The Biosimilar Nocebo Effect? A Systematic Review of Double-Blinded Versus Open-Label Studies

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.

Clinical Guide to Navigating the Landscape of Biosimilars for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Annual out-of-pocket expenditures for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are estimated to be as high as $41,000, with medications, such as biologics, being one of the main cost contributors. Although biologics have revolutionized IBD management, these medications are costly owing to their molecular makeup and manufacturing processes. Biosimilars, which are biologic medications that are highly similar to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved reference product with no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, or potency, offer the same therapeutic benefits at a reduced cost. Other additional benefits offered with biosimilars include increased treatment access and fostered development of new therapeutic options. Despite the expansion of biosimilars in IBD, their adoption and utilization have been suboptimal in the United States. This article provides an overview of the biosimilar landscape in IBD, including FDA-approved biosimilars available, and a clinical guide to navigate switching to biosimilars in various clinical scenarios based on current evidence.

Treatment persistence and switching patterns of ABP 501 in European patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Background

Approval of the adalimumab (ADA) biosimilar ABP 501 for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) indications was based on the principle of extrapolation, without indication-specific clinical trial data.

Objectives

To evaluate the real-world treatment patterns of ABP 501 in patients with IBD.

Design

Retrospective analysis of pharmacy claims data from Germany and France.

Methods

Continuously insured adult IBD patients who initiated ABP 501 between October 2018 and March 2020 were included. Treatment persistence, adherence, and post-ABP 501 switching patterns were evaluated for two mutually exclusive groups: ADA-naïve patients (i.e. no baseline use of ADA products) and ADA-experienced patients (i.e. previously treated with ADA products).

Results

A total of 3362 German patients and 733 French patients were included, with 54.4% and 65.3% being ADA-naïve patients, respectively. Median persistence (95% CI) on ABP 501 was 10.9 months (9.8-11.6) in ADA-naïve patients and 14.2 months (12.7-15.2) in ADA-experienced patients in Germany; for the French cohort, ADA-naïve and -experienced patients had median persistence of 12.8 months (10.2-14.7) and 11.5 months (8.8-14.4), respectively. During the first 12 months of ABP 501 initiation, 53.7% of German patients and 51.0% of French patients were adherent to the therapy. About 20% of patients in both countries switched from ABP 501 to another targeted therapy. In the German cohort, ADA-naïve patients most frequently switched to non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitor biologics, but ADA-experienced patients most commonly switched to reference product (RP); in the French cohort, patients most often switched to RP regardless of prior exposure to ADA products.

Conclusion

About 50% of patients persisted on and were adherent to ABP 501 therapy during the first 12 months after treatment initiation in two large European countries. Post-ABP 501, switching patterns varied between countries, indicating diversified treatment practices warranting further research on reason(s) for switching and potential overall treatment outcomes.

Anti-tumor necrosis factor α: originators versus biosimilars, comparison in clinical response assessment in a multicenter cohort of patients with inflammatory arthropathies

OBJECTIVE

To compare etanercept and adalimumab biosimilars (SB4 and ABP501) and respective bioriginators in terms of safety and efficacy in a real-life contest.

METHODS

We consequently enrolled patients affected by rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis, treated with SB4, and ABP501, or with corresponding originators, belonging to the main biological prescribing centers in the Lazio region (Italy), from 2017 to 2020. Data were collected at recruitment and after 4, 8, 12, and 24 months of therapy.

RESULTS

The multicenter cohort was composed by 455 patients treated with biosimilars [SB4/ABP501 276/179; female/male 307/146; biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (b-DMARD) naïve 56%, median age/ interquartile range 55/46-65 years] and 436 treated with originators (etanercept/adalimumab 186/259, female/ male 279/157, b-DMARD naïve 67,2%, median age/interquartile range 53/43-62 years). No differences were found about safety, but the biosimilar group presented more discontinuations due to inefficacy (p<0.001). Female gender, being a smoker, and being b-DMARD naïve were predictive factors of reduced drug survival (p=0.05, p=0.046, p=0.001 respectively). The retention rate at 24 months was 81.1% for bioriginators and 76.5% for biosimilars (median retention time of 20.7 and 18.9 months, respectively) (p=0.002). Patients with remission/low disease activity achievement at 4 months showed a cumulative survival of 90% to biosimilar therapy until 24 months (p=0.001); early adverse reactions instead represented a cause of subsequent drug discontinuation (p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Real-life data demonstrated a similar safety profile between biosimilars and originators, but a reduced biosimilar retention rate at 24 months. Biosimilars could be considered a valid, safe, and less expensive alternative to originators, allowing access to treatments for a wider patient population.

Self-reported efficacy and safety of infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars after non-medical switch in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: results of a multicenter survey

BACKGROUND

Few data are available on subjective disease control and perception of adverse events (AEs) during switching from original anti-TNF agents to biosimilars.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Hungarian patients with inflammatory bowel disease were interviewed after a mandatory non-medical switch from an infliximab (IFX) originator to a biosimilar GP1111 or from an adalimumab (ADA) originator to a biosimilar GP2017. Drug choice was based on patient's and physician's decision. Subjective efficacy was measured using a 10-point scale, and AEs were assessed. Difference in efficacy before and after the switch was compared within and between the drugs.

