ECCO Position Statement on the Use of Biosimilars for Inflammatory Bowel Disease-An Update

SPOSAB ABP 501: A Sicilian Prospective Observational Study of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Treated with Adalimumab Biosimilar ABP 501

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There are few clinical data on Adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease. We aimed to perform a multicenter, observational, prospective study on safety and effectiveness of ADA biosimilar ABP 501 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

METHODS

All consecutive patients from the cohort of the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease treated with ADA biosimilar ABP 501 from February 2019 to February 2020 were enrolled. Patients were divided into three groups: group A, naïve to ADA and naïve to anti-tumor necrosis factors; group B, naïve to ADA and previously exposed to anti-tumor necrosis factors; and group C: switched from ADA originator to ABP 501.

RESULTS

A total of 559 patients (median age 39 years; Crohn's disease 88.0%, ulcerative colitis 12.0%) were included, with a follow-up time of 403.4 patient-years. Thirty-six serious adverse events occurred in 36 patients (6.4%; incidence rate [IR]: 8.9 per 100 person-years [PY]). The IR of serious adverse events was higher among patients in group A compared with group C (17.4 vs 4.8 per 100 PY; IR ratio = 3.61; P < 0.001) and among patients in group B compared with group C (16.4 vs 4.8 per 100 PY; IR ratio = 3.42; P = 0.041). Among ADA-naïve patients (group A + B), 188 (85.8%) had a clinical response after 12 weeks, including 165 (75.3%) who achieved steroid-free remission. Higher treatment persistence estimates were reported for patients in group C compared with groups A and B (log-rank P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Safety and effectiveness of ABP 501 seem to be overall similar to those reported for ADA originator. Switching from originator to ABP 501 was safe and effective.

Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching: What is the Rationale and Current Experience?

Over time, clinicians have become increasingly comfortable embracing the prescription of biosimilars-highly similar versions of innovator or reference biological agents-for their patients with inflammatory diseases. Although a switch from a reference product to a licensed biosimilar version (or vice versa) is a medical decision robustly supported by the stepwise accumulation of clinical trial evidence concerning comparable safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy between these products, a switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference product, or a cross-switch, is not. Similarity among biosimilars of a reference product is not a regulatory agency concern and therefore is unlikely to be investigated in randomized controlled trials in the foreseeable future. Yet in clinical practice, across a diverse range of patients, the option to cross-switch from one biosimilar to another can and does arise for valid reasons such as convenience or tolerability issues, or driven by third parties (e.g., payers). In the absence of clinical trial data, clinicians must attempt to objectively evaluate the emerging real-world cross-switching evidence within the context of what is known about the science underpinning a designation of biosimilar. That knowledge then needs to be integrated with what clinicians know about their patients and their disease on a case-by-case basis. This review aims to consolidate relevant emerging real-world data and other key information about biosimilar-to-biosimilar cross-switching for prescribing clinicians. In the absence of clear clinical guidelines addressing this topic at present, this review may serve to facilitate discretionary and educated treatment decision making.

A bio-what? Medical companions' perceptions towards biosimilars and information needs in rheumatology

Patient perceptions influence biosimilar uptake in non-mandatory transitions. Companions (support people) are often actively involved in the patient's medical journey and are likely to have unique perceptions of biosimilars, which may shape patient attitudes. This study explores the congruence between patient and companion perceptions towards biosimilars and their information needs. Patients taking bio-originators for rheumatic diseases (59% for rheumatoid arthritis) and their companions received an explanation about biosimilars. Participants (N = 78) completed questionnaires assessing their familiarity with biosimilars, perceptions, concerns, and benefits of being accompanied. Contingency tables and paired sample t-tests were used to explore differences in familiarity, confidence in knowledge, and perceptions. Intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the degree of congruence for perceptions towards biosimilars. Companions were significantly less familiar with biosimilars (p = 0.014, Cramer's V = 0.28) and reported lower confidence in their knowledge (p = 0.006, Cohen's d = 0.47) than patients. Companions and patients had moderate to good congruency for perceptions toward confidence in biosimilar use and safety, efficacy, and side-effect expectations (intra-class correlation coefficients ranging from 0.75 to 0.81). Companions and patients were most concerned about safety and effectiveness. Companions also reported concerns about cost savings driving the transition, while patients had concerns about uncertainty and testing. Patients reported the ability for discussion, improved understanding, and validation as benefits of being accompanied. Companions and patients have similar levels of perceptions and expectations towards biosimilars but report some unique information needs. Future educational interventions should involve companions and address their concerns to help improve biosimilar acceptance.

Switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars in chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: A systematic literature review

AIMS

Adalimumab is a biological therapy used to treat different chronic inflammatory diseases. At present, there is an increasing number of adalimumab biosimilars. To assume the acceptability of interchangeability between reference adalimumab and biosimilars, there should be evidence about efficacy and safety of this switching. Regulation of this practice falls under the authority of individual European Union Member States. The aim of this study is to systematically review the evidence on the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars in different chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

METHODS

Studies presenting data about switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars were identified by sensitive search strategies in Medline and EMBASE from 1 January 2004 to 30 June 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 471 references were obtained and 21 finally included in the analysis (total number of patients switching: 2802). Eight different adalimumab biosimilars were tested after receiving reference adalimumab. Eight articles included rheumatoid arthritis (RA), one miscellaneous rheumatic disease, six psoriasis (PSO) and six inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Overall, the efficacy results in the switching groups were comparable to those obtained in the arms of continuous biosimilar and continuous reference adalimumab. There were no significant differences in treatment emergent adverse events, anti-drug or neutralising antibodies among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars has no impact on efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with RA, PSO and IBD. This finding was consistent for the different adalimumab biosimilars analysed. These conclusions could probably be extended to other rheumatic diseases such as psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

Safety and clinical efficacy of the double switch from originator infliximab to biosimilars CT-P13 and SB2 in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (SCESICS): A multicenter cohort study

Data regarding double switching from originator infliximab (IFX) to IFX biosimilars in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are lacking. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of switching from originator IFX to CT‐P13 and subsequently to SB2 (double switch) in patients with IBD. Patients undergoing IFX‐double switch in eight Centers in Lombardy (Italy) from November 2018 to May 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The IFX discontinuation rate, incidence and type of adverse events (AEs), and clinical remission rate were recorded. A comparison with a control group of patients with IBD single‐switched from originator IFX to CT‐P13 was performed, before and after an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)‐based propensity score analysis. Fifty‐two double‐switched patients with IBD were enrolled. The 24‐ and 52‐week proportions of patients continuing on IFX therapy following the second switch (CTP13 → SB2) were 98% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94%–100%) and 90% (95% CI 81%–99%), respectively. Four patients experienced a total of five AEs, all graded 1–3 according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). No infusion reactions were observed. The 24‐week and follow‐up end clinical remission rates following the second switch were 94% and 88%, respectively. No differences were observed in the safety and efficacy outcomes by comparing the double‐switch group with a single‐switch group of 66 patients with IBD; all these results were confirmed by IPTW‐adjusted analysis. The study suggests both the safety and efficacy of the double switch from originator IFX to CT‐P13 and SB2 in patients with IBD is maintained. This strategy may be associated with potential cost implications.

