The Argument Against a Biosimilar Switch Policy for Infliximab in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Living in Alberta

Effects of non-medical infliximab biosimilar switching in ocular inflammatory diseases: A case series from a tertiary care center

PURPOSE

To describe the course of care and outcomes for 3 uveitis patients formerly on Remicade that were non-medically switched to Inflectra.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational case series.

METHODS

•Setting: Tertiary care clinical practice.•Patient population: 3 Uveitis patients, observing both eyes for inflammation as applicable. Patients included if they had been on Inflectra for ≥2 infusions and history of Remicade use. Patients described herein had at least 1 adverse reaction to Inflectra and were switched to Remicade for medical necessity. Patients excluded if they were lost to follow-up or not examined for over 6 months during therapy.•Observation procedures/Interventions: Patients observed for adverse changes in clinical course while on Inflectra. Patients developing these changes on Inflectra were started or restarted on Remicade.

RESULTS

The 3 patients described herein developed adverse complications while on Inflectra that required switching to Remicade. They were originally on Remicade, and their clinical course worsened beyond what had been controlled with Remicade alone. Our findings are limited by our small sample size, and further investigation is necessary to explore the scope of effects of non-medical biosimilar switching.

CONCLUSION

Non-medical biosimilar switching from Remicade to Inflectra may induce detrimental side-effects and significant worsening of inflammation in patients with uveitis. Non-medical biosimilar switching from Remicade to Inflectra should be discouraged, and physician input should be sought in establishing an effective and medically-necessary treatment plan for patients with uveitis.

Can Endangered Biosimilar Markets be Rescued? The Need to Bridge Competing Interests for Long-Term Gain

Market signals such as: (1) the limited number of biosimilars in the development pipeline, (2) the focus of biosimilar development on high-profit therapeutic areas only, and (3) the increase in the number of biosimilar discontinuations and withdrawals, are indicative of sustainability threats facing biosimilar markets in Europe. Two prominent factors that undermine sustainability are: competing interests between the various stakeholders and a preferential focus on short-term gains, disregarding future sustainability threats, hence the need for effective policies that create sustainable competition in biologic markets. Thus far, measures implemented to foster biosimilar adoption have not been necessarily complied with and have had mixed success. Further, these policies have not consistently led to improving access to affordable biologics. In this commentary, we aim to raise awareness of vulnerabilities of biosimilar markets and of difficulties relating to reaching an agreement on policy solutions with a long-term vision. We propose to build on knowledge from collective action theory to advance in reconciling stakeholder interests. This first-of-its-kind approach can inform long-term solutions for biosimilar markets.

An Update on Anti-TNF Biosimilar Switching-Real-World Clinical Effectiveness and Safety

Background

Biological medications for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) account for a significant burden on provincial budgets. In an effort to curb these rising costs, nationwide switching to biosimilars is expected to be complete in Canada before the end of 2023. Biosimilar products do not require the same rigor for licensing as the originator and therefore there has been appropriate scepticism as to how biosimilars will perform in real-world practice.

Methods

We have performed a systematic review including real-world observational studies of adult patients with IBD. The primary outcome was clinical effectiveness and/or safety in patients who had switched from originator to biosimilar anti-TNF. Secondary outcomes included loss of response (LOR), treatment persistence or cessation and immunogenicity.

Results

We included 43 studies (7,462 patients [70 percent Crohn's disease: 30 percent ulcerative colitis]; 32 infliximab studies, and 11 adalimumab studies). For infliximab, 75 percent patients were in clinical remission at the time of switch and 75 percent maintained clinical remission beyond 12 months, compared to 78 percent of patients who continued originator. For adalimumab, 86 percent patients were in remission at the time of switch with 82 percent maintaining remission at 6 months follow-up. Injection site pain was higher in patients who switched to a citrate containing adalimumab biosimilar, compared with those who continued originator. All other outcomes (LOR, treatment cessation or persistence and serious adverse events) were similar to patients who continued originator (in comparator cohorts or the available literature).

Conclusion

Whilst ongoing vigilance is required, these data are reassuring to both patients and clinicians and will significantly help to reduce health-care costs across Canada.

