Infliximab Biosimilars in the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Systematic Review. BioDrugs. 2017;31:37-49. [PMID: 28035633 DOI: 10.1007/s40259-016-0206-1]

Reverse switching from the biosimilar SB2 to the originator infliximab in previously switched patients with inflammatory bowel diseases: results of a prospective long-term cohort study

BACKGROUND

Data regarding multiple switches including reverse switching between infliximab and its biosimilars are scarce in the field of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD).

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the clinical effectiveness as primary outcome measure after repeated switches. Secondary endpoints included C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, immunogenicity (trough levels (TL); anti-drug antibodies (ADA), safety and drug persistence.

DESIGN

This study is a prospective, single-centre, observational cohort study. IBD patients receiving originator infliximab were switched to biosimilar SB2 and then reverse switched after 96 weeks and followed up for another 48 weeks.

METHODS

Clinical disease activity (Harvey-Bradshaw-index (HBI) in Crohn's disease (CD), partial Mayo score (pMS) in ulcerative colitis (UC)), CRP, TL, ADA, therapy-discontinuations and (serious) adverse events ((S)AE)) were monitored throughout the study.

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients (60 CD, 38 female) were enrolled. The median HBI was 2 (interquartile range (IQR) 1-4) at baseline and 2 (1-4) at week 48, resulting in a mean intra-individual change of 0.0 (standard deviation (SD) 1.5). The median pMS was 1 (IQR 0-1) at baseline and 0.5 (0-1) at week 48 resulting in a mean intra-individual change of 0.0 (SD 0.8). Clinical remission was achieved in 80% at baseline and 82% at week 48. Median CRP 2.0 mg/l (IQR 1.0-4.1) at baseline and 2.4 mg/l (1.1-5.2) at week 48 resulted in a mean change of 1.7 (SD 5.8) and no significant differences in CD (p = 0.3) and UC (p = 0.9). Median TL were 7.2 µg/ml (IQR 3.8-19.3) at baseline and 5.5 µg/ml (3.5-13.1) at week 48, resulting in a mean change of -1.0 (SD 7.4) with no statistical significance (CD p = 0.26, UC p = 0.41). De-novo-ADA were developed by 3.4%. The discontinuation rate was 14.7%. Safety signals were consistent with previous studies.

CONCLUSION

Reverse switching had no impact on efficacy of infliximab therapy in our cohort of IBD patients. The switch didn't influence immunogenicity or safety of therapy.

Biosimilars: Harmonizing the Approval Guidelines

Biosimilar approval guidelines need rationalization and harmonization to remove the inconsistencies and misconceptions to enable faster, safer, and more cost-effective biosimilars. This paper proposes a platform for a model guideline based on the scientific evaluation of the regulatory filings of the 130+ products approved in the US, UK, and EU and hundreds more in the WHO member countries. Extensive literature survey of clinical data published and reported, including Clinicaltrials.gov, a review of all current guidelines in the US, UK and EU, and WHO, and detailed discussions with the FDA have confirmed that removing the animal and clinical efficacy testing and fixing other minor approaches will enable the creation of a harmonized guideline that will best suit an ICH designation.

Regulatory Evaluation of Biosimilars: Refinement of Principles Based on the Scientific Evidence and Clinical Experience

The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs; also called biosimilars) were adopted by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) in 2009. In 2019, the ECBS considered that a more tailored and potentially reduced clinical data package may be acceptable in cases where this was clearly supported by the available scientific evidence. The goal of this publication is to review the current clinical experience and scientific evidence and to provide an expert perspective for updating the WHO guidelines to provide more flexibility and clarity. As the first step, the relevant guidelines by other regulatory bodies were reviewed in order to identify issues that might help with updating the WHO guidelines. Next, a literature search was conducted for information on the long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars to identify possible long-term problems. Finally, a search for articles concerning the role of clinical studies in the benefit-risk evaluation of biosimilars was conducted. The analysis of other guidelines suggested that the WHO guidelines may need more emphasis on the importance of the state-of-the-art physicochemical and structural comparability exercise and in vitro functional testing. The use of "foreign" reference product will also need clarifications. The value of in vivo toxicological tests in the development of biosimilars is questionable, and the non-clinical part needs revisions accordingly. The concepts of "totality of evidence," "stepwise development," and "residual uncertainty" were applied in the evaluation of the clinical sections of the guideline. The review of long-term safety and efficacy demonstrated the robustness of the current biosimilar development concept. The analysis of the roles of different development phases suggested that the large efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity studies are, in most cases, redundant. The residual uncertainty of safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of biosimilars that has shaped the current regulatory guidelines is now substantially reduced. This will allow the re-evaluation of the non-clinical and clinical requirements of the current WHO main guideline. The shift of the relative impact of the development phases towards physico-chemical and in vitro functional testing will provide a relief to the manufacturers and new challenges to the regulators.

Biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease

The advent of biologics has changed outcomes in many chronic conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Biologics have been used for the induction and remission of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease for almost two decades and are effective in patients who used to fail conventional treatment with steroids, immunomodulators. The use of biologics in the treatment of IBD has increased over the last few years, partly due to the rise in its incidence and the use of biologics as a first-line treatment in severe disease as well as in complicated diseases like penetrating/fistulating Crohn's disease. However, their use is associated with a significant burden to the society with respect to healthcare costs, resulting in the premature discontinuation of therapy in some patients, leading to exacerbations and complications. The introduction of biosimilars a decade ago seems to be a promising approach to reducing the costs related to therapy. Since their introduction, numerous studies conducted in adults and some in children show the efficacy of biosimilars with a similar side-effect profile to biologics. This review discusses the history of biosimilars in the treatment of IBD, enumerates several such studies and discusses the possibility of using biosimilars in the future.

The Argument Against a Biosimilar Switch Policy for Infliximab in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Living in Alberta

A nonmedical switch policy is currently being considered in Alberta, which would force patients on originator biologics to biosimilar alternatives with the hypothetical aim of reducing costs to the health care system. The evidence to support the safety of nonmedical switching in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is of low to very low quality; in fact, existing data suggest a potential risk of harm. In a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials, one patient would lose response to infliximab for every 11 patients undergoing nonmedical switching. Switching to a biosimilar has important logistical and ethical implications including potential forced treatment changes without appropriate patient consent and unfairly penalizing patients living in rural areas and those without private drug insurance. Even in the best-case scenario, assuming perfectly executed switching without logistical delays, we predict switching 2,000 patients with Remicade will lead to over 60 avoidable surgeries in Alberta. Furthermore, nonmedical switching has not been adequately studied in vulnerable populations such as children, pregnant women, and elderly patients. While the crux of the argument for nonmedical switching is cost savings, biosimilar switching may not be cost effective: Particularly when originator therapies are being offered at the same price as biosimilars. Canadian patients with IBD have been surveyed, and their response is clear: They are not in support of nonmedical switching. Policies that directly influence patient health need to consider patient perspectives. Solutions to improve cost efficiency in health care exist but open, transparent collaboration between all involved stakeholders is required.

Biological therapy in pediatric age

Biological therapies, especially blocking tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα) agents have radically changed the therapeutic approach and disease course of pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In particular, drugs such as infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADA) have been demonstrated to be effective in inducing and maintaining corticosteroid-free remission in both adult and pediatric patients with Crohns Disease (CD) and Ulcerative colitis (UC). Biosimilar biological (BioS) therapy is increasingly being used in pediatric age even though most knowledge on the safety and efficacy of these agents is based on IFX in adult IBD data. Studies show high rates of clinical response and remission in both IFX naïve patients and in patients switched from originator to BioS with similar risks of adverse events (AEs) as those reported with IFX originator. In the present review indications, efficacy and AEs of biological therapy in pediatric IBD will be discussed, as well as the role of other biological agents such as Golimumab, Vedolizumab and Ustekinumab, the role of BioS biological therapy and utility of therapeutic drug monitoring in clinical practice.

