Interchangeability of Biosimilars: A European Perspective

The Tailored Biosimilar Approach: Expectations and Requirements

Regulatory approval of biosimilar medicines currently requires a combination of physicochemical and functional testing, pharmacokinetic data, and clinical efficacy studies (CES). In this article, we discuss the tailored biosimilar approach, which represents an evolution in regulatory thinking by moving away from the default requirement for CES in biosimilar approval. We explore how physicochemical and functional data can be predictive for clinical performance and address the limitations of CES for regulatory decision-making. We argue that, in most cases, the combination of a robust package of physicochemical and functional testing, with appropriately designed pharmacokinetic studies provides sufficient evidence to establish biosimilarity. Additionally, we provide our perspective on the requirements, expectations, and exceptions for future biosimilar approvals, outlining specific scenarios where additional clinical evidence may be necessary. These include cases where the mechanism of action is unknown or poorly characterized, when product heterogeneity cannot be adequately characterized, or where relevant safety or immunogenicity concerns arise with the reference product or biosimilar candidate. Finally, we aim to clarify the remaining concerns surrounding the tailored biosimilar approach, providing insights into the potential to streamline biosimilar development and regulatory approval.

Ensuring Sustainability in Pharmaceutical Care: A Retrospective Analysis of Administrative Databases on the Utilization, Costs, and Switching Patterns of Biological Therapies in the Agency for Health Protection of the Metropolitan Area of Milan

Background: Biosimilars represent a fundamental advancement in global healthcare, offering significant cost containment while maintaining both therapeutic efficacy and safety in the management of chronic diseases. The cost savings generated by adopting biosimilars could be reinvested to foster innovation in the healthcare sector and enhance patient access to advanced therapies. Methods: A comprehensive analysis was conducted within an Italian healthcare organization which, through its hospital network, serves over 3.5 million individuals. Usage patterns, expenditure, and patient coverage for the principal biosimilar agents across various therapeutic areas were examined. Data were extracted from institutional registries, and a year-over-year comparison from 2022 to 2024 was performed to evaluate trends in consumption, biosimilar adoption among treatment-naïve patients, incurred costs, potential and actual savings, as well as therapeutic switching profiles. Results: The analysis revealed a marked shift towards biosimilar formulations for the majority of the evaluated biological agents between 2022 and 2024. However, for certain active substances, a reduced market penetration of biosimilars was observed, and critical issues persist that will necessitate future interventions. Conclusions: The results demonstrate a consistent upward trajectory in biosimilar adoption, underscoring significant progress toward their integration into routine clinical practice-a transition that has generated substantial savings over the three-year period considered. Assuming a complete transition to biosimilars, the cumulative potential savings over the three-year period would amount to EUR 7,172,372.99 in 2022, EUR 6,209,289.05 in 2023, and EUR 23,536,824.05 in 2024. This trend aligns with strategic objectives to enhance the sustainability of the Italian National Health Service (SSN) through optimized resource allocation and improved patient access.

Recommendations for Interchangeability in a Growing Biosimilar Market in Latin America

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars offer significant advantages for improving access to biologic treatments in Latin America. However, their uptake has been slow due to misconceptions, regulatory uncertainties, and inadequate pharmacovigilance.

OBJECTIVE

To address these issues, Americas Health Foundation convened a multidisciplinary panel of regional experts in biosimilar use and interchangeability from Latin America. The panel assessed the current landscape and recommended steps to enhance access.

RESULTS

Key recommendations include strengthening biosimilar regulations, ensuring transparent enforcement, implementing robust pharmacovigilance, and promoting collaboration among stakeholders to educate about the safety, efficacy, and economic advantages of biosimilars and their interchangeability.

CONCLUSIONS

By embracing biosimilars and interchangeability, Latin American countries can expand patient access, foster competition, diversify treatment sources, and enhance the sustainability of their healthcare systems. However, achieving these goals requires addressing knowledge gaps and biases among healthcare providers, patients, regulators, and government agencies. This can be accomplished through clear communication and the use of real-world evidence.

The Biosimilar Revolution: Assessing the European Union's Approach to Biosimilarity, Interchangeability, Patient Access, and Its Market Analysis

The biosimilar revolution alters the biopharmaceutical environment, delivering an appropriate strategy for improving accessibility and cutting healthcare costs. The European Union (EU) has established a broad regulatory structure to ensure the proper and efficient use of biosimilars. This review examines the EU's approach to biosimilarity, interchangeability, and patient access, encompassing the legal framework, scientific considerations, market dynamics, and patient viewpoints. The EU's regulatory system has developed to accommodate biosimilar development, approval, and adoption difficulties. Biosimilarity involves demonstrating comparability to the reference product, whereas interchangeability necessitates a more nuanced approach. Patient access is affected by pricing, reimbursement, and education. Employing a mixed-methods approach, this review combines an evaluation of regulatory documents, scientific literature, and market survey analysis. This review looks at the accomplishments and obstacles of the EU's strategy, identifying areas for advancement and chances for further development. This review intends to give significant insights to stakeholders, such as policymakers, producers, medical professionals, and patients, by examining the EU's biosimilar revolution. This critique helps to shape initiatives to improve the EU's approach, boost patient access, and promote sustainable healthcare systems. Ultimately, this review demonstrates that the EU's approach to biosimilars has successfully increased market growth and suggested suitable areas for development.

Consensus-Based Overarching Principles and Recommendations on the Use of Biosimilars in the Treatment of Inflammatory Arthritis in the Gulf Region

BACKGROUND

Though biologic agents have significantly improved the treatment of inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis), high costs, stringent regulations, strict reimbursement criteria, and existing patents have limited patient access to treatments. While being highly similar in quality, safety, and efficacy to biologic reference products, biosimilars can reduce the financial burden and prevent underutilization of medication.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this initiative was to develop an evidence-based consensus of overarching principles and recommendations aimed at standardizing the use of biosimilars in treating inflammatory arthritis in the Gulf region.

METHODS

A task force of practicing rheumatologists, a clinical pharmacist, a health economist, patients, regulators, and payors from across the Gulf region developed recommendations and overarching principles based on the outputs of a systematic literature review conducted to address Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) questions specific to key challenges regarding the use of biosimilars for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis in the region. As the data before 2017 have been previously reviewed in another publication, the current review focused on data published between January 2017 and August 2022 (PROSPERO ID CRD42022364002). Consensus on each statement required a level of agreement of 70% or greater.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached for five overarching principles and nine recommendations by the task force. The principles emphasize the importance of improving the awareness, understanding, and perception of biosimilars, as well as the need for regulated regional real-world data generation and protocols to make biosimilars a viable and affordable treatment option for all patients. The consensus recommendations advocate the need for shared treatment decisions between rheumatologists and patients when considering biosimilars. They further recommend that confirmation of a biosimilar's efficacy and safety in a single indication is sufficient for extrapolation to other diseases for which the reference product has been approved. Finally, there is a need for pharmacovigilance and national health policies governing the adoption and prescription of biosimilars in clinical practice across the region.

CONCLUSIONS

These are the first consensus recommendations for the Gulf region based on a systematic literature review and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, integrating clinical evidence with clinical expertise to optimize decision making for the use of biosimilars in patients with inflammatory arthritis. They were formulated based on predominantly international data because of the limited regional data and therefore can be generalized to serve as recommendations for healthcare professionals in other parts of the world.

Additional Data in Expanded Patient Populations and New Indications Support the Practice of Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching

As of 31 December, 2023, 31 observational studies have been published, including a total of 6081 patients who underwent a switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic. Most studies evaluated infliximab, while a smaller number evaluated adalimumab, rituximab or etanercept. Indications studied now include sarcoidosis, as well as the indications previously reported of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis/ankylosing spondylitis and inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis). This updated data set includes eight additional studies and 2386 more patients compared with those included in an earlier systematic review of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching. In addition, since the earlier systematic review was published in 2022, the European Medicines Agency has stated that reference-to-biosimilar and biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching in the European Union is safe and efficacy remains unchanged after switching. Furthermore, following a review of the available evidence, the US Food and Drug Administration has confirmed that initial safety and immunogenicity concerns related to biosimilar switching are unfounded and that no differences are observed in efficacy, safety or immunogenicity following one or more switches. The availability of this new efficacy and safety data together with the supportive statements from the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration re-confirm the conclusion that as a scientific matter, biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching is an effective clinical practice, with no new safety concerns. Any suggestions to the contrary are not supported by the evidence.

