Outcomes Following a Mandatory Nonmedical Switch From Adalimumab Originator to Adalimumab Biosimilars in Patients With Psoriasis

Clinical Efficacy of Biosimilar Switch of Adalimumab for Management of Uveitis

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab has demonstrated efficacy in non-infectious uveitis. With the introduction of biosimilar agents such as Amgevita, we aimed to quantify efficacy and tolerability compared to Humira in a multi-centre UK cohort.

METHODS

Patients identified from tertiary uveitis clinics in 3 centres, after institution-mandated switching was implemented.

RESULTS

Data collected for 102 patients, aged 2-75 years, with 185 active eyes. Following switch, rates of uveitis flare were not significantly different (13 events before, 21 after, p = .132). Rates of elevated intraocular pressure were decreased (32 before, 25 afterwards, p = .006) and dosing of oral and intra-ocular steroids was stable. Twenty-four patients (24%) requested to return to Humira, commonly due to pain from injection or technical difficulty with the device.

CONCLUSION

Amgevita is safe and effective for inflammatory uveitis with non-inferiority to Humira. Significant numbers of patients requested to switch back due to side effects including injection site reactions.

Modeling the Effects of Formulary Exclusions: How Many Patients Could Be Affected by a Specific Exclusion?

Background: Medication formularies, initially designed to promote the use of cost-effective generic drugs, are now designed to maximize financial benefits for the pharmacy benefit management companies that negotiate purchase prices. In the second-largest pharmacy benefit management formulary that is publicly available, 55% of mandated substitutions are not for generic or biosimilar versions of the same active ingredient and/or formulation and may not be medically or financially beneficial to patients. Methods: We modeled the effect of excluding novel agents for atrial fibrillation/venous thromboembolism, migraine prevention, and psoriasis, which all would require substitution with a different active ingredient. Using population data, market share of the 2 largest US formularies, and 2021 prescription data, we calculated how many people could be affected by such exclusions. Using data from the published literature, we calculated how many of those individuals are likely to discontinue treatment and/or have adverse events due to a formulary exclusion. Results: The number of people likely to have adverse events due to the exclusion could be as high as 1 million for atrial fibrillation/venous thromboembolism, 900 000 for migraine prevention, and 500 000 for psoriasis. The numbers likely to discontinue treatment for their condition are as high as 924 000 for atrial fibrillation/venous thromboembolism, 646 000 for migraine, and 138 000 for psoriasis. Conclusion: Substitution with a nonequivalent treatment is common in formularies currently in use and is not without substantial consequences for hundreds of thousands of patients. Forced medication substitution results in costly increases in morbidity and mortality and should be part of the cost-benefit analysis of any formulary exclusion.

Review of Adalimumab Biosimilar SB5 in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases

SB5 is an approved biosimilar of adalimumab, a recombinant monoclonal anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antibody. The approval of SB5 was based on the comparison with reference adalimumab in analytical studies, pharmacokinetic (PK) and immunogenicity assessments, and randomized controlled trials. Efficacy data was primarily obtained in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and extended to include additional indications such as psoriasis, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis by extrapolation. Following its approval, additional post-marketing data have been collected comparing SB5 with reference adalimumab. This review summarizes the clinical data on SB5 from randomized controlled trials and provides a comprehensive overview of the available post-approval data. In "real-world" settings, SB5 was as effective as its reference product across different indications and countries, treatment persistence was well maintained throughout studies, and no new safety concerns were identified. In both controlled and "real-world" settings, switching from reference adalimumab to SB5 was not associated with altered efficacy or clinical complications. In post-approval studies, the quality of SB5 was consistent over time, independent of the batch and process changes, and the SB5 autoinjector was preferred over other autoinjectors by both healthcare professionals and patients. Taken together, these data support the use of SB5 whenever reference adalimumab is appropriate and demonstrate that switching from reference adalimumab to SB5 is feasible.

