Infliximab for maintenance of medically-induced remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Infliximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and neutralises tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) which is present in high levels in the blood serum, mucosa and stool of patients with Crohn's disease.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of infliximab for maintaining remission in patients with Crohn's disease.

SEARCH METHODS

On 31 August, 2021 and 23 June, 2023, we searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which infliximab was compared to placebo or another active comparator for maintenance, remission, or response in patients with Crohn's disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcome was clinical relapse. Secondary outcomes were loss of clinical response, endoscopic relapse, and withdrawal due to serious and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine RCTs with 1257 participants were included. They were conducted between 1999 and 2022; seven RCTs included biologically-naive patients, and the remaining two included a mix of naive/not naive patients. Three studies included patients in clinical remission, five included patients with a mix of activity scores, and one study included biologic responders with active disease at baseline. All studies allowed some form of concomitant medication during their duration. One study exclusively included patients with fistulating disease. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 69 years old. All but one single-centre RCT were multicentre RCTs. Four studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies, two had a mix of commercial and public funding, and two had public funding. Infliximab is probably superior to placebo in preventing clinical relapse in patients who have mixed levels of clinical disease activity at baseline, and are not naive to biologics (56% vs 75%, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.84, NNTB = 5, moderate-certainty evidence). We cannot draw any conclusions on loss of clinical response (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.96), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.19), or serious adverse events (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.00) because the evidence is very low certainty. Infliximab combined with purine analogues is probably superior to purine analogues for clinical relapse (12% vs 59%, RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.42, NNTB = 2, moderate-certainty evidence), for patients in remission, and who are not naive to biologics. We cannot draw any conclusions on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.49), and serious adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.64) because the evidence is very low certainty. We cannot draw any conclusions about the effects of infliximab on serious adverse events compared to purine analogues (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.68) for a population in remission at baseline because the evidence is very low certainty. There was no evidence available for the outcomes of clinical relapse, loss of clinical response, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Infliximab may be equivalent to biosimilar for clinical relapse (47% vs 40% RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.69), and it may be slightly less effective in averting loss of clinical response (49% vs 32%, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.23, low-certainty evidence), for a population with mixed/low disease activity at baseline. Infliximab may be less effective than biosimilar in averting withdrawals due to adverse events (27% vs 0%, RR 20.73, 95% CI 2.86 to 150.33, low-certainty evidence). Infliximab may be equivalent to biosimilar for serious adverse events (10% vs 10%, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.50, low-certainty evidence). We cannot draw any conclusions on the effects of subcutaneous biosimilar compared with intravenous biosimilar on clinical relapse (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.57), loss of clinical response (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.25), and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.97) for an active disease population with clinical response at baseline because the evidence is of very low certainty. We cannot draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab compared to adalimumab on loss of clinical response (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.59), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.72), serious adverse events (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.54) for an active disease population with clinical response at baseline because the evidence is of very low certainty. There was no evidence available for the outcome of clinical relapse.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab is probably more effective in preventing clinical relapse than placebo (moderate-certainty evidence). Infliximab in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective in preventing clinical and endoscopic relapse than purine analogues alone (moderate-certainty evidence). No conclusions can be drawn regarding prevention of loss of clinical response, occurrence of withdrawals due to adverse events, or total adverse events due to very low-certainty evidence for both of these comparisons. There may be little or no difference in prevention of clinical relapse, withdrawal due to adverse events or total adverse events between infliximab and a biosimilar (low-certainty evidence). Infliximab may lead to more loss of clinical response than a biosimilar (low-certainty evidence). We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions about other comparisons and outcomes related to missing data or very low-certainty evidence due to serious concerns about imprecision and risk of bias. Further research should focus on comparisons with other active therapies for maintaining remission, as well as ensuring adequate power calculations and reporting of methods.

Infliximab for medical induction of remission in Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Infliximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and neutralises tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), which is present in high levels in the blood serum, mucosa and stool of people with Crohn's disease.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of infliximab alone or in combination with another agent for induction of remission in Crohn's disease compared to placebo or active medical therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

On 31 August 2021 and 4 March 2023, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing infliximab alone or in combination with another agent to placebo or another active comparator in adults with active Crohn's disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were clinical remission, clinical response and withdrawals due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were endoscopic remission, histological remission, endoscopic response, and serious and total adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 10 RCTs with 1101 participants. They were conducted between 1999 and 2019, and 7/10 RCTs included biologically naive participants. All but one RCT, which did not provide information, were multicentre and funded by pharmaceutical companies, and their authors declared conflicts. The age of the participants ranged from 26 to 65 years. Results were based on one study unless otherwise stated. Infliximab 5 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg may be more effective than placebo at week four for clinical remission (30/55 versus 3/25; RR 4.55, 95% CI 1.53 to 13.50; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3) and response (36/55 versus 4/25; RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.63 to 10.25, NNTB 3). The evidence was low certainty. The study did not report withdrawals due to adverse events. We could not draw conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg compared to placebo for fistulating participants for clinical remission (29/63 versus 4/31; RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.38 to 9.25; NNTB 4), response (48/106 versus 15/75; RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.41; NNTB 6; 2 studies) or withdrawals due to adverse events (2/63 versus 0/31; RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.12 to 50.54). The evidence was very low certainty. Infliximab used in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective than purine analogues alone for clinical remission at weeks 24 to 26 (182/301 versus 95/302; RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.32, NNTB 4; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and clinical response at week 26 (107/177 versus 66/178; RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.05; NNTB 5; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events at week 26 (62/302 versus 53/301; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.21; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Infliximab alone may be more effective than purine analogues alone at week 26 for clinical remission (85/177 versus 57/178; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.95; NNTB 7; 2 studies) and response (94/177 versus 66/178; RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.82; NNTB 7; 2 studies). There may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (30/177 versus 43/178; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.06; 4 studies). The evidence was low certainty. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 10 mg/kg for clinical remission (19/27 versus 11/28; RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.02) and response (22/27 versus 24/28; RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.46). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 10 mg/kg in an exclusively fistulating population for clinical remission (17/31 versus 12/32; RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.53), response (21/31 versus 18/32; RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.78), or withdrawals due to adverse events (1/31 versus 1/32; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.79). The evidence was very low certainty. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 5 mg/kg compared to 20 mg/kg for clinical remission (19/27 versus 11/28; RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.02) or response (22/27 versus 18/28; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.76). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. We could not draw any conclusions on the effects of infliximab 10 mg/kg compared to 20 mg/kg for clinical remission (11/28 versus 11/28; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.92) or response (14/28 versus 18/28; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.23). The evidence was very low certainty. Withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported. There may be little or no difference between infliximab and a CT-P13 biosimilar at week six for clinical remission (47/109 versus 49/111; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.32), response (67/109 versus 70/111; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.20) and withdrawals due to adverse events (21/109 versus 17/111; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.25). The evidence was low certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab in combination with purine analogues is probably more effective than purine analogues alone in inducing clinical remission and clinical response. Infliximab alone may be more effective in inducing clinical remission and response than purine analogues alone or placebo. Infliximab may be similar in efficacy to a CT-P13 biosimilar and there may be little or no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions as to whether infliximab alone is effective when used for exclusively fistulating populations. There was evidence that there may be little or no difference in withdrawal due to adverse events between infliximab plus purines compared with purines alone, as well as infliximab alone compared with purines alone. Meaningful conclusions cannot be drawn on all other outcomes related to adverse events due to very low certainty evidence.

