Non-medical Switching from Originator Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors to Their Biosimilars: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Studies

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.

Points to consider for cost-effective use of biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs in inflammatory rheumatic diseases: results from an umbrella review and international Delphi study

OBJECTIVES

To develop evidence-based points to consider for cost-effective use of biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases, specifically rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis.

METHODS

Following EULAR procedures, an international task force was formed, consisting of 13 experts in rheumatology, epidemiology and pharmacology from seven European countries. Twelve strategies for cost-effective use of b/tsDMARDs were identified through individual and group discussion. For each strategy, PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for relevant English-language systematic reviews and, for six strategies, additionally for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Thirty systematic reviews and 21 RCTs were included. Based on the evidence, a set of overarching principles and points to consider was formulated by the task force using a Delphi procedure. Level of evidence (1a-5) and grade (A-D) were determined for each point to consider. Individual voting on the level of agreement (LoA; between 0 (completely disagree) and 10 (completely agree)) was performed anonymously.

RESULTS

The task force agreed on five overarching principles. For 10 of 12 strategies, the evidence was sufficient to formulate one or more points to consider, leading to 20 in total, regarding response prediction, drug formulary use, biosimilars, loading doses, low-dose initial therapy, concomitant conventional synthetic DMARD use, route of administration, medication adherence, disease activity-guided dose optimisation and non-medical drug switching. Ten points to consider (50%) were supported by level 1 or 2 evidence. The mean LoA (SD) varied between 7.9 (1.2) and 9.8 (0.4).

CONCLUSION

These points to consider can be used in rheumatology practices and complement inflammatory rheumatic disease treatment guidelines to incorporate cost-effectiveness in b/tsDMARD treatment.

Switching from originator infliximab to biosimilar versus continuing on originator in inflammatory bowel disease: results from the observational Project NORTH study

OBJECTIVE

Project NORTH compared real-world clinical and economic outcomes in Swedish patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who switched from originator infliximab to its biosimilar.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from electronic medical records and Swedish national registries were linked. Switchers (patients switching from originator infliximab to its biosimilar between 1 April 2014, and 31 December 2017) and non-switchers (patients who received originator infliximab and did not switch to a biosimilar by 31 December 2017) were followed up until 31 October 2019.

RESULTS

Baseline concomitant medication use, disease duration, and inflammatory markers were lower among switchers than non-switchers. At 6 months, the proportion of patients with stable disease was higher among switchers than non-switchers (71/109 [65%] vs 54/107 [50%]; p = .0385); differences were not significant in subsequent follow-ups. At 6 and 24 months, 98% and 93% of switchers, respectively, used concomitant medications versus 96% and 79% of non-switchers. Throughout the study, all-cause treatment discontinuation occurred in 74 (67%) switchers and 105 (95%) non-switchers. At 36-months, mean (SD) number of IBD-related in-patient care days was higher among non-switchers (2.95 [4.71]) than switchers (1.40 [4.20]), as were total medical costs (€16,740 vs €3,872).

CONCLUSIONS

No substantial differences in clinical outcomes or healthcare resource utilization were observed between switchers and non-switchers. Several analyses indicate that non-switchers might have more poorly controlled/severe disease than switchers at baseline. Overall, numerous difficulties might arise when executing a high-quality, real-world study, including possible selection bias for patients with better disease control for NMS, limiting the generalizability of the results.

Switching Between Adalimumab Reference Product and BI 695501 in Patients with Chronic Plaque Psoriasis (VOLTAIRE-X): A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

BI 695501 is an FDA-approved biosimilar to adalimumab reference product (RP). VOLTAIRE-X was a randomized clinical trial to assess outcomes with a biosimilar monoclonal antibody in line with the FDA requirements for designation as an ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess whether multiple switches between adalimumab RP and BI 695501 lead to equivalent pharmacokinetics and a similar safety and immunogenicity profile compared with continuous adalimumab RP.

Methods

We conducted a phase III, double-blind, randomized controlled trial between July 19, 2017, and April 16, 2019. There were 49 investigational sites across Europe and North America. Of 323 screened patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis, 259 were treated with adalimumab RP during the run-in period. Of these, 118 and 120 were randomized to the continuous or switching arms, respectively. Interventions consisted of a run-in period with adalimumab RP 80 mg subcutaneously (SC) on Day 1, then 40 mg SC every other week (EOW) Weeks 2–12. Patients were then randomized to receive adalimumab RP 40 mg EOW Weeks 14–48 (continuous arm) or BI 695501 40 mg Weeks 14 and 16, adalimumab RP 40 mg Weeks 18 and 20, and BI 695501 40 mg EOW Weeks 22 to 48 (switching arm); all interventions were given SC. Primary endpoints were pharmacokinetics parameters, area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC_τ,30–32) and maximum observed drug plasma concentration (C_max,30–32), measured after the third switch during the Week 30–32 dosing interval.

