Full Interchangeability in Regard to Immunogenicity Between the Infliximab Reference Biologic and Biosimilars CT-P13 and SB2 in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

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.

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.

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.

The efficacy of immunomodulators in the prevention and suppression of anti-drug antibodies to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in inflammatory bowel disease

The development of biological agents against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) has revolutionized the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), frequently achieving induction and maintenance of remission in both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. However, a loss of response due to the development of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) is seen annually in approximately 20% of IBD patients receiving anti-TNF therapy. Current evidence suggests that the use of immunomodulators (IMM), such as thiopurines (azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine) or methotrexate, may prevent or suppress ADA formation. In this article, we present a comprehensive review of the available literature regarding the efficacy of IMM in the prevention and suppression of ADA development to anti-TNF therapy in patients with IBD.

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.

Therapeutic applications of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies: Systematic review of the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in autoimmune disorders

PURPOSE

Biosimilars are biological products that could be used instead of reference biological drugs to provide a less costly option for treating patients with autoimmune disorders. With the introduction of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies into the drug market, the main concern is confirming the similarity in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of these biosimilars with their reference products. The presence of valuable comparative clinical trials to demonstrate these similarities with analytical methods is challenging. This review discusses the similarity between biosimilar mAbs and reference products as candidates for autoimmune diseases.

METHODS

Data on efficacy endpoints, adverse events, production of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs), and neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) were collected from trials.

FINDINGS

Overall, these data suggest the similarity between biosimilar mAbs and reference products in terms of safety and efficacy.

IMPLICATIONS

Biosimilars are used in a wider range of diseases, and by examining their similarities in all those diseases with reference drugs, more comprehensive results can be obtained.

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.

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.

Safety and clinical efficacy of the double switch from originator infliximab to biosimilars CT-P13 and SB2 in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (SCESICS): A multicenter cohort study

Data regarding double switching from originator infliximab (IFX) to IFX biosimilars in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are lacking. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of switching from originator IFX to CT‐P13 and subsequently to SB2 (double switch) in patients with IBD. Patients undergoing IFX‐double switch in eight Centers in Lombardy (Italy) from November 2018 to May 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The IFX discontinuation rate, incidence and type of adverse events (AEs), and clinical remission rate were recorded. A comparison with a control group of patients with IBD single‐switched from originator IFX to CT‐P13 was performed, before and after an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)‐based propensity score analysis. Fifty‐two double‐switched patients with IBD were enrolled. The 24‐ and 52‐week proportions of patients continuing on IFX therapy following the second switch (CTP13 → SB2) were 98% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94%–100%) and 90% (95% CI 81%–99%), respectively. Four patients experienced a total of five AEs, all graded 1–3 according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). No infusion reactions were observed. The 24‐week and follow‐up end clinical remission rates following the second switch were 94% and 88%, respectively. No differences were observed in the safety and efficacy outcomes by comparing the double‐switch group with a single‐switch group of 66 patients with IBD; all these results were confirmed by IPTW‐adjusted analysis. The study suggests both the safety and efficacy of the double switch from originator IFX to CT‐P13 and SB2 in patients with IBD is maintained. This strategy may be associated with potential cost implications.

An observational study of switching infliximab biosimilar: no adverse impact on inflammatory bowel disease control or drug levels with first or second switch

BACKGROUND

Biologics account for a significant cost in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management; however, switching from infliximab originator to its biosimilars has enabled cost saving without compromising disease control. The effects on IBD activity and infliximab trough levels of a second switch to another biosimilar are, however, uncertain.

AIMS

To assess the effects on disease activity and infliximab trough levels associated with switching from infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 to another biosimilar SB2 and compare outcomes in those switching for the first and second time.

METHODS

IBD patients on CT-P13, including some previously switched from originator, were prospectively followed during a switch to SB2. C-reactive protein (CRP), trough infliximab level and clinical disease activity indices were collected at baseline, Infusion 3 or 4 ('early' after switch), and 1 year.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-six patients (n = 99 second switch) on stable infliximab dosing underwent switching. Compared with baseline, there was no significant change in CRP, clinical disease activity scores or median trough infliximab level at the early time point among first-switch (baseline vs early: 5.7 vs 6.6 µg/mL, P = 0.05) and second-switch (4.3 vs 4.9 µg/mL, P = 0.07) patients nor at 1 year (median infliximab trough levels, baseline vs 1 year, in first-switch [5.7 vs 5.7 µg/mL, P = 0.37] and second-switch [4.3 vs 4.7 µg/mL, P = 0.06] patients). The proportion of patients in clinical remission did not significantly change at the early (92% vs 91% at baseline, P = 0.75) or 1 year (95% vs 91% at baseline, P = 0.16) time points. There was no significant difference in time to loss of response between patients switching for the first or second time (P = 0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from one infliximab biosimilar to another had no adverse impact on infliximab trough levels, and clinical and biochemical disease activity, regardless of whether switching for the first or second time.

