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

Patient Experience with the SensoReady® Autoinjector Pen versus a Comparator Device: Results from a Canadian Patient Survey in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Crohn´s Disease

Purpose

Medication delivery device design impacts treatment satisfaction, adherence, and compliance in patients receiving biologics. This survey assessed autoinjector attributes that are important to patients, and assessed patient perceptions and preferences between an adalimumab biosimilar autoinjector (Hyrimoz® SensoReady® Pen [SDZ-ADL pen]) and the reference adalimumab autoinjector (Humira® Pen [ref-ADL pen]) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or Crohn's disease (CD) in Canada.

Patients and Methods

In this survey, adult patients were recruited for web-assisted telephone interviews. Patients had ≥ 3 months' experience with the ref-ADL pen and 1-12 months' experience with the SDZ-ADL pen.

Results

The survey included 120 patients with RA (n = 32) or CD (n = 88). Mean experience with the ref-ADL pen was 7 years for RA or 5 years for CD vs 9 months with the SDZ-ADL pen. The most important autoinjector attributes were the ability to use the pen independently and the ease and simplicity of self-injection. When comparing the two autoinjectors, patients significantly preferred the SDZ-ADL pen over the ref-ADL pen for nearly every attribute evaluated, with the greatest differences reported for visual and audible feedback mechanisms, ease of self-injection, and ability to use the device independently. Overall, 82% of patients preferred the SDZ-ADL pen over the ref-ADL pen, with buttonless activation and less injection pain being the main drivers for this preference.

Conclusion

Patients with RA or CD indicated a preference for the SDZ-ADL pen over the ref-ADL pen, independent of the duration of use of the pen. The preference for a biosimilar device within 1 year of switching provides reassurance of rapid patient acceptance of biosimilars and may simplify the switching process. These results confirm the importance of ensuring autoinjector design supports independent self-administration of medication and align with previous data showing high patient satisfaction with the SDZ-ADL pen.

Clinical Efficacy of Biosimilar Switch of Adalimumab for Management of Uveitis

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Switching patterns of biological drugs in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: insight from the VALORE database network

BACKGROUND

Switch patterns among different biologics and from originators to biosimilars (and vice versa) can be complex in patients with psoriasis (PsO) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe switching patterns of biological drugs in PsO/PsA patients and to explore predictors of multiple switches and switch-back.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A large-scale retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Italian VALORE database. Bio-naïve users treated for PsO/PsA during 2010-2022 were included. Time to switch/swap and predictors of multiple switches and switch-back were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty-thousand seven hundred bio-naïve users were included. At 3 and 5 years of follow-up, patients with at least one switch/swap were 37.1% and 47.8%, respectively. The median time to first switch/swap was significantly shorter (p< 0.001) for TNF-α inhibitors (2,068 days) than anti-IL (2,780 days). At 1 year of follow-up patients starting with IL-23 switched/swapped biological therapy less frequently than those with anti-IL-12/23 and anti-IL-17 (4.9% vs. 8.7% and 9.4%, respectively). Patients starting with anti-IL-12/23 reported a significantly lower risk of multiple switches and switch-back (0.74, 95% CI, 0.67-0.83; 0.58, 95% CI, 0.44-0.77, respectively) than those with TNF-α inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with PsO/PsA starting with TNF-α inhibitors switch/swap more rapidly and frequently than those with anti-IL, which are also associated with a reduced risk of multiple switches during follow-up.

Consensus-Based Overarching Principles and Recommendations on the Use of Biosimilars in the Treatment of Inflammatory Arthritis in the Gulf Region

BACKGROUND

Though biologic agents have significantly improved the treatment of inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis), high costs, stringent regulations, strict reimbursement criteria, and existing patents have limited patient access to treatments. While being highly similar in quality, safety, and efficacy to biologic reference products, biosimilars can reduce the financial burden and prevent underutilization of medication.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this initiative was to develop an evidence-based consensus of overarching principles and recommendations aimed at standardizing the use of biosimilars in treating inflammatory arthritis in the Gulf region.

METHODS

A task force of practicing rheumatologists, a clinical pharmacist, a health economist, patients, regulators, and payors from across the Gulf region developed recommendations and overarching principles based on the outputs of a systematic literature review conducted to address Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) questions specific to key challenges regarding the use of biosimilars for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis in the region. As the data before 2017 have been previously reviewed in another publication, the current review focused on data published between January 2017 and August 2022 (PROSPERO ID CRD42022364002). Consensus on each statement required a level of agreement of 70% or greater.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached for five overarching principles and nine recommendations by the task force. The principles emphasize the importance of improving the awareness, understanding, and perception of biosimilars, as well as the need for regulated regional real-world data generation and protocols to make biosimilars a viable and affordable treatment option for all patients. The consensus recommendations advocate the need for shared treatment decisions between rheumatologists and patients when considering biosimilars. They further recommend that confirmation of a biosimilar's efficacy and safety in a single indication is sufficient for extrapolation to other diseases for which the reference product has been approved. Finally, there is a need for pharmacovigilance and national health policies governing the adoption and prescription of biosimilars in clinical practice across the region.

CONCLUSIONS

These are the first consensus recommendations for the Gulf region based on a systematic literature review and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, integrating clinical evidence with clinical expertise to optimize decision making for the use of biosimilars in patients with inflammatory arthritis. They were formulated based on predominantly international data because of the limited regional data and therefore can be generalized to serve as recommendations for healthcare professionals in other parts of the world.

Clinical outcomes and cost savings of a nonmedical switch to a biosimilar in children/young adults with inflammatory bowel disease

OBJECTIVES

The safety, efficacy, and cost savings associated with biosimilar medications are well established. However, a lack of pediatric data exists surrounding clinical outcomes when switching from an originator to a biosimilar. Our primary aim is to evaluate clinical outcomes following a nonmedical switch from the infliximab originator to a biosimilar in children and young adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our secondary aim is to estimate cost savings associated with this switch.

METHODS

A quality improvement project was implemented to establish safe switching protocols, then those patients who underwent a nonmedical switch from the infliximab originator to the biosimilar were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic data, physician global assessments (PGAs), and laboratory values were recorded 1 year pre- and post-switch. Continuation rates on the biosimilar were reported at 6 and 12 months. Cost savings were estimated using two different pricing models.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients underwent a nonmedical switch. Laboratory values including inflammatory markers, infliximab levels, and PGA scores remained similar when assessed pre- and post-switch. No infusion reactions or antidrug antibody development occurred. Two patients reported psoriasis-like rashes. Five patients switched back to the originator during the study period. There were 379 biosimilar infusions completed with an estimated total cost savings of $11,260 (average sales price) and $566,223 (wholesale acquisition cost).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical remission rates, inflammatory laboratory markers, serious adverse events, infliximab levels, and antidrug antibodies remained similar after a one-time nonmedical switch to an infliximab biosimilar. Nonmedical switching to biosimilars resulted in significant cost savings.