RESULTS

Seventy-three ADA and 106 IFX switching patients were interviewed. Subjective efficacy of IFX biosimilar was rated lower compared to IFX originator (8.72 ± 1.68 vs. 7.77 ± 2.34; p = 0.001). The ADA biosimilar was rated higher than its originator (9.02 ± 1.61 vs. 8.42 ± 1.93; p = 0.017). Patients receiving ADA biosimilar were more satisfied with the new treatment compared to IFX (p = 0.032). The incidence of new AEs was 85% in the ADA and 55% in the IFX group (1.79 vs. 0.93 AEs per patient, respectively, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Subjective efficacy of switching to a biosimilar was proven in case of ADA, while reduced efficacy was experienced with IFX biosimilar. Perception of AEs was high and varied between biosimilars.

Barrier-forming, drug-free nasal spray reduces allergic symptoms induced by house dust mite allergen

BACKGROUND

House Dust Mite (HDM) is the most common indoor allergen triggering allergic symptoms. First-line pharmacotherapy treatment is recommended in international guidelines, while the avoidance of allergens represents a still unmet guideline principle. AM-301 is a new non-pharmacological nasal spray that creates a protective gel-like barrier on the nasal mucosa, preventing the contact with the allergens.

METHODS

This randomized, open-label, 3-period crossover study assessed the efficacy and safety of AM-301. The objective was to determine whether AM-301 reduces allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms in patients exposed to HDM allergens. Adults with confirmed Perennial Allergic Rhinitis (PAR; n = 37) were exposed to HDM allergen in a controlled Allergen Exposure Chamber before and during a treatment course of AM-301 (in six different sequences) within 3 weeks (A: One spray AM-301 per nostril/B: Two sprays AM-301 per nostril/C: no treatment). For the primary efficacy analysis, data from the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) were pooled from treatment A + B (D) and analyzed with Analysis of Covariance Model. As secondary endpoints, single time points, visits and symptoms were analyzed.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint (overall change in TNSS from baseline over all three visits) showed significant results (p = 0.0085). A comparable alleviation of all four symptoms (itchy nose, nasal congestion, runny nose, sneezing) by the protective layer started to emerge after 40 min and lasted up to 180 min (end of challenge). AM-301 resulted to be safe and well-tolerated.

CONCLUSION

AM-301 significantly reduced HDM-related allergic symptoms in a standardized allergen challenge. Protection was observed to last up to 180 min.

PERFUSE: a French non-interventional study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease receiving infliximab biosimilar SB2: a 12-month analysis

Background

Flixabi^TM (SB2) is a biosimilar of the reference infliximab (IFX), Remicade^®. Published evidence on long-term, real-world use of SB2 in patients either IFX naive or transitioned from prior IFX is scarce.

Objectives

We evaluated persistence, effectiveness, and safety of SB2 over 12 months in adults with IBD [Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC)], participating in PERFUSE.

Design

PERFUSE is a long-term, non-interventional, multicenter study of patients receiving SB2 at specialist sites across France.

Methods

SB2 treatment was initiated in September 2017, either as first IFX treatment (IFX naive), after transition from treatment with reference IFX (IFX ref) or another IFX biosimilar (IFX bs), or both IFX ref and IFX bs (IFX multiswitch). Outcomes up to Month 12 (±2) include persistence on SB2 (primary outcome measure), SB2 dose, disease status, immunogenicity, and safety.

Results

This final 12-month analysis of patients with IBD includes 569 with CD and 168 with UC. Persistence [95% confidence interval (CI)] at Month 12 was CD: 89% (77.2; 94.9), UC: 78.5% (58.2; 89.8) for IFX naive; CD: 94% (91.0; 96.1), UC: 92.8% (84.8; 96.7) for IFX ref; CD: 91.6% (86.0; 95.0), UC: 94.2% (83.1; 98.1) for IFX bs; and CD 100% (100; 100), UC 100% (100; 100) for IFX multiswitch. In the CD and UC cohorts, disease activity among IFX naive patients declined from baseline to Month 12; with any prior IFX, the proportions of patients in remission at baseline, Month 6, and Month 12 remained unchanged in the UC cohort, and were comparable or higher in the CD cohort. No immunogenicity or safety signals were detected.

Conclusions

Patients with IBD can be initiated on SB2 or transitioned from IFX ref and/or IFX bs to SB2, with no loss of disease control or safety concerns, with >75% of naive and >90% of transitioned patients continuing on SB2 treatment at 12 months.

