Consensus-based recommendations for the use of biosimilars to treat rheumatological diseases

OBSIDIAn - real world evidence of Originator to BioSImilar Drug switch in juvenile idiopathic arthritis

OBJECTIVES

Limited data about use of biosimilars are available in children with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA). This study therefore aimed to evaluate long-term efficacy and safety of switching from etanercept (ETA) and adalimumab (ADA) originators to their biosimilars, in children with JIA, in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This is a retro-prospective non-interventional multicentre Italian comparative cohort study. Medical charts of JIA children treated with biosimilars of ETA or ADA were included. Efficacy and safety of TNF-inhibitors therapy was evaluated at last follow-up during originator and at 3, 6 and 12 months following the switch to biosimilar.

RESULTS

59 children (42 female, median age at onset 88 months) were treated with biosimilar of ETA (21) and ADA (38). Forty-five switched from the originator to the BIO (17 ETA, 28 ADA). At time of switch, 12/17 patients on ETA and 18/28 on ADA were in remission. No significant difference has been found at 3, 6 and 12 months after the switch. Ten patients discontinued biosimilars due to disease remission (4 ETA, 3 ADA), family willing (1 ETA), occurrence of burning at injection site (1 ETA), and persistent activity (1 ADA). No statistically significant difference was observed between originator and BIOs, nor between originator and BIOs, and between ADA and ETA in time to disease remission achievement, time to relapse and number of patients who experienced AE.

CONCLUSION

Our real-life results seem to confirm the efficacy and safety profile of switching from originator of ADA and ETA to their respective BIOs also in paediatric patients with JIA.

An Update Review of Biosimilars of Adalimumab in Psoriasis - Bioequivalence and Interchangeability

Biologic drugs have revolutionized the treatment of psoriasis and other rheumatological diseases. In recent years, many biosimilar agents that are highly similar in structure and function to their originator products have been developed, including the tumor necrosis factor-alpha antagonist adalimumab. The considerably lower cost of these products has greatly cut the economic burden of the patients and increased the accessibility of biologic therapies worldwide. The US Food and Drug Administration and/or the European Medicines Agency have approved eight biosimilars of adalimumab (ABP 501/BI 695501/SB5/GP2017/FKB327/MSB11022/PF-06410293/CT-P17) for the treatment of psoriasis, and others are under review. Given that these agents showed pharmacokinetic, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles comparable to those of the originator, adalimumab biosimilars were licensed for all indications approved for reference adalimumab based on extrapolation; however, some of the equivalence studies were only conducted in one or two disease populations. This review discusses the bioequivalence of adalimumab biosimilars as demonstrated by various clinical trials, the extrapolation of indications, guidance and policies of the EU and US on interchangeability (nonmedical switching/automatic substitution) between biosimilars and originators, and the real-life practices of switching from reference adalimumab to the respective biosimilars. Further data from real-world studies and post-marketing analyses are needed better to address the efficacy and safety of the transition strategy.

Policies to Encourage the Use of Biosimilars in European Countries and Their Potential Impact on Pharmaceutical Expenditure

Introduction: Biosimilar medicines are considered promising alternatives to new biologicals with high price tags. The extent of savings resulting from biosimilar use depends on their price and uptake, which are largely shaped by pricing, reimbursement, and demand-side policies. This article informs about different policy measures employed by European countries to design the biologicals market and explores potential savings from the increased use of biosimilar medicines in Germany. Methods: Policy measures that target the price and uptake of biosimilar medicines were identified based on a prefilled questionnaire survey with public authorities in 16 European countries, who were the members of the Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information network (July 2020). Potential savings that could have been generated in Germany if different measures identified in the surveyed countries had been implemented were calculated for six publicly funded biological molecules. Price data of the Pharma Price Information service and German consumption data for 2018 were used for the calculation of five scenarios. Results: Several countries use a price link policy, setting the biosimilar price as a percentage of the price of the reference biological. Also lowering the price of the reference biological upon market entry of a biosimilar is less frequently used. While tendering of biosimilar medicines in the inpatient setting is the norm, it is rarely employed for biosimilars in outpatient use. Reference price systems and INN prescribing of medicines are the commonly used policy measures in the off-patent market, but some countries define exemptions for biologicals. Substituting biosimilars at the pharmacy level is rather an exception. Potential savings in Germany ranged from 5% (simple price link) to 55% (prices at the level of other countries) for the six studied molecules. Conclusion: Despite some differences, there are discernible tendencies across European countries with regard to their applications of certain policy measures targeting the price and uptake of biosimilar medicines. The potential for savings of some of these policies was clearly demonstrated. Monitoring and evaluation of these rather recent measures is key for obtaining a more comprehensive picture of their impact.