Post-marketing analysis for biosimilar CT-P13 in inflammatory bowel disease compared with external data of originator infliximab in Japan

BACKGROUND AND AIM

CT-P13, an infliximab (IFX) biosimilar, was approved for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. However, no comparison with the originator IFX in this indication has been conducted in Japan where endemic levels of tuberculosis and hepatitis virus infection are not low. We evaluated the safety and efficacy in real-world data of CT-P13 and compared with originator IFX data in Japan.

METHODS

In a prospective post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study, patients who received CT-P13 in a 28-month period from January 2015 were followed up for 2 years. By conducting Japanese administrative database search (DBS) for the same period of PMS, data of the originator IFX including treatment persistence, tuberculosis incidence, and liver injury were analyzed retrospectively and compared with the corresponding PMS data of CT-P13.

RESULTS

CT-P13 persistence in PMS (n = 640) and IFX persistence in DBS (n = 4113) were almost similar between patients who switched from the originator and patients who continued on the originator, and also between the biologics-naïve patient groups. There were no differences in the incidences of tuberculosis and hepatic injury (Tuberculosis: 2 patients [0.31%] with CT-P13, 10 patients [0.24%] with the originator, P = 0.75; Hepatic injury: 18.5% with CT-P13, 15.4% with the originator, P = 0.22). Most of the patients with hepatic injury continued treatment in PMS and DBS at similar rates (80.8% vs 83.6%, P = 0.65).

CONCLUSION

The results of long-term PMS of CT-P13 compared with external reference data from an administrative database suggested that the biosimilar and its originator were comparably useful in real-world clinical practice.

A Systematic Review on Infliximab Biosimilar SB2: From Pre-Clinical Data to Real-World Evidence

INTRODUCTION

The infliximab biosimilar SB2 was approved in the EU (2016, Flixabi®) and the US (2017, Renflexis®) for the same indications as the reference product (Remicade®) based on a robust analytical and clinical data package.

AREAS COVERED

This systematic literature review summarizes available analytical and clinical data on SB2, including randomized controlled clinical trials and real-world evidence studies. Overall, 184 articles and congress abstracts were identified (excluding duplicates), whereof 5 reports on analytical data, four reports on two randomized controlled trials and 13 reports of real-world evidence studies were included.

EXPERT OPINION

The available analytical and clinical data support the equivalence of SB2 to the reference product across approved indications. This is further supported by emerging real-world evidence, particularly in extrapolated indications such as inflammatory bowel disease for both infliximab-naïve patients and patients already established on infliximab switching to SB2. Switching from originator or biosimilar infliximab to SB2 including both single and multiple switches was not associated with an increased risk of loss of treatment response or any safety or immunogenicity concerns. Overall, the approved infliximab biosimilar SB2 is safe and effective in clinical practice across licensed indications.

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.

Adalimumab biosimilars, ABP501 and SB5, are equally effective and safe as adalimumab originator

To date, data on effectiveness and safety of Adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are lacking. Therefore, we aimed to verify the ability of ABP501 and SB5 to maintain the clinical and biochemical response induced by the ADA originator, after switching to them. We prospectively analyzed data collected from 55 patients with IBD who switched to ABP501, and 25 patients with IBD who switched to SB5, from ADA originator at four IBD Units between 2018 and 2020. In addition, we included an age and sex-matched control group (n = 38) who continued ADA originator for at least two years and who did not switch to a biosimilar drug. Clinical and biochemical data (C-Reactive Protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin (FC)), concomitant steroid and/or immunosuppressant therapy at the time of the switch and after six months were collected. At six months, in the ABP501 group, we did not observe statistically significant modifications in clinical activity of disease (p = 0.09) and FC values (p = 0.90)_. Some patients (n = 8) needed to add steroids at six months after switching (p = 0.01), however the need for optimization was not significant between the two timepoints (p = 0.70). Finally, 14.5% patients stopped therapy after six months. Similarly, in the SB5 group we observed a stability of clinical activity and FC values (p = 0.90 and p = 0.20), and a concomitant statistically significant decrease in CRP (p = 0.03). There were no differences in steroids/immunosuppressants need or optimizing biological therapy in this group. Finally, drug survival curves of patients who switched from originator to ABP501 and those who continued ADA originator were similar (p = 0.20). Overall, biosimilar drugs seem to be as effective and safe as the originator. Further larger and longer studies are mandatory to understand the clinical implications of these findings.

