The effectiveness and safety of infliximab compared with biosimilar CT-P13, in 3112 patients with ulcerative colitis

Incidence of serious infection among etanercept and infliximab initiators: safety comparison between biosimilars and bio-originators with Canadian population-based data

BACKGROUND

Safety remains a significant concern for biologic drugs, and studies are needed to ensure a comparable safety profile for biosimilars and their legacy treatments. Using Canadian administrative health data from 2015-2019, we compared the incidence of serious infection between biosimilars and bio-originators initiators for etanercept and infliximab, two of the most commonly used biologics during this time.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using pan-Canadian data (except Quebec) from the National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System linked to hospitalization data. We studied new users of infliximab or etanercept (January/2015-December/2019) and compared incidence rates of serious infection, defined as those which required hospitalization, by using Cox regression models adjusted by biological sex, age at treatment initiation, prior corticosteroid or biologic, province, and calendar year.

RESULTS

We studied 6,583 etanercept users (mean age 62) and 7,202 infliximab users (mean age 45). Hospitalization with infections occurred in 7% of infliximab and 2% of etanercept users. Comparing the risk of infection between biosimilar to bio-originator, the adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) was 1.33 (0.77, 2.30) for etanercept and 0.93 (0.72, 1.18) for infliximab.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found no clear difference between etanercept and infliximab biosimilars and their bio-originators for infection incidence, suggesting a similar safety profile.

Navigating the pharmacotherapeutic management of comorbid inflammatory bowel disease and primary sclerosing cholangitis

INTRODUCTION

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is the most specific hepatobiliary extraintestinal manifestation in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). PSC ultimately has a poor prognosis, with disease progression resulting in liver cirrhosis and subsequent liver failure. While there is current data for the medical management of IBD, the optimal approach for concurrent PSC-IBD is unclear.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on the current literature of pharmacotherapy in the PSC-IBD population including anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, vedolizumab, JAK inhibitors, IL-12/23 inhibitors, and thiopurines. Regarding PSC-IBD, it focuses on effectiveness of IBD therapies on liver biochemistry and IBD activity as well as the advent of clinically relevant liver outcomes and safety. The authors also address the need for further advances in research.

EXPERT OPINION

The longer-term data for pharmacological management for IBD is well established. In the concomitant PSC-IBD population there is no drug to date that has effectively reduced disease related morbidity and mortality outcomes. There are limitations in the current, mostly retrospective data on IBD drugs in PSC-IBD with respect to samples sizes, heterogenous outcomes, and lack of a high-quality surrogate endpoint in PSC. However, current data for adalimumab offers encouraging results which require further exploration with larger prospective studies.

Real-world effectiveness and safety of advanced therapies for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: Evidence from a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Effectiveness and safety of advanced therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) warrant assessment in the real world.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and summarize real-world evidence of advanced therapies approved for moderate-to-severe UC.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted using real-world studies of biologics or small molecules in UC using Embase, MEDLINE, and MEDLINE-In Process databases. Only products approved in any jurisdiction during the search were included. English-language full-papers (January 2005 to February 2022) and congress abstracts (January 2019 to February 2022) were included. Studies with less than 30 patients or only biologic-naive patients were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 139 studies were included out of 3,930 identified articles (75%, published between 2019 and 2022; 64%, retrospective observational; 53%, from 5 countries [Italy, United States, Spain, United Kingdom, and Belgium]). Most studies were single agent (highest: vedolizumab = 50, tofacitinib = 24, and adalimumab = 18), and rates of clinical remission (CR) and adverse events varied widely. From the published comparative effectiveness studies (16), the rates of CR were numerically higher with vedolizumab vs anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α agents. Compared with vedolizumab, the effectiveness of tofacitinib was numerically greater in CR (occasionally significant). Rates of steroid-free CR were comparable between ustekinumab and tofacitinib. Infliximab was the most effective anti-TNFα agent, as reported by 2 studies. Remarkably, adverse events were similar across therapies in comparative studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Vedolizumab and tofacitinib were the most assessed therapies. In comparative studies, remission rates were numerically higher with tofacitinib vs vedolizumab and for vedolizumab vs anti-TNFα. Tofacitinib was comparable with ustekinumab for steroid-free CR. Safety was comparable across therapies. Future studies should explore the literature gaps identified, including limited comparative studies with small sample sizes, variations in study designs and patient characteristics, varied definitions of CR, and limited use of patient-reported outcome measures in real-world settings.