Investigation of treatment continuity, usefulness, and nocebo effect in switching from the original etanercept to its biosimilar in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A JET observational study in Japanese clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

To assess the usefulness and onset of nocebo effects after switching from the original etanercept (ETN) to a biosimilar (BS) in routine clinical practice at rheumatology clinics in Japan (13 sites).

METHODS

A total of 165 patients (87.0% women, age = 57.88 ± 15.07 years, and disease duration = 10.32 ± 7.71 years), whose low disease activity was maintained with the original ETN for ≥12 weeks, and who agreed to switch treatment to its BS, were included. The end-points were disease activity score 28 (DAS28)-C-reactive protein and DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed between the changes in DAS28-C-reactive protein and DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate >12 weeks before switching and >12 weeks after switching (P = 0.132 and 0.334, respectively). The treatment continuation rate during the 52 weeks after switching to BS was 97.3%. During this period, BS was discontinued in only four patients, and no nocebo effects were suspected in these four patients.

CONCLUSION

Switching from ETN to BS was effective even in routine clinical practice at rheumatology clinics in Japan, and no nocebo effects were observed. Sufficient explanations to patients by rheumatologists and the additional payment for drug costs between patients at hospital visits effectively improved the continuation rate without any nocebo effect.

Rheumatology Patients' Experiences of a Mandatory Nationwide Transition to an Adalimumab Biosimilar

OBJECTIVE

Transitions to biosimilars are common to reduce the cost burden of biologics. While brand changes can be daunting for patients, few studies have explored patients' experiences with the transitioning process. This study examined rheumatology patients' experiences with a mandatory nationwide brand change to an adalimumab biosimilar.

METHODS

People with rheumatic diseases involved in the adalimumab transition in Aotearoa New Zealand completed a nationwide online survey. Participants (n = 117, 48% with rheumatoid arthritis) reported their satisfaction with the biosimilar, logistics and supply, information and communication, and availability of support. They also reported what did and did not go well during the transition and provided recommendations for future transitions.

RESULTS

The mean [SD] satisfaction score with the transition was 6.2 [3.2] on a 0-10 scale, with 10 indicating high satisfaction. Participants were the least satisfied with the support and information from patient support organizations, and training for the device during the transition. Participants were most satisfied with the biosimilar supply, support from pharmacists, and how early they were informed before the transition occurred. After the transition, participants were less satisfied with the device quality, patient support program, biosimilar safety and efficacy, and the provision of alcohol wipes and sharps bins (p < 0.05 for all). Satisfaction with training for the biosimilar device (B = .25, p = .036) predicted overall satisfaction. Participants appreciated less injection pain and the ease of the biosimilar device. The lack of alcohol wipes and loss of the bio-originator support program were viewed negatively.

CONCLUSION

Future biosimilar transitions should ensure the availability of alcohol wipes, sharps bins, and a comparable patient support program. Patient support organizations could be involved in providing information to patients about the change.

[PHARAO study: drug treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases : Guideline-conform treatment with biologics follows availability of biosimilars]

BACKGROUND

With the introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha inhibitors, the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) has undergone a fundamental change. Several of the originally high-priced biologics are now accessible as lower cost biosimilars, removing a significant impediment to prescription.

OBJECTIVE

The present study investigated whether the availability of biosimilars is associated with an improvement in the care of IRD. Moreover, the subjective acceptance of biosimilars by physicians and patients was investigated and compared with objectifiable parameters.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pseudonymized claims data of the Bavarian Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians from 2014 to 2019 as well as a paper and pencil survey of patients and rheumatologists formed the data basis of the study.

RESULTS

During the observation period, the proportion of diagnosed patients receiving drug therapy increased from 38.5% to 43.2%. Also, the care changed in terms of the prescribed agents. Conventional drug therapy declined overall and, in particular, glucocorticoid prescriptions decreased from 39.3% in 2014 to 34.3% in 2019. At the same time, the proportion of targeted treatments increased from 12.3% to 20.4%. The median duration of basic treatment before first-time bDMARD use dropped from 3.15 years in 2014 to 2.17 years in 2019.

CONCLUSION

Over the observation period, in which three biosimilars entered the market, the care of patients with IRD improved both quantitatively and qualitatively. The market share of biosimilars increased in parallel with this development. With an overall high acceptance of biosimilars, the assessment of the disease course by physicians and patients indicates a slight subjectively perceived advantage of therapy with originals compared to biosimilars, which, however, is not confirmed when standardized scores are applied. A possible explanation for this might be a nocebo effect, which could be minimized by suitable communication strategies.

Safety outcomes when switching between biosimilars and reference biologics: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Biosimilars are increasingly available for the treatment of many serious disorders, however some concerns persist about switching a patient to a biosimilar whose condition is stable while on the reference biologic. Randomized controlled studies and extension studies with a switch treatment period (STP) to or from a biosimilar and its reference biologic were identified from publicly available information maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These findings were augmented with data from peer reviewed publications containing information not captured in FDA reviews. Forty-four STPs were identified from 31 unique studies for 21 different biosimilars. Data were extracted and synthesized following PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the overall risk difference across studies. A total of 5,252 patients who were switched to or from a biosimilar and its reference biologic were identified. Safety data including deaths, serious adverse events, and treatment discontinuation showed an overall risk difference (95% CI) of -0.00 (-0.00, 0.00), 0.00 (-0.01, 0.01), -0.00 (-0.01, 0.00) across STPs, respectively. Immunogenicity data showed similar incidence of anti-drug antibodies and neutralizing antibodies in patients within a STP who were switched to or from a biosimilar to its reference biologic and patients who were not switched. Immune related adverse events such as anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity reactions, and injections site reactions were similar in switched and non-switched patients. This first systematic review using statistical methods to address the risk of switching patients between reference biologics and biosimilars finds no difference in the safety profiles or immunogenicity rates in patients who were switched and those who remained on a reference biologic or a biosimilar.

Discontinuation of infliximab treatment in patients with inflammatory bowel disease who retransitioned to originator and those who remained on biosimilar

Background

Many patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have transitioned from an infliximab originator to a biosimilar. However, some patients retransition to the originator (i.e. stop biosimilar and reinitiate the originator). Whether this sign of potential unsatisfactory treatment response is specifically related to the infliximab biosimilar or the patient and/or the disease including patients' beliefs on the biosimilar is unclear.

Objectives

We aimed to compare the risk of and reasons for infliximab discontinuation between retransitioned patients and those remaining on biosimilar.

Design

Non-interventional, multicentre cohort study.

