Cross-immunogenicity: antibodies to infliximab in Remicade-treated patients with IBD similarly recognise the biosimilar Remsima

Clinical experience of using biosimilars in Crohn's disease and their effectiveness

INTRODUCTION

The approval of biosimilars in the management of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) has offered an answer to a growing concern about healthcare costs, and availability of treatments. Several studies have been conducted to demonstrate proof of biosimilars effectiveness as treatment in Crohn's disease (CD).

AREAS COVERED

Since 2013, the European Medicines Agency has approved five biosimilars for infliximab and eight for adalimumab. Initial data leading to approval were extrapolated from studies conducted in patients with rheumatological or dermatological diseases, but recent studies filled the gap of clinical data among patients with IBD. In this review, 75 studies were included, with data from a total of 20 707 patients with CD. Clinical data on biosimilars in the treatment of CD show equivalence in terms of efficacy, either as induction or maintenance of treatment and regardless of previous exposure to originator or other biosimilar.

EXPERT OPINION

Since biosimilar market entry, utilization of infliximab increased by 89.9% and by 22.4% for adalimumab in European countries. With a 10-year insight since the first approval of biosimilar in Europe, biosimilars prescriptions should be implemented in routine clinical practice given the efficacy and safety profile.

Evaluating the Efficacy of Infliximab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review of the Literature

The introduction of steroid therapy in 1955 markedly decreased the mortality rate of severe ulcerative colitis (UC) from 24% in the placebo group to 7%, and it is currently less than 1% in specialist centers. Despite this advancement, the response of severe UC to steroids has stagnated over the past 50 years, with a high rate of colectomy persisting for severe to moderately severe cases. Infliximab (IFX) (Remicade, Centocor Inc., Malvern, PA, United States), an intravenously administered chimeric monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 antibody targeting tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), has shown efficacy in numerous randomized controlled trials for treating moderate to severe and fistulizing Crohn's disease, particularly in patients unresponsive to conventional therapies. This led to its approval by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1998 for treating active and fistulizing Crohn's disease. Most clinical research on IFX has focused on Crohn's disease, which is characterized as a Th1-type condition driven by pro-inflammatory cytokines like TNF-α. Conversely, UC has traditionally been viewed as a Th2-type condition where TNF-α plays a lesser role. However, recent studies indicate that TNF-α might also contribute to the pathogenesis of UC. These findings highlight the necessity for larger randomized controlled trials to further investigate the benefits of therapies like IFX, with the ultimate goal of improving treatment outcomes and quality of life for patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Clinical efficacy and nocebo effect following non-medical biosimilar switch in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate clinical efficacy, biomarker activity, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), adverse events (AEs), and nocebo effect in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients who underwent non-medical biosimilar switching.

METHODS

A prospective observational study of consecutive IBD patients who underwent biosimilar switch. Disease activity, biomarkers, TDM, and AEs, including the nocebo effect were captured 8 weeks before switch, at the time of switch (baseline),12 and 24 weeks after the switch.

RESULTS

210 patients were included [81.4% had Crohn's disease (CD), the median age at inclusion: 42 years (IQR 29-61)]. There was no significant difference in the rates of clinical remission at week 8 before switch, baseline, week12, and 24 after switch: 89.0%,93.4%,86.3%,and 90.8%,p = 0.129. The biomarker remission rates were not significantly different; CRP:81.3%,74.7%,81.2%,73.0%,p = 0.343; fecal calprotectin: 78.3%,74.5%,71.7%,76.3%,p = 0.829. The rates of maintaining therapeutic levels (84.7%,83.9%,83.0%,85.3%,p = 0.597) and prevalence of positive anti-drug antibodies remained unchanged. Drug persistence at 12 week of switch was 97.1%, regardless of disease phenotype and originator. The nocebo effect was observed in 13.3%. The discontinuation rate was 4.8%.

CONCLUSION

Despite a significant number of early nocebo complaints within the first 6 months after the biosimilar switch, no significant changes were found in clinical efficacy, biomarkers, therapeutic drug level, or anti-drug antibodies.

Future Evolution of Biosimilar Development by Application of Current Science and Available Evidence: The Developer's Perspective

Biosimilars have been available in the USA for over a decade, and in Europe for almost two decades. In that time, biosimilars have become established in the treatment landscape for a wide range of diseases, facilitating patient access and affordability of healthcare. However, patients can still struggle to access biological therapies in some markets. There is a need to streamline the process of developing biosimilars without compromising their quality, safety, or efficacy. This opinion piece considers the efficiencies that could be achieved within the biosimilar approval process. In clinical trials for biosimilars, clinical efficacy endpoints have been shown to be less sensitive measures of biosimilarity than biochemical, biophysical, and biological functional assays. Additional clinical efficacy studies comparing potential biosimilars and reference products do not add information that is useful for regulatory purposes. Large clinical studies of biosimilars with immunogenicity endpoints are of limited value, given the quality control processes in place for all biologics, including biosimilars. The expectation for multiple-switch studies for US interchangeability designation should be reconsidered immediately, and the category should be eliminated in the future. As biosimilars are typically approved globally based on a single set of clinical trials, and all subsequent manufacturing changes are already carefully monitored by regulatory authorities, comparative pharmacokinetic testing of EU and US reference products is unnecessary. Manufacturers and regulators could take greater advantage of existing real-world evidence. Streamlining biosimilar development would enable biosimilar development of more and a wider variety of biological drugs, accelerating biosimilar development without impacting patient safety or effectiveness.

Development of Antibodies to Ustekinumab Is Associated with Loss of Response in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Monitoring of anti-drug antibodies in patients on ustekinumab is not routinely recommended in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) due to low rates of immunogenicity.

AIM OF STUDY

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between anti-drug antibodies detected by a drug-tolerant assay and loss of response (LOR) to therapy in a cohort of patients with IBD being treated with ustekinumab.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study consecutively enrolled all adult patients with moderate to severe active IBD who had at least 2 years of follow-up after ustekinumab was initiated. LOR was defined as CDAI > 220 or HBI > 4 for Crohn's disease (CD) and partial Mayo subscore > 3 for ulcerative colitis (UC) and with a modification in disease management.

