Switching Between Reference Biologics and Biosimilars for the Treatment of Rheumatology, Gastroenterology, and Dermatology Inflammatory Conditions: Considerations for the Clinician

Equity, expense, and expertise in biologic commissioning: adding the patient to the equation

INTRODUCTION

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are increasingly managed effectively with biologic medicines. However, with relatively high unit costs, there remains a meaningful pressure to ensure streamlined, equitable, and inclusive prescription of biologics in the UK. Despite an increased awareness of the benefits of patient-centric shared decision making, patients remain on the periphery of biologic selection for the treatment of IMIDs.

AREAS COVERED

We provide a patient perspective on core issues in the commissioning, prescription, and decision making around biologics for IMIDs in the UK, focusing on England. In particular, the crucial aspect of determining 'value' for different stakeholders, who necessarily have different priorities, is considered.

EXPERT OPINION

There are disparities in commissioning, access to, and prescription of biologics for IMIDs in the UK. This creates an unequal treatment model and drives patient dissatisfaction with an 'experience lottery' for the management of disease. A more transparent approach to prescribing decisions, made in close consultation with patients, is essential for improving equity and experience with biologic treatment of IMIDs.

Initial prescriptions and medication switches of biological products: an analysis of prescription pathways and determinants in the Swiss healthcare setting

OBJECTIVES

Biological products have contributed to extraordinary advances in disease treatments over the last decade. However, the cost-saving potential of imitator products, so-called biosimilars, is still under-researched in Switzerland. This study aims to assess biosimilars' prescriptions at treatment initiation and their determinants, as well as biological therapy switches.

DESIGN

The study included all patients who had at least one biosimilar available on the market at the time when they were prescribed a biological product. We analysed longitudinal data for biosimilar prescriptions in Switzerland using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to quantify the associations with individual, pharmaceutical and provider-related variables.

SETTING

The analysis is based on de-identified claims data of patients with mandatory health insurance at Helsana, one of the Swiss health insurance companies with a substantial enrollee base in mandatory health insurance.

PARTICIPANTS

Overall, 18 953 patients receiving at least one biological product between 2016 and 2021 were identified.

OUTCOME MEASURES

We differentiated between initial prescriptions and follow-up prescriptions. Our regression focused on initial prescriptions due to evidence indicating that patients tend to follow the medication prescribed at therapy initiation.

RESULTS

Although biosimilars' market share was low (28.6%), the number of prescriptions has increased (from 1016 in 2016 to 6976 in 2021). Few patients with medication switches (n=1492, 8.5%) were detected. Increased relative price difference (difference in the price of available biosimilars relative to price of corresponding reference product) was associated with decreased probability of biosimilar prescriptions, whereas male sex, an increase of available imitator drugs on the market, larger packaging sizes, and prescriptions from specialists or physicians in outpatient settings were associated with increased biosimilar use.

CONCLUSION

The low number of biosimilar prescriptions, despite the proliferating biosimilar market, indicates a high potential for biosimilar diffusion. The findings indicate that patients typically adhere to the therapy options initially chosen and are less inclined to make changes following the initiation of treatment. Our research highlights the need for awareness initiatives to improve understanding among patients and physicians, enabling informed, shared decision-making about biosimilar prescriptions.

A place for biosimilars in the changing multiple sclerosis treatment landscape

BACKGROUND

The treatment paradigm for multiple sclerosis (MS), particularly relapsing-remitting MS, is heavily reliant on biologic disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, the current cost of treatment acts as a significant barrier to access for patients. Over the next few years exclusivity periods for key biologic medicines used in MS are likely to end, opening the door for biosimilar medicines to enter the market.

METHODS

In this review, we discuss what biosimilar medicines are, and how the existing experience with biosimilar medicines across multiple therapy areas can inform the assimilation of biosimilar medicines into the MS treatment landscape in Europe and the US.

RESULTS

There is currently a lack of knowledge and awareness around the distinctions and similarities between small molecules, non-biological complex drugs, and biological medicines, as well as the different categories of follow-on successor medicines. These include biosimilar medicines that offer a matching efficacy and safety profile to the reference biologic. Understanding and recognition of the stringency of the approval pathways required for drug categories such as biosimilars are key in building confidence in treatment outcomes. For example, biosimilar medicines are sometimes perceived only as 'copies' of their reference biologic despite undergoing an extensive approval process requiring that no clinically meaningful differences are observed between the biosimilar medicine and the reference medicine. For MS, introduction of biosimilar medicines in the future will enable more people with MS to receive effective treatment, and also expand access to biologic DMTs in MS. Experiences from the use of biosimilars in multiple therapy areas have shown us that this can result in cost-saving benefits for a healthcare system. Introduction of biosimilar medicines in other therapy areas has also demonstrated the importance of appropriate, accurate education and information for their successful integration into clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

In order to realize optimized treatment outcomes in MS in coming years and to find the appropriate place for biosimilar medicines in the changing MS landscape, it is essential that clinicians and people with MS understand the fundamentals of biosimilars, their potential benefits and consistency of treatment provided by a biosimilar medicine, given the matching efficacy and safety profile to its reference medicine. As evidenced in other therapy areas, biosimilar medicines may reduce key barriers to access by providing a cost-effective alternative to the MS treatment arsenal, while providing the same treatment outcomes as reference biologics.

Impact of switching between reference biologics and biosimilars of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

What is the impact of switching between biologics and biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on efficacy and safety for rheumatoid arthritis? A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed to compare switching and non-switching groups of treatments. Pooled Risk Relative (RR) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs) were obtained. Seventeen randomized trials with a switching phase involving 6,562 patients were included. Results showed that a single switch from biologics to biosimilars compared to continuing biologics had comparable effects for primary and co-primary outcomes, the American College of Rheumatology criteria with 20% response (ACR20) (7 trials, 1,926 patients, RR 0.98, 95% CrIs 0.93 to 1.03) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (5 trials, 1,609 patients, SMD - 0.07, 95% CrIs - 0.23 to 0.1), and within the equivalence margins: ACR20 [RR 0.94, 1.06] and HAQ-DI [SMD - 0.22, 0.22]. The risk of treatment-emergent adverse events, discontinuation, and positive anti-drug antibodies were comparable after switching. Safety results were imprecise, and the follow-up period might not be sufficient to evaluate long-term effects, especially malignancies. Overall, the practice of single switching between approved biologics and biosimilars of Tumour Necrosis Factor inhibitors is efficacious and safe for rheumatoid arthritis.