Methods

IBD patients who transitioned from infliximab originator to biosimilar between January 2015 and September 2019 in two Dutch hospitals were eligible for this study. Retransitioned patients (retransitioning cohort) were matched with patients remaining on biosimilar (biosimilar remainder cohort). Reasons for discontinuation were categorised as the unwanted response (i.e. loss of effect or adverse events) or remission. Risk of unwanted discontinuation was compared using Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

Patients in the retransitioning cohort (n = 44) were younger (median age 39.9 versus 44.0 years), more often female (65.9% versus 48.9%) and had shorter dosing intervals (median 48.5 versus 56.0 days) than in the biosimilar remainder cohort (n = 127). Infliximab discontinuation due to unwanted response was 22.7% in the retransitioning and 13.4% in the biosimilar remainder cohort, and due to remission was 2.3% and 9.4%, respectively. Retransitioned patients are at increased risk of discontinuing due to unwanted response compared with biosimilar remainder patients (adjusted HR 3.7, 95% CI: 1.0-13.9). Patients who retransitioned due to an increase in objective disease markers had higher discontinuation rates than patients who retransitioned due to symptoms only (66.7% versus 23.7%).

Conclusion

Retransitioned patients are at increased risk of infliximab discontinuation due to unwanted response. Retransitioning appeared related to the patient and/or disease and not the product. Clinicians might switch patients opting for retransitioning to other treatment regimens.

A place for biosimilars in the changing multiple sclerosis treatment landscape

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Assessment of Reported Adverse Events After Interchanging Between TNF-α Inhibitor Biosimilars in the WHO Pharmacovigilance Database

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Observational studies have shown that a significant proportion of patients interchanging between tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor biosimilars withdraws from the new treatment because of adverse effects. We aim to analyze adverse events related to interchanging from tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitor reference products to biosimilars and between biosimilars reported in the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database.

METHODS

We extracted all cases reporting the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities term "Product substitution issue (PT)" for TNF-α inhibitors. Then, we analyzed and categorized all adverse events reported in more than 1% of cases. We compared the adverse events reported according to reporter qualification, type of switch, and type of TNF-α inhibitor using Chi2 tests. We conducted a network analysis coupled with a clustering approach to identify syndromes of co-reported adverse events.

RESULTS

In the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database, 2543 cases and 6807 adverse events related to TNF-α inhibitor interchangeability have been reported up to October 2022. Injection-site reactions were the most reported adverse events with 940 cases (37.0%), followed by modifications in drug effect in 607 cases (23.9%). Musculoskeletal, cutaneous, and gastrointestinal disorders linked to the underlying disease were reported in 505 (20.0%), 145 (5.7%), and 207 (8.1%) cases, respectively. Adverse events non-related to the underlying disease were nonspecific (n = 458, 18.0%), neurologic (n = 224, 8.8%), respiratory (n = 132, 5.2%), and psychological disorders (n = 64, 2.5%). Injection-site reactions and infection-related symptoms (e.g., nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infection, lower respiratory tract infection) were more reported by non-healthcare professionals while adverse events related to reduced clinical efficacy (e.g., drug ineffective, arthralgia, psoriasis) were more reported by healthcare professionals. The proportions of injection-site reactions were higher when switching between biosimilars of the same reference product, but the proportions of adverse events related to reduced clinical efficacy (e.g., psoriasis, arthritis, psoriatic arthropathy) were more reported when switching from a reference product. The main differences in the proportions of reported cases between adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept were driven by symptoms related to the underlying targeted diseases, except for a higher reporting rate of injection-site pain with adalimumab. Adverse events evocative of hypersensitivity reactions were reported in 192 (7.6%) cases. Most of the network clusters concerned non-specific adverse events or were related to reduced clinical efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis highlights the burden of patient-reported adverse events when interchanging between TNF-α inhibitor biosimilars, notably injection-site reactions, non-specific adverse events, and symptoms related to reduced clinical efficacy. Our study also highlights differences in reporting patterns between patients and healthcare professionals and depending on the type of switch. The results are limited by missing data, the lack of precision of the coded Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms, and by the variability of reporting rate of adverse events. Thus, incidence rates of adverse events cannot be inferred from these results.

Self-reported efficacy and safety of infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars after non-medical switch in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: results of a multicenter survey

BACKGROUND

Few data are available on subjective disease control and perception of adverse events (AEs) during switching from original anti-TNF agents to biosimilars.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Hungarian patients with inflammatory bowel disease were interviewed after a mandatory non-medical switch from an infliximab (IFX) originator to a biosimilar GP1111 or from an adalimumab (ADA) originator to a biosimilar GP2017. Drug choice was based on patient's and physician's decision. Subjective efficacy was measured using a 10-point scale, and AEs were assessed. Difference in efficacy before and after the switch was compared within and between the drugs.

RESULTS

Seventy-three ADA and 106 IFX switching patients were interviewed. Subjective efficacy of IFX biosimilar was rated lower compared to IFX originator (8.72 ± 1.68 vs. 7.77 ± 2.34; p = 0.001). The ADA biosimilar was rated higher than its originator (9.02 ± 1.61 vs. 8.42 ± 1.93; p = 0.017). Patients receiving ADA biosimilar were more satisfied with the new treatment compared to IFX (p = 0.032). The incidence of new AEs was 85% in the ADA and 55% in the IFX group (1.79 vs. 0.93 AEs per patient, respectively, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Subjective efficacy of switching to a biosimilar was proven in case of ADA, while reduced efficacy was experienced with IFX biosimilar. Perception of AEs was high and varied between biosimilars.

Outcomes Following Adalimumab Bio-originator to Biosimilar Switch-A Comparison Using Real-world Patient- and Physician-Reported Data in European Countries

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this work is to compare real-world outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving adalimumab (ADA) bio-originator (non-switchers) to those who had switched from ADA bio-originator to an ADA biosimilar (switchers) on the basis of the hypothesis that these outcomes would differ.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of physicians and their patients in Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) in 2020. Physicians completed a questionnaire for their next ten adult patients with RA, followed by four additional patients who had switched from ADA bio-originator to an ADA biosimilar (switchers). Physician- and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for switchers and non-switchers were compared by propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Three hundred and three rheumatologists provided data for 160 non-switchers and 225 switchers, 140 patients provided data; 51 non-switchers, 89 switchers. According to physician-reported disease activity, non-switchers were more likely to improve on their current ADA treatment than switchers (68%, n = 108 vs. 26%, n = 59 p < 0.001) and less likely to worsen (1%, n = 2 vs. 9%, n = 20; p < 0.01). Physician-reported patient adherence was significantly lower amongst switchers versus non-switchers (0.66 vs. 0.78, respectively; p = 0.04). More non-switchers than switchers were reported by their physicians to be consistent in taking their RA medicine (p < 0.001). Compared with non-switchers, PRO measures indicated quality of life was worse (EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale: 62.9 vs. 71.9; p < 0.001) and activity impairment was greater (Work Productivity Activity Index: 31.0 vs. 24.4; p = 0.02) for switchers, with trends for poorer health status and greater pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-medical switching in RA treatment may lead to unforeseen outcomes that should be considered by health decision-makers.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of a biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch of the TNF inhibitor etanercept in patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases

Background:

Biosimilar disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bsDMARDs) has created a financial incentive to encourage switching to cheaper products.

