A Systematic Switch From Originator Infliximab to Biosimilar Infliximab in Patients With Non-Infectious Uveitis

Challenges for further successful development of tumor necrosis factor targeting therapies for uveitis

INTRODUCTION

Uveitis is a heterogeneous group of ocular conditions characterized by inflammation of the uveal tract and is one of the leading causes of vision impairment. In developed countries, noninfectious uveitis (NIU) represents most cases and is challenging to treat due to its severity, chronicity, and high recurrence rates. The advent of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF-α) agents have dramatically improved outcomes and changed treatment paradigms in NIU.

AREAS COVERED

The index article summarizes the present experience of anti-TNF-α agents in NIU pharmacotherapy and highlights the barriers to further research and development of anti-TNF-α agents for uveitis. Common challenges faced in NIU clinical drugs trials, specific difficulties in anti-TNF-α drug development, and promising competitor drug candidates are discussed and evaluated.

EXPERT OPINION

Anti-TNF-α agents have revolutionized NIU pharmacotherapy and greatly improved outcomes with good safety profiles. The great success of systemic infliximab and adalimumab in NIU treatment has resulted in little impetus for further development of this class of medication. Attempts have been made to deliver anti-TNF-α agents intravitreally but that has not been successful thus far. With expiring patents, competition from biosimilars and newer, novel molecules, it may not be viable to continue pursuing anti-TNF-α drug development.

Targeted therapies for uveitis in spondyloarthritis: A narrative review

Spondyloarthritis (SpA) encompasses a group of chronic inflammatory disorders of the joints frequently associated with uveitis in almost a quarter of cases. SpA-related uveitis typically affects the eye anterior chamber with sudden onset, causing pain, redness, photophobia, and blurred vision. Ophthalmologists will describe an acute anterior unilateral uveitis. Most patients present with episodic acute anterior non-granulomatous uveitis and retain excellent visual acuity. However, systemic treatments are recommended in the event of frequent relapses (2-3/year) or in rare cases of sight-threatening with ocular complications. The improved understanding of the pathogenesis of SpA has led to the management of this disease by biologics. Here, we review the main data regarding the opportunity to target specific components in inflammatory pathways for the treatment of SpA-related uveitis. These therapies are recommended for long-term control when uveitis relapses occur too frequently despite conventional systemic treatments. Significant benefits have been obtained with the tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (TNFis), particularly infliximab and adalimumab. Paradoxically, a high number of uveitis occurrences have been shown on etanercept. Mixed results have been demonstrated with interleukin-17 antagonists (secukinumab) and interleukin-12/interleukin-23 antagonists (ustekinumab) in cases of failure of TNFis. JAK inhibitors seem to be a valuable class of medications for these patients in the future. Although SpA-related uveitis is typically managed with conventional local and/or systemic treatments, these biological/targeted therapies may provide avenues to control both the underlying SpA and uveitis manifestations. Thus, a close collaboration between patients, rheumatologists, internists, and ophthalmologists is needed to optimally manage ocular inflammation in SpA.

Update on the systemic management of noninfectious uveitis in children and adolescents

Noninfectious uveitis (NIU) in children and adolescents is a rare but treatable cause of visual impairment in children. Treatments for pediatric NIU and their side effects, along with the risks of vision loss and the need for long-term disease monitoring, pose significant challenges for young patients and their families. Treatment includes local and systemic approaches and this review will focus on systemic therapies that encompass corticosteroids, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD), and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD). Treatment is generally planned in a stepwise approach. Methotrexate is well-established as the preferential csDMARD in pediatric NIU. Adalimumab, an antitumor necrosis factor (TNF) agent, is the only bDMARD formally approved for pediatric NIU and has a good safety and efficacy profile. Biosimilars are gaining increasing visibility in the treatment of pediatric NIU. Other bDMARD with some evidence in literature for the treatment of pediatric NIU include infliximab, tocilizumab, abatacept, rituximab and, more recently, Janus kinase inhibitors. Important aspects of managing children on these systemic therapies include vaccination issues, risk of infection, and psychological distress. Also, strategies need to address regarding primary nonresponse/secondary loss of response to anti-TNF treatment, biological switching, and monitoring regimens for these drugs. Optimal management of pediatric uveitis involves a multidisciplinary team, including specialist pediatric uveitis and rheumatology nurses, pediatric rheumatologists, psychological support, orthoptic and optometry support, and play specialists.

Recent advances in uveitis therapy: focus on selected phase 2 and 3 clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Uveitis is a heterogeneous group of ocular conditions characterized by inflammation of the uveal tract. It is a leading cause of blindness in developed countries and exerts significant psychological, social, and economic impact on both patients and the larger society. While there are numerous pharmacotherapy options, posterior segment noninfectious uveitis remains a significant challenge to treat due to its severity, chronicity, and high recurrence rates.

AREAS COVERED

The index review highlights the unmet needs of uveitis pharmacotherapy and its research and the shortcomings of existing ocular and systemic therapeutic options for noninfectious uveitis. The more promising novel ocular drug delivery methods and therapeutic targets/drugs are discussed, and evidence from the clinical trials is evaluated.

EXPERT OPINION

There has been incredible growth in the number of treatment options available to uveitis patients today, especially with the new generation of biologic drugs. Available evidence suggests that these newer options may be superior to conventional immunosuppressive therapies in terms of efficacy and side effect profiles. Further high-quality research and additional clinical trials will be needed to clarify their roles in the stepladder treatment approach of noninfectious uveitis.

