Analysis of real-world treatment patterns in a matched rheumatology population that continued innovator infliximab therapy or switched to biosimilar infliximab

Impact of switching to infliximab biosimilars on treatment patterns among US veterans receiving innovator infliximab

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatment patterns of United States (US) veterans stable on innovator infliximab (IFX) who switched to an IFX biosimilar (switchers) or remained on innovator IFX (continuers).

METHODS

US Veterans Healthcare Administration data (01/2012-12/2019) were used to identify adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), plaque psoriasis (PsO), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), or Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis (i.e. inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]), treated with innovator or biosimilar IFX. Index date was the first IFX biosimilar administration for switchers or a random innovator IFX administration for continuers. Patients were required to have ≥5 innovator IFX administrations during the 12 months pre-index (prevalent population). Patients with ≥12 months of observation prior to the first innovator IFX administration were analyzed as the primary population (incident population), and data were assessed from start of innovator IFX. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. Treatment patterns were evaluated post-index; continuers were censored before switching to IFX biosimilar. Discontinuation was defined as switching to another biologic (including innovator IFX) or having ≥120 days between 2 consecutive index treatment records.

RESULTS

In the incident population, mean [median] duration of follow-up was 737 [796] days among switchers (N = 838) and 479 [337] days among continuers (N = 849). Compared to continuers, switchers were 2.88-times more likely to discontinue index therapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.88, p < .001) and 4.99-times more likely to switch to another innovator biologic (HR = 4.99, p < .001). Of 653 switchers switching to another innovator biologic, 594 (91.0%) switched back to innovator IFX. Results were similar among the prevalent population and RA and IBD subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Patients switching from innovator to biosimilar IFX were more likely to discontinue treatment and switch to another innovator biologic (notably back to innovator IFX) than those remaining on innovator IFX; however, reasons for discontinuation and switching are unknown.

Patients Retransitioning from Biosimilar TNFα Inhibitor to the Corresponding Originator After Initial Transitioning to the Biosimilar: A Systematic Review

Background

Transitioning patients from an originator to a corresponding biosimilar has been extensively studied in both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Although transitioning is considered well-tolerated, with no negative impacts on efficacy and/or safety, 2.6–25.8% of patients restart treatment with the originator (retransitioning). Retransitioning to the originator can be considered an indication of biosimilar treatment failure or dissatisfaction with biosimilar treatment. Increasing our knowledge of patients who retransition might help to reduce the number of patients retransitioning.

Objective

Our objective was to estimate the cumulative incidence of patients who retransitioned from a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitor biosimilar to originator and to explore potential patient, disease, and treatment and implementation strategy factors associated with retransitioning.

Method

We conducted a systematic literature search in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials databases until March 2021. Studies on TNFα inhibitors, biosimilar transitioning, and retransitioning were included. Transitioning was defined as switching from an originator to a biosimilar, and retransitioning was defined as switching from an originator to a biosimilar and back to the originator. Characteristics of the studies were descriptively analyzed. Studies were weighted by the number of patients transitioning, and the primary outcome was the median cumulative incidence of retransitioning. For each of the factors related to patient, disease, and treatment and implementation strategy, studies were stratified according to the categories of that factor. The weighted medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) of the cumulative incidence of retransitioning in these studies were calculated and compared to explore whether a potential association existed between these factors and the cumulative incidence of retransitioning.

Results

Of 994 screened publications, 37 were included. The weighted median cumulative incidence of retransitioning was 7.6% (IQR 6.8–17.2). Studies that included only patients with inflammatory bowel disease (6.6 vs. 15.1–17.7% for other indications), included only patients with stable disease (7.0 vs. 13.7% for including all patients), and did not offer retransitioning at the introduction of the biosimilar (7.0 vs. 11.1% for studies that offered retransitioning) reported less retransitioning. In addition, the incidence of retransitioning was lower when extra laboratory monitoring was part of the implementation strategy (1.6 vs. 6.1%) and when gainsharing (patients’ healthcare directly benefits from financial savings from transitioning) (1.4 vs. 7.2% for studies without gainsharing) was applied.

Conclusions

In studies on transitioning patients from TNFα originator to biosimilar, 8% of patients retransitioned. Retransitioning appeared to be lower in studies that included only patients with stable disease and in studies that did not offer patients the option of retransitioning at the introduction of the biosimilar. In addition, retransitioning appeared to be lower in studies that implemented extra laboratory monitoring as part of the biosimilar implementation strategy. Clinicians should consider implementing these suggestions as they might reduce retransitioning rates and improve the introduction of biosimilars in clinical practice.

PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42021226381

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-021-00508-4.

Real-life drug persistence in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with CT-P13: a prospective observational cohort study (PERSIST)

Objective

The aim was to report results from PERSIST, a real-life, observational, prospective cohort study of CT-P13, an infliximab (IFX) biosimilar, for treatment of patients with RA, AS or PsA who were biologic naïve or switched from an IFX reference product (IFX-RP; Remicade).

Methods

Adult patients were recruited during usual care at 38 sites in Europe and Canada and enrolled by their physicians after meeting eligibility criteria according to the country-approved label for CT-P13. Primary outcomes were to determine drug utilization and treatment persistence and to assess safety. Patients were followed for up to 2 years. Data were analysed and reported descriptively.