An observational study of switching infliximab biosimilar: no adverse impact on inflammatory bowel disease control or drug levels with first or second switch

BACKGROUND

Biologics account for a significant cost in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management; however, switching from infliximab originator to its biosimilars has enabled cost saving without compromising disease control. The effects on IBD activity and infliximab trough levels of a second switch to another biosimilar are, however, uncertain.

AIMS

To assess the effects on disease activity and infliximab trough levels associated with switching from infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 to another biosimilar SB2 and compare outcomes in those switching for the first and second time.

METHODS

IBD patients on CT-P13, including some previously switched from originator, were prospectively followed during a switch to SB2. C-reactive protein (CRP), trough infliximab level and clinical disease activity indices were collected at baseline, Infusion 3 or 4 ('early' after switch), and 1 year.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-six patients (n = 99 second switch) on stable infliximab dosing underwent switching. Compared with baseline, there was no significant change in CRP, clinical disease activity scores or median trough infliximab level at the early time point among first-switch (baseline vs early: 5.7 vs 6.6 µg/mL, P = 0.05) and second-switch (4.3 vs 4.9 µg/mL, P = 0.07) patients nor at 1 year (median infliximab trough levels, baseline vs 1 year, in first-switch [5.7 vs 5.7 µg/mL, P = 0.37] and second-switch [4.3 vs 4.7 µg/mL, P = 0.06] patients). The proportion of patients in clinical remission did not significantly change at the early (92% vs 91% at baseline, P = 0.75) or 1 year (95% vs 91% at baseline, P = 0.16) time points. There was no significant difference in time to loss of response between patients switching for the first or second time (P = 0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from one infliximab biosimilar to another had no adverse impact on infliximab trough levels, and clinical and biochemical disease activity, regardless of whether switching for the first or second time.

The mode of delivery and content of communication strategies used in mandatory and non-mandatory biosimilar transitions: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Effective patient-provider communication is crucial to promote shared decision-making. However, it is unclear how to explain treatment changes to ensure patient acceptance, such as when transitioning from a bio-originator to a biosimilar. This review investigates communication strategies used to educate patients on transitioning to biosimilars and explores whether the willingness to transition and treatment persistence differs for the delivery (verbal or written) and the amount of information provided. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and relevant conference databases were systematically searched. Communication strategies from 33 studies (88% observational cohort studies) published from 2012 to 2020 were synthesized and willingness to transition, persistence, and subjective adverse events explored. Patients only received information verbally in 11 studies. The remaining 22 studies also provided written information. Cost-saving was the main reason provided for the transition. Patients were most willing to transition when receiving written and verbal information (χ² = 5.83, p = .02) or written information that only addressed a few (3-5) concerns (χ² = 16.08, p < .001). There was no significant difference for persistence or subjective adverse events (p's > .05). Few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. Available data shows more willingness to transition when patients received written and verbal information. Initial documents should contain basic information and consultations or telephone calls used to address concerns.

Biosimilars in chronic inflammatory diseases: facts and remaining questions 5 years after their introduction in Europe

INTRODUCTION

Five years after the launch of the first infliximab biosimilar, biologics have found their place in the treatment of chronic inflammatory conditions, but there are remaining questions. This is a review of the introduction of antibody biosimilars in Europe; the reasons for their success and how biosimilar hesitancy was quailed.

AREAS COVERED

We provide an overview of the concepts of biosimilarity, extrapolation, and interchangeability, using examples in rheumatology and gastroenterology for illustration. A review of the evidence collected from switching studies using robust designs is included. Remaining questions such as 'inter-switching' are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Biosimilars have democratized access to powerful medicines. Efficacy and safety studies provided reassuring data, but knowledge gaps persist. The availability of so-called 'bio-betters' might open new avenues and change clinical practice.

Does Similarity Breed Contempt? A Review of the Use of Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The introduction of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies directed against tumor necrosis factor-α has revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) by improving quality of life, decreasing the frequency and length of hospital admissions, and reducing corticosteroid use. Nevertheless, biologics are very expensive, substantially contributing to the cost of care for patients with IBD. To reduce this cost and improve treatment access, biosimilars, which are therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (biologicals) similar to but not identical to the reference biologic, were introduced. Despite their potential benefits, the adoption and uptake of biosimilars have varied considerably across the USA and Europe. Here, we highlight the current biosimilar therapeutic landscape, discuss barriers to their use, and provide an overview of published studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of biosimilars in IBD.

Switching from Biosimilar to Biosimilar Adalimumab, Including Multiple Switching, in Crohn's Disease: A Prospective Study

No data are available regarding the safety and effectiveness of the biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch of adalimumab in any disease, and in particular in Crohn’s disease (CD). The aim of our study was to provide real world data on switching from biosimilar adalimumab to another biosimilar, including multiple switching. We conducted a prospective, single-centre observational study in which we consecutively recruited all CD patients who switched from adalimumab biosimilar ABP 501 to biosimilar SB5 from January to July 2021. Sixty-one patients were included in the final analysis, of whom 43/61 (70.5%) were multiple switches (Humira^® → ABP 501 → SB5). After 6 months of follow up, 88.5% (54/61) of patients maintained SB5 on therapy. The success of the switch (defined as no systemic corticosteroids within 6 months, non-discontinuation of SB5, no dose escalation) was achieved by 82.0% (50/61) of patients. At multivariate analysis, C-reactive protein > 5 mg/L predicted switch failure (p = 0.03). Seven patients (11.5%) experienced side effects, compared to one patient (1.6%) in the 6 pre-switch months (p = 0.03). In conclusion, switching from biosimilar to biosimilar of adalimumab did not lead to signs of safety or loss of efficacy other than those already known in the literature for the class of drugs.

Anti-Drug Antibodies in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Treated with Biosimilar Infliximab: A Prospective Cohort Study

Reports of the prevalence of antibodies to infliximab (anti-drug antibodies, ADA) are inconsistent due in part to the various assay formats used to monitor immunogenicity in the clinic and under clinical trial settings. This study aimed to determine the frequency of ADA in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) during induction and maintenance therapy with biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) using the ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) method. In this prospective single-center study, we analyzed the incidence of ADA and the relationship between the presence of ADA and the following variables: gender, type of disease, immunosuppressive therapy used, and duration of treatment. A total of 84 patients with IBD received CT-P13 and were followed up for an average of 7 months. We found ADA in 50% of the patients with undetectable levels of the drug. The percentage of persons with antibodies detected during induction treatment was 11.3% compared to 9.6% during maintenance therapy. The analysis showed no relationship between response to treatment and antibody titers (p = 0.381). The study showed a statistically significant relationship between undetectable levels of CT-P13 and the presence of ADA at week 6 of therapy (i.e., ADA were detected in all the patients with undetectable levels of CT-P13). Patients with IBD and undetectable levels of CT-P13 before administration of the third induction dose were at high risk of the presence of anti-drug antibodies as well as primary non-response.

Effectiveness and Safety of Adalimumab Biosimilar SB5 in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Outcomes in Originator to SB5 Switch, Double Biosimilar Switch and Bio-Naïve SB5 Observational Cohorts

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Multiple adalimumab [ADA] biosimilars are now approved for use in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]; however, effectiveness and safety data remain scarce. We aimed to investigate long-term outcomes of the ADA biosimilar SB5 in IBD patients following a switch from the ADA originator [SB5-switch cohort] or after start of SB5 [SB5-start cohort].

