A randomised, double-blind, phase III study comparing SB2, an infliximab biosimilar, to the infliximab reference product Remicade in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy

Full Interchangeability in Regard to Immunogenicity Between the Infliximab Reference Biologic and Biosimilars CT-P13 and SB2 in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Infliximab (IFX) biosimilars CT-P13 and SB2 have comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to the originator Remicade (RMC). However, concerns about cross-switching patients between the 3 brands were raised in the absence of cross reactivity data between them. We aimed to determine whether antibodies to infliximab (ATI) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients cross-react with RMC, CT-P13, and SB2.

METHODS

Based on previous ATI status, samples from 34 patients participating in the BIOSIM01 study (13 RMC, 9 CT-P13, and 12 switchers) were selected. Patients were treated with either RMC only, or CT-P13 only, or with RMC switched to CT-P13. Additionally, 28 IFX-naïve patients were assayed as controls. In total, 180 samples were analyzed. ATI trough levels were measured in parallel with 3 different bridging Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assays constructed using the 3 drugs. Spearman's coefficient and percentages of agreement were used to study the correlation between each assay.

RESULTS

In total, 76 samples out of 152 IFX-treated patient samples were ATI-positive (30 RMC, 14 CT-P13, and 32 switchers). All resulted ATI-positive when either CT-P13 or SB2 bridging assays were used. The overall percentage of agreement was 100% when compared either with CT-P13 or SB2 assays. No significant differences were found among ATI levels and coefficients (Spearman's 0.98 to 1.0, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

ATI of RMC-treated, CT-P13-treated or RMC to CT-P13 switched patients show full cross-reactivity with CT-P13 and SB2. Findings suggest that immunodominant epitopes in the reference and CT-P13 drugs are equally present in SB2. Data support full interchangeability between biosimilars in regard to immunogenicity.

Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy after switching from reference infliximab to biosimilar SB2 compared with continuing reference infliximab and SB2 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results of a randomised, double-blind, phase III transition study

OBJECTIVES

Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity results from the phase III study of SB2, a biosimilar of reference infliximab (INF), were previously reported through 54 weeks. This transition period compared results in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switched from INF to SB2 with those in patients who maintained treatment with INF or SB2.

METHODS

Patients with moderate to severe RA despite methotrexate treatment were randomised (1:1) to receive SB2 or INF at weeks 0, 2 and 6 and every 8 weeks thereafter until week 46. At week 54, patients previously receiving INF were rerandomised (1:1) to switch to SB2 (INF/SB2 (n=94)) or to continue on INF (INF/INF (n=101)) up to week 70. Patients previously receiving SB2 continued on SB2 (SB2/SB2 (n=201)) up to week 70. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity were assessed up to week 78.

RESULTS

Efficacy was sustained and comparable across treatment groups. American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 responses between weeks 54 and 78 ranged from 63.5% to 72.3% with INF/SB2, 66.3%%-69.4% with INF/INF and 65.6%-68.3% with SB2/SB2. Treatment-emergent adverse events during this time occurred in 36.2%, 35.6% and 40.3%, respectively, and infusion-related reactions in 3.2%, 2.0% and 3.5%. Among patients who were negative for antidrug antibodies (ADA) up to week 54, newly developed ADAs were reported in 14.6%, 14.9% and 14.1% of the INF/SB2, INF/INF and SB2/SB2 groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles remained comparable among the INF/SB2, INF/INF and SB2/SB2 groups up to week 78, with no treatment-emergent issues or clinically relevant immunogenicity after switching from INF to SB2.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01936181; EudraCT number: 2012-005733-37.