Cost-effectiveness and drug wastage of bevacizumab biosimilar with or without chemotherapy for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer

INTRODUCTION

The cost-effectiveness of adding bevacizumab biosimilar with or without chemotherapy (CT) and drug wastage in treating platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PRrOC) was assessed.

METHODS

A three-state partitioned-survival model to compare the clinical and economic outcomes in the treatment of patients with PRrOC from a Taiwan healthcare prospective, extrapolated to two years based on data obtained from the JGOG3023 clinical trial. The primary outcomes of the model were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

In the base-case scenario, using vials of bevacizumab biosimilar (Bevbiol) plus chemotherapy, the ICER was (new Taiwan dollar) NT$ 4,555,878 per QALY gained. The incremental cost savings of an incremental 2.02 QALYs were NT$ 1,605,828 if weight-based Bevbiol plus chemotherapy were used, but the ICER remained high at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. If the cost of Bevbiol were reduced to 50% per vial, adding it to CT would be cost-effective at an acceptable WTP threshold of NTD 2,994,200, with an ICER of NT$ 2,975,484.

CONCLUSIONS

Bevacizumab biosimilars in mg/kg dosage form with chemotherapy are still not cost-effective in Taiwan, but using weight-based dosing will reduce drug waste and save treatment costs.

AbImmPred: An immunogenicity prediction method for therapeutic antibodies using AntiBERTy-based sequence features

Due to the unnecessary immune responses induced by therapeutic antibodies in clinical applications, immunogenicity is an important factor to be considered in the development of antibody therapeutics. To a certain extent, there is a lag in using wet-lab experiments to test the immunogenicity in the development process of antibody therapeutics. Developing a computational method to predict the immunogenicity at once the antibody sequence is designed, is of great significance for the screening in the early stage and reducing the risk of antibody therapeutics development. In this study, a computational immunogenicity prediction method was proposed on the basis of AntiBERTy-based features of amino sequences in the antibody variable region. The AntiBERTy-based sequence features were first calculated using the AntiBERTy pre-trained model. Principal component analysis (PCA) was then applied to reduce the extracted feature to two dimensions to obtain the final features. AutoGluon was then used to train multiple machine learning models and the best one, the weighted ensemble model, was obtained through 5-fold cross-validation on the collected data. The data contains 199 commercial therapeutic antibodies, of which 177 samples were used for model training and 5-fold cross-validation, and the remaining 22 samples were used as an independent test dataset to evaluate the performance of the constructed model and compare it with other prediction methods. Test results show that the proposed method outperforms the comparison method with 0.7273 accuracy on the independent test dataset, which is 9.09% higher than the comparison method. The corresponding web server is available through the official website of GenScript Co., Ltd., https://www.genscript.com/tools/antibody-immunogenicity.

An Overview of Biosimilars-Development, Quality, Regulatory Issues, and Management in Healthcare

Biological therapies have transformed high-burden treatments. As the patent and exclusivity period for biological medicines draws to a close, there is a possibility for the development and authorization of biosimilars. These products boast comparable levels of safety, quality, and effectiveness to their precursor reference products. Biosimilars, although similar to reference products, are not identical copies and should not be considered generic substitutes for the original. Their development and evaluation involve a rigorous step-by-step process that includes analytical, functional, and nonclinical evaluations and clinical trials. Clinical studies conducted for biosimilars aim to establish similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, rather than demonstrating a clinical benefit, as with the reference product. However, although the current knowledge regarding biosimilars has significantly increased, several controversies and misconceptions still exist regarding their immunogenicity, extrapolation, interchangeability, substitution, and nomenclature. The development of biosimilars stimulates market competition, contributes toward healthcare sustainability, and allows for greater patient access. However, maximizing the benefits of biosimilars requires cooperation between regulators and developers to ensure that patients can benefit quickly from access to these new therapeutic alternatives while maintaining high standards of quality, safety, and efficacy. Recognizing the inherent complexities of comprehending biosimilars fully, it is essential to focus on realistic approaches, such as fostering open communication between healthcare providers and patients, encouraging informed decision-making, and minimizing risks. This review addresses the regulatory and manufacturing requirements for biosimilars and provides clinicians with relevant insights for informed prescribing.

Biosimilars Would Reduce Health Care Costs But Are Yet Poorly Known - Patient Survey Study Among Biological Medicine Users

Background

From the beginning of the year 2024, gradually implemented amendment to the Medicines Act will enable interchange of biological medicines in pharmacies in Finland. The legislative change aims to reduce health care costs.

Methods

Opinions of the biological medicine users regarding substitution in pharmacies and knowledge about biological medicines were determined by a patient survey in community pharmacies and via patient organizations in Finland.

Results

In total, 199 users of biological medicines responded to the survey. The respondents did not always know which product they were using, an originator or a biosimilar. This was more prominent among patients with biosimilars determined according to brand names. The more recently the biological medicine had been prescribed, the more likely a biosimilar was in use. Only about 40% of the respondents would enable pharmacies to substitute their biological medicine to a lower cost product. The most common obstacle to the idea of interchange in pharmacies was that the respondents wanted to keep the product the doctor had prescribed for them. In general, biosimilar users were more accepting towards possible interchange than originator users.

Conclusion

Although the most recent treatments appear to be initiated with biosimilars, interchange in pharmacies could enable an efficient way to lower health care costs. However, guidance and awareness regarding biosimilars and biological medicines in general would improve patients' willingness towards the change, but also help pharmacists and prescribing doctors in their meaningful role.

Adalimumab Persistence and Its Biosimilar in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Real-World Study

Adalimumab biosimilar experience is still recent. Interchangeability differences could reduce persistence times. Our goal was to compare biosimilar persistence differences with a reference. A retrospective observational study was performed in three groups divided according to the adalimumab received. The primary outcome measure was persistence, represented with Kaplan-Meier analysis, and we secondarily evaluated security, efficacy, and biomarkers. We obtained approval from the regional ethical committee, and the study was conducted following the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013. Data from 104 patients were collected: 50 received the biosimilar, 29 received the reference, and 25 switched from the original to the biosimilar. After a follow-up of 12 months, the biosimilar's persistence was higher, without differences in mild adverse events per group. In contrast, there were differences in severe events, with the switched group's frequency being higher. Biomarkers were reduced at similar proportions in all groups, and 43% had a clinical response at week 20 without differences. Adalimumab biosimilars are a valuable option for IBD based on clinical equivalence that are less expensive than the original drug. Their use does not have a detrimental influence on disease, although there are a few nuances in terms of interchangeability. These results support increasing confidence in using biosimilars, thus promoting the better sustainability of health systems.

Biosimilars in Dermatology Review

Background

Safe and effective biosimilar medications have the potential to significantly increase access to these valuable drugs. The two current biosimilars available in dermatology in the United States (US) are infliximab and rituximab which were Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in 2016 and 2018 respectively. There has been significant interest in this topic as a number of biosimilar versions of adalimumab will be available in 2023.

Objective

This review will discuss biosimilar basics and the experience with biosimilars used in dermatology in the US, Asia, and Europe.

Methods

All articles in Ovid/Medline from 2015 to Feb 2023 on biosimilars were reviewed with a particular emphasis on medications used in dermatology. Other reports from pharmaceutical manufacturers and blogs following the development of the biosimilar industry provided key insights.

Results

Biosimilars have been able to produce significant savings and market share increases, particularly in Europe, where there has been a longer experience. The specifics depend on drug prescribing practices and incentives in the individual country. This degree of savings and market share increases have not been realized with the current biosimilars available in the US.

Conclusion

While biosimilars have resulted in significant savings compared to originator drugs, it is clear that prescribing incentives and physician education are crucial in achieving these savings. To what degree biosimilar market share will increase in the US remains to be determined.