The Efficacy and Safety of Switching From Originator Infliximab to Single or Double Switch Biosimilar Among a Nationwide Cohort of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients

Background

Data on safety and efficacy of switching to Renflexis (SB2) from originator Infliximab (IFX) (single switch) or from originator IFX to Inflectra (CT-P13) to Renflexis (double switch) are limited.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a nationwide cohort of patient with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in remission who were switched to SB2. The main exposure was the treatment course of SB2. There are 2 levels in this variable: single switch (IFX to SB2) and double switch (IFX to CT-P13 to SB2). The outcome is SB2 drug discontinuation rate and/or not being in remission after 1 year. Logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted and unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals to study the efficacy difference between single switch and double switch.

Results

A total of 271 IBD patients were started on SB2. Among them 52 (19.2%) patients did not achieve remission at 1 year and 14 (5.1%) patients had to discontinue SB2 due to adverse events). In logistic regression analysis after controlling for covariates, there was no statistically significant difference observed in regard to efficacy or safety of the single switch versus double switch to SB2 (adjusted odds ratio for double switch compared to single switch = 1.33 (95% confidence interval 0.74-2.41, P = 0.3432).

Conclusions

Among IBD patients in remission, double switch was equally effective as compared to a single switch. This will help reassure the gastroenterologists who have concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of switching between multiple biosimilars for treating IBD.

Switching from Infliximab to Biosimilar in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Review of Existing Literature and Best Practices

Biosimilars are highly similar but nonidentical biologic agents with no differences in clinical efficacy and safety when compared to bio-originator products. Considering the long-term costs of managing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), biosimilars, through economic competition, provide an opportunity for cost savings to payors, may increase access to IBD medications, and could decrease health care spending in the long run. Studies investigating the use of biosimilars in IBD have shown a comparable clinical efficacy and safety profile compared to originator products. Moreover, studies have also suggested that solitary switches between bio-originators and biosimilars are acceptable and do not lead to worsening disease burden or increased immunogenicity or safety concerns. Despite available data and proposed benefits of biosimilars, skepticism about the widespread adoption of biosimilars throughout the United States continues to be present and creates many barriers. Herein, we detail the real-world, nonmedical switching experiences of 2 IBD centers in the United States and review best practices, which can be used as a potential roadmap for successful biosimilar adoption in other institutions.

Safety and efficacy of switching from infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 to infliximab biosimilar SB2 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

For patients with inflammatory bowel diseases, switching from infliximab originator to biosimilars is effective and safe. Few data on single switch have been published, and data on multiple switches of different infliximab are unavailable.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients who switched from CT-P13 to SB2, and of those with multiple switches among different infliximab compounds was conducted. Clinical activity, C reactive protein (CRP), adverse events (AE) and loss of response (LOR) were recorded.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients (26 males, 14 Crohn's disease and 22 ulcerative colitis) were enrolled and followed up for >6 months. All patients switched from CT-P13 to SB2; 12 of them (33.3%) had already switched from reference Infliximab to CT-P13, and for the remaining patients CT-P13 was the first infliximab. The clinical remission rate six months before and three months after SB2-switch was the same (58.3%) and the rate of mild activity varied from 27.8 to 33.3% (P = 0.68); the percentage of patients with normal CRP values passed from 94.4 to 91.7% (P = 1). Two patients (5.5%) had AE and 11 (30.5%) a LOR. At univariate analysis, patients with a single switch had a non-significant risk of LOR during SB2 [odds ratio (OR) = 7.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-71, P = 0.06]. SB2-LOR was associated with previous AE under CT-P13 (OR = 9.1, 95% CI 0.82-100, P = 0.07). None of such factors was significant at multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Switching from CT-P13 to SB2 seems to be safe and effective either in patients with a single than in those with multiple switches.

The SPOSIB SB2 Sicilian Cohort: Safety and Effectiveness of Infliximab Biosimilar SB2 in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Including Multiple Switches

BACKGROUND

No data on the recently introduced infliximab (IFX) biosimilar SB2 in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are available.

METHODS

The Sicilian Prospective Observational Study of Patients With IBD Treated With Infliximab Biosimilar SB2 is a multicenter, observational, prospective study performed among the cohort of the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease. All consecutive IBD patients starting the IFX biosimilar SB2 from its introduction in Sicily (March 2018) to September 2019 (18 months) were enrolled.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-six patients (Crohn disease: 49.3%, ulcerative colitis: 50.7%) were included: 127 (46.0%) were naïve to IFX and naïve to anti-tumor necrosis factor medications (anti-TNFs), 65 (23.5%) were naïve to IFX and previously exposed to anti-TNFs, 17 (6.2%) were switched from an IFX originator to SB2, 43 (15.6%) were switched from the biosimilar CT-P13 to SB2, and 24 (8.7%) were multiply switched (from IFX originator to CT-P13 to SB2). The cumulative number of infusions of SB2 was 1798, and the total follow-up time was 182.7 patient-years. Sixty-seven serious adverse events occurred in 57 patients (20.7%; incidence rate: 36.7 per 100 patient-year), and 31 of these events caused the withdrawal of the drug. The effectiveness after 8 weeks of treatment was evaluated in patients naïve to IFX (n = 192): 110 patients (57.3%) had steroid-free remission, while 56 patients had no response (29.2%). At the end of follow-up, 72 patients (26.1%) interrupted the treatment, without significant differences in treatment persistency estimations between the five groups (log-rank P = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and effectiveness of SB2 seem to be overall similar to those reported for the IFX originator and CT-P13.

