Clinical and Regulatory Concerns of Biosimilars: A Review of Literature

Impact of Value-Driven Healthcare Strategies for Biosimilar Adoption: The Singapore Story

BACKGROUND

Healthcare sustainability is a global challenge. Various value-driven healthcare strategies have been implemented by Singapore's national health technology assessment (HTA) agency, the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE). Considering the high and growing expenditure on biologics, strategies have been implemented to drive the use of biosimilars. As Singapore has reached the 5-year mark since the subsidy listing of the first monoclonal antibody biosimilar infliximab, this review aimed to evaluate the impact of these strategies on the changes in adoption rates, utilisation, spending and cost savings for biosimilars in the public healthcare sector.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using aggregated drug utilisation data from all public healthcare institutions. Five monoclonal antibodies with biosimilars, namely infliximab, adalimumab, trastuzumab, rituximab and bevacizumab, were included in this study. The outcomes evaluated were the monthly trends for utilisation volume, proportion attributed to biosimilar use, and drug spending up to December 2022. The simulated cost savings associated with biosimilar adoption were also reported.

RESULTS

After subsidy implementation, an upward trend in biosimilar use and proportion attributed to biosimilar adoption was observed, while spending reduced substantially. The adoption rate of most biosimilars reached more than 95% within 1 year of listing. Drugs with more than one approved biosimilar brand at the time of subsidy listing reported substantial price reductions of over 80%. Overall, spending for the five monoclonal antibodies have significantly reduced after biosimilar subsidy listing, with an estimated cumulative cost savings of $136 million over 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Value-driven healthcare strategies implemented in Singapore's public healthcare institutions have contributed to high adoption rates of biosimilars and have improved affordable access through lower treatment costs. This in turn has led to significant cost savings to the healthcare system.

Systematic review: effectiveness and safety of switching between originator infliximab and biosimilar infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

Infliximab (IFX) biosimilars are available to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), offering cost reductions versus originator IFX in some jurisdictions. However, concerns remain regarding the efficacy and safety of originator-to-biosimilar switching. This systematic literature review evaluated safety and effectiveness of switching between IFX products in patients with IBD, including multiple switchers.

METHODS

Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to capture studies (2012-2022) including patients with IBD who switched between approved IFX products. Effectiveness outcomes: disease activity; disease severity; response to treatment; patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Safety outcomes: incidence and rate of adverse events (AEs); discontinuations due to AEs, failure rate; hospitalizations; surgeries. Immunogenicity outcomes (n, %): anti-drug antibodies; patients receiving concomitant immunomodulatory medication.

RESULTS

Data from 85 publications (81 observational, two randomized controlled trials) were included. Clinical effectiveness outcomes were consistent with the known profile of originator IFX with no difference after switching. There were no unexpected/serious AEs after switching, and rates of AEs were generally consistent with the known profile of IFX.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies reported that clinical, PROs, and safety outcomes for originator-to-biosimilar switching were clinically equivalent to originator responses. Limited data are available regarding multiple switches.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42021289144.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor biosimilars for neovascular age-related macular degeneration

RATIONALE

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a progressive eye disease characterized by choroidal neovascularization (CNV) and is a leading cause of vision loss and disability worldwide. Although intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy is an effective treatment option that helps to prevent vision loss or to improve visual acuity in people with neovascular AMD, treatment imposes a significant financial burden on patients and healthcare systems. A biosimilar is a biological product that has been developed to be nearly identical to a previously approved biological product. The use of biosimilars may help reduce costs and so may increase patient access to effective biologic medicines with similar levels of safety to the drugs on which they are based.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of anti-VEGF biosimilar agents compared with their corresponding anti-VEGF agents (i.e. the reference products) that have obtained regulatory approval for intravitreal injections in people with neovascular AMD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and two trials registries together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify studies that are included in the review. The latest search date was 2 June 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared approved anti-VEGF biosimilars with their reference products for treating the eyes of adult participants (≥ 50 years) who had an active primary or recurrent choroidal neovascularization lesion secondary to neovascular AMD.

