The safety of switching between therapeutic proteins

Switching patterns of biological drugs in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: insight from the VALORE database network

BACKGROUND

Switch patterns among different biologics and from originators to biosimilars (and vice versa) can be complex in patients with psoriasis (PsO) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe switching patterns of biological drugs in PsO/PsA patients and to explore predictors of multiple switches and switch-back.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A large-scale retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Italian VALORE database. Bio-naïve users treated for PsO/PsA during 2010-2022 were included. Time to switch/swap and predictors of multiple switches and switch-back were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty-thousand seven hundred bio-naïve users were included. At 3 and 5 years of follow-up, patients with at least one switch/swap were 37.1% and 47.8%, respectively. The median time to first switch/swap was significantly shorter (p< 0.001) for TNF-α inhibitors (2,068 days) than anti-IL (2,780 days). At 1 year of follow-up patients starting with IL-23 switched/swapped biological therapy less frequently than those with anti-IL-12/23 and anti-IL-17 (4.9% vs. 8.7% and 9.4%, respectively). Patients starting with anti-IL-12/23 reported a significantly lower risk of multiple switches and switch-back (0.74, 95% CI, 0.67-0.83; 0.58, 95% CI, 0.44-0.77, respectively) than those with TNF-α inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with PsO/PsA starting with TNF-α inhibitors switch/swap more rapidly and frequently than those with anti-IL, which are also associated with a reduced risk of multiple switches during follow-up.

Initial prescriptions and medication switches of biological products: an analysis of prescription pathways and determinants in the Swiss healthcare setting

OBJECTIVES

Biological products have contributed to extraordinary advances in disease treatments over the last decade. However, the cost-saving potential of imitator products, so-called biosimilars, is still under-researched in Switzerland. This study aims to assess biosimilars' prescriptions at treatment initiation and their determinants, as well as biological therapy switches.

DESIGN

The study included all patients who had at least one biosimilar available on the market at the time when they were prescribed a biological product. We analysed longitudinal data for biosimilar prescriptions in Switzerland using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to quantify the associations with individual, pharmaceutical and provider-related variables.

SETTING

The analysis is based on de-identified claims data of patients with mandatory health insurance at Helsana, one of the Swiss health insurance companies with a substantial enrollee base in mandatory health insurance.

PARTICIPANTS

Overall, 18 953 patients receiving at least one biological product between 2016 and 2021 were identified.

OUTCOME MEASURES

We differentiated between initial prescriptions and follow-up prescriptions. Our regression focused on initial prescriptions due to evidence indicating that patients tend to follow the medication prescribed at therapy initiation.

RESULTS

Although biosimilars' market share was low (28.6%), the number of prescriptions has increased (from 1016 in 2016 to 6976 in 2021). Few patients with medication switches (n=1492, 8.5%) were detected. Increased relative price difference (difference in the price of available biosimilars relative to price of corresponding reference product) was associated with decreased probability of biosimilar prescriptions, whereas male sex, an increase of available imitator drugs on the market, larger packaging sizes, and prescriptions from specialists or physicians in outpatient settings were associated with increased biosimilar use.

CONCLUSION

The low number of biosimilar prescriptions, despite the proliferating biosimilar market, indicates a high potential for biosimilar diffusion. The findings indicate that patients typically adhere to the therapy options initially chosen and are less inclined to make changes following the initiation of treatment. Our research highlights the need for awareness initiatives to improve understanding among patients and physicians, enabling informed, shared decision-making about biosimilar prescriptions.

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

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

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

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

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

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.

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

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

Therapeutic peptides for the treatment of cystic fibrosis: Challenges and perspectives

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is the most common amongst rare genetic diseases, affecting more than 70.000 people worldwide. CF is characterized by a dysfunctional chloride channel, termed cystic fibrosis conductance regulator (CFTR), which leads to the production of a thick and viscous mucus layer that clogs the lungs of CF patients and traps pathogens, leading to chronic infections and inflammation and, ultimately, lung damage. In recent years, the use of peptides for the treatment of respiratory diseases, including CF, has gained growing interest. Therapeutic peptides for CF include antimicrobial peptides, inhibitors of proteases, and modulators of ion channels, among others. Peptides display unique features that make them appealing candidates for clinical translation, like specificity of action, high efficacy, and low toxicity. Nevertheless, the intrinsic properties of peptides, together with the need of delivering these compounds locally, e.g. by inhalation, raise a number of concerns in the development of peptide therapeutics for CF lung disease. In this review, we discuss the challenges related to the use of peptides for the treatment of CF lung disease through inhalation, which include retention within mucus, proteolysis, immunogenicity and aggregation. Strategies for overcoming major shortcomings of peptide therapeutics will be presented, together with recent developments in peptide design and optimization, including computational analysis and high-throughput screening.

