Phase III randomized study of the proposed adalimumab biosimilar GP2017 in psoriasis: impact of multiple switches

Systematic review: effectiveness and safety of switching between originator infliximab and biosimilar infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

Infliximab (IFX) biosimilars are available to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), offering cost reductions versus originator IFX in some jurisdictions. However, concerns remain regarding the efficacy and safety of originator-to-biosimilar switching. This systematic literature review evaluated safety and effectiveness of switching between IFX products in patients with IBD, including multiple switchers.

METHODS

Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to capture studies (2012-2022) including patients with IBD who switched between approved IFX products. Effectiveness outcomes: disease activity; disease severity; response to treatment; patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Safety outcomes: incidence and rate of adverse events (AEs); discontinuations due to AEs, failure rate; hospitalizations; surgeries. Immunogenicity outcomes (n, %): anti-drug antibodies; patients receiving concomitant immunomodulatory medication.

RESULTS

Data from 85 publications (81 observational, two randomized controlled trials) was included. Clinical effectiveness outcomes were consistent with the known profile of originator IFX with no difference after switching. There were no unexpected/serious AEs after switching, and rates of AEs were generally consistent with the known profile of IFX.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies reported that clinical, PROs, and safety outcomes for originator-to-biosimilar switching were clinically equivalent to originator responses. Limited data are available regarding multiple switches.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42021289144.

Adalimumab serum levels and anti-drug antibodies: associations to treatment response and drug survival in inflammatory joint diseases

OBJECTIVES

To explore associations between serum adalimumab level, treatment response and drug survival in order to identify optimal drug levels for therapeutic drug monitoring of adalimumab. Also, to assess the occurrence and risk factors of anti-drug antibody (ADAb) formation.

METHODS

Non-trough adalimumab and ADAb levels were measured by automated fluorescence assays in serum collected after 3 months of adalimumab treatment in patients with RA, PsA or axial SpA (axSpA) included in the observational NOR-DMARD study. Treatment response was evaluated after 3 months and drug survival was evaluated during long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

In 340 patients (97 RA, 69 PsA, 174 axSpA), the median adalimumab level was 7.3 mg/l (interquartile range 4.0-10.3). A total of 33 (10%) patients developed ADAbs. Findings were comparable across diagnoses. In RA and PsA, adalimumab levels ≥6.0 mg/l were associated with treatment response [odds ratio (OR) 2.2 (95% CI 1.0, 4.4)] and improved drug survival [hazard ratio 0.49 (95% CI 0.27, 0.80)]. In axSpA, a therapeutic level could not be identified, but higher adalimumab levels were associated with response. Factors associated with ADAb formation were previous bDMARD use, no methotrexate comedication and the use of adalimumab originator compared with GP2017.

CONCLUSION

Higher adalimumab levels were associated with a better response and improved drug survival for all diagnoses, with a suggested lower threshold of 6.0 mg/l for RA/PsA. This finding, the large variability in drug levels among patients receiving standard adalimumab dose and the high proportion of patients developing ADAbs encourages further investigations into the potential role of therapeutic drug monitoring of adalimumab.

'Totality of Evidence' Approach in the Development of GP2017, an Approved Adalimumab Biosimilar

INTRODUCTION

Hyrimoz®, (GP2017 [SDZ-ADL]), is a biosimilar to Humira® (REF-ADL). SDZ-ADL was approved in 2018 by both the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the indications of REF-ADL not protected by orphan exclusivity. In 2023, the US FDA and EMA also approved a citrate-free high-concentration formulation (HCF) of SDZ-ADL.

TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE-THE APPROACH

Approval of SDZ-ADL was based on data gathered using the US FDA, EMA and World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended step-wise Totality of Evidence approach. This approach is a robust dataset confirming high confidence in analytical, functional, pharmacokinetic (PK) and clinical biosimilarity between the biosimilar and reference medicine determined through analytical and clinical investigation.

EVIDENCE OF BIOSIMILARITY

Evidence supporting the biosimilarity of SDZ-ADL and REF-ADL was reported at each stage of investigation. Comprehensive comparative analytical and functional assessments demonstrated that SDZ-ADL was analytically indistinguishable from REF-ADL in required critical quality attributes, including receptor binding. Phase I clinical data showed PK similarity of SDZ-ADL and REF-ADL in healthy volunteers, with similar safety, tolerability and immunogenicity profiles. Phase III confirmatory efficacy and safety studies, ADACCESS (included in US/EU dossiers) and ADMYRA (separate to US/EU dossiers), both confirmed that SDZ-ADL's efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity matched REF-ADL in all patient groups with no clinically meaningful differences. More recently, this data package was the basis for a citrate-free HCF of SDZ-ADL to be developed, and its PK, safety and immunogenicity were confirmed against the initially approved formulation of SDZ-ADL.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the Totality of Evidence provided for biosimilar adalimumab, SDZ-ADL, confirmed the analytical, functional and clinical similarity of SDZ-ADL to REF-ADL, supporting its regulatory approval and providing a data bridge with which to evaluate and support the approval of citrate-free HCF SDZ-ADL for clinical use.

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.

Signal-to-noise ratio to assess magnitude, kinetics and impact on pharmacokinetics of the immune response to an adalimumab biosimilar

Background: The antidrug antibody (ADA) signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio was explored as a novel immunogenicity measure to evaluate the immune response of healthy subjects to a single dose of GP2017, an adalimumab biosimilar. Methodology/results: Bioanalytical methods used for the analysis of ADA S/N ratios and ADA titers were validated for sensitivity, precision and drug interference. ADA S/N ratios strongly correlated with ADA titers. Correlations between ADA area under the curve and ADAmax and pharmacokinetics (PK) were stronger for ADA S/N ratio than for ADA titers. Conclusion: ADA S/N ratio allowed for a more sensitive evaluation of the magnitude and kinetics of the immune response, was better correlated with adalimumab PK and was superior to ADA titers in assessing the impact of the immune response on PK.

Efficacy and safety evaluations of adalimumab biosimilars in the treatment of psoriasis

PURPOSE

We aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab biosimilar agents in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, in order to provide evidence-based reference data for clinical medicine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five databases were searched by electronic retrieval: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, WanFang and CNKI (China National Knowledge Internet). The retrieval period was from the establishment of each database up to April 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on adalimumab biosimilar agents compared with their reference agents in the treatment of moderate-to-serve plague psoriasis were included. A meta-analysis using RevMan software was applied to 8 RCTs involving 2589 patients.

RESULTS

After 16 weeks of medication, there was no significant difference in the response rates of adalimumab biosimilar agents and their reference agents defined as a decrease in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of ≥75% (PASI 75) (p > 0.05), or in the PASI 50, PASI 90 and PASI 100 measures (p > 0.05). After 16 weeks and 24 weeks of medication, there was no significant difference in the incidence rate of serious adverse events (SAEs) between adalimumab biosimilar agents and their reference agents (p > 0.05). After 16 weeks, 24 weeks and 51 weeks of medication, there was no significant difference in withdrawal rate due to SAEs, treatment-emergent adverse events and adverse events of special interest between adalimumab biosimilar agents and their reference agents (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that biosimilar agents of adalimumab have an overall efficacy and safety profile for psoriasis comparable to those of their reference agents.

