Long-term follow-up after switching from originator infliximab to its biosimilar CT-P13: the weight of nocebo effect

Patients' Perceptions of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically summarize and evaluate the findings of existing studies about patients' perceptions of biosimilars by assessing their attitudes and knowledge.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of published studies concerning patients' perceptions of biosimilars, using databases of China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers screened a total of 2197 Chinese or English papers published between 1 January 2018, and 1 October 2022. We assessed the quality of the included studies by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were included in the review, with the majority originating from Europe (n = 22) and North America (n = 10). Of these studies, 37 were cross-sectional quantitative studies, three were quasi-experimental studies, and the remaining three were qualitative studies based on semi-structured interviews. The sample sizes of the included studies ranged from 9 to 6554 patients. Twenty-two out of 31 studies investigating patients' acceptance of biosimilars found that most participants expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars. However, doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway could negatively influence patients' attitudes. The majority of patients understood the economic advantages of biosimilars; however, some incorrectly connected lower prices with lower quality. Patients generally lacked knowledge about biosimilars. There were 6-51% of participants who were familiar with biosimilars, and 25-58% thought they did not know enough about biosimilars. Physicians, pharmacists, medicines agencies, academia, and patient associations were identified as the main sources of information on biosimilars for patients. Healthcare providers not informing or advising patients about switching may hinder patients from acquiring enough knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars, but limited knowledge continued to impede their perceptions. Doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway were identified as major factors that negatively influenced patients' attitudes towards biosimilars, while the impact of a price advantage was mixed. It is essential to maintain a focus on educating healthcare professionals about biosimilars, including their clinical outcomes and the regulatory pathway, which equips them to provide comprehensive and informed guidance to patients.

Influence of active versus placebo control on treatment responses in randomised controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether treatment effects of pharmaceutical compounds compared with placebo controls are systematically different to the effects of the same compounds compared with active treatment controls in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials.

METHODS

We systematically identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in RA, and matched active treatment arms with comparable regimens, populations, background therapy, and outcome reporting, by the nature of their control group (active comparator or placebo). Medline, EMBASE and CENTRAL were used to identify RCTs investigating disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug therapies until December 2021. Using mixed-model logistic regression we estimated OddsRatios (OR) for achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70% response at weeks 12 and 24. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Tool.

RESULTS

We screened 8328 studies and included 40 for analysis after detailed review of 590 manuscripts; unique compounds had significantly higher responses in active comparator trials compared with their effects observed in placebo controlled trials, with ORs of 1.67 (95% CI 1.46 to 1.91; p<0.001) for ACR20, 1.50 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.75; p<0.001) for ACR50 and 1.65 (95% CI 1.30 to 2.10; p<0.001) for ACR70 (week 12); corresponding ORs for ACR 20, 50, and 70 (week 24) were 1.93 (95% CI 1.50 to 2.48; p<0.001), 1.75 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.33; p<0.001) and 1.68 (95% CI 1.21 to 2.34; p<0.001), respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed consistent results.

CONCLUSION

Placebo controlled trials lead to smaller effect sizes of active compounds in RCTs compared with the same compound in head-to-head trials. This difference may be explained by potential nocebo effects in placebo-controlled settings and needs to be considered when interpreting head-to-head and placebo-controlled trials, by patients, investigators, sponsors and regulatory agencies.

The Non-medical Switch from Reference Adalimumab to Biosimilar Adalimumab is Highly Successful in a Large Cohort of Patients with Stable Inflammatory Rheumatic Joint Diseases: A Real-Life Observational Study

Introduction

The adalimumab biosimilar (ADAbio) Amgevita® has a similar efficacy and safety profile as the adalimumab reference (ADA) Humira®. We studied the clinical consequences of a non-medical switch from ADA to ADAbio in adult patients with mainly established rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and spondyloarthritis (SpA).

Methods

Patients that received treatment with ADA for at least three months were switched to ADAbio. Data was collected retrospectively from 1 year before the switch up to 6 months after.

Results

A total of 603 patients were switched from ADA to ADAbio (switch group). During a 1-year follow-up, over 93% of all patients underwent a successful transition in terms of disease activity and safety from ADA to biosimilar, supporting the bioequivalence of both drugs in patients with stable inflammatory rheumatic joint diseases. Forty patients (6.6%) switched back to ADA (re-switch group). There were no objective changes in disease activity score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), or adverse effects before and after the switch between both groups.

Conclusions

In line with earlier reports, the transition to ADAbio went successful in the majority of patients with stable inflammatory rheumatic joint diseases. Patient-reported symptoms without objective signs that indicate a flare of disease activity after the switch to ADAbio are probably explained by nocebo effects. A pre-emptive approach to counteract nocebo effects and stimulate placebo response may have a positive impact on health outcomes for patients and preserve the economic benefits of cost savings that can be achieved by prescribing a biosimilar instead of the reference drug.

Influence of information provided prior to switching from Humira to biosimilar adalimumab on UK patients' satisfaction: a cross-sectional survey by patient organisations

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the perceptions and experiences of people with specific immune-mediated inflammatory diseases during the process of switching from Humira to biosimilar adalimumab.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

An anonymised, self-administered, web-based survey.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were drawn from members and non-members of either the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, Crohn's and Colitis UK, or Psoriasis Association. Birdshot Uveitis Society and Olivia's Vision also signposted to the survey links.

