Rationale, Opportunities, and Reality of Biosimilar Medications

Anti-TNFα in inflammatory bowel disease: from originators to biosimilars

The introduction of anti-tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) biologics significantly innovated inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment and increased medical costs. The recent expiration of patents of some anti-TNFα biologics (such as infliximab and adalimumab) facilitated the development of biosimilars. Comparable pharmacokinetic, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles between anti-TNFα originators and biosimilars were demonstrated in different studies. Anti-TNFα biosimilars hold promise for reducing the high cost of biologics and increasing patient access to biologics. In this review, we outline the current data on the use of anti-TNFα originators and biosimilars in patients with IBD, with a focus on the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles of infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars. The potential benefits, challenges, and future directions of anti-TNFα biosimilars are also discussed in the review.

An Overview of Adalimumab Therapy for Ankylosing Spondylitis

BACKGROUND

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic inflammatory disease known for causing pain, stiffness, and reduced mobility in the axial skeleton. Adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, has emerged as a promising therapeutic option for AS.

METHODS

This systematic review involved a comprehensive search of randomized controlled trials related to AS treatment, conducted in major databases such as MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and PubMed. The search terms encompassed ankylosing spondylitis, adalimumab, methotrexate, other non-biologic DMARDs, glucocorticoids, NSAIDs, and analgesics. A total of 14 randomized controlled trials with 4,500 participants were included in the review.

RESULTS

The review's results revealed that adalimumab demonstrated notable superiority when compared to a placebo. It effectively reduced disease activity, improved physical function, and lowered inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Adalimumab demonstrated a favorable safety profile, with adverse events comparable to those observed with placebo.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, adalimumab is deemed an effective treatment for AS, showcasing its potential as a first-line therapeutic option. Notably, no significant increase in adverse events was observed compared to placebo. However, the conclusion emphasizes the need for further studies with extended follow-up durations to ascertain the long-term efficacy and safety of adalimumab in AS management. This systematic review provides valuable insights supporting the use of adalimumab in the treatment of AS and underscores the importance of ongoing investigations into its long-term effects to optimize its clinical utilization in AS patients.

The Role Of Financial Incentives In Biosimilar Uptake In Medicare: Evidence From The 340B Program

Biosimilar drugs-lower-cost alternatives to expensive biologic drugs-have the potential to slow the growth of US drug spending. However, rates of biosimilar uptake have varied across hospital outpatient providers. We investigated whether the 340B Drug Pricing Program, which offers eligible hospitals substantial discounts on drug purchases, inhibits biosimilar uptake. Almost one-third of US hospitals participate in the 340B program. Using a regression discontinuity design and two high-volume biologics with biosimilar competitors, filgrastim and infliximab, we estimated that 340B program eligibility was associated with a 22.9-percentage-point reduction in biosimilar adoption. In addition, 340B program eligibility was associated with 13.3 more biologic administrations annually per hospital and $17,919 more biologic revenue per hospital. Our findings suggest that the program inhibited biosimilar uptake, possibly as a result of financial incentives making reference drugs more profitable than biosimilar medications.

Biosimilar Use Among 38 ASCO PracticeNET Practices, 2019-2021

PURPOSE

Biosimilars offer increased patient choice and potential cost-savings, compared with originator biologics. We studied 3 years of prescribed biologics among US physician practices to determine the relationship of practice type and payment source to oncology biosimilar use.

METHODS

We acquired biologic utilization data from 38 practices participating in PracticeNET. We focused on six biologics (bevacizumab, epoetin alfa, filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab) for the period from 2019 to 2021. We complemented our quantitative analysis with a survey of PracticeNET participants (prescribers and practice leaders) to reveal potential motivators and barriers to biosimilar use. We implemented logistic regression to evaluate the biosimilar use for each biologic, with covariates including time, practice type, and payment source, and accounted for clusters of practices.

RESULTS

Use of biosimilars increased over the 3-year period, reaching between 51% and 80% of administered doses by the fourth quarter of 2021, depending on the biologic. Biosimilar use varied by practice, with independent physician practices having higher use of biosimilars for epoetin alfa, filgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab. Compared with commercial health plans, Medicaid plans had lower biosimilar use for four biologics; traditional Medicare had lower use for five biologics. The average cost per dose decreased between 24% and 41%, dependent on the biologic.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilars have, through increased use, lowered the average cost per dose of the studied biologics. Biosimilar use differed by originator biologic, practice type, and payment source. There remains further opportunity for increases in biosimilar use among certain practices and payers.

Effectiveness of biosimilar pegfilgrastim in patients with multiple myeloma after high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the main indication for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Novel supportive therapies (e.g., granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) have significantly improved post-ASCT-related mortality; however, data on biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez (BIO/PEG) in this setting is lacking. This prospective cohort study compared Italian patients with MM who received BIO/PEG post-ASCT with data collected retrospectively from historical control groups from the same center who received either filgrastim-sndz (BIO/G-CSF) or pegfilgrastim (PEG; originator). The primary endpoint was time to neutrophil engraftment (three consecutive days with an absolute neutrophil count ≥ 0.5 × 10⁹/L). Secondary endpoints included incidence and duration of febrile neutropenia (FN). Of the 231 patients included, 73 were treated with PEG, 102 with BIO/G-CSF, and 56 with BIO/PEG. Median age was 60 years and 57.1% were male. Neutrophil engraftment was reached after a median of 10 days in the BIO/PEG and PEG groups and 11 days in the BIO/G-CSF group. Among patients who achieved neutrophil engraftment earlier than this (i.e., day 9), 58% (29/50) were on PEG; of those who achieved it later (i.e., day 11), 80.8% (59/73) were on BIO/G-CSF. FN incidence was higher with BIO/G-CSF (61.4%) versus PEG (52.1%) or BIO/PEG (37.5%) (p = 0.02 among groups). Patients on BIO/PEG had less frequent grade 2-3 diarrhea (5.5%) compared with BIO/G-CSF (22.5%) or PEG (21.9%); grade 2-3 mucositis was most frequent in the BIO/G-CSF group. In conclusion, pegfilgrastim and its biosimilar displayed an advantageous efficacy and safety profile compared with biosimilar filgrastim in patients with MM post-ASCT.

