Switching Among Biosimilars: A Review of Clinical Evidence

Biosimilars of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for ophthalmic diseases: A review

The development of intravitreally injected biologic medicines (biologics) acting against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) substantially improved the clinical outcomes of patients with common VEGF-driven retinal diseases. The relatively high cost of branded agents, however, represents a financial burden for most healthcare systems and patients, likely resulting in impaired access to treatment and poorer clinical outcomes for some patients. Biosimilar medicines (biosimilars) are clinically equivalent, potentially economic alternatives to reference products. Biosimilars approved by leading health authorities have been demonstrated to be similar to the reference product in a comprehensive comparability exercise, generating the totality of evidence necessary to support analytical, pre-clinical, and clinical biosimilarity. Anti-VEGF biosimilars have been entering the field of ophthalmology in the US since 2022. We review regulatory and scientific concepts of biosimilars, the biosimilar development landscape in ophthalmology, with a specific focus on anti-VEGF biosimilars, and discuss opportunities and challenges facing the uptake of biosimilars.

Clinical and Economic Value of a Biosimilar Portfolio to Stakeholders: An Integrative Literature Review

Purpose

While the value of individual biosimilars is evident, little is known about the value of a biosimilar portfolio beyond the cost savings between biosimilars and originators. Stakeholders may consider the value of a manufacturer's biosimilar portfolio, especially when negotiating portfolio-based contracts or other rebate programs. However, little is known about what other types of value, in addition to financial benefits, decision-makers perceive regarding a manufacturer with a biosimilar portfolio compared to those without one. The objective of this integrative literature review was to describe a conceptual framework consisting of themes that may help define the value of a biosimilar portfolio.

Methods

An integrative literature review was conducted using Excerpta Medica Database (Embase) and Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE). Grey literature searches of search engines, journals not indexed in Embase or MEDLINE, healthcare payers, health technology assessment bodies, value frameworks, and non-pharmaceutical industry analogs were also conducted. Eligible studies reported on the value of a biosimilar portfolio in decision-making by stakeholders. Apart from the literature, insights were gained from clinical experience and observation.

Results

No studies investigating biosimilar portfolio value were identified; however, several themes were identified that may help define the value of a biosimilar portfolio: Manufacturing; procurement, inventory, and storage; administration; education; and transaction costs. Several non-pharmaceutical industry analogs were identified: Product line length and single-supplier versus multiple-supplier procurement. Several themes were identified through other sources: Science credibility and research. Based on these themes, we developed a conceptual framework for biosimilar portfolio value.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically assess and create a framework for biosimilar portfolio value. The conceptual framework described here could be tested to quantify the clinical and economic value associated with a biosimilar portfolio.

A randomised, crossover trial exploring the patient perspective and effectiveness of biosimilar adalimumab transition: IBD reference and biosimilar adalimumab cross over study (iBaSS)

BACKGROUND

Patient satisfaction has been positively associated with adherence which is expected to impact outcomes. Although vital for successful implementation of biosimilar medicines, little is known about the patient perspective of transition.

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes and patient experience of transitioning between reference adalimumab and a biosimilar (SB5).

METHOD

iBaSS is a phase IV single-centre, prospective, randomised, single-blind, cross-over study in adult subjects with Crohn's disease. Participants, stable on adalimumab before consent, received 24 weeks of treatment with both reference adalimumab and SB5. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients maintaining baseline clinical status throughout each treatment period, with patients' perspective of disease control and treatment satisfaction assessed as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 112 participants, representative of the heterogeneous patient populations encountered in routine clinical practice, were enrolled. A similar proportion of participants maintained baseline clinical status through each treatment period: 81.8% with reference adalimumab and 79.5% with SB5. Patient reported outcomes (IBD-Control questionnaire (SB5: 15.5; reference adalimumab 15) and TSQM), adverse events and therapeutic drug monitoring remained consistent through both treatment periods, although a higher median injection pain VAS score was noted with SB5 (53/100 versus 6/100 with reference adalimumab). The number of switches undertaken in the study did not impact serum drug concentration or immunogenicity.

CONCLUSION

This study, mimicking real world adalimumab transition, demonstrates that patients undertaking brand transition can be expected to have consistent clinical and satisfaction outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTERED WITH EUDRACT

Number 2018-004967-30.