Real-world outcomes following switching from anti-TNF reference products to biosimilars for the treatment of psoriasis

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors improved clinical outcomes for patients with psoriasis but are limited by their high cost. There are several biosimilar options approved for the treatment of psoriasis which provides a lower-cost alternative and the potential to increase treatment availability for both biologically naïve and bioexperienced patients. Numerous phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the effects of switching from biologics to biosimilars; biosimilars had comparable safety and efficacy to their reference products. Real-world evidence may provide complementary information on the expected performance of biosimilars. In this literature review, we analyzed data from real-world studies on switching from biologics for psoriasis to their biosimilars. Effectiveness and safety profiles were comparable when switching from biologics to biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab. These studies are limited by their sample sizes, duration of follow-up, and single-arm designs without control groups. Based on available real-world evidence, patients may safely and effectively undergo switching to biosimilar therapies for the treatment of psoriasis.

A systematic review investigating at what proportion clinical images are shared in prospective randomized controlled trials involving patients with psoriasis and biological agents

For many patients including those with psoriasis, scientific manuscripts comprising clinical outcomes including psoriasis area severity index (PASI) and/or physician global assessment (PGA) may be difficult to understand. However, most patients can relate to images at baseline and follow-up, particularly for dermatological diseases. This study aimed to assess the proportion of shared clinical images in psoriasis trials. A systematic review adhering to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. The review was limited to randomized controlled trials, and among these, only investigations involving biological agents for treatment of psoriasis were included. The Embase, MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched for eligible studies published from inception to October 26, 2021. In total, 152 studies were included. When combining these, 62,871 patients were randomized. Overall, 203 images were shared depicting 60 patients in the manuscripts yielding an overall sharing rate of 0.1%. Patient images are seldom incorporated in clinical trial manuscripts which impairs interpretation for patients. Inclusion of image material would strengthen the patients' perspective and understanding on what treatment effects that can be expected. As such, this systematic review should be an invitation to the pharmaceutical industry, other sponsors, and editorial offices to improve easy transfer of information to patients using image data.

Navigating adalimumab biosimilars: an expert opinion

The patent expiry of Humira® in 2018 opened up the current European market to eight adalimumab biosimilars - (in alphabetical order) Amgevita®, Amsparity®, Hulio®, Hukyndra®, Hyrimoz®, Idacio®, Imraldi® and Yuflyma® - for the treatment of various immune and inflammatory conditions. Amjevita, Hadlima®, Hyrimoz and Yuflyma have recently become available in the USA, with others expected to reach this market in 2023 as the US patent protection for Humira ends. Although adalimumab biosimilars demonstrate efficacy, safety and immunogenicity similar to the originator, they may differ in product excipient(s) and preservatives, along with their device type(s). Physicians may find it both difficult and time consuming to navigate their way among the array of available adalimumab biosimilars when they need to make a treatment decision. This article explores the characteristics of various adalimumab biosimilars to help clinicians navigate the various options available across Europe and the USA. In addition to drug selection, effective patient-physician communication is needed to nurture realistic patient expectations and minimise potential nocebo effects when prescribing biosimilars.

Efficacy and Safety of Adalimumab Biosimilar GP2017 in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

(1) Background: GP2017 is one of the biosimilar drugs of adalimumab, one of the anti-TNF agents used for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). To date, there is little real-world data about the use of GP2017 in IBD patients. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of this biosimilar in an IBD population. (2) Methods: This is an observational retrospective study including patients that were all treated with GP2017 as a first step or as a switch from the originator or other biosimilars. The clinical activity was evaluated at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of therapy. The therapy discontinuation and side effects were also evaluated. (3) Results: a total of 72 patients were included (65 with Crohn's disease and 7 with ulcerative colitis). Of the 29 patients starting GP2017 as a first adalimumab therapy, clinical remission was achieved in 58.6%. Of the patients starting GP2017 as a switch from the originator (33 patients) or other biosimilars (10 patients), clinical remission was maintained in 78.8% and in 70%, respectively. Regarding the safety, only 11 patients experienced non-serious side effects. During the follow-up, nine patients suspended treatment mainly due to side effects or secondary failure. (4) Conclusions: GP2017 is an effective and safe therapy for IBD patients.

Preparing for the market entry of adalimumab biosimilars in the US in 2023: A primer for specialty pharmacists

PURPOSE

The impact of the market entry of adalimumab biosimilars on clinical practices and specialty pharmacies is explained. A roadmap is also provided for how pharmacists can successfully navigate this landscape.

SUMMARY

Biosimilars have previously been introduced as a mechanism to help curb biologic expenditures, with biosimilars undergoing an abbreviated regulatory approval process that focuses on biosimilarity and generating product competition. Adalimumab is currently the leading product in the biologics market, generating approximately $20 to $30 billion in sales worldwide consecutively from 2019 to 2021. Many adalimumab biosimilars are slated to enter the market in 2023 and become available for patient use. However, compared to other biosimilars, adalimumab biosimilars have several unique considerations, such as interchangeability and concentration, that will impact pharmacy practices and workflows. Because pharmacists embedded in clinical practices and specialty pharmacies will be significantly involved in the processes relating to adalimumab biosimilar implementation, adoption, and use, a primer on understanding the various adalimumab biosimilar products available and considerations surrounding these products with regard to workflow and patient use is critical. Several resources are also provided to help pharmacists successfully navigate the adalimumab biosimilar landscape.

CONCLUSION

The biosimilar landscape continues to evolve, and 2023 will see the launch of several adalimumab biosimilar products, which vary with regard to formulation, concentration, and interchangeability status. Pharmacists are well positioned to educate providers and patients about this landscape and help implement an efficient workflow to support adalimumab biosimilar adoption and use.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

GP2017-HCF, a high concentration formulation, demonstrates similar pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity and safety to GP2017, an approved adalimumab biosimilar

BACKGROUND

GP2017 is an adalimumab biosimilar. The objective of this study is to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) of GP2017 in its approved formulation and GP2017-high concentration formulation (HCF) in a randomized, double-blind, two-arm PK bridging study.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Healthy male subjects received a single 40 mg subcutaneous injection of either GP2017-HCF (n = 162) or GP2017 (n = 168). PK, safety, and immunogenicity were assessed over 72 days post-injection.

RESULTS

The 90% confidence intervals [CIs] of geometric mean ratios between GP2017-HCF and GP2017 for Cmax, AUC0-inf, AUC0-360 and AUC0-last were within the pre-defined margin of 0.80 to 1.25; thus, PK comparability between GP2017-HCF and GP2017 was demonstrated. Subgroup analysis of PK comparability by anti-drug antibody (ADA) subpopulation showed that the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios between GP2017-HCF and GP2017 for Cmax, AUC0-inf, AUC0-360 and AUC0-last were within the margin of 0.80 to 1.25 in ADA-positive and ADA-negative subjects. The proportions of subjects with positive ADA responses and with neutralizing antibodies were comparable between the GP2017-HCF and GP2017 groups. GP2017-HCF and GP2017 were well tolerated, and there were no reports of deaths or other serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Results show PK comparability between GP2017-HCF and GP2017 and comparable safety and tolerability.

