Efficacy, Safety and Immunogenicity of Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Systematic Review

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.

Safety, efficacy, and drug survival of the infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 in post-marketing surveillance of Japanese patients with psoriasis

Based on extrapolation of similar clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis to the originator infliximab (IFX) in randomized clinical trials, the first biosimilar antibody CT-P13 was approved for the treatment of psoriasis. To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and drug survival of CT-P13 for psoriasis in real-world clinical practice, prospective post-marketing surveillance was conducted in 165 Japanese psoriasis patients. During a 1-year follow-up period, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurred in 29 patients (17.6%). Infusion reaction was the most frequent ADR (6.7%), and mild pneumonia was reported as the only case of infection. Serious ADRs were reported in two patients (1.2%): acute cholecystitis and interstitial pneumonia. The interstitial pneumonia developed after a single infusion of CT-P13 and the patient died of respiratory failure. In naive patients to biologic therapy (n = 44), the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) decreased rapidly after the start of CT-P13 treatment, and response rate achieving an absolute PASI score <1 was 55% at 30 weeks. The response rate was high (78%) in patients with psoriatic arthritis, and 40% and 20% in those in plaque psoriasis and pustular psoriasis, respectively. Of patients switched from IFX to CT-P13 mainly for nonmedical reasons (n = 105), 57% had already reached PASI <1 by pretreatment with IFX and CT-P13 maintained this status. The incidence of ADRs in this patient group was low and the drug survival rate was as high as 74%, even at 1 year, which was significantly higher than that in the naïve patient group (47%). Patients switched from other biologics for medical reasons (n = 16) responded similarly to biologic-naïve patients, but drug survival was lower (24%). In conclusion, CT-P13 showed excellent effectiveness as a first-line therapy, no clinical difficulties in switching from IFX, and usefulness in patients who failed other biologics. CT-P13 could be a cost-effective alternative to IFX for the treatment of psoriasis.

Biosimilars: Harmonizing the Approval Guidelines

Biosimilar approval guidelines need rationalization and harmonization to remove the inconsistencies and misconceptions to enable faster, safer, and more cost-effective biosimilars. This paper proposes a platform for a model guideline based on the scientific evaluation of the regulatory filings of the 130+ products approved in the US, UK, and EU and hundreds more in the WHO member countries. Extensive literature survey of clinical data published and reported, including Clinicaltrials.gov, a review of all current guidelines in the US, UK and EU, and WHO, and detailed discussions with the FDA have confirmed that removing the animal and clinical efficacy testing and fixing other minor approaches will enable the creation of a harmonized guideline that will best suit an ICH designation.

[Biologics in inflammatory bowel diseases]

BACKGROUND

In addition to conventional anti-inflammatory treatment for chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), there has been an evolution of new treatment options over the past 20 years. Already approved biologics provide multiple treatment alternatives but also make the treatment algorithms more complex. This development results in a substantial improvement in patient care. The ambitious treatment targets are associated with a higher quality of life and the reduction of long-term disability and morbidity.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article is to give an overview of how biologics can currently be implemented in IBD. In particular, the current clinical management is presented and an outlook on future treatment options with biologics for IBD is provided.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search was carried out in PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov and the current German and European guidelines and expert recommendations were evaluated.

RESULTS

Since the late 1990s there have been a continuously increasing number of treatment options for IBD. All substances have proven safety and efficacy in large randomized clinical studies and enable increasingly more individualized treatment for patients with IBD. Biologics are currently the standard treatment of choice for moderate to severe inflammatory activity as well as for steroid-refractory or steroid-dependent courses of disease after failure of conventional treatment.

CONCLUSION

The diversity of IBD treatment offers increasing treatment options and thus improved patient care; however, as the number of new substances increases treatment becomes more complex. This article summarizes the current and future treatment options for IBD and their integration into current treatment algorithms.

Effectiveness and Safety of Nonmedical Switch From Adalimumab Originator to SB5 Biosimilar in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Twelve-Month Follow-Up From the TABLET Registry

BACKGROUND

Few data are currently available about SB5 in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of SB5 in a cohort of patients with IBD in stable remission switched from the adalimumab (ADA) originator and in a cohort of patients with IBD naïve to ADA.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients with IBD who started ADA treatment with SB5 (naïve cohort) and those who underwent a nonmedical switch from the ADA originator to SB5 (switching cohort). Clinical remission and safety were assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. In addition, in a small cohort of patients who were switched, we assessed the ADA serum trough levels and antidrug antibodies at baseline, 3, and 6 months.

RESULTS

In the naïve cohort, the overall remission rate at 12 months was 60.42%, whereas in the switching cohort it was 89.02%. Fifty-three (36.3%) patients experienced an adverse event, and injection site pain was the most common; it was significantly more frequent in the switching cohort (P = 0.001). No differences were found in terms of ADA serum trough levels at baseline, 3, and 6 months after switching. No patient developed antidrug antibodies after the switch.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that SB5 seemed effective and safe in IBD, both in the naïve cohort and in the switching cohort. Further studies are needed to confirm these data in terms of mucosal healing.

