The changing landscape of biosimilars in rheumatology

Effect of treatment with original or biosimilar adalimumab on SARS-CoV2 vaccination antibody titers

The technological process of production of biosimilars determines the degree of biosimilarity to the original biological drug. In particular, the focus is on the similarity of immunogenic responses. The primary endpoint of our retrospective study was to find the differences in SARS-CoV-2 antibody amount between patients treated with original adalimumab and biosimilar adalimumab MSB11022 (Idacio) and the differences in the SARS-CoV-2 antibody amount between patients treated with and without biological treatment. We collected the gender, autoimmune disease type, age, and treatment data of the patients in the outpatient clinic MEDICAL PLUS, s.r.o., Uherske Hradiste. These patients suffer from autoimmune rheumatic diseases. All patients received the mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech - BNT162b2), with a 21-day (interquartile range, 21-24) gap between the two vaccinations. Patients receiving adalimumab were able to develop cellular immune responses after the second vaccination dose, as well as the individuals without adalimumab. In the period of 6-23 weeks after the second vaccination dose (D63 - D182), the SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels did not change significantly in the patients receiving the original adalimumab, while in the patients receiving biosimilar adalimumab a significant decrease was revealed. A statistically significant difference in the SARS-CoV-2 antibody amount between the patients without biological treatment (median: 504.3 U/mL) and with biological treatment (Original and Biosimilar - median: 47.2 and 28.2 U/mL, respectively) was confirmed on day 182. According to our observation, the effect of the treatment type on the increase/decrease of antibodies over time is dominant, while the impact of other variables (gender, methotrexate treatment, autoimmune disease type, and age) was confirmed as insignificant or minor.

Safety of biologic agents for the management of rheumatic diseases during pregnancy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss the current understanding regarding the use of biologic therapeutics in pregnancy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the potential fetal and infant exposure to biologics as well as a growing body of empirical evidence from real world use of biologics in pregnancy have demonstrated that biologics are generally compatible preconception and during pregnancy. Long-term effects of exposure to biologic agents in utero are not known, but will be uncovered in time. Biosimilars, which are becoming more popular, may not always share the same safety profiles as their originators.

SUMMARY

Biologics have revolutionized the management of rheumatologic disease and ushered in a new era of clinical remission among patients. These agents, developed and introduced into clinical use at the beginning of the new millennium, are very potent, yet their efficacy in treating disease often in reproductive aged women, raises questions regarding their safety during pregnancy. These therapeutics can cause immunosuppression and can inhibit immunologic circuits that are not only involved in disease pathophysiology but hypothetically could impact the development of the fetal immune system. Reassuringly, biologics, typically antibodies or antibody-based proteins, are introduced to the fetus via the typical route of transplacental antibody transfer, and thus only begin to be transferred in appreciable amounts in the second trimester (after organogenesis). From theoretic and empirical standpoints, biologic use during pregnancy appears well tolerated for fetal development and to not substantially affect infant immune development.

Use of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review of Published Position Statements and Recommendations from Health Organisations and Societies

BACKGROUND

Hesitation about using biosimilars still exists among healthcare professionals (HCPs), despite extensive experience with their use. Globally, several health organisations and societies from various specialties have issued biosimilar position statements to guide the use of biosimilars in their specialties. However, it is uncertain how similar or different their positions or recommendations are or whether these positions have evolved with the increased experience and availability of new evidence.

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to describe and assess the recommendations of published position statements regarding several aspects of biosimilars across specialties and determine whether these positions have changed with the emergence of new evidence.

METHODS

We systematically searched for published position statements of biosimilars in online databases and included statements written in English. The search was from the inception of the databases until May 2023. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Only position statements that included recommendations to guide the use of biosimilars in clinical practice and were issued by health organisations and societies, including expert panels, were included. We synthesised recommendations on five aspects: prescribing practice, extrapolation of indication, interchangeability, treatment initiation with biosimilars in biologic-naïve patients, and pharmacovigilance.

RESULTS

The review included 25 papers involving eight specialties, 16 of which were from European countries, 1 from an international organisation representing 49 countries, and 6 from various countries. The papers were published between 2009 and 2020, with 19 published between 2015 and 2020. Of the five aspects of biosimilars assessed, nearly half (11 of 25) of the papers at the time they were published did not base their positions on a scientific or evidence-based approach. Only 4 of the 25 position papers were identified as revisions of their previous papers. With increasing experience in biosimilars and the emergence of new evidence, about 60% (16 of 25) of the papers contained outdated recommendations, particularly on two aspects. They were extrapolations of indications and interchangeability (including switching). The recommendations for most papers for three other aspects were still appropriate. These were prescribing biosimilars by their brand name and active ingredient, initiating treatment with biosimilars in biologic-naïve patients, and monitoring the long-term safety of biosimilars through pharmacovigilance. For four of the revised papers, their position evolved from opposing indication extrapolation for biosimilars to accepting it, while the position of two papers shifted from not recommending biosimilar switching to permitting the practice. Meanwhile, most papers were against automatic substitution by pharmacists because the evidence for this practice was still limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Across specialties, the variability among the position statements is seen for extrapolation of indications for biosimilars and interchangeability (including switching). This requires a revision, considering the latest evidence and growing experience with the use of biosimilars in extrapolated indications and with switching.

Consensus-Based Overarching Principles and Recommendations on the Use of Biosimilars in the Treatment of Inflammatory Arthritis in the Gulf Region

BACKGROUND

Though biologic agents have significantly improved the treatment of inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis), high costs, stringent regulations, strict reimbursement criteria, and existing patents have limited patient access to treatments. While being highly similar in quality, safety, and efficacy to biologic reference products, biosimilars can reduce the financial burden and prevent underutilization of medication.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this initiative was to develop an evidence-based consensus of overarching principles and recommendations aimed at standardizing the use of biosimilars in treating inflammatory arthritis in the Gulf region.

METHODS

A task force of practicing rheumatologists, a clinical pharmacist, a health economist, patients, regulators, and payors from across the Gulf region developed recommendations and overarching principles based on the outputs of a systematic literature review conducted to address Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) questions specific to key challenges regarding the use of biosimilars for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis in the region. As the data before 2017 have been previously reviewed in another publication, the current review focused on data published between January 2017 and August 2022 (PROSPERO ID CRD42022364002). Consensus on each statement required a level of agreement of 70% or greater.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached for five overarching principles and nine recommendations by the task force. The principles emphasize the importance of improving the awareness, understanding, and perception of biosimilars, as well as the need for regulated regional real-world data generation and protocols to make biosimilars a viable and affordable treatment option for all patients. The consensus recommendations advocate the need for shared treatment decisions between rheumatologists and patients when considering biosimilars. They further recommend that confirmation of a biosimilar's efficacy and safety in a single indication is sufficient for extrapolation to other diseases for which the reference product has been approved. Finally, there is a need for pharmacovigilance and national health policies governing the adoption and prescription of biosimilars in clinical practice across the region.

CONCLUSIONS

These are the first consensus recommendations for the Gulf region based on a systematic literature review and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, integrating clinical evidence with clinical expertise to optimize decision making for the use of biosimilars in patients with inflammatory arthritis. They were formulated based on predominantly international data because of the limited regional data and therefore can be generalized to serve as recommendations for healthcare professionals in other parts of the world.

Comparison of safety and effectiveness between etanercept biosimilar LBEC0101 and reference in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in real-world data using the KURAMA cohort

OBJECTIVES

Biosimilars are anticipated to be widely used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), owing to their cost efficiency; LBEC0101 was the first etanercept (ETN) biosimilar approved in Japan. However, there are limited real-world data comparing its safety and effectiveness with those of a reference product.