Consensus-Based Overarching Principles and Recommendations on the Use of Biosimilars in the Treatment of Inflammatory Arthritis in the Gulf Region

BACKGROUND

Though biologic agents have significantly improved the treatment of inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis), high costs, stringent regulations, strict reimbursement criteria, and existing patents have limited patient access to treatments. While being highly similar in quality, safety, and efficacy to biologic reference products, biosimilars can reduce the financial burden and prevent underutilization of medication.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this initiative was to develop an evidence-based consensus of overarching principles and recommendations aimed at standardizing the use of biosimilars in treating inflammatory arthritis in the Gulf region.

METHODS

A task force of practicing rheumatologists, a clinical pharmacist, a health economist, patients, regulators, and payors from across the Gulf region developed recommendations and overarching principles based on the outputs of a systematic literature review conducted to address Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) questions specific to key challenges regarding the use of biosimilars for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis in the region. As the data before 2017 have been previously reviewed in another publication, the current review focused on data published between January 2017 and August 2022 (PROSPERO ID CRD42022364002). Consensus on each statement required a level of agreement of 70% or greater.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached for five overarching principles and nine recommendations by the task force. The principles emphasize the importance of improving the awareness, understanding, and perception of biosimilars, as well as the need for regulated regional real-world data generation and protocols to make biosimilars a viable and affordable treatment option for all patients. The consensus recommendations advocate the need for shared treatment decisions between rheumatologists and patients when considering biosimilars. They further recommend that confirmation of a biosimilar's efficacy and safety in a single indication is sufficient for extrapolation to other diseases for which the reference product has been approved. Finally, there is a need for pharmacovigilance and national health policies governing the adoption and prescription of biosimilars in clinical practice across the region.

CONCLUSIONS

These are the first consensus recommendations for the Gulf region based on a systematic literature review and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, integrating clinical evidence with clinical expertise to optimize decision making for the use of biosimilars in patients with inflammatory arthritis. They were formulated based on predominantly international data because of the limited regional data and therefore can be generalized to serve as recommendations for healthcare professionals in other parts of the world.

Additional Data in Expanded Patient Populations and New Indications Support the Practice of Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching

As of 31 December, 2023, 31 observational studies have been published, including a total of 6081 patients who underwent a switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic. Most studies evaluated infliximab, while a smaller number evaluated adalimumab, rituximab or etanercept. Indications studied now include sarcoidosis, as well as the indications previously reported of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis/ankylosing spondylitis and inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis). This updated data set includes eight additional studies and 2386 more patients compared with those included in an earlier systematic review of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching. In addition, since the earlier systematic review was published in 2022, the European Medicines Agency has stated that reference-to-biosimilar and biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching in the European Union is safe and efficacy remains unchanged after switching. Furthermore, following a review of the available evidence, the US Food and Drug Administration has confirmed that initial safety and immunogenicity concerns related to biosimilar switching are unfounded and that no differences are observed in efficacy, safety or immunogenicity following one or more switches. The availability of this new efficacy and safety data together with the supportive statements from the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration re-confirm the conclusion that as a scientific matter, biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching is an effective clinical practice, with no new safety concerns. Any suggestions to the contrary are not supported by the evidence.

Generic orphan drug substitution: a critical analysis of global practices and Saudi Arabia's perspective

In an era of cost pressure, substituting generic drugs represents one of the main cost-containment strategies of healthcare systems. Despite the obvious financial benefits, in a minority of cases, substitution may require caution or even be contraindicated. In most jurisdictions, to obtain approval, the bioequivalence of generic products with the brand-name equivalent needs to be shown via bioavailability studies in healthy subjects. Rare diseases, defined as medical conditions with a low prevalence, are a group of heterogenous diseases that are typically severe, disabling, progressive, degenerative, and life-threatening or chronically debilitating, and disproportionally affect the very young and elderly. Despite these unique features of rare diseases, generic bioequivalence studies are typically carried out with single doses and exclude children or the elderly. Furthermore, the excipients and manufacturing processes for generic/biosimilar products can differ from the brand products which may affect the shelf-life of the product, its appearance, smell, taste, bioavailability, safety and potency. This may result in approval of generics/biosimilars which are not bioequivalent/comparable in their target population or that meet bioequivalence but not therapeutic equivalence criteria. Another concern relates to the interchangeability of generics and biosimilars which cannot be guaranteed due to the phenomenon of biocreep. This review summarizes potential concerns with generic substitution of orphan drugs and discusses potentially problematic cases including narrow therapeutic index drugs or critical conditions where therapeutic failure could lead to serious complications or even death. Finally, we put forward the need for refining regulatory frameworks, with emphasis on Saudi Arabia, for generic substitution and recent efforts toward this direction.