RESULTS

Ninety patients were included (78 CD and 12 UC; mean age 37 years). Median levels of anti-ustekinumab antibodies (ATU) were significantly higher in patients with LOR compared to those with ongoing clinical response (15.2 µg/mL-eq CI (7.9-21.5) and 4.7 µg/mL-eq CI (2.1-10.5), respectively; p = 0.04). The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) for ATU in predicting LOR was 0.76. The optimal cut-off point for identifying patients with LOR was 9.5 µg/mL-eq with a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 85%. Uni- and multivariate analyses showed that serum ATU ≥ 9.5 µg/mL-eq (hazard ratio (HR) 2.54, 95%CI (1.80-5.93)), p = 0.022, prior vedolizumab (HR 2.78, 95%CI (1.09-3.34), p = 0.019) and prior azathioprine (HR 0.54, 95%CI (0.20-0.76), p = 0.014) exposures were the only factors independently associated with LOR to UST.

CONCLUSION

In our real-life cohort, ATU was identified as an independent predictor of LOR to ustekinumab in patients with IBD.

Effectiveness of golimumab intensification in ulcerative colitis: A multicentric prospective study

INTRODUCTION

Loss of response to golimumab occurs in nearly 40% of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Unlike others anti-TNF, no study has reported a correlation between serum golimumab level and response to drug intensification. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of golimumab intensification and to identify the best threshold of serum golimumab before drug intensification predictive of response.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included all consecutive patients with active UC with loss of response to golimumab in a prospective multicentric cohort study. Patients with loss of response at 50 mg q4 weeks (W) and 100 mg q4W underwent therapeutic intensification at 100 mg q4W and 100 mg q2W, respectively. Effectiveness and safety were assessed between Weeks 2 and 4 (visit 2) and between Weeks 4 and 8 (visit 3) after intensification. Serum level and anti-golimumab antibodies were evaluated at each medical visit (Lisa Tracker, Theradiag France).

RESULTS

A total of 47 UC patients (Female, 50%; median age, 39 years (IQR, 27-52)) treated with golimumab for a median of 20.4 weeks (IQR, 10.7-38.3) were included. The median partial Mayo score was 6 (IQR, 5-7), and the median endoscopic Mayo score was 3 (IQR, 2-3). The median golimumab serum level before intensification was 2.23 μg/mL (IQR, 1.02-3.96) and only one patient (2.1%) had anti-drug antibodies. At Visit 2 (Week 2-4), 40% patients experienced clinical response, 10% clinical remission, 33% endoscopic response and 23% endoscopic remission. At Visit 3 (Week 4-8), 44% of patients had clinical response, 22% of patients had clinical remission, 45% of patients had endoscopic response, and 41% of patients had endoscopic remission. The median golimumab levels before intensification do not differ between responders and non-responders (2.13 μg/ml (0.76-2.76) and 3.37 μg/ml (IQR, 1.08-4.67), respectively; p = 0.14) assessed at Visit 3. Golimumab intensification to 100 mg q4W (vs q2W) (OR 1.98, 95% CI [1.06-3.70]; p = 0.032) was significantly associated with clinical remission at Visit 3. Serum drug level at baseline or the presence of antidrug antibodies were not associated with clinical or endoscopic remission/response. Two serious adverse events (one infection and one UC flare) were reported during the 24-week follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In this prospective multicentric study, half of patients recaptured response following golimumab intensification in UC. Therapeutic drug monitoring did not predict response after optimisation of golimumab.

Biosimilars in Oncology: Latest Trends and Regulatory Status

Biologic-based medicines are used to treat a variety of diseases and account for around one-quarter of the worldwide pharmaceutical market. The use of biologic medications among cancer patients has resulted in substantial advancements in cancer treatment and supportive care. Biosimilar medications (or biosimilars) are very similar to the reference biologic drugs, although they are not identical. As patent protection for some of the most extensively used biologics begins to expire, biosimilars have the potential to enhance access and provide lower-cost options for cancer treatment. Initially, regulatory guidelines were set up in Europe in 2003, and the first biosimilar was approved in 2006 in Europe. Many countries, including the United States of America (USA), Canada, and Japan, have adopted Europe's worldwide regulatory framework. The use of numerous biosimilars in the treatment and supportive care of cancer has been approved and, indeed, the count is set to climb in the future around the world. However, there are many challenges associated with biosimilars, such as cost, immunogenicity, lack of awareness, extrapolation of indications, and interchangeability. The purpose of this review is to provide an insight into biosimilars, which include various options available for oncology, and the associated adverse events. We compare the regulatory guidelines for biosimilars across the world, and also present the latest trends and challenges in medical oncology both now and in the future, which will assist healthcare professionals, payers, and patients in making informed decisions, increasing the acceptance of biosimilars in clinical practice, increasing accessibility, and speeding up the health and economic benefits associated with biosimilars.

The Sincerest Form of Flattery? Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

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

Discontinuation and Switchback After Non-Medical Switching from Originator Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha (TNF) Inhibitors to Biosimilars: A Meta-Analysis of Real-World Studies from 2012 to 2018

INTRODUCTION

To examine the prevalence rates of biosimilar discontinuation and switchback to the originator tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) inhibitors following non-medical switch (NMS) in patients.

METHODS

Real-world studies reporting biosimilar discontinuation and switchback rates following NMS published between January 2012 and August 2018 were identified through a systematic literature review. A meta-analysis estimated the annualized discontinuation and switchback rates. A subsequent meta-analysis assessed annualized incremental discontinuation rate among studies reporting both discontinuation rates in patients who underwent an NMS (switchers) and patients who remained on originators (non-switchers).