METHODS

This study used data from the Kyoto University Rheumatoid Arthritis Management Alliance cohort, including patients with RA who received ETN therapy-ETN reference product (ETN-RP) or LBEC0101-between 2015 and 2021. Serum ETN levels were measured using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

The 1-year continuation rates of ETN-RP and LBEC0101 were 58.7% and 74.4%, respectively. Effectiveness of treatment was evaluated in 18 patients; both products significantly reduced the 28-joint RA disease activity score and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR). Moreover, to determine equivalence, we analysed 11 patients who switched from ETN-RP to LBEC0101; the DAS28-ESR and serum ETN levels before and after switching were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world cohort study confirmed that the biosimilar of ETN, LBEC0101, was comparable to the reference product in terms of continuation rate, effectiveness at initiation of introduction, and effect persistence before and after switching in clinical practice.

Investigation of treatment continuity, usefulness, and nocebo effect in switching from the original etanercept to its biosimilar in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A JET observational study in Japanese clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

To assess the usefulness and onset of nocebo effects after switching from the original etanercept (ETN) to a biosimilar (BS) in routine clinical practice at rheumatology clinics in Japan (13 sites).

METHODS

A total of 165 patients (87.0% women, age = 57.88 ± 15.07 years, and disease duration = 10.32 ± 7.71 years), whose low disease activity was maintained with the original ETN for ≥12 weeks, and who agreed to switch treatment to its BS, were included. The end-points were disease activity score 28 (DAS28)-C-reactive protein and DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed between the changes in DAS28-C-reactive protein and DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate >12 weeks before switching and >12 weeks after switching (P = 0.132 and 0.334, respectively). The treatment continuation rate during the 52 weeks after switching to BS was 97.3%. During this period, BS was discontinued in only four patients, and no nocebo effects were suspected in these four patients.

CONCLUSION

Switching from ETN to BS was effective even in routine clinical practice at rheumatology clinics in Japan, and no nocebo effects were observed. Sufficient explanations to patients by rheumatologists and the additional payment for drug costs between patients at hospital visits effectively improved the continuation rate without any nocebo effect.

Therapeutic advances in rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the most common immune mediated inflammatory diseases. People with rheumatoid arthritis present with pain, swelling, and stiffness that typically affects symmetrically distributed small and large joints. Without effective treatment, significant joint damage, disability, and work loss develop, owing to chronic inflammation of the joint lining (synovium). Over the past 25 years, the management of this condition has been revolutionized, resulting in substantially higher levels of disease remission and better long term outcomes. This improvement reflects a paradigm shift towards early and aggressive pharmacological intervention coupled with a proliferation in treatment choice, in turn related to enhanced pathobiological understanding and the advent of new drugs for rheumatoid arthritis. Following an overview of these developments from a historical perspective, and with a general audience in mind, this review focuses on newer, targeted treatments in an ever evolving landscape. The review highlights ongoing areas of debate and unmet need, including the proportion of patients with persistent, difficult-to-treat disease, despite recent advances. Also discussed are personalized, strategic approaches to individual patients, the role for imaging in clinical decision making, and the goal of sustained, drug free remission and disease prevention in the future.

Economic burden of multiple sclerosis in the United States: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is chronic progressive disease that poses a significant economic burden to patients and health care systems in the United States. We conducted a systematic literature review to provide up-to-date insights on the economic burden of MS in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively review and summarize the latest published evidence on the economic burden of MS with a focus on cost, resource use, and work productivity.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using the Embase and Medline databases to identify studies, published between January 2011 and July 2022, reporting cost, resource use, or work productivity outcomes among people with MS in the United States. Clinical trials, economic modeling studies, and review articles were excluded. Details of eligible studies, including study design, patient population, and study outcomes for the overall population, as well as subgroups of interest, were extracted and summarized qualitatively.

RESULTS

Overall, 65 studies reporting cost, resource use, or work productivity data were included with majority of studies using claims data. The direct costs associated with MS ranged from $16,614 (2006) to $72,744 (2017) per patient per year with diseasemodifying therapies (DMTs) being the major cost contributors accounting for 43%-78%. The indirect costs reported ranged from $9,122 (2017) to $30,601 (2011) per patient per year with absenteeism, early retirement, and informal care being the key drivers for indirect costs. Costs, resource use, and work impairment were significantly higher for patients with severe disability compared with those with mild disability. Pharmacy costs were the major cost drivers in patients with mild, moderate, and severe disability. Similarly, patients with relapses incurred significantly higher costs, resource use, and work impairment compared with those without relapses. Additional hospitalization charges were the major driver of higher costs in patients who experienced relapses compared with those without relapses.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct costs, particularly DMTs, appear to be the major cost drivers for people with MS in the United States. Availability of lower-cost therapies may considerably decrease the economic burden on these patients and the health care systems. Future research focusing on indirect costs, intangible costs, and their contributors would contribute to further understanding of economic burden to avoid underestimation of the financial burden experienced by the patients.

Consensus statement on the use of biosimilar drugs in immune-mediated diseases in Spain

OBJECTIVE

To improve knowledge about biosimilar medicines and to generate a consensus framework on their use.

METHODS

Qualitative study. A multidisciplinary group of experts in biosimilar medicines was established (1dermatologist, 1hospital pharmacist, 1rheumatologist, and 1gastroenterologist) who defined the sections and topics of the document. A narrative literature review was performed in Medline to identify articles on biosimilar medicines. Systematic reviews, controlled, pre-clinical, clinical, and real-life studies were selected. Based on the results of the review, several general principles and recommendations were generated. The level of agreement was tested in a Delphi that was extended to 66 health professionals who voted from 1 (totally disagree) to 10 (totally agree). Agreement was defined if at least 70% of the participants voted ≥7.

RESULTS

The literature review included 555 articles. A total of 10 general principles and recommendations were voted upon. All reached the level of agreement established. The document includes data on the main characteristics of biosimilar medicines (definition, development, approval, indication extrapolation, interchangeability, financing, and traceability); published evidence (biosimilarity, efficacy, effectiveness, safety, immunogenicity, efficiency, switch); barriers and facilitators to its use; and data on information for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Authorized biosimilar medicines meet all the characteristics of quality, efficacy, and safety. They also significantly help improve patient access to biological therapies and contribute to health system sustainability.

Budget impact analysis and treatment availability with biosimilar TNF inhibitors in rheumatic diseases in Poland: real-world evidence using a nationwide database

OBJECTIVES

Although several years have passed since biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs were introduced to the market, considerable disparities in access still remain. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) have proven to be highly effective and safe for treating patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). The emergence of biosimilars is promising for cost reduction and more equitable, widespread access.

METHODS

A retrospective budget impact analysis based on final drug prices was conducted using 12 687 treatment courses for infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab. Estimated and real-life savings for public payer were calculated from an 8-year perspective of TNFi use. Data on the treatment cost and on the evolution in the number of patients treated was provided.

RESULTS

From a public payer perspective, the estimated total savings amount to over €243 million for TNFi, with over €166 million attributed to treatment cost reduction in RMDs. Real-life savings were calculated as €133 million and €107 million, respectively. The rheumatology sector generated between 68% and 92% of total savings across models, depending on the adopted scenario. The overall decrease in mean annual cost of treatment ranged between 75% and 89% in the study frame. If all budget savings were spent on reimbursement of additional TNFi, a hypothetical total of almost 45 000 patients with RMDs could be treated in 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first nation-level analysis that shows estimated and real-life direct cost-savings for TNFi biosimilars. Transparent criteria for reinvesting savings should be developed on both a local and an international levels.

Biosimilar SB11 versus reference ranibizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 1-year phase III randomised clinical trial outcomes

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To provide longer-term data on efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics (PK) of ranibizumab biosimilar SB11 compared with the reference ranibizumab (RBZ) in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

METHODS

Setting: Multicentre. Design: Randomised, double-masked, parallel-group, phase III equivalence study. Patient population: ≥50 years old participants with nAMD (n=705), one 'study eye'.