Maximizing the benefits of using biosimilars in Egypt

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars constitute a pathway for sustainable financing of healthcare systems in the era of expensive biologics. However, such a pathway is not free of challenges. Since the biosimilars market is expanding in Egypt, there is an urgent need for a policy framework to optimize their use and diffusion in the market. We aim to characterize a national framework based on the experiences of other countries and consultation with local experts.

METHODS

A narrative literature review was conducted to identify biosimilars' policy elements worldwide. A workshop was organized with experts to discuss the narrative review findings and create consensus on recommendations.

RESULTS

The narrative literature review highlighted the need for biosimilar policy actions in four areas: market authorization, pricing, reimbursement, and uptake. Eighteen experts representing the Egyptian healthcare authorities attended the workshop. The most significant conclusions from the workshop included setting the price of the biosimilar at 30-40% less than its originator's price and establishing financing protocols, in which the more expensive biologics with significant price premiums should be excluded from the formulary.

CONCLUSIONS

A summarized national framework policy recommendation for biosimilars was created by local experts from the main public healthcare entities in Egypt. These recommendations coincide with the international policies adopted across different countries that aim to improve patient access while sustaining health expenditure.

Safety and Effectiveness of Multiple Switching Between Originators and Biosimilars: Literature Review and Status Report on Interchangeability

To date, numerous biosimilars are available in Europe and the practice of switching between originator and biosimilar or between two different biosimilars has become very widespread. However, multiple switching has not been adequately studied. The aim of this study is to conduct a literature review to assess the effectiveness and safety of multiple switches. All PubMed articles involving multiple switches from originator to biosimilars or between different biosimilars were considered. The relevant data on effectiveness and safety were extracted from these studies and the results were reported through descriptive analysis. Fifteen studies were considered, of which 11 were observational and 4 clinical trials. Inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis were the most studied diseases. All studies reported that the effectiveness and safety in patients whose treatment involved multiple switches, was comparable to patients whose treatment involved a single or no switch at all. Some therapeutic fields such as oncology and renal insufficiency were not represented at all in the multiple switch studies. New evidence is desperately needed and should be made available to the scientific community and decision-makers.

Multiple infliximab biosimilar switches appear to be safe and effective in a real-world inflammatory bowel disease cohort

BACKGROUND

Switching from originator infliximab (IFX) to biosimilar IFX is effective and safe. However, data on multiple switching are scarce. The Edinburgh inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) unit has undertaken three switch programmes: (1) Remicade to CT-P13 (2016), (2) CT-P13 to SB2 (2020), and (3) SB2 to CT-P13 (2021).

OBJECTIVE

The primary endpoint of this study was to assess CT-P13 persistence following switch from SB2. Secondary endpoints included persistence stratified by the number of biosimilar switches (single, double and triple), effectiveness and safety.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, observational, cohort study. All adult IBD patients on IFX biosimilar SB2 underwent an elective switch to CT-P13. Patients were reviewed in a virtual biologic clinic with protocol driven collection of clinical disease activity, C-reactive protein (CRP), faecal calprotectin (FC), IFX trough/antibody levels, and drug survival.

RESULTS

297 patients (CD n = 196 [66%], ulcerative colitis/inflammatory bowel disease unclassified n = 101, [34%]) were switched (followed-up: 7.5 months [6.8-8.1]). This was the third, second and first IFX switch for 67/297 (22.5%), 138/297 (46.5%) and 92/297 (31%) of the cohort respectively. 90.6% of patients remained on IFX during follow-up. The number of switches was not independently associated with IFX persistence after adjusting for confounders. Clinical (p = 0.77), biochemical (CRP ≤5 mg/ml; p = 0.75) and faecal biomarker (FC<250 µg/g; p = 0.63) remission were comparable at baseline, week 12 and week 24.

CONCLUSION

Multiple successive switches from IFX originator to biosimilars are effective and safe in patients with IBD, irrespective of the number of IFX switches.

Korean clinical practice guidelines on biologics and small molecules for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC), a relapsing-remitting chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), has a variable natural course but potentially severe disease course. Since the development of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents has changed the natural disease course of moderate-to-severe UC, therapeutic options for patients who failed conventional treatments are expanding rapidly. IBD clinical trials have demonstrated the potential efficacy and safety of novel biologics such as anti-integrin α4β7 and anti-interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibodies and small molecules such as a Janus kinase inhibitor. Anti-TNF biosimilars also have been approved and are widely used in IBD patients. Wise drug choices should be made considering evidence-based efficacy and safety. However, the best position of these drugs remains several questions, with limited data from direct comparative trials. In addition, there are still concerns to be elucidated on the effect of therapeutic drug monitoring and combination therapy with immunomodulators. The appropriate treatment regimens in acute severe UC and the risk of perioperative use of biologics are unclear. As novel biologics and small molecules have been approved in Korea, we present the Korean guidelines for medical management of adult outpatients with moderate-to-severe UC and adult hospitalized patients with acute severe UC, focusing on biologics and small molecules.

Non-medical switch from the originator to biosimilar and between biosimilars of adalimumab in inflammatory bowel disease - a prospective, multicentre study

INTRODUCTION

Clinical data on the efficacy and safety of non-medical switch between adalimumab(ADA) biosimilars are limited.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate medium-term clinical efficacy, drug sustainability and safety comparing non-medical switches from the originator to biosimilar ADA, and between ADA biosimilars.

METHODS

276 consecutive patients on maintenance ADA therapy (n = 205 Crohn's disease, n = 71 ulcerative colitis) were included. Data on clinical efficacy, biomarkers and adverse events were collected at four time points: 8-12 weeks prior switch, at baseline/switch, 8-12 weeks and 20-24 weeks after switch. Drug survival was evaluated after a median 40(IQR:35-42) weeks follow-up.

RESULTS

A total 174 patients underwent a non-medical switch from the originator to a biosimilar, and 102 patients had a biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch. No significant difference was found in clinical remission rates at any time point in patients switching from originator to biosimilar(87.3%/88.5%/86.5%/85.7%) or biosimilar to biosimilar(74.5%/78.4%/85.3%/79.8%). Mean C-reactive protein levels remained unchanged in both cohorts(p = 0.856 and p = 0.525). Drug survival was similar between the two cohorts with a probability of 91.6%(SE: 2.2) and 87.0%(SE:3.4) to stay on drug after 40 weeks(log-rank:0.96; p = 0.327). Five cases of injection related adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Clinical benefit was sustained following non-medical switch from originator to biosimilar, or between biosimilars in adalimumab treated IBD patients.