Long-term effectiveness, safety and immunogenicity of the biosimilar SB2 in inflammatory bowel disease patients after switching from originator infliximab

BACKGROUND

Long-term data on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients switched from originator to biosimilar infliximab SB2 are lacking. The aim of the conducted study was to investigate the effectiveness, immunogenicity and safety of a large prospectively followed-up IBD patient cohort that was entirely switched from originator infliximab to biosimilar SB2 treatment.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-center, longitudinal, observational study describing clinical outcomes in IBD patients, over an 80-week period following switch from originator infliximab to SB2. Primary outcome measures were change of disease activity [Harvey-Bradshaw Index for Crohn's disease (CD), partial Mayo Score for ulcerative colitis (UC)], C-reactive protein (CRP), infliximab trough levels (TLs), anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) and adverse events.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-four IBD patients (94 CD, 50 UC), with median duration of 30.5 months' (range 2-110) treatment with originator infliximab were evaluated. Mean change of disease activity compared with baseline was -0.9 (SD 2.6), -0.4 (2.2) and -0.4 (2.0) in CD; 0.1 (1.1), 0.1 (1.1) and 0.1 (1.3) in UC patients at weeks 24, 48 and 72. Median infliximab TLs were 6.2 µg/ml (interquartile range 2.3-12.2), 5.0 µg/ml (2.7-10.0), 6.6 µg/ml (3.5-12.4) and 5.1 µg/ml (2.7-10.9) at baseline and weeks 24, 48 and 72. Median CRP levels were within normal ranges throughout the study. After the switch, 9.8% of the patients developed new ADAs. Persistence on SB2 was 90% (95% confidence interval 0.85-0.95), 79% (0.72-0.86), 72% (0.64-0.80) at weeks 26, 52 and 78. Serious adverse events occurred in 11 patients.

CONCLUSION

Over the individual patient follow-up of 80 weeks, switch to biosimilar SB2 from originator infliximab does not result in increased disease activity or changed immunogenicity patterns. The switch to SB2 was well tolerated.

Infliximab concentrations in two non-switching cohorts of patients with inflammatory bowel disease: originator vs. biosimilar

Biosimilars are replacing originator compounds due to their similar effectiveness, safety and pharmacokinetics. Our objective was to compare the differences in pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes between the originator infliximab (Ifx) and the biosimilar CT-P13 in a patient cohort with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our cohort study included 86 patients from a historical and a prospective cohort from the start of infliximab treatment to 22 weeks later. Serum infliximab, antidrug antibody levels and other serum biomarkers were measured at weeks 0, 2, 6, 14 and 22. Remission outcomes were evaluated at weeks 14 and 22. Drug levels were measured prospectively and analysed using MANOVA. Of the 86 patients, 44 (51%) and 42 (49%) were administered the originator and CT-P13, respectively. Originator trough levels were higher than the biosimilar trough levels (35 vs. 21, 20.1 vs. 11, 6.6 vs. 2.9 and 4.3 vs. 1.7 μg/mL at weeks 2, 6, 14 and 22, respectively). A post-hoc analysis demonstrated changes in mean serum drug levels over time (p < 0.001) and according to the drug employed (p = 0.001). At week 22, 13 (81%) patients administered the originator achieved clinical remission compared with 5 (19%) patients with the biosimilar (p = 0.02). None of the patients administered the originator withdrew from the treatment compared with 7 for the biosimilar. During the study, there were significant differences in serum infliximab levels between the originator and the CT-P13 in the patients with IBD. The clinical outcomes were influenced by the type of compound administered.

Biosimilar switching in inflammatory bowel disease: from evidence to clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

After patents' expiration of biological originators, several biosimilars of infliximab and adalimumab have been authorized. The approval is based on data extrapolated from other indications for which the originator has been previously tested. Despite rigorous approval processes by regulatory entities, physicians' and patients' knowledge about biosimilars is limited and some concerns about their use persist.

AREAS COVERED

This article summarizes the evidence on efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars currently approved in Europe for IBD treatment, by reviewing the literature on PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases up to mid-July 2020. Particular emphasis was placed on the need to further improve communication with patients and physicians' knowledge on biosimilars.