Future Evolution of Biosimilar Development by Application of Current Science and Available Evidence: The Developer's Perspective

Biosimilars have been available in the USA for over a decade, and in Europe for almost two decades. In that time, biosimilars have become established in the treatment landscape for a wide range of diseases, facilitating patient access and affordability of healthcare. However, patients can still struggle to access biological therapies in some markets. There is a need to streamline the process of developing biosimilars without compromising their quality, safety, or efficacy. This opinion piece considers the efficiencies that could be achieved within the biosimilar approval process. In clinical trials for biosimilars, clinical efficacy endpoints have been shown to be less sensitive measures of biosimilarity than biochemical, biophysical, and biological functional assays. Additional clinical efficacy studies comparing potential biosimilars and reference products do not add information that is useful for regulatory purposes. Large clinical studies of biosimilars with immunogenicity endpoints are of limited value, given the quality control processes in place for all biologics, including biosimilars. The expectation for multiple-switch studies for US interchangeability designation should be reconsidered immediately, and the category should be eliminated in the future. As biosimilars are typically approved globally based on a single set of clinical trials, and all subsequent manufacturing changes are already carefully monitored by regulatory authorities, comparative pharmacokinetic testing of EU and US reference products is unnecessary. Manufacturers and regulators could take greater advantage of existing real-world evidence. Streamlining biosimilar development would enable biosimilar development of more and a wider variety of biological drugs, accelerating biosimilar development without impacting patient safety or effectiveness.

Severe Hypersensitivity Reactions at Biosimilar versus Originator Rituximab Treatment Initiation, Switch and Over Time: A Cohort Study on the French National Health Data System

BACKGROUND

Biosimilar products of rituximab came to market in 2017. French pharmacovigilance centers have highlighted an excess of case reports of severe hypersensitivity reactions related to their use compared with the originator product.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the real-world association between biosimilar versus originator rituximab injections and hypersensitivity reactions, among initiators and switchers, at first injection and over time.

METHODS

The French National Health Data System was used to identify all rituximab users between 2017 and 2021. A first cohort consisted of patients who initiated rituximab (originator or biosimilar), while a second cohort consisted of originator-to-biosimilar switchers, matched on age, sex, deliveries history, and pathology, with one or two patients still receiving the originator product. The event of interest was defined as a hospitalization for anaphylactic shock or serum sickness following a rituximab injection.

RESULTS

A total of 91,894 patients were included in the initiation cohort-17,605 (19%) with the originator product and 74,289 (81%) with a biosimilar. At initiation, 86/17,605 (0.49%) and 339/74,289 (0.46%) events occurred in the originator and biosimilar groups, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio of biosimilar exposure associated with the event was 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-1.34), and the adjusted hazard ratio for biosimilar versus originator exposure was 1.15 (95% CI 0.93-1.42), showing no increased risk of event with biosimilar use at first injection, and over time. 17,123 switchers were matched to 24,659 non-switchers. No association was found between switch to biosimilars and occurrence of the event.

CONCLUSION

Our study does not support any association between exposure to rituximab biosimilars versus originator and hospitalization for a hypersensitivity reaction, either at initiation, at switch, or over time.

A Data Driven Approach to Support Tailored Clinical Programs for Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies

Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been approved in the European Union since 2013 and have been demonstrated to reduce healthcare costs and to expand patient access. Biosimilarity is mainly established on the basis of demonstrated similarity of relevant quality attributes (QAs), determined by comprehensive physiochemical and functional analyses, and demonstration of bioequivalence. In addition, comparative efficacy/safety studies have been requested for all approved biosimilar mAbs so far, although the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Guidelines state that such confirmatory clinical trials may not be necessary in specific circumstances. In order to evaluate the degree of analytical similarity, how residual uncertainty regarding biosimilarity was resolved, and the value of clinical data, we analyzed the quality and clinical data packages for authorized adalimumab (7 products) and bevacizumab (5 products) biosimilars. The percentage of biosimilar batches meeting the similarity range for QAs, as defined by the biosimilar manufacturer based on a comprehensive characterization of the EU reference product (RP), was determined and clinical data were reviewed. Our analyses show that QAs of approved adalimumab and bevacizumab biosimilars have varying concordance with the EU-RP similarity range. In this study, we found that clinical efficacy data played a limited role in addressing quality concerns. Therefore, we encourage a regulatory review of the standards for clinical data requirements for mAb and fusion protein biosimilars. This study outlines a quality data driven approach for facilitating tailored clinical programs for biosimilars.

Cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab biosimilar combination therapy and drug wastage as first-line treatment for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The rising cost of cancer drug therapy threatens the long-term sustainability of Taiwan National Health Insurance. Cost savings can be achieved through various strategies, e.g., using smaller vial sizes, sharing vials, weight-based dosing, or switching to biosimilars. Here we aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of a trastuzumab biosimilar combined with docetaxel (TDbiol) for treatment-naïve HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC), and the financial impact of drug wastage.

METHODS

A Markov model with three health states was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab biosimilars plus docetaxel over a 40-month time horizon in patients with HER2+ MBC. Based on the literature and our expert opinion, we assumed similar efficacy between the trastuzumab biosimilar and its reference product. The primary clinical input for the biosimilar was the same as for the reference product in the Catastrophic Patient Database (HV). Health state utilities were derived from the literature, and direct medical costs were obtained from the National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA).

RESULTS

In the base-case scenario, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was NTD 811,050 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the model was sensitive to utilities and transition probabilities, but not particularly sensitive to the wastage assumption. In scenario analyses, the ICER was higher when applying the price for trastuzumab reference biologic (branded), than for trastuzumab biosimilar.

CONCLUSION

The trastuzumab biosimilar combination regimen is cost-effective and offers significant drug cost savings in Taiwan.

Switching from One Biosimilar to Another Biosimilar of the Same Reference Biologic: A Systematic Review of Studies

BACKGROUND

Multiple switches (transitions) between biosimilars of the same reference biologic are now a reality, and they are expected to become more common in the future as more biosimilars enter the market. Switching between two biosimilars of the same reference biologic is generally driven by affordability, formulary requirements, or the relocation/travel of the patient. Evidence of whether switching between biosimilars of the same reference biologic provides similar safety and efficacy profiles is reviewed here.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken using electronic databases (to December 2021): Biosis, Embase, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews/Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Ovid. Publications were evaluated for effectiveness and/or safety data linked to switching from one biosimilar to another.

RESULTS

The systematic search yielded 982 citations. After eliminating duplicates, 626 citations remained for the initial title/abstract screening phase. Following the initial screening, 240 records were chosen; more thorough examination yielded 35 citations. After comprehensive screening and expert advice, 23 studies were selected, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder have been published as abstracts. Overall, 3657 patients were included in these studies. All studies were observational in nature; no randomized clinical trials were identified. The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints. Across the studies, data are provided on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns. The majority of studies examined switches between biosimilar infliximabs, although switches between biosimilar adalimumabs, etanercepts, and rituximabs were also identified. Two use-pattern studies and one case report were also detected and are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this systematic review, available data suggests that biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching is a safe and effective clinical practice, although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance. No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date.

How to select a best-value biological medicine? A practical model to support hospital pharmacists

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

With the growing availability of biosimilars on the global market, clinicians and pharmacists have multiple off-patent biological products to choose from. Besides the competitiveness of the product's price, other criteria should be considered when selecting a best-value biological. This article aims to provide a model to facilitate transparent best-value biological selection in the off-patent biological medicines segment.

SUMMARY

The presented model was developed on the basis of established multicriteria decision analysis tools for rational and transparent medicine selection, ie, the System of Objectified Judgement Analysis and InforMatrix. Criteria for the model were informed by earlier research, a literature search, and evaluation by the authors. The developed model includes up-to-date guidance on criteria that can be considered in selection and provides background on the allocation of weights that may aid hospital pharmacists and clinicians with decision-making in practice. Three main categories of criteria besides price were identified and included in the model: (1) product-driven criteria, (2) service-driven criteria, and (3) patient-driven criteria. Product-driven criteria include technical product features and licensed therapeutic indications. Service-driven criteria consist of supply conditions, value-added services, and environment and sustainability criteria. Patient-driven criteria contain product administration elements such as ease of use and service elements such as patient support programs. Relative weighting of the criteria is largely context dependent and should in a given setting be determined at the beginning of the process.