Population Pharmacodynamic Modelling of the CD19+ Suppression Effects of Rituximab in Paediatric Patients with Neurological and Autoimmune Diseases

BACKGROUND

Limited pharmacotherapy and the failure of conventional treatments in complex pathologies in children lead to increased off-label use of rituximab. We aimed to characterize the time course of CD19+ B lymphocytes (CD19+) under treatment with intravenous rituximab in children with neurologic and autoimmune diseases and to evaluate the impact of covariates (i.e., demographics, diagnosis and substitution between innovator and biosimilar product) on rituximab pharmacodynamics and disease activity.

METHODS

Pre- and post-drug infusion CD19+ in peripheral blood were prospectively registered. A population pharmacodynamic model describing the time course of CD19+ was developed with NONMEM v7.4. Simulations of three different rituximab regimens were performed to assess the impact on CD19+. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of clinical response recorded through disease activity scores.

RESULTS

281 measurements of CD19+ lymphocyte counts obtained from 63 children with neurologic (n = 36) and autoimmune (n = 27) diseases were available. The time course of CD19+ was described with a turn-over model in which the balance between synthesis and degradation rates is disrupted by rituximab, increasing the latter process. The model predicts half-lives (percent coefficient of variation, CV(%)) of rituximab and CD19+ of 11.6 days (17%) and 173.3 days (22%), respectively. No statistically significant effect was found between any of the studied covariates and model parameters (p > 0.05). Simulations of different regimens showed no clinically significant differences in terms of CD19+ repopulation times. A trend towards a lack of clinical response was observed in patients with lower CD19+ repopulation times and higher areas under the CD19+ versus time curve.

CONCLUSIONS

Rituximab pharmacodynamics was described in a real-world setting in children suffering from autoimmune and neurologic diseases. Diagnosis, substitution between innovator rituximab and its biosimilars or type of regimen did not affect rituximab-induced depletion of CD19+ nor the clinical response in this cohort of patients. According to this study, rituximab frequency and dosage may be chosen based on clinical convenience or safety reasons without affecting CD19+ repopulation times. Further studies in larger populations are required to confirm these results.

Biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are an effective and safe option for the management of myelofibrosis-related anemia

OBJECTIVES

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) have an established role in treating anemia in hematological malignancies. However, their role, particularly biosimilar ESA (B-ESA), in myelofibrosis (MF) is not well established.

METHODS

This study retrospectively collected data on 96 MF patients treated with B-ESA (alpha/zeta) for the management of anemia to assess safety, efficacy (anemia response [AR]), and survival.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients (80%) obtained AR. The median time to AR was 2.5 months. In multivariate analysis, significant predictive factors of AR were transfusion independency (p = .006) and ferritin levels <200 ng/ml (p = .009) at baseline. After a median follow-up of 43.8 months from diagnosis, 38 patients (39%) died, 11 (28.9%) from leukemic evolution. Only two patients (2.5%) stopped B-ESA for toxicity. The 24-month survival was significantly affected by response to B-ESA (70.8% in AR vs. 55.3% in non-responder patients, p = .016). In multivariate analysis, age ≤ 70 years (p = .029) and Hb > 8.5 g/dl (p = .047) at baseline were significantly associated with improved survival, with a trend for longer survival in AR patients (p = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

B-ESA seems to be an effective and well-tolerated option for anemia treatment in the MF setting. This strategy deserves further clinical investigation.

The Effect of Biosimilar Prescription Targets for Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents on the Prescribing Behavior of Physicians in Germany

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to aid decision makers by analyzing the impact of introducing biosimilar prescription targets on physician prescribing behavior in the prescription of biologic erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in Germany.

METHODS

We combined secondary data of regional level biosimilar prescription targets and secondary data of routinely collected claims data of dispensed prescriptions by physicians operating within the statutory health insurance system in ambulatory care across 7 German regions from 2009 to 2015. Two-way fixed-effects regression analysis was used to identify the average treatment effect of introducing biosimilar prescription targets at the physician level. The main outcome of interest was the share of biosimilar prescriptions on all prescriptions within the substance group. We compared 6 regions that introduced biosimilar prescription targets with 1 region without any prescription target policy.

RESULTS

Introducing biosimilar prescription targets increased the average share of biosimilars between 6 percentage points (P < .05) in Hamburg and up to 20 percentage points (P < .001) in Saxony-Anhalt. Stratification of specialists by prescription volume and adoption status indicated heterogeneous effects. We identified similar but higher effects for high-volume prescribers. Disentangling of effects with regard to the composition of biosimilar share suggested that the increase in biosimilar share was driven by increased biosimilar use accompanied by a nonsignificant decrease in original biologics prescriptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescription targets to alter physician prescribing behavior meet their intended goals by increasing biosimilar share. Physicians partly responded to the policy by decreasing overall prescriptions of the target substance. Prescription targets might be a useful tool, but decision makers need to consider all aspects of potential responses.

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.

First-Line Treatment of HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer With Dual Blockade Including Biosimilar Trastuzumab (SB3): Population-Based Real-World Data From the DBCG

Purpose

Dual blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in combination with chemotherapy is the recommended first-line therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC). The purpose of this retrospective study is to examine the clinical outcomes of the trastuzumab biosimilar SB3 in first-line dual blockade treatment using real-world data of patients with HER-positive mBC.

