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

Does Triple Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Therapy Improve upon Methotrexate as the Initial Treatment of Choice for a Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient?

Although many treatment options exist for the initial management of rheumatoid arthritis, there has long been discussion about whether initial treatment should be with methotrexate (MTX) as monotherapy or in combination with other conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). Although studies initially showed additional benefit from combining MTX with other csDMARDs, this benefit disappears when glucocorticoids are added to MTX, a strategy recommended in current guidelines as a short-term bridging approach until MTX therapy exhibits its full efficacy. Also concomitant use of glucocorticoids, with MTX may not be inferior to combination therapy of MTX with TNF-inhibitors.

Maintained Clinical Remission in Ankylosing Spondylitis Patients Switched from Reference Infliximab to Its Biosimilar: An 18-Month Comparative Open-Label Study

BACKGROUND

Switching from reference infliximab (RI) to biosimilar infliximab (BI) had no detrimental effects on efficacy and safety. However, long-term follow-up data is missing.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) in clinical remission who were switching from RI to BI, in terms of the safety and efficacy of this, in a long-term fashion.

METHODS

One hundred and nine consecutive unselected AS patients were investigated. All were naïve to other biologics and were followed-up at predefined times receiving RI. Patients in clinical remission were asked to switch from RI to BI. Those who switched to BI were compared with a matched control-group receiving continuous RI. During follow-up, several parameters were recorded for at least 18 months. Disease activity was measured using the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis disease activity index (BASDAI), and the Ankylosing Spondylitis disease activity score (ASDAS), using the C-reactive protein. Remission was defined as BASDAI < 4 and ASDAS < 1.3.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients were evaluated (21 excluded for different reasons). From those, 45 switched to BI, while 43 continued receiving RI. No differences between groups regarding demographic, clinical and laboratory parameters were observed. All patients were in clinical remission. During follow-up, five patients from the BI-group and three from the maintenance-group discontinued the study (4 patients nocebo effect, 1 loss of efficacy). After 18 months of treatment, all patients in both groups remained in clinical remission. No significant adverse events were noted between groups.

CONCLUSION

BI is equivalent to RI in maintaining AS in clinical remission for at least 18 months.

[Pharmacological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and its comorbidities]

Due to therapeutic advances, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) today has developed into a satisfactorily treatable disease in most cases, with remission being the target of treatment. Early diagnosis with immediate treatment initiation following treat-to-target strategy is the key to a favorable long-term outcome. A guideline-directed treatment algorithm determines the use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD; e.g., methotrexate), biological DMARD, and targeted oral DMARD (Janus kinase inhibitors). Comorbidities-in particular cardiovascular and interstitial lung disease-affect 80% of RA patients and represent the leading causes for mortality. The choice of drug treatment is influenced by the presence of comorbidities.

Biosimilars in the management of chronic inflammatory diseases: The Dutch experience

These days, the use of biosimilars for the treatment of bio-naive patients is well established. However, the transition of patients being treated with a bio-originator to its biosimilar is still a topic of discussion. The main issue is which approach to use when initiating the non-medical transition. The first real-world examples contain both mandatory and non-mandatory approaches, resulting in a variety of acceptance and discontinuation rates. At this moment a non-mandatory approach, based on shared decision making, is preferred by international guidelines and the Task Force on the Use of Biosimilars to Treat Rheumatological Diseases. However, clear definitions of mandatory and non-mandatory are lacking, as a result of which these terms may be wrongly used in some studies. This article aims to provide an overview of transition approaches used in the Netherlands, and how the approach used relates to acceptance and discontinuation rates of the biosimilar.

Are There Benefits and Risks to Biosimilars from a Patient Perspective?

Biosimilars are copies of biologic medications, which no longer are protected by patent, that are intended to be marketed at lower prices than their reference products to increase patient access to treatment. Because a biosimilar must have equivalent pharmacokinetic parameters and efficacy and comparable safety and immunogenicity with its reference product, the only significant difference between the two should be cost. Lower-priced biosimilars are intended to introduce market competition. The availability of biosimilars should yield savings for the health care system and improve treatment outcomes by expanding patient access to effective medications. However, patients should partake of these cost savings.

Long-term efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis continuing on an etanercept biosimilar (LBEC0101) or switching from reference etanercept to LBEC0101: an open-label extension of a phase III multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study

Background

To evaluate the long-term efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of continuing LBEC0101; the etanercept (ETN) biosimilar; or switching from the ETN reference product (RP) to LBEC0101 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

This multicentre, single-arm, open-label extension study enrolled patients who had completed a 52-week randomised, double-blind, parallel phase III trial of LBEC0101 vs ETN-RP. Patients treated with ETN-RP during the randomised controlled trial switched to LBEC0101; those treated with LBEC0101 continued to receive LBEC0101 in this study. LBEC0101 (50 mg) was administered subcutaneously once per week for 48 weeks with a stable dose of methotrexate. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of LBEC0101 were assessed up to week 100.

Results

A total of 148 patients entered this extension study (70 in the maintenance group and 78 in the switch group). The 28-joint disease activity scores (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were maintained in both groups from week 52 to week 100 (from 3.068 to 3.103 in the maintenance group vs. from 3.161 to 3.079 in the switch group). ACR response rates at week 100 for the maintenance vs. switch groups were 79.7% vs. 83.3% for ACR20, 65.2% vs. 66.7% for ACR50 and 44.9% vs. 42.3% for ACR70. The incidence of adverse events and the proportion of patients with newly developed antidrug antibodies were similar in the maintenance and switch groups (70.0% and 70.5%, 1.4% and 1.3%, respectively).