Objectives:

We aim to study the effectiveness and safety of a non-medical bsDMARD-to-bsDMARD switch from originator etanercept (ETN) to bsDMARD ETN (SB4) and successive to another bsDMARD ETN (GP2015) in patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases in a real-life setting.

Methods:

Retrospective chart review of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who had been treated with originator ETN and were switched twice to ETN bsDMARD for non-medical reasons thereafter. All patients received ETN 50 mg/week. Disease activity and physical function was assessed every 12 weeks with standardized questionnaires.

Results:

A total of 100 patients who switched twice [54 RA, 27 axSpA, 19 PsA, mean age 54.3 (15.1), 46% male] were included. Patients with axSpA were younger than RA and PsA patients. Patients with SpA were less likely to receive conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) than RA patients. Duration of treatment with originator ETN before the first switch was 3.3 (2.3) years. Retention rate 6 months after the second ETN bsDMARD switch was 89%. Disease activity and physical function scores remained rather unchanged in patients with RA and axSpA longitudinally, while there was some more fluctuation in PsA patients. Six patients lost efficacy and were switched back to originator ETN in month 6 (n = 4) or to another mode of action (n = 2). There were 14 adverse events (AE) reported in eight patients. One patient re-administered bsDMARD GP2015 successfully 3 months after healing of mucosal erosions.

Conclusion:

No relevant change in disease activity and physical function were observed in a non-medical bsDMARD-to-bsDMARD switch scenario. The retention rate after switches from originator ETN to two ETN bsDMARD was close to 90%. Multiple switches resulted in a high adherence rate without clinically important efficacy or safety signals.

The Impact of Mandatory Nonmedical Switching From Originator to Biosimilar Insulin Glargine

PURPOSE

This study monitors for early changes in health services utilization after a mandatory policy to switch patients from originator to biosimilar insulin glargine in British Columbia, Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients treated with originator insulin glargine. The policy cohort included patients treated with originator insulin glargine in the 6 months before the policy change (May 27, 2019). Three historical control cohorts included users of originator insulin glargine during the 6 months before May 27 each year in 2016, 2017, and 2018. Patients who discontinued or switched use of the originator insulin glargine and those without cost coverage by the provincial drug plan were excluded. Using likelihood ratios, we compared the daily use of medications, outpatient visits, and hospitalizations in the 12 months after the policy change with the daily use in 3 historical control cohorts. A sustained likelihood ratio above a predefined threshold of 7.1 was interpreted as an early signal of a possible policy impact.

FINDINGS

Each cohort included 15,344 to 17,310 patients. In the first year of the policy, we observed increases in (1) insulin glargine use (the cumulative incidence increased by 2.5% compared with the mean of the 3 historical cohorts), (2) oral antidiabetic medication use (increased by 2.8%), and (3) outpatient visits (increased by 1.4%). Likelihood ratios greater than the threshold of 7.1 were detected for these 3 outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS

We observed marginal changes in health services utilization without detecting signals of negative health impacts on patients targeted by the British Columbia policy of mandatory switching from originator to biosimilar insulin glargine.

Real-world data on switching from intravenous to subcutaneous vedolizumab treatment in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Vedolizumab is a gut-selective treatment approved for Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Recently, a subcutaneous formulation of vedolizumab was approved. The aims of this study were to evaluate efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, patient experience and costs following a switch from intravenous to subcutaneous vedolizumab treatment.

METHODS

Patients were switched from intravenous to subcutaneous vedolizumab maintenance treatment and followed prospectively for 6 months and a subgroup for 12 months. The primary endpoint was change in faecal calprotectin levels. Furthermore, we evaluated clinical disease activity, remission rates, plasma CRP, drug persistence, adverse events, local injection reactions, serum drug concentrations, patient satisfaction, quality-of-life and treatment costs.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine patients were included (48 CD; 41 UC). Faecal calprotectin decreased significantly in CD but not in UC. Clinical indices, remission rates, plasma CRP levels and quality-of-life scores remained unchanged. Patients that had been on standard compared to optimised IV vedolizumab dosing displayed similar outcomes on standard SC dosing. Drug persistence at 6 and 12 months was 95.5% and 88.5%, respectively. Frequencies of adverse events were similar before and after the switch. No serious adverse events occurred. Transient severe local injection reactions were experienced by 1.2% of patients. Median vedolizumab trough levels were 2.3 times higher on subcutaneous compared to intravenous treatment. Patient satisfaction was generally high. Annualised treatment costs were reduced by 15% following the switch.

CONCLUSIONS

The switch from intravenous to subcutaneous vedolizumab could be done with preserved therapeutic effectiveness, safety, high patient satisfaction and low discontinuation rate, at a reduced cost.

Emerging role of biosimilars in the clinical care of inflammatory bowel disease patients

The increasing incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) globally has redirected the healthcare system's focus towards safe and affordable pharmacological interventions. The inception of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) had resulted in a trend shift from surgical interventions. However, as the patents of approved anti-TNF-α drugs expire, biological copies of the many approved products are in the pipeline. The most commonly used biosimilar for IBD has been infliximab, followed by Adalimumab biosimilars which have been approved in major countries across the world. Although biosimilars are approved on the basis of similarity of their reference product, the lack of real-world evidence of its safety in ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease patients has contributed to physicians’ hesitancy. However, biosimilars are expected to reduce treatment costs and provide economic benefits.

Impact of switching to infliximab biosimilars on treatment patterns among US veterans receiving innovator infliximab

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatment patterns of United States (US) veterans stable on innovator infliximab (IFX) who switched to an IFX biosimilar (switchers) or remained on innovator IFX (continuers).

METHODS

US Veterans Healthcare Administration data (01/2012-12/2019) were used to identify adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), plaque psoriasis (PsO), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), or Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis (i.e. inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]), treated with innovator or biosimilar IFX. Index date was the first IFX biosimilar administration for switchers or a random innovator IFX administration for continuers. Patients were required to have ≥5 innovator IFX administrations during the 12 months pre-index (prevalent population). Patients with ≥12 months of observation prior to the first innovator IFX administration were analyzed as the primary population (incident population), and data were assessed from start of innovator IFX. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. Treatment patterns were evaluated post-index; continuers were censored before switching to IFX biosimilar. Discontinuation was defined as switching to another biologic (including innovator IFX) or having ≥120 days between 2 consecutive index treatment records.