RESULTS

A total of 899 people living with various immune mediated inflammatory diseases participated in this survey. Thirty-four per cent of respondents reported poor overall satisfaction with their biosimilar adalimumab after the switch, associated with complaints related to the switching process including lack of shared decision making, scarcity of information provided by or signposted to by the department instigating the switch as well as lack of training with the new injection device. Where training with the new device had been provided, there were significantly reduced reports of pain when injecting the new biosimilar (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.55), side effects (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.47) and difficulty in using the new injection device (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41). Self-reported side effects were reduced by (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.38) when written information was provided by healthcare professionals and by (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.42) with provision of verbal information. Difficulty in using the new injection device was also reduced by provision of satisfactory information such as written documents (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.63) or by verbal communication with healthcare professionals (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.73). Finally, provision of satisfactory written or verbal information was associated with a reduction in any negative perception regarding symptom control with the new biosimilar by (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.57) and by (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.84), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient reported experiences of the process of switching from originator to biosimilar emphasise the importance of clear communication, training and information in order to optimise perception and maximise achievable outcomes with the new treatment.

A bio-what? Medical companions' perceptions towards biosimilars and information needs in rheumatology

Patient perceptions influence biosimilar uptake in non-mandatory transitions. Companions (support people) are often actively involved in the patient's medical journey and are likely to have unique perceptions of biosimilars, which may shape patient attitudes. This study explores the congruence between patient and companion perceptions towards biosimilars and their information needs. Patients taking bio-originators for rheumatic diseases (59% for rheumatoid arthritis) and their companions received an explanation about biosimilars. Participants (N = 78) completed questionnaires assessing their familiarity with biosimilars, perceptions, concerns, and benefits of being accompanied. Contingency tables and paired sample t-tests were used to explore differences in familiarity, confidence in knowledge, and perceptions. Intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the degree of congruence for perceptions towards biosimilars. Companions were significantly less familiar with biosimilars (p = 0.014, Cramer's V = 0.28) and reported lower confidence in their knowledge (p = 0.006, Cohen's d = 0.47) than patients. Companions and patients had moderate to good congruency for perceptions toward confidence in biosimilar use and safety, efficacy, and side-effect expectations (intra-class correlation coefficients ranging from 0.75 to 0.81). Companions and patients were most concerned about safety and effectiveness. Companions also reported concerns about cost savings driving the transition, while patients had concerns about uncertainty and testing. Patients reported the ability for discussion, improved understanding, and validation as benefits of being accompanied. Companions and patients have similar levels of perceptions and expectations towards biosimilars but report some unique information needs. Future educational interventions should involve companions and address their concerns to help improve biosimilar acceptance.

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.

The mode of delivery and content of communication strategies used in mandatory and non-mandatory biosimilar transitions: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Effective patient-provider communication is crucial to promote shared decision-making. However, it is unclear how to explain treatment changes to ensure patient acceptance, such as when transitioning from a bio-originator to a biosimilar. This review investigates communication strategies used to educate patients on transitioning to biosimilars and explores whether the willingness to transition and treatment persistence differs for the delivery (verbal or written) and the amount of information provided. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and relevant conference databases were systematically searched. Communication strategies from 33 studies (88% observational cohort studies) published from 2012 to 2020 were synthesized and willingness to transition, persistence, and subjective adverse events explored. Patients only received information verbally in 11 studies. The remaining 22 studies also provided written information. Cost-saving was the main reason provided for the transition. Patients were most willing to transition when receiving written and verbal information (χ² = 5.83, p = .02) or written information that only addressed a few (3-5) concerns (χ² = 16.08, p < .001). There was no significant difference for persistence or subjective adverse events (p's > .05). Few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. Available data shows more willingness to transition when patients received written and verbal information. Initial documents should contain basic information and consultations or telephone calls used to address concerns.

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

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

Retention Rate and Safety of Biosimilar CT-P13 in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Data from the Korean College of Rheumatology Biologics Registry

Objective

The aim was to evaluate long-term drug retention, discontinuation, efficacy and safety of CT-P13 and reference infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) enrolled in the Korean College of Rheumatology Biologics (KOBIO) registry.

Methods

Patients included adults with RA who received CT-P13 or reference infliximab between December 2012 and December 2017. Drug retention, efficacy (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints [DAS28]–erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR] or DAS28–C-reactive protein [CRP] and American College of Rheumatology [ACR] core set measure), and adverse events (AEs) were assessed over 4-years’ follow-up.

Results

Data from 199 RA patients (CT-P13: n = 147; reference infliximab: n = 52) were analyzed. Median treatment duration was 1.22 years for CT-P13 and 1.40 years for reference infliximab (p = 0.67). Overall, 82% of patients received first-line therapy. Drug retention of CT-P13 versus reference infliximab was comparable for the overall population (p = 0.84) and for first-line (p = 0.66) and subsequent treatment lines (p = 0.96). Treatment changes or discontinuations occurred in 65.2% of patients with CT-P13 and 69.6% with reference infliximab. The most common reason for treatment changes or discontinuing treatment was lack of efficacy (CT-P13: 31.9%; reference infliximab: 34.8%). CT-P13 demonstrated comparable improvements in DAS28-ESR, DAS28-CRP and ACR responses to reference infliximab. Overall, 19 grade 3 AEs were reported for CT-P13 and eight for reference infliximab.