An Institutional Guide for Formulary Decisions of Biosimilars

Biologics have changed the landscape for the management of many debilitating chronic diseases but account for a significant expenditure of medications globally. Fortunately, advances in technology paved the way for the introduction of biosimilars, which are highly similar to the originator biologics. In the quest to reduce the budget impact of biologics, organizations have begun to adopt biosimilars. Institutions evaluating biosimilars for inclusion in the hospital formulary must make informed formulary decisions by conducting a thorough review of key elements for evaluation of biosimilars and address the multidimensional aspects during the selection process of different biosimilar products. Therefore, we aim to present an institutional guide of these elements to inform formulary decisions. These key elements include biosimilar evaluation for formulary addition; regulatory approval; substitution, interchangeability, and switching; extrapolation; product characteristics, manufacturing, and supply chain issues; pharmacoeconomic evaluations; traceability, nomenclature, and coding; education; and pharmacovigilance.

Comparison of Uptake and Prices of Biosimilars in the US, Germany, and Switzerland

IMPORTANCE

Biologics account for a substantial proportion of health care expenditures. Their costs have been projected to reach US $452 billion in global spending by 2022. Given recent expiration of patent protection of biologics, a shift toward greater follow-on competition among biosimilars would be expected that would allow greater uptake and lower drug costs.

OBJECTIVE

To assess uptake and prices of biosimilars in the US compared with 2 European countries (Germany and Switzerland) with national mechanisms for drug price negotiation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cohort study, biologics and biosimilars that were approved in the US, Germany, and Switzerland until August 2020 were identified. Prices and sales data were extracted from public and commercial databases for the years 2011 to 2020. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2021, to February 28, 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Descriptive statistics were used to show temporal trends in the uptake of biosimilars and relative prices compared with those of reference products (ie, biologic agents) for each country. Descriptive analysis was also performed to compare the uptake of biosimilars between the 3 countries limited to biologics that have biosimilars on the market in all countries. To test if biosimilar awareness in each country increased over the last decade, a linear least squares regression was applied.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 15 biosimilars and 6 biologics for the US, 52 biosimilars and 15 biologics for Germany, and 28 biosimilars and 13 biologics for Switzerland. Uptake of biosimilars increased over time in all countries. On average, the biosimilar market share at launch was highest in Germany; however, it increased at the fastest rate in the US. Monthly treatment costs of biosimilars in the US were a median of 1.94 (IQR, 1.78-2.44) and 2.74 (IQR, 1.91-3.46) higher than corresponding costs in Germany and Switzerland, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this cohort study suggest that more biosimilars have been marketed in Germany and Switzerland than in the US. Policies that counter anticompetitive practices in the US could allow biosimilars to enter the market sooner and could also lower health care costs with improved access. Awareness of biosimilars should be promoted to increase uptake of biosimilars globally.

Retrospective Indication-Matched Cohort Study of Reference Product and Biosimilar: Bevacizumab Versus Bevacizumab-Awwb

Introduction: Due to the abbreviated approval pathway and extrapolation to non-studied indications, an increased importance is placed on post-marketing surveillance of biosimilars to supplement existing evidence and enhance patient and provider confidence. Bevacizumab-awwb (ABP 215, Mvasi) was the first biosimilar approved to bevacizumab (Avastin), a recombinant humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody that inhibits the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Purpose: To evaluate utilization, safety, and financial outcomes of bevacizumab-awwb compared to bevacizumab at a national cancer institute (NCI)-designated cancer center. Methods: A single center, retrospective, 1:1 indication-matched cohort study of adult patients who received bevacizumab or bevacizumab-awwb between October 1, 2019 and October 1, 2020 was performed. Thirty-four patients received bevacizumab-awwb during the study period and were matched by indication to 34 randomly selected patients who received bevacizumab. Indications for both groups included: colorectal cancer (n = 19), gynecologic cancer (n = 10), glioblastoma (n = 3), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 1), and lung cancer (n = 1). Results: Baseline and medication utilization characteristics were similar for this indication-matched cohort of 68 patients receiving bevacizumab-awwb or bevacizumab. Patients in the bevacizumab group had a higher proportion of public payer coverage (64.7% vs 38.2%, P = .029). A higher proportion of patients in the bevacizumab-awwb group remained on active treatment at the end of the study period (52.9%) as compared to the bevacizumab group (35.3%); however, differences in final treatment status and reasons for discontinuation were not statistically significant (P = .218). Rates of worsened hypertension (44.1% vs 44.1%) and worsened proteinuria (38.2% vs 23.5%, P = .077) were common in both groups. Grade 3 adverse drug events in the bevacizumab group included: gastrointestinal perforation (n = 1), gastrointestinal bleed (n = 1), hypertension (n = 2), and venous thromboembolism (n = 2). Grade 3 adverse drug events in the bevacizumab-awwb group included: epistaxis (n = 1), gastrointestinal bleed (n = 1), hypertension (n = 1), intracerebral hemorrhage (n = 1), venous thromboembolism (n = 3), and arterial thromboembolism (n = 1). One patient in the bevacizumab-awwb group experienced grade 4 hypertension. Median drug cost per dose and per milligram for bevacizumab-awwb was less than bevacizumab, representing a 15.8% and 12.1% discount, respectively. Conclusion: Utilization and safety outcomes were similar for this indication-matched cohort of 68 patients receiving bevacizumab or bevacizumab-awwb across a wide range of disease states.

Trastuzumab in breast cancer treatment: the Era of biosimilars

BACKGROUND

The discovery of trastuzumab as anti-HER2 therapy markedly improved disease control and the survival rates of patients with HER2+ breast cancer. However, as trastuzumab is considered a complex molecule, the cost of production is usually elevated, which significantly affects health budgets and limits the treatment access for patients who live in underdeveloped countries. Recently, trastuzumab production became more accessible and sustainable due to the patents' expiration, allowing biosimilar versions of trastuzumab to be developed.

OBJECTIVE

Our main goal was to shed more light on the uses of biosimilars in breast cancer treatment, emphasizing trastuzumab.

METHOD

An integrative review was carried out in the PubMed, Scielo, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases using the terms "biosimilar," "breast cancer," "monoclonal antibody," and "trastuzumab." The time range included scientific articles published from 2015 to 2021.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The bibliographic survey showed the complexities in biological medicine manufacturing and how the monoclonal antibody's therapy with trastuzumab improved the patients' life expectancy, revolutionizing HER2+ breast cancer treatment. Nonetheless, despite its benefits, trastuzumab generates certain restrictions, especially from the economic perspective. Trastuzumab biosimilars have high selectivity and rarely cause adverse effects compared to conventional chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that trastuzumab biosimilars improve patients' accessibility to breast cancer treatment through a safe and effective therapy compared to the drug reference.