METHODS

We performed an observational cohort study in a tertiary IBD referral centre. All IBD patients treated with Humira underwent an elective switch to SB5. We identified all these patients in a biological prescription database that prospectively registered all ADA start and stop dates including brand names. Data on IBD phenotype, C-reactive protein [CRP], drug persistence, ADA drug and antibody levels, and faecal calprotectin were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 481 patients were treated with SB5, 256 in the SB5-switch cohort (median follow-up: 13.7 months [IQR 8.6-15.2]) and 225 in the SB5-start cohort [median follow-up: 8.3 months [4.2-12.8]). Of the SB5-switch cohort, 70.8% remained on SB5 beyond 1 year; 90/256 discontinued SB5, mainly due to adverse events [46/90] or secondary loss of response [37/90]. In the SB5-start cohort, 81/225 discontinued SB5, resulting in SB5-drug persistence of 60.3% beyond 1 year. No differences in clinical remission [p = 0.53], CRP [p = 0.80], faecal calprotectin [p = 0.40] and ADA trough levels [p = 0.55] were found between baseline, week 26 and week 52 following switch. Injection site pain was the most frequently reported adverse event.

CONCLUSION

Switching from ADA originator to SB5 appeared effective and safe in this study with over 12 months of follow-up.

Integrating efficacy and safety of vedolizumab compared with other advanced therapies to assess net clinical benefit of ulcerative colitis treatments: a network meta-analysis

Objectives: Because only one head-to-head randomized trial of biologics for moderate-to-severe UC has been performed, indirect treatment comparisons remain important. This systematic review and network meta-analysis examined efficacy and safety of biologics and tofacitinib for moderate-to-severe UC, using vedolizumab as reference.Methods: Relevant studies (N = 19) of vedolizumab, adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, ustekinumab, and tofacitinib were identified. Study design differences were addressed by assessing efficacy outcomes conditional on response at maintenance initiation. Primary analysis used fixed-effect models to estimate odds ratios for efficacy and safety endpoints.Results: Compared with vedolizumab 300 mg, adalimumab 160/80 mg was associated with less clinical remission (odds ratio, 0.69 [95% credible interval, 0.54-0.88]), and infliximab 5 mg/kg was associated with more clinical remission (1.67 [1.16-2.42]) and response (1.63 [1.15-2.30]). Adalimumab 40 mg, golimumab 50 mg, and ustekinumab 90 mg Q12W had significantly lower clinical remission rates during maintenance (0.62 [0.45-0.86], 0.55 [0.32-0.95], and 0.59 [0.35-0.99]) versus vedolizumab 300 mg Q8W. Response results were similar. Tofacitinib 10 mg had the highest maintenance treatment efficacy estimates and highest infection risk.Conclusion: Network meta-analysis and novel integrated benefit-risk analysis suggest a potentially favorable efficacy-safety balance for vedolizumab vs adalimumab and other advanced UC therapies.

Biosimilar knowledge and viewpoints among Brazilian inflammatory bowel disease patients

BACKGROUND

In this analysis we aimed to describe Brazilian inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients' knowledge and perceptions regarding biosimilars and compare with viewpoints from non-Brazilian patients.

METHODS

An online survey consisting of 19 questions was made available by the European Federation of Crohn's and Ulcerative Colitis Associations between July 2018 and December 2018. Only respondents who had heard of biosimilars were asked to respond to all of the questions.

RESULTS

A total of 102 Brazilian IBD patients responded to the survey. The majority (78.4%) of patients had been exposed to anti-tumor-necrosis-factor drugs and 63.4% of them had heard of biosimilars. Brazilian respondents worried significantly more about biosimilars being less effective than the originator (62.5% versus 47.9%, p value 0.03) and molecular differences between biosimilars and originators (53.1% versus 31.8, p value 0.001) as compared with non-Brazilian IBD patients. The majority of Brazilian (75%) and non-Brazilian (64.1%) respondents thought that the lower cost of biosimilars should not come before their safety and efficacy (p value 0.09). In addition, 79.1% of Brazilian respondents believed that the arrival of biosimilars will have an impact on the management of IBD.

CONCLUSIONS

Brazilian patients reported higher rates of misconceptions regarding biosimilars than non-Brazilian IBD patients. Although patients still worry about different aspects regarding biosimilars, they also tend to be confident that biosimilars will have an impact on the management of their disease. With the recent approval of many biosimilars in Brazil and the imminent widespread use of these drugs, our data raise awareness for the need of providing patient education to prevent negative expectations toward switching to biosimilars.

The global landscape on interchangeability of biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars hold the potential to be an integral healthcare component that can significantly improve affordability and thereby accessibility of the otherwise expensive biotherapeutic products. Regulators, payors, and policymakers, each have a major role to play in successful adoption of biosimilars. One of the issues that has been a point of frequent discussion is that of interchangeability of biosimilars.

AREAS COVERED

This article aims to review the position that the major regulatory bodies have taken on interchangeability of biosimilars. Key issues that remain are also discussed. Adalimumab and etanercept have been chosen as real-world case studies to demonstrate interchangeability considerations. The need for gaining global harmonization on interchangeability is highlighted.

EXPERT OPINION

A global harmonization on the interchangeability can likely accelerate biosimilar adoption and result in better accessibility to biologics. Experience gained with real-world studies supports switching to biosimilars from originators however post-marketing pharmacovigilance should be in place to assess the risk-benefit profile of biosimilars in the long run.

The Automatic Substitution of Biosimilars: Definitions of Interchangeability are not Interchangeable

In the USA, an interchangeability designation provides biosimilar sponsors with a pathway for achieving what is standard for small-molecule generics: pharmacy-level auto-substitution for an innovator. No other major health authority links interchangeability to automatic substitution, as all require the involvement of the prescriber or patient in a medication change. This editorial considers the clinical impact and practicality of auto-substitution. First, interchangeability is linked to non-medical switching (NMS), the practice of switching treatment in patients with stable disease for non-clinical reasons. NMS may generate negative sentiment in those unwilling or reluctant to switch, which can adversely impact treatment outcomes (i.e., nocebo effect). Indeed, in real-world studies of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, discontinuation rates have been shown to be higher in patients switched to biosimilars for non-medical reasons than in historical cohorts maintained on innovators. Second, interchangeability may impede pharmacovigilance and traceability, as not all jurisdictions require innovators and biosimilars to have distinct biologic names. Third, an interchangeability designation from the US Food and Drug Administration only permits a biosimilar to be automatically substituted for its innovator, not other biosimilars (if available). Pharmacist education would be needed to avoid off-label, automatic substitution among biosimilars of a single innovator. Last, once granted, an interchangeability designation exists in perpetuity under current US federal law. However, the supply chains of innovators and biosimilars are maintained independently, with no requirement for reconfirmation of biosimilarity or interchangeability. We feel that additional guidance is needed for the auto-substitution of biosimilars and innovators to become a reality.

