Multidisciplinary management of the nocebo effect in biosimilar-treated IBD patients: Results of a workshop from the NOCE-BIO consensus group

Stakeholder perspectives on the sustainability of the United States biosimilars market

Biologic therapies play a critical role in modern medical practice but also present challenges for payers, patients, and other stakeholders because of their high cost. Biosimilars can mitigate the cost pressures of reference biologic therapy because they are typically priced at least 25% lower, providing a means to administer cutting-edge biologic therapy while also managing cost of care. In fact, the US health care system has saved an estimated $23.6 billion from use of biosimilars. However, the market is still in a nascent phase of development, and early cost-saving successes are not guaranteed to persist unless sustainable market conditions are established. To better understand the perspectives of stakeholders about opportunities and threats to the sustainability of the US biosimilar market, a multistakeholder roundtable discussion was convened in December of 2023 and included health care payers, providers, self-insured employers, a manufacturer, and a biosimilar research and advocacy organization. The objective of this commentary, authored by the roundtable participants, is to posit specific opportunities and threats that stakeholders should consider to better facilitate sustainable biosimilar market conditions in the United States. We highlight key points, including (1) biosimilar price volatility with large quarter-on-quarter declines for most products; (2) perverse economic incentives that encourage providers to use more expensive reference products because reimbursement dynamics make them more profitable; (3) complex rebate structures that create barriers to biosimilar access; and (4) ongoing changes to the legal and regulatory environment, including evidence requirements to gain "interchangeable" status. We conclude with an overview of potential policy solutions to address the sustainability opportunities and threats. The authors welcome the opportunity to advance this dialogue toward action and encourage additional stakeholders to join the effort. We are optimistic that, through informed decision-making and compromise, we can collectively achieve a robust and sustainable US biosimilars market that appropriately benefits all stakeholders.

Benefits of Biosimilars in the Management of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An International Survey

Background/Objectives: The development of biosimilar drugs has revolutionized the management of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), significantly reducing healthcare costs. However, the impact of biosimilar availability on patient care is unknown. We conducted a survey to investigate the benefits of using biosimilars in patients with IBD. Methods: Physicians involved in the IBD care were invited to participate in an anonymous online survey. The questionnaire consisted of 42 questions addressing availability, cost, recommendations, and positioning regarding the use of biosimilars. Results: A total of 233 physicians (88.4% gastroenterologists) from 63 countries worldwide participated in the survey. Most respondents had >10 years of practice (202/233, 85.9%). Biosimilars were available in almost all cases (221, 94.8%), and over two-thirds of respondents had more than one biosimilar of adalimumab or infliximab on hospital formulary. In most cases, adalimumab and infliximab biosimilars had a reduced cost of at least 30% compared to the originators. The savings resulting from the use of biosimilars allowed physicians to improve patient care (3/233, 1.3%) or to improve research (2/233, 0.8%) in only a few cases. Interestingly, for about 50% of respondents, the cost of biologics was a limitation for patient access to therapy. For the majority of participants, the availability of biosimilars did not influence treatment decisions in Crohn's disease (70/165, 42.4%) and ulcerative colitis (83/165, 50.3%). Conclusions: The reduced cost of biosimilars compared to reference products is the main driver of choice in IBD. The impact of biosimilars of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in improving access to therapies and changing the treatment algorithm remains to be defined.

Clinical efficacy and nocebo effect following non-medical biosimilar switch in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate clinical efficacy, biomarker activity, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), adverse events (AEs), and nocebo effect in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients who underwent non-medical biosimilar switching.

METHODS

A prospective observational study of consecutive IBD patients who underwent biosimilar switch. Disease activity, biomarkers, TDM, and AEs, including the nocebo effect were captured 8 weeks before switch, at the time of switch (baseline),12 and 24 weeks after the switch.