Use of Biosimilar Medications in Oncology

PURPOSE

The increased number and expanded utilization of biosimilars raise important considerations for their safe and appropriate use in oncology practice. This report provides an update on currently approved oncology biosimilars and identifies current knowledge gaps in the management of patients with cancer.

METHODS

An Expert Panel was convened to review the medical literature and to provide a practical summary of currently approved biosimilar therapeutics for cancer treatment or supportive care in the United States.

RESULTS

A total of 17 cancer or cancer-related biosimilar products have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 2015. Despite years of clinical experience with oncology biosimilars, variance in their use persists. ASCO supports that biosimilars and reference products are considered equally efficacious for the purpose of inclusion in ASCO clinical practice guideline recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The use of biosimilars might provide competitive, lower-cost alternatives to biologics used in cancer care, and specific mention in ASCO guidelines and other evidence products is supported where appropriate.

Biosimilars for the treatment of patients with psoriasis: A consensus statement from the Biosimilar Working Group of the International Psoriasis Council

Background

As biosimilars have become available in various parts of the world, the International Psoriasis Council has reviewed aspects of their use.

Objective

To provide consensus statements from the Biosimilar Working Group about the use of biosimilars in patients with psoriasis.

Methods

A semiqualitative structured process was employed to approve the consensus statements on biosimilars using the nominal group technique. The final statements were validated by a survey of the paricipants. The approval of the consensus statements was predefined as >80% positive opinions.

Results

A consensus was reached in 36/38 statements regarding regulatory considerations, extrapolation of indication, interchangeability, substitution at the pharmacy level, pharmacovigilance, traceability, naming, biosimilar policy, education, and cost of biosimilars. Example statements include "Switching a stable patient from a reference product to a biosimilar product is appropriate if the patient and physician agree to do so" and "Patients and patients' organisations should be involved in all decision making and policy development about the use of biosimilars."

Conclusion

The International Psoriasis Council Biosimilar Working Group provides consensus statements for the use of biosimilars in the treatment of patients with psoriasis. We suggest that these statements provide global guidance to clinicians, healthcare organizations, pharmaceutical companies, regulators, and patients regarding the development and use of biosimilars in patients with psoriasis.

Impact of rituximab biosimilars on overall survival in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a Dutch population-based study

In 2017, the European Medicines Agency approved rituximab biosimilars (R-biosimilars) for treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Thereafter, the Netherlands was one of the first countries to implement R-biosimilars, given lower costs compared with rituximab originator (R-originator). This study's objective was to investigate whether overall survival (OS) of patients with DLBCL receiving R-biosimilars is similar to patients treated with R-originator. DLBCL patients ≥18 years, diagnosed between 2014 and 2018, who received at least 1 cycle of rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP) were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were categorized into R-originator or R-biosimilars groups based on data from a central repository of the Dutch medicinal drug market. The primary end point was 3-year OS, defined as the time between diagnosis and all-cause death. By the end of 2018, 91% of purchased rituximab were biosimilars. In total, 4429 patients were identified with 876 in the R-biosimilars group and 3553 in the R-originator group. Patients in the R-biosimilars group less frequently received >6 cycles of R-CHOP compared with patients treated with R-originator (24% vs 30%, P = .003). The 3-year OS did not differ between patients treated with R-originator or R-biosimilars (73% vs 73%, P = .855). This was confirmed with a multivariable Cox regression analysis accounting for sex, age, International Prognostic Index score, and number of R-CHOP cycles. In conclusion, the 3-year OS is similar for patients treated with CHOP in combination with R-originator or R-biosimilars and, therefore, favors the use of R-biosimilars in DLBCL treatment management.

Real-world use and acceptance of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies of rituximab in oncology practice in the USA

Aim: To describe treatment patterns and patient and provider characteristics associated with the recently introduced biosimilar rituximab-pvvr. Methods: This retrospective analysis included adult patients with one or more claims for rituximab-pvvr, with an index date of 23 January 2020 and a study period covering 1 January 2019-31 July 2020. Results: Of 249 patients included, the most common rituximab-pvvr indications were non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (77.5%) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (11.2%). Some patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (42.5%) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (39.3%) switched to rituximab-pvvr from the reference product or another rituximab biosimilar. Most patients were aged ≥65 years (63.5%) and were male (54.6%). Most (59.0%) rituximab-pvvr prescribers practiced in the south of the USA. Conclusion: Utilization occurred in approved and extrapolated indications. These preliminary findings suggest switching between reference product and rituximab biosimilars; rituximab-pvvr combination regimens are being adopted in real-world oncology practice.

Equivalent efficacy study of QL1101 and bevacizumab on untreated advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients: a phase 3 randomized, double-blind clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This phase 3 study aimed to test equivalence in efficacy and safety for QL1101, a bevacizumab analogue in Chinese patients with untreated locally advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive carboplatin and paclitaxel in combination with either QL1101 or bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg every 3-week for 6 cycles. This was followed by maintenance treatment with single agent QL1101 every 3-week. The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR), with secondary end-points being progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Of 675 patients, 535 eligible patients were randomized to the QL1101 group (n = 269) and bevacizumab group (n = 266). ORRs were 52.8% and 56.8%, respectively, for the QL1101 and bevacizumab groups, with an ORR hazard ratio 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.8-0131.1). The PFS, OS, DCR, and AEs were comparable between the 2 groups, which remained the same after stratification according to epidermal growth factor receptor mutation or smoking history.

CONCLUSIONS

QL1101 showed similar efficacy and safety profiles as compared to bevacizumab among Chinese patients with untreated locally advanced non-squamous NSCLC.

