Reviewing the evidence for biosimilars: key insights, lessons learned and future horizons

Real-World Evidence of Clinical Outcomes of the Use of the Adalimumab Biosimilar SB5 in Rheumatic and Gastrointestinal Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: 12-Month Data from the PERFUSE Study

BACKGROUND

There is a need for published data on real-world use of SB5, an adalimumab (ADL) biosimilar approved in Europe in 2017, on the basis of evidence from pre-clinical and analytic data as well as phase I and III clinical studies demonstrating equivalent efficacy and comparable pharmacokinetics, safety and immunogenicity profiles as the reference ADL.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to estimate patient persistence on SB5 at 12 months post-initiation using clinical and healthcare claims data from the French Système National des Données de Santé (national healthcare claims database, SNDS) in addressing data gaps.

METHODS

PERFUSE is a 12-month, observational, multi-centre cohort study of patients with rheumatic or gastrointestinal immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who initiated routine SB5 treatment between October 2018 and October 2020, either as their first ADL (naïve) or transitioning from another ADL (switched). Clinical data, including disease activity scores, C-reactive protein levels, and dosing information, were collected as available from patient records captured during routine visits to specialist physicians. Persistence data were supplemented with data from the French national healthcare claims database (SNDS). Analyses of clinical data were descriptive, while persistence was assessed using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 911 patients were included: 507 from rheumatology centres [116 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 78 psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and 313 ankylosing spondylitis (AS)] and 404 from gastroenterology centres [316 with Crohn's disease (CD) and 88 ulcerative colitis (UC)]. Among naïve patients, 12-month remission/low activity rates were 58% for RA, 66% for PsA, 59% for AS, 94% for CD, and 85% for UC, increasing significantly from baseline for all indications (p < 0.05). Switched patients' remission rates remained stable between baseline and month 12 (M12) for all indications (p > 0.05). Persistence (95% CI) at M12 among naïve patients was 59% (46.5, 68.8) for RA, 65% (49.7, 77.1) for PsA, 56% (48.3, 62.6) for AS, 70% (63.0, 75.7) for CD, and 42% (30.7, 53.1) for UC, compared to 60% (42.7, 73.7) for RA, 57% (37.3, 72.1) for PsA, 55% (45.8, 64.0) for AS, 63% (53.4, 71.7) for CD, and 56% (27.2, 77.6) for UC among switched patients. No significant differences were observed between naïve and switched patients (p > 0.05). SNDS pairing provided information on 68 of the 132 patients (52%) who were lost to follow-up in the clinical database, of whom 57 (84%) were confirmed persistent at M12 and 11 (16%) non-persistent. Primary treatment failure (naïve patients) and patient decision (switched patients) were the most common reasons stated for treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

SB5 provides clinically effective treatment of both gastrointestinal and rheumatic IMIDs for naïve and switched patients, with no loss of control observed when switching. Persistence was comparable between naïve and switched populations, though the reasons for non-persistence differed.

TRIAL REGISTRY

Trial registration number: Clinical Trials identifier NCT03662919. Trial registration date: 10 September 2018.

Biosimilars in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a pharmacokinetic overview

INTRODUCTION

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

AREA COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Improving patient access to biosimilar tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in immune-mediated inflammatory disease: lessons learned from Norway

INTRODUCTION

TNF inhibitors (TNFi) are in widespread use to treat a range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. However, the use of less expensive, biosimilar versions of these costly agents varies considerably around the world. Along with other Scandinavian countries, Norway has been successful in implementing the consistent clinical use of biosimilars rather than originator compounds.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss the implementation of biosimilar TNFi in Norway, explain how this work was carried out over the past 10 years and highlight factors that have been key in securing their acceptance and use. This implementation is discussed in relation to the situation in other countries.

EXPERT OPINION

The Norwegian tender and procurement system has been important to lower the cost of TNFi. Importantly, the emergence of biosimilar alternatives has lowered the cost not just of biosimilar TNFi but also originators due to competition. The involvement of the clinical communities through expert advisory boards has been important in securing acceptance of biosimilars early on. We suggest that the Norwegian procurement and tender system for biologic drugs may serve as a model for other countries, but has to be adjusted and modified according to specific national health-care systems and national contextual factors.

Real-world evidence of the use of the infliximab biosimilar SB2: data from the PERFUSE study

Objective

PERFUSE is a non-interventional study of 1233 adult patients (rheumatology, n = 496; IBD, n = 737) receiving routine infliximab (IFX) biosimilar SB2 therapy. The aim of this report was to investigate the 12-month persistence, effectiveness and safety outcomes of routine SB2 treatment in patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic disease.