Bioinformatis analysis reveals possible molecular mechanism of PXR on regulating ulcerative colitis

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic, recurrent inflammatory disease of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a type of IBD. Pregnane X Receptor (PXR) is a member of the nuclear receptor superfamily. In order to deepen understanding and exploration of the molecular mechanism of regulation roles of PXR on UC, biological informatics analysis was performed. First, 878 overlapping differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between UC and normal samples were obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database (GSE59071 and GSE38713) by using the "limma" R language package. Then WGCNA analysis was performed by 878 DEGs to obtain co-expression modules that were positively and negatively correlated with clinical traits. GSEA analysis of PXR results obtained the signal pathways enriched in the PXR high and low expression group and the active genes of each signal pathway. Then the association of PXR with genes that are both active in high expression group and negatively related to diseases (gene set 1), or both active in low expression group and negatively related to diseases (gene set 2) was analyzed by String database. Finally, carboxylesterase 2 (CES2), ATP binding cassette subfamily G member 2 (ABCG2), phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase (PCK1), PPARG coactivator 1 alpha (PPARGC1A), cytochrome P450 family 2 subfamily B member 6 (CYP2B6) from gene set 1 and C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 8 (CXCL8) from gene set 2 were screened out. After the above analysis and reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) verification, we speculated that PXR may exert a protective role on UC by promoting CES2, ABCG2, PCK1, PPARGC1A, CYP2B6 expression and inhibiting CXCL8 expression in their corresponding signal pathway in intestinal tissue.

ABP 501 (adalimumab-atto) in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: an example of evidence-based extrapolation

We report the available evidence demonstrating the biosimilarity of ABP 501 (AMGEVITA®, adalimumab-atto) to its reference product (RP) (Humira®, adalimumab), and the rationale for the extrapolation of the results obtained with the RP in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to ABP 501. Based on its preclinical and clinical data, ABP 501 has been authorized for use in Europe in all the indications approved for the RP, including Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.

Switching from Infliximab to Biosimilar in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Review of Existing Literature and Best Practices

Biosimilars are highly similar but nonidentical biologic agents with no differences in clinical efficacy and safety when compared to bio-originator products. Considering the long-term costs of managing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), biosimilars, through economic competition, provide an opportunity for cost savings to payors, may increase access to IBD medications, and could decrease health care spending in the long run. Studies investigating the use of biosimilars in IBD have shown a comparable clinical efficacy and safety profile compared to originator products. Moreover, studies have also suggested that solitary switches between bio-originators and biosimilars are acceptable and do not lead to worsening disease burden or increased immunogenicity or safety concerns. Despite available data and proposed benefits of biosimilars, skepticism about the widespread adoption of biosimilars throughout the United States continues to be present and creates many barriers. Herein, we detail the real-world, nonmedical switching experiences of 2 IBD centers in the United States and review best practices, which can be used as a potential roadmap for successful biosimilar adoption in other institutions.

Innovative approaches to biologic development on the trail of CT-P13: biosimilars, value-added medicines, and biobetters

The biosimilar concept is now well established. Clinical data accumulated pre- and post-approval have supported biosimilar uptake, in turn stimulating competition in the biologics market and increasing patient access to biologics. Following technological advances, other innovative biologics, such as “biobetters” or “value-added medicines,” are now reaching the market. These innovative biologics differ from the reference product by offering additional clinical or non-clinical benefits. We discuss these innovative biologics with reference to CT-P13, initially available as an intravenous (IV) biosimilar of reference infliximab. A subcutaneous (SC) formulation, CT-P13 SC, has now been developed. Relative to CT-P13 IV, CT-P13 SC offers clinical benefits in terms of pharmacokinetics, with comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, as well as increased convenience for patients and reduced demands on healthcare system resources. As was once the case for biosimilars, nomenclature and regulatory pathways for innovative biologics require clarification to support their uptake and ultimately benefit patients.

Safety and efficacy of switching from infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 to infliximab biosimilar SB2 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

For patients with inflammatory bowel diseases, switching from infliximab originator to biosimilars is effective and safe. Few data on single switch have been published, and data on multiple switches of different infliximab are unavailable.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients who switched from CT-P13 to SB2, and of those with multiple switches among different infliximab compounds was conducted. Clinical activity, C reactive protein (CRP), adverse events (AE) and loss of response (LOR) were recorded.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients (26 males, 14 Crohn's disease and 22 ulcerative colitis) were enrolled and followed up for >6 months. All patients switched from CT-P13 to SB2; 12 of them (33.3%) had already switched from reference Infliximab to CT-P13, and for the remaining patients CT-P13 was the first infliximab. The clinical remission rate six months before and three months after SB2-switch was the same (58.3%) and the rate of mild activity varied from 27.8 to 33.3% (P = 0.68); the percentage of patients with normal CRP values passed from 94.4 to 91.7% (P = 1). Two patients (5.5%) had AE and 11 (30.5%) a LOR. At univariate analysis, patients with a single switch had a non-significant risk of LOR during SB2 [odds ratio (OR) = 7.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-71, P = 0.06]. SB2-LOR was associated with previous AE under CT-P13 (OR = 9.1, 95% CI 0.82-100, P = 0.07). None of such factors was significant at multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Switching from CT-P13 to SB2 seems to be safe and effective either in patients with a single than in those with multiple switches.

The SPOSIB SB2 Sicilian Cohort: Safety and Effectiveness of Infliximab Biosimilar SB2 in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Including Multiple Switches

BACKGROUND

No data on the recently introduced infliximab (IFX) biosimilar SB2 in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are available.

METHODS

The Sicilian Prospective Observational Study of Patients With IBD Treated With Infliximab Biosimilar SB2 is a multicenter, observational, prospective study performed among the cohort of the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease. All consecutive IBD patients starting the IFX biosimilar SB2 from its introduction in Sicily (March 2018) to September 2019 (18 months) were enrolled.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-six patients (Crohn disease: 49.3%, ulcerative colitis: 50.7%) were included: 127 (46.0%) were naïve to IFX and naïve to anti-tumor necrosis factor medications (anti-TNFs), 65 (23.5%) were naïve to IFX and previously exposed to anti-TNFs, 17 (6.2%) were switched from an IFX originator to SB2, 43 (15.6%) were switched from the biosimilar CT-P13 to SB2, and 24 (8.7%) were multiply switched (from IFX originator to CT-P13 to SB2). The cumulative number of infusions of SB2 was 1798, and the total follow-up time was 182.7 patient-years. Sixty-seven serious adverse events occurred in 57 patients (20.7%; incidence rate: 36.7 per 100 patient-year), and 31 of these events caused the withdrawal of the drug. The effectiveness after 8 weeks of treatment was evaluated in patients naïve to IFX (n = 192): 110 patients (57.3%) had steroid-free remission, while 56 patients had no response (29.2%). At the end of follow-up, 72 patients (26.1%) interrupted the treatment, without significant differences in treatment persistency estimations between the five groups (log-rank P = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and effectiveness of SB2 seem to be overall similar to those reported for the IFX originator and CT-P13.

DISCONTINUATION RATES FOLLOWING A SWITCH FROM A REFERENCE TO A BIOSIMILAR BIOLOGIC IN PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

BACKGROUND

Biologics have revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, these drugs had a significant influence on treatment-related costs, which resulted in the development of biosimilars.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the drug discontinuation rate in the IBD population who switched from originator to biosimilars in real-world switching studies and address potential nocebo effects as reasons for drug discontinuation.