CONCLUSION

The practical model described here may support hospital pharmacists and clinicians with transparent and evidence-based best-value biological selection in clinical practice.

Adalimumab biosimilars in the therapy of Crohn´s disease and ulcerative colitis: Prospective multicentric clinical monitoring

Objective

The adalimumab biosimilars FKB327 and GP2017 were approved for the therapy of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Relatively few prospective studies with biosimilar adalimumab in patients with IBD have been published. The aim of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the biosimilar adalimumab.

Material and methods

Adalimumab biosimilars FKB327 (Hulio^®) and GP2017 (Hyrimoz^®) were indicated to 50 naive patients in terms of biological therapy with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC). Effectiveness of therapy was evaluated via the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index [CDAI] or the Mayo Scoring System [MSS] in patients with CD or UC, respectively, before and after 12 weeks. Additional goals were to evaluate weight changes, laboratory tests and complications or adverse events of this therapy.

Results

In CD patients, remission (CDAI <150) was achieved in 73.5% of cases, partial response (≥70-point decrease in CDAI score from baseline) in 11.8%, no response in 11.8% and 2.9% patients discontinued therapy. In UC patients, remission (total score on partial Mayo index ≤2 points) was achieved only in 18.8% of cases, partial response (≥2-point decrease in partial Mayo score from baseline) in 43.8%, no response in 25.0% and 12.5% patients discontinued therapy. There were statistically significant improvements in CDAI, MSS, haemoglobin, fecal calprotectin, albumin and CRP serum levels after 12 weeks of therapy. Seven adverse events were identified, three of which resulted in therapy being discontinued.

Conclusions

This prospective observational study proved the effectiveness of the adalimumab biosimilars FKB327 and GP2017 in IBD.

Interchangeability for Biologics is a Legal Distinction in the USA, Not a Clinical One

Biologics are increasingly vital medicines that significantly reduce morbidity as well as mortality, yet access continues to be an issue even in apparently wealthy countries, such as the USA. While patient access is expected to improve with the introduction of biosimilars, misperceptions in a significant part based on terminology continue to make a sustained contribution by biosimilars difficult. Patients are and will continue to suffer needlessly if biosimilars continue to be impugned. Consequently, it is increasingly urgent that semantics are clarified, and in particular, the implication that interchangeable biologics are better biosimilars dismissed. This paper distinguishes between the real differences between biologics that matter clinically to patients and discusses the actual meaning of a US Food and Drug Administration designation of interchangeability for a biosimilar product. This will help highlight where there is need for further Food and Drug Administration education and which stakeholders likely need that education the most.

Regulatory Information and Guidance on Biosimilars and Their Use Across Europe: A Call for Strengthened One Voice Messaging

Background

Beyond evaluation and approval, European and national regulators have a key role in providing reliable information on biosimilars and the science underpinning their development, approval, and use.

Objectives

This study aims to (i) review biosimilar information and guidance provided by EMA and national medicines agencies and (ii) explore stakeholder perspectives on the role of regulators in enabling acceptance and use of biosimilars.

Methods

This study consists of (i) a comparative review of regulatory information and position statements across medicine agencies (n = 32) and (ii) qualitative interviews with stakeholders in Europe (n = 14).

Results

The comparative analysis showed that regulatory information and guidance about biosimilars offered by national medicines agencies in Europe varies, and is limited or absent in multiple instances. Approximately 40% (13/31) of the national medicines agencies' websites did not offer any information regarding biosimilars, and for about half (15/31) no educational materials were provided. Only less than half of national medicines agencies provided guidance on biosimilar interchangeability and switching (8/31 and 12/31, respectively). Among the national medicines agencies that did offer guidance, the extent (e.g., elaborate position vs. brief statement) and content (e.g., full endorsement vs. more cautious) of the guidance differed substantially. Countries that have a strong involvement in EU level biosimilar regulatory activities generally had more elaborate information nationally. Interviewees underwrote the need for (national) regulators to intensify biosimilar stakeholder guidance, especially in terms of providing clear positions regarding biosimilar interchangeability and switching, which in turn can be disseminated by the relevant professional societies more locally.

Conclusion

This study revealed that, despite strong EU-level regulatory biosimilar guidance, guidance about biosimilars, and their use differs considerably across Member States. This heterogeneity, together with the absence of a clear EU-wide position on interchangeability, may instill uncertainty among stakeholders about the appropriate use of biosimilars in practice. Regulators should strive for a clear and common EU scientific position on biosimilar interchangeability to bridge this gap and unambiguously inform policy makers, healthcare professionals, and patients. Furthermore, there is a clear opportunity to expand information at the national level, and leverage EU-developed information materials more actively in this regard.

An Introduction to Biosimilars for the Treatment of Retinal Diseases: A Narrative Review

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of disease across a number of therapeutic areas including retinal diseases. However, on occasion, such treatments may be relatively more expensive compared to small molecule therapies. This can restrict patient access and treatment length leading to suboptimal clinical outcomes. Several biosimilar candidates of ranibizumab and aflibercept are currently in development and the first biosimilar of ranibizumab received EMA approval in August and FDA approval in September 2021. Biosimilars are biological medicines that are highly similar to an already-approved biological medicine (reference product). The physicochemical and clinical similarity of a biosimilar is determined by a rigorous analytical and clinical program, including extensive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis with phase III equivalence studies where appropriate. These phase III studies are carried out in a patient population that is representative of all of the potential approved therapeutic indications of the originator product and the most sensitive for detecting potential differences between the biosimilar and the reference product. Biosimilars have been used successfully across a wide range of therapeutic areas for the past 15 years where they have achieved substantial cost savings that can be reinvested into healthcare systems without affecting the quality of patient care. The current review provides an introduction to biosimilars with the aim of preparing retinal specialists for discussing these products with their patients.

Pharmacokinetics, Tolerability, Safety, and Immunogenicity of LY01008 and Bevacizumab (Avastin®) in Healthy Chinese Subjects

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

LY01008 had been identified as being highly similar to the bevacizumab reference product in the pharmacy and pharmacology terms. The primary objective of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic characteristics of the biosimilar candidate LY01008 with that of the bevacizumab (Avastin^®) reference product after a single intravenous infusion in healthy Chinese adults. The secondary objective was to compare the safety and immunogenicity of LY01008 with those of bevacizumab.

METHODS

In this double-blind, parallel-group, phase I study, 102 male subjects aged 18-45 years were randomized 1:1 to receive a single intravenous infusion of 3 mg/kg LY01008 or bevacizumab. Before the pivotal section, 12 healthy male subjects receiving a single intravenous (IV) infusion of 0.5 mg/kg or 1.5 mg/kg LY01008 were screened to verify the safety and tolerability of LY01008. Primary endpoints included the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to the last quantifiable time point (AUC_0-t), AUC from time zero to the infinity time (AUC_0-inf), and maximum plasma concentration (C_max).

RESULTS

The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) (90% confidence intervals, CIs) of AUC_0-t, AUC_0-inf, and C_max of LY01008 to bevacizumab were 87.62% (82.91%, 92.61%), 87.27% (82.46%, 92.35%), and 96.45% (91.37%, 101.81%), respectively, in the pivotal section, which were within the prespecified equivalence margin of 80.00-125.00%. LY01008 and bevacizumab administered as a single 3 mg/kg intravenous dose were comparably well tolerated. No new or unexpected adverse events were observed. Nine subjects had antidrug antibodies (ADAs) (5 in the LY01008 group and 4 in the bevacizumab group) after dosing. No neutralizing antibody (Nab) was detected.

CONCLUSION

LY01008, a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb) against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), displayed pharmacokinetic similarity to bevacizumab, and good safety and tolerability profiles. The data from this trial provide fundamental information for further development.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial registration ID: CTR20170191.