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

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

TNF-alpha inhibitors biosimilar use in France: a nationwide population-based study using the French National Health Data System

TNF-alpha inhibitors have revolutionized the therapeutic care in chronic inflammatory diseases. Several biosimilar products were commercialized at their patent expiry, substantially decreasing the cost of treatment. This longitudinal descriptive study aimed at assessing infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab biosimilar penetration rates using data of the French National Health Data System. A total of 207,118 new or prevalent users from the date of first biosimilar commercialization in France (respectively January 2015, May 2016 and October 2018) were included in the study and followed until September 30, 2021. Biosimilars represented respectively 78%, 46% and 53% of the overall initiations, and 94%, 66% and 60% last year's initiations. A total of 46%, 19% and 17% of originator product prevalent users switched for a biosimilar during the follow-up. Biosimilar penetration rate was much higher for infliximab than for its counterparts, due to its hospital delivery modality. Biosimilar initiation and originator-to-biosimilar switch tended to be observed more in rheumatology than in the other specialties. Biosimilar use was mostly consistent across patient socio-demographic characteristics. Biosimilar initiation rate increased rapidly from their market arrival and originator-to-biosimilar switch rate remained moderate, highlighting the need and usefulness of political action and biosimilar use tracking.

Switching Among Biosimilars: A Review of Clinical Evidence

Biological medicines have improved patients' outcomes, but their high costs may limit access. Biosimilars, alternatives that have demonstrated high similarity in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to an already licensed originator biological product, could increase competition and decrease prices. Given the expanding number of biosimilars, patients may switch from originator to biosimilar or among biosimilars. Randomized trials and observational studies conducted with multiple biosimilars over many disease areas confirmed the safety and efficacy of switching from originator to biosimilar. This study summarizes evidence on switching between biosimilars for which there are concerns to provide future guidance. A systematic search (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) for studies on anti-TNF agents, assessing clinical efficacy and safety of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch in chronic inflammatory diseases, was performed. We retrieved 320 records and included 19 clinical studies. One study with historical control compared switching between biosimilars to maintenance of the same biosimilar. Ten were controlled cohort studies comparing switching between two biosimilars vs. switching from originator to a biosimilar or vs. multiple switches. Eight were single-arm cohort studies, where participants switched from one biosimilar to another, and the outcomes were compared before and after the switch. Overall, these studies did not highlight significant concerns in switching between biosimilars. Therefore, switching studies seem difficult to perform and unnecessary with the body of evidence suggesting no real problems in practice coupled with stringent regulatory requirements. Monitoring the use of biosimilars in clinical practice could support clinical decision-making, rational use of biological medicines, and help to further realize possible savings.

Exploring the Reasons Behind the Substantial Discontinuation Rate Among Patients Taking CT-P13 in a Large Tertiary Hospital in Western Switzerland: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using Routinely Collected Medical Data

BACKGROUND

CT-P13 is an infliximab biosimilar that was granted market authorization in Switzerland in 2016. Despite the growing literature supporting the equivalence of CT-P13 compared with originator infliximab regarding the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity and the undeniable cost-saving opportunities, CT-P13 remains widely underused in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE

Leaving aside the phenomenon of a low initiation rate, this study aimed to explore the reasons behind the high discontinuation rate observed among the patients taking CT-P13 in a large tertiary hospital in Western Switzerland.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected data. Patients were eligible if they received originator infliximab or CT-P13 between September 2017 and December 2020. They were included if they had received at least two CT-P13 infusions during the same period. Patients were excluded if the follow-up was incomplete prior to or 6 months after their first CT-P13 infusion and if they had an oncological main diagnosis. Primary outcomes were the reasons for treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-six patients were included and classified into two groups: switchers who were treated with originator infliximab and were switched to CT-P13 (n = 85, 54%) and initiators who did not receive originator infliximab prior to CT-P13 treatment (n = 71, 46%). Included patients belonged to three different groups of diagnosis: gastroenterological (67, 43%), rheumatological (61, 39%), and immunological (28, 18%). Twenty-three (27%) switchers and 35 (49%) initiators discontinued CT-P13 after 12 months. Main reasons for CT-P13 discontinuation were lack of efficacy (n = 21, 36%) and secondary loss of response (n = 16, 28%); however, objective assessments were not available. Initiators' probability to discontinue CT-P13 at 12 months was significantly higher than switchers' (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of efficacy and secondary loss of response were the main reasons for the high CT-P13 discontinuation rate observed in a large tertiary hospital in Western Switzerland. Lack of active training and coordination among healthcare professionals and little education in patients may have exacerbated patients' subjective complaints and increased the CT-P13 discontinuation rate.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Key Consideration for Evaluating Biosimilar Uptake?

Purpose

This review aims to provide an overview of the impact of TNFis biosimilars, with marketing authorization, in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) scores and explore how PROMs endpoints might add value in biosimilars uptake in RA patients.

Patients and Methods

A comprehensive search of Medline, Scopus, Lilacs, and CINAHL databases was performed for papers published between January 2012 and December 2021. For inclusion, studies had to be prospective, published in a peer-reviewed journal, published in English or Spanish language; studies using PROMs as an outcome measure. After screening title and abstracts and assessing the remaining full texts fulfilling the inclusion criteria, 31 papers were used in this narrative review.