Methods

In Denmark, all women with breast cancer are registered in the database of the Danish Breast Cancer Group (DBCG). From this prospective observational registry, we extracted information on primary diagnosis and treatment of all women with HER2-positive mBC who received first-line treatment with SB3 and pertuzumab from September 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020. Retrospectively collected data from the DBCG database included information concerning treatment start, end, and reason for discontinuation. The primary endpoints for the study were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

The study included 117 women who received first-line treatment with SB3 and pertuzumab for their HER2-positive mBC. The study population had a mean age of 60 years. A total of 71 patients (61%) had recurrent disease and 46 patients (39%) presented with de novo mBC. The median follow-up was 11.1 and 15.4 months for PFS and OS, respectively. At 12 months, OS was 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78-91), whereas the median OS was not reached. The median PFS was 12.7 months (95% CI, 11.1-16.2). Median time on treatment was 8.7 months (95% CI, 7.6-11.4); 36 patients (31%) were still on treatment at end of study.

Conclusions

This retrospective real-world, nationwide study demonstrated comparable median PFS to the historical data of using reference trastuzumab and pertuzumab as first-line dual blockade.

Response Assessment to Erythropoietin-Zeta (Epo-Alpha Biosimilar) Therapy in Low-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes

Background. This prospective observational study aimed to verify the efficacy of erythropoietin zeta in the treatment of patients with low-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. Methods. Patients with low/int-1 IPSS risk and serum erythropoietin level below 500 U/L were enrolled. Treatment consisted of erythropoietin zeta 40,000 U subcutaneously once a week. The primary endpoint was the erythroid response. According to Simon’s two-stage statistical design, 36 patients were recruited. The median age was 75 years (range 56–83 years), male/female ratio was 1.1/1, median baseline serum erythropoietin was 57.9 U/L (range 9.4–475 U/L). 53% of patients had low-risk disease, while the remaining had Int-1 risk. Results. After 8 weeks, a significant response (rise in Hb levels of at least 1.5 g/dL) was achieved in 18 patients (50%) out of 36. However, 17 patients did not improve; 8/17 patients pursued the 40,000 U weekly schedule of erythropoietin zeta, and 4/8 (50%) of them reached the erythroid response after 16 weeks. Nine patients underwent dosage doubling (40,000 U twice per week), and 5/9 (55%) of them achieved the erythroid response. Conclusion. Compared with data from the literature, this prospective study revealed that EPO-zeta is a safe and effective therapeutic option in low-risk MDS patients.

The safety and clinical effectiveness of rapid infusion with CT-P10 in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A retrospective non-interventional post-authorization safety study in Europe

Rapid infusion (RI) of the rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 is currently only an approved treatment regimen for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Although both CT-P10 and reference rituximab are known to be frequently administered using a RI regimen (≤90 min) in clinical practice, published data on the safety of RI of CT-P10 in patients with NHL and CLL are limited. Hence, this study collected real-world safety and effectiveness data on RI-CT-P10 from the medical records of 196 patients with NHL or CLL in 10 European centers, 6 months after the date of the first RI (index date); the infusion-related reaction (IRR) rate was compared to previously published data. Ten percent (95% confidence interval 6%-15%; n = 20/196) of patients experienced an infusion-related reaction (IRR) on day 1-2 post-index, which was not significantly different (p = 0.45) to the IRR rate for rituximab described in a previous meta-analysis (8.8%). During the observation period, 2% of patients experienced grade 3-5 IRRs and 85% (n = 166) experienced an adverse event (non-IRR). The most common reason for discontinuation of first-line CT-P10 was planned treatment completion (81%; n = 158). Complete response and partial response to CT-P10 was observed in 74% (n = 142/192) and 22% (n = 42/192) of patients, respectively. The results of this real-world study demonstrate that the safety and effectiveness profile of RI-CT-P10 is similar to RI of reference rituximab and therefore support the current use of RI-CT-P10 in patients with NHL and CLL.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Physician Preferences for Biologics in Moderate-to-Severe Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Retrospective Chart Review in Europe

Background

With many options available for treating inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Europe, this study sought to characterize physician treatment preferences and real-world treatment patterns in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD).

Methods

This was a retrospective, noninterventional, physician-administered study. Gastroenterologists and general practitioners (n = 348) in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom provided information on treatment preferences and extracted information from records of patients with moderate-to-severe UC (n = 587) or CD (n = 417) who had received biologic, biosimilar or Janus kinase inhibitor therapies (2014-2019) and had IBD-related medical history available 6 months before and after treatment initiation.

Results

Physicians largely preferred infliximab and adalimumab or their biosimilars as first-line therapy for UC (originators, 65.8%; biosimilars, 26.1%) and CD (originators, 61.8%; biosimilars, 30.5%). Effectiveness was the most cited reason for treatment preference (92%-93% of physicians). Three-quarters of patients (UC, 75.8%; CD, 73.6%) received infliximab or adalimumab originators in the first line, with more patients receiving infliximab biosimilars than adalimumab biosimilars (12.4%-12.5% and 0.5%-4.1%, respectively, across UC and CD). Persistence was longer for first-line infliximab than adalimumab (UC, 26.6 vs 21.2 months; CD, 31.2 vs 26.7 months) and was generally shorter for their respective biosimilars. Nonbiologic treatments were used in combination with biologics in 14.1% (UC) and 11.5% (CD) of patients. Most patients received 1 biologic therapy (UC, 90.6%; CD, 83.2%); only 9.4% (UC) and 16.8% (CD) received a second biologic.

Conclusions

Infliximab and adalimumab originators dominated first-line biologic therapy for moderate-to-severe UC and CD. Understanding real-world treatment patterns can help assess new treatment uptake and suggest opportunities for improving treatment.

Impact of a clinical pharmacist in a multidisciplinary consultation on the switch to a biosimilar for inflammatory rheumatic diseases

OBJECTIVE

Despite several studies proving the efficacy and safety of biosimilars compared with original drugs, switching to a biosimilar remains challenging when the decision is at the discretion of physicians with mandatory consent from patients. Educating patients about biosimilars seems important to increase the prescription rate of biosimilars. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a clinical pharmacist consultation on the switch to and retention rate of a biosimilar for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

METHODS

This retrospective study compared 2 groups of adult patients receiving (intervention) or not (control) a consultation with a pharmacist right before the rheumatologist consultation. The primary outcome was the frequency of patients who switched to a biosimilar at the end of the rheumatologist visit.

