Impact of Infliximab and Etanercept Biosimilars on Biological Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Utilisation and NHS Budget in the UK

Biosimilars Would Reduce Health Care Costs But Are Yet Poorly Known - Patient Survey Study Among Biological Medicine Users

Background

From the beginning of the year 2024, gradually implemented amendment to the Medicines Act will enable interchange of biological medicines in pharmacies in Finland. The legislative change aims to reduce health care costs.

Methods

Opinions of the biological medicine users regarding substitution in pharmacies and knowledge about biological medicines were determined by a patient survey in community pharmacies and via patient organizations in Finland.

Results

In total, 199 users of biological medicines responded to the survey. The respondents did not always know which product they were using, an originator or a biosimilar. This was more prominent among patients with biosimilars determined according to brand names. The more recently the biological medicine had been prescribed, the more likely a biosimilar was in use. Only about 40% of the respondents would enable pharmacies to substitute their biological medicine to a lower cost product. The most common obstacle to the idea of interchange in pharmacies was that the respondents wanted to keep the product the doctor had prescribed for them. In general, biosimilar users were more accepting towards possible interchange than originator users.

Conclusion

Although the most recent treatments appear to be initiated with biosimilars, interchange in pharmacies could enable an efficient way to lower health care costs. However, guidance and awareness regarding biosimilars and biological medicines in general would improve patients' willingness towards the change, but also help pharmacists and prescribing doctors in their meaningful role.

Is the Availability of Biosimilar Adalimumab Associated with Budget Savings? A Difference-in-Difference Analysis of 14 Countries

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to assess the influence of the presence of biosimilar adalimumab on adalimumab budget savings in 14 high- and upper-middle-income countries.

METHODS

This study analyzed Multinational Integrated Data Analysis System (MIDAS)-IQVIA data from the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2018 to the Q4 of 2019, comparing adalimumab expenditure (in United States dollars) and consumption (in standard units [SU]) across 14 countries (Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan). The countries were divided into two groups based on the availability of adalimumab biosimilars during the study period. A difference-in-difference design was employed to analyze the groups, focusing on changes from Q4 2018 to Q4 2019. Additionally, changes in adalimumab expenditure were decomposed into price, quantity, and drug mix during the study period.

RESULTS

Among countries with adalimumab biosimilars, there was a significant decrease in expenditure (- $371.0 per gross domestic product per capita; p = 0.03) over four quarters, while the consumption significantly increased (1.0 SU per 1000 population; p = 0.02). This was consistent with visual observations and differed from countries without adalimumab biosimilar. Sensitivity analysis with a narrowed list of countries (12 high-income countries) showed a consistent trend. Adalimumab expenditure decreased by 14% during the study period in countries where adalimumab biosimilars were available, mainly due to the price changes (Pt = 0.85; - 15%) and the drug-mix effect (εt  = 0.88; - 12%). Yet, adalimumab expenditure (Et = 1.04; +4%) changed in a quantity-dependent manner (Qt = 1.06; +6%) in countries where adalimumab biosimilars were absent.

CONCLUSION

The availability of biosimilars was associated with a decrease in adalimumab expenditure without compromising the consumption of adalimumab.

Budget impact analysis and treatment availability with biosimilar TNF inhibitors in rheumatic diseases in Poland: real-world evidence using a nationwide database

OBJECTIVES

Although several years have passed since biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs were introduced to the market, considerable disparities in access still remain. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) have proven to be highly effective and safe for treating patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). The emergence of biosimilars is promising for cost reduction and more equitable, widespread access.

METHODS

A retrospective budget impact analysis based on final drug prices was conducted using 12 687 treatment courses for infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab. Estimated and real-life savings for public payer were calculated from an 8-year perspective of TNFi use. Data on the treatment cost and on the evolution in the number of patients treated was provided.

RESULTS

From a public payer perspective, the estimated total savings amount to over €243 million for TNFi, with over €166 million attributed to treatment cost reduction in RMDs. Real-life savings were calculated as €133 million and €107 million, respectively. The rheumatology sector generated between 68% and 92% of total savings across models, depending on the adopted scenario. The overall decrease in mean annual cost of treatment ranged between 75% and 89% in the study frame. If all budget savings were spent on reimbursement of additional TNFi, a hypothetical total of almost 45 000 patients with RMDs could be treated in 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first nation-level analysis that shows estimated and real-life direct cost-savings for TNFi biosimilars. Transparent criteria for reinvesting savings should be developed on both a local and an international levels.

Adalimumab originator versus adalimumab biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease in Australia

BACKGROUND

Biosimilar adalimumabs have improved treatment access, but without any clinical advantage, distributors rely on delivery device design-enhancements, support services, and removal of painful excipients to capture market share. Prescribers, however, are often unaware of these differences. This article compares and contrasts originator versus biosimilar adalimumab agents to identify key differences that might influence adalimumab selection.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We reviewed listed adalimumab biosimilars in Australia and compared them to the originator adalimumab. Similarities and differences identified were confirmed with the manufacturers via two rounds of interviews: the first to collate a list of features and benefits of their product, and the second to consolidate and confirm the data.

