Switching from originator infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 in real-life: The weight of patient acceptance

Outcomes after anti-tumour necrosis factor originator to biosimilar switching in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the UK: a national cohort study

BACKGROUND

For cost-saving purposes, children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) are being switched (for non-medical reasons) from biological originators to biosimilars. Here, we aimed to investigate those who switched from an anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) originator to a biosimilar, regarding drug survival and disease activity, compared with a matched cohort who continued the originator.

METHODS

This analysis included all patients in the UK JIA Biologics Register switching directly from an anti-TNF originator to a biosimilar of the same product. All patients were matched (age, sex, disease duration, calendar year of when patients started originator therapy, line of therapy, and International League of Associations for Rheumatology [ILAR] category) to patients continuing the originator. For those matched successfully, a Cox proportional hazard model assessed whether drug persistence differed between those who switched compared with those who continued the originator. Overall change in the 71-joint juvenile arthritis disease activity score and the proportion of patients with a clinically important worsening score (by ≥1·7 units) after 6 months was compared between cohorts. This analysis was designed to address a priority research area set by our patient partners.

FINDINGS

There were 224 children and young people with non-systemic JIA (139 [62%] were female, and 85 [38%] were male) identified as switching from a biological originator to a biosimilar of the same product from Jan 1, 2017, to July 7, 2023. 143 (64%) patients were originally on adalimumab, 56 (25%) on etanercept, and 25 (11%) on infliximab. Of these, 164 patients were matched successfully to those continuing the originator. There was no evidence that patients switching were more likely to stop treatment compared with those continuing the originator, with a hazard ratio of 1·46 (95% CI 0·93-2·30). Of the 51 patients in the biosimilar group who stopped treatment, 18 (35%) switched back to the originator (14 in the first year), 28 (55%) started a different biological drug, and five (10%) discontinued all treatment by the last follow-up. Of the 87 matched patients with available disease activity, there was no evidence that JADAS-71 worsened more after 6 months, with an odds ratio of 0·71 (95% CI 0·34-1·51; p=0·38).

INTERPRETATION

In this matched comparative effectiveness analysis, children and young people with JIA switched from originators to biosimilars. Disease activity was similar between patients switching compared with those continuing the originator. Three quarters of patients were still receiving their biosimilar after 1 year, with switching back to originator uncommon, at only 9% after 1 year, suggesting good tolerability of non-medical switching in this patient population. This information is reassuring to clinicians and patients regarding the effect of non-medical biological switching.

FUNDING

British Society for Rheumatology, Versus Arthritis, and National Institutes for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.

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.

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.

Influence of active versus placebo control on treatment responses in randomised controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether treatment effects of pharmaceutical compounds compared with placebo controls are systematically different to the effects of the same compounds compared with active treatment controls in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials.

METHODS

We systematically identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in RA, and matched active treatment arms with comparable regimens, populations, background therapy, and outcome reporting, by the nature of their control group (active comparator or placebo). Medline, EMBASE and CENTRAL were used to identify RCTs investigating disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug therapies until December 2021. Using mixed-model logistic regression we estimated OddsRatios (OR) for achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70% response at weeks 12 and 24. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Tool.

RESULTS

We screened 8328 studies and included 40 for analysis after detailed review of 590 manuscripts; unique compounds had significantly higher responses in active comparator trials compared with their effects observed in placebo controlled trials, with ORs of 1.67 (95% CI 1.46 to 1.91; p<0.001) for ACR20, 1.50 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.75; p<0.001) for ACR50 and 1.65 (95% CI 1.30 to 2.10; p<0.001) for ACR70 (week 12); corresponding ORs for ACR 20, 50, and 70 (week 24) were 1.93 (95% CI 1.50 to 2.48; p<0.001), 1.75 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.33; p<0.001) and 1.68 (95% CI 1.21 to 2.34; p<0.001), respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed consistent results.

CONCLUSION

Placebo controlled trials lead to smaller effect sizes of active compounds in RCTs compared with the same compound in head-to-head trials. This difference may be explained by potential nocebo effects in placebo-controlled settings and needs to be considered when interpreting head-to-head and placebo-controlled trials, by patients, investigators, sponsors and regulatory agencies.

PERFUSE: a French non-interventional study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease receiving infliximab biosimilar SB2: a 12-month analysis

Background

Flixabi^TM (SB2) is a biosimilar of the reference infliximab (IFX), Remicade^®. Published evidence on long-term, real-world use of SB2 in patients either IFX naive or transitioned from prior IFX is scarce.

Objectives

We evaluated persistence, effectiveness, and safety of SB2 over 12 months in adults with IBD [Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC)], participating in PERFUSE.

Design

PERFUSE is a long-term, non-interventional, multicenter study of patients receiving SB2 at specialist sites across France.

Methods

SB2 treatment was initiated in September 2017, either as first IFX treatment (IFX naive), after transition from treatment with reference IFX (IFX ref) or another IFX biosimilar (IFX bs), or both IFX ref and IFX bs (IFX multiswitch). Outcomes up to Month 12 (±2) include persistence on SB2 (primary outcome measure), SB2 dose, disease status, immunogenicity, and safety.

Results

This final 12-month analysis of patients with IBD includes 569 with CD and 168 with UC. Persistence [95% confidence interval (CI)] at Month 12 was CD: 89% (77.2; 94.9), UC: 78.5% (58.2; 89.8) for IFX naive; CD: 94% (91.0; 96.1), UC: 92.8% (84.8; 96.7) for IFX ref; CD: 91.6% (86.0; 95.0), UC: 94.2% (83.1; 98.1) for IFX bs; and CD 100% (100; 100), UC 100% (100; 100) for IFX multiswitch. In the CD and UC cohorts, disease activity among IFX naive patients declined from baseline to Month 12; with any prior IFX, the proportions of patients in remission at baseline, Month 6, and Month 12 remained unchanged in the UC cohort, and were comparable or higher in the CD cohort. No immunogenicity or safety signals were detected.

