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

Real-World Evidence on Etanercept Biosimilar SB4 in Etanercept-Naïve or Switching Patients: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

In 2016, SB4 (Benepali®) became the first etanercept (ETN) biosimilar to obtain marketing authorisation in Europe. Despite robust analytical and clinical comparisons, outstanding questions remain on SB4 use in routine practice.

METHODS

A systematic search for publications on real-world evidence of SB4 effectiveness, safety and drug survival was undertaken using search terms (SB4 OR Benepali OR biosimilar etanercept OR innovator etanercept) in the BIOSIS® Toxicology, BIOSIS Previews®, Embase® and MEDLINE® databases up to 17 January 2019.

RESULTS

Of 959 articles identified, eight journal articles, two journal letters and 23 congress abstracts were selected on criteria of original real-world evidence with a clinical focus. As expected with real-world evidence, quality scoring showed that the evidence had high external validity but lower internal validity. A total of 13,552 patients were described across nine European countries and all approved SB4 indications: 2499 were ETN-naïve and 11,053 switched from reference ETN to SB4 (switchers). Switch acceptance rates (a combination of clinicians offering and patients accepting initiation on SB4) ranged between 51.6% and 99.0%; patient support programmes positively contributed to acceptance. Disease activity was generally similar pre- and post-switch (typically 3-month timeframe). Retention rates across studies were at least 75% (up to 12 months follow-up). No new safety signals were identified. Differences in discontinuation rates versus historic controls reported in some studies may have been influenced by differences in treatment practices, lack of clinician confidence and nocebo effects.

CONCLUSION

Nearly 2500 ETN-naïve patients have been initiated on SB4 and outcomes are similar to those patients receiving reference ETN. Overall this systematic review of real-world evidence provides additional reassurance that SB4 is as effective and safe as reference ETN in both switched and naïve patients.

FUNDING

Biogen International GmbH.

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.

Switching patients with inflammatory arthritis from Etanercept (Enbrel®) to the biosimilar drug, SB4 (Benepali®): A single-centre retrospective observational study in the UK and a review of the literature

OBJECTIVE/AIM

SB4 (Benepali^®), the Etanercept biosimilar, is licenced in the UK for the same indications as the reference product, Enbrel^®. In 2016, the Rheumatology Department at Blackpool Teaching Hospitals switched the Etanercept patients, who gave consent, to SB4. A proportion of these patients switched back to Etanercept and therefore we aimed to investigate the reasons of SB4 withdrawal and compare our results with the current evidence.

METHODS

We included all the patients switched to SB4 until April 2018, identified from the departmental biologics database. We also searched the published and grey literature through November 2018 for similar articles.

RESULTS

72 Etanercept patients switched to SB4, of which 19 (26.4%) switched back to Etanercept within 6 months on the biosimilar product. All the 19 patients remained on Etanercept until the time of data analysis. The main reason of withdrawal was loss of effect (LOE, 58%). In RA, the duration on Etanercept was associated with SB4 withdrawal (OR 1.43 [95% CI 1.02, 2.00]) and LOE was reflected in the DAS- 28, PGS and CRP increase and in the number of tender joints (all p <0.05). We found ten observational studies reporting 3184 patients, who switched from Etanercept to SB4 and 432 of them (14%) stopped SB4.

CONCLUSION

The majority (73.6%) stayed on SB4, which is consistent with the current evidence. Taking also into consideration the results of the other studies, it is unclear if this withdrawal is a true failure on SB4, nocebo effect or spontaneous disease flare.

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.

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.

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.

Randomised, double-blind, phase III study comparing the infliximab biosimilar, PF-06438179/GP1111, with reference infliximab: efficacy, safety and immunogenicity from week 30 to week 54

Objective

To investigate the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of PF-06438179/GP1111 (PF-SZ-IFX) compared with European reference infliximab (Remicade^®; ref-IFX) in patients with moderate-to-severe, active rheumatoid arthritis after continued long-term use of PF-SZ-IFX, and in patients who were switched from ref-IFX to PF-SZ-IFX.

Methods

REFLECTIONS B537-02 was a double-blind, active-controlled, multinational study in which patients (N=650) were initially randomised to PF-SZ-IFX or ref-IFX for 30 weeks (treatment period [TP] 1). During weeks 30–54 (TP2), the PF-SZ-IFX group (n=280) continued treatment with PF-SZ-IFX (PF-SZ-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX) and patients in the ref-IFX group (n=286) were rerandomised (1:1) to continue ref-IFX (ref-IFX/ref-IFX) (n=143) or switch to PF-SZ-IFX (ref-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX) (n=143) for a further 24 weeks. Efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics were evaluated.

Results

During TP2, patients in all three treatment groups continued to maintain comparable treatment response. At week 54, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) response rates were 71.1% (PF-SZ-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX), 64.3% (ref-IFX/ref-IFX) and 70.6% (ref-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX). Observations for other endpoints, including ACR50/70, Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints Based on High-Sensitivity C Reactive Protein(DAS28-CRP) remission, and mean change in DAS28-CRP and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, were also comparable. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 36.8% (PF-SZ-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX), 33.6% (ref-IFX/ref-IFX) and 37.8% (ref-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX) of patients; there were no clinically meaningful differences in the safety profiles between groups. The percentage of patients who were antidrug antibody-positive was generally stable through the treatment period and comparable overall between the PF-SZ-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX (52.1%; neutralising: 80.8%), ref-IFX/ref-IFX (60.1%; neutralising: 84.9%) and ref-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX (58.0%; neutralising 78.3%) groups.

Conclusions

The similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of PF-SZ-IFX compared with ref-IFX were maintained for up to 54 weeks and were not affected by blinded treatment switch from ref-IFX to PF-SZ-IFX at week 30.

Trial registration number

NCT02222493.

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.

Real-world evidence in rheumatic diseases: relevance and lessons learnt

An emerging trend in the medical literature, including the Rheumatology literature, is that of accumulating large, multicentric, multi-national data based on registries of patients seen in real life situations. Such real-world evidence (RWE) may help provide valuable insights into the long-term outcomes of disease in unselected patients seen in daily practice, including patients belonging to vulnerable populations such as extremes of age, during pregnancy and lactation. Evidences gathered from real life practice settings can help understand drug prescription patterns, including adherence to treatment guidelines, cost-effectiveness of therapy, and real-life long-term outcomes, and adverse effects of treatment with particular medications. Registry-based data also helps analyze comorbidities in patients with rheumatic diseases, and their impact on quality of life, morbidity and mortality. Traditionally, a randomized controlled trial (RCT), or systematic reviews of multiple, homogenous RCTs, have been considered the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine, and RWE does, at times, provide differing viewpoints from the results of particular drugs in clinical trial settings. Therefore, in the present day, it is prudent to consider the complementary nature of information derived from RWE to that obtained from rigorous, clinical trial settings. Future guidelines for disease management may consider it relevant to include information from RWE in addition to that available from clinical trials, to help devise management guidelines that are harmonious with routine practice settings.