RESULTS

We analysed 141 patients (50% women, 50±15 years old, on original adalimumab (62%) or etanercept (38%)) who had never used biosimilars: 85 in the intervention group and 56 in the control group. The switch rate to a biosimilar significantly differed between the groups: 69.4% versus 41.1% in the intervention group versus the control group respectively (p<0.01). After a 1-year follow-up period, 72.5% versus 81.3% of patients who switched were still on biosimilar in the intervention versus control group respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the positive impact of a pharmacist consultation before the physician's one on switching to a biosimilar, but more studies are needed to assess the impact of this pharmacist consultation on preventing the nocebo effect and therefore on improving the retention rate of biosimilars.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Network meta-analysis of infliximab biosimilars for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Disclaimer

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

Purpose

This article assesses the relative efficacy and safety of infliximab biosimilars in treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

A frequentist, random-effects network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate evidence from randomized controlled trials that examined the use of infliximab biosimilars for treatment of patients with RA. PubMed and MEDLINE and other sources were searched for reports evaluating rates of response to treatment with the reference product (infliximab) vs an infliximab biosimilar. The primary efficacy outcome of interest was the rate of attainment of ACR20 (ie, 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology core measures). The primary safety outcome was the rate of treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs). Data were extracted by the primary author, and an assessment for risks of methodological bias was performed for each evaluated study.

Results

Five studies that enrolled a total of 2,499 patients were included. Overall comparisons using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) did not indicate statistically significant differences in response to treatment with biosimilar agents relative to each other or the infliximab reference product. ORs for ACR20 response for biosimilars vs infliximab were as follows: 1.475 (95% CI, 0.940-2.315) for infliximab-axxq, 1.259 (95% CI, 0.854-1.855) for infliximab-dyyb, 0.865 (95% CI, 0.5511.358) for infliximab-qbtx, and 0.832 (95% CI, 0.506-1.367) for infliximab-abda. Similar findings were observed in reported SAE rates among patients treated with the various biosimilars.

Conclusion

ACR20 response appears to be comparable and nonsignificantly different between infliximab biosimilars. In the absence of any meaningful differences in safety or efficacy, biosimilar cost may be the deciding factor in choosing a treatment or agent for formulary inclusion.

Randomised study of PF-06410293, an adalimumab (ADL) biosimilar, compared with reference ADL for the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis: results from weeks 26-52, including a treatment switch from reference ADL to PF-06410293

Objective

To investigate the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics of biosimilar adalimumab (ADL) PF-06410293 (ADL-PF; adalimumab-afzb) versus EU-sourced reference ADL (ADL-EU) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on longer-term treatment and after being switched from ADL-EU to ADL-PF.

Methods

In this multinational, double-blind study, patients with active RA were initially randomised to ADL-PF or ADL-EU for 26 weeks (treatment period (TP) 1). At the start of TP2 (weeks 26–52), patients in the ADL-EU arm were blindly re-randomised 1:1 to remain on ADL-EU (ADL-EU/ADL-EU; n=135) or switched to ADL-PF (ADL-EU/ADL-PF; n=134); patients receiving ADL-PF continued blinded treatment (ADL-PF/ADL-PF; n=283).

Results

The American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) response rates were comparable between treatment groups at all visits during TP2. At week 52, ACR20 response rates were 82.7% (ADL-PF/ADL-PF), 79.3% (ADL-EU/ADL-EU) and 84.3% (ADL-EU/ADL-PF). Other measures of deep response (ACR50/70, ACR/EULAR-defined remission, EULAR good response, and Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints Based on High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein <2.6) and Health Assessment Questionnaire−Disability Index were maintained over TP2 and comparable between groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 43.5% (ADL-PF/ADL-PF), 44.4% (ADL-EU/ADL-EU) and 38.3% (ADL-EU/ADL-PF) of patients; there were no clinically meaningful differences in the safety profiles between groups. The percentage of patients who were antidrug antibody positive was comparable overall among ADL-PF/ADL-PF (47.3%), ADL-EU/ADL-EU (54.1%) and ADL-EU/ADL-PF (45.9%).

Conclusions

The similar efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics of ADL-PF and ADL-EU, maintained up to week 52, were unaffected by blinded treatment switch from ADL-EU to ADL-PF at week 26.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02480153; EudraCT number: 2014-000352-29.

Treatment journey in rheumatoid arthritis with biosimilars: from better access to good disease control through cost savings and prevention of nocebo effects

Early diagnosis and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are of critical importance to halt the progression of the disease. Optimal use of advanced imaging techniques or biomarkers may facilitate early diagnosis of RA. Even though many disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are available for RA treatment, biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) offer expanding therapeutic options and good outcomes in patients with RA who do not have a sufficient response to conventional synthetic DMARDs. However, high costs of bDMARDs have limited patient access to optimised disease management and increased the cost burden for healthcare systems. The advent of biosimilars led to significant cost savings driven by price competition among the reference products, which could be beneficial for healthcare systems. Healthcare provider (HCP)–patient communication and informed shared decision-making are crucial to prevent the occurrence of a nocebo effect, which results from negative perceptions that patients may have and could lead to less effective outcomes. Research has demonstrated that effective communication between HCPs and patients utilising positive framing can improve acceptance by patients to be initiated on or switched to a biosimilar and can help to integrate biosimilars into routine clinical practice to maximise benefits for patients with RA.

Healthcare system conversion to a biosimilar: Trials and tribulations

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

While biologic medications have transformed the care and management of millions of patients, they are a large financial strain on the healthcare system. Biosimilar medications present a great opportunity to improve care affordability. However, despite streamlined approval processes and the potential for cost savings, the acceptance and adaptation of biosimilars have been slow. This descriptive report illustrates the preparation for, challenges, and execution of an enterprise-wide biosimilar conversion within a large healthcare system. The 3 phases of biosimilar conversion utilized at our institution included selection of a biosimilar, pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committee approval, and implementation.

SUMMARY

When selecting a biosimilar, clinical data, medication safety, cost, institutional cost savings, payer coverage, patient assistance programs, and additional patient services should be taken into consideration to ensure patient care is not affected. Understanding and endorsement of biosimilar use by physician leadership, care managers, and pharmacists are crucial before implementation. P&T committee approval with clear delineation of the patient population (naive vs experienced), disease states, and whether the biosimilar would be the preferred medication should be obtained. Transparent communication of clear expectations to patients and coordination with the information technology (IT), contracting, and supply chain departments are necessary before the go-live date. Contracting and IT implementations should ideally take potential changes in biosimilar adaptation into consideration and have enough flexibility to account for these changes. Planned evaluations of patients' experiences with the change to the biosimilar should be incorporated as part of the implementation plan.

