Novel thalidomide analogues, “me too” drugs and the Brazilian law
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
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 |