Results

PROMs were used as secondary outcomes in included studies. The most frequently employed domains to assess biosimilar efficacy include physical function, patient global assessment (PtGA), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and fatigue. The results of randomized clinical trials uniformly showed that mean change in PROMs scores is comparable between biosimilar and reference biologic treatment groups. However, open-label and real-world studies revealed high rates of discontinuation of therapy, mainly for subjective worsening of disease activity or non-specific adverse events. Even without objective clinical evidence of inflammation, patients who are considered to have active disease (higher scores on PtGA) have higher discontinuation rates of biosimilars. The available information suggests that the nocebo effect is the most likely cause for the discontinuation of biosimilars.

Conclusion

There is scarce literature surrounding the impact of biosimilars in PROMs, especially in open-label studies. In real-life studies, biosimilars have a higher discontinuation rate than reference products. TNFis biosimilars treatment efficacy in RA depends on disease activity and other factors such as PtGA and fatigue. The nocebo effect is the best explanation for biosimilar's discontinuation.

An Introduction to Biosimilars for the Treatment of Retinal Diseases: A Narrative Review

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of disease across a number of therapeutic areas including retinal diseases. However, on occasion, such treatments may be relatively more expensive compared to small molecule therapies. This can restrict patient access and treatment length leading to suboptimal clinical outcomes. Several biosimilar candidates of ranibizumab and aflibercept are currently in development and the first biosimilar of ranibizumab received EMA approval in August and FDA approval in September 2021. Biosimilars are biological medicines that are highly similar to an already-approved biological medicine (reference product). The physicochemical and clinical similarity of a biosimilar is determined by a rigorous analytical and clinical program, including extensive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis with phase III equivalence studies where appropriate. These phase III studies are carried out in a patient population that is representative of all of the potential approved therapeutic indications of the originator product and the most sensitive for detecting potential differences between the biosimilar and the reference product. Biosimilars have been used successfully across a wide range of therapeutic areas for the past 15 years where they have achieved substantial cost savings that can be reinvested into healthcare systems without affecting the quality of patient care. The current review provides an introduction to biosimilars with the aim of preparing retinal specialists for discussing these products with their patients.

Efficacy and safety of etanercept biosimilar rhTNFR-Fc in Chinese patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: An open-label multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

Etanercept biosimilar recombinant human TNF-α receptor II: IgG Fc fusion protein (rhTNFR-Fc) has showed its efficacy and safety in Chinese patients with rheumatoid arthritis. However, data on rhTNFR-Fc's application in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is limited.

METHODS

A prospective, observational, multicenter study was performed at 6 institutes in China from July 2020 to December 2021. In a 24-week follow-up, patients with JIA including polyarticular JIA and enthesitis related arthritis received rhTNFR-Fc plus methotrexate (MTX) treatment. The primary outcome parameters were improvements of cJADAS-10 (clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score), and the secondary outcome parameter was an inactive disease.

RESULTS

60 patients completed at least 12-week follow-up, and 57 completed 24-week follow-up. They had high C reactive protein values (11.6 mg/L) and cJADAS-10 (14.6) at baseline. Thirteen patients had morning stiffness. 33 patients showed synovial thickening, and 34 showed bone marrow edemas on MRI. Ultrasonography demonstrated significant joint effusions in 43 patients. The cJADAS-10 sharply decreased from 14.66 at the baseline to 2.4 at 24 weeks of rhTNFR-Fc therapy, respectively (P < 0.01). About half of patients achieved inactive disease at 24 weeks of therapy. Compared with the baseline, the number of patients with morning stiffness, joint effusions, bone marrow edema and synovial thickening on MRI significantly decreased at 24 weeks. Adverse events were consistent with known side effects of biologic agents.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study indicated that the combination of rhTNFR-Fc and MTX significantly improve symptoms and disease activity of children with JIA. This study suggests etanercept biosimilar rhTNFR-Fc as an effective and safe therapy for children with JIA.

Perception of Biosimilar Biologics and Non-Medical Prescription Switching among Rheumatologists: A Saudi Society for Rheumatology Initiative

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate rheumatologists’ perceptions of biosimilar biologics and Non-Medical Switching (NMS).

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among registered members of the Saudi Society for Rheumatology. The questionnaire focused on biosimilars and NMS. Logistic regression was performed to ascertain the effect of demographics and practice characteristics on the use of biosimilars and NMS.

