The article discusses the results of a phase III clinical trial to compare the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of the biosimilar medicinal product Tigerase® (dornase alpha) (Generium JSC, Russia) and the reference medicinal product Pulmozyme® (F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Switzerland) with the purpose of establishing their comparability for symptomatic treatment of patients with cystic fibrosis (CF).Methods. The study included 100 patients aged 18 years and older with a confirmed diagnosis of CF, who were divided into two groups by stratified randomization in a ratio of 1 : 1 based on the initial level of FEV1 (40–60% or > 60–100% from due value). Tigerase® or Pulmozyme® were used in a dose of 2.5 mg daily, once a day in the form of inhalations using a jet nebulizer compressor for 24 weeks.Results and discussion: The analysis of the data regarding the primary efficacy endpoint – changes in FEV1 – showed that in both groups (FAS population (Full analyses set) and PP population (Per protocol)), similar changes in FEV1 were observed. The average value of changes in FEV1 after 24 weeks of treatment compared with the initial level in the FAS population was –1.3% ± 9.8 % (95% CI (–4.1; 1.6)) in Group I (Tigerase®) and –1.9% ± 10.0% (95% CI (–4.7; 1.0)) in Group II (Pulmozyme®). The point estimate for the intergroup difference in changes in FEV1 (Group I – Group II) was 0.6%. The calculated 95% CI for the difference in changes in FEV1 in the FAS population was (–3.3; 4.6%]. In both populations studied, the intergroup difference in changes in FEV1 did not exceed 6%. During long-term treatment of patients with CF, no statistically significant differences were found in terms of efficacy (changes in FEV1 and FVC; number of exacerbations of chronic pulmonary disease and the number of days before its development; change in body weight; quality of life) between medicinal products in both studied populations (FAS and PP).Conciusion. A safety analysis demonstrated the comparability of medicinal products in terms of the incidence of adverse events. The frequency of detection of antibodies to dornase alpha during the study was similar in the treatment groups; the formation of antibodies did not lead to a decrease in the efficacy and safety of therapy.

Post-COVID syndrome develops after COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease 2019) and leads to cumulative effects in the form of shortness of breath and impaired lung function. Notably, patients with airway inflammation and COVID-19 were found to have increased concentrations of hyaluronic acid (HA). Since bovhyaluronidase azoximer (Longidase®) catalyzes the hydrolysis of HA, this drug has the potential to reduce HA levels and improve lung function in patients with post-COVID syndrome.The aim of the DISSOLVE trial, which was conducted early in the pandemic, was to investigate the efficacy and safety of bovhyaluronidase azoximer in patients with symptoms associated with post-COVID syndrome.Methods. An open, prospective, controlled, comparative, multicenter clinical trial (NCT04645368) included adult patients (n = 160) who had post-COVID syndrome. Patients in the treatment group (n = 81) received bovhyaluronidase azoximer, and individuals in the control group (n = 79) were followed up without intervention. The study included physical examination, evaluation of forced vital capacity (FVC), assessment of dyspnea with the Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale (mMRC), 6-minute walking test, and pulse oximetry. These indicators were measured on 3 visits, at days 1 (baseline), 75, and 180. In addition, the number of patients who experienced adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded.Results. Baseline patient characteristics in the treatment group and the control group were similar. In the treatment group, there was a statistically significant reduction in residual pulmonary abnormalities after visit 2 (day 75) and visit 3 (day 180). In addition, FVC, pulse oximetry values, and functional exercise tolerance increased statistically significantly at days 75 and 180 compared to baseline. The mMRC scores for dyspnea decreased statistically significantly in the treatment group over 75 days. The safety profile of the drug was reported to be favorable throughout the study. Conclusion. Treatment with bovhyaluronidase azoximer in patients with post-COVID syndrome showed improvement in FVC, pulse oximetry, functional exercise tolerance, and mMRC dyspnea.

There are results of a comparative phase III clinical study on the efficiency and safety of the biosimilar drug Genolar ® (Generium JSC, Russia) and the reference drug Xolair ® (Novartis Pharma AG, Switzerland) ((NCT04607629). The study is aimed to establish the clinical equivalence of the compared drugs for additional therapy of patients with moderate and severe bronchial asthma (BA) are considered in the article. Methods. The study enrolled 191 patients aged 18 to 75 years with a moderate to severe atopic asthma for ≥ 1 year, the symptoms of which were insufficiently controlled by therapy corresponding to the 4 th stage of treatment (GINA, 2017) for ≥ 2 months before the screening. Patients were divided into the two groups in a ratio of 2 : 1 with the block randomization. 127 patients of the Group 1 were administered Genolar ® for 52 weeks ± 3 days; 64 patients of the Group 2 were administered Xolair ® for 26 weeks ± 3 days. The dose and frequency of the compared drugs administration were determined based both the initial IgE concentration (IU/mL) measured before treatment and the current body weight (kg) of the patient. The recommended omalizumab dose was 75 to 600 mg once every 2 or 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the patients' percentage with a physician evaluation of "excellent" or "good" on the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) scale after 26 weeks of comparative treatment. Results. According to the data analysis results, the patients' proportion with a GETE score of "excellent" or "good" after 26 weeks of therapy were no statistically significant differences between the groups in both investigated populations (PP-population (per protocol) and FAS-population (full analyses set)) (p > 0.05). Primary efficacy endpoint data analysis showed that the patients' proportion of the PP population with a GETE score of "excellent" or "good" was 57.4% of the Group 1 and 45.2% of the Group 2 (p = 0.132). The calculated one-sided 95% CI in order to test the study statistical hypothesis showed that the investigated drug Genolar ® (Generium JSC, Russia) is "non-inferior" than the reference drug. The PP population onesided 95% CI was from -0.5 to 25.0% (p = 0.116), the FAS population one was from -1.1 to 24.2% (p = 0.134). According to the safety analysis results, the comparability of the investigated and reference drugs in terms of the frequency of the adverse events was demonstrated. The analysis results of the anti-drug antibodies to omalizumab detection revealed the antibody production absence in response to the administration of the studied drugs. Conclusion. The clinical study results have proved the equivalence of the biological analogue Genolar ® (Generium JSC, Russia) and the reference drug Xolair ® (Novartis Pharma AG, Switzerland).

A regional branch programme "Improvement of quality of life of COPD patients" had been developed and adopted at Novosibirsk region. Its content is financial support and organization of COPD treatment using thiotropium bromide. The study involved 35 COPD patients, 31of them (28 males and 3 females) completed the treatment. The average age of participants was 53.2 ± 3.9 yrs. We assessed severity of clinical signs using a 3-point scale; spirometry parameters, physical tolerability in 6-minute walk test. We also calculated cost of therapy of COPD patients. The follow-up duration was 6 months. Results demonstrated a significant reduction in clinical severity of COPD, improvement in functional capacity during the treatment with Spiriva. The rate of seeking for aid, number of seek days and length of staying in a hospitals decreased. Medical expenses for COPD treatment increased when used Spiriva due to its high cost but with regards to a total expenditure (direct and indirect) the cost-efficacy was 32.7 %.