Conclusions

Patients with IBD can be initiated on SB2 or transitioned from IFX ref and/or IFX bs to SB2, with no loss of disease control or safety concerns, with >75% of naive and >90% of transitioned patients continuing on SB2 treatment at 12 months.

Differential retention of adalimumab and etanercept biosimilars compared to originator treatments: Results of a retrospective French multicenter study

Objectives

Previous studies demonstrated equivalence in terms of efficacy and safety of biosimilars (bsDMARDs) compared to original treatments (boDMARDs) and in switching situations. Less is known about what happens when initiating a bsDMARD in a molecule naïve patient. The objectives of our study were to compare the retention of treatment of subcutaneous boDMARDs and bsDMARDs globally, depending on the disease [rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), or psoriatic arthritis (PsA)], molecule [etanercept (ETN) or adalimumab (ADA)], line of treatment, or presence of citrate in the context of first use of each molecule (namely initiation) and to analyze treatment retention's predictive factors.

Materials and methods

This multicenter retrospective study used data from shared medical records of the RIC-FRANCE network, encompassing the prescription of hospital rheumatologists and attached practitioners, of patients with RA, SpA, or PsA, with the starting ETN between 03/10/2016 and 31/07/2020, or ADA between 23/10/2018 and 31/07/2020. Clinical data were collected from medical records. Retention analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test. Retention's predictive factors were analyzed using Cox proportional-hazard ratio.

Results

Eight hundred forty-five prescriptions were analyzed: 340 boDMARDs and 505 bsDMARDs. About 57% of prescriptions concerned women. The mean age was 51.8 years. About 38% were prescriptions for RA, 16% for PsA, and 46% for SpA. An increase in the initiation over time was observed for both ETN and ADA. The retention rate of bsDMARDs was superior to boDMARDs' one (39 vs. 23 months; p = 0.045). When molecules are compared, the difference was significant only for ETN (45 vs. 19 months for boDMARD; p = 0.0265). When comparing diseases, the difference in favor of bsDMARDs was significant in patients with RA only (p = 0.041). Citrated treatments displayed better retention compared to citrate-free treatments (p = 0.0137). Multivariable analysis of predictive factors for the cessation of treatment found shorter disease duration, boDMARD prescription, hospital practitioner prescription, late line of treatment, and female sex as significant. More side effects were observed with boDMARDs, especially more infections (17.8% vs. 7.8%).

Conclusion

Even if bsDMARDs' prescription increases over time, its penetration rate is still below expectations. bsDMARDs displayed better retention compared to boDMARDs, especially for ETN, and in patients with RA. Citrated treatments had better retention. Prescription by a full-time hospital-based rheumatologist is associated with poorer retention.

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.

Under the Umbrella of Clinical Pharmacology: Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Infliximab and Adalimumab, and a Bridge to an Era of Biosimilars

Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) have revolutionized the treatment of many chronic inflammatory diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). IBD is a term that comprises two quite similar, yet distinctive, disorders—Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Two blockbuster MAbs, infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADL), transformed the pharmacological approach of treating CD and UC. However, due to the complex interplay of pharmacology and immunology, MAbs face challenges related to their immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safety. To ease the burden of IBD and other severe diseases, biosimilars have emerged as a cost-effective alternative to an originator product. According to the current knowledge, biosimilars of IFX and ADL in IBD patients are shown to be as safe and effective as their originators. The future of biosimilars, in general, is promising due to the potential of making the health care system more sustainable. However, their use is accompanied by misconceptions regarding their effectiveness and safety, as well as by controversy regarding their interchangeability. Hence, until a scientific consensus is achieved, scientific data on the long-term effectiveness and safety of biosimilars are needed.

Discontinuation and Switchback After Non-Medical Switching from Originator Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha (TNF) Inhibitors to Biosimilars: A Meta-Analysis of Real-World Studies from 2012 to 2018

INTRODUCTION

To examine the prevalence rates of biosimilar discontinuation and switchback to the originator tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) inhibitors following non-medical switch (NMS) in patients.

METHODS

Real-world studies reporting biosimilar discontinuation and switchback rates following NMS published between January 2012 and August 2018 were identified through a systematic literature review. A meta-analysis estimated the annualized discontinuation and switchback rates. A subsequent meta-analysis assessed annualized incremental discontinuation rate among studies reporting both discontinuation rates in patients who underwent an NMS (switchers) and patients who remained on originators (non-switchers).

RESULTS

A total of 66 publications were identified: 31 in gastroenterology, 32 in rheumatology, and 3 in both. Half of the studies reported switchback rates; only 9 studies reported discontinuation rates for both switchers and non-switchers. Across studies, the mean/range sample size of the NMS patient population was 136/9-1641; mean/range follow-up was 10/3-24 months. Annualized biosimilar discontinuation rate was 21% (95% confidence interval [CI] 18%, 25%). Switchback rate was 14% (95% CI 10%, 17%) among all NMS patients and 62% (95% CI 44%, 80%) among discontinuers. The mean/range sample size of switchers and non-switchers was 344/89-1621 and 768/19-2870, respectively; mean/range follow-up was 11/6-18 and 12/6-8 months, respectively. Annualized incremental biosimilar discontinuation rate was 18% (95% CI 4%, 31%).