Consensus-based recommendations for the use of biosimilars to treat rheumatological diseases

The study aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the evaluation and use of biosimilars to treat rheumatological diseases. The task force comprised an expert group of specialists in rheumatology, dermatology and gastroenterology, and pharmacologists, patients and a regulator from ten countries. Four key topics regarding biosimilars were identified through a process of discussion and consensus. Using a Delphi process, specific questions were then formulated to guide a systematic literature review. Relevant English-language publications through November 2016 were searched systematically for each topic using Medline; selected papers and pertinent reviews were examined for additional relevant references; and abstracts presented at the 2015 and 2016 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) annual scientific meetings were searched for those about biosimilars. The experts used evidence obtained from these studies to develop a set of overarching principles and consensus recommendations. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation were determined for each. By the search strategy, 490 references were identified. Of these, 29 full-text papers were included in the systematic review. Additionally, 20 abstracts were retrieved from the ACR and EULAR conference abstract databases. Five overarching principles and eight consensus recommendations were generated, encompassing considerations regarding clinical trials, immunogenicity, extrapolation of indications, switching between bio-originators and biosimilars and among biosimilars, and cost. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation for each varied according to available published evidence. Five overarching principles and eight consensus recommendations regarding the evaluation and use of biosimilars to treat rheumatological diseases were developed using research-based evidence and expert opinion.

[Revised version of the statement by the DGRh on biosimilars-update 2017]

The treatment of rheumatic diseases with bioloics has significantly improved the prognosis of patients. Currently, there are 13 preparations available in Germany for the treatment of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. These original preparations generally have-depending on the individual country-15 years of patent protection. As soon as the patent has expired, approved biosimilars can be brought into use. For the approval of a biosimilar, authorities such as the European Medical Agency or the American Food and Drug Administration require proof of the best possible comparability with respect to efficacy and safety in comparison to the original or reference product. Since 2015, biosimilars of inifliximab, adalimumab, etanercept and rituximab have been granted approval in the European Union, the USA, Japan and in other countries. Further biosimilar products for these reference products are in development for treatment in rheumatology. From a societal and medical point of view, this opens up the possibility to increase the availability of biopharmaceutical products for patients through lower prices. In Germany, this possibility has already occurred-statutory health insurance physicians have introduced quotas for biosimilars, which will ultimately decrease spending and healthcare costs. This can lead to price reductions of the original products, which has already happened in Germany. Biosimilars can be prescribed for new patients or as a change from the original to the generic drug. When switching, a distinction is made between individual switching (interchangeability), which is made in individual consultation between the physician and the patient, and nonmedical switching (substitution) made at the societal or governmental level, which is made in the context of health care cost containment, and then, for example, implemented at the pharmacy level. Preliminary data from Norway and Denmark are available for substitution on the basis of results from large studies or registries in which systematic changes were made. The previous conclusion was that this does not lead to new problems for the patients. The German Society for Rheumatology recognizes the advantages of introducing biosimilars in Germany, but recommends that their use be based primarily on a joint decision by the treating physician and patient.

Biosimilars in Dermatology - theory becomes reality

Biosimilars are biological medicines that are analogues of a specific reference product. Biosimilars of the tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors infliximab and etanercept are already approved and available for dermatological indications. Regulatory agencies require in-depth analysis of physicochemical and functional properties of these highly complex molecules as well as clinical data on their similarity regarding efficacy and safety in at least one clinical trial in a sensitive and homogeneous population. Thus, it must be shown that biosimilars are essentially the same as the originator product if they are to be licensed in regulated drug markets. As a consequence, these data are extrapolated from one molecule (the originator) to another (biosimilar) resulting in an approval that includes the same indications as the originator product. While extrapolation is well accepted and regulated, clear recommendations regarding the interchangeability of originators and biosimilars as well as data on multiple consecutive switching are missing. Current scientific knowledge does not argue against the use of biosimilars for dermatological indications, but sequential switching of biosimilars should be considered carefully. To increase confidence and enhance evidence for biosimilars, accurate documentation of the specific products given to each patient is essential and should preferably be included in patient registries.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis: what is new in 2017 and its applicability in our local setting

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the most common rheumatic disease being managed by the rheumatologists. With the emergence of the biologic and targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs), the prognosis of RA has improved substantially. However, these novel agents are associated with high cost and untoward effects. International consensus statements for the drug management of RA have been published to guide the practice of rheumatologists. In this article, updates from the 2016 EULAR management recommendations for RA are reviewed and discussed within the context of our local situation in Hong Kong.