Systematic Review: Non-medical Switching of Infliximab to CT-P13 in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Biosimilar approval, such as Inflectra™ (CT-P13) for treating ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD), has reduced direct drug costs. Though clinicians are comfortable with biosimilar use in treatment-naïve patients, there are concerns in some jurisdictions that there are insufficient data from well-controlled trials to support non-medical switching. A systematic review, along with a critical assessment of the study design, was conducted to assess the potential impact of switching stable CD/UC patients from infliximab to CT-P13.

METHODS

A literature search using PubMed and abstracts/posters from 3 major gastroenterology conferences from 2014 to 2018 was completed. Two individual reviewers extracted data from each relevant report and compiled it into evidence tables to facilitate descriptive analyses. Key randomized trial and observational study designs were critically assessed to contextualize data relevance.

RESULTS

A total of 49 reports (3 randomized controlled trials, 40 observational trials, and 1 case series) were included. Most studies revealed no efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity concerns with non-medical switch. Limitations of supporting data include a small number of randomized controlled trials; predominance of observational studies with varying outcome assessments and lack of appropriate controls; and scarcity of research on biosimilar switch long-term effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of studies suggested non-medical switch is safe. However, clinicians and regulatory bodies should be aware of differences and limitations in study designs when making inferences about the risks and benefits of switching stable IBD patients to biosimilars.

Switching From Originator Adalimumab to the Biosimilar SB5 in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Short-term Experience From a Single Tertiary Clinical Centre

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients' perspectives after switching from originator to biosimilar adalimumab have yet to be assessed. We evaluated the efficacy of switching from the originator adalimumab to a biosimilar compound [SB5] in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD].

METHODS

Data on IBD patients who were switched from the originator to biosimilar adalimumab [SB5] at IBD Center ISCARE were analysed. Disease activity was assessed using standard clinical indices (Harvey-Bradshaw index [HBI] for Crohn's disease [CD] and partial Mayo score for ulcerative colitis [UC]), and laboratory parameters (C-reactive protein [CRP] and faecal calprotectin [FC]). Trough levels and anti-drug antibodies were measured. Patients were evaluated 10 weeks [W10] after the switch, and results were compared with the control group of patients on originator compound.

RESULTS

A total of 93 patients switched to biosimilar adalimumab were included [CD 86%] and were matched to 93 controls for age, gender, diagnosis, and disease activity. There was no difference in the disease activity in either SWITCH or ORIGINATOR cohorts between Weeks 0 and 10. Similarly, no difference was found between cohorts at both prespecified time points. Moreover, no significant differences in CRP or FC concentrations were seen between W0 and W10 either in the SWITCH, or in the ORIGINATOR cohort [p >0.05]. Adalimumab serum trough levels remained stable after the switch. No new safety signals were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed that switching IBD patients from the originator adalimumab to a biosimilar compound [SB5] does not affect treatment efficacy.

Update of the Position Paper of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on Biosimilar Drugs

In 2015 the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (Sociedad Española de Reumatología [SER]) published its position paper on biosimilar drugs. In this update, the SER, continues to manifest its unequivocal commitment to the sustainability of the health system of our country and is aligned with the measures that, without reducing quality of care, are aimed at ensuring its continuity. Since the publication of the previous position paper, the European Commission has authorized new biosimilar drugs, which provides an excellent opportunity to advance the efficiency of health care. In this new scenario of increased therapeutic offer of biologics, the SER considers it crucial to preserve the freedom of prescription of physicians who prescribe drugs based exclusively on the characteristics and individual circumstances of each patient, without forgetting the economic aspects there of.

Tumour Necrosis Factor Alpha in Intestinal Homeostasis and Gut Related Diseases

The intestinal epithelium constitutes an indispensable single-layered barrier to protect the body from invading pathogens, antigens or toxins. At the same time, beneficial nutrients and water have to be absorbed by the epithelium. To prevent development of intestinal inflammation or tumour formation, intestinal homeostasis has to be tightly controlled and therefore a strict balance between cell death and proliferation has to be maintained. The proinflammatory cytokine tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) was shown to play a striking role for the regulation of this balance in the gut. Depending on the cellular conditions, on the one hand TNFα is able to mediate cell survival by activating NFκB signalling. On the other hand, TNFα might trigger cell death, in particular caspase-dependent apoptosis but also caspase-independent programmed necrosis. By regulating these cell death and survival mechanisms, TNFα exerts a variety of beneficial functions in the intestine. However, TNFα signalling is also supposed to play a critical role for the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), infectious diseases, intestinal wound healing and tumour formation. Here we review the literature about the physiological and pathophysiological role of TNFα signalling for the maintenance of intestinal homeostasis and the benefits and difficulties of anti-TNFα treatment during IBD.