OUTCOMES

Our outcomes were: best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfield thickness (CST), vision-related quality of life, serious ocular and non-ocular adverse events (AE), treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), anti-drug antibodies (ADAs), and serum concentrations of biosimilars and reference drugs.

RISK OF BIAS

We assessed the risk of bias (RoB) for seven outcomes reported in a summary of findings table by using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.

SYNTHESIS METHODS

We synthesized results for each outcome using meta-analysis, where possible, by calculating risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and continuous outcomes, respectively. Where this was not possible due to the nature of the data, we summarized the results narratively. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for prespecified outcomes.

INCLUDED STUDIES

We included nine parallel-group multi-center RCTs that enrolled a total of 3814 participants (3814 participating eyes), with sample sizes that ranged from 160 to 705 participants per study. The mean age of the participants in these studies ranged from 67 to 76 years, and the proportion of women ranged from 26.5% to 58.7%. Ranibizumab (Lucentis) was the reference product in seven studies, and aflibercept (Eyelea) was the reference product in two others. All the included studies had been supported by industry. The follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 52 weeks (median 48 weeks). Five studies (56%) were conducted in multi-country settings across Europe, North America and Asia, two studies in India, and one each in Japan and the Republic of Korea. We judged all the included studies to have met high methodological standards.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

With regard to efficacy, our meta-analyses demonstrated that anti-VEGF biosimilars for neovascular AMD resulted in little to no difference compared with the reference products for BCVA change at 8 to 12 weeks (MD -0.55 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.07; 8 studies, 3603 participants; high-certainty evidence) and the proportion of participants who lost fewer than 15 letters in BCVA at 24 to 48 weeks (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01; 7 studies, 2658 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Almost all participants (96.6% in the biosimilar group and 97.0% in the reference product group) lost fewer than 15 letters in BCVA. The evidence from two studies suggested that there was no evidence of difference between biosimilars and reference products in vision-related quality of life measured by the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) summary scores at 24 to 48 weeks (MD 0.82, 95% CI -0.70 to 2.35; 2 studies, 894 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). With regard to the safety profile, meta-analyses also revealed little to no difference between anti-VEGF biosimilars and the reference products for the proportion of participants who experienced serious ocular AEs (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.26; 7 studies, 3292 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and for TEAEs leading to investigational product discontinuation or death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.46; 8 studies, 3497 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Overall, 1.4% of participants in the biosimilar group and 1.2% in the reference product group experienced serious ocular adverse events. The most frequently documented serious ocular AEs were retinal hemorrhage and endophthalmitis. Although the evidence is of low certainty due to imprecision, meta-analysis suggested that anti-VEGF biosimilars led to no difference compared with the reference products for cumulative incidence of ADAs (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.22; 8 studies, 3066 participants; low-certainty evidence) or mean maximum serum concentrations (MD 0.42 ng/mL, 95% CI -0.22 to 1.05; subgroup of 3 studies, 100 participants; low-certainty evidence). We judged the overall risk of bias to be low for all studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In our review, low to high certainty evidence suggests that there is little to no difference, to date, between the anti-VEGF biosimilars approved for treating neovascular AMD and their reference products in terms of benefits and harms. While anti-VEGF biosimilars may be a viable alternative to reference products, current evidence for their use is based on a limited number of studies - particularly for comparison with aflibercept - with sparse long-term safety data, and infrequent assessment of quality of life outcomes. Our effect estimates and conclusions may be modified once findings have been reported from studies that are currently ongoing, and studies of biosimilar agents that are currently in development.

FUNDING

Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Project is supported by grant UG1EY020522, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health. Takeshi Hasegawa and Hisashi Noma were supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grant numbers: 22H03554, 19K03092, 24K06239).

REGISTRATION

Protocol available via doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015804.