A review on biosimilar infliximab, CT-P13, in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

The introduction of biological agents has led to significant changes in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The relatively high price of infliximab (IFX) and the expiration of the patents led to the introduction of biosimilar agents. CT-P13 was the first IFX biosimilar approved in the same indications as the reference product; however, the approval was based on randomized clinical trials conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. In the past 2-3 years, new findings from prospective observational studies supported the short-, medium- and long-term clinical efficacy and safety of CT-P13 in patients with IBD. This review summarized the clinical use and efficacy of the first biosimilar IFX, CT-P13, in the treatment of IBD.

A review article on biosimilar infliximab SB2 in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

TNF inhibition has had a major impact as an approach for treating rheumatoid arthritis and a series of biologic agents directed against TNF have been developed for clinical use. Infliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody against soluble and membrane-bound TNF-α, was the biopharmaceutical to lead this ‘biologics revolution’. However, with expiration of patent protection of the originator medicinal product, biosimilar versions of infliximab have been developed through biosimilarity studies and randomized controlled trials aiming to assess pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and clinical equivalence to their originator (reference product) in patients with moderate-to-severe disease activity. This review summarizes the clinical development of SB2, a biosimilar of infliximab, in rheumatoid arthritis.

Comparing biosimilar SB2 with reference infliximab after 54 weeks of a double-blind trial: clinical, structural and safety results

Objectives

SB2 is a biosimilar to the reference infliximab (INF). Similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity between SB2 and INF up to 30 weeks were previously reported. This report investigates such clinical similarity up to 54 weeks, including structural joint damage.

Methods

In this phase III, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre study, patients with moderate to severe RA despite MTX were randomized (1:1) to receive 3 mg/kg of either SB2 or INF at 0, 2, 6 and every 8 weeks thereafter. Dose escalation by 1.5 mg/kg up to a maximum dose of 7.5 mg/kg was allowed after week 30. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity were measured at each visit up to week 54. Radiographic damage evaluated by modified total Sharp score was measured at baseline and week 54.

Results

A total of 584 patients were randomized to receive SB2 (n = 291) or INF (n = 293). The rate of radiographic progression was comparable between SB2 and INF (mean modified total Sharp score difference: SB2, 0.38; INF, 0.37) at 1 year. ACR responses, 28-joint DAS, Clinical Disease Activity Index and Simplified Disease Activity Index were comparable between SB2 and INF up to week 54. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and anti-drug antibodies were comparable between treatment groups. Such comparable trends of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity were consistent from baseline up to 54 weeks. The pattern of dose increment was also comparable between SB2 and INF.

Conclusion

SB2 maintained similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity with INF up to 54 weeks in patients with moderate to severe RA. Radiographic progression was comparable at 1 year.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01936181) and EudraCT (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu; 2012-005733-37)

Reviewing the evidence for biosimilars: key insights, lessons learned and future horizons

Biologic therapies have become central to the long-term management of many chronic diseases, including inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Over recent years, the development and licensing pathways for biosimilars have become more standardized, and several biosimilars have been made available for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, such as RA. Pre-licensing requirements for biosimilars mandate the demonstration of comparability with reference products in terms of clinical activity, safety and immunogenicity, whereas post-marketing surveillance and risk minimization requirements are set in place to ensure that long-term, real-world safety data are collected to assess biosimilars in clinical practice. These measures should provide a foundation for physician confidence in biosimilars, which can be established further through clinical experience. Biosimilars may help to fill an unmet need by improving patient access to effective biologic treatments for chronic diseases. Greater access may result in additional clinical benefits, with appropriate use of biologic therapies according to treatment guidelines being associated with improved outcomes and the potential for reduced costs of care. Key challenges for the integration of biosimilars into everyday practice include questions about interchangeability, switching and automatic substitution. Several switching studies have shown that biosimilars can be used in place of reference products while maintaining efficacy and safety. Additional ongoing studies and registries may help to optimize the process of switching, and different funding models are examining the optimal mechanisms to ensure effective uptake of these new treatments.