Methods

Patients with a diagnosis of RA, PsA or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) were assigned to one of three study cohorts according to whether SB2 treatment initiated after September 2017 had been the first IFX treatment (IFX naïve) or followed transition from reference IFX (IFX ref) or another IFX biosimilar (IFX bs). Outcomes to month 12 (±2) included persistence (primary outcome), SB2 dose, disease status, immunogenicity and safety.

Results

At month 12, persistence on SB2 in IFX-naïve, IFX ref and IFX bs cohorts, respectively, [mean percentage (95% CI)] by indication was as follows: 59% (36.1, 76.2), 75% (57.5, 86.1) and 85% (69.6, 93.0) for RA (n = 98); 64% (34.3, 83.3), 87% (65.6, 95.7) and 83% (60.0, 93.1) for PsA (n = 62); and 56% (44.4, 66.5), 80% (70.8, 86.1) and 80% (72.5, 85.6) for axSpA (n = 336). Disease activity was comparable at baseline and month 12 within the IFX ref and bs subgroups of all cohorts by indication. No immunogenicity concerns or new safety signals were detected.

Conclusion

SB2 was safe and effective in IFX-naïve patients and in patients transitioned from prior IFX ref or bs.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03662919.

Infliximab biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease: clinical outcomes in real-world patients from the DANBIO registry

OBJECTIVE

Successful uptake of biosimilars in rheumatology is limited by lack of real-world evidence regarding effectiveness of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching. We investigated infliximab biosimilars CT-P13-to-GP1111 switching among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA).

METHODS

Observational cohort study from the DANBIO registry. Patients were classified as originator-naïve or originator-experienced. Retention rates of 1-year GP1111 treatment were explored (Kaplan-Meier). We identified baseline factors (at the time of switch) associated with withdrawal of GP1111 (multivariable Cox-regression analyses with HRs including originator treatment history). Changes in subjective and objective measures of disease activity 4 months before and after the switch were assessed in individual patients.

RESULTS

Of 1605 patients (685 RA, 314 PsA and 606 AxSpA, median disease duration was 9 years, 37% in Clinical Disease Activity Index/Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score remission), 1171 were originator-naïve. Retention rates at 1-year were 83% (95% CI: 81% to 85%) and 92% (95% CI: 90% to 95%) for the originator-naïve and originator-experienced, respectively. GP1111 retention rates were higher in originator-experienced compared to originator-naïve with RA (HR=0.4 (95% CI: 0.2 to 0.7)) and PsA (HR=0.2 (95% CI: 0.1 to 0.8)), but not significantly for AxSpA: HR=0.6 (95% CI: 0.3 to 1.2). Lower disease activity was associated with higher retention. Changes in disease activity preswitch and postswitch were close to zero.

CONCLUSION

This real-world observational study of more than 1600 patients with inflammatory arthritis showed high 1-year retention following a nationwide infliximab biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch. Retention was higher in originator-experienced and in patients with low disease activity, suggesting outcomes to be affected by patient-related rather than drug-related factors.

Effectiveness of SB4 Transition from Originator Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Subgroup Analysis from the BENEFIT Study

OBJECTIVES

The pan-European BENEFIT study of patients with stable rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who transitioned from reference etanercept to SB4 found no clinically meaningful changes in disease control after transition. The analysis aims to illustrate the peculiarities of the Italian cohort of patients compared with the whole population to provide a more real-life approach to the data for the Italian rheumatologists, ruling out possible local confounding factors.

METHODS

A prospective study for up to 6 months following transition was conducted. Outcome measures of interest include clinical characteristics at time of transition and disease activity scores (Disease Activity Score-28 [DAS28] for RA, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] for axSpA) over time and safety.

RESULTS

One-hundred and eleven subjects (out of the 557 in total enrolled in the study) were derived from 8 Italian sites, including 79 with RA and 32 with axSpA. In both cohorts, the efficacy was maintained at 3 months and 6 months from the transition to the biosimilar with no significant change in mean DAS28 and BASDAI scores: at the end of the 6 months of observation the mean DAS28 and BASDAI was similar to baseline (confidence interval [CI] -0.22, 0.22), while the mean variation of the BASDAI was -0.14. Of note, 100.0% (95% CI 89.1, 100.0) in the axSpA and 90.8% (95% CI 81.5, 95.5) in the RA cohort of patients continued to receive SB4 at month 6 (binary variable with 95% Clopper-Pearson CI).

CONCLUSIONS

Italian patients with stable RA or axSpA who transitioned from originator Etanercept to SB4 maintained clinical response at 6 months post-transition. Both the cohorts are representative of typical patients with long-standing established diagnoses. Most of the patients transitioned to the same dose regimen of biosimilar as that received for the originator, and the regimen remained unchanged at 6 months, supporting the effectiveness of the transition.

