ECCO Position Statement on the Use of Biosimilars for Inflammatory Bowel Disease-An Update

Optimal Management of Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), encompassing Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), is a chronic and often debilitating condition requiring complex and individualized management. Over the past few decades, advancements in understanding IBD pathophysiology have led to a transformative shift in therapeutic approaches. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the evolution of IBD treatments, from early symptom-focused therapies to modern biologics, small molecule agents, and emerging treatment strategies. We discuss therapeutic goals centered on achieving clinical remission, endoscopic/mucosal healing, and enhancing patient quality of life. Additionally, we explore the rationale for the early and personalized use of biologic therapies in moderate-to-severe cases, review the current FDA-approved agents as of 2024, and highlight the advantages and limitations of these treatments. Special attention is given to the evolving role of novel oral therapies, including Janus kinase inhibitors and sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators, and future new directions. This paper aims to guide clinicians in navigating the expanding therapeutic landscape of IBD, emphasizing patient-centered decision-making and addressing ongoing challenges in achieving optimal disease control.

Patient Satisfaction and Experience with CT-P17 Following Transition from Reference Adalimumab or Another Adalimumab Biosimilar: Results from the Real-World YU-MATTER Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Biosimilars are cost-effective alternatives to reference products for patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) and chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases (CIRD), but patient beliefs can affect adherence to the transition. This study aimed to explore patient experience and satisfaction after switching to CT-P17, a high-concentration (100 mg/mL), citrate-free adalimumab biosimilar.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This observational, multicenter, prospective French study included adult patients with IBD or CIRD who switched to CT-P17 from reference adalimumab (R-ADA; 100 mg/mL) or a low-concentration adalimumab biosimilar (ADA-BioS; 50 mg/mL). Patients completed online questionnaires to assess treatment perceptions, satisfaction, and tolerance at study inclusion (under previous treatment) and over 3 months of CT-P17 treatment. The primary criterion was overall patient satisfaction, which was assessed with the question, "What is your global satisfaction with the CT-P17 injection?", using a 7-point Likert scale. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with increased treatment satisfaction after switching to CT-P17.

RESULTS

The total analysis population included 232 patients (IBD 72.0%, CIRD 28.0%). Median patient age was 57.0 years (interquartile range [IQR] 46.0-63.0), 50.4% were men, and median disease duration was 9 years (IQR 5-16). Approximately half of the cohort (51.2%) switched to CT-P17 from an ADA-BioS (including 19.4% from an ADA-BioS with citrate) and half (48.7%) from R-ADA. The proportion of patients who were satisfied with treatment was stable between baseline (under previous treatment) and 3 months (under CT-P17). More patients reported increased satisfaction after switching to CT-P17 from an ADA-BioS (22.7% vs 8.0% when switching from R-ADA; p = 0.002), or from an ADA-BioS containing citrate (28.9% vs 12.3% when switching from a citrate-free ADA-BioS; p = 0.008). Independent prognostic factors for increased satisfaction were previous treatment with an ADA-BioS (odds ratio [OR] 2.88 [95% confidence interval 1.17-7.08]; p = 0.021) and pain at the injection site under previous treatment (OR 1.26 [1.08-1.47]; p = 0.004). Significantly fewer patients reported pain, redness, itching, and hematoma after 3 months of CT-P17 treatment versus baseline (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients had stable or increased treatment satisfaction after switching from R-ADA or an ADA-BioS to CT-P17. In particular, switching to CT-P17 from a low-concentration ADA-BioS or an ADA-BioS containing citrate was associated with increased patient satisfaction. An improvement in overall tolerance with CT-P17 versus previous adalimumab treatment was also reported.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05427942, registered June 22, 2022.

Improved injection site reactions after switching from adalimumab reference to adalimumab biosimilar LBAL for ulcerative colitis: A case report

RATIONALE

Adalimumab (ADA) is an antitumor necrosis factor agent that is used for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. However, its cost has resulted in varying degrees of restricted access across global healthcare economies. Biosimilars are agents that contain a similar version of the active substance of an already approved original biologic agent and are intended to be used for the same indication as the reference product. In general, biosimilars follow the originator; therefore, information on its efficacy and safety had been few. Some studies have reported on replacement of the originator with a biosimilar of the same efficacy because of medical reasons.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 15-year-old girl with steroid-dependent ulcerative colitis that relapsed after vedolizumab was treated with ADA reference. Six weeks after starting ADA reference, her gastrointestinal symptoms had completely resolved, however, immediately after the eighth dose of ADA reference, redness, swelling, and pruritus were noted at the injection site on the left thigh.

DIAGNOSIS

Allergic reaction caused by the ADA reference.

INTERVENTION

ADA reference was changed to ADA biosimilar LBAL.

OUTCOMES

ADA biosimilar LBAL was continued without any symptoms, such as local swelling, redness, or itching. In addition, there was no deterioration of gastrointestinal symptoms.

LESSONS

We showed the efficacy and safety of ADA biosimilar LBAL as an alternative to ADA reference, which caused injection site reactions. Changing from ADA reference to ADA biosimilar because of adverse events may be an option that needs careful observation, considering that the originator and the biosimilar are not exactly the same.

Real-world experience with biosimilar infliximab-adba and infliximab-dyyb among infliximab-naïve patients with inflammatory bowel disease in the Veterans Health Administration

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) listed the infliximab (IFX) biosimilar, IFX-dyyb (Inflectra), on the Veterans Affairs National Formulary (VANF) in May 2017. In September 2018, biosimilar IFX-abda (Renflexis) became the VANF IFX product. The recommended formulary changes from one IFX biosimilar to another provided a unique opportunity to study IFX utilization patterns in IFX-naïve Veterans with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). This study aimed to describe IFX and healthcare utilization during the 365 days after initiation with IFX reference product (RP) or biosimilars IFX-dyyb and IFX-adba. This descriptive study was performed using the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse. All Veterans initiated on IFX-RP (Remicade) or biosimilars IFX-dyyb and IFX-adba between September 1, 2016 and December 30, 2019 were included and followed for 365 days. Veterans enrolled in the VHA for at least 365 days with no evidence of IFX before their index date were considered IFX-naïve. Continuous data on IFX use, laboratory measurements, and healthcare utilization were reported with means, 95% confidence interval (CI), medians, and interquartile ranges. Frequency, proportions, and 95% CIs were presented for categorical variables. Statistical tests included ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis for continuous outcomes, Poisson regression for count-based outcomes (i.e., healthcare utilization visits), and Chi-square for dichotomous outcomes. The study identified 1763 IFX-naïve patients with IBD, and 785, 441, and 537 was indexed to RP, IFX-dyyb, and IFX-adba, respectively. Statistical differences were observed in IFX utilization measures related to dosing, adherence, and persistence. The proportion of days covered (PDC) during the 365-day follow-up period varied among the IFX groups: IFX-RP at 66%, IFX-dyyb at 60%, and IFX-abda at 69% (P value < .001). Persistence with the index IFX product during the 365-day follow-up period also varied: IFX-RP at 43%, IFX-dyyb at 32%, and IFX-abda at 51% (P value < .001). Healthcare utilization and laboratory findings were similar among the IFX groups. IFX utilization and laboratory patterns were clinically similar among the IFX biosimilars and RP groups, suggesting that providers did not modify their practice with biosimilars. Statistically significant differences in IFX utilization patterns are explained by formulary dynamics when the VANF product switched from IFX-dyyb to IFX-abda.

Efficacy and safety of biosimilar infliximab in bio-naïve patients with Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 was the first biosimilar drug targeting tumor necrosis factor-α. However, its efficacy and safety in real-world clinical situations have remained insufficient. Therefore, we aimed to verify the efficacy and safety of CT-P13 in bio-naïve patients with Crohn's disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective multicenter study compared the remission rate at week 54 between patients with Crohn's disease who were treated with originator infliximab or CT-P13. Endoscopic and laboratory findings were assessed in both groups. A total of 184 (156 originator and 28 CT-P13) patients were analyzed. Of these, 138 originator users and 19 biosimilar users completed 54-week administration.