CONCLUSION

The barriers to biosimilar adaptation are plentiful. Careful planning, clear communication, and coordination with all affected disciplines can ensure successful biosimilar conversion.

Anti-TNF and immunosuppressive combination therapy is preferential to inducing clinical remission in patients with active inflammatory bowel disease: A systemic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of a combination therapy of biologics and immunosuppressants with biological monotherapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparison of the efficacy and safety of biologics and immunomodulators with biological monotherapy were identified from the EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases published up to 1 May 2020. Raw data were extracted, pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated, the fixed-effect and inverse variance models were used. Funnel plots were performed to analyze publication bias.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs were eligible for analysis. Overall, there was statistically a benefit for combination treatment over biologic monotherapy (IFX/ADA) in inducing clinical remission and preventing relapse in patients with IBD (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.98). Moreover, the combination therapy was superior to biological monotherapy for active CD (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.94). Also, there were significant benefits for combination therapy in the subgroup treated with infliximab (IFX) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy has slight benefits in inducing clinical remission in active CD compared with biological monotherapy. Patients with IBD who receive therapy with IFX and immunomodulator also have a mild advantage in comparison with those treated with IFX monotherapy.

Comparative effectiveness of two adalimumab biosimilars in 1318 real-world patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease mandated to switch from originator adalimumab: nationwide observational study emulating a randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

In 2018, a nationwide mandatory switch from originator to biosimilar adalimumab was conducted in Denmark. The available biosimilar was GP2017 (Hyrimoz) in Eastern regions and SB5 (Imraldi) in Western regions. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of GP2017 versus SB5 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)/psoriatic arthritis (PsA)/axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA).

METHODS

Observational cohort study based on the DANBIO registry with geographical cluster pseudo-randomisation, analysed by emulating a randomised clinical trial. Main outcome was adjusted 1-year treatment retention (Cox regression). Furthermore, 6 months' remission rates (logistic regression), reasons for withdrawal and back-switching to originator were investigated (overall and stratified by indication).

RESULTS

Overall, of 1570 eligible patients, 1318 switched and were included (467 RA/321 PsA/530 AxSpA); 623 (47%) switched to GP2017, 695 (53%) to SB5. Baseline characteristics of the two clusters were largely similar, but some differences in registration practice were observed. The combined 1-year retention rate for the two biosimilars was 89.5%. Compared with SB5, estimated risk of withdrawal for GP2017 was lower (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.86) and 6 months' remission rate was higher (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.25 to 2.37). Stratified analyses gave similar results (statistically significant for RA). During 1 year, 8.5% and 12.9% withdrew GP2017 and SB5, respectively (primarily lack of effect and adverse events), of whom 48 patients (3.6%) back-switched.

CONCLUSION

This head-to-head comparison of GP2017 versus SB5 following a mandatory switch from the originator indicated differences in effectiveness in routine care. This may reflect a true difference, but other explanations, for example, differences in excipients, differences between clusters and residual confounding cannot be ruled out.

Navigating uncharted waters: Developing a standardized approach for evaluating and implementing biosimilar products at a comprehensive cancer center

PURPOSE

The processes for formulary implementation and electronic health record (EHR) integration of biosimilar products at a comprehensive cancer center are described. Implications for research protocols are also discussed.

SUMMARY

The existing literature focuses on practical considerations for formulary addition of biosimilar products, but there is a lack of guidance on how to implement the change, particularly within the EHR. Before building the ordering tools for biosimilars, the clinical and informatics teams should determine the role of biosimilars at the institution, identify drug-specific product characteristics that affect medication build, and characterize implications of future formulary changes or drug shortages. Leveraging an orderable record provides the ability to include logic that maps to multiple products and also allows for future implementation of changes within the medication record rather than requiring "swaps" at the treatment protocol level. The institutional review board should coordinate changes in affected research protocols and consent forms and work with principal investigators to amend protocols when necessary. Pharmacy leaders should develop processes to oversee inventory during the transition period and minimize the risk of errors.

CONCLUSION

The development of a standardized approach for evaluating and implementing biosimilar products improves efficiency and collaboration among the various team members responsible for the products' integration into existing workflows, including implications for clinical research. Implementing biosimilars for agents used to treat cancer will pose new challenges and require additional considerations. Partial implementation of biosimilars continues to pose multiple challenges in the provision of patient care.

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.

International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners global position on the use of biosimilars in cancer treatment and supportive care

With the development of innovative cancer treatments over recent decades, the cost of cancer care has risen exponentially, limiting patient access to patented originator biotherapeutics in many countries. The introduction of biosimilars to the market has created new opportunities as well the need for changes in practice within healthcare institutions. A ‘biosimilar’ is a biotherapeutic product which is highly similar in terms of quality, safety and efficacy to an already licensed originator product. Although biosimilars lack clinically meaningful differences in therapeutic activity as compared to the originator product, these complex biological molecules are not considered identical chemical copies, unlike generics, and minor differences in molecular structure and inactive compounds may exist. A thorough understanding of these differences and their clinical implications is necessary for optimising medicines-use practices involving biosimilars. This position statement, developed by the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners Biosimilars Taskforce, aims to provide the global oncology pharmacy community with guidance to support decisions around biosimilar use. The 11 statements cover the regulation and evaluation of biosimilars, practical issues around local implementation, the education of healthcare staff and patients, and the requirement for ongoing pharmacovigilance and outcome monitoring.

A comparative study of PF-06438179/GP1111 (an infliximab biosimilar) and reference infliximab in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis: A subgroup analysis

Aim

PF‐06438179/GP1111 (PF‐SZ‐IFX) is a biosimilar of reference infliximab (Remicade^®). This analysis compared the efficacy of PF‐SZ‐IFX and reference infliximab sourced from the European Union (IFX‐EU) in patient subgroups from a randomized, comparative study of PF‐SZ‐IFX versus IFX‐EU.

Methods

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis were randomized 1:1 to PF‐SZ‐IFX (n = 324) or IFX‐EU (n = 326); study drug (3 mg/kg) was administered intravenously at weeks 0, 2, and 6, then every 8 weeks thereafter. Subgroup analyses of efficacy endpoints such as American College of Rheumatology criteria for ≥20% clinical improvement (ACR20), change in high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein (hs‐CRP), and change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, four components based on hs‐CRP (DAS28‐CRP) at weeks 14 and 30 were performed by age, gender, race, region, immunogenicity status, and treatment history.