Results

Out of 249 SSR members, 143 completed the survey, generating a response rate of 57.4%. Of those (59.44%) were men with a mean (±SD) age and years of practice of 42.3 ± 9.13 and 10.3 ± 8.9, respectively. Rheumatologists managing adult patients (81.82%) and Ministry of Health practice (43.36 %) were the majority of respondents. Previous experience in prescribing a biosimilar was reported by 43 (30.07%) participants, with a higher probability among women (p = 0.015). A total of 26 (18.18%) participants had performed NMS on eligible patients. Adequate knowledge on biosimilars was reported by 69 (48.25%) participants. The adequacy of evidence to grant biosimilar approval for the studied indication and extrapolation to treat other conditions was reported by 88 (61.5%) and 69 (48.3%), respectively. The concept of totality-of-the-evidence was well understood by 37.1%. Biosimilars had been previously used by 43 (30.07) participants in their practice. NMS had been attempted by 26 (18.18), while 86 (60.1%) participants believed that NMS might harm patients.

Conclusion

There is a clear knowledge gap about the biosimilar approval process among adult and pediatric rheumatologists who took part in the survey. In addition, a large number of participants reported having negative opinions about NMS. There is a need to organize SSR-led educational activities, and develop national guidelines regarding biosimilars and NMS.

Toward the integration of biosimilars into pediatric rheumatology: adalimumab ABP 501 experience of PeRA research group

OBJECTIVES

To review the real-life data, to provide an input to the literature concerning treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with adalimumab (ADL) biosimilar.

METHOD

This multi-centric retrospective study was conducted among children with JIA, followed up for at least 24-weeks from the initiation of ADL biosimilar (ABP 501) treatment. Adverse events and alterations in disease activity scores were figured out.

RESULTS

The median age of the group was 15.5 (5-18) years. JIA categories were oligoarticular (n =12), enthesitis-related (ERA) (n=24), psoriatic (PsA) (n=6), and polyarticular (n=4). Uveitis was detected at the initiation of the disease (n=3), during the disease course (n=5), or before the diagnosis (n=1). The first-line treatment preferences were ADL biosimilar (n=37) and etanercept (n=9). On the 6th month of ABP 501, 40 (86.9%) patients had achieved complete remission. Six patients (1 PsA, 1 polyarticular JIA, and 4 ERA) had ongoing active arthritis. Furthermore, all except one of the patients had remission of ophthalmologic findings. No life-threatening adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

ABP 501 has a gradual increase in prescription in pediatric rheumatology. Real-life data of the cohort announce that ADL biosimilar is a suitable and effective treatment option for patients with JIA in case of indication.

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.

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

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

Switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars in chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: A systematic literature review

AIMS

Adalimumab is a biological therapy used to treat different chronic inflammatory diseases. At present, there is an increasing number of adalimumab biosimilars. To assume the acceptability of interchangeability between reference adalimumab and biosimilars, there should be evidence about efficacy and safety of this switching. Regulation of this practice falls under the authority of individual European Union Member States. The aim of this study is to systematically review the evidence on the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars in different chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

METHODS

Studies presenting data about switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars were identified by sensitive search strategies in Medline and EMBASE from 1 January 2004 to 30 June 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 471 references were obtained and 21 finally included in the analysis (total number of patients switching: 2802). Eight different adalimumab biosimilars were tested after receiving reference adalimumab. Eight articles included rheumatoid arthritis (RA), one miscellaneous rheumatic disease, six psoriasis (PSO) and six inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Overall, the efficacy results in the switching groups were comparable to those obtained in the arms of continuous biosimilar and continuous reference adalimumab. There were no significant differences in treatment emergent adverse events, anti-drug or neutralising antibodies among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars has no impact on efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with RA, PSO and IBD. This finding was consistent for the different adalimumab biosimilars analysed. These conclusions could probably be extended to other rheumatic diseases such as psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

Multidisciplinary team intervention to reduce the nocebo effect when switching from the originator infliximab to a biosimilar

Objectives

To evaluate an intervention to reduce the nocebo effect (NE) when switching from the originator infliximab (OI) to the infliximab biosimilar SB2 in chronic inflammatory rheumatic disease (CIRD).

Methods

An intervention was built with healthcare professionals (HPs) and a patient representative, based on a systematic review of interventions reducing the NE in musculoskeletal diseases and semi-directed questioning of five patients. Our strategy consisted of training HPs, switch information given by the nurses, a consistent vocabulary. All CIRD patients switched from OI to SB2 were included for the intervention. The primary outcome was the SB2 retention rate (RR) at 34 weeks. Secondary outcomes were the SB2 RR at 12 months, discontinuation rates due to a possible NE and comparison with a historical cohort of CIRD patients receiving the OI and 6 published European cohorts.

Results

45 patients were included from March 2018 (rheumatoid arthritis, n=17, spondylarthritis, n=28). After 34 weeks, the SB2 RR was 91.2%, similar to the historical cohort RR (p=0.41) but higher than the 3 European cohort RRs (p<0.05). At 12 months, the SB2 RR was 84.5% vs 88.4% for the historical cohort (p=0.52). SB2 discontinuation due to a possible NE was 6.6% after 12 months.

Conclusions

A tailored communication with a prominent role of nurses reduced the NE in non-medical switches from the OI to SB2 as compared to published results. The RR was similar to the historical cohort RR. The methodology used to construct this intervention may help improve the outcomes of switches with upcoming biosimilars.

