SB5 shows cross-immunogenicity to adalimumab but not infliximab: results in patients with inflammatory bowel disease or rheumatoid arthritis

Switching from One Biosimilar to Another Biosimilar of the Same Reference Biologic: A Systematic Review of Studies

BACKGROUND

Multiple switches (transitions) between biosimilars of the same reference biologic are now a reality, and they are expected to become more common in the future as more biosimilars enter the market. Switching between two biosimilars of the same reference biologic is generally driven by affordability, formulary requirements, or the relocation/travel of the patient. Evidence of whether switching between biosimilars of the same reference biologic provides similar safety and efficacy profiles is reviewed here.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken using electronic databases (to December 2021): Biosis, Embase, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews/Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Ovid. Publications were evaluated for effectiveness and/or safety data linked to switching from one biosimilar to another.

RESULTS

The systematic search yielded 982 citations. After eliminating duplicates, 626 citations remained for the initial title/abstract screening phase. Following the initial screening, 240 records were chosen; more thorough examination yielded 35 citations. After comprehensive screening and expert advice, 23 studies were selected, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder have been published as abstracts. Overall, 3657 patients were included in these studies. All studies were observational in nature; no randomized clinical trials were identified. The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints. Across the studies, data are provided on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns. The majority of studies examined switches between biosimilar infliximabs, although switches between biosimilar adalimumabs, etanercepts, and rituximabs were also identified. Two use-pattern studies and one case report were also detected and are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this systematic review, available data suggests that biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching is a safe and effective clinical practice, although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance. No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date.

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.

Current evidence on the use of the adalimumab biosimilar SB5 (ImraldiTM): a multidisciplinary perspective

INTRODUCTION

This review provides an overview of data from trials and real-world studies available for SB5 (Imraldi^TM) across three main therapeutic areas: rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search for publications on data for SB5 efficacy/effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity was undertaken.

EXPERT OPINION

Evidence derived from clinical studies suggest that the biosimilar SB5 is a safe and effective alternative to reference adalimumab. Considering that patients suffering from immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis often require long-term biologic treatment, biosimilar medicines (such as SB5) can reduce healthcare costs while increasing access to effective treatments.

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.

Biologic Drugs for Rheumatoid Arthritis in the Context of Biosimilars, Genetics, Epigenetics and COVID-19 Treatment

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects around 1.2% of the adult population. RA is one of the main reasons for work disability and premature retirement, thus substantially increasing social and economic burden. Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) were shown to be an effective therapy especially in those rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, who did not adequately respond to conventional synthetic DMARD therapy. However, despite the proven efficacy, the high cost of the therapy resulted in limitation of the widespread use and unequal access to the care. The introduction of biosimilars, which are much cheaper relative to original drugs, may facilitate the achievement of the therapy by a much broader spectrum of patients. In this review we present the properties of original biologic agents based on cytokine-targeted (blockers of TNF, IL-6, IL-1, GM-CSF) and cell-targeted therapies (aimed to inhibit T cells and B cells properties) as well as biosimilars used in rheumatology. We also analyze the latest update of bDMARDs' possible influence on DNA methylation, miRNA expression and histone modification in RA patients, what might be the important factors toward precise and personalized RA treatment. In addition, during the COVID-19 outbreak, we discuss the usage of biologicals in context of effective and safe COVID-19 treatment. Therefore, early diagnosing along with therapeutic intervention based on personalized drugs targeting disease-specific genes is still needed to relieve symptoms and to improve the quality of life of RA patients.

Case Report: Infusion-Related Reactions to Intravenous Infliximab and Subcutaneous Ustekinumab in Pediatric Crohn's Disease

Background: Although the biological agent ustekinumab (UST) is reported to be effective for Crohn's disease (CD) in pediatric as well as adult patients, data on the efficacy and safety of UST in pediatric patients with CD are limited. Here, we describe the case of a pediatric patient who showed an allergic reaction to UST after subcutaneous (SC) maintenance injections but not immediately after initial intravenous (IV) injection. Case Presentation: A 9-year-old boy presented to our hospital with diarrhea lasting 2 years and weight loss, leading to the diagnosis of CD. After prednisolone (PSL) was tapered and discontinued, he promptly relapsed. According to our institution's protocol, we introduced the biological agent infliximab (IFX) with premedication. Coughing and vomiting was observed after the second dose of IFX and it was changed to adalimumab (ADA). However, the effect of ADA gradually disappeared after 18 months; therefore, it was discontinued and he was treated using UST. The first IV UST dose was given after administering hydrocortisone (HDC), an antiallergic and antipyretic analgesic, as premedication, and no obvious adverse reaction was observed. After 8 weeks, UST was subcutaneously injected without premedication. The patient then complained of nausea, dizziness, and headache within 15 min of UST administration. Therefore, for the third dose of UST, HDC was administered again as premedication. However, nausea, dizziness, and headache presented 10 min after UST administration, resulting in discontinuation of further UST treatment. Conclusion: Careful distinction between "true" infusion-related reactions (IRRs) and anaphylaxis or allergic reactions is necessary to determine whether biological agents can be continued after the development of "so-called" IRRs. For true IRRs, it may be possible to continue using the biological agent with appropriate premedication; however, in cases of anaphylaxis, the biological agent itself should be changed.

Biosimilar switching in inflammatory bowel disease: from evidence to clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

After patents' expiration of biological originators, several biosimilars of infliximab and adalimumab have been authorized. The approval is based on data extrapolated from other indications for which the originator has been previously tested. Despite rigorous approval processes by regulatory entities, physicians' and patients' knowledge about biosimilars is limited and some concerns about their use persist.

AREAS COVERED

This article summarizes the evidence on efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars currently approved in Europe for IBD treatment, by reviewing the literature on PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases up to mid-July 2020. Particular emphasis was placed on the need to further improve communication with patients and physicians' knowledge on biosimilars.

EXPERT OPINION

Adoption of biosimilars in clinical practice represents a great opportunity from an economic point of view, reducing healthcare costs and increasing patients' access to effective biologic treatments. Clinicians should be aware and confident of the latest evidence on available biosimilars and be very careful in communicating information to patients. Nocebo effect should not be overlooked since it can negatively influence outcomes of biosimilar-treated subjects, limiting the wide use of biosimilars. Evaluating the outcomes of reverse, multiple, and cross-switch will be a challenge for the next years.

Immediate Infusion Reaction to Intravenous Ustekinumab in Three Crohn's Disease Patients: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Recently, ustekinumab has been approved for the treatment of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Treatment is started with an intravenous induction dose, followed by a subcutaneous dosage. We present details of three patients with therapy-refractory Crohn's disease who experienced an immediate infusion reaction to intravenous administration of ustekinumab. In two of these patients a subsequent reaction to subcutaneous injections occurred. Clinical features and pathophysiology are discussed.

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.