Efficacy of Biosimilar Infliximab-Dyyb in Non-Infectious Uveitis

PURPOSE

To describe the frequency of uveitis recurrences in patients with non-infectious uveitis treated with the biosimilar infliximab-dyyb.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

Records of uveitis patients treated with the biosimilar infliximab-dyyb between 2016 and 2022 at two institutions were reviewed. Data extracted included patient demographics, diagnosis, previous originator infliximab use, additional immunosuppression medications, infliximab-dyyb use, reason for switch, disease activity, and follow-up time.

RESULTS

A total of 14 patients were identified. Seven patients were switched from originator infliximab to a biosimilar for nonmedical/non-ocular reasons (insurance prompted the switch). One patient was started directly on infliximab-dyyb due to active joint disease despite well-controlled uveitis. None of these eight patients developed inflammation after the switch. Six patients were started directly on infliximab-dyyb due to poorly controlled uveitis. Of these, five patients achieved disease quiescence during follow-up. The mean dose of originator was 1.79 mg/kg/week, with a median dosing schedule of 4 weeks prior to therapy with infliximab-dyyb. The mean final infliximab-dyyb dosage was 1.81 mg/kg/week, with a median dosing schedule of 4 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Infliximab-dyyb appears to be efficacious in achieving and maintaining uveitis control.

An Introduction to Biosimilars for the Treatment of Retinal Diseases: A Narrative Review

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of disease across a number of therapeutic areas including retinal diseases. However, on occasion, such treatments may be relatively more expensive compared to small molecule therapies. This can restrict patient access and treatment length leading to suboptimal clinical outcomes. Several biosimilar candidates of ranibizumab and aflibercept are currently in development and the first biosimilar of ranibizumab received EMA approval in August and FDA approval in September 2021. Biosimilars are biological medicines that are highly similar to an already-approved biological medicine (reference product). The physicochemical and clinical similarity of a biosimilar is determined by a rigorous analytical and clinical program, including extensive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis with phase III equivalence studies where appropriate. These phase III studies are carried out in a patient population that is representative of all of the potential approved therapeutic indications of the originator product and the most sensitive for detecting potential differences between the biosimilar and the reference product. Biosimilars have been used successfully across a wide range of therapeutic areas for the past 15 years where they have achieved substantial cost savings that can be reinvested into healthcare systems without affecting the quality of patient care. The current review provides an introduction to biosimilars with the aim of preparing retinal specialists for discussing these products with their patients.

Patients Retransitioning from Biosimilar TNFα Inhibitor to the Corresponding Originator After Initial Transitioning to the Biosimilar: A Systematic Review

Background

Transitioning patients from an originator to a corresponding biosimilar has been extensively studied in both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Although transitioning is considered well-tolerated, with no negative impacts on efficacy and/or safety, 2.6–25.8% of patients restart treatment with the originator (retransitioning). Retransitioning to the originator can be considered an indication of biosimilar treatment failure or dissatisfaction with biosimilar treatment. Increasing our knowledge of patients who retransition might help to reduce the number of patients retransitioning.

Objective

Our objective was to estimate the cumulative incidence of patients who retransitioned from a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitor biosimilar to originator and to explore potential patient, disease, and treatment and implementation strategy factors associated with retransitioning.

Method

We conducted a systematic literature search in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials databases until March 2021. Studies on TNFα inhibitors, biosimilar transitioning, and retransitioning were included. Transitioning was defined as switching from an originator to a biosimilar, and retransitioning was defined as switching from an originator to a biosimilar and back to the originator. Characteristics of the studies were descriptively analyzed. Studies were weighted by the number of patients transitioning, and the primary outcome was the median cumulative incidence of retransitioning. For each of the factors related to patient, disease, and treatment and implementation strategy, studies were stratified according to the categories of that factor. The weighted medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) of the cumulative incidence of retransitioning in these studies were calculated and compared to explore whether a potential association existed between these factors and the cumulative incidence of retransitioning.

Results

Of 994 screened publications, 37 were included. The weighted median cumulative incidence of retransitioning was 7.6% (IQR 6.8–17.2). Studies that included only patients with inflammatory bowel disease (6.6 vs. 15.1–17.7% for other indications), included only patients with stable disease (7.0 vs. 13.7% for including all patients), and did not offer retransitioning at the introduction of the biosimilar (7.0 vs. 11.1% for studies that offered retransitioning) reported less retransitioning. In addition, the incidence of retransitioning was lower when extra laboratory monitoring was part of the implementation strategy (1.6 vs. 6.1%) and when gainsharing (patients’ healthcare directly benefits from financial savings from transitioning) (1.4 vs. 7.2% for studies without gainsharing) was applied.

Conclusions

In studies on transitioning patients from TNFα originator to biosimilar, 8% of patients retransitioned. Retransitioning appeared to be lower in studies that included only patients with stable disease and in studies that did not offer patients the option of retransitioning at the introduction of the biosimilar. In addition, retransitioning appeared to be lower in studies that implemented extra laboratory monitoring as part of the biosimilar implementation strategy. Clinicians should consider implementing these suggestions as they might reduce retransitioning rates and improve the introduction of biosimilars in clinical practice.

PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42021226381

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-021-00508-4.