Results

238 patients (mean [standard deviation] age 44.9 [13.8]; 66.0% male) were treated in the switching (n = 118) or continuous arms (n = 120). Adjusted mean C_max,30–32 was 7.08 and 7.00 μg/mL in the switching and continuous treatment arms, respectively; adjusted mean AUC_τ,30–32 was 2025.8 and 1925.9 μg h/mL. Point estimate for mean ratio for AUC_τ,30–32 was 105.2% (90.2% confidence interval [CI] 96.6–114.6), and 101.1% (90.2% CI 93.3–109.7) for C_max,30–32. Both CIs were within a predefined bioequivalence range of 80.0–125.0%. Treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation in 0.8% and 1.7% of patients in the switching and continuous treatment arms, and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores were highly similar in the two arms across the entire trial period.

Conclusions

Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated, with highly similar efficacy and immunogenicity, and comparable safety observed in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who received either adalimumab RP continuously or who switched between adalimumab RP and BI 695501.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03210259 (registered July 2017); Eudract.ema.europa.eu: 2016-002254-20.

Video abstract

Discontinuation and Switchback After Non-Medical Switching from Originator Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha (TNF) Inhibitors to Biosimilars: A Meta-Analysis of Real-World Studies from 2012 to 2018

INTRODUCTION

To examine the prevalence rates of biosimilar discontinuation and switchback to the originator tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) inhibitors following non-medical switch (NMS) in patients.

METHODS

Real-world studies reporting biosimilar discontinuation and switchback rates following NMS published between January 2012 and August 2018 were identified through a systematic literature review. A meta-analysis estimated the annualized discontinuation and switchback rates. A subsequent meta-analysis assessed annualized incremental discontinuation rate among studies reporting both discontinuation rates in patients who underwent an NMS (switchers) and patients who remained on originators (non-switchers).

RESULTS

A total of 66 publications were identified: 31 in gastroenterology, 32 in rheumatology, and 3 in both. Half of the studies reported switchback rates; only 9 studies reported discontinuation rates for both switchers and non-switchers. Across studies, the mean/range sample size of the NMS patient population was 136/9-1641; mean/range follow-up was 10/3-24 months. Annualized biosimilar discontinuation rate was 21% (95% confidence interval [CI] 18%, 25%). Switchback rate was 14% (95% CI 10%, 17%) among all NMS patients and 62% (95% CI 44%, 80%) among discontinuers. The mean/range sample size of switchers and non-switchers was 344/89-1621 and 768/19-2870, respectively; mean/range follow-up was 11/6-18 and 12/6-8 months, respectively. Annualized incremental biosimilar discontinuation rate was 18% (95% CI 4%, 31%).

CONCLUSION

Biosimilar discontinuation was found to be prevalent among patients who underwent an NMS from an originator TNF inhibitor to its biosimilar(s) in the real world. In addition, switchback to the originator TNF inhibitors was common following biosimilar discontinuation. Careful consideration is necessary when switching patients already on an originator TNF inhibitor to its biosimilar(s). Main limitations included the heterogeneity of the studies and the limited comparability of the data.

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.

Predicting Loss of Efficacy after Non-Medical Switching: Correlation between Circulating TNF-α Levels and SB4 in Etanercept to SB4 Switchers and Naïve Patients with Rheumatic Disease

BACKGROUND

We investigated how the non-medical switching (NMS) between Etanercept (ETN)/originator and SB4/biosimilar affects treatment efficacy in a rheumatic disease (RD) cohort, evaluating some laboratory parameters as loss of efficacy predictors after NMS.

METHODS

We enrolled 124 patients with RD (rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis): 79 switchers from ETN/originator to SB4 and 45 naïve patients receiving SB4 (first biological treatment). At baseline, 6 (T1), and 12 months (T2), clinical and laboratory parameters were evaluated.

