Introduction: While prescribing biosimilars to patients naive to a biologic treatment is a well-accepted practice, switching clinically stable patients from an originator to a biosimilar is an issue for clinicians. Well-designed clinical trials and real-world data which study the consequences of switching from an originator biologic treatment to its biosimilar alternative are limited, especially for monoclonal antibodies. Areas covered: A systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed to identify evidence of the consequences of switching from original biologics to biosimilars. References of included papers were also scrutinized. After a title-, abstract- and full text screening, out of the 153 original hits and 77 additional ones from screening the references, 58 papers (12 empirical papers, 5 systematic reviews and 41 non-empirical papers) were included. Expert opinion: Preventing patients on biologic medicines from switching to biosimilars due to anticipated risks seems to be disproportional compared to the expected cost savings and/or improved patient access. Indeed, it is the opinion of the authors that the concern of switching to biosimilars is overhyped.

(1) Background: To investigate the real-world effectiveness and safety profile of nusinersen in Croatian paediatric and adult spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) patients. (2) Methods: A retrospective and anonymous collection of relevant demographic and clinical data for all Croatian SMA patients treated with nusinersen and reimbursed by the Croatian Health Insurance Fund (CHIF) between April 2018 and February 2022 was performed through searching the CHIF database and studying the associated reimbursement documentation. All patients who received at least one dose of nusinersen were included in the baseline clinical-demographic overview and safety analysis, whereas only subjects who had completed six doses were included in the effectiveness analysis. (3) Results: Fifty-two patients [61.5% male; median age 13.4 (0.1–51.1) yr.] received nusinersen treatment. In SMA type 1 and type 3 paediatric patients, statistically significant motor function improvement (CHOP INTEND 10.8 ± 10.3 vs. 20.0 ± 15.8, p = 0.003; HFMSE 49.6 ± 7.9 vs. 53.1 ± 7.7, p = 0.008; respectively) was achieved immediately after 4 loading doses of nusinersen and remained statistically significant onwards. Average improvements in HFMSE motor performance in SMA type 2 patients after four, five, and six doses of nusinersen were +6.0, +10.5, and +11.0 points, respectively. In SMA type 3 adult patients, no significant improvement in RHS motor performance or the 6-Minute Walk Test (MWT) was demonstrated. During the study period, 437 doses were administered without any new safety concerns appearing. (4) Conclusions: Our RWD findings indicate that nusinersen is an effective and safe treatment in a heterogeneous group of paediatric patients with all types of SMA; however, no significant benefit (but only RHS and 6MWT maintenance) was demonstrated in SMA type 3 patients who started nusinersen after >18 years of age.

Erectile dysfunction (ED) (impotence) is a widespread, age-related problem, which affects 52% of men between 40 and 70 years of age. It is classified as psychogenic, organic, or mixed psychogenic and organic. ED is not a problem only of men, because the relationship between partners can also be disturbed. Therefore, adequate treatment of ED is needed and the most convenient and simplest way is oral drug therapy. Sildenafil, phosphodiesterase-(PDE)-5-selective inhibitor has been the drug of choice for patients with ED since it has been launched in March 1998. The results of various studies have confirmed the efficacy of the drug in men with ED of various etiologies, as well as the positive effect of sildenafil on the quality of a partnership. The most frequent adverse effects documented with sildenafil usage are headache, flushes, dyspepsia, visual disturbances and nasal congestion/rhinitis. These adverse effects are dose-related, usually transient and mild, with low withdrawal rate. Several studies performed recently have shown that sildenafil is a safe and effective treatment of ED in patients with cardiovascular disease, who do not take nitrates or nitrate donors concomitantly. Other oral medications for ED include apomorphine, phentolamine, yohimbine, trazodone, testosterone and new PDE-5 inhibitors in Phase III clinical trials, such as vardenafil and tadalafil. It is obvious, according to recent data, that the concept of PDE-5 inhibition has a central position in oral pharmacotherapy of ED. However, larger clinical studies of efficacy and safety should be carried out using most of the other above-mentioned oral agents and these may also gain a place in the therapy of ED. There are no studies directly comparing sildenafil and other treatments of ED or assessing its role in combination with other therapies. According to the present knowledge, the quality of life, not only of patients but also of their sexual partners, will be improved significantly with sildenafil usage and this is an important precondition for overall health ofboth. Sildenafil is thus a highly effective peroral treatment for ED in patients without contraindications for its use, which can be considered as the firstline therapy with an acceptable risk-benefit ratio.

(1) Background: Data on combination or sequential treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) with disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) are missing and the latter field is poorly understood. The currently available data of patients on risdiplam previously treated with nusinersen are coming from exploratory research mainly focused on safety. Our aim was to investigate the real-world effectiveness (hypothesising non-inferiority) and safety profile of risdiplam in a paediatric-and-adult nusinersen–risdiplam spinal muscular atrophy switch cohort. (2) Methods: A retrospective and anonymous collection of relevant demographic and clinical data for all Croatian SMA patients switched from nusinersen to risdiplam up to September 2023 (reimbursed by Croatian Health Insurance Fund—CHIF) was performed using the CHIF database and associated reimbursement documentation. Patients were included in effectiveness and safety analysis if they met the following inclusion criteria: (i) risdiplam was reimbursed by the CHIF; (ii) the patient received at least six doses of nusinersen before the switch to risdiplam; (iii) there was no relevant pause between the latter disease-modifying drugs; (iv) availability of all prespecified studied data and parameters. (3) Results: In total, 17 patients met the inclusion criteria (58.9% female; median age 12.75 (3.0–44.5) years). In our ‘switch’ cohort, we demonstrated a non-inferiority of risdiplam to nusinersen in the SMA 1 (+1.0 in CHOP INTEND; p = 0.067), SMA 3p (+0.7 in HFMSE; p = 0.897), and SMA 3a (+0.8 in RHS; p = 0.463) subpopulations, during a one-year follow-up period. There were no reports on respiratory function worsening, feeding worsening, and no lethal events. No new safety concerns were identified, except for the weight gain that arose as a new potential adverse drug reaction ‘signal’ in two patients. (4) Conclusions: We have reported pivotal real-world findings on switching SMA patients from nusinersen to risdiplam and demonstrated its effectiveness (non-inferiority), safety, and tolerability in a heterogenous paediatric-and-adult ‘switch’ cohort; this will further increase the quality and standards of care as well as safety of a notable portion of SMA patients, especially for those who demand the switch from nusinersen to other DMDs for clinical or personal reasons.