Switching Between Biologics and Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Perspectives on Subcutaneous Infliximab for Rheumatic Diseases and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Before, During, and After the COVID-19 Era

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has prompted significant changes in patient care in rheumatology and gastroenterology, with clinical guidance issued to manage ongoing therapy while minimising the risk of nosocomial infection for patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Subcutaneous (SC) formulations of biologics enable patients to self-administer treatments at home; however, switching between agents may be undesirable. CT-P13 SC is the first SC formulation of infliximab that received regulatory approval and may be termed a biobetter as it offers significant clinical advantages over intravenous (IV) infliximab, including improved pharmacokinetics and a convenient mode of delivery. Potential benefits in terms of reduced immunogenicity have also been suggested. With a new SC formulation, infliximab provides an additional option for dual formulation, which enables patients to transition from IV to SC administration route without changing agent. Before COVID-19, clinical trials supported the efficacy and safety of switching from IV to SC infliximab for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and SC infliximab may have been selected on the basis of patient and HCP preferences for SC agents. During the pandemic, patients with rheumatic diseases and IBD have successfully switched from IV to SC infliximab, with some clinical benefits and high levels of patient satisfaction. As patients switched to SC therapeutics, the reduction in resource requirements for IV infusion services may have been particularly welcome given the pandemic, facilitating reorganisation and redeployment in overstretched healthcare systems, alongside pharmacoeconomic benefits and a reduction in exposure to nosocomial infection. Telemedicine and contactless healthcare have been pushed to the forefront during the pandemic, and a lasting shift towards remote patient management and community/home-based drug administration is anticipated. SC infliximab supports the implementation of this paradigm for future improvements of healthcare value delivered. The accumulation of real-world data during the pandemic supports the high level of confidence, with patients, physicians, and healthcare systems benefitting from its uptake.

Healthcare system conversion to a biosimilar: Trials and tribulations

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

While biologic medications have transformed the care and management of millions of patients, they are a large financial strain on the healthcare system. Biosimilar medications present a great opportunity to improve care affordability. However, despite streamlined approval processes and the potential for cost savings, the acceptance and adaptation of biosimilars have been slow. This descriptive report illustrates the preparation for, challenges, and execution of an enterprise-wide biosimilar conversion within a large healthcare system. The 3 phases of biosimilar conversion utilized at our institution included selection of a biosimilar, pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committee approval, and implementation.

SUMMARY

When selecting a biosimilar, clinical data, medication safety, cost, institutional cost savings, payer coverage, patient assistance programs, and additional patient services should be taken into consideration to ensure patient care is not affected. Understanding and endorsement of biosimilar use by physician leadership, care managers, and pharmacists are crucial before implementation. P&T committee approval with clear delineation of the patient population (naive vs experienced), disease states, and whether the biosimilar would be the preferred medication should be obtained. Transparent communication of clear expectations to patients and coordination with the information technology (IT), contracting, and supply chain departments are necessary before the go-live date. Contracting and IT implementations should ideally take potential changes in biosimilar adaptation into consideration and have enough flexibility to account for these changes. Planned evaluations of patients' experiences with the change to the biosimilar should be incorporated as part of the implementation plan.

CONCLUSION

The barriers to biosimilar adaptation are plentiful. Careful planning, clear communication, and coordination with all affected disciplines can ensure successful biosimilar conversion.

Switching from Infliximab to Biosimilar in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Review of Existing Literature and Best Practices

Biosimilars are highly similar but nonidentical biologic agents with no differences in clinical efficacy and safety when compared to bio-originator products. Considering the long-term costs of managing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), biosimilars, through economic competition, provide an opportunity for cost savings to payors, may increase access to IBD medications, and could decrease health care spending in the long run. Studies investigating the use of biosimilars in IBD have shown a comparable clinical efficacy and safety profile compared to originator products. Moreover, studies have also suggested that solitary switches between bio-originators and biosimilars are acceptable and do not lead to worsening disease burden or increased immunogenicity or safety concerns. Despite available data and proposed benefits of biosimilars, skepticism about the widespread adoption of biosimilars throughout the United States continues to be present and creates many barriers. Herein, we detail the real-world, nonmedical switching experiences of 2 IBD centers in the United States and review best practices, which can be used as a potential roadmap for successful biosimilar adoption in other institutions.

