The Future of Biosimilars: Maximizing Benefits Across Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases

Biosimilars and immunogenicity: a matter of concern?

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars have transformed treatment modalities across various medical fields such as oncology, rheumatology, and immunology. Despite their potential for reducing healthcare costs, concerns persist regarding their ability to induce an immune response, which could affect efficacy and safety. This review critically evaluates the current evidence on the immunogenicity of biosimilars and discusses the regulatory frameworks guiding their approval and monitoring.

AREAS COVERED

This review includes studies from databases like Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect, published up to April 2024. It explores the 'totality of the evidence' approach used by regulatory bodies like the FDA and EMA, detailing analytical, preclinical, and clinical assessments that ensure biosimilars' similarity to their reference products in terms of structure, function, and clinical outcomes. The review also addresses the challenges and limitations in current research methodologies and the implications of immunogenicity on therapeutic efficacy and patient safety.

EXPERT OPINION

While substantial evidence confirms the safety and efficacy of biosimilars, the review emphasizes the need for continuous regulatory vigilance and advanced methodologies in post-marketing surveillance to capture long-term immunogenicity data effectively. It advocates for integrating cutting-edge analytical techniques and personalized medicine to better manage immunogenic risks associated with biological therapies.

The efficacy and safety of biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis treatment: one year of review 2024

BACKGROUND

Both articular and extra-articular structures are affected by rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a chronic inflammatory rheumatic illness that results in severe joint destruction, disability, and death. To increase the response rate and provide RA patients more options, there is an unmet need for the development of innovative treatment drugs. Evaluation of cellular, cytokine, genomic, and transcriptome profiles that would predict therapeutic response to biologic or targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with various action modes is necessary for a customized therapy plan in RA. Owing to the development of new biologic medicines that target distinct mechanisms of action, the treatment algorithm for RA has undergone significant modification during the last one to two decades. More patients are now able to undergo biologic therapy early in the progression of their illness, thanks to the availability of less expensive biosimilars.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the efficacy and safety of biologic or targeted syntheticb/ts DMARDs in RA treatment based on the publications in the past year.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We compiled the most recent findings from original research publications of 2024 about the effects of b/tsDMARDs on the treatment of RA. In addition, this review article also concluded the recent findings from original research publications of the year 2024 about the effects of b/tsDMARDs biosimilars for treating RA.

CONCLUSION

This article summarizes the evidence and safety of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) in the management of RA, including those that target tumor necrosis factor alpha, interleukin (IL)-6, B cells, T-cell co-stimulation, and Janus kinase (JAK) from original research articles published in 2024.

Efficacy and safety of the ustekinumab biosimilar ABP 654 in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: a randomized double-blinded active-controlled comparative clinical study over 52 weeks

BACKGROUND

ABP 654 is a biosimilar to ustekinumab reference product (RP). ABP 654 has been shown to have an amino acid sequence identical to ustekinumab RP and they are similar in structure, purity and potency, as well as clinical pharmacokinetics and safety in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of ABP 654 and ustekinumab RP in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in a randomized double-blinded active-controlled single-transition comparative clinical study (NCT04607980).

METHODS

Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive ABP 654 or ustekinumab RP at a weight-based dose of 45 mg or 90 mg administered subcutaneously on day 1 (week 0), week 4 and week 16. At week 28, patients with a ≥ 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) were re-randomized such that those initially randomized to ABP 654 continued to receive ABP 654 and those initially randomized to ustekinumab RP were re-randomized to either continue on ustekinumab RP or transition to ABP 654. The primary efficacy endpoint was percentage improvement in PASI from baseline to week 12. Secondary endpoints included additional efficacy measurements, as well as an assessment of adverse events and antidrug antibodies.

RESULTS

At week 12, the observed mean (SD) percentage improvement in PASI from baseline was 81.9 (19.9) and 81.9 (19.6) for the ABP 654 and ustekinumab RP treatment groups, respectively. The point estimate of the mean difference in percentage PASI improvement from baseline to week 12 between the treatment groups was 0.14 with a two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of (-2.6 to 2.9), well within the prespecified similarity margin of (-10 to 10). In addition, throughout the study, secondary efficacy analyses and safety and immunogenicity profiles were similar across the treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that ABP 654 and ustekinumab RP are clinically similar in efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Further, a single transition from ustekinumab RP to ABP 654 at week 28 had no impact on the efficacy, safety or immunogenicity results for the remainder of the 52-week study, supporting a conclusion of no clinically meaningful differences between ABP 654 and ustekinumab RP.