INTERVENTION

1:1 randomisation to monthly intravitreal injection of 0.5 mg SB11 or RBZ. Main outcome measures: Visual efficacy endpoints, safety, immunogenicity and PK up to 52 weeks.

RESULTS

Baseline and disease characteristics were comparable between treatment groups. Of 705 randomised participants (SB11: n=351; RBZ: n=354), 634 participants (89.9%; SB11: n=307; RBZ: n=327) completed the study until week 52. Previously reported equivalence in primary efficacy remained stable up to week 52 and were comparable between SB11 and RBZ. The adjusted treatment difference between SB11 and RBZ in full analysis set at week 52 of change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity was -0.6 letters (90% CI -2.1 to 0.9) and of change from baseline in central subfield thickness was -14.9 µm (95% CI -25.3 to -4.5). The incidence of ocular treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (SB11: 32.0% vs RBZ: 29.7%) and serious ocular TEAE (SB11: 2.9% vs RBZ: 2.3%) appeared comparable between treatment groups, and no new safety concerns were observed. The PK and immunogenicity profiles were comparable, with a 4.2% and 5.5% cumulative incidence of antidrug antibodies up to week 52 for SB11 and RBZ, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer-term results of this study further support the biosimilarity established between SB11 and RBZ.

Interchangeability and adverse events in originator-rituximab and its biosimilar (CT-P10) among rheumatic patients: a real-life experience

Biosimilars offer cost-effective and safe treatment options both for patients and healthcare systems. CT-P10 is the first biosimilar of rituximab approved in Europe for use in all indications of originator rituximab (oRTX). This study aimed to provide real-life data on treatment changes and adverse events in patients who received oRTX or CT-P10. We retrospectively reviewed treatment-related adverse events [infusion-related reactions (IRRs), infections, hypogammaglobulinemia] in patients treated with at least one dose of oRTX (MabThera^®) or CT-P10 (Truxima^®) between 2020 and 2021 and had at least 6 months follow-up after rituximab infusion in a rheumatology clinic. The switches between oRTX and CT-P10 were performed according to drug availability at the hospital pharmacy at the time of infusion according to the local hospital procedure. Physicians were not involved in the decision of biosimilar selection. A total of 128 patients (CT-P10, n = 64; oRTX, n = 64) were included. CT-P10 was switched in 52 (40.6%) patients who had previously used oRTX, and 48 (37.5%) patients remained on oRTX. We demonstrated no difference between patients treated with oRTX or CT-P10 in the rates of IRRs, in which all reactions were grade 1 and 2. Comparable rates of infections (p > 0.05) and the rate of hypogammaglobulinemia (p > 0.05) were found in both groups with no significant difference. CT-P10 provides a safe treatment alternative in patients who require rituximab therapy. The rational use of biosimilars can be supported by evolving evidence on interchangeability and switching in real-life settings, which will help clinicians in decision-making.

Lower injection-site reactions and long-term safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of etanercept biosimilar YLB113: Results from a post-hoc analysis of a double-blind, randomized, phase III comparative study and its open-label extension in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

AIM

YLB113 biosimilar was evaluated in an open-label extension single-arm study to assess long-term safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We also report post-hoc results on the incidence of injection-site reactions (ISRs) and injection-site erythema (ISE) from a phase III study.

METHOD

Participants from the phase III, double-blind, randomized, 96 week equivalence study who completed the final visit received 50 mg YLB113 subcutaneously every 2 weeks. Key safety end points were assessed through adverse events (AEs), ISRs, ISE, and anti-drug antibody (ADA) incidence. The efficacy end point was change from baseline in Disease Activity Score 28-joint count (DAS28) over time.

RESULTS

Of 201 participants, 184 (91.5%) completed the study. Treatment-emergent AEs were experienced by 93.5% and severe AEs by 10.0% of participants. The discontinuation rate due to AEs was 2.0%. Overall, 20.0% of participants reported an incidence of ISRs throughout the open-label extension study. Two participants developed ADAs, and none developed neutralizing ADAs at any time after study drug administration. The overall DAS28 (mean ± SD) change was 2.22 ± 0.95 at the study transition, 2.10 ± 0.91 at week 72, and 2.06 ± 0.89 at the end of the study. In the post-hoc analysis, YLB113 showed a statistically significant lower incidence of ISRs (10 [3.8%], P < 0.0001) and ISE (5 [1.9%], P < 0.0001) compared with the reference product Enbrel®.

CONCLUSION

YLB113 demonstrated long-term safety and sustained efficacy for up to 96 weeks. Patients on YLB113 experienced significantly lower ISRs and ISE in a post-hoc analysis of the phase III study when compared with reference product.

Continuous effectiveness and safety after a hospital-wide switch to adalimumab biosimilar: An observational study in rheumatoid arthritis patients

The objective of this study was to examine the maintenance of effect and safety after a hospital-wide switch for economic reasons from adalimumab originator Humira® to biosimilar Amgevita® in real-world rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and patient satisfaction with the switch. We conducted a single-center retrospective observational study of RA patients on the course of their disease activity (DAS28, ESR, and CRP), health-related quality of life (SF-36), and functional disability (HAQ-DI) before and up to 1 year after the switch, supplemented with a cross-sectional survey on satisfaction and experienced side effects approximately 18 months after the switch. Treatment outcomes were analyzed with linear mixed modeling and generalized estimating equations. Of 52 RA patients sufficient data were available. Disease activity levels, the proportion of patients in remission, and SF-36 and HAQ-DI scores did not significantly change from before the switch. Overall, patients were satisfied with the switch. Three patients (7.9%) stopped the biosimilar due to side effects. In conclusion, switching to the adalimumab biosimilar did not result in increased disease activity or worse patient-reported outcomes. Also, there was no apparent evidence of increased side effects. Patients themselves were mostly satisfied with the switching experience.

Systematic Review on the Use of Biosimilars of Trastuzumab in HER2+ Breast Cancer

Trastuzumab is a monoclonal antibody used in the treatment of breast cancer in cases where the tumor overexpresses the HER2 receptor, a cell membrane receptor activated by the epidermal growth factor. Intravenous and subcutaneous administration of trastuzumab have comparable clinical and pharmacological characteristics, but trastuzumab biosimilars are currently only available in intravenous form. Trastuzumab biosimilars are ultimately preferred by a proportion of patients, especially in cases where co-administration of other chemotherapeutic agents, such as trastuzumab and tucatinib, a small molecule of tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is required in patients with HER-positive metastatic breast cancer. Oncologists should be well-aware of the advantages of intravenously administered trastuzumab biosimilars over subcutaneous administration, certainly also taking into account the patient’s preferences. Further cost-effectiveness analyses will be very important, along with expectations regarding successful concomitant subcutaneous administration of trastuzumab with other anticancer drugs, such as pertuzumab. This systematic review describes and analyzes the so-far published studies concerning the use of the available trastuzumab biosimilars in HER-positive early and metastatic breast cancer in terms of efficacy, safety, and cost–benefit ratio. An attempt was also made to draw some conclusions and to comment on future needs and perspectives.

Switching Between Adalimumab Reference Product and BI 695501 in Patients with Chronic Plaque Psoriasis (VOLTAIRE-X): A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

BI 695501 is an FDA-approved biosimilar to adalimumab reference product (RP). VOLTAIRE-X was a randomized clinical trial to assess outcomes with a biosimilar monoclonal antibody in line with the FDA requirements for designation as an ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess whether multiple switches between adalimumab RP and BI 695501 lead to equivalent pharmacokinetics and a similar safety and immunogenicity profile compared with continuous adalimumab RP.