[Implementation, of multidisciplinary consultations for patients with inflammatory arthritis and treated with subcutaneous biologic DMARDs: Assessment at one year and outlook]

INTRODUCTION

Biologics (bDMARDs) have revolutionized the prognosis of patients with inflammatory arthritis, but are not without serious side effects. The patient must be able to identify them, acquire self-care abilities or skills and adhere to their treatment. Multidisciplinary consultations, including a pharmaceutical consultation could improve the care of these patients. The pharmaceutical presence make it easier to switch to a biosimilar with etended patient support thanks to the community-hospital network. The return on investment is possible thanks to the more frequent use of biosimilars and the pricing of this type of consultation by the "Forfait de Prestation Intermédiaire".

METHODOLOGY

Eligible patients are patients with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis, treated with subcutaneous bDMARDs. The criteria assessed were patient's knowledge of their biotherapy using the Biosecure score, their medication adherence using the CQR-5, the total of switch to biosimilars perform and the financial statement of the consultations. An assessment of the actions deployed for the community-hospital network.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-five patients (47.4%) benefited multidisciplinary consultation. The mean score of the Biosecure score was 69.6/100 (moderate knowledge) and 261 patients (88.5%) were highly adherent. 57 patients (73%) accepted the switch to biosimilar. 197 pharmacy were contacted, all of witch for patients who receive the switch. Overall patient's satisfaction was 26.9/28.

CONCLUSION

Multidisciplinary consultations with involvement of the pharmacist should optimized patient care and the management of outpatients treated with bDMARDs. Patients have already expressed their satisfaction with this course of care and the return on investment is positive.

Lower injection-site reactions and long-term safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of etanercept biosimilar YLB113: Results from a post-hoc analysis of a double-blind, randomized, phase III comparative study and its open-label extension in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

AIM

YLB113 biosimilar was evaluated in an open-label extension single-arm study to assess long-term safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We also report post-hoc results on the incidence of injection-site reactions (ISRs) and injection-site erythema (ISE) from a phase III study.

METHOD

Participants from the phase III, double-blind, randomized, 96 week equivalence study who completed the final visit received 50 mg YLB113 subcutaneously every 2 weeks. Key safety end points were assessed through adverse events (AEs), ISRs, ISE, and anti-drug antibody (ADA) incidence. The efficacy end point was change from baseline in Disease Activity Score 28-joint count (DAS28) over time.

RESULTS

Of 201 participants, 184 (91.5%) completed the study. Treatment-emergent AEs were experienced by 93.5% and severe AEs by 10.0% of participants. The discontinuation rate due to AEs was 2.0%. Overall, 20.0% of participants reported an incidence of ISRs throughout the open-label extension study. Two participants developed ADAs, and none developed neutralizing ADAs at any time after study drug administration. The overall DAS28 (mean ± SD) change was 2.22 ± 0.95 at the study transition, 2.10 ± 0.91 at week 72, and 2.06 ± 0.89 at the end of the study. In the post-hoc analysis, YLB113 showed a statistically significant lower incidence of ISRs (10 [3.8%], P < 0.0001) and ISE (5 [1.9%], P < 0.0001) compared with the reference product Enbrel®.

CONCLUSION

YLB113 demonstrated long-term safety and sustained efficacy for up to 96 weeks. Patients on YLB113 experienced significantly lower ISRs and ISE in a post-hoc analysis of the phase III study when compared with reference product.

Biosimilars: Harmonizing the Approval Guidelines

Biosimilar approval guidelines need rationalization and harmonization to remove the inconsistencies and misconceptions to enable faster, safer, and more cost-effective biosimilars. This paper proposes a platform for a model guideline based on the scientific evaluation of the regulatory filings of the 130+ products approved in the US, UK, and EU and hundreds more in the WHO member countries. Extensive literature survey of clinical data published and reported, including Clinicaltrials.gov, a review of all current guidelines in the US, UK and EU, and WHO, and detailed discussions with the FDA have confirmed that removing the animal and clinical efficacy testing and fixing other minor approaches will enable the creation of a harmonized guideline that will best suit an ICH designation.

The Non-medical Switch from Reference Adalimumab to Biosimilar Adalimumab is Highly Successful in a Large Cohort of Patients with Stable Inflammatory Rheumatic Joint Diseases: A Real-Life Observational Study

Introduction

The adalimumab biosimilar (ADAbio) Amgevita® has a similar efficacy and safety profile as the adalimumab reference (ADA) Humira®. We studied the clinical consequences of a non-medical switch from ADA to ADAbio in adult patients with mainly established rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and spondyloarthritis (SpA).

Methods

Patients that received treatment with ADA for at least three months were switched to ADAbio. Data was collected retrospectively from 1 year before the switch up to 6 months after.

Results

A total of 603 patients were switched from ADA to ADAbio (switch group). During a 1-year follow-up, over 93% of all patients underwent a successful transition in terms of disease activity and safety from ADA to biosimilar, supporting the bioequivalence of both drugs in patients with stable inflammatory rheumatic joint diseases. Forty patients (6.6%) switched back to ADA (re-switch group). There were no objective changes in disease activity score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), or adverse effects before and after the switch between both groups.

Conclusions

In line with earlier reports, the transition to ADAbio went successful in the majority of patients with stable inflammatory rheumatic joint diseases. Patient-reported symptoms without objective signs that indicate a flare of disease activity after the switch to ADAbio are probably explained by nocebo effects. A pre-emptive approach to counteract nocebo effects and stimulate placebo response may have a positive impact on health outcomes for patients and preserve the economic benefits of cost savings that can be achieved by prescribing a biosimilar instead of the reference drug.

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.

Regulatory Evaluation of Biosimilars: Refinement of Principles Based on the Scientific Evidence and Clinical Experience

The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs; also called biosimilars) were adopted by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) in 2009. In 2019, the ECBS considered that a more tailored and potentially reduced clinical data package may be acceptable in cases where this was clearly supported by the available scientific evidence. The goal of this publication is to review the current clinical experience and scientific evidence and to provide an expert perspective for updating the WHO guidelines to provide more flexibility and clarity. As the first step, the relevant guidelines by other regulatory bodies were reviewed in order to identify issues that might help with updating the WHO guidelines. Next, a literature search was conducted for information on the long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars to identify possible long-term problems. Finally, a search for articles concerning the role of clinical studies in the benefit-risk evaluation of biosimilars was conducted. The analysis of other guidelines suggested that the WHO guidelines may need more emphasis on the importance of the state-of-the-art physicochemical and structural comparability exercise and in vitro functional testing. The use of "foreign" reference product will also need clarifications. The value of in vivo toxicological tests in the development of biosimilars is questionable, and the non-clinical part needs revisions accordingly. The concepts of "totality of evidence," "stepwise development," and "residual uncertainty" were applied in the evaluation of the clinical sections of the guideline. The review of long-term safety and efficacy demonstrated the robustness of the current biosimilar development concept. The analysis of the roles of different development phases suggested that the large efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity studies are, in most cases, redundant. The residual uncertainty of safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of biosimilars that has shaped the current regulatory guidelines is now substantially reduced. This will allow the re-evaluation of the non-clinical and clinical requirements of the current WHO main guideline. The shift of the relative impact of the development phases towards physico-chemical and in vitro functional testing will provide a relief to the manufacturers and new challenges to the regulators.