Technological Advancements in Monoclonal Antibodies

Biopharmaceuticals are innovative solutions that have revolutionized the treatment of important chronic diseases and malignancies. The approval of biosimilar products has become a complex and balanced process, and there are versions of drugs with established biosimilarity that can offer a more accessible treatment option to patients. The objective of this work was to identify the advancement of these technologies by means of patent and article analysis based on technological and scientific prospection. In patent document recovery, Derwent Innovation Index (DWPI) and PatentInspiration databases were used. The research was based on the search of the selected terms in the title, summary, and claims of the documents through a search strategy containing IPC code and keywords. In articles recovery, the Web of Science tool was used in the search of scientific publications dated from the last 5 years. The search resulted in a total of 2295 individual patent documents and 467 families using DWPI database, 769 individual patents and 205 families using PatentInspiration, and 2602 articles using Web of Science database. Additionally, this work describes the number of organizations that contribute to this area, where they are, how much development they have undergone, and the inventors/authors involved. Based on the number of publications registered, there is an important prominence for scientific research in mAbs. In terms of innovation, it is expected that several therapeutic drugs are already under regulatory review, which will allow drugs to be approved over the next few years and will thus generate a continuous flow of new products based on immunotherapies, mAbs, and biosimilar drugs. These drugs have become essential weapons for the treatment of significant diseases, and the increasing trend in the number of related scientific and technological publications contributes to making these therapies available to the greatest number of people.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Hematopoietic Growth Factors, Version 1.2020

Management of febrile neutropenia (FN) is an integral part of supportive care for patients undergoing cancer treatment. The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors provide suggestions for appropriate evaluation, risk determination, prophylaxis, and management of FN. These NCCN Guidelines are intended to guide clinicians in the appropriate use of growth factors for select patients undergoing treatment of nonmyeloid malignancies. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight important updates to the NCCN Guidelines regarding the incorporation of newly FDA-approved granulocyte-colony stimulating factor biosimilars for the prevention and treatment of FN.

Quantitative Assessment of Learning Behaviors for Oncology Providers

How health care providers select topics and activities for learning is key to meeting their needs. The goal of this study was to investigate how oncology providers identify knowledge gaps and choose learning activities. An online focus group within a larger longitudinal study was conducted between November 2015 and August 2016. Participants were chosen by convenience and stratified random sampling of diverse types of oncology providers. Providers were asked monthly to identify learning needs, explain how they identified those needs, and describe the learning activity they chose to meet those needs. Thirty-two oncology providers recorded 201 learning needs via online journal entries (mean 6 entries per person). Needs were associated with practice setting and professional role (p < .05). Colleague recommendation predicted learning needs for advanced practice providers (APPs) (p = .003). Patient cases drove > 50% of identified learning needs across groups. Learning activity preferences were associated with practice setting (p < .05). Choice of learning activity was associated with practice setting, professional role, and geographic location. Colleague recommendation was important for APPs (p = .025). Over 75% of learner responses identify convenience and content quality as important factors in choosing an activity. This study represents a quantitative assessment of learning behaviors for oncology providers and shows that identification of learning needs and activity selection differ by provider demographics. Limitations include small size and underrepresentation of some groups. Our findings should be confirmed with larger samples. Future research should focus on assessment of cohort versus individual needs and learning priorities.

Biosimilar formulary placement in Medicare Part D prescription drug plans: A case study of infliximab

PURPOSE

Biosimilars can generate competition and provide cost savings over reference biologics for the Medicare program and beneficiaries. The extent to which these benefits can be realized in the Medicare Part D program depends on how biosimilars and biologics are placed in the formulary. We conducted a study to examine Medicare formulary placement of the first biologic to have 2 biosimilars on the market-infliximab and its biosimilars infliximab-dyyb and infliximab-abda.

METHODS

All standalone and Medicare Advantage (MA) prescription drug plans (PDPs) offered in Medicare Part D were examined between September 2016 (ie, at the end of the last quarter before the launch of the first infliximab biosimilar) and September 2018, at which time a second biosimilar had been on the market for about 14 months. When PDPs covered both the reference biologic and a biosimilar, we compared the cost-sharing tier and the frequency of prior authorization and step therapy requirements for each drug.

RESULTS

Nearly all PDPs covered infliximab throughout the study period. By September 2018, 31.7% of MA plans and 14.9% of standalone PDPs were covering a biosimilar on the market. Nearly all plans that covered a biosimilar also covered the reference product. Most plans (98% of standalone PDPs and 89% of MA plans) had placed prior authorization restrictions on both the biologic and the biosimilar. All plans covering both products placed them in the same cost-sharing tier. No plan required step therapy for either product.

CONCLUSION

Formulary placement of infliximab biologic and biosimilars in Medicare Part D is not optimized to generate cost savings for the Medicare program and beneficiaries, whose cost sharing is often based on the drug's list price. The Medicare program should provide incentives for PDPs to expand biosimilar coverage.

Epoetin alfa-epbx: a new entrant into a crowded market. a historical review of the role of erythropoietin stimulating agents and the development of the first epoetin biosimilar in the United States

Introduction: Erythropoietin stimulating agents (ESAs) have been established both to correct anemia and provide the clinical benefits of increased exercise capacity, reduced transfusion requirements, and improved quality of life. An increase in physician and patient adoption of biosimilars, as well as changes to healthcare reimbursement policies, have driven market competitors to innovate and expand the range of biosimilar products. While erythropoietin biosimilars have been approved by the EMA since 2007, the FDA's approval of epoetin alfa-epbx in 2018 marks the first erythropoietin biosimilar approved in the United States. Areas covered: In this article, we critically review the biology, clinical use, manufacturing, safety, and efficacy of ESAs and erythropoietin biosimilars. We then review the regulatory framework and potential impact on healthcare costs offered by erythropoietin biosimilars. Expert opinion: Due to the complex nature of manufacturing large-molecule biologics, it is important to recognize the challenges to quality assurance and overall safety posed by the introduction of biosimilars, which undergo much more limited clinical testing than their reference biologic product before coming to market. With many biologic therapies nearing patent expiration, biosimilars will become increasingly common in clinical practice. Ensuring patient safety with these products will require increased post-marketing surveillance and awareness from prescribers.

Determinants of Use of Biotherapeutics in sub-Saharan Africa

Biologic drugs are reshaping clinical practice in various disciplines, even while access to them is imbalanced across global settings. In sub-Saharan Africa, biotherapeutics have potential roles to play in the treatment of a range of conditions that include infectious and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). However, the literature is scarce on guidance for addressing local access challenges, including technical, regulatory, affordability, and other healthcare delivery aspects. This article aims to assess fundamental determinants of use of biologic medicines in sub-Saharan Africa. The purpose is to inform strategic actions of scientists, physicians, policymakers, and other stakeholders that are working to improve access to innovative therapies in low resource parts of the world.