EXPERT OPINION

Adoption of biosimilars in clinical practice represents a great opportunity from an economic point of view, reducing healthcare costs and increasing patients' access to effective biologic treatments. Clinicians should be aware and confident of the latest evidence on available biosimilars and be very careful in communicating information to patients. Nocebo effect should not be overlooked since it can negatively influence outcomes of biosimilar-treated subjects, limiting the wide use of biosimilars. Evaluating the outcomes of reverse, multiple, and cross-switch will be a challenge for the next years.

Systematic Review: Non-medical Switching of Infliximab to CT-P13 in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Biosimilar approval, such as Inflectra™ (CT-P13) for treating ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD), has reduced direct drug costs. Though clinicians are comfortable with biosimilar use in treatment-naïve patients, there are concerns in some jurisdictions that there are insufficient data from well-controlled trials to support non-medical switching. A systematic review, along with a critical assessment of the study design, was conducted to assess the potential impact of switching stable CD/UC patients from infliximab to CT-P13.

METHODS

A literature search using PubMed and abstracts/posters from 3 major gastroenterology conferences from 2014 to 2018 was completed. Two individual reviewers extracted data from each relevant report and compiled it into evidence tables to facilitate descriptive analyses. Key randomized trial and observational study designs were critically assessed to contextualize data relevance.

RESULTS

A total of 49 reports (3 randomized controlled trials, 40 observational trials, and 1 case series) were included. Most studies revealed no efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity concerns with non-medical switch. Limitations of supporting data include a small number of randomized controlled trials; predominance of observational studies with varying outcome assessments and lack of appropriate controls; and scarcity of research on biosimilar switch long-term effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of studies suggested non-medical switch is safe. However, clinicians and regulatory bodies should be aware of differences and limitations in study designs when making inferences about the risks and benefits of switching stable IBD patients to biosimilars.

Knowledge and Viewpoints on Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies among Asian Physicians: Comparison with European Physicians

Background/Aims

Current knowledge and viewpoints regarding biosimilars among physicians in Asia are unknown, even though these were investigated by European Crohn's and Colitis Organization (ECCO) members in 2013 and 2015. Thus, this study conducted a multinational survey to assess the awareness of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies among Asian physicians.

Methods

A 17-question multiple-choice anonymous web survey was conducted with the logistic support of the Asian Organization of Crohn's and Colitis (AOCC). Randomly selected AOCC members were invited by e-mail to participate between February 24, 2017 and March 26, 2017.

Results

In total, 151 physicians from eight Asian countries responded to the survey. Most of the participants were gastroenterologists (96.6%), and 77.5% had cared for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) patients for more than 5 years. The majority of the respondents (66.2%) were aware that a biosimilar is similar but not equivalent to the originator. The majority of respondents (77.5%) considered cost saving to be the main advantage of biosimilars, but a high percentage of respondents (38.4%) were concerned about a different immunogenicity from that of the originator (92.4% and 27.1% respectively in ECCO 2015). Only 19.2% considered that the originator and biosimilars were interchangeable, and only 6.0% felt very confident in the use of biosimilars (44.4% and 28.8% respectively in ECCO 2015).

Conclusions

Asian gastroenterologists in 2017 are generally well informed about biosimilars. On the other hand, compared to the ECCO members surveyed in 2015, Asian gastroenterologists had more concerns and less confidence about the use of biosimilars in clinical practice. Thus, IBD-specific data on the comparison of the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in Asian patients are needed.

An Indian national survey of therapeutic drug monitoring with anti-tumor necrosis (TNF) medications in inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Evidence supports therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in improving efficacy and cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Data on perceptions and barriers to TDM use are limited and no data are available from India. Our objective was to assess clinicians' attitudes and barriers to TDM use in IBD.

METHODS

A 16-question survey was distributed to members of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology. Information on clinician characteristics, demographics, use and barriers towards TDM with anti-TNFs was collected. Logistic regression was used to predict factors influencing TDM use.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-two respondents participated (92.5% male); 83% were consultant gastroenterologists. Of 104 respondents meeting inclusion criteria (treating > 5 IBD patients and at least 1 with an anti-TNF per month), complete responses were available for 101 participants. TDM was utilized by 20% (n = 20) of respondents. Of them, 89.5% (n = 17) used TDM for secondary loss of response; 73.7% (n = 14) for primary non-response and 5.3% (n = 1) proactively. Barriers to TDM use were cost (71.2%), availability (67.8%), time lag in results (58.7%) and the perception that TDM is time-consuming (45.7%). Clinicians treating > 30 IBD patients were more likely to check TDM (OR = 4.9, p = 0.02). Of 81 respondents not using TDM, 97.5% (n = 79) would do so if all the barriers were removed.