RESULTS

A total of 66 publications were identified: 31 in gastroenterology, 32 in rheumatology, and 3 in both. Half of the studies reported switchback rates; only 9 studies reported discontinuation rates for both switchers and non-switchers. Across studies, the mean/range sample size of the NMS patient population was 136/9-1641; mean/range follow-up was 10/3-24 months. Annualized biosimilar discontinuation rate was 21% (95% confidence interval [CI] 18%, 25%). Switchback rate was 14% (95% CI 10%, 17%) among all NMS patients and 62% (95% CI 44%, 80%) among discontinuers. The mean/range sample size of switchers and non-switchers was 344/89-1621 and 768/19-2870, respectively; mean/range follow-up was 11/6-18 and 12/6-8 months, respectively. Annualized incremental biosimilar discontinuation rate was 18% (95% CI 4%, 31%).

CONCLUSION

Biosimilar discontinuation was found to be prevalent among patients who underwent an NMS from an originator TNF inhibitor to its biosimilar(s) in the real world. In addition, switchback to the originator TNF inhibitors was common following biosimilar discontinuation. Careful consideration is necessary when switching patients already on an originator TNF inhibitor to its biosimilar(s). Main limitations included the heterogeneity of the studies and the limited comparability of the data.

Biosimilars in Pediatric IBD: Updated Considerations for Disease Management

Biologic drugs have significantly modified the pharmacological management of several chronic conditions, including inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). By contrast, in the last two decades, biologics have been associated with increased direct medical costs. As patents for the reference drugs have expired, the development and commercialization of biosimilars through abbreviated licensing pathways represented an affordable alternative in patients fulfilling the indication for biologics. A growing body of evidence, first in adults and then in the pediatric age group too, has provided reassuring data in terms of efficacy and safety of biosimilars both in naïve patients and in those previously on reference drugs who had to switch to the biosimilar. This review summarizes the currently available evidence for biosimilar use in IBD, with a focus on pediatric IBD. The most common practical approaches to biosimilar use in the pediatric clinical settings are also discussed.

The efficacy of immunomodulators in the prevention and suppression of anti-drug antibodies to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in inflammatory bowel disease

The development of biological agents against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) has revolutionized the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), frequently achieving induction and maintenance of remission in both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. However, a loss of response due to the development of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) is seen annually in approximately 20% of IBD patients receiving anti-TNF therapy. Current evidence suggests that the use of immunomodulators (IMM), such as thiopurines (azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine) or methotrexate, may prevent or suppress ADA formation. In this article, we present a comprehensive review of the available literature regarding the efficacy of IMM in the prevention and suppression of ADA development to anti-TNF therapy in patients with IBD.

Outcome of Reverse Switching From CT-P13 to Originator Infliximab in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Patients suffering from inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) and treated with originator infliximab are increasingly being switched to biosimilars. Some patients, however, are "reverse switched" to treatment with the originator. Here we assess the prevalence of reverse switching, including its indication and outcomes.

METHODS

In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, data on patients with IBD from 9 hospitals in the Netherlands were collected. All adult patients with IBD were included if they previously had been switched from originator infliximab to the biosimilar CT-P13 and had a follow-up time of at least 52 weeks after the initial switch. The reasons for reverse switching were categorized into worsening gastrointestinal symptoms, adverse effects, or loss of response to CT-P13. Drug persistence was analyzed through survival analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 758 patients with IBD were identified. Reverse switching was observed in 75 patients (9.9%). Patients with reverse switching were predominantly female (70.7%). Gastrointestinal symptoms (25.5%) and dermatological symptoms (21.8%) were the most commonly reported reasons for reverse switching. In 9 patients (12.0%), loss of response to CT-P13 was the reason for reverse switching. Improvement of reported symptoms was seen in 73.3% of patients after reverse switching and 7 out of 9 patients (77.8%) with loss of response regained response. Infliximab persistence was equal between patients who were reverse-switched and those who were maintained on CT-P13.

CONCLUSIONS

Reverse switching occurred in 9.9% of patients, predominantly for biosimilar-attributed adverse effects. Switching back to originator infliximab seems effective in patients who experience adverse effects, worsening gastrointestinal symptoms, or loss of response after switching from originator infliximab to CT-P13.

Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching: What is the Rationale and Current Experience?

Over time, clinicians have become increasingly comfortable embracing the prescription of biosimilars-highly similar versions of innovator or reference biological agents-for their patients with inflammatory diseases. Although a switch from a reference product to a licensed biosimilar version (or vice versa) is a medical decision robustly supported by the stepwise accumulation of clinical trial evidence concerning comparable safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy between these products, a switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference product, or a cross-switch, is not. Similarity among biosimilars of a reference product is not a regulatory agency concern and therefore is unlikely to be investigated in randomized controlled trials in the foreseeable future. Yet in clinical practice, across a diverse range of patients, the option to cross-switch from one biosimilar to another can and does arise for valid reasons such as convenience or tolerability issues, or driven by third parties (e.g., payers). In the absence of clinical trial data, clinicians must attempt to objectively evaluate the emerging real-world cross-switching evidence within the context of what is known about the science underpinning a designation of biosimilar. That knowledge then needs to be integrated with what clinicians know about their patients and their disease on a case-by-case basis. This review aims to consolidate relevant emerging real-world data and other key information about biosimilar-to-biosimilar cross-switching for prescribing clinicians. In the absence of clear clinical guidelines addressing this topic at present, this review may serve to facilitate discretionary and educated treatment decision making.

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

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

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

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

The Great Debate With IBD Biosimilars: Pro: Biosimilars Should Be Routinely Used as a First Line Biologic and May Be Switched From Reference Biologics

The relatively high cost of anti-TNF agents and looming or actual expiry of patents for several biologics have led to the development of "highly similar" versions of the "originator" drugs called "biosimilars." The approval of biosimilars has been based on "extrapolation," whereby approval is granted in licensed indications for the reference product without the need for clinical trials. We discuss efficacy and safety data in support of biosimilar use from prospective studies, switching from originator biologic, impact on immunogenicity, pharmaco-economic, and practical considerations for clinicians.

