Anti-TNF biosimilars in Crohn's Disease: a patient-centric interdisciplinary approach

Unveiling the Biosimilar Paradox of Oncologists' Perceptions and Hesitations in South Korea: A Web-Based Survey Study

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars offer a cost-effective alternative to original biopharmaceuticals with comparable efficacy and safety. The perception and familiarity of prescribers toward biosimilars play a critical role in their market penetration. Yet, few studies have explored the perception of oncologists toward biosimilars, much less in Asia.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to understand barriers of adopting biosimilars among oncologists and explore strategies to promote their use in clinical practice settings.

METHODS

A web-based survey was conducted among Korean oncologists from September to October 2022, assessing their perception of biosimilars and prescribing practices.

RESULTS

Among the 118 surveyed oncologists, 75.4% (89 out of 118) had previously prescribed biosimilars. When asked about their preference, 48.3% (57 out of 118) of the respondents preferred originators to biosimilars, whereas 16.1% (19 out of 118) favored biosimilars over the originators. The primary reason for preferring the originators was trust in safety and efficacy (94.7%, 54 out of 57). Still, a paradox was noted as 87.0% (47 out of 54) and 85.2% (46 out of 54) of these also acknowledged the comparable efficacy and safety of biosimilars. A relatively small number of the respondents (16.1%, 19 out of 118) did not consider prescribing biosimilars to biologic-naïve patients at all, and up to 56.8% (67 out of 118) expressed reluctance to switch prescriptions from originators to biosimilars. However, 90.7% (107 out of 118) of respondents considered changing their prescription to biosimilars if patients faced financial stress. Concerns regarding the efficacy when switching to biosimilars were expressed by 42.7% (38 out of 89) of oncologists with biosimilar prescribing experience, increasing to 69.0% (20 out of 29) among those without such experience.

CONCLUSION

Korean oncologists perceived biosimilars to be as safe and effective as originators. However, there is a notable mismatch between this perception and their prescribing practices, particularly among those who have not prescribed biosimilars before. The financial burden of patients served as a significant driver for prescribing biosimilars, yet marginal price differences between originators and biosimilars may be associated with the low adoption rate of biosimilars in Korea. Active price competition may enhance market penetration of biosimilars.

Self-reported efficacy and safety of infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars after non-medical switch in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: results of a multicenter survey

BACKGROUND

Few data are available on subjective disease control and perception of adverse events (AEs) during switching from original anti-TNF agents to biosimilars.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Hungarian patients with inflammatory bowel disease were interviewed after a mandatory non-medical switch from an infliximab (IFX) originator to a biosimilar GP1111 or from an adalimumab (ADA) originator to a biosimilar GP2017. Drug choice was based on patient's and physician's decision. Subjective efficacy was measured using a 10-point scale, and AEs were assessed. Difference in efficacy before and after the switch was compared within and between the drugs.

RESULTS

Seventy-three ADA and 106 IFX switching patients were interviewed. Subjective efficacy of IFX biosimilar was rated lower compared to IFX originator (8.72 ± 1.68 vs. 7.77 ± 2.34; p = 0.001). The ADA biosimilar was rated higher than its originator (9.02 ± 1.61 vs. 8.42 ± 1.93; p = 0.017). Patients receiving ADA biosimilar were more satisfied with the new treatment compared to IFX (p = 0.032). The incidence of new AEs was 85% in the ADA and 55% in the IFX group (1.79 vs. 0.93 AEs per patient, respectively, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Subjective efficacy of switching to a biosimilar was proven in case of ADA, while reduced efficacy was experienced with IFX biosimilar. Perception of AEs was high and varied between biosimilars.

Biosimilar SB11 versus reference ranibizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 1-year phase III randomised clinical trial outcomes

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To provide longer-term data on efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics (PK) of ranibizumab biosimilar SB11 compared with the reference ranibizumab (RBZ) in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

METHODS

Setting: Multicentre. Design: Randomised, double-masked, parallel-group, phase III equivalence study. Patient population: ≥50 years old participants with nAMD (n=705), one 'study eye'.

INTERVENTION

1:1 randomisation to monthly intravitreal injection of 0.5 mg SB11 or RBZ. Main outcome measures: Visual efficacy endpoints, safety, immunogenicity and PK up to 52 weeks.