CONCLUSION

Significant barriers to TDM use were availability, cost and time lag for results. If these barriers were removed, almost all the clinicians would use TDM at least reactively and 25% would use proactively. There is an urgent need to address these barriers and optimize anti-TNF therapy for optimal outcomes.

UK National Survey of Gastroenterologists' attitudes and barriers toward therapeutic drug monitoring of anti-TNF therapy in inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Evidence supports use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in improving efficacy and cost-effectiveness of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our objective was to assess attitudes and barriers towards TDM use with anti-TNF's in the UK.

METHODS

A 17-question survey was distributed to members of the British Society of Gastroenterology by email.

RESULTS

Of 243 respondents (51.6% male), 237 respondents met inclusion criteria. Of these, 46% were consultants (gastroenterologist, GI), 39.2% IBD nurse specialists (clinical nurse specialists, CNS), 14.8% registrars. TDM is used by 96.9% for secondary loss of response; 72.5% for primary non-response and 54.1% used TDM proactively. Barriers were time lag in receiving results (49.8%), lack of awareness of guidelines (46.4%) and cost (29.9%). Clinicians working at a teaching hospital (OR 2.6, 95% CI 0.71 to 9.8), IBD CNS and GI registrars (OR 2.6, 95% CI 0.7 to 10 and OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 7.2, respectively) were more likely to use TDM. Clinicians practising for >20 years (OR 4.1, 95% CI 0.4 to 41.8) and a large volume IBD practice (>50% IBD patients per month) were more likely to use TDM (OR 45.7, 95% CI 7.5 to 275). Proactive TDM, was more likely to be used in tertiary care (OR 2.25, 95% CI 0.84 to 6.1), IBD CNS (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7 to 2.1) and clinicians managing >50% IBD patients per month (OR 10.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 90.3). Clinicians with 5-9 years of experience in practice were more likely to use proactive TDM (OR 2.6 and CI 1.04 to 6.4).

CONCLUSION

Validation of point of care and lower cost assays, reduced time lag from test to result, lower cost of testing and dissemination of current recommendations may further optimise treatment strategies.

An in vitro comparison of four different immunoassays for the monitoring of Infliximab biosimilars drug levels

BACKGROUND

SB2 (Renflexis®, Merck) and CT-P13 (Inflectra®, Pfizer) are biosimilars of the reference Infliximab (Remicade®, Janssen) and are approved in Canada for use in indications for which Infliximab is approved, including inflammatory bowel disease. These biosimilars are structurally different but exhibit comparable physicochemical characteristics, pharmaceutical effectiveness and immunogenicity compared to Infliximab. Optimal Infliximab therapy currently relies on therapeutic drug monitoring offered by several reference laboratories.

OBJECTIVE

Because the appropriate dosing depends on accurate determination of drug levels and anti-drug antibodies, the ability of current Infliximab assays to measure the biosimilars and corresponding antibodies needs to be demonstrated.

METHODS

The correlation between Infliximab and the biosimilars measured with four different enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for Infliximab detection was evaluated. Spiked serum samples were assayed with kits from (A) Immunodiagnostik/ALPCO Diagnostics, (B) R-Biopharm, (C) Theradiag and (D) Progenika Biopharma. The impact of various concentrations of antibodies to Infliximab on the quantification of biosimilars was also tested.

RESULTS

A good correlation of SB2, CT-P13 and reference Infliximab spiked serum samples was observed with the four assays. The observed bias between the original drug and biosimilars is clinically insignificant and less than the usual analytical variability observed with these methods. The quantification of the biosimilars and Infliximab was equally impacted in serums containing antibodies to Infliximab. The recovery of the drugs was inversely correlated with the concentration of anti-Infliximab antibodies, suggesting common immunodominant epitopes for SB2, CT-P13 and Infliximab.

CONCLUSION

The ability of these assays to properly quantify the biosimilars Renflexis® and Inflectra® has been demonstrated. The therapeutic drug monitoring required for Infliximab therapy can be adequately performed with the biosimilars using the kits currently in use or available in clinical laboratories.

Assays used to assess biosimilarity of therapies for inflammatory bowel disease

Introduction: Biological drugs have revolutionized the treatment of various medical conditions. Recently, upon expiration of patents of a few biological agents, biosimilars are being rapidly developed as an affordable substitute for more expensive biologic drugs, which may serve as a therapeutic alternative for biologics reference medical product (RMP). Prior to approval for use of the biosimilar drug for treatment of RMP indications, a process involving several different assays is required, in which the biosimilar must prove to posses no meaningful differences from an existing approved RMP in terms of purity, safety and potency.Areas covered: This report describes the different assays which are used to assess biosimilar drugs using CT-P13 infliximab biosimilar as a case-in-point. It covers the assays of physicochemical characterization, biological activity, and immunogenicity and examines their rational along with methodological and conceptual caveats clinicians should be cognizant of.Expert opinion: The approval of a biosimilar is a complex process that requires several assays, specifically tailored to the characteristics of the RMP. Determining the required assays and the allowable margin of confidence are of great importance but are not sufficient in order to prove that the biosimilar is indeed not inferior in its clinical potency and safety to the RMP.