Methods

We conducted a phase III, double-blind, randomized controlled trial between July 19, 2017, and April 16, 2019. There were 49 investigational sites across Europe and North America. Of 323 screened patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis, 259 were treated with adalimumab RP during the run-in period. Of these, 118 and 120 were randomized to the continuous or switching arms, respectively. Interventions consisted of a run-in period with adalimumab RP 80 mg subcutaneously (SC) on Day 1, then 40 mg SC every other week (EOW) Weeks 2–12. Patients were then randomized to receive adalimumab RP 40 mg EOW Weeks 14–48 (continuous arm) or BI 695501 40 mg Weeks 14 and 16, adalimumab RP 40 mg Weeks 18 and 20, and BI 695501 40 mg EOW Weeks 22 to 48 (switching arm); all interventions were given SC. Primary endpoints were pharmacokinetics parameters, area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC_τ,30–32) and maximum observed drug plasma concentration (C_max,30–32), measured after the third switch during the Week 30–32 dosing interval.

Results

238 patients (mean [standard deviation] age 44.9 [13.8]; 66.0% male) were treated in the switching (n = 118) or continuous arms (n = 120). Adjusted mean C_max,30–32 was 7.08 and 7.00 μg/mL in the switching and continuous treatment arms, respectively; adjusted mean AUC_τ,30–32 was 2025.8 and 1925.9 μg h/mL. Point estimate for mean ratio for AUC_τ,30–32 was 105.2% (90.2% confidence interval [CI] 96.6–114.6), and 101.1% (90.2% CI 93.3–109.7) for C_max,30–32. Both CIs were within a predefined bioequivalence range of 80.0–125.0%. Treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation in 0.8% and 1.7% of patients in the switching and continuous treatment arms, and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores were highly similar in the two arms across the entire trial period.

Conclusions

Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated, with highly similar efficacy and immunogenicity, and comparable safety observed in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who received either adalimumab RP continuously or who switched between adalimumab RP and BI 695501.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03210259 (registered July 2017); Eudract.ema.europa.eu: 2016-002254-20.

Video abstract

The cost savings of biosimilars can help increase patient access and lift the financial burden of health care systems

BACKGROUND

Biologics have provided improved clinical benefits to patients, but they come at a huge expense due to the high costs associated with their development and manufacturing. Biosimilars, which have been clinically studied and have demonstrated to be efficacious and safe, are more cost-effective versions of biologics, however, their uptake has been slow in the United States (US) compared to in the European Union (EU).

OBJECTIVES

In this analysis, we review the challenges to increased biosimilar use in the US and the successful strategies employed to increase biosimilar uptake in the EU.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater utilization of biosimilars in the US is an achievable goal but the federal government, pharmaceutical companies, and medical associations/institutions will need to work together to address patient and physician concerns and to remove incentives for using more expensive treatment options.

Effectiveness, safety and economic analysis of Benepali in clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness, safety and cost of Etanercept biosimilar in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared to the standard drug in real clinical practice.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective observational study. Case series of 138 patients with RA, SpA or PsA treated with at least one dose of Benepali® (n = 79) or Enbrel® (n = 59). Drug retention time was the primary efficacy endpoint compared to the biosimilar and the original. The proportion of patients achieving low disease activity or remission after 52 weeks was used as the secondary outcome. Safety was assessed by means of the adverse effects incidence rate. A cost minimization analysis was performed.

RESULTS

No differences were observed regarding treatment retention time between drugs (median [95% confidence interval, 95% CI] at 12.0 months [10.2-12.0] for the biosimilar and 12.0 months [12.0-12.0] for the original). Similar improvements, in terms of inflammatory activity and physical function, were obtained after 52 weeks except for patients with SpA and PsA who, in general, experienced improvements of BASDAI and ASDAS with the original compared with the biosimilar. No significant differences were observed in the total number of adverse effects (.43 events/patient-years versus the biosimilar and .53 versus the original). Using the biosimilar in place of the original drug resulted in a net savings of 118,383.55 € (1,747.20 €/patient-years) for the hospital.

CONCLUSION

The biosimilar Benepali is as effective and safe as the original and much more cost-effective.

Fine Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety Between GB242 and Infliximab in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Phase III Study

INTRODUCTION

This phase III trial (NCT04178850) evaluated the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of GB242, an infliximab biosimilar, vs. infliximab (Remicade^®) reference product in patients with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) combination with methotrexate (MTX) therapy.

METHODS

Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either GB242 or INF (3 mg/kg). Therapeutic equivalence of clinical response according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response rate at week 30 was declared if the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was within ± 14%. The comparison of GB242 with INF also included the proportion of patients achieving a week 30 ACR 50 response, ACR70 response, change in Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28), as well as safety and immunogenicity.

RESULTS

A total of 570 subjects were randomized into GB242 (N = 285) or INF (N = 285) and 283 subjects in each group were analyzed. At week 30, the ACR20 was 62.54% for the GB242 group (95% CI 56.62-68.20%) and 56.89% for the INF group (95% CI 50.90-62.74%). The difference between the two groups was 5.65% with a 95% CI of - 2.48 to 13.74. ACR50 response was 37.12% for GB242 and 32.86% for INF at week 30. ACR70 response was 19.79% for GB242 and 16.96% for INF at week 30, respectively. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable (77.4% in GB242 vs. 80.2% in INF) and detection of antidrug antibodies (ADA) to infliximab up to week 30 (60.8% in GB242 vs. 59.4% in INF) was comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

GB242 demonstrated equivalent efficacy to INF at week 30. Moreover, GB242 was well tolerated, with a similar immunogenicity and safety profile comparable to INF.

Identification of Five Quality Needs for Rheumatology (Text Analysis and Literature Review)

Background: While the use of the term "quality" in industry relates to the basic idea of making processes measurable and standardizing processes, medicine focuses on achieving health goals that go far beyond the mere implementation of diagnostic and therapeutic processes. However, the quality management systems used are often simple, self-created concepts that concentrate on administrative processes without considering the quality of the results, which is essential for the patient. For several rheumatic diseases, both outcome and treatment goals have been defined. This work summarizes current mainstreams of strategies with published quality efforts in rheumatology. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were used to search for studies, and additional manual searches were carried out. Screening and content evaluation were carried out using the PRISMA-P 2015 checklist. After duplicate search in the Endnote reference management software (version X9.1), the software Rayyan QCRI (https://rayyan.qcri.org) was applied to check for pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Abstracts and full texts were screened and rated using Voyant Tools (https://voyant-tools.org/). Key issues were identified using the collocate analysis. Results: The number of selected publications was small but specific (14 relevant correlations with coefficients >0.8). Using trend analysis, 15 publications with relative frequency of keywords >0.0125 were used for content analysis, revealing 5 quality needs. The treat to target (T2T) initiative was identified as fundamental paradigm. Outcome parameters required for T2T also allow quality assessments in routine clinical work. Quality care by multidisciplinary teams also focusing on polypharmacy and other quality aspects become essential, A global software platform to assess quality aspects is missing. Such an approach requires reporting of multiple outcome parameters according to evidence-based clinical guidelines and recommendations for the different rheumatic diseases. All health aspects defined by the WHO (physical, mental, and social health) have to be integrated into the management of rheumatic patients. Conclusion: For the future, quality projects need goals defined by T2T based initiatives in routine clinical work, secondary quality goals include multidisciplinary cooperation and reduction of polypharmacy. Quality indicators and standards in different health systems will provide new information to optimize patients' care in different health systems.

Efficacy and Safety of Etanercept Biosimilars Compared With the Originator for Treatment of Juvenile Arthritis: A Prospective Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

Analysis of etanercept biosimilars in pediatric patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in comparison with the etanercept originator in terms of efficacy and safety.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with JIA who started treatment with either the etanercept originator or a biosimilar after January 1, 2017, were selected from the German BIKER registry (Biologics in Paediatric Rheumatology Registry). Furthermore, patients who started therapy with the originator and switched to a biosimilar during the course of therapy were identified. For both patient groups, disease activity and safety were examined and compared separately.