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

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

The 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.

Switching from IFX originator to biosimilar CT-P13 does not impact effectiveness,safety and immunogenicity in a large cohort of IBD patients

BACKGROUND

Switching from IFX originator to CT-P13 is safe; however, little data on immunogenicity exists.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Consecutive IBD patients on IFX originator were switched to CT-P13 and followed-up for 12 months. Clinical activity, infliximab trough levels (ITLs), anti-drug antibodies (ATIs), and adverse events were recorded at predefined timepoints (baseline, second CT-P13 infusion, 6 and 12 months). The outcomes investigated were immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, effectiveness and safety.

RESULTS

119 patients were switched to CT-P13 after a median time with IFX of 5.8 years. No changes in mean ITLs were observed. ATIs were detected in 30 patients (25.2%): 14 before and 16 after switch. Mean persistent ATIs were significantly higher compared to mean transient ones (109.74 ng/mL ±84.70 vs 18.22 ng/mL ±11.37, p < 0.001), with significantly lower ITLs associated (mean 0.32 µg/mL ±0.6 vs 3.08 µg/mL ±3.22, p < 0.001). A significant decrease of patients in steroid-fee clinical remission was observed after the switch (p = 0.004), with subsequent improvement at 6 months (p = 0.005). Eighteen patients (15.1%) discontinued IFX, only 6 (5%) for loss of response.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from infliximab originator to CT-P13 seems safe and effective, without differences in immunogenicity. A temporary reduction of clinical benefit after switching could be potentially explained by a 'nocebo-effect response'.

The Argument Against a Biosimilar Switch Policy for Infliximab in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Living in Alberta

A nonmedical switch policy is currently being considered in Alberta, which would force patients on originator biologics to biosimilar alternatives with the hypothetical aim of reducing costs to the health care system. The evidence to support the safety of nonmedical switching in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is of low to very low quality; in fact, existing data suggest a potential risk of harm. In a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials, one patient would lose response to infliximab for every 11 patients undergoing nonmedical switching. Switching to a biosimilar has important logistical and ethical implications including potential forced treatment changes without appropriate patient consent and unfairly penalizing patients living in rural areas and those without private drug insurance. Even in the best-case scenario, assuming perfectly executed switching without logistical delays, we predict switching 2,000 patients with Remicade will lead to over 60 avoidable surgeries in Alberta. Furthermore, nonmedical switching has not been adequately studied in vulnerable populations such as children, pregnant women, and elderly patients. While the crux of the argument for nonmedical switching is cost savings, biosimilar switching may not be cost effective: Particularly when originator therapies are being offered at the same price as biosimilars. Canadian patients with IBD have been surveyed, and their response is clear: They are not in support of nonmedical switching. Policies that directly influence patient health need to consider patient perspectives. Solutions to improve cost efficiency in health care exist but open, transparent collaboration between all involved stakeholders is required.

Nocebo effect and biosimilars in inflammatory bowel diseases: what's new and what's next?

INTRODUCTION

The use of biosimilars for the treatment of patients with chronic inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) showed to be a valid strategy to reduce the economic burden of biologics on health-care costs and to increase patient access to treatment. However, the nocebo effect constitutes an important limitation to the wide use of biosimilars.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a literature overview to summarize information on nocebo effect in IBD population and to provide physicians with practical key strategies to prevent the nocebo effect in daily clinical practice and to improve patients' outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the proven efficacy and safety of biosimilars, further clinical studies are needed to define the effects of reverse and multiple switches in the management of patients with IBD. The development of new subcutaneous formulations, better accepted by patients, could contribute to reduce patients' negative expectations, and limit the nocebo effect.

One-year results after transitioning from etanercept originator to biosimilar in a setting promoting shared decision-making in rheumatology

Objective

The aim was to study the effect of non-mandatory transitioning from etanercept originator to etanercept biosimilar on retention rates in a setting promoting shared decision-making.

Methods

In 2016, all patients treated with etanercept originator and stable disease at the Rheumatology department in Bernhoven were offered transitioning to etanercept biosimilar by an opt-in approach. A historical cohort of patients treated with etanercept originator in 2015 was identified as the control group. Etanercept discontinuation was compared between the cohorts using Cox regression. To study the nocebo effect, reasons for discontinuation were categorized into objective reasons (e.g. laboratory abnormalities, increase in swollen joint count, allergic reaction) and subjective health complaints (symptoms perceptible only to the patient, e.g. tiredness, arthralgia). An adjusted Kaplan–Meier curve for retention of the etanercept biosimilar was made, censoring subjective health complaints as the reason for discontinuation.

Results

Seventy of the 79 patients eligible for transitioning agreed to transition (89%). The 1-year crude retention rate of etanercept in the transition cohort was 73% (95% CI: 0.62, 0.83), compared with a retention rate of 89% (95% CI: 0.81, 0.95) in the historical cohort (P = 0.013). This resulted in a higher risk of treatment discontinuation in the transition cohort (adjusted hazard ratio = 2.73; 95% CI: 1.23, 6.05, P = 0.01). After adjusting for the nocebo effect, the cohorts had comparable retention rates (86 vs 89%, P = 0.51).