CONCLUSION

Biosimilar discontinuation was found to be prevalent among patients who underwent an NMS from an originator TNF inhibitor to its biosimilar(s) in the real world. In addition, switchback to the originator TNF inhibitors was common following biosimilar discontinuation. Careful consideration is necessary when switching patients already on an originator TNF inhibitor to its biosimilar(s). Main limitations included the heterogeneity of the studies and the limited comparability of the data.

Biosimilar Use and Switching in Belgium: Avenues for Integrated Policymaking

Background: By improving the affordability and accessibility of biologicals, biosimilar competition provides important benefits to healthcare systems and patients. In Belgium, biosimilar uptake and competition is limited compared to other European markets. Whereas other countries have initiated structured biosimilar introduction or switching plans, no such framework or guiding principles are yet available in Belgium.

Objective: This study aims to develop recommendations that can inform policy action in Belgium on biosimilar use, especially in the context of switch decision-making, and this by drawing from the perspectives of healthcare professionals involved in procuring, prescribing, switching and dispensing biologicals including biosimilars.

Methods: This study made use of the consensus-building Nominal Group Technique, consisting of a three-step process 1) individual grading, 2) three structured Focus Group Discussions, 3) final individual grading involving an expert group of Belgian healthcare professionals (physician specialists and hospital pharmacists).

Results: Participants (n = 13) voiced challenges with the use of biosimilars and switching in practice, and a lack of incentives to use them. Six concrete areas for policy development to support stakeholders with biosimilar use and switch decision-making were identified: 1) address stakeholder hesitations regarding (multiple) switching, 2) provide meaningful incentives, 3) guide healthcare professionals with product decision-making, 4), align practical product modalities when possible, 5) involve healthcare professionals in policy making, and 6) provide practical switch support and patient information material, particularly in the ambulatory care setting. For each area, specific consensus-based recommendations were developed. Furthermore, a set of switch management and patient communication principles was derived, including amongst others, generating buy-in from involved stakeholders prior to switching and communicating with a one-voice message.

Conclusion: Without cohesive actions to reduce hurdles and without tangible benefits or steering mechanisms, changes in biosimilar use are unlikely in Belgium. To overcome this and stimulate market competitiveness, this study advances a set of concrete policy recommendations. At large, policy makers should develop an integrated policy framework, with a pro-active, best-value biological implementation roadmap that provides guidance and compelling measures to incentivize healthcare professionals to use biosimilars. Particular consideration should go to the ambulatory care setting, since drivers for biosimilar use are quasi absent in this context.

Exploring the Reasons Behind the Substantial Discontinuation Rate Among Patients Taking CT-P13 in a Large Tertiary Hospital in Western Switzerland: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using Routinely Collected Medical Data

BACKGROUND

CT-P13 is an infliximab biosimilar that was granted market authorization in Switzerland in 2016. Despite the growing literature supporting the equivalence of CT-P13 compared with originator infliximab regarding the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity and the undeniable cost-saving opportunities, CT-P13 remains widely underused in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE

Leaving aside the phenomenon of a low initiation rate, this study aimed to explore the reasons behind the high discontinuation rate observed among the patients taking CT-P13 in a large tertiary hospital in Western Switzerland.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected data. Patients were eligible if they received originator infliximab or CT-P13 between September 2017 and December 2020. They were included if they had received at least two CT-P13 infusions during the same period. Patients were excluded if the follow-up was incomplete prior to or 6 months after their first CT-P13 infusion and if they had an oncological main diagnosis. Primary outcomes were the reasons for treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-six patients were included and classified into two groups: switchers who were treated with originator infliximab and were switched to CT-P13 (n = 85, 54%) and initiators who did not receive originator infliximab prior to CT-P13 treatment (n = 71, 46%). Included patients belonged to three different groups of diagnosis: gastroenterological (67, 43%), rheumatological (61, 39%), and immunological (28, 18%). Twenty-three (27%) switchers and 35 (49%) initiators discontinued CT-P13 after 12 months. Main reasons for CT-P13 discontinuation were lack of efficacy (n = 21, 36%) and secondary loss of response (n = 16, 28%); however, objective assessments were not available. Initiators' probability to discontinue CT-P13 at 12 months was significantly higher than switchers' (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of efficacy and secondary loss of response were the main reasons for the high CT-P13 discontinuation rate observed in a large tertiary hospital in Western Switzerland. Lack of active training and coordination among healthcare professionals and little education in patients may have exacerbated patients' subjective complaints and increased the CT-P13 discontinuation rate.

A review of biosimilars for rheumatoid arthritis

Biologics are effective, though costly, medications for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Biosimilars are medications that have no clinically meaningful differences when compared with their corresponding reference biologics but cost significantly less. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medication Agency have approved biosimilars for adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and rituximab for the treatment of RA. Streamlined approval processes are expected to expedite biosimilar development while maintaining strict safety and efficacy standards. Encouragingly, many analyses have demonstrated the potential for massive healthcare savings if biosimilars are used over biologics. Challenges to biosimilar uptake, including patient and provider hesitancy, can likely be overcome with the education of all stakeholders within healthcare systems.

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.

Comparison of treatment retention of originator vs biosimilar products in clinical rheumatology practice in Sweden

OBJECTIVES

To compare treatment retention between biosimilars and their originator products among first starters (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab and rituximab), as well as after non-medical switch.

METHODS

Patients with rheumatic diseases starting, for the first time, an originator or biosimilar etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, and rituximab were identified in the national Swedish Rheumatology Quality register. Moreover, patients switching from an originator to its biosimilar were identified, and individually matched to patients continuing on the originator. One-year treatment retention was calculated, and hazard ratios (HR) for discontinuation with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated, adjusting for comorbidities and socioeconomic factors.