Cost per responder of Adalimumab biosimilars MSB11022 and ABP 501 versus the originator and methotrexate in chronic plaque psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Pharmacoeconomic studies comparing the cost of adalimumab biosimilars versus the originator and conventional drugs in psoriasis are lacking.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

To assess the cost per responder of adalimumab biosimilars versus the originator and methotrexate for psoriasis treatment. A cost per responder analysis comparing adalimumab biosimilars MSB11022 (Idacio®) and ABP 501 (Amgevita®), and methotrexate to the originator (Humira®) was performed. The incremental cost per responder was calculated by multiplying the cost of treatment based on the perspective of the National Healthcare System and number needed to treat for each therapy.

RESULTS

Considering the PASI75 response rate at 16 weeks, the cost per responder for MSB11022 and ABP 501 compared to the originator was € 500 versus 1,831 and € 968 versus 1,949, respectively. For the same endpoint, the cost per responder for subcutaneous or oral methotrexate was € 543 or 34 compared to 2,117 for adalimumab originator. At an indirect comparison among methotrexate, MSB11022 and ABP 501, the costs per PASI75 responder at week 16 were 2%, 26%, 27% and 50% of that of the originator, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of biosimilars was confirmed as a valuable pharmacoeconomic strategy to lower healthcare cost in patients with psoriasis.

A randomized, double-blind phase III study to demonstrate the clinical similarity of biosimilar SCT630 to reference adalimumab in Chinese patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis

INTRODUCTION

This phase III study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of SCT630 with the reference adalimumab.

METHODS

A total of 367 Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis were randomly assigned to receive 80 mg of SCT630 or adalimumab subcutaneously at week 1, 40 mg at week 2, then 40 mg biweekly. At week 16, those with 50 % or more improvement in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) were eligible to enter an extension period up to week 52. Patients on SCT630 continued the same treatment, whereas patients receiving adalimumab were re-randomized at a ratio of 1:1 to adalimumab or SCT630 group. The primary endpoint was percentage improvement in PASI at week 16. Other endpoints included PASI 50/75/90/100, Physician's Global Assessment, Dermatology Life Quality Index, safety, and immunogenicity.

RESULTS

PASI improvement at week 16 was 85.07 % for SCT630 and 84.82 % for adalimumab. The mean difference (3.10 %, 95 % CI: -1.875 %, 8.066 %) was within the equivalence interval. Other efficacy endpoints, safety and immunogenicity profiles were similar across the two groups. There were no safety or immunogenicity difference between switched/continued groups.

CONCLUSION

This phase III study demonstrated the equivalences in efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of SCT630 to adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

No two classes of biosimilars: Urgent advice to the US Congress and the FDA

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

The United States is the only country with legislation to approve two classes of biosimilars. One has "no clinically meaningful difference" from the reference product, and when it is tested for switching and alternating, it can receive an interchangeable status. The objective of this review is to establish whether it is possible from the switching and alternating studies to evaluate additional safety or efficacy.

METHODS

Analysed published data to ascertain if the testing with switching and alternating provide additional proof of safety or efficacy. Political and scientific rationale of creating a new class of biosimilars and how this affects the confidence in biosimilars.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

There is no safety or efficacy concern when switching or alternating biosimilars with the reference product. Unfortunately, the rationale for interchangeability is more political than scientific, and it has brought more confusion and mistrust in using biosimilars in the United States.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The US Congress is requested to remove the interchangeability clause from the Biological Price and Competition Act to enable faster acceptance of biosimilars and remove the threat of lack of confidence in the safety of biosimilars.

Switching Among Biosimilars: A Review of Clinical Evidence

Biological medicines have improved patients’ outcomes, but their high costs may limit access. Biosimilars, alternatives that have demonstrated high similarity in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to an already licensed originator biological product, could increase competition and decrease prices. Given the expanding number of biosimilars, patients may switch from originator to biosimilar or among biosimilars. Randomized trials and observational studies conducted with multiple biosimilars over many disease areas confirmed the safety and efficacy of switching from originator to biosimilar. This study summarizes evidence on switching between biosimilars for which there are concerns to provide future guidance. A systematic search (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) for studies on anti-TNF agents, assessing clinical efficacy and safety of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch in chronic inflammatory diseases, was performed. We retrieved 320 records and included 19 clinical studies. One study with historical control compared switching between biosimilars to maintenance of the same biosimilar. Ten were controlled cohort studies comparing switching between two biosimilars vs. switching from originator to a biosimilar or vs. multiple switches. Eight were single-arm cohort studies, where participants switched from one biosimilar to another, and the outcomes were compared before and after the switch. Overall, these studies did not highlight significant concerns in switching between biosimilars. Therefore, switching studies seem difficult to perform and unnecessary with the body of evidence suggesting no real problems in practice coupled with stringent regulatory requirements. Monitoring the use of biosimilars in clinical practice could support clinical decision-making, rational use of biological medicines, and help to further realize possible savings.

Racial and Ethnic Diversity of US Participants in Clinical Trials for Acne, Atopic Dermatitis, and Psoriasis: A Comprehensive Review

An increasing body of literature describes underreporting of race and ethnicity, and overrepresentation of White individuals in clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate the racial and ethnic diversity of US participants in clinical trials for acne, atopic dermatitis (AD), and psoriasis. We performed a comprehensive review of clinical trials for these common dermatologic diseases that were published between January 2014 and July 2019. Race and ethnicity reporting among all trials, and the racial and ethnic distribution of US participants were compared by skin disease, intervention type, and trial phase. In total, 103 articles representing 119 unique trials were evaluated. Race and ethnicity were reported in only 22.7% of trials. The proportion of White participants (77.5%) was higher than that of the US population (72.5%, p < 0.01); a finding largely driven by psoriasis trials (84.7% White). The proportions of non-White and Hispanic individuals in non-topical (21.0% and 16.3%, respectively) and phase III (20.5% and 18.7%, respectively) trials were lower than those in topical (23.5% and 23.3%, respectively; p < 0.01) and phase I/II trials (25.6% and 22.3%, respectively; p < 0.01). Race and ethnicity remain underreported in dermatologic clinical trials, and US trial participant diversity differs by skin disease, intervention type, and trial phase.

Adalimumab biosimilars in the therapy of Crohn´s disease and ulcerative colitis: Prospective multicentric clinical monitoring

Objective

The adalimumab biosimilars FKB327 and GP2017 were approved for the therapy of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Relatively few prospective studies with biosimilar adalimumab in patients with IBD have been published. The aim of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the biosimilar adalimumab.

Material and methods

Adalimumab biosimilars FKB327 (Hulio^®) and GP2017 (Hyrimoz^®) were indicated to 50 naive patients in terms of biological therapy with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC). Effectiveness of therapy was evaluated via the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index [CDAI] or the Mayo Scoring System [MSS] in patients with CD or UC, respectively, before and after 12 weeks. Additional goals were to evaluate weight changes, laboratory tests and complications or adverse events of this therapy.