Persistence and safety of anti-TNF biosimilars versus originators in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: an observational study on the French National Health Data System

OBJECTIVES

Biosimilar-originator equivalence has been demonstrated in phase 3 trials in a few indications of infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab. The objective of our study was to compare the persistence and safety of biosimilars versus originators in all the licensed indications of these molecules.

METHODS

We used data from the French National Health Data System (SNDS), covering 99% of the French population, to identify infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab initiators from biosimilar launch (January 2015, May 2016 and October 2018, respectively) to 30 June 2021. Patients were then followed for 1 year. Treatment persistence (duration without treatment discontinuation or modification) and safety (including severe infections, all-cause hospitalisation and death) were compared between originator and biosimilar users by Cox regressions weighting the populations on the inverse probability of treatment. Analyses were performed by molecule, by disease and by biosimilar product.

RESULTS

From January 2015 to June 2021, 86 776 patients were included in the study: 22 670, 24 442 and 39 664 patients had initiated infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab, respectively; 49 752 (53%) were biosimilar initiators. We did not find any risk of discontinuation (HRs were below or around 1, here all pathologies and products together: infliximab 0.88 (0.80-0.97), etanercept 0.85 (0.81-0.90) and adalimumab 0.96 (0.91-1.00)) or safety event (infection: infliximab 0.97 (0.78-1.21), etanercept 1.04 (0.81-1.33) and adalimumab 0.98 (0.83-1.16); hospitalisation: infliximab 1.08 (0.96-1.23), etanercept 0.99 (0.87-1.11) and adalimumab 0.91 (0.83-0.99)) associated with biosimilar versus originator use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows reassuring results regarding the persistence and safety of biosimilar tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors compared with originators in all licensed indications.

Comparison of endoscopic healing and durability between infliximab originator and CT-P13 in pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Background and aims

Favourable clinical data were published on the efficacy of CT-P13, the first biosimilar of infliximab (IFX), in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); however, few studies have compared the effect on endoscopic healing (EH) and drug retention rate between the IFX originator and CT-P13. Therefore, we aimed to compare EH and the drug retention rate between the IFX originator and CT-P13.

Methods

Children with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC)/IBD-unclassified (IBD-U) at 22 medical centers were enrolled, with a retrospective review conducted at 1-year and last follow-up. Clinical remission, EH and drug retention rate were evaluated.

Results

We studied 416 pediatric patients with IBD: 77.4% had CD and 22.6% had UC/IBD-U. Among them, 255 (61.3%) received the IFX originator and 161 (38.7%) received CT-P13. No statistically significant differences were found between the IFX originator and CT-P13 in terms of corticosteroid-free remission and adverse events. At 1-year follow-up, EH rates were comparable between them (CD: P=0.902, UC: P=0.860). The estimated cumulative cessation rates were not significantly different between the two groups. In patients with CD, the drug retention rates were 66.1% in the IFX originator and 71.6% in the CT-P13 group at the maximum follow-up period (P >0.05). In patients with UC, the drug retention rates were 49.8% in the IFX originator and 56.3% in the CT-P13 group at the maximum follow-up period (P >0.05).

Conclusions

The IFX originator and CT-P13 demonstrated comparable therapeutic response including EH, clinical remission, drug retention rate and safety in pediatric IBD.