A narrative review of biosimilars: a continued journey from the scientific evidence to practice implementation

Biologic agents have revolutionized the management of serious health conditions in the last two decades. The use of “targeted therapy” brings not only better progression free survivals and overall survivals, but also better toxicity profiles and quality of life benefits, compared to empirical palliative chemotherapy. However, given the high cost associated with biologic drugs and the sharp increases in biologic drug utilization, this drug category has significantly raised healthcare cost over the years. A similar phenomenon was previously experienced with branded simple chemical compound drugs, including chemotherapeutic agents, which was largely mitigated by the introduction of a generic approval pathway, decreasing the costs of the drugs, making them more affordable, given to the increase in competition among the drug makers. A similar opportunity presents years later with the completion of the full patent exclusivity period of many biologics. However, the ending of patent exclusivity, although enables more market competition, does not guarantee market penetration. Stakeholders, such as patients, providers and payers, must build trust and confidence in the science of biosimilars and the product specific studies leading to FDA approval in order to incorporate these products to practice and enable the biosimilar market at large to reach the potential to significantly contribute to reductions in drug cost. Dissemination of scientific and emerging biosimilar evidence is paramount in order to support stakeholder informed decision making and enable each to benefit from expanded treatment options. This paper describes the biosimilar development, approval process, and reviews a number of challenges with the marketing implementation of biosimilars.

Selection of Optimal Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Early Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

The aim of this work is to update key recommendations of the ASCO guideline adaptation of the Cancer Care Ontario guideline on the selection of optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer and adjuvant targeted therapy for breast cancer.

METHODS

An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review guided by a signals approach to identify new, potentially practice-changing data that might translate into revised guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

The Expert Panel reviewed abstracts from the literature review and identified one article for inclusion that reported results of the phase III, open-label KATHERINE trial. In the KATHERINE trial, patients with stage I to III human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer with residual invasive disease in the breast or axilla after completing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy were allocated to adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1; n = 743) or to trastuzumab (n = 743). Invasive disease-free survival was significantly higher in the T-DM1 group than in the trastuzumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.64; P < .001), and risk of distant recurrence was lower in patients who received T-DM1 than in patients who received trastuzumab (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.79). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 190 patients (25.7%) who received T-DM1 and in 111 patients (15.4%) who received trastuzumab.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Patients with HER2-positive breast cancer with pathologic invasive residual disease at surgery after standard preoperative chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy should be offered 14 cycles of adjuvant T-DM1, unless there is disease recurrence or unmanageable toxicity. Clinicians may offer any of the available and approved formulations of trastuzumab, including trastuzumab, trastuzumab and hyaluronidase-oysk, and available biosimilars.Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Naming Convention, Interchangeability, and Patient Interest in Biosimilars

Although biosimilars may offer cost savings over their comparable biologics, use of biosimilars in the United States remains relatively low. This study investigates two barriers to uptake of biosimilars in the United States. First, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires that four-letter suffixes be added to the nonproprietary names of all biosimilars, as well as to the nonproprietary names of all biologics approved after March 2020. Second, biosimilars are not interchangeable with their reference biologic product at the pharmacy counter; a new prescription is needed for the biosimilar to be dispensed in place of the biologic. We conducted two behavioral experiments to examine the effects of the naming convention and interchangeability designation on patients' interest in biosimilars. We found that, absent the mention of needing a new prescription, adding four-letter suffixes to biosimilars' nonproprietary names decreased participants' likelihood of using the biosimilars. When participants were told whether a biosimilar required a new prescription, they were more interested in the biosimilar when it did not require a new prescription, and this effect was driven by participants' perceived similarity of the biosimilar to the biologic. The effect of interchangeability dominated the suffix effect. Our results suggest that both biosimilar suffixes and interchangeability issues provide signals to patients regarding the perceived similarity of biosimilars to their reference biologics and influence patient usage of biosimilars.

Biosimilars in supportive care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review covers recent publications relating to the use of biosimilar medicines in the supportive care of cancer patients, and broader publications focussed on the benefits and challenges of implementing biosimilars into clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

A metaanalysis and a number of systematic literature reviews have confirmed that the safety and efficacy of biosimilar versions of epoetin-α, filgrastim and infliximab are equivalent to those of their corresponding reference biologics. New guidelines have been issued concerning the interchangeability of biosimilars and the practice of substituting a biosimilar in place of a prescribed reference product. The introduction of biosimilars into a health system has been shown to improve patient access to treatment while also delivering cost savings, however, there are a number of barriers that can prevent or delay the adoption of biosimilars into clinical practice which must be overcome for the potential benefits of biosimilars to be realized.

SUMMARY

There is a large amount of data to demonstrate that supportive care biosimilars are well tolerated and effective, with over 10 years of experience in Europe. We can learn from the challenges faced when introducing biosimilars into supportive care to facilitate the introduction of newer biosimilars into the treatment setting.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Adalimumab (Humira) and the Adalimumab Biosimilar Candidate (HS016) in Chinese Patients with Active Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel, Phase III Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the biosimilar candidate of adalimumab (HS016) compared with adalimumab (Humira) for the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel, positive control, phase III clinical trial was conducted at 28 locations in China. Patients with active ankylosing spondylitis were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to subcutaneously receive 40 mg of either HS016 or adalimumab every other week for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was to achieve at least a 20% improvement (ASAS20) in patients at 24 weeks according to the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society criteria. The secondary endpoint included other efficacy assessment parameters, health evaluations, safety, pharmacokinetic, and immunogenicity parameters.

RESULTS

Following the random assignment of 648 patients into HS016 (n = 416) and adalimumab (n = 232) groups, no significant difference was found in the ASAS20 response rates at 24 weeks between the HS016 (364/416, 87.5%) and adalimumab (209/232, 90.1%) treatments and the difference between the response rates (- 2.59%; 90% confidence interval [CI] - 6.77 to 1.60) was within the predefined equivalence margin (± 15%). There were also no significant differences when the secondary endpoints were compared (all p > 0.05). Similarly, the rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were not significantly different between the two groups, with most TEAEs being mild to moderate. Only nine severe cases were found, including seven within the HS016 group, three (0.7%) of which were tuberculosis cases. Plasma concentrations of HS016 and adalimumab from weeks 12 to 14 were similar during the steady-state period and steady-state maximal concentration (Cmax,ss) was equivalent for HS016 (7356.6 ng/mL) and adalimumab (7600.3 ng/mL). The accumulated proportion of patients with positive human anti-human antibodies (HAHAs) at week 24 was 326/412 (79.1%) in the HS016 group and 183/229 (79.9%) in the adalimumab group (p > 0.05), while the accumulated proportion of patients with positive neutralizing antibody (NAb) tests were 72/412 (17.5%) in the HS016 group and 43/229 (18.8%) in the adalimumab group (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

HS016 resembled adalimumab in efficacy and safety over the 24-week treatment period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR1900022520.

