Innovative approaches to biologic development on the trail of CT-P13: biosimilars, value-added medicines, and biobetters

Effectiveness of switching to subcutaneous infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease patients with inadequate biochemical response during intravenous administration

Infliximab (IFX) has transformed the management of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). While intravenous (IV) IFX has been effective, a subcutaneous (SC) formulation offers advantages in convenience and cost. However, there is lack of evidence regarding the transition from IV to SC-IFX, especially for patients with inadequate responses. This study investigates the effectiveness of switching from IV to SC-IFX in patients with inadequate responses during IV maintenance therapy. A retrospective study enrolled IBD patients who transitioned to SC-IFX after demonstrating inadequate responses during IV maintenance therapy. The study collected data of demographics of patients and dose and therapies administered prior to the IV-IFX. Primary outcomes included improvements in C-reactive protein (CRP) or fecal calprotectin (FC) levels. This study evaluated the trough levels and its differences between pre- and post-switching. Among 44 patients included, 10 exhibited CRP elevation before the switch, with 6 showing normalization post-switch. Similarly, 42 patients had elevated FC levels pre-switch, with 26 experiencing reductions post-switch. Trough levels increased after the switch. However, there were no significant differences between responders and non-responders. This study is the first study to investigate the transition therapy of IV to SC-IFX in patients with inadequate response. This suggests that SC-IFX could be a viable alternative in the management of IBD. However, further research is necessary to evaluate its efficacy in a larger population of patients who exhibit inadequate responses during IV-IFX maintenance therapy.

Subcutaneous Infliximab (CT-P13 SC) as Maintenance Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Two Randomized Phase 3 Trials (LIBERTY)

BACKGROUND & AIMS

CT-P13 subcutaneous (SC), an SC formulation of the intravenous (IV) infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 IV, creates a unique exposure profile. The LIBERTY studies aimed to demonstrate superiority of CT-P13 SC vs placebo as maintenance therapy in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

Two randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies were conducted in patients with moderately to severely active CD or UC and inadequate response or intolerance to corticosteroids and immunomodulators. All patients received open-label CT-P13 IV 5 mg/kg at weeks 0, 2, and 6. At week 10, clinical responders were randomized (2:1) to CT-P13 SC 120 mg or placebo every 2 weeks until week 54 (maintenance phase) using prefilled syringes. (Co-) primary end points were clinical remission and endoscopic response (CD) and clinical remission (UC) at week 54 (all-randomized population).

RESULTS

Overall, 396 patients with CD and 548 patients with UC received induction treatment. At week 54 in the CD study, statistically significant higher proportions of CT-P13 SC-treated patients vs placebo-treated patients achieved clinical remission (62.3% vs 32.1%; P < .0001) and endoscopic response (51.1% vs 17.9%; P < .0001). In the UC study, clinical remission rates at week 54 were statistically significantly higher with CT-P13 SC vs placebo (43.2% vs 20.8%; P < .0001). Achievement of key secondary end points was significantly higher with CT-P13 SC vs placebo across both studies. CT-P13 SC was well tolerated, with no new safety signals identified.

CONCLUSIONS

CT-P13 SC was more effective than placebo as maintenance therapy and was well tolerated in patients with moderately to severely active CD or UC who responded to CT-P13 IV induction.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Numbers: NCT03945019 (CD) and NCT04205643 (UC).

Subcutaneous infliximab in Crohn's disease patients with previous immunogenic failure of intravenous infliximab

PURPOSE

Immunogenicity is a major reason for secondary loss of response to infliximab (IFX). Recent work suggested potentially lower immunogenicity of subcutaneous (SC) compared to intravenous (IV) IFX. However, it is unknown whether re-exposure to IFX SC after secondary loss of response and immunogenicity to its intravenous formulation is safe and effective.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study conducted at two medical centers, patients with clinically (Harvey-Bradshaw Index ≥ 5) and/or biochemically (fecal calprotectin > 250 µg/g) active Crohn's disease (CD) and previous immunogenic failure of IFX IV underwent exposure to IFX SC. Harvey-Bradshaw Index, fecal calprotectin, IFX serum concentration, and anti-drug antibodies were assessed until month 12.