RESULTS

The clinical remission rates in patients taking originator infliximab of CT-P13 at week 54 were 92.5 % and 100 %, respectively. The endoscopic scores of each group significantly decreased from baseline at week 54 in both groups, and the mucosal healing rate at week 54 was 53 % and 64 %, respectively. Laboratory data including C-reactive protein, serum albumin, and hemoglobin significantly improved from baseline to week 14 and 54 in both groups. Adverse events were observed more frequently in the CT-P13 group (25 % vs. 4.5 %, p = 0.0015), but severe adverse events were rare in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of CT-P13 were comparable with those of originator infliximab in bio-naïve patients with Crohn's disease evaluated by clinical, endoscopic, and laboratory findings. This study establishes the needed groundwork for the development of a strategy for treatment with biologics in patients with Crohn's disease.

Infliximab biosimilar GP1111: a review of 5 years' post-approval experience

INTRODUCTION

Infliximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor alpha, and GP1111 (Zessly®, Sandoz) is the most recently approved infliximab biosimilar in Europe. We reviewed the approval process and key evidence for GP1111, focusing primarily on the indications of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review discusses preclinical, clinical, and real-world data for GP1111.

EXPERT OPINION

Results from the Phase III REFLECTIONS trial in patients with moderate-to-severe active RA despite methotrexate therapy confirmed the similarity in efficacy and safety between GP1111 and reference infliximab. Switching from reference infliximab to GP1111 in REFLECTIONS had no impact on efficacy or safety. Since the European approval of GP1111 in March 2018, real-world data have also confirmed the efficacy and safety of switching from another infliximab biosimilar to GP1111 in patients with RA and IBD. In addition, budget impact analysis of various sequential targeted treatments in patients with RA found that GP1111 was cost-effective when used early after failure of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Therefore, 5 years' post-approval experience with GP1111 in RA and IBD, and key clinical and real-world evidence, support the safety and efficacy of continued use of GP1111 in all infliximab-approved indications.

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

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

Use of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review of Published Position Statements and Recommendations from Health Organisations and Societies

BACKGROUND

Hesitation about using biosimilars still exists among healthcare professionals (HCPs), despite extensive experience with their use. Globally, several health organisations and societies from various specialties have issued biosimilar position statements to guide the use of biosimilars in their specialties. However, it is uncertain how similar or different their positions or recommendations are or whether these positions have evolved with the increased experience and availability of new evidence.

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to describe and assess the recommendations of published position statements regarding several aspects of biosimilars across specialties and determine whether these positions have changed with the emergence of new evidence.

METHODS

We systematically searched for published position statements of biosimilars in online databases and included statements written in English. The search was from the inception of the databases until May 2023. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Only position statements that included recommendations to guide the use of biosimilars in clinical practice and were issued by health organisations and societies, including expert panels, were included. We synthesised recommendations on five aspects: prescribing practice, extrapolation of indication, interchangeability, treatment initiation with biosimilars in biologic-naïve patients, and pharmacovigilance.

RESULTS

The review included 25 papers involving eight specialties, 16 of which were from European countries, 1 from an international organisation representing 49 countries, and 6 from various countries. The papers were published between 2009 and 2020, with 19 published between 2015 and 2020. Of the five aspects of biosimilars assessed, nearly half (11 of 25) of the papers at the time they were published did not base their positions on a scientific or evidence-based approach. Only 4 of the 25 position papers were identified as revisions of their previous papers. With increasing experience in biosimilars and the emergence of new evidence, about 60% (16 of 25) of the papers contained outdated recommendations, particularly on two aspects. They were extrapolations of indications and interchangeability (including switching). The recommendations for most papers for three other aspects were still appropriate. These were prescribing biosimilars by their brand name and active ingredient, initiating treatment with biosimilars in biologic-naïve patients, and monitoring the long-term safety of biosimilars through pharmacovigilance. For four of the revised papers, their position evolved from opposing indication extrapolation for biosimilars to accepting it, while the position of two papers shifted from not recommending biosimilar switching to permitting the practice. Meanwhile, most papers were against automatic substitution by pharmacists because the evidence for this practice was still limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Across specialties, the variability among the position statements is seen for extrapolation of indications for biosimilars and interchangeability (including switching). This requires a revision, considering the latest evidence and growing experience with the use of biosimilars in extrapolated indications and with switching.

Leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars in Europe - part 2: how payers can safeguard the future of a healthy biosimilar market environment

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars have improved access to biologic medicines; however, historical thinking may jeopardize the viability of future markets.

AREAS COVERED

An expert panel of eight diverse European stakeholders provided insights about rethinking biosimilars and cost-savings, reducing patient access inequalities, increasing inter-market equity, and improving education. The insights reported here (Part 2) follow a study that provides perspectives on leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars for market sustainability based on independent survey results and telephone interviews of stakeholders from diverse biosimilar markets (Part 1). Directional recommendations are provided for payers.

EXPERT OPINION

The panel's market maturity framework for biosimilars has three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand' and 'Harvest.' Across market stages, re-thinking the benefits of biosimilars beyond cost-savings, considering earlier or expanded access/new indications, product innovations, and re-investment of biosimilar-generated cost-savings should be communicated to stakeholders to promote further engagement. During 'Expand' and 'Harvest' stages, development of efficient, forward-looking procurement systems and mechanisms that drive uptake and stabilize competition between manufacturers are key. Future biosimilars will target various therapy areas beyond those targeted by existing biosimilars. To ensure a healthy, accessible future market, stakeholders must align their objectives, communicate, collaborate, and coordinate via education, incentivization, and procurement, to maximize the totality of benefits.

Novel and emerging drugs for the treatment of Crohn's disease: a review of phase II and III trials

INTRODUCTION

Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease characterized by unpredictable flare-ups and periods of remission. While several therapeutic options, such as anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF), anti-integrin, and interleukin (IL) 12/23 inhibitors, as well as IL-23 and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, have been approved for CD treatment, a substantial number of patients fail to respond adequately or experience a loss of response over time. In recent years, the scientific community has been actively investigating novel agents to address these challenges and improve the management of CD.

AREAS COVERED

This comprehensive narrative review provides an overview of recent developments in CD treatment, summarizing phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data. We delve into the clinical efficacy and safety profiles of emerging therapies, encompassing JAK inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitors, anti-adhesion molecules, S1P1 receptor modulators, and combined targeted treatments.

EXPERT OPINION

The armamentarium of CD therapeutic agents is constantly expanding. We analyze pivotal findings from phase 2 and phase 3 CD treatment trials. We also underscore the existing gaps in therapy and the paramount role of ongoing research and innovation in CD management.

Clinical use of biologics for Crohn's disease in adults: lessons learned from real-world studies

INTRODUCTION

The therapeutic armamentarium for managing Crohn's disease (CD) has expanded significantly in recent decades. Several biologics with three different mechanisms of action [anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, anti-integrin α4β7, and anti-IL 12/23] are currently available to manage CD.

AREA COVERED

This narrative review aims to summarize the most significant efficacy and safety data on the use of infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADA), vedolizumab (VDZ) and ustekinumab (UST) for the treatment of CD obtained from studies conducted in the real world (RW), compared to the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

EXPERT OPINION

RW studies reported that biologic agents included in this analysis have higher remission rates and lower adverse event rates than findings from RCTs for treating patients with CD. All biological agents have proven effective and safe in RW studies, even when using biosimilars or switching to subcutaneous administration of the molecules for which they are available. Finally, anti-TNF-α agents, particularly IFX, have a higher rate of adverse events (AEs) than VDZ and UST. Therefore, patients at higher risk of AEs may benefit from other biologics than anti-TNF-α. However, further long-term RW studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Comparison of endoscopic healing and durability between infliximab originator and CT-P13 in pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Background and aims

Favourable clinical data were published on the efficacy of CT-P13, the first biosimilar of infliximab (IFX), in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); however, few studies have compared the effect on endoscopic healing (EH) and drug retention rate between the IFX originator and CT-P13. Therefore, we aimed to compare EH and the drug retention rate between the IFX originator and CT-P13.

Methods

Children with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC)/IBD-unclassified (IBD-U) at 22 medical centers were enrolled, with a retrospective review conducted at 1-year and last follow-up. Clinical remission, EH and drug retention rate were evaluated.