RESULTS

In the incident population, mean [median] duration of follow-up was 737 [796] days among switchers (N = 838) and 479 [337] days among continuers (N = 849). Compared to continuers, switchers were 2.88-times more likely to discontinue index therapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.88, p < .001) and 4.99-times more likely to switch to another innovator biologic (HR = 4.99, p < .001). Of 653 switchers switching to another innovator biologic, 594 (91.0%) switched back to innovator IFX. Results were similar among the prevalent population and RA and IBD subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Patients switching from innovator to biosimilar IFX were more likely to discontinue treatment and switch to another innovator biologic (notably back to innovator IFX) than those remaining on innovator IFX; however, reasons for discontinuation and switching are unknown.

Effectiveness of SB4 Transition from Originator Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Subgroup Analysis from the BENEFIT Study

OBJECTIVES

The pan-European BENEFIT study of patients with stable rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who transitioned from reference etanercept to SB4 found no clinically meaningful changes in disease control after transition. The analysis aims to illustrate the peculiarities of the Italian cohort of patients compared with the whole population to provide a more real-life approach to the data for the Italian rheumatologists, ruling out possible local confounding factors.

METHODS

A prospective study for up to 6 months following transition was conducted. Outcome measures of interest include clinical characteristics at time of transition and disease activity scores (Disease Activity Score-28 [DAS28] for RA, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] for axSpA) over time and safety.

RESULTS

One-hundred and eleven subjects (out of the 557 in total enrolled in the study) were derived from 8 Italian sites, including 79 with RA and 32 with axSpA. In both cohorts, the efficacy was maintained at 3 months and 6 months from the transition to the biosimilar with no significant change in mean DAS28 and BASDAI scores: at the end of the 6 months of observation the mean DAS28 and BASDAI was similar to baseline (confidence interval [CI] -0.22, 0.22), while the mean variation of the BASDAI was -0.14. Of note, 100.0% (95% CI 89.1, 100.0) in the axSpA and 90.8% (95% CI 81.5, 95.5) in the RA cohort of patients continued to receive SB4 at month 6 (binary variable with 95% Clopper-Pearson CI).

CONCLUSIONS

Italian patients with stable RA or axSpA who transitioned from originator Etanercept to SB4 maintained clinical response at 6 months post-transition. Both the cohorts are representative of typical patients with long-standing established diagnoses. Most of the patients transitioned to the same dose regimen of biosimilar as that received for the originator, and the regimen remained unchanged at 6 months, supporting the effectiveness of the transition.

Influence of information provided prior to switching from Humira to biosimilar adalimumab on UK patients' satisfaction: a cross-sectional survey by patient organisations

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the perceptions and experiences of people with specific immune-mediated inflammatory diseases during the process of switching from Humira to biosimilar adalimumab.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

An anonymised, self-administered, web-based survey.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were drawn from members and non-members of either the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, Crohn's and Colitis UK, or Psoriasis Association. Birdshot Uveitis Society and Olivia's Vision also signposted to the survey links.

RESULTS

A total of 899 people living with various immune mediated inflammatory diseases participated in this survey. Thirty-four per cent of respondents reported poor overall satisfaction with their biosimilar adalimumab after the switch, associated with complaints related to the switching process including lack of shared decision making, scarcity of information provided by or signposted to by the department instigating the switch as well as lack of training with the new injection device. Where training with the new device had been provided, there were significantly reduced reports of pain when injecting the new biosimilar (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.55), side effects (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.47) and difficulty in using the new injection device (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41). Self-reported side effects were reduced by (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.38) when written information was provided by healthcare professionals and by (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.42) with provision of verbal information. Difficulty in using the new injection device was also reduced by provision of satisfactory information such as written documents (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.63) or by verbal communication with healthcare professionals (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.73). Finally, provision of satisfactory written or verbal information was associated with a reduction in any negative perception regarding symptom control with the new biosimilar by (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.57) and by (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.84), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient reported experiences of the process of switching from originator to biosimilar emphasise the importance of clear communication, training and information in order to optimise perception and maximise achievable outcomes with the new treatment.

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.

The Economic Impact of Originator-to-Biosimilar Non-medical Switching in the Real-World Setting: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

To save costs to the healthcare system, forced non-medical switch (NMS) policies that cut drug coverage for originator biologics and fund only less expensive biosimilars are being implemented. However, costs related to the impact of NMS on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) must also be considered. This study aims to summarize the evidence on the economic impact of an originator-to-biosimilar NMS.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted. Publications reporting on HCRU or costs associated with originator-to-biosimilar NMS in the real-world setting were searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2008 to February 2020. In addition to hand searching the reference lists of relevant publications and SLRs, key conference websites, PubMed, and various government sites were also searched for the 2 years preceding the search (2018-2020).

RESULTS

A total of 1845 citations were identified, of which 49 were retained for data extraction. Most studies reporting on the HCRU associated with NMS reported on post-NMS HCRU alone without a comparison pre-NMS. However, four studies described a difference in HCRU (i.e., investigations pre- vs post-switch or between non-switchers vs switchers), all of which reported a relative increase in HCRU, including laboratory testing, imaging, medical visits, and hospitalizations, amongst patients who underwent an originator-to-biosimilar NMS. Most studies reporting on the costs associated with NMS reported significant savings following NMS on the basis of drug costs alone. However, four studies specifically reporting on the difference of costs following originator-to-biosimilar NMS all demonstrated an increase in HCRU-related costs associated with NMS (increase in HCRU-related costs of 4-37% or 148-2234 2020 Canadian dollars).

CONCLUSION

Amongst the studies that reported on the difference in HCRU pre- vs post-switch or between non-switchers and switchers, all showed an increase in HCRU and related costs associated with NMS, suggesting that the expected overall savings due to less costly drug prices may be reduced as a result of an increase in HCRU and its associated costs post-switch. Nevertheless, more real-world studies that include NMS-related healthcare costs in addition to drug costs are needed.

Impact of a clinical pharmacist in a multidisciplinary consultation on the switch to a biosimilar for inflammatory rheumatic diseases

OBJECTIVE

Despite several studies proving the efficacy and safety of biosimilars compared with original drugs, switching to a biosimilar remains challenging when the decision is at the discretion of physicians with mandatory consent from patients. Educating patients about biosimilars seems important to increase the prescription rate of biosimilars. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a clinical pharmacist consultation on the switch to and retention rate of a biosimilar for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

METHODS

This retrospective study compared 2 groups of adult patients receiving (intervention) or not (control) a consultation with a pharmacist right before the rheumatologist consultation. The primary outcome was the frequency of patients who switched to a biosimilar at the end of the rheumatologist visit.