Effectiveness and Safety of Switching Originator and Biosimilar Epoetins in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease in a Large-Scale Italian Cohort Study

Introduction

Real-world data on the comparative effectiveness and safety of switching among different epoetins (including originators and biosimilars) are limited. In light of current debate about interchangeability, prescribers, some patient groups and decision makers are calling for additional post-marketing evidence on the clinical effects of switching between originator and biosimilar epoetins in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients.

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of switching versus non-switching and of switching from originator/biosimilar epoetin alpha (ESA α) to any other epoetin in CKD patients.

Methods

An observational, record-linkage, multi-database, retrospective cohort study was carried out in four Italian geographical areas. All subjects with at least one ESA α dispensing between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2015 were retrieved. Switching was defined as any transition between originator/biosimilar ESA α to any other epoetin in a series of two consecutive prescriptions up to 2 years. Switchers were matched 1:1 with non-switchers by baseline propensity score and by duration of ESA α treatment. Switchers and non-switchers were followed up from switching date to a maximum of 1 year. Lack of effectiveness and safety of switching versus non-switching were evaluated through Cox regression models (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]). A direct comparison between the two switcher categories (switchers from originator/biosimilar ESA α to any other epoetin) was also performed.

Results

Overall, 14,400 incident users of ESA α for anaemia due to CKD (61.4% originator, 38.6% biosimilar) were available for analysis. During the follow-up, we found no differences on effectiveness (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79–1.31 originators; HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.75–1.79 biosimilars) and safety outcomes (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77–1.50 originators; HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.66–2.21 biosimilars) between switchers and non-switchers of ESA α. Cumulative probabilities of recording an adverse event, either in terms of lack of effectiveness or safety issue, were the same for two switching categories

Conclusions

In this large-scale Italian observational multi-database study, switching versus non-switching as well as switching from biosimilar/originator ESA α to any other epoetin in CKD patients is not associated with any effectiveness and safety outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40264-019-00845-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Enhancing global access to cancer medicines

Globally, cancer is the second leading cause of death, with numbers greatly exceeding those for human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, tuberculosis, and malaria combined. Limited access to timely diagnosis, to affordable, effective treatment, and to high-quality care are just some of the factors that lead to disparities in cancer survival between countries and within countries. In this article, the authors consider various factors that prevent access to cancer medicines (particularly access to essential cancer medicines). Even if an essential cancer medicine is included on a national medicines list, cost might preclude its use, it might be prescribed or used inappropriately, weak infrastructure might prevent it being accessed by those who could benefit, or quality might not be guaranteed. Potential strategies to address the access problems are discussed, including universal health coverage for essential cancer medicines, fairer methods for pricing cancer medicines, reducing development costs, optimizing regulation, and improving reliability in the global supply chain. Optimizing schedules for cancer therapy could reduce not only costs, but also adverse events, and improve access. More and better biomarkers are required to target patients who are most likely to benefit from cancer medicines. The optimum use of cancer medicines depends on the effective delivery of several services allied to oncology (including laboratory, imaging, surgery, and radiotherapy). Investment is necessary in all aspects of cancer care, from these supportive services to technologies, and the training of health care workers and other staff.

Analyzing the impact of trade and investment agreements on pharmaceutical policy: provisions, pathways and potential impacts

Background

Trade and investment agreements negotiated after the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) have included increasingly elevated protection of intellectual property rights along with an expanding array of rules impacting many aspects of pharmaceutical policy. Despite the large body of literature on intellectual property and access to affordable medicines, the ways in which other provisions in trade agreements can affect pharmaceutical policy and, in turn, access to medicines have been little studied. There is a need for an analytical framework covering the full range of provisions, pathways, and potential impacts, on which to base future health and human rights impact assessment and research. A framework exploring the ways in which trade and investment agreements may affect pharmaceutical policy was developed, based on an analysis of four recently negotiated regional trade agreements. First a set of core pharmaceutical policy objectives based on international consensus was identified. A systematic comparative analysis of the publicly available legal texts of the four agreements was undertaken, and the potential impacts of the provisions in these agreements on the core pharmaceutical policy objectives were traced through an analysis of possible pathways.

Results

An analytical framework is presented, linking ten types of provisions in the four trade agreements to potential impacts on four core pharmaceutical policy objectives (access and affordability; safety, efficacy, and quality; rational use of medicines; and local production capacity and health security) via various pathways.

Conclusions

The analytical framework highlights provisions in trade and investment agreements that need to be examined, pathways that should be explored, and potential impacts that should be taken into consideration with respect to pharmaceutical policy. This may serve as a useful checklist or template for health and human rights impact assessments and research on the implications of trade agreements for pharmaceuticals.

Pharmacist perspectives and considerations for implementation of therapeutic oncology biosimilars in practice

Purpose

An overview of therapeutic oncology biosimilars, the U.S. biosimilars regulatory pathway, and the clinical development of selected biosimilar products is provided, including discussion of considerations in adopting biosimilars into oncology practice.

Summary

Biosimilars are biologic agents that are highly similar to and have no clinically meaningful differences from an approved reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency. There is a large market for cancer biologics, and approval of biosimilars has the potential to increase access to care and reduce costs. An abbreviated regulatory pathway for the development and approval of biosimilars defines a stepwise approach to demonstrating biosimilarity and conducting clinical comparative trials to confirm equivalent pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to the reference product. Three therapeutic biologics (bevacizumab, trastuzumab, and rituximab) have been used extensively in the treatment of a variety of cancers and are targets for biosimilar product development. Preclinical and clinical experience with 2 recently approved biosimilars to bevacizumab and trastuzumab is reviewed. Challenges faced by pharmacy and therapeutics committees when considering oncology biosimilars for formulary inclusion are discussed.

Conclusion

Increased adoption of biosimilars could potentially lower treatment costs and improve access to biologics for patients with cancer. Key considerations in formulary review of biosimilars include the quality and quantity of data from comparative clinical trials, economic factors, manufacturer reliability, and challenges associated with incorporating biosimilars into practice.

Are Biosimilars the Future of Oncology and Haematology?