Results

We studied 416 pediatric patients with IBD: 77.4% had CD and 22.6% had UC/IBD-U. Among them, 255 (61.3%) received the IFX originator and 161 (38.7%) received CT-P13. No statistically significant differences were found between the IFX originator and CT-P13 in terms of corticosteroid-free remission and adverse events. At 1-year follow-up, EH rates were comparable between them (CD: P=0.902, UC: P=0.860). The estimated cumulative cessation rates were not significantly different between the two groups. In patients with CD, the drug retention rates were 66.1% in the IFX originator and 71.6% in the CT-P13 group at the maximum follow-up period (P >0.05). In patients with UC, the drug retention rates were 49.8% in the IFX originator and 56.3% in the CT-P13 group at the maximum follow-up period (P >0.05).

Conclusions

The IFX originator and CT-P13 demonstrated comparable therapeutic response including EH, clinical remission, drug retention rate and safety in pediatric IBD.

Rheumatology Patients' Experiences of a Mandatory Nationwide Transition to an Adalimumab Biosimilar

OBJECTIVE

Transitions to biosimilars are common to reduce the cost burden of biologics. While brand changes can be daunting for patients, few studies have explored patients' experiences with the transitioning process. This study examined rheumatology patients' experiences with a mandatory nationwide brand change to an adalimumab biosimilar.

METHODS

People with rheumatic diseases involved in the adalimumab transition in Aotearoa New Zealand completed a nationwide online survey. Participants (n = 117, 48% with rheumatoid arthritis) reported their satisfaction with the biosimilar, logistics and supply, information and communication, and availability of support. They also reported what did and did not go well during the transition and provided recommendations for future transitions.

RESULTS

The mean [SD] satisfaction score with the transition was 6.2 [3.2] on a 0-10 scale, with 10 indicating high satisfaction. Participants were the least satisfied with the support and information from patient support organizations, and training for the device during the transition. Participants were most satisfied with the biosimilar supply, support from pharmacists, and how early they were informed before the transition occurred. After the transition, participants were less satisfied with the device quality, patient support program, biosimilar safety and efficacy, and the provision of alcohol wipes and sharps bins (p < 0.05 for all). Satisfaction with training for the biosimilar device (B = .25, p = .036) predicted overall satisfaction. Participants appreciated less injection pain and the ease of the biosimilar device. The lack of alcohol wipes and loss of the bio-originator support program were viewed negatively.

CONCLUSION

Future biosimilar transitions should ensure the availability of alcohol wipes, sharps bins, and a comparable patient support program. Patient support organizations could be involved in providing information to patients about the change.

Real-World Experience of Adalimumab Biosimilar (ABP 501) Use in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Europe

INTRODUCTION

Approval of adalimumab biosimilar ABP 501 (Amgevita®) for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was based upon the principle of extrapolation. Real-world experience of ABP 501 utilization in IBD can provide useful information to healthcare providers and patients.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the 2020-2021 Adelphi IBD Disease Specific Programme™ conducted in five major European countries. Participating gastroenterologists completed a point-in-time survey to provide patient medical record data, and patients voluntarily completed questionnaires to report health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Descriptive analyses were conducted for "ABP 501 initiators" (received ABP 501 as first advanced therapy) and "RP-ABP 501 switchers" (switched to ABP 501 from reference product [RP; Humira®] as first advanced therapy).

RESULTS

This analysis included 239 ABP 501 initiators and 136 RP-ABP 501 switchers. At consultation, initiators had been on ABP 501 treatment for a median of 7.5 months and switchers had received ABP 501 for a median of 7.7 months following the switch from a median of 14.0 months treatment with RP. About 74% of initiators and 89% of switchers were reported by their treating physicians as being in clinical remission. Physicians and patients reported satisfaction with ABP 501 in the range of 92-99% across both groups. Patient self-assessment, including EuroQol visual analogue scale, Short IBD Questionnaire, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scores, suggested minimal impairment of HRQoL while on ABP 501. The most common reason for RP to ABP 501 switch was lower healthcare costs.

CONCLUSION

Both patients with IBD and treating physicians reported high levels of satisfaction with ABP 501 among initiators and switchers.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Initial prescriptions and medication switches of biological products: an analysis of prescription pathways and determinants in the Swiss healthcare setting

OBJECTIVES

Biological products have contributed to extraordinary advances in disease treatments over the last decade. However, the cost-saving potential of imitator products, so-called biosimilars, is still under-researched in Switzerland. This study aims to assess biosimilars' prescriptions at treatment initiation and their determinants, as well as biological therapy switches.

DESIGN

The study included all patients who had at least one biosimilar available on the market at the time when they were prescribed a biological product. We analysed longitudinal data for biosimilar prescriptions in Switzerland using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to quantify the associations with individual, pharmaceutical and provider-related variables.

SETTING

The analysis is based on de-identified claims data of patients with mandatory health insurance at Helsana, one of the Swiss health insurance companies with a substantial enrollee base in mandatory health insurance.

PARTICIPANTS

Overall, 18 953 patients receiving at least one biological product between 2016 and 2021 were identified.

OUTCOME MEASURES

We differentiated between initial prescriptions and follow-up prescriptions. Our regression focused on initial prescriptions due to evidence indicating that patients tend to follow the medication prescribed at therapy initiation.

RESULTS

Although biosimilars' market share was low (28.6%), the number of prescriptions has increased (from 1016 in 2016 to 6976 in 2021). Few patients with medication switches (n=1492, 8.5%) were detected. Increased relative price difference (difference in the price of available biosimilars relative to price of corresponding reference product) was associated with decreased probability of biosimilar prescriptions, whereas male sex, an increase of available imitator drugs on the market, larger packaging sizes, and prescriptions from specialists or physicians in outpatient settings were associated with increased biosimilar use.

CONCLUSION

The low number of biosimilar prescriptions, despite the proliferating biosimilar market, indicates a high potential for biosimilar diffusion. The findings indicate that patients typically adhere to the therapy options initially chosen and are less inclined to make changes following the initiation of treatment. Our research highlights the need for awareness initiatives to improve understanding among patients and physicians, enabling informed, shared decision-making about biosimilar prescriptions.

Clinical guidelines. Crohn’s disease (К50), adults

.

Long-term effectiveness and safety of infliximab-biosimilar: A multicenter Phoenix retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Infliximab (IFX) effectively treats patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). IFX-biosimilar (IFX-BS) has the same amino acid sequence as that of the IFX originator, and its increasing use is expected to reduce national healthcare costs. Long-term efficacy and safety of IFX-BS in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) have not been completely investigated.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, multicenter observational study of patients with IBD who received IFX-BS treatment at three hospitals between October 2016 and April 2022. Clinical data were collected from electronic medical records and evaluated for achieving clinical remission (CR) using Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) and partial Mayo (pMayo) score, persistency of long-term IFX-BS administration, and clinical response rate in the bio-naïve and bio-failure groups.

RESULTS

A total of 117 patients with IBD (90 CD and 27 UC) were included. The study findings indicated that both bio-naïve and bio-failure groups of patients with UC showed similar effectiveness of IFX-BS. The treatment persistence rate in patients with CD was significantly higher in the bio-naïve (P = 0.042) and switch (P = 0.010) groups than in the bio-failure group. In the former two groups, the treatment persistence rate was high at two years after administration (more than 80%). In patients with UC, the findings indicated higher treatment persistence rate in the switch group than in the bio-naïve group. Univariable and multivariable analyses for treatment persistence rate showed that the albumin level at the initial IFX-BS administration and groups (bio-naïve, bio-failure and switch) were effective factors for patients with CD. Adverse events were reported in 18 patients (15.4%).

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrates the long-term effectiveness and safety of IFX-BS. In addition to the favorable remission induction in the bio-naïve and bio-failure groups, we demonstrated remission maintenance and treatment persistence rates beyond two years. Albumin level and groups were associated with better treatment persistence in patients with CD.

Ulcerative Colitis in Adults: A Review

Importance

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the colon, with a prevalence exceeding 400 per 100 000 in North America. Individuals with UC have a lower life expectancy and are at increased risk for colectomy and colorectal cancer.