The "Square Box": Therapeutic Equivalence as a Foundation of the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines

Every two years, the World Health Organization (WHO) updates its Model List of Essential Medicines, intended as a guide for countries to adopt or adapt in accordance with local priorities and treatment guidelines, for the development of national essential medicines lists. When more than one therapeutic option is available for a given indication, the WHO Model List often includes a single medicine as representative of a group of equivalent and interchangeable medicines. The representative medicine of that group is listed with an accompanying ‘square box’ symbol. The intended purpose of the square box is to highlight pharmacological classes or groups of medicines for which countries, institutions and health professionals can assume homogeneous therapeutic efficacy and safety and select the most appropriate single medicine based on price, local availability, and acceptability. Though this concept of therapeutic equivalence within a therapeutic class has been endorsed by most authoritative textbooks of pharmacology since Goodman & Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics and evidence-based guidelines, marketing forces have often made claims on individual drugs to distinguish them beyond relevant differences shown by reliable evidence: this has generated the concept of “me-too drugs” with its double meaning—i.e., market latecomers differing minimally from products preceding them and whose marketing budgets have significant opportunity costs, or medicines which may be useful to substitute for equivalent products in the event of shortages. The square box concept is applied in the context of a comprehensive list: therapeutic equivalence or interchangeability cannot always be easily established. Different interpretations have been applied to different groups of medicines over the 40+ year history of the Model List. This paper presents the concept of the square box, provides key examples and guidance on how square box listings should be practically interpreted in the development and implementation of national essential medicine lists, considers the applicability of a square box listing concept to biologic medicines and proposes that an updated review of the square box concept and listings is warranted.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Effectiveness and Safety of Switching Originator and Biosimilar Epoetins in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease in a Large-Scale Italian Cohort Study

Introduction

Real-world data on the comparative effectiveness and safety of switching among different epoetins (including originators and biosimilars) are limited. In light of current debate about interchangeability, prescribers, some patient groups and decision makers are calling for additional post-marketing evidence on the clinical effects of switching between originator and biosimilar epoetins in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients.

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of switching versus non-switching and of switching from originator/biosimilar epoetin alpha (ESA α) to any other epoetin in CKD patients.

Methods

An observational, record-linkage, multi-database, retrospective cohort study was carried out in four Italian geographical areas. All subjects with at least one ESA α dispensing between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2015 were retrieved. Switching was defined as any transition between originator/biosimilar ESA α to any other epoetin in a series of two consecutive prescriptions up to 2 years. Switchers were matched 1:1 with non-switchers by baseline propensity score and by duration of ESA α treatment. Switchers and non-switchers were followed up from switching date to a maximum of 1 year. Lack of effectiveness and safety of switching versus non-switching were evaluated through Cox regression models (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]). A direct comparison between the two switcher categories (switchers from originator/biosimilar ESA α to any other epoetin) was also performed.

Results

Overall, 14,400 incident users of ESA α for anaemia due to CKD (61.4% originator, 38.6% biosimilar) were available for analysis. During the follow-up, we found no differences on effectiveness (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79–1.31 originators; HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.75–1.79 biosimilars) and safety outcomes (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77–1.50 originators; HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.66–2.21 biosimilars) between switchers and non-switchers of ESA α. Cumulative probabilities of recording an adverse event, either in terms of lack of effectiveness or safety issue, were the same for two switching categories

Conclusions

In this large-scale Italian observational multi-database study, switching versus non-switching as well as switching from biosimilar/originator ESA α to any other epoetin in CKD patients is not associated with any effectiveness and safety outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40264-019-00845-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Potential cost-savings from the use of the biosimilars filgrastim, infliximab and insulin glargine in Canada: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

In 2014 and 2015, biosimilars for the drugs filgrastim, infliximab, and insulin glargine were approved for use in Canada. The introduction of biosimilars in Canada could provide significant cost savings for the Canadian healthcare system over originator biologic drugs, however it is known that the use of biosimilars varies widely across the world. The aim of this study was to estimate the use of biosimilars in Canada and potential cost-savings from their use.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of Canadian drug purchases for filgrastim, infliximab, and insulin glargine from July 2016 to June 2018. This was a cross-sectional study and the time horizon was limited to the study period. As a result, no discounting of effects over time was included. Canadian drugstore and hospital purchases data, obtained from IQVIA™, were used to estimate the costs per unit and unit volume for biosimilars and originator biologic drugs within each province. Potential cost-savings were calculated as a product of the units of reference originator product purchased and the cost difference between the originator biologic and its corresponding biosimilar.

RESULTS

The purchase of biosimilars varied by each province in Canada, ranging from a low of 0.1% to a high of 81.6% of purchases. In total, $1,048,663,876 Canadian dollars in savings could have been realized with 100% use of biosimilars over the originator products during this 2 year time period. The potential savings are highest in the province of Ontario ($349 million); however, even in smaller markets (PEI and Newfoundland), $28 million could have potentially been saved. Infliximab accounted for the vast majority of the potential cost-savings, whereas the purchases of the biosimilar filgrastim outpaced that of the originator drug in some provinces. In sensitivity analyses assuming only 80% of originator units would be eligible for use as a biosimilar, $838 million dollars in cost savings over this two-year time period would still have been realized.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall use of biosimilar drugs in Canada is low. Policy makers, healthcare providers, and patients need to be informed of potential savings by increased use of biosimilars, particularly in an increasingly costly healthcare system.