Conclusions

Administration of LBEC0101 showed sustained efficacy and acceptable safety in patients with RA after continued therapy or after switching from ETN-RP to LBEC0101.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02715908. Registered 22 March 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-019-1910-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Era of biosimilars in rheumatology: reshaping the healthcare environment

Compared with the original approved biological drug on which it is based, a biosimilar has highly similar physicochemical characteristics and biological activity, as well as equivalent efficacy and no clinically meaningful differences in safety and immunogenicity. Before they are approved, biosimilars must undergo a rigorous development process using state-of-the-art technologies to establish biosimilarity to the reference biological product. After approval, biosimilars must comply with good pharmacological practices for biological drugs. Several biosimilar disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bsDMARDs) based on the tumour necrosis factor inhibitors adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab have been approved for use in patients with rheumatic diseases. Substantial cost savings can be made if biological-naive patients begin treatment with bsDMARDs, and patients receiving original biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) are switched to bsDMARDs. Despite the consistently similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of bsDMARDs relative to their respective original bDMARDs, switching from a reference bDMARD to a bsDMARD can result in nocebo responses, such as subjective increase of disease activity and pain-related adverse events. This may have a negative impact on adherence to bsDMARDs in clinical trials and clinical practice. To ensure optimal and rational integration of bsDMARDs into rheumatology practice and realise the full cost-saving efficacy of these drugs, rheumatologists must be aware that careful communication of the cost-saving efficacy and safety of bsDMARDs to their patients is the key to a successful long-term switch to bsDMARD therapy.

Switching to biosimilars: current perspectives in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

Introduction: The expiry of patents for biologics has led to the introduction of biosimilars for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). These treatment alternatives may allow earlier and wider access to appropriate therapy for patients without increasing the economic burden on health-care systems. Prescription of biosimilars to treatment-naïve patients is well accepted; however, additional considerations must be taken into account when switching clinically stable patients from reference products to biosimilars. Area covered: We discuss the current considerations related to switching from reference products to biosimilars from a physician and patient perspective. We review the clinical data and real-life experience on switching patients with IMIDs, present the position of the relevant medical societies, and discuss the importance of patient-physician communication and need for shared decision-making. Expert opinion: The introduction of biosimilars provides an opportunity to expand access to treatment for patients with IMIDs across Europe and support the financial sustainability of health-care systems. We anticipate that as the real-world evidence base grows, confirming the results of clinical trials, there will be a corresponding increase in physician and patient acceptance, not only to initiating treatment with a biosimilar, but also to switching medication from a reference product to a biosimilar.

Consensus report: clinical recommendations for the prevention and management of the nocebo effect in biosimilar-treated IBD patients

BACKGROUND

The nocebo effect is a negative effect of a pharmacological or nonpharmacological medical treatment that is induced by patients' expectations, and that is unrelated to the physiological action of the treatment. The nocebo effect can negatively affect treatment outcomes.

AIM

To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the prevention and management of the nocebo effect in biosimilar-treated patients with IBD.

METHODS

The "NOCE-BIO Consensus Group" was composed of 19 members from five European countries, and with different fields of expertise. A literature review on the nocebo effect, with specific focus on information about its prevention and management in biosimilar-treated IBD patients, was performed. Preliminary statements were formulated and voted on during a consensus group meeting held in Milan, Italy, in July 2018. A statement was accepted if >75% of participants voted 4 ("agree") or 5 ("strongly agree") on a scale of 1-5.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 11 recommendation statements. Seven statements reached consensus after one voting round and four statements reached consensus after two voting rounds. All statements were supported by very low-quality level of evidence. The panel agreed that patient-health-care provider relationship is a key driver of acceptance of biosimilars, which limits the risk of negative bias and the nocebo effect. Lack of knowledge among patients and health-care providers about the effectiveness and safety of biosimilars should be minimized. Education about biosimilars needs to be tailored to the individual patient, and positive framing is recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

The nocebo effect is under-recognised in the era of biosimilars, although it may negatively impact on the cost-savings of biosimilars. Future research should focus on the magnitude, the risk factors, the impact, and the management of the nocebo effect in biosimilars-treated IBD patients.

Safety of Biologics, Including Biosimilars: Perspectives on Current Status and Future Direction

In recent years, marketing of highly innovative and costly biologics improved the management of high-burden diseases such as autoimmune diseases, cancers, and chronic renal failure. Several widely prescribed biologics have recently lost or will shortly lose their patents, thus opening avenues to the marketing of a growing number of biosimilars worldwide, which are products similar in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to already licensed reference products, thus allowing for potential savings in pharmaceutical expenditure. Numerous debates about the interchangeability between biosimilars and reference products are still ongoing, owing to concerns about potential immunogenicity raised by switching, which may cause a lack of effect and toxicity. Patients successfully treated with biologic therapy may theoretically receive biosimilars to contain costs, if reference product and related biosimilar are judged as interchangeable. However, the positions of regulatory agencies on the interchangeability and automatic substitution of biologics with biosimilars are very different. The benefit-risk profile of biosimilars has been often questioned by clinicians owing to the limited amount of pre-marketing information on clinical efficacy and safety, despite biosimilarity being based on a comparability exercise with the reference product to gain the biosimilar approval. Nevertheless, after more than 10 years of marketing from the first biosimilar approval in Europe, no proof of differences in terms of the safety profile of biosimilars and originators has been reported. In this context, post-marketing evaluation of both biologics and biosimilars safety profiles through analyses from spontaneous reporting databases and claims databases is crucial. An important issue for the pharmacovigilance of biologics concerns the traceability, indicating the brand name and batch number in spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports, but this requirement is not frequently addressed. This review aims to provide an overview of the characteristics and potential challenges in the safety profile assessment of biologics with a focus on the post-marketing setting.