Comparison of a new rapid method for determination of serum anti-adalimumab and anti-infliximab antibodies with two established ELISA kits

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab (ADL), infliximab (IFX) and their biosimilars are widely used biological drugs. Some patients, however, generate neutralizing antibodies that hamper the effectiveness of these drugs. Evidence shows therapeutic drug monitoring of serum levels ADL/IFX and anti-drug antibodies (ADA) is useful to improve treatment effectiveness. We evaluated a new rapid quantitative method, Quantum Blue (QB), for determining serum anti-ADL and anti-IFX antibodies (Research Use Only labelling) by comparing it with two established ELISA kits, Promonitor (PM) and Lisa-Tracker (LT).

METHODS

Eighty samples (40 for each drug type) were analysed. Percentage of agreement and kappa statistic were used to compare positive/negative ADA results. Clinical implications for drug treatment in the patients with discordant results were evaluated. The Chi-square test was used to analyze differences for ADA detection in patients with disease flare and without concomitant immunosuppressant treatment.

RESULTS

Agreement exceeded 80 % among anti-ADL methods. Although LT ELISA showed a lower capacity in detecting anti-ADL antibodies, discrepancies were found for levels close to the cut-off concentration, thus having minimal impact on clinical decisions. Conversely, QB anti-IFX displayed low agreement with PM and LT ELISA kits (67.5 % and 50 %, respectively), and was unable to detect high levels of antibodies, therefore having major clinical implications. Agreement between PM and LT ELISA anti-IFX kits was 82.5 % with all discordant results being undetected for PM and slightly positive for LT.

CONCLUSION

QB anti-ADL shows similar performance to ELISA kits while QB anti-IFX needs further improvements to achieve reliable antibody detection.

Immunogenicity of Biologic and Biosimilar Therapies for Psoriasis and Impact of Novel Immunoassays for Immunogenicity Detection

Anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) may develop against originator biologic and biosimilar therapies used for the treatment of psoriasis and may be the cause of initial therapeutic non-response or diminished therapeutic response over time. Comparing immunogenicity between therapeutic agents is challenging owing to the variation in assays used for detection, among other reasons. Using the results of a PubMed search for psoriasis clinical trials disclosing the rates of ADAs for originator biologic and biosimilar therapies approved for the treatment of psoriasis within the last 5 years, this review discusses the rates and potential clinical impact of ADA formation in patients with psoriasis managed with originator biologic and biosimilar therapies, along with novel methods of ADA testing. Anti-drug antibodies are detectable in all biologic and biosimilar therapies approved for the treatment of psoriasis in the last 5 years, and the effect of ADAs on clinical response varies by agent. Novel immunoassays used for the detection of ADAs may have increased sensitivity compared with traditional assays, although the increased rate of detection may not correlate with decreased clinical response and the decision to test for the presence of ADAs may vary from patient to patient. Though ADA formation seems ubiquitous with the use of biologic agents for the treatment of psoriasis, the increased rates of ADAs detected by novel immunoassays may not necessarily correlate with decreased treatment efficacy.

Biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease

The advent of biologics has changed outcomes in many chronic conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Biologics have been used for the induction and remission of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease for almost two decades and are effective in patients who used to fail conventional treatment with steroids, immunomodulators. The use of biologics in the treatment of IBD has increased over the last few years, partly due to the rise in its incidence and the use of biologics as a first-line treatment in severe disease as well as in complicated diseases like penetrating/fistulating Crohn's disease. However, their use is associated with a significant burden to the society with respect to healthcare costs, resulting in the premature discontinuation of therapy in some patients, leading to exacerbations and complications. The introduction of biosimilars a decade ago seems to be a promising approach to reducing the costs related to therapy. Since their introduction, numerous studies conducted in adults and some in children show the efficacy of biosimilars with a similar side-effect profile to biologics. This review discusses the history of biosimilars in the treatment of IBD, enumerates several such studies and discusses the possibility of using biosimilars in the future.

Infliximab concentrations in two non-switching cohorts of patients with inflammatory bowel disease: originator vs. biosimilar

Biosimilars are replacing originator compounds due to their similar effectiveness, safety and pharmacokinetics. Our objective was to compare the differences in pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes between the originator infliximab (Ifx) and the biosimilar CT-P13 in a patient cohort with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our cohort study included 86 patients from a historical and a prospective cohort from the start of infliximab treatment to 22 weeks later. Serum infliximab, antidrug antibody levels and other serum biomarkers were measured at weeks 0, 2, 6, 14 and 22. Remission outcomes were evaluated at weeks 14 and 22. Drug levels were measured prospectively and analysed using MANOVA. Of the 86 patients, 44 (51%) and 42 (49%) were administered the originator and CT-P13, respectively. Originator trough levels were higher than the biosimilar trough levels (35 vs. 21, 20.1 vs. 11, 6.6 vs. 2.9 and 4.3 vs. 1.7 μg/mL at weeks 2, 6, 14 and 22, respectively). A post-hoc analysis demonstrated changes in mean serum drug levels over time (p < 0.001) and according to the drug employed (p = 0.001). At week 22, 13 (81%) patients administered the originator achieved clinical remission compared with 5 (19%) patients with the biosimilar (p = 0.02). None of the patients administered the originator withdrew from the treatment compared with 7 for the biosimilar. During the study, there were significant differences in serum infliximab levels between the originator and the CT-P13 in the patients with IBD. The clinical outcomes were influenced by the type of compound administered.

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.

The Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of Switching Between Reference Biopharmaceuticals and Biosimilars: A Systematic Review

To date, no consensus exists among stakeholders about switching patients between reference biological products (RPs) and biosimilars, which may have been curbing the implementation of biosimilars in clinical practice. This study synthesizes the available data on switching and assesses whether switching patients from a RP to its biosimilar or vice versa affects efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity outcomes. A total of 178 studies, in which switch outcomes from a RP to a biosimilar were reported, was identified. Data were derived from both randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence. Despite the limitations stemming from a lack of a robust design for most of the studies, the available switching data do not indicate that switching from a RP to a biosimilar is associated with any major efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity issues. Some open-label and observational studies reported increased discontinuation rates after switching, which were mainly attributed to nocebo effects. Involvement of the prescriber in any decision to switch should remain and attention should be paid to the mitigation of a potential nocebo effect.