RESULTS

The originator adalimumab Humira [by AbbVie, U.S.A] and four adalimumab biosimilars (Amgevita [by Amgen, U.S.A], Hadlima [by Organon, U.S.A], Hyrimoz [by Sandoz, Switzerland], and Idacio [by Fresenius Kabi, Germany]) are included in this review. Key differences identified include product formulation, dosages available, delivery devices, physician support, patient support, and the supply of other biosimilar products by the company.

CONCLUSION

Adalimumab biosimilars are different from each other with unique advantages and disadvantages likely to influence prescriber and patients. Therefore, the choice of agent should be individualized to the needs of the patient and the healthcare service.

Impact of Introducing Infliximab Biosimilars on Total Infliximab Consumption and Originator Infliximab Prices in Eight Regions: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess whether the introduction of the first infliximab biosimilar was associated with changes in overall infliximab consumption (originator and biosimilars) and price changes to the originator infliximab.

METHODS

An interrupted time series analysis using infliximab sales data from 2010 to 2020 from the IQVIA Multinational Integrated Data Analysis System for eight selected regions: Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Korea, India, Japan, the UK, and the USA. Quarterly measures of infliximab consumption and list prices were respectively defined as the number of standard units (SU)/1000 inhabitants and as 2020 USA dollars (USD)/SU.

RESULTS

Following the introduction of infliximab biosimilars, overall infliximab consumption increased in Australia [immediate change: 0.145 SU/1000 inhabitants (P = 0.014); long-term change: 0.022 SU/1000 inhabitants per quarter (P < 0.001)], Canada [immediate change 0.415 (P = 0.008)], the UK [long-term change 0.024 (P < 0.001)], and Hong Kong [immediate change: 0.042 (P < 0.001)]. The list price of originator infliximab also decreased following biosimilar introduction in Australia [immediate change: - 187.84 USD/SU (P < 0.001); long-term change - 6.46 USD/SU per quarter (P = 0.043)], Canada [immediate change: - 145.58 (P < 0.001)], the UK [immediate change: - 34.95 (P = 0.010); long-term change: - 4.77 (P < 0.001)], and Hong Kong [long-term change: - 4.065 (P = 0.046)]. Consumption and price changes were inconsistent in India, Japan, Korea, and the USA.

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of the first infliximab biosimilar was not consistently associated with increased consumption across regions. Additional policy and healthcare system interventions to support biosimilar infliximab adoption are needed.

Managing inadequate response to initial anti-TNF therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: optimising treatment outcomes

Anti-tumour necrosis factors (anti-TNFs) are established as first-line biological therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with over two decades of accumulated clinical experience. Anti-TNFs have well established efficacy/safety profiles along with additional benefits on various comorbidities. However, up to 40% of patients may respond inadequately to an initial anti-TNF treatment because of primary non-response, loss of response, or intolerance. Following inadequate response (IR) to anti-TNF treatment, clinicians can consider switching to an alternative anti-TNF (cycling) or to another class of targeted drug with a different mechanism of action, such as Janus kinase inhibitors, interleukin-6 receptor blockers, B-cell depletion agents, and co-stimulation inhibitors (swapping). While European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for pharmacotherapeutic management of RA, published in 2020, are widely regarded as helpful guides to clinical practice, they do not provide any clear recommendations on therapeutic choices following an IR to first-line anti-TNF. This suggests that both cycling and swapping treatment strategies are of equal value, but that the treating physician must take the patient’s individual characteristics into account. This article considers which patient characteristics influence clinical decision-making processes, including the reason for treatment failure, previous therapies, comorbidities, extra-articular manifestations, pregnancy, patient preference and cost-effectiveness, and what evidence is available to support decisions made by the physician.

Estimating the impact of biosimilar entry on prices and expenditures in rheumatoid arthritis: a case study of targeted immune modulators

OBJECTIVE

To model changes in prices, utilization, and expenditures of targeted immune modulators (TIMs) for rheumatoid arthritis, accounting for biosimilar entry.

METHODS

Using IQVIA National Sales Perspective data between 2013 and 2019, we examined sales and expenditures of biologics and non-biological complex molecules, 20 quarters before and after patent exclusivity milestones. We estimated the impact of a molecule's exclusivity milestones and biosimilar entry on prices, using a regression discontinuity design (RDD). We then combined the RDD estimate with historical trends to assess the impact of adalimumab's exclusivity milestones on future TIM expenditures.

RESULTS

Changes in average molecule prices were associated largely with biosimilar uptake. For molecules with relatively high biosimilar uptake (>60%), prices fell considerably (-21.2% to -59.3%) one year after exclusivity milestones, whereas molecules with lower biosimilar uptake (<10%) experienced smaller price decreases (-2.4% to -8.4%). Average price reduction at the molecule level after biosimilar entry was not significant (-18.6%; p = .657). When applying the RDD results after adalimumab's exclusivity milestones, its projected share of total TIM market expenditures decreased from 48.0% in 2019 to 26.0% in 2025, whereas expenditures on Janus kinase inhibitors increased from 4.0% to 34.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Biologics facing biosimilar competition may experience price decreases, potentially offering substantial savings to payers, patients, and society, although the magnitude of these estimates depends on biosimilar uptake. Formulary placement, along with manufacturer-payer dynamics, may also play a role in determining the impact on price and market uptake of biosimilars.

Inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis: modernizing the multidisciplinary approach

Psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are immune-mediated diseases occurring in barrier organs whose main task is to protect the organism from attack. These disorders are highly prevalent especially in northern Europe where psoriasis has a prevalence of around 3-4% and IBD around 0.3%. The prevalence of IBD in North America has been estimated at around 0.4%. The total incidence rates in northern Europe have been estimated at around 6 for Crohn's disease and 11 for ulcerative colitis per 100 000 person-years, compared with an incidence rate of around 280 per 100 000 person-years for psoriasis. Both diseases are less common in countries with a lower index of development. The rise in IBD appears to occur as populations adopt a westernized lifestyle, whereas psoriasis seems more stable and prevalence differences may derive more from variation in genetic susceptibility. The gut microbiota is clearly an important driver of IBD pathogenesis; in psoriasis, changes in gut and skin microbiota have been reported, but it is less clear whether and how these changes contribute to the pathogenesis. Large studies show that most identified genes are involved in the immune system. However, psoriasis and IBD are highly heterogeneous diseases and there is a need for more precise and deeper phenotyping to identify specific subgroups and their genetic, epigenetic and molecular signatures. Epigenetic modifications of DNA such as histone modifications, noncoding RNA effects on transcription and translation and DNA methylation are increasingly recognized as the mechanism underpinning much of the gene-environment interaction in the pathogenesis of both IBD and psoriasis. Our understanding of underlying pathogenetic mechanisms has deepened fundamentally over the past decades developing hand in hand with novel therapies targeting pathways and proinflammatory cytokines incriminated in disease. There is not only substantial overlap between psoriasis and IBD, but also there are differences with implication for therapy. In psoriasis, drugs targeting interleukin-23 and interleukin-17 have shown superior efficacy compared with anti-TNFs, whilst in IBD, drugs targeting interleukin-17 may be less beneficial. The therapeutic toolbox for psoriasis is impressive and is enlarging also for IBD. Still, there are unmet needs reflecting the heterogeneity of both diseases and there is a need for closer molecular diagnostics to allow for the development of precise therapeutics.

Policies to Encourage the Use of Biosimilars in European Countries and Their Potential Impact on Pharmaceutical Expenditure

Introduction: Biosimilar medicines are considered promising alternatives to new biologicals with high price tags. The extent of savings resulting from biosimilar use depends on their price and uptake, which are largely shaped by pricing, reimbursement, and demand-side policies. This article informs about different policy measures employed by European countries to design the biologicals market and explores potential savings from the increased use of biosimilar medicines in Germany. Methods: Policy measures that target the price and uptake of biosimilar medicines were identified based on a prefilled questionnaire survey with public authorities in 16 European countries, who were the members of the Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information network (July 2020). Potential savings that could have been generated in Germany if different measures identified in the surveyed countries had been implemented were calculated for six publicly funded biological molecules. Price data of the Pharma Price Information service and German consumption data for 2018 were used for the calculation of five scenarios. Results: Several countries use a price link policy, setting the biosimilar price as a percentage of the price of the reference biological. Also lowering the price of the reference biological upon market entry of a biosimilar is less frequently used. While tendering of biosimilar medicines in the inpatient setting is the norm, it is rarely employed for biosimilars in outpatient use. Reference price systems and INN prescribing of medicines are the commonly used policy measures in the off-patent market, but some countries define exemptions for biologicals. Substituting biosimilars at the pharmacy level is rather an exception. Potential savings in Germany ranged from 5% (simple price link) to 55% (prices at the level of other countries) for the six studied molecules. Conclusion: Despite some differences, there are discernible tendencies across European countries with regard to their applications of certain policy measures targeting the price and uptake of biosimilar medicines. The potential for savings of some of these policies was clearly demonstrated. Monitoring and evaluation of these rather recent measures is key for obtaining a more comprehensive picture of their impact.

Uptake of Biosimilars and Its Economic Implication for the Treatment of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in Korea

BACKGROUND

We aimed to examine the uptake of infliximab and etanercept biosimilars in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and its economic implication for healthcare expenditure.

METHODS

Using Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service National Patient Samples, we extracted RA patients who used biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) between 2009 and 2018. Descriptive statistics were used to explain the basic features of the data. We calculated the proportion of users of each bDMARD among total patients with bDMARDs half-yearly. We assessed changes in the utilization proportions of bDMARDs including 4 tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and 2 non-TNFis, which have been approved for RA in Korea: etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, tocilizumab, and abatacept, and analyzed the changes in market share of biosimilars among the bDMARDs after their introduction. Overall trends of medical costs for each bDMARD were presented over the 10-year period.

RESULTS

Since the introduction of the biosimilar TNFis in 2012, the proportion of their use among bDMARDs steadily increased to 15.8% in 2018. While there has been a gradual increase in the use of biosimilar TNFis, the use of the corresponding originators has been decreasing. The introduction of biosimilar TNFis has resulted in a decrease in the medical costs of patients using either originator or biosimilar TNFis.

CONCLUSION

In Korea, the proportional use of biosimilar TNFis has gradually increased since their introduction. The availability of less expensive biosimilar TNFis seems to have brought about a decrease in the medical costs of users of the originators.

Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilar FYB201 Compared with Ranibizumab in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration

PURPOSE

This trial was conducted to investigate the clinical equivalence of the proposed biosimilar FYB201 and reference ranibizumab in patients with treatment-naive, subfoveal choroidal neovascularization caused by neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

DESIGN

This was a prospective, multicenter, evaluation-masked, parallel-group, 48-week, phase III randomized study.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 477 patients were randomly assigned to receive FYB201 (n = 238) or reference ranibizumab (n = 239).

METHODS

Patients received FYB201 or reference ranibizumab 0.5 mg by intravitreal (IVT) injection in the study eye every 4 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) by Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters at 8 weeks before the third monthly IVT injection. Biosimilarity of FYB201 to its originator was assessed via a 2-sided equivalence test, with an equivalence margin in BCVA of 3 ETDRS letters.

RESULTS

The BCVA improved in both groups, with a mean improvement of +5.1 (FYB201) and +5.6 (reference ranibizumab) ETDRS letters at week 8. The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) least squares mean difference for the change from baseline between FYB201 and reference ranibizumab was -0.4 ETDRS letters with a 90% confidence interval (CI) of -1.6 to 0.9. Primary end point was met as the 90% CI was within the predefined equivalence margin. Adverse events were comparable between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

FYB201 is biosimilar to reference ranibizumab in terms of clinical efficacy and ocular and systemic safety in the treatment of patients with nAMD.

Budget Impact Analysis of Biosimilar Products in Spain in the Period 2009-2019

Since the first biosimilar medicine, Omnitrope^® (active substance somatropin) was approved in 2006, 53 biosimilars have been authorized in Spain. We estimate the budget impact of biosimilars in Spain from the perspective of the National Health System (NHS) over the period between 2009 and 2019. Drug acquisition costs considering commercial discounts at public procurement procedures (hospital tenders) and uptake data for both originator and biosimilar as actual units consumed by the NHS were the two variables considered. Two scenarios were compared: a scenario where no biosimilars are available and the biosimilar scenario where biosimilars are effectively marketed. All molecules exposed to biosimilar competition during this period were included in the analysis. The robustness of the model was tested by conducting multiple sensitivity analyses. From the payer perspective, it is estimated that the savings produced by the adoption of biosimilars would reach EUR 2306 million over 11 years corresponding to the cumulative savings from all biosimilars. Three molecules (infliximab, somatropin and epoetin) account for 60% of the savings. This study provides the first estimation of the financial impact of biosimilars in Spain, considering both the effect of discounts that manufacturers give to hospitals and the growing market share of biosimilars. We estimate that in our last year of data, 2019, the savings derived from the use of biosimilars relative total pharmaceutical spending in Spain is 3.92%. Although more research is needed, our evidence supports the case that biosimilars represent a great opportunity to the sustainability of the NHS through rationalizing pharmaceutical spending and that the full potential of biosimilar-savings has not been achieved yet, as there is a high variability in biosimilar uptake across autonomous regions.

A Look at the History of Biosimilar Adoption: Characteristics of Early and Late Adopters of Infliximab and Etanercept Biosimilars in Subregions of England, Scotland and Wales - A Mixed Methods Study

Background

Regions within England, Scotland and Wales show variation in rate of adoption of biosimilar infliximab and etanercept.

Objectives

This study aims to examine how local decisions and practices in regions within England, Scotland and Wales might explain initial variation in market dynamics of biosimilar and originator infliximab and etanercept.

Methods

Market data provided by the National Health Service (NHS) on biosimilar and originator infliximab and etanercept uptake were analysed for the 10 historical regions of England, 14 health boards in Scotland and 7 health boards in Wales (2015–2018). Findings were discussed in ten semi-structured interviews: on a national level with an industry representative (1), on a regional level with NHS employees in England (6), Scotland (1) and Wales (1), and on a local level with a representative of a clinical commissioning group in England (1).

Results

Tenders for infliximab and etanercept in England, Scotland and Wales have consistently resulted in a biosimilar as the best value biological. Early and late biosimilar adopters are seen, with overall convergence towards high biosimilar market shares over time. Qualitative results suggest that biosimilar adoption was positively influenced by (a) a price difference between biosimilar and originator product making it worthwhile to switch patients; (b) a good relationship between commissioner and provider in England resulting in gain share agreements; (c) leadership on biosimilars in regional NHS offices in England or Scottish and Welsh health boards; (d) key opinion leaders or leading hospitals that start using biosimilars early and gain experience.

Conclusions

This study has shown that the savings potential drives biosimilar use. Regions with a proactive attitude, good stakeholder relationships, and clinician engagement were identified as early adopters.

A health economic guide to market access of biosimilars

Introduction: Little is known about market access to biosimilars from a health economic perspective, except for studies that compute the budget impact of biosimilar use. Areas covered: This comprehensive health economic guide to the market access of biosimilars focuses on the role of biosimilars in pharmaceutical innovation and competition, the objective of biopharmaceutical policy, the budget impact of biosimilars, and the cost-effectiveness of biologic therapy in the presence of biosimilars. Expert opinion: We argue that the objective of biopharmaceutical policy in a health system should be to create a competitive and sustainable market for off-patent reference biologics, biosimilars, and next-generation biologics that makes biologic therapy available to patients at the lowest cost. Market access of biosimilars can contribute to this objective as a result of the lower price of biosimilars and price competition with alternative therapies. The resulting improvement in the cost-effectiveness of biologic therapy needs to be accounted for by revisiting reimbursement decisions and conditions. When examining the cost-effectiveness of biologic therapy following patent expiry, stakeholders need to consider residual uncertainties at the time of biosimilar marketing authorization, the nocebo effect, market entry of a second-generation reference biologic with a different administration form than the biosimilar, and value-added services.