Equity, expense, and expertise in biologic commissioning: adding the patient to the equation

INTRODUCTION

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are increasingly managed effectively with biologic medicines. However, with relatively high unit costs, there remains a meaningful pressure to ensure streamlined, equitable, and inclusive prescription of biologics in the UK. Despite an increased awareness of the benefits of patient-centric shared decision making, patients remain on the periphery of biologic selection for the treatment of IMIDs.

AREAS COVERED

We provide a patient perspective on core issues in the commissioning, prescription, and decision making around biologics for IMIDs in the UK, focusing on England. In particular, the crucial aspect of determining 'value' for different stakeholders, who necessarily have different priorities, is considered.

EXPERT OPINION

There are disparities in commissioning, access to, and prescription of biologics for IMIDs in the UK. This creates an unequal treatment model and drives patient dissatisfaction with an 'experience lottery' for the management of disease. A more transparent approach to prescribing decisions, made in close consultation with patients, is essential for improving equity and experience with biologic treatment of IMIDs.

An Update on Anti-TNF Biosimilar Switching-Real-World Clinical Effectiveness and Safety

Background

Biological medications for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) account for a significant burden on provincial budgets. In an effort to curb these rising costs, nationwide switching to biosimilars is expected to be complete in Canada before the end of 2023. Biosimilar products do not require the same rigor for licensing as the originator and therefore there has been appropriate scepticism as to how biosimilars will perform in real-world practice.

Methods

We have performed a systematic review including real-world observational studies of adult patients with IBD. The primary outcome was clinical effectiveness and/or safety in patients who had switched from originator to biosimilar anti-TNF. Secondary outcomes included loss of response (LOR), treatment persistence or cessation and immunogenicity.

Results

We included 43 studies (7,462 patients [70 percent Crohn's disease: 30 percent ulcerative colitis]; 32 infliximab studies, and 11 adalimumab studies). For infliximab, 75 percent patients were in clinical remission at the time of switch and 75 percent maintained clinical remission beyond 12 months, compared to 78 percent of patients who continued originator. For adalimumab, 86 percent patients were in remission at the time of switch with 82 percent maintaining remission at 6 months follow-up. Injection site pain was higher in patients who switched to a citrate containing adalimumab biosimilar, compared with those who continued originator. All other outcomes (LOR, treatment cessation or persistence and serious adverse events) were similar to patients who continued originator (in comparator cohorts or the available literature).

Conclusion

Whilst ongoing vigilance is required, these data are reassuring to both patients and clinicians and will significantly help to reduce health-care costs across Canada.

Biosimilar SB15 versus reference aflibercept in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 1-year and switching results of a phase 3 clinical trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To evaluate efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and immunogenicity of SB15 versus reference aflibercept (AFL), and switching from AFL to SB15 in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

DESIGN

Prospective, double-masked, randomised, phase 3 trial.

METHODS

Participants with nAMD were randomised 1:1 to receive SB15 (N=224 participants) or AFL (N=225). At week 32, participants either continued on SB15 (SB15/SB15, N=219) or AFL (AFL/AFL, N=108), or switched from AFL to SB15 (AFL/SB15, N=111). This manuscript reports 1-year and switching results of secondary efficacy endpoints such as changes from baseline to week 56 in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST, from internal limiting membrane (ILM) to retinal pigment epithelium), and total retinal thickness (TRT, from ILM to Bruch's membrane). Additional endpoints included safety, PK and immunogenicity.

RESULTS

Efficacy results were comparable between groups. The least squares mean (LSmean) change in BCVA from baseline to week 56 was 7.4 letters for SB15/SB15 and 7.0 letters for AFL/AFL (difference (95% CI)=0.4 (-2.5 to 3.2)). The LSmean changes from baseline to week 56 in CST and TRT were -119.2 µm and -132.4 µm for SB15/SB15 and -126.6 µm and -136.3 µm for AFL/AFL, respectively (CST: difference (95% CI)=7.4 µm (-6.11 to 20.96); TRT: difference (95% CI)=3.9 µm (-18.35 to 26.10)). Switched and non-switched participants showed similar LSmean changes in BCVA from baseline to week 56 (AFL/SB15, 7.9 letters vs AFL/AFL, 7.8 letters; difference (95% CI)=0.0 (-2.8 to 2.8)). Safety, PK and immunogenicity were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy, safety, PK and immunogenicity were comparable between SB15 and AFL and between switched and non-switched participants.