Effect of Concomitant Therapy With Steroids and Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists for Induction of Remission in Patients With Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review and Pooled Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

It is not clear whether concomitant therapy with corticosteroids and anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents is more effective at inducing remission in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) than anti-TNF monotherapy. We aimed to determine whether patients with active CD receiving corticosteroids during induction therapy with anti-TNF agents had higher rates of clinical improvement than patients not receiving corticosteroids during induction therapy.

METHODS

We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases, through January 20, 2016, for randomized trials of anti-TNF agents approved for treatment of CD and identified 14 trials (5 of adalimumab, 5 of certolizumab, and 4 of infliximab). We conducted a pooled meta-analysis of individual patient and aggregated data from these trials. We compared data from participants who continued oral corticosteroids during induction with anti-TNF therapy to those treated with anti-TNF agents alone. The endpoints were clinical remission (CD activity index [CDAI] scores <150) and clinical response (a decrease in CDAI of 100 points) at the end of induction (weeks 4-14 of treatment).

RESULTS

We included 4354 patients who received induction therapy with anti-TNF agents, including 1653 [38.0%] who were receiving corticosteroids. The combination of corticosteroids and an anti-TNF agent induced clinical remission in 32.0% of patients, whereas anti-TNF monotherapy induced clinical remission in 35.5% of patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.74-1.17). The combination of corticosteroids and an anti-TNF agent induced a clinical response in 42.7% of patients, whereas anti-TNF monotherapy induced a clinical response in 46.8% (OR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.96). These findings did not change with adjustment for baseline CDAI scores and concurrent use of immunomodulators.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a meta-analysis of data from randomized trials of anti-TNF therapies in patients with active CD, patients receiving corticosteroids during induction therapy with anti-TNF agents did not have higher rates of clinical improvement compared with patients not receiving corticosteroids during induction therapy. Given these findings and the risks of corticosteroid use, clinicians should consider early weaning of corticosteroids during induction therapy with anti-TNF agents for patients with corticosteroid-refractory CD.

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.

The Importance of Countering Biosimilar Disparagement and Misinformation

Biosimilar use is limited in some healthcare systems because biosimilars are not well understood by many healthcare professionals and patients. The knowledge gap is exacerbated by disparagement of biosimilars and dissemination of misinformation, whether intentional or otherwise. There are several different types of disparagement and misinformation directed towards biosimilars as a class, including statements about biosimilar science or policy that are factually incorrect; misleading information, where the information is correct, but is provided out of context; incomplete information, where only partial or a limited set of facts are provided; creation of a false narrative, especially in scientific and medical literature, that provides a set of references to support incorrect conclusions; and negative message framing of factual statements to create a negative perception. Disparagement and misinformation about biosimilars can be countered by educational efforts, appropriate oversight, and regulatory activities with the option of enforcement action by governmental agencies, if warranted. Balanced educational materials about biosimilars should be made easily accessible. Physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and patient advocacy groups should work together to provide patients with consistent, positive messages about the value of biosimilars.

Retinoid-Related Orphan Receptor RORγt in CD4+ T-Cell-Mediated Intestinal Homeostasis and Inflammation