Conclusion

Non-mandatory transition from etanercept originator to its biosimilar using an opt-in approach in a setting promoting shared decision-making resulted in a higher discontinuation of etanercept compared with the historical cohort. This could be attributed largely to the nocebo effect.

Nocebo and lessebo effects

The power of placebos is commonly associated with the placebo effect. In contrast, detrimental effects related to the use of a placebo are little studied and less well recognized. This chapter covers the nocebo and lessebo effects defined, respectively, as expectation of harm in the form of adverse events in a placebo arm and reduction of therapeutic benefit due to the uncertainty of being allocated to placebo. The lessebo effect is a more recent concept and has been described only in depression, schizophrenia and Parkinson's disease. The nocebo response was evaluated in many neurological diseases, including epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, restless leg syndrome, among others. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials in these conditions reveal a significant variability of the magnitude of the nocebo response and that factors related to study design, study participants or neurological disease can be associated with a nocebo response, although with the opposing findings across conditions. The knowledge about neurobiological mechanisms of the nocebo effect is poor for neurological diseases, and most of the information has been generated in pain. Functional neuroimaging suggests the existence of a distinct network for the anticipation and the experience of a hyperalgesia nocebo response. Different types of neurotransmitters have been involved, including cholecystokinin, dopamine and opioids. Recognizing the potential impact of nocebo and lessebo effects, mitigating strategies are in development with application to clinical research and clinical practice, such as a contextualized informed consent process, alternative study designs and enhancement of patient-physician communication.

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 and the nocebo effect]

Biosimilars have been approved for use in Germany for many years and in the meantime also in rheumatology but only a few years ago. Biosimilars, which are biotechnologically manufactured products the same as reference biologicals, have actually now achieved a substantial proportion of the market in some regions but there are still doubters among patients and physicians who fear a loss of quality even if there is no evidence for this. A part of this problem can be explained by the nocebo effect but which furthermore also has a substantial medical importance. This effect is described and explained in this article. Psychosocial and context-related factors, such as the relationship between patient and physician, previous experience with treatment and treatment expectations can either improve or impair the efficacy of treatment interventions. These phenomena are commonly known as placebo and nocebo effects. As placebo and nocebo effects can influence the development of symptoms, the frequency of undesired events and the efficacy of treatment, it is decisive to know these effects and to develop strategies for prevention in order to optimize the treatment results. Although in recent years experimental studies have achieved substantial progress in the clarification of the psychosocial and neurobiological mechanisms of placebo effects, detailed mechanisms of nocebo effects are still widely unexplored. An improved understanding of these mechanisms promises the development of user-friendly strategies for the clinical care to improve treatment results and patient satisfaction.

The Clinical Implications of Nocebo Effects for Biosimilar Therapy

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

Efficacy and Safety in the Continued Treatment With a Biosimilar Drug in Patients Receiving Infliximab: A Systematic Review in the Context of Decision-Making From a Latin-American Country

Introduction: Biological products, including infliximab (INF), are a therapeutic option for various medical conditions. In the Peruvian Social Security (EsSalud), infliximab is approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthropathy, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease (in cases refractory to conventional treatment). Biosimilars are a safe and effective alternative approved for these diseases in patients who start treatment with infliximab. Nevertheless, there are people in treatment with the biological reference product (BRP), in whom the continuing therapy with a biosimilar biological product (BBP) must be evaluated.

Objectives: To synthesize the best available evidence, calculate a preliminary financial impact and conduct technical discussions about the interchangeability into biosimilar in patients receiving treatment with original infliximab for medical conditions approved in EsSalud.

Methodology: We carried out a systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Primary search was performed in Pubmed- MEDLINE, SCOPUS, WOS, EMBASE, TRIPDATABASE, DARE, Cochrane Library, NICE, AHRQ, SMC, McMaster-PLUS, CADTH, and HSE until June-2018. We used the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias. Also, we implemented a preliminary financial analysis about the impact of biosimilar introduction on institutional purchasing budget. Moreover, technical meetings with medical doctors specialized in rheumatology, gastroenterology and dermatology were held for discussing findings.

Results: In primary search, 1136 records were identified, and 357 duplicates were removed. From 799 records, we excluded 765 after title and abstract evaluation. From 14 full-text appraised documents, we included five clinical trials in the risk of bias assessment: four studies evaluated CTP-13 and one tested SB2. Two double-blind clinical trials reported no differences in efficacy and safety profiles between maintenance group (INF/INF) and interchangeability group in all diseases included (INF/CTP-13) and rheumatoid arthritis (CTP13 and SB2). In the other three studies, open-label extension of primary clinical trials, no differences were founded in efficacy and safety profiles between CTP-13/CTP-13 and INF/CTP-13 groups. In financial analysis, the inclusion of biosimilars implied savings around S/7´642,780.00 (1USD=S/3.30) on purchasing budget of EsSalud. In technical meetings, beyond certain concerns, specialists agreed with the findings.