Systemic rheumatic diseases: From biological agents to small molecules

The development of biologics and small oral molecules has recently changed the scenario of pharmacologic treatment of systemic rheumatic diseases and it has become a real revolution. These drugs have innovative mechanisms of action, based on the inhibition of specific molecular or cellular targets directly involved in disease pathogenesis. This new scenario has lead to a regular update of the management recommendations of several institutions, such as those for Rheumatoid Arthritis treatment that address the use of conventional and biologic therapies including TNF inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, IL-6 inhibitors (tocilizumab and sarilumab), biosimilars and small oral molecules (the JAK inhibitors tofacitinib and baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (such as treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission or low disease activity are the final goal of the guidelines for rheumatic patients management. In another condition represented by Axial Spondyloarthritis guidelines suggest to start first with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to improve lifestyle and reduce spine inflammation, but if this is not achieved in 2-4 weeks it is important to consider the use of local therapies (i.e. glucocorticoid injections) or to start biologic therapy such as TNF inhibitors and then eventually switching to another TNF inhibitor or swapping to IL-17 inhibitor. In the case of active Psoriatic Arthritis, guidelines suggest to start with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and even local glucocorticoid injections especially for oligoarthritis, then to start conventional therapies if lack of efficacy, and finally start biologics or small oral molecules in the presence of drugs toxicity, unfavorable prognostic factors and still active arthritis. In several cases, active Psoriatic Arthritis patients develop a complex clinical condition with comorbidities such as diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease and high risk of infections, and for this reason the American College of Rheumatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation have developed specific guidelines for their management. Biologic and new small molecules therapies are very expensive, but the availability of biosimilars offers the opportunity of reducing the treatment cost and significantly decreasing the cost of originators as well. In fact, we live in a period characterized by the need to rationalize costs of these drugs, to allow treating a higher number of patients and to maintain a homogeneous possibility of treatment choice. For these reasons, we need to follow scientific guidelines and patients' clinical conditions to choose the correct treatment, also based on the economic burden of therapies.

Biological Therapies in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Can Biosimilars Reduce Access Inequities?

Biological therapies are an effective treatment for a range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel diseases. However, due to their high costs, considerable differences in their utilization exist across the world, even among the various European countries, with many countries restricting access despite professional society guideline recommendations. Adoption of biologics by healthcare providers has been particularly poor in many Central and Eastern European countries. Differences in utilization have also been observed across medical specialties, healthcare providers, and at a regional and national level. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the different market access policies for biologics in Europe and to investigate reasons for such differences. One of the potential solutions for providing broader access to IMID patients, where cost is the major barrier, is to encourage the use of biosimilars in place of their reference products. Biosimilars are generally less expensive alternatives to already licensed biological therapies and are approved on the basis that they are similar to the reference product in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. Budget impact models predict considerable cost savings following the introduction of biosimilars in the next few years. These savings could be used to increase access to biologics and other innovative therapies.

Rheumatology in Poland

The aim of this article is to present the current state of rheumatology in Poland, including the scientific and clinical activity and essential aspects of Polish rheumatic patients' treatment. PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched for main keywords: "rheumat*" and affiliation with Poland. Statistical data were obtained from the Central Statistical Office, the National Health Fund and the Polish Chamber of Physicians and Dentists, while the public information from the Polish Society for Rheumatology, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. Databases of the World Health Organization, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Statistical Office (Eurostat) were used. Most Polish rheumatologists work in large urban agglomerations in the Mazovian, Malopolskie and Silesian Voivodeships. The rheumatologic infrastructure includes 1713 working rheumatologists (> 30% exceeding the age of 60 years), 2301 hospital beds, 2279 outpatient clinics and 955 private practices. Poland's state funding is relatively limited, this problem being addressed by health officials with special treatment programs for biological drugs. The Eurostat data indicate, that in Poland, like in the majority of EU Member States, there's a tendency of specialist/general practitioner ratio rising. The number of scientific publications by Polish rheumatologists has steadily increased in recent years. Poland's rheumatology has made an enormous progress at all levels of functioning in recent decades. The EULAR recommendations are mostly incorporated into the Polish health system, leaving still room for its further improvement in the fields of financing, therapy and education.

Patient Perspectives on Switching from Infliximab to Infliximab-dyyb in Patients with Rheumatologic Diseases in the United States

Objective

The introduction of biosimilars for rheumatologic diseases (RDs) has provided a potentially lower‐cost therapy compared with their bio‐originator products; however, adoption of biosimilars may be challenged by patient perceptions. The objective of this study was to describe patients’ perspectives of switching from infliximab to infliximab‐dyyb.