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.

Overcoming barriers to biosimilar adoption: real-world perspectives from a national payer and provider initiative

In response to a published national payer survey indicating striking needs for multistakeholder initiatives to increase biosimilar adoption, a focus workgroup meeting joining payers and providers was conducted in December 2019 in Boston, MA. Before the focus group meeting, a survey was sent to health care providers to collect perceptions about barriers to biosimilar adoption and gather input on best potential strategies for addressing these barriers. The focus group panel consisted of 5 managed care pharmacists and 3 physician experts in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology, representing large managed care organizations and health care systems in the Boston area. A clinical moderator facilitated discussions between the payers and providers regarding challenges to biosimilar adoption and potential collaborative strategies to overcome these barriers. The focus group participants identified hurdles to biosimilar adoption in 3 major areas: (1) the lack of confidence in biosimilar interchangeability and a need for education about biosimilars, (2) the lack of financial incentives to switch to biosimilars from the reference biologic product, and (3) administrative burdens that impair the prescription of biologics. Learning from their mutual experiences, the focus group participants formulated action plans to address these barriers. The top strategies recommended by the participants included advancing biosimilar education, facilitating administrative processes related to biosimilar prescriptions, and increasing provider reimbursement while reducing cost sharing to patients receiving biosimilars. DISCLOSURES: The study reported on in this article was part of a continuing education program funded by an independent educational grant that was awarded by Sandoz Inc., a Novartis Division, to PRIME Education, LLC. The grantor had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, or reporting. The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) received grant funding from PRIME to assist with participant recruitment and content review for the continuing education program. Bandekar, Cheifetz, Edgar, Helfgott, Hoye-Simek, Liu, and Smith received an honorarium from PRIME for serving as faculty for the continuing education program. Cheifetz has received research grants from Inform Diagnostics and consulting fees from AbbVie, Bacainn, BMS, Grifols, Janssen, Pfizer, Prometheus, Samsung, and Takeda unrelated to this work. Smith has received consulting fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, has served as an investigator on industry-initiated trials for AbbVie and Pfizer, and has served as an investigator on investigator-initiated trials for Novartis and Regeneron. Carter, Fajardo, and Simone have nothing to disclose.

Comparative effectiveness of two adalimumab biosimilars in 1318 real-world patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease mandated to switch from originator adalimumab: nationwide observational study emulating a randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

In 2018, a nationwide mandatory switch from originator to biosimilar adalimumab was conducted in Denmark. The available biosimilar was GP2017 (Hyrimoz) in Eastern regions and SB5 (Imraldi) in Western regions. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of GP2017 versus SB5 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)/psoriatic arthritis (PsA)/axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA).

METHODS

Observational cohort study based on the DANBIO registry with geographical cluster pseudo-randomisation, analysed by emulating a randomised clinical trial. Main outcome was adjusted 1-year treatment retention (Cox regression). Furthermore, 6 months' remission rates (logistic regression), reasons for withdrawal and back-switching to originator were investigated (overall and stratified by indication).

RESULTS

Overall, of 1570 eligible patients, 1318 switched and were included (467 RA/321 PsA/530 AxSpA); 623 (47%) switched to GP2017, 695 (53%) to SB5. Baseline characteristics of the two clusters were largely similar, but some differences in registration practice were observed. The combined 1-year retention rate for the two biosimilars was 89.5%. Compared with SB5, estimated risk of withdrawal for GP2017 was lower (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.86) and 6 months' remission rate was higher (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.25 to 2.37). Stratified analyses gave similar results (statistically significant for RA). During 1 year, 8.5% and 12.9% withdrew GP2017 and SB5, respectively (primarily lack of effect and adverse events), of whom 48 patients (3.6%) back-switched.

CONCLUSION

This head-to-head comparison of GP2017 versus SB5 following a mandatory switch from the originator indicated differences in effectiveness in routine care. This may reflect a true difference, but other explanations, for example, differences in excipients, differences between clusters and residual confounding cannot be ruled out.

Efficacy and Safety of the Biosimilar IBI301 Plus Standard CHOP (I-CHOP) in Comparison With Rituximab Plus CHOP (R-CHOP) in Patients with Previously Untreated Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Phase 3 Trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have limited access to rituximab. IBI301 is a recombinant chimeric murine/human anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and is a candidate biosimilar to rituximab. This study aimed to assess the therapeutic equivalence of IBI301 and rituximab in previously untreated patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial compared IBI301 and rituximab, both plus the chemotherapy of doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vindesine, and prednisone (CHOP), was conducted in 68 centers across China. Eligible patients with untreated CD20 positive (CD20⁺) DLBCL randomly received IBI301 (375 mg/m²) plus the standard CHOP or rituximab (375 mg/m²) plus the standard CHOP for six cycles of a 21-day cycle. The primary end point was the overall remission rate (ORR). Efficacy equivalence was defined if 95% CIs for the ORR difference between the two groups were within a ± 12.0% margin.