RESULTS

We analysed 141 patients (50% women, 50±15 years old, on original adalimumab (62%) or etanercept (38%)) who had never used biosimilars: 85 in the intervention group and 56 in the control group. The switch rate to a biosimilar significantly differed between the groups: 69.4% versus 41.1% in the intervention group versus the control group respectively (p<0.01). After a 1-year follow-up period, 72.5% versus 81.3% of patients who switched were still on biosimilar in the intervention versus control group respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the positive impact of a pharmacist consultation before the physician's one on switching to a biosimilar, but more studies are needed to assess the impact of this pharmacist consultation on preventing the nocebo effect and therefore on improving the retention rate of biosimilars.

Outcome of Reverse Switching From CT-P13 to Originator Infliximab in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Patients suffering from inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) and treated with originator infliximab are increasingly being switched to biosimilars. Some patients, however, are "reverse switched" to treatment with the originator. Here we assess the prevalence of reverse switching, including its indication and outcomes.

METHODS

In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, data on patients with IBD from 9 hospitals in the Netherlands were collected. All adult patients with IBD were included if they previously had been switched from originator infliximab to the biosimilar CT-P13 and had a follow-up time of at least 52 weeks after the initial switch. The reasons for reverse switching were categorized into worsening gastrointestinal symptoms, adverse effects, or loss of response to CT-P13. Drug persistence was analyzed through survival analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 758 patients with IBD were identified. Reverse switching was observed in 75 patients (9.9%). Patients with reverse switching were predominantly female (70.7%). Gastrointestinal symptoms (25.5%) and dermatological symptoms (21.8%) were the most commonly reported reasons for reverse switching. In 9 patients (12.0%), loss of response to CT-P13 was the reason for reverse switching. Improvement of reported symptoms was seen in 73.3% of patients after reverse switching and 7 out of 9 patients (77.8%) with loss of response regained response. Infliximab persistence was equal between patients who were reverse-switched and those who were maintained on CT-P13.

CONCLUSIONS

Reverse switching occurred in 9.9% of patients, predominantly for biosimilar-attributed adverse effects. Switching back to originator infliximab seems effective in patients who experience adverse effects, worsening gastrointestinal symptoms, or loss of response after switching from originator infliximab to CT-P13.

The mode of delivery and content of communication strategies used in mandatory and non-mandatory biosimilar transitions: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Effective patient-provider communication is crucial to promote shared decision-making. However, it is unclear how to explain treatment changes to ensure patient acceptance, such as when transitioning from a bio-originator to a biosimilar. This review investigates communication strategies used to educate patients on transitioning to biosimilars and explores whether the willingness to transition and treatment persistence differs for the delivery (verbal or written) and the amount of information provided. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and relevant conference databases were systematically searched. Communication strategies from 33 studies (88% observational cohort studies) published from 2012 to 2020 were synthesized and willingness to transition, persistence, and subjective adverse events explored. Patients only received information verbally in 11 studies. The remaining 22 studies also provided written information. Cost-saving was the main reason provided for the transition. Patients were most willing to transition when receiving written and verbal information (χ² = 5.83, p = .02) or written information that only addressed a few (3-5) concerns (χ² = 16.08, p < .001). There was no significant difference for persistence or subjective adverse events (p's > .05). Few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. Available data shows more willingness to transition when patients received written and verbal information. Initial documents should contain basic information and consultations or telephone calls used to address concerns.

Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Infliximab-dyyb and Infliximab in Biologic-Naive Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the United States

Background

Real-world assessments of biosimilars are needed to understand their effectiveness and safety in practice settings that may differ from those seen in clinical trials or healthcare systems in different countries. To assess the effectiveness and safety of a biosimilar (infliximab-dyyb) and its reference product (infliximab) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in the United States.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of biologic-naive patients with IBD who started treatment with infliximab-dyyb or infliximab. The study included 3206 patients identified through electronic health records in a US integrated healthcare delivery system. The effectiveness outcome was a composite of IBD-related surgery, IBD-related emergency room visit, and IBD-related hospitalization within 12 months of initiation. Safety outcomes included incidence of any or serious infection, cancer, acute liver dysfunction, and tuberculosis. We used a non-inferiority test with an upper-limit margin of 10% to analyze effectiveness. Doubly robust methods incorporating Cox proportional hazard regression with standardized inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to analyze both effectiveness and safety outcomes.

Results

The composite effectiveness outcome occurred in 107 of 870 patients (12.3%) in the infliximab-dyyb and 379 of 2336 patients (16.2%) in the infliximab groups. Infliximab-dyyb was non-inferior (P < .01) and was not different (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.01; P = .06) to infliximab. Safety outcomes were not different between infliximab-dyyb and infliximab for any infections (HR 1.01; CI 0.86-1.17; P = .95), serious infections (HR 0.83; CI 0.54-1.26; P = .38), cancers (HR 0.83; CI 0.44-1.54; P = .55), and tuberculosis (HR 0.59; CI 0.10-3.55; P = .57).

Conclusions

Initiation of infliximab-dyyb was non-inferior to infliximab among biologic-naive patients with IBD in an US integrated healthcare delivery system.

Biobetters in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders: An international Delphi consensus

Several efforts have been made to improve the available therapeutic armamentarium of patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders (IMIDs) leading to the development of biobetters. To date, there is no commonly accepted definition of biobetters. Sixteen physicians with expertise in the field of IMIDs from eleven countries attended a virtual international consensus meeting to provide for the first time a definition of biobetter and to identify unmet needs on this topic. Improvements in clinical outcomes and drug pharmacology were considered crucial for the definition of biobetters, while safety profile and patient acceptability were not. In addition, an appropriate balance between clinical outcomes and costs and a shared decision between physicians and patients should guide the decision to use a biobetter. Clinical studies are required to validate the biobetter definition and to investigate their role in the management of patients with IMIDs.

The Automatic Substitution of Biosimilars: Definitions of Interchangeability are not Interchangeable

In the USA, an interchangeability designation provides biosimilar sponsors with a pathway for achieving what is standard for small-molecule generics: pharmacy-level auto-substitution for an innovator. No other major health authority links interchangeability to automatic substitution, as all require the involvement of the prescriber or patient in a medication change. This editorial considers the clinical impact and practicality of auto-substitution. First, interchangeability is linked to non-medical switching (NMS), the practice of switching treatment in patients with stable disease for non-clinical reasons. NMS may generate negative sentiment in those unwilling or reluctant to switch, which can adversely impact treatment outcomes (i.e., nocebo effect). Indeed, in real-world studies of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, discontinuation rates have been shown to be higher in patients switched to biosimilars for non-medical reasons than in historical cohorts maintained on innovators. Second, interchangeability may impede pharmacovigilance and traceability, as not all jurisdictions require innovators and biosimilars to have distinct biologic names. Third, an interchangeability designation from the US Food and Drug Administration only permits a biosimilar to be automatically substituted for its innovator, not other biosimilars (if available). Pharmacist education would be needed to avoid off-label, automatic substitution among biosimilars of a single innovator. Last, once granted, an interchangeability designation exists in perpetuity under current US federal law. However, the supply chains of innovators and biosimilars are maintained independently, with no requirement for reconfirmation of biosimilarity or interchangeability. We feel that additional guidance is needed for the auto-substitution of biosimilars and innovators to become a reality.