Patient's and Consultant's Views and Perceptions on Switching from an Originator Biologic to Biosimilar Medication: A Qualitative Study

The aim of this study was to describe the opinions of patients undergoing treatment with originator biologics and medical consultants managing their conditions and identify the barriers and enablers to transitioning from originator biologics to equivalent biosimilars. This study was undertaken prior to biosimilar switching at a large teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Five gastroenterology, rheumatology, and dermatology consultants were interviewed. Two focus groups were conducted with patients prescribed infliximab (n = 2) and etanercept originators (n = 7). Four main themes emerged, as follows: (1) 'Benefit to the NHS'; (2) 'Evidence for efficacy and safety'; (3) 'Team roles'; and (4) 'Effective communication during switching', with sub-themes such as (4a) 'What patients want to know' and (4b) 'How it should be communicated'. Recognition of the ability to save NHS money was an enabler for both patients and consultants, with patients wanting to be reassured that the money saved would be used to benefit other patients. Consultants did not always believe that biosimilars had similar efficacy as the originators or that the manufacturing standards were the same. Effective interventions to address these concerns are required. Offering patients the opportunity to revert back to their originator if necessary was seen as an enabler, as was the provision of readily available mechanisms for reporting suspected adverse events resulting from switching. The role of pharmacy in the process of switching from originator biologics to biosimilars can range from educating consultants regarding the safety and efficacy of biosimilars, explaining the rationale for switching patients, and providing a route for reporting adverse events.

An Overview of Biosimilars-Development, Quality, Regulatory Issues, and Management in Healthcare

Biological therapies have transformed high-burden treatments. As the patent and exclusivity period for biological medicines draws to a close, there is a possibility for the development and authorization of biosimilars. These products boast comparable levels of safety, quality, and effectiveness to their precursor reference products. Biosimilars, although similar to reference products, are not identical copies and should not be considered generic substitutes for the original. Their development and evaluation involve a rigorous step-by-step process that includes analytical, functional, and nonclinical evaluations and clinical trials. Clinical studies conducted for biosimilars aim to establish similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, rather than demonstrating a clinical benefit, as with the reference product. However, although the current knowledge regarding biosimilars has significantly increased, several controversies and misconceptions still exist regarding their immunogenicity, extrapolation, interchangeability, substitution, and nomenclature. The development of biosimilars stimulates market competition, contributes toward healthcare sustainability, and allows for greater patient access. However, maximizing the benefits of biosimilars requires cooperation between regulators and developers to ensure that patients can benefit quickly from access to these new therapeutic alternatives while maintaining high standards of quality, safety, and efficacy. Recognizing the inherent complexities of comprehending biosimilars fully, it is essential to focus on realistic approaches, such as fostering open communication between healthcare providers and patients, encouraging informed decision-making, and minimizing risks. This review addresses the regulatory and manufacturing requirements for biosimilars and provides clinicians with relevant insights for informed prescribing.

The totality of evidence approach in the development of AVT02 (adalimumab), a biosimilar to Humira

The development of a biosimilar is based on comparative structural, physicochemical, functional and clinical assessments. The sum of these analyses encompasses the 'totality of evidence', which demonstrates no clinically meaningful differences between the biosimilar and the reference product (RP). Once biosimilarity has been established, provided there is suitable scientific justification, clinical data may be extrapolated to other indications of the RP. AVT02 has been developed as a biosimilar to high-concentration, low-volume Humira (adalimumab), an anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha monoclonal antibody approved for various chronic inflammatory indications. The totality of evidence for AVT02 is described, supporting its approval as an adalimumab biosimilar for all approved indications globally. Analytical similarity assessments using mass spectrometry methods demonstrated identical amino acid sequences for AVT02 and the RP, with high similarity in terms of primary structure, post-translational modifications and higher-order structural attributes. The mechanism of action was assessed by various cell-based potency assays and binding assays, and the results demonstrated that AVT02 is highly similar to the RP. No clinically meaningful differences in terms of purity, potency and safety were observed, and minor differences in a few physiochemical attributes did not impact the in vitro biologic activity and were not considered clinically relevant. Clinical similarity was demonstrated by comparing the pharmacokinetic, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles of AVT02 with those of the RP. Clinical studies supported similar pharmacokinetic and comparable immunogenicity profiles between AVT02 and the RP in healthy participants and participants with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis, with no new safety signals detected. The totality of evidence described demonstrates the biosimilarity of AVT02 to the RP, thereby fulfilling the scientific and regulatory requirements for AVT02 as a high-concentration biosimilar for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis and all approved indications of the RP.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Understanding Biosimilar Insulins - Development, Manufacturing, and Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