Results

Of 351 patients enrolled, 334 were included in the analysis (RA, 40.4%; AS, 34.7%; PsA, 24.9%). The safety analysis set comprised all 328 patients treated with CT-P13. The majority (58.2%) of patients received CT-P13 monotherapy, most (72.6%) by dosing every 6 or 8 weeks. The mean treatment persistence was 449.2 days; 62.3% of patients completed 2 years of treatment. In all, 214 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 38.4% of patients. Most TEAEs were of mild or moderate intensity; 13 were severe. The most commonly reported TEAEs were drug ineffective (9.5%) and infusion-related reactions (5.2%). The most frequently reported infection-related TEAEs were upper respiratory tract infections (3.0%), nasopharyngitis (2.1%) and bronchitis (1.5%). No patients experienced tuberculosis.

Conclusion

Drug utilization and treatment persistence with CT-P13 were consistent with historical reports of IFX-RP in this patient population. Safety findings did not identify new concerns for CT-P13 in the treatment of patients with RA, AS or PsA.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02605642.

Switching and Discontinuation Patterns Among Patients Stable on Originator Infliximab Who Switched to an Infliximab Biosimilar or Remained on Originator Infliximab

OBJECTIVE

To compare switching and discontinuation patterns of patients stable on originator infliximab (IFX) who switched to an IFX biosimilar (switchers) or remained on originator IFX (continuers) in the United States.

METHODS

Symphony Health Solutions' Patient Transactional Datasets (10/2012-03/2019) were used to identify adults with ≥2 claims for either rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, ankylosing spondylitis, or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); and ≥1 claim for originator or biosimilar IFX. The index date was the first IFX biosimilar claim for switchers or a random originator IFX claim for continuers. All patients were required to have ≥5 originator IFX claims during the 12 months pre-index (prevalent population). The subset of patients with ≥12 months of observation prior to the first originator IFX claim was also analyzed (incident population). Switchers were matched 1:3 to continuers. Discontinuation was defined as having ≥120 days between 2 consecutive index treatment claims.

RESULTS

Prevalent switchers (N=1109) were 3.57-times more likely than continuers (N=3327) to switch to another originator biologic (hazard ratio [HR]=3.57, p<0.001). Of 249 prevalent switchers who switched to another originator biologic, 200 (80.3%) switched back to originator IFX. Incident switchers (N=571) were 2.55-times more likely than continuers (N=1713) to switch to another originator biologic (HR=2.55, p<0.001). Of 118 incident switchers who switched to another originator biologic, 90 (76.3%) switched back to originator IFX. Prevalent switchers were 1.25-times more likely than continuers to discontinue index therapy (HR=1.25, p<0.001). Similar results were observed in RA (prevalent population; switching: HR=3.49, p<0.001; discontinuation: HR=1.23, p=0.009) and IBD (prevalent population; switching: HR=3.82, p<0.001; discontinuation: HR=1.29, p=0.003) subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Patients switching from originator to biosimilar IFX were more likely to switch to another originator biologic (notably back to originator IFX) and discontinue index treatment than those remaining on originator IFX; however, reasons for switching are unknown.

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

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

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.

Biosimilarity and Interchangeability: Principles and Evidence: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The efficacy, safety and immunogenicity risk of switching between an originator biologic and a biosimilar or from one biosimilar to another are of potential concern.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to conduct a systematic literature review of the outcomes of switching between biologics and their biosimilars and identify any evidence gaps.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception to June 2017. Relevant societal meetings were also checked. Peer-reviewed studies reporting efficacy and/or safety data on switching between originator and biosimilar products or from one biosimilar to another were selected. Studies with fewer than 20 switched patients were excluded. Data were extracted on interventions, study population, reason for treatment switching, efficacy outcomes, safety and anti-drug antibodies.

RESULTS

The systematic literature search identified 63 primary publications covering 57 switching studies. The reason for switching was reported as non-medical in 50 studies (23 clinical, 27 observational). Seven studies (all observational) did not report whether the reasons for switching were medical or non-medical. In 38 of the 57 studies, fewer than 100 patients were switched. Follow-up after switching went beyond 1 year in eight of the 57 studies. Of the 57 studies, 33 included statistical analysis of disease activity or patient outcomes; the majority of these studies found no statistically significant differences between groups for main efficacy parameters (based on P < 0.05 or predefined acceptance ranges), although some studies observed changes for some parameters. Most studies reported similar safety profiles between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There are important evidence gaps around the safety of switching between biologics and their biosimilars. Sufficiently powered and appropriately statistically analysed clinical trials and pharmacovigilance studies, with long-term follow-ups and multiple switches, are needed to support decision-making around biosimilar switching.

Treatment Outcomes with Biosimilars: Be Aware of the Nocebo Effect

Over the years, biologic agents have proven their importance in the management of chronic autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease. Biosimilars, which are biologic medicines, are highly similar to approved biologic medicines, and are comprehensively developed and rigorously tested to ensure efficacy and safety are similar to the reference product. A broader armamentarium of biosimilars is expected to improve patients' access to safe and effective biologic medicines, thus offering benefits to healthcare systems around the globe. Here we consider the factors that may compromise the benefits of biosimilars being realized, including patient and physician perception of biosimilars, and an often overlooked factor, the nocebo effect, which is re-emerging with the widespread adoption of biosimilar medicines. We have also described a variety of strategies and recommendations that could help limit the nocebo effect.

FUNDING

Biogen.