Current evidence on the use of the adalimumab biosimilar SB5 (ImraldiTM): a multidisciplinary perspective

INTRODUCTION

This review provides an overview of data from trials and real-world studies available for SB5 (Imraldi^TM) across three main therapeutic areas: rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search for publications on data for SB5 efficacy/effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity was undertaken.

EXPERT OPINION

Evidence derived from clinical studies suggest that the biosimilar SB5 is a safe and effective alternative to reference adalimumab. Considering that patients suffering from immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis often require long-term biologic treatment, biosimilar medicines (such as SB5) can reduce healthcare costs while increasing access to effective treatments.

Patients Retransitioning from Biosimilar TNFα Inhibitor to the Corresponding Originator After Initial Transitioning to the Biosimilar: A Systematic Review

Background

Transitioning patients from an originator to a corresponding biosimilar has been extensively studied in both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Although transitioning is considered well-tolerated, with no negative impacts on efficacy and/or safety, 2.6–25.8% of patients restart treatment with the originator (retransitioning). Retransitioning to the originator can be considered an indication of biosimilar treatment failure or dissatisfaction with biosimilar treatment. Increasing our knowledge of patients who retransition might help to reduce the number of patients retransitioning.

Objective

Our objective was to estimate the cumulative incidence of patients who retransitioned from a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitor biosimilar to originator and to explore potential patient, disease, and treatment and implementation strategy factors associated with retransitioning.

Method

We conducted a systematic literature search in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials databases until March 2021. Studies on TNFα inhibitors, biosimilar transitioning, and retransitioning were included. Transitioning was defined as switching from an originator to a biosimilar, and retransitioning was defined as switching from an originator to a biosimilar and back to the originator. Characteristics of the studies were descriptively analyzed. Studies were weighted by the number of patients transitioning, and the primary outcome was the median cumulative incidence of retransitioning. For each of the factors related to patient, disease, and treatment and implementation strategy, studies were stratified according to the categories of that factor. The weighted medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) of the cumulative incidence of retransitioning in these studies were calculated and compared to explore whether a potential association existed between these factors and the cumulative incidence of retransitioning.

Results

Of 994 screened publications, 37 were included. The weighted median cumulative incidence of retransitioning was 7.6% (IQR 6.8–17.2). Studies that included only patients with inflammatory bowel disease (6.6 vs. 15.1–17.7% for other indications), included only patients with stable disease (7.0 vs. 13.7% for including all patients), and did not offer retransitioning at the introduction of the biosimilar (7.0 vs. 11.1% for studies that offered retransitioning) reported less retransitioning. In addition, the incidence of retransitioning was lower when extra laboratory monitoring was part of the implementation strategy (1.6 vs. 6.1%) and when gainsharing (patients’ healthcare directly benefits from financial savings from transitioning) (1.4 vs. 7.2% for studies without gainsharing) was applied.

Conclusions

In studies on transitioning patients from TNFα originator to biosimilar, 8% of patients retransitioned. Retransitioning appeared to be lower in studies that included only patients with stable disease and in studies that did not offer patients the option of retransitioning at the introduction of the biosimilar. In addition, retransitioning appeared to be lower in studies that implemented extra laboratory monitoring as part of the biosimilar implementation strategy. Clinicians should consider implementing these suggestions as they might reduce retransitioning rates and improve the introduction of biosimilars in clinical practice.

PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42021226381

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-021-00508-4.

Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching: What is the Rationale and Current Experience?

Over time, clinicians have become increasingly comfortable embracing the prescription of biosimilars-highly similar versions of innovator or reference biological agents-for their patients with inflammatory diseases. Although a switch from a reference product to a licensed biosimilar version (or vice versa) is a medical decision robustly supported by the stepwise accumulation of clinical trial evidence concerning comparable safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy between these products, a switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference product, or a cross-switch, is not. Similarity among biosimilars of a reference product is not a regulatory agency concern and therefore is unlikely to be investigated in randomized controlled trials in the foreseeable future. Yet in clinical practice, across a diverse range of patients, the option to cross-switch from one biosimilar to another can and does arise for valid reasons such as convenience or tolerability issues, or driven by third parties (e.g., payers). In the absence of clinical trial data, clinicians must attempt to objectively evaluate the emerging real-world cross-switching evidence within the context of what is known about the science underpinning a designation of biosimilar. That knowledge then needs to be integrated with what clinicians know about their patients and their disease on a case-by-case basis. This review aims to consolidate relevant emerging real-world data and other key information about biosimilar-to-biosimilar cross-switching for prescribing clinicians. In the absence of clear clinical guidelines addressing this topic at present, this review may serve to facilitate discretionary and educated treatment decision making.

Large-Scale Postmarketing Surveillance of Biological Drugs for Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases Through an Italian Distributed Multi-Database Healthcare Network: The VALORE Project

BACKGROUND

Biological drugs have improved the management of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) despite being associated with important safety issues such as immunogenicity, infections, and malignancies in real-world settings.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore the potential of a large Italian multi-database distributed network for use in the postmarketing surveillance of biological drugs, including biosimilars, in patients with IMID.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using 13 Italian regional claims databases during 2010-2019. A tailor-made R-based tool developed for distributed analysis of claims data using a study-specific common data model was customized for this study. We measured the yearly prevalence of biological drug users and the frequency of switches between originator and biosimilars for infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab separately and stratified them by calendar year and region. We then calculated the cumulative number of users and person-years (PYs) of exposure to individual biological drugs approved for IMIDs. For a number of safety outcomes (e.g., severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-COV-2] infection), we conducted a sample power calculation to estimate the PYs of exposure required to investigate their association with individual biological drugs approved for IMIDs, considering different strengths of association.

RESULTS

From a total underlying population of almost 50 million inhabitants from 13 Italian regions, we identified 143,602 (0.3%) biological drug users, with a cumulative exposure of 507,745 PYs during the entire follow-up. The mean age ± standard deviation of biological drug users was 49.3 ± 16.3, with a female-to-male ratio of 1.2. The age-adjusted yearly prevalence of biological drug users increased threefold from 0.7 per 1000 in 2010 to 2.1 per 1000 in 2019. Overall, we identified 40,996 users of biosimilars of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors (i.e., etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab) in the years 2015-2019. Of these, 46% (N = 18,845) switched at any time between originator and biosimilars or vice versa. To investigate a moderate association (incidence rate ratio 2) between biological drugs approved for IMIDs and safety events of interest, such as optic neuritis (lowest background incidence rate 10.4/100,000 PYs) or severe infection (highest background incidence rate 4312/100,000 PYs), a total of 43,311 PYs and 104 PYs of exposure to individual biological drugs, respectively, would be required. As such, using this network, of 15 individual biological drugs approved for IMIDs, the association with those adverse events could be investigated for four (27%) and 14 (93%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The VALORE project multi-database network has access to data on more than 140,000 biological drug users (and > 0.5 million PYs) from 13 Italian regions during the years 2010-2019, which will be further expanded with the inclusion of data from other regions and more recent calendar years. Overall, the cumulated amount of person-time of exposure to biological drugs approved for IMIDs provides enough statistical power to investigate weak/moderate associations of almost all individual compounds and the most relevant safety outcomes. Moreover, this network may offer the opportunity to investigate the interchangeability of originator and biosimilars of several TNFα inhibitors in different therapeutic areas in real-world settings.

Safety, Immunogenicity and Interchangeability of Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies and Fusion Proteins: A Regulatory Perspective

Background

Biosimilars have been used for 15 years in the European Union (EU), and have been shown to reduce costs and increase access to important biological medicines. In spite of their considerable exposure and excellent safety record, many prescribers still have doubts on the safety and interchangeability of biosimilars, especially monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and fusion proteins.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to analyse the short- and long-term safety and interchangeability data of biosimilar mAbs and fusion proteins to provide unbiased information to prescribers and policy makers.

Methods

Data on the safety, immunogenicity and interchangeability of EU-licensed mAbs and fusion proteins were examined using European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and postmarketing safety surveillance reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). As recent biosimilar approvals allow self-administration by patients by the subcutaneous route, the administration devices were also analyzed.