Influence of biosimilar infliximab launch on the utilization pattern of biological medicines: the case of Hungary

Objectives: Utilization of multisource biological (off-patent originator and its biosimilar) medicines can improve the efficiency of resource allocation by 1) generating savings while maintaining health outcomes or 2) increasing the number of patients treated with more affordable treatments. This study evaluates the efficiency of the Hungarian biosimilar drug policy on the case of biosimilar infliximab. Methods: We analyzed the utilization of biologicals in all reimbursed indications of infliximab including initial therapy of new patients and switching patterns retrospectively based on patient-level payer's data between September 2012 and December 2016. Results: Despite the economic rationale, patent expiry did not manifest in increased utilization of multisource infliximab in an access-restricted environment: 1) Patients previously treated with original biologicals were switched mainly to other original biologicals instead of more affordable biosimilar alternatives. 2) Although some treatment-naive patients started on more affordable multisource infliximab with price competition, the majority of new patients started on other original biologicals with monopolistic price. Conclusion: Policy tools and measures should be developed to facilitate first-line use of multisource biologicals for treatment-naive patients and promoting the use of more affordable multisource biologicals in case of switching.

Regulatory Perspectives on Biopharmaceuticals for Chronic Inflammatory Diseases in North Africa: A Narrative Review

Introduction of innovative biopharmaceuticals has dramatically changed the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases, but access to these very effective agents may be limited by economic constraints in some regions. The development of biosimilar products at a lower cost may allow wider access to treatment, but rigorous scientific evaluation is required to ensure similar quality, efficacy, and safety. The World Health Organization, European Medicines Agency, and United States Food and Drug Administration have created stringent guidelines for biosimilar regulatory approval, stipulating that high similarity be demonstrated in comprehensive comparability studies. Although these regulatory standards have been adapted in many countries, the legal/regulatory frameworks required for biosimilar authorization remain in development elsewhere, including North Africa. In some countries, “intended copies” are available despite inadequate evidence of comparability to the reference product and failure to satisfy biosimilar regulatory requirements. In North Africa, as the regulatory pathway for biosimilars is established, regulators will address several important challenges, including criteria for comparability, switching/substitution, post-marketing monitoring/risk management, and product naming conventions. Caution is advised to ensure that lower cost and broader access are not achieved at the expense of patient safety, and educational initiatives should be undertaken for clinicians/patients. In this review, we define the various types of biopharmaceuticals currently available for the treatment of chronic inflammatory disease, provide an overview of regulatory requirements for biosimilar approval and an update on the availability of these agents globally and in North Africa, and discuss crucial concerns related to their use from the viewpoint of North African rheumatologists.

Biosimilars in oncology: A decade of experience with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and its implications for monoclonal antibodies

Biosimilars offer the potential for improved sustainability of cancer care. In oncology, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and erythropoiesis-stimulating agent biosimilars have been available for almost a decade, with biosimilars of monoclonal antibodies a more recent development. Sandoz biosimilar filgrastim was approved based on Phase III confirmatory studies conducted in patients with breast cancer experiencing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, with other indications granted based on extrapolation. Despite the fact that extrapolation is a well-established scientific principle in regulation of biological medicines, it is a commonly misunderstood part of the biosimilar concept. Broad experience from almost a decade of use of Sandoz biosimilar filgrastim includes >21 million patient-days exposure and >9 years of real-world clinical evidence, indicates extrapolation successfully at work. Together, this can help reassure oncologists that extrapolation is based on sound scientific principles. Efforts to improve understanding of extrapolation are critical to ensure the acceptance of future oncology biosimilar monoclonal antibodies.

Safety of Biologics, Including Biosimilars: Perspectives on Current Status and Future Direction

In recent years, marketing of highly innovative and costly biologics improved the management of high-burden diseases such as autoimmune diseases, cancers, and chronic renal failure. Several widely prescribed biologics have recently lost or will shortly lose their patents, thus opening avenues to the marketing of a growing number of biosimilars worldwide, which are products similar in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to already licensed reference products, thus allowing for potential savings in pharmaceutical expenditure. Numerous debates about the interchangeability between biosimilars and reference products are still ongoing, owing to concerns about potential immunogenicity raised by switching, which may cause a lack of effect and toxicity. Patients successfully treated with biologic therapy may theoretically receive biosimilars to contain costs, if reference product and related biosimilar are judged as interchangeable. However, the positions of regulatory agencies on the interchangeability and automatic substitution of biologics with biosimilars are very different. The benefit-risk profile of biosimilars has been often questioned by clinicians owing to the limited amount of pre-marketing information on clinical efficacy and safety, despite biosimilarity being based on a comparability exercise with the reference product to gain the biosimilar approval. Nevertheless, after more than 10 years of marketing from the first biosimilar approval in Europe, no proof of differences in terms of the safety profile of biosimilars and originators has been reported. In this context, post-marketing evaluation of both biologics and biosimilars safety profiles through analyses from spontaneous reporting databases and claims databases is crucial. An important issue for the pharmacovigilance of biologics concerns the traceability, indicating the brand name and batch number in spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports, but this requirement is not frequently addressed. This review aims to provide an overview of the characteristics and potential challenges in the safety profile assessment of biologics with a focus on the post-marketing setting.