Biological drugs are vital but often high-cost components of cancer treatment. Several biosimilar versions of these drugs have been approved in Europe and/or the USA, with many more in development. However, there is some disconnect between the biosimilars that are approved for use and those accessible in clinical practice, with availability impacted by factors including patent litigation and complex healthcare insurance policies, particularly in the USA. Provided the barriers to widespread uptake can be overcome, biosimilars offer potential benefits including cost savings and improved patient access versus the reference product (RP). This article provides an up-to-date and focused perspective on the development and use of biosimilars in the haemato-oncology setting. European and US regulatory pathways governing biosimilar licensing demand that there are no clinically meaningful differences between a biosimilar and its RP. Pathways are rigorously enforced and involve comprehensive non-clinical evaluations and clinical trials in selected indications to establish the equivalence or non-inferiority of efficacy, and the comparability of safety, of the biosimilar versus its RP. 'Indication extrapolation' is only permitted if scientifically justifiable considering mechanism(s) of action, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity and safety in relevant patient populations. Switching treatment from RP to biosimilar is supported by most available data, predominantly from indications other than cancer, and post-marketing pharmacovigilance programmes are warranted. Notably, the potential benefits of biosimilar cancer treatment may extend beyond direct cost savings: for example, the availability of biosimilars of common regimen components may help incentivise the evaluation and/or clinical use of new treatment approaches and novel drugs.

Increase in the Population of Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration Who Underwent Long-Term Active Treatment

To investigate changes in the size of the population of patients who are receiving long-term, active treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This retrospective, observational study included 3,380 patients who received anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections (3,974 eyes). The injections performed were divided into the following three groups: group 1, injections performed right after the initial diagnosis; group 2, injections performed <24 months; and group 3, injection performed ≥24 months. Time-dependent changes in the proportion of injections in each group were analyzed. The total number of injections markedly increased from 431 in the 1st quarter of 2014 to 1,323 in the 4th quarter of 2018. There were significant changes in the proportion of injections in each group over time (P < 0.001). The proportions of group 1, group 2, and group 3 in the 1st quarter of 2014 were 17.4%, 65.4%, and 17.2%, respectively. The proportions changed to 10.6%, 50.2%, and 39.5% in the 4th quarter of 2018, respectively. The marked increase in the proportions of group 3 may suggest an increase in the patient population that underwent long-term active treatment. The socioeconomic influence of this trend should be considered when establishing future strategies for neovascular AMD.

Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (WBMT) perspective: the role of biosimilars in hematopoietic cell transplant: current opportunities and challenges in low- and lower-middle income countries

Health care costs attributed to biologics have increased exponentially in the recent years, thus biosimilars offer a possible solution to limit costs while maintaining safety and efficacy. Reducing expenditure is vital to health care especially in developing countries where affordability and access to health care is a major challenge. We discuss the opportunities and the challenges of biosimilars in the field of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in low- and lower-middle income countries. Developing countries can potentially invest in the forecasted costs reduction by utilizing biosimilars. This can be used to decrease the costs of procedures such as HCT, which is a rapidly growing field in many developing regions. The introduction of biosimilars in the developing regions faces many challenges which include, but are not limited to: legal and regulatory issues, lack of research infrastructure, and the presence of educational barriers. Thus, collaborative efforts are needed to ensure an effective and safe introduction of biosimilars into low- and lower-middle income countries.

Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment. A Back to the Drawing Board Project or High Expectations for Low Unmet Needs?

Despite the significant progress in Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) therapeutics, there are several reports in the literature claiming that the size of unmet needs in RA is large. In the era before biologics, there was indeed a significant number of patients who did not achieve low disease activity (LDA) or disease remission due to limited therapeutic choices in the doctors' armamentarium. Treatment wise, great progress has been achieved over the last decades with the discovery and introduction in therapeutics of new molecules, such as the biological (b) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and the targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs. Today, with such a plethora of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs, tsDMARDs, and bDMARDs, why are we unable to successfully treat RA patients? What is wrong? However, a new drug for RA does not mean it is necessary to switch to a new treatment. It is very easy to change and switch therapies when the patient complains about pain and stiffness. In this setting, it is obligatory to rule out other comorbidities and disorders that may be the cause of the pain first. Thus, clinicians must have a deep knowledge of the drug therapy and be able to adjust the treatment when needed. A minute clinical examination must be carried out on every visit with close monitoring of the patient. A treat-to-target (T2T) approach and the application of the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) recommendations and strategies should minimize the unmet needs.

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.

The biosimilar pathway in the USA: An analysis of the innovator company and biosimilar company perspectives and beyond

In order to improve access to costly biological treatments, a biosimilar pathway in the United States of America (USA) was enacted under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCI Act) of 2009. The aim of the present study was to investigate how the health policy, the establishment of the biosimilar pathway, influenced related companies by studying their respective perspectives and strategies revealed in literatures and publicly available resources. Perspectives of companies reveal the points of concern for the biosimilar pathway, such as data requirements, patents, interchangeability, naming, and exclusivity. Innovator companies may utilize expedited programs for serious conditions, enhance patent protection, launch programs for life-cycle extension, and develop biosimilars as well. The biosimilar companies overcoming technical barriers might need to gather convincing evidence to facilitate market penetration as well as to distinguish their products from those of other biosimilar competitors. More challenges are expected for innovator companies if international harmonization takes place, which might be worth further investigation.

Randomised, double-blind, phase III study comparing the infliximab biosimilar, PF-06438179/GP1111, with reference infliximab: efficacy, safety and immunogenicity from week 30 to week 54

Objective

To investigate the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of PF-06438179/GP1111 (PF-SZ-IFX) compared with European reference infliximab (Remicade^®; ref-IFX) in patients with moderate-to-severe, active rheumatoid arthritis after continued long-term use of PF-SZ-IFX, and in patients who were switched from ref-IFX to PF-SZ-IFX.

Methods

REFLECTIONS B537-02 was a double-blind, active-controlled, multinational study in which patients (N=650) were initially randomised to PF-SZ-IFX or ref-IFX for 30 weeks (treatment period [TP] 1). During weeks 30–54 (TP2), the PF-SZ-IFX group (n=280) continued treatment with PF-SZ-IFX (PF-SZ-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX) and patients in the ref-IFX group (n=286) were rerandomised (1:1) to continue ref-IFX (ref-IFX/ref-IFX) (n=143) or switch to PF-SZ-IFX (ref-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX) (n=143) for a further 24 weeks. Efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics were evaluated.