RESULTS

In total, 21443 first treatment courses were identified. The proportion of patients still on drug at one year, and the HR for discontinuation, revealed no differences across adalimumab (Humira, Imraldi, Amgevita and Hyrimoz) nor across rituximab products (Mabthera, Ritemvia/Truxima and Rixathon). The proportions on drug at one year were similar for Benepali (77%) and Enbrel (75%) and the adjusted HR for Benepali compared to Enbrel was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.83-0.99). For infliximab, the proportion still on drug at one year was 67% for Remicade and 66% for Remsima/Inflectra, and the HR in comparison with Remicade was: 1.16 (95% CI: 1.02-1.33).Among 2925 patients switching from an originator drug to one of its biosimilars, we noted no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences in drug survival compared those who remained on originator therapy.

CONCLUSION

This large observational study supports the equivalence of bDMARD biosimilar products and originators when used in routine rheumatology care.

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.

Multidisciplinary team intervention to reduce the nocebo effect when switching from the originator infliximab to a biosimilar

Objectives

To evaluate an intervention to reduce the nocebo effect (NE) when switching from the originator infliximab (OI) to the infliximab biosimilar SB2 in chronic inflammatory rheumatic disease (CIRD).

Methods

An intervention was built with healthcare professionals (HPs) and a patient representative, based on a systematic review of interventions reducing the NE in musculoskeletal diseases and semi-directed questioning of five patients. Our strategy consisted of training HPs, switch information given by the nurses, a consistent vocabulary. All CIRD patients switched from OI to SB2 were included for the intervention. The primary outcome was the SB2 retention rate (RR) at 34 weeks. Secondary outcomes were the SB2 RR at 12 months, discontinuation rates due to a possible NE and comparison with a historical cohort of CIRD patients receiving the OI and 6 published European cohorts.

Results

45 patients were included from March 2018 (rheumatoid arthritis, n=17, spondylarthritis, n=28). After 34 weeks, the SB2 RR was 91.2%, similar to the historical cohort RR (p=0.41) but higher than the 3 European cohort RRs (p<0.05). At 12 months, the SB2 RR was 84.5% vs 88.4% for the historical cohort (p=0.52). SB2 discontinuation due to a possible NE was 6.6% after 12 months.

Conclusions

A tailored communication with a prominent role of nurses reduced the NE in non-medical switches from the OI to SB2 as compared to published results. The RR was similar to the historical cohort RR. The methodology used to construct this intervention may help improve the outcomes of switches with upcoming biosimilars.

Treatment journey in rheumatoid arthritis with biosimilars: from better access to good disease control through cost savings and prevention of nocebo effects

Early diagnosis and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are of critical importance to halt the progression of the disease. Optimal use of advanced imaging techniques or biomarkers may facilitate early diagnosis of RA. Even though many disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are available for RA treatment, biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) offer expanding therapeutic options and good outcomes in patients with RA who do not have a sufficient response to conventional synthetic DMARDs. However, high costs of bDMARDs have limited patient access to optimised disease management and increased the cost burden for healthcare systems. The advent of biosimilars led to significant cost savings driven by price competition among the reference products, which could be beneficial for healthcare systems. Healthcare provider (HCP)–patient communication and informed shared decision-making are crucial to prevent the occurrence of a nocebo effect, which results from negative perceptions that patients may have and could lead to less effective outcomes. Research has demonstrated that effective communication between HCPs and patients utilising positive framing can improve acceptance by patients to be initiated on or switched to a biosimilar and can help to integrate biosimilars into routine clinical practice to maximise benefits for patients with RA.

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.

Biosimilar Uptake: The Importance of Healthcare Provider Education

From peptide hormones to monoclonal antibodies, advances in biotherapeutic medicines, or biologics, have brought incalculable benefits to patients, especially for conditions where previous classes of therapy were ineffective or non-existent. At the same time, the development of biologics has been accompanied by questions of access and cost. The advent of biosimilars, molecules highly similar to their reference biologics, has offered the promise of ameliorating cost and access challenges. However, issues regarding biosimilar uptake remain. Multiple factors impact the utilization of biosimilars by healthcare providers and perhaps the best recognized of these is education. This paper discusses the importance of education to biosimilar adoption and lists action-items that various stakeholders in healthcare can adopt to improve the overall understanding of this important class of therapeutics.

Changes in the use patterns of bDMARDs in patients with rheumatic diseases over the past 13 years

The better understanding of the safety of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), as well as the emergence of new bDMARDs against different therapeutic targets and biosimilars have likely influenced the use patterns of these compounds over time. The aim of this study is to assess changes in demographic characteristics, disease activity and treatment patterns in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who started a first- or second-line biologic between 2007 and mid-2020. Patients diagnosed with RA, PsA or AS included in the BIOBADASER registry from January 2007 to July 2020 were included. According to the start date of a first- or second-line biologic therapy, patients were stratified into four time periods: 2007-2009; 2010-2013; 2014-2017; 2018-2020 and analyzed cross-sectionally in each period. Demographic and clinical variables, as well as the type of biologic used, were assessed. Generalized linear models were applied to study the evolution of the variables of interest over time periods, the diagnosis, and the interactions between them. A total of 4543 patients initiated a first biologic during the entire time frame of the study. Over the four time periods, disease evolution at the time of biologic initiation (p < 0.001), disease activity (p < 0.001), retention rate (p < 0.001) and the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors as a first-line treatment (p < 0.001) showed a significant tendency to decrease. Conversely, comorbidities, as assessed by the Charlson index (p < 0.001), and the percentage of patients using bDMARDs in monotherapy (p < 0.001), and corticosteroids (p < 0.001) tended to increase over time. Over the entire period of the study's analysis, 3289 patients started a second biologic. The following trends were observed: decreased DAS28 at switching (p < 0.001), lower retention rates (p = 0.004), and incremental changes to the therapeutic target between the first and second biologic (p < 0.001). From 2007 until now rheumatic patients who started a biologic were older, exhibited less clinical activity, presented more comorbidities, and switched to a different biologic more frequently and earlier.