RESULTS

Between August 22, 2016, and September 5, 2018, 419 patients were randomly allocated into the IBI301 group (N = 209) and rituximab group (N = 210). In the full analysis set, the ORR was 89.9% and 93.8% in the IBI301 and rituximab groups, respectively, and the ORR difference was -3.9% (95% CI - 9.1%-1.3%), falling within a ± 12.0% margin. The occurrences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (100% vs. 99.0%) and AEs of grade ≥ 3 (87.1% vs. 83.3%) were similar in the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

IBI301 had a non-inferiority efficacy and a comparable safety compared with rituximab. IBI301 plus CHOP could be suggested as a candidate treatment regimen for untreated patients with CD20⁺ DLBCL.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02867566).

Safety and effectiveness of biosimilar of Rituximab CT-P10 in the treatment of cryoglobulinemic vasculitis: the MARBLe study (Mixed cryoglobulinemiA Rituximab BiosimiLar)

Rituximab (RTX) represents a milestone in the treatment of mixed cryoglobulinemic vasculitis (MCV). Despite usually well-tolerated, RTX may induce different types of adverse drug reactions, including exacerbation of vasculitis. Recently, RTX biosimilar CT-P10 has been approved in Europe for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but no data are available about effectiveness and safety of CT-P10 in the treatment of MCV. In this multicenter open-label study, we analyzed the safety of CT-P10 in patients with MCV treated in first-line or after a shift by RTX originator. Fifty-one consecutive MCV patients (females/males 35/16, median age 68 years, median disease duration 42 months, 51% HCV positive) were included in the study between July and December 2018 and were treated with CT-P10 (group 1). Safety and effectiveness of CT-P10 were compared with a retrospective group (group 2) including 75 consecutive patients treated with RTX originator between July 2017 and July 2018. Thirty-six patients were treated with CT-P10 for the first time, while the other 15 switched from RTX originator. RTX was administrated with high or dosage schemes (375 mg/m² four times a week apart/1000 mg twice one week apart or 250 mg/m² twice one week apart). During a month period after the last infusion, 13/51 adverse events (AE) were observed in group 1 and 17/75 in group 2 (p not significant). Among them, 7/13 and 6/17 (in group 1 and 2, respectively) could be considered immune-mediated AE (p not significant). At univariate analysis patients with IM-AE were more frequently males (p = 0.04) and with a lower disease duration (p = 0.03), but both the parameters were not significant at logistic regression. About clinical response after 6 months by the end of the treatment, no differences were observed between patients treated with originator and CT-P10 regarding the response to the therapy. No differences were observed in safety and effectiveness between patients naïve at RTX or switching from originator. Despite the higher prevalence of immune-mediated AE among patients treated with CT-P10 than originator, we have observed no significant differences between the 2 groups. The use of a low-dosage regimen is more common in group 1 than in group 2, representing a possible bias of the study, possibly influencing the appearance of AE. Considering the cost/efficacy ratio of biosimilars, their use could be helpful to treat a large number of MCV patients with an effectiveness and safety comparable to originator. Multicenter studies including a large number of patients and the new RTX biosimilars could be useful to fully elucidate the possible risk of immune-mediated adverse events with biosimilar drugs. Considering the cost/efficacy ratio of CT-P10, its use could help to treat a large number of MCV patients with an effectiveness and safety comparable to originator.

Efficacy and Safety of CT-P13 in Inflammatory Bowel Disease after Switching from Originator Infliximab: Exploratory Analyses from the NOR-SWITCH Main and Extension Trials

BACKGROUND

The NOR-SWITCH main and extension trials demonstrated that switching from originator to biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) is efficacious and safe across six diseases. However, a subgroup analysis of Crohn's disease (CD) in the main trial displayed a close to significant difference favouring originator infliximab, and more scientific data have therefore been requested.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to assess treatment efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in an explorative subgroup analysis in CD and ulcerative colitis (UC) in the NOR-SWITCH trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The 52-week, randomised, non-inferiority, double-blind, multicentre, phase 4 NOR-SWITCH study was followed by a 26-week open extension trial where all patients received treatment with CT-P13. Treatment efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in CD and UC were assessed throughout the 78-week study period.