Outcomes Following Adalimumab Bio-originator to Biosimilar Switch-A Comparison Using Real-world Patient- and Physician-Reported Data in European Countries

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this work is to compare real-world outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving adalimumab (ADA) bio-originator (non-switchers) to those who had switched from ADA bio-originator to an ADA biosimilar (switchers) on the basis of the hypothesis that these outcomes would differ.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of physicians and their patients in Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) in 2020. Physicians completed a questionnaire for their next ten adult patients with RA, followed by four additional patients who had switched from ADA bio-originator to an ADA biosimilar (switchers). Physician- and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for switchers and non-switchers were compared by propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Three hundred and three rheumatologists provided data for 160 non-switchers and 225 switchers, 140 patients provided data; 51 non-switchers, 89 switchers. According to physician-reported disease activity, non-switchers were more likely to improve on their current ADA treatment than switchers (68%, n = 108 vs. 26%, n = 59 p < 0.001) and less likely to worsen (1%, n = 2 vs. 9%, n = 20; p < 0.01). Physician-reported patient adherence was significantly lower amongst switchers versus non-switchers (0.66 vs. 0.78, respectively; p = 0.04). More non-switchers than switchers were reported by their physicians to be consistent in taking their RA medicine (p < 0.001). Compared with non-switchers, PRO measures indicated quality of life was worse (EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale: 62.9 vs. 71.9; p < 0.001) and activity impairment was greater (Work Productivity Activity Index: 31.0 vs. 24.4; p = 0.02) for switchers, with trends for poorer health status and greater pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-medical switching in RA treatment may lead to unforeseen outcomes that should be considered by health decision-makers.

Monitoring a Mandatory Nonmedical Switching Policy from Originator to Biosimilar Infliximab in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Background

On September 5, 2019, British Columbia announced a new policy (the Biosimilars Initiative) to switch from originator to biosimilar infliximab for patients with inflammatory bowel diseases.

Objective

To monitor the impacts of the policy on the use of medications and health services during the first year of the policy.

Methods

In this population-based cohort study, we used administrative health data to construct three historical cohorts and one policy cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases who used the originator infliximab. We then monitored the cumulative incidence of medications and health services. Log-likelihood ratios were used to quantify differences between the policy cohort and the average of the historical cohorts.

Results

The cohorts included 1839-2368 users of the originator infliximab, ages 4-90 years, mean age 43 years. During the first year of follow-up, we found: (1) a 0.9% increase in the first dispensation of infliximab, biosimilar, or originator; (2) a 16.2% increase in infliximab dose escalation; (3) a decrease of 2.4% in the dispensation of antibiotics and a 2.6% decrease in new use of prednison; (4) an anticipated increase in visits to physicians and gastroenterologists to manage switching to biosimilars (24.0%); (5) a 4.0% decrease in discharges from hospital; and (6) a 2.9% decrease in emergency admissions to hospital.

Conclusion

British Columbia's Biosimilars Initiative for nonmedical switching from originator to biosimilar infliximab for inflammatory bowel diseases was not associated with harmful impacts on medications and health services use. An increase in dose escalation was accompanied by an improvement in health status proxies.

The Economic Impact of Originator-to-Biosimilar Non-medical Switching in the Real-World Setting: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

To save costs to the healthcare system, forced non-medical switch (NMS) policies that cut drug coverage for originator biologics and fund only less expensive biosimilars are being implemented. However, costs related to the impact of NMS on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) must also be considered. This study aims to summarize the evidence on the economic impact of an originator-to-biosimilar NMS.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted. Publications reporting on HCRU or costs associated with originator-to-biosimilar NMS in the real-world setting were searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2008 to February 2020. In addition to hand searching the reference lists of relevant publications and SLRs, key conference websites, PubMed, and various government sites were also searched for the 2 years preceding the search (2018-2020).

RESULTS

A total of 1845 citations were identified, of which 49 were retained for data extraction. Most studies reporting on the HCRU associated with NMS reported on post-NMS HCRU alone without a comparison pre-NMS. However, four studies described a difference in HCRU (i.e., investigations pre- vs post-switch or between non-switchers vs switchers), all of which reported a relative increase in HCRU, including laboratory testing, imaging, medical visits, and hospitalizations, amongst patients who underwent an originator-to-biosimilar NMS. Most studies reporting on the costs associated with NMS reported significant savings following NMS on the basis of drug costs alone. However, four studies specifically reporting on the difference of costs following originator-to-biosimilar NMS all demonstrated an increase in HCRU-related costs associated with NMS (increase in HCRU-related costs of 4-37% or 148-2234 2020 Canadian dollars).

CONCLUSION

Amongst the studies that reported on the difference in HCRU pre- vs post-switch or between non-switchers and switchers, all showed an increase in HCRU and related costs associated with NMS, suggesting that the expected overall savings due to less costly drug prices may be reduced as a result of an increase in HCRU and its associated costs post-switch. Nevertheless, more real-world studies that include NMS-related healthcare costs in addition to drug costs are needed.

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.