Biosimilars Targeting Pathogens: A Comprehensive Review of Their Role in Bacterial, Fungal, Parasitic, and Viral Infections

Biosimilars represent medicinal products that exhibit a high degree of similarity to an already sanctioned reference biologic agent, with negligible clinically significant disparities concerning safety, purity, or potency. These therapeutic modalities are formulated as economically viable substitutes for established biologics, thereby facilitating increased accessibility to sophisticated treatments for a range of medical conditions, including infectious diseases caused by bacterial, fungal, and viral pathogens. The current landscape of biosimilars includes therapeutic proteins, such as monoclonal antibodies, antimicrobial peptides, antiviral peptides, and antifungal peptides. Here, we discuss the obstacles inherent in the development of biosimilars, including the rapid mutation rates of pathogens. Furthermore, we discuss innovative technologies within the domain, including antibody engineering, synthetic biology, and cell-free protein synthesis, which exhibit potential for improving the potency and production efficiency of biosimilars. We end with a prospective outlook to highlight the importance and capacity of biosimilars to tackle emerging infectious diseases, highlighting the imperative need for ongoing research and financial commitment.

SB16 versus reference denosumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: 18-month outcomes of a phase III randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, pharmacodynamics (PD), pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity of SB16 versus reference denosumab (DEN) up to 18 months in postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) patients, and assessed outcomes after switching from DEN to SB16 compared to those who continued with DEN or SB16.

METHODS

457 PMO patients were initially randomized, with 407 re-randomized at Month 12 to either continue DEN (DEN+DEN), switch to SB16 (DEN+SB16), or continue SB16 (SB16 + SB16) through Month 18. Efficacy was assessed by the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck. Safety, PD, PK, and immunogenicity were evaluated throughout the study period.

RESULTS

Mean percent changes from baseline in lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck BMD at Month 18 were comparable across treatment groups, indicating comparable efficacy between SB16 and DEN. The mean percent change in lumbar spine BMD was 6.8 % (SB16 + SB16), 6.2 % (DEN+SB16), and 6.8 % (DEN+DEN). Total hip BMD increased by 4.4 %, 3.5 %, and 4.0 %, and femoral neck BMD by 3.4 %, 3.1 %, and 2.7 % for SB16 + SB16, DEN+SB16, and DEN+DEN, respectively. Safety profiles were similar among groups, with no new safety concerns identified after switching. Only one patient in the DEN+SB16 group developed non-neutralizing anti-drug antibodies by Month 18, indicating a low immunogenicity risk for SB16.

CONCLUSION

Switching from DEN to SB16 demonstrated comparable efficacy, safety, PD, PK, and immunogenicity in PMO patients relative to those who continued DEN. SB16 was well tolerated over 18 months, demonstrating comparable outcomes to DEN.

The Path to Accessible Care: Development and Impact of Eculizumab Biosimilars for Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria and Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome

Eculizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting complement C5, is the first approved drug for complement-mediated diseases and indicated to treat paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, myasthenia gravis, and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. The introduction of eculizumab has improved the prognosis of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome to near-normal life expectancy and quality of life. Administration of eculizumab resulted in a rapid and sustained reduction in hemolytic activity and a consequent risk of thrombosis in paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, and thrombotic microangiopathy in atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, respectively. Nevertheless, many patients still have difficulty accessing eculizumab treatment because of its high costs. Biosimilars to reference eculizumab may increase patient access to treatment by creating market competition and eventually decreasing treatment costs. Clinical use of biosimilars in Europe in the last 15 years has demonstrated that they are as safe and effective as their reference products, and can also drive cost reductions and increase patients' access to treatment. This review aims to increase awareness about the importance of biosimilars of reference eculizumab and their entry for use in patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria or atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome based on the accumulated experience of other previously approved biosimilars, and to provide an overview of the stringent biosimilar development pathway in general and the concept of extrapolation in particular.