The long-term effect of biologics in patients with ulcerative colitis emerging from a large Japanese cohort

To gain a better understanding of the effects of biologics, we evaluated clinical outcomes in patients with moderate to severe exacerbations of ulcerative colitis (UC). This retrospective, multicenter study retrieved the entire clinical courses of UC patients who began treatments between 2004 and 2018. All exacerbations and clinical parameters, including treatment details for exacerbations and both remission and re-exacerbation dates, were identified during the observation period. Two different endpoints, the cumulative incidence rates of surgical resection and re-exacerbation, were evaluated separately in moderate to severe exacerbation events. Among 1401 patients, 1626 exacerbation events were determined according to a partial Mayo score (remission: < 2, mild: 2-4, moderate: 5-7, and severe: > 7). During the observation period, as administration rates of biologics increased, both surgical resection and hospitalization rates decreased, for 959 moderate to severe exacerbation events. We confirmed that biologics significantly reduced the cumulative re-exacerbation rate in moderate to severe exacerbation events during the study period compared with suboptimal therapies (a 0.507-fold decreased risk according to COX regression analysis, P < 0.001). However, they had not enough impact in reducing the cumulative incidence rate of surgical resection in moderate to severe exacerbation events that were corticosteroid-refractory or dependent (a 0.878-fold decreased risk according to COX regression analysis, P = 0.606). Biologics may improve remission duration, but these agents had no significant impact in reducing the risk of surgical resection in moderate to severe active UC.

The Sincerest Form of Flattery? Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

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

TNF-alpha inhibitors biosimilar use in France: a nationwide population-based study using the French National Health Data System

TNF-alpha inhibitors have revolutionized the therapeutic care in chronic inflammatory diseases. Several biosimilar products were commercialized at their patent expiry, substantially decreasing the cost of treatment. This longitudinal descriptive study aimed at assessing infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab biosimilar penetration rates using data of the French National Health Data System. A total of 207,118 new or prevalent users from the date of first biosimilar commercialization in France (respectively January 2015, May 2016 and October 2018) were included in the study and followed until September 30, 2021. Biosimilars represented respectively 78%, 46% and 53% of the overall initiations, and 94%, 66% and 60% last year's initiations. A total of 46%, 19% and 17% of originator product prevalent users switched for a biosimilar during the follow-up. Biosimilar penetration rate was much higher for infliximab than for its counterparts, due to its hospital delivery modality. Biosimilar initiation and originator-to-biosimilar switch tended to be observed more in rheumatology than in the other specialties. Biosimilar use was mostly consistent across patient socio-demographic characteristics. Biosimilar initiation rate increased rapidly from their market arrival and originator-to-biosimilar switch rate remained moderate, highlighting the need and usefulness of political action and biosimilar use tracking.

Efficacy and safety of biosimilar versus originator infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A real-world cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) monoclonal antibody, infliximab, is the primary therapeutic modality for patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), refractory to conventional therapy. Biosimilars of infliximab have been shown to have equivalent efficacy to originator infliximab. We compared the safety and efficacy of infliximab biosimilar with the originator in Indian patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

Patients with IBD treated with either originator or biosimilar infliximab from January 2005 to October 2020 were included in this retrospective analysis. The safety and efficacy of originator or biosimilar infliximab in inducing and maintaining clinical remission at weeks 14 and 52 for CD and UC were evaluated. Disease activity was estimated at baseline, after induction therapy, after 1 year of treatment, and during 12 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

In all, 137 patients (82 CD; 55 UC) were included, of whom 102 were on originator, and 35 patients received biosimilar. In biosimilar group, clinical response and remission rates at weeks 14 and 52 were 84.2%, 58% and 68.4%, 52.6% in CD and 81.2%, 56.2% and 68.7%, 62.5% in UC patients, respectively. Among patients who were on originator, clinical response and remission rates at weeks 14 and 52 were 79.4%, 46% and 57.1%, 43% in CD and 72%, 64.1% and 66.7%, 56.4% in UC patients, respectively. Thirty-three (24.1%) patients experienced adverse events; eighteen developed tuberculosis (TB), of whom 17 received originator and one patient received biosimilar.

CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab biosimilar is comparable to originator infliximab in terms of safety profile and its efficacy in inducing and maintaining remission in patients with IBD.

How to Choose the Biologic Therapy in a Bio-Naïve Patient with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The availability of biologic therapies in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is increasing significantly. This represents more options to treat patients, but also more difficulties in choosing the therapies, especially in the context of bio-naïve patients. Most evidence of safety and efficacy came from clinical trials comparing biologics with placebo, with a lack of head-to-head studies. Network meta-analysis of biologics and real-world studies have been developed to solve this problem. Despite the results of these studies, there are also other important factors to consider before choosing the biologic, such as patient preferences, comorbidities, genetics, and inflammatory markers. Given that resources are limited, another important aspect is the cost of biologic therapy, since biosimilars are widely available and have been demonstrated to be effective with a significant decrease in costs. In this review, we summarize the evidence comparing biologic therapy in both Crohn´s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) in different clinical situations. We also briefly synthesize the evidence related to predictors of biologic response, as well as the biologic use in extraintestinal manifestations and the importance of the drug-related costs.