Results

Overall, ACR20 response rates as well as changes in DAS28‐CRP and hs‐CRP at week 14 were similar between PF‐SZ‐IFX and IFX‐EU within the subgroups of age, gender, race, region, treatment history, and immunogenicity status. Results to week 30 support overall similarity in efficacy between the two treatment arms in all subgroups.

Conclusion

Overall, PF‐SZ‐IFX and IFX‐EU were similar in efficacy within the analyzed subgroups of age, gender, race, region, treatment history, and immunogenicity status. The efficacy results from these subgroup analyses were aligned with the previously described results for the overall population up to week 30.

Analytic characterization of biosimilars

PURPOSE

The biosimilar development process, comparability for biological agents, and analytic characterization of biosimilars are described.

SUMMARY

Healthcare providers must understand the requirements for biosimilar approval, including the science behind biosimilar development and testing that contributes to the totality of evidence. The foundation of development is to demonstrate that a biosimilar is highly similar to the reference product through analytic characterization. Advances in analytic techniques enable scientists to extensively characterize biological products to identify potential product differences compared with the reference product that may affect the purity, safety, and efficacy of the biosimilar candidate. When developing a biosimilar, the clinical efficacy of the biological product has been proven with trials from the reference biological product; therefore, analytic testing on the molecular structure and biological function becomes the focus. In addition, nonclinical studies in animals are performed, including toxicology and immunogenicity testing. In humans, clinical pharmacology studies are performed to evaluate the safety and the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the proposed biosimilar. If there is any residual uncertainty about the proposed biological product after this testing, the developer should use guidance from the Food and Drug Administration to determine what additional clinical studies may be needed to adequately address that uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

Requirements for the approval of a biosimilar product include analytic characterization, which tests for similarity in primary amino acid structure, analysis of higher-order structure using circular dichroism and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopies, detection of posttranslational modifications, assessment of optimal target binding, and testing for impurities and optimal potency.

Incidence of febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy among patients with nonmyeloid cancer receiving filgrastim vs a filgrastim biosimilar

Background

Filgrastim and other granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are recommended to decrease febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence among patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy. Data comparing biosimilar filgrastim-sndz with reference filgrastim (filgrastim-ref) are limited outside of clinical trials in the US.

Objective

To compare the incidence of FN across chemotherapy cycles 1-6 between patients treated with filgrastim-sndz vs filgrastim-ref.

Materials and methods

This was a retrospective claims analysis of patients with nonmyeloid cancer enrolled in commercial or Medicare Advantage plans from March 2015 to June 2016 and receiving filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim-ref during ≥1 completed chemotherapy cycle. Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, pregnant patients, and those with missing data were excluded. FN was identified using the diagnosis codes for neutropenia + fever, neutropenia + bacterial/fungal infection, and neutropenia + infection + fever. Equivalence testing for FN incidence at the cycle level across chemotherapy cycles 1-6 was conducted for filgrastim-sndz vs filgrastim-ref after adjusting for baseline characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results were considered equivalent if the 90% CIs for between-cohort differences were within ±6.0%.

Results

The analysis included 3,459 patients (162 filgrastim-sndz and 3,297 filgrastim-ref). Before weighting, the filgrastim-sndz cohort was younger than filgrastim-ref and had a higher proportion of men, a higher proportion with commercial insurance, and lower proportions with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis or metastatic cancer. After weighting, baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts. Adjusted FN incidence was equivalent for filgrastim-sndz vs filgrastim-ref, respectively: neutropenia + fever, 0.81% vs 0.61% (difference [90% CI]=0.20 [-0.57 to 1.56]); neutropenia + infection, 1.21% vs 1.33% (difference [90% CI]=-0.12 [-1.17 to 2.28]); neutropenia + infection + fever, 0.0% vs 0.14% (difference=-0.14; CI not calculated because filgrastim-sndz had 0 events).

Conclusion

Filgrastim-sndz and filgrastim-ref are statistically equivalent for preventing FN across chemotherapy cycles 1-6 among patients with nonmyeloid cancer.

Biosimilars in oncology and inflammatory diseases: current and future considerations for clinicians in Latin America

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of several cancers and systemic immune-mediated inflammatory conditions. Expiry of patents protecting a number of biologics has provided the opportunity to commercialize highly similar versions, known as biosimilars. Biosimilars are approved by regulatory agencies via an independent pathway that requires extensive head-to-head comparison with the originator product. Biosimilars have the potential to provide savings to healthcare systems and expand patient access to biologics. In Latin American countries, regulatory frameworks for biosimilar approval have been introduced in recent years, and biosimilars of monoclonal antibody and fusion protein therapies are now emerging. However, the situation in this region is complicated by the presence of "non-comparable biotherapeutics" (also known as "intended copies"), which have not been rigorously compared with the originator product. We review the considerations for clinicians in Latin American countries, focusing on monoclonal antibody biosimilars relevant to oncology, rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology.

Harms of off-label erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for critically ill people

BACKGROUND

Anaemia is a common problem experienced by critically-ill people. Treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) has been used as a pharmacologic strategy when the blunted response of endogenous erythropoietin has been reported in critically-ill people. The use of ESAs becomes more important where adverse clinical outcomes of transfusing blood products is a limitation. However, this indication for ESAs is not licensed by regulatory authorities and is called off-label use. Recent studies concern the harm of ESAs in a critical care setting.