Observations

UC impairs quality of life secondary to inflammation of the colon causing chronic diarrhea and rectal bleeding. Extraintestinal manifestations, such as primary sclerosing cholangitis, occur in approximately 27% of patients with UC. People with UC require monitoring of symptoms and biomarkers of inflammation (eg, fecal calprotectin), and require colonoscopy at 8 years from diagnosis for surveillance of dysplasia. Risk stratification by disease location (eg, Montreal Classification) and disease activity (eg, Mayo Score) can guide management of UC. First-line therapy for induction and maintenance of remission of mild to moderate UC is 5-aminosalicylic acid. Moderate to severe UC may require oral corticosteroids for induction of remission as a bridge to medications that sustain remission (biologic monoclonal antibodies against tumor necrosis factor [eg, infliximab], α4β7 integrins [vedolizumab], and interleukin [IL] 12 and IL-23 [ustekinumab]) and oral small molecules that inhibit janus kinase (eg, tofacitinib) or modulate sphingosine-1-phosphate (ozanimod). Despite advances in medical therapies, the highest response to these treatments ranges from 30% to 60% in clinical trials. Within 5 years of diagnosis, approximately 20% of patients with UC are hospitalized and approximately 7% undergo colectomy. The risk of colorectal cancer after 20 years of disease duration is 4.5%, and people with UC have a 1.7-fold higher risk for colorectal cancer compared with the general population. Life expectancy in people with UC is approximately 80.5 years for females and 76.7 years for males, which is approximately 5 years shorter than people without UC.

Conclusions and Relevance

UC affects approximately 400 of every 100 000 people in North America. An effective treatment for mild to moderate UC is 5-aminosalicylic acid, whereas moderate to severe UC can be treated with advanced therapies that target specific inflammation pathways, including monoclonal antibodies to tumor necrosis factor, α4β7 integrins, and IL-12 and IL-23 cytokines, as well as oral small molecule therapies targeting janus kinase or sphingosine-1-phosphate.

Discontinuation of infliximab treatment in patients with inflammatory bowel disease who retransitioned to originator and those who remained on biosimilar

Background

Many patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have transitioned from an infliximab originator to a biosimilar. However, some patients retransition to the originator (i.e. stop biosimilar and reinitiate the originator). Whether this sign of potential unsatisfactory treatment response is specifically related to the infliximab biosimilar or the patient and/or the disease including patients' beliefs on the biosimilar is unclear.

Objectives

We aimed to compare the risk of and reasons for infliximab discontinuation between retransitioned patients and those remaining on biosimilar.

Design

Non-interventional, multicentre cohort study.

Methods

IBD patients who transitioned from infliximab originator to biosimilar between January 2015 and September 2019 in two Dutch hospitals were eligible for this study. Retransitioned patients (retransitioning cohort) were matched with patients remaining on biosimilar (biosimilar remainder cohort). Reasons for discontinuation were categorised as the unwanted response (i.e. loss of effect or adverse events) or remission. Risk of unwanted discontinuation was compared using Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

Patients in the retransitioning cohort (n = 44) were younger (median age 39.9 versus 44.0 years), more often female (65.9% versus 48.9%) and had shorter dosing intervals (median 48.5 versus 56.0 days) than in the biosimilar remainder cohort (n = 127). Infliximab discontinuation due to unwanted response was 22.7% in the retransitioning and 13.4% in the biosimilar remainder cohort, and due to remission was 2.3% and 9.4%, respectively. Retransitioned patients are at increased risk of discontinuing due to unwanted response compared with biosimilar remainder patients (adjusted HR 3.7, 95% CI: 1.0-13.9). Patients who retransitioned due to an increase in objective disease markers had higher discontinuation rates than patients who retransitioned due to symptoms only (66.7% versus 23.7%).

Conclusion

Retransitioned patients are at increased risk of infliximab discontinuation due to unwanted response. Retransitioning appeared related to the patient and/or disease and not the product. Clinicians might switch patients opting for retransitioning to other treatment regimens.

The 2023 Impact of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Canada: Treatment Landscape

The therapeutic landscape for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has changed considerably over the past two decades, owing to the development and widespread penetration of targeted therapies, including biologics and small molecules. While some conventional treatments continue to have an important role in the management of IBD, treatment of IBD is increasingly moving towards targeted therapies given their greater efficacy and safety in comparison to conventional agents. Early introduction of these therapies-particularly in persons with Crohn's disease-combining targeted therapies with traditional anti-metabolite immunomodulators and targeting objective markers of disease activity (in addition to symptoms), have been shown to improve health outcomes and will be increasingly adopted over time. The substantially increased costs associated with targeted therapies has led to a ballooning of healthcare expenditure to treat IBD over the past 15 years. The introduction of less expensive biosimilar anti-tumour necrosis factor therapies may bend this cost curve downwards, potentially allowing for more widespread access to these medications. Newer therapies targeting different inflammatory pathways and complementary and alternative therapies (including novel diets) will continue to shape the IBD treatment landscape. More precise use of a growing number of targeted therapies in the right individuals at the right time will help minimize the development of expensive and disabling complications, which has the potential to further reduce costs and improve outcomes.

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.

Recommendations on TNFα inhibitor biosimilar use in clinical practice: a comparison of European gastroenterology IBD guidance

BACKGROUND

Professional associations publish guidance advising gastroenterologists on prescribing biosimilars; however, guidelines differ between countries and change over time. This study aimed to map the presence and content of guidance from European gastroenterology associations on TNFα inhibitor biosimilar use and its development over time.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Guidelines on biosimilar prescribing from national gastroenterology associations in the European Economic Area (EEA) partnered with the European Crohn's and Colitis Organization (ECCO) were collected. Treatment guidelines and biosimilar position papers from 2010 to 2022 were included. Data were extracted using a template.

RESULTS

26 of 30 EEA countries have an ECCO-partnered gastroenterology association, of which 14 (53.8%) had national guidelines addressing biosimilars, four (15.4%) followed ECCO's position, and three (11.6%) had treatment guidelines without mentioning biosimilars. From five countries (19.2%) no guidelines were retrieved. Among 18 countries with guidance, 14 (77.8%) associations endorsed initiating biological treatment with biosimilars, and 13 (72.2%) endorsed transitioning from originator to biosimilar. Nine associations published multiple guidelines over time addressing biosimilars; overall, their positions became more encouraging.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of gastroenterology associations endorsed biosimilar use. The lack of (up-to-date) guidelines for some associations indicates an area of improvement to support biosimilar use in clinical practice.

Emerging drugs for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: review of phase II and III clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Current therapeutic options for patients with ulcerative colitis comprise monoclonal antibodies against tumor necrosis factor (TNF), alpha4/beta7 integrin, and interleukin (IL)12/23 as well as small molecules such as tofacitinib, upadacitinib, ozanimod, and filgotinib. However, many patients fail to respond to these agents or have loss of response over time. Therefore, there is a large unmet clinical need for new therapeutic agents.

AREAS COVERED

Here, we review recent phase 2/3 studies in active ulcerative colitis and discuss preliminary data on the efficacy (clinical, endoscopic, and histologic remission) and safety of novel drugs including Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, IL23 blockers, integrin inhibitors, and S1P1R modulators.

EXPERT OPINION

We highlight the potential impact of these agents for the future therapeutic landscape of this disease with special emphasis on clinical impact, unmet needs, safety aspects, and advanced combination therapy.

Ulcerative colitis (K51), adults

.

Comparison of Performances of Adalimumab Biosimilars SB5, ABP501, GP2017, and MSB11022 in Treating Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Real-Life, Multicenter, Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars have entered the therapeutic armamentarium of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), allowing for the treatment of a greater number of patients for their reduced cost than the originator. However, comparative data on the efficacy and safety of the various ADA biosimilars remains scarce.We compare the efficacy and safety of ADA biosimilars SB5, ABP501, GP2017, and MSB11022 in treating IBD outpatients in a real-life Italian setting.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on consecutive IBD outpatients with complete clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic data. Clinical activity was measured using the Mayo score in ulcerative colitis (UC) and the Harvey-Bradshaw Index in Crohn's disease (CD). The primary endpoints were the following: (1) induction of remission in patients new to biologics and patients new to ADA but previously exposed to other anti-tumor necrosis factor agents or other biologics; (2) maintenance of remission in patients switched from the ADA originator to an ADA biosimilar; and (3) safety of various biosimilars.