Does Etanercept Biosimilar Prescription in a Rheumatology Center Bend the Medication Cost Curve?

OBJECTIVE

The market entry of biosimilars is expected to bring budgetary relief. Our objective was to determine how the introduction of biosimilars influences medication costs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and which patients gain access to biologics due to the availability of biosimilars.

METHODS

Using hospital data of patients with RA between 2014 and 2018, an interrupted time series was performed. The interruption in the time series was placed at June 2016 (i.e., the introduction of the etanercept biosimilar). The changes in trends for rheumatic medication costs before and after the interruption were measured. Secondary analyses focused on explaining these trends.

RESULTS

In the first quarter after the interruption, there was a decrease in total costs for biologic users of -€63,020 (95% CI -€96,487 to -€29,553, P = 0.001). The postinterruption trend did not differ from the preinterruption trend (95% CI -€6695 to €6715, P = 0.998) and after 3 quarters, the medication costs were back at the interruption level. After the interruption, the average cost per biologic user decreased by -€370 (95% CI -€602 to -€138, P = 0.005), followed by a quarterly decrease (relative to the preinterruption trend; 95% CI -€86 to -€14, P = 0.010), bending the average cost curve. The percentage of patients being treated with biologics increased in postinterruption by 0.50 percentage points quarterly (95% CI 0.38-0.62, P < 0.001). Also, the average age at the start of the first biologic increased after the interruption (P = 0.057).

CONCLUSION

The average cost per patient treated with biologics decreased after the introduction of biosimilars with a persistent trend. However, the budgetary relief due to market entry of biosimilars vanished quickly due to an increase in patients treated with biologics.

Retention Rate and Safety of Biosimilar CT-P13 in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Data from the Korean College of Rheumatology Biologics Registry

Objective

The aim was to evaluate long-term drug retention, discontinuation, efficacy and safety of CT-P13 and reference infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) enrolled in the Korean College of Rheumatology Biologics (KOBIO) registry.

Methods

Patients included adults with RA who received CT-P13 or reference infliximab between December 2012 and December 2017. Drug retention, efficacy (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints [DAS28]–erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR] or DAS28–C-reactive protein [CRP] and American College of Rheumatology [ACR] core set measure), and adverse events (AEs) were assessed over 4-years’ follow-up.

Results

Data from 199 RA patients (CT-P13: n = 147; reference infliximab: n = 52) were analyzed. Median treatment duration was 1.22 years for CT-P13 and 1.40 years for reference infliximab (p = 0.67). Overall, 82% of patients received first-line therapy. Drug retention of CT-P13 versus reference infliximab was comparable for the overall population (p = 0.84) and for first-line (p = 0.66) and subsequent treatment lines (p = 0.96). Treatment changes or discontinuations occurred in 65.2% of patients with CT-P13 and 69.6% with reference infliximab. The most common reason for treatment changes or discontinuing treatment was lack of efficacy (CT-P13: 31.9%; reference infliximab: 34.8%). CT-P13 demonstrated comparable improvements in DAS28-ESR, DAS28-CRP and ACR responses to reference infliximab. Overall, 19 grade 3 AEs were reported for CT-P13 and eight for reference infliximab.

Conclusion

Long-term data from patients with RA treated in routine clinical practice in Korea showed that CT-P13 had a comparable drug retention rate to reference infliximab, with similar efficacy and an acceptable safety profile.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT01965132.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-019-00393-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Are Patients at Risk for Recurrent Disease Activity After Switching From Remicade® to Remsima®? An Observational Study

Background: Since the late ‘90s, infliximab (Remicade^®) is being used successfully to treat patients with several non-infectious immune mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). In recent years, infliximab biosimilars, including Remsima^® were introduced in clinical practice.

Aim: To investigate the interchangeability of Remicade^® (originator infliximab) and its biosimilar Remsima^® in patients with rare immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs).

Methods: This two-phased prospective open label observational study was designed to monitor the transition from Remicade^® to Remsima^® in patients with rare IMIDs. All included patients were followed during the first 2 years. The primary endpoint was the demonstration of non-difference in quality of life and therapeutic efficacy, as measured by parameters including a safety monitoring program, physicians perception of disease activity (PPDA) and patient self-reported outcomes (PSROs). Secondary outcomes included routine blood analysis, pre-infusion serum drug concentration values and anti-drug antibody formation.

Results: Forty eight patients treated with Remicade^® were switched to Remsima^® in June-July 2016 and subsequently monitored during the first 2 years. The group consisted of patients with sarcoidosis (n = 17), Behçet's disease (n = 12), non-infectious uveitis (n = 11), and other diagnoses (n = 8). There were no significant differences in PPDA, PSROs, clinical and laboratory assessments and pre-infusion serum drug concentrations between the groups. De novo anti-drug antibodies were observed in two patients. Seven patients with sarcoidosis and five with another diagnosis developed a significant disease relapse (n = 7) or adverse events (n = 5) within 2 years; 10 of these patients discontinued Remsima^® treatment, one withdrew from the study and one received additional corticosteroid therapy.

