Biosimilars for psoriasis: clinical studies to determine similarity

Biosimilars in Dermatology Review

Background

Safe and effective biosimilar medications have the potential to significantly increase access to these valuable drugs. The two current biosimilars available in dermatology in the United States (US) are infliximab and rituximab which were Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in 2016 and 2018 respectively. There has been significant interest in this topic as a number of biosimilar versions of adalimumab will be available in 2023.

Objective

This review will discuss biosimilar basics and the experience with biosimilars used in dermatology in the US, Asia, and Europe.

Methods

All articles in Ovid/Medline from 2015 to Feb 2023 on biosimilars were reviewed with a particular emphasis on medications used in dermatology. Other reports from pharmaceutical manufacturers and blogs following the development of the biosimilar industry provided key insights.

Results

Biosimilars have been able to produce significant savings and market share increases, particularly in Europe, where there has been a longer experience. The specifics depend on drug prescribing practices and incentives in the individual country. This degree of savings and market share increases have not been realized with the current biosimilars available in the US.

Conclusion

While biosimilars have resulted in significant savings compared to originator drugs, it is clear that prescribing incentives and physician education are crucial in achieving these savings. To what degree biosimilar market share will increase in the US remains to be determined.

Biosimilars for the treatment of patients with psoriasis: A consensus statement from the Biosimilar Working Group of the International Psoriasis Council

Background

As biosimilars have become available in various parts of the world, the International Psoriasis Council has reviewed aspects of their use.

Objective

To provide consensus statements from the Biosimilar Working Group about the use of biosimilars in patients with psoriasis.

Methods

A semiqualitative structured process was employed to approve the consensus statements on biosimilars using the nominal group technique. The final statements were validated by a survey of the paricipants. The approval of the consensus statements was predefined as >80% positive opinions.

Results

A consensus was reached in 36/38 statements regarding regulatory considerations, extrapolation of indication, interchangeability, substitution at the pharmacy level, pharmacovigilance, traceability, naming, biosimilar policy, education, and cost of biosimilars. Example statements include "Switching a stable patient from a reference product to a biosimilar product is appropriate if the patient and physician agree to do so" and "Patients and patients' organisations should be involved in all decision making and policy development about the use of biosimilars."

Conclusion

The International Psoriasis Council Biosimilar Working Group provides consensus statements for the use of biosimilars in the treatment of patients with psoriasis. We suggest that these statements provide global guidance to clinicians, healthcare organizations, pharmaceutical companies, regulators, and patients regarding the development and use of biosimilars in patients with psoriasis.

The Challenges of Switching Therapies in an Evolving Multiple Biosimilars Landscape: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence

With the increasing availability of biosimilars, the practice of switching therapies for non-medical reasons between an originator biologic and an analogous biosimilar has become more common. The evidence to support this practice mostly comes from single-switch randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world (RW) evidence studies. However, as more biosimilars of the same originator enter the market, multiple switching events between originators and biosimilars is becoming a reality, despite limited evidence to support the efficacy and safety of such practice. Some countries have established guidelines, policies, or laws related to interchangeability and/or automatic substitution, whereas others have left these practices unregulated or controlled by other components of the healthcare system. Collectively, guidelines on single non-medical switching are often vague, with even less focus given to multiple non-medical switching, leaving this practice mostly unregulated. This narrative review will first discuss the current regulatory perspectives on non-medical switching and challenges associated with switching therapies, particularly with the availability of multiple biosimilars. We will then review the current evidence from RCTs and RW studies in the light of three different multiple-switch scenarios currently taking place in clinical practice: switching between an originator and a single biosimilar, switching between biosimilars of the same originator, and the clinical practice of switching back to the originator (i.e., switchbacks) after a failure of the initial non-medical switch to the analogous biosimilar.

AURIEL-PsO: a randomized, double-blind phase III equivalence trial to demonstrate the clinical similarity of the proposed biosimilar MSB11022 to reference adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis

BACKGROUND

MSB11022 is a proposed adalimumab biosimilar.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of MSB11022 with reference adalimumab.

METHODS

AURIEL-PsO was a double-blind randomized controlled equivalence trial, in which patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis were randomized 1 : 1 to MSB11022 or reference adalimumab. The primary end point was ≥ 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) at week 16, with a prespecified equivalence interval of ± 18%. Patients with a ≥50% improvement in PASI at week 16 were eligible to enter a double-blind extension period: patients receiving MSB11022 continued treatment, and patients receiving reference adalimumab were rerandomized 1 : 1 either to continue reference adalimumab or to switch to MSB11022. Other efficacy end points and safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated at scheduled visits up to weeks 52 (efficacy and immunogenicity), 54 and 66 (safety).