Conclusions: Evidence from clinical trials support that there are no differences in efficacy or safety of continuing the treatment with Infliximab BRP or exchanging into its biosimilar in patients with medical conditions approved in EsSalud. Financial analysis shows that the biosimilar introduction produce savings in purchasing institutional budget. Therefore, based on cost-opportunity principle, exchanging into biosimilar in patients receiving the original Infliximab, is a valid therapeutic alternative in the Peruvian Social Security.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Does a mandatory non-medical switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept lead to increase in healthcare use and costs? A Danish register-based study of patients with inflammatory arthritis

Objectives

In year 2016, Danish national guidelines included a mandatory switch of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases treated with originator etanercept (ETA) to biosimilar SB4 in routine care. We aimed to explore if switching lead to increased healthcare utilisation and costs.

Methods

Observational cohort study. Adult patients who switched from ETA to SB4 were identified in the Danish nationwide DANBIO registry. In the National Patient Registry, we identified health utilisation (hospital admissions/hospital days/outpatient visits/prescription medication use) and comorbidities. Estimation of health utilisation included average use and costs 1 year before/after switch, changes after the switch, and whether patient characteristics affected changes. Analyses were by adjusted two-step gamma distributed regression models, and for changes over time a generalized estimation equations (GEE) model was applied. Impact of comorbidities was explored as interaction terms in the model. Medication costs of ETA and SB4 were not included in model.

Results

1620 patients were included (mean age 55 years (SD 14.7), 40% male). Costs before and after switching were mainly driven by outpatient visits (67%/72% of all costs). Monthly fluctuations of costs were similar before/after switch. After switching, use (8%) and costs (7%) of outpatient services increased, whereas costs of admissions (55%) and medication (5%) decreased. Patients with longer ETA treatment duration had an increase in use and costs of healthcare resources, whereas gender and comorbidities had no impact. Higher age was associated with an increase in costs of inpatient services.

Conclusion

We demonstrated no obvious changes in overall use and costs of healthcare services following switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept.

Biosimilars in the management of chronic inflammatory diseases: The Dutch experience

These days, the use of biosimilars for the treatment of bio-naive patients is well established. However, the transition of patients being treated with a bio-originator to its biosimilar is still a topic of discussion. The main issue is which approach to use when initiating the non-medical transition. The first real-world examples contain both mandatory and non-mandatory approaches, resulting in a variety of acceptance and discontinuation rates. At this moment a non-mandatory approach, based on shared decision making, is preferred by international guidelines and the Task Force on the Use of Biosimilars to Treat Rheumatological Diseases. However, clear definitions of mandatory and non-mandatory are lacking, as a result of which these terms may be wrongly used in some studies. This article aims to provide an overview of transition approaches used in the Netherlands, and how the approach used relates to acceptance and discontinuation rates of the biosimilar.

Switching to biosimilars: current perspectives in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

Introduction: The expiry of patents for biologics has led to the introduction of biosimilars for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). These treatment alternatives may allow earlier and wider access to appropriate therapy for patients without increasing the economic burden on health-care systems. Prescription of biosimilars to treatment-naïve patients is well accepted; however, additional considerations must be taken into account when switching clinically stable patients from reference products to biosimilars. Area covered: We discuss the current considerations related to switching from reference products to biosimilars from a physician and patient perspective. We review the clinical data and real-life experience on switching patients with IMIDs, present the position of the relevant medical societies, and discuss the importance of patient-physician communication and need for shared decision-making. Expert opinion: The introduction of biosimilars provides an opportunity to expand access to treatment for patients with IMIDs across Europe and support the financial sustainability of health-care systems. We anticipate that as the real-world evidence base grows, confirming the results of clinical trials, there will be a corresponding increase in physician and patient acceptance, not only to initiating treatment with a biosimilar, but also to switching medication from a reference product to a biosimilar.

Biological Therapies in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Can Biosimilars Reduce Access Inequities?

Biological therapies are an effective treatment for a range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel diseases. However, due to their high costs, considerable differences in their utilization exist across the world, even among the various European countries, with many countries restricting access despite professional society guideline recommendations. Adoption of biologics by healthcare providers has been particularly poor in many Central and Eastern European countries. Differences in utilization have also been observed across medical specialties, healthcare providers, and at a regional and national level. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the different market access policies for biologics in Europe and to investigate reasons for such differences. One of the potential solutions for providing broader access to IMID patients, where cost is the major barrier, is to encourage the use of biosimilars in place of their reference products. Biosimilars are generally less expensive alternatives to already licensed biological therapies and are approved on the basis that they are similar to the reference product in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. Budget impact models predict considerable cost savings following the introduction of biosimilars in the next few years. These savings could be used to increase access to biologics and other innovative therapies.