OBJECTIVES

To focus on harms in assessing the effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), alone or in combination, compared with placebo, no treatment or a different active treatment regimen when administered off-label to critically-ill people.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO via OvidSP, CINAHL, all evidence-based medicine (EBM) reviews including IPA and SCI-Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science, BIOSIS Previews and TOXLINE up to February 2017. We also searched trials registries, checked reference lists of relevant studies and tracked their citations by using SciVerse Scopus.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies, which compared scheduled systemic administration of ESAs versus other effective interventions, placebo or no treatment in critically-ill people.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened and evaluated the eligibility of retrieved records, extracted data and assessed the risks of bias and quality of the included studies. We resolved differences in opinion by consensus or by involving a third review author. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. We used fixed-effect or random-effects models, depending on the heterogeneity between studies. We fitted three-level hierarchical Bayesian models to calculate overall treatment effect estimates.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 27,865 records identified, 39 clinical trials and 14 observational studies, including a total of 945,240 participants, were eligible for inclusion. Five studies are awaiting classification. Overall, we found 114 adverse events in 33 studies (30 RCTs and three observational studies), and mortality was reported in 41 studies (32 RCTs and nine observational studies). Most studies were at low to moderate risk of bias for harms outcomes. However, overall harm assessment and reporting were of moderate to low quality in the RCTs, and of low quality in the observational studies. We downgraded the GRADE quality of evidence for venous thromboembolism and mortality to very low and low, respectively, because of risk of bias, high inconsistency, imprecision and limitations of study design.It is unclear whether there is an increase in the risk of any adverse events (Bayesian risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.21; 3099 participants; 9 studies; low-quality evidence) or venous thromboembolism (Bayesian RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.41; 18,917 participants; 18 studies; very low-quality evidence).There was a decreased risk of mortality with off-label use of ESAs in critically-ill people (Bayesian RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.92; 930,470 participants; 34 studies; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low quality of evidence suggests that off-label use of ESAs may reduce mortality in a critical care setting. There was a lack of high-quality evidence about the harm of ESAs in critically-ill people. The information for biosimilar ESAs is less conclusive. Most studies neither evaluated ESAs' harm as a primary outcome nor predefined adverse events. Any further studies of ESA should address the quality of evaluating, recording and reporting of adverse events.

Pricing and Reimbursement of Biosimilars in Central and Eastern European Countries

Objectives: The aim of this study was to review the requirements for the reimbursement of biosimilars and to compare the reimbursement status, market share, and reimbursement costs of biosimilars in selected Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries.

Methods: A questionnaire-based survey was conducted between November 2016 and January 2017 among experts from the following CEE countries: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Romania. The requirements for the pricing and reimbursement of biosimilars were reviewed for each country. Data on the extent of reimbursement of biologic drugs (separately for original products and biosimilars) in the years 2014 and 2015 were also collected for each country, along with data on the total pharmaceutical and total public health care budgets.

Results: Our survey revealed that no specific criteria were applied for the pricing and reimbursement of biosimilars in the selected CEE countries; the price of biosimilars was usually reduced compared with original drugs and specific price discounts were common. Substitution and interchangeability were generally allowed, although in most countries they were at the discretion of the physician after a clinical assessment. Original biologic drugs and the corresponding biosimilars were usually in the same homogeneous group, and internal reference pricing was usually employed. The reimbursement rate of biosimilars in the majority of the countries was the same and amounted to 100%. Generally, the higher shares of expenditures were shown for the reimbursement of original drugs than for biosimilars, except for filgrastim, somatropin, and epoetin (alfa and zeta). The shares of expenditures on the reimbursement of biosimilar products ranged from 8.0% in Estonia in 2014 to 32.4% in Lithuania in 2015, and generally increased in 2015. The share of expenditures on reimbursement of biosimilars in the total pharmaceutical budget differed between the countries, with the highest observed value for Slovakia and Hungary and the lowest—for Croatia.

Conclusions: The requirements for the pricing and reimbursement of biosimilar products as well as the access of patients to biologic treatment do not differ significantly between the considered CEE countries. Biosimilar drugs significantly influence the reimbursement systems of these countries, and the expenditure on the reimbursement of biosimilars is increasing as they are becoming more accessible to patients.

Biosimilars: from Technical to Pharmacoeconomic Considerations

A biosimilar is a biological medicinal product claimed to be similar to a reference biological medicinal product. Its development plan includes studies comparing it with the reference product in order to confirm its similarity in terms of quality, preclinical safety, clinical efficacy, and clinical safety, including immunogenicity. Biosimilars differ from generics both in their molecular complexity and in the specific requirements that apply to them. Since patents on many biological medicinal products will expire within the next 5 years in major therapeutic areas such as oncology, rheumatology and gastroenterology and as those products are so costly to the French national health insurance system, the availability of biosimilars would have a considerable economic impact. The round table has issued a number of recommendations intended to ensure that the upcoming arrival of biosimilars on the market is a success, in which prescribing physicians would have a central role in informing and reassuring patients, an efficient monitoring of the patients treated with biologicals would be set up and time to market for biosimilars would be speeded up.

Biosimilars of low-molecular-weight heparin products: fostering competition or reducing 'biodiversity'?

The term 'biosimilars' is used to qualify products developed to be similar to an original biological drug. Biosimilars are much more complicated to develop than a generic version of small-molecule drugs and this is especially true for low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs). Evidence on the antithrombotic management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) showed that the introduction into the market of biosimilars approved on the basis of simple biological criteria, without robust data from comparative clinical trials, may be hazardous. Moreover, the mixtures of LMWH polysaccharide chains, some immunoallergic properties and potential contamination during the extraction process raise safety concerns. As was the case for the biosimilar erythropoietin, there is the risk that only copies of the most commercially successful LMWHs will be marketed, thus jeopardizing the 'biodiversity' now ensured by the presence of several LMWHs, each with unique features that support the use of an individual LMWH as first-choice therapy in certain categories of patients.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anaemia in adults with chronic kidney disease: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are available for treating anaemia in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Their relative efficacy (preventing blood transfusions and reducing fatigue and breathlessness) and safety (mortality and cardiovascular events) are unclear due to the limited power of head-to-head studies.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of ESAs (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, or methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, and biosimilar ESAs, against each other, placebo, or no treatment) to treat anaemia in adults with CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 11 February 2014 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included a comparison of an ESA (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, or biosimilar ESA) with another ESA, placebo or no treatment in adults with CKD and that reported prespecified patient-relevant outcomes were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors screened the search results and extracted data. Data synthesis was performed by random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. We assessed for heterogeneity and inconsistency within meta-analyses using standard techniques and planned subgroup and meta-regression to explore for sources of heterogeneity or inconsistency. We assessed our confidence in treatment estimates for the primary outcomes within network meta-analysis (preventing blood transfusions and all-cause mortality) according to adapted GRADE methodology as very low, low, moderate, or high.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 56 eligible studies involving 15,596 adults with CKD. Risks of bias in the included studies was generally high or unclear for more than half of studies in all of the risk of bias domains we assessed; no study was low risk for allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment and attrition from follow-up. In network analyses, there was moderate to low confidence that epoetin alfa (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59), epoetin beta (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.38), darbepoetin alfa (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.57), and methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.70) prevented blood transfusions compared to placebo. In very low quality evidence, biosimilar ESA therapy was possibly no better than placebo for preventing blood transfusions (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.47) with considerable imprecision in estimated effects. We could not discern whether all ESAs were similar or different in their effects on preventing blood transfusions and our confidence in the comparative effectiveness of different ESAs was generally very low. Similarly, the comparative effects of ESAs compared with another ESA, placebo or no treatment on all-cause mortality were imprecise.All proprietary ESAs increased the odds of hypertension compared to placebo (epoetin alfa OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.23; epoetin beta OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.23 to 5.39; darbepoetin alfa OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.21; methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta OR 1.96, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.92), while the effect of biosimilar ESAs on developing hypertension was less certain (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.99). Our confidence in the comparative effects of ESAs on hypertension was low due to considerable imprecision in treatment estimates. The comparative effects of all ESAs on cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and vascular access thrombosis were uncertain and network analyses for major cardiovascular events, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), fatigue and breathlessness were not possible. Effects of ESAs on fatigue were described heterogeneously in the available studies in ways that were not useable for analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the CKD setting, there is currently insufficient evidence to suggest the superiority of any ESA formulation based on available safety and efficacy data. Directly comparative data for the effectiveness of different ESA formulations based on patient-centred outcomes (such as quality of life, fatigue, and functional status) are sparse and poorly reported and current research studies are unable to inform care. All proprietary ESAs (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, and methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta) prevent blood transfusions but information for biosimilar ESAs is less conclusive. Comparative treatment effects of different ESA formulations on other patient-important outcomes such as survival, MI, stroke, breathlessness and fatigue are very uncertain.For consumers, clinicians and funders, considerations such as drug cost and availability and preferences for dosing frequency might be considered as the basis for individualising anaemia care due to lack of data for comparative differences in clinical benefits and harms.