Regulatory Evaluation of Biosimilars: Refinement of Principles Based on the Scientific Evidence and Clinical Experience

The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs; also called biosimilars) were adopted by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) in 2009. In 2019, the ECBS considered that a more tailored and potentially reduced clinical data package may be acceptable in cases where this was clearly supported by the available scientific evidence. The goal of this publication is to review the current clinical experience and scientific evidence and to provide an expert perspective for updating the WHO guidelines to provide more flexibility and clarity. As the first step, the relevant guidelines by other regulatory bodies were reviewed in order to identify issues that might help with updating the WHO guidelines. Next, a literature search was conducted for information on the long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars to identify possible long-term problems. Finally, a search for articles concerning the role of clinical studies in the benefit-risk evaluation of biosimilars was conducted. The analysis of other guidelines suggested that the WHO guidelines may need more emphasis on the importance of the state-of-the-art physicochemical and structural comparability exercise and in vitro functional testing. The use of "foreign" reference product will also need clarifications. The value of in vivo toxicological tests in the development of biosimilars is questionable, and the non-clinical part needs revisions accordingly. The concepts of "totality of evidence," "stepwise development," and "residual uncertainty" were applied in the evaluation of the clinical sections of the guideline. The review of long-term safety and efficacy demonstrated the robustness of the current biosimilar development concept. The analysis of the roles of different development phases suggested that the large efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity studies are, in most cases, redundant. The residual uncertainty of safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of biosimilars that has shaped the current regulatory guidelines is now substantially reduced. This will allow the re-evaluation of the non-clinical and clinical requirements of the current WHO main guideline. The shift of the relative impact of the development phases towards physico-chemical and in vitro functional testing will provide a relief to the manufacturers and new challenges to the regulators.

Immunomodulatory Agents for Treatment of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (Review safety of anti-TNF, Anti-Integrin, Anti IL-12/23, JAK Inhibition, Sphingosine 1-Phosphate Receptor Modulator, Azathioprine / 6-MP and Methotrexate)

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

As treatment options for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) expand each class of medication will have specific safety concerns and side-effect profiles that need to be considered for optimal treatment of patients. We will review the most recent safety data for the newly approved immunomodulator therapies for the treatment of IBD.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are a growing number of publications outlining safety concerns for medications used to treat IBD. We reviewed safety profile of anti-tumor necrosis factor antibodies (TNF) with specific attention to combination therapy (anti-TNF plus immunomodulator). Recent publications have demonstrated increased risk of serious infection and malignancy (lymphoma and overall cancer rates) in patients receiving anti-TNF combination therapy when compared with patients receiving anti-TNF monotherapy or immunomodulator monotherapy. Recent publications on Janus Kinase Inhibitors indicate an increased risk of infection, specifically Herpes Zoster, and increased risk of major cardiovascular events and venous thromboembolic events resulting in a black box warning for the medication. In contrast, anti-interleukin 12/23 agents and gut selective anti-integrin antibody agents have demonstrated a favorable side-effect profile with low rates of infection and malignancy. The latest class of medications to be approved, sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators, have cardiac and infectious precautions. The field of IBD treatment is rapidly evolving with several mechanistic classes of medications now available. While corticosteroids continue to be associated with the greatest, overall, safety risks, each of the newer mechanistic classes have unique safety concerns. In the future, as we gain more experience with these agents, we will need to continue to evaluate the safety profile of our therapies used alone or in combination to make informed treatment decisions with our patients.

Post-marketing analysis for biosimilar CT-P13 in inflammatory bowel disease compared with external data of originator infliximab in Japan

BACKGROUND AND AIM

CT-P13, an infliximab (IFX) biosimilar, was approved for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. However, no comparison with the originator IFX in this indication has been conducted in Japan where endemic levels of tuberculosis and hepatitis virus infection are not low. We evaluated the safety and efficacy in real-world data of CT-P13 and compared with originator IFX data in Japan.

METHODS

In a prospective post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study, patients who received CT-P13 in a 28-month period from January 2015 were followed up for 2 years. By conducting Japanese administrative database search (DBS) for the same period of PMS, data of the originator IFX including treatment persistence, tuberculosis incidence, and liver injury were analyzed retrospectively and compared with the corresponding PMS data of CT-P13.