Results

In CD patients, remission (CDAI <150) was achieved in 73.5% of cases, partial response (≥70-point decrease in CDAI score from baseline) in 11.8%, no response in 11.8% and 2.9% patients discontinued therapy. In UC patients, remission (total score on partial Mayo index ≤2 points) was achieved only in 18.8% of cases, partial response (≥2-point decrease in partial Mayo score from baseline) in 43.8%, no response in 25.0% and 12.5% patients discontinued therapy. There were statistically significant improvements in CDAI, MSS, haemoglobin, fecal calprotectin, albumin and CRP serum levels after 12 weeks of therapy. Seven adverse events were identified, three of which resulted in therapy being discontinued.

Conclusions

This prospective observational study proved the effectiveness of the adalimumab biosimilars FKB327 and GP2017 in IBD.

Adalimumab Biosimilar GP2017 versus Adalimumab Originator in Treating Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Real-Life, Multicenter, Observational Study

The approval of adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has reduced the cost of treatment. While several ADA biosimilars are currently available, comparative data on the ADA biosimilar GP2017 (Hyrimoz^TM) and its originator (Humira^TM) in IBD are lacking. We compared the efficacy and safety of GP2017 versus originator in IBD outpatients in an Italian real-life setting. This retrospective analysis enrolled consecutive IBD patients with complete clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic data. Clinical activity was assessed with the Mayo score in ulcerative colitis (UC) and the Harvey–Bradshaw Index in Crohn’s disease (CD). The primary endpoints were the induction of remission and the safety of GP2017 versus ADA originator. One hundred and thirty-four patients (30.6% with UC and 69.4% with CD, median age 38 years) were enrolled: 62 (46.3%) patients were treated with GP2017, and 72 (53.7%) with ADA originator; 118 (88.1%) patients were naïve to ADA. Clinical remission was obtained in 105 (78.4%) patients, during a median follow-up of 12 months, 82.3% and 75% in the GP2017 and ADA originator groups, respectively (p = 0.311). Treatment was well tolerated in both groups. This analysis of real-world data suggests that GP2017 and its originator are equivalent in terms of efficacy and safety in patients with IBD.

[Translated article] Practical Update of the Guidelines Published by the Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (GPs) on the Treatment of Psoriasis With Biologic Agents: Part 2-Management of Special Populations, Patients With Comorbid Conditions, and Risk

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Since its inception, the Psoriasis Group (GPs) of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AEDV) has worked to continuously update recommendations for the treatment of psoriasis based on the best available evidence and incorporating proposals arising from and aimed at clinical practice. An updated GPs consensus document on the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis was needed because of changes in the treatment paradigm and the approval in recent years of a large number of new biologic agents.

METHODOLOGY

The consensus document was developed using the nominal group technique complemented by a scoping review. First, a designated coordinator selected a group of GPs members for the panel based on their experience and knowledge of psoriasis. The coordinator defined the objectives and key points for the document and, with the help of a documentalist, conducted a scoping review of articles in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2021. The review included systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as clinical trials not included in those studies and high-quality real-world studies. National and international clinical practice guidelines and consensus documents on the management of moderate to severe psoriasis were also reviewed. The coordinator then drew up a set of proposed recommendations, which were discussed and modified in a nominal group meeting. After several review processes, including external review by other GPs members, the final document was drafted.

RESULTS

The present guidelines include updated recommendations on assessing the severity of psoriasis and criteria for the indication of systemic treatment. They also include general principles for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and define treatment goals for these patients as well as criteria for the indication and selection of initial and subsequent therapies Practical issues, such as treatment failure and maintenance of response, are also addressed.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2021: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes an additional 19 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 167, and randomised participants to 58,912, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.5 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (57%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (140) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (57/167) had high risk of bias; 23 unclear risk, and most (87) low risk. Most studies (127/167) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions, except anti-IL23. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23 and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 50.19, 95% CI 20.92 to 120.45), bimekizumab (RR 30.27, 95% CI 25.45 to 36.01), ixekizumab (RR 30.19, 95% CI 25.38 to 35.93), risankizumab (RR 28.75, 95% CI 24.03 to 34.39). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than other anti-IL17 drugs (secukinumab and brodalumab) and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and brodalumab) and anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab) except tildrakizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents (adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept). Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab; adalimumab and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low- to moderate-certainty for all the comparisons (except methotrexate versus placebo, which was high-certainty). The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.5 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Long-term data on the proposed adalimumab biosimilar BCD-057 in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: A randomized controlled trial

Introduction

The objective of this study was to demonstrate that BCD-057 is similar to innovator adalimumab (iADA) in terms of efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics in steady state in the target population of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (NCT02762955).

Methods

Patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive 80 mg of BCD-057 or iADA at week 0 and 40 mg thereafter every other week from week 1. At week 24 patients from iADA group were re-randomized (1:1) to continue iADA or to be switched to BCD-057. The primary efficacy endpoint was 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index from baseline (PASI 75), secondary endpoints included PASI percent improvement and relative change in affected Body Surface Area (BSA) from baseline at weeks 16, 24, 33, and 55. Safety was assessed through monitoring of adverse events (AEs) and antidrug antibodies. Pharmacokinetics was evaluated at steady state.

Results

Overall, 346 adult patients were included in the study (174/172 patients in BCD-057/iADA arms, respectively). At week 16 PASI 75 was achieved by 60.34% and 63.37% of patients in BCD-057 and iADA arms, respectively (p = 0.5622). Bounds of the calculated 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between PASI 75 responses in arms [-13.26%; 7.2%] fall within the equivalence margin [-15% to 15%] demonstrating equivalent efficacy of BCD-057 and iADA. At week 55 81.61%, 85.56%, and 80.49% of patients in BCD-057, iADA and iADA/BCD-057 arms achieved PASI 75. Comparison of the secondary endpoints did not show significant differences between arms. A comparable pharmacokinetics was shown at steady state. Safety profiles and proportions of patients with antidrug antibodies were similar between arms. The switch from the iADA to BCD-057 did not affect the immunogenicity profile.

Conclusion

Obtained data demonstrate that BCD-057 and iADA are highly similar in clinical efficacy, pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Adalimumab and anti-adalimumab LISA-TRACKER immunoassays performance criteria for therapeutic drug monitoring of adalimumab-amgen biosimilar (ABP501)

BACKGROUND

ABP501 is a biosimilar to Reference Adalimumab (HUMIRA®) produced by AMGEN. Adalimumab (ADA) has a marketing authorization for Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis and other inflammatory or autoimmune diseases. The aim of this study was to evaluate the LISA-TRACKER assays developed by Theradiag (France), for the monitoring of ABP501 and anti-ABP501 antibodies in human serum.