Concepts and Challenges of Biosimilars in Breast Cancer: The Emergence of Trastuzumab Biosimilars

With the development of anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) monoclonal antibodies, trastuzumab-based therapy has become the standard of care among patients with early or advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. However, real-world data have shown that up to a half of patients do not receive trastuzumab or any other HER2-targeted agent, mainly due to high treatments costs. The prospect of a more enlarged access to trastuzumab treatment lies in the use of biosimilars, as the European and the US patent of the reference products has or will soon expire. Biosimilars are biologics highly similar in terms of quality characteristics, biological activity, safety and efficacy to already approved biologics. The biosimilarity of any European Union (EU)-approved biosimilar is guaranteed based on the comprehensive comparability exercise which includes comparative analytical, non-clinical and clinical studies. In the matter of biosimilars’ interchangeability and substitution, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have adopted different positions, triggering various discussions on the potential immunogenicity and efficacy in individual patients. As more biosimilars are gaining approval, the present review aims to offer concise information for oncologists and pharmacists about the production, approval, interchangeability, and substitution policies of biosimilars used in breast cancer therapy, with a special focus on trastuzumab.

Epoetin Biosimilars in the Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia: 10 Years' Experience Gained

High-quality, safe, and effective biosimilars have the potential to increase access to biological therapies worldwide and to reduce cancer care costs. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) was the first regulatory authority to establish legislative procedures for the approval of biosimilars when they published their guidelines on similar biological medicinal products in 2005. Biosimilar epoetins were first approved in 2007, and a wealth of data has been collected over the last decade. Two biosimilar epoetins (under five commercial names) have been approved by the EMA so far. The availability of epoetin biosimilars generated discussion among the oncology community regarding prescribing these products, their efficacy, and their safety. These agents are approved only if they are shown in extensive analytical and clinical testing to have comparable quality, safety, and efficacy to the reference medicine, and real-world studies provide further data that biosimilar epoetins are an effective and well-tolerated option for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia in patients with cancer. Other countries have adopted similar regulatory pathways to those in Europe and have approved epoetin biosimilars. The now extensive European experience with biosimilar epoetins should reassure regulators from other territories.

Regulation of biosimilar medicines and current perspectives on interchangeability and policy

Competition arising from the increasing availability of biosimilar medicines has resulted in healthcare savings and has provided greater patient access to high cost therapeutics in Europe. The biosimilar market in the USA is relatively new so the full impact of biosimilar availability remains to be seen. Educational initiatives relating to the use of biosimilar medicines are currently being undertaken by regulators, policy makers and industry. The debate on biosimilars has moved on from the appropriateness of the regulatory framework which governs their approval, to the practice of interchangeability. Interchangeability is an important issue for healthcare professionals but different definitions and regulatory frameworks exist in the USA and Europe. In the USA, an interchangeable biological product is a biosimilar which may be substituted by a pharmacist, subject to local State policies. The interchangeability of a biosimilar with its reference medicine will be evaluated by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in cases where approval as an 'interchangeable product' is sought. In contrast, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) does not assess or make recommendations on interchangeability, therefore, in Europe, interchangeability does not mean substitution but is generally physician-led or driven by national policy. This paper provides an overview of the regulation of biosimilar medicines. Challenges associated with the demonstration of interchangeability and practical considerations relating to switching are also discussed. Finally, we present policies that have been adopted to date in several European countries, the USA and Australia, which aim to promote the use of biosimilar medicines.

Epoetin Biosimilars in the Treatment of Renal Anemia: What Have We Learned from a Decade of European Experience?

Biosimilars are biological medicines that are approved via stringently defined regulatory pathways on the basis that comparable safety, efficacy, and quality have been demonstrated to their reference medicine. The advantage of biosimilar drugs is that they may be less expensive than the reference medicine, allowing for greater patient access and cost savings in already stretched healthcare budgets. Biosimilar epoetins have been available in Europe for a decade. Complementing in vitro and preclinical characterization, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies, clinical trials provided the additional data needed to reassure European authorities that biosimilar epoetins were sufficiently similar to the reference epoetin to warrant approval. Post-approval, real-world studies have provided further evidence that biosimilar epoetins are an effective and well-tolerated option for the treatment of renal anemia, with ongoing pharmacovigilance and observational studies monitoring for any unexpected long-term signals that have not been identified in clinical development studies. As the evidence and experience with these products increase, many of the initial concerns are being alleviated. Nephrologists can be increasingly confident that European Medicines Agency-approved biosimilars offer high-quality, affordable, effective alternatives to existing reference medicines used to treat renal anemia, and may help yield cost savings and improve patient access.