RESULTS

Twenty CD patients were included. The majority of patients (90%) had previous treatment with three or more biologics. Fifteen (75%) and ten (50%) of 20 patients continued IFX SC treatment until months 6 and 12, respectively. No immediate hypersensitivity reactions were observed. Two patients discontinued IFX SC treatment because of delayed hypersensitivity at week 2 and week 4. IFX serum concentrations increased from baseline to month 12, while anti-drug antibody levels decreased. Combined clinical and biochemical remission at month 12 was observed in seven of 20 patients (35%).

CONCLUSION

Subcutaneous infliximab treatment of Crohn's disease patients with previous immunogenic failure of intravenous infliximab was well tolerated and effective in a cohort of patients with refractory Crohn's disease.

Switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab maintenance therapy in inflammatory bowel disease: Post hoc longitudinal analysis of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Pharmacokinetic non-inferiority of subcutaneous (SC) to intravenous (IV) CT-P13 maintenance therapy was demonstrated in a randomized trial (NCT02883452). This post hoc analysis evaluated longitudinal clinical outcomes with the two infliximab treatment strategies.

METHODS

Patients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis received CT‑P13 IV loading doses (5 mg/kg; Week [W] 0 and W2) before randomization (1:1) to receive CT-P13 SC (body weight-based dosing every 2 weeks [Q2W]; W6-54; 'SC maintenance group') or CT‑P13 IV (5 mg/kg Q8W; W6-22) then CT-P13 SC (Q2W; W30-54; 'IV-to-SC switch group'). Paired W30/W54 patient-level data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty-three (IV-to-SC switch) and fifty-nine (SC maintenance) patients were analyzed. Median trough serum CT-P13 concentrations were significantly higher at W54 versus W30 in the IV-to-SC switch group (20.4 versus 2.3 µg/mL; p < 0.00001), while remaining consistent in the SC maintenance group. Statistically significant improvements in pharmacokinetics, efficacy, fecal calprotectin levels, and quality of life were seen following switch to SC administration at W30 in the IV-to-SC switch group; safety findings were similar pre- and post-switch.

CONCLUSION

Formulation switching from IV to SC infliximab maintenance therapy was well tolerated and may provide additional clinical improvements. Findings require confirmation in larger prospective studies.

Safety and effectiveness of intravenous CT-P13 in inflammatory arthritis: post-marketing surveillance study in Thailand

Background: The infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 was approved in Thailand in 2015. Methods: This open-label, multicenter, post-marketing surveillance study evaluated the safety (events of special interest [ESIs]; primary end point) and effectiveness of 46 weeks of CT-P13 treatment according to routine practice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), with 1 year follow-up post-treatment. Results: 30 patients were enrolled (16 RA, 8 AS and 6 PsA). Infections were the most frequently reported study drug-related ESIs (2 RA and 2 AS). One patient with RA and one with PsA experienced infusion-related reactions. No cases of tuberculosis, malignancy (as expected, given 1 year follow-up), or drug-induced liver disease were reported. Disease activity improved across indications. Conclusion: CT-P13 was well tolerated and effective across indications.

Efficacy of subcutaneous vs intravenous infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis: a post-hoc analysis of a randomized phase III trial

OBJECTIVES

The primary endpoint of the pivotal phase III study of infliximab (IFX) s.c. demonstrated non-inferiority of s.c. to i.v. IFX, based on 28-joint DAS-CRP (DAS28-CRP) improvement at week (W) 22 (NCT03147248). This post-hoc analysis investigated whether numerical differences in efficacy outcomes at W30/54 were statistically significant, using conservative imputation methods.