Real-world outcomes following switching from anti-TNF reference products to biosimilars for the treatment of psoriasis

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors improved clinical outcomes for patients with psoriasis but are limited by their high cost. There are several biosimilar options approved for the treatment of psoriasis which provides a lower-cost alternative and the potential to increase treatment availability for both biologically naïve and bioexperienced patients. Numerous phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the effects of switching from biologics to biosimilars; biosimilars had comparable safety and efficacy to their reference products. Real-world evidence may provide complementary information on the expected performance of biosimilars. In this literature review, we analyzed data from real-world studies on switching from biologics for psoriasis to their biosimilars. Effectiveness and safety profiles were comparable when switching from biologics to biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab. These studies are limited by their sample sizes, duration of follow-up, and single-arm designs without control groups. Based on available real-world evidence, patients may safely and effectively undergo switching to biosimilar therapies for the treatment of psoriasis.

Increasing Access to Effective Systemic Treatments in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Narrative Review

Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated inflammatory disease with a worldwide prevalence ranging between 0.51 and 11.43%. It results in a large clinical and social burden, with patients frequently suffering from reduced quality of life, psychologic distress and debilitating comorbidities. Biologic agents are used to establish and maintain disease control in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis and are essential to improving quality of life. However, a substantial proportion of patients have limited access to therapy due to economics, health policies and clinical considerations, which creates clinical unmet needs that disadvantage both patients and healthcare professionals. Biosimilars are a cost-effective alternative to off-patent biologic therapies, and there is mounting evidence to suggest they offer a valuable pharmacoeconomic strategy to lower healthcare costs in patients with psoriasis. Furthermore, the introduction of biosimilars can increase the number of patients able to receive biologics, allowing these patients to be treated earlier in the disease course, potentially modifying the course of their disease and reducing the risk of comorbidities. In time, the emergence of additional data, particularly those related to long-term safety, efficacy in extrapolated indications and the effects of switching, should reassure physicians and help overcome the final hurdles for a wider implementation of biosimilars. This review aims to provide an overview of current treatment approaches for patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis in the biosimilars era and explores both the current challenges and potential opportunities to improve access to high-quality, effective treatments.

Drug survival and safety of biosimilars and originator adalimumab in the treatment of psoriasis: a multinational cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease. Adalimumab is an effective but previously expensive biological treatment for psoriasis. The introduction of biosimilars following the patent expiry of the originator adalimumab Humira has reduced the unit cost of treatment. However, the long-term effectiveness and safety of adalimumab biosimilars for treating psoriasis in real-world settings are uncertain and may be a barrier to widespread usage.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study aims to compare the drug survival and safety of adalimumab biosimilars to adalimumab originator for the treatment of psoriasis. We will use both routinely collected healthcare databases and dedicated pharmacovigilance registries from the PsoNet initiative, including data from the UK, France and Spain. We will conduct a cohort study using a prevalent new user design. We will match patients on previous adalimumab exposure time to create two equal-sized cohorts of biosimilar and originator users. The coprimary outcomes are drug survival, defined by the time from cohort entry to discontinuation of the drug of interest; and risk of serious adverse events, defined by adverse events leading to hospitalisation or death. Cox proportional hazards models will be fitted to calculate HRs as the effect estimate for the outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The participating registries agree with the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from local ethics committees. The results of the study will be published in scientific journals and presented at international dermatology conferences by the end of 2023.

Biosimilars for the Treatment of Psoriasis: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials and Observational Studies

Importance

Biosimilars have the potential to reduce costs for the management of moderate-to-severe psoriasis compared with originators. However, the extrapolation of evidence enables the approval of a biosimilar for use in indications held by the originator without directly being studied in clinical trials. Thus, biosimilars can be approved for psoriasis based on extrapolated evidence from other diseases. The availability of evidence for the effectiveness and safety of biosimilars for the treatment of psoriasis is therefore unclear.

Objective

To compare the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of biosimilars with originator biologics for the treatment of patients with psoriasis.

Evidence Review

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and The European Union Clinical Trials Register were searched in August 2022. Eligible studies were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and ROBINS-I tools. All analyses were conducted from September 2022 to November 2022.