Conclusions: We observed no significant differences in PSROs, PPDA and laboratory parameters after treatment was switched from Remicade^® to Remsima^®. However, disease relapse or serious events were observed in 12 out of 48 patients when treatment was switched from Remicade^® to Remsima^®. The choice to switch anti-TNF alpha biologics in patients with rare IMIDs, particularly in sarcoidosis, requires well-considered decision-making and accurate monitoring due to a possibly higher incidence of disease worsening.

Explaining biosimilars and how reverse engineering plays a critical role in their development

INTRODUCTION

Biologicals are protein-based therapeutics consisting of larger and more complex structures than small molecule medicines. As the patents for originator biological therapeutics expire, biosimilar products are licensed for the same indications as their marketed reference biologics across different specialities. Owing to the complex nature of the manufacturing process for a biological therapy compared to conventional chemically synthetized medicines, the development of biosimilars is more complicated and costly than the manufacture of generic small molecules.

AREAS COVERED

The manufacturing process of the originator biologic is in most cases largely unknown to biosimilar developers and therefore reverse engineering through extensive analysis of the originator is a fundamental and critical step for successful biosimilar development. In this review, the authors examine the abbreviated roadmap for biosimilar approval which must be underpinned by the same rigorous standards that apply to all biological medicines. They discuss various aspects of biosimilar manufacturing with a focus on reverse engineering.

EXPERT OPINION

The biosimilar approval pathway places a greater emphasis on preclinical assessments in comparison to the development of originator biologics. Multiple comparative clinical studies add little to the confirmation of the efficacy of the molecule under study whilst adding considerably to the cost and time of bringing a biosimilar into clinical use. A successful demonstration of biosimilarity to the reference product is therefore essential at a structural and functional level but this could not be achieved without well-designed and quality-driven reverse engineering of the originator production process.

Viewpoint on Time Series and Interrupted Time Series Optimum Modeling for Predicting Arthritic Disease Outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The propose of this viewpoint is to improve or facilitate the clinical decision-making in the management/treatment strategies of arthritis patients through knowing, understanding, and having access to an interactive process allowing assessment of the patient disease outcome in the future.

RECENT FINDINGS

In recent years, the time series (TS) concept has become the center of attention as a predictive model for making forecast of unseen data values. TS and one of its technologies, the interrupted TS (ITS) analysis (TS with one or more interventions), predict the next period(s) value(s) of a given patient based on their past and current information. Traditional TS/ITS methods involve segmented regression-based technologies (linear and nonlinear), while stochastic (linear modeling) and artificial intelligence approaches, including machine learning (complex nonlinear relationships between variables), are also used; however, each have limitations. We will briefly describe TS/ITS, provide examples of their application in arthritic diseases; describe their methods, challenges, and limitations; and propose a combined (stochastic and artificial intelligence) procedure in post-intervention that will optimize ITS modeling. This combined method will increase the accuracy of ITS modeling by profiting from the advantages of both stochastic and nonlinear models to capture all ITS deterministic and stochastic components. In addition, this combined method will allow ITS outcomes to be predicted as continuous variables without having to consider the time lag produced between the pre- and post-intervention periods, thus minimizing the prediction error not only for the given data but also for all possible future patterns in ITS. The use of reliable prediction methodologies for arthritis patients will permit treatment of not only the disease, but also the patient with the disease, ensuring the best outcome prediction for the patient.

The Future of Biosimilars: Maximizing Benefits Across Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases

Biologics have transformed the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Biosimilars-biologic medicines with no clinically meaningful differences in safety or efficacy from licensed originators-can stimulate market competition and have the potential to expand patient access to biologics within the parameters of treatment recommendations. However, maximizing the benefits of biosimilars requires cooperation between multiple stakeholders. Regulators and developers should collaborate to ensure biosimilars reach patients rapidly without compromising stringent quality, safety, or efficacy standards. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations and payer policies should be updated following biosimilar market entry, minimizing the risk of imposing nonmedical barriers to biologic treatment. In RA, disparities between treatment guidelines and national reimbursement criteria could be addressed to ensure more uniform patient access to biologics and enable rheumatologists to effectively implement treat-to-target strategies. In IBD, the cost-effectiveness of biologic treatment earlier in the disease course is likely to improve when biosimilars are incorporated into pharmacoeconomic analyses. Patient understanding of biosimilars is crucial for treatment success and avoiding nocebo effects. Full understanding of biosimilars by physicians and carefully considered communication strategies can help support patients initiating or switching to biosimilars. Developers must operate efficiently to be sustainable, without undermining product quality, the reliability of the supply chain, or pharmacovigilance. Developers should also facilitate information sharing to meet the needs of other stakeholders. Such collaboration will help to ensure a sustainable future for both the biosimilar market and healthcare systems, supporting the availability of effective treatments for patients.