Current evidence on the use of the adalimumab biosimilar SB5 (ImraldiTM): a multidisciplinary perspective

INTRODUCTION

This review provides an overview of data from trials and real-world studies available for SB5 (Imraldi^TM) across three main therapeutic areas: rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search for publications on data for SB5 efficacy/effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity was undertaken.

EXPERT OPINION

Evidence derived from clinical studies suggest that the biosimilar SB5 is a safe and effective alternative to reference adalimumab. Considering that patients suffering from immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis often require long-term biologic treatment, biosimilar medicines (such as SB5) can reduce healthcare costs while increasing access to effective treatments.

Guidelines for the management of patients with Crohn's disease. Recommendations of the Polish Society of Gastroenterology and the Polish National Consultant in Gastroenterology

This paper is an update of the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations of the National Consultant for Gastroenterology and the Polish Society of Gastroenterology from 2012. It contains 46 recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment, both pharmacological and surgical, of Crohn's disease in adults. The guidelines were developed by a group of experts appointed by the Polish Society of Gastroenterology and the National Consultant in the field of Gastroenterology. The methodology related to the GRADE methodology was used to assess the quality and strength of the available recommendations. The degree of expert support for the proposed statement, assessment of the quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendation was assessed on a 6-point Likert scale. Voting results, quality and strength ratings with comments are included with each statement.

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.

Safety, Immunogenicity and Interchangeability of Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies and Fusion Proteins: A Regulatory Perspective

Background

Biosimilars have been used for 15 years in the European Union (EU), and have been shown to reduce costs and increase access to important biological medicines. In spite of their considerable exposure and excellent safety record, many prescribers still have doubts on the safety and interchangeability of biosimilars, especially monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and fusion proteins.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to analyse the short- and long-term safety and interchangeability data of biosimilar mAbs and fusion proteins to provide unbiased information to prescribers and policy makers.

Methods

Data on the safety, immunogenicity and interchangeability of EU-licensed mAbs and fusion proteins were examined using European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and postmarketing safety surveillance reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). As recent biosimilar approvals allow self-administration by patients by the subcutaneous route, the administration devices were also analyzed.

Results

Prelicensing data of EPARs (six different biosimilar adalimumabs, three infliximabs, three etanercepts, three rituximabs, two bevacizumabs, and six trastuzumabs) revealed that the frequency of fatal treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), TEAEs leading to discontinuation of treatment, serious adverse events (SAEs), and main immune-mediated adverse events (AEs) were comparable between the biosimilars and their reference products. The availability of new biosimilar presentations and administration devices may add to patient choice and be an emerging factor in the decision to switch patients. Analysis of postmarketing surveillance data covering up to 7 years of follow-up did not reveal any biosimilar-specific adverse effects. No product was withdrawn for safety reasons. This is in spite of considerable exposure to biosimilars in treatment-naïve patients and in patients switched from the reference medicinal product to the biosimilar. Analysis of data from switching studies provided in regulatory submissions showed that single or multiple switches between the originator and its biosimilar versions had no negative impact on efficacy, safety or immunogenicity.

Conclusions

In line with previous reports of prelicensing studies of biosimilar mAbs and etanercepts, this study demonstrated comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity compared with the reference products. This is the first study to comprehensively analyze postmarketing surveillance data of the biosimilar mAbs and etanercept. An analysis of more than 1 million patient-treatment years of safety data raised no safety concerns. Based on these data, we argue that biosimilars approved in the EU are highly similar to and interchangeable with their reference products. Thus, additional systematic switch studies are not required to support the switching of patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40265-021-01601-2.

Switching from one reference biological to another in stable patients for non-medical reasons: a literature search and brief review

Background: The practice of non-medical switch (NMS) from a reference biological (originator) to a biosimilar is widely accepted in some countries. However, there is little documentation on the impact of NMS from one originator to another originator. Objectives: To assess the consequences for patients of NMS from one biological originator to another, based on existing literature. The focus was on efficacy and cost of treatment with TNF-α-inhibitors in three disease areas. Methods: A literature search was conducted in Ovid (PubMed, EMBASE) and abstracts from meetings in key therapeutic areas, to identify studies reporting efficacy, safety or costs by switching between originator biologics. Results: 167 references were identified and abstracts screened; 36 papers reviewed in full text, and 6 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three clinical studies of NMS had very small sample sizes, but suggested that NMS is beneficial. The remaining three studies used administrative data with little clinical information, indicating that NMS was disadvantageous and associated with increased health care utilization and costs. Conclusions: There is very limited documentation on NMS from one originator biological to another, and the literature suffers from methodological limitations. The results are mixed and preclude drawing an overriding conclusion. Future studies, are warranted.

Not the same, but is it the same? Cycling of biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Experience in the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

INTRODUCTION

Available data for biocomparable drugs are not enough to make clear decisions with respect to the potential consequences of a change for non-medical reasons in efficacy, security and inmunogenicity in patients. In the near future, options on biological treatments, biocomparable drugs, non biocomparable drugs and new chemical synthesis options will grow. Therefore, it is important to know how patients behave in persistence of treatment after a change for non- medical reasons, which already happens on a regular basis in social security institutions in Mexico. This information will help us to better understand the standard of treatment for patients with chronic immunomediated conditions.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to measure the impact of change for non-medical reasons in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with an innovative biological on persistence of treatment after changing to a biocomparable drug or a non-biocomparable drug, compared with those patients staying with the innovative biological.

STUDY DESIGN

This is an observational study (non-interventionist) of paired cohorts, where an historic cohort obtained by review of clinical records of stable patients in which no modifications to treatment were made for at least six months is compared with two cohorts of patients whose treatments were switched to another treatment with the same therapeutic mechanism for-non-medical reasons (cycling).