RESULTS

A total of 533 patients were enrolled according to the inclusion criteria: 162 patients with UC and 371 patients with CD. Clinical remission was obtained in 79.6% of patients new to biologics and 59.2% of patients new to ADA but not to other biologics; clinical remission was maintained in 81.0% of patients switched from the originator, and adverse events were recorded in 6.7% of patients. There was no significant difference between the 4 ADA biosimilars for each predetermined endpoint.

CONCLUSIONS

Adalimumab biosimilars are effective and safe in IBD treatment, both in new patients and in patients switched from the ADA originator. No difference in efficacy and safety was found between ADA biosimilars.

Non-medical switch from the originator to biosimilar and between biosimilars of adalimumab in inflammatory bowel disease - a prospective, multicentre study

INTRODUCTION

Clinical data on the efficacy and safety of non-medical switch between adalimumab(ADA) biosimilars are limited.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate medium-term clinical efficacy, drug sustainability and safety comparing non-medical switches from the originator to biosimilar ADA, and between ADA biosimilars.

METHODS

276 consecutive patients on maintenance ADA therapy (n = 205 Crohn's disease, n = 71 ulcerative colitis) were included. Data on clinical efficacy, biomarkers and adverse events were collected at four time points: 8-12 weeks prior switch, at baseline/switch, 8-12 weeks and 20-24 weeks after switch. Drug survival was evaluated after a median 40(IQR:35-42) weeks follow-up.

RESULTS

A total 174 patients underwent a non-medical switch from the originator to a biosimilar, and 102 patients had a biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch. No significant difference was found in clinical remission rates at any time point in patients switching from originator to biosimilar(87.3%/88.5%/86.5%/85.7%) or biosimilar to biosimilar(74.5%/78.4%/85.3%/79.8%). Mean C-reactive protein levels remained unchanged in both cohorts(p = 0.856 and p = 0.525). Drug survival was similar between the two cohorts with a probability of 91.6%(SE: 2.2) and 87.0%(SE:3.4) to stay on drug after 40 weeks(log-rank:0.96; p = 0.327). Five cases of injection related adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Clinical benefit was sustained following non-medical switch from originator to biosimilar, or between biosimilars in adalimumab treated IBD patients.

The inexorable increase of biologic exposure in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease: a Scottish, population-based, longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

The use of biologics in paediatric-onset inflammatory bowel disease (PIBD) is rapidly changing.

AIMS

To identify the incidence and prevalence of biologic use within Scottish PIBD services, and to describe patient demographics and outcomes for those patients who required escalation of therapy beyond anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNFα) agents METHODS: We captured a nationwide cohort of prospectively identified patients less than 18 years of age with PIBD (A1 phenotype; diagnosed <17 years of age) within paediatric services over a 4.5-year period (1 January 2015-30 June 2019). All patients who received infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab or ustekinumab during the study period and/or received their first dose of these biologics were audited retrospectively.

RESULTS

Scotland-wide PIBD-prevalence cases increased from 554 to 644 over the study period. A total of 495 incident new-start biological therapies were commenced on 403 PIBD patients: 295 infliximab (60%), 161 adalimumab (32%), 24 vedolizumab (5%) and 15 ustekunumab (3%). The proportion of new-start biologics changed with infliximab initiation rates decreasing (87%-54%) while adalimumab (13%-31%), vedolizumab (0%-9%) and ustekinumab (0%-6%) all increased. The incidence rate (first dose of new biologic not including biosimilar switch) increased from 6.9% to 8.1% over the study period and point prevalence rates (any biologic use) increased from 20.2% to 43.5% - an average annual percentage increase of 20%. Biosimilar penetration of new-start anti-TNFα agents increased from 3% to 91%. Demographics and outcomes of those patients receiving vedolizumab and ustekinumab were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Complete accrual of Scottish nationwide biologic usage within paediatric services demonstrates a rapidly changing, inexorably increasing PIBD biologics landscape.

Real-life experience of infliximab biosimilar in pediatric-onset inflammatory bowel disease: data from the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

OBJECTIVE

To provide data on the use of infliximab biosimilars (IFX-BioS) in children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

A multicenter, observational, retrospective study was performed among the cohort of the Sicilian Network for IBD. All consecutive IBD children who had at least completed the induction with IFX-BioS from its introduction in Sicily to January 2021 were enrolled. Clinical remission at weeks 14 and 52, treatment persistence, and adverse events were the study outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients [Crohn's disease (CD): 57.5% and ulcerative colitis (UC): 42.5%] were included: 75 (86.2%) were antitumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF-α) agent naïve, while three (3.45%) were switched from the originator to IFX-BioS. Twenty (23%) patients were multiply switched from the biosimilar CT-P13 to SB2 or GP1111 or vice versa. The median follow-up time was 15 months. Clinical remission was achieved by 55.2 and 65.5% of patients at weeks 14 and 52, respectively, with no differences between CD and UC. Dose escalation was needed in 8.0 and 35.7% of patients during induction and maintenance, respectively. Nine adverse events occurred (incidence rate: 6.13/100 person-year). Treatment persistence was 90.8% at 1 year and 75.7% at 2 years (patients on IFX-BioS at 2 years, n = 28). The risk of treatment discontinuation was higher in patients with extraintestinal manifestations ( P = 0.018) and in those who were nonnaïve to anti-TNF-α ( P = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest cohort of pediatric IBD patients treated with IFX-BioS. Real-life data show that IFX-BioS is efficacious in IBD children, with high percentages of treatment persistence and a low incidence of nonserious adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of biosimilar versus originator infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A real-world cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) monoclonal antibody, infliximab, is the primary therapeutic modality for patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), refractory to conventional therapy. Biosimilars of infliximab have been shown to have equivalent efficacy to originator infliximab. We compared the safety and efficacy of infliximab biosimilar with the originator in Indian patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

Patients with IBD treated with either originator or biosimilar infliximab from January 2005 to October 2020 were included in this retrospective analysis. The safety and efficacy of originator or biosimilar infliximab in inducing and maintaining clinical remission at weeks 14 and 52 for CD and UC were evaluated. Disease activity was estimated at baseline, after induction therapy, after 1 year of treatment, and during 12 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

In all, 137 patients (82 CD; 55 UC) were included, of whom 102 were on originator, and 35 patients received biosimilar. In biosimilar group, clinical response and remission rates at weeks 14 and 52 were 84.2%, 58% and 68.4%, 52.6% in CD and 81.2%, 56.2% and 68.7%, 62.5% in UC patients, respectively. Among patients who were on originator, clinical response and remission rates at weeks 14 and 52 were 79.4%, 46% and 57.1%, 43% in CD and 72%, 64.1% and 66.7%, 56.4% in UC patients, respectively. Thirty-three (24.1%) patients experienced adverse events; eighteen developed tuberculosis (TB), of whom 17 received originator and one patient received biosimilar.

CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab biosimilar is comparable to originator infliximab in terms of safety profile and its efficacy in inducing and maintaining remission in patients with IBD.

Switching from One Biosimilar to Another Biosimilar of the Same Reference Biologic: A Systematic Review of Studies

BACKGROUND

Multiple switches (transitions) between biosimilars of the same reference biologic are now a reality, and they are expected to become more common in the future as more biosimilars enter the market. Switching between two biosimilars of the same reference biologic is generally driven by affordability, formulary requirements, or the relocation/travel of the patient. Evidence of whether switching between biosimilars of the same reference biologic provides similar safety and efficacy profiles is reviewed here.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken using electronic databases (to December 2021): Biosis, Embase, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews/Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Ovid. Publications were evaluated for effectiveness and/or safety data linked to switching from one biosimilar to another.

RESULTS

The systematic search yielded 982 citations. After eliminating duplicates, 626 citations remained for the initial title/abstract screening phase. Following the initial screening, 240 records were chosen; more thorough examination yielded 35 citations. After comprehensive screening and expert advice, 23 studies were selected, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder have been published as abstracts. Overall, 3657 patients were included in these studies. All studies were observational in nature; no randomized clinical trials were identified. The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints. Across the studies, data are provided on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns. The majority of studies examined switches between biosimilar infliximabs, although switches between biosimilar adalimumabs, etanercepts, and rituximabs were also identified. Two use-pattern studies and one case report were also detected and are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this systematic review, available data suggests that biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching is a safe and effective clinical practice, although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance. No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date.