RESULTS

Baseline and disease characteristics were comparable between treatment groups. Of 705 randomised participants (SB11: n=351; RBZ: n=354), 634 participants (89.9%; SB11: n=307; RBZ: n=327) completed the study until week 52. Previously reported equivalence in primary efficacy remained stable up to week 52 and were comparable between SB11 and RBZ. The adjusted treatment difference between SB11 and RBZ in full analysis set at week 52 of change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity was -0.6 letters (90% CI -2.1 to 0.9) and of change from baseline in central subfield thickness was -14.9 µm (95% CI -25.3 to -4.5). The incidence of ocular treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (SB11: 32.0% vs RBZ: 29.7%) and serious ocular TEAE (SB11: 2.9% vs RBZ: 2.3%) appeared comparable between treatment groups, and no new safety concerns were observed. The PK and immunogenicity profiles were comparable, with a 4.2% and 5.5% cumulative incidence of antidrug antibodies up to week 52 for SB11 and RBZ, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer-term results of this study further support the biosimilarity established between SB11 and RBZ.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Anti-TNF Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review

Infliximab and adalimumab are monoclonal antibodies against tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) used to manage inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) has been proven to prevent immunogenicity, to achieve better long-term clinical results and to save costs in IBD treatment. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review on cost-effectiveness analyses of studies that apply TDM of anti-TNF in IBD and to provide a critical analysis of the best scientific knowledge available in the literature. The quality of the included studies was assessed using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Cost-effectiveness of the TDM strategies was presented as total costs, cost savings, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Thirteen studies that examined the health economics of TDM of anti-TNF in IBD from 2013 to 2021 were included. Eight of them (61.5%) achieved a score between 17 and 23 on the CHEERS checklist. The comparison between the TDM strategy and an empirical strategy was cost saving. The ICER between reactive TDM and an empirical strategy was dominated (favorable) by reactive TDM, whereas the ICER value for proactive TDM compared to an empirical strategy ranged from EUR 56,845 to 3,901,554. This systematic review demonstrated that a TDM strategy is cost-effective or cost-saving in IBD.

A review of the therapeutic management of Crohn's disease

Crohn's disease is a chronic inflammatory, relapsing-remitting, and progressive gastrointestinal disorder with an often-negative impact on the physical, emotional, and psychological well-being. Over the past two decades, the medical compendium for the treatment of Crohn's disease has increased significantly, enabling treatment beyond symptoms. Indeed, early and timely use of effective medical therapy has been reflected by improved outcomes with reduction in surgery and ability to achieve clinical and endoscopic remission, reduce corticosteroid dependance, and prevent long-term complications in more patients. In this review, we discuss the key milestones in the medical management of Crohn's disease.

SPOSAB ABP 501: A Sicilian Prospective Observational Study of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Treated with Adalimumab Biosimilar ABP 501

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There are few clinical data on Adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease. We aimed to perform a multicenter, observational, prospective study on safety and effectiveness of ADA biosimilar ABP 501 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

METHODS

All consecutive patients from the cohort of the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease treated with ADA biosimilar ABP 501 from February 2019 to February 2020 were enrolled. Patients were divided into three groups: group A, naïve to ADA and naïve to anti-tumor necrosis factors; group B, naïve to ADA and previously exposed to anti-tumor necrosis factors; and group C: switched from ADA originator to ABP 501.

RESULTS

A total of 559 patients (median age 39 years; Crohn's disease 88.0%, ulcerative colitis 12.0%) were included, with a follow-up time of 403.4 patient-years. Thirty-six serious adverse events occurred in 36 patients (6.4%; incidence rate [IR]: 8.9 per 100 person-years [PY]). The IR of serious adverse events was higher among patients in group A compared with group C (17.4 vs 4.8 per 100 PY; IR ratio = 3.61; P < 0.001) and among patients in group B compared with group C (16.4 vs 4.8 per 100 PY; IR ratio = 3.42; P = 0.041). Among ADA-naïve patients (group A + B), 188 (85.8%) had a clinical response after 12 weeks, including 165 (75.3%) who achieved steroid-free remission. Higher treatment persistence estimates were reported for patients in group C compared with groups A and B (log-rank P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Safety and effectiveness of ABP 501 seem to be overall similar to those reported for ADA originator. Switching from originator to ABP 501 was safe and effective.

Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching: What is the Rationale and Current Experience?

Over time, clinicians have become increasingly comfortable embracing the prescription of biosimilars-highly similar versions of innovator or reference biological agents-for their patients with inflammatory diseases. Although a switch from a reference product to a licensed biosimilar version (or vice versa) is a medical decision robustly supported by the stepwise accumulation of clinical trial evidence concerning comparable safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy between these products, a switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference product, or a cross-switch, is not. Similarity among biosimilars of a reference product is not a regulatory agency concern and therefore is unlikely to be investigated in randomized controlled trials in the foreseeable future. Yet in clinical practice, across a diverse range of patients, the option to cross-switch from one biosimilar to another can and does arise for valid reasons such as convenience or tolerability issues, or driven by third parties (e.g., payers). In the absence of clinical trial data, clinicians must attempt to objectively evaluate the emerging real-world cross-switching evidence within the context of what is known about the science underpinning a designation of biosimilar. That knowledge then needs to be integrated with what clinicians know about their patients and their disease on a case-by-case basis. This review aims to consolidate relevant emerging real-world data and other key information about biosimilar-to-biosimilar cross-switching for prescribing clinicians. In the absence of clear clinical guidelines addressing this topic at present, this review may serve to facilitate discretionary and educated treatment decision making.