Evolution of infliximab biosimilar in inflammatory bowel disease: from intravenous to subcutaneous CT-P13

INTRODUCTION

Biologic drugs have significantly improved the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). However, the availability of these drugs is limited by their high cost. Infliximab was the first biologic to be approved for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). After its patent expired other manufactures developed biosimilar versions, among which CT-P13, and licensed them thorough an expedite process.

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this review is to summarize the available evidence on CT-P13 use in IBD, with particular interest in the phase II trials of a subcutaneous version of CT-P13.

EXPERT OPINION

Biosimilars, such as CT-P13, are an important resource for health-care systems. Although CT-P13 approval in IBD was based on extrapolation, subsequent studies confirmed its clinical equivalence to originator infliximab. A new subcutaneous formulation of CT-P13 showed promising results in phase I and II trials in both CD and UC. Clinical efficacy and safety were comparable and interestingly serum drug doses appeared to be more stable than conventional intravenous CT-P13. If these preliminary results will be confirmed, the first sub-cutaneous version of infliximab could soon be available for IBD.

Systematic Review: Non-medical Switching of Infliximab to CT-P13 in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Biosimilar approval, such as Inflectra™ (CT-P13) for treating ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD), has reduced direct drug costs. Though clinicians are comfortable with biosimilar use in treatment-naïve patients, there are concerns in some jurisdictions that there are insufficient data from well-controlled trials to support non-medical switching. A systematic review, along with a critical assessment of the study design, was conducted to assess the potential impact of switching stable CD/UC patients from infliximab to CT-P13.

METHODS

A literature search using PubMed and abstracts/posters from 3 major gastroenterology conferences from 2014 to 2018 was completed. Two individual reviewers extracted data from each relevant report and compiled it into evidence tables to facilitate descriptive analyses. Key randomized trial and observational study designs were critically assessed to contextualize data relevance.

RESULTS

A total of 49 reports (3 randomized controlled trials, 40 observational trials, and 1 case series) were included. Most studies revealed no efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity concerns with non-medical switch. Limitations of supporting data include a small number of randomized controlled trials; predominance of observational studies with varying outcome assessments and lack of appropriate controls; and scarcity of research on biosimilar switch long-term effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of studies suggested non-medical switch is safe. However, clinicians and regulatory bodies should be aware of differences and limitations in study designs when making inferences about the risks and benefits of switching stable IBD patients to biosimilars.

An updated review of infliximab biosimilar, CT-P13, in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

The introduction of anti-TNFs, such as infliximab (IFX), has revolutionized the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Anti-TNF agents have shown outstanding efficacy and long-term improvement of clinical outcomes, but the cost has been relatively high. Out of this concern, several 'biosimilar' drugs of anti-TNF agents have been developed. CT-P13, the first biosimilar of reference IFX, was approved by the European Medicines Agency and licensed by the US FDA for use in all indications of IFX. This updated review summarizes all aspects of CT-P13, including pharmacology and pharmacokinetics, and evaluates its efficacy, safety and immunogenicity for all indications based on the results of the latest clinical trials as well as on real-world experiences.

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.

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.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab compared to standard clinical treatment with infliximab: study protocol for a randomised, controlled, open, parallel-group, phase IV study (the NOR-DRUM study)

Background

Infliximab (INX) and other tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) have revolutionised the treatment of several immune mediated inflammatory diseases. Still, many patients do not respond sufficiently to therapy or lose efficacy over time. The large interindividual variation in serum drug concentrations on standard doses and the development of anti-drug antibodies are thought to be major reasons for treatment failures. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), an individualised treatment strategy based on systematic assessments of serum drug concentrations, has been proposed as a clinical tool to optimise efficacy of INX treatment. TDM seems reasonable both from a clinical and an economical point of view, but the effectiveness of this treatment strategy has not yet been demonstrated in randomised clinical trials. The NORwegian DRUg Monitoring study (NOR-DRUM) aims to assess the effectiveness of TDM, both with regard to the achievement of remission in patients starting INX treatment (part A) as well as to maintain disease control in patients on INX treatment (part B).

Methods

The NOR-DRUM study is a randomised, open, controlled, parallel-group, comparative, multi-centre, national, superiority, phase IV study with two separate parts, NOR-DRUM A and NOR-DRUM B. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthritis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease and psoriasis are included. In both study parts participants are randomised 1:1 to either TDM of infliximab (intervention group) or to standard treatment with infliximab without knowledge of drug levels or ADAb status (control group). NOR-DRUM A will include 400 patients starting INX therapy. The primary outcome is remission at 30 weeks. In NOR-DRUM B, 450 patients on maintenance treatment with INX will be included. The primary endpoint is occurrence of disease worsening during the 52-week study period.

Discussion

As the first trial to assess the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of TDM in patients receiving TNFi for a range of immune mediated inflammatory diseases, we hope that the NOR-DRUM study will contribute to the advancement of evidence based personalised treatment with biological medicines.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03074656. Registered on 090317.

Biosimilars: concept, current status, and future perspectives in inflammatory bowel diseases

The inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), which consist of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, are chronic, incurable immunemediated inflammatory disorders of the intestine. As IBD incidence continues to increase globally and its mortality is low, prevalent cases of IBD are rapidly increasing, thereby leading to a substantial increase in health care costs. Although the introduction of biologic agents for IBD management has revolutionized the armamentarium of IBD therapy, the high cost of this therapy is concerning. With the expirations of patents for existing biologic agents (originals), biosimilars with cheaper costs have been highlighted in the field of IBD. Despite concerns regarding their short- and long-term efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and interchangeability, increasing evidence via prospective observations and phase III or IV clinical trials, which aim to prove the "biosimilarity" of biosimilars to originals, has partly confirmed their efficacy, safety, and interchangeability. Additionally, although patients and physicians are reluctant to use biosimilars, a positive budget impact has been reported owing to their use in different countries. In the near future, multiple biosimilars with lower costs, and efficacy and safety profile similar to originals, could be used to treat IBD; thus, further consideration and knowledge dissemination are warranted in this new era of biosimilars.