Biosimilars in rheumatology: A review of the evidence and their place in the treatment algorithm

Determining biosimilarity involves a comprehensive exercise with a focus on determining the comparability of the molecular characteristics and preclinical profile of the biosimilar and reference product, such that there is less need for extensive clinical testing to assure comparability of clinical outcomes. Three anti-TNF biosimilar agents are approved for patients with rheumatic diseases in the European Union. The infliximab (Remicade®) biosimilars CT-P13 (Remsima® and Inflectra®) and SB2 (Flixabi®) and the etanercept (Enbrel®) biosimilar SB4 (Benepali®) have shown close comparability to their reference medicinal products, having undergone extensive evaluations. Guidelines on the treatment of rheumatic diseases have acknowledged that biosimilars and biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) are interchangeable in clinical practice, except when patients experience lack of efficacy or tolerability with the reference agent. Given that cost is a barrier to effective bDMARD use, the introduction of less costly biosimilars is likely to widen access and dissipate treatment inequalities. Physicians faced with prescribing decisions should be reassured by the robust and exhaustive process that is involved in assuring comparability of biosimilars with their reference agents. De novo usage of a biosimilar and switching to a biosimilar following lack of efficacy or tolerability with a different reference biologic agent are likely to be strategies most easily adopted, although switching during successful treatment should also be considered given the potential cost implications. The introduction of biosimilar bDMARDs has the potential to improve patient access to effective biologic therapy, to better accommodate restraints within healthcare budgets and to improve overall patient outcomes.

Biosimilars: implications for rheumatoid arthritis therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Abbreviated pathways for the approval of biosimilars have been established in the European Union (EU), the United States, and other countries. Biosimilar TNF inhibitors have been available in South Korea and the EU since 2012 and 2013, respectively, and the first biosimilar infliximab was introduced to the clinic in the United States in November 2016. Five TNF inhibitor biosimilars have now been approved, and many other biosimilars to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases are in development.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the last 18 months, published results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown equivalent efficacy and comparable safety and immunogenicity of biosimilars with their reference products. 'Real world' experience with biosimilars in the EU continues to increase and provides evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of using biosimilars in the clinic and of switching from bio-originators to their biosimilars.

SUMMARY

Cost implications of using biosimilars and extrapolation of their use to treat diseases in which they were not tested in RCTs are of great interest. We review the results of RCTs and available experience with biosimilars in the clinic.

A review of the literature analyzing benefits and concerns of infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 for the treatment of rheumatologic diseases: focus on interchangeability

The introduction of biological agents drastically changed the treatment paradigm of inflammatory arthritides, ameliorating the natural history of the diseases but concomitantly increasing the drug costs due to the manufacturing process. On this concern, biosimilar drugs may represent a valid option for reducing this elevated cost and increasing the availability of these highly effective treatments. Recently, CT-P13, the first biosimilar of infliximab, has been approved with the same indications established for the reference product (RP), and its daily use is progressively increasing. However, the experience with biosimilar drugs in the field of rheumatology is still limited, raising potential doubts and concerns on their correct management in real-life settings. Comparability analysis between CT-P13 and its RP was evaluated in equivalence randomized controlled trials (RCTs) - PLANETRA and PLANETAS - performed on patients with rheumatoid arthritis and axial spondylitis, respectively. CT-P13 and RP showed similar profile in terms of quality, biological activity, safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy. However, the interchangeability between infliximab RP and its biosimilar still represents the most challenging issue because of a lack of a long-lasting experience. To date, reassuring preliminary data on this topic were reported in open-label extensions of PLANETRA and PLANETAS RCTs and in ongoing real-life observational studies. These findings, taken all together, significantly affect the landscape of biosimilar regulatory pathways and strongly support CT-P13 introduction as a great opportunity for expanding the accessibility to these very effective and high-cost therapies.

Switching from originator infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 compared with maintained treatment with originator infliximab (NOR-SWITCH): a 52-week, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

TNF inhibitors have improved treatment of Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, spondyloarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and chronic plaque psoriasis, but are expensive therapies. The aim of NOR-SWITCH was to examine switching from originator infliximab to the less expensive biosimilar CT-P13 regarding efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity.