METHODS

Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and abstract databases of selected congresses were screened for reports of monoclonal antibody (mAb) switching with a minimum post-switch follow-up of >6 months or three infusions. All available information on discontinuation rates was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 30 observational studies were included, involving 3,594 patients with IBD. Twenty-six studies reported a switch from infliximab to CT-P13, two studies involved a switch to SB2, and switching information was not available in two studies. The discontinuation rates were 8%, 14%, and 21% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. The main reasons for drug discontinuation and their respective risks were: disease worsening (2%), remission (4%), loss of adherence (4%), adverse events (5%), and loss of response (7%). The quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low depending on the outcome analyzed. Subjective symptoms leading to drug discontinuation were infrequently reported, and the nocebo effect was clearly assessed in just one of the included papers.

CONCLUSION

Discontinuation rates following a switch to a biosimilar in patients with IBD increase over time. However, it was not possible to confirm the nocebo effect as a reason for discontinuation. Therefore, long-term studies evaluating the use of biosimilars to monitor adverse events and potential nocebo effects in post-marketing surveillance are still needed.

Clinical guidelines for the management of inflammatory bowel disease: Update of a French national consensus

BACKGROUND

New treatments and therapeutic approaches repeatedly emerged in the field of inflammatory bowel disease.

AIM

to update the French treatment algorithms for Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

A formal consensus method was used to determine changes to the treatment algorithms for various situations of CD and UC. Thirty-seven experts voted on questions that had been drafted by the steering committee ahead of time. Consensus was defined as at least 66% of experts agreeing on a response.

RESULTS

Anti-TNF were reinforced as a first-line therapy rather than the use of immunosuppressant alone. Vedolizumab for UC, ustekinumab for CD took place as second-line maintenance therapy and potentially as a first-line therapy in the setting of unrestricted reimbursement for vedolizumab. Tofacitinib was recommended by the experts in case of vedolizumab failure for UC. Algorithms for complicated CD with abscess, intestinal and complex anal fistula were updated according to recent prospective cohort studies.

CONCLUSION

The changes incorporated to the algorithms provide up-to-date and easy-to-use guidelines to treat patients with IBD.

Optimising management strategies of inflammatory bowel disease in resource-limited settings in Asia

Over the 21st century, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has become a global disease with increasing prevalence reported in the Asian subcontinent as a result of rapid urbanisation, industrialisation, and westernisation of lifestyles. Although rates of surgery have shown a temporal decrease globally because of the increasing availability of new drugs and early initiation of effective therapy, health-care costs associated with IBD have continued to rise. The increase in IBD prevalence in resource-limited countries poses a substantial health-care burden. Drugs are not universally accessible or available. An optimised and practical management strategy of IBD in resource-limited countries in Asia is urgently needed. Special consideration should be made to balance the risk of undertreatment (and suboptimal disease control) because of financial constraints with the risk of overtreatment, which is associated with side-effects and costly therapeutics. In this Series paper, we summarise the current approach in optimising conventional therapies, use of other therapies, and de-escalation of biologics in low-resource settings in Asia. The long-term objective is to strive for more effective and affordable therapies with sustained durability of benefit.

Sustainability of Biosimilars in Europe: A Delphi Panel Consensus with Systematic Literature Review

Introduction: Biosimilars have the potential to enhance the sustainability of evolving health care systems. A sustainable biosimilars market requires all stakeholders to balance competition and supply chain security. However, there is significant variation in the policies for pricing, procurement, and use of biosimilars in the European Union. A modified Delphi process was conducted to achieve expert consensus on biosimilar market sustainability in Europe. Methods: The priorities of 11 stakeholders were explored in three stages: a brainstorming stage supported by a systematic literature review (SLR) and key materials identified by the participants; development and review of statements derived during brainstorming; and a facilitated roundtable discussion. Results: Participants argued that a sustainable biosimilar market must deliver tangible and transparent benefits to the health care system, while meeting the needs of all stakeholders. Key drivers of biosimilar market sustainability included: (i) competition is more effective than regulation; (ii) there should be incentives to ensure industry investment in biosimilar development and innovation; (iii) procurement processes must avoid monopolies and minimize market disruption; and (iv) principles for procurement should be defined by all stakeholders. However, findings from the SLR were limited, with significant gaps on the impact of different tender models on supply risks, savings, and sustainability. Conclusions: A sustainable biosimilar market means that all stakeholders benefit from appropriate and reliable access to biological therapies. Failure to care for biosimilar market sustainability may impoverish biosimilar development and offerings, eventually leading to increased cost for health care systems and patients, with fewer resources for innovation.

Switching biologics used in inflammatory bowel diseases: how to deal with in practice?

Inflammatory bowel disease patients do not all respond to biological treatment since several patients will initially respond but will lose response or develop side effects over time. In such cases, a switch from one biologic to another offers a valuable clinical solution. This requires to evaluate both patient and drug profiles in combination with the reason(s) for switching in order to adequately select the second-line biologic. Therapeutic drug monitoring is obviously a useful tool but is currently limited to the use of anti-TNFα. In this review paper, we provide overview and guidance on switching biologics in clinical practice, with the emphasis on the motivations for switching, the selection of the second-line biologic, as well as explanations on how and when to switch.

The Challenges of Switching Therapies in an Evolving Multiple Biosimilars Landscape: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence

With the increasing availability of biosimilars, the practice of switching therapies for non-medical reasons between an originator biologic and an analogous biosimilar has become more common. The evidence to support this practice mostly comes from single-switch randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world (RW) evidence studies. However, as more biosimilars of the same originator enter the market, multiple switching events between originators and biosimilars is becoming a reality, despite limited evidence to support the efficacy and safety of such practice. Some countries have established guidelines, policies, or laws related to interchangeability and/or automatic substitution, whereas others have left these practices unregulated or controlled by other components of the healthcare system. Collectively, guidelines on single non-medical switching are often vague, with even less focus given to multiple non-medical switching, leaving this practice mostly unregulated. This narrative review will first discuss the current regulatory perspectives on non-medical switching and challenges associated with switching therapies, particularly with the availability of multiple biosimilars. We will then review the current evidence from RCTs and RW studies in the light of three different multiple-switch scenarios currently taking place in clinical practice: switching between an originator and a single biosimilar, switching between biosimilars of the same originator, and the clinical practice of switching back to the originator (i.e., switchbacks) after a failure of the initial non-medical switch to the analogous biosimilar.

Biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease

The advent of biologics has changed outcomes in many chronic conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Biologics have been used for the induction and remission of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease for almost two decades and are effective in patients who used to fail conventional treatment with steroids, immunomodulators. The use of biologics in the treatment of IBD has increased over the last few years, partly due to the rise in its incidence and the use of biologics as a first-line treatment in severe disease as well as in complicated diseases like penetrating/fistulating Crohn's disease. However, their use is associated with a significant burden to the society with respect to healthcare costs, resulting in the premature discontinuation of therapy in some patients, leading to exacerbations and complications. The introduction of biosimilars a decade ago seems to be a promising approach to reducing the costs related to therapy. Since their introduction, numerous studies conducted in adults and some in children show the efficacy of biosimilars with a similar side-effect profile to biologics. This review discusses the history of biosimilars in the treatment of IBD, enumerates several such studies and discusses the possibility of using biosimilars in the future.