RESULTS

After January 1, 2017, 348 patients started treatment with the etanercept originator (n = 293) or a biosimilar (n = 55). Another 57 patients switched to a biosimilar during the course of therapy. A significant decrease or a stable remission of disease activity was observed in both patient groups. The safety profiles were comparable, and frequencies and types of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were similar in patients starting therapy with the originator or a biosimilar. Only injection site reactions occurred slightly more frequently under biosimilar therapy, without having an impact on therapy adherence. In patients who switched therapy, the AE rate per 100 patient-years was comparable before (26.4) and after (32.1) the switch.

CONCLUSION

In patients with JIA who require treatment with etanercept, the originator is still used much more frequently. However, our study highlights the equivalence of etanercept biosimilars for therapy for JIA. Increased use of these biosimilars in pediatric patients can therefore be recommended without hesitation.

Treatment journey in rheumatoid arthritis with biosimilars: from better access to good disease control through cost savings and prevention of nocebo effects

Early diagnosis and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are of critical importance to halt the progression of the disease. Optimal use of advanced imaging techniques or biomarkers may facilitate early diagnosis of RA. Even though many disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are available for RA treatment, biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) offer expanding therapeutic options and good outcomes in patients with RA who do not have a sufficient response to conventional synthetic DMARDs. However, high costs of bDMARDs have limited patient access to optimised disease management and increased the cost burden for healthcare systems. The advent of biosimilars led to significant cost savings driven by price competition among the reference products, which could be beneficial for healthcare systems. Healthcare provider (HCP)–patient communication and informed shared decision-making are crucial to prevent the occurrence of a nocebo effect, which results from negative perceptions that patients may have and could lead to less effective outcomes. Research has demonstrated that effective communication between HCPs and patients utilising positive framing can improve acceptance by patients to be initiated on or switched to a biosimilar and can help to integrate biosimilars into routine clinical practice to maximise benefits for patients with RA.

Biosimilars in chronic inflammatory diseases: facts and remaining questions 5 years after their introduction in Europe

INTRODUCTION

Five years after the launch of the first infliximab biosimilar, biologics have found their place in the treatment of chronic inflammatory conditions, but there are remaining questions. This is a review of the introduction of antibody biosimilars in Europe; the reasons for their success and how biosimilar hesitancy was quailed.

AREAS COVERED

We provide an overview of the concepts of biosimilarity, extrapolation, and interchangeability, using examples in rheumatology and gastroenterology for illustration. A review of the evidence collected from switching studies using robust designs is included. Remaining questions such as 'inter-switching' are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Biosimilars have democratized access to powerful medicines. Efficacy and safety studies provided reassuring data, but knowledge gaps persist. The availability of so-called 'bio-betters' might open new avenues and change clinical practice.

Evidence-based public policy making for medicines across countries: findings and implications for the future

Aim: Global expenditure on medicines is rising up to 6% per year driven by increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and new premium priced medicines for cancer, orphan diseases and other complex areas. This is difficult to sustain without reforms. Methods: Extensive narrative review of published papers and contextualizing the findings to provide future guidance. Results: New models are being introduced to improve the managed entry of new medicines including managed entry agreements, fair pricing approaches and monitoring prescribing against agreed guidance. Multiple measures have also successfully been introduced to improve the prescribing of established medicines. This includes encouraging greater prescribing of generics and biosimilars versus originators and patented medicines in a class to conserve resources without compromising care. In addition, reducing inappropriate antibiotic utilization. Typically, multiple measures are the most effective. Conclusion: Multiple measures will be needed to attain and retain universal healthcare.

Changes in the use patterns of bDMARDs in patients with rheumatic diseases over the past 13 years

The better understanding of the safety of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), as well as the emergence of new bDMARDs against different therapeutic targets and biosimilars have likely influenced the use patterns of these compounds over time. The aim of this study is to assess changes in demographic characteristics, disease activity and treatment patterns in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who started a first- or second-line biologic between 2007 and mid-2020. Patients diagnosed with RA, PsA or AS included in the BIOBADASER registry from January 2007 to July 2020 were included. According to the start date of a first- or second-line biologic therapy, patients were stratified into four time periods: 2007-2009; 2010-2013; 2014-2017; 2018-2020 and analyzed cross-sectionally in each period. Demographic and clinical variables, as well as the type of biologic used, were assessed. Generalized linear models were applied to study the evolution of the variables of interest over time periods, the diagnosis, and the interactions between them. A total of 4543 patients initiated a first biologic during the entire time frame of the study. Over the four time periods, disease evolution at the time of biologic initiation (p < 0.001), disease activity (p < 0.001), retention rate (p < 0.001) and the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors as a first-line treatment (p < 0.001) showed a significant tendency to decrease. Conversely, comorbidities, as assessed by the Charlson index (p < 0.001), and the percentage of patients using bDMARDs in monotherapy (p < 0.001), and corticosteroids (p < 0.001) tended to increase over time. Over the entire period of the study's analysis, 3289 patients started a second biologic. The following trends were observed: decreased DAS28 at switching (p < 0.001), lower retention rates (p = 0.004), and incremental changes to the therapeutic target between the first and second biologic (p < 0.001). From 2007 until now rheumatic patients who started a biologic were older, exhibited less clinical activity, presented more comorbidities, and switched to a different biologic more frequently and earlier.

Anti-TNF and immunosuppressive combination therapy is preferential to inducing clinical remission in patients with active inflammatory bowel disease: A systemic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of a combination therapy of biologics and immunosuppressants with biological monotherapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparison of the efficacy and safety of biologics and immunomodulators with biological monotherapy were identified from the EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases published up to 1 May 2020. Raw data were extracted, pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated, the fixed-effect and inverse variance models were used. Funnel plots were performed to analyze publication bias.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs were eligible for analysis. Overall, there was statistically a benefit for combination treatment over biologic monotherapy (IFX/ADA) in inducing clinical remission and preventing relapse in patients with IBD (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.98). Moreover, the combination therapy was superior to biological monotherapy for active CD (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.94). Also, there were significant benefits for combination therapy in the subgroup treated with infliximab (IFX) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy has slight benefits in inducing clinical remission in active CD compared with biological monotherapy. Patients with IBD who receive therapy with IFX and immunomodulator also have a mild advantage in comparison with those treated with IFX monotherapy.

Innovations Developed by Patients and Informal Caregivers for Needs Associated to Rheumatic Diseases

Until recently, innovation in healthcare was mainly achieved through the development of new drugs, therapies, and medical devices by big pharma and medtech companies; however, the innovative potential for this field is much broader. The patients and caregivers' role in healthcare is often associated with disease management, demand for their own illness data, and its exchange with other patients. However, the patients and caregivers' capacity to innovate to cope with limitations associated with their health condition is a growing phenomenon and starting to be supported by healthcare stakeholders to achieve a truly patient-centric system. Our previous research has shown that these uncommon innovators can develop a wide range of solutions, from simple adaptations and products to highly technological biomedical devices. In this paper, we present novel solutions developed by rheumatic patients, their caregivers, and collaborators, published on the “Patient Innovation” platform (https://patient-innovation.com/), with a focus on the innovator profile, the need that triggers the innovative process, the type of motivation behind the product, and the products developed. The most significant needs that motivate innovation are the will to increase the level of independence (71%) and to be able to perform daily routine activities (65%). In over 80% of cases, the fact that the market does not fully fulfill the needs felt during daily activities is the main motivation to innovate. It is thus concluded that there is room for innovation in rheumatic diseases with solutions developed by patients and informal caregivers that intend to solve needs that the healthcare market is not covering.

Safety and efficacy of rituximab biosimilar (CT-P10) in systemic sclerosis: an Italian multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

Recent data have shown a significant efficacy of rituximab (RTX) in SSc. An RTX biosimilar (RTX-B) is a more affordable option. We assessed the safety and efficacy of an RTX-B (CT-P10) in SSc.