Drug Survival and Immunogenicity After Switching From Remicade to Biosimilar CT-P13 in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: Two-year Follow-up of a Prospective Observational Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The infliximab biosimilar has entered daily inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) practice. However, real-life outcomes beyond 1 year after switching are scarce. We aimed to investigate the long-term drug survival, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetics 2 years after switching to CT-P13 in IBD patients.

METHODS

We performed a single-center prospective observational cohort study in all Remicade-treated IBD patients who previously switched to CT-P13. We systematically documented reasons for discontinuation, trough levels, and antidrug antibodies to infliximab (ADAs) at baseline, week 16, week 52, and week 104. Clinical and biochemical disease activity (HBI, SCCAI, CRP) and adverse events were registered.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients were enrolled, 57 had Crohn's disease, 24 had ulcerative colitis, and 2 were IBD-unclassified. At week 104, 55 of 83 (66%) patients remained on CT-P13, and 3 were lost to follow-up. Reasons for discontinuation were loss of response (n = 10), adverse events (n = 8), and disease remission (n = 7). ADAs were present in 5/83 patients at baseline (before switching), in 2 patients before week 52, and no subsequent ADAs were detected until week 104. Median trough levels and clinical and biochemical disease activity at baseline, week 16, week 52 and week 104 did not significantly change.

CONCLUSION

In a prospective cohort with >2-year follow-up, 66% of IBD patients continued CT-P13 after switching from Remicade. Two new cases with ADAs were observed in year 1, but subsequently no immunogenicity was detected. These results are reassuring and suggest that switching to CT-P13 does not impact long-term clinical outcomes. 10.1093/ibd/izy227_video1izy227.video15802479819001.

Use of Biosimilars in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Updated Position Statement of the Pediatric IBD Porto Group of ESPGHAN

Biologic therapies have changed the outcome of both adult and pediatric patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). In September 2013, the first biosimilar of infliximab was introduced into the pharmaceutical market. In 2015, a first position paper on the use of biosimilars in pediatric IBD was published by the ESPGHAN IBD Porto group. Since then, more data have accumulated for both adults and children demonstrating biosimilars are an effective and safe alternative to the originator. In this updated position statement, we summarize current evidence and provide joint consensus statements regarding the recommended practice of biosimilar use in children with IBD.

Global Acceptance of Biosimilars: Importance of Regulatory Consistency, Education, and Trust

Globally, biosimilars are expected to have a key role in improving patient access to biological therapies and addressing concerns regarding the escalating cost of health care. Indeed, in Europe, increased use of biologics and reduced drug prices have been observed after the introduction of biosimilars. Recently, several monoclonal antibody biosimilars of anticancer therapies have been approved, and numerous others are in various stages of clinical development. Biosimilars are authorized via a regulatory pathway separate from that used for generic drugs; they are also regulated separately from novel biologics. Biosimilar approval pathways in many major regulatory regions worldwide are, to a broad degree, scientifically aligned. However, owing to regional differences in health care priorities, policies, and resources, some important regulatory inconsistencies are evident. Acceptance of biosimilars by health care systems, health care professionals, and patients will be a key factor in the uptake of these therapies, and such regulatory variations could contribute to confusion and diminished confidence regarding the quality, efficacy, and reliability of these agents. Furthermore, the need for manufacturers to account for regulatory inconsistencies introduces inefficiencies and delays into biosimilar development programs. These issues should be addressed if biosimilars are to attain their maximal global potential. This review summarizes the evolution of the global biosimilar landscape and provides examples of inconsistencies between regulatory requirements in different regions. In addition, we review ongoing efforts to improve regulatory alignment and highlight the importance of education as a crucial factor in generating trust in, and acceptance of, biosimilars on a worldwide scale.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Biosimilars of monoclonal antibody anticancer therapies are beginning to emerge, and more are likely to become available for clinical use in the near future. The extent to which biosimilars can contribute to cancer care will depend on their level of acceptance by health care systems, health care professionals, and patients. A better understanding of the regulatory basis for the approval of biosimilars may enhance confidence and trust in these agents. In order to have informed discussions about treatment choices with their patients, oncologists should familiarize themselves with the biosimilar paradigm.