SB5 shows cross-immunogenicity to adalimumab but not infliximab: results in patients with inflammatory bowel disease or rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

The primary objective of this study was to analyze the cross-reactivity of antidrug antibodies to reference adalimumab (ADL) and SB5 (adalimumab biosimilar) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Sera from patients with IBD and RA with or without antibodies to adalimumab (ATA+ or ATA-, respectively) were tested for cross-reactivity with SB5 and ADL. Functional inhibition of tumor necrosis factor-α binding was measured. Sera from patients with antibodies to reference infliximab (ATI+) were examined for cross-reactivity to SB5. Sera were tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

RESULTS

All 30 anti-ADL ATA+ sera from patients with IBD and all 4 anti-SB5 ATA+ sera from patients with RA were cross-reactive with ADL and SB5 (range of mean concentrations: IBD, 20.99-21.31 μg/ml; RA, 16.46-17.48 μg/ml). In general, there was no significant difference between mean ATA titers. A strong correlation was detected in all ATA+ samples (rho = 0.997 to >0.999; p < 0.001 each). However, ATA- sera were not reactive to either ADL or SB5. anti-ADL ATA+ sera similarly neutralized functional activity of ADL and SB5; no functional inhibition was observed with ATA- sera. ATI+ sera did not cross-react with SB5.

CONCLUSIONS

ADL and SB5 show cross-immunogenicity in sera from patients with IBD or RA, supporting shared immune-dominant epitopes. ATI+ sera did not cross-react with SB5, suggesting different immunogenic epitopes between infliximab and SB5.

CT-P13: a review on a biosimilar to infliximab in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

Introduction: CT-P13 was developed as an infliximab biosimilar in 2013. The primary structure of CT-P13 is identical to that of original infliximab and it has highly similar higher order structure, physiochemical characteristics, and biological properties. To date, data from real-life cohorts and randomized controlled trials show comparable clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of biosimilar CT-P13, and the original reference medicinal Product (RMP). Areas covered: This article reviews the comparability of CT-P13 and the RMP and focuses on the emerging clinical trial and observational cohorts data on efficacy and safety of CT-P13 in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. The development of a subcutaneous formulation of Infliximab CT-P13 is also addressed. Expert opinion: There is a plethora of evidence to show CT-P13 is non-inferior to infliximab RMP in IBD and that a switch from RMP to this biosimilar is feasible and safe. However, interchangeability and multiple switches can still not be endorsed for introduction into clinical practice.

Therapeutic drug monitoring-based dosing of TNF inhibitors in inflammatory bowel disease: the way forward?

Introduction: Secondary loss of response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy remains a challenge in the clinical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. A frequently observed reason for secondary loss of response to TNF blockers is inadequate drug exposure and sub-therapeutic serum drug concentrations. Areas covered: This review presents an overview of recent research on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-based dosing with anti-TNF agents in IBD. The role of reactive and proactive TDM and different approaches on how to optimize anti-TNF treatment are discussed. Expert opinion: Due to variations within and between patients, the 'one size fits all' theory does not apply to all IBD patients receiving anti-TNF agents. Timing of TDM (i.e. reactive versus proactive) is a matter of debate. Both strategies might optimize anti-TNF treatment, although most trials did not show a clinical benefit compared to conventional dosing up to now. So-called dashboard systems might have an additive value in the optimization of anti-TNF treatment, since these tools enable clinicians to really personalize anti-TNF treatment.

Update of the Position Paper of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on Biosimilar Drugs

In 2015 the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (Sociedad Española de Reumatología [SER]) published its position paper on biosimilar drugs. In this update, the SER, continues to manifest its unequivocal commitment to the sustainability of the health system of our country and is aligned with the measures that, without reducing quality of care, are aimed at ensuring its continuity. Since the publication of the previous position paper, the European Commission has authorized new biosimilar drugs, which provides an excellent opportunity to advance the efficiency of health care. In this new scenario of increased therapeutic offer of biologics, the SER considers it crucial to preserve the freedom of prescription of physicians who prescribe drugs based exclusively on the characteristics and individual circumstances of each patient, without forgetting the economic aspects there of.