METHODS

SSc patients treated with RTX-B with at least 6 months of follow-up were retrospectively identified from six Italian referral centres. SSc patients naïve to RTX-B (RTX-Bn) or already treated with RTX originator and switched to an RTX-B (RTX-Bs) were evaluated. A comprehensive assessment of disease characteristics and organ involvement at baseline and after 6 months was obtained.

RESULTS

Thirty-three SSc patients were selected: 29 (87.9%) females, mean age 51.6 years (s.d. 14.2), mean disease duration 9.8 years (s.d. 8.1); 21 (64.5%) with dcSSc, 20 (60.1%) anti-topoisomerase I, 7 (21.2%) anti-RNA polymerase III and 6 (18.2%) anti-centromere positive. Seventeen (51.5%) were RTX-Bn and 16 were on RTX-Bs (48.5%). RTX was introduced because of skin progression in 18 patients (54.5%), interstitial lung disease (ILD) worsening in 11 (33.3%) and arthritis in 12 (36.4%). All patients were previously treated with immunosuppressants. At RTX-B introduction, 21 (63.6%) patients were on concomitant immunosuppressants: 15 (71.4%) on MMF and 6 (28.6%) on MTX. Twenty-three (69.7%) were on low-dose steroids. After 6 months, a significant reduction of the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS), 28-joint DAS and CRP was observed (P = 0.002, 0.005 and 0.008, respectively); the mRSS significantly improved both in RTX-Bn (P < 0.024) and RTX-Bs patients (P < 0.031). No significant changes were observed for lung function tests, either in the entire cohort or in the subgroup of ILD patients. Only one RTX-Bs patient experienced transient neutropenia.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that RTX-B can represent a cheaper option in SSc patients, as it is effective in improving skin and joint involvement and in stabilizing lung function.

Marine-Derived Biologically Active Compounds for the Potential Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, systemic autoimmune disease with a prevalence rate of up to 1% and is significantly considered a common worldwide public health concern. Commercially, several traditional formulations are available to treat RA to some extent. However, these synthetic compounds exert toxicity and considerable side effects even at lower therapeutic concentrations. Considering the above-mentioned critiques, research is underway around the world in finding and exploiting potential alternatives. For instance, marine-derived biologically active compounds have gained much interest and are thus being extensively utilized to confront the confines of in practice counterparts, which have become ineffective for 21st-century medical settings. The utilization of naturally available bioactive compounds and their derivatives can minimize these synthetic compounds' problems to treat RA. Several marine-derived compounds exhibit anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties and can be effectively used for therapeutic purposes against RA. The results of several studies ensured that the extraction of biologically active compounds from marine sources could provide a new and safe source for drug development against RA. Finally, current challenges, gaps, and future perspectives have been included in this review.

Immunogenicity of biologic agents in rheumatology

Biologic agents have become a core component of therapeutic strategies for many inflammatory rheumatic diseases. However, perhaps reflecting the specificity and generally high affinity of biologic agents, these therapeutics have been used by rheumatologists with less consideration of their pharmacokinetics than that of conventional synthetic DMARDs. Immunogenicity was recognized as a potential limitation to the use of biologic agents at an early stage in their development, although regulatory guidance was relatively limited and assays to measure immunogenicity were less sophisticated than today. The advent of biosimilars has sparked a renewed interest in immunogenicity that has resulted in the development of increasingly sensitive assays, an enhanced appreciation of the pharmacokinetic consequences of immunogenicity and the development of comprehensive and specific guidance from regulatory authorities. As a result, rheumatologists have a greatly improved understanding of the field in general, including the factors responsible for immunogenicity, its potential clinical consequences and the implications for everyday treatment. In some specialties, immunogenicity testing is becoming a part of routine clinical management, but definitive evidence of its cost-effectiveness in rheumatology is awaited.

Immunogenicity of Biosimilars for Rheumatic Diseases, Plaque Psoriasis, and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Review from Clinical Trials and Regulatory Documents

The goal of this narrative review was to summarize immunogenicity data of biosimilars or biosimilar candidates for rheumatic diseases, plaque psoriasis, or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), available in peer-reviewed publications or regulatory documents. PubMed records and regulatory documents were searched for immunogenicity data of TNFα or CD20 inhibitor biosimilars or biosimilar candidates. Data collected included the proportion of patients positive for anti-drug antibodies (ADAbs), proportion with neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) among ADAb-positive patients, ADAb/nAb assay characteristics, cross-reactivity, and the effects of ADAbs on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and safety. We identified eight biosimilars or biosimilar candidates for adalimumab (BI 695501, SB5, ABP 501, GP2017, PF-06410293, MSB-11022, FKB-327, ZRC-3197) four for etanercept (SB4, GP2015, CHS-0214, LBEC0101), and three each for infliximab (SB2, CT-P13, GP1111) and rituximab (CT-P10, GP2013, PF-05280586) with immunogenicity data. Randomized, head-to-head trials with reference products varied in design and methodology of ADAb/nAb detection. The lowest proportions of ADAb-positive (0–13%) and nAb-positive patients (0–3%) were observed in the trials of etanercept and its biosimilars, and the highest with adalimumab, infliximab, and their biosimilars (ADAbs: ≤ 64%; nAbs: ≤ 100%). The most common method of ADAb detection was electrochemiluminescence, and ADAb positivity was associated with nominally inferior efficacy and safety. Overall, there were no significant immunogenicity differences between biosimilars and reference products. However, there are many discrepancies in assessing and reporting clinical immunogenicity. In conclusion, immunogenicity data of biosimilars or biosimilar candidates for TNFα or CD20 inhibitors were collected in trials that varied in design and procedures for ADAb/nAb detection. In general, immunogenicity parameters of biosimilars are similar to those of their reference products.

Efficacy and safety of a single switch from etanercept originator to etanercept biosimilar in a cohort of inflammatory arthritis

AntiTNF-α biosimilars are broadly available for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis. There are a lot of data concerning the maintenance of clinical efficacy after switching from originators to biosimilars; therefore, such a transition is increasingly encouraged both in the US and Europe. However, there are reports about flares and adverse events (AE) as a non-medical switch remains controversial due to ethical and clinical implications (efficacy, safety, tolerability). The aim of our work was to evaluate the disease activity trend after switching from etanercept originator (oETA-Enbrel) to its biosimilar (bETA-SP4/Benepali) in a cohort of patients in Turin, Piedmont, Italy. In this area, the switch to biosimilars is stalwartly encouraged. We switched 87 patients who were in a clinical state of stability from oETA to bETA: 48 patients were affected by Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA),26 by Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) and 13 by Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS).We evaluated VAS-pain, Global-Health, CRP, number of swollen and tender joints, Disease Activity Score on 28 joints (DAS28) for RA, Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) for PsA, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and Health Assessment Questionnaire for the spondyloarthropathies (HAQ-S),Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) for AS patients. 11/85 patients (12.6%) stopped treatment after switching to biosimilar etanercept. No difference was found between oETA and bETA in terms of efficacy. However, some arthritis flare and AE were reported. Our data regarding maintenance of efficacy and percentage of discontinuation were in line with the existing literature.

Explaining biosimilars and how reverse engineering plays a critical role in their development

INTRODUCTION

Biologicals are protein-based therapeutics consisting of larger and more complex structures than small molecule medicines. As the patents for originator biological therapeutics expire, biosimilar products are licensed for the same indications as their marketed reference biologics across different specialities. Owing to the complex nature of the manufacturing process for a biological therapy compared to conventional chemically synthetized medicines, the development of biosimilars is more complicated and costly than the manufacture of generic small molecules.

AREAS COVERED

The manufacturing process of the originator biologic is in most cases largely unknown to biosimilar developers and therefore reverse engineering through extensive analysis of the originator is a fundamental and critical step for successful biosimilar development. In this review, the authors examine the abbreviated roadmap for biosimilar approval which must be underpinned by the same rigorous standards that apply to all biological medicines. They discuss various aspects of biosimilar manufacturing with a focus on reverse engineering.