RESULTS

We included 264 RA patients (ACR/EULAR, 2010); 132 were switched for non-medical reasons, and 132 were not switched. Two-hundred and thirty (87.1%) were female. Average age was 53.9 years, ranging from 16 to 84 years. Two-hundred and sixty-three patients were Latino (99.6%); one was Caucasian. Persistence of treatment 12 months after the change was 84.8% (85.8% in Enbrel/Infinitam, 78.9% for Remicade/Remsima). No statistical difference was found with respect to RA clinical activity measured by DAS28 12 months after the switch (P > .05). In the 134 switched patients, 20 discontinued the new treatment due to lack of efficacy of the new drug and were changed to a different drug with a different biologic target. Although no differences were found in the cohorts of switched patients with respect to DAS 28 after 12 months of use, we did find differences in the frequency of adverse events. Forty-two patients had an adverse event in the drug switch cohorts: 33 in the Enbrel-Infinitam group and 9 in the Remicade-Remsima group.

CONCLUSIONS

The persistence of treatment after switching from an innovative drug to a biocomparable or a non- biocomparable in RA patients did not show statistically significative differences in our cohorts, but we did find a higher number of adverse events when comparing those who were changed with those who continued on an innovative drug. Twenty patients in the switch groups had to receive a new drug with a different biological target due to lack of efficacy of the switched drug.

Equivalence and switching between biosimilars and reference molecules in rheumatoid arthritis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic drugs such as adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab represent major first-line and second-line treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, their high cost poses a massive burden on healthcare systems worldwide. The expiration of patents for these biologics has driven the production of biosimilar drugs, which are potentially less costly and remarkably similar, albeit not identical to the reference molecules. This paper aims to outline the protocol of a systematic review that will investigate the efficacy and safety profile of biosimilars compared to biologics (objective 1) and the impact of switching between biosimilar drugs and reference biologics on the management of RA patients (objective 2).

METHODS

We will investigate the effects of any biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on RA patients. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs to assess efficacy and safety outcomes and RCTs with two- or multiple-part designs to evaluate the consequences of switching from reference biologics to biosimilar drugs (and vice-versa). Electronic searches will be performed through MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL (from inception to April 2021). Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data, and evaluate the risk of bias. The latter will be carried out considering specific domains from equivalence trials and switching studies. Random-effects models will be fitted to obtain summary estimates using either relative risk or standardized mean difference as a metric. The primary outcome will be the rate of treatment success according to the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20), and the co-primary outcome will be the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Conclusions will be based on equivalence hypothesis testing using predefined margins of equivalence elicited from a group of experienced rheumatologists and prior studies. The overall certainty of the evidence will be assessed based on the GRADE system.

DISCUSSION

The present investigation proposes a comprehensive, clinician-oriented approach to assess the equivalence and the impact of switching between biosimilars and biologics on the management of patients with RA. Our results will elucidate the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity of biosimilars, and the clinical consequences of substituting biologics with biosimilars in the management of RA.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019137152 and CRD42019137155.

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

Importance

The efficacy of adalimumab biosimilars is similar to that of brand-name adalimumab (Humira, hereinafter originator) in clinical trials. However, limited knowledge about real-world data exists for adalimumab biosimilars.

Objective

To assess the outcomes following a mandatory nonmedical switch from adalimumab originator to adalimumab biosimilars in patients with psoriasis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study assesses the outcomes following a switch from adalimumab originator to an adalimumab biosimilar. Patients in the Biological Treatment in Danish Dermatology (DERMBIO) registry, a Danish nationwide registry of all patients treated with biologics (including biosimilars) for psoriasis since 2007, were assessed for eligibility. All patients who switched from adalimumab originator to an adalimumab biosimilar between November 1, 2018, and May 1, 2019, were included in the adalimumab biosimilar cohort. All patients with a visit between May 1, 2017, and November 1, 2017, treated with adalimumab originator were included in the adalimumab originator cohort. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2020, to October 10, 2021.

Exposure

Switch from adalimumab originator to an adalimumab biosimilar.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was 1-year drug retention in patients switching to adalimumab biosimilars compared with patients treated with adalimumab originator. Crude and adjusted retention rates for the adalimumab biosimilar cohort were compared with the adalimumab originator cohort with Cox proportional hazards regression using robust variance.

Results

A total of 348 patients were included in the adalimumab biosimilar cohort (mean [SD] age, 52.2 [13.6] years; 251 [72.1%] male) and 378 patients in the adalimumab originator cohort (mean [SD] age, 51.1 [14.1] years; 272 [72.0%] male). The 1-year drug retention rates were 92.0% (95% CI, 89.0%-94.9%) for the adalimumab biosimilar cohort and 92.1% (95% CI, 89.4%-94.8%) for the adalimumab originator cohort. Similar hazard ratios were observed between the 2 cohorts. The crude hazard ratios were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.61-1.70; P = .94) for all causes of drug discontinuation, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.39-1.73; P = .60) for insufficient effect, and 1.41 (95% CI, 0.52-3.77; P = .50) for adverse events for the adalimumab biosimilar cohort when compared with the adalimumab originator cohort.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study from Denmark, a nonmedical switch from adalimumab originator to adalimumab biosimilars was not associated with drug retention.

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.

Not the same, but ¿is it the same? Cycling of biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Experience in the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

INTRODUCTION

Available data for biocomparable drugs are not enough to make clear decisions with respect to the potential consequences of a change for non-medical reasons in efficacy, security and inmunogenicity in patients. In the near future, options on biological treatments, biocomparable drugs, non biocomparable drugs and new chemical synthesis options will grow. Therefore, it is important to know how patients behave in persistence of treatment after a change for non-medical reasons, which already happens on a regular basis in social security institutions in Mexico. This information will help us to better understand the standard of treatment for patients with chronic immunomediated conditions.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to measure the impact of change for non-medical reasons in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with an innovative biological on persistence of treatment after changing to a biocomparable drug or a non-biocomparable drug, compared with those patients staying with the innovative biological.

STUDY DESIGN

This is an observational study (non-interventionist) of paired cohorts, where an historic cohort obtained by review of clinical records of stable patients in which no modifications to treatment were made for at least six months is compared with two cohorts of patients whose treatments were switched to another treatment with the same therapeutic mechanism for-non-medical reasons (cycling).

RESULTS

We included 264 RA patients (ACR/EULAR, 2010); 132 were switched for non-medical reasons, and 132 were not switched. Two-hundred and thirty (87.1%) were female. Average age was 53.9years, ranging from 16 to 84years. Two-hundred and sixty-three patients were Latino (99.6%); one was Caucasian. Persistence of treatment 12months after the change was 84.8% (85.8% in Enbrel/Infinitam, 78.9% for Remicade/Remsima). No statistical difference was found with respect to RA clinical activity measured by DAS28 12months after the switch (P>.05). In the 134 switched patients, 20 discontinued the new treatment due to lack of efficacy of the new drug and were changed to a different drug with a different biologic target. Although no differences were found in the cohorts of switched patients with respect to DAS28 after 12months of use, we did find differences in the frequency of adverse events. Forty-two patients had an adverse event in the drug switch cohorts: 33 in the Enbrel-Infinitam group and 9 in the Remicade-Remsima group.