Infliximab concentrations in two non-switching cohorts of patients with inflammatory bowel disease: originator vs. biosimilar

Biosimilars are replacing originator compounds due to their similar effectiveness, safety and pharmacokinetics. Our objective was to compare the differences in pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes between the originator infliximab (Ifx) and the biosimilar CT-P13 in a patient cohort with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our cohort study included 86 patients from a historical and a prospective cohort from the start of infliximab treatment to 22 weeks later. Serum infliximab, antidrug antibody levels and other serum biomarkers were measured at weeks 0, 2, 6, 14 and 22. Remission outcomes were evaluated at weeks 14 and 22. Drug levels were measured prospectively and analysed using MANOVA. Of the 86 patients, 44 (51%) and 42 (49%) were administered the originator and CT-P13, respectively. Originator trough levels were higher than the biosimilar trough levels (35 vs. 21, 20.1 vs. 11, 6.6 vs. 2.9 and 4.3 vs. 1.7 μg/mL at weeks 2, 6, 14 and 22, respectively). A post-hoc analysis demonstrated changes in mean serum drug levels over time (p < 0.001) and according to the drug employed (p = 0.001). At week 22, 13 (81%) patients administered the originator achieved clinical remission compared with 5 (19%) patients with the biosimilar (p = 0.02). None of the patients administered the originator withdrew from the treatment compared with 7 for the biosimilar. During the study, there were significant differences in serum infliximab levels between the originator and the CT-P13 in the patients with IBD. The clinical outcomes were influenced by the type of compound administered.

Biosimilar switching in inflammatory bowel disease: from evidence to clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

After patents' expiration of biological originators, several biosimilars of infliximab and adalimumab have been authorized. The approval is based on data extrapolated from other indications for which the originator has been previously tested. Despite rigorous approval processes by regulatory entities, physicians' and patients' knowledge about biosimilars is limited and some concerns about their use persist.

AREAS COVERED

This article summarizes the evidence on efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars currently approved in Europe for IBD treatment, by reviewing the literature on PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases up to mid-July 2020. Particular emphasis was placed on the need to further improve communication with patients and physicians' knowledge on biosimilars.

EXPERT OPINION

Adoption of biosimilars in clinical practice represents a great opportunity from an economic point of view, reducing healthcare costs and increasing patients' access to effective biologic treatments. Clinicians should be aware and confident of the latest evidence on available biosimilars and be very careful in communicating information to patients. Nocebo effect should not be overlooked since it can negatively influence outcomes of biosimilar-treated subjects, limiting the wide use of biosimilars. Evaluating the outcomes of reverse, multiple, and cross-switch will be a challenge for the next years.

Potential Cost Implications of Mandatory Non-Medical Switching Policies for Biologics for Rheumatic Conditions and Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Canada

In 2018, TNFα inhibitors were the highest cost drug class for Canadian public drug programs. In 2019, two Canadian provinces announced mandatory nonmedical switching policies in an attempt to reduce their costs by increasing biosimilar uptake. The national impact of similar policies across Canada is unknown. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of monthly publicly funded prescription claims for infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab between June 2015 and December 2019. We reported the market share of biosimilars for infliximab and etanercept in 2019 for each province and estimated the cost savings that public payers could have realized in 2019 if mandatory switching policies had been implemented across Canada, including a sensitivity analysis, which assumed that governments receive a 25% rebate on all biologics. Provincial drug programs spent CAD $991.84 million on infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab in 2019, and, when biosimilars were available, they constituted only 15.5% of national utilization of these drugs. In British Columbia, the implementation of a mandatory switching policy for patients with rheumatic conditions increased the biosimilar market share of infliximab and etanercept by 299% (from 19.7% to 78.5%). If applied nationwide to all three biologics for all indications, we estimate such policies could lead to annual savings of between CAD $179.71 million and CAD $425.64 million nationally. The overall market share of biosimilars remains low in all provinces where mandatory switching policies have not been introduced. The cost implications of successfully increasing biosimilar uptake would be substantial, particularly as more biosimilars reach the Canadian market.

Nocebo effect and biosimilars in inflammatory bowel diseases: what's new and what's next?

INTRODUCTION

The use of biosimilars for the treatment of patients with chronic inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) showed to be a valid strategy to reduce the economic burden of biologics on health-care costs and to increase patient access to treatment. However, the nocebo effect constitutes an important limitation to the wide use of biosimilars.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a literature overview to summarize information on nocebo effect in IBD population and to provide physicians with practical key strategies to prevent the nocebo effect in daily clinical practice and to improve patients' outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the proven efficacy and safety of biosimilars, further clinical studies are needed to define the effects of reverse and multiple switches in the management of patients with IBD. The development of new subcutaneous formulations, better accepted by patients, could contribute to reduce patients' negative expectations, and limit the nocebo effect.

Potential Cost-Savings From the Use of the Biosimilars in Slovakia

Objectives: To analyse the market shares of biosimilars in Slovakia and to calculate the potential cost-savings from the use of biosimilars in Slovakia based on two different data sources. Methods: National reimbursement lists from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia were used for analyzing the availability of biosimilars with public funding. In addition, the reimbursement dossiers of biosimilars, the justifications of reimbursement decisions by the Slovak Ministry of Health, and final reimbursement decrees, which are published on the webpage of the Slovak Ministry of Health, were utilized for this study. Reimbursement decisions regarding biosimilars by the Slovak Ministry of Health from 2006 to August 2019 were considered and the detailed utilization of biosimilars in 2018 was analyzed based on data from the State Institute for Drug Control. The study was validated based on data from the Slovak National Health Information Center. Results: Fifty four biosimilars were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in August 2019. Of the total group of licensed biosimilars on the market, 29 biosimilars (54%) were available in the Czech Republic, 28 biosimilars (52%) were available in Poland, and 27 biosimilars (50%) were available in Hungary and 24 biosimilars (44%) were available in Slovakia. Our analysis, based on the data provided by distributors of medicinal products to the State Institute for Drug Control, revealed that the health fund in Slovakia could have saved 35 to 50 million euros per year if biosimilars with marketing authorisations had been available on the Slovak market. The calculations assumed a 25-35% price decrease against the original biological medical products, and that there would be no increase in the utilization of biosimilars in Slovakia. Conclusions: To achieve significant improvement in patient access to biosimilars in Slovakia, a top-down approach establishing targets and quotas for the procurement of biosimilars should be applied.

Biosimilar infliximab in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease: Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Based on extrapolation, biosimilar infliximab (IFX) was approved to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The first studies in adults have shown similar efficacy and safety in comparison with reference drug. The aim of this review was to collect and evaluate all the literature data regarding the use of biosimilar IFX in paediatric IBD.