A wave of expiring patents for first-generation insulin analogues has created opportunities in the global insulin market for highly similar versions of these products, biosimilar insulins. Biologics are generally large, complex molecules produced through biotechnology in a living system, such as a microorganism, plant cell, or animal cell. Since manufacturing processes of biologics vary, biosimilars cannot be exact copies of their reference product but must exhibit a high degree of functional and structural similarity. Biosimilarity is proven by analytical approaches in comparative assessments, preclinical cell-based and animal studies, as well as clinical studies in humans facilitating the accumulation of evidence across all assessments. The approval of biosimilars follows detailed regulatory pathways derived from those of their reference products and established by agencies such as the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. Regulatory authorities impose requirements to ensure that biosimilars meet high standards of quality, safety, and efficacy and are highly similar to their reference product.

PURPOSE

This review aims to aid clinical understanding of the high standards of development, manufacturing, and regulation of biosimilar insulins.

METHODS

Recent relevant studies indexed by PubMed and regulatory documents were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Driven by price competition, the emergence of biosimilar insulins may help expand global access to current insulin analogues. To maximize the impact of the advantage for falling retail costs of biosimilar insulins compared with that of reference insulins, healthcare professionals and insulin users must gain further awareness and confidence.

Pediatric unit spending in the North of Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, accesses to pediatric health care services decreased, as well as the consumption of traditional drugs, while the median cost per patient at the emergency department slightly increased and the cost of pediatric COVID-19 admissions to the pediatric ward too. Overall spending of a secondary level Pediatric Unit in the last two years has not been previously reported.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study conducted by the Pediatric Unit of S. Chiara Hospital of Trento, North of Italy. We collected data on consumption and spending before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (between January 2018 and December 2022).

RESULTS

The total spending ranged from 2.141.220 to 2.483.931 euros between 2018 and 2022. COVID-19 spending accounted only for 5-8% of the overall budget, while two macro-areas of spending were identified: (i) biologic drugs for inherited metabolic diseases (IMDs), that impacted for 35.4-41.3%, and (ii) technology devices for type 1 diabetes (T1D), that accounted for 41.6-32.8% of the overall budget, in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Analysis of costs along with the different health care services revealed that: (i) the spending for COVID-19 antigen tests and personal protective equipment had a major impact on the Emergency room budget (from 54 to 68% in the two years); (ii) biological drugs accounted mainly on the Pediatric Ward (for 57%), Day Hospital (for 74%) and rare disease center budget (for 95% of the spending); (iii) the cost for T1D devices was mainly due to continuous glucose monitoring, and impacted for the 97% of the outpatient clinic budget.

CONCLUSIONS

The main impact on the budget was not due to COVID-19 pandemic related costs, but to the costs for biologic drugs and T1D devices. Therefore, cost savings could be mainly achieved through generic and biosimilars introduction and with inter-regionals calls for technology devices. We emphasize how the control of spending in pediatric hospital care has probably moved from the bedside (savings on traditional drugs as antibiotics) to the bench of national or inter-regional round tables, to obtain discounts on the costs of biologic drugs and medical devices. Here we provide for the first-time in literature, data for bench-marking between secondary level Pediatric Units before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prescriber Perspectives on Biosimilar Adoption and Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology: A Workshop Summary

The approval and adoption of biosimilar products are essential to contain increasing healthcare costs and provide more affordable choices for patients. Despite steady progress in the number of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) biosimilar approvals over the years, biosimilar adoption in the United States has been slow and gradual, largely driven by payers rather than clinicians. In order to better understand the barriers to biosimilar adoption in the clinic, the University of Maryland Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (M-CERSI) and the FDA jointly hosted a virtual workshop on April 13, 2022, titled "Biosimilars: A Decade of Experience and Future Directions - Strategies for Improving Biosimilar Adoption and the Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology." This summary documents the experiences of four leading academic clinicians with specialties in oncology, rheumatology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology and their perspectives on how to increase biosimilar adoption, including the role of clinical pharmacology. Besides systemic changes in pricing and reimbursement, there is a need for additional education of a broad range of providers, including advanced care practitioners, and patients themselves. Educational efforts highlighting the rigor of the studies that support the approval of biosimilars-including the clinical pharmacology studies-and the benefits of biosimilars, can play a major role in improving biosimilar acceptance.