Switching Among Biosimilars: A Review of Clinical Evidence

Biological medicines have improved patients' outcomes, but their high costs may limit access. Biosimilars, alternatives that have demonstrated high similarity in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to an already licensed originator biological product, could increase competition and decrease prices. Given the expanding number of biosimilars, patients may switch from originator to biosimilar or among biosimilars. Randomized trials and observational studies conducted with multiple biosimilars over many disease areas confirmed the safety and efficacy of switching from originator to biosimilar. This study summarizes evidence on switching between biosimilars for which there are concerns to provide future guidance. A systematic search (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) for studies on anti-TNF agents, assessing clinical efficacy and safety of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch in chronic inflammatory diseases, was performed. We retrieved 320 records and included 19 clinical studies. One study with historical control compared switching between biosimilars to maintenance of the same biosimilar. Ten were controlled cohort studies comparing switching between two biosimilars vs. switching from originator to a biosimilar or vs. multiple switches. Eight were single-arm cohort studies, where participants switched from one biosimilar to another, and the outcomes were compared before and after the switch. Overall, these studies did not highlight significant concerns in switching between biosimilars. Therefore, switching studies seem difficult to perform and unnecessary with the body of evidence suggesting no real problems in practice coupled with stringent regulatory requirements. Monitoring the use of biosimilars in clinical practice could support clinical decision-making, rational use of biological medicines, and help to further realize possible savings.

Use of follow-on disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis: Consensus recommendations

BACKGROUND

As patents for multiple sclerosis (MS) therapies expire, follow-on disease-modifying treatments (FO-DMTs) become available at reduced cost. Concerns exist that cheaper FO-DMTs are used simply to reduce healthcare costs. However, the well-being of people with MS should take priority.

OBJECTIVES

To identify best practices for FO-DMT development and use by agreeing on principles and consensus statements through appraisal of published evidence.

METHODS

Following a systematic review, we formulated five overarching principles and 13 consensus statements. Principles and statements were voted on by a multidisciplinary panel from 17 European countries, Argentina, Canada and the United States.

RESULTS

All principles and statements were endorsed by >80% of panellists. In brief, FO-DMTs approved within highly regulated areas can be considered effective and safe as their reference products; FO-DMTs can be evaluated case by case and do not always require Phase III trials; long-term pharmacovigilance and transparency are needed; there is lack of evidence for multiple- and cross-switching among FO-DMTs; and education is needed to address remaining concerns.

CONCLUSION

Published data support the use of FO-DMTs in MS. The consensus may aid shared decision-making. While our consensus focused on Europe, the results may contribute to enhanced quality standards for FO-DMTs use elsewhere.

Adalimumab Biosimilar GP2017 versus Adalimumab Originator in Treating Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Real-Life, Multicenter, Observational Study

The approval of adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has reduced the cost of treatment. While several ADA biosimilars are currently available, comparative data on the ADA biosimilar GP2017 (Hyrimoz^TM) and its originator (Humira^TM) in IBD are lacking. We compared the efficacy and safety of GP2017 versus originator in IBD outpatients in an Italian real-life setting. This retrospective analysis enrolled consecutive IBD patients with complete clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic data. Clinical activity was assessed with the Mayo score in ulcerative colitis (UC) and the Harvey–Bradshaw Index in Crohn’s disease (CD). The primary endpoints were the induction of remission and the safety of GP2017 versus ADA originator. One hundred and thirty-four patients (30.6% with UC and 69.4% with CD, median age 38 years) were enrolled: 62 (46.3%) patients were treated with GP2017, and 72 (53.7%) with ADA originator; 118 (88.1%) patients were naïve to ADA. Clinical remission was obtained in 105 (78.4%) patients, during a median follow-up of 12 months, 82.3% and 75% in the GP2017 and ADA originator groups, respectively (p = 0.311). Treatment was well tolerated in both groups. This analysis of real-world data suggests that GP2017 and its originator are equivalent in terms of efficacy and safety in patients with IBD.

Patient perspectives of successful adalimumab biosimilar transitioning in Crohn's disease: an interview study

OBJECTIVES

Transition from originator biological medicines to their biosimilar equivalents is now part of routine clinical practice, but there is little understanding of patient experiences, which influence adherence and overall satisfaction with care. Understanding this will help ensure future switches adequately address patients' concerns and expectations leading to better outcomes for all stakeholders.

METHOD

35 patients participating in a clinical trial including an open-label transition event from originator to biosimilar adalimumab, mimicking what would be encountered in a real-world setting, took part in semi-structured interviews exploring their experience of biosimilar transition.

RESULTS

Opinions expressed were often heterogeneous, but common experiences and themes were identified. Five themes were identified following thematic analysis. (1) Understanding and awareness of biosimilars: prior awareness of biosimilars and knowledge of the biosimilar concept was low, indicating a disparity between healthcare professionals and patients. (2) Motivation to undertake transition: patients accept a biosimilar transition to minimise drug expenditure. (3) Initial concerns: before undertaking biosimilar transition away from the brand they had experienced, anticipated loss of efficacy and adverse effects from the biosimilar were common concerns for patients. (4) Reassuring factors: trust in the healthcare team is critical to patient acceptance of biosimilars. Important reassurances include a point of contact, education about biosimilars and monitoring. (5) Experiences during the transition: on reflection, participants described consistent efficacy and tolerability (although 22 participants specifically mentioned injection pain) following brand transition.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients felt comfortable with future transition to another adalimumab biosimilar. Injection experience was an important component of patient satisfaction.

Patient and Caregivers' Perspectives on Biosimilar Use in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Studies assessing adult inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patient perspectives on biosimilar use revealed that most were unfamiliar with biosimilars and had a negative perception. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perspectives of pediatric patients with IBD and their caregivers regarding biosimilar use and non-medical switches.

METHODS

A survey was given to a cross section of patients with IBD ages 11-21 years receiving the intravenous anti-tumor necrosis factor originator and caregivers of patients with IBD ages 3-21 years receiving the originator. Recruitment occurred via mail, during clinic visits, and infusions. Fisher exact tests were used to test for statistically significant differences.

RESULTS

Response rate amongst caregivers was 49% (n = 98) and among patients was 35% (n = 67). Sixty-four percent of caregivers and 79% of patients had never heard of biosimilars. There was increased discomfort surrounding the use of biosimilars and switching to a biosimilar amongst caregivers who had previously heard of biosimilars compared to caregivers who had not previously heard of biosimilars ( P < 0.05). Similar concerns were not seen in patient respondents. The length of time on the originator had no effect on patient or caregiver concerns related to biosimilar efficacy, adverse effects, or switches.

CONCLUSION

The majority of pediatric patients and caregivers had never heard of biosimilars. Caregivers that had heard of biosimilars before the study were more likely to have a negative perception of them. This study highlights the importance of providing thorough and accurate education to pediatric patients and families regarding the safety and efficacy of biosimilars.

Emerging role of biosimilars in the clinical care of inflammatory bowel disease patients

The increasing incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) globally has redirected the healthcare system's focus towards safe and affordable pharmacological interventions. The inception of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) had resulted in a trend shift from surgical interventions. However, as the patents of approved anti-TNF-α drugs expire, biological copies of the many approved products are in the pipeline. The most commonly used biosimilar for IBD has been infliximab, followed by Adalimumab biosimilars which have been approved in major countries across the world. Although biosimilars are approved on the basis of similarity of their reference product, the lack of real-world evidence of its safety in ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease patients has contributed to physicians’ hesitancy. However, biosimilars are expected to reduce treatment costs and provide economic benefits.

Regulatory Information and Guidance on Biosimilars and Their Use Across Europe: A Call for Strengthened One Voice Messaging

Background

Beyond evaluation and approval, European and national regulators have a key role in providing reliable information on biosimilars and the science underpinning their development, approval, and use.