CT-P39 Compared With Reference Omalizumab in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: Results From a Double-Blind, Randomized, Active-Controlled, Phase 3 Study

BACKGROUND

This study compared the therapeutic equivalence of CT-P39 (an omalizumab biosimilar) and EU-approved reference omalizumab (ref-OMA) in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomized, active-controlled Phase 3 study (NCT04426890) included two 12-week treatment periods (TPs). In TP1, patients received CT-P39 300 mg, ref-OMA 300 mg, CT-P39 150 mg, or ref-OMA 150 mg. In TP2, patients treated with ref-OMA 300 mg were rerandomized to CT-P39 300 mg or ref-OMA 300 mg; patients initially randomized to CT-P39 300 mg continued this regimen; and patients initially randomized to CT-P39 or ref-OMA 150 mg received 300 mg dosing with the same drug. The primary endpoint for the assessment of therapeutic equivalence of CT-P39 300 mg and ref-OMA 300 mg was change from baseline in weekly itch severity score (ISS7) at week 12.

RESULTS

In TP1, 619 patients were randomized (CT-P39 300 mg, n = 204; ref-OMA 300 mg, n = 205; CT-P39 150 mg, n = 107; ref-OMA 150 mg, n = 103). Equivalence was demonstrated between CT-P39 300 mg and ref-OMA 300 mg for mean change from baseline in ISS7 at week 12; confidence intervals (CIs) were within predefined equivalence margins: global analysis: treatment difference 0.77, 95% CI -0.37 to 1.90; US analysis: treatment difference 0.70, 90% CI -0.22 to 1.63. The proportion of patients experiencing ≥ 1 treatment-related adverse event was comparable across groups. Secondary efficacy, quality of life, pharmacokinetic, safety, and immunogenicity outcomes were comparable between groups at a given dose level, with no evident impact of switching.

CONCLUSIONS

Equivalent efficacy was observed between CT-P39 and ref-OMA, with comparable safety also evident.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of subcutaneous biosimilar tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Spain

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the most common chronic inflammatory rheumatic disease, its management and morbidity impose a great burden to healthcare systems. Development and rollout of biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs has contributed to improvements for patients, however, high costs have prevented them to be widely used. This is being addressed with biosimilars, with equal benefit-risk profile and reduced costs. The objective is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous biosimilar tocilizumab (bsTCZ) for patients with moderate-severe RA in Spain from a healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed with a lifetime horizon including 5 health states: remission of the disease; low, moderate, or high activity; and death. A PICO-S-T search retrieved efficacy of treatments in meta-analysis and network meta-analysis, and was further complemented with published clinical trials. Pharmacological costs were obtained from the BotPlus database, and medical resources costs from regional tariffs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to validate the robustness of results. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for cost/percentage of remission and cost/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain were calculated.

RESULTS

Lifetime cost of bsTCZ was 183 741€ (lowest) versus comparative costs ranging from 184 317€ for infliximab to 201 972€ (highest) for certolizumab. QALYs were 13.74 for upadacitinib and 13.73 for sarilumab and tocilizumab with values between 13.53 and 13.72 for the comparators. ICERs as €/remission and €/QALY showed that bsTCZ was either dominant in most of the comparisons or the most cost-effective alternative. The sensitivity analysis showed that bsTCZ long term cost, and transition from low to moderate disease activity health status were the most influential factors. Moreover, bsTCZ was either dominant or cost-effective in all the comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

bsTCZ demonstrated to be a cost-effective and cost-saving alternative for the treatment of patients with RA in Spain when compared to all the available therapeutic alternatives.

Assessing Functional Similarity of Biosimilar ABP 654 and Ustekinumab in Samples from Patients with Crohn's Disease

Purpose

ABP 654 is the first FDA-approved interchangeable biosimilar for ustekinumab reference product (RP). To support the totality of evidence (TOE), in vitro pharmacology studies were conducted in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from healthy human donors and Crohn's disease (CD) patients to evaluate IL-23 and IL-12 inhibition by ABP 654 and ustekinumab RP relevant to the mechanism of action of chronic inflammation.

Methods

ABP 654 and ustekinumab RP were assessed using inhibition of IL-23 and IL-12-mediated IFN-γ release, signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT)3 and STAT4 phosphorylation, and IL-17 release. IFN-γ levels were determined using homogenous time-resolved fluorescence (HTRF). STAT3 and STAT4 phosphorylation were measured by flow cytometry. IL-17 was measured using a Cisbio IL-17 detection kit. IC50 values were calculated to assess the relative potency of ABP 654 and ustekinumab RP.