Expert consensus for in-hospital neurorehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries

Background: People with neurological dysfunction have been significantly affected by the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis in receiving adequate and quality rehabilitation services. There are no clear guidelines or recommendations for rehabilitation providers in dealing with patients with neurological dysfunction during a pandemic situation especially in low- and middle-income countries. The objective of this paper was to develop consensus-based expert recommendations for in-hospital based neurorehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic for low- and middle-income countries based on available evidence.  Methods: A group of experts in neurorehabilitation consisting of neurologists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists were identified for the consensus groups. A scoping review was conducted to identify existing evidence and recommendations for neurorehabilitation during COVID-19. Specific statements with level 2b evidence from studies identified were developed. These statements were circulated to 13 experts for consensus. The statements that received ≥80% agreement were grouped in different themes and the recommendations were developed.  Results: 75 statements for expert consensus were generated. 72 statements received consensus from 13 experts. These statements were thematically grouped as recommendations for neurorehabilitation service providers, patients, formal and informal caregivers of affected individuals, rehabilitation service organizations, and administrators.  Conclusions: The development of this consensus statement is of fundamental significance to neurological rehabilitation service providers and people living with neurological disabilities. It is crucial that governments, health systems, clinicians and stakeholders involved in upholding the standard of neurorehabilitation practice in low- and middle-income countries consider conversion of the consensus statement to minimum standard requirements within the context of the pandemic as well as for the future.

Switching to Biosimilar SDZ-ADL in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: 48-Week Efficacy, Safety and Immunogenicity Results From the Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind ADMYRA Study

Background

Sandoz adalimumab SDZ-ADL (GP-2017) is an approved adalimumab biosimilar with similar efficacy and comparable safety and immunogenicity to reference adalimumab (ref-ADL) as confirmed by analytical, pharmacokinetic and confirmatory studies. ADMYRA, a phase III double-blind study, was conducted with an aim to generate efficacy, safety and immunogenicity comparability data in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) having inadequate response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX). The study also evaluated an aspect of ‘switching’ reference product to the biosimilar in terms of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity up to Week 48.

Methods

Eligible patients (N = 353) were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous (sc) SDZ-ADL 40 mg (n = 177) or ref-ADL (n = 176) every other week from Week 0 to Week 24. At Week 24, all patients with at least a moderate response by Disease Activity Score-28 including high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) in the SDZ-ADL group continued SDZ-ADL (n = 159), and in the ref-ADL group were switched to SDZ-ADL (n = 166), treated for up to 46 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in DAS28-CRP from baseline at Week 12. Other efficacy endpoints included proportion of patients with European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, EULAR remission, Boolean remission, safety and immunogenicity.

Results

The DAS28-CRP score changes from baseline at Week 12 were similar between SDZ-ADL (− 2.16) and ref-ADL (− 2.18) with a mean difference (95% CI) of 0.02 (− 0.24 to 0.27), which was within the pre-specified equivalence margin of ± 0.6. After switching treatment from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL, the mean DAS28-CRP change was similar between the SDZ-ADL and ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’ group (− 3.09 vs − 3.05). The proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR response was 69.2%/29.0% in the SDZ-ADL group and 68.0%/29.6% in the ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’ group. The proportion of patients in EULAR remission was 51.4% and 54.4% and in Boolean remission was 16.8% and 21.6% for SDZ-ADL and ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’ groups, respectively. The secondary endpoints were similar across the treatment groups. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and injection-site reactions were low and similar between SDZ-ADL and ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’ groups (AEs 70.6% vs 68.8%, injection-site reactions 4.0% vs 6.3%), and most of these patients experienced AEs of mild or moderate severity. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 24.2% and 25.6% of patients treated with SDZ-ADL and ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’, respectively, from baseline to Week 48, of which 72.5% in SDZ-ADL and 79.1% in ‘ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL’ groups were neutralizing.

Conclusions

In patients with moderate-to-severe RA who had an inadequate response to DMARDs, SDZ-ADL demonstrated a similar efficacy and a comparable safety and immunogenicity profile to ref-ADL. Efficacy was sustained after switching from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL with no impact on safety (NCT02744755).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-020-00447-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patient satisfaction survey: substitution of reference etanercept with a biosimilar product

OBJECTIVES

To assess patient satisfaction after pharmacy-mediated replacement of the originator etanercept prefilled syringe with its biosimilar prefilled pen.

METHODS

Prospective observational study from March to May 2018, to assess satisfaction with the new drug dispensed. Patients were asked to answer a paper questionnaire with three questions: pain at injection site, ease of administration, and overall patient satisfaction with the change, rated on a scale from 1 (not satisfied) to 5 (extremely satisfied).

RESULTS

The questionnaire was given to 134 patients (74 men, 60 women), with an average age of 55 years. 118 patients (88%) were from the Rheumatology Service and 16 patients (12%) from Dermatology. The median treatment duration with etanercept was 61 months. 87 (65%) completed questionnaires were collected. The mean pain score was 3.4. Most patients found administration easy with the biosimilar pen, with an average score of 3.7. Mean overall satisfaction was rated at 3.3, being higher among men, younger patients, and those with shorter duration of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The change of the original product from etanercept to a biosimilar product was acceptable for most of the patients who responded to the survey. Surveys allow us to determine the opinion and preferences of patients, thus achieving higher satisfaction with their treatment. Further research is needed to evaluate the effect of automatic replacement. A collaborative multidisciplinary switching programme should be implemented based on the feedback provided by patients.