Objectives

This study aims to (i) review biosimilar information and guidance provided by EMA and national medicines agencies and (ii) explore stakeholder perspectives on the role of regulators in enabling acceptance and use of biosimilars.

Methods

This study consists of (i) a comparative review of regulatory information and position statements across medicine agencies (n = 32) and (ii) qualitative interviews with stakeholders in Europe (n = 14).

Results

The comparative analysis showed that regulatory information and guidance about biosimilars offered by national medicines agencies in Europe varies, and is limited or absent in multiple instances. Approximately 40% (13/31) of the national medicines agencies' websites did not offer any information regarding biosimilars, and for about half (15/31) no educational materials were provided. Only less than half of national medicines agencies provided guidance on biosimilar interchangeability and switching (8/31 and 12/31, respectively). Among the national medicines agencies that did offer guidance, the extent (e.g., elaborate position vs. brief statement) and content (e.g., full endorsement vs. more cautious) of the guidance differed substantially. Countries that have a strong involvement in EU level biosimilar regulatory activities generally had more elaborate information nationally. Interviewees underwrote the need for (national) regulators to intensify biosimilar stakeholder guidance, especially in terms of providing clear positions regarding biosimilar interchangeability and switching, which in turn can be disseminated by the relevant professional societies more locally.

Conclusion

This study revealed that, despite strong EU-level regulatory biosimilar guidance, guidance about biosimilars, and their use differs considerably across Member States. This heterogeneity, together with the absence of a clear EU-wide position on interchangeability, may instill uncertainty among stakeholders about the appropriate use of biosimilars in practice. Regulators should strive for a clear and common EU scientific position on biosimilar interchangeability to bridge this gap and unambiguously inform policy makers, healthcare professionals, and patients. Furthermore, there is a clear opportunity to expand information at the national level, and leverage EU-developed information materials more actively in this regard.

Multiple Switches From the Originator Infliximab to Biosimilars Is Effective and Safe in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Though a single nonmedical switch from the originator infliximab (IFX) to a biosimilar is considered effective and safe for most patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), very limited data are available on multiple successive switches.

METHODS

We performed a prospective multicenter cohort study of adult IBD patients who underwent 2 switches from the originator IFX to CT-P13 to SB2 (group 1), 1 switch from CT-P13 to SB2 (group 2), and 1 switch from the originator IFX to CT-P13 (group 3). Patients were assessed at 4 and 12 months since the most recent switch for remission using clinical (physician's assessment) and biochemical (C-reactive protein [CRP], and fecal calprotectin [FC]) measures. Patients discontinuing treatment for ineffectiveness or adverse events before month 12 were imputed as nonremitters.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-six patients (Crohn's disease 71%, ulcerative colitis 27.8%, IBD unclassified 1.2%; group 1, 69; group 2, 80; group 3, 27) were included. At 12 months after the most recent switch 76.9% (40 of 52, group 1), 65.7% (46 of 70, group 2) and 76.9% (20 of 26, group 3) of patients were in clinical remission. Treatment persistence at 12 months was 85.0%, 87.0%, and 70.1%, respectively. There were no significant differences in the rate of clinical, CRP, FC remission, or treatment persistence at 12 months between the 3 groups. Infusion reactions occurred in 1.7% of patients (3/176), all in patients with antidrug antibodies from group 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple successive switching and switching between biosimilars of IFX seemed to be effective and safe.

Moving forward: Implementing health psychology research to improve patient acceptance of biosimilars

As more biosimilars enter the pharmaceutical market, patient acceptance remains a significant barrier to their uptake. Psychological factors, such as negative expectations, are important causes of patient hesitancy. As a result, patients can develop nocebo responses following a transition, discontinue biosimilar treatment early, or have poor adherence. These negative outcomes may offset some of the cost-saving potential of biosimilars. Key healthcare professionals such as pharmacists, physicians, and nurses already play a noteworthy role in educating and transitioning patients. However, given the psychological aspect of biosimilar acceptance, it is logical for healthcare professionals and researchers to draw on research and theory from health psychology. This commentary outlines how a multidisciplinary approach can add to the understanding of the mechanisms behind patient resistance to biosimilars and help engage patients in the transitioning process. It also explores how health psychology strategies that have been successful in similar areas can be translated to help conduct more effective transitions. Future directions in research are discussed.

Biosimilars in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Systematic Review and Real Life-Based Evidence

Background: Many pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients are now using biosimilars of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), with increasing trends in recent years. This study reviewed all available data regarding the use of biosimilars in children with IBD. Methods: PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases were searched through keywords; inflammatory bowel diseases, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, biosimilar and child were combined using "AND" and "OR." Original research articles involving pediatric patients receiving one of the biosimilar medications based on the anti-TNF-α biologic drugs approved for pediatric IBD treatment, independently from efficacy and drug response, were included. Results: Nine studies were included in the evidence synthesis. CT-P13 was the biosimilar used in all studies. Four studies assessed the induction effectiveness of CT-P13. Clinical response and remission rates of biosimilar treatment were 86-90% and 67-68%, respectively, and they were not significantly different to the originator group. Five prospective studies on patients elected to switch from originator IFX to CT-P13 yielded similar results. Adverse events related to CT-P13 were mostly mild. The most frequently reported were upper respiratory tract infections. The switch from the originator had no significant impact on immunogenicity. Conclusion: The current review showed reported CT-P13 effectiveness as measured by clinical response and/or remission rates after induction or during maintenance and suggest that there is no significant difference with that of the originator IFX. Further studies are warranted, including clinical, and pharmacovigilance studies.

How to Choose the Biologic Therapy in a Bio-Naïve Patient with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The availability of biologic therapies in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is increasing significantly. This represents more options to treat patients, but also more difficulties in choosing the therapies, especially in the context of bio-naïve patients. Most evidence of safety and efficacy came from clinical trials comparing biologics with placebo, with a lack of head-to-head studies. Network meta-analysis of biologics and real-world studies have been developed to solve this problem. Despite the results of these studies, there are also other important factors to consider before choosing the biologic, such as patient preferences, comorbidities, genetics, and inflammatory markers. Given that resources are limited, another important aspect is the cost of biologic therapy, since biosimilars are widely available and have been demonstrated to be effective with a significant decrease in costs. In this review, we summarize the evidence comparing biologic therapy in both Crohn´s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) in different clinical situations. We also briefly synthesize the evidence related to predictors of biologic response, as well as the biologic use in extraintestinal manifestations and the importance of the drug-related costs.

Current evidence on the use of the adalimumab biosimilar SB5 (ImraldiTM): a multidisciplinary perspective

INTRODUCTION

This review provides an overview of data from trials and real-world studies available for SB5 (Imraldi^TM) across three main therapeutic areas: rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search for publications on data for SB5 efficacy/effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity was undertaken.

EXPERT OPINION

Evidence derived from clinical studies suggest that the biosimilar SB5 is a safe and effective alternative to reference adalimumab. Considering that patients suffering from immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis often require long-term biologic treatment, biosimilar medicines (such as SB5) can reduce healthcare costs while increasing access to effective treatments.

Comparison of performances of infliximab biosimilars CT-P13 versus SB2 in the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases: a real-life multicenter, observational study in Italy

BACKGROUND

To compare the performances of Infliximab (IFX) biosimilar CT-P13 and SB2 in the treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) outpatients in Italy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Three hundred and eighty IBD outpatients were retrospectively evaluated. The primary endpoint was to compare the two IFX biosimilars in terms of reaching and maintenance of remission at any timepoint.

RESULTS

197 patients with Ulcerative Colitis (UC) and 183 patients with Crohn's Disease (CD) treated with CT-P13 or SB2 and having a median (IQR) follow-up of 12 (6-36) months were compared: 230 (60.5%) were naïve to anti-TNFα, 20 (5.26%) were switched from IFX originator or from IFX CT-P13 to IFX SB2. Clinical remission was achieved in 133 (67.5%) UC patients and in 164 (89.6%) CD patients (p < 0.000), with no differences between CT-P13 and SB2 in the rate of remission in UC (p = 0.667) and CD (p = 0.286). Clinical response, steroid-free remission, rate of surgery, mucosal healing (MH) in UC, switching from IFX originator or from other biosimilar, and safety were similar. Higher MH rate was obtained in CD patients treated with CT-P13 (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

This first comparative study found that both IFX biosimilars CT-P13 and SB2 are effective and safe in managing IBD outpatients.