Methods

This was a survey of adult patients with RDs who qualified for switching from infliximab to infliximab‐dyyb therapy between September 1 2017 and January 31 2018. Verbal consent was obtained prior to administration of a telephone survey. Survey questions were focused on the safety, efficacy, and knowledge of biosimilar therapy.

Results

A total of 108 patients were identified with 52 (48%) patients consenting to study participation. Forty (77%) and 12 (23%) patients reported switching and not switching, respectively, to infliximab‐dyyb. Regarding disease control, most respondents (80%) were satisfied to very satisfied with the switch to infliximab‐dyyb. Major concerns reported for switching included not knowing enough about the medication (38%), potential side effects (35%), and loss of disease activity control (35%).

Conclusion

Overall, patients reported satisfaction with switching from infliximab to infliximab‐dyyb, but concerns regarding safety and efficacy were expressed. Patient involvement in the switching decision‐making process may allay concerns and enhance biosimilar uptake.

Infliximab biosimilar for treating neurosarcoidosis: tolerance and efficacy in a retrospective study including switch from the originator and initiation of treatment

OBJECTIVES

Infliximab is increasingly used to treat neurosarcoidosis. We aimed to determine the efficacy and tolerance of an infliximab biosimilar for treating neurosarcoidosis.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective single-center study to describe the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of an infliximab biosimilar in neurosarcoidosis patients. We compared the survival time without relapse while receiving the biosimilar or previous originator-infliximab treatment.

RESULTS

Twenty patients with histologically documented neurosarcoidosis were treated with an infliximab biosimilar (initiation of treatment in 12 and switch from the originator drug in 8) between February 2016 and August 2018. All patients presenting with neurological involvement of one or more areas, including meningeal (n = 15), cerebral (n = 10), spinal cord (n = 9), and/or cranial nerves (n = 5); epilepsy (n = 3); and/or intracranial hypertension (n = 3) were enrolled. Eighteen patients received glucocorticoids during infliximab treatment, and 16 had methotrexate or azathioprine concomitant treatment. The median duration of follow-up was 25 months (19-28). Six patients relapsed during biosimilar treatment. Relapse rates and time-to-relapse did not differ between the infliximab originator previously received and biosimilar treatment groups (p = 0.40 and 0.51, respectively). Nine patients experienced 11 adverse events with the infliximab biosimilar, including infections (n = 5), urticaria (n = 4), headache (n = 1), and diarrhea (n = 1). All side effects were grade 2 or less using the WHO classification.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study, the infliximab biosimilar was efficacious and safe for treating neurosarcoidosis.

To switch or not to switch: results of a nationwide guideline of mandatory switching from originator to biosimilar etanercept. One-year treatment outcomes in 2061 patients with inflammatory arthritis from the DANBIO registry

OBJECTIVES

Real-world evidence on effectiveness of switching to biosimila r etanercept is scarce. In Denmark, a nationwide guideline of mandatory switch from 50 mg originator (ETA) to biosimilar (SB4) etanercept was issued for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) in 2016. Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes were studied in ETA-treated patients, who switched to SB4 (switchers) or maintained ETA (non-switchers). Retention rates were compared with that of a historic cohort of ETA-treated patients. Switchers who resumed ETA treatment (back-switchers) were characterised.

METHODS

Observational cohort study based on the DANBIO registry. Treatment retention was explored by Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression (crude, adjusted).

RESULTS

1621 (79%) of 2061 ETA-treated patients switched to SB4. Disease activity was unchanged 3 months' preswitch/postswitch. Non-switchers often received 25 mg ETA (ETA 25 mg pens/syringes and powder solution were still available). One-year adjusted retention rates were: non-switchers: 77% (95% CI: 72% to 82%)/switchers: 83% (79% to 87%)/historic cohort: 90% (88% to 92%). Patients not in remission had lower retention rates than patients in remission, both in switchers (crude HR 1.7 (1.3 to 2.2)) and non-switchers (2.4 (1.7 to 3.6)). During follow-up, 120 patients (7% of switchers) back-switched to ETA. Back-switchers' clinical characteristics were similar to switchers, and reasons for SB4 withdrawal were mainly subjective.

CONCLUSION

Seventy-nine per cent of patients switched from ETA to SB4. After 1 year, adjusted treatment retention rates were lower in switchers versus the historic ETA cohort, but higher than in non-switchers. Withdrawal was more common in patients not in remission. The results suggest that switch outcomes in routine care are affected by patient-related factors and non-specific drug effects.

Patients' information and perspectives on biosimilars in rheumatology: A French nation-wide survey

OBJECTIVE

To assess the patients' information about biosimilars and to identify the patients' incentives and deterrents to concur with the use of biosimilars.

METHODS

Nation-wide cross-sectional study assessing information and concerns about biosimilars of French patients treated for rheumatic inflammatory diseases, whether they were treated or not by a biological DMARD. The assessment was available online from March to July 2017.

