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

Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of SDZ-ADL, an Adalimumab Biosimilar, in Biologic-Naïve and Switched Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Literature Review

Sandoz-adalimumab (SDZ-ADL; Hyrimoz®, GP2017) is an adalimumab (ADL) biosimilar approved for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Here, we review the available literature on SDZ-ADL from controlled and real-world evidence studies. A literature search was carried out to identify articles published up to July 2023 reporting data on efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and treatment retention rates for SDZ-ADL. In randomized clinical trials, the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of SDZ-ADL were comparable to those observed for reference-adalimumab (ref-ADL) and not altered after single or multiple drug switches. Real-world studies confirmed the effectiveness and safety of treatment initiation with SDZ-ADL and of switching to SDZ-ADL from ref-ADL or from other ADL biosimilars. This literature review provides evidence that SDZ-ADL is as effective and safe as ref-ADL in both biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced patients.

Comparing anti-drug antibody signal-to-noise ratios to assess immunogenicity and interchangeability in adalimumab biosimilar studies

BACKGROUND

To support an interchangeability designation for Sandoz adalimumab biosimilar (GP2017), antidrug antibody (ADA) signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios were assessed in the GP2017 ADACCESS trial to directly assess potential changes in immunogenicity.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

ADACCESS was a 51-week trial in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis that included patients treated continuously with reference adalimumab (cH), and patients who experienced four switches between reference adalimumab and GP2017 (H2H). ADAs were measured every 6 weeks during the switching phase using an electrochemiluminescence assay. A non-parametric analysis was performed to estimate the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the median of difference in ADA S/N ratios between the cH and H2H treatment groups at week 41. If the 90% CI was within the margin of -0.16 to 0.16 (representing assay noise), this was considered a non-clinically meaningful difference in immunogenicity.

RESULTS

The 90% CIs of the median of difference in ADA S/N ratios between the two treatment groups were within the defined margin of -0.16 to 0.16 at week 41, and at all other time points. Efficacy and safety data were also similar between the treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of ADA S/N ratios showed no increase in immunogenicity following up to four switches between reference adalimumab and GP2017.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02016105.

Biosimilars of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for ophthalmic diseases: A review

The development of intravitreally injected biologic medicines (biologics) acting against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) substantially improved the clinical outcomes of patients with common VEGF-driven retinal diseases. The relatively high cost of branded agents, however, represents a financial burden for most healthcare systems and patients, likely resulting in impaired access to treatment and poorer clinical outcomes for some patients. Biosimilar medicines (biosimilars) are clinically equivalent, potentially economic alternatives to reference products. Biosimilars approved by leading health authorities have been demonstrated to be similar to the reference product in a comprehensive comparability exercise, generating the totality of evidence necessary to support analytical, pre-clinical, and clinical biosimilarity. Anti-VEGF biosimilars have been entering the field of ophthalmology in the US since 2022. We review regulatory and scientific concepts of biosimilars, the biosimilar development landscape in ophthalmology, with a specific focus on anti-VEGF biosimilars, and discuss opportunities and challenges facing the uptake of biosimilars.

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.

Assessment of Reported Adverse Events After Interchanging Between TNF-α Inhibitor Biosimilars in the WHO Pharmacovigilance Database

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Observational studies have shown that a significant proportion of patients interchanging between tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor biosimilars withdraws from the new treatment because of adverse effects. We aim to analyze adverse events related to interchanging from tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitor reference products to biosimilars and between biosimilars reported in the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database.

METHODS

We extracted all cases reporting the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities term "Product substitution issue (PT)" for TNF-α inhibitors. Then, we analyzed and categorized all adverse events reported in more than 1% of cases. We compared the adverse events reported according to reporter qualification, type of switch, and type of TNF-α inhibitor using Chi2 tests. We conducted a network analysis coupled with a clustering approach to identify syndromes of co-reported adverse events.

RESULTS

In the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database, 2543 cases and 6807 adverse events related to TNF-α inhibitor interchangeability have been reported up to October 2022. Injection-site reactions were the most reported adverse events with 940 cases (37.0%), followed by modifications in drug effect in 607 cases (23.9%). Musculoskeletal, cutaneous, and gastrointestinal disorders linked to the underlying disease were reported in 505 (20.0%), 145 (5.7%), and 207 (8.1%) cases, respectively. Adverse events non-related to the underlying disease were nonspecific (n = 458, 18.0%), neurologic (n = 224, 8.8%), respiratory (n = 132, 5.2%), and psychological disorders (n = 64, 2.5%). Injection-site reactions and infection-related symptoms (e.g., nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infection, lower respiratory tract infection) were more reported by non-healthcare professionals while adverse events related to reduced clinical efficacy (e.g., drug ineffective, arthralgia, psoriasis) were more reported by healthcare professionals. The proportions of injection-site reactions were higher when switching between biosimilars of the same reference product, but the proportions of adverse events related to reduced clinical efficacy (e.g., psoriasis, arthritis, psoriatic arthropathy) were more reported when switching from a reference product. The main differences in the proportions of reported cases between adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept were driven by symptoms related to the underlying targeted diseases, except for a higher reporting rate of injection-site pain with adalimumab. Adverse events evocative of hypersensitivity reactions were reported in 192 (7.6%) cases. Most of the network clusters concerned non-specific adverse events or were related to reduced clinical efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis highlights the burden of patient-reported adverse events when interchanging between TNF-α inhibitor biosimilars, notably injection-site reactions, non-specific adverse events, and symptoms related to reduced clinical efficacy. Our study also highlights differences in reporting patterns between patients and healthcare professionals and depending on the type of switch. The results are limited by missing data, the lack of precision of the coded Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms, and by the variability of reporting rate of adverse events. Thus, incidence rates of adverse events cannot be inferred from these results.