RESULTS

210 patients were included [81.4% had Crohn's disease (CD), the median age at inclusion: 42 years (IQR 29-61)]. There was no significant difference in the rates of clinical remission at week 8 before switch, baseline, week12, and 24 after switch: 89.0%,93.4%,86.3%,and 90.8%,p = 0.129. The biomarker remission rates were not significantly different; CRP:81.3%,74.7%,81.2%,73.0%,p = 0.343; fecal calprotectin: 78.3%,74.5%,71.7%,76.3%,p = 0.829. The rates of maintaining therapeutic levels (84.7%,83.9%,83.0%,85.3%,p = 0.597) and prevalence of positive anti-drug antibodies remained unchanged. Drug persistence at 12 week of switch was 97.1%, regardless of disease phenotype and originator. The nocebo effect was observed in 13.3%. The discontinuation rate was 4.8%.

CONCLUSION

Despite a significant number of early nocebo complaints within the first 6 months after the biosimilar switch, no significant changes were found in clinical efficacy, biomarkers, therapeutic drug level, or anti-drug antibodies.

Patients' Perceptions of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically summarize and evaluate the findings of existing studies about patients' perceptions of biosimilars by assessing their attitudes and knowledge.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of published studies concerning patients' perceptions of biosimilars, using databases of China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers screened a total of 2197 Chinese or English papers published between 1 January 2018, and 1 October 2022. We assessed the quality of the included studies by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were included in the review, with the majority originating from Europe (n = 22) and North America (n = 10). Of these studies, 37 were cross-sectional quantitative studies, three were quasi-experimental studies, and the remaining three were qualitative studies based on semi-structured interviews. The sample sizes of the included studies ranged from 9 to 6554 patients. Twenty-two out of 31 studies investigating patients' acceptance of biosimilars found that most participants expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars. However, doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway could negatively influence patients' attitudes. The majority of patients understood the economic advantages of biosimilars; however, some incorrectly connected lower prices with lower quality. Patients generally lacked knowledge about biosimilars. There were 6-51% of participants who were familiar with biosimilars, and 25-58% thought they did not know enough about biosimilars. Physicians, pharmacists, medicines agencies, academia, and patient associations were identified as the main sources of information on biosimilars for patients. Healthcare providers not informing or advising patients about switching may hinder patients from acquiring enough knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars, but limited knowledge continued to impede their perceptions. Doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway were identified as major factors that negatively influenced patients' attitudes towards biosimilars, while the impact of a price advantage was mixed. It is essential to maintain a focus on educating healthcare professionals about biosimilars, including their clinical outcomes and the regulatory pathway, which equips them to provide comprehensive and informed guidance to patients.

Nocebo response intensity and influencing factors in the randomized clinical trials of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To estimate the magnitude of the nocebo response and explore its influencing factors in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to March 2021. We performed a random effects meta-analysis of the proportion of adverse events (AEs) in placebo-treated patients with IBS who are involved in parallel-designed, randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigating pharmacological interventions and evaluated the effect of trial characteristics on the magnitude of the nocebo response rate.

Results

A total of 6,107 studies were identified from the databases. After evaluation, 53 met the eligibility criteria and were included. The overall pooled nocebo response rate was 32% (95% CI: 26-38%). The most commonly reported AEs were headache (9%), nasopharyngitis (7%), abdominal pain (4%), and nausea (4%). The nocebo response rate was low compared with that in the treatment group applying probiotics, antispasmodics, and Traditional Chinese medicine, but high compared with that in antibiotic treatment group. The nocebo rate in patients using diaries to record AEs was lower than the average, and was higher in patients recording through checkup.

Discussion

Patients with IBS have significant nocebo response intensity in clinical trials. Based on findings in this study, we recommend the researchers pay attention to the common AEs and carefully analyze the relation to the intervention.

A switch from originator-adalimumab to the biosimilar SB5 in patients with Crohn's disease: an analysis of two propensity score-matched cohorts

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Originator-adalimumab, an established treatment for patients with Crohn's disease (CD), showed no difference in efficacy or adverse events versus adalimumab biosimilar SB5 (SB5-adalimumab) over 10 weeks (W) of treatment. To understand the long-term effectiveness of SB5-adalimumab in CD, patients switched from originator-adalimumab to SB5-adalimumab were compared with patients remaining on originator-adalimumab over 104 W.

METHODS

Data on patients aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with CD and treated at ISCARE, were collected prospectively from July 2018 to January 2021. Primary outcome: clinical disease activity at W52, measured by Harvey-Bradshaw index (HBI). Secondary outcomes: C-reactive protein (CRP), faecal calprotectin (FC) and adalimumab concentrations at W10, 26, 52 and 104, and treatment persistence. To ensure comparable cohorts, patients were propensity score (PS)-matched for age, gender and disease activity.