RESULTS

Among the 629 respondents, 43% knew what biosimilars were. The main sources of information were rheumatologists and patient associations. Among patients treated with a biosimilar, 44% were not informed before they received the treatment. The patients' concerns focused on the non-similar molecular structure (46%), efficacy (60%) and safety (57%) comparatively to the originator biologic. 15% of respondents would refuse to switch their biologic to its biosimilar. More than 50% of respondents would warily accept to switch medications and interrupt the treatment if in doubt. Being informed about biosimilars and a good understanding of the definition of biosimilars were characteristics associated with better adherence to biosimilars. The rheumatologist was considered the most influent source of information about biosimilars and was considered reliable when deciding to switch a biologic to its biosimilar. Patient were reluctant to substitution of the medications by pharmacists (2%). Medico-economical issues acted as an incentive and a deterrent to accept the switch of medication.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilars are largely unknown to patients. Information seems to be instrumental in improving the patients' adherence to biosimilars and could help preserving the therapeutic relationship and avoiding a nocebo effect.

Systematic review: efficacy and safety of switching patients between reference and biosimilar infliximab

BACKGROUND

Biosimilar versions of widely prescribed drugs, including the tumour-necrosis factor antagonist infliximab, are becoming increasingly available. As biosimilars are not identical copies of reference products, evidence may be required to demonstrate that switching between a reference biologic and biosimilars is safe and efficacious. To establish interchangeability, US Food and Drug Administration guidance states that studies must demonstrate that biosimilars remain equivalent or non-inferior to a reference product after multiple switches between products.

AIMS

To investigate the evidence evaluating the safety and efficacy of switching between reference and biosimilar infliximab in patients with inflammatory disorders, including Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

Published studies presenting data on switching between reference and biosimilar infliximab were identified by searching the MEDLINE database. Congress abstracts were identified by searching the EMBASE database and manually searching abstracts from relevant congresses.

RESULTS

A total of 113 journal articles and 149 abstracts were found. Of these, 70 were considered relevant and included in this analysis. Most of the publications were uncontrolled, observational studies. Data from six randomised, controlled trials were identified. In general, the evidence revealed no clinically important efficacy or safety signals associated with switching.

CONCLUSIONS

While available data have not identified significant risks associated with a single switch between reference and biosimilar infliximab, the studies available currently report on only single switches and were mostly observational studies lacking control arms. Additional data are needed to explore potential switching risks in various populations and scenarios.

Biosimilars in Rheumatic Diseases: Regulatory Guidelines, Efficacy and Safety Implications in Saudi Arabia

Background:

Treatment with biologic drugs has enabled many patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease to achieve disease control. In some areas of the world, limited access to biologic therapies has created a demand for lower cost options such as biosimilars, which are highly similar, but not identical to originator biologics. The safe use of biosimilars requires a scientifically rigorous review process for their approval, and guidelines that aid rheumatologists in their use.

Discussion:

In Saudi Arabia, there are no national or regional guidelines to assist rheumatologists in the proper use of biosimilars in clinical practice, and this may potentially affect the quality of patient care. In this review, we discuss the importance of developing a guidance and the need for healthcare professionals and patients to receive education about biosimilars. We discuss the unique requirements for biosimilar approval, and the differences between biosimilars, originator biologics, and generics. We review important considerations related to biosimilar use, such as switching from originator biologics to biosimilars, switching between different biosimilars, interchangeability, automatic substitution, naming, and pharmacovigilance. We also provide recommendations based on the authors’ expert opinions as rheumatologists to help ensure the appropriate use of biosimilars in Saudi Arabia.

Conclusion:

The approval and use of biosimilars must be supported by scientifically sound evidence. Guidelines for the use of biosimilars are needed in Saudi Arabia to aid rheumatologists in making clinical decisions. Additionally, educational resources should be provided to healthcare professionals and patients.

Comparative efficacy and safety of adalimumab biosimilar (BCD-057) and innovator in patients with psoriasis vulgaris. Results of the BCD-057-2/CALYPSO phase III international, multicenter, randomized double-blind clinical trial

The paper gives the results of the phase III clinical trial of adalimumab (ADA) biosimilar, (BCD-057) (BIOCAD, Russia), which demonstrate the clinical equivalence of the biosimilar to the ADA innovator Humira® in patients with moderate and severe psoriasis.Objective. The BCD-057-2/CALYPSO phase III international, multicenter, randomized double-blind clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of BCD-057 (International Nonproprietary Name (INN): adalimumab, ZAO «BIOCARD», Russia) versus Himura® (INN: adalimumab (OOO «Abbvie») in patients with plaque psoriasis aims to prove the equivalent pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of these medicines in both direct parallel comparison and subsequent switching from innovator to biosimilar.Patients and methods. The investigation enrolled 346 adult patients diagnosed with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis lasting at least 6 months. After screening, the patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into BCD-057 or Humira® groups. At week 24, the patients taking Humira® were re-randomized 1:1 into a group to continue treatment with the ADA innovator or into that to switch to BCD-057. The primary efficacy endpoint was to estimate the proportion of patients who had achieved a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI75) at week 16. The secondary endpoints included the assessment of the time course of changes in the skin, nails, degree of itching, and quality of life at weeks 16 and 24. Safety was evaluated from the incidence of treatment-associated adverse events (AEs), cases of severe toxicity (grades 3–4 AEs according to the Common Terminology Criteria Adverse Event (CTCAE) 4.03), cases of early patient withdrawal due to AEs, as well as cases of toxicity potentially associated with the use of tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors. Immunogenicity was determined using the validated test of patient serum samples for binding antibodies (BAb) and neutralizing antibodies.Results and discussion. The per-protocol population for efficacy evaluation included 342 patients. At week 16, the primary endpoint of PASI75 was shown to be achieved by 62.5% (105/168) and 66.46% (109/164) of the patients in the BCD-057 and Himura® groups, respectively; p=0.45). The difference between the groups in PASI75 responses was 3.22% with 95% confidence interval [-14.25%; 6.32%]. The analysis of additional endpoints revealed no significant differences in the efficacy of the biosimilar and innovator. During 24 weeks of the investigation, treatment-associated AEs were recorded in 31.03 and 25.58% of the patients in the BCD-057 and Humira® groups, respectively (p=0.31). The proportion of patients with BAb detected at 16 weeks of the investigation was 25.44 and 24.07% in the BCD-057 and Humira® groups, respectively (p=0.87).Conclusion. The investigation provided convincing clinical evidence for of the equivalent efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of BCD-057 and Humira®.