METHODS

Patients with active RA and inadequate response to MTX received IFX i.v. 3 mg/kg at W0 and W2 (induction) and were randomized (1:1) to IFX s.c. 120 mg every 2 weeks or i.v. 3 mg/kg every 8 weeks thereafter (maintenance). Patients randomized to IFX i.v. switched to IFX s.c. from W30-54. This post-hoc analysis compared efficacy outcomes for s.c. and i.v. groups pre-switch (W30) and post-switch (W54) using last observation carried forward (LOCF) and non-responder imputation (NRI) methods.

RESULTS

Of 343 randomized patients, 165 (IFX s.c.) and 174 (IFX i.v.) were analysed. At W30, significantly improved outcomes were identified with s.c. vs i.v. IFX for DAS28-CRP/DAS28-ESR/Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)/Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) scores (LOCF); ACR/good EULAR responses, DAS28-CRP/Boolean remission, and DAS28-CRP/DAS28-ESR/CDAI/SDAI low disease activity and remission (LOCF and/or NRI); and minimal clinically important difference in HAQ score (LOCF and NRI). After switching to IFX s.c. from IFX i.v., fewer significant between-group differences were identified at W54.

CONCLUSION

IFX s.c. showed improved efficacy at W30 compared with IFX i.v., and the reduced between-group difference in efficacy outcomes at W54 after switching supports the results suggesting benefits of IFX s.c. compared with IFX i.v. at W30.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClincialTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03147248, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03147248.

Biosimilars in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a pharmacokinetic overview

INTRODUCTION

As of May 2023, 19 and 18 biosimilars have been approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) respectively.

AREA COVERED

Pharmacokinetic results of phase 1 studies of approved biosimilars were reviewed by systematic literature search. The impact of immunogenicity on the pharmacokinetic data and clinical response was assessed, and the potential benefit of monitoring serum concentrations of biologic drugs is discussed. The advantage of subcutaneous CT-P13 (an infliximab biosimilar) in clinical practice is reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

Biosimilars are approved based on the totality of evidence including comparable physiochemical properties, PK / PD profiles, and clinical efficacy and safety to the originator. To utilize biosimilars more effectively, physicians should be aware of the utility of combination DMARD therapy to reduce immunogenicity and maintain efficacy and PK profile. PK monitoring, however, is not currently recommended in clinical practice. CT-P13 subcutaneous (SC) is the first SC infliximab used for treatment of RA patients. Based on data from clinical studies and the real world, SC-infliximab is an attractive therapeutic option compared to IV formulations of infliximab based on its efficacy, pharmacokinetics, patient-reported outcomes, and safety profile.

Real-world experience with subcutaneous infliximab: broadening treatment strategies for inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

The first subcutaneous (SC) formulation of infliximab (IFX), CT‑P13 SC, has been approved in Europe and Australia, including for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

AREAS COVERED

We provide a comprehensive overview of available clinical trial and real-world data for IFX SC treatment of IBD, focusing on the potential benefits of switching from IFX intravenous (IV) to IFX SC. We evaluate emerging evidence for IFX SC treatment for difficult-to-treat IBD, use as monotherapy, and suitability for patients receiving escalated IFX IV doses. Therapeutic drug monitoring approaches and patient and healthcare system perspectives on IFX SC are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

IFX SC represents a significant treatment innovation in the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor class after approximately 20 years of IFX IV availability. Evidence suggests that IFX SC is well tolerated and is associated with high patient acceptance and satisfaction. In addition, effectiveness is maintained in patients with stable disease following switch from IFX IV. Switching may be advisable, given the clinical benefits of IFX SC and its potential to improve healthcare service capacity. There are several areas requiring further research, including the role of IFX SC in difficult-to-treat and refractory disease, and the feasibility of IFX SC monotherapy.

