logues over thalidomide in multiple myeloma and other conditions remains unproven. Therefore, so far novel analogues can be considered as thalidomide “me too” drugs. This author strongly recommends that an amendment to the current law prohibiting the sale and dispensing of thalid-omide in commercial pharmacies be extended to thalidomide analogues. Moreover, we consider that a demonstration of clinical superiority over thalidomide (through gold-standard comparative efficacy trials) should be an essential requirement for registration of any teratogenic analogue.In Brazil, thalidomide has been used virtually without interruption since it was launched as a new and revolutionary sedative drug in 1956. After 1965, when its efficacy to treat erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) was discovered, it was regarded as an essential drug because the prevalence of Hansen’s disease is high in the country. In the 1990s and thereafter myriad novel therapeutic uses for thalidomide (autoimmmune diseases, multiple myeloma, aphthous ulcers in AIDS, and others) have emerged owing to its immunomodulatory and antiangiogenic activities. Owing to a marked teratogenicity, however, the prescription and dispensing of thalidomide to patients is strictly controlled in Brazil and elsewhere. Notwithstanding the stringent regulations, a number of post-1965 cases of thalidomide embryopathy have occurred in Brazil. In 2003, a federal law (Law 10.651/2003) prohibited the sale and dispensing of thalidomide in commercial pharmacies. The law, however, made no provision for teratogenic drug analogues such as lenalidomide and pomalidomide, which have been cleared for marketing in the USA, Europe and other countries. Although they are much more expensive than thalidomide, the clinical superiority of novel ana-logues over thalidomide in multiple myeloma and other conditions remains unproven. Therefore, so far novel analogues can be considered as thalidomide “me too” drugs. This author strongly recommends that an amendment to the current law prohibiting the sale and dispensing of thalid-omide in commercial pharmacies be extended to thalidomide analogues. Moreover, we consider that a demonstration of clinical superiority over thalidomide (through gold-standard comparative efficacy trials) should be an essential requirement for registration of any teratogenic analogue.Instituto Nacional de Controle de Qualidade em Saúde2013-08-30info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion"Peer-reviewed article""Artículo revisado por pares""Artigo avaliado pelos pares"application/pdfapplication/vnd.ms-powerpointapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentationhttps://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/5710.3395/vd.v1n3.57Health Surveillance under Debate: Society, Science & Technology ; Vol. 1 No. 3 (2013): August; 2 - 10Vigilancia en Salud en Debate: Sociedad, Ciencia y Tecnología; Vol. 1 Núm. 3 (2013): Agosto; 2 - 10Vigil Sanit Debate, Rio de Janeiro; v. 1 n. 3 (2013): Agosto; 2 - 102317-269Xreponame:Vigilância Sanitária em Debateinstname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)instacron:FIOCRUZenghttps://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/57/58https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/57/593https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/57/594Copyright (c) 2013 Vigilância Sanitária em Debate: Sociedade, Ciência & Tecnologia (Health Surveillance under Debate: Society, Science & Technology) – Visa em Debatehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPaumgartten, Francisco José Roma2023-06-27T14:55:27Zoai:ojs.visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br:article/57Revistahttps://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebatePUBhttps://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/oaiincqs.visaemdebate@fiocruz.br || gisele.neves@fiocruz.br2317-269X2317-269Xopendoar:2023-06-27T14:55:27Vigilância Sanitária em Debate - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Novel thalidomide analogues, “me too” drugs and the Brazilian law
Novel thalidomide analogues, “me too” drugs and the Brazilian law
title Novel thalidomide analogues, “me too” drugs and the Brazilian law
spellingShingle Novel thalidomide analogues, “me too” drugs and the Brazilian law
Paumgartten, Francisco José Roma
lenalidomida
pomalidomida
custo efetividade
mieloma múltiplo
medicamentos teratogênicos
embriopatia por talidomida
lenalidomide
pomalidomide
cost effectiveness
multiple myeloma
teratogenic drugs