Biosimilars in Oncology: Latest Trends and Regulatory Status

Biologic-based medicines are used to treat a variety of diseases and account for around one-quarter of the worldwide pharmaceutical market. The use of biologic medications among cancer patients has resulted in substantial advancements in cancer treatment and supportive care. Biosimilar medications (or biosimilars) are very similar to the reference biologic drugs, although they are not identical. As patent protection for some of the most extensively used biologics begins to expire, biosimilars have the potential to enhance access and provide lower-cost options for cancer treatment. Initially, regulatory guidelines were set up in Europe in 2003, and the first biosimilar was approved in 2006 in Europe. Many countries, including the United States of America (USA), Canada, and Japan, have adopted Europe's worldwide regulatory framework. The use of numerous biosimilars in the treatment and supportive care of cancer has been approved and, indeed, the count is set to climb in the future around the world. However, there are many challenges associated with biosimilars, such as cost, immunogenicity, lack of awareness, extrapolation of indications, and interchangeability. The purpose of this review is to provide an insight into biosimilars, which include various options available for oncology, and the associated adverse events. We compare the regulatory guidelines for biosimilars across the world, and also present the latest trends and challenges in medical oncology both now and in the future, which will assist healthcare professionals, payers, and patients in making informed decisions, increasing the acceptance of biosimilars in clinical practice, increasing accessibility, and speeding up the health and economic benefits associated with biosimilars.

Perspectives toward biosimilars among oncologists: A Malaysian survey

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars confer significant cost-saving advantages and expand patients' access to biologic therapies in cancer care. In line with the increasing availability of antineoplastic biosimilars, it is pertinent to understand the oncologists' view on the adoption of biosimilars in their clinical practice. The study aimed to assess (i) the prevalence of biosimilar use, (ii) perception towards biosimilars, (iii) factors influencing the use of biosimilars and (iv) knowledge about biosimilars among Malaysian oncologists.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among clinical oncologists and medical oncologists in Malaysia between January 2020 and February 2021 using a structured 31-item questionnaire.

RESULTS

Among the 121 oncologists registered in the country, 36 responded (response rate  =  30%). A total of 64% of the respondents prescribed biosimilars either often or always. Most oncologists (72%) agreed or strongly agreed that switching will not have a significant effect on the treatment benefit, with lower percentages saying that they agreed or strongly agreed that it will not lead to the emergence of additional adverse effects (56%) or harmful immunogenicity (64%). Patients' preferences (40%) and the non-availability of biosimilars in hospitals (34%) are the major barriers cited to the prescribing of biosimilars. Cost differences and robust pharmacovigilance activities are the two most important factors that would influence the prescribing of biosimilars. The mean score of knowledge in biosimilar among respondents was 3.81 (± 0.86) out of a maximum possible score of 6.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified gap in prescribing and the use of biosimilars among Malaysian oncologists warrant educational intervention and robust pharmacovigilance activities to facilitate the prescribing of biosimilars and ultimately increase the accessibility to biologics in cancer treatment.

The Impact of Mandatory Nonmedical Switching From Originator to Biosimilar Insulin Glargine

PURPOSE

This study monitors for early changes in health services utilization after a mandatory policy to switch patients from originator to biosimilar insulin glargine in British Columbia, Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients treated with originator insulin glargine. The policy cohort included patients treated with originator insulin glargine in the 6 months before the policy change (May 27, 2019). Three historical control cohorts included users of originator insulin glargine during the 6 months before May 27 each year in 2016, 2017, and 2018. Patients who discontinued or switched use of the originator insulin glargine and those without cost coverage by the provincial drug plan were excluded. Using likelihood ratios, we compared the daily use of medications, outpatient visits, and hospitalizations in the 12 months after the policy change with the daily use in 3 historical control cohorts. A sustained likelihood ratio above a predefined threshold of 7.1 was interpreted as an early signal of a possible policy impact.