CONCLUSIONS

The persistence of treatment after switching from an innovative drug to a biocomparable or a non-biocomparable in RA patients did not show statistically significative differences in our cohorts, but we did find a higher number of adverse events when comparing those who were changed with those who continued on an innovative drug. Twenty patients in the switch groups had to receive a new drug with a different biological target due to lack of efficacy of the switched drug.

Interchangeability of Biosimilars: What Level of Clinical Evidence is Needed to Support the Interchangeability Designation in the United States?

A biosimilar is a biologic drug that is "highly similar to a reference (originator) product, with no clinically meaningful differences between the two products in safety, purity, and potency". Regulatory approval of a biosimilar is based on analytical, structural, and functional comparisons with the reference product, comparative nonclinical (in vivo) studies, clinical pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity. In addition, comparative clinical efficacy and safety assessments are usually conducted and, taken together, comprise the "totality of the evidence" supporting biosimilarity. For a biosimilar to meet the additional designation of interchangeability in the United States (US), the applicant must demonstrate that the biological drug can be expected to produce the "same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient" and "if the biological drug is administered more than once to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between the use of the biological drug and the reference product is no greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch". The challenges faced in conducting clinical studies to support a designation of interchangeability, as defined in the final interchangeability guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration, are considered. Potential alternative approaches to generating adequate and sufficient clinical data to support a designation of interchangeability are also presented.

Switching to Biosimilar SDZ-ADL in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: 48-Week Efficacy, Safety and Immunogenicity Results From the Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind ADMYRA Study

Background

Sandoz adalimumab SDZ-ADL (GP-2017) is an approved adalimumab biosimilar with similar efficacy and comparable safety and immunogenicity to reference adalimumab (ref-ADL) as confirmed by analytical, pharmacokinetic and confirmatory studies. ADMYRA, a phase III double-blind study, was conducted with an aim to generate efficacy, safety and immunogenicity comparability data in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) having inadequate response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX). The study also evaluated an aspect of ‘switching’ reference product to the biosimilar in terms of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity up to Week 48.

Methods

Eligible patients (N = 353) were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous (sc) SDZ-ADL 40 mg (n = 177) or ref-ADL (n = 176) every other week from Week 0 to Week 24. At Week 24, all patients with at least a moderate response by Disease Activity Score-28 including high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) in the SDZ-ADL group continued SDZ-ADL (n = 159), and in the ref-ADL group were switched to SDZ-ADL (n = 166), treated for up to 46 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in DAS28-CRP from baseline at Week 12. Other efficacy endpoints included proportion of patients with European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, EULAR remission, Boolean remission, safety and immunogenicity.

Results

The DAS28-CRP score changes from baseline at Week 12 were similar between SDZ-ADL (− 2.16) and ref-ADL (− 2.18) with a mean difference (95% CI) of 0.02 (− 0.24 to 0.27), which was within the pre-specified equivalence margin of ± 0.6. After switching treatment from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL, the mean DAS28-CRP change was similar between the SDZ-ADL and ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’ group (− 3.09 vs − 3.05). The proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR response was 69.2%/29.0% in the SDZ-ADL group and 68.0%/29.6% in the ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’ group. The proportion of patients in EULAR remission was 51.4% and 54.4% and in Boolean remission was 16.8% and 21.6% for SDZ-ADL and ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’ groups, respectively. The secondary endpoints were similar across the treatment groups. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and injection-site reactions were low and similar between SDZ-ADL and ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’ groups (AEs 70.6% vs 68.8%, injection-site reactions 4.0% vs 6.3%), and most of these patients experienced AEs of mild or moderate severity. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 24.2% and 25.6% of patients treated with SDZ-ADL and ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’, respectively, from baseline to Week 48, of which 72.5% in SDZ-ADL and 79.1% in ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’ groups were neutralizing.

Conclusions

In patients with moderate-to-severe RA who had an inadequate response to DMARDs, SDZ-ADL demonstrated a similar efficacy and a comparable safety and immunogenicity profile to ref-ADL. Efficacy was sustained after switching from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL with no impact on safety (NCT02744755).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-020-00447-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Safety of switching between rituximab biosimilars in onco-hematology

Comparable clinical efficacy and safety of the reference rituximab (MABTHERA) and its biosimilars has been established in randomized trials. However, safety concerns are often raised when switching from reference to biosimilar products and between different biosimilars. In this prospective observational study we aimed at evaluating the safety of switching between reference and biosimilar rituximab (TRUXIMA and RIXATHON) at Trento General Hospital (Italy). All patients (n = 83) with Non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL, n = 72) and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL, n = 11) who received rituximab between March 2018 and March 2019 were asked to take part in the study. In 2017 and 2018 two tenders were carried out and two different biosimilars became available in the hospital, these were used sequentially. Thus, patients with or without previous treatments with the originator rituximab either received a biosimilar or were switched between different biosimilars. The incidence of adverse events in these groups of patients is described. The study population received 465 rituximab infusions and all received biosimilars. Fifty patients (60%) experienced at least one switch between different biosimilars or between rituximab originator and biosimilar, whereas 33 (40%) received one of the two biosimilars and one patient received reference rituximab. Adverse events (n = 146) were reported in 71 patients (84.5%). Treatment-related grade 3–4 events were reported in 5 patients (5.9%), whereas grade 1 rituximab related infusion events were observed in 6 patients (7.1%). No safety signal emerged in association with the use of a specific biosimilar nor with the practice of switching. Adverse events were similar, in terms of seriousness and frequency, to those described in the literature, providing further support to the clinical safety of rituximab biosimilars.

Treatment with SDZ-ADL, an Adalimumab Biosimilar, in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriasis, or Psoriatic Arthritis: Results of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures from Two Phase III Studies (ADMYRA and ADACCESS)

Background

SDZ-ADL (GP2017; Sandoz GmbH, Austria) is an EMA-/FDA-approved adalimumab biosimilar. The effect of SDZ-ADL on quality of life (QoL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) was assessed as part of two phase III studies, one in patients with moderate‐to‐severe chronic plaque psoriasis (PsO; ADACCESS) and the other in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA; ADMYRA). Additionally, ADACCESS included patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

ADACCESS included 465 patients with PsO, whereas ADMYRA included 353 patients with RA. Both studies evaluated and confirmed equivalent efficacy, similar safety, and immunogenicity of SDZ-ADL with reference adalimumab (ref-ADL). A third of patients underwent multiple (four) treatment switches between study treatments starting at Week 17 (ADACCESS); all patients switched from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL at Week 24 (ADMYRA). Assessed PROs included Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and EuroQol five-dimension health status questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) in ADACCESS, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue Scale (FACIT-Fatigue) score in ADMYRA, and Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI) in both studies.