Use of biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease: a position update of the Italian Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IG-IBD)

The first infliximab biosimilar for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was introduced in 2013, and today eight anti-TNF alpha biosimilars (three for infliximab and five for adalimumab) have been approved and licensed by the European Medicines Agency. Biosimilars present great potential in terms of cost saving and possible consequential reinvestment in the health care system. The increasing knowledge about the process of biosimilar development and use in IBD and the publication of many prospective clinical studies and real-life clinical experiences have progressively changed the point of view of IBD physicians. In the present position paper, the Italian Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease present and discuss their updated statements and positions on this topic, with emphasis on the concepts of biosimilarity and extrapolation across indications, safety and immunogenicity, interchangeability and switching, automatic substitution, and, finally, patient education about biosimilars.

Use of Biosimilars in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Updated Position Statement of the Pediatric IBD Porto Group of ESPGHAN

Biologic therapies have changed the outcome of both adult and pediatric patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). In September 2013, the first biosimilar of infliximab was introduced into the pharmaceutical market. In 2015, a first position paper on the use of biosimilars in pediatric IBD was published by the ESPGHAN IBD Porto group. Since then, more data have accumulated for both adults and children demonstrating biosimilars are an effective and safe alternative to the originator. In this updated position statement, we summarize current evidence and provide joint consensus statements regarding the recommended practice of biosimilar use in children with IBD.

Bioequivalence studies with anti-TNF biosimilars

Introduction: Biosimilars, as defined by the European Medicines Agency, have been used in Europe since 2006. The landscape was considerably expanded when the first biosimilar of a monoclonal was approved and introduced in the European market. CT-P13 was developed by Celltrion as an infliximab biosimilar in 2013, not without controversy. As these complex molecules cannot be completely identical, some experts, clinicians, and even patients were skeptical regarding the real bioequivalence of the drugs. Currently, several new infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars are available or will reach the market in a few months. Areas covered: Our goal is to review, mainly from a clinical perspective, the available evidence for bioequivalence of anti-TNF biosimilars. We aim to take into account not only preclinical studies, mostly done for regulatory issues, but also data from clinical studies. Expert opinion: We can conclude that bioequivalence with originator is well demonstrated in those drugs which have followed European Medicines Agency regulatory pathways. Switching from originator to biosimilar appears safe for all indications. However, there are few data available for switching from one biosimilar to another, or for complete interchangeability. Prospective studies and strict pharmacovigilance are recommended.

Verification between Original and Biosimilar Therapeutic Antibody Infliximab Using nSMOL Coupled LC-MS Bioanalysis in Human Serum

Background:

Infliximab (IFX) is a chimeric therapeutic monoclonal antibody targeting tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα)-mediated inflammatory immune diseases. However, despite of an initial good clinical response, decrease in response to long-term treatment is a common observation.

Objective:

Recent studies suggest that IFX level in circulation has a correlation with clinical bioavailabil-ity. Therefore, the management of IFX dosage for individual manifestation by IFX monitoring may be valuable for the improvement of therapeutic response and outcomes.

Method:

In order to develop a broad IFX therapeutic monitoring in human serum, we have developed the validated IFX bioanalysis for RemicadeTM and its biosimilar product using our nano-surface and molecu-lar-orientation limited proteolysis (nSMOL) technology coupled with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The nSMOL chemistry has a unique property of Fab-selective prote-olysis, and makes it possible a global bioanalysis for many monoclonal antibodies.

Results:

The quantitation range of IFX in serum was from 0.293 to 300 μg/ml with good linearity. Quan-titation verification at the concentrations of 0.293, 0.879, 14.1 and 240 μg/ml was within 1.56-7.53% of precision and 98.9-111% of accuracy using H-chain signature peptide SINSATHYAESVK. Moreover, cross-verified bioanalysis of Remicade quantitation using biosimilar standard, and its opposite combina-tion, obtained an identical and inter-comparative results.

Conclusion:

The nSMOL strategy has the potential as a practical therapeutic monitoring technology in IFX therapeutic applications.

WITHDRAWN:Knowledge and viewpoints on biosimilar monoclonal antibodies from members of the Asian Organization of Crohn's and Colitis: comparison with European Crohn's and Colitis members

Ahead of Print article withdrawn by publisher.

The biosimilars journey: current status and ongoing challenges

Biosimilar products are already approved and marketed in several countries. The Food and Drug Administration has approved ten different biosimilars, and the European Medicines Agency has approved 40. Even though this scenario has provided important experience with biosimilar products, there are still challenges and unanswered questions. Up to now, a good amount of knowledge has been gathered in order to support the importance of the totality of evidence and the construction of a biosimilarity exercise for regulatory approval. In addition, the extrapolation of indications has been proved viable when a careful analysis is performed. The models for clinical trials and the use of the most sensible populations have been extensively discussed, and there is apparent homogeneity in manufacturer choices for study designs. However, some challenges remain. The lack of regulatory harmony, especially concerning naming, the marketed intended copies, the interchangeability, and the biosimilars in orphan diseases are some of those and are the focus of discussion in this review.