Informing Patients about Biosimilar Medicines: The Role of European Patient Associations

Biosimilar medicines support the sustainability of national healthcare systems, by reducing costs of biological therapies through increased competition. However, their adoption into clinical practice largely depends on the acceptance of healthcare providers and patients. Patients are different from health care professionals (HCPs), who are informing themselves professionally. For patients, the biosimilar debate only becomes actual when they are confronted with disease and drug choices. This paper provides a literature review on how patients are and should be informed about biosimilars, searching in scientific databases (i.e., Medline, Embase). Several large surveys have shown a lack of knowledge and trust in biosimilars among European patients in recent years. This review identified five main strategies to inform patients about biosimilars: (1) provide understandable information, (2) in a positive and transparent way, (3) tailored to the individual’s needs, (4) with one voice, and (5) supported by audiovisual material. Moreover, the importance of a multistakeholder approach was underlined by describing the role of each stakeholder. Patients are a large and diffuse target group to be reached by educational programs. Therefore, patient associations have become increasingly important in correctly informing patients about biosimilar medicines. This has led to widespread biosimilar information for patients among European patient associations. Therefore, a web-based screening of European Patients’ Forum (EPF) and International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations (IAPO) member organizations on publicly available information about biosimilars was performed. We found that the level of detail, correctness, and the tone of the provided information varied. In conclusion, it is paramount to set up a close collaboration between all stakeholders to communicate, develop, and disseminate factual information about biosimilars for patients.

DMARDs-Gut Microbiota Feedback: Implications in the Response to Therapy

Due to its immunomodulatory effects and the limitation in the radiological damage progression, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) work as first-line rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. In recent years, numerous research projects have suggested that the metabolism of DMARDs could have a role in gut dysbiosis, which indicates that the microbiota variability could modify the employment of direct and indirect mechanisms in the response to treatment. The main objective of this review was to understand the gut microbiota bacterial variability in patients with RA, pre and post-treatment with DMARDs, and to identify the possible mechanisms through which microbiota can regulate the response to pharmacological therapy.

Efficacy and safety of a single switch from etanercept originator to etanercept biosimilar in a cohort of inflammatory arthritis

AntiTNF-α biosimilars are broadly available for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis. There are a lot of data concerning the maintenance of clinical efficacy after switching from originators to biosimilars; therefore, such a transition is increasingly encouraged both in the US and Europe. However, there are reports about flares and adverse events (AE) as a non-medical switch remains controversial due to ethical and clinical implications (efficacy, safety, tolerability). The aim of our work was to evaluate the disease activity trend after switching from etanercept originator (oETA-Enbrel) to its biosimilar (bETA-SP4/Benepali) in a cohort of patients in Turin, Piedmont, Italy. In this area, the switch to biosimilars is stalwartly encouraged. We switched 87 patients who were in a clinical state of stability from oETA to bETA: 48 patients were affected by Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA),26 by Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) and 13 by Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS).We evaluated VAS-pain, Global-Health, CRP, number of swollen and tender joints, Disease Activity Score on 28 joints (DAS28) for RA, Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) for PsA, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and Health Assessment Questionnaire for the spondyloarthropathies (HAQ-S),Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) for AS patients. 11/85 patients (12.6%) stopped treatment after switching to biosimilar etanercept. No difference was found between oETA and bETA in terms of efficacy. However, some arthritis flare and AE were reported. Our data regarding maintenance of efficacy and percentage of discontinuation were in line with the existing literature.

Doctor's aptitude for switching from innovator etanercept to biosimilar etanercept in inflammatory rheumatic diseases: experience from a single French rheumatology tertiary care center

OBJECTIVES

To describe the switch to biosimilar etanercept (bETN), evaluate factors associated with this switch, and evaluate the efficacy of this switch in a real-life setting METHODS: We included patients, from October 2016 to April 2017, with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA) who received innovator ETN (iETN) for at least 6 months. After receiving information on biosimilars, all physicians were invited to propose a switch from iETN to bETN. Factors associated with bETN discontinuation were explored by univariate and multivariate analyses. We estimated the proportion of patients still on bETN over time by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. We assessed serum trough concentrations of iETN and bETN and anti-drug antibodies to ETN.

RESULTS

Overall, 183 outpatients were eligible for a potential switch; 94 (51.6%) switched from iETN to bETN. The probability of a switch was greater with an older than younger aged physician (mean [SD] age 50.4 [14.3] with a switch vs 44.8 [11.3] with no switch, p = 0.005) and the physician having a full-time academic position than other position (56.4% with a switch vs 13.5% with no switch, p < 0.001). After a 6-month follow-up, bETN retention rate was 83% (95% CI: 0.76-0.92). The first cause of bETN discontinuation was inefficacy (50%). On multivariate analysis, no factor was independently associated with a bETN switch or discontinuation. Drug trough levels did not significantly differ by discontinuation or continuation of bETN. No patient showed anti-drug antibodies.