EXPERT OPINION

The biosimilar approval pathway places a greater emphasis on preclinical assessments in comparison to the development of originator biologics. Multiple comparative clinical studies add little to the confirmation of the efficacy of the molecule under study whilst adding considerably to the cost and time of bringing a biosimilar into clinical use. A successful demonstration of biosimilarity to the reference product is therefore essential at a structural and functional level but this could not be achieved without well-designed and quality-driven reverse engineering of the originator production process.

Switching from originator infliximab to biosimilar infliximab in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis achieving clinical remission (the IFX-SIRIUS study I): Study protocol for an interventional, multicenter, open-label, single-arm and noninferiority clinical trial with clinical, ultrasound, and biomarker assessments

BACKGROUND

The introduction of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) into clinical practice has dramatically improve the clinical outcomes of individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, bDMARDs are associated with high costs, which has resulted in restricted treatment access and a burden on medical insurance finances. Although biosimilars offer cost-saving, their effectiveness and safety must be established in Post-Marketing Surveillance (PMS). Infliximab (IFX), a chimeric monoclonal antibody to TNF-alpha, is the first bDMARD; its biosimilar, CT-P13, is the first biosimilar DMARD approved for RA treatment in Japan. We will evaluate whether switching from originator IFX to CT-P13 is not inferior for maintaining non-clinical relapse to continued treatment with originator IFX in RA patients achieving clinical remission.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study is an interventional, multicenter, open-label, single-arm against historical control and noninferiority clinical trial with a 24-week follow-up. Eighty RA patients who are treated by originator IFX for ≥24 weeks and are achieving clinical remission will be included. Patients will be switched to CT-P13 with the unchanged dosing regimen. We will evaluate disease activity by measuring clinical disease activity indices and by using musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS). The primary endpoint is the ratio of patients who experience a nonclinical relapse during the study period. Important secondary endpoints are the changes from the baseline of the MSUS scores. We will also comprehensively analyze the serum levels of many biomarkers such as cytokines and chemokines.

DISCUSSION

The study results are expected to show the noninferiority of switching to CT-P13 over the continuation of originator IFX. The strength of this study is its prospective evaluation of therapeutic efficacy using not only clinical disease activity indices but also MSUS to accurately and objectively evaluate disease activity at the joint level among patients drawn from multiple centers with a standardized evaluation by MSUS. We will explore whether parameters at baseline can predict a nonclinical relapse after switching from originator IFX to CT-P13 by integrating multilateral assessments, i.e., clinical disease activity indices, MSUS findings, and serum biomarkers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (https://jrct.niph.go.jp) on October 11, 2019 as jRCTs071190030.

SB4 in the Era of Biosimilars: Clinical Data and Real-World Experience

A biosimilar is a biological medicinal product that is highly similar to an already authorized original biological medicinal product. The introduction of biosimilars may allow for a reduction in health care costs, due to discount pricing. Current clinical studies and real-world data suggest that the biosimilar SB4 is equivalent to etanercept with respect to efficacy and safety. Additional real-world safety data for SB4 via pharmacovigilance studies are needed to draw conclusions regarding the risks of rare adverse events such as serious infections and malignancy. Clinical trial design of biosimilars should be standardised to improve consistency, increase confidence and facilitate interpretation of data. Where there are health economic advantages of switching from originator to biosimilar, patients should be appropriately informed, and, ideally, in order to minimise nocebo responses and maximise benefit, switching should be undertaken by shared decision-making between the physician and patient on a case-by-case basis.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Phase 1 Clinical Trial Comparing the Pharmacokinetic, Safety, and Immunogenicity of the Biosimilar HS016 and the Originator Adalimumab in Chinese Healthy Male Subjects

A comparison of the immunogenicity, safety, and pharmacokinetic properties of HS016 and its originator, adalimumab, was conducted in Chinese healthy male subjects. This was a phase 1 single‐center, randomized, parallel‐group double‐blind clinical trial. Chinese healthy male subjects (1:1) allocated to HS016 and adalimumab groups were treated with single subcutaneous injections (40 mg/0.8 mL). The pharmacokinetic equivalence of HS016 and adalimumab was assessed by (1) the area under the plasma concentration‐time curve (AUC) from time 0 to the last detectable drug concentration (AUC_0‐t), (2) the AUC from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC_0‐∞), and (3) the maximum plasma concentration (C_max). Other pharmacokinetic parameters (time to C_max, apparent clearance, and half‐life), safety, and immunogenicity were also evaluated. A total of 136 subjects were randomly divided into HS016 (n = 68) or adalimumab (n = 68) groups. The geometric means of AUC_0‐t, AUC_0‐∞, and C_max were similar for HS016 and adalimumab. The 90%CIs of AUC_0‐t (87.2% to 106.1%), AUC_0‐∞ (87.4% to 108.4%), and C_max (98.6% to 113.6%) were all within the prespecified bioequivalence criteria (80% to 125%). The incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was similar in both groups, with most TEAEs being mild; only 3 (4.4%) subjects in the HS016 group experienced moderate TEAEs. No significant differences in the time to C_max, apparent clearance, half‐life, and immunogenicity were detected. The pharmacokinetic profile of HS016 was equivalent to that of the originator, adalimumab, with similar safety and immunogenicity profiles. HS016 may be considered for assessment in the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

Biosimilars

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

The Cost-effectiveness of Initial Immunomodulators or Infliximab Using Modern Optimization Strategies for Crohn's Disease in the Biosimilar Era

BACKGROUND

Treatment cost, efficacy, and safety are integral considerations when optimizing management of Crohn's disease (CD). This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of initial immunomodulator and anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents for the treatment of CD from a US third-party perspective, incorporating current treatment algorithms, optimization strategies, and reduced costs availed by biosimilars.

METHOD

A 1-year Markov model was developed to simulate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of initial azathioprine, infliximab, and combination therapy for moderate to severe CD. Treatment was changed based on tolerability and clinical disease activity at 3-monthly intervals. Efficacy data were based on published literature.

RESULTS

Initial azathioprine had the lowest cost and utility ($35,337 and 0.63 QALYs), whereas combination therapy was the costliest yet conferred the highest health benefits ($57,638 and 0.67 QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness of infliximab and combination therapy compared with azathioprine were both in excess of $500,000 per QALY gained. Initial azathioprine remained the most cost-effective treatment on sensitivity analysis compared with infliximab and combination therapy, with 90% reductions in anti-TNF therapy costs and a 5-year time horizon, although combination therapy had an acceptable cost-effectiveness when costs were reduced in the extended model. Initial infliximab, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab were dominated by combination therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In the biosimilar era, initial azathioprine with escalation to infliximab appeared more cost-effective in the short term compared with infliximab or combination therapy, although initial combination therapy yields acceptable ICERs in the long term with continued reductions in anti-TNF therapy costs and will likely be the preferred treatment strategy in the future.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update

OBJECTIVES

To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field.

METHODS

An international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items.

RESULTS

The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high.

CONCLUSIONS

These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost.

Biosimilars to Antitumor Necrosis Factor Agents in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Anti- tumor Necrosis Factor (anti-TNF) agents are the backbone treatment of moderate to severe cases of inflammatory bowel disease. One of the main drawbacks of these agents is the high cost. The introduction of biosimilar products to anti-TNF agents is expected to lower the cost. Health care providers ought to be aware of the available data that addresses the safety and efficacy of biosimilars in IBD patients. This article outlines the current evidence-based data regarding the available biosimilar products, their safety, efficacy and how to deal with patients’ concerns.

Patterns of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor (TNFi) Biosimilar Use Across United States Rheumatology Practices

OBJECTIVE

It is unclear if biosimilars of biologics for inflammatory arthritis are realizing their promise to increase competition and improve accessibility. This study evaluates biosimilar tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) utilization across rheumatology practices in the United States and compares whether patients initiating biosimilars remain on these treatments at least as long as new initiators of bio-originators.