Projected impact of biosimilar substitution policies on drug use and costs in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional time series analysis

BACKGROUND

Several Canadian provinces have introduced reimbursement policies mandating substitution of innovator biologics with lower-cost biosimilars. We estimated the number of patients affected and cost implications if such policy changes were to be implemented in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional time series analysis of Ontarians dispensed publicly funded biologics indicated for inflammatory diseases (rheumatic conditions, inflammatory bowel disease: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab) between January 2018 and December 2019, and forecasted trends to Dec. 31, 2020. The primary source of data was pharmacy claims data for all biologics reimbursed by the public drug program. We modelled the number of patients affected and government expenditures (in nominal Canadian dollars) of several biosimilar policy options, including mandatory nonmedical biosimilar substitution, substitution in new users, introduction of a biosimilar for adalimumab, and price negotiations. In a secondary analysis, we included insulin glargine.

RESULTS

In 2018, 14 089 individuals were prescribed a publicly funded biologic for inflammatory diseases. A mandatory nonmedical biosimilar substitution would potentially have affected 7209 patients and saved $238.6 million from 2018 to 2020. A new-user substitution would have affected 757 patients and saved $34.2 million. If an adalimumab biosimilar were to become available, 12 928 patients would be affected by a mandatory nonmedical substitution and the 3-year savings would increase to $645.9 million (all biosimilars priced at 25% of innovator biologics). Finally, an expanded nonmedical substitution policy including insulin glargine would affect 115 895 patients and save $288.7 million (not including adalimumab).

INTERPRETATION

Policies designed to curb rising costs of biologics can have substantially different effects on patients and government expenditures. Such analyses warrant careful consideration of the balance between cost savings and effects on patients.

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.

Effect of listing strategies on utilization of antitumor necrosis factor biologics infliximab and etanercept: a cross-sectional analysis from Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND: Use of costly biologic drugs for the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases has increased significantly in recent years. However, biosimilar drugs offer an opportunity to ensure health system sustainability with robust uptake. OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of formulary listing strategies on the use of infliximab and etanercept innovator and biosimilar biologics. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of individuals in Ontario, Canada, dispensed a biologic prescription for infliximab or etanercept through Ontario's public drug program between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2019. Quarterly utilization and costs were forecasted using Holt-Winters' exponential smoothing models to the second quarter (Q2) of 2022. Secondary analyses explored utilization for rheumatic conditions (RC) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). RESULTS: From Q1 2010 to Q2 2019, infliximab and etanercept users increased by 75.7% (n = 4,073 to 7,158), with a forecasted increase of 13.7% (n = 8,142; 95% CI = 7,438-8,847) by Q2 2022. Biosimilar users represented 13.8% (n = 539 of 3,905) of total infliximab users in Q2 2019, although this differed by indication with 6.9% for IBD (n = 187 of 2,712) and 26.6% for RC (n = 203 of 764). Etanercept biosimilar users represented 20.2% (n = 659 of 3,256) of total etanercept users for RC in Q2 2019. Biologics expenditures increased 109.7% during the study, amounting to $49.9 million in Q2 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differing reimbursement restrictions between innovator infliximab and etanercept biologics, the uptake of their biosimilars was low and not noticeably different in the treatment of RC. Dynamic policy strategies are needed to improve the uptake of biosimilars, particularly for IBD. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was contributed by the Ontario Ministry of Health. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Over the past 2 decades, biological therapy with monoclonal antibodies targeting tumor necrosis factor-α has become a cornerstone of treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Although clinically effective, the biological therapies remain expensive, and their availability and utilization have been at times limited due to their high costs. Biosimilars are biological products similar to but not identical to the original biological agent or "reference biologic," also called "originator biologic." It is hoped that the use of biosimilars might enable these agents to become more available and, thus, decrease further expenditures related to the use of the original reference agents such as infliximab and adalimumab. In this study, we review the currently available evidence and shortcomings of these data supporting the use of biosimilars for the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, including their efficacy and safety as related to initiating therapy with biosimilar agents or switching between reference and biosimilar biologic agents.

The Importance of Countering Biosimilar Disparagement and Misinformation

Biosimilar use is limited in some healthcare systems because biosimilars are not well understood by many healthcare professionals and patients. The knowledge gap is exacerbated by disparagement of biosimilars and dissemination of misinformation, whether intentional or otherwise. There are several different types of disparagement and misinformation directed towards biosimilars as a class, including statements about biosimilar science or policy that are factually incorrect; misleading information, where the information is correct, but is provided out of context; incomplete information, where only partial or a limited set of facts are provided; creation of a false narrative, especially in scientific and medical literature, that provides a set of references to support incorrect conclusions; and negative message framing of factual statements to create a negative perception. Disparagement and misinformation about biosimilars can be countered by educational efforts, appropriate oversight, and regulatory activities with the option of enforcement action by governmental agencies, if warranted. Balanced educational materials about biosimilars should be made easily accessible. Physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and patient advocacy groups should work together to provide patients with consistent, positive messages about the value of biosimilars.