CONCLUSION

The probability of switching from iETN to bETN was likely related to physician characteristics.

One-year results after transitioning from etanercept originator to biosimilar in a setting promoting shared decision-making in rheumatology

Objective

The aim was to study the effect of non-mandatory transitioning from etanercept originator to etanercept biosimilar on retention rates in a setting promoting shared decision-making.

Methods

In 2016, all patients treated with etanercept originator and stable disease at the Rheumatology department in Bernhoven were offered transitioning to etanercept biosimilar by an opt-in approach. A historical cohort of patients treated with etanercept originator in 2015 was identified as the control group. Etanercept discontinuation was compared between the cohorts using Cox regression. To study the nocebo effect, reasons for discontinuation were categorized into objective reasons (e.g. laboratory abnormalities, increase in swollen joint count, allergic reaction) and subjective health complaints (symptoms perceptible only to the patient, e.g. tiredness, arthralgia). An adjusted Kaplan–Meier curve for retention of the etanercept biosimilar was made, censoring subjective health complaints as the reason for discontinuation.

Results

Seventy of the 79 patients eligible for transitioning agreed to transition (89%). The 1-year crude retention rate of etanercept in the transition cohort was 73% (95% CI: 0.62, 0.83), compared with a retention rate of 89% (95% CI: 0.81, 0.95) in the historical cohort (P = 0.013). This resulted in a higher risk of treatment discontinuation in the transition cohort (adjusted hazard ratio = 2.73; 95% CI: 1.23, 6.05, P = 0.01). After adjusting for the nocebo effect, the cohorts had comparable retention rates (86 vs 89%, P = 0.51).

Conclusion

Non-mandatory transition from etanercept originator to its biosimilar using an opt-in approach in a setting promoting shared decision-making resulted in a higher discontinuation of etanercept compared with the historical cohort. This could be attributed largely to the nocebo effect.

Retention Rate and Efficacy of the Biosimilar CT-P13 Versus Reference Infliximab in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis from the Korean College of Rheumatology Biologics Registry

Background

Long-term, real-world data are required to support the use of CT-P13 in chronic conditions such as ankylosing spondylitis. However, real-world evidence may be influenced by selection bias, which can confound outcomes. The aim of the current analysis was to confirm the long-term comparability of CT-P13 and reference infliximab treatment in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, using propensity score matching to adjust for baseline differences between groups.

Methods

A propensity score–matching analysis was conducted on data from patients with ankylosing spondylitis in the Korean College of Rheumatology Biologics registry who received CT-P13 or reference infliximab. Drug retention, reasons for biologic therapy changes or discontinuation, and efficacy parameters were analyzed overall and by treatment line with up to 4 years of follow-up. Adverse events were recorded for each treatment group.

Results

Propensity score matching was effective in matching 124 CT-P13–treated and 124 reference infliximab-treated patients. Median treatment duration and drug retention were similar between CT-P13 and reference infliximab. Three-year retention rates (95% confidence interval [CI]) were 64.2% (53.5–73.0) for CT-P13 and 55.6% (42.9–66.6) for reference infliximab. Overall, 17.1% (CT-P13) and 29.3% (reference infliximab) of patients discontinued biologic therapy, and 20.0% (CT-P13) and 15.2% (reference infliximab) changed biologic therapy. Efficacy assessments were generally similar between groups; both treatments were well tolerated.

Conclusions

Propensity score–matching analysis confirmed that CT-P13 treatment was not associated with significant differences in drug retention, treatment duration, most efficacy parameters, or safety versus reference infliximab in Korean patients with ankylosing spondylitis, building evidence for the long-term comparability of these treatments.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01965132.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-020-00432-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Recent advances in managing axial spondyloarthritis

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is a chronic inflammatory rheumatic disease that predominantly affects the axial skeleton. The advent of biologic drugs has transformed the management of patients with axSpA. However, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs remain the first-line drug treatment for axSpA. The optimal management of patients with axSpA requires a combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment modalities, namely exercise and physical therapy. This review looks at novel therapeutic options in patients with axSpA. It also summarises current evidence regarding radiographic progression and treat-to-target in axSpA.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Adalimumab (Humira) and the Adalimumab Biosimilar Candidate (HS016) in Chinese Patients with Active Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel, Phase III Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the biosimilar candidate of adalimumab (HS016) compared with adalimumab (Humira) for the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel, positive control, phase III clinical trial was conducted at 28 locations in China. Patients with active ankylosing spondylitis were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to subcutaneously receive 40 mg of either HS016 or adalimumab every other week for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was to achieve at least a 20% improvement (ASAS20) in patients at 24 weeks according to the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society criteria. The secondary endpoint included other efficacy assessment parameters, health evaluations, safety, pharmacokinetic, and immunogenicity parameters.