RESULTS

In total, 443 patients were randomized. The difference in PASI 75 response rates at week 16 between the treatment arms was -1·9%, and the 95% confidence interval (-7·8% to 4·1%) was within the prespecified equivalence interval. No notable difference in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was observed between treatment arms up to the end of the trial, and no new safety signals were observed. Following treatment switch at week 16, no clinically meaningful differences in safety or immunogenicity were seen between treatment arms through to the end of the observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic equivalence between MSB11022 and reference adalimumab was demonstrated. AURIEL-PsO provides evidence to support the similarity of both products with regard to efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. What's already known about this topic? Adalimumab is a fully human antitumour necrosis factor-α monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of multiple inflammatory disorders, including psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel diseases and ankylosing spondylitis. MSB11022 is a proposed adalimumab biosimilar that has shown structural and functional similarity to the reference product in an extensive analytical comparability exercise. MSB11022 has demonstrated bioequivalence and comparable safety and immunogenicity profiles in a phase I study in healthy volunteers. What does this study add? This phase III study confirmed equivalent efficacy for MSB11022 and reference adalimumab in patients without any immunomodulation comedication in moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis at week 16. The efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of MSB11022 and reference adalimumab were similar over the respective observation periods (week 52 for efficacy and immunogenicity, week 66 for safety). A switch from reference adalimumab to MSB11022 at week 16 did not impact efficacy, safety or immunogenicity.

Anti-TNF biosimilars in psoriasis: from scientific evidence to real-world experience

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors account for a large proportion of drugs used to treat psoriasis and are indicated first-line options in certain settings. Several biosimilar drugs based on the anti-TNF agents adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept are now available for use in patients with psoriasis. The favorable cost differential of biosimilars is expected to improve access to biologic therapy for biologic-naive psoriasis patients, who are often undertreated. Also, substantial cost savings can be made if patients are switched to biosimilars. To date, most clinical testing of anti-TNF biosimilars approved for use in psoriasis has been performed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and the results extrapolated to psoriasis. Although this may initially raise concerns for clinicians looking to start their psoriasis patients on biologic treatment with a biosimilar or switch from an original biologic to a biosimilar, the process of extrapolation is tightly regulated and scientifically justified. Furthermore, available real-world evidence of the safety and efficacy of anti-TNF agents in patients with psoriasis complements clinical trial data in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. When equipped with the appropriate knowledge, clinicians should have confidence to use biosimilars for the treatment of psoriasis.

Switching Reference Medicines to Biosimilars: A Systematic Literature Review of Clinical Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the possibility that switching from reference biologic medicines to biosimilars could lead to altered clinical outcomes, including enhanced immunogenicity, compromised safety, or diminished efficacy for patients, a systematic literature review was conducted of all switching studies between related biologics (including biosimilars).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using the Medline® and Embase® databases up to 30 June 2017 employing specific medical subject heading terms. Additionally, the snowball method and a hand search were also applied. Publications were considered if they contained efficacy or safety information related to a switch from a reference medicine to a biosimilar. Non-English, non-human studies, editorials, notes, and short surveys were excluded.

RESULTS

Primary data were available from 90 studies that enrolled 14,225 unique individuals. They included protein medicines used in supportive care as well as those used as therapeutic agents. The medicines contained seven different molecular entities that were used to treat 14 diseases. The great majority of the publications did not report differences in immunogenicity, safety, or efficacy. The nature and intensity of safety signals reported after switching from reference medicines to biosimilars were the same as those already known from continued use of the reference medicines alone. Three large multiple switch studies with different biosimilars did not show differences in efficacy or safety after multiple switches between reference medicine and biosimilar. Two publications reported a loss of efficacy or increased dropout rates.

CONCLUSIONS

While use of each biologic must be assessed individually, these results provide reassurance to healthcare professionals and the public that the risk of immunogenicity-related safety concerns or diminished efficacy is unchanged after switching from a reference biologic to a biosimilar medicine.

Biosimilars for psoriasis: worldwide overview of regulatory guidelines, uptake and implications for dermatology clinical practice

The introduction of biological drugs for the treatment of patients with psoriasis has revolutionized treatment paradigms and enabled numerous patients to achieve disease control with an acceptable safety profile. However, the high cost of biologics limits access to these medications for the majority of patients worldwide. In recent years, the introduction of biosimilars for inflammatory diseases has become a fast evolving field. The future use of biosimilars offers the potential for decreased cost and increased access to biologics for patients with psoriasis. For approval of biosimilars, different regulatory agencies use highly variable methods for definition, production, approval, marketing and postmarketing surveillance. Due to potential interchangeability between biologics and biosimilars, traceability and pharmacovigilance are required to collect accurate data about adverse events in patients with psoriasis; spontaneous reporting, registries and use of 'big data' should facilitate this process on a global basis. The current article describes biosimilar regulatory guidelines and examples of biosimilar uptake in clinical practice in several countries around the world. As it is apparent that biological therapy treatment decisions may become more physician independent, the International Psoriasis Council recommends that dermatologists should take an active role in the development of biosimilar prescribing policies with their respective healthcare settings and government agencies.

Old and New Biological Therapies for Psoriasis

Biological therapy became available for psoriasis with the introduction of alefacept at the beginning of this century. Up to then, systemic treatment options comprised small molecule drugs, targeting the immune system in a non-specific manner. The first biologics targeted T-cell activation and migration and served as an alternative to small molecules. However, significant improvement in outcome was first accomplished with the introduction of tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors that were already approved for other inflammatory disorders, including rheumatic diseases. Along with the progress in understanding psoriasis pathogenesis, highly targeted and effective therapies have since developed with the perspective not only to improve but to clear psoriasis. These accomplishments enable future achievement of advanced goals to individualize treatment best suited for each patient. Mechanistic studies with patients treated with the new highly targeted biologics may guide us towards these goals. This review offers an overview of biologics developed for psoriasis and illustrate a historical progress in the treatment of this common chronic inflammatory skin condition.