Switching to an Infliximab Biosimilar Was Safe and Effective in Dutch Sarcoidosis Patients

The effect of switching from originator infliximab to biosimilar infliximab in patients with sarcoidosis is unknown. The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of switching from Remicade^® or Inflectra^® to Flixabi^® in patients with severe refractory sarcoidosis. This single center retrospective cohort study was performed at St Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. All patients diagnosed with severe refractory sarcoidosis receiving Remicade^® or Inflectra^® switched to Flixabi^®. The primary outcome was infliximab discontinuation within 6 months of switching. Secondary endpoints included adverse events and loss of clinical, functional, or inflammatory response. Out of 86 patients who switched to Flixabi^®, 79 patients had complete data. None of the 79 patients discontinued infliximab during the first 6 months after switching. Five patients reported an adverse event related to Flixabi^® treatment. We found no change from baseline in FVC, FEV1, DLCOc, 6MWT, and infliximab trough levels 26 weeks after switching. An improvement in physical functioning of 7.3 ± 13.4 points (p = 0.002) with RAND/SF36 and in biomarker sIL-2R (−475.58 ± 1452.39; p = 0.005) was observed. Switching from originator infliximab Remicade^® or biosimilar infliximab Inflectra^® to biosimilar infliximab Flixabi^® did not result in treatment discontinuation or loss of clinical/functional/inflammatory remission.

Switching From Reference Infliximab to Biosimilar CT-P13 Did Not Change Quality of Life in Stable Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients

Background

Quality of life (QoL) data for patients with inflammatory bowel disease switched from the reference infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 is lacking. This study aims to demonstrate noninferiority for QoL and efficacy after switching.

Methods

OoL and clinical efficacy were measured prior to and after 2, 4, and 6 CT-P13 infusions.

Results

One hundred seventy-eight patients were included. Noninferiority was established for QoL [ratio 97.95% (95% confidence interval 95.93 to 100.01)] and efficacy [difference -0.02 (95% confidence interval -0.68 to 0.64)]. Five patients reported 6 nonrelated, serious adverse events.

Conclusions

Switching from reference infliximab to CT-P13 did not affect the QoL or disease activity and was well tolerated.

Biologic Drugs for Rheumatoid Arthritis in the Context of Biosimilars, Genetics, Epigenetics and COVID-19 Treatment

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects around 1.2% of the adult population. RA is one of the main reasons for work disability and premature retirement, thus substantially increasing social and economic burden. Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) were shown to be an effective therapy especially in those rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, who did not adequately respond to conventional synthetic DMARD therapy. However, despite the proven efficacy, the high cost of the therapy resulted in limitation of the widespread use and unequal access to the care. The introduction of biosimilars, which are much cheaper relative to original drugs, may facilitate the achievement of the therapy by a much broader spectrum of patients. In this review we present the properties of original biologic agents based on cytokine-targeted (blockers of TNF, IL-6, IL-1, GM-CSF) and cell-targeted therapies (aimed to inhibit T cells and B cells properties) as well as biosimilars used in rheumatology. We also analyze the latest update of bDMARDs' possible influence on DNA methylation, miRNA expression and histone modification in RA patients, what might be the important factors toward precise and personalized RA treatment. In addition, during the COVID-19 outbreak, we discuss the usage of biologicals in context of effective and safe COVID-19 treatment. Therefore, early diagnosing along with therapeutic intervention based on personalized drugs targeting disease-specific genes is still needed to relieve symptoms and to improve the quality of life of RA patients.

Effectiveness of Switching from Reference Product Infliximab to Infliximab-Dyyb in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease in an Integrated Healthcare System in the United States: A Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched, Non-Inferiority Cohort Study

PURPOSE

The aim was to compare outcomes in adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who switched to infliximab-dyyb with those who remained on reference product (RP) infliximab in the United States (US) in a retrospective, propensity score-matched, non-inferiority cohort trial.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective, non-inferiority study conducted within a US integrated healthcare system and included adult patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis. A 1:1 propensity score matching was utilized to match patients who switched to infliximab-dyyb during the period April 2016-March 2018 to patients who remained on RP infliximab. The non-inferiority margin was set at + 10% of the upper limit. The primary outcome was a composite measure of disease worsening requiring acute care after the index date of switching to infliximab-dyyb or continuing RP infliximab. Disease worsening requiring acute care was defined as any IBD-related emergency room visit, hospitalization, or surgery. The secondary outcome was the composite measure of disease worsening requiring acute care or treatment failure. A switch to another biologic or tofacitinib was a proxy for treatment failure. All patients were followed for up to 9 months.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, the matched cohort included 1409 patients in the infliximab-dyyb group and 1409 patients in the RP infliximab group. The overall mean age (± standard deviation) was 47.7 ± 17.0 years, 50.9% of patients were of male gender, and 51.8% of patients had Crohn's disease, while the remainder of the cohort had ulcerative colitis. There were 144 patients (10.2%) in the infliximab-dyyb group and 245 patients (17.4%) in the RP infliximab group who experienced disease worsening requiring acute care (P < 0.01 for non-inferiority). There were 347 patients (24.6%) in the infliximab-dyyb group who experienced disease worsening requiring acute care or treatment failure compared to 375 patients (26.6%) who remained on RP infliximab (P < 0.01 for non-inferiority).

CONCLUSION

There was no increased risk of (1) disease worsening requiring acute care or (2) disease worsening requiring acute care or treatment failure in patients with IBD who switched from RP infliximab to infliximab-dyyb when compared to patients who remained on RP infliximab in this US population. Infliximab-dyyb is an option for patients with IBD who need to use RP infliximab.

Switching and Discontinuation Patterns Among Patients Stable on Originator Infliximab Who Switched to an Infliximab Biosimilar or Remained on Originator Infliximab

OBJECTIVE

To compare switching and discontinuation patterns of patients stable on originator infliximab (IFX) who switched to an IFX biosimilar (switchers) or remained on originator IFX (continuers) in the United States.

METHODS

Symphony Health Solutions' Patient Transactional Datasets (10/2012-03/2019) were used to identify adults with ≥2 claims for either rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, ankylosing spondylitis, or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); and ≥1 claim for originator or biosimilar IFX. The index date was the first IFX biosimilar claim for switchers or a random originator IFX claim for continuers. All patients were required to have ≥5 originator IFX claims during the 12 months pre-index (prevalent population). The subset of patients with ≥12 months of observation prior to the first originator IFX claim was also analyzed (incident population). Switchers were matched 1:3 to continuers. Discontinuation was defined as having ≥120 days between 2 consecutive index treatment claims.