METHODS

This article reviewed efficacy, immunogenicity and safety profile of biosimilar IFX in IBD paediatric patients through a comprehensive search of the published literature.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Eight papers were extracted and critically reviewed. Four paediatric studies (prospective, n = 3; retrospective, n = 1) assessed the induction efficacy of the biosimilar IFX. Clinical response and remission rates reported were 86%-90% and 67%-68%, respectively. No significant difference in clinical response and remission rates between the reference and biosimilar IFX groups was found at follow-up (range: 3-13 months). Similar findings were shown in the prospective studies (n = 4) conducted on patients elected to switch from reference IFX to its biosimilar. The most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) of biosimilar IFX were mild upper respiratory tract infections. Taking into account of all AEs coming from published data, biosimilar IFX seems to be as safe as its originator. Immunogenicity has not been significantly impacted by the switch from the reference drug.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

To date, treatment with (or switch to) biosimilar IFX in paediatric patients with IBD have been successful, without affecting efficacy, immunogenicity or safety. However, further studies are warranted, including clinical trials and pharmacovigilance studies.

Switching From Originator Adalimumab to the Biosimilar SB5 in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Short-term Experience From a Single Tertiary Clinical Centre

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients' perspectives after switching from originator to biosimilar adalimumab have yet to be assessed. We evaluated the efficacy of switching from the originator adalimumab to a biosimilar compound [SB5] in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD].

METHODS

Data on IBD patients who were switched from the originator to biosimilar adalimumab [SB5] at IBD Center ISCARE were analysed. Disease activity was assessed using standard clinical indices (Harvey-Bradshaw index [HBI] for Crohn's disease [CD] and partial Mayo score for ulcerative colitis [UC]), and laboratory parameters (C-reactive protein [CRP] and faecal calprotectin [FC]). Trough levels and anti-drug antibodies were measured. Patients were evaluated 10 weeks [W10] after the switch, and results were compared with the control group of patients on originator compound.

RESULTS

A total of 93 patients switched to biosimilar adalimumab were included [CD 86%] and were matched to 93 controls for age, gender, diagnosis, and disease activity. There was no difference in the disease activity in either SWITCH or ORIGINATOR cohorts between Weeks 0 and 10. Similarly, no difference was found between cohorts at both prespecified time points. Moreover, no significant differences in CRP or FC concentrations were seen between W0 and W10 either in the SWITCH, or in the ORIGINATOR cohort [p >0.05]. Adalimumab serum trough levels remained stable after the switch. No new safety signals were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed that switching IBD patients from the originator adalimumab to a biosimilar compound [SB5] does not affect treatment efficacy.

An updated review of infliximab biosimilar, CT-P13, in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

The introduction of anti-TNFs, such as infliximab (IFX), has revolutionized the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Anti-TNF agents have shown outstanding efficacy and long-term improvement of clinical outcomes, but the cost has been relatively high. Out of this concern, several 'biosimilar' drugs of anti-TNF agents have been developed. CT-P13, the first biosimilar of reference IFX, was approved by the European Medicines Agency and licensed by the US FDA for use in all indications of IFX. This updated review summarizes all aspects of CT-P13, including pharmacology and pharmacokinetics, and evaluates its efficacy, safety and immunogenicity for all indications based on the results of the latest clinical trials as well as on real-world experiences.

Positioning Therapies in Ulcerative Colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic, idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that affects the large intestine. Several therapeutic drug classes are available for the treatment of UC: salicylates, corticosteroids, thiopurines, calcineurin inhibitors, anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents, anti-adhesion molecules, and, more recently, small molecules directed against the Janus kinase (JAK) pathways, and ustekinumab (anti IL12/23). Other drugs are currently in development, and they will be probably available for UC patients in the near future. Several therapeutic algorithms have been proposed for the treatment of UC patients, yet these are predominantly based on expert opinions rather than high-quality evidence, mainly due to the lack of head-to-head trials, especially for monoclonal antibody and small molecule therapies. The optimal position of therapies in these algorithms remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted this review of the literature to provide an up-to-date overview of the available evidence on this topic.

Impact of a medical interview on the decision to switch from originator infliximab to its biosimilar in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

To lighten the burden on health-care spending, switching from the infliximab originator to a biosimilar in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is advocated. However, the uptake of biosimilars lacks initiatives aimed at educating patients.

AIMS

To explore the impact of a gastroenterologist's interview on IBD patients' acceptance for switching from infliximab bio-originator Remicade® to its biosimilar CT-P13 Inflectra®.

METHODS

After the interview of 138 included patients, 120 properly responded to a self-administered questionnaire to collect consent about the switch and relevant data. French national IBD patients' association (Association François Aupetit) provided an information sheet on biosimilars.

RESULTS

93 (67.0%) out of 138 and 82 (68.3%) out of 120 patients switched treatment. 114 (79.8%) had never heard about biosimilars. Paradoxically, having heard about biosimilars was associated with a poorer chance to switch (Odds Ratio OR [95% CI] = 0.13 [0.02-0.72]). On the contrary, the more satisfied about generics, the more patients accepted the switch (OR [95% CI] = 1.31 [1.01-1.69]). There were 1.47 (Relative Risk RR [95% CI] = 1.47 [1.07-2.01]) times more chance to agree to the switch if the interview modified the patient's opinion on biosimilars.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that an organized information provided to the patient is a contributive way to enhance patient's acceptance of biosimilars in IBD.

Anti-TNF dose escalation and drug sustainability in Crohn's disease: Data from the nationwide administrative database in Hungary

BACKGROUND

A significant percentage of patients receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNFα) agents lose clinical response over time. This study aims to provide representative real-world data on anti-TNFα drug sustainability, prevalence and predictors of anti-TNFα dose escalation.

METHODS

In this nationwide, retrospective study, patients receiving infliximab or adalimumab therapy between 2013 and 2016 were included using the administrative claims database of the Hungarian National Health Insurance Fund. Demographic characteristics, drug sustainability, dose escalation, use of parallel medications were analyzed.

RESULTS

476 infliximab and 397 adalimumab patients were included. Dose escalation was observed in 7%, 9% and 22% of patients receiving originator/biosimilar infliximab and adalimumab during the complete follow-up, respectively. Dose escalation was associated with shorter disease duration (OR = 1.75, p = 0.026) and corticosteroid use. Drug retention rates were 62.7%, 72.3%, 75.4% after 1 year follow-up for Remicade®, Inflectra® and Humira®, which decreased to 38.3% and 52.1% for Remicade® and Humira® at 3 years. Drug sustainability was affected by steroid use prior biologic initiation in adalimumab treated patients (HR = 2.04, p < 0.001), while in infliximab treated patients dose escalation (HR = 0.51, p = 0.02) and gender (HR = 1.39, p = 0.033) were predictors of treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

Dose escalation rates were lower in this real-world administrative database study for both adalimumab and infliximab compared to published data. Drug retention rates were overall satisfactory, with no apparent difference between the legacy and biosimilar infliximab.

Multidisciplinary management of the nocebo effect in biosimilar-treated IBD patients: Results of a workshop from the NOCE-BIO consensus group

The high cost of biological drugs for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) considerably impacts on health-care budgets. Since the patent of biological products expired, cheaper biosimilars have entered the market. Available data coming from real-world cohorts and clinical trials indicate that the efficacy and safety of biosimilars is comparable to that of the originator drugs. Treating IBD patients with a biosimilar may be complicated by the risk of the nocebo effect, a negative effect of a pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatment, induced by patients's expectations and unrelated to the physiological action of the treatment. The nocebo effect can negatively affect treatment outcomes and hamper the cost-savings of biosimilars. Reducing the nocebo effect requires a multidisciplinary effort of all health-care providers in charge of biosimilar-treated IBD patients. The aim of the review is to reflect the key messages of an international workshop on this topic, including viewpoints from the perspective of physicians, nurses, psychologists, pharmacists and patients.