Results

During TP2, patients in all three treatment groups continued to maintain comparable treatment response. At week 54, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) response rates were 71.1% (PF-SZ-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX), 64.3% (ref-IFX/ref-IFX) and 70.6% (ref-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX). Observations for other endpoints, including ACR50/70, Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints Based on High-Sensitivity C Reactive Protein(DAS28-CRP) remission, and mean change in DAS28-CRP and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, were also comparable. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 36.8% (PF-SZ-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX), 33.6% (ref-IFX/ref-IFX) and 37.8% (ref-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX) of patients; there were no clinically meaningful differences in the safety profiles between groups. The percentage of patients who were antidrug antibody-positive was generally stable through the treatment period and comparable overall between the PF-SZ-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX (52.1%; neutralising: 80.8%), ref-IFX/ref-IFX (60.1%; neutralising: 84.9%) and ref-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX (58.0%; neutralising 78.3%) groups.

Conclusions

The similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of PF-SZ-IFX compared with ref-IFX were maintained for up to 54 weeks and were not affected by blinded treatment switch from ref-IFX to PF-SZ-IFX at week 30.

Trial registration number

NCT02222493.

Infliximab biosimilar for treating neurosarcoidosis: tolerance and efficacy in a retrospective study including switch from the originator and initiation of treatment

OBJECTIVES

Infliximab is increasingly used to treat neurosarcoidosis. We aimed to determine the efficacy and tolerance of an infliximab biosimilar for treating neurosarcoidosis.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective single-center study to describe the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of an infliximab biosimilar in neurosarcoidosis patients. We compared the survival time without relapse while receiving the biosimilar or previous originator-infliximab treatment.

RESULTS

Twenty patients with histologically documented neurosarcoidosis were treated with an infliximab biosimilar (initiation of treatment in 12 and switch from the originator drug in 8) between February 2016 and August 2018. All patients presenting with neurological involvement of one or more areas, including meningeal (n = 15), cerebral (n = 10), spinal cord (n = 9), and/or cranial nerves (n = 5); epilepsy (n = 3); and/or intracranial hypertension (n = 3) were enrolled. Eighteen patients received glucocorticoids during infliximab treatment, and 16 had methotrexate or azathioprine concomitant treatment. The median duration of follow-up was 25 months (19-28). Six patients relapsed during biosimilar treatment. Relapse rates and time-to-relapse did not differ between the infliximab originator previously received and biosimilar treatment groups (p = 0.40 and 0.51, respectively). Nine patients experienced 11 adverse events with the infliximab biosimilar, including infections (n = 5), urticaria (n = 4), headache (n = 1), and diarrhea (n = 1). All side effects were grade 2 or less using the WHO classification.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study, the infliximab biosimilar was efficacious and safe for treating neurosarcoidosis.

Academic oncology clinicians' understanding of biosimilars and information needed before prescribing

Background:

With increasing numbers of oncology biosimilars in the approval pipeline, it is important to investigate oncology clinicians’ understanding of biosimilars and what information they need prior to adoption.

Methods:

Between January and May 2018, 77 oncology clinicians (52 physicians, 16 pharmacists, and 9 advanced practice providers) completed a survey covering three domains: clinician understanding, prescription preferences, and patient involvement. An in-depth interview was designed based on themes identified in the first 50 surveys: cost, safety and efficacy, patient preference, and disease stage. Participants were chosen to participate in the interview based on outlying responses to survey questions.

Results:

When asked to define a biosimilar, 74% (57/77) of respondents could not give a satisfactory definition, and 40.3% (31/77) considered a biosimilar the same as a generic drug. The most important factor in biosimilar prescription was safety and efficacy (4.51 out of 5) followed closely by cost differences (4.34 out of 5). A 40% increase (53.2–94.8%) in clinicians’ prescribing likelihood was seen after a biosimilar is designated as interchangeable. Participants in this study were split regarding the importance of shared decision-making with patients [50.7% (39/77) important or extremely important, 39.0% (30/77) somewhat or not at all important]. Clinicians were also split concerning the role that pharmacists should play in the decision to prescribe or substitute biosimilars.

Conclusion:

Understanding of biosimilars is low, and educational needs are high. The information that clinicians deem important to assess, such as safety, efficacy and cost, will need to be provided before they are comfortable prescribing biosimilars.

Comparison of Sales Income and Research and Development Costs for FDA-Approved Cancer Drugs Sold by Originator Drug Companies

IMPORTANCE

High costs and risks of research and development (R&D) have been used to justify the high prices of cancer drugs. However, what the return on R&D investment is, and by extension what a justifiable price might be, is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To compare incomes from the sales of cancer drugs with the estimated R&D costs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This observational study used global pharmaceutical industry sales data to quantify the cumulative incomes generated from the sales of cancer drugs for companies that have held patents or marketing rights (originator companies). All cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 1989 to 2017 were identified from the United States Food and Drug Administration's website and literature. Itemized product sales data were extracted from the originator companies' consolidated financial reports. For drugs with data missing in specific years, additional data was sought from other public sources, or where necessary, estimated values from known reported values. Drugs were excluded if there were missing data for half or more of the years since approval. Data analysis was conducted from May 2018 to October 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Sales data were expressed in 2017 US dollars with adjustments for inflation. Cumulative incomes from the sales of these drugs were compared against the R&D costs estimated in the literature, which had been adjusted for the costs of capital and trial failure (risk adjusted).

RESULTS

Of the 156 US Food and Drug Administration-approved cancer drugs identified, 99 drugs (63.5%) had data for more than half of the years since approval and were included in the analysis. There was a median of 10 years (range, 1-28 years) of sales data with 1040 data points, 79 (7.6%) of which were estimated. Compared with the total risk-adjusted R&D cost of $794 million (range, $2827-$219 million) per medicine estimated in the literature, by the end of 2017, the median cumulative sales income was $14.50 (range, $3.30-$55.10) per dollar invested for R&D. Median time to fully recover the maximum possible risk-adjusted cost of R&D ($2827 million) was 5 years (range, 2-10 years; n = 56). Cancer drugs continued to generate billion-dollar returns for the originator companies after the end-of-market exclusivity, particularly for biologics.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Cancer drugs, through high prices, have generated returns for the originator companies far in excess of possible R&D costs. Lowering prices of cancer drugs and facilitating greater competition are essential for improving patient access, health system's financial sustainability, and future innovation.