Biosimilar switching - current state of knowledge

Evidence from over 10 years of clinical experience demonstrates that biosimilar medicines approved in the European Union can be used for all their registered indications as safely as their originators and with no negative impact on therapeutic efficacy. The debate on the use of biosimilars in rheumatology focuses specifically on the safety of switching between biosimilars and reference products. Studies conducted to date, including randomised double-blind and open-label extension trials, have not demonstrated any significant differences in therapeutic efficacy or safety between patients switched from one medicine to another and those who were continued on a single medicine. According to the latest recommendations for the use of biosimilars in rheumatic diseases, developed by an international task force in 2017, there is no clinical evidence that a single switch from an originator to a biosimilar medicine is associated with any significant risk for patient safety or reduction in therapeutic efficacy.

Biosimilars: Review of current applications, obstacles, and their future in medicine

Biosimilars are a growing drug class designed to be used interchangeably with biologics. Biologics are created in living cells and are typically large, complex proteins that may have a variety of uses. Within the field of gastroenterology alone, biologics are used to treat inflammatory bowel diseases, cancers, and endocrine disorders. While biologics have proven to be effective in treating or managing many diseases, patient access is often limited by high costs. The development of biosimilars is an attempt to reduce treatment costs. Biosimilars must be nearly identical to their reference biologics in terms of efficacy, side effect risk profile, and immunogenicity. Although the manufacturing process still involves production within living cells, biosimilars undergo fewer clinical trials than do their reference biologics. This ultimately reduces the cost of production and the cost of the biosimilar drug compared to its reference biologic. Currently, seven biosimilars have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. There are other biologics involved in treating gastroenterologic diseases for which there are no FDA approved biosimilars. Although biosimilars have the potential to reduce healthcare costs in chronic disease management, they face challenges in establishing a significant market share. Physician comfort in prescribing reference biologics instead of biosimilars and patient reluctance to switch from a biologic to a biosimilar are two common contributing factors to biosimilars’ slow increase in use. More time will be needed for biosimilars to establish a larger and more consistent market share compared to their reference biologics. Additional data confirming the safety and efficacy of biosimilars, increased number of available biosimilars, and further cost reduction of biosimilars will all be necessary to improve physician confidence in biosimilars and patient comfort with biosimilars.

Switching Reference Medicines to Biosimilars: A Systematic Literature Review of Clinical Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the possibility that switching from reference biologic medicines to biosimilars could lead to altered clinical outcomes, including enhanced immunogenicity, compromised safety, or diminished efficacy for patients, a systematic literature review was conducted of all switching studies between related biologics (including biosimilars).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using the Medline® and Embase® databases up to 30 June 2017 employing specific medical subject heading terms. Additionally, the snowball method and a hand search were also applied. Publications were considered if they contained efficacy or safety information related to a switch from a reference medicine to a biosimilar. Non-English, non-human studies, editorials, notes, and short surveys were excluded.

RESULTS

Primary data were available from 90 studies that enrolled 14,225 unique individuals. They included protein medicines used in supportive care as well as those used as therapeutic agents. The medicines contained seven different molecular entities that were used to treat 14 diseases. The great majority of the publications did not report differences in immunogenicity, safety, or efficacy. The nature and intensity of safety signals reported after switching from reference medicines to biosimilars were the same as those already known from continued use of the reference medicines alone. Three large multiple switch studies with different biosimilars did not show differences in efficacy or safety after multiple switches between reference medicine and biosimilar. Two publications reported a loss of efficacy or increased dropout rates.

CONCLUSIONS

While use of each biologic must be assessed individually, these results provide reassurance to healthcare professionals and the public that the risk of immunogenicity-related safety concerns or diminished efficacy is unchanged after switching from a reference biologic to a biosimilar medicine.

Patient Access, Unmet Medical Need, Expected Benefits, and Concerns Related to the Utilisation of Biosimilars in Eastern European Countries: A Survey of Experts

This policy research aims to map patient access barriers to biologic treatments, to explore how increased uptake of biosimilars may lower these hurdles and to identify factors limiting the increased utilisation of biosimilars. A policy survey was developed to review these questions in 10 Central and Eastern European (CEE) and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries. Two experts (one public and one private sector representative) from each country completed the survey. Questions were related to patient access, purchasing, clinical practice, and real-world data collection on both original biologics and biosimilars. Restrictions on the number of patients that can be treated and related waiting lists were reported as key patient access barriers. According to respondents, for both clinicians and payers the primary benefit of switching patients to biosimilars would be to treat more patients. However, concerns with therapeutic equivalence and fear of immunogenicity may reduce utilisation of biosimilars. Similar limitations in patient access to both original biologics and biosimilars raise concerns about the appropriateness and success of current biosimilar policies in CEE and CIS countries. The conceptual framework for additional real-world data collection exists in all countries which may provide a basis for future risk-management activities including vigorous pharmacovigilance data collection.