The performance of Remicade®-optimized quantification assays in the assessment of Flixabi® levels

BACKGROUND

The advent of Remicade® biosimilars, Remsima®, Inflectra® and, more recently, Flixabi®, has brought along the potential to decrease the costs associated with this therapy, therefore increasing its access to a larger group of patients. However, and in order to assure a soft transition, one must make sure the assays and algorithms previously developed and optimized for Remicade perform equally well with its biosimilars. This study aimed to: (a) validate the utilization of Remicade-optimized therapeutic drug monitoring assays for the quantification of Flixabi; and (b) determine the existence of Remicade, Remsima and Flixabi cross-immunogenicity.

METHODS

Healthy donors' sera spiked with Remicade, Remsima and Flixabi were quantified using three different Remicade-quantification assays, and the reactivity of anti-Remicade and anti-Remsima sera to Remicade and to its biosimilars was assessed.

RESULTS

The results show that all tested Remicade-infliximab-optimized assays measure Flixabi as accurately as they measure Remicade and Remsima: the intraclass correlation coefficients between theoretical and measured concentrations varied from 0.920 to 0.990. Moreover, the interassay agreement values for the same compounds were high (intraclass correlation coefficients varied from 0.936 to 0.995). Finally, the anti-Remicade and anti-Remsima sera reacted to the different drugs in a similar fashion.

CONCLUSIONS

The tested assays can be used to monitor Flixabi levels. Moreover, Remicade, Remsima and Flixabi were shown to have a high cross-immunogenicity, which supports their high similarity but prevents their switching in nonresponders with antidrug antibodies.

Biosimilars in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease

The introduction of biological treatments has changed disease outcomes for patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Biologicals have high efficacy, and can induce and maintain remission after failed responses to conventional immunosuppressive and/or steroid therapy. The increasing occurrence of severe disease at diagnosis has resulted in infliximab being more often introduced as the first-line treatment in a “top-down” approach. Besides their favourable efficacy and safety profile, biologicals have one significant disadvantage, which is their high cost. This results in many patients stopping therapy prematurely, with the maintenance phase being too short. This often leads to disease exacerbation shortly after treatment cessation. Every newly started course of biological therapy can induce production of anti-drug antibodies, which can result in treatment failure and possible allergic/anaphylactic reactions. The introduction of biological biosimilars was intended to greatly reduce therapy costs thus increasing the availability of these agents to more patients. It was also anticipated that biosimilars would prevent premature termination of therapy. Analyses of paediatric data suggest that biosimilar infliximabs are equally effective as the reference infliximab. Safety patterns also seem to be similar. Paediatric experience places cost-therapy reductions at around 10%-30%.

Switching from an originator anti-TNF to a biosimilar in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: Can it be recommended? A systematic review

AIM

To review the effectiveness and safety of switching from an originator anti-TNF (Remicade^®) to a biosimilar (CT-P13) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

Electronic and manual search up to September 2017.

RESULTS

We identified 24 studies evaluating switching between Remicade^® and CT-P13 in 1326 patients. Disease control (no worsening after switching) was confirmed in most of the patients (weighted mean, 88%; 95% CI=86-89%). No unexpected adverse effects were reported in any of the studies.

CONCLUSION

The risks of switching from Remicade^® to a biosimilar seem to be purely theoretical and are not supported by the (still limited) real-world clinical practice experience. On the contrary, a steadily increasing number of publications have shown that there seem to be no safety or efficacy concerns about switching. Therefore, switching from originator to biosimilar infliximab in patients with IBD may be considered acceptable.

Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor Therapy for Paediatric Crohn's Disease: Improved Benefits Through Treatment Optimisation, Deeper Understanding of Its Risks, and Reduced Costs due to Biosimilar Availability

Antibodies directed to tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) are very effective in treating paediatric Crohn's disease (CD). Over the last few years, research has provided important new insights into how to optimise this treatment's effectiveness. Research on predictors for anti-TNF treatment responsiveness has revealed potential markers, but data on their accuracy in paediatric CD patients are lagging behind. Also, new evidence has become available on the safety profile of anti-TNF antibodies that suggests the assumed increased malignancy risk seen in patients on anti-TNF and thiopurine combination treatment may be linked more to thiopurine use and not to anti-TNF treatment. In addition, the early results of CT-P13, an infliximab biosimilar, in CD patients confirm the expected similarity with its originator. Thus, the effectiveness of anti-TNF antibody treatment is slowly improving, its malignancy risk is lower than assumed, and its costs are reduced by the introduction of equally effective biosimilars. Together, these trends allow for a more prominent role for anti-TNF antibodies in future treatment of paediatric CD.

Application of the FDA Biosimilar Extrapolation Framework to Make Off-Label Determinations

BACKGROUND

The FDA's extrapolation framework allows for a biosimilar to obtain licensure for indications that were not explicitly studied in the context of a clinical trial by extending conclusions from studies in 1 population to make inferences in other populations. Within routine clinical care, drugs and biologics are routinely used for medically accepted off-label indications. The appropriateness of these products for off-label indications are typically curated by compendia and guidelines, which have established processes and criteria for reviewing and evaluating the evidence to make such determinations. The evidence paradigm for biosimilars is different from originator biologics and is one of comparability to a reference product, not to reestablish clinical benefit. Thus, this paradigm shift can be applied to the exercise of making off-label determinations for biosimilars, and the FDA's framework of extrapolation can be used by clinicians and coverage policy decision makers to determine appropriate off-label indications for biosimilars.

OBJECTIVE

To highlight how the FDA's biosimilar extrapolation framework can be used to make off-label policy decisions, using to 2 approved biosimilars for filgrastim and infliximab as case studies.

METHODS

This study describes the FDA extrapolation framework for evaluating whether there are any differences in the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics/biosdistribution, immunogenicity, and toxicity between on-label and off-label indications. Two case studies are presented that evaluate the biosimilars filgrastim-sndz and infliximab-dyyb for the offlabel indications of treating symptomatic anemia in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes and immune-mediated colitis, respectively. The analytical, nonclinical, and clinical pharmacology, along with clinical studies demonstrating that filgrastim-sndz and infliximab-dyyb are biosimilar to their respective reference products, are reviewed and discussed in context with the extrapolation framework to ascertain whether use of the biosimilar within the off-label indications is scientifically justified.

RESULTS

The mechanism of action of filgrastim and infliximab between their FDA-approved and off-label indications are the same. In addition, there is a high degree of similarity with the analytical and nonclinical characteristics of filgrastim-sndz and infliximab-dyyb and their respective reference products. There is no expectation of differences in safety and immunogenicity across the patient populations. Thus, some decision makers may determine that filgrastim-sndz and infliximab-dyyb be used for the off-label indications of treating symptomatic anemia in patients with myelodysplasia and immune-mediated colitis, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In some cases, the use of biosimilars for off-label indications can be scientifically justified. Since coverage policy decisions are intimately tied to compendia and guideline listings, it is incumbent upon these groups to conduct formal assessments of biosimilar off-label indications using the FDA extrapolation framework.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. Li discloses that he has received honoraria and/or paid travel expenses as an advisory board and speaker's bureau participant for Pfizer; for speaking on behalf of Mylan and Apobiologix; and for participating on advisory boards for Eli Lilly and Mylan. Lobaina has nothing to disclose. Li was responsible for study design and manuscript revision. Li took the lead in data collection and interpretation and manuscript preparation, along with Lobaina.

Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in oncology

Biological medicines are derived from living cells and organisms. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are biological agents that are widely used to treat malignancies including non-Hodgkin's lymphomas and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. They are effective but expensive. The patents for many mAbs are expiring, so biosimilar medicines, which contain a version of the active ingredient of the original drug, are being developed. Biological medicines cannot be assessed in the same way as standard generic medications because they are difficult to copy and can change over time. A pathway regulates how biosimilars are assessed and compared with the original drug to ensure they are highly similar and have no clinically meaningful differences in terms of structure, function, pharmacodynamics and mechanism of action, pharmacokinetic properties, clinical efficacy and safety. Truxima^{® ▾}(rituximab), the first biosimilar monoclonal antibody to be approved for use in the UK in an oncology setting, is biosimilar to intravenous (IV) rituximab; rituximab improves the effectiveness of standard chemotherapy for lymphoma. The two drugs are comparable in efficacy and safety and have the same indications, dosing regimen and storage procedures.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of CT-P13: a comparison of four different immunoassays

BACKGROUND

The commercialization of CT-P13, an infliximab (IFX) biosimilar, has the potential to decrease health-related costs and enhance access to biological therapies. This study aimed to address the accuracy and inter-assay agreement of the CT-P13 quantification using four different assays initially developed to assess IFX.

METHODS

The four different methods, one in-house method and three commercially available kits, were used to quantify exogenously-spiked samples and the sera from 185 inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on CT-P13 therapy.

RESULTS

The quantification of the spiked samples unveiled a consistent and accurate behaviour of three of the tested methods, with average percentage recoveries of 90%, 102% and 109%. Results from the clinical samples demonstrated that these three assays were also highly correlated, both concerning Spearman's rank coefficients (range 0.890-0.947) and intraclass correlation coefficients (range 0.907-0.935). There were a few systematic deviations among them, but their impact in the clinical stratification of the patients using different cut-offs was minimal, particularly when these cut-offs were in the 3-4 µg/ml range, for which the strength of agreement (as assessed by the Kappa statistics that ranged from 0.732 to 0.902) was substantial to almost perfect.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that three of the tested IFX quantification methods can be used to accurately quantify CT-P13 without any adjustments.

Biosimilars: implications for rheumatoid arthritis therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Abbreviated pathways for the approval of biosimilars have been established in the European Union (EU), the United States, and other countries. Biosimilar TNF inhibitors have been available in South Korea and the EU since 2012 and 2013, respectively, and the first biosimilar infliximab was introduced to the clinic in the United States in November 2016. Five TNF inhibitor biosimilars have now been approved, and many other biosimilars to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases are in development.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the last 18 months, published results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown equivalent efficacy and comparable safety and immunogenicity of biosimilars with their reference products. 'Real world' experience with biosimilars in the EU continues to increase and provides evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of using biosimilars in the clinic and of switching from bio-originators to their biosimilars.

SUMMARY

Cost implications of using biosimilars and extrapolation of their use to treat diseases in which they were not tested in RCTs are of great interest. We review the results of RCTs and available experience with biosimilars in the clinic.

Is there a reason for concern or is it just hype? - A systematic literature review of the clinical consequences of switching from originator biologics to biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

While prescribing biosimilars to patients naive to a biologic treatment is a well-accepted practice, switching clinically stable patients from an originator to a biosimilar is an issue for clinicians. Well-designed clinical trials and real-world data which study the consequences of switching from an originator biologic treatment to its biosimilar alternative are limited, especially for monoclonal antibodies. Areas covered: A systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed to identify evidence of the consequences of switching from original biologics to biosimilars. References of included papers were also scrutinized. After a title-, abstract- and full text screening, out of the 153 original hits and 77 additional ones from screening the references, 58 papers (12 empirical papers, 5 systematic reviews and 41 non-empirical papers) were included. Expert opinion: Preventing patients on biologic medicines from switching to biosimilars due to anticipated risks seems to be disproportional compared to the expected cost savings and/or improved patient access. Indeed, it is the opinion of the authors that the concern of switching to biosimilars is overhyped.