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

Clinical experience of using biosimilars in Crohn's disease and their effectiveness

INTRODUCTION

The approval of biosimilars in the management of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) has offered an answer to a growing concern about healthcare costs, and availability of treatments. Several studies have been conducted to demonstrate proof of biosimilars effectiveness as treatment in Crohn's disease (CD).

AREAS COVERED

Since 2013, the European Medicines Agency has approved five biosimilars for infliximab and eight for adalimumab. Initial data leading to approval were extrapolated from studies conducted in patients with rheumatological or dermatological diseases, but recent studies filled the gap of clinical data among patients with IBD. In this review, 75 studies were included, with data from a total of 20 707 patients with CD. Clinical data on biosimilars in the treatment of CD show equivalence in terms of efficacy, either as induction or maintenance of treatment and regardless of previous exposure to originator or other biosimilar.

EXPERT OPINION

Since biosimilar market entry, utilization of infliximab increased by 89.9% and by 22.4% for adalimumab in European countries. With a 10-year insight since the first approval of biosimilar in Europe, biosimilars prescriptions should be implemented in routine clinical practice given the efficacy and safety profile.

Systematic review: effectiveness and safety of switching between originator infliximab and biosimilar infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

Infliximab (IFX) biosimilars are available to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), offering cost reductions versus originator IFX in some jurisdictions. However, concerns remain regarding the efficacy and safety of originator-to-biosimilar switching. This systematic literature review evaluated safety and effectiveness of switching between IFX products in patients with IBD, including multiple switchers.

METHODS

Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to capture studies (2012-2022) including patients with IBD who switched between approved IFX products. Effectiveness outcomes: disease activity; disease severity; response to treatment; patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Safety outcomes: incidence and rate of adverse events (AEs); discontinuations due to AEs, failure rate; hospitalizations; surgeries. Immunogenicity outcomes (n, %): anti-drug antibodies; patients receiving concomitant immunomodulatory medication.

RESULTS

Data from 85 publications (81 observational, two randomized controlled trials) were included. Clinical effectiveness outcomes were consistent with the known profile of originator IFX with no difference after switching. There were no unexpected/serious AEs after switching, and rates of AEs were generally consistent with the known profile of IFX.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies reported that clinical, PROs, and safety outcomes for originator-to-biosimilar switching were clinically equivalent to originator responses. Limited data are available regarding multiple switches.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42021289144.

Practical Management of Biosimilar Use in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD): A Global Survey and an International Delphi Consensus

As the patents for biologic originator drugs expire, biosimilars are emerging as cost-effective alternatives within healthcare systems. Addressing various challenges in the clinical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains crucial. To shed light on physicians' current knowledge, beliefs, practical approaches, and concerns related to biosimilar adoption-whether initiating a biosimilar, transitioning from an originator to a biosimilar, or switching between biosimilars (including multiple switches and reverse switching)-a global survey was conducted. Fifteen physicians with expertise in the field of IBD from 13 countries attended a virtual international consensus meeting to develop practical guidance regarding biosimilar adoption worldwide, considering the survey results. This consensus centered on 10 key statements covering biosimilar effectiveness, safety, indications, rationale, multiple switches, therapeutic drug monitoring of biosimilars, non-medical switching, and future perspectives. Ultimately, the consensus affirmed that biosimilars are equally effective and safe when compared to originator drugs. They are considered suitable for both biologic-naïve patients and those who have previously been treated with originator drugs, with cost reduction being the primary motivation for transitioning from an originator drug to a biosimilar.

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

.

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.

Ulcerative colitis (K51), adults

.

The Sincerest Form of Flattery? Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Biosimilar medications have the potential to significantly reduce the cost of treatment in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Observational studies have shown similar efficacy and safety of biosimilars to biologic reference products. Shared decision-making is crucial to the successful implementation of these agents.

Impact of switching to infliximab biosimilars on treatment patterns among US veterans receiving innovator infliximab

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatment patterns of United States (US) veterans stable on innovator infliximab (IFX) who switched to an IFX biosimilar (switchers) or remained on innovator IFX (continuers).

METHODS

US Veterans Healthcare Administration data (01/2012-12/2019) were used to identify adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), plaque psoriasis (PsO), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), or Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis (i.e. inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]), treated with innovator or biosimilar IFX. Index date was the first IFX biosimilar administration for switchers or a random innovator IFX administration for continuers. Patients were required to have ≥5 innovator IFX administrations during the 12 months pre-index (prevalent population). Patients with ≥12 months of observation prior to the first innovator IFX administration were analyzed as the primary population (incident population), and data were assessed from start of innovator IFX. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. Treatment patterns were evaluated post-index; continuers were censored before switching to IFX biosimilar. Discontinuation was defined as switching to another biologic (including innovator IFX) or having ≥120 days between 2 consecutive index treatment records.

RESULTS

In the incident population, mean [median] duration of follow-up was 737 [796] days among switchers (N = 838) and 479 [337] days among continuers (N = 849). Compared to continuers, switchers were 2.88-times more likely to discontinue index therapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.88, p < .001) and 4.99-times more likely to switch to another innovator biologic (HR = 4.99, p < .001). Of 653 switchers switching to another innovator biologic, 594 (91.0%) switched back to innovator IFX. Results were similar among the prevalent population and RA and IBD subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Patients switching from innovator to biosimilar IFX were more likely to discontinue treatment and switch to another innovator biologic (notably back to innovator IFX) than those remaining on innovator IFX; however, reasons for discontinuation and switching are unknown.