Subcutaneous Infliximab Monotherapy Versus Combination Therapy with Immunosuppressants in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomised Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Whether benefits and risks of intravenous (IV) infliximab combotherapy with immunosuppressants versus infliximab monotherapy apply to subcutaneous (SC) infliximab is unknown. This post hoc analysis of a pivotal randomised CT-P13 SC 1.6 trial aimed to compare SC infliximab monotherapy with combotherapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

Biologic-naïve patients with active Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis received CT-P13 IV 5 mg/kg at Week (W) 0 and 2 (dose-loading phase). At W6, patients were randomised (1:1) to receive CT-P13 SC 120 or 240 mg (patients < 80 or ≥ 80 kg) every 2 weeks until W54 (maintenance phase), or to continue CT-P13 IV every 8 weeks until switching to CT-P13 SC from W30. The primary endpoint-non-inferiority of trough serum concentrations-was assessed at W22. We report a post hoc analysis comparing pharmacokinetic, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity outcomes up to W54 for patients randomised to CT-P13 SC, stratified by concomitant immunosuppressant use.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were randomised to CT-P13 SC (37 monotherapy, 29 combotherapy). At W54, there were no significant differences in the proportions of patients achieving target exposure (5 µg/mL; 96.6% monotherapy vs 95.8% combotherapy; p > 0.999) or meeting efficacy or biomarker outcomes including clinical remission (62.9% vs 74.1%; p = 0.418). Monotherapy and combotherapy groups had comparable immunogenicity (anti-drug antibodies [ADAs]: 65.5% vs 48.0% [p = 0.271], neutralising antibodies [in ADA-positive patients]: 10.5% vs 16.7% [p = 0.630], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacokinetics, efficacy and immunogenicity were potentially comparable between SC infliximab monotherapy and combotherapy in biologic-naïve IBD patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02883452.

The second decade of anti-TNF-a therapy in clinical practice: new lessons and future directions in the COVID-19 era

Since the late 1990s, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors (anti-TNFs) have revolutionized the therapy of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) affecting the gut, joints, skin and eyes. Although the therapeutic armamentarium in IMIDs is being constantly expanded, anti-TNFs remain the cornerstone of their treatment. During the second decade of their application in clinical practice, a large body of additional knowledge has accumulated regarding various aspects of anti-TNF-α therapy, whereas new indications have been added. Recent experimental studies have shown that anti-TNFs exert their beneficial effects not only by restoring aberrant TNF-mediated immune mechanisms, but also by de-activating pathogenic fibroblast-like mesenchymal cells. Real-world data on millions of patients further confirmed the remarkable efficacy of anti-TNFs. It is now clear that anti-TNFs alter the physical course of inflammatory arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, leading to inhibition of local and systemic bone loss and to a decline in the number of surgeries for disease-related complications, while anti-TNFs improve morbidity and mortality, acting beneficially also on cardiovascular comorbidities. On the other hand, no new safety signals emerged, whereas anti-TNF-α safety in pregnancy and amid the COVID-19 pandemic was confirmed. The use of biosimilars was associated with cost reductions making anti-TNFs more widely available. Moreover, the current implementation of the "treat-to-target" approach and treatment de-escalation strategies of IMIDs were based on anti-TNFs. An intensive search to discover biomarkers to optimize response to anti-TNF-α treatment is currently ongoing. Finally, selective targeting of TNF-α receptors, new forms of anti-TNFs and combinations with other agents, are being tested in clinical trials and will probably expand the spectrum of TNF-α inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for IMIDs.

How to select a best-value biological medicine? A practical model to support hospital pharmacists

DISCLAIMER

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

PURPOSE

With the growing availability of biosimilars on the global market, clinicians and pharmacists have multiple off-patent biological products to choose from. Besides the competitiveness of the product's price, other criteria should be considered when selecting a best-value biological. This article aims to provide a model to facilitate transparent best-value biological selection in the off-patent biological medicines segment.