Results

ABP 654 and ustekinumab RP demonstrated similar inhibition and relative potency of IL-23 and IL-12-mediated IFN-γ release, and no difference in inhibition of IL-23/IL-12-mediated STAT3/STAT4 phosphorylation in healthy donor PBMCs, as evidenced by the overlapping standard deviation (SD). In CD PBMCs, ABP 654 and ustekinumab RP also showed no difference in IC50 values for inhibition of IL-23/IL-12-mediated STAT3/STAT4 phosphorylation. ABP 654 and ustekinumab RP showed no difference in IC50 values for IL-23-induced IL-17 release, in either healthy (ABP 654, 458.7±110.8 pM; ustekinumab (EU), 514.6±48.7 pM) or CD (ABP 654, 260.8±88.5 pM; ustekinumab (EU), 256.9±96.8 pM) donor cells with overlapping SD.

Conclusion

These studies demonstrated similar inhibition of IL-23 and IL-12 function by ABP 654 and ustekinumab RP in both healthy and CD PBMCs. Overall, these assays support the conclusion that ABP 654 and ustekinumab RP are functionally similar, thereby contributing to the TOE supporting a demonstration of biosimilarity.

An Educational Digital Tool to Improve the Implementation of Switching to a Biosimilar (Rapid Switch Trainer): Tool Development and Validation Study

Background

Switching to biosimilars is an effective and safe practice in treating inflammatory diseases; however, a nocebo effect may arise as a result of the way in which the switch is communicated to a given patient.

Objective

We aimed to design a gaming-based digital educational tool (including a discussion algorithm) to support the training of health care professionals in efficiently communicating the switch to biosimilars, minimizing the generation of a nocebo effect and thus serving as an implementation strategy for the recommended switch.

Methods

The tool was developed based on interviews and focus group discussions with key stakeholders, both patients and health care professionals. Messages likely to either generate trust or to trigger a nocebo effect were generated on the basis of the interviews and focus group discussions.

Results

A total 7 clinicians and 4 nurses specializing in rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology, with balanced levels of responsibility and experience, as well as balance between geographic regions, participated in the structured direct interviews and provided a list of arguments they commonly used, or saw used, to justify the switching, and objections given by the patients they attended. Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who were taking biologic drugs with (n=4) and without (n=5) experience in switching attended the focus groups and interviews. Major topics of discussion were the reason for the change, the nature of biosimilars, and their quality, safety, efficacy, and cost. Based on these discussions, a list of objections and of potential arguments was produced. Patients and health care professionals rated the arguments for their potential to evoke trust or a nocebo effect. Two sets of arguments, related to savings and sustainability, showed discrepant ratings between patients and health care professionals. Objections and arguments were organized by categories and incorporated into the tool as algorithms. The educators then developed additional arguments (with inadequate answers) to complement the valid ones worked on in the focus groups. The tool was then developed as a collection of clinical situations or vignettes that appear randomly to the user, who then has to choose an argument to counteract the given objections. After each interaction, the tool provides feedback. The tool was further supported by accredited medical training on biosimilars and switching.

Conclusions

We have developed a digital training tool to improve communication on switching to biosimilars in the clinic and prevent a nocebo effect based on broad and in-depth experiences of patients and health care professionals. The validation of this implementation strategy is ongoing.

The Totality of Evidence for SDZ-deno: A Biosimilar to Reference Denosumab

PURPOSE

Sandoz biosimilar denosumab (GP2411 [SDZ-deno]; Jubbonti/Wyost) is approved by the US FDA, EMA and Health Canada for all indications of reference denosumab (REF-deno; Prolia/Xgeva), a fully human IgG2κ monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity and specificity to receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL). Denosumab blocks RANKL, preventing bone resorption and loss of bone density/architecture in conditions characterized by excessive bone loss such as osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and metastatic bone disease, among others.

METHODS

This narrative review summarizes the totality of evidence (ToE) for SDZ-deno that supported its approval as Jubbonti/Wyost in the EU and US.