RESULTS

The main and extension trials included 155 and 93 patients with CD and 93 and 80 patients with UC, respectively. Demographic and baseline characteristics were comparable in both treatment arms within patient groups. There were no differences in the main and extension trials regarding changes in activity indices, C-reactive protein, faecal calprotectin, patient's and physician's global assessment of disease activity and patient-reported outcome measures in CD and UC. Moreover, comparable results were also demonstrated for trough serum levels, presence of anti-drug antibodies, and reported adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of both the originator and biosimilar infliximab were comparable in CD and UC in the NOR-SWITCH main and extension trials. These explorative subgroup analyses confirm that there are no significant concerns related to switching from originator infliximab to CT-P13 in CD and UC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02148640.

Unlocking the Value of Anti-TNF Biosimilars: Reducing Disease Burden and Improving Outcomes in Chronic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Narrative Review

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are chronic conditions that create a significant disease burden on millions of patients while adding a major financial burden to societies and healthcare systems.

The introduction of biologic medicines has contributed majorly to improving the clinical outcomes of IMIDs and as such these modalities have gained first- or second-line positions in a wide range of treatment guidelines from different international clinical societies. However, the high cost of these biologics traditionally limited their accessibility and delayed their initiation, leaving millions of patients with unmet medical needs for a more affordable and sustainable solution.

The introduction of cost-efficient biosimilar anti-TNFs within Europe since 2013 has allowed more patients with IMIDs to access biologic therapies earlier and for longer, potentially altering the course of the disease into a milder phenotype and reducing the long-term disease burden. This review provides the latest evidence for the impact of biosimilars on patient outcomes and demonstrates their clinical value beyond a reduction in price.

Biosimilars

Biological therapies have widened the therapeutic armamentarium for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, providing in many cases a broad range of treatment options with different mechanisms of action. The widespread use of biological agents in systemic lupus erythematosus is currently limited to belimumab and rituximab, although results of promising larger Phase III clinical trials are awaited or have been recently circulated, especially for anti-cytokine therapies. The loss of exclusivity over the last years for several originator biologics has started the successful introduction of biosimilar products into clinical practice. There is an abbreviated pathway to biosimilar approval, but this is underpinned by the same standards of pharmaceutical quality, safety and efficacy that apply to all biological medicines. Nevertheless, there are unique reasons why development of biosimilars may be particularly challenging in lupus.

Efficacy and Safety in the Continued Treatment With a Biosimilar Drug in Patients Receiving Infliximab: A Systematic Review in the Context of Decision-Making From a Latin-American Country

Introduction: Biological products, including infliximab (INF), are a therapeutic option for various medical conditions. In the Peruvian Social Security (EsSalud), infliximab is approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthropathy, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease (in cases refractory to conventional treatment). Biosimilars are a safe and effective alternative approved for these diseases in patients who start treatment with infliximab. Nevertheless, there are people in treatment with the biological reference product (BRP), in whom the continuing therapy with a biosimilar biological product (BBP) must be evaluated.

Objectives: To synthesize the best available evidence, calculate a preliminary financial impact and conduct technical discussions about the interchangeability into biosimilar in patients receiving treatment with original infliximab for medical conditions approved in EsSalud.

Methodology: We carried out a systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Primary search was performed in Pubmed- MEDLINE, SCOPUS, WOS, EMBASE, TRIPDATABASE, DARE, Cochrane Library, NICE, AHRQ, SMC, McMaster-PLUS, CADTH, and HSE until June-2018. We used the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias. Also, we implemented a preliminary financial analysis about the impact of biosimilar introduction on institutional purchasing budget. Moreover, technical meetings with medical doctors specialized in rheumatology, gastroenterology and dermatology were held for discussing findings.

Results: In primary search, 1136 records were identified, and 357 duplicates were removed. From 799 records, we excluded 765 after title and abstract evaluation. From 14 full-text appraised documents, we included five clinical trials in the risk of bias assessment: four studies evaluated CTP-13 and one tested SB2. Two double-blind clinical trials reported no differences in efficacy and safety profiles between maintenance group (INF/INF) and interchangeability group in all diseases included (INF/CTP-13) and rheumatoid arthritis (CTP13 and SB2). In the other three studies, open-label extension of primary clinical trials, no differences were founded in efficacy and safety profiles between CTP-13/CTP-13 and INF/CTP-13 groups. In financial analysis, the inclusion of biosimilars implied savings around S/7´642,780.00 (1USD=S/3.30) on purchasing budget of EsSalud. In technical meetings, beyond certain concerns, specialists agreed with the findings.