thalidomide embryopathy
title_short Novel thalidomide analogues, “me too” drugs and the Brazilian law
title_full Novel thalidomide analogues, “me too” drugs and the Brazilian law
title_fullStr Novel thalidomide analogues, “me too” drugs and the Brazilian law
title_full_unstemmed Novel thalidomide analogues, “me too” drugs and the Brazilian law
title_sort Novel thalidomide analogues, “me too” drugs and the Brazilian law
author Paumgartten, Francisco José Roma
author_facet Paumgartten, Francisco José Roma
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Paumgartten, Francisco José Roma
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv lenalidomida
pomalidomida
custo efetividade
mieloma múltiplo
medicamentos teratogênicos
embriopatia por talidomida
lenalidomide
pomalidomide
cost effectiveness
multiple myeloma
teratogenic drugs
thalidomide embryopathy
topic lenalidomida
pomalidomida
custo efetividade
mieloma múltiplo
medicamentos teratogênicos
embriopatia por talidomida
lenalidomide
pomalidomide
cost effectiveness
multiple myeloma
teratogenic drugs
thalidomide embryopathy
description In Brazil, thalidomide has been used virtually without interruption since it was launched as a new and revolutionary sedative drug in 1956. After 1965, when its efficacy to treat erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) was discovered, it was regarded as an essential drug because the prevalence of Hansen’s disease is high in the country. In the 1990s and thereafter myriad novel therapeutic uses for thalidomide (autoimmmune diseases, multiple myeloma, aphthous ulcers in AIDS, and others) have emerged owing to its immunomodulatory and antiangiogenic activities. Owing to a marked teratogenicity, however, the prescription and dispensing of thalidomide to patients is strictly controlled in Brazil and elsewhere. Notwithstanding the stringent regulations, a number of post-1965 cases of thalidomide embryopathy have occurred in Brazil. In 2003, a federal law (Law 10.651/2003) prohibited the sale and dispensing of thalidomide in commercial pharmacies. The law, however, made no provision for teratogenic drug analogues such as lenalidomide and pomalidomide, which have been cleared for marketing in the USA, Europe and other countries. Although they are much more expensive than thalidomide, the clinical superiority of novel ana-logues over thalidomide in multiple myeloma and other conditions remains unproven. Therefore, so far novel analogues can be considered as thalidomide “me too” drugs. This author strongly recommends that an amendment to the current law prohibiting the sale and dispensing of thalid-omide in commercial pharmacies be extended to thalidomide analogues. Moreover, we consider that a demonstration of clinical superiority over thalidomide (through gold-standard comparative efficacy trials) should be an essential requirement for registration of any teratogenic analogue.
publishDate 2013
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2013-08-30
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
"Peer-reviewed article"
"Artículo revisado por pares"
"Artigo avaliado pelos pares"
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/57
10.3395/vd.v1n3.57
url https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/57
identifier_str_mv 10.3395/vd.v1n3.57
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/57/58
https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/57/593
https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/57/594
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Instituto Nacional de Controle de Qualidade em Saúde
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Instituto Nacional de Controle de Qualidade em Saúde
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Health Surveillance under Debate: Society, Science & Technology ; Vol. 1 No. 3 (2013): August; 2 - 10
Vigilancia en Salud en Debate: Sociedad, Ciencia y Tecnología; Vol. 1 Núm. 3 (2013): Agosto; 2 - 10
Vigil Sanit Debate, Rio de Janeiro; v. 1 n. 3 (2013): Agosto; 2 - 10
2317-269X
reponame:Vigilância Sanitária em Debate
instname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)
instacron:FIOCRUZ
instname_str Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)
instacron_str FIOCRUZ
institution FIOCRUZ
reponame_str Vigilância Sanitária em Debate
collection Vigilância Sanitária em Debate
repository.name.fl_str_mv Vigilância Sanitária em Debate - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv incqs.visaemdebate@fiocruz.br || gisele.neves@fiocruz.br
_version_ 1797042043347795968