FINDINGS

Analytical evaluation indicated that SDZ-deno has high purity and structural homology with REF-deno. SDZ-deno also demonstrated similar binding affinities, size and charge variants, and disulfide isoforms to REF-deno, and did not trigger clinically meaningful antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. In clinical evaluation, SDZ-deno was similar to REF-deno in pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) in a 39-week Phase I study in 502 healthy male participants, and to REF-deno in a 72-week Phase III study in 527 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. In both studies, the 90% and 95% confidence intervals (for PK and PD endpoints, respectively) of the geometric mean ratios for AUCinf, Cmax (and AUClast in the Phase I study; PK endpoints), and area under the effect versus time curve of percent change from baseline in serum carboxy-terminal crosslinked telopeptide of type I collagen (PD endpoint), were fully contained within the prespecified equivalence margins (0.80, 1.25). The Phase III study also demonstrated SDZ-deno is similar in efficacy to REF-deno in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, as the difference in percent change from baseline in lumbar spine bone mineral density at week 52 between REF-deno and SDZ-deno was fully contained within the prespecified equivalence margins (-1.45, 1.45). SDZ-deno was well tolerated in both studies. As the ToE has established biosimilarity of SDZ-deno and REF-deno, extrapolation to all indications is justified based on the common mechanism of action and the comparable PK, safety, and immunogenicity across all indications.

IMPLICATIONS

The ToE for SDZ-deno suggests it will be an effective biosimilar to REF-deno, and its lower unit price is anticipated to increase the number of appropriate patients who will benefit.

Trends in Presentation, Management, and Survival of Women With Breast Cancer in a Multiethnic, Middle-Income Asian Setting

PURPOSE

Granular data on breast cancer (BC) are pertinent for surveillance, planning, and monitoring of cancer care delivery. We determined the trends in clinical presentation, management, and survival of women with BC in a multiethnic middle-income Asian setting over 15 years.

METHODS

Data of 7,478 Malaysian women newly diagnosed with invasive BC between 2005 and 2019 from three hospital-based cancer registries were included. Trends in demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics were compared across period 1 (P1): 2005-2009, period 2 (P2): 2010-2014, and period 3 (P3): 2015-2019. Overall survival and net survival were determined.

RESULTS

More women in P3 than P1 were older than 60 years at diagnosis. Only a marginal increase in proportion of women with stage I disease was observed (23.7% v 27.2% in P1 and P3, respectively, P = .004). Nonetheless, patients were increasingly presenting with smaller tumors, fewer axillary node involvement, well-differentiated tumors, and hormone receptor expression in recent times. Proportion of women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-overexpressed tumors significantly decreased. Among indicated patients, receipt of anticancer therapies was somewhat similar over the calendar periods, except for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and anti-HER2 therapy, where increases in administration were noted. Significant improvements in survival were observed over the 15 years, particularly for HER2-overexpressed BCs.

CONCLUSION

Although the improvements in BC survival that we have observed validate ongoing cancer control efforts and treatment advances, study findings suggest that more could be done for earlier detection and improved access to effective therapies in our settings.

Biosimilars in the Era of Artificial Intelligence-International Regulations and the Use in Oncological Treatments

This research is based on three fundamental aspects of successful biosimilar development in the challenging biopharmaceutical market. First, biosimilar regulations in eight selected countries: Japan, South Korea, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, and South Africa, represent the four continents. The regulatory aspects of the countries studied are analyzed, highlighting the challenges facing biosimilars, including their complex approval processes and the need for standardized regulatory guidelines. There is an inconsistency depending on whether the biosimilar is used in a developed or developing country. In the countries observed, biosimilars are considered excellent alternatives to patent-protected biological products for the treatment of chronic diseases. In the second aspect addressed, various analytical AI modeling methods (such as machine learning tools, reinforcement learning, supervised, unsupervised, and deep learning tools) were analyzed to observe patterns that lead to the prevalence of biosimilars used in cancer to model the behaviors of the most prominent active compounds with spectroscopy. Finally, an analysis of the use of active compounds of biosimilars used in cancer and approved by the FDA and EMA was proposed.

Infliximab biosimilar GP1111: a review of 5 years' post-approval experience

INTRODUCTION

Infliximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor alpha, and GP1111 (Zessly®, Sandoz) is the most recently approved infliximab biosimilar in Europe. We reviewed the approval process and key evidence for GP1111, focusing primarily on the indications of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review discusses preclinical, clinical, and real-world data for GP1111.