Conclusions: Evidence from clinical trials support that there are no differences in efficacy or safety of continuing the treatment with Infliximab BRP or exchanging into its biosimilar in patients with medical conditions approved in EsSalud. Financial analysis shows that the biosimilar introduction produce savings in purchasing institutional budget. Therefore, based on cost-opportunity principle, exchanging into biosimilar in patients receiving the original Infliximab, is a valid therapeutic alternative in the Peruvian Social Security.

Does a mandatory non-medical switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept lead to increase in healthcare use and costs? A Danish register-based study of patients with inflammatory arthritis

Objectives

In year 2016, Danish national guidelines included a mandatory switch of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases treated with originator etanercept (ETA) to biosimilar SB4 in routine care. We aimed to explore if switching lead to increased healthcare utilisation and costs.

Methods

Observational cohort study. Adult patients who switched from ETA to SB4 were identified in the Danish nationwide DANBIO registry. In the National Patient Registry, we identified health utilisation (hospital admissions/hospital days/outpatient visits/prescription medication use) and comorbidities. Estimation of health utilisation included average use and costs 1 year before/after switch, changes after the switch, and whether patient characteristics affected changes. Analyses were by adjusted two-step gamma distributed regression models, and for changes over time a generalized estimation equations (GEE) model was applied. Impact of comorbidities was explored as interaction terms in the model. Medication costs of ETA and SB4 were not included in model.

Results

1620 patients were included (mean age 55 years (SD 14.7), 40% male). Costs before and after switching were mainly driven by outpatient visits (67%/72% of all costs). Monthly fluctuations of costs were similar before/after switch. After switching, use (8%) and costs (7%) of outpatient services increased, whereas costs of admissions (55%) and medication (5%) decreased. Patients with longer ETA treatment duration had an increase in use and costs of healthcare resources, whereas gender and comorbidities had no impact. Higher age was associated with an increase in costs of inpatient services.

Conclusion

We demonstrated no obvious changes in overall use and costs of healthcare services following switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept.

Case Reports of DRESS Syndrome and Symptoms Consistent with DRESS Syndrome Following Treatment with Recently Marketed Monoclonal Antibodies

Background

Monoclonal antibodies constitute a potent and broadly tolerable drug class, representing for some conditions the first newly approved treatment in years. As such, many are afforded “fast-track” or “breakthrough therapy” designations by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, leading to provisional approval before Phase III clinical trials are reported. Although these drugs are usually safe, some patients experience life-threatening complications—myositis and encephalitis have led to permanent or temporary recalls. Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome is a hypersensitivity condition easily missed due to its long incubation period and nonspecific presentation. This minireview is primarily intended as an abbreviated guide for practitioners who may be using these powerful treatments.

Methodology

We searched PubMed using a string of symptoms consistent with DRESS syndrome and monoclonal antibodies approved by the FDA since 2015. Then, we excluded studies reporting dermatological complications of reactivation of nonherpetic infection, immunodeficiency-related infection, or reactions to the injection site or infusion. We searched for and accessed prior reviews and background studies via PubMed, Mendeley, and Google Scholar.

Results

Two cases of DRESS syndrome were identified in the literature, both the result of treatment with daclizumab. There was one additional case of encephalitis without cutaneous symptoms caused by daclizumab. Drug-induced hypersensitivity dermatitis was reported following treatment with nivolumab and two cases of combination treatment with ipilimumab and either nivolumab or durvalumab produced maculopapular rash and bullae in the first patient and lichenoid dermatitis and blisters in the second patient.

Conclusions

Daclizumab was the only recently approved monoclonal antibody associated with DRESS syndrome as such. Limitations in the diagnostic reliability of DRESS syndrome as a clinical entity and the lack of negative clinical trial reporting suggest enhanced vigilance on the part of clinicians and regulators may be warranted.

Long-term efficacy and safety of biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) after switching from originator infliximab: open-label extension of the NOR-SWITCH trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The 52-week, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority, government-funded NOR-SWITCH trial demonstrated that switching from infliximab originator to less expensive biosimilar CT-P13 was not inferior to continued treatment with infliximab originator. The NOR-SWITCH extension trial aimed to assess efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients on CT-P13 throughout the 78-week study period (maintenance group) versus patients switched to CT-P13 at week 52 (switch group). The primary outcome was disease worsening during follow-up based on disease-specific composite measures.