Standardisation of synovial biopsy analyses in rheumatic diseases: a consensus of the EULAR Synovitis and OMERACT Synovial Tissue Biopsy Groups

Background

The aim of this global collaboration was to develop a consensual set of items for the analysis of synovial biopsies in clinical practice and translational research through the EULAR Synovitis Study Group (ESSG) and OMERACT Synovial Tissue Biopsy Group.

Methods

Participants were consulted through a modified Delphi method. Three sequential rounds occurred over 12 months. Members were sent a written questionnaire containing items divided into two parts. Items were identified and formulated based on a scoping review. The first part of the questionnaire referred to synovial biopsies in clinical practice including five subsections, and the second part to translational research with six subsections. Every participant was asked to score each item on a 5-point Likert scale. Items with a median score above 3.5 and a ≥ 70% agreement were selected for the next round. The last round was conducted orally at EULAR in June 2017.

Results

Twenty-seven participants from 19 centers were contacted by email. Twenty participants from 17 centers answered. Response rates for next rounds were 100%. For the first part relating to clinical practice, 20/44 items (45.5%) were selected. For the second part relating to translational research, 18/43 items (41.9%) were selected for the final set.

Conclusions

We herein propose a consensual set of analysis items to be used for synovial biopsies conducted in clinical practice and translational research.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-018-1762-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Diagnosis and Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) occurs in about 5 per 1000 people and can lead to severe joint damage and disability. Significant progress has been made over the past 2 decades regarding understanding of disease pathophysiology, optimal outcome measures, and effective treatment strategies, including the recognition of the importance of diagnosing and treating RA early.

OBSERVATIONS

Early diagnosis and treatment of RA can avert or substantially slow progression of joint damage in up to 90% of patients, thereby preventing irreversible disability. The development of novel instruments to measure disease activity and identify the presence or absence of remission have facilitated new treatment strategies to arrest RA before joints are damaged irreversibly. Outcomes have been improved by recognizing the benefits of early diagnosis and early therapy with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The treatment target is remission or a state of at least low disease activity, which should be attained within 6 months. Methotrexate is first-line therapy and should be prescribed at an optimal dose of 25 mg weekly and in combination with glucocorticoids; 40% to 50% of patients reach remission or at least low disease activity with this regimen. If this treatment fails, sequential application of targeted therapies, such as biologic agents (eg, tumor necrosis factor [TNF] inhibitors) or Janus kinase inhibitors in combination with methotrexate, have allowed up to 75% of these patients to reach the treatment target over time. New therapies have been developed in response to new pathogenetic findings. The costs of some therapies are considerable, but these costs are decreasing with the advent of biosimilar drugs (drugs essentially identical to the original biologic drugs but usually available at lower cost).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Scientific advances have improved therapies that prevent progression of irreversible joint damage in up to 90% of patients with RA. Early treatment with methotrexate plus glucocorticoids and subsequently with other DMARDs, such as inhibitors of TNF, IL-6, or Janus kinases, improves outcomes and prevents RA-related disability. A treat-to-target strategy aimed at reducing disease activity by at least 50% within 3 months and achieving remission or low disease activity within 6 months, with sequential drug treatment if needed, can prevent RA-related disability.

Biosimilar switching - current state of knowledge

Evidence from over 10 years of clinical experience demonstrates that biosimilar medicines approved in the European Union can be used for all their registered indications as safely as their originators and with no negative impact on therapeutic efficacy. The debate on the use of biosimilars in rheumatology focuses specifically on the safety of switching between biosimilars and reference products. Studies conducted to date, including randomised double-blind and open-label extension trials, have not demonstrated any significant differences in therapeutic efficacy or safety between patients switched from one medicine to another and those who were continued on a single medicine. According to the latest recommendations for the use of biosimilars in rheumatic diseases, developed by an international task force in 2017, there is no clinical evidence that a single switch from an originator to a biosimilar medicine is associated with any significant risk for patient safety or reduction in therapeutic efficacy.

Focus on biosimilar etanercept - bioequivalence and interchangeability

BACKGROUND

The recent approval of reference etanercept (re-ETN) biosimilars SB4, GP2015, and HD203 produced relevant changes in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis due to the considerably lower cost of these products and the consequent savings.