RESULTS

68 ABP501 clinical samples were measured with the LISA TRACKER Duo Adalimumab assay. LISA TRACKER has been validated as suitable for quantification of ABP501 in human serum samples. Accuracy of the LISA-TRACKER was measured using 3 human serum matrices spiked with known levels of biosimilar, 3 levels spanning the dynamic range. Percentages of recovery were ranged from 90 to 120% for biosimilar batch1, and between 93 and 105% for biosimilar batch2. The acceptance criteria (CV < 20%) were met for intra-run (from 3.8 to 16.5%) and inter-run imprecision (from 4.4 to 13.9%) including the two batches. All results were comprised within ± 20% from results, obtained with the kit and sample unexposed in order to evaluate stability of the sample, stability of the kit and consistency of the results. In any case, but two, all percentages of inhibition were > 50% for specificity. Specificity was tested with Biosimilar spiked samples, Biosimilar with Humira® spiked samples, and clinical samples from patients treated with adalimumab biosimilar. All of these samples were spiked with polyclonal antibodies directed against Humira®. Specificity inhibition and specificity detection steps were also part of the validation parameters. Reagents made with ABP501 gave similar results than reagents made with Humira® meeting acceptance criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

LISA-TRACKER ADA and anti-ADA assays are reliable for the monitoring of patients treated with ABP501.

An update on the adalimumab biosimilar landscape following the approval of the first high-concentration biosimilar

Biosimilars can reduce healthcare costs and expand patient access to biologic therapies. Currently, eight adalimumab biosimilars have received regulatory approval from the EMA and/or the US FDA. Following recent EMA approval of the first high-concentration adalimumab biosimilar, CT-P17, this review provides a contemporary update on adalimumab biosimilars currently licensed in Europe and the USA. The totality of evidence from each clinical development program is summarized, and characteristics of each formulation and/or device that potentially affect the convenience of treatment for patients are discussed. Future perspectives are considered, including the potential impact of the FDA's first interchangeability designation for an adalimumab biosimilar, ahead of their entry into the US marketplace in 2023.

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.

Switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars in chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: A systematic literature review

AIMS

Adalimumab is a biological therapy used to treat different chronic inflammatory diseases. At present, there is an increasing number of adalimumab biosimilars. To assume the acceptability of interchangeability between reference adalimumab and biosimilars, there should be evidence about efficacy and safety of this switching. Regulation of this practice falls under the authority of individual European Union Member States. The aim of this study is to systematically review the evidence on the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars in different chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

METHODS

Studies presenting data about switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars were identified by sensitive search strategies in Medline and EMBASE from 1 January 2004 to 30 June 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 471 references were obtained and 21 finally included in the analysis (total number of patients switching: 2802). Eight different adalimumab biosimilars were tested after receiving reference adalimumab. Eight articles included rheumatoid arthritis (RA), one miscellaneous rheumatic disease, six psoriasis (PSO) and six inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Overall, the efficacy results in the switching groups were comparable to those obtained in the arms of continuous biosimilar and continuous reference adalimumab. There were no significant differences in treatment emergent adverse events, anti-drug or neutralising antibodies among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars has no impact on efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with RA, PSO and IBD. This finding was consistent for the different adalimumab biosimilars analysed. These conclusions could probably be extended to other rheumatic diseases such as psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

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.

An Update Review of Biosimilars of Adalimumab in Psoriasis - Bioequivalence and Interchangeability

Biologic drugs have revolutionized the treatment of psoriasis and other rheumatological diseases. In recent years, many biosimilar agents that are highly similar in structure and function to their originator products have been developed, including the tumor necrosis factor-alpha antagonist adalimumab. The considerably lower cost of these products has greatly cut the economic burden of the patients and increased the accessibility of biologic therapies worldwide. The US Food and Drug Administration and/or the European Medicines Agency have approved eight biosimilars of adalimumab (ABP 501/BI 695501/SB5/GP2017/FKB327/MSB11022/PF-06410293/CT-P17) for the treatment of psoriasis, and others are under review. Given that these agents showed pharmacokinetic, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles comparable to those of the originator, adalimumab biosimilars were licensed for all indications approved for reference adalimumab based on extrapolation; however, some of the equivalence studies were only conducted in one or two disease populations. This review discusses the bioequivalence of adalimumab biosimilars as demonstrated by various clinical trials, the extrapolation of indications, guidance and policies of the EU and US on interchangeability (nonmedical switching/automatic substitution) between biosimilars and originators, and the real-life practices of switching from reference adalimumab to the respective biosimilars. Further data from real-world studies and post-marketing analyses are needed better to address the efficacy and safety of the transition strategy.

Immunogenicity of biologics used in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis

The number of biologic drugs available for the treatment of psoriasis continue to expand. However, being biological proteins and thus potentially immunogenic, there is evidence that anti-drug-antibodies develop against the various therapeutic proteins currently being utilised. Although chimeric antibodies that contain elements of the parental rodent monoclonal antibodies are immunogenic, anti-drug antibodies occur even if the biologic is a fully human protein and these can impact on clinical efficacy and safety. However, there is a wide variation in the reported level of anti-drug-antibodies for the same and different treatments that is highlighting issues with various assays used in anti-drug antibody detection. Here we review the available data on the occurrence of anti-drug antibodies in people with psoriasis treated with biologic agents.

Effectiveness and Safety of Adalimumab Biosimilar SB5 in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Outcomes in Originator to SB5 Switch, Double Biosimilar Switch and Bio-Naïve SB5 Observational Cohorts

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Multiple adalimumab [ADA] biosimilars are now approved for use in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]; however, effectiveness and safety data remain scarce. We aimed to investigate long-term outcomes of the ADA biosimilar SB5 in IBD patients following a switch from the ADA originator [SB5-switch cohort] or after start of SB5 [SB5-start cohort].

METHODS

We performed an observational cohort study in a tertiary IBD referral centre. All IBD patients treated with Humira underwent an elective switch to SB5. We identified all these patients in a biological prescription database that prospectively registered all ADA start and stop dates including brand names. Data on IBD phenotype, C-reactive protein [CRP], drug persistence, ADA drug and antibody levels, and faecal calprotectin were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 481 patients were treated with SB5, 256 in the SB5-switch cohort (median follow-up: 13.7 months [IQR 8.6-15.2]) and 225 in the SB5-start cohort [median follow-up: 8.3 months [4.2-12.8]). Of the SB5-switch cohort, 70.8% remained on SB5 beyond 1 year; 90/256 discontinued SB5, mainly due to adverse events [46/90] or secondary loss of response [37/90]. In the SB5-start cohort, 81/225 discontinued SB5, resulting in SB5-drug persistence of 60.3% beyond 1 year. No differences in clinical remission [p = 0.53], CRP [p = 0.80], faecal calprotectin [p = 0.40] and ADA trough levels [p = 0.55] were found between baseline, week 26 and week 52 following switch. Injection site pain was the most frequently reported adverse event.

CONCLUSION

Switching from ADA originator to SB5 appeared effective and safe in this study with over 12 months of follow-up.

Outcomes Following a Mandatory Nonmedical Switch From Adalimumab Originator to Adalimumab Biosimilars in Patients With Psoriasis

Importance

The efficacy of adalimumab biosimilars is similar to that of brand-name adalimumab (Humira, hereinafter originator) in clinical trials. However, limited knowledge about real-world data exists for adalimumab biosimilars.