RESULTS

Following the random assignment of 648 patients into HS016 (n = 416) and adalimumab (n = 232) groups, no significant difference was found in the ASAS20 response rates at 24 weeks between the HS016 (364/416, 87.5%) and adalimumab (209/232, 90.1%) treatments and the difference between the response rates (- 2.59%; 90% confidence interval [CI] - 6.77 to 1.60) was within the predefined equivalence margin (± 15%). There were also no significant differences when the secondary endpoints were compared (all p > 0.05). Similarly, the rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were not significantly different between the two groups, with most TEAEs being mild to moderate. Only nine severe cases were found, including seven within the HS016 group, three (0.7%) of which were tuberculosis cases. Plasma concentrations of HS016 and adalimumab from weeks 12 to 14 were similar during the steady-state period and steady-state maximal concentration (Cmax,ss) was equivalent for HS016 (7356.6 ng/mL) and adalimumab (7600.3 ng/mL). The accumulated proportion of patients with positive human anti-human antibodies (HAHAs) at week 24 was 326/412 (79.1%) in the HS016 group and 183/229 (79.9%) in the adalimumab group (p > 0.05), while the accumulated proportion of patients with positive neutralizing antibody (NAb) tests were 72/412 (17.5%) in the HS016 group and 43/229 (18.8%) in the adalimumab group (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

HS016 resembled adalimumab in efficacy and safety over the 24-week treatment period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR1900022520.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update

OBJECTIVES

To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field.

METHODS

An international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items.

RESULTS

The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high.

CONCLUSIONS

These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost.

Increasing Operational Capacity and Reducing Costs of Rituximab Administration: A Costing Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Originator intravenous rituximab is an important rheumatology treatment but is costly, and administration requires several hours. Because biosimilar rituximab may cost less and subcutaneous rituximab requires a shorter visit, both may reduce costs and increase treatment capacity (infusions per year).

METHODS

We implemented time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC), a method to assess costs and opportunities to increase capacity, throughout the care pathway for 26 patients receiving a total of 30 rituximab infusions. Using the TDABC estimates, we created a base case, which included provider time, salaries, infusion rates and times, and drug formulation, to simulate an induction cycle (two infusions). We varied these parameters in sensitivity analyses and assessed the impact of infusion rates and formulation (biosimilar vs. subcutaneous) on capacity before and after assuming a fixed budget.

RESULTS

The base-case cost was $19 452; more than 90% was due to drug cost. In sensitivity analyses, varying projected biosimilar cost led to the greatest cost savings ($8,988 per cycle). Faster infusion rates and subcutaneous rituximab increased annual capacity (300% and 800%, respectively). With a fixed budget, subcutaneous rituximab led to a relative increase in capacity over biosimilar rituximab except when biosimilar cost savings relative to originator rituximab exceeded 40%; faster biosimilar infusion rates did not meaningfully affect these findings.

CONCLUSION

Using TDABC, we demonstrate that rituximab cost is the primary driver of treatment cost, but capacity is largely driven by treatment time. Subcutaneous rituximab leads to higher capacity than biosimilar rituximab across a range of plausible costs; its use in rheumatology should be studied.

Efficacy and safety of switching from rituximab to biosimilar CT-P10 in rheumatoid arthritis: 72-week data from a randomized Phase 3 trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of CT-P10, a rituximab biosimilar after a single switch, during a multinational, randomized, double-blind Phase 3 trial involving patients with RA.

Methods

Patients received 48 weeks’ treatment with CT-P10 or United States- or European Union-sourced reference rituximab (US-RTX and EU-RTX, respectively). Patients entering the extension period (weeks 48–72) remained on CT-P10 (CT-P10/CT-P10; n = 122) or US-RTX (US-RTX/US-RTX; n = 64), or switched to CT-P10 from US-RTX (US-RTX/CT-P10; n = 62) or EU-RTX (EU-RTX/CT-P10; n = 47) for an additional course. Efficacy endpoints included Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates, and quality of life-related parameters. Pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety were also assessed.

Results

At week 72, similar improvements were observed by disease activity parameters including DAS28 and ACR response rate in the four extension period treatment groups. Quality of life improvements at week 72 vs baseline were similarly shown during the extension period in all groups. Newly developed anti-drug antibodies were detected in two patients following study drug infusion in the extension period. Similar pharmacodynamic and safety profiles were observed across groups.

Conclusion

Long-term use of CT-P10 up to 72 weeks was effective and well tolerated. Furthermore, switching from reference rituximab to CT-P10 in RA was well tolerated and did not result in any clinically meaningful differences in terms of efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety.

Trail registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02149121.

Management of ANCA associated vasculitis

Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) associated vasculitis (AAV) is a small to medium vessel vasculitis associated with excess morbidity and mortality. This review explores how management of AAV has evolved over the past two decades with pivotal randomized controlled trials shaping the management of induction and maintenance of remission. Contemporary AAV care is characterized by approaches that minimize the cumulative exposure to cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, increasingly use rituximab for remission induction and maintenance, and consider therapies with less toxicity (for example, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil) for manifestations of AAV that do not threaten organ function or survival. Simultaneously, improvements in outcomes, such as renal and overall survival, have been observed. Additional trials and observational studies evaluating the comparative effectiveness of agents for AAV in various patient subgroups are needed. Prospective studies are necessary to assess the effect of psychosocial interventions on patient reported outcomes in AAV. Despite the expanding array of treatments for AAV, little guidance on how to personalize AAV care is available to physicians.