The Clinical Implications of Nocebo Effects for Biosimilar Therapy

Nocebo effects encompass negative responses to inert interventions in the research setting and negative outcomes with active treatments in the clinical research or practice settings, including new or worsening symptoms and adverse events, stemming from patients' negative expectations and not the pharmacologic action of the treatment itself. Numerous personality, psychosocial, neurobiological, and contextual/environmental factors contribute to the development of nocebo effects, which can impair quality of life and reduce adherence to treatment. Biologics are effective agents widely used in autoimmune disease, but their high cost may limit access for patients. Biosimilar products have gained regulatory approval based on quality, safety, and efficacy comparable to that of originator biologics in rigorous study programs. In this review, we identified gaps in patients' and healthcare professionals' awareness, understanding, and perceptions of biosimilars that may result in negative expectations and nocebo effects, and may diminish their acceptance and clinical benefits. We also examined features of nocebo effects with biosimilar treatment that inform research and clinical practices. Namely, when biosimilars are introduced to patients as possible treatment options, we recommend adoption of nocebo-reducing strategies to avoid negative expectations, including delivery of balanced information on risk-benefit profiles, framing information to focus on positive attributes, and promoting shared decision-making processes along with patient empowerment. Healthcare professionals confident in their knowledge of biosimilars and aware of bias-inducing factors may help reduce the risk of nocebo effects and improve patients' adherence in proposing biosimilars as treatment for autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease.

Influence of biosimilar infliximab launch on the utilization pattern of biological medicines: the case of Hungary

Objectives: Utilization of multisource biological (off-patent originator and its biosimilar) medicines can improve the efficiency of resource allocation by 1) generating savings while maintaining health outcomes or 2) increasing the number of patients treated with more affordable treatments. This study evaluates the efficiency of the Hungarian biosimilar drug policy on the case of biosimilar infliximab. Methods: We analyzed the utilization of biologicals in all reimbursed indications of infliximab including initial therapy of new patients and switching patterns retrospectively based on patient-level payer's data between September 2012 and December 2016. Results: Despite the economic rationale, patent expiry did not manifest in increased utilization of multisource infliximab in an access-restricted environment: 1) Patients previously treated with original biologicals were switched mainly to other original biologicals instead of more affordable biosimilar alternatives. 2) Although some treatment-naive patients started on more affordable multisource infliximab with price competition, the majority of new patients started on other original biologicals with monopolistic price. Conclusion: Policy tools and measures should be developed to facilitate first-line use of multisource biologicals for treatment-naive patients and promoting the use of more affordable multisource biologicals in case of switching.

Lost cost savings to the NHS in England due to the delayed entry of multiple generic low-dose transdermal buprenorphine: a case scenario analysis

OBJECTIVE

Originator pharmaceutical companies prolonging the patent of a medicine prevents rivals' entry to the market and competition. As the entry of generic alternatives usually results in price reduction, any delay in their entry potentially deprives the National Health Service (NHS) of much-needed savings. This study estimates the potential cost savings lost to the NHS as a result of delayed entry of generic low-dose buprenorphine (LDTB) patches in England.

DESIGN

Two case scenarios were modelled to determine the savings from the entry of generic LDTB Butec only between February and August 2016 and the potential savings which could have been achieved if all generic LDTB patches had entered the market at the same time.

SETTING

The volume of utilisation of branded and generic LDTB in UK primary care was derived from the NHS business services authority website for prescriptions dispensed between February 2015 and January 2018.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost savings associated with the entry of generic LDTB.

RESULTS

The cumulative cost savings from the introduction of Butec alone was £0.7 ($0.92) million. The model predicted that if all generic buprenorphine entered the market at the same time with Butec, they could have been achieved a £1.2 ($1.57) million saving. This means that approximately £0.5 ($0.65) million savings was lost to the NHS over the 6-month time period.

CONCLUSIONS

The entry of Butec was associated with cost savings. We estimated that more cost savings could have been achieved if other generic LDTB patches had entered the market at the same time to drive competition between rivals. Patent protection strategies which delayed the entry of multiple generics were responsible for the reduced cost savings to the NHS in England.

The IBD Management Puzzle: Do We Have All the Pieces?

The management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has entered an exciting era, with the optimisation of existing therapies, new strategies being explored that have the potential to further improve patient outcomes, and a growing recognition of the value of a personalised approach to treatment. This symposium explored optimal approaches to using biologic therapy, and the use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and biomarkers in treatment management. IBD shows a progressive immunopathogenesis, and a ‘window of opportunity’ exists whereby early intervention may alter the disease course. There is a convincing body of evidence supporting early intervention with anti-TNF-α therapies to improve patient outcomes. Cost is the major barrier to initiating and continuing treatment with biologic therapy. Biosimilars have the potential to reduce costs and increase patient access to biologic therapies, enabling more patients to receive biologic treatment earlier. The use of TDM in the treatment of IBD is increasing and offers benefits over standardised approaches to dosing, and it is likely that emerging dose optimisation tools will enable a personalised approach to treatment in the future. Many patients experience loss of response to anti-TNF-α therapy. Biomarkers currently used to monitor treatment response include C reactive protein (CRP), faecal calprotectin, and anti-drug antibodies (ADA). Although biomarker identification is still at an early stage for IBD, several genetic, serological, and microbiome markers have also shown promise in predicting response to anti-TNF-α therapy, while other biomarkers are also under investigation for use in diagnosis, predicting response to therapy, and treatment monitoring.