Results

In both studies, baseline scores for all PRO assessments were comparable between the two treatment groups. In ADACCESS, mean DLQI decreased from baseline in both groups, and the mean (standard deviation [SD]) percent reductions from baseline in DLQI were comparable between groups at Week 17 (SDZ-ADL, − 64.5 [80.3]; ref-ADL, − 70.6 [41.7]), which were sustained after the switch at Week 51 (‘continued SDZ-ADL,’ − 79.7 [36.2]; ‘continued ref-ADL,’ − 80.8 [44.6]; ‘switched to SDZ-ADL,’ − 70.7 [32.2]; ‘switched to ref-ADL,’ − 69.3 [49.6]). In ADACCESS, the proportion of patients with an EQ-5D-5L score of 1 (no problems) increased from baseline for all five dimensions in all treatment groups and was comparable between treatment groups at Week 51. In ADACCESS, in patients with PsA at baseline, mean (SD) HAQ-DI scores decreased from baseline in both treatment groups, and scores were comparable between groups at Week 17 (SDZ-ADL, 0.5 [0.6]; ref-ADL, 0.5 [0.6]) and after switching at Week 51 (‘continued SDZ-ADL,’ 0.4 [0.5]; ‘continued ref-ADL,’ 0.4 [0.6]; ‘switched to SDZ-ADL,’ 0.5 [0.8]; ‘switched to ref-ADL,’ 0.7 [0.6]). In ADMYRA, proportion of patients achieving HAQ-DI in the normal range (≤ 0.5) was comparable between treatment groups at Week 24 (SDZ-ADL, 37.8%; ref-ADL, 36.3%) and after switching at Week 48 (‘SDZ-ADL,’ 41.6%; ‘ref-ADL/switched to SDZ-ADL,’ 40.0%). In ADMYRA, mean FACIT-Fatigue scores increased from baseline in both treatment groups. At Week 24, mean (SD) percent change from baseline in the FACIT-Fatigue scores was 75.4 (135.5) in SDZ-ADL and 73.0 (96.3) in ref-ADL groups; the scores were sustained after switching at Week 48.

Conclusion

Treatment with SDZ-ADL and ref-ADL resulted in comparable improvements in PROs as well as QoL scores across the three diseases, PsO, PsA, and RA. Switching between SDZ-ADL and ref-ADL had no negative impact on PROs across the reported period.

Clinical trials.gov identifier

NCT02744755, NCT02016105.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-021-00470-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Immunogenicity of an adalimumab biosimilar, FKB327, and its reference product in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Aim

This study, FKB327‐003, is a phase 3, open‐label extension (OLE) study comparing the long‐term immunogenicity of an adalimumab biosimilar, FKB327 (F), with the reference product (RP).

Methods

In the OLE, patients completing 24 weeks of an initial randomized, double‐blind (DB) study (Period 1) with clinical response and no safety concerns were rerandomized to F or RP, so that two‐thirds of patients remained on the same treatment and one‐third switched to the alternate treatment for weeks 24 through 54 (OLE weeks 0‐30; Period 2), then all received F through week 100 (OLE week 76; Period 3). Treatment sequences were F‐F‐F (no switch), RP‐F‐F and RP‐RP‐F (single switch), and F‐RP‐F (double switch). Patients who entered the OLE study were evaluated for immunogenicity across switching sequences.

Results

The proportion of patients with positive antidrug antibody (ADA) status at the end of Period 1 was 61.7% and 60.0% for F and RP, respectively. The proportion of patients with positive ADA status did not increase throughout Period 1, and was similar for F and RP at all time points. At the end of Period 3, the proportion of patients with positive ADA status was lower in all treatment sequences, at 51.1%, 54.4%, 48.1%, and 42.5% for F‐F‐F, F‐RP‐F, RP‐F‐F, and RP‐RP‐F, respectively.

Conclusion

The RP and F showed comparable immunogenicity characteristics after long‐term administration. Development of ADAs with the RP and F was similar, and was not impacted by switching and double switching between F and RP treatment.

Effects of Message Framing on Patients' Perceptions and Willingness to Change to a Biosimilar in a Hypothetical Drug Switch

OBJECTIVE

Patients often hold negative perceptions toward biosimilars that can create barriers to their uptake. Physicians also report uncertainty in how best to explain biosimilars. The aim of this study was to measure the effect of differently framed explanations on patients' perceptions of and willingness to change to a biosimilar in a hypothetical drug switch.

METHODS

Ninety-six patients with rheumatic diseases taking an originator biologic were randomized to receive 1 of 4 biosimilar explanations: positive framing with and without an analogy, and negative framing with and without an analogy. Willingness to switch to a biosimilar, perceptions about biosimilars, and the effectiveness of the explanation were measured after the information delivery.

RESULTS

Positive framing led to more participants being willing to switch (67%) than negative framing (46%). Framing significantly predicted willingness to switch to a biosimilar, with participants in the positive framing group being 2.36 times more willing to switch (P = 0.041). The positive framing group also reported significantly greater perceived efficacy of biosimilars (P = 0.046) and thought the explanation was more convincing (P = 0.030). The analogy did not enhance willingness to switch or increase understanding (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Positive framing can improve perceptions of and willingness to switch to a biosimilar in patients currently taking biologic treatments.

SB4 in the Era of Biosimilars: Clinical Data and Real-World Experience

A biosimilar is a biological medicinal product that is highly similar to an already authorized original biological medicinal product. The introduction of biosimilars may allow for a reduction in health care costs, due to discount pricing. Current clinical studies and real-world data suggest that the biosimilar SB4 is equivalent to etanercept with respect to efficacy and safety. Additional real-world safety data for SB4 via pharmacovigilance studies are needed to draw conclusions regarding the risks of rare adverse events such as serious infections and malignancy. Clinical trial design of biosimilars should be standardised to improve consistency, increase confidence and facilitate interpretation of data. Where there are health economic advantages of switching from originator to biosimilar, patients should be appropriately informed, and, ideally, in order to minimise nocebo responses and maximise benefit, switching should be undertaken by shared decision-making between the physician and patient on a case-by-case basis.

Nonmedical Switching From Originators to Biosimilars: Does the Nocebo Effect Explain Treatment Failures and Adverse Events in Rheumatology and Gastroenterology?