Results

Prelicensing data of EPARs (six different biosimilar adalimumabs, three infliximabs, three etanercepts, three rituximabs, two bevacizumabs, and six trastuzumabs) revealed that the frequency of fatal treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), TEAEs leading to discontinuation of treatment, serious adverse events (SAEs), and main immune-mediated adverse events (AEs) were comparable between the biosimilars and their reference products. The availability of new biosimilar presentations and administration devices may add to patient choice and be an emerging factor in the decision to switch patients. Analysis of postmarketing surveillance data covering up to 7 years of follow-up did not reveal any biosimilar-specific adverse effects. No product was withdrawn for safety reasons. This is in spite of considerable exposure to biosimilars in treatment-naïve patients and in patients switched from the reference medicinal product to the biosimilar. Analysis of data from switching studies provided in regulatory submissions showed that single or multiple switches between the originator and its biosimilar versions had no negative impact on efficacy, safety or immunogenicity.

Conclusions

In line with previous reports of prelicensing studies of biosimilar mAbs and etanercepts, this study demonstrated comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity compared with the reference products. This is the first study to comprehensively analyze postmarketing surveillance data of the biosimilar mAbs and etanercept. An analysis of more than 1 million patient-treatment years of safety data raised no safety concerns. Based on these data, we argue that biosimilars approved in the EU are highly similar to and interchangeable with their reference products. Thus, additional systematic switch studies are not required to support the switching of patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40265-021-01601-2.

Identifiability of Biologicals: An Analysis Using EudraVigilance, the European Union's Database of Reports of Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions

The relevance of biological therapies for an increasing number of conditions is on the rise. Following the expiry of the initial period of market exclusivity, many of these successful therapies have seen the arrival of biosimilars on the market. The clear identification of the precise medicine responsible for an adverse drug reaction (ADR) report is an important element for pharmacovigilance, allowing timely detection of potential product-specific safety signals. We looked at the identifiability of biologicals up to the level of commercial product name in ADR reports received from European clinical practice between 2011 and December 2019. A good level of identification (91.5%) was observed overall, but at the same time a downward trend was observed in the last 5 years. This reduction in the level of identifiability of biological products (originators and biosimilars) at the commercial name level in general was driven by five widely used substances, whereas the identification of all other biologics stayed consistent over time (at over 90%). We observed that those five substances were used mostly within oncology. The introduction of the first biosimilar in the market did not appear to affect their identifiability. These results show that although the general level of identification at the commercial product name level in ADRs in Europe is robust and generally stable over time, decreasing trends can be down to a few commonly used substances, which need to be monitored to reverse the trend.

Is There Any Research Evidence Beyond Surveys and Opinion Polls on Automatic Substitution of Biological Medicines? A Systematic Review

Background

Biosimilars are expected to decrease growing health care expenditures. Given that uptake of biosimilars has been modest, automatic substitution has been suggested to increase their use, but the practice is not yet allowed or implemented in many jurisdictions.

Methods

A systematic review was performed by searching databases Scopus, Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, and Web of Science. Peer-reviewed, original studies written in English and published during the period January 1, 2006 to April 24, 2021 reporting any interventions, pilots or any other studies including experiences or perceptions of any relevant stakeholders on automatic substitution of biologics were included without limitation by setting or geography. The quality of the included studies were evaluated by pre-determined criteria.

Results

Altogether, 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 23 were surveys, and four semi-structured interviews reporting mainly stakeholders’ perceptions on automatic substitution. Most of the studies (56%, 15/27) were from Europe. Studies were conducted among prescribers (n = 12), pharmacists (n = 5), patients (n = 4), payers (n = 1), and mixed stakeholders (n = 5). The primary objective of the majority (81%, 22/27) of the studies was to investigate some other biosimilar topic than automatic substitution. The reported perceptions of substitution were mainly negative. Studies evaluating risks, safety or effectiveness, or reporting real-life experiences of biologic substitution were lacking except one intervention and two prospective risk management studies. The overall quality of the studies was low to moderate, and the results were not generalizable due to convenience sampling not representing the populations of interest, and low response rates.

Conclusions

The current research evidence on the automatic substitution of biologics is scarce and of low to moderate quality, reflecting low stakeholder knowledge and their cautious attitude towards biosimilars. The safe and efficient implementation of automatic substitution requires well-designed practices, pilot studies, and evolving legislation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-021-00493-8.

Biosimilars in chronic inflammatory diseases: facts and remaining questions 5 years after their introduction in Europe

INTRODUCTION

Five years after the launch of the first infliximab biosimilar, biologics have found their place in the treatment of chronic inflammatory conditions, but there are remaining questions. This is a review of the introduction of antibody biosimilars in Europe; the reasons for their success and how biosimilar hesitancy was quailed.

AREAS COVERED

We provide an overview of the concepts of biosimilarity, extrapolation, and interchangeability, using examples in rheumatology and gastroenterology for illustration. A review of the evidence collected from switching studies using robust designs is included. Remaining questions such as 'inter-switching' are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Biosimilars have democratized access to powerful medicines. Efficacy and safety studies provided reassuring data, but knowledge gaps persist. The availability of so-called 'bio-betters' might open new avenues and change clinical practice.

Infliximab Biosimilar CT-P13 Observational Studies for Rheumatoid Arthritis, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, and Ankylosing Spondylitis: Pooled Analysis of Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness

INTRODUCTION

Long-term, real-world safety and effectiveness data are required to support biosimilar use. This analysis pooled 5-year findings from observational studies of infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the CT-P13 4.2, 4.3, or 4.4 Korea/European Union registries were analysed if they had initiated infliximab treatment with CT-P13 (CT-P13 group) or had switched from reference infliximab to CT-P13 (switched to CT-P13 group). The primary objective was to investigate long-term safety by evaluating adverse events of special interest (AESIs) per the CT-P13 risk-management plan. Incidence rates per 100 patient-years (PYs) were calculated. Additional long-term safety endpoints, immunogenicity (assessments optional), and effectiveness were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 736 patients (642 CT-P13; 94 switched to CT-P13) were analysed. Median (range) exposure to CT-P13 was 19.433 (0.03-63.11) months overall. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 69.0% (CT-P13 group) and 60.6% (switched to CT-P13 group). Infusion-related reaction/hypersensitivity/anaphylactic reaction was the most frequent AESI overall, with an incidence of 4.3828 per 100 PY (95% confidence interval: 3.3603-5.6185). For most AESIs, incidence rates per 100 PY were broadly comparable between treatment groups, considering overlapping 95% confidence intervals. At baseline, 42/445 (9.4%) and 21/59 (35.6%) evaluable patients in the CT-P13 and switched to CT-P13 groups, respectively, were antidrug antibody (ADA)-positive. After CT-P13 treatment during the study, 188/425 (44.2%) evaluable patients had ≥ 1 ADA-positive result, including 147/425 (34.6%) patients with negative or no ADA results reported at baseline. Effectiveness tended to increase over time for all indications.

CONCLUSION

The analysis did not identify any new safety findings for patients with RA, IBD, and AS treated with CT-P13 for up to 5 years in those who were infliximab-naïve at CT-P13 initiation, or those who had switched from reference infliximab to CT-P13.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02557295 (CT-P13 4.2; retrospectively registered on 23 September 2015); NCT02326155 (CT-P13 4.3; retrospectively registered on 25 December 2014); NCT02557308 (CT-P13 4.4; retrospectively registered on 23 September 2015).

Does Similarity Breed Contempt? A Review of the Use of Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The introduction of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies directed against tumor necrosis factor-α has revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) by improving quality of life, decreasing the frequency and length of hospital admissions, and reducing corticosteroid use. Nevertheless, biologics are very expensive, substantially contributing to the cost of care for patients with IBD. To reduce this cost and improve treatment access, biosimilars, which are therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (biologicals) similar to but not identical to the reference biologic, were introduced. Despite their potential benefits, the adoption and uptake of biosimilars have varied considerably across the USA and Europe. Here, we highlight the current biosimilar therapeutic landscape, discuss barriers to their use, and provide an overview of published studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of biosimilars in IBD.