FINDINGS

Each cohort included 15,344 to 17,310 patients. In the first year of the policy, we observed increases in (1) insulin glargine use (the cumulative incidence increased by 2.5% compared with the mean of the 3 historical cohorts), (2) oral antidiabetic medication use (increased by 2.8%), and (3) outpatient visits (increased by 1.4%). Likelihood ratios greater than the threshold of 7.1 were detected for these 3 outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS

We observed marginal changes in health services utilization without detecting signals of negative health impacts on patients targeted by the British Columbia policy of mandatory switching from originator to biosimilar insulin glargine.

Efficacy and immunogenicity of insulin biosimilar compared to their reference products: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To ascertain the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity from existing evidence via conducting a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials between biosimilar and originator insulins.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrails.gov were searched to identify head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compare the efficacy and safety of biosimilar insulin and its originator. Efficacy was assessed by change of HbA1C, fasting plasma glucose (laboratory or self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)), and change all mean of 7 points- or 8 points- SMBG. Safety was assessed by change in proportion hypoglycemia and serious hypoglycemia. The occurrence of anti-insulin antibodies (AIAs) was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs with 6188 patients from different countries were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model and were expressed as the mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI). In efficacy, Insulin biosimilar products showed similar in change of HbA1C at weeks 26 and 52, the MD were 0.03 (95% CI - 0.02 to 0.07, p = 0.28), and 0.05 (95% CI - 0.05 to 0.15, p = 0.36), respectively. The proportion of HbA1C less than 7% at endpoint, the OR were 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.20, p = 0.64). The change of fasting plasma glucose (laboratory or SMBG) mmol/L in 24-52 weeks and change all mean of 7 points-/8 points- SMBG mmol/L in 24-52 weeks, the MD were 0.02 (95% CI - 0.20 to 0.24, p = 0.87) and - 0.34 (95% CI - 1.35 to 0.67, p = 0.51), respectively. In occurrence of hypoglycemia (≥ 1 events) and severe hypoglycemia, the OR were 0.96 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.09, p = 0.52) and 1.06 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.31, p = 0.62). The AIA was 1.02 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.16, p = 0.76). Analysis stratified by type of diabetes and duration of insulin. There was no significant difference between the biosimilar and their reference group in a different type of diabetes and different duration of insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin biosimilar showed comparable characteristics with the reference drug in terms of efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, through comprehensive and specific conventional meta-analysis.

Rapid monitoring of health services use following a policy to switch patients from originator to biosimilar etanercept—a cohort study in British Columbia

Background

Drug coverage policies that incentivize switching patients from originator to biosimilar products may result in significant health care savings. Our study aimed to detect early impacts on health services utilization following a mandated switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept in British Columbia (BC), Canada.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, population-based cohort study using linked administrative health data from BC (2010–2020). The policy cohort consisted of patients with inflammatory arthritis who used originator etanercept in 2019, prior to BC’s Biosimilars Initiative switching policy. Three historical cohorts included patients with inflammatory arthritis who used originator etanercept in the years 2016, 2017, and 2018. We compared the daily cumulative incidences of drug refills and outpatient and inpatient services between the policy and historical cohorts. A likelihood ratio sustained (≥ 31 days) at 7.1 or higher compared with the null hypothesis was chosen a priori as a threshold for a potential impact of the policy.

Results

Each cohort contained between 1694 and 1963 patients. We detected several potential impacts: 1) a transient increase in etanercept refills between months three and eight (cumulative incidence difference of + 3.0%); 2) an anticipated increase in visits to physicians of any specialty between months three and eight (+ 2.6%); and 3) an anticipated increase in visits to a rheumatologist from the end of month three onwards (+ 12.8%). The policy had no impact on incidences of switching to a different biologic antirheumatic drug, visits to emergency departments, or admissions to hospitals.

Conclusions

Only transient and/or anticipated increases in drug refills and physician visits were observed during the study period. Additional research on clinical outcomes is recommended to strengthen the evidence that no long-term unintended negative health impacts are associated with BC’s Biosimilars Initiative [switching policy].

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41927-021-00235-x.