Melanoma Risk in Patients Treated With Biologic Therapy for Common Inflammatory Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Biologic therapies are widely prescribed immunomodulatory agents. There are concerns that compared with treatment with conventional systemic therapy, long-term biologic treatment for common immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, namely inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and psoriasis, may be associated with increased risk of melanoma.

Objective

To examine whether biologic treatment of IBD, RA, or psoriasis is associated with an increased risk of melanoma compared with conventional systemic therapy.

Data Sources

Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for articles published from January 1, 1995, to February 7, 2019, for eligible studies.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, and nested case-control studies quantifying the risk of melanoma in biologic-treated patients with IBD, RA, and psoriasis compared with patients treated with conventional systemic therapy were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two reviewers independently extracted key study characteristics and outcomes. Study-specific risk estimates were pooled, and random- and fixed-effects model meta-analyses were conducted. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guidelines were followed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The pooled relative risk (pRR) of melanoma in biologic-treated patients with IBD, RA, and psoriasis compared with biologic-naive patients treated with conventional systemic therapy.

Results

Seven cohort studies comprising 34 029 biologic-treated patients and 135 370 biologic-naive patients treated with conventional systemic therapy were eligible for inclusion. Biologic treatment was positively associated with melanoma in patients with IBD (pRR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.60-2.40), RA (pRR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.83-1.74), or psoriasis (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.61-4.09) compared with those who received conventional systemic therapy, but the differences were not statistically significant. Adjustment for other risk factors was absent from most studies.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings suggest that clinically important increases in melanoma risk in patients treated with biologic therapy for common inflammatory diseases cannot be ruled out based on current evidence. However, further studies with large patient numbers that adjust for key risk factors are needed to resolve the issue of long-term safety of biologic therapy.

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

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

Nocebo effect and biosimilars in inflammatory bowel diseases: what's new and what's next?

INTRODUCTION

The use of biosimilars for the treatment of patients with chronic inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) showed to be a valid strategy to reduce the economic burden of biologics on health-care costs and to increase patient access to treatment. However, the nocebo effect constitutes an important limitation to the wide use of biosimilars.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a literature overview to summarize information on nocebo effect in IBD population and to provide physicians with practical key strategies to prevent the nocebo effect in daily clinical practice and to improve patients' outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the proven efficacy and safety of biosimilars, further clinical studies are needed to define the effects of reverse and multiple switches in the management of patients with IBD. The development of new subcutaneous formulations, better accepted by patients, could contribute to reduce patients' negative expectations, and limit the nocebo effect.

Melanoma Risk in Patients Treated With Biologic Therapy for Common Inflammatory Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Biologic therapies are widely prescribed immunomodulatory agents. There are concerns that compared with treatment with conventional systemic therapy, long-term biologic treatment for common immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, namely inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and psoriasis, may be associated with increased risk of melanoma.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether biologic treatment of IBD, RA, or psoriasis is associated with an increased risk of melanoma compared with conventional systemic therapy.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for articles published from January 1, 1995, to February 7, 2019, for eligible studies.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, and nested case-control studies quantifying the risk of melanoma in biologic-treated patients with IBD, RA, and psoriasis compared with patients treated with conventional systemic therapy were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted key study characteristics and outcomes. Study-specific risk estimates were pooled, and random- and fixed-effects model meta-analyses were conducted. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guidelines were followed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The pooled relative risk (pRR) of melanoma in biologic-treated patients with IBD, RA, and psoriasis compared with biologic-naive patients treated with conventional systemic therapy.

RESULTS

Seven cohort studies comprising 34 029 biologic-treated patients and 135 370 biologic-naive patients treated with conventional systemic therapy were eligible for inclusion. Biologic treatment was positively associated with melanoma in patients with IBD (pRR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.60-2.40), RA (pRR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.83-1.74), or psoriasis (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.61-4.09) compared with those who received conventional systemic therapy, but the differences were not statistically significant. Adjustment for other risk factors was absent from most studies.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings suggest that clinically important increases in melanoma risk in patients treated with biologic therapy for common inflammatory diseases cannot be ruled out based on current evidence. However, further studies with large patient numbers that adjust for key risk factors are needed to resolve the issue of long-term safety of biologic therapy.