SUMMARY

The presented model was developed on the basis of established multicriteria decision analysis tools for rational and transparent medicine selection, ie, the System of Objectified Judgement Analysis and InforMatrix. Criteria for the model were informed by earlier research, a literature search, and evaluation by the authors. The developed model includes up-to-date guidance on criteria that can be considered in selection and provides background on the allocation of weights that may aid hospital pharmacists and clinicians with decision-making in practice. Three main categories of criteria besides price were identified and included in the model: (1) product-driven criteria, (2) service-driven criteria, and (3) patient-driven criteria. Product-driven criteria include technical product features and licensed therapeutic indications. Service-driven criteria consist of supply conditions, value-added services, and environment and sustainability criteria. Patient-driven criteria contain product administration elements such as ease of use and service elements such as patient support programs. Relative weighting of the criteria is largely context dependent and should in a given setting be determined at the beginning of the process.

CONCLUSION

The practical model described here may support hospital pharmacists and clinicians with transparent and evidence-based best-value biological selection in clinical practice.

Re-Routing Infliximab Therapy: Subcutaneous Infliximab Opens a Path Towards Greater Convenience and Clinical Benefit

Subcutaneous infliximab recently received approval for the treatment of various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases in Europe, following pivotal clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. Subcutaneous infliximab demonstrated an improved pharmacokinetic profile compared with intravenous infliximab: the more stable exposure and increased systemic drug concentrations mean it has been cited as a biobetter. Alongside the pharmacokinetic advantages, potential benefits for efficacy, immunogenicity, and health-related quality-of-life outcomes have been suggested with subcutaneous infliximab. During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the benefits of subcutaneous over intravenous therapies became apparent: switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab reduced the hospital visit-related healthcare resource burden and potential viral transmission. Clinical advantages observed in pivotal trials are also being seen in the real world. Accumulating experience from four European countries (the UK, Spain, France, and Germany) in patients with rheumatic diseases and inflammatory bowel disease supports clinical trial findings that subcutaneous infliximab is well tolerated, increases serum drug concentrations, and offers maintained or improved efficacy outcomes for patients switching from intravenous infliximab. Initial evidence is emerging with subcutaneous infliximab treatment after intravenous infliximab failure. High patient satisfaction and pharmacoeconomic benefits have also been reported with subcutaneous infliximab. Treatments aligned with patient preferences for the flexibility and convenience of at-home subcutaneous administration could boost adherence and treatment outcomes. Altogether, findings suggest that switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab could be advantageous, and healthcare professionals should be prepared to discuss supporting data as part of shared decision making during patient consultations.

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

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

Real-world evidence for subcutaneous infliximab (CT-P13 SC) treatment in patients with psoriatic arthritis during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: A case series

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the benefits of subcutaneous (SC) administration for healthcare systems. The first SC infliximab, CT-P13 SC, was safe and effective for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Observed patient preferences for continuing CT-P13 SC suggest that patients receiving IV infliximab should be offered a switch to CT-P13 SC.

Real-world evidence for subcutaneous infliximab (CT-P13 SC) treatment in patients with ankylosing spondylitis during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: A case series

The COVID-19 pandemic emphasized the utility of subcutaneous (SC) biologics for pressured healthcare systems. The first SC form of infliximab, CT-P13 SC, provided safe and effective treatment for ankylosing spondylitis in our case series, with increased convenience relative to intravenous treatment benefitting patients both during the pandemic and beyond.

CT-P13 SC for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) has improved following the implementation of early intensive treat to target recommendations and the availability of different biologicals. Most experience is with TNF blockers, but challenges remain in the efficacy/safety balance, immunogenicity, and long-term drug survival as well as availability and affordability despite the introduction of biosimilars.

AREA COVERED

We provide an overview of the development of CT-P13 SC based on infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 IV. The one-year pivotal phase I/III trial in RA showed CT-P13 120 mg SC fixed dose to have favorable pharmacokinetics compared to CT-P13 IV classical weight adapted dosing, similar to lower anti-drug antibodies, similar safety and non-inferiority for efficacy at 6 months.

EXPERT OPINION

CT-P13 SC is an additional option in RA treatment and by extension for other inflammatory diseases as Inflammatory Bowel Disease. This new way of administration has the potential to improve long-term drug survival of infliximab, improve patient outcomes, and patient comfort.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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