Real-world data on the infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 (Remsima®) in inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

In recent years, biological therapies have revolutionized the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); however, they are expensive. The development of biosimilar products has allowed us to reduce healthcare costs and improve patients’ access to these treatments. Although various studies support the similarity between infliximab and its biosimilar CT-P13 in terms of efficacy and safety, there are unmet needs regarding research on these agents in the context of IBD.

AIM

To analyze clinical response rates to CT-P13 and adverse events in IBD patients treated in real-life practice.

METHODS

An observational, prospective, multicenter study of IBD patients treated with CT-P13 in clinical practice who were naïve to biological treatments or failed to respond to other anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs or had switched from infliximab originator was carried out. No diagnostic or follow-up interventions were conducted on patients outside usual clinical practice. The primary endpoints were clinical response rates and number of adverse events. The primary efficacy variable was the proportion of patients who were in clinical remission and/or had a clinical response at 3, 6, 9, and 12 mo.

RESULTS

A total of 220 IBD patients treated with CT-P13 (Remsima^®) were included in the study: 87 (40%) with ulcerative colitis and 133 (60%) with Crohn’s disease. Mean age of the patients was 41.47 (SD 15.74) years, and 58% were female. Nineteen (9%) patients started treatment with CT-P13 after switching from infliximab. Of the remaining 201 patients, 142 (65%) were naïve to biologic agents. At baseline, 68.6% (n = 138/201) of patients presented with active disease. After 12 mo of treatment, 14.8% (n = 12/81) presented with active disease, and 64.2% (n = 52/81) were in clinical remission without corticosteroids. After 3 mo, 75.5% (n = 115/152) had a clinical response or achieved clinical remission, which was sustained for 12 mo (85.2%; n = 69/81). There was a decrease in specific IBD indices at 3, 6, 9, and 12 mo (P < 0.001). A total of 34 adverse events were reported by 27 (12.3%) patients, 9 (26.5%) of which were serious.

CONCLUSION

CT-P13 is an effective and safe infliximab biosimilar for the treatment of IBD in real-life practice and may be a valid and attractive alternative for the treatment of IBD.

Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in inflammatory bowel disease: the story continues

In the 1990s, tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor therapy ushered in the biologic therapy era for inflammatory bowel disease, leading to marked improvements in treatment options and patient outcomes. There are currently four tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors approved as treatments for ulcerative colitis and/or Crohn's disease: infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab and certolizumab pegol. Despite the clear benefits of tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors, a subset of patients with inflammatory bowel disease either do not respond, experience a loss of response after initial clinical improvement or report intolerance to anti-tumour necrosis factor-α therapy. Optimizing outcomes of these agents may be achieved through earlier intervention, the use of therapeutic drug monitoring and thoughtful switching within class. To complement these approaches, evolving predictive biomarkers may help inform and optimize clinical decision making by identifying patients who might potentially benefit from an alternative treatment strategy. This review will focus on the current use of tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors in inflammatory bowel disease and the application of personalized medicine to improve future outcomes for all patients.

Patients Retransitioning from Biosimilar TNFα Inhibitor to the Corresponding Originator After Initial Transitioning to the Biosimilar: A Systematic Review

Background

Transitioning patients from an originator to a corresponding biosimilar has been extensively studied in both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Although transitioning is considered well-tolerated, with no negative impacts on efficacy and/or safety, 2.6–25.8% of patients restart treatment with the originator (retransitioning). Retransitioning to the originator can be considered an indication of biosimilar treatment failure or dissatisfaction with biosimilar treatment. Increasing our knowledge of patients who retransition might help to reduce the number of patients retransitioning.

Objective

Our objective was to estimate the cumulative incidence of patients who retransitioned from a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitor biosimilar to originator and to explore potential patient, disease, and treatment and implementation strategy factors associated with retransitioning.

Method

We conducted a systematic literature search in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials databases until March 2021. Studies on TNFα inhibitors, biosimilar transitioning, and retransitioning were included. Transitioning was defined as switching from an originator to a biosimilar, and retransitioning was defined as switching from an originator to a biosimilar and back to the originator. Characteristics of the studies were descriptively analyzed. Studies were weighted by the number of patients transitioning, and the primary outcome was the median cumulative incidence of retransitioning. For each of the factors related to patient, disease, and treatment and implementation strategy, studies were stratified according to the categories of that factor. The weighted medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) of the cumulative incidence of retransitioning in these studies were calculated and compared to explore whether a potential association existed between these factors and the cumulative incidence of retransitioning.

Results

Of 994 screened publications, 37 were included. The weighted median cumulative incidence of retransitioning was 7.6% (IQR 6.8–17.2). Studies that included only patients with inflammatory bowel disease (6.6 vs. 15.1–17.7% for other indications), included only patients with stable disease (7.0 vs. 13.7% for including all patients), and did not offer retransitioning at the introduction of the biosimilar (7.0 vs. 11.1% for studies that offered retransitioning) reported less retransitioning. In addition, the incidence of retransitioning was lower when extra laboratory monitoring was part of the implementation strategy (1.6 vs. 6.1%) and when gainsharing (patients’ healthcare directly benefits from financial savings from transitioning) (1.4 vs. 7.2% for studies without gainsharing) was applied.

Conclusions

In studies on transitioning patients from TNFα originator to biosimilar, 8% of patients retransitioned. Retransitioning appeared to be lower in studies that included only patients with stable disease and in studies that did not offer patients the option of retransitioning at the introduction of the biosimilar. In addition, retransitioning appeared to be lower in studies that implemented extra laboratory monitoring as part of the biosimilar implementation strategy. Clinicians should consider implementing these suggestions as they might reduce retransitioning rates and improve the introduction of biosimilars in clinical practice.

PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42021226381

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-021-00508-4.

Guidelines for the management of patients with Crohn's disease. Recommendations of the Polish Society of Gastroenterology and the Polish National Consultant in Gastroenterology

This paper is an update of the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations of the National Consultant for Gastroenterology and the Polish Society of Gastroenterology from 2012. It contains 46 recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment, both pharmacological and surgical, of Crohn's disease in adults. The guidelines were developed by a group of experts appointed by the Polish Society of Gastroenterology and the National Consultant in the field of Gastroenterology. The methodology related to the GRADE methodology was used to assess the quality and strength of the available recommendations. The degree of expert support for the proposed statement, assessment of the quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendation was assessed on a 6-point Likert scale. Voting results, quality and strength ratings with comments are included with each statement.

Outcome of Reverse Switching From CT-P13 to Originator Infliximab in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Patients suffering from inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) and treated with originator infliximab are increasingly being switched to biosimilars. Some patients, however, are "reverse switched" to treatment with the originator. Here we assess the prevalence of reverse switching, including its indication and outcomes.

METHODS

In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, data on patients with IBD from 9 hospitals in the Netherlands were collected. All adult patients with IBD were included if they previously had been switched from originator infliximab to the biosimilar CT-P13 and had a follow-up time of at least 52 weeks after the initial switch. The reasons for reverse switching were categorized into worsening gastrointestinal symptoms, adverse effects, or loss of response to CT-P13. Drug persistence was analyzed through survival analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 758 patients with IBD were identified. Reverse switching was observed in 75 patients (9.9%). Patients with reverse switching were predominantly female (70.7%). Gastrointestinal symptoms (25.5%) and dermatological symptoms (21.8%) were the most commonly reported reasons for reverse switching. In 9 patients (12.0%), loss of response to CT-P13 was the reason for reverse switching. Improvement of reported symptoms was seen in 73.3% of patients after reverse switching and 7 out of 9 patients (77.8%) with loss of response regained response. Infliximab persistence was equal between patients who were reverse-switched and those who were maintained on CT-P13.

CONCLUSIONS

Reverse switching occurred in 9.9% of patients, predominantly for biosimilar-attributed adverse effects. Switching back to originator infliximab seems effective in patients who experience adverse effects, worsening gastrointestinal symptoms, or loss of response after switching from originator infliximab to CT-P13.