RESULTS

After matching, 54 patients remained per cohort. At W52, mean (SD) HBI score was 3.2 (2.5) for originator-adalimumab and 4.0 [3.6] for SB5-adalimumab (difference [95% CI] -0.78 [-2.8, 1.3]; n = 18/cohort); no clinically meaningful differences in CRP, FC or drug concentrations were noted. Kaplan-Meier's estimates (95% CI) of remaining on treatment were originator-adalimumab: 0.870 (0.785-0.965) versus SB5-adalimumab: 0.648 (0.533-0.789) at W52 and significantly lower for SB5-adalimumab versus originator-adalimumab (p < .001) over 104 W. Local skin reaction events/pain was the main reason for treatment discontinuation in the SB5-adalimumab cohort (n = 20/54 [37%]).

CONCLUSIONS

These long-term results of CD patients receiving originator-adalimumab or following nonmedical switch to SB5-adalimumab show similar therapeutic effects on clinical disease activity, biological parameters and pharmacokinetic profile in both cohorts from 52 to 104 W. A separation in persistence was observed beyond W26, mainly due to differences in local reactions at the injection site.

Dynamics of biosimilar uptake in emerging markets

INTRODUCTION

Globally, biosimilars are expected to play a key role in lowering healthcare costs and providing increased patient access to biological therapies. Given this, and in line with the European Union and World Health Organization, many emerging nations have adapted and established biosimilar regulatory guidelines. Emerging nations present a lucrative market for biosimilar development and commercialization, yet they also pose unique challenges. A thorough understanding of the unique attributes of emerging markets in relation to biosimilars is needed to promote their successful uptake in low- and middle-income countries.

AREAS COVERED

This article highlights the opportunities and challenges that emerging markets represent in terms of biosimilar uptake. A comprehensive analysis of biosimilar uptake in European countries, where biosimilars have gained significant market share, was carried out to identify policies that can enhance market penetration in emerging nations.

EXPERT OPINION

Implementation of pricing and procurement policies, as well as provider and patient confidence in biosimilar efficacy, are key factors in their uptake. Due to the high cost of biosimilar development, incentivizing domestic companies with the biosimilar manufacturing capability to produce these drugs will be helpful in ensuring a sustainable biosimilar market and a steady supply chain.

Biosimilars in chronic inflammatory diseases: facts and remaining questions 5 years after their introduction in Europe

INTRODUCTION

Five years after the launch of the first infliximab biosimilar, biologics have found their place in the treatment of chronic inflammatory conditions, but there are remaining questions. This is a review of the introduction of antibody biosimilars in Europe; the reasons for their success and how biosimilar hesitancy was quailed.

AREAS COVERED

We provide an overview of the concepts of biosimilarity, extrapolation, and interchangeability, using examples in rheumatology and gastroenterology for illustration. A review of the evidence collected from switching studies using robust designs is included. Remaining questions such as 'inter-switching' are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Biosimilars have democratized access to powerful medicines. Efficacy and safety studies provided reassuring data, but knowledge gaps persist. The availability of so-called 'bio-betters' might open new avenues and change clinical practice.

Switching from Biosimilar to Biosimilar Adalimumab, Including Multiple Switching, in Crohn's Disease: A Prospective Study

No data are available regarding the safety and effectiveness of the biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch of adalimumab in any disease, and in particular in Crohn’s disease (CD). The aim of our study was to provide real world data on switching from biosimilar adalimumab to another biosimilar, including multiple switching. We conducted a prospective, single-centre observational study in which we consecutively recruited all CD patients who switched from adalimumab biosimilar ABP 501 to biosimilar SB5 from January to July 2021. Sixty-one patients were included in the final analysis, of whom 43/61 (70.5%) were multiple switches (Humira^® → ABP 501 → SB5). After 6 months of follow up, 88.5% (54/61) of patients maintained SB5 on therapy. The success of the switch (defined as no systemic corticosteroids within 6 months, non-discontinuation of SB5, no dose escalation) was achieved by 82.0% (50/61) of patients. At multivariate analysis, C-reactive protein > 5 mg/L predicted switch failure (p = 0.03). Seven patients (11.5%) experienced side effects, compared to one patient (1.6%) in the 6 pre-switch months (p = 0.03). In conclusion, switching from biosimilar to biosimilar of adalimumab did not lead to signs of safety or loss of efficacy other than those already known in the literature for the class of drugs.

