Path of Interchangeability of Biosimilars in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Quality Before Cost Savings

Biosimilars in Pediatric IBD: Updated Considerations for Disease Management

Biologic drugs have significantly modified the pharmacological management of several chronic conditions, including inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). By contrast, in the last two decades, biologics have been associated with increased direct medical costs. As patents for the reference drugs have expired, the development and commercialization of biosimilars through abbreviated licensing pathways represented an affordable alternative in patients fulfilling the indication for biologics. A growing body of evidence, first in adults and then in the pediatric age group too, has provided reassuring data in terms of efficacy and safety of biosimilars both in naïve patients and in those previously on reference drugs who had to switch to the biosimilar. This review summarizes the currently available evidence for biosimilar use in IBD, with a focus on pediatric IBD. The most common practical approaches to biosimilar use in the pediatric clinical settings are also discussed.

The global landscape on interchangeability of biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars hold the potential to be an integral healthcare component that can significantly improve affordability and thereby accessibility of the otherwise expensive biotherapeutic products. Regulators, payors, and policymakers, each have a major role to play in successful adoption of biosimilars. One of the issues that has been a point of frequent discussion is that of interchangeability of biosimilars.

AREAS COVERED

This article aims to review the position that the major regulatory bodies have taken on interchangeability of biosimilars. Key issues that remain are also discussed. Adalimumab and etanercept have been chosen as real-world case studies to demonstrate interchangeability considerations. The need for gaining global harmonization on interchangeability is highlighted.

EXPERT OPINION

A global harmonization on the interchangeability can likely accelerate biosimilar adoption and result in better accessibility to biologics. Experience gained with real-world studies supports switching to biosimilars from originators however post-marketing pharmacovigilance should be in place to assess the risk-benefit profile of biosimilars in the long run.

Biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease

The advent of biologics has changed outcomes in many chronic conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Biologics have been used for the induction and remission of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease for almost two decades and are effective in patients who used to fail conventional treatment with steroids, immunomodulators. The use of biologics in the treatment of IBD has increased over the last few years, partly due to the rise in its incidence and the use of biologics as a first-line treatment in severe disease as well as in complicated diseases like penetrating/fistulating Crohn's disease. However, their use is associated with a significant burden to the society with respect to healthcare costs, resulting in the premature discontinuation of therapy in some patients, leading to exacerbations and complications. The introduction of biosimilars a decade ago seems to be a promising approach to reducing the costs related to therapy. Since their introduction, numerous studies conducted in adults and some in children show the efficacy of biosimilars with a similar side-effect profile to biologics. This review discusses the history of biosimilars in the treatment of IBD, enumerates several such studies and discusses the possibility of using biosimilars in the future.

Effects of Message Framing on Patients' Perceptions and Willingness to Change to a Biosimilar in a Hypothetical Drug Switch

OBJECTIVE

Patients often hold negative perceptions toward biosimilars that can create barriers to their uptake. Physicians also report uncertainty in how best to explain biosimilars. The aim of this study was to measure the effect of differently framed explanations on patients' perceptions of and willingness to change to a biosimilar in a hypothetical drug switch.

METHODS

Ninety-six patients with rheumatic diseases taking an originator biologic were randomized to receive 1 of 4 biosimilar explanations: positive framing with and without an analogy, and negative framing with and without an analogy. Willingness to switch to a biosimilar, perceptions about biosimilars, and the effectiveness of the explanation were measured after the information delivery.

RESULTS

Positive framing led to more participants being willing to switch (67%) than negative framing (46%). Framing significantly predicted willingness to switch to a biosimilar, with participants in the positive framing group being 2.36 times more willing to switch (P = 0.041). The positive framing group also reported significantly greater perceived efficacy of biosimilars (P = 0.046) and thought the explanation was more convincing (P = 0.030). The analogy did not enhance willingness to switch or increase understanding (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Positive framing can improve perceptions of and willingness to switch to a biosimilar in patients currently taking biologic treatments.

Patients' beliefs and behaviours are associated with perceptions of safety and concerns in a hypothetical biosimilar switch

Although patient acceptance is important for biosimilar adoption and reducing healthcare costs, many patients perceive biosimilars to be unsafe and have concerns about switching. Studies show that patients' characteristics influence negative perceptions toward generic drugs, but little research has explored biosimilar acceptance. This study examines which demographic and psychological characteristics are associated with patients' safety perceptions and concerns about switching to biosimilars. Ninety-six patients taking bio-originators for rheumatic conditions (65% for rheumatoid arthritis) completed the Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire, Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire and Perceived Sensitivity to Medicines Scale. Demographic factors, information seeking, concerns about switching and safety perceptions were also assessed. Pearson's correlations and hierarchical linear regressions were conducted to explore whether patient characteristics are associated with perceptions of biosimilars. Negative safety perceptions were associated with being female, short-term bio-originator use, illness beliefs, seeking health information online, high perceived sensitivity to medicines and negative beliefs about medicines. Only being female (β = 0.24, P = 0.02) was independently associated. More concerns about switching were associated with being female, illness beliefs, high perceived sensitivity to medicines, information-seeking behaviours and preferring innovator drugs. Seeking health information online (β = 0.20, P = 0.04), preferring innovator drugs (β = 0.29, P = 0.004) and stronger emotional responses (β = 0.26, P = 0.01) were independently associated. Perceived bio-originator effectiveness was inversely associated with preferring biosimilars (r_s=  - 0.33, P < 0.001). Patients who have stronger emotional responses to their condition, are females, seek health information online and prefer innovator drugs that have more negative perceptions about biosimilars. Experiences with bio-originators influence attitudes towards switching.

Use of Infliximab Biosimilar Versus Originator in a Pediatric United Kingdom Inflammatory Bowel Disease Induction Cohort

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to summarize short-term effectiveness, safety, and cost of using infliximab biosimilar (IFX-B) drugs, (Inflectra [Hospira] and Remsima [NAAP]) compared to originator infliximab (IFX-O) (Remicade [MSD]) in biologic naive pediatric inflammatory bowel disease in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Prospective audit of patients starting anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy. Disease severity, response to treatment, and remission rate was measured by Pediatric Crohn's Disease Activity Index (PCDAI) and/or Physician Global Assessment.

RESULTS

Between March 2015 and February 2016, 278 patients (175 IFX-O, 82 IFX-B, and 21 Adalimumab) were started on anti-TNF therapy. This was compared with collected data on 398 patients started on IFX-O from 2011 to 2015. At initiation, median PCDAI was 36 (20,48) (n = 42) in the IFX-O group and 28 (20,40) (n = 29) in the IFX-B group, (P = 0.08). Immunosuppression rates were similar: 150/175 (86%) for IFX-O and 65/82 (79%) for IFX-B (P > 0.05). Post induction, median PCDAI score was 5 (0,11) (n = 19) and 0 (0,8) (n = 15) in the IFX-O and IFX-B groups, respectively (P = 0.35). There was no difference in response to treatment using Physician Global Assessment 85% (n = 28) in IFX-O group and 86% (n = 19) in IFX-B group (P > 0.05). Adverse events at initiation and post induction were not different between both groups (P > 0.05). Using conservative calculations, £875,000 would have been saved for a 1-year period with universal adoption of biosimilars in patients who were instead treated with IFX-O.

CONCLUSIONS

IFX-B is likely as effective as IFX-O in treating IBD in comparable pediatric populations. Sites should adopt infliximab biosimilar for new starts due to cost reduction with no difference in other parameters.