Extrapolation: Experience gained from original biologics

Biologicals undergo modifications throughout their commercial lifecycle. Major changes can unintentionally magnify their inherent physicochemical variability. Although trials comparing the pre- and the post-change versions have been requested occasionally, analytical comparison is the most sensitive approach to anticipating clinical equivalence. Therefore, it may be concluded, by means of 'extrapolation', that non-identical versions of a given biologic will behave equally in all indications. Despite the lessons learned with original biologics, there are still controversies around the approval of biosimilars through extrapolation. Here, a comprehensive analysis of scattered information allows for an account of cases of original biologic versions approved in some indications with no patient trials involved. Healthcare professionals can be reassured that inasmuch as extrapolation has proven valid for new versions of original biologics, the same holds for biosimilars.

Uptake of Trastuzumab Biosimilars for the Treatment of HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Real-World Experience from a Cancer Center

Background: The introduction of trastuzumab biosimilars in clinical practice plays an important role in promoting the sustainability of healthcare systems. By contrast, the switching process can be challenging to the clinics. This survey describes the switching process at a National Cancer Institute over a period of 2 years. Methods: Data regarding all trastuzumab-based regimens for breast cancer (BC) from 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020 were extracted from both adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reporting systems and electronic systems involved in inventory management, prescribing, dispensing, and administration. Both patients under monotherapy and combination treatment regimens were included. There were no exclusion criteria. Results and Conclusions: Overall 354 patients received at least one trastuzumab-based regimen for a total of 493 lines of treatment and 5769 administrations. Biosimilar were used in 34.3% of trastuzumab-based treatments. No differences between biosimilars and reference drug have been observed in terms of ADRs. The effective cost-saving of the first 2 years is greater than EUR 800,000 and it is estimated to increase over time.

The global landscape on interchangeability of biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars hold the potential to be an integral healthcare component that can significantly improve affordability and thereby accessibility of the otherwise expensive biotherapeutic products. Regulators, payors, and policymakers, each have a major role to play in successful adoption of biosimilars. One of the issues that has been a point of frequent discussion is that of interchangeability of biosimilars.

AREAS COVERED

This article aims to review the position that the major regulatory bodies have taken on interchangeability of biosimilars. Key issues that remain are also discussed. Adalimumab and etanercept have been chosen as real-world case studies to demonstrate interchangeability considerations. The need for gaining global harmonization on interchangeability is highlighted.

EXPERT OPINION

A global harmonization on the interchangeability can likely accelerate biosimilar adoption and result in better accessibility to biologics. Experience gained with real-world studies supports switching to biosimilars from originators however post-marketing pharmacovigilance should be in place to assess the risk-benefit profile of biosimilars in the long run.

The Automatic Substitution of Biosimilars: Definitions of Interchangeability are not Interchangeable

In the USA, an interchangeability designation provides biosimilar sponsors with a pathway for achieving what is standard for small-molecule generics: pharmacy-level auto-substitution for an innovator. No other major health authority links interchangeability to automatic substitution, as all require the involvement of the prescriber or patient in a medication change. This editorial considers the clinical impact and practicality of auto-substitution. First, interchangeability is linked to non-medical switching (NMS), the practice of switching treatment in patients with stable disease for non-clinical reasons. NMS may generate negative sentiment in those unwilling or reluctant to switch, which can adversely impact treatment outcomes (i.e., nocebo effect). Indeed, in real-world studies of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, discontinuation rates have been shown to be higher in patients switched to biosimilars for non-medical reasons than in historical cohorts maintained on innovators. Second, interchangeability may impede pharmacovigilance and traceability, as not all jurisdictions require innovators and biosimilars to have distinct biologic names. Third, an interchangeability designation from the US Food and Drug Administration only permits a biosimilar to be automatically substituted for its innovator, not other biosimilars (if available). Pharmacist education would be needed to avoid off-label, automatic substitution among biosimilars of a single innovator. Last, once granted, an interchangeability designation exists in perpetuity under current US federal law. However, the supply chains of innovators and biosimilars are maintained independently, with no requirement for reconfirmation of biosimilarity or interchangeability. We feel that additional guidance is needed for the auto-substitution of biosimilars and innovators to become a reality.

The First WHO International Standard for Adalimumab: Dual Role in Bioactivity and Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

The expanded availability of adalimumab products continues to widen patient access and reduce costs with substantial benefit to healthcare systems. However, the long-term success of these medicines is highly dependent on maintaining consistency in quality, safety and efficacy while minimizing any risk of divergence during life-cycle management. In recognition of this need and demand from global manufacturers, the World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee on Biological standardization established the WHO 1^st International standard (IS) for Adalimumab (coded 17/236) in October 2019 with a defined unitage ascribed to each of the individual bioactivities evaluated in the study namely, TNF-α binding, TNF-α neutralization, complement dependent cytotoxicity and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. For development of the IS, two candidate standards were manufactured as per WHO recommendations. Analysis of extensive datasets generated by testing of a common set of samples including the candidate standards by multiple stakeholders including regulatory agencies using their own qualified assays in a large international collaborative study showed comparable biological activity for the tested candidates for the different activities. Use of a common standard significantly decreased the variability of bioassays and improved agreement in potency estimates. Data from this study clearly supports the utility of the IS as an important tool for assuring analytical assay performance, for bioassay calibration and validation, for identifying and controlling changes in bioactivity during life-cycle management and for global harmonization of adalimumab products. In addition, in a separate multi-center study which included involvement of hospital and clinical diagnostic laboratories, the suitability of the adalimumab IS for therapeutic drug monitoring assays was examined by analysis of data from testing of a common blind coded panel of adalimumab spiked serum samples representative of the clinical scenario along with the IS and in-house standards in diverse immunoassays/platforms. Both commercially available and in-house assays that are routinely used for assessing adalimumab trough levels were included. Excellent agreement in estimates for adalimumab content in the spiked samples was observed regardless of the standard or the method with inter-laboratory variability also similar regardless of the standard employed. This data, for the first time, provides support for the extended applicability of the IS in assays in use for therapeutic drug monitoring based on the mass content of the IS. The adalimumab IS, in fulfilling clinical demand, can help toward standardizing and harmonizing clinical monitoring assays for informed clinical decisions and/or personalized treatment strategies for better patient outcomes. Collectively, a significant role for the adalimumab IS in assuring the quality, safety and efficacy of adalimumab products globally is envisaged.

Interchangeability of Biosimilars: What Level of Clinical Evidence is Needed to Support the Interchangeability Designation in the United States?

A biosimilar is a biologic drug that is "highly similar to a reference (originator) product, with no clinically meaningful differences between the two products in safety, purity, and potency". Regulatory approval of a biosimilar is based on analytical, structural, and functional comparisons with the reference product, comparative nonclinical (in vivo) studies, clinical pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity. In addition, comparative clinical efficacy and safety assessments are usually conducted and, taken together, comprise the "totality of the evidence" supporting biosimilarity. For a biosimilar to meet the additional designation of interchangeability in the United States (US), the applicant must demonstrate that the biological drug can be expected to produce the "same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient" and "if the biological drug is administered more than once to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between the use of the biological drug and the reference product is no greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch". The challenges faced in conducting clinical studies to support a designation of interchangeability, as defined in the final interchangeability guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration, are considered. Potential alternative approaches to generating adequate and sufficient clinical data to support a designation of interchangeability are also presented.

Intravenous and subcutaneous formulations of trastuzumab, and trastuzumab biosimilars: implications for clinical practice

Trastuzumab is a biologic therapy indicated for the treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer and metastatic gastric cancer. Trastuzumab was originally approved as an intravenous (IV) formulation but has since been developed for subcutaneous (SC) administration for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. Both formulations demonstrate generally comparable pharmacological and clinical profiles. Therefore, when deciding between treatment options, factors such as the route of administration, patient preference, value and cost must be considered. Studies comparing IV with SC trastuzumab indicate that each formulation offers unique advantages to patients depending on their individual needs. Concurrent with the development of SC trastuzumab, IV trastuzumab biosimilars comprise another treatment option that, in view of their reduced cost, might improve patient access and increase cost-effectiveness for healthcare providers and payers. In this review, we seek to raise awareness of the current options available for trastuzumab so that healthcare providers can optimally treat patients according to their individual situations and preferences.