The Impact of Biosimilars in Supportive Care in Cancer

Collapse

The use of biosimilars in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

After expiry of the patent of originator anti-tumor necrosis factor drug infliximab (Remicade), CT-P13 was in 2013 the first infliximab biosimilar to be approved by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) for the same indications as the reference drug, including paediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The approval was based on extrapolation, after extensive in-vitro studies and clinical experience in patients with ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid arthritis. The extrapolation of CT-P13 to IBD and to paediatric patients raised concerns among paediatric IBD specialists.

RECENT FINDINGS

Now, almost 4 years later, we can conclude that those concerns have been resolved. There are a growing number of postmarketing studies and real-life data, so far mostly in adults and some in children with IBD. These studies show reassuring comparable efficacy, safety and immunogenicity between CT-P13 and the reference Infliximab.

CONCLUSION

In Europe, biosimilars are increasingly regularly prescribed drugs in paediatric IBD. Due to their lower cost, treatment expenses have gone down considerably (up to 30% or more in some countries) and patient access has improved. However, additional well designed studies to investigate long term follow-up of biosimilars in children are still needed. In addition, clinical studies addressing pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and optimal use of infliximab (originator as well as biosimilar) are still desirable.

Is there a reason for concern or is it just hype? - A systematic literature review of the clinical consequences of switching from originator biologics to biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

While prescribing biosimilars to patients naive to a biologic treatment is a well-accepted practice, switching clinically stable patients from an originator to a biosimilar is an issue for clinicians. Well-designed clinical trials and real-world data which study the consequences of switching from an originator biologic treatment to its biosimilar alternative are limited, especially for monoclonal antibodies. Areas covered: A systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed to identify evidence of the consequences of switching from original biologics to biosimilars. References of included papers were also scrutinized. After a title-, abstract- and full text screening, out of the 153 original hits and 77 additional ones from screening the references, 58 papers (12 empirical papers, 5 systematic reviews and 41 non-empirical papers) were included. Expert opinion: Preventing patients on biologic medicines from switching to biosimilars due to anticipated risks seems to be disproportional compared to the expected cost savings and/or improved patient access. Indeed, it is the opinion of the authors that the concern of switching to biosimilars is overhyped.

Biosimilars for psoriasis: clinical studies to determine similarity

Biosimilars are drugs that are similar, but not identical, to originator biologics. Preclinical analytical studies are required to show similarity on a molecular and structural level, but efficacy and safety studies in humans are essential to determining biosimilarity. In this review, written by members of the International Psoriasis Council, we discuss how biosimilars are evaluated in a clinical setting, with emphasis on extrapolation of indication, interchangeability and optimal clinical trial design.

Interchangeability of Biosimilars: A European Perspective

Many of the best-selling 'blockbuster' biological medicinal products are, or will soon be, facing competition from similar biological medicinal products (biosimilars) in the EU. Biosimilarity is based on the comparability concept, which has been used successfully for several decades to ensure close similarity of a biological product before and after a manufacturing change. Over the last 10 years, experience with biosimilars has shown that even complex biotechnology-derived proteins can be copied successfully. Most best-selling biologicals are used for chronic treatment. This has triggered intensive discussion on the interchangeability of a biosimilar with its reference product, with the main concern being immunogenicity. We explore the theoretical basis of the presumed risks of switching between a biosimilar and its reference product and the available data on switches. Our conclusion is that a switch between comparable versions of the same active substance approved in accordance with EU legislation is not expected to trigger or enhance immunogenicity. On the basis of current knowledge, it is unlikely and very difficult to substantiate that two products, comparable on a population level, would have different safety or efficacy in individual patients upon a switch. Our conclusion is that biosimilars licensed in the EU are interchangeable.

Biosimilars to recombinant human FSH medicines: comparable efficacy and safety to the original biologic

Two recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH)-bearing similar biological medicines (biosimilars) have been authorized by the European Commission. Biosimilar is a regulatory concept alluding to the evidence-based high-standard comparability studies needed to demonstrate its equivalence to a reference original biologic. Because biosimilar development represents a shift from the long-lasting existing paradigms, a thorough understanding of the science behind it will contribute to helping prescribers make informed treatment choices. Contrary to chemically-synthesized medicines, biologics are subject to an inherent molecular variability. From the experience with original biologics, regulatory authorities have accumulated a wealth of knowledge as to what minor batch-to-batch physicochemical variations may be therapeutically acceptable in a given product. Furthermore, in spite of analytically detectable differences, the two original rFSH-bearing medicines currently on the market share fundamentally the same therapeutic profile. Unlike those original medicines, a biosimilar of an rFSH product and the corresponding reference biologic share essentially the same active pharmaceutical ingredient. They are also administered via the same route, at the same dose, and for the same indications. This article revises the background evidence over which the biosimilarity principle has been built, and highlights the therapeutic potential for follitropin biosimilars in order to reassure physicians on their benefit.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (biosimilars vs originators) in clinical practice: a population-based cohort study in Italy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefit/risk profile of epoetin α biosimilar with the erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) originators when administered to naïve patients from clinical practice.

DESIGN

Population-based observational cohort study.