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.

Uptake and cost of biosimilar filgrastim among Medicare and Medicaid populations in 2015-2018

BACKGROUND: The first biosimilar product filgrastim-sndz was approved by the FDA in 2015, but real-world evaluations of its uptake and cost in nationally representative populations are limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the uptake and cost of filgrastim-sndz, relative to its originator filgrastim and alternative biologic tbofilgrastim, among Medicare and Medicaid populations. METHODS: Using the annually aggregated, product-level utilization and cost data of biologic and biosimilar filgrastim products in 2015-2018 from CMS drug spending data, total number of claims and costs for all 3 filgrastim products were identified and extracted for Medicare Part B, Part D, and Medicaid reimbursement. Annual average cost per claim and per beneficiary of individual filgrastim products were also extracted, and their annual growth rates were calculated. RESULTS: Three years after entering the US market, use of filgrastim-sndz increased to 49.1% and 46.0% of all filgrastim claims paid by Medicare Parts B and D, respectively, and to 38.7% of filgrastim Medicaid claims in 2018. Total cost for filgrastim-sndz also reached 42.8%, 41.8%, and 26.9% of all filgrastim products paid by Medicare Parts B and D and Medicaid, respectively. Significant reductions in average cost per claim for filgrastim-sndz in 2017 and 2018 were observed in Medicare Part B and Medicaid. CONCLUSIONS: Significant uptake of biosimilar filgrastim in Medicare and Medicaid programs occurred during the first 3 years of marketing. Policymakers may use the evidence to evaluate existing barriers and policies regarding biosimilar adoption. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this work. The author has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Who is afraid of biosimilars? Openness to biosimilars in an Australian cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Biosimilars are increasingly adopted to improve affordability of biologics. An effective introduction of biosimilars requires an understanding of patient acceptance of these agents. We performed a cross-sectional study of 132 patients with rheumatoid arthritis prior to the introduction of biosimilar switching or prescribing in this cohort. Despite being unfamiliar with biosimilars, most patients are willing to accept biosimilar medicines if recommended by their rheumatologist. Patient concerns about biosimilar uptake mainly focus on concerns about its efficacy. There is a significant correlation between patient attitudes towards biosimilar and generic medicines.

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.

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.

Real-world observational study of biosimilars in inflammatory arthritis treatment: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

The use of biological agents in patients with rheumatic diseases has achieved the therapeutic target, i.e., remission or low disease activity. The share of biological agents has been growing with the approval of biosimilars, which have been recognized for their equivalent efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity to the original as well as their reduced economic burden.

AREA COVERED

Biosimilars are being examined for their bioequivalence to reference products in randomized-controlled trials; however, the use of biosimilars in actual clinical practice is complicated owing to issues with switching and comorbidities. Therefore, this review describes real-world data in the rapidly evolving field of biosimilars in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthropathy, including ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis.

EXPERT OPINION

According to published data, the use of biosimilars for inflammatory arthritis led to no significant inferiority in treatment outcomes and resulted in considerable cost savings in the real-world. Currently, beyond the use of biosimilars, issues with the interchangeability of biosimilars, including immunogenicity, should be addressed. Strategies to overcome these concerns will improve treatment efficacy and safety in patients with inflammatory arthritis.

The switch from etanercept originator to SB4: data from a real-life experience on tolerability and persistence on treatment in joint inflammatory diseases

Aims:

Switching from originator to biosimilar is part of current practice in inflammatory rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (iRMDs) such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondylarthritis (axSpA), with evidences derived from both etanercept (ETN) to SB4-switching randomized controlled trials and real-life registries. We investigated the safety and treatment persistence of ETN/SB4 in a multi-iRMD cohort derived from two rheumatology departments in our region.

Methods:

Adult patients with iRMDs, treated with ETN for at least 6 months and switched to SB4 in stable clinical condition, were eligible for this retrospective evaluation. Retrospective data on adverse events, loss of efficacy and persistence on treatment were collected until latest available follow-up.

Results:

A total of 220 patients (85 RA, 81 PsA, 33 axSpA, 14 juvenile idiopathic arthritis and seven other conditions; 142 females, mean age 58 ± 7 years, disease duration 12 ± 4 years, ETN duration 7 ± 4 years) were enrolled, with median follow-up of 12.1 (9.7–15.8) months. A total of 50 patients (22.7%) presented with at least one adverse event, with 36 (16.4%) disease flares and 30 (13.6%: 11 for safety and 19 loss of efficacy) SB4 withdrawals. Cumulative SB4 treatment persistence was 99.1%, 88.6% and 64.6% at 6, 12 and 18 months respectively. Back-switch to ETN was performed in 17/30 cases, the remaining cases were managed with change of biologic disease modifying or conventional synthetic anti-rheumatic drug. Age was the only significant predictor of SB4 interruption at 6 months.

Conclusion:

Our real-life data confirm the safety profile of switching from ETN to SB4, with slightly higher treatment persistence rates compared with other real-life registries.

The Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of Switching Between Reference Biopharmaceuticals and Biosimilars: A Systematic Review

To date, no consensus exists among stakeholders about switching patients between reference biological products (RPs) and biosimilars, which may have been curbing the implementation of biosimilars in clinical practice. This study synthesizes the available data on switching and assesses whether switching patients from a RP to its biosimilar or vice versa affects efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity outcomes. A total of 178 studies, in which switch outcomes from a RP to a biosimilar were reported, was identified. Data were derived from both randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence. Despite the limitations stemming from a lack of a robust design for most of the studies, the available switching data do not indicate that switching from a RP to a biosimilar is associated with any major efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity issues. Some open-label and observational studies reported increased discontinuation rates after switching, which were mainly attributed to nocebo effects. Involvement of the prescriber in any decision to switch should remain and attention should be paid to the mitigation of a potential nocebo effect.

Doctor's aptitude for switching from innovator etanercept to biosimilar etanercept in inflammatory rheumatic diseases: experience from a single French rheumatology tertiary care center

OBJECTIVES

To describe the switch to biosimilar etanercept (bETN), evaluate factors associated with this switch, and evaluate the efficacy of this switch in a real-life setting METHODS: We included patients, from October 2016 to April 2017, with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA) who received innovator ETN (iETN) for at least 6 months. After receiving information on biosimilars, all physicians were invited to propose a switch from iETN to bETN. Factors associated with bETN discontinuation were explored by univariate and multivariate analyses. We estimated the proportion of patients still on bETN over time by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. We assessed serum trough concentrations of iETN and bETN and anti-drug antibodies to ETN.

RESULTS

Overall, 183 outpatients were eligible for a potential switch; 94 (51.6%) switched from iETN to bETN. The probability of a switch was greater with an older than younger aged physician (mean [SD] age 50.4 [14.3] with a switch vs 44.8 [11.3] with no switch, p = 0.005) and the physician having a full-time academic position than other position (56.4% with a switch vs 13.5% with no switch, p < 0.001). After a 6-month follow-up, bETN retention rate was 83% (95% CI: 0.76-0.92). The first cause of bETN discontinuation was inefficacy (50%). On multivariate analysis, no factor was independently associated with a bETN switch or discontinuation. Drug trough levels did not significantly differ by discontinuation or continuation of bETN. No patient showed anti-drug antibodies.

CONCLUSION

The probability of switching from iETN to bETN was likely related to physician characteristics.

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

The act of nonmedical switching, defined as switching stable patients who are generally doing well with their current therapy from an originator biologic to its biosimilar, has been endorsed as a reasonable treatment strategy. The safety and efficacy of nonmedical switching have been evaluated in randomized controlled and real-world evidence studies, which have demonstrated that although many patients maintain treatment response after the switch, some patients experience therapy failure, resulting in therapy discontinuation. It has been postulated that the vast majority, if not all, of these treatment failures result from a "nocebo effect", defined as patients' negative expectations toward the therapy change. Reports suggest that the risk of a nocebo effect is higher following a mandated nonmedical switch. Although the nocebo effect is a well-recognized phenomenon in pain studies, evidence is limited in immune-mediated diseases primarily because it is difficult to quantify, especially retrospectively. In spite of this, numerous biosimilar studies in patients with immune-mediated diseases have concluded that nonmedical switching failures are due to a nocebo effect. The objective of this narrative review was to explore the reasons for nonmedical switch failure or discontinuation and the role of the nocebo effect among patients with inflammatory rheumatic and gastrointestinal diseases who switched from an originator biologic to its biosimilar.

Real-World Patient Experience of Switching Biologic Treatment in Inflammatory Arthritis and Ulcerative Colitis - A Systematic Literature Review

PURPOSE

To obtain an up-to-date overview of the measurement of patient experience of switching biologic treatment in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) or ulcerative colitis (UC). Secondary objectives included summarizing the types of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) used (if any), and related findings; and summarizing medical and non-medical reasons for treatment switch and/or discontinuation.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed, searching Medline and Embase for relevant publications.

RESULTS

In total, 70 relevant publications were identified. While the majority of these reported reasons for switching and/or discontinuing treatment, only four provided information explicitly regarding patient-reported experience of switching biologic treatment. All four utilized ranking tools to assess patient experience of switching biologic treatment. The most common reason for switching and/or discontinuing treatment was loss of efficacy, while the least common reason was patient preference.

CONCLUSION

Although the number of available treatments in IA and UC have increased, there is a sparsity of information regarding patient-reported experience of switching biologic treatment. Further research regarding patient preference and/or experience would benefit this therapeutic area and help guide treatment choices.

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

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

[Biosimilars antibodies: positioning compared to originators - the experience in rheumatology and the biosimilars of trastuzumab in oncology]

Biosimilars have demonstrated their equivalence with biologic originators, according to rigorous specifications imposed by the regulatory agencies, the FDA and the EMA. Their development is justified by the very high cost of biopharmaceuticals, and strong incentives for their prescription lead us to hope substantial savings, allowing to finance other innovative molecules. Trastuzumab marked history of the treatment of breast cancer. Four biosimilars of trastuzumab are available for routine use and we will detail the key points of their development.

The Clinical Implications of Nocebo Effects for Biosimilar Therapy

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

Treatment retention of infliximab and etanercept originators versus their corresponding biosimilars: Nordic collaborative observational study of 2334 biologics naïve patients with spondyloarthritis

Objective

Although clinical trials support equivalence of originator products and biosimilars for etanercept and infliximab, real-world studies among biologics-naïve patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) are lacking. The objectives were to compare treatment retention in biologics-naïve patients with SpA starting either the originator product or a biosimilar of infliximab and etanercept, and to explore the baseline characteristics of these patients.