Biosimilar Interchangeability and Emerging Treatment Strategies for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Commentary

This commentary summarizes a collection of key references published within the last ten years, and identifies pharmacologic research directions to improve treatment access and success through greater biosimilar or “follow-on” biologic utilization combined with other targeted small molecule agents that possess unique pathophysiologic mechanisms for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) in adult and pediatric patients. Since they are not identical to the originator or reference biologic agent, all biosimilars are not generically equivalent. However, in the US and other countries, they are considered therapeutically interchangeable if the manufacturer has demonstrated no clinically meaningful differences from the reference product. Comparisons of different clinical initiation and switching scenarios are discussed with reference to interchangeability, immunogenicity, nocebo effect, cost effectiveness, and time courses for discontinuation rates.

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 European Perspective and History on Biosimilars for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

With the expiration of biologics' patents, biosimilars entered the market as a promising opportunity to reduce health-care costs in the field of inflammatory bowel diseases. Although biosimilars were initially poorly accepted, the growing evidence about their efficacy and safety has changed this situation, resulting in their widespread use. However, there is still an unmet need of improving patients' education about biosimilars to minimize nocebo responses and to accept nonmedical switching. Looking to the future, the use of recently authorized adalimumab biosimilars and the first attempts of adopting different strategies of switching (eg, cross-, multiple-) will fill some residual knowledge gaps.

Informing Patients about Biosimilar Medicines: The Role of European Patient Associations

Biosimilar medicines support the sustainability of national healthcare systems, by reducing costs of biological therapies through increased competition. However, their adoption into clinical practice largely depends on the acceptance of healthcare providers and patients. Patients are different from health care professionals (HCPs), who are informing themselves professionally. For patients, the biosimilar debate only becomes actual when they are confronted with disease and drug choices. This paper provides a literature review on how patients are and should be informed about biosimilars, searching in scientific databases (i.e., Medline, Embase). Several large surveys have shown a lack of knowledge and trust in biosimilars among European patients in recent years. This review identified five main strategies to inform patients about biosimilars: (1) provide understandable information, (2) in a positive and transparent way, (3) tailored to the individual’s needs, (4) with one voice, and (5) supported by audiovisual material. Moreover, the importance of a multistakeholder approach was underlined by describing the role of each stakeholder. Patients are a large and diffuse target group to be reached by educational programs. Therefore, patient associations have become increasingly important in correctly informing patients about biosimilar medicines. This has led to widespread biosimilar information for patients among European patient associations. Therefore, a web-based screening of European Patients’ Forum (EPF) and International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations (IAPO) member organizations on publicly available information about biosimilars was performed. We found that the level of detail, correctness, and the tone of the provided information varied. In conclusion, it is paramount to set up a close collaboration between all stakeholders to communicate, develop, and disseminate factual information about biosimilars for patients.

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.

Evolution of infliximab biosimilar in inflammatory bowel disease: from intravenous to subcutaneous CT-P13

INTRODUCTION

Biologic drugs have significantly improved the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). However, the availability of these drugs is limited by their high cost. Infliximab was the first biologic to be approved for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). After its patent expired other manufactures developed biosimilar versions, among which CT-P13, and licensed them thorough an expedite process.

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this review is to summarize the available evidence on CT-P13 use in IBD, with particular interest in the phase II trials of a subcutaneous version of CT-P13.

EXPERT OPINION

Biosimilars, such as CT-P13, are an important resource for health-care systems. Although CT-P13 approval in IBD was based on extrapolation, subsequent studies confirmed its clinical equivalence to originator infliximab. A new subcutaneous formulation of CT-P13 showed promising results in phase I and II trials in both CD and UC. Clinical efficacy and safety were comparable and interestingly serum drug doses appeared to be more stable than conventional intravenous CT-P13. If these preliminary results will be confirmed, the first sub-cutaneous version of infliximab could soon be available for IBD.

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.