Biosimilars to Antitumor Necrosis Factor Agents in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Anti- tumor Necrosis Factor (anti-TNF) agents are the backbone treatment of moderate to severe cases of inflammatory bowel disease. One of the main drawbacks of these agents is the high cost. The introduction of biosimilar products to anti-TNF agents is expected to lower the cost. Health care providers ought to be aware of the available data that addresses the safety and efficacy of biosimilars in IBD patients. This article outlines the current evidence-based data regarding the available biosimilar products, their safety, efficacy and how to deal with patients’ concerns.

The Law and Ethics of Switching from Biologic to Biosimilar in Canada

Governments and financial institutions in several jurisdictions are planning or implementing nonmedical/'forced' switches by cutting drug coverage for reference biologics and funding only less expensive biosimilars. Switches raise numerous ethical and legal challenges, as the drugs are framed as not being identical and, despite strong evidence for noninferiority of some biosimilars, there is controversy over whether switching can sometimes lead to adverse events. Canadian law generally requires physicians to give precedence to their patients' best interests over social interests such as cost containment. The primacy of patients' interests is also clearly reflected in professional policies and codes of ethics. Moreover, physicians are obligated to disclose everything a reasonable person in the patient's position would want to know when obtaining informed consent for treatment, including addressing not only scientific information but also relevant social controversy about nonmedical switches. Under Canadian law, physicians may be obligated to tell patients about the ability to access unfunded biologics, even if patients lack the resources to obtain them. In sum, while there is no inherent right to funding for reference biologics in Canada, physicians in some circumstances may have a legal obligation as fiduciaries to advocate on behalf of patients to remain on a reference biologic. At a minimum, the controversy surrounding switching will necessitate, as part of the consent process, a robust and thorough disclosure of relevant risks, benefits and reasonable alternatives.

[Biosimilars and the nocebo effect]

Biosimilars have been approved for use in Germany for many years and in the meantime also in rheumatology but only a few years ago. Biosimilars, which are biotechnologically manufactured products the same as reference biologicals, have actually now achieved a substantial proportion of the market in some regions but there are still doubters among patients and physicians who fear a loss of quality even if there is no evidence for this. A part of this problem can be explained by the nocebo effect but which furthermore also has a substantial medical importance. This effect is described and explained in this article. Psychosocial and context-related factors, such as the relationship between patient and physician, previous experience with treatment and treatment expectations can either improve or impair the efficacy of treatment interventions. These phenomena are commonly known as placebo and nocebo effects. As placebo and nocebo effects can influence the development of symptoms, the frequency of undesired events and the efficacy of treatment, it is decisive to know these effects and to develop strategies for prevention in order to optimize the treatment results. Although in recent years experimental studies have achieved substantial progress in the clarification of the psychosocial and neurobiological mechanisms of placebo effects, detailed mechanisms of nocebo effects are still widely unexplored. An improved understanding of these mechanisms promises the development of user-friendly strategies for the clinical care to improve treatment results and patient satisfaction.

The Clinical Implications of Nocebo Effects for Biosimilar Therapy

Nocebo effects encompass negative responses to inert interventions in the research setting and negative outcomes with active treatments in the clinical research or practice settings, including new or worsening symptoms and adverse events, stemming from patients' negative expectations and not the pharmacologic action of the treatment itself. Numerous personality, psychosocial, neurobiological, and contextual/environmental factors contribute to the development of nocebo effects, which can impair quality of life and reduce adherence to treatment. Biologics are effective agents widely used in autoimmune disease, but their high cost may limit access for patients. Biosimilar products have gained regulatory approval based on quality, safety, and efficacy comparable to that of originator biologics in rigorous study programs. In this review, we identified gaps in patients' and healthcare professionals' awareness, understanding, and perceptions of biosimilars that may result in negative expectations and nocebo effects, and may diminish their acceptance and clinical benefits. We also examined features of nocebo effects with biosimilar treatment that inform research and clinical practices. Namely, when biosimilars are introduced to patients as possible treatment options, we recommend adoption of nocebo-reducing strategies to avoid negative expectations, including delivery of balanced information on risk-benefit profiles, framing information to focus on positive attributes, and promoting shared decision-making processes along with patient empowerment. Healthcare professionals confident in their knowledge of biosimilars and aware of bias-inducing factors may help reduce the risk of nocebo effects and improve patients' adherence in proposing biosimilars as treatment for autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease.

Observational study of inflammatory arthritis treatment by etanercept originator switched to an etanercept biosimilar

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to assess the safety and efficacy of switching an etanercept originator to an etanercept biosimilar in rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In 162 patients etanercept originator treatment had been replaced with the biosimilar (Group 1), and in six patients the biosimilar was initiated as the first biological agent (Group 2). The efficacy and safety of the treatment were monitored at 3-6 months.