Objective

To assess the outcomes following a mandatory nonmedical switch from adalimumab originator to adalimumab biosimilars in patients with psoriasis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study assesses the outcomes following a switch from adalimumab originator to an adalimumab biosimilar. Patients in the Biological Treatment in Danish Dermatology (DERMBIO) registry, a Danish nationwide registry of all patients treated with biologics (including biosimilars) for psoriasis since 2007, were assessed for eligibility. All patients who switched from adalimumab originator to an adalimumab biosimilar between November 1, 2018, and May 1, 2019, were included in the adalimumab biosimilar cohort. All patients with a visit between May 1, 2017, and November 1, 2017, treated with adalimumab originator were included in the adalimumab originator cohort. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2020, to October 10, 2021.

Exposure

Switch from adalimumab originator to an adalimumab biosimilar.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was 1-year drug retention in patients switching to adalimumab biosimilars compared with patients treated with adalimumab originator. Crude and adjusted retention rates for the adalimumab biosimilar cohort were compared with the adalimumab originator cohort with Cox proportional hazards regression using robust variance.

Results

A total of 348 patients were included in the adalimumab biosimilar cohort (mean [SD] age, 52.2 [13.6] years; 251 [72.1%] male) and 378 patients in the adalimumab originator cohort (mean [SD] age, 51.1 [14.1] years; 272 [72.0%] male). The 1-year drug retention rates were 92.0% (95% CI, 89.0%-94.9%) for the adalimumab biosimilar cohort and 92.1% (95% CI, 89.4%-94.8%) for the adalimumab originator cohort. Similar hazard ratios were observed between the 2 cohorts. The crude hazard ratios were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.61-1.70; P = .94) for all causes of drug discontinuation, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.39-1.73; P = .60) for insufficient effect, and 1.41 (95% CI, 0.52-3.77; P = .50) for adverse events for the adalimumab biosimilar cohort when compared with the adalimumab originator cohort.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study from Denmark, a nonmedical switch from adalimumab originator to adalimumab biosimilars was not associated with drug retention.

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.

The Automatic Substitution of Biosimilars: Definitions of Interchangeability are not Interchangeable

In the USA, an interchangeability designation provides biosimilar sponsors with a pathway for achieving what is standard for small-molecule generics: pharmacy-level auto-substitution for an innovator. No other major health authority links interchangeability to automatic substitution, as all require the involvement of the prescriber or patient in a medication change. This editorial considers the clinical impact and practicality of auto-substitution. First, interchangeability is linked to non-medical switching (NMS), the practice of switching treatment in patients with stable disease for non-clinical reasons. NMS may generate negative sentiment in those unwilling or reluctant to switch, which can adversely impact treatment outcomes (i.e., nocebo effect). Indeed, in real-world studies of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, discontinuation rates have been shown to be higher in patients switched to biosimilars for non-medical reasons than in historical cohorts maintained on innovators. Second, interchangeability may impede pharmacovigilance and traceability, as not all jurisdictions require innovators and biosimilars to have distinct biologic names. Third, an interchangeability designation from the US Food and Drug Administration only permits a biosimilar to be automatically substituted for its innovator, not other biosimilars (if available). Pharmacist education would be needed to avoid off-label, automatic substitution among biosimilars of a single innovator. Last, once granted, an interchangeability designation exists in perpetuity under current US federal law. However, the supply chains of innovators and biosimilars are maintained independently, with no requirement for reconfirmation of biosimilarity or interchangeability. We feel that additional guidance is needed for the auto-substitution of biosimilars and innovators to become a reality.

Developments and challenges in dermatology: an update from the Interactive Derma Academy (IDeA) 2019

The 2019 Interactive Derma Academy (IDeA) meeting was held in Lisbon, Portugal, 10-12 May, bringing together leading dermatology experts from across Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Over three days, the latest developments and challenges in relation to the pathophysiology, diagnosis, evaluation and management of dermatological conditions were presented, with a particular focus on acne, atopic dermatitis (AD) and actinic keratosis (AK). Interesting clinical case studies relating to these key topics were discussed with attendees to establish current evidence-based best practices. Presentations reviewed current treatments, potential therapeutic approaches and key considerations in the management of acne, AK and AD, and discussed the importance of the microbiome in these conditions, as well as the provision of patient education/support. It was highlighted that active treatment is not always required for AK, depending on patient preferences and clinical circumstances. In addition to presentations, two interactive workshops on the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted infections/diseases (STIs/STDs) presenting to the dermatology clinic, and current and future dermocosmetics were conducted. The potential for misdiagnosis of STIs/STDs was discussed, with dermoscopy and/or reflectance confocal microscopy suggested as useful diagnostic techniques. In addition, botulinum toxin was introduced as a potential dermocosmetic, and the possibility of microbiome alteration in the treatment of dermatological conditions emphasized. Furthermore, several challenges in dermatology, including the use of lasers, the complexity of atopic dermatitis, wound care, use of biosimilars and application of non-invasive techniques in skin cancer diagnosis were reviewed. In this supplement, we provide an overview of the presentations and discussions from the fourth successful IDeA meeting, summarizing the key insights shared by dermatologists from across the globe.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

For this living systematic review we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to September 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers to the same date. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to eligible RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse events). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons, according to CINeMA, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer on treatment hierarchy: 0% (treatment is the worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (treatment is the best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 158 studies (18 new studies for the update) in our review (57,831 randomised participants, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (58%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 20 treatments. In all, 133 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (53/158) as being at high risk of bias; 25 were at an unclear risk, and 80 at low risk. Most studies (123/158) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report their source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in reaching PASI 90. At class level, in reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the non-biological systemic agents. At drug level, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab and guselkumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Ustekinumab and adalimumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than etanercept; ustekinumab was more effective than certolizumab, and the clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab was similar. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and three non-biological drugs: fumaric acid esters (FAEs), ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab, and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar, except for ixekizumab which had a better chance of reaching PASI 90 compared with secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab. The clinical effectiveness of these seven drugs was: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 50.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.96 to 120.67, SUCRA = 93.6; high-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 32.48, 95% CI 27.13 to 38.87; SUCRA = 90.5; high-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.76, 95% CI 23.96 to 34.54; SUCRA = 84.6; high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86; SUCRA = 81.4; high-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 25.79, 95% CI 21.61 to 30.78; SUCRA = 76.2; high-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.52, 95% CI 21.25 to 30.64; SUCRA = 75; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 23.55, 95% CI 19.48 to 28.48; SUCRA = 68.4; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as mirikizumab, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to moderate certainty for all the comparisons. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the evidence for all the interventions was of low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials directly comparing active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between non-biological systemic agents and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Interchangeability of Biosimilars: What Level of Clinical Evidence is Needed to Support the Interchangeability Designation in the United States?