METHODS

The study is a randomised, non-inferiority, double-blind, phase 4 trial with 52 weeks of follow-up. Adult patients on stable treatment with infliximab originator treated in a hospital setting for at least 6 months were eligible for participation. Patients with informed consent were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either continued infliximab originator or to switch to CT-P13 treatment, with unchanged dosing regimen. Data were collected at infusion visits in 40 Norwegian study centres. Patients, assessors, and patient care providers were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was disease worsening during 52-week follow-up. 394 patients in the primary per-protocol set were needed to show a non-inferiority margin of 15%, assuming 30% disease worsening in each group. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02148640.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 24, 2014, and July 8, 2015, 482 patients were enrolled and randomised (241 to infliximab originator, 241 to CT-P13 group; one patient was excluded from the full analysis and safety set for CT-P13) and 408 were included in the per-protocol set (202 in the infliximab originator group and 206 in the CT-P13 group). 155 (32%) patients in the full analysis set had Crohn's disease, 93 (19%) had ulcerative colitis, 91 (19%) had spondyloarthritis, 77 (16%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 30 (6%) had psoriatic arthritis, and 35 (7%) had chronic plaque psoriasis. Disease worsening occurred in 53 (26%) patients in the infliximab originator group and 61 (30%) patients in the CT-P13 group (per-protocol set; adjusted treatment difference -4·4%, 95% CI -12·7 to 3·9). The frequency of adverse events was similar between groups (for serious adverse events, 24 [10%] for infliximab originator vs 21 [9%] for CT-P13; for overall adverse events, 168 [70%] vs 164 [68%]; and for adverse events leading to discontinuation, nine [4%] vs eight [3%], respectively).

INTERPRETATION

The NOR-SWITCH trial showed that switching from infliximab originator to CT-P13 was not inferior to continued treatment with infliximab originator according to a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15%. The study was not powered to show non-inferiority in individual diseases.

FUNDING

Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services.

Efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To update the evidence for the efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Task Force treatment recommendations.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for phase III or IV (or phase II, if these studies were lacking) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2013 and February 2016. Abstracts from the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR conferences were obtained.

RESULTS

The RCTs confirmed greater efficacy with a bDMARD+conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) versus a csDMARDs alone (level 1A evidence). Using a treat-to-target strategy approach, commencing and escalating csDMARD therapy and adding a bDMARD in cases of non-response, is an effective approach (1B). If a bDMARD had failed, improvements in clinical response were seen on switching to another bDMARD (1A), but no clear advantage was seen for switching to an agent with another mode of action. Maintenance of clinical response in patients in remission or low disease activity was best when continuing rather than stopping a bDMARD, but bDMARD dose reduction or 'spacing' was possible, with a substantial proportion of patients achieving bDMARD-free remission (2B). RCTs have also demonstrated efficacy of several new bDMARDs and biosimilar DMARDs (1B).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic literature review consistently confirmed the previously reported efficacy of bDMARDs in RA and provided additional information on bDMARD switching and dose reduction.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update

Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to-or adding-another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.

Biosimilar biologic drugs: a new frontier in medical care

Physicians in training are expected to be aware of the newest developments in patient care. Biologic therapies have changed treatment of many diseases by specifically targeting key disease mediators, but patient access to these therapies can be limited. As patents for the first biologic therapies are expiring, the development and approval of products known as biosimilars is rapidly gaining momentum. A biosimilar is a biologic product that is highly similar to a reference product (a licensed biologic product), notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components. Biosimilars undergo a thorough evaluation compared with the licensed biologic and need to demonstrate comparable clinical pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety including immunogenicity. Understanding the processes for new drug approvals, the rigorous evaluation of biosimilars, and considerations about their selection and use can help recently trained physicians to make informed treatment decisions and improve patient outcomes.