RESULTS

In the majority of patients in Group 1 (n = 138) the etanercept biosimilar was well tolerated, whereas in 24 patients a switch back to the originator was required. The loss of efficacy was confirmed in nine patients using clinical scoring system, and nine patients reported subjective loss of efficacy; 13 patients reported adverse events, most often headache (n = 3) and skin lesions (n = 3). In four patients injection site reactions were present. The adverse events (AE) and/or the loss of the biosimilar efficacy were more commonly observed in women, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (especially in those who did not receive methotrexate), and in patients with a previous history of any other biological treatment. In patients in Group 2 the therapy was effective and no adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The etanercept biosimilar seems to be effective and well-tolerated in the majority of patients. Nevertheless, in some cases, switching from the originator to the biosimilar was associated with AEs or loss of efficacy.

Role of biological agents in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Advances in understanding of the pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis with concurrent advances in protein engineering led to the development of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs which have dramatically revolutionized the treatment of this condition. This review article focuses on the role of biological agents currently employed in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as novel biological agents in development.

Same but different? A thematic analysis on adalimumab biosimilar switching among patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

BACKGROUND

Biologic medications have dramatically enhanced the treatment of many chronic paediatric inflammatory conditions. Their high cost is a factor that prohibits their broader use. Cheaper generic versions, or biosimilars, are increasingly being used. Healthcare services are switching some patients over to biosimilars for economic reasons, known as 'non-medical switching'. Some patients unsuccessfully switch due to perceived decreases in efficacy or non-specific drug effects. The implications of failed switching include exhaustion of therapeutic options, unnecessary exposure to other medications, increased healthcare utilisation, worse patient outcomes and higher overall healthcare costs. Patient perceptions almost certainly play a role in these 'failed switches'.

METHODS

A thematic analysis was performed to better understand patient and parent perceptions on non-medical biosimilar switching. The study was conducted in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research recommendations. Patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis currently taking adalimumab were included.

RESULTS

Nine families were interviewed just prior to a hospital trust-wide non-medical switch to an adalimumab biosimilar. Several common themes were identified. The most frequent concerns were regarding practical aspects of the switch including the medication administration device type; the colour of the medication and administration device; and whether the injections would sting more. The relative safety and efficacy of the biosimilar was raised although most families felt that there would be no significant difference. Anxieties about the switch were largely placated by reassurances from the medical team.

CONCLUSIONS

We derived recommendations based on existing adult literature and the observations from our study to optimise the benefits from non-medical biosimilar switching.

Patient satisfaction survey: substitution of reference etanercept with a biosimilar product

OBJECTIVES

To assess patient satisfaction after pharmacy-mediated replacement of the originator etanercept prefilled syringe with its biosimilar prefilled pen.

METHODS

Prospective observational study from March to May 2018, to assess satisfaction with the new drug dispensed. Patients were asked to answer a paper questionnaire with three questions: pain at injection site, ease of administration, and overall patient satisfaction with the change, rated on a scale from 1 (not satisfied) to 5 (extremely satisfied).

RESULTS

The questionnaire was given to 134 patients (74 men, 60 women), with an average age of 55 years. 118 patients (88%) were from the Rheumatology Service and 16 patients (12%) from Dermatology. The median treatment duration with etanercept was 61 months. 87 (65%) completed questionnaires were collected. The mean pain score was 3.4. Most patients found administration easy with the biosimilar pen, with an average score of 3.7. Mean overall satisfaction was rated at 3.3, being higher among men, younger patients, and those with shorter duration of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The change of the original product from etanercept to a biosimilar product was acceptable for most of the patients who responded to the survey. Surveys allow us to determine the opinion and preferences of patients, thus achieving higher satisfaction with their treatment. Further research is needed to evaluate the effect of automatic replacement. A collaborative multidisciplinary switching programme should be implemented based on the feedback provided by patients.

Management of rheumatoid arthritis: 2019 updated consensus recommendations from the Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology

The expanding range of treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), from conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), biosimilar bDMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, has improved patient outcomes but increased the complexity of treatment decisions. These updated consensus recommendations from the Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology provide guidance on the management of RA, with a focus on how to integrate newly available DMARDs into clinical practice. The recommendations were developed based on evidence from the literature along with local expert opinion. Early diagnosis of RA and prompt initiation of effective therapy remain crucial and we suggest a treat-to-target approach to guide optimal sequencing of DMARDs in RA patients to achieve tight disease control. Newly available DMARDs are incorporated in the treatment algorithm, resulting in a greater range of second-line treatment options. In the event of treatment failure or intolerance, switching to another DMARD with a similar or different mode of action may be considered. Given the variety of available treatments and the heterogeneity of patients with RA, treatment decisions should be tailored to the individual patient taking into consideration prognostic factors, medical comorbidities, drug safety, cost of treatment, and patient preference.

[S2e guideline: treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with disease-modifying drugs]

BACKGROUND

Medication-based strategies to treat rheumatoid arthritis are crucial in terms of outcome. They aim at preventing joint destruction, loss of function and disability by early and consistent inhibition of inflammatory processes.