SETTING

All residents in the Lazio Region, Italy, with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or cancer retrieved from the Electronic Therapeutic Plan (ETP) Register for ESA between 2012 and 2014.

PARTICIPANTS

Overall, 13 470 incident ESA users were available for the analysis, 8161 in the CKD and 5309 in the oncology setting, respectively.

INTERVENTIONS

ESAs identified through the ATC B03XA were divided into 3 groups: (1) biosimilars; (2) epoetin α originator and (3) other originators. Patients were exposed to ESAs from the date of activation of the ETP, until the end of a 6-month follow-up period.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness (all-cause mortality and blood transfusion) and safety (major cardiovascular events, blood dyscrasia). A composite outcome including all-cause mortality, blood transfusion and major cardiovascular events was predefined. HRs of any outcome were estimated through Cox regression.

RESULTS

We found no differences between patients on biosimilars or all originators with regard to the risk estimates of all-cause mortality, blood transfusion, major cardiovascular events and blood dyscrasia in the CKD setting. The composite outcome confirmed these results (biosimilars vs epoetin α originators: adjusted HR=1.02, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.33; biosimilars vs other originators: adjusted HR=1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41). Comparable risk estimates were observed between biosimilars and all originators in the oncology setting.

CONCLUSIONS

In both settings, our findings are suggestive of no difference between biosimilars and originators on relevant effectiveness and safety outcomes. This study may contribute to settling future drug policy for the health services and provides reassurance on the approval pathway for biosimilars. The oncology setting merits further research, taking into account tumour types, tumour stage and anticancer chemotherapy administered.

Position Paper from the Portuguese Association of Hospital Pharmacists for biosimilar therapeutic antibodies

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Biopharmaceuticals are an important class of drugs for the treatment of autoimmune/inflammatory and oncologic diseases. With patent expiries, biotechnological manufacturers can now develop biosimilar drugs. Due to timeliness of introducing new and more complex biosimilars, the Portuguese Association of Hospital Pharmacists gathered to develop a common positioning on the use of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies.

MAIN ISSUES

The European pathway to biosimilar approval was developed to improve affordability and access to biological therapies, but it remains a work in progress because unresolved issues remain. Due to the present reality of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies, hospital pharmacists must play an important role in ensuring the safe, effective and cost-effective use of biosimilars in health systems; and educating healthcare administrators, providers, legislators, policymakers, payors and patients about these products.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The conclusions presented in this work focused on the proposal for optimal biosimilar prescription criteria, the preparation of original biologics and biosimilars in the pharmacy, the management and selection of suppliers, extrapolation issues, the specific role of pharmacovigilance and risk management for the optimal use of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies.

Switching Between Epoetins: A Practice in Support of Biosimilar Use

Background

The acceptability of switching between reference drugs and their biosimilars is often disputed. It is unclear whether this concern is specific to the use of biosimilars or is relevant to the practice of switching between any biological drugs.

Objective

The objective of this study was to quantify the occurrence of switching between different erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.

Methods

A retrospective drug utilization study was conducted in the Umbria region (Italy). The study population included all residents who received their first epoetin prescription between 1 July 2011 and 31 December 2014. The Umbria drug prescription database and the regional archive of residents were used to gather information. Switching was defined as any transition between different epoetins (different substances and/or different products of the same substance) in a series of two prescriptions. The probability of switching was described in relationship to the duration of treatment in a survival analysis.

Results

Overall, 3258 subjects received prescriptions of epoetins. Among the 2896 patients with at least two prescriptions, 354 (12.2 %) experienced one or more switches. The probability of switching depended on the duration of treatment: approximately 15 % of users switched within 12 months of observation and 25 % switched within 2 years. Switching was not limited to reference and biosimilar epoetins and it affected patent and off-patent epoetins equally.

Conclusions

Switching between different epoetins was related to the duration of use and most episodes of switching involved epoetins that have never been contrasted in a comparability exercise. The present level of switching may provide reassurance to physicians when taken together with other sources of comparative evidence.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40259-015-0155-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[Regulatory aspects of biosimilars. Myths and facts]

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars are currently a hot topic and there are many unsolved questions, misunderstandings and sometimes considerable uncertainty, especially among clinicians and patients. Regulatory agencies, such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) issue guidelines for the development and approval of biosimilars, which are based on scientific principles.

OBJECTIVE

This article addresses some of the frequently noted misunderstandings and misperceptions. For example, why biosimilars are (or can only be) "similar" but not "identical" compared to the original pharmaceutical product, and aspects, such as the pharmaceutical quality of biosimilars, immunogenicity and the approval process for biosimilars are highlighted.