EXPERT OPINION

Results from the Phase III REFLECTIONS trial in patients with moderate-to-severe active RA despite methotrexate therapy confirmed the similarity in efficacy and safety between GP1111 and reference infliximab. Switching from reference infliximab to GP1111 in REFLECTIONS had no impact on efficacy or safety. Since the European approval of GP1111 in March 2018, real-world data have also confirmed the efficacy and safety of switching from another infliximab biosimilar to GP1111 in patients with RA and IBD. In addition, budget impact analysis of various sequential targeted treatments in patients with RA found that GP1111 was cost-effective when used early after failure of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Therefore, 5 years' post-approval experience with GP1111 in RA and IBD, and key clinical and real-world evidence, support the safety and efficacy of continued use of GP1111 in all infliximab-approved indications.

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.

Patient's and Consultant's Views and Perceptions on Switching from an Originator Biologic to Biosimilar Medication: A Qualitative Study

The aim of this study was to describe the opinions of patients undergoing treatment with originator biologics and medical consultants managing their conditions and identify the barriers and enablers to transitioning from originator biologics to equivalent biosimilars. This study was undertaken prior to biosimilar switching at a large teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Five gastroenterology, rheumatology, and dermatology consultants were interviewed. Two focus groups were conducted with patients prescribed infliximab (n = 2) and etanercept originators (n = 7). Four main themes emerged, as follows: (1) 'Benefit to the NHS'; (2) 'Evidence for efficacy and safety'; (3) 'Team roles'; and (4) 'Effective communication during switching', with sub-themes such as (4a) 'What patients want to know' and (4b) 'How it should be communicated'. Recognition of the ability to save NHS money was an enabler for both patients and consultants, with patients wanting to be reassured that the money saved would be used to benefit other patients. Consultants did not always believe that biosimilars had similar efficacy as the originators or that the manufacturing standards were the same. Effective interventions to address these concerns are required. Offering patients the opportunity to revert back to their originator if necessary was seen as an enabler, as was the provision of readily available mechanisms for reporting suspected adverse events resulting from switching. The role of pharmacy in the process of switching from originator biologics to biosimilars can range from educating consultants regarding the safety and efficacy of biosimilars, explaining the rationale for switching patients, and providing a route for reporting adverse events.

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.

Treatment persistence and switching patterns of ABP 501 in European patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Background

Approval of the adalimumab (ADA) biosimilar ABP 501 for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) indications was based on the principle of extrapolation, without indication-specific clinical trial data.

Objectives

To evaluate the real-world treatment patterns of ABP 501 in patients with IBD.

Design

Retrospective analysis of pharmacy claims data from Germany and France.

Methods

Continuously insured adult IBD patients who initiated ABP 501 between October 2018 and March 2020 were included. Treatment persistence, adherence, and post-ABP 501 switching patterns were evaluated for two mutually exclusive groups: ADA-naïve patients (i.e. no baseline use of ADA products) and ADA-experienced patients (i.e. previously treated with ADA products).

Results

A total of 3362 German patients and 733 French patients were included, with 54.4% and 65.3% being ADA-naïve patients, respectively. Median persistence (95% CI) on ABP 501 was 10.9 months (9.8-11.6) in ADA-naïve patients and 14.2 months (12.7-15.2) in ADA-experienced patients in Germany; for the French cohort, ADA-naïve and -experienced patients had median persistence of 12.8 months (10.2-14.7) and 11.5 months (8.8-14.4), respectively. During the first 12 months of ABP 501 initiation, 53.7% of German patients and 51.0% of French patients were adherent to the therapy. About 20% of patients in both countries switched from ABP 501 to another targeted therapy. In the German cohort, ADA-naïve patients most frequently switched to non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitor biologics, but ADA-experienced patients most commonly switched to reference product (RP); in the French cohort, patients most often switched to RP regardless of prior exposure to ADA products.

Conclusion

About 50% of patients persisted on and were adherent to ABP 501 therapy during the first 12 months after treatment initiation in two large European countries. Post-ABP 501, switching patterns varied between countries, indicating diversified treatment practices warranting further research on reason(s) for switching and potential overall treatment outcomes.