Long-Term Prognosis of Japanese Patients with Crohn's Disease Treated by Switching Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Antibodies

Introduction

The long-term prognosis of Japanese patients with Crohn's disease (CD) treated by switching anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNFα) antibodies remains unclear.

Objective

This study aimed to clarify the long-term prognosis and clinical factors that affect the long-term prognosis and outcomes of such patients.

Methods

This retrospective, observational, single-center cohort study analyzed Japanese patients with CD treated by switching between infliximab and adalimumab in the Tohoku University Hospital between March 2003 and December 2017. Cumulative relapse-free survival and cumulative surgery-free survival rates were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Clinical factors that affected the long-term outcomes were identified using both a log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

The cumulative relapse-free survival rates were 68.6, 33.7, and 22.9% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. The surgery-free survival rates were 91.7, 75.7, and 57.4% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. The cumulative relapse-free survival rate was significantly higher in the group with ileal lesions (HR = 0.12; 95% CI 0.0066-0.64, p = 0.0086), stricture (HR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.0094-0.59, p = 0.0021), and a penetrating type (HR = 0.34; 95% CI 0.14-0.84, p = 0.020). Intolerance (HR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.12-0.63, p = 0.0013) and switching after surgery (HR = 0.41; 95% CI 0.17-0.87, p = 0.019) were clinical factors that reduced the risk of recurrence. The cumulative surgery-free survival rate was significantly higher in the group that switched after surgery (HR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.074-0.91, p = 0.034) and used concomitant thiopurine (HR = 0.32; 95% CI 0.10-0.90, p = 0.030).

Conclusion

We should clarify the reason for switching anti-TNFα antibodies and investigate bowel complications before switching. Surgical reset of bowel complications including stricture and fistula could reduce the risk of recurrence after switching anti-TNFα antibodies. Concomitant thiopurine administration might reduce the risk of bowel surgery after switching anti-TNFα antibodies.

Assays used to assess biosimilarity of therapies for inflammatory bowel disease

Introduction: Biological drugs have revolutionized the treatment of various medical conditions. Recently, upon expiration of patents of a few biological agents, biosimilars are being rapidly developed as an affordable substitute for more expensive biologic drugs, which may serve as a therapeutic alternative for biologics reference medical product (RMP). Prior to approval for use of the biosimilar drug for treatment of RMP indications, a process involving several different assays is required, in which the biosimilar must prove to posses no meaningful differences from an existing approved RMP in terms of purity, safety and potency.Areas covered: This report describes the different assays which are used to assess biosimilar drugs using CT-P13 infliximab biosimilar as a case-in-point. It covers the assays of physicochemical characterization, biological activity, and immunogenicity and examines their rational along with methodological and conceptual caveats clinicians should be cognizant of.Expert opinion: The approval of a biosimilar is a complex process that requires several assays, specifically tailored to the characteristics of the RMP. Determining the required assays and the allowable margin of confidence are of great importance but are not sufficient in order to prove that the biosimilar is indeed not inferior in its clinical potency and safety to the RMP.

Value Assessment and Quantitative Benefit-Risk Modelling of Biosimilar Infliximab for Crohn's Disease

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Regulatory approval of biosimilars often depends on extrapolating evidence from one clinical indication to all of those of the originator biologic. We aimed to develop a quantitative benefit-risk analysis to assess whether the resulting increase in the uncertainty in the clinical performance of biosimilars (i.e. risk) may be countered by their lower pricing (benefit).

METHODS

A 1-year decision-analytic model was developed for the biosimilar infliximab (Inflectra^®) for Crohn's disease. The perspective was that of the National Health Service in the UK and costs were valued to 2015/16. A hypothetical cohort of biologic-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease was simulated through the model. Immunogenicity to infliximab was a key modifier, influencing rates of non-response and infusion reactions. Net health benefit was estimated based on quality-adjusted life-years. A range of sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results and explored how the biosimilar price must respond to varying immunogenicity to remain the preferred option.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis predicted a positive incremental net health benefit of 0.04 (95% central range 0.00-0.09) favouring the biosimilar, based on 0.803 quality-adjusted life-years, and costs of £18,087 and £19,176 for the biosimilar and originator, respectively. Two-way sensitivity analyses suggested that if 50% of patients developed antibodies, the value-based price of £410 per vial must be lower than that of the originator (£420), but remain higher than the actual market price (£378).

CONCLUSIONS

The model supports the use of Inflecta^® for Crohn's disease in the UK, and provides a framework for the quantitative evaluation of biosimilars in the context of a health technology assessment. Value-based pricing using this methodology could protect health systems from the potential risks of biosimilars where they are untested in the approved populations.

Outcomes of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Switched From Maintenance Therapy With a Biosimilar to Remicade

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is evidence that it is safe and effective for patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) to switch from maintenance therapy with an original infliximab drug to a biosimilar, but little is known about outcomes of reverse switches and/or multiple switches. We aimed to evaluate the effects of a reverse switch (from a biosimilar to Remicade) in a real-life cohort.

METHODS

We performed a prospective observational study of 174 unselected and consecutive patients with IBD (136 with Crohn's disease [CD] and 38 with ulcerative colitis [UC]) who received maintenance therapy with the biosimilar in Hungary. In September 2017, patients were switched from the biosimilar (CT-P13) to Remicade, due to reimbursement policies. In our cohort, 8% (n = 14) patients had been previously exposed to the originator Remicade. We collected clinical and biochemical information from patients at baseline (time of the switch) and 16 and 24 weeks thereafter. Clinical remission was defined as a Crohn's disease activity index <150 points or no fistula drainage, or a partial Mayo score <3 points for patients with UC. Serum drug trough levels and anti-drug antibodies were measured at baseline and week 16.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients in clinical remission at week 8 before the switch (82.5% with CD and 82.9% with UC), at baseline (80.6% with CD and 81.6% with UC), at week 16 (77.5% with CD and 83.7% with UC), or at week 24 (CD 76.3% with CD and 84.9% with UC) (P = .60 among groups for patients with CD and P = .98 among groups for patients with UC). For all patients, mean serum trough levels of infliximab were 5.33 ± 4.70 μg/mL at baseline and 5.69 ± 4.94 μg/mL at week 16 (P = .71); we did not find significant differences in prevalence of anti-drug antibody at baseline (16.2%) compared with week 16 (16.9%) (P = .87). Four infusion reactions occurred, until week 24 of follow up. There was no difference in outcomes or trough or antidrug antibody levels between patients with or without previous exposure to Remicade.