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.

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

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

Switching from Infliximab Originator to SB2 Biosimilar in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Multicentric Prospective Real-Life Study

BACKGROUND

Current literature still lacks studies evaluating the effectiveness and safety of switching from Infliximab originator to SB2 biosimilar in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBDs). We aimed to verify the ability of SB2 to maintain the clinical and biochemical response induced by originator after switching. As secondary outcome, we aimed to verify safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of SB2 biosimilar compared with its IFX originator.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled all patients who switched from originator to SB2 at three Italian IBD Units from August 2018 to April 2020. We collected clinical and biochemical data at the time of switch (T0), and at the first (T1) and the second (T2) visits after switching (mean time from switching: 135 and 329 days, respectively). In addition, data regarding therapeutic drug monitoring at T0 and T1 were recorded.

RESULTS

Eighty-five IBD patients (28 with Ulcerative Colitis and 57 with Crohn's Disease) were included in the study. At T1, we observed statistically significant modifications in clinical activity of disease (70 patients were in clinical remission at baseline and 60 at T1 p = 0.02), but not at T2 (p = 0.3). Fecal calprotectin values were not different both at T1 and T2 (both p = 0.9) as well as the rate of concomitant treatment with steroids (p = 0.2 and p = 0.1) or immunosuppressants (p = 0.1 and p = 1.0). Moreover, the need for therapeutic optimization from T0 to T1 and from T1 to T2 was found significant (both p = 0.01). No anti-drug antibodies were identified at T1, and no serious adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our data show that most of the patients switching from Infliximab originator to SB2 maintain the clinical and biochemical remission for at least 1 year. Further data are necessary to understand the clinical implications of these findings in the long term.

Effectiveness and Safety of Adalimumab Biosimilar SB5 in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Outcomes in Originator to SB5 Switch, Double Biosimilar Switch and Bio-Naïve SB5 Observational Cohorts

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Multiple adalimumab [ADA] biosimilars are now approved for use in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]; however, effectiveness and safety data remain scarce. We aimed to investigate long-term outcomes of the ADA biosimilar SB5 in IBD patients following a switch from the ADA originator [SB5-switch cohort] or after start of SB5 [SB5-start cohort].

METHODS

We performed an observational cohort study in a tertiary IBD referral centre. All IBD patients treated with Humira underwent an elective switch to SB5. We identified all these patients in a biological prescription database that prospectively registered all ADA start and stop dates including brand names. Data on IBD phenotype, C-reactive protein [CRP], drug persistence, ADA drug and antibody levels, and faecal calprotectin were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 481 patients were treated with SB5, 256 in the SB5-switch cohort (median follow-up: 13.7 months [IQR 8.6-15.2]) and 225 in the SB5-start cohort [median follow-up: 8.3 months [4.2-12.8]). Of the SB5-switch cohort, 70.8% remained on SB5 beyond 1 year; 90/256 discontinued SB5, mainly due to adverse events [46/90] or secondary loss of response [37/90]. In the SB5-start cohort, 81/225 discontinued SB5, resulting in SB5-drug persistence of 60.3% beyond 1 year. No differences in clinical remission [p = 0.53], CRP [p = 0.80], faecal calprotectin [p = 0.40] and ADA trough levels [p = 0.55] were found between baseline, week 26 and week 52 following switch. Injection site pain was the most frequently reported adverse event.

CONCLUSION

Switching from ADA originator to SB5 appeared effective and safe in this study with over 12 months of follow-up.

The Automatic Substitution of Biosimilars: Definitions of Interchangeability are not Interchangeable

In the USA, an interchangeability designation provides biosimilar sponsors with a pathway for achieving what is standard for small-molecule generics: pharmacy-level auto-substitution for an innovator. No other major health authority links interchangeability to automatic substitution, as all require the involvement of the prescriber or patient in a medication change. This editorial considers the clinical impact and practicality of auto-substitution. First, interchangeability is linked to non-medical switching (NMS), the practice of switching treatment in patients with stable disease for non-clinical reasons. NMS may generate negative sentiment in those unwilling or reluctant to switch, which can adversely impact treatment outcomes (i.e., nocebo effect). Indeed, in real-world studies of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, discontinuation rates have been shown to be higher in patients switched to biosimilars for non-medical reasons than in historical cohorts maintained on innovators. Second, interchangeability may impede pharmacovigilance and traceability, as not all jurisdictions require innovators and biosimilars to have distinct biologic names. Third, an interchangeability designation from the US Food and Drug Administration only permits a biosimilar to be automatically substituted for its innovator, not other biosimilars (if available). Pharmacist education would be needed to avoid off-label, automatic substitution among biosimilars of a single innovator. Last, once granted, an interchangeability designation exists in perpetuity under current US federal law. However, the supply chains of innovators and biosimilars are maintained independently, with no requirement for reconfirmation of biosimilarity or interchangeability. We feel that additional guidance is needed for the auto-substitution of biosimilars and innovators to become a reality.