METHODS

We identified a cohort of patients initiating a TNFi biosimilar between January 2017 and September 2018 from an electronic health record registry containing data from 218 rheumatology practices and over 1 million rheumatology patients in the United States. We also identified a cohort of patients who initiated the bio-originator TNFi during the same period. We calculated the proportion of biosimilar prescriptions compared with other TNFi's and compared persistence on these therapies, adjusting for age, sex, diagnoses codes, and insurance type.

RESULTS

We identified 909 patients prescribed the biosimilar infliximab-dyyb, the only biosimilar prescribed, and 4413 patients with a new prescription for the bio-originator infliximab. Biosimilar patients tended to be older, have a diagnosis code for rheumatoid arthritis, and covered by Medicare insurance. Over the study period, biosimilar prescriptions reached a maximum of 3.5% of all TNFi prescriptions. Patients persisted on the biosimilar at least as long as the bio-originator infliximab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, P = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

The uptake of biosimilars in the United States remains low despite persistence on infliximab-dyyb being similar to the infliximab bio-originator. These results add to clinical studies that should provide greater confidence to patients and physicians regarding biosimilar use.

A Comparative Study to Assess the Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of YLB113 and the Etanercept Reference Product for the Treatment of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Introduction

YLB113 is a biosimilar of the reference product (RP), etanercept, under development for treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other approved indications. A phase 3 study was conducted in Europe, Japan, and India to compare the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of YLB113 with the RP over a treatment period of 52 weeks.

Methods

Overall, 528 patients with moderate-to-severe RA receiving concomitant methotrexate were randomized to receive a once-weekly, subcutaneous dose of 50 mg YLB113 or the RP. The primary endpoint was ACR20 response rate at week 24, with similarity confirmed if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for YLB113 and the RP was within the range of − 15 to 15%. Safety and immunogenicity endpoints were assessed to week 52.

Results

Based on the European analysis, in the full analysis set, ACR20 response at week 24 was 83.3% and 88.5% for YLB113 and the RP, respectively. Responses were within the predefined clinical equivalence margin. The sensitivity analysis in the per protocol set revealed a similar proportion of subjects exhibiting ACR20 response at week 24 between groups, with a difference of − 5.1% (95% CI − 11.07 to 0.81). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable between groups, and the incidence of antidrug antibody development to week 24 favored YLB113 (0.8 vs. 8.3%).

Conclusions

This study demonstrated biosimilarity of YLB113 to the RP regarding efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in patients with moderate-to-severe RA. Based on the same mechanism of action, biosimilarity could be extrapolated to other therapeutic indications approved for etanercept.

Trial registration

EudraCT Number: 2015-002,809-12.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40744-019-00186-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Clinical Implications of Nocebo Effects for Biosimilar Therapy

Nocebo effects encompass negative responses to inert interventions in the research setting and negative outcomes with active treatments in the clinical research or practice settings, including new or worsening symptoms and adverse events, stemming from patients' negative expectations and not the pharmacologic action of the treatment itself. Numerous personality, psychosocial, neurobiological, and contextual/environmental factors contribute to the development of nocebo effects, which can impair quality of life and reduce adherence to treatment. Biologics are effective agents widely used in autoimmune disease, but their high cost may limit access for patients. Biosimilar products have gained regulatory approval based on quality, safety, and efficacy comparable to that of originator biologics in rigorous study programs. In this review, we identified gaps in patients' and healthcare professionals' awareness, understanding, and perceptions of biosimilars that may result in negative expectations and nocebo effects, and may diminish their acceptance and clinical benefits. We also examined features of nocebo effects with biosimilar treatment that inform research and clinical practices. Namely, when biosimilars are introduced to patients as possible treatment options, we recommend adoption of nocebo-reducing strategies to avoid negative expectations, including delivery of balanced information on risk-benefit profiles, framing information to focus on positive attributes, and promoting shared decision-making processes along with patient empowerment. Healthcare professionals confident in their knowledge of biosimilars and aware of bias-inducing factors may help reduce the risk of nocebo effects and improve patients' adherence in proposing biosimilars as treatment for autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease.

Treatment retention of infliximab and etanercept originators versus their corresponding biosimilars: Nordic collaborative observational study of 2334 biologics naïve patients with spondyloarthritis

Objective

Although clinical trials support equivalence of originator products and biosimilars for etanercept and infliximab, real-world studies among biologics-naïve patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) are lacking. The objectives were to compare treatment retention in biologics-naïve patients with SpA starting either the originator product or a biosimilar of infliximab and etanercept, and to explore the baseline characteristics of these patients.

Methods

Patients with SpA (ankylosing spondylitis/non-radiographical axial SpA/undifferentiated SpA), starting infliximab or etanercept as their first-ever biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug during January 2014–June 2017 were identified in five Nordic biologics–rheumatology registers. Baseline characteristics were retrieved from each registry; comorbidity data were identified through linkage to national health registers. Country-specific data were pooled, and data on infliximab and etanercept were analysed separately. Comparisons of treatment retention between originators and biosimilars were assessed through survival probability curves, retention rates (2 years for infliximab/1 year for etanercept) and Hazard Ratios (HR).

Results

We included 1319 patients starting infliximab (24% originator/76% biosimilar), and 1015 patients starting etanercept (49% originator/51% biosimilar). Baseline characteristics were largely similar for the patients treated with the originators compared with the corresponding biosimilars. Survival probability curves were highly similar for the originator and its biosimilar, as were retention rates: infliximab 2-year retention originator, 44% (95% CI 38% to 50%)/biosimilar, 46% (95% CI: 42% to 51%); and etanercept 1-year retention originator, 66% (95% CI 61% to 70%)/biosimilar, 73% (95% CI 68% to 78%). HRs were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

This observational study of biologics-naïve patients with SpA from five Nordic countries showed similar baseline characteristics and very similar retention rates in patients treated with originators versus biosimilars, for both infliximab and etanercept, indicating comparable effectiveness in clinical practice.

Biological and synthetic target DMARDs in psoriatic arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic multi-faceted immune-mediated systemic disorder, characterized by articular, cutaneous, enthesis, nail and spine involvement. Articular manifestations of PsA are particularly common and highly disabling for patients, while the heterogeneous clinical subsets of the disease are challenging for clinicians. In recent years, research has made many advances in understanding the pathogenesis of the disease from genetic, epigenetic and molecular points of view. New drugs are now available for the treatment of this condition, and, in particular, TNF-alfa inhibitors, historically the first biologicals approved in PsA, are now juxtaposed by new biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with different modes of action. Targeting IL-12/IL-23 p40 common subunit with ustekinumab, IL-17A with secukinumab and ixekizumab, T cells co-stimulation with abatacept, is now possible, safe and effective. Moreover, targeted synthetic molecules with oral administration are available, with the possibility to interfere with phosphodiesterase-4 and JAK/STAT pathways. Indeed, new drugs are under development, with the possibility to target selectively IL-17 receptor, IL-23, and other key molecular targets in the pathogenesis of this condition. In this narrative review, we provide an up-to-date overview of the current application of biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs in the field of PsA, with particular regard to the clinical significance of this possibility to target a higher number of distinct immune-pathways.

Rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Introduction: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by long-standing inflammation in multiple joints. Rituximab, a monoclonal antibody, which binds to CD20, is effective in suppressing disease activity and preventing joint damage in RA. CT-P10 was developed as a biosimilar of rituximab and approved for use to treat hematologic malignancies and immune diseases including RA. Area covered: This article describes the need for this biosimilar and summarizes the non-clinical studies verifying the physicochemical and biologic similarities and the clinical studies confirming the clinical similarity of CT-P10 to rituximab in patients with RA. Expert opinion: CT-P10 had been evaluated and proven the efficacy and safety in RA in Phase I and III randomized controlled trial with extension studies including a switching regimen. Therefore, CT-P10 is recommended in the treatment of RA.