Insights on the use of biosimilars in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

Biologic therapy, such as those that target tumor necrosis factor (TNF) signaling, has proven to be an efficacious method of treatment for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with regards to symptom management and mucosal healing. However, the rising prevalence of IBD worldwide and the ever-increasing burden of biologic pharmaceuticals in the health care industry is alarming for insurance companies, clinicians, and patients. The impending patent expiry and the relatively high costs of biologics, particularly anti-TNF agents, have paved the way for biosimilar development for IBD. The United States Food and Drug Administration defines a biosimilar as a biological product that is highly similar to its reference medicinal product, with no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity, and potency. The hope with biosimilars is that their entry into the market will be able to drive competition between pharmaceutical companies to reduce prices like that of the generic market, and that access to appropriate biologic treatments for IBD patients is increased in the long-term. Yet, there are challenging issues such as indication extrapolation and interchangeability that are still being debated in the field of IBD and must be addressed in future issued guidance. This review will discuss the issues and implications concerning the use of biosimilar therapy for IBD.

Biosimilars and the extrapolation of indications for inflammatory conditions

Extrapolation is the approval of a biosimilar for use in an indication held by the originator biologic not directly studied in a comparative clinical trial with the biosimilar. Extrapolation is a scientific rationale that bridges all the data collected (ie, totality of the evidence) from one indication for the biosimilar product to all the indications originally approved for the originator. Regulatory approval and marketing authorization of biosimilars in inflammatory indications are made on a case-by-case and agency-by-agency basis after evaluating the totality of evidence from the entire development program. This totality of the evidence comprises extensive comparative analytical, functional, nonclinical, and clinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity studies used by regulators when evaluating whether a product can be considered a biosimilar. Extrapolation reduces or eliminates the need for duplicative clinical studies of the biosimilar but must be justified scientifically with appropriate data. Understanding the concept, application, and regulatory decisions based on the extrapolation of data is important since biosimilars have the potential to significantly impact patient care in inflammatory diseases.

Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of biosimilars of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents in rheumatic diseases; A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of biosimilars of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α agents compared to their reference agents in immune mediated diseases.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of biosimilars of anti-TNF-α agents compared to their reference agents in patients with various immune mediated diseases. The outcomes were the rates of clinical response and adverse events among patients treated with biosimilars compared to their reference agents. Additionally, occurrence of anti-drug antibodies with the use of biosimilars was compared to the reference agents.

RESULTS

Nine studies reporting outcomes in 3291 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) were identified (5 infliximab, 2 adalimumab, and 2 etanercept). No RCTs in other diseases were found. Biosimilars of infliximab showed similar rates of clinical response compared to the reference agent in RA and AS. Frequency of anti-drug antibody and adverse events were similar except for a slightly, but significantly, higher risk of upper respiratory tract infections with biosimilar (RR 1.54, P = 0.047, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.01-2.37). Biosimilar of adalimumab showed no differences among any outcomes compared to the reference agent. Biosimilars of etanercept showed no differences for clinical response and frequency of adverse events, but showed a significantly lower rate of anti-drug antibodies at 24-30 weeks (RR 0.05, P <0.0001%, 95% CI = 0.01-0.21).

CONCLUSION

In the present study, biosimilars of anti-TNF-α agents had an overall comparable efficacy and safety profile compared to their reference agents in RA and AS supporting their use for these conditions.

Extrapolation and Interchangeability of Infliximab and Adalimumab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

OPINION STATEMENT

Infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars have been approved by the FDA and European Medicines Agency and have already been introduced to the international market. Availability into the US market is imminent. Biosimilars are highly similar to the reference biologic product but should not be referred to as, nor equated with, generic medications as no two biosimilars can ever be identical. Regulatory pathways for biosimilar approval consider the totality of evidence for biosimilar approvals, but the preponderance of development relies on analytic and functional testing and allows extrapolation between indications to reduce the financial burden of completing comparative clinical trials for each indication. Neither CT-P13 (infliximab biosimilar) nor ABP 501 (adalimumab biosimilar) was clinically tested in patients with inflammatory bowel disease prior to being submitted for approval by regulatory agencies. The body of available evidence suggests that these drugs will perform similarly to their originators. The pathway for interchangeability of biosimilars has yet to be clarified by federal regulators and currently remains determined by states within the USA. However, preliminary data suggests that switching from originator to biosimilar is safe with minimal differences in clinical efficacy.