Efficacy and safety of infliximab-biosimilar compared to other biological drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a mixed treatment comparison

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of infliximab-biosimilar and other available biologicals for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), namely abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab and tocilizumab.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of MEDLINE database until August 2013 was carried out to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Bayesian mixed treatment comparison method was applied for the pairwise comparison of treatments. Improvement rates by the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20 and ACR50) at week 24 were used as efficacy endpoints, and the occurrence of serious adverse events was considered to assess the safety of the biologicals.

RESULTS

Thirty-six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. All the biological agents proved to be superior to placebo. For ACR20 response, certolizumab pegol showed the highest odds ratio (OR) compared to placebo, OR 7.69 [95% CI 3.69-14.26], followed by abatacept OR 3.7 [95% CI 2.17-6.06], tocilizumab OR 3.69 [95% CI 1.87-6.62] and infliximab-biosimilar OR 3.47 [95% CI 0.85-9.7]. For ACR50 response, certolizumab pegol showed the highest OR compared to placebo OR 8.46 [3.74-16.82], followed by tocilizumab OR 5.57 [95% CI 2.77-10.09], and infliximab-biosimilar OR 4.06 [95% CI 1.01-11.54]. Regarding the occurrence of serious adverse events, the results show no statistically significant difference between infliximab-biosimilar and placebo, OR 1.87 [95% CI 0.74-3.84]. No significant difference regarding efficacy and safety was found between infliximab-biosimilar and the other biological treatments.

CONCLUSION

This is the first indirect meta-analysis in RA that compares the efficacy and safety of biosimilar-infliximab to the other biologicals indicated in RA. We found no significant difference between infliximab-biosimilar and other biological agents in terms of clinical efficacy and safety.

Comparative efficacy and safety of biosimilar infliximab and other biological treatments in ankylosing spondylitis: systematic literature review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of infliximab-biosimilar with other biological drugs for the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

METHODS

Systematic literature review for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab and infliximab-biosimilar in AS was performed and indirect meta-analysis (Bayesian mixed treatment comparison) was carried out. The proportion of patients reaching 20% improvement by the assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS20) at weeks 12 and 24 was used as efficacy endpoints, and the occurrence of serious adverse events at week 24 was applied to compare the safety of the biologicals.

RESULTS

Altogether, 13 RCTs, identified by the systematic literature search, were included in the analysis. Results on the ASAS20 efficacy endpoint were reported for week 12 in 12 RCTs involving 2,395 patients, and for week 24 in 5 RCTs comprising 1,337 patients. All the five biological agents proved to be significantly superior to placebo. Infliximab showed the highest odds ratio (OR) of 7.2 (95% CI 3.68-13.19) compared to placebo, followed by infliximab-biosimilar with OR 6.25 (95% CI 2.55-13.14), both assessed at week 24. No significant difference was found between infliximab-biosimilar and other biological treatments regarding their efficacy and safety.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study which includes a biosimilar drug in the meta-analysis of biological treatments in AS. The results have proven the similar efficacy and safety profile of infliximab-biosimilar treatment compared to other biologicals.

Budget impact analysis of biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in six Central and Eastern European countries

The first biosimilar monoclonal antibody (infliximab, CT-P13) was registered by the European Medicines Agency in 2013 for the treatment of several inflammatory conditions including rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Biosimilar infliximab is first being marketed in the Central and Eastern European countries. This paper presents the estimated budget impact of the introduction of biosimilar infliximab in RA over a 3-year time period in six selected countries, namely Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. A prevalence-based model was constructed for budget impact analysis. Two scenarios were compared to the reference scenario (RSc) where no biosimilar infliximab is available: biosimilar scenario 1 (BSc1), where interchanging the originator infliximab with biosimilar infliximab is disallowed, and only patients who start new biological therapy are allowed to use biosimilar infliximab; as well as biosimilar scenario 2 (BSc2), where interchanging the originator infliximab with biosimilar infliximab is allowed, and 80% of patients treated with originator infliximab are interchanged to biosimilar infliximab. Compared to the RSc, the net savings are estimated to be €15.3 or €20.8 M in BSc1 and BSc2, respectively, over the 3 years. If budget savings were spent on reimbursement of additional biosimilar infliximab treatment, approximately 1,200 or 1,800 more patients could be treated in the six countries within 3 years in the two biosimilar scenarios, respectively. The actual saving is most sensitive to the assumption of the acquisition cost of the biosimilar drug and to the initial number of patients treated with biological therapy. The study focused on one indication (RA) and demonstrated that the introduction of biosimilar infliximab can lead to substantial budget savings in health care budgets. Further savings are expected for other indications where biosimilar medicines are implemented.