Conclusion

Long-term data from patients with RA treated in routine clinical practice in Korea showed that CT-P13 had a comparable drug retention rate to reference infliximab, with similar efficacy and an acceptable safety profile.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT01965132.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-019-00393-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Nonmedical Switching From Originators to Biosimilars: Does the Nocebo Effect Explain Treatment Failures and Adverse Events in Rheumatology and Gastroenterology?

The act of nonmedical switching, defined as switching stable patients who are generally doing well with their current therapy from an originator biologic to its biosimilar, has been endorsed as a reasonable treatment strategy. The safety and efficacy of nonmedical switching have been evaluated in randomized controlled and real-world evidence studies, which have demonstrated that although many patients maintain treatment response after the switch, some patients experience therapy failure, resulting in therapy discontinuation. It has been postulated that the vast majority, if not all, of these treatment failures result from a "nocebo effect", defined as patients' negative expectations toward the therapy change. Reports suggest that the risk of a nocebo effect is higher following a mandated nonmedical switch. Although the nocebo effect is a well-recognized phenomenon in pain studies, evidence is limited in immune-mediated diseases primarily because it is difficult to quantify, especially retrospectively. In spite of this, numerous biosimilar studies in patients with immune-mediated diseases have concluded that nonmedical switching failures are due to a nocebo effect. The objective of this narrative review was to explore the reasons for nonmedical switch failure or discontinuation and the role of the nocebo effect among patients with inflammatory rheumatic and gastrointestinal diseases who switched from an originator biologic to its biosimilar.

Factors for starting biosimilar TNF inhibitors in patients with rheumatic diseases in the real world

Background

To identify factors for starting biosimilar TNF inhibitors (TNFI) in patients with rheumatic diseases.

Methods and finding

Using a national claims database, we identified patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who had used TNFIs since they were approved in Korea in 2004. We assessed changes in the proportion of each form of TNFI used between 2004 and 2017. We then selected patients starting on TNFIs between 2013 and 2017 to identify factors for starting biosimilars. In RA (n = 4,216), biosimilars were more likely to be initiated in clinics [odds ratio (OR) 2.54] and in the metropolitan area (OR, 2.02), but were less likely to be initiated in general hospitals (OR 0.40) or orthopedics (OR 0.44). In AS (n = 2,338), biosimilars were common at the hospital level (OR 2.20) and tended to increase over the years (OR 1.16), but were initiated less in orthopedics (OR 0.07). In addition, RA patients were more likely to initiate biosimilars in combination with methotrexate (OR 1.37), but biosimilars were not initiated frequently by patients with higher comorbidity scores (OR 0.97) or receiving glucocorticoids (OR 0.67). The patient factors favoring biosimilar in AS use were not clear.

Conclusions

In Korea, the proportion of biosimilar TNFIs has increased. Type of institution and physician specialty are more important than patient factors in affecting biosimilar use. In RA, biosimilar TNFIs tend to be initiated in combination with MTX, and are less likely to be initiated in patients taking glucocorticoids or in those with high comorbidities.

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.

Long-term efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis continuing on an etanercept biosimilar (LBEC0101) or switching from reference etanercept to LBEC0101: an open-label extension of a phase III multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study

Background

To evaluate the long-term efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of continuing LBEC0101; the etanercept (ETN) biosimilar; or switching from the ETN reference product (RP) to LBEC0101 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

This multicentre, single-arm, open-label extension study enrolled patients who had completed a 52-week randomised, double-blind, parallel phase III trial of LBEC0101 vs ETN-RP. Patients treated with ETN-RP during the randomised controlled trial switched to LBEC0101; those treated with LBEC0101 continued to receive LBEC0101 in this study. LBEC0101 (50 mg) was administered subcutaneously once per week for 48 weeks with a stable dose of methotrexate. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of LBEC0101 were assessed up to week 100.

Results

A total of 148 patients entered this extension study (70 in the maintenance group and 78 in the switch group). The 28-joint disease activity scores (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were maintained in both groups from week 52 to week 100 (from 3.068 to 3.103 in the maintenance group vs. from 3.161 to 3.079 in the switch group). ACR response rates at week 100 for the maintenance vs. switch groups were 79.7% vs. 83.3% for ACR20, 65.2% vs. 66.7% for ACR50 and 44.9% vs. 42.3% for ACR70. The incidence of adverse events and the proportion of patients with newly developed antidrug antibodies were similar in the maintenance and switch groups (70.0% and 70.5%, 1.4% and 1.3%, respectively).

Conclusions

Administration of LBEC0101 showed sustained efficacy and acceptable safety in patients with RA after continued therapy or after switching from ETN-RP to LBEC0101.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02715908. Registered 22 March 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-019-1910-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.