Comparison Between Ranibizumab Biosimilar, Innovator Ranibizumab and Bevacizumab in a Real-World Situation

Biosimilars of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for ophthalmic diseases: A review

The development of intravitreally injected biologic medicines (biologics) acting against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) substantially improved the clinical outcomes of patients with common VEGF-driven retinal diseases. The relatively high cost of branded agents, however, represents a financial burden for most healthcare systems and patients, likely resulting in impaired access to treatment and poorer clinical outcomes for some patients. Biosimilar medicines (biosimilars) are clinically equivalent, potentially economic alternatives to reference products. Biosimilars approved by leading health authorities have been demonstrated to be similar to the reference product in a comprehensive comparability exercise, generating the totality of evidence necessary to support analytical, pre-clinical, and clinical biosimilarity. Anti-VEGF biosimilars have been entering the field of ophthalmology in the US since 2022. We review regulatory and scientific concepts of biosimilars, the biosimilar development landscape in ophthalmology, with a specific focus on anti-VEGF biosimilars, and discuss opportunities and challenges facing the uptake of biosimilars.

Management of treatment-naïve diabetic macular edema patients: Review of real-world clinical data

The high prevalence of Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a real global health problem. Its complex pathophysiology involves different pathways. Over the last decade, the introduction of intravitreal treatments has dramatically changed the management and prognosis of DME. Among the different treatment options, inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) and intravitreal steroids implants represent the first-line therapy of DME. We conducted a review of electronic databases to compile the available evidence about the clinical management of DME in a clinical setting, with a special focus on treatment-naïve patients. Anti-VEGF therapies represent a valuable option for treating DME patients. However, many patients do not respond properly to this treatment and, due to its administration regimen, many patients receive suboptimal treatment in real life. Current evidence demonstrated that in patients with DME, DEX-i improved significantly both anatomic and visual outcomes. Besides eyes with insufficient anti-VEGF respond or recalcitrant DME cases, DEX-i can be effectively and safely used in treatment-naïve DME patients as first line therapy. DEX-i may be considered first line therapy in different clinical scenarios, such as DME eyes with a greater inflammatory component, patients with cardiovascular events, vitrectomized eyes, or those requiring cataract surgery. In conclusion, there are still many points for improvement pending in the clinical management of the patient with DME. Since DME treatment must follow a patient-tailored approach, selecting the best therapeutic approach for each patient requires a good understanding of the pathophysiology of DME.

Ranibizumab Biosimilars in Treating Retinal Disorders: A Cost-Effective Revolution?

Ranibizumab, is a humanized, monoclonal antibody fragment that binds and inactivates vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) and VEGF-B. One of the main indications for an intravitreal treatment with ranibizumab is age-related macular degeneration (AMD), which is a retinal disease with a high worldwide socioeconomic impact. Biosimilars constitute biological products that demonstrate similar pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics with a reference product, as well as comparable clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. Since the approval of the first biosimilar Razumab, there has been a variety of new biosimilars available on the market. They offer the advantage of the same good clinical and safety results at a better price. All Ranibizumab biosimilars that have gained approval were tested in double masked Phase 3 clinical studies. The use of Ranibizumab biosimilars in neovascular AMD is well reported in the bibliography. Nevertheless, over the last few years, there is a tendency of using biosimilars in other retinal diseases like retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), diabetic macular edema (DME) or polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV). In conclusion, ranibizumab biosimilars offer a promising avenue for the management of retinal diseases, especially in countries with lower socioeconomic status, where there is lack of availability of innovator ranibizumab. However, further research is required to fully explore their efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes in a plethora of retinal diseases.

Biosimilar versus InnovAtor MoLecule of RAnibizumab in Neovascular Age-Related MaCular DEgeneration (The BALANCE Trial): Real-World Evidence

Purpose

To analyse outcomes of innovator ranibizumab (IRM) (Lucentis) and biosimilar ranibizumab (BRM) (Razumab) in Indian eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

Methods

Retrospective observational study in nAMD patients, who were treated with IRM or BRM (3 loading doses followed by pro re nata (PRN). Primary outcome measures were change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) along with safety analysis. Secondary outcomes measures were changes in the subretinal fluid (SRF) and intraretinal fluid (IRF).

Results

Inclusion criteria were satisfied in 164 eyes (60.74%). A total of 87 eyes were treated with IRM, and 77 eyes received BRM. Baseline BCVA was 0.57±0.27 logMAR in IRM group and 0.61±0.25 in the BRM group. At 3, 6, 9, and 12 months BCVA was 0.27±0.22 (p<0.0001), 0.34±0.23 (p<0.0001), 0.39±0.25 (p<0.0001), and 12 months 0.41±0.23 (p<0.0001) in the IRM group and 0.24±0.16 (p<0.0001), 0.27±0.16 (p<0.0001), 0.34±0.17 (p<0.0001), 0.38±0.18 (p<0.0001) in the BRM group. Baseline CMT was 420.39±54.45 μm in IRM group and 407.82±53.07 μm in BRM group. At 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, CMT decreased to 258.28±20.4 μm (p<0.0001), 268.38±19.5 μm (p<0.0001), 269.51±32.41 μm (p<0.0001), and 278.28±16.56 μm (p<0.0001) in the IRM group and 258.84±17.47 μm (p<0.0001), 265.69±17.29 μm (p<0.0001), 273.64±23.13 μm (p<0.0001), and 283.09±19.66 μm (p<0.0001) in the BRM group. Similar improvements in IRF and SRF levels in the patients were noted in both groups. Required number of doses of IRM and BRM was similar over the 12 month period in both groups. A similar profile of adverse events was noted in both the groups.

Conclusion

Intravitreal injection of IRM and BRM show similar efficacy and safety in Indian eyes with nAMD.