RESULTS

In naïve patients, TNF-α significantly increased at T1 in responders (NR) and non-responders (NNR). TNF-α was lower in NNR than in NR at T1 and T2. In NR and NNR, drug levels (DL) increased between T1 and T2. However, DLs were lower in NNR than in NR at T1 and T2. TNF-α was higher in switcher responders (SR) than in non-responders (SNR) at T1 and T2. In SNR, DLs were higher at baseline than in SR, but they decreased significantly at T1 and T2.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a decrease in DL and TNF-α levels after NMS in SNR. Moreover, in naïve patients, DL and TNF-α levels were higher in NR than in NNR. Monitoring DL and TNF-α levels may represent a future precision medicine approach to predict loss of efficacy after NMS.

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.

Rapid monitoring of health services use following a policy to switch patients from originator to biosimilar etanercept—a cohort study in British Columbia

Background

Drug coverage policies that incentivize switching patients from originator to biosimilar products may result in significant health care savings. Our study aimed to detect early impacts on health services utilization following a mandated switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept in British Columbia (BC), Canada.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, population-based cohort study using linked administrative health data from BC (2010–2020). The policy cohort consisted of patients with inflammatory arthritis who used originator etanercept in 2019, prior to BC’s Biosimilars Initiative switching policy. Three historical cohorts included patients with inflammatory arthritis who used originator etanercept in the years 2016, 2017, and 2018. We compared the daily cumulative incidences of drug refills and outpatient and inpatient services between the policy and historical cohorts. A likelihood ratio sustained (≥ 31 days) at 7.1 or higher compared with the null hypothesis was chosen a priori as a threshold for a potential impact of the policy.

Results

Each cohort contained between 1694 and 1963 patients. We detected several potential impacts: 1) a transient increase in etanercept refills between months three and eight (cumulative incidence difference of + 3.0%); 2) an anticipated increase in visits to physicians of any specialty between months three and eight (+ 2.6%); and 3) an anticipated increase in visits to a rheumatologist from the end of month three onwards (+ 12.8%). The policy had no impact on incidences of switching to a different biologic antirheumatic drug, visits to emergency departments, or admissions to hospitals.

Conclusions

Only transient and/or anticipated increases in drug refills and physician visits were observed during the study period. Additional research on clinical outcomes is recommended to strengthen the evidence that no long-term unintended negative health impacts are associated with BC’s Biosimilars Initiative [switching policy].

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41927-021-00235-x.

Mandatory nonmedical switching from originator to biosimilar infliximab in patients with inflammatory arthritis and psoriasis in British Columbia: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

In 2019, British Columbia's public drug plan, PharmaCare, was the first in Canada to implement a nonmedical switching policy from originator infliximab to its biosimilar, for patients with inflammatory arthritis or psoriasis. We aimed to detect signals of impact on health services utilization during the first year of policy implementation and to provide early data to policy-makers.

METHODS

We constructed cohorts of users of originator infliximab: 3 historical cohorts (2016-2018) and 1 policy cohort (2019). We extracted data from BC Ministry of Health databases from 2015 to 2020, as we followed each cohort for 365 days from May 27 of each cohort's respective year. We excluded patients with gastrointestinal conditions and those not covered by PharmaCare. We examined the cumulative incidence of infliximab prescription refills, switching to other biologic drugs and use of additional health services. A log-likelihood ratio of 1.96 compared with the null hypothesis was used as the threshold for differences between the policy cohort and the historical cohorts.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 572 unique patients: 520 in the 2016 historical cohort, 461 in the 2017 historical cohort, 423 in the 2018 historical cohort and 377 in the policy cohort (with some patients included in multiple cohorts; 335 [58.6%] were included in all 4 cohorts). During months 8 and 9 of follow-up, a transient signal was observed in infliximab refills (7.2% decrease in refilling infliximab for the fourth time for the policy cohort, log-likelihood ratio > 1.96). An anticipated increase in visits to specialists was observed from month 4 forward (15.0%, log-likelihood ratio > 1.96). No signal was observed for increased use of other health services (log-likelihood ratio < 1.96).

INTERPRETATION

Early monitoring did not detect signals of negative impacts on health services use during the first year of the policy. Detailed, longer-term cohort studies and hypothesis-testing methods could provide additional assurance about the safety of the policy.

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.

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.

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.

The Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of Switching Between Reference Biopharmaceuticals and Biosimilars: A Systematic Review

To date, no consensus exists among stakeholders about switching patients between reference biological products (RPs) and biosimilars, which may have been curbing the implementation of biosimilars in clinical practice. This study synthesizes the available data on switching and assesses whether switching patients from a RP to its biosimilar or vice versa affects efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity outcomes. A total of 178 studies, in which switch outcomes from a RP to a biosimilar were reported, was identified. Data were derived from both randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence. Despite the limitations stemming from a lack of a robust design for most of the studies, the available switching data do not indicate that switching from a RP to a biosimilar is associated with any major efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity issues. Some open-label and observational studies reported increased discontinuation rates after switching, which were mainly attributed to nocebo effects. Involvement of the prescriber in any decision to switch should remain and attention should be paid to the mitigation of a potential nocebo effect.