The safety of emerging biosimilar drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), often administered in combination with methotrexate, target specific inflammatory mediators and have transformed the treatment of rheumatic diseases, especially rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but also the spondyloarthritides. However, the high cost of these drugs in many countries restricts patient access. As many bDMARDs have reached or are near to patent expiration, numerous biosimilar drugs are in development and some have already been approved. Biosimilars are generally priced lower than their reference products (RPs), or bio-originators, and as prices come down it is hoped that patient access to these drugs will increase, making the safety of these drugs an area of major interest. Areas covered: This article reviews publicly available safety data on biosimilars in RA. Expert opinion: Most available data for biosimilars in RA relate to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and rituximab (an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody). As biosimilar use around the world increases, evidence supporting the clinical safety of the biosimilars compared with their RPs also grows. To date, no new safety concerns have been raised in studies with TNFi or rituximab biosimilars for the treatment of RA; safety profiles have been consistent with those of their RPs. However, careful post-marketing pharmacovigilance remains necessary.

Biosimilars in IBD: from theory to practice

Biologic agents have revolutionized the care management of many life-threatening and debilitating diseases. As patents for older biologic therapies have begun to expire, the market has opened to copy versions of the originators - commonly referred to as biosimilars, follow-on biologic agents or subsequent-entry biologic agents - which are expected to gain a portion of the market, reduce health-care spending and increase treatment access worldwide. Importantly for patients with IBD, CT-P13 was the first biosimilar to infliximab that obtained regulatory approval by the European Medicines Agency in September 2013 and by the FDA in April 2016. In May 2016, SB2 was the second biosimilar to infliximab receiving marketing authorization in Europe. Currently, >20 other biosimilars to infliximab and adalimumab are in the development pipeline. Their similar-but-not-identical nature, and the concept of extrapolating efficacy and safety data from one therapeutic indication to another, seem to be confusing to physicians and cause concerns about the efficacy and safety of biosimilar products. A relevant debate is still ongoing in the field of IBD. This Review discusses the scientific principles underlying the biosimilar concept established in Europe and the USA, and discusses the current state of knowledge on biosimilar use in IBD.

Biosimilars for the Treatment of Chronic Inflammatory Diseases: A Systematic Review of Published Evidence

BACKGROUND

Clinicians are required to assimilate, critically evaluate, and extrapolate information to support appropriate use of biosimilars across indications.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to systematically collate all published data in order to assess the weight (quantity and quality) of available evidence for each molecule and inform and support healthcare decision-making in chronic inflammatory diseases.

METHODS

MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, and ISI Web of Science® were searched to September 2015. Selected conference proceedings were searched from 2012 to July 2015. Studies disclosing biosimilars with unique identifiers were categorized by originator, study type, and indication. Risk of bias assessments were performed. Intended copies were differentiated as commercially available agents without evidence of rigorous comparative biosimilarity evaluations.

RESULTS

Proposed biosimilars for adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and rituximab are reported in the published literature. Across indications, approved biosimilars infliximab CT-P13, SB2, and etanercept SB4 have published studies involving the largest number of patients or healthy subjects (n = 1405, 743, and 734, respectively), mostly in rheumatoid arthritis. At data cut-off, only CT-P13 had published data in ankylosing spondylitis (n = 250; randomized control trial) and ulcerative colitis/Crohn's disease (n = 336; observational studies). Published data were not available for ongoing studies in psoriasis patients. Four intended copies were identified in published studies (total: n = 1430; n = 1372 in observational studies). Thematic analysis of non-empirical publications showed that indication extrapolation remains an issue, particularly for gastroenterologists.

CONCLUSIONS

While most agents display a moderate to high degree of similarity to their originator in the published studies identified, large discrepancies persist in the overall amount and type of data available in the public domain. Significant gaps exist particularly for intended copies, reinforcing the need to maintain a clear differentiation between these molecules and true biosimilars.

Monoclonal Antibody and Fusion Protein Biosimilars Across Therapeutic Areas: A Systematic Review of Published Evidence

BACKGROUND

Despite regulatory efforts to formalize guidance policies on biosimilars, there remains a need to educate healthcare stakeholders on the acknowledged definition of biosimilarity and the data that underpin it.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study were to systematically collate published data for monoclonal antibodies and fusion protein biosimilars indicated for cancer, chronic inflammatory diseases, and other indications, and to explore differences in the type and weight (quantity and quality) of available evidence.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and ISI Web of Science were searched to September 2015. Conference proceedings (n = 17) were searched 2012 to July 2015. Included studies were categorized by originator, study type, and indication. To assess data strength and validity, risk of bias assessments were undertaken.