Retinoic acid-related orphan receptor (ROR)-γt, the master transcription factor of the Th17 subset of CD4⁺ Th cells, is a promising target for treating a host of autoimmune diseases. RORγt plays a vital role in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel diseases-Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis-caused by untoward reactivity of the immune system to the components of the intestinal microbiome. The mammalian intestinal tract is a highly complex and compartmentalized organ with specialized functions, and is a privileged site for the generation of both peripherally induced regulatory CD4⁺ T cells (Tregs) and effector Th17 cells. As Th17 cells can be proinflammatory in nature, the equilibrium between effector Th17 and Treg cells is crucial for balancing intestinal homeostasis and inflammation. Recent findings suggest that RORγt, in addition to Th17 cells, is also expressed in peripherally induced, colonic regulatory CD4⁺ T cells. Therefore, RORγt is expressed in both effector and regulatory subsets of CD4⁺ T cells in the intestine. The present review discusses the role of RORγt in cellular and molecular differentiation of Th17 and Treg, and examines how targeting RORγt in inflammatory bowel disease therapy could influence the development of these two diverse subsets of immune cells with opposing functions.

Biosimilars to Antitumor Necrosis Factor Agents in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Anti- tumor Necrosis Factor (anti-TNF) agents are the backbone treatment of moderate to severe cases of inflammatory bowel disease. One of the main drawbacks of these agents is the high cost. The introduction of biosimilar products to anti-TNF agents is expected to lower the cost. Health care providers ought to be aware of the available data that addresses the safety and efficacy of biosimilars in IBD patients. This article outlines the current evidence-based data regarding the available biosimilar products, their safety, efficacy and how to deal with patients’ concerns.

Outcome of elective switching to vedolizumab in inflammatory bowel disease patients under tumor necrosis factor antagonist-maintained clinical remission

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Vedolizumab (VDZ) has been used in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients who failed anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy. This study was to examine long-term outcome of IBD patients switching to VDZ from anti-TNF agents for reasons other than failure of therapy.

METHODS

Inflammatory bowel disease patients at the University of Chicago IBD center who were in clinical remission with anti-TNF therapy and then electively changed to VDZ due to reasons other than loss of response were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome was the durability of clinical remission maintained by VDZ as assessed by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. The proportion of patients in clinical and endoscopic remission at 6-12 months after switching to VDZ therapy was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 41 patients (36 with Crohn's disease and 5 with ulcerative colitis) met the inclusion criteria and were in clinical remission at the time of switch. The majority of patients switched therapy due to adverse effects (56.1%) or infections (14.6%). During a median duration of 30 months (range 7-52) of VDZ therapy, 34 (82.9%) were in VDZ-maintained clinical remission. One (2.4%) and four (9.8%) patients discontinued VDZ due to flare and adverse effects, respectively. Endoscopic remission was present in 25 of 30 patients (83.3%) who had a follow-up colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Vedolizumab was effective and safe in maintaining remission in IBD patients who switched from anti-TNF agents due to reasons other than failure of therapy. Our results suggest that switching anti-TNF remitters to VDZ treatment is a safe practice in specific patient populations.

Maneuvering Clinical Pathways for Crohn's Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Crohn's disease management has changed significantly with increasing use of biologics. We review the recent literature on the clinical management of Crohn's disease and new approaches in selecting and optimizing therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have addressed the efficacy of proactive anti-TNFα trough level monitoring, the efficacy of biosimilars, and the efficacy and immunogenicity of newer biologics including anti-integrin therapy and anti-IL12/23 therapy. Optimizing anti-TNFα therapy according to trough concentrations correlates with improved remission rates. Patients can be switched from the reference drug to a biosimilar, or vice versa, without a measurable change in efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity. Immunomodulators are effective in decreasing immunogenicity and boosting anti-TNFα drug level. The anti-integrin and anti-IL12/23 therapies are effective as induction and maintenance therapy with low immunogenicity and excellent safety profiles. Patients at high risk for post-operative recurrence should be started on a biologic therapy within 4 weeks post-op. Multiple biologic therapies are currently available for treatment of Crohn's disease including anti-TNFα therapy, anti-integrin therapy, and anti-IL12/23 therapy. The choice of first-line therapy should be based on individual risk-benefit analysis, route of administration, and patient preference. Patient with inadequate response should have their trough level checked and therapy optimized. Therapeutic prophylaxis for post-operative recurrence should be based on patient's risk factors for recurrence.