METHODS

Patients were recruited from 24 Norwegian hospitals, 380 of 438 patients who completed the main study: 197 in the maintenance group and 183 in the switch group. In the full analysis set, 127 (33%) had Crohn's disease, 80 (21%) ulcerative colitis, 67 (18%) spondyloarthritis, 55 (15%) rheumatoid arthritis, 20 (5%) psoriatic arthritis and 31 (8%) chronic plaque psoriasis.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups at the time of switching (week 52). Disease worsening occurred in 32 (16.8%) patients in the maintenance group vs. 20 (11.6%) in the switch group (per-protocol set). Adjusted risk difference was 5.9% (95% CI -1.1 to 12.9). Frequency of adverse events, anti-drug antibodies, changes in generic disease variables and disease-specific composite measures were comparable between arms. The study was inadequately powered to detect noninferiority within individual diseases.

CONCLUSION

The NOR-SWITCH extension showed no difference in safety and efficacy between patients who maintained CT-P13 and patients who switched from originator infliximab to CT-P13, supporting that switching from originator infliximab to CT-P13 is safe and efficacious.

Era of biosimilars in rheumatology: reshaping the healthcare environment

Compared with the original approved biological drug on which it is based, a biosimilar has highly similar physicochemical characteristics and biological activity, as well as equivalent efficacy and no clinically meaningful differences in safety and immunogenicity. Before they are approved, biosimilars must undergo a rigorous development process using state-of-the-art technologies to establish biosimilarity to the reference biological product. After approval, biosimilars must comply with good pharmacological practices for biological drugs. Several biosimilar disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bsDMARDs) based on the tumour necrosis factor inhibitors adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab have been approved for use in patients with rheumatic diseases. Substantial cost savings can be made if biological-naive patients begin treatment with bsDMARDs, and patients receiving original biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) are switched to bsDMARDs. Despite the consistently similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of bsDMARDs relative to their respective original bDMARDs, switching from a reference bDMARD to a bsDMARD can result in nocebo responses, such as subjective increase of disease activity and pain-related adverse events. This may have a negative impact on adherence to bsDMARDs in clinical trials and clinical practice. To ensure optimal and rational integration of bsDMARDs into rheumatology practice and realise the full cost-saving efficacy of these drugs, rheumatologists must be aware that careful communication of the cost-saving efficacy and safety of bsDMARDs to their patients is the key to a successful long-term switch to bsDMARD therapy.

Switching to biosimilars: current perspectives in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

Introduction: The expiry of patents for biologics has led to the introduction of biosimilars for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). These treatment alternatives may allow earlier and wider access to appropriate therapy for patients without increasing the economic burden on health-care systems. Prescription of biosimilars to treatment-naïve patients is well accepted; however, additional considerations must be taken into account when switching clinically stable patients from reference products to biosimilars. Area covered: We discuss the current considerations related to switching from reference products to biosimilars from a physician and patient perspective. We review the clinical data and real-life experience on switching patients with IMIDs, present the position of the relevant medical societies, and discuss the importance of patient-physician communication and need for shared decision-making. Expert opinion: The introduction of biosimilars provides an opportunity to expand access to treatment for patients with IMIDs across Europe and support the financial sustainability of health-care systems. We anticipate that as the real-world evidence base grows, confirming the results of clinical trials, there will be a corresponding increase in physician and patient acceptance, not only to initiating treatment with a biosimilar, but also to switching medication from a reference product to a biosimilar.

Randomised, double-blind, phase III study comparing the infliximab biosimilar, PF-06438179/GP1111, with reference infliximab: efficacy, safety and immunogenicity from week 30 to week 54

Objective

To investigate the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of PF-06438179/GP1111 (PF-SZ-IFX) compared with European reference infliximab (Remicade^®; ref-IFX) in patients with moderate-to-severe, active rheumatoid arthritis after continued long-term use of PF-SZ-IFX, and in patients who were switched from ref-IFX to PF-SZ-IFX.

Methods

REFLECTIONS B537-02 was a double-blind, active-controlled, multinational study in which patients (N=650) were initially randomised to PF-SZ-IFX or ref-IFX for 30 weeks (treatment period [TP] 1). During weeks 30–54 (TP2), the PF-SZ-IFX group (n=280) continued treatment with PF-SZ-IFX (PF-SZ-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX) and patients in the ref-IFX group (n=286) were rerandomised (1:1) to continue ref-IFX (ref-IFX/ref-IFX) (n=143) or switch to PF-SZ-IFX (ref-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX) (n=143) for a further 24 weeks. Efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics were evaluated.

Results

During TP2, patients in all three treatment groups continued to maintain comparable treatment response. At week 54, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) response rates were 71.1% (PF-SZ-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX), 64.3% (ref-IFX/ref-IFX) and 70.6% (ref-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX). Observations for other endpoints, including ACR50/70, Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints Based on High-Sensitivity C Reactive Protein(DAS28-CRP) remission, and mean change in DAS28-CRP and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, were also comparable. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 36.8% (PF-SZ-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX), 33.6% (ref-IFX/ref-IFX) and 37.8% (ref-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX) of patients; there were no clinically meaningful differences in the safety profiles between groups. The percentage of patients who were antidrug antibody-positive was generally stable through the treatment period and comparable overall between the PF-SZ-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX (52.1%; neutralising: 80.8%), ref-IFX/ref-IFX (60.1%; neutralising: 84.9%) and ref-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX (58.0%; neutralising 78.3%) groups.