Mandatory nonmedical switching from originator to biosimilar infliximab in patients with inflammatory arthritis and psoriasis in British Columbia: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

In 2019, British Columbia's public drug plan, PharmaCare, was the first in Canada to implement a nonmedical switching policy from originator infliximab to its biosimilar, for patients with inflammatory arthritis or psoriasis. We aimed to detect signals of impact on health services utilization during the first year of policy implementation and to provide early data to policy-makers.

METHODS

We constructed cohorts of users of originator infliximab: 3 historical cohorts (2016-2018) and 1 policy cohort (2019). We extracted data from BC Ministry of Health databases from 2015 to 2020, as we followed each cohort for 365 days from May 27 of each cohort's respective year. We excluded patients with gastrointestinal conditions and those not covered by PharmaCare. We examined the cumulative incidence of infliximab prescription refills, switching to other biologic drugs and use of additional health services. A log-likelihood ratio of 1.96 compared with the null hypothesis was used as the threshold for differences between the policy cohort and the historical cohorts.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 572 unique patients: 520 in the 2016 historical cohort, 461 in the 2017 historical cohort, 423 in the 2018 historical cohort and 377 in the policy cohort (with some patients included in multiple cohorts; 335 [58.6%] were included in all 4 cohorts). During months 8 and 9 of follow-up, a transient signal was observed in infliximab refills (7.2% decrease in refilling infliximab for the fourth time for the policy cohort, log-likelihood ratio > 1.96). An anticipated increase in visits to specialists was observed from month 4 forward (15.0%, log-likelihood ratio > 1.96). No signal was observed for increased use of other health services (log-likelihood ratio < 1.96).

INTERPRETATION

Early monitoring did not detect signals of negative impacts on health services use during the first year of the policy. Detailed, longer-term cohort studies and hypothesis-testing methods could provide additional assurance about the safety of the policy.

Current evidence on the use of the adalimumab biosimilar SB5 (ImraldiTM): a multidisciplinary perspective

INTRODUCTION

This review provides an overview of data from trials and real-world studies available for SB5 (Imraldi^TM) across three main therapeutic areas: rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search for publications on data for SB5 efficacy/effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity was undertaken.

EXPERT OPINION

Evidence derived from clinical studies suggest that the biosimilar SB5 is a safe and effective alternative to reference adalimumab. Considering that patients suffering from immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis often require long-term biologic treatment, biosimilar medicines (such as SB5) can reduce healthcare costs while increasing access to effective treatments.

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.

Biosimilar Uptake: The Importance of Healthcare Provider Education

From peptide hormones to monoclonal antibodies, advances in biotherapeutic medicines, or biologics, have brought incalculable benefits to patients, especially for conditions where previous classes of therapy were ineffective or non-existent. At the same time, the development of biologics has been accompanied by questions of access and cost. The advent of biosimilars, molecules highly similar to their reference biologics, has offered the promise of ameliorating cost and access challenges. However, issues regarding biosimilar uptake remain. Multiple factors impact the utilization of biosimilars by healthcare providers and perhaps the best recognized of these is education. This paper discusses the importance of education to biosimilar adoption and lists action-items that various stakeholders in healthcare can adopt to improve the overall understanding of this important class of therapeutics.

Is There Any Research Evidence Beyond Surveys and Opinion Polls on Automatic Substitution of Biological Medicines? A Systematic Review

Background

Biosimilars are expected to decrease growing health care expenditures. Given that uptake of biosimilars has been modest, automatic substitution has been suggested to increase their use, but the practice is not yet allowed or implemented in many jurisdictions.

Methods

A systematic review was performed by searching databases Scopus, Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, and Web of Science. Peer-reviewed, original studies written in English and published during the period January 1, 2006 to April 24, 2021 reporting any interventions, pilots or any other studies including experiences or perceptions of any relevant stakeholders on automatic substitution of biologics were included without limitation by setting or geography. The quality of the included studies were evaluated by pre-determined criteria.

Results

Altogether, 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 23 were surveys, and four semi-structured interviews reporting mainly stakeholders’ perceptions on automatic substitution. Most of the studies (56%, 15/27) were from Europe. Studies were conducted among prescribers (n = 12), pharmacists (n = 5), patients (n = 4), payers (n = 1), and mixed stakeholders (n = 5). The primary objective of the majority (81%, 22/27) of the studies was to investigate some other biosimilar topic than automatic substitution. The reported perceptions of substitution were mainly negative. Studies evaluating risks, safety or effectiveness, or reporting real-life experiences of biologic substitution were lacking except one intervention and two prospective risk management studies. The overall quality of the studies was low to moderate, and the results were not generalizable due to convenience sampling not representing the populations of interest, and low response rates.