AIMS

To review the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of ETN biosimilars when employed as first-line therapy or after transition from re-ETN. Patients' acceptability was also addressed.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The available literature was reviewed through a search of PubMed database, and abstract books of the American College for Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism annual meetings. SB4, GP2015, and HD203 were licensed by the US, European and South Korea regulatory agencies after the bioequivalence to re-ETN was demonstrated through pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies, and randomized, head to head, controlled trials. Based on the evidence of efficacy and safety of SB4 and HD203 in RA, and of GP2015 in psoriasis, by the extrapolation principle, the three biosimilars were approved for all indications licensed for re-ETN, and the regulatory agencies introduced the interchangeability from the originator to the biosimilar. Extrapolation of indications, and particularly interchangeability raised relevant concerns among the rheumatologists due to the low level of evidence supporting the switching strategy (or transition). Rheumatologists' concerns are oriented toward the relevant number of biosimilar discontinuations after the transition ranging from 7%-17% over a short-term follow-up period. As resulted from two studies, at least 20%-30% of the patients claimed more exhaustive information on the switching procedure.

CONCLUSION

Based on the available evidence, re-ETN biosimilars may be a good option as first-line therapy, while further data are needed to definitively establish the efficacy, safety, and the economic reflexes of transitioning from re-ETN.

Acceptance rate and sociological factors involved in the switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept (SB4)

OBJECTIVE

To study acceptance rate and factors influencing acceptance of the switch from originator etanercept (Enbrel©) to biosimilar etanercept (SB4, Bénépali©) in patients with rheumatic disease.

METHODS

Patients with a well-controlled rheumatic disease consulting in our rheumatology department were offered the switch for SB4. After oral and written information concerning biosimilar, free choice to accept the switch was left to the patients. The main outcome was primary switch acceptance rate defined by switch acceptance during the initial consult. Real switch adherence, socio-cultural factors and beliefs influencing switch acceptance rate were retrieved during a telephonic interview at distance from the consultation.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were eligible for the switch: 32 (62%) with spondyloarthritis and 20 (38%) with rheumatoid arthritis. The primary acceptance rate was 92% (48/52). Patients refusing the switch were more likely to report a bad opinion on generic drugs (100% vs 11%, p < 0.001). Other patient characteristics were roughly identical except for a statistical trend in the refusal group toward older age (61.4vs 50.7years, p = 0.08) and longer disease duration (26vs 12.1years, p = 0.05). Despite initial acceptance, two patients did not begin SB4 after receiving negative information by their regular pharmacist. Real SB4 switch rate was 85% (44/52) and 86% (38/44) of patients reported a good experience of the switch.

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptance rate of the switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept is high. Patient information, physician and pharmacist knowledge on biosimilars should be taken into account in order to improve their diffusion.

Does a mandatory non-medical switch from originator to biosimilar infliximab lead to increased use of outpatient healthcare resources? A register-based study in patients with inflammatory arthritis

Objectives

National Danish guidelines in May 2015 dictated a mandatory switch from originator infliximab (INX) to biosimilar CT-P13 in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease. We investigated if this non-medical switch changed use of outpatient hospital resources.

Methods

Observational cohort study. Switchers were identified in DANBIO. Rheumatic outpatient contacts, visits and services were identified in the National Patient Registry. The 6-month rate for (1) number of visits (or services) and (2) days with ≥1 visit (or service) were compared before/after switching (paired t-tests). Visits per week per patient before/after the switch date were analysed with graphical interrupted time-series analysis.

Results

In 769 switchers (372 males, median age 54 years (IQR 44–66)), 1484 outpatient contacts, 6718 visits and 9243 days with services (693 on switch date) were identified. Mean visit rate was 3.89 before and 3.95 after switch (p=0.35). Total number of services was 19 752 (2019 on switch date). Mean rates before/after switch for 16 service categories were small and differences close to zero. Visits per week per patient appeared similar before/after switch with peaks every ≈8 weeks (standard INX infusion interval).

Conclusion

Changes were marginal with no clinically relevant increase in use of outpatient health care resources 6 months after compared with 6 months before mandatory switch from originator to biosimilar infliximab.

GP2015 as a promising therapy for rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis is a common inflammatory joint disease with a myriad of systemic manifestations. Over the last 20 years its treatment has been revolutionised by the introduction of a number of different biologic drugs, including the TNF-receptor Fc fusion protein, Etanercept. However, these drugs are expensive and their widespread use puts a financial burden on healthcare systems. As many biologic treatments begin to come off patent new 'biosimilar' versions are being developed which can lead to significant cost savings. GP2015 (Erelzi®) is the second biosimilar version of Etanercept which is licensed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Areas covered: We discuss the Chemistry, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of GP2015 in relation to reference Etanercept. Preclinical trials have shown pharmacokinetic equivalence between GP2015 and the reference drug. The recently completed Phase III, randomised, double blind EQUIRA study has shown equivalent efficacy and safety between GP2015 and Etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Expert opinion: GP2015 has shown equivalent efficacy and safety to reference Etanercept. With a growing number of biosimilar medications becoming available and another biosimilar Etanercept already being widely prescribed it is likely to be the cost of the drug that will determine if it is used widely.

Switching Reference Medicines to Biosimilars: A Systematic Literature Review of Clinical Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the possibility that switching from reference biologic medicines to biosimilars could lead to altered clinical outcomes, including enhanced immunogenicity, compromised safety, or diminished efficacy for patients, a systematic literature review was conducted of all switching studies between related biologics (including biosimilars).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using the Medline® and Embase® databases up to 30 June 2017 employing specific medical subject heading terms. Additionally, the snowball method and a hand search were also applied. Publications were considered if they contained efficacy or safety information related to a switch from a reference medicine to a biosimilar. Non-English, non-human studies, editorials, notes, and short surveys were excluded.