Infliximab use in the Netherlands: Uptake and characteristics of originator and biosimilars over time

AIMS

The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to provide an overview of the utilization of originator and biosimilar infliximab in the Netherlands.

METHODS

All infliximab dispensings were selected from the PHARMO In-patient Pharmacy Database from 2002-2018. Descriptive analyses were performed in order to characterise initiators and to describe switching patterns over time.

RESULTS

Overall, 3840 patients with 61 274 infliximab dispensings were identified. 2496 patients initiated an originator infliximab and 777 patients initiated a biosimilar infliximab. Overall, 57% of the patients was female and mean age was 43.2 years. Both originators and biosimilars were mostly prescribed by gastroenterologists, followed by internists and rheumatologists. After market authorisation of the first biosimilar, the proportion of new patients initiating the biosimilar increased from 39% in 2015 to 91% in 2018. Out of 704 patients eligible for switching 34% switched. Among switchers, the proportion of females was 60% and mean age at index was 45.1 years. Among nonswitchers, 55% were female and mean age was 39.8 years. The median time to switch was 1.7 years and switchers were most frequently initiated on infliximab by a rheumatologist (42%), while nonswitchers were most frequently initiated by a gastroenterologist (42%).

CONCLUSION

The results of this large population-based cohort show an increase in biosimilar initiation in daily clinical practice. The number of switchers remains relatively low as nonmedical switch is not encouraged in the Netherlands.

Systematic review: societal cost of illness of inflammatory bowel disease is increasing due to biologics and varies between continents

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of the cost of illness of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is essential for health policy makers worldwide.

AIM

To assess the cost of illness of IBD from the societal perspective taking into account time trends and geographical differences.

METHODS

A systematic review of all population-based studies on cost of illness of IBD published in Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Methodology of included studies was assessed and costs were adjusted to 2018 US dollars.

RESULTS

Study methodologies differed considerably, with large differences in perspective, valuation method and population. For prevalent Crohn's disease (CD) cases in the last ten years annual healthcare costs were in Asia $4417 (range $1230-$31 161); Europe $12 439 ($7694-$15 807) and North America $17 495 ($14 454-$20 535). For ulcerative colitis (UC), these were $1606 ($309-$14 572), $7224 ($3228-$9779) and $13 559 ($13 559-$13 559). The main cost driver was medication, the cost of which increased considerably between 1985 and 2018, while outpatient and inpatient costs remained stable. IBD had a negative impact on work productivity. Annual costs of absenteeism for CD and UC were in Asia (with presenteeism) $5638 ($5638-$5638) and $4828 ($4828-$4828); Europe $2660 ($641-$5277) and $2394 ($651-$5992); North America $752 ($307-$1303) and $1443 ($85-$2350).

CONCLUSION

IBD societal cost of illness is increasing, driven by growing costs of medication, and varies considerably between continents. While biologic therapy was expected to decrease inpatient costs by reducing hospitalisations and surgery, these costs have not declined.

Does Similarity Breed Contempt? A Review of the Use of Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The introduction of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies directed against tumor necrosis factor-α has revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) by improving quality of life, decreasing the frequency and length of hospital admissions, and reducing corticosteroid use. Nevertheless, biologics are very expensive, substantially contributing to the cost of care for patients with IBD. To reduce this cost and improve treatment access, biosimilars, which are therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (biologicals) similar to but not identical to the reference biologic, were introduced. Despite their potential benefits, the adoption and uptake of biosimilars have varied considerably across the USA and Europe. Here, we highlight the current biosimilar therapeutic landscape, discuss barriers to their use, and provide an overview of published studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of biosimilars in IBD.

Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Infliximab-dyyb and Infliximab in Biologic-Naive Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the United States

Background

Real-world assessments of biosimilars are needed to understand their effectiveness and safety in practice settings that may differ from those seen in clinical trials or healthcare systems in different countries. To assess the effectiveness and safety of a biosimilar (infliximab-dyyb) and its reference product (infliximab) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in the United States.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of biologic-naive patients with IBD who started treatment with infliximab-dyyb or infliximab. The study included 3206 patients identified through electronic health records in a US integrated healthcare delivery system. The effectiveness outcome was a composite of IBD-related surgery, IBD-related emergency room visit, and IBD-related hospitalization within 12 months of initiation. Safety outcomes included incidence of any or serious infection, cancer, acute liver dysfunction, and tuberculosis. We used a non-inferiority test with an upper-limit margin of 10% to analyze effectiveness. Doubly robust methods incorporating Cox proportional hazard regression with standardized inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to analyze both effectiveness and safety outcomes.

Results

The composite effectiveness outcome occurred in 107 of 870 patients (12.3%) in the infliximab-dyyb and 379 of 2336 patients (16.2%) in the infliximab groups. Infliximab-dyyb was non-inferior (P < .01) and was not different (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.01; P = .06) to infliximab. Safety outcomes were not different between infliximab-dyyb and infliximab for any infections (HR 1.01; CI 0.86-1.17; P = .95), serious infections (HR 0.83; CI 0.54-1.26; P = .38), cancers (HR 0.83; CI 0.44-1.54; P = .55), and tuberculosis (HR 0.59; CI 0.10-3.55; P = .57).

Conclusions

Initiation of infliximab-dyyb was non-inferior to infliximab among biologic-naive patients with IBD in an US integrated healthcare delivery system.

Risk of severe COVID-19 in patients treated with IBD medications: a French nationwide study

BACKGROUND

Recently, the SECURE-IBD study, based on a physician-reported registry, suggested that thiopurines, either alone or combined with anti-TNF, may increase risk of severe COVID-19.

AIMS

To compare the risk of severe COVID-19 according to IBD medications in a large and unselected population.

METHODS

Using the French national health data system, the risks of hospitalisation and of death or mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 from 15 February 2020 to 31 August 2020 in IBD patients were compared according to IBD treatment (immunomodulators and biologics), using multivariable Cox models adjusted for socio-demographic characteristics, budesonide/corticosteroids and aminosalicylates use, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Among 268 185 IBD patients, 600 were hospitalised for COVID-19 and 111 of them died or were mechanically ventilated (including 78 deaths). In multivariable analysis, the risk of hospitalisation for COVID-19 did not differ according to IBD treatment category, with adjusted Hazard Ratios (aHR, unexposed patients used as reference) of 0.94 (95%CI: 0.66-1.35) for immunomodulator monotherapy, 1.05 (0.80-1.38) for anti-TNF monotherapy, 0.80 (0.38-1.69) for anti-TNF combination therapy, 1.06 (0.55-2.05) for vedolizumab and 1.25 (0.64-2.43) for ustekinumab. Similarly, the risk of death or mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 did not differ according to IBD treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunomodulators and biologics prescribed in patients with IBD do not appear to increase the severity of COVID-19 infection.

Clinical Practice of Adalimumab and Infliximab Biosimilar Treatment in Adult Patients With Crohn's Disease

The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors has significantly changed the treatment landscape in Crohn's disease (CD). The overall therapeutic achievements with TNF inhibitors such as infliximab, adalimumab, and certolizumab pegol paved the way to push the boundaries of treatment goals beyond symptomatic relief and toward cessation of objective signs of inflammation, including endoscopic remission. Even though these agents are widely used for the treatment of moderate to severe CD, heterogeneity still exists in translating evidence-based guidelines on the use of anti-TNF agents into actual treatment algorithms in CD. This might be due to several reasons including disparities in health expenditure policies; lack of harmonization between countries; and variations in assessment of disease severity, use of disease monitoring tools, or application of treatment targets by physicians. With the advent of biosimilars, patent-free versions of reference biologics are now available to minimize health inequalities in drug availability. In this context, this article aims to provide practical clinical guidance for the use of infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars in patients with moderate to severe CD by outlining different clinical scenarios that patients may encounter during their treatment journey.

