Clinical evidence supporting the marketing authorization of biosimilars in Europe

Structural Characterization of Monoclonal Antibodies and Epitope Mapping by FFAP Footprinting

Covalent labeling in combination with mass spectrometry is a powerful approach used in structural biology to study protein structures, interactions, and dynamics. Recently, the toolbox of covalent labeling techniques has been expanded with fast fluoroalkylation of proteins (FFAP). FFAP is a novel radical labeling method that utilizes fluoroalkyl radicals generated from hypervalent Togni reagents for targeting aromatic residues. This report further demonstrates the benefits of FFAP as a new method for structural characterization of therapeutic antibodies and interaction interfaces of antigen-antibody complexes. The results obtained from human trastuzumab and its complex with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) correlate well with previously published structural data and demonstrate the potential of FFAP in structural biology.

Investigation of Immunogenicity Assessment of Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies in the United States

Immunogenicity is critical for biologics. However, reference biologics labeling documents do not necessarily mention immunogenicity impact, rendering the development of biosimilars more challenging. We aimed to investigate the comparative assessment of immunogenicity profiles between biosimilars and their respective reference biologics in the review reports of the biosimilar monoclonal antibody applications approved by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as of March 13, 2022, covering 22 applications approved between April 5, 2016, and December 17, 2021. The maximum differences in anti-drug antibody (ADA) and neutralizing antibody (NAb) incidences between biosimilars and reference products mostly fell within ± 15% (-13.6% to 12%) and ± 20% (-17.4% to 17.1%, except extreme values of -23.4% and 66.7%), respectively. In comparison with antineoplastic agents, more immunosuppressants had ADA-positive (11/11, 100.0% vs. 8/10, 80.0%)/NAb-positive (11/11, 100.0% vs. 3/10, 30.0%) subjects, and the distribution of the aforementioned incidence differences was wider. The investigated biosimilars with available data for analysis demonstrated a high degree of consistency with their reference products in terms of the impact on pharmacokinetic parameters. No increase in immunogenicity was found in available switching studies. Most (16/22, 72.7%) biosimilars were issued post-marketing requirements that were not directly related to immunogenicity concerns. The FDA considered the totality of evidence assessing clinical consequences of immunogenicity differences, if any. Additional information on titers and subgroup analysis may be warranted to elucidate the critical attributes of immunogenicity impact and to aid in forming cost-effective strategies for biosimilar development.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Key Consideration for Evaluating Biosimilar Uptake?

Purpose

This review aims to provide an overview of the impact of TNFis biosimilars, with marketing authorization, in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) scores and explore how PROMs endpoints might add value in biosimilars uptake in RA patients.

Patients and Methods

A comprehensive search of Medline, Scopus, Lilacs, and CINAHL databases was performed for papers published between January 2012 and December 2021. For inclusion, studies had to be prospective, published in a peer-reviewed journal, published in English or Spanish language; studies using PROMs as an outcome measure. After screening title and abstracts and assessing the remaining full texts fulfilling the inclusion criteria, 31 papers were used in this narrative review.

Results

PROMs were used as secondary outcomes in included studies. The most frequently employed domains to assess biosimilar efficacy include physical function, patient global assessment (PtGA), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and fatigue. The results of randomized clinical trials uniformly showed that mean change in PROMs scores is comparable between biosimilar and reference biologic treatment groups. However, open-label and real-world studies revealed high rates of discontinuation of therapy, mainly for subjective worsening of disease activity or non-specific adverse events. Even without objective clinical evidence of inflammation, patients who are considered to have active disease (higher scores on PtGA) have higher discontinuation rates of biosimilars. The available information suggests that the nocebo effect is the most likely cause for the discontinuation of biosimilars.

Conclusion

There is scarce literature surrounding the impact of biosimilars in PROMs, especially in open-label studies. In real-life studies, biosimilars have a higher discontinuation rate than reference products. TNFis biosimilars treatment efficacy in RA depends on disease activity and other factors such as PtGA and fatigue. The nocebo effect is the best explanation for biosimilar's discontinuation.

Equivalence and switching between biosimilars and reference molecules in rheumatoid arthritis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic drugs such as adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab represent major first-line and second-line treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, their high cost poses a massive burden on healthcare systems worldwide. The expiration of patents for these biologics has driven the production of biosimilar drugs, which are potentially less costly and remarkably similar, albeit not identical to the reference molecules. This paper aims to outline the protocol of a systematic review that will investigate the efficacy and safety profile of biosimilars compared to biologics (objective 1) and the impact of switching between biosimilar drugs and reference biologics on the management of RA patients (objective 2).

METHODS

We will investigate the effects of any biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on RA patients. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs to assess efficacy and safety outcomes and RCTs with two- or multiple-part designs to evaluate the consequences of switching from reference biologics to biosimilar drugs (and vice-versa). Electronic searches will be performed through MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL (from inception to April 2021). Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data, and evaluate the risk of bias. The latter will be carried out considering specific domains from equivalence trials and switching studies. Random-effects models will be fitted to obtain summary estimates using either relative risk or standardized mean difference as a metric. The primary outcome will be the rate of treatment success according to the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20), and the co-primary outcome will be the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Conclusions will be based on equivalence hypothesis testing using predefined margins of equivalence elicited from a group of experienced rheumatologists and prior studies. The overall certainty of the evidence will be assessed based on the GRADE system.