RESULTS

Prevalent switchers (N=1109) were 3.57-times more likely than continuers (N=3327) to switch to another originator biologic (hazard ratio [HR]=3.57, p<0.001). Of 249 prevalent switchers who switched to another originator biologic, 200 (80.3%) switched back to originator IFX. Incident switchers (N=571) were 2.55-times more likely than continuers (N=1713) to switch to another originator biologic (HR=2.55, p<0.001). Of 118 incident switchers who switched to another originator biologic, 90 (76.3%) switched back to originator IFX. Prevalent switchers were 1.25-times more likely than continuers to discontinue index therapy (HR=1.25, p<0.001). Similar results were observed in RA (prevalent population; switching: HR=3.49, p<0.001; discontinuation: HR=1.23, p=0.009) and IBD (prevalent population; switching: HR=3.82, p<0.001; discontinuation: HR=1.29, p=0.003) subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Patients switching from originator to biosimilar IFX were more likely to switch to another originator biologic (notably back to originator IFX) and discontinue index treatment than those remaining on originator IFX; however, reasons for switching are unknown.

Greater awareness of biosimilars and shared decision-making among patients attending rheumatology practices in Colorado, United States: Real-world data

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of studies and educational programs focused on biosimilars and shared decision-making among patients diagnosed with various rheumatic diseases.

AIM

To improve knowledge and awareness of biosimilars and shared decision-making among patients attending rheumatology practices in Colorado as well as to assess a rheumatology patient’s interest in discussing biosimilars as well as shared decision-making with others (e.g., medical professionals, family members, friends).

METHODS

Our goal was to work with 80 rheumatology teams in Colorado.  We developed and distributed 2000 multi-page brochures to each participating office and later conducted an online anonymous survey.

RESULTS

There were a total of 49 (2.5%) rheumatology patients who responded to our survey. After reading our educational booklet, many survey respondents identified the correct answer in most questions focused on biosimilars or shared decision-making. Our survey results suggest that patients attending rheumatology practices in Colorado are generally not involved in discussions with their providers regarding treatment plans or options. The improvement in scores after reading our educational materials was statistically significant for biosimilars and shared decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the level of knowledge and awareness of biosimilars and shared decision-making among patients attending rheumatology practices in Colorado was low. More educational programs as well as follow up trainings to measure changes in knowledge and awareness regarding biosimilars and shared decision-making among patients attending rheumatology practices are recommended.

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.

Knowledge and awareness of biosimilars and shared decision-making among gastroenterology team members in Colorado, USA

Background: There are gaps in gastroenterologist team members' understanding of various topics related to biosimilars. We aimed to examine perspectives, views, and attitudes toward biosimilar and shared decision-making (SDM) among gastroenterology team members in Colorado, USA. The ultimate goal was to increase knowledge and awareness of biosimilars and SDM. Research design and methods: We developed educational materials focused on biosimilars and SDM and distributed them to each participating gastroenterology office. Subsequently, we conducted a survey of all team members from participating offices. Results: Responses were obtained from 54 gastroenterology team members. Most respondents identified the correct answer regarding biosimilars, the nocebo effect, and SDM. Almost half (47.2%) of respondents scored their level of awareness regarding biosimilars prior to reading our educational materials as poor, and nearly one quarter (26.4%) indicated so for SDM. Improvement in scores after reading our materials was significant for both biosimilars and SDM (i.e. biosimilar: z = 6.276, p-value <0.001 and SDM z = 6.328, p-value <0.001). Conclusions: Educational efforts effectively increased the low baseline knowledge and awareness of biosimilars and SDM among gastroenterology team members. More educational projects focused on biosimilars and SDM are needed to reduce the nocebo effect and prevent hampering of the cost-savings of biosimilars.

Biosimilar switching in inflammatory bowel disease: from evidence to clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

After patents' expiration of biological originators, several biosimilars of infliximab and adalimumab have been authorized. The approval is based on data extrapolated from other indications for which the originator has been previously tested. Despite rigorous approval processes by regulatory entities, physicians' and patients' knowledge about biosimilars is limited and some concerns about their use persist.

AREAS COVERED

This article summarizes the evidence on efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars currently approved in Europe for IBD treatment, by reviewing the literature on PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases up to mid-July 2020. Particular emphasis was placed on the need to further improve communication with patients and physicians' knowledge on biosimilars.

EXPERT OPINION

Adoption of biosimilars in clinical practice represents a great opportunity from an economic point of view, reducing healthcare costs and increasing patients' access to effective biologic treatments. Clinicians should be aware and confident of the latest evidence on available biosimilars and be very careful in communicating information to patients. Nocebo effect should not be overlooked since it can negatively influence outcomes of biosimilar-treated subjects, limiting the wide use of biosimilars. Evaluating the outcomes of reverse, multiple, and cross-switch will be a challenge for the next years.

Nocebo effect and biosimilars in inflammatory bowel diseases: what's new and what's next?

INTRODUCTION

The use of biosimilars for the treatment of patients with chronic inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) showed to be a valid strategy to reduce the economic burden of biologics on health-care costs and to increase patient access to treatment. However, the nocebo effect constitutes an important limitation to the wide use of biosimilars.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a literature overview to summarize information on nocebo effect in IBD population and to provide physicians with practical key strategies to prevent the nocebo effect in daily clinical practice and to improve patients' outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the proven efficacy and safety of biosimilars, further clinical studies are needed to define the effects of reverse and multiple switches in the management of patients with IBD. The development of new subcutaneous formulations, better accepted by patients, could contribute to reduce patients' negative expectations, and limit the nocebo effect.

Anti-TNF biosimilars in rheumatology: the end of an era?

INTRODUCTION

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatic diseases. Whilst extremely efficacious, the original TNFi also carried a high acquisition cost that limited their use. 'Biosimilar' TNFi's, developed on expiry of the patents for the biooriginators, have comparable efficacy and safety, are less expensive and provide the potential to improve access to these effective therapies in a more cost-effective manner.

AREAS COVERED

The background and development of TNFis, their biosimilars and follow on 'copycat' drugs are discussed, together with their use in both developed and developing countries, focusing on the potential to enhance access to effective targeted therapies.

EXPERT OPINION

Bridging the economic gap to facilitate universal access to anti-TNF biosimilars has been largely unsuccessful, driving the development of copycat mimics in developing countries. Meanwhile, the more recent introduction of targeted synthetic disease-modifying drugs has provided cheaper, equally effective treatments for rheumatic diseases that are conveniently delivered by mouth. We review the TNF biosimilars in rheumatic diseases, their role in a rapidly evolving treatment landscape, and speculate about the future for this iconic therapeutic class.