CONCLUSIONS

We collected data from a real-life cohort of patients with CD or UC who were switched from maintenance therapy with a biosimilar to Remicade or were treated with only Remicade. No significant changes were observed in remission, trough levels, or antidrug antibodies in patients switched from the biosimilar to Remicade. No new safety signals were detected.

Effectiveness and Safety of the Switch from Remicade® to CT-P13 in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To evaluate the clinical outcomes in patients with IBD after switching from Remicade® to CT-P13 in comparison with patients who maintain Remicade®.

METHODS

Patients under Remicade® who were in clinical remission with standard dosage at study entry were included. The 'switch cohort' [SC] comprised patients who made the switch from Remicade® to CT-P13, and the 'non-switch' cohort [NC] patients remained under Remicade®.

RESULTS

A total of 476 patients were included: 199 [42%] in the SC and 277 [58%] in the NC. The median follow-up was 18 months in the SC and 23 months in the NC [p < 0.01]. Twenty-four out of 277 patients relapsed in the NC; the incidence of relapse was 5% per patient-year. The cumulative incidence of relapse was 2% at 6 months and 10% at 24 months in this group. Thirty-eight out of 199 patients relapsed in the SC; the incidence rate of relapse was 14% per patient-year. The cumulative incidence of relapse was 5% at 6 months and 28% at 24 months. In the multivariate analysis, the switch to CT-P13 was associated with a higher risk of relapse (HR = 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2-6). Thirteen percent of patients had adverse events in the NC, compared with 6% in the SC [p < 0.05].

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from Remicade® to CT-P13 might be associated with a higher risk of clinical relapse, although this fact was not supported in our study by an increase in objective markers of inflammation. The nocebo effect might have influenced this result. Switching from Remicade® to CT-P13 was safe.

Long-term efficacy and safety of CT-P13, a biosimilar of infliximab, in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A retrospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A biosimilar of infliximab, CT-P13 (Remsima®) has the potential to reduce treatment costs and enhance access to biological therapy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. However, long-term clinical data on its use for IBD treatment are currently sparse. We aimed to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of CT-P13 therapy in a large, real-life IBD cohort.

METHODS

A total of 368 IBD patients (227 with Crohn's disease [CD] and 141 with ulcerative colitis [UC]) treated with CT-P13 at 16 referral hospitals in Korea between July 2012 and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The cumulative retention rates at years 1, 3, and 5 were 86.1%, 68.5%, and 58.7% and 69.7%, 46.0%, and 26.7% in anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-naïve CD and UC patients, respectively. The clinical response and remission rates at week 14 and at years 1, 3, and 5 were 94.3%, 92.7%, 76.8%, and 17.6% and 78.6%, 82.4%, 72.2%, and 17.6% in anti-TNF-naïve CD and 85.6%, 80.0%, 55.2%, and 6.7% and 42.6%, 59.8%, 44.2%, and 6.7% in anti-TNF-naïve UC patients, respectively. Among patients who switched from the biologic originator to CT-P13, the cumulative retention rates at years 1, 3, and 5 were 88.5%, 66.1%, and 44.8% in CD, and 73.9%, 42.5%, and 42.5% in UC patients, respectively. Significant improvements in disease activity scores were accompanied by marked reductions in inflammatory marker levels, and no unexpected adverse events including death or malignancy occurred during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with CT-P13 is effective in inducing and maintaining disease improvement and is well-tolerated in patients with IBD. CT-P13 may be a promising treatment option for IBD.

CT-P13: a review on a biosimilar to infliximab in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

Introduction: CT-P13 was developed as an infliximab biosimilar in 2013. The primary structure of CT-P13 is identical to that of original infliximab and it has highly similar higher order structure, physiochemical characteristics, and biological properties. To date, data from real-life cohorts and randomized controlled trials show comparable clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of biosimilar CT-P13, and the original reference medicinal Product (RMP). Areas covered: This article reviews the comparability of CT-P13 and the RMP and focuses on the emerging clinical trial and observational cohorts data on efficacy and safety of CT-P13 in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. The development of a subcutaneous formulation of Infliximab CT-P13 is also addressed. Expert opinion: There is a plethora of evidence to show CT-P13 is non-inferior to infliximab RMP in IBD and that a switch from RMP to this biosimilar is feasible and safe. However, interchangeability and multiple switches can still not be endorsed for introduction into clinical practice.

Anti-TNF biosimilars in Crohn's Disease: a patient-centric interdisciplinary approach

Introduction: The purpose of this review is to highlight the role of biosimilars in early treatment in IBD and introduce ways to facilitate a patient-centric switching process through multidisciplinary approach. Areas covered: We summarize existing scientific literature related to the role of biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease in terms of early treatment and cost-saving and implementing switching process. Expert opinion: Use of anti-TNF biosimilars in patients has the potential for large drug-acquisition cost-saving, which can be reinvested into early treatment. Managed switched programs for adalimumab can add further benefits in the future.

Therapeutic drug monitoring-based dosing of TNF inhibitors in inflammatory bowel disease: the way forward?