Efficacy and safety evaluations of adalimumab biosimilars in the treatment of psoriasis

PURPOSE

We aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab biosimilar agents in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, in order to provide evidence-based reference data for clinical medicine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five databases were searched by electronic retrieval: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, WanFang and CNKI (China National Knowledge Internet). The retrieval period was from the establishment of each database up to April 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on adalimumab biosimilar agents compared with their reference agents in the treatment of moderate-to-serve plague psoriasis were included. A meta-analysis using RevMan software was applied to 8 RCTs involving 2589 patients.

RESULTS

After 16 weeks of medication, there was no significant difference in the response rates of adalimumab biosimilar agents and their reference agents defined as a decrease in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of ≥75% (PASI 75) (p > 0.05), or in the PASI 50, PASI 90 and PASI 100 measures (p > 0.05). After 16 weeks and 24 weeks of medication, there was no significant difference in the incidence rate of serious adverse events (SAEs) between adalimumab biosimilar agents and their reference agents (p > 0.05). After 16 weeks, 24 weeks and 51 weeks of medication, there was no significant difference in withdrawal rate due to SAEs, treatment-emergent adverse events and adverse events of special interest between adalimumab biosimilar agents and their reference agents (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that biosimilar agents of adalimumab have an overall efficacy and safety profile for psoriasis comparable to those of their reference agents.

Analytical and Functional Similarity of the Biosimilar Candidate ABP 654 to Ustekinumab Reference Product

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

ABP 654 is a proposed biosimilar to ustekinumab reference product (RP), a human immunoglobulin isotype class G subclass 1 kappa monoclonal antibody that acts as an antagonist of interleukin (IL)-23 and IL-12. Ustekinumab RP is indicated for the treatment of some forms of plaque psoriasis, active psoriatic arthritis, Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis. ABP 654 and ustekinumab RP utilize different expression systems, and the purpose of this study was to assess analytical similarity between ABP 654 and ustekinumab RP sourced from the United States (US) and the European Union (EU).

METHODS

The analytical testing plan included general properties, primary structure, higher-order structure, product-related substances and impurities, particles and aggregates, biological activity, and thermal stability and degradation studies.

RESULTS

ABP 654 was found to be analytically similar to ustekinumab RP with respect to physicochemical and biological properties, including structure, function, purity, and potency.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a comprehensive similarity assessment, ABP 654 was found to be similar to ustekinumab RP, notwithstanding minor physicochemical differences that are not expected to have a clinically meaningful effect on safety or efficacy.

Efficacy and safety of adalimumab biosimilar (HS016) in inflammatory bowel disease from the real-world study

Objective: Adalimumab (ADA) is an effective treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), both ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). The equal effect between the original ADA and biosimilars from Europe and the United States has been shown. However, the biosimilar of ADA is different in China. The effectiveness and safety data of ADA biosimilar (HS016) in China have yet to be discovered. Patients and methods: 91 patients (75 CD, 16 UC) received HS016 treatment and were enrolled in this study. Therapeutic response and safety profiles were analyzed. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) was also carried out among nonresponse patients. After being considered as "nonresponse" (after three or 6 months of treatment), 20 patients' serum TNFα concentrations were measured and correlated to their disease severity. Results: Among active CD patients (n = 61), 75.4% (46/61) at 12 w, 73.8% (45/61) at 26 w, 50.8% (31/61) at 52 w achieved the clinical response, respectively; 55.7% (34/61) at 12 w, 65.6% (40/61) at 26 w, and 45.9% (28/61) at 52 w achieved clinical remission. The maintained remission rates of CD (n = 14) in clinical remission were 100% (14/14) at 12 w, 78.6% (11/14) at 26 w, and 63.6% (7/11) at 52 w, respectively. Among active UC patients, 37.5% (6/16) at 12 w and 50% (8/16) at 26 w achieved clinical response. Total adverse event rates were 5.5% (5/91) during 52-week visits. Due to the inadequate serum drug concentration, 30.4% (7/23) of patients had poor clinical responses. Elevations of serum anti-drug antibodies occurred in one additional patient (4.3%). Conclusion: ADA biosimilar HS016 had good efficacy and safety in Chinese IBD patients.

A place for biosimilars in the changing multiple sclerosis treatment landscape

BACKGROUND

The treatment paradigm for multiple sclerosis (MS), particularly relapsing-remitting MS, is heavily reliant on biologic disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, the current cost of treatment acts as a significant barrier to access for patients. Over the next few years exclusivity periods for key biologic medicines used in MS are likely to end, opening the door for biosimilar medicines to enter the market.