A biosimilar is a biologic drug that is "highly similar to a reference (originator) product, with no clinically meaningful differences between the two products in safety, purity, and potency". Regulatory approval of a biosimilar is based on analytical, structural, and functional comparisons with the reference product, comparative nonclinical (in vivo) studies, clinical pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity. In addition, comparative clinical efficacy and safety assessments are usually conducted and, taken together, comprise the "totality of the evidence" supporting biosimilarity. For a biosimilar to meet the additional designation of interchangeability in the United States (US), the applicant must demonstrate that the biological drug can be expected to produce the "same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient" and "if the biological drug is administered more than once to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between the use of the biological drug and the reference product is no greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch". The challenges faced in conducting clinical studies to support a designation of interchangeability, as defined in the final interchangeability guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration, are considered. Potential alternative approaches to generating adequate and sufficient clinical data to support a designation of interchangeability are also presented.

Switching to Biosimilar SDZ-ADL in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: 48-Week Efficacy, Safety and Immunogenicity Results From the Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind ADMYRA Study

Background

Sandoz adalimumab SDZ-ADL (GP-2017) is an approved adalimumab biosimilar with similar efficacy and comparable safety and immunogenicity to reference adalimumab (ref-ADL) as confirmed by analytical, pharmacokinetic and confirmatory studies. ADMYRA, a phase III double-blind study, was conducted with an aim to generate efficacy, safety and immunogenicity comparability data in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) having inadequate response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX). The study also evaluated an aspect of ‘switching’ reference product to the biosimilar in terms of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity up to Week 48.

Methods

Eligible patients (N = 353) were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous (sc) SDZ-ADL 40 mg (n = 177) or ref-ADL (n = 176) every other week from Week 0 to Week 24. At Week 24, all patients with at least a moderate response by Disease Activity Score-28 including high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) in the SDZ-ADL group continued SDZ-ADL (n = 159), and in the ref-ADL group were switched to SDZ-ADL (n = 166), treated for up to 46 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in DAS28-CRP from baseline at Week 12. Other efficacy endpoints included proportion of patients with European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, EULAR remission, Boolean remission, safety and immunogenicity.

Results

The DAS28-CRP score changes from baseline at Week 12 were similar between SDZ-ADL (− 2.16) and ref-ADL (− 2.18) with a mean difference (95% CI) of 0.02 (− 0.24 to 0.27), which was within the pre-specified equivalence margin of ± 0.6. After switching treatment from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL, the mean DAS28-CRP change was similar between the SDZ-ADL and ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’ group (− 3.09 vs − 3.05). The proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR response was 69.2%/29.0% in the SDZ-ADL group and 68.0%/29.6% in the ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’ group. The proportion of patients in EULAR remission was 51.4% and 54.4% and in Boolean remission was 16.8% and 21.6% for SDZ-ADL and ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’ groups, respectively. The secondary endpoints were similar across the treatment groups. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and injection-site reactions were low and similar between SDZ-ADL and ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’ groups (AEs 70.6% vs 68.8%, injection-site reactions 4.0% vs 6.3%), and most of these patients experienced AEs of mild or moderate severity. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 24.2% and 25.6% of patients treated with SDZ-ADL and ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’, respectively, from baseline to Week 48, of which 72.5% in SDZ-ADL and 79.1% in ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’ groups were neutralizing.

Conclusions

In patients with moderate-to-severe RA who had an inadequate response to DMARDs, SDZ-ADL demonstrated a similar efficacy and a comparable safety and immunogenicity profile to ref-ADL. Efficacy was sustained after switching from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL with no impact on safety (NCT02744755).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-020-00447-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Treatment with SDZ-ADL, an Adalimumab Biosimilar, in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriasis, or Psoriatic Arthritis: Results of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures from Two Phase III Studies (ADMYRA and ADACCESS)

Background

SDZ-ADL (GP2017; Sandoz GmbH, Austria) is an EMA-/FDA-approved adalimumab biosimilar. The effect of SDZ-ADL on quality of life (QoL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) was assessed as part of two phase III studies, one in patients with moderate‐to‐severe chronic plaque psoriasis (PsO; ADACCESS) and the other in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA; ADMYRA). Additionally, ADACCESS included patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

ADACCESS included 465 patients with PsO, whereas ADMYRA included 353 patients with RA. Both studies evaluated and confirmed equivalent efficacy, similar safety, and immunogenicity of SDZ-ADL with reference adalimumab (ref-ADL). A third of patients underwent multiple (four) treatment switches between study treatments starting at Week 17 (ADACCESS); all patients switched from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL at Week 24 (ADMYRA). Assessed PROs included Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and EuroQol five-dimension health status questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) in ADACCESS, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue Scale (FACIT-Fatigue) score in ADMYRA, and Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI) in both studies.

Results

In both studies, baseline scores for all PRO assessments were comparable between the two treatment groups. In ADACCESS, mean DLQI decreased from baseline in both groups, and the mean (standard deviation [SD]) percent reductions from baseline in DLQI were comparable between groups at Week 17 (SDZ-ADL, − 64.5 [80.3]; ref-ADL, − 70.6 [41.7]), which were sustained after the switch at Week 51 (‘continued SDZ-ADL,’ − 79.7 [36.2]; ‘continued ref-ADL,’ − 80.8 [44.6]; ‘switched to SDZ-ADL,’ − 70.7 [32.2]; ‘switched to ref-ADL,’ − 69.3 [49.6]). In ADACCESS, the proportion of patients with an EQ-5D-5L score of 1 (no problems) increased from baseline for all five dimensions in all treatment groups and was comparable between treatment groups at Week 51. In ADACCESS, in patients with PsA at baseline, mean (SD) HAQ-DI scores decreased from baseline in both treatment groups, and scores were comparable between groups at Week 17 (SDZ-ADL, 0.5 [0.6]; ref-ADL, 0.5 [0.6]) and after switching at Week 51 (‘continued SDZ-ADL,’ 0.4 [0.5]; ‘continued ref-ADL,’ 0.4 [0.6]; ‘switched to SDZ-ADL,’ 0.5 [0.8]; ‘switched to ref-ADL,’ 0.7 [0.6]). In ADMYRA, proportion of patients achieving HAQ-DI in the normal range (≤ 0.5) was comparable between treatment groups at Week 24 (SDZ-ADL, 37.8%; ref-ADL, 36.3%) and after switching at Week 48 (‘SDZ-ADL,’ 41.6%; ‘ref-ADL/switched to SDZ-ADL,’ 40.0%). In ADMYRA, mean FACIT-Fatigue scores increased from baseline in both treatment groups. At Week 24, mean (SD) percent change from baseline in the FACIT-Fatigue scores was 75.4 (135.5) in SDZ-ADL and 73.0 (96.3) in ref-ADL groups; the scores were sustained after switching at Week 48.

Conclusion

Treatment with SDZ-ADL and ref-ADL resulted in comparable improvements in PROs as well as QoL scores across the three diseases, PsO, PsA, and RA. Switching between SDZ-ADL and ref-ADL had no negative impact on PROs across the reported period.

Clinical trials.gov identifier

NCT02744755, NCT02016105.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-021-00470-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.