Methods

Patients with SpA (ankylosing spondylitis/non-radiographical axial SpA/undifferentiated SpA), starting infliximab or etanercept as their first-ever biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug during January 2014–June 2017 were identified in five Nordic biologics–rheumatology registers. Baseline characteristics were retrieved from each registry; comorbidity data were identified through linkage to national health registers. Country-specific data were pooled, and data on infliximab and etanercept were analysed separately. Comparisons of treatment retention between originators and biosimilars were assessed through survival probability curves, retention rates (2 years for infliximab/1 year for etanercept) and Hazard Ratios (HR).

Results

We included 1319 patients starting infliximab (24% originator/76% biosimilar), and 1015 patients starting etanercept (49% originator/51% biosimilar). Baseline characteristics were largely similar for the patients treated with the originators compared with the corresponding biosimilars. Survival probability curves were highly similar for the originator and its biosimilar, as were retention rates: infliximab 2-year retention originator, 44% (95% CI 38% to 50%)/biosimilar, 46% (95% CI: 42% to 51%); and etanercept 1-year retention originator, 66% (95% CI 61% to 70%)/biosimilar, 73% (95% CI 68% to 78%). HRs were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

This observational study of biologics-naïve patients with SpA from five Nordic countries showed similar baseline characteristics and very similar retention rates in patients treated with originators versus biosimilars, for both infliximab and etanercept, indicating comparable effectiveness in clinical practice.

Nocebos in rheumatology: emerging concepts and their implications for clinical practice

Nocebo effects are noxious reactions to therapeutic interventions that occur because of negative expectations of the patient. In the past decade, neurobiological data have revealed specific neural pathways induced by nocebos (that is, interventions that cause nocebo effects), as well as the associated mechanisms and predisposing factors of nocebo effects. Epidemiological data suggest that nocebos can have a notable effect on medication adherence, clinical outcomes and health-care policy. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) indicate that withdrawal of treatment by placebo-arm participants owing to adverse events is common; a proportion of these events could be nocebo effects. Moreover, in large-scale, open-label studies of patients with RMDs who transition from bio-originator to biosimilar therapeutics, biosimilar retention rates were much lower than in previous double-blind switch RCTs. This discrepancy suggests that in addition to the lack of response in some patients because of intrinsic differences between the drugs, nocebos might have an important role in low biosimilar retention, thus increasing the need for awareness and early identification of nocebo effects by rheumatologists and allied health-care professionals.

Does a mandatory non-medical switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept lead to increase in healthcare use and costs? A Danish register-based study of patients with inflammatory arthritis

Objectives

In year 2016, Danish national guidelines included a mandatory switch of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases treated with originator etanercept (ETA) to biosimilar SB4 in routine care. We aimed to explore if switching lead to increased healthcare utilisation and costs.

Methods

Observational cohort study. Adult patients who switched from ETA to SB4 were identified in the Danish nationwide DANBIO registry. In the National Patient Registry, we identified health utilisation (hospital admissions/hospital days/outpatient visits/prescription medication use) and comorbidities. Estimation of health utilisation included average use and costs 1 year before/after switch, changes after the switch, and whether patient characteristics affected changes. Analyses were by adjusted two-step gamma distributed regression models, and for changes over time a generalized estimation equations (GEE) model was applied. Impact of comorbidities was explored as interaction terms in the model. Medication costs of ETA and SB4 were not included in model.

Results

1620 patients were included (mean age 55 years (SD 14.7), 40% male). Costs before and after switching were mainly driven by outpatient visits (67%/72% of all costs). Monthly fluctuations of costs were similar before/after switch. After switching, use (8%) and costs (7%) of outpatient services increased, whereas costs of admissions (55%) and medication (5%) decreased. Patients with longer ETA treatment duration had an increase in use and costs of healthcare resources, whereas gender and comorbidities had no impact. Higher age was associated with an increase in costs of inpatient services.

Conclusion

We demonstrated no obvious changes in overall use and costs of healthcare services following switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept.

Maintained Clinical Remission in Ankylosing Spondylitis Patients Switched from Reference Infliximab to Its Biosimilar: An 18-Month Comparative Open-Label Study

BACKGROUND

Switching from reference infliximab (RI) to biosimilar infliximab (BI) had no detrimental effects on efficacy and safety. However, long-term follow-up data is missing.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) in clinical remission who were switching from RI to BI, in terms of the safety and efficacy of this, in a long-term fashion.

METHODS

One hundred and nine consecutive unselected AS patients were investigated. All were naïve to other biologics and were followed-up at predefined times receiving RI. Patients in clinical remission were asked to switch from RI to BI. Those who switched to BI were compared with a matched control-group receiving continuous RI. During follow-up, several parameters were recorded for at least 18 months. Disease activity was measured using the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis disease activity index (BASDAI), and the Ankylosing Spondylitis disease activity score (ASDAS), using the C-reactive protein. Remission was defined as BASDAI < 4 and ASDAS < 1.3.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients were evaluated (21 excluded for different reasons). From those, 45 switched to BI, while 43 continued receiving RI. No differences between groups regarding demographic, clinical and laboratory parameters were observed. All patients were in clinical remission. During follow-up, five patients from the BI-group and three from the maintenance-group discontinued the study (4 patients nocebo effect, 1 loss of efficacy). After 18 months of treatment, all patients in both groups remained in clinical remission. No significant adverse events were noted between groups.

CONCLUSION

BI is equivalent to RI in maintaining AS in clinical remission for at least 18 months.