Introduction: Secondary loss of response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy remains a challenge in the clinical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. A frequently observed reason for secondary loss of response to TNF blockers is inadequate drug exposure and sub-therapeutic serum drug concentrations. Areas covered: This review presents an overview of recent research on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-based dosing with anti-TNF agents in IBD. The role of reactive and proactive TDM and different approaches on how to optimize anti-TNF treatment are discussed. Expert opinion: Due to variations within and between patients, the 'one size fits all' theory does not apply to all IBD patients receiving anti-TNF agents. Timing of TDM (i.e. reactive versus proactive) is a matter of debate. Both strategies might optimize anti-TNF treatment, although most trials did not show a clinical benefit compared to conventional dosing up to now. So-called dashboard systems might have an additive value in the optimization of anti-TNF treatment, since these tools enable clinicians to really personalize anti-TNF treatment.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of biologics in psoriasis

Biologics are an important component of the armamentarium of drugs in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. There is increasing evidence that therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) encompassing the measurement of trough concentrations and anti-drug antibodies (ADA), together with clinical response is emerging as a valuable tool for clinical decision making. It aids in targeted dose adjustments in patients with low drug concentrations, monitoring of adherence and assessment of patients who lose response to biologics or do not respond at all. The high prevalence of psoriasis, its impact on patients' lives and costs spent on therapy motivate an evidence-based and cost-effective utility of biologics. We performed a literature review on the TDM of TNF alpha antagonists (adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept), IL12/23 antagonists (ustekinumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab), IL17A inhibitors (secukinumab, ixekizumab) and biosimilars used in the treatment of psoriasis. Although establishing target therapeutic ranges for biologics is ideal, this has only been explored in adalimumab. We also propose a treatment algorithm for the practical application of TDM depending on drug trough concentrations, presence/absence of anti-drug antibodies and clinical response of patients. The practice of TDM is recommended in routine clinical practice where possible.

Update of the Position Paper of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on Biosimilar Drugs

In 2015 the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (Sociedad Española de Reumatología [SER]) published its position paper on biosimilar drugs. In this update, the SER, continues to manifest its unequivocal commitment to the sustainability of the health system of our country and is aligned with the measures that, without reducing quality of care, are aimed at ensuring its continuity. Since the publication of the previous position paper, the European Commission has authorized new biosimilar drugs, which provides an excellent opportunity to advance the efficiency of health care. In this new scenario of increased therapeutic offer of biologics, the SER considers it crucial to preserve the freedom of prescription of physicians who prescribe drugs based exclusively on the characteristics and individual circumstances of each patient, without forgetting the economic aspects there of.

Switching from infliximab to biosimilar in inflammatory bowel disease: overview of the literature and perspective

BACKGROUND

Biological therapy has revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). After the expiration of patents for biological innovator products, development of biosimilars increased. CT-P13 was the first biosimilar approved for the same indications as the reference product; however, the approval was based on extrapolated data from rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Our aim was to review clinical studies about switching from originator infliximab (IFX-O) to biosimilar infliximab (IXF-B) in IBD, focusing on recently published data and the future of biosimilars.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched for original articles published up to 1 December 2018 reporting data on IFX-B in IBD.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies assessing switching from IFX-O to IFX-B, 14 assessing induction therapy with IFX-B were found. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity were discussed. Studies confirm that CT-P13 is safe and equally efficient as the reference product for both induction and maintenance therapy; and that switching from the reference product to biosimilar is non-inferior to continuous biosimilar use. However, efficacy and safety data on Flixabi (SB2) in IBD patients is lacking.

CONCLUSION

Switching from the originator to a biosimilar in patients with IBD is acceptable, although scientific and clinical evidence is lacking regarding reverse switching, multiple switching and cross-switching among biosimilars in IBD patients.

Anti-TNF Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Searching the Proper Patient's Profile

Biosimilars of infliximab (CT-P13) are currently approved and available for the same indications as for the originator. Some concerns about safety and immunogenicity have risen in the past because of lack of data in IBD. Since 2015, several cohort studies have been conducted in IBD showing that CT-P13 has comparable safety and efficacy profile to the originator, both in adult and pediatric population, either in naïve patients or even in those who switched from the originator to CT-P13. This review aims to analyze the current literature data in order to define a clear patient profile, to identify those IBD patients who would benefit the most from the use of CT-P13.

Joint AAD-NPF guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with biologics

Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory multisystem disease that affects up to 3.2% of the US population. This guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in psoriasis management and care, providing recommendations based on the available evidence. The treatment of psoriasis with biologic agents will be reviewed, emphasizing treatment recommendations and the role of the dermatologist in monitoring and educating patients regarding benefits as well as associated risks.

Biosimilars for inflammatory bowel disease: how can healthcare professionals help address patients' concerns?

The patent expiration of some biologics used in chronic conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has led to the development of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies. The tailored regulatory approval route for biosimilar development ensures that approved biosimilars show similarity to their originators in terms of efficacy and safety, and avoids unnecessary repetition of clinical trials carried out with the originator product. However, some patients may still have concerns about using biosimilars and it is the responsibility of healthcare professionals (HCPs) to alleviate these concerns. Areas covered: This review highlights clinical and real-world evidence supporting efficacy and safety of biosimilars in patients with IBD. Moreover, based on international surveys, potential patient concerns are highlighted, along with possible actions HCPs can take to address these concerns. Expert commentary: The rising use of biosimilars in IBD is expected to have a positive impact on the availability of biologics and healthcare costs. Several biosimilars have been approved for use and more are likely to come to the market in the future; however, transitioning patients to biosimilars could pose an unexpected challenge without the help and support of HCPs.

Pros and cons of the immunogenicity of monoclonal antibodies in cancer treatment: a lesson from autoimmune diseases

The aim of this review is to report the current evidence on immunogenicity of monoclonal antibodies (moAbs) used in cancer compared with autoimmune diseases, focusing on local microenvironment. English abstracts were identified in Medline and www.clinicaltrials.gov . A total of 82 papers were selected. The percentage of immunogenicity of moAbs used for cancer therapy, evaluated as the serum concentration of antidrug antibodies, is significantly lower than that of moAbs used for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. This condition may rely on a different immunologic background characterized by a hyperactivation of immune cells in autoimmune diseases. The formation of complexes between antidrug antibodies and non-neutralizing moAbs bound to neoplastic antigens may allow more efficient elimination of cancer cells, but additional studies are needed.