Findings

Fourteen trials (10 adalimumab, 2 etanercept, 1 infliximab, and 1 ustekinumab) and 3 cohort studies (1 adalimumab, 1 etanercept, 1 infliximab and etanercept) were included. Twelve trials compared biosimilars with originators in originator-naive patients (starters), and 11 trials compared switching from originator to biosimilar (switchers) with continuous originator treatments. There was no clinically or statistically significant difference in rates of achieving 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores and risks of adverse events (AEs) at week 16 and week 52 between the comparators. Two cohort studies showed no difference in effectiveness and safety outcomes between originators and biosimilars, whereas 1 study reported more AEs in patients who switched to biosimilars of adalimumab at 12 months. Three trials showed low risk of bias, whereas 11 trials had moderate risk of bias. All cohort studies had moderate to high risk of bias.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review, there was no clinically or statistically significant difference in the efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators for the treatment of patients with psoriasis. Most of the available evidence was based on randomized clinical trials, although high-quality real-world evidence was lacking. Future studies are needed to examine the long-term effectiveness and safety of biosimilars for the treatment of patients with psoriasis.

Switching from adalimumab originator to biosimilar: a 3-year retrospective cohort analysis

Our three year retrospective cohort study demonstrated that the vast majority of patients tolerated the switch from adalimumab originator to adalimumab biosimilar, with a 19% switchback rate. All patients who switched back to originator from biosimilar recovered from loss of efficiency and reported adverse events.

Physicians therefore should be confident in switching patients with well controlled psoriasis to adalimumab biosimilars.

Real-world evidence of biological agents in dermatology: A review of its applications, advantages, and limitations

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are regarded as the gold standard of evidence-based medicine. However, the disadvantages of RCTs have been well-documented for a lengthy period of time. Due to the carefully controlled conditions, a small group of patients is studied, resulting in a lack of external validity and generalizability. To address this issue, real-world evidence (RWE) has grown in importance as a complement to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We introduce and describe the databases used by RWE in this post. Applications of RWE are described in following aspects with examples of patients in the use of biological agents with skin diseases: (1) support the safety and efficacy outcomes of RCTs; (2) reveal real-world situations of adverse event management; (3) optimal treatment plans; (4) treatment's real-world cost burden. We also focus on its superiority of generalizability, external validity, and time and economic efficiencies as well as its deficiencies in data resources, study design, and statistical methodologies.

Non-Medical Switching in Dermatology: Cost-Conscious Policy or an Affront to Patient Safety?

Non-medical switching is when a patient's therapy is switched for reasons unrelated to health outcomes. Dermatologists are regularly affected by non-medical switching, as many of their complex patients are on expensive medications, which become first-line targets for cost-containment. This commentary examines the literature on non-medical switching and explores the push and pull factors used to drive medication regimen changes. The system-level cost savings of this practice are substantial and could be used to fund treatment for more vulnerable patients. While there is no substantiated evidence of worse outcomes post-switching, patients may suffer negative psychosocial consequences. Negative patient expectations, which are in part fueled by prescriber suspicion of non-medical switching, seem to contribute to this effect. While non-medical switching is not ideal for all patients, it has the potential to reduce cost while maintaining patient outcomes. The decision to switch should be made only after careful evaluation of the individual patient and their physical and psychological reserve.

Switching from Adalimumab Originator to Biosimilar: Clinical Experience in Patients with Hidradenitis Suppurativa

Adalimumab is currently the only biological medicine approved by the FDA for the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). The breakout of biosimilar drugs made them more accessible due to their impact on pharmacoeconomics. However, packaging, formulation, or excipients are unique characteristics of each drug. In that way, switching from adalimumab originator to biosimilar and between biosimilars could have implications in the clinical practice. The objective of this study is to describe our clinical experience in switching from adalimumab originator to biosimilar and switching back again. A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted that included seventeen patients with HS treated with adalimumab originator in the maintenance phase, and that achieved Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR), who were switched to adalimumab biosimilar for no medical reasons. The reason for the change was to improve pharmacoeconomic efficiency, following our hospital policies on biologics. Median duration with adalimumab originator treatment before switching was 48 weeks. After switching, 41.2% of patients maintained HiSCR response without additional issues, while 58.8% (10/17) reported problems after the change. Switching from adalimumab originator to biosimilar in well-controlled patients could imply problems in efficacy and adherence. Switching back to adalimumab originator appears to solve most of the problems, but some patients can lose confidence in the drug and discontinue it. It would be worthwhile to evaluate the benefit–risk ratio individually when switching an HS patient to adalimumab biosimilar.

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.