Update of the Position Paper of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on Biosimilar Drugs

In 2015 the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (Sociedad Española de Reumatología [SER]) published its position paper on biosimilar drugs. In this update, the SER, continues to manifest its unequivocal commitment to the sustainability of the health system of our country and is aligned with the measures that, without reducing quality of care, are aimed at ensuring its continuity. Since the publication of the previous position paper, the European Commission has authorized new biosimilar drugs, which provides an excellent opportunity to advance the efficiency of health care. In this new scenario of increased therapeutic offer of biologics, the SER considers it crucial to preserve the freedom of prescription of physicians who prescribe drugs based exclusively on the characteristics and individual circumstances of each patient, without forgetting the economic aspects there of.

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.

Biological Therapies in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Can Biosimilars Reduce Access Inequities?

Biological therapies are an effective treatment for a range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel diseases. However, due to their high costs, considerable differences in their utilization exist across the world, even among the various European countries, with many countries restricting access despite professional society guideline recommendations. Adoption of biologics by healthcare providers has been particularly poor in many Central and Eastern European countries. Differences in utilization have also been observed across medical specialties, healthcare providers, and at a regional and national level. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the different market access policies for biologics in Europe and to investigate reasons for such differences. One of the potential solutions for providing broader access to IMID patients, where cost is the major barrier, is to encourage the use of biosimilars in place of their reference products. Biosimilars are generally less expensive alternatives to already licensed biological therapies and are approved on the basis that they are similar to the reference product in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. Budget impact models predict considerable cost savings following the introduction of biosimilars in the next few years. These savings could be used to increase access to biologics and other innovative therapies.

The Biosimilar Nocebo Effect? A Systematic Review of Double-Blinded Versus Open-Label Studies

BACKGROUND

Several authors have hypothesized that adverse drug events (ADEs) upon switching from reference biologics to biosimilar products are related to the nocebo effect. However, a thorough and current review of the existing literature has not been conducted.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if patient and/or physician knowledge of a switch from a reference biologic product to a biosimilar product was associated with an increase in ADEs likely to be susceptible to the nocebo effect.

METHODS

Studies reporting efficacy and safety outcomes of a switch from a reference product to a biosimilar product were reviewed. Biologics with FDA-approved biosimilars in the United States were considered for review, including adalimumab, bevacizumab, etanercept, and infliximab. Studies were identified by searching controlled vocabulary (e.g., MeSH terms) and keywords within MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Embase. Descriptive statistics were used to quantify subjective and objective complications in double-blinded and single-blinded or open-label studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-one trials including 3,271 patients were reviewed in the full analysis. Median discontinuation rates for any reason were 14.3% (range = 0.0-33.3) in open-label studies compared with 6.95% (range = 5.2-11.0) in double-blinded studies. Discontinuation rates for ADEs were 5.6% (range = 0.0-24.2) in open-label studies versus 3.1% (range = 2.0-5.2) in double-blinded studies, suggesting the nocebo effect does affect biosimilar adoption. Subgroup analyses of antidrug antibody (ADA) development and infusion reactions were similar between infliximab open-label and double-blinded studies. Discontinuation rates for any reason, for ADEs, and for lack of efficacy were generally higher in infliximab open-label trials compared with double-blinded trials. Etanercept biosimilar discontinuation rates for any reason were similar between study designs; however, incidences of injection site reactions and discontinuation rates for ADEs were higher in double-blinded compared with open-label study designs.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is insufficient to confirm a biosimilar nocebo effect, although higher discontinuation rates in infliximab biosimilar open-label studies support this theory. Further studies are needed to evaluate the existence of a biosimilar nocebo effect.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Global Acceptance of Biosimilars: Importance of Regulatory Consistency, Education, and Trust

Globally, biosimilars are expected to have a key role in improving patient access to biological therapies and addressing concerns regarding the escalating cost of health care. Indeed, in Europe, increased use of biologics and reduced drug prices have been observed after the introduction of biosimilars. Recently, several monoclonal antibody biosimilars of anticancer therapies have been approved, and numerous others are in various stages of clinical development. Biosimilars are authorized via a regulatory pathway separate from that used for generic drugs; they are also regulated separately from novel biologics. Biosimilar approval pathways in many major regulatory regions worldwide are, to a broad degree, scientifically aligned. However, owing to regional differences in health care priorities, policies, and resources, some important regulatory inconsistencies are evident. Acceptance of biosimilars by health care systems, health care professionals, and patients will be a key factor in the uptake of these therapies, and such regulatory variations could contribute to confusion and diminished confidence regarding the quality, efficacy, and reliability of these agents. Furthermore, the need for manufacturers to account for regulatory inconsistencies introduces inefficiencies and delays into biosimilar development programs. These issues should be addressed if biosimilars are to attain their maximal global potential. This review summarizes the evolution of the global biosimilar landscape and provides examples of inconsistencies between regulatory requirements in different regions. In addition, we review ongoing efforts to improve regulatory alignment and highlight the importance of education as a crucial factor in generating trust in, and acceptance of, biosimilars on a worldwide scale.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Biosimilars of monoclonal antibody anticancer therapies are beginning to emerge, and more are likely to become available for clinical use in the near future. The extent to which biosimilars can contribute to cancer care will depend on their level of acceptance by health care systems, health care professionals, and patients. A better understanding of the regulatory basis for the approval of biosimilars may enhance confidence and trust in these agents. In order to have informed discussions about treatment choices with their patients, oncologists should familiarize themselves with the biosimilar paradigm.