DISCUSSION

The present investigation proposes a comprehensive, clinician-oriented approach to assess the equivalence and the impact of switching between biosimilars and biologics on the management of patients with RA. Our results will elucidate the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity of biosimilars, and the clinical consequences of substituting biologics with biosimilars in the management of RA.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019137152 and CRD42019137155.

Real-life drug persistence in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with CT-P13: a prospective observational cohort study (PERSIST)

Objective

The aim was to report results from PERSIST, a real-life, observational, prospective cohort study of CT-P13, an infliximab (IFX) biosimilar, for treatment of patients with RA, AS or PsA who were biologic naïve or switched from an IFX reference product (IFX-RP; Remicade).

Methods

Adult patients were recruited during usual care at 38 sites in Europe and Canada and enrolled by their physicians after meeting eligibility criteria according to the country-approved label for CT-P13. Primary outcomes were to determine drug utilization and treatment persistence and to assess safety. Patients were followed for up to 2 years. Data were analysed and reported descriptively.

Results

Of 351 patients enrolled, 334 were included in the analysis (RA, 40.4%; AS, 34.7%; PsA, 24.9%). The safety analysis set comprised all 328 patients treated with CT-P13. The majority (58.2%) of patients received CT-P13 monotherapy, most (72.6%) by dosing every 6 or 8 weeks. The mean treatment persistence was 449.2 days; 62.3% of patients completed 2 years of treatment. In all, 214 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 38.4% of patients. Most TEAEs were of mild or moderate intensity; 13 were severe. The most commonly reported TEAEs were drug ineffective (9.5%) and infusion-related reactions (5.2%). The most frequently reported infection-related TEAEs were upper respiratory tract infections (3.0%), nasopharyngitis (2.1%) and bronchitis (1.5%). No patients experienced tuberculosis.

Conclusion

Drug utilization and treatment persistence with CT-P13 were consistent with historical reports of IFX-RP in this patient population. Safety findings did not identify new concerns for CT-P13 in the treatment of patients with RA, AS or PsA.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02605642.

Evolving Biosimilar Clinical Requirements: A Qualitative Interview Study with Industry Experts and European National Medicines Agency Regulators

BACKGROUND

A biosimilar is a biological medicine highly similar to another already approved biological medicine (reference product). The availability of biosimilars promotes competition and subsequently lower prices. Changing the current biosimilar clinical comparability trial requirements may lead to lower biosimilar development costs that potentially could increase patients' access to biologics.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to determine the perceptions of industry and medicines agency regulators regarding the value, necessity, and future developments of the European biosimilar clinical comparability trial requirements for establishing biosimilarity.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight European national medicines agency regulators and 17 pharmaceutical company employees or consultants with experience in biologics between September 2018 and August 2019. Data were subjected to content analysis.

RESULTS

In general, the participants expected that clinical comparability trial requirements will continue to be reduced, in particular based on advancements in analytical testing and knowledge generated from prior biosimilar approvals. However, there are also competing issues at play, such as competition, physician's trust, and ethical considerations. Participants also reported that any new initiative to reduce or waive biosimilar clinical requirements needs to be scientifically sound and could potentially lower biosimilar development costs.

CONCLUSION

The main findings are that biosimilar clinical comparability trial requirements are likely to change in the near future. Clarity is needed on how to ensure adequate correlation between physicochemical data, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies, and the drugs' performance in the clinic, as well as how to continue sufficient immunogenicity assessment. Obtaining this clarity can facilitate regulatory assessment of the next biosimilars.

Health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health technology assessment (HTA) should provide an assessment of a technology's effects on health and of the related social, economic, organisational and ethical issues. HTA reports on biosimilars can specifically assess their immunogenicity, their extrapolation to one or more conditions, and the risks of interchangeability and substitution. We aimed to complete a scoping review within the context of HTA organisations to synthesise HTA reports on biosimilars and to map the extension, scope and methodological practices.

MAIN BODY

A scoping review methodology was applied. The sources for biosimilars HTA reports were database searches and grey literature from HTA organisation websites up to June 2019. HTA reports of biosimilars were classified as full HTA, mini-HTA or rapid reviews. Data were extracted and recorded on a calibrated predefined data form. We identified 70 HTA reports of biosimilars of 16 biologic products (65.71% in 2015-2018) produced by 13 HTA organisations from 10 countries; 2 full HTAs, 4 mini-HTAs and 64 rapid reviews met the inclusion criteria. Almost all the rapid reviews gave no information regarding any evidence synthesis method and approximately half of the rapid reviews did not appraise the risk of bias of primary studies or the overall quality of evidence. All full-HTAs and mini-HTAs addressed organisational, ethical, social and legal considerations, while these factors were assessed in less than half of the rapid reviews. The immunogenicity and extrapolation of one or more conditions were often considered. The majority of full-HTAs and mini-HTAs contained an assessment of switching and a discussion of an educational approach about biosimilars. No HTA report rejected the adoption/reimbursement of the biosimilar assessed.

CONCLUSION

HTA of biosimilars are emerging in the context of HTA organisations and those that exist often duplicate reports of the same biosimilar. Most HTA reports of biosimilars do not conduct a systematic literature review or consider economic issues. No report has rejected the adoption/reimbursement of biosimilars. There is a need to standardise the minimum criteria for the development of HTA on biosimilars to ensure a better understanding and better decision-making.