The act of nonmedical switching, defined as switching stable patients who are generally doing well with their current therapy from an originator biologic to its biosimilar, has been endorsed as a reasonable treatment strategy. The safety and efficacy of nonmedical switching have been evaluated in randomized controlled and real-world evidence studies, which have demonstrated that although many patients maintain treatment response after the switch, some patients experience therapy failure, resulting in therapy discontinuation. It has been postulated that the vast majority, if not all, of these treatment failures result from a "nocebo effect", defined as patients' negative expectations toward the therapy change. Reports suggest that the risk of a nocebo effect is higher following a mandated nonmedical switch. Although the nocebo effect is a well-recognized phenomenon in pain studies, evidence is limited in immune-mediated diseases primarily because it is difficult to quantify, especially retrospectively. In spite of this, numerous biosimilar studies in patients with immune-mediated diseases have concluded that nonmedical switching failures are due to a nocebo effect. The objective of this narrative review was to explore the reasons for nonmedical switch failure or discontinuation and the role of the nocebo effect among patients with inflammatory rheumatic and gastrointestinal diseases who switched from an originator biologic to its biosimilar.

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.

British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are the principal forms of inflammatory bowel disease. Both represent chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which displays heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management relies on understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This guideline for management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults over 16 years of age was developed by Stakeholders representing UK physicians (British Society of Gastroenterology), surgeons (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland), specialist nurses (Royal College of Nursing), paediatricians (British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition), dietitians (British Dietetic Association), radiologists (British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology), general practitioners (Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology) and patients (Crohn's and Colitis UK). A systematic review of 88 247 publications and a Delphi consensus process involving 81 multidisciplinary clinicians and patients was undertaken to develop 168 evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical interventions, as well as optimal service delivery in the management of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care. Twenty research priorities to inform future clinical management are presented, alongside objective measurement of priority importance, determined by 2379 electronic survey responses from individuals living with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, including patients, their families and friends.

British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are the principal forms of inflammatory bowel disease. Both represent chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which displays heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management relies on understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This guideline for management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults over 16 years of age was developed by Stakeholders representing UK physicians (British Society of Gastroenterology), surgeons (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland), specialist nurses (Royal College of Nursing), paediatricians (British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition), dietitians (British Dietetic Association), radiologists (British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology), general practitioners (Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology) and patients (Crohn's and Colitis UK). A systematic review of 88 247 publications and a Delphi consensus process involving 81 multidisciplinary clinicians and patients was undertaken to develop 168 evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical interventions, as well as optimal service delivery in the management of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care. Twenty research priorities to inform future clinical management are presented, alongside objective measurement of priority importance, determined by 2379 electronic survey responses from individuals living with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, including patients, their families and friends.

Observational study of inflammatory arthritis treatment by etanercept originator switched to an etanercept biosimilar

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to assess the safety and efficacy of switching an etanercept originator to an etanercept biosimilar in rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In 162 patients etanercept originator treatment had been replaced with the biosimilar (Group 1), and in six patients the biosimilar was initiated as the first biological agent (Group 2). The efficacy and safety of the treatment were monitored at 3-6 months.

RESULTS

In the majority of patients in Group 1 (n = 138) the etanercept biosimilar was well tolerated, whereas in 24 patients a switch back to the originator was required. The loss of efficacy was confirmed in nine patients using clinical scoring system, and nine patients reported subjective loss of efficacy; 13 patients reported adverse events, most often headache (n = 3) and skin lesions (n = 3). In four patients injection site reactions were present. The adverse events (AE) and/or the loss of the biosimilar efficacy were more commonly observed in women, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (especially in those who did not receive methotrexate), and in patients with a previous history of any other biological treatment. In patients in Group 2 the therapy was effective and no adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The etanercept biosimilar seems to be effective and well-tolerated in the majority of patients. Nevertheless, in some cases, switching from the originator to the biosimilar was associated with AEs or loss of efficacy.

Retention and response rates in 14 261 PsA patients starting TNF inhibitor treatment—results from 12 countries in EuroSpA

Objective

To investigate TNF inhibitor (TNFi) retention and response rates in European biologic-naïve patients with PsA.

Methods

Prospectively collected data on PsA patients in routine care from 12 European registries were pooled. Heterogeneity in baseline characteristics between registries were explored (analysis of variance and pairwise comparison). Retention rates (Kaplan–Meier), clinical remission [28-joint count DAS (DAS28) &lt;2.6; 28 joint Disease Activity index for Psoriatic Arthritis ⩽4] and ACR criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20)/ACR50/ACR70 were calculated, including LUNDEX adjustment.

Results

Overall, 14 261 patients with PsA initiated a first TNFi. Considerable heterogeneity of baseline characteristics between registries was observed. The median 12-month retention rate (95% CI) was 77% (76, 78%), ranging from 68 to 90% across registries. Overall, DAS28/28 joint Disease Activity index for Psoriatic Arthritis remission rates at 6 months were 56%/27% (LUNDEX: 45%/22%). Six-month ACR20/50/70 responses were 53%/38%/22%, respectively. In patients initiating a first TNFi after 2009 with registered fulfilment of ClASsification for Psoriatic ARthritis (CASPAR) criteria (n = 1980) or registered one or more swollen joint at baseline (n = 5803), the retention rates and response rates were similar to those found overall.

Conclusion

Approximately half of &gt;14 000 patients with PsA who initiated first TNFi treatment in routine care were in DAS28 remission after 6 months, and three-quarters were still on the drug after 1 year. Considerable heterogeneity in baseline characteristics and outcomes across registries was observed. The feasibility of creating a large European database of PsA patients treated in routine care was demonstrated, offering unique opportunities for research with real-world data.

Regulatory Perspectives on Biopharmaceuticals for Chronic Inflammatory Diseases in North Africa: A Narrative Review

Introduction of innovative biopharmaceuticals has dramatically changed the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases, but access to these very effective agents may be limited by economic constraints in some regions. The development of biosimilar products at a lower cost may allow wider access to treatment, but rigorous scientific evaluation is required to ensure similar quality, efficacy, and safety. The World Health Organization, European Medicines Agency, and United States Food and Drug Administration have created stringent guidelines for biosimilar regulatory approval, stipulating that high similarity be demonstrated in comprehensive comparability studies. Although these regulatory standards have been adapted in many countries, the legal/regulatory frameworks required for biosimilar authorization remain in development elsewhere, including North Africa. In some countries, “intended copies” are available despite inadequate evidence of comparability to the reference product and failure to satisfy biosimilar regulatory requirements. In North Africa, as the regulatory pathway for biosimilars is established, regulators will address several important challenges, including criteria for comparability, switching/substitution, post-marketing monitoring/risk management, and product naming conventions. Caution is advised to ensure that lower cost and broader access are not achieved at the expense of patient safety, and educational initiatives should be undertaken for clinicians/patients. In this review, we define the various types of biopharmaceuticals currently available for the treatment of chronic inflammatory disease, provide an overview of regulatory requirements for biosimilar approval and an update on the availability of these agents globally and in North Africa, and discuss crucial concerns related to their use from the viewpoint of North African rheumatologists.