RESULTS

CT-P13 persistence in PMS (n = 640) and IFX persistence in DBS (n = 4113) were almost similar between patients who switched from the originator and patients who continued on the originator, and also between the biologics-naïve patient groups. There were no differences in the incidences of tuberculosis and hepatic injury (Tuberculosis: 2 patients [0.31%] with CT-P13, 10 patients [0.24%] with the originator, P = 0.75; Hepatic injury: 18.5% with CT-P13, 15.4% with the originator, P = 0.22). Most of the patients with hepatic injury continued treatment in PMS and DBS at similar rates (80.8% vs 83.6%, P = 0.65).

CONCLUSION

The results of long-term PMS of CT-P13 compared with external reference data from an administrative database suggested that the biosimilar and its originator were comparably useful in real-world clinical practice.

Biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease

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

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.

Policy Options for Infliximab Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Given Emerging Evidence for Switching

Biosimilars are becoming increasingly available internationally as patents expire on the originator biologic drugs they are intended to copy. Although substitution policies seen with generic drugs are being considered as a means to reduce expenditures on biologics, some biosimilars pose particular challenges in that the act of substitution may eventually lead to increased rates of therapeutic failure. As evidence requirements from regulators do not directly address this challenge, switch trials of biosimilars have emerged that may provide further answers. Using infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease as an example, we critically examine emerging evidence from two key switch trials (NOR-SWITCH and NCT020968610) and discuss the clinical and economic implications of these and what policy options may be most reasonable for payers. Options include reimbursing biosimilars for only newly diagnosed patients, using product-listing agreements to manage uncertainty, or using tiered co-payments or other incentives to promote biosimilar use.

Switching from an originator anti-TNF to a biosimilar in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: Can it be recommended? A systematic review

AIM

To review the effectiveness and safety of switching from an originator anti-TNF (Remicade^®) to a biosimilar (CT-P13) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

Electronic and manual search up to September 2017.

RESULTS

We identified 24 studies evaluating switching between Remicade^® and CT-P13 in 1326 patients. Disease control (no worsening after switching) was confirmed in most of the patients (weighted mean, 88%; 95% CI=86-89%). No unexpected adverse effects were reported in any of the studies.

CONCLUSION

The risks of switching from Remicade^® to a biosimilar seem to be purely theoretical and are not supported by the (still limited) real-world clinical practice experience. On the contrary, a steadily increasing number of publications have shown that there seem to be no safety or efficacy concerns about switching. Therefore, switching from originator to biosimilar infliximab in patients with IBD may be considered acceptable.

Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of biosimilars of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents in rheumatic diseases; A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of biosimilars of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α agents compared to their reference agents in immune mediated diseases.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of biosimilars of anti-TNF-α agents compared to their reference agents in patients with various immune mediated diseases. The outcomes were the rates of clinical response and adverse events among patients treated with biosimilars compared to their reference agents. Additionally, occurrence of anti-drug antibodies with the use of biosimilars was compared to the reference agents.

RESULTS

Nine studies reporting outcomes in 3291 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) were identified (5 infliximab, 2 adalimumab, and 2 etanercept). No RCTs in other diseases were found. Biosimilars of infliximab showed similar rates of clinical response compared to the reference agent in RA and AS. Frequency of anti-drug antibody and adverse events were similar except for a slightly, but significantly, higher risk of upper respiratory tract infections with biosimilar (RR 1.54, P = 0.047, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.01-2.37). Biosimilar of adalimumab showed no differences among any outcomes compared to the reference agent. Biosimilars of etanercept showed no differences for clinical response and frequency of adverse events, but showed a significantly lower rate of anti-drug antibodies at 24-30 weeks (RR 0.05, P <0.0001%, 95% CI = 0.01-0.21).

CONCLUSION

In the present study, biosimilars of anti-TNF-α agents had an overall comparable efficacy and safety profile compared to their reference agents in RA and AS supporting their use for these conditions.

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes After Switching from Remicade® to Biosimilar CT-P13 in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available on long-term clinical outcomes regarding the switch from Remicade^® to the infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients.

AIMS

To investigate long-term efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetic profile, and immunogenicity.

METHODS

We performed a single-center prospective observational cohort study following an elective switch from Remicade^® to CT-P13 in IBD patients.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients were included (57 Crohn's disease, 24 ulcerative colitis, and 2 IBD unclassified), and 68 patients completed one-year follow-up. Disease activity (Harvey-Bradshaw Index and Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index) as well as inflammatory markers (CRP, fecal calprotectin) did not change significantly during the 1-year follow-up. In total, 7 out of 83 patients (8%) demonstrated detectable antidrug antibodies during follow-up, and 5 out of 7 antidrug antibody titers were already detectable at baseline prior to switching. Six patients (7%) discontinued CT-P13 due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Following a switch from Remicade^® to CT-P13, 82% of IBD patients continued treatment through 1 year. Disease activity scores and inflammatory markers remained unchanged during follow-up, and no CT-P13-related serious adverse events occurred. These 1-year data suggest that switching to CT-P13 in Remicade^®-treated IBD patients is safe and feasible.