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

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

Switching to biosimilars: current perspectives in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

Introduction: The expiry of patents for biologics has led to the introduction of biosimilars for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). These treatment alternatives may allow earlier and wider access to appropriate therapy for patients without increasing the economic burden on health-care systems. Prescription of biosimilars to treatment-naïve patients is well accepted; however, additional considerations must be taken into account when switching clinically stable patients from reference products to biosimilars. Area covered: We discuss the current considerations related to switching from reference products to biosimilars from a physician and patient perspective. We review the clinical data and real-life experience on switching patients with IMIDs, present the position of the relevant medical societies, and discuss the importance of patient-physician communication and need for shared decision-making. Expert opinion: The introduction of biosimilars provides an opportunity to expand access to treatment for patients with IMIDs across Europe and support the financial sustainability of health-care systems. We anticipate that as the real-world evidence base grows, confirming the results of clinical trials, there will be a corresponding increase in physician and patient acceptance, not only to initiating treatment with a biosimilar, but also to switching medication from a reference product to a biosimilar.

Real-world evidence in rheumatic diseases: relevance and lessons learnt

An emerging trend in the medical literature, including the Rheumatology literature, is that of accumulating large, multicentric, multi-national data based on registries of patients seen in real life situations. Such real-world evidence (RWE) may help provide valuable insights into the long-term outcomes of disease in unselected patients seen in daily practice, including patients belonging to vulnerable populations such as extremes of age, during pregnancy and lactation. Evidences gathered from real life practice settings can help understand drug prescription patterns, including adherence to treatment guidelines, cost-effectiveness of therapy, and real-life long-term outcomes, and adverse effects of treatment with particular medications. Registry-based data also helps analyze comorbidities in patients with rheumatic diseases, and their impact on quality of life, morbidity and mortality. Traditionally, a randomized controlled trial (RCT), or systematic reviews of multiple, homogenous RCTs, have been considered the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine, and RWE does, at times, provide differing viewpoints from the results of particular drugs in clinical trial settings. Therefore, in the present day, it is prudent to consider the complementary nature of information derived from RWE to that obtained from rigorous, clinical trial settings. Future guidelines for disease management may consider it relevant to include information from RWE in addition to that available from clinical trials, to help devise management guidelines that are harmonious with routine practice settings.

Patients' information and perspectives on biosimilars in rheumatology: A French nation-wide survey

OBJECTIVE

To assess the patients' information about biosimilars and to identify the patients' incentives and deterrents to concur with the use of biosimilars.

METHODS

Nation-wide cross-sectional study assessing information and concerns about biosimilars of French patients treated for rheumatic inflammatory diseases, whether they were treated or not by a biological DMARD. The assessment was available online from March to July 2017.

RESULTS

Among the 629 respondents, 43% knew what biosimilars were. The main sources of information were rheumatologists and patient associations. Among patients treated with a biosimilar, 44% were not informed before they received the treatment. The patients' concerns focused on the non-similar molecular structure (46%), efficacy (60%) and safety (57%) comparatively to the originator biologic. 15% of respondents would refuse to switch their biologic to its biosimilar. More than 50% of respondents would warily accept to switch medications and interrupt the treatment if in doubt. Being informed about biosimilars and a good understanding of the definition of biosimilars were characteristics associated with better adherence to biosimilars. The rheumatologist was considered the most influent source of information about biosimilars and was considered reliable when deciding to switch a biologic to its biosimilar. Patient were reluctant to substitution of the medications by pharmacists (2%). Medico-economical issues acted as an incentive and a deterrent to accept the switch of medication.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilars are largely unknown to patients. Information seems to be instrumental in improving the patients' adherence to biosimilars and could help preserving the therapeutic relationship and avoiding a nocebo effect.

Drug Discontinuation in Studies Including a Switch From an Originator to a Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibody: A Systematic Literature Review

PURPOSE

In observational studies of patients switched from stable treatment with an originator monoclonal antibody (mAb) to a biosimilar, higher rates of biosimilar discontinuation versus those observed in blinded switching studies have been reported. Because this observation relates to the real-world setting, it has been suggested that switching outside of clinical trials may be associated with nocebo effects. However, real-world data on drug discontinuation and nocebo effects after switching to mAb biosimilars remain limited. This systematic review collated information from switching studies regarding discontinuation rates of biosimilar mAbs and investigated the subjectivity of reasons for discontinuation to determine the impact of potential nocebo responses.

METHODS

MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and abstract databases of selected congresses were screened for reports of mAb switching studies with a minimum post-switch follow-up ≥6 months and accessible information on discontinuation rates.

FINDINGS

A total of 14 observational studies were included, all of which involved a switch to CT-P13. Ten interventional studies involving a switch to other biosimilar mAbs were excluded from the analysis because nocebo effects relate to the observational setting only. Eleven studies (78.6%) reported biosimilar discontinuation rates that were higher than expected based on data pertaining to long-term use of the originator infliximab and clinical trials involving a switch to CT-P13 (>10% per year; range, 12.2%-28.2%). Eight studies attributed a proportion of discontinuations to subjective disease worsening or subjective adverse events. Subjective adverse event reports were identified in 7 of the observational studies.

IMPLICATIONS

Discontinuation rates of biosimilar mAbs may increase due to subjective effects after switching from an originator mAb. These findings highlight the need for further patient education and well-designed, observational switching studies as well as the collection and analysis of identifiable pharmacovigilance and postmarketing data of biologics, including biosimilars. The collection of real-world results is particularly pertinent for mAbs other than CT-P13, for which there is currently a lack of observational switching data.