Efficacy and Safety of Adalimumab Biosimilar GP2017 in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

(1) Background: GP2017 is one of the biosimilar drugs of adalimumab, one of the anti-TNF agents used for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). To date, there is little real-world data about the use of GP2017 in IBD patients. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of this biosimilar in an IBD population. (2) Methods: This is an observational retrospective study including patients that were all treated with GP2017 as a first step or as a switch from the originator or other biosimilars. The clinical activity was evaluated at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of therapy. The therapy discontinuation and side effects were also evaluated. (3) Results: a total of 72 patients were included (65 with Crohn's disease and 7 with ulcerative colitis). Of the 29 patients starting GP2017 as a first adalimumab therapy, clinical remission was achieved in 58.6%. Of the patients starting GP2017 as a switch from the originator (33 patients) or other biosimilars (10 patients), clinical remission was maintained in 78.8% and in 70%, respectively. Regarding the safety, only 11 patients experienced non-serious side effects. During the follow-up, nine patients suspended treatment mainly due to side effects or secondary failure. (4) Conclusions: GP2017 is an effective and safe therapy for IBD patients.

Future Evolution of Biosimilar Development by Application of Current Science and Available Evidence: The Developer's Perspective

Biosimilars have been available in the USA for over a decade, and in Europe for almost two decades. In that time, biosimilars have become established in the treatment landscape for a wide range of diseases, facilitating patient access and affordability of healthcare. However, patients can still struggle to access biological therapies in some markets. There is a need to streamline the process of developing biosimilars without compromising their quality, safety, or efficacy. This opinion piece considers the efficiencies that could be achieved within the biosimilar approval process. In clinical trials for biosimilars, clinical efficacy endpoints have been shown to be less sensitive measures of biosimilarity than biochemical, biophysical, and biological functional assays. Additional clinical efficacy studies comparing potential biosimilars and reference products do not add information that is useful for regulatory purposes. Large clinical studies of biosimilars with immunogenicity endpoints are of limited value, given the quality control processes in place for all biologics, including biosimilars. The expectation for multiple-switch studies for US interchangeability designation should be reconsidered immediately, and the category should be eliminated in the future. As biosimilars are typically approved globally based on a single set of clinical trials, and all subsequent manufacturing changes are already carefully monitored by regulatory authorities, comparative pharmacokinetic testing of EU and US reference products is unnecessary. Manufacturers and regulators could take greater advantage of existing real-world evidence. Streamlining biosimilar development would enable biosimilar development of more and a wider variety of biological drugs, accelerating biosimilar development without impacting patient safety or effectiveness.

The landscape of biosimilars in Saudi Arabia: preparing for the next decade

INTRODUCTION

The government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has developed a well-defined strategy to restructure the health sector and operate on value-based principles. Biosimilars are a viable option for increasing accessibility while lowering health-care costs.

AREAS COVERED

We describe the current and future biosimilar landscape in KSA. We discuss the growth of the biosimilar market, the regulatory approval process, biosimilar adoption, and the potential impact on health-care systems and patient outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

The biosimilar market in KSA is expanding and expected to continue this trajectory in the coming decade. The growth of the market is influenced by the KSA health transformation initiative, the well-defined regulatory framework for biosimilars set by the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA), and the adoption of biosimilars by health-care providers. Overall, the biosimilar regulation is evolving and the future of biosimilars looks promising in KSA. Biosimilars offer a more cost-effective alternative, which can help to expand access to more treatment options for patients and contribute to cost saving for the health-care system.

Safety and Effectiveness of Etanercept Biosimilar SB4 for Rheumatic Diseases in South Korea: Real-World Post-marketing Surveillance Data

INTRODUCTION

SB4 is the first approved biosimilar of etanercept, a biologic tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, to treat various autoimmune diseases including axial spondylarthritis (axSpA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and plaque psoriasis (PsO). This post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study of SB4 investigated safety and effectiveness in routine clinical practice and is part of the drug approval process in Korea.

METHODS

This prospective, multi-center, open-label, observational, phase IV PMS study was designed to enroll patients with axSpA, RA, PsA, and PsO in Korea from September 2015 to September 2019. Both etanercept-naïve patients or patients switched from reference etanercept were included. SB4 was administered weekly via subcutaneous injections using pre-filled syringes. Safety was assessed by the incidence of adverse events (AEs), adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and serious adverse events (SAE). Effectiveness was assessed by the change from baseline of investigator-rated Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and disease activity score-28 (DAS28) in patients with RA.