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.

Biological and synthetic target DMARDs in psoriatic arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic multi-faceted immune-mediated systemic disorder, characterized by articular, cutaneous, enthesis, nail and spine involvement. Articular manifestations of PsA are particularly common and highly disabling for patients, while the heterogeneous clinical subsets of the disease are challenging for clinicians. In recent years, research has made many advances in understanding the pathogenesis of the disease from genetic, epigenetic and molecular points of view. New drugs are now available for the treatment of this condition, and, in particular, TNF-alfa inhibitors, historically the first biologicals approved in PsA, are now juxtaposed by new biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with different modes of action. Targeting IL-12/IL-23 p40 common subunit with ustekinumab, IL-17A with secukinumab and ixekizumab, T cells co-stimulation with abatacept, is now possible, safe and effective. Moreover, targeted synthetic molecules with oral administration are available, with the possibility to interfere with phosphodiesterase-4 and JAK/STAT pathways. Indeed, new drugs are under development, with the possibility to target selectively IL-17 receptor, IL-23, and other key molecular targets in the pathogenesis of this condition. In this narrative review, we provide an up-to-date overview of the current application of biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs in the field of PsA, with particular regard to the clinical significance of this possibility to target a higher number of distinct immune-pathways.

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.

Switching to biosimilars: current perspectives in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

Introduction: The expiry of patents for biologics has led to the introduction of biosimilars for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). These treatment alternatives may allow earlier and wider access to appropriate therapy for patients without increasing the economic burden on health-care systems. Prescription of biosimilars to treatment-naïve patients is well accepted; however, additional considerations must be taken into account when switching clinically stable patients from reference products to biosimilars. Area covered: We discuss the current considerations related to switching from reference products to biosimilars from a physician and patient perspective. We review the clinical data and real-life experience on switching patients with IMIDs, present the position of the relevant medical societies, and discuss the importance of patient-physician communication and need for shared decision-making. Expert opinion: The introduction of biosimilars provides an opportunity to expand access to treatment for patients with IMIDs across Europe and support the financial sustainability of health-care systems. We anticipate that as the real-world evidence base grows, confirming the results of clinical trials, there will be a corresponding increase in physician and patient acceptance, not only to initiating treatment with a biosimilar, but also to switching medication from a reference product to a biosimilar.

Drug Discontinuation in Studies Including a Switch From an Originator to a Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibody: A Systematic Literature Review

PURPOSE

In observational studies of patients switched from stable treatment with an originator monoclonal antibody (mAb) to a biosimilar, higher rates of biosimilar discontinuation versus those observed in blinded switching studies have been reported. Because this observation relates to the real-world setting, it has been suggested that switching outside of clinical trials may be associated with nocebo effects. However, real-world data on drug discontinuation and nocebo effects after switching to mAb biosimilars remain limited. This systematic review collated information from switching studies regarding discontinuation rates of biosimilar mAbs and investigated the subjectivity of reasons for discontinuation to determine the impact of potential nocebo responses.

METHODS

MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and abstract databases of selected congresses were screened for reports of mAb switching studies with a minimum post-switch follow-up ≥6 months and accessible information on discontinuation rates.

FINDINGS

A total of 14 observational studies were included, all of which involved a switch to CT-P13. Ten interventional studies involving a switch to other biosimilar mAbs were excluded from the analysis because nocebo effects relate to the observational setting only. Eleven studies (78.6%) reported biosimilar discontinuation rates that were higher than expected based on data pertaining to long-term use of the originator infliximab and clinical trials involving a switch to CT-P13 (>10% per year; range, 12.2%-28.2%). Eight studies attributed a proportion of discontinuations to subjective disease worsening or subjective adverse events. Subjective adverse event reports were identified in 7 of the observational studies.

IMPLICATIONS

Discontinuation rates of biosimilar mAbs may increase due to subjective effects after switching from an originator mAb. These findings highlight the need for further patient education and well-designed, observational switching studies as well as the collection and analysis of identifiable pharmacovigilance and postmarketing data of biologics, including biosimilars. The collection of real-world results is particularly pertinent for mAbs other than CT-P13, for which there is currently a lack of observational switching data.