RESULTS

Primary data were available from 90 studies that enrolled 14,225 unique individuals. They included protein medicines used in supportive care as well as those used as therapeutic agents. The medicines contained seven different molecular entities that were used to treat 14 diseases. The great majority of the publications did not report differences in immunogenicity, safety, or efficacy. The nature and intensity of safety signals reported after switching from reference medicines to biosimilars were the same as those already known from continued use of the reference medicines alone. Three large multiple switch studies with different biosimilars did not show differences in efficacy or safety after multiple switches between reference medicine and biosimilar. Two publications reported a loss of efficacy or increased dropout rates.

CONCLUSIONS

While use of each biologic must be assessed individually, these results provide reassurance to healthcare professionals and the public that the risk of immunogenicity-related safety concerns or diminished efficacy is unchanged after switching from a reference biologic to a biosimilar medicine.

Current and future perspectives in the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis

The treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis has improved tremendously in the past 20 years as a result of appropriate legislative initiatives, large international collaborative networks, and the availability of new potent medications. Despite these considerable advances, a sizable proportion of patients are still resistant to treatment. Further improvement will stem from a better definition of the disease entities under the broad term juvenile idiopathic arthritis (which includes all forms of arthritis with disease onset before the age of 16 years); the discovery of laboratory and imaging biomarkers that could help the tuning of therapy; smoother implementation of clinical trials; more standardised links between academia, regulatory authorities, and patient organisations for the planning of future trials; and the availability of new drugs that selectively target molecules or pathways involved in inflammation.

Rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, inflammatory, autoimmune disease that primarily affects the joints and is associated with autoantibodies that target various molecules including modified self-epitopes. The identification of novel autoantibodies has improved diagnostic accuracy, and newly developed classification criteria facilitate the recognition and study of the disease early in its course. New clinical assessment tools are able to better characterize disease activity states, which are correlated with progression of damage and disability, and permit improved follow-up. In addition, better understanding of the pathogenesis of RA through recognition of key cells and cytokines has led to the development of targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Altogether, the improved understanding of the pathogenetic processes involved, rational use of established drugs and development of new drugs and reliable assessment tools have drastically altered the lives of individuals with RA over the past 2 decades. Current strategies strive for early referral, early diagnosis and early start of effective therapy aimed at remission or, at the least, low disease activity, with rapid adaptation of treatment if this target is not reached. This treat-to-target approach prevents progression of joint damage and optimizes physical functioning, work and social participation. In this Primer, we discuss the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of RA.

[Revised version of the statement by the DGRh on biosimilars-update 2017]

The treatment of rheumatic diseases with bioloics has significantly improved the prognosis of patients. Currently, there are 13 preparations available in Germany for the treatment of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. These original preparations generally have-depending on the individual country-15 years of patent protection. As soon as the patent has expired, approved biosimilars can be brought into use. For the approval of a biosimilar, authorities such as the European Medical Agency or the American Food and Drug Administration require proof of the best possible comparability with respect to efficacy and safety in comparison to the original or reference product. Since 2015, biosimilars of inifliximab, adalimumab, etanercept and rituximab have been granted approval in the European Union, the USA, Japan and in other countries. Further biosimilar products for these reference products are in development for treatment in rheumatology. From a societal and medical point of view, this opens up the possibility to increase the availability of biopharmaceutical products for patients through lower prices. In Germany, this possibility has already occurred-statutory health insurance physicians have introduced quotas for biosimilars, which will ultimately decrease spending and healthcare costs. This can lead to price reductions of the original products, which has already happened in Germany. Biosimilars can be prescribed for new patients or as a change from the original to the generic drug. When switching, a distinction is made between individual switching (interchangeability), which is made in individual consultation between the physician and the patient, and nonmedical switching (substitution) made at the societal or governmental level, which is made in the context of health care cost containment, and then, for example, implemented at the pharmacy level. Preliminary data from Norway and Denmark are available for substitution on the basis of results from large studies or registries in which systematic changes were made. The previous conclusion was that this does not lead to new problems for the patients. The German Society for Rheumatology recognizes the advantages of introducing biosimilars in Germany, but recommends that their use be based primarily on a joint decision by the treating physician and patient.

Biosimilar medicines and patient registries – expectations, limitations, and opportunities

Introduction: Biology therapies in a various medical specializations and for a broad spectrum of indications were launched during last two decades. As a new in class the therapies were obliged to provide additional data re gar ding efficacy and safety after their real medical practice integration. Patient registries, databases collecting various patient data, were introduced to grant data on the treatment effectiveness, safety, and long-term on treatment survival. Satisfactory treatment effect and acceptable safety profile were confirmed after couple of years of careful observation. However, the benefits were usually offered at much higher treatment costs compared to the standard therapies. Biologically similar drugs, so-called biosimilars (B.S), are being launched after original molecule patent protection expiry during recent years. They were expected as an ideal solution to avoid distinct impact on the medical budget: comparable effect for less money. The unsubstantiated doubts about biosimilar efficacy and safety were the reason of the late launch in many markets. Since biosimilars are considered as new therapy entities, the cautiousness to certain extent should be required. Information gained from post-marketing observations and patient registries over several years, confirmed the biosimilar product comparable quality. Healthcare budget savings could secure easier therapy access for more new patients.