Conclusions

The similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of PF-SZ-IFX compared with ref-IFX were maintained for up to 54 weeks and were not affected by blinded treatment switch from ref-IFX to PF-SZ-IFX at week 30.

Trial registration number

NCT02222493.

Demystifying biosimilars: development, regulation and clinical use

Biologics are an integral component in the treatment of various diseases. However, limited patient access to these medicines remains a significant global challenge, prompting development of safe and effective biosimilars. A biosimilar is 'highly similar to a reference (originator) product, for which there are no clinically meaningful differences between the two products in terms of safety, purity and potency'. Biosimilars have the potential to offer possible benefits, including lower treatment costs, thereby increasing patient access and clinical use, which may lead to better overall outcomes. Improved understanding of biosimilars may enhance confidence and trust in these agents. As increasing numbers of biosimilars achieve regulatory approval, this overview aims to address enduring knowledge gaps regarding the development and use of biosimilars.

To switch or not to switch: results of a nationwide guideline of mandatory switching from originator to biosimilar etanercept. One-year treatment outcomes in 2061 patients with inflammatory arthritis from the DANBIO registry

OBJECTIVES

Real-world evidence on effectiveness of switching to biosimila r etanercept is scarce. In Denmark, a nationwide guideline of mandatory switch from 50 mg originator (ETA) to biosimilar (SB4) etanercept was issued for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) in 2016. Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes were studied in ETA-treated patients, who switched to SB4 (switchers) or maintained ETA (non-switchers). Retention rates were compared with that of a historic cohort of ETA-treated patients. Switchers who resumed ETA treatment (back-switchers) were characterised.

METHODS

Observational cohort study based on the DANBIO registry. Treatment retention was explored by Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression (crude, adjusted).

RESULTS

1621 (79%) of 2061 ETA-treated patients switched to SB4. Disease activity was unchanged 3 months' preswitch/postswitch. Non-switchers often received 25 mg ETA (ETA 25 mg pens/syringes and powder solution were still available). One-year adjusted retention rates were: non-switchers: 77% (95% CI: 72% to 82%)/switchers: 83% (79% to 87%)/historic cohort: 90% (88% to 92%). Patients not in remission had lower retention rates than patients in remission, both in switchers (crude HR 1.7 (1.3 to 2.2)) and non-switchers (2.4 (1.7 to 3.6)). During follow-up, 120 patients (7% of switchers) back-switched to ETA. Back-switchers' clinical characteristics were similar to switchers, and reasons for SB4 withdrawal were mainly subjective.

CONCLUSION

Seventy-nine per cent of patients switched from ETA to SB4. After 1 year, adjusted treatment retention rates were lower in switchers versus the historic ETA cohort, but higher than in non-switchers. Withdrawal was more common in patients not in remission. The results suggest that switch outcomes in routine care are affected by patient-related factors and non-specific drug effects.

Does a mandatory non-medical switch from originator to biosimilar infliximab lead to increased use of outpatient healthcare resources? A register-based study in patients with inflammatory arthritis

Objectives

National Danish guidelines in May 2015 dictated a mandatory switch from originator infliximab (INX) to biosimilar CT-P13 in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease. We investigated if this non-medical switch changed use of outpatient hospital resources.

Methods

Observational cohort study. Switchers were identified in DANBIO. Rheumatic outpatient contacts, visits and services were identified in the National Patient Registry. The 6-month rate for (1) number of visits (or services) and (2) days with ≥1 visit (or service) were compared before/after switching (paired t-tests). Visits per week per patient before/after the switch date were analysed with graphical interrupted time-series analysis.

Results

In 769 switchers (372 males, median age 54 years (IQR 44–66)), 1484 outpatient contacts, 6718 visits and 9243 days with services (693 on switch date) were identified. Mean visit rate was 3.89 before and 3.95 after switch (p=0.35). Total number of services was 19 752 (2019 on switch date). Mean rates before/after switch for 16 service categories were small and differences close to zero. Visits per week per patient appeared similar before/after switch with peaks every ≈8 weeks (standard INX infusion interval).

Conclusion

Changes were marginal with no clinically relevant increase in use of outpatient health care resources 6 months after compared with 6 months before mandatory switch from originator to biosimilar infliximab.