Era of biosimilars in rheumatology: reshaping the healthcare environment

Compared with the original approved biological drug on which it is based, a biosimilar has highly similar physicochemical characteristics and biological activity, as well as equivalent efficacy and no clinically meaningful differences in safety and immunogenicity. Before they are approved, biosimilars must undergo a rigorous development process using state-of-the-art technologies to establish biosimilarity to the reference biological product. After approval, biosimilars must comply with good pharmacological practices for biological drugs. Several biosimilar disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bsDMARDs) based on the tumour necrosis factor inhibitors adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab have been approved for use in patients with rheumatic diseases. Substantial cost savings can be made if biological-naive patients begin treatment with bsDMARDs, and patients receiving original biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) are switched to bsDMARDs. Despite the consistently similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of bsDMARDs relative to their respective original bDMARDs, switching from a reference bDMARD to a bsDMARD can result in nocebo responses, such as subjective increase of disease activity and pain-related adverse events. This may have a negative impact on adherence to bsDMARDs in clinical trials and clinical practice. To ensure optimal and rational integration of bsDMARDs into rheumatology practice and realise the full cost-saving efficacy of these drugs, rheumatologists must be aware that careful communication of the cost-saving efficacy and safety of bsDMARDs to their patients is the key to a successful long-term switch to bsDMARD therapy.

Practical Guidance on Biosimilars, With a Focus on Latin America: What Do Rheumatologists Need to Know?

BACKGROUND/HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Availability of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) has improved clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis, but it also increased the cost of treatment. Biosimilars, the regulated copies of biologic products, have a potential to reduce health care costs and expand access to treatment. However, because of a complex development process, biosimilars can be considered only those noninnovator biologics with satisfactory supporting evidence (ranging from structural to clinical), as outlined in the recommendations by the World Health Organization (WHO). In Latin America, a heterogeneous regulatory landscape and nonconsistent approval practices for biosimilars create decision-making challenges for practicing rheumatologists.

SUMMARY OF LITERATURE

Most Latin American countries either have adopted or are in the process of adopting guidelines for the approval of biosimilars. However, among several marketed bDMARDs in the region, currently there are only 2 products that could be considered true biosimilars, based on the WHO criteria. The rest can be considered only intended copies, whose safety and efficacy are not fully established. One such product had to be withdrawn from the market because of safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Practicing rheumatologists in Latin America need to understand the regulatory situation for biosimilars in their countries. When considering bDMARDs that are not innovator products, clinicians should use only those that have been approved according to the WHO recommendations. For clarification, local health authorities or professional associations should be contacted.

Demystifying biosimilars: development, regulation and clinical use

Biologics are an integral component in the treatment of various diseases. However, limited patient access to these medicines remains a significant global challenge, prompting development of safe and effective biosimilars. A biosimilar is 'highly similar to a reference (originator) product, for which there are no clinically meaningful differences between the two products in terms of safety, purity and potency'. Biosimilars have the potential to offer possible benefits, including lower treatment costs, thereby increasing patient access and clinical use, which may lead to better overall outcomes. Improved understanding of biosimilars may enhance confidence and trust in these agents. As increasing numbers of biosimilars achieve regulatory approval, this overview aims to address enduring knowledge gaps regarding the development and use of biosimilars.

To switch or not to switch: results of a nationwide guideline of mandatory switching from originator to biosimilar etanercept. One-year treatment outcomes in 2061 patients with inflammatory arthritis from the DANBIO registry

OBJECTIVES

Real-world evidence on effectiveness of switching to biosimila r etanercept is scarce. In Denmark, a nationwide guideline of mandatory switch from 50 mg originator (ETA) to biosimilar (SB4) etanercept was issued for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) in 2016. Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes were studied in ETA-treated patients, who switched to SB4 (switchers) or maintained ETA (non-switchers). Retention rates were compared with that of a historic cohort of ETA-treated patients. Switchers who resumed ETA treatment (back-switchers) were characterised.

METHODS

Observational cohort study based on the DANBIO registry. Treatment retention was explored by Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression (crude, adjusted).

RESULTS

1621 (79%) of 2061 ETA-treated patients switched to SB4. Disease activity was unchanged 3 months' preswitch/postswitch. Non-switchers often received 25 mg ETA (ETA 25 mg pens/syringes and powder solution were still available). One-year adjusted retention rates were: non-switchers: 77% (95% CI: 72% to 82%)/switchers: 83% (79% to 87%)/historic cohort: 90% (88% to 92%). Patients not in remission had lower retention rates than patients in remission, both in switchers (crude HR 1.7 (1.3 to 2.2)) and non-switchers (2.4 (1.7 to 3.6)). During follow-up, 120 patients (7% of switchers) back-switched to ETA. Back-switchers' clinical characteristics were similar to switchers, and reasons for SB4 withdrawal were mainly subjective.

CONCLUSION

Seventy-nine per cent of patients switched from ETA to SB4. After 1 year, adjusted treatment retention rates were lower in switchers versus the historic ETA cohort, but higher than in non-switchers. Withdrawal was more common in patients not in remission. The results suggest that switch outcomes in routine care are affected by patient-related factors and non-specific drug effects.

Food and Drug Administration guidances on biosimilars: an update for the gastroenterologist

The management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a significant cause of morbidity in the United States (US), has been revolutionized over the last two decades by the introduction of biologic therapies. These include antitumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) agents. Since 2016, five biosimilar TNF-α inhibitors have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in the treatment of IBD. The FDA has published a series of guidance documents related to the evaluation, licensing, and approval of biosimilars. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of these FDA guidances and the issues associated with biosimilars in the US.

The biosimilars journey: current status and ongoing challenges

Biosimilar products are already approved and marketed in several countries. The Food and Drug Administration has approved ten different biosimilars, and the European Medicines Agency has approved 40. Even though this scenario has provided important experience with biosimilar products, there are still challenges and unanswered questions. Up to now, a good amount of knowledge has been gathered in order to support the importance of the totality of evidence and the construction of a biosimilarity exercise for regulatory approval. In addition, the extrapolation of indications has been proved viable when a careful analysis is performed. The models for clinical trials and the use of the most sensible populations have been extensively discussed, and there is apparent homogeneity in manufacturer choices for study designs. However, some challenges remain. The lack of regulatory harmony, especially concerning naming, the marketed intended copies, the interchangeability, and the biosimilars in orphan diseases are some of those and are the focus of discussion in this review.