OBJECTIVE

Achieving consensus about evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in Germany.

METHODS

Following a systematic literature research, a structured process among expert rheumatologists was used to reach consensus.

RESULTS

The results of the consensus process can be summed up in 6 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. There are several new issues compared to the version of 2012, such as differentiated adjustments to the therapeutic regime according to time point and extent of treatment response, the therapeutic goal of achieving remission as assessed by means of the simplified disease activity index (SDAI) as well as the potential use of targeted synthetic DMARDs (JAK inhibitors) and suggestions for a deescalating in case of achieving a sustained remission. Methotrexate still plays the central role at the beginning of the treatment and as a combination partner in the further treatment course. When treatment response to methotrexate is inadequate, either switching to or combining with another conventional synthetic DMARD is an option in the absence of unfavourable prognostic factors. Otherwise biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs are recommended according to the algorithm. Rules for deescalating treatment with glucocorticoids and-where applicable-DMARDs give support for the management of patients who have reached a sustained remission.

DISCUSSION

The new guidelines set up recommendations for RA treatment in accordance with the treat-to-target principle. Modern disease-modifying drugs, now including also JAK inhibitors, are available in an algorithm.

Nocebos in rheumatology: emerging concepts and their implications for clinical practice

Nocebo effects are noxious reactions to therapeutic interventions that occur because of negative expectations of the patient. In the past decade, neurobiological data have revealed specific neural pathways induced by nocebos (that is, interventions that cause nocebo effects), as well as the associated mechanisms and predisposing factors of nocebo effects. Epidemiological data suggest that nocebos can have a notable effect on medication adherence, clinical outcomes and health-care policy. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) indicate that withdrawal of treatment by placebo-arm participants owing to adverse events is common; a proportion of these events could be nocebo effects. Moreover, in large-scale, open-label studies of patients with RMDs who transition from bio-originator to biosimilar therapeutics, biosimilar retention rates were much lower than in previous double-blind switch RCTs. This discrepancy suggests that in addition to the lack of response in some patients because of intrinsic differences between the drugs, nocebos might have an important role in low biosimilar retention, thus increasing the need for awareness and early identification of nocebo effects by rheumatologists and allied health-care professionals.

Does a mandatory non-medical switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept lead to increase in healthcare use and costs? A Danish register-based study of patients with inflammatory arthritis

Objectives

In year 2016, Danish national guidelines included a mandatory switch of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases treated with originator etanercept (ETA) to biosimilar SB4 in routine care. We aimed to explore if switching lead to increased healthcare utilisation and costs.

Methods

Observational cohort study. Adult patients who switched from ETA to SB4 were identified in the Danish nationwide DANBIO registry. In the National Patient Registry, we identified health utilisation (hospital admissions/hospital days/outpatient visits/prescription medication use) and comorbidities. Estimation of health utilisation included average use and costs 1 year before/after switch, changes after the switch, and whether patient characteristics affected changes. Analyses were by adjusted two-step gamma distributed regression models, and for changes over time a generalized estimation equations (GEE) model was applied. Impact of comorbidities was explored as interaction terms in the model. Medication costs of ETA and SB4 were not included in model.

Results

1620 patients were included (mean age 55 years (SD 14.7), 40% male). Costs before and after switching were mainly driven by outpatient visits (67%/72% of all costs). Monthly fluctuations of costs were similar before/after switch. After switching, use (8%) and costs (7%) of outpatient services increased, whereas costs of admissions (55%) and medication (5%) decreased. Patients with longer ETA treatment duration had an increase in use and costs of healthcare resources, whereas gender and comorbidities had no impact. Higher age was associated with an increase in costs of inpatient services.

Conclusion

We demonstrated no obvious changes in overall use and costs of healthcare services following switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept.

Challenges in Post-marketing Studies of Biological Drugs in the Era of Biosimilars: A Report of the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology 2019 Mid-Year Meeting in Rome, Italy

Several controversial issues related to challenges in the post-marketing studies of biological drugs, including biosimilars, were discussed at the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) 2019 Mid-Year Meeting in Rome (Italy) in April. In recent years, the marketing of biosimilars has been growing, thus offering opportunities for wider access by patients to high-cost biological drugs as well as ensuring the economic sustainability of national healthcare systems. Through the comparability exercise required for marketing approval, the similarity of biosimilars to the reference products in terms of efficacy, safety and quality has to be demonstrated in pre-marketing studies. In Europe, the 15 years of experience of marketing of biosimilars has allowed the accumulation of a significant amount of scientific evidence confirming the comparability of the benefit-risk profile of biosimilars and originators. However, some aspects remain to be addressed both from a scientific and regulatory perspective, such as interchangeability and the automatic substitution of originators and biosimilars. The (long-term) monitoring of all biological drugs, including biosimilars, in real-world settings is warranted, with the ultimate goal of integrating pre- and post-marketing evidence relating to the aforementioned open questions. This conference report describes priorities, data sources and methodological strategies for the post-marketing surveillance of biological drugs in the era of biosimilars.