Immunogenicity of Biologic and Biosimilar Therapies for Psoriasis and Impact of Novel Immunoassays for Immunogenicity Detection

Anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) may develop against originator biologic and biosimilar therapies used for the treatment of psoriasis and may be the cause of initial therapeutic non-response or diminished therapeutic response over time. Comparing immunogenicity between therapeutic agents is challenging owing to the variation in assays used for detection, among other reasons. Using the results of a PubMed search for psoriasis clinical trials disclosing the rates of ADAs for originator biologic and biosimilar therapies approved for the treatment of psoriasis within the last 5 years, this review discusses the rates and potential clinical impact of ADA formation in patients with psoriasis managed with originator biologic and biosimilar therapies, along with novel methods of ADA testing. Anti-drug antibodies are detectable in all biologic and biosimilar therapies approved for the treatment of psoriasis in the last 5 years, and the effect of ADAs on clinical response varies by agent. Novel immunoassays used for the detection of ADAs may have increased sensitivity compared with traditional assays, although the increased rate of detection may not correlate with decreased clinical response and the decision to test for the presence of ADAs may vary from patient to patient. Though ADA formation seems ubiquitous with the use of biologic agents for the treatment of psoriasis, the increased rates of ADAs detected by novel immunoassays may not necessarily correlate with decreased treatment efficacy.

The Path Towards a Tailored Clinical Biosimilar Development

Since the first approval of a biosimilar medicinal product in 2006, scientific understanding of the features and development of biosimilar medicines has accumulated. This review scrutinizes public information on development programs and the contribution of the clinical studies for biosimilar approval in the European Union (EU) and/or the United States (US) until November 2019. The retrospective evaluation of the programs that eventually obtained marketing authorization and/or licensure revealed that in 95% (36 out of 38) of all programs, the comparative clinical efficacy studies confirmed similarity. In the remaining 5% (2 out of 38), despite meeting efficacy outcomes, the biosimilar candidates exhibited clinical differences in immunogenicity that required changes to the manufacturing process and additional clinical studies to enable biosimilar approval. Both instances of clinical differences in immunogenicity occurred prior to 2010, and the recurrence of these cases is unlikely today due to state-of-the-art assays and improved control of process-related impurities. Biosimilar candidates that were neither approved in the EU nor in the US were not approved due to reasons other than clinical confirmation of efficacy. This review of the development history of biosimilars allows the proposal of a more efficient and expedited biosimilar development without the routine need for comparative clinical efficacy and/or pharmacodynamic studies and without any compromise in quality, safety, or efficacy. This proposal is scientifically valid, consistent with regulation of all biologics, and maintains robust regulatory standards in the assessment of biosimilar candidates. Note: The findings and conclusion of this paper are limited to biosimilar products developed against the regulatory standards in the EU and the US.

Improving oncology biosimilar launches in the EU, the USA, and Japan: an updated Policy Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions

The EU, the USA, and Japan account for the majority of biological pharmacotherapy use worldwide. Biosimilar regulatory approval pathways were authorised in the EU (2006), in Japan (2009), and in the USA (2015), to facilitate approval of biological drugs that are highly similar to reference products and to encourage market competition. Between 2007 and 2020, 33 biosimilars for oncology were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), 16 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and ten by the Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). Some of these approved applications were initially rejected because of manufacturing concerns (four of 36 [11%] with the EMA, seven of 16 [44%] with the FDA, none of ten for the PMDA). Median times from initial regulatory submission before approval of oncology biosimilars were 1·5 years (EMA), 1·3 years (FDA), and 0·9 years (PMDA). Pharmacists can substitute biosimilars for reference biologics in some EU countries, but not in the USA or Japan. US regulation prohibits substitution, unless the biosimilar has been approved as interchangeable, a designation not yet achieved for any biosimilar in the USA. Japan does not permit biosimilar substitution, as prescribers must include the product name on each prescription and that specific product must be given to the patient. Policy Reviews published in 2014 and 2016 in The Lancet Oncology focused on premarket and postmarket policies for oncology biosimilars before most of these drugs received regulatory approval. In this Policy Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions, we identify factors preventing the effective launch of oncology biosimilars. Introduction to the market has been more challenging with therapeutic than for supportive care oncology biosimilars. Addressing region-specific competition barriers and educational needs would improve the regulatory approval process and market launches for these biologics, therefore expanding patient access to these products in the EU, the USA, and Japan.

European Stakeholder Learnings Regarding Biosimilars: Part I-Improving Biosimilar Understanding and Adoption

BACKGROUND

Despite the benefits offered by biosimilars in terms of cost savings and improved patient access to biological therapies, and an established regulatory pathway in Europe, biosimilar adoption is challenged by a lack of knowledge and understanding among stakeholders such as healthcare professionals and patients about biosimilars, impacting their trust and willingness to use them. In addition, stakeholders are faced with questions about clinical implementation aspects such as switching.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to provide recommendations on how to improve biosimilar understanding and adoption among stakeholders based on insights of healthcare professionals (physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses), patient(s) (representatives) and regulators across Europe.

METHOD

The study consists of a structured literature review gathering original research data on stakeholder knowledge about biosimilars, followed by semi-structured interviews across five stakeholder groups including physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses, patient(s) (representatives) and regulators across Europe.

RESULTS

Although improvement in knowledge was observed over time, generally low to moderate levels of awareness, knowledge and trust towards biosimilars among healthcare professionals and patients are identified in literature (N studies = 106). Based on the provided insights from interviews with European experts (N = 44), a number of challenges regarding biosimilar stakeholder understanding are identified, including a lack of practical information about biosimilars and their use, a lack of understanding about biosimilar concepts and a lack of knowledge about biologicals in general. Misinformation by originator industry is also believed to have impacted stakeholder trust. In terms of possible solutions and actions to improve stakeholder understanding, broad support exists to (1) organize initiatives focussed on explaining the rationale behind biosimilar concepts and the approval pathway, (2) invest in education about biologicals in general, (3) develop clear and one-voice regulatory guidance about biosimilar interchangeability and switching across Europe, (4) disseminate real-world clinical biosimilar (switch) data, (5) share biosimilar experiences by key opinion leaders and among peers, (6) provide practical biosimilar product information, (7) provide guidance about biosimilar use, (8) actively counterbalance misinformation and organize information initiatives by neutral entities, (9) organize multi-stakeholder informational and educational efforts, aligning information between involved stakeholder groups and (10) design initiatives in a way that ensures active information uptake. Furthermore, interviewees argue that governments should be proactive in these regards.

CONCLUSIONS

This study argues in favour of a structural, multi-stakeholder framework at both European and national level to improve stakeholder biosimilar understanding and acceptance. It proposes a number of actionable recommendations that can inform policy making and guide stakeholders, which can contribute to realizing healthcare system benefits offered by biosimilar competition.

The Challenges of Switching Therapies in an Evolving Multiple Biosimilars Landscape: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence

With the increasing availability of biosimilars, the practice of switching therapies for non-medical reasons between an originator biologic and an analogous biosimilar has become more common. The evidence to support this practice mostly comes from single-switch randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world (RW) evidence studies. However, as more biosimilars of the same originator enter the market, multiple switching events between originators and biosimilars is becoming a reality, despite limited evidence to support the efficacy and safety of such practice. Some countries have established guidelines, policies, or laws related to interchangeability and/or automatic substitution, whereas others have left these practices unregulated or controlled by other components of the healthcare system. Collectively, guidelines on single non-medical switching are often vague, with even less focus given to multiple non-medical switching, leaving this practice mostly unregulated. This narrative review will first discuss the current regulatory perspectives on non-medical switching and challenges associated with switching therapies, particularly with the availability of multiple biosimilars. We will then review the current evidence from RCTs and RW studies in the light of three different multiple-switch scenarios currently taking place in clinical practice: switching between an originator and a single biosimilar, switching between biosimilars of the same originator, and the clinical practice of switching back to the originator (i.e., switchbacks) after a failure of the initial non-medical switch to the analogous biosimilar.