The Future of Biosimilars: Maximizing Benefits Across Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases

Biologics have transformed the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Biosimilars-biologic medicines with no clinically meaningful differences in safety or efficacy from licensed originators-can stimulate market competition and have the potential to expand patient access to biologics within the parameters of treatment recommendations. However, maximizing the benefits of biosimilars requires cooperation between multiple stakeholders. Regulators and developers should collaborate to ensure biosimilars reach patients rapidly without compromising stringent quality, safety, or efficacy standards. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations and payer policies should be updated following biosimilar market entry, minimizing the risk of imposing nonmedical barriers to biologic treatment. In RA, disparities between treatment guidelines and national reimbursement criteria could be addressed to ensure more uniform patient access to biologics and enable rheumatologists to effectively implement treat-to-target strategies. In IBD, the cost-effectiveness of biologic treatment earlier in the disease course is likely to improve when biosimilars are incorporated into pharmacoeconomic analyses. Patient understanding of biosimilars is crucial for treatment success and avoiding nocebo effects. Full understanding of biosimilars by physicians and carefully considered communication strategies can help support patients initiating or switching to biosimilars. Developers must operate efficiently to be sustainable, without undermining product quality, the reliability of the supply chain, or pharmacovigilance. Developers should also facilitate information sharing to meet the needs of other stakeholders. Such collaboration will help to ensure a sustainable future for both the biosimilar market and healthcare systems, supporting the availability of effective treatments for patients.

Biosimilars to Antitumor Necrosis Factor Agents in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Anti- tumor Necrosis Factor (anti-TNF) agents are the backbone treatment of moderate to severe cases of inflammatory bowel disease. One of the main drawbacks of these agents is the high cost. The introduction of biosimilar products to anti-TNF agents is expected to lower the cost. Health care providers ought to be aware of the available data that addresses the safety and efficacy of biosimilars in IBD patients. This article outlines the current evidence-based data regarding the available biosimilar products, their safety, efficacy and how to deal with patients’ concerns.

The Law and Ethics of Switching from Biologic to Biosimilar in Canada

Governments and financial institutions in several jurisdictions are planning or implementing nonmedical/'forced' switches by cutting drug coverage for reference biologics and funding only less expensive biosimilars. Switches raise numerous ethical and legal challenges, as the drugs are framed as not being identical and, despite strong evidence for noninferiority of some biosimilars, there is controversy over whether switching can sometimes lead to adverse events. Canadian law generally requires physicians to give precedence to their patients' best interests over social interests such as cost containment. The primacy of patients' interests is also clearly reflected in professional policies and codes of ethics. Moreover, physicians are obligated to disclose everything a reasonable person in the patient's position would want to know when obtaining informed consent for treatment, including addressing not only scientific information but also relevant social controversy about nonmedical switches. Under Canadian law, physicians may be obligated to tell patients about the ability to access unfunded biologics, even if patients lack the resources to obtain them. In sum, while there is no inherent right to funding for reference biologics in Canada, physicians in some circumstances may have a legal obligation as fiduciaries to advocate on behalf of patients to remain on a reference biologic. At a minimum, the controversy surrounding switching will necessitate, as part of the consent process, a robust and thorough disclosure of relevant risks, benefits and reasonable alternatives.

Biosimilars: concept, current status, and future perspectives in inflammatory bowel diseases

The inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), which consist of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, are chronic, incurable immunemediated inflammatory disorders of the intestine. As IBD incidence continues to increase globally and its mortality is low, prevalent cases of IBD are rapidly increasing, thereby leading to a substantial increase in health care costs. Although the introduction of biologic agents for IBD management has revolutionized the armamentarium of IBD therapy, the high cost of this therapy is concerning. With the expirations of patents for existing biologic agents (originals), biosimilars with cheaper costs have been highlighted in the field of IBD. Despite concerns regarding their short- and long-term efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and interchangeability, increasing evidence via prospective observations and phase III or IV clinical trials, which aim to prove the "biosimilarity" of biosimilars to originals, has partly confirmed their efficacy, safety, and interchangeability. Additionally, although patients and physicians are reluctant to use biosimilars, a positive budget impact has been reported owing to their use in different countries. In the near future, multiple biosimilars with lower costs, and efficacy and safety profile similar to originals, could be used to treat IBD; thus, further consideration and knowledge dissemination are warranted in this new era of biosimilars.

SB5 shows cross-immunogenicity to adalimumab but not infliximab: results in patients with inflammatory bowel disease or rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

The primary objective of this study was to analyze the cross-reactivity of antidrug antibodies to reference adalimumab (ADL) and SB5 (adalimumab biosimilar) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Sera from patients with IBD and RA with or without antibodies to adalimumab (ATA+ or ATA-, respectively) were tested for cross-reactivity with SB5 and ADL. Functional inhibition of tumor necrosis factor-α binding was measured. Sera from patients with antibodies to reference infliximab (ATI+) were examined for cross-reactivity to SB5. Sera were tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

RESULTS

All 30 anti-ADL ATA+ sera from patients with IBD and all 4 anti-SB5 ATA+ sera from patients with RA were cross-reactive with ADL and SB5 (range of mean concentrations: IBD, 20.99-21.31 μg/ml; RA, 16.46-17.48 μg/ml). In general, there was no significant difference between mean ATA titers. A strong correlation was detected in all ATA+ samples (rho = 0.997 to >0.999; p < 0.001 each). However, ATA- sera were not reactive to either ADL or SB5. anti-ADL ATA+ sera similarly neutralized functional activity of ADL and SB5; no functional inhibition was observed with ATA- sera. ATI+ sera did not cross-react with SB5.

CONCLUSIONS

ADL and SB5 show cross-immunogenicity in sera from patients with IBD or RA, supporting shared immune-dominant epitopes. ATI+ sera did not cross-react with SB5, suggesting different immunogenic epitopes between infliximab and SB5.

Patients' perspectives after switching from infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A 12-month prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients' perspectives after switching from infliximab to a biosimilar have yet to be assessed.

AIM

To assess patients' perspectives in a prospective manner after switching from infliximab to CT-P13.

METHODS

113 consecutive patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on maintenance therapy with infliximab were switched to CT-P13. Patients' perspectives were assessed by questionnaires, including the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) and FACIT-F (questionnaire regarding fatigue), and patient-reported outcomes (IBD disability index) at the inclusion and after the fourth CT-P13 infusion.

RESULTS

After one year, the patients' perspectives did not change after the switch according to BMQ-general, BMQ-specific necessity and BMQ-specific concerns subscales. No difference was observed in the mean IBD-DI score, while a significant improvement in fatigue was observed according to the FACIT-F questionnaire. Patients' concerns were raised about the use of biosimilars and the risks of switching with a significant improvement after switching (65% vs. 42%, respectively, p = 0.01). Fourteen (12.4%) patients experienced loss of response to CT-P13, including 12 with restoration of steroid-free clinical remission after CT-P13 dose optimization.

CONCLUSION

Although some concerns were reported, no difference was observed in patients' perspectives after switching from infliximab to CT-P13.