RESULTS

Across therapeutic areas, 43 named (marketed or proposed) biosimilars were identified for adalimumab, abciximab, bevacizumab, etanercept, infliximab, omalizumab, ranibizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab originators. Infliximab CT-P13, SB2, and etanercept SB4 biosimilars have the greatest amount of published evidence of similarity with their originators, based on results of clinical studies involving larger numbers of patients or healthy subjects (N = 1405, 743, and 734, respectively). Published data were also retrieved for marketed intended copies of etanercept and rituximab.

CONCLUSIONS

This unbiased synthesis of the literature exposed significant differences in the extent of published evidence between molecules at preclinical, clinical, and post-marketing stages of development, providing clinicians and payers with a consolidated view of the available data and remaining gaps.

The changing landscape of biosimilars in rheumatology

Biosimilars remain a hot topic in rheumatology, and some physicians are cautious about their application in the real world. With many products coming to market and a wealth of guidelines and recommendations concerning their use, there is a need to understand the changing landscape and the real clinical and health-economic potential offered by these agents. Notably, rheumatologists will be at the forefront of the use of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies/soluble receptors. Biosimilars offer cost savings and health gains for our patients and will play an important role in treating rheumatic diseases. We hope that these lower costs will compensate for inequities in access to therapy based on economic differences across countries. Since approved biosimilars have already demonstrated highly similar efficacy, it will be most important to establish pharmacovigilance databases across countries that are adequate to monitor long-term safety after marketing approval.

Posttranslational Modifications and the Immunogenicity of Biotherapeutics

Whilst the amino acid sequence of a protein is determined by its gene sequence, the final structure and function are determined by posttranslational modifications (PTMs), including quality control (QC) in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and during passage through the Golgi apparatus. These processes are species and cell specific and challenge the biopharmaceutical industry when developing a production platform for the generation of recombinant biologic therapeutics. Proteins and glycoproteins are also subject to chemical modifications (CMs) both in vivo and in vitro. The individual is naturally tolerant to molecular forms of self-molecules but nonself variants can provoke an immune response with the generation of anti-drug antibodies (ADA); aggregated forms can exhibit enhanced immunogenicity and QC procedures are developed to avoid or remove them. Monoclonal antibody therapeutics (mAbs) are a special case because their purpose is to bind the target, with the formation of immune complexes (ICs), a particular form of aggregate. Such ICs may be removed by phagocytic cells that have antigen presenting capacity. These considerations may frustrate the possibility of ameliorating the immunogenicity of mAbs by rigorous exclusion of aggregates from drug product. Alternate strategies for inducing immunosuppression or tolerance are discussed.

Key design considerations on comparative clinical efficacy studies for biosimilars: adalimumab as an example

The global development of a biosimilar product is a methodologically complex affair, lined with potential design pitfalls and operational missteps to be avoided. Without careful attention to experimental design and meticulous execution, a development programme may fail to demonstrate equivalence, as would be anticipated for a biosimilar product, and not receive regulatory approval based on current guidance. In order to demonstrate similarity of a biosimilar product versus the originator (ie, the branded product), based on regulatory guidance, a stepwise approach is usually taken, starting with a comprehensive structural and functional characterisation of the new biological moiety. Given the sequential nature of the review process, the extent and nature of the non-clinical in vivo studies and the clinical studies to be performed depend on the level of evidence obtained in these previous step(s). A clinical efficacy trial is often required to further demonstrate biosimilarity of the two products (biosimilar vs branded) in terms of comparative safety and effectiveness. Owing to the focus on demonstrating biosimilarity and not safety and efficacy de novo, designing an adequate phase III (potentially pivotal) clinical efficacy study of a biosimilar may present some unique challenges. Using adalimumab as an example, we highlight design elements that may deserve special attention.