Conclusions

The current research evidence on the automatic substitution of biologics is scarce and of low to moderate quality, reflecting low stakeholder knowledge and their cautious attitude towards biosimilars. The safe and efficient implementation of automatic substitution requires well-designed practices, pilot studies, and evolving legislation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-021-00493-8.

Current status of biosimilars in Turkey: A survey among medical oncologists

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate biosimilar understanding and preference trends of medical oncologists in Turkey.

METHODS

A survey consisting of 24 multiple-choice questions with checkbox answers was conducted among medical oncologists. The questionnaire was divided into five parts to some intentions: demographic characteristics, general knowledge about biosimilars, knowledge about local approval and reimbursement issues, individual preference trends, and ranking the knowledge of their own. All answers were analyzed as whole cohort, specialists and fellows.

RESULTS

Fellows (n = 47) consisted 42%, and academic clinicians (n = 37) consisted 35% of the participants. In the whole cohort, the overall rate of correct answers was 55.1% in the general knowledge about the biosimilars part, and 26.7% in the local approval and reimbursement issues part. At all, 57.7% of the participants declared that they object to switch from a reference product to a biosimilar product. The rate of those who defined themselves as extremely knowledgeable decreased from 8.1% to 2.7% in the whole cohort at the end of the survey.

CONCLUSION

The need for more accurate and clarified local regulations and education emerging in the biotechnology era must be met.

Progress in oncology biosimilars till 2020: Scrutinizing comparative studies of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies

Stupendous elevation in the healthcare costs has followed with the inception of the current unconventional options of treatment available for cancer patients. There is a dire need of innovative financing approaches to lessen the financial load on healthcare system. Biosimilars are biological drugs consisting of an active ingredient from a reference biological drug that has a great potential of relieving financial load. Strict requirements from regulatory point of view are required as biosimilars are exceedingly similar to but not identical to the reference product. This provides with a certainty that no consequential differences from clinical point of view as compared to the respective biologics exists with regards to efficacy, safety and purity. Safety and effectiveness of biosimilars have been disclosed since more than 10 years of affirmations. However, there is a need to educate the healthcare professionals to abolish potential misconceptions and coalesce biosimilars into regular clinical practice. The present review focuses on providing an overview of regulatory aspects and requirements for biosimilars, the main challenges in the selection and development of biosimilars and the economic impact and financial savings observed in recent studies carried out in different parts of the world. In addition, we have discussed the different successful comparative studies which have been done in different parts of the world to depict the biosimilarity for monoclonal antibodies such as bevacizumab, trastuzumab and rituximab.

Analysis of the Regulatory Science Applied to a Single Portfolio of Eight Biosimilar Product Approvals by Four Key Regulatory Authorities

Slow uptake of biosimilars in some regions is often attributed to a lack of knowledge combined with concerns about safety and efficacy. To alleviate physician and patient apprehensions, regulatory reviews from four major regulatory authorities (RAs) (European Medicines Agency, US Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada, and Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Authority) across a portfolio of eight biosimilars were analyzed to provide insight into RA review focus and approach. RA queries were evaluated in an unbiased and systematic manner by major classification (Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls [CMC], nonclinical, clinical or regulatory) and then via detailed sub-classification. There was a consistent, predominant focus on CMC from all RAs. The review focus based on sub-classification of clinical and regulatory queries was influenced by molecular complexity, with significant differences between categories (monoclonal antibody or protein) in the distribution of query topics; specifically, bioanalytical (p = 0.023), comparative safety and efficacy (p = 0.023), and statutory (including the justification of extrapolation) (p = 0.00033). Each biosimilar had a distinct distribution of clinical query topics, tailored to product-specific data. This analysis elucidated areas of heightened RA interest, and validated their application of regulatory science in the evaluation of biosimilar safety and efficacy.