RESULTS

Among 316 enrolled patients, 314 were included in the safety analysis (176 with AS and 138 with RA). The overall incidence of AEs, ADRs and serious AEs were 17.8, 9.9, and 1.3%, respectively. Most AEs were mild (66.7%) or moderate (31.1%) and not related to SB4 (58.9%). Most common AEs were injection site pruritus (1.9%) and injection site rash (1.3%). At week 24, mean disease activity scores significantly decreased compared to baseline in naïve patients with AS and RA (BASDAI 2.7 vs. 6.2, p < 0.0001; DAS28 3.8 vs. 5.7, p < 0.0001) and in switched patients with AS and RA (BASDAI 1.0 vs. 1.3, p = 0.0018; DAS28 2.4 vs. 2.9, p = 0.0893).

CONCLUSION

This first real-world evidence of SB4 from a phase IV PMS study in Korea shows comparable effectiveness to historical SB4 real-world evidence without any new significant safety signals.

Factors associated with the uptake of biosimilars for breast cancer treatment from the perspectives of physicians and patients-Evidence from China

Objective: To investigate the factors associated with the treatment of breast cancer with biosimilars from the perspectives of physicians and patients, and to generate evidence for promoting the uptake of biosimilars. Methods: This study targeted trastuzumab and its indicated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive breast cancer and included female HER2 positive breast cancer patients under treatment of trastuzumab at a provincial oncology medical center in southern China from 1 January 2021, to 31 December 2021. The study extracted patients' demographic, socioeconomic and clinical information and the basic information of their attending physicians from the hospital information system. We performed a bivariate multiple logistic regression analysis of predictive factors of the use of trastuzumab biosimilar. Results: A total of 446 patients (aged ranging between 26 and 74, 51.4 ± 9.06) were included in the analysis, and 19.1% chose biosimilar trastuzumab. Older patients, patients enrolled in the urban and rural resident health insurance program compared with those enrolled in the urban employee health insurance program, patients who initiated treatment after January 2021 when biosimilar entered clinical use compared with those who initiated treatment before, patients with female attending physicians, younger attending physicians and with chief attending physicians compared with deputy chief attending physicians were more likely to adopt biosimilar trastuzumab for treatment (p < 05). Controlling the other factors unchanged, when the patient's attending physician was deputy chief physician, increasing 1 year age of the patient was associated with an increased probability of adopting biosimilar by .8% (dy/dx = .008, 95%CI: .002-.01, p = .01). When the patient was aged between 26 and 60, the probability of adopting biosimilar for the patient whose attending physician was a chief physician was higher than for those whose attending physician was a deputy chief physician, and the gap was the largest when the patient was at the age of 45 (dy/dx = .20, 95%CI: .13-.27, p < .01). Conclusion: The uptake rate of biosimilars is still low at its initial development stage in China. Educational policies and physicians making recommendations to the indicated patients at the initiation stage of treatment are helpful to avoid reduced willingness to switch to biosimilars due to non-clinical reasons. Patients with lower ability-to-pay will have better accessibility to biologic regimens through the uptake of biosimilars. Official guidelines and professional training are critical to enhancing physicians' willingness and confidence in adopting biosimilars.

Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of etanercept biosimilars versus reference biologics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A meta-analysis

Background: Although with the application of etanercept biosimilars in the field of rheumatoid arthritis, the evidences of their efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity are still limited. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of etanercept biosimilars for treating active rheumatoid arthritis compared to reference biologics (Enbrel^®). Methods: PubMed, Embase, Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials of etanercept biosimilars treated in adult patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis from their earliest records to 15 August 2022. The outcomes included ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 response rate at different time points from FAS or PPS, adverse events, and proportion of patients developed anti-drug antibodies. The risk of bias of each included study was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials tool, and the certainty of evidence was rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: Six RCTs with 2432 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Etanercept biosimilars showed more benefits in ACR50 at 24 weeks from PPS [5 RCTs, OR = 1.22 (1.01, 1.47), p = 0.04, I ² = 49%, high certainty], ACR50 at 1 year from PPS [3 RCTs, OR = 1.43 (1.10, 1.86), p < 0.01, I ² = 0%, high certainty] or FAS [2 RCTs, OR = 1.36 (1.04, 1.78), p = 0.03, I ² = 0%, high certainty], and ACR70 at 1 year from PPS [3 RCTs, OR = 1.32 (1.01, 1.71), p = 0.04, I ² = 0%, high certainty]. In terms of other outcomes about efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, the results showed that there was no significant difference between etanercept biosimilars and reference biologics, and the certainty of evidences ranged from low to moderate. Conclusion: Etanercept biosimilars showed more benefits in ACR50 response rate at 1 year than reference biologics (Enbrel^®), other outcomes for clinical efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of etanercept biosimilars were comparable with originator in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022358709.