Biosimilar infliximab for inflammatory bowel disease: from concepts to clinical practice. Case study illustrated with CT-P13

The introduction of biologic drugs represents the most significant advance in the management of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases for a decade. However, complex proteins are expensive to produce and manufacture. Biosimilar versions of established biologics are becoming available as another version of the reference medicinal product and are expected to provide substantial cost savings. However, because of their complexity, the approval of biosimilars requires strict controls to ensure that all therapeutically relevant characteristics are comparable to the reference medicinal product. This review summarizes the scientific principles and data requirements underpinning regulatory approval of biosimilars and the assumptions that enable extrapolation of data between indications. These important concepts are exemplified by CT-P13 (Remsima(®), Inflectra(®)), the first biosimilar monoclonal antibody approved in Europe.

Biosimilars: A Multidisciplinary Perspective

A biosimilar is an officially regulated and approved copy of an originator biologic therapy. Improved affordability and consequent wider patient access compared with biologics are a significant appeal of biosimilars. Regulatory guidelines for biosimilar development and approval are rigorous and undergoing constant refinement. The process of licensing approval for all biosimilars requires demonstration of comparability in quality, efficacy, and safety between the biosimilar and reference (originator) product, which is undertaken in a stepwise procedure of nonclinical and clinical evaluation. The approval of >20 biosimilars in Europe in several drug classes, including the first monoclonal antibody biosimilar, bears testimony to the increasing regulatory acceptance of these agents. In contrast, the clinical application of biosimilars remains underrecognized by physicians across therapy areas. Therefore, this article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the biosimilar development process and to provide multidisciplinary guidance on the potential therapeutic utility of biosimilars in clinical practice. Specifically, experts discuss clinical developments in the introduction of biosimilars across the disciplines of gastroenterology, nephrology, oncology, and rheumatology, and from a payer perspective, and also highlight a common need for ongoing pharmacovigilance, robust head-to-head clinical studies, and real-world data to establish the long-term risk-benefit profile of biosimilars. In conclusion, significant potential exists for biosimilars to revolutionize biologic therapy by widening patient access across therapy areas.

The changing landscape of biosimilars in rheumatology

Biosimilars remain a hot topic in rheumatology, and some physicians are cautious about their application in the real world. With many products coming to market and a wealth of guidelines and recommendations concerning their use, there is a need to understand the changing landscape and the real clinical and health-economic potential offered by these agents. Notably, rheumatologists will be at the forefront of the use of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies/soluble receptors. Biosimilars offer cost savings and health gains for our patients and will play an important role in treating rheumatic diseases. We hope that these lower costs will compensate for inequities in access to therapy based on economic differences across countries. Since approved biosimilars have already demonstrated highly similar efficacy, it will be most important to establish pharmacovigilance databases across countries that are adequate to monitor long-term safety after marketing approval.

Similar names for similar biologics

Approval of the first biosimilar in the USA may occur by the end of 2014, yet a naming approach for biosimilars has not been determined. Biosimilars are highly similar to their biologic reference product but are not identical to it, because of their structural complexity and variations in manufacturing processes among companies. There is a need for a naming approach that can distinguish a biosimilar from its reference product and other biosimilars and ensure accurate tracing of adverse events (AEs) to the administered product. In contrast, generic small-molecule drugs are identical to their reference product and, therefore, share the same nonproprietary name. Clinical trials required to demonstrate biosimilarity for approval may not detect rare AEs or those occurring after prolonged use, and the incidence of such events may differ between a biosimilar and its reference product. The need for precise biologic identification is further underscored by the possibility of biosimilar interchangeability, a US designation that will allow substitution without prescriber intervention. For several biologics, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has used a naming approach that adds a prefix to a common root nonproprietary name, enabling healthcare providers to distinguish between products, avoid medication errors, and facilitate pharmacovigilance. We recommend that the FDA implement a biosimilars naming policy that likewise would add a distinguishable prefix or suffix to the root nonproprietary name of the reference product. This approach would ensure that a biosimilar could be distinguished from its reference product and other biosimilars in patient records and pharmacovigilance databases/reports, facilitating accurate attribution of AEs.

Biosimilar ESAs: a comparative review

BACKGROUND

The management of anaemia in patients with chronic kidney disease has been transformed by development of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). Following expiry of the patent of the originator epoetin alfa in Europe, a number of biosimilar ESAs have been licensed for use in the nephrology setting. Biosimilars are biological medicines that are approved via stringently defined regulatory pathways on the basis that they have demonstrated comparable safety, efficacy and quality to their reference product.

OBJECTIVES

As nurses have a pivotal role in patient care, not only administering medications but also educating patients about their treatment options, it is important that nurses understand the differences between biosimilar medicines and their reference products and appreciate the stringent regulatory requirements for approval of biosimilars.

METHODS

In this review, we use epoetin zeta as a case study to highlight practical considerations of using biosimilar ESAs in the management of patients with kidney disease.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Biosimilar products, such as epoetin zeta, may offer a range of features to patients, nurses and physicians, such as greater flexibility over dose and route of administration, in addition to greater access to biological medicines through cost savings.

APPLICATION TO PRACTICE

Renal nurses play a significant role in the management of patients with kidney disease and anaemia, not only having an important role in the delivery of medicine but also in the education of patients. This review discusses some of the practical aspects associated with the use of biosimilar medicines to assist nurses in making informed decisions over their use.