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.

Enhancing treatment success in inflammatory bowel disease: Optimising the use of anti-TNF agents and utilising their biosimilars in clinical practice

Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents such as infliximab and adalimumab have greatly altered the treatment landscape in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, there are remaining unmet needs and opportunities to optimise their use. Recent data suggest that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring may lead to more efficient usage of these agents, with potential for higher rates of corticosteroid-free clinical remission than with reactive monitoring. Expanded application of faecal calprotectin measurements may also be valuable, given the ease of use of the assay and its proven effectiveness as a diagnostic tool and predictor of relapse risk. From a practical viewpoint, improved multidisciplinary working may be essential to optimise patient care, with IBD nurse specialists playing an increasingly central role within this model. Finally, the availability of biosimilars of the anti-TNF agents allow drug costs to be reduced without compromising safety or efficacy - thereby providing opportunities to improve accessibility. Alongside extensive data on originator to biosimilar infliximab switch, new studies are beginning to demonstrate the safety of biosimilar to biosimilar switch, as well as adalimumab biosimilar transitions. The risk of a nocebo effect when switching to a biosimilar can be reduced through improved patient education and preparation.

Physicochemical analysis and biological characterization of FKB327 as a biosimilar to adalimumab

FKB327 was approved by the European Medicines Agency as a biosimilar to European-authorized adalimumab (Humira® ; AbbVie Inc). Adalimumab is a monoclonal antibody, binding and inhibiting tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α with use indicated for several immune-mediated, chronic, and inflammatory disorders. The approval is based on high similarity in the physicochemical properties between FKB327 and adalimumab. The objective of this study is to assess the biological similarity, with regard to Fab- and Fc-associated functions, and describe the relationship between physicochemical and biological characterization and functional activity. State-of-the-art orthogonal techniques were implemented to assess the structure and function of FKB327. Peptide mapping with liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, capillary electrophoresis-sodium dodecyl sulfate, ultraviolet circular dichroism, size-exclusion high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and cation exchange HPLC were the techniques used to assess structure. Functional activity was assessed with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, surface plasmon resonance, and cell-based assays. The polypeptide sequence of FKB327 was identical to that of adalimumab. FKB327 also was demonstrated to have a similar secondary and tertiary structure to adalimumab. Posttranslational heterogeneities, along with size and charge variants, were not clinically meaningful. FKB327 binds to TNF-α, FcγR, the neonatal Fc receptor, and C1q, and induces apoptosis, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, and complement-dependent cytotoxicity. The binding and activity of FKB327 were similar to that of adalimumab. FKB327 shares similar structure and activity with adalimumab. Based on characterization of physicochemical and biological properties, FKB327 is expected to have a similar safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy profile to adalimumab.

The Future of Biosimilars: Maximizing Benefits Across Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases

Biologics have transformed the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Biosimilars-biologic medicines with no clinically meaningful differences in safety or efficacy from licensed originators-can stimulate market competition and have the potential to expand patient access to biologics within the parameters of treatment recommendations. However, maximizing the benefits of biosimilars requires cooperation between multiple stakeholders. Regulators and developers should collaborate to ensure biosimilars reach patients rapidly without compromising stringent quality, safety, or efficacy standards. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations and payer policies should be updated following biosimilar market entry, minimizing the risk of imposing nonmedical barriers to biologic treatment. In RA, disparities between treatment guidelines and national reimbursement criteria could be addressed to ensure more uniform patient access to biologics and enable rheumatologists to effectively implement treat-to-target strategies. In IBD, the cost-effectiveness of biologic treatment earlier in the disease course is likely to improve when biosimilars are incorporated into pharmacoeconomic analyses. Patient understanding of biosimilars is crucial for treatment success and avoiding nocebo effects. Full understanding of biosimilars by physicians and carefully considered communication strategies can help support patients initiating or switching to biosimilars. Developers must operate efficiently to be sustainable, without undermining product quality, the reliability of the supply chain, or pharmacovigilance. Developers should also facilitate information sharing to meet the needs of other stakeholders. Such collaboration will help to ensure a sustainable future for both the biosimilar market and healthcare systems, supporting the availability of effective treatments for patients.