METHODS

In this review, we discuss what biosimilar medicines are, and how the existing experience with biosimilar medicines across multiple therapy areas can inform the assimilation of biosimilar medicines into the MS treatment landscape in Europe and the US.

RESULTS

There is currently a lack of knowledge and awareness around the distinctions and similarities between small molecules, non-biological complex drugs, and biological medicines, as well as the different categories of follow-on successor medicines. These include biosimilar medicines that offer a matching efficacy and safety profile to the reference biologic. Understanding and recognition of the stringency of the approval pathways required for drug categories such as biosimilars are key in building confidence in treatment outcomes. For example, biosimilar medicines are sometimes perceived only as 'copies' of their reference biologic despite undergoing an extensive approval process requiring that no clinically meaningful differences are observed between the biosimilar medicine and the reference medicine. For MS, introduction of biosimilar medicines in the future will enable more people with MS to receive effective treatment, and also expand access to biologic DMTs in MS. Experiences from the use of biosimilars in multiple therapy areas have shown us that this can result in cost-saving benefits for a healthcare system. Introduction of biosimilar medicines in other therapy areas has also demonstrated the importance of appropriate, accurate education and information for their successful integration into clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

In order to realize optimized treatment outcomes in MS in coming years and to find the appropriate place for biosimilar medicines in the changing MS landscape, it is essential that clinicians and people with MS understand the fundamentals of biosimilars, their potential benefits and consistency of treatment provided by a biosimilar medicine, given the matching efficacy and safety profile to its reference medicine. As evidenced in other therapy areas, biosimilar medicines may reduce key barriers to access by providing a cost-effective alternative to the MS treatment arsenal, while providing the same treatment outcomes as reference biologics.

Pharmacokinetic Similarity of ABP 654, an Ustekinumab Biosimilar Candidate: Results from a Randomized, Double-blind Study in Healthy Subjects

ABP 654 is a proposed biosimilar to ustekinumab reference product (RP) which works through antagonism of interleukin-12 and interleukin-23. Ustekinumab RP is used for the treatment of chronic inflammatory conditions, including some forms of plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis. A randomized, double-blinded, single-dose, 3-arm, parallel-group study was conducted to assess the pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity of ABP 654 with ustekinumab RP sourced from the United States (US) and the European Union (EU); the PK similarity of ustekinumab US versus ustekinumab EU; and the comparative safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of all 3 products. A total of 238 healthy subjects were randomized 1:1:1 and stratified by gender and ethnicity (Japanese versus non-Japanese) to receive a single 90 mg subcutaneous injection of ABP 654 or ustekinumab US or ustekinumab EU. PK similarity was established based on 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the primary endpoints of area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUCinf ) and maximum observed serum concentration (Cmax ) being contained within the prespecified margin of 0.8-1.25. No clinically meaningful differences in immunogenicity were found among the 3 products. Adverse events were similar between treatment groups and consistent with the safety profile of ustekinumab RP. Results indicate that ABP 654, ustekinumab US and ustekinumab EU share similar PK and safety profiles.

A multicenter real-world study comparing the clinical equivalence of trastuzumab biosimilar HLX02 and reference trastuzumab in the treatment of HER-2-positive breast cancer

As the first trastuzumab biosimilar introduced in China, there are few studies on the clinical application of HLX02, especially in combination with other antitumour drugs, for the treatment of HER-2-positive breast cancer. A multicenter retrospective study was conducted in three hospitals in China to select patients with HER-2-positive breast cancer who met the inclusion criteria and received HLX02 or the reference trastuzumab. Ninety-six patients diagnosed with HER-2-positive breast cancer were finally included and divided into two groups and treated with HLX02 or the reference trastuzumab. The results showed no significant differences in pathological complete response (70.0% vs. 76.2%; P=1.000) and overall response rate (91.9% vs. 94.9%; P=0.673) between the two groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves also showed no significant difference in time-to-event variables between the two groups (log-rank P=0.48). Safety was also comparable in both groups. In conclusion, among patients with HER2-positive breast cancer, HLX02 demonstrated equivalent efficacy and safety to its reference trastuzumab, both in neoadjuvant chemotherapy and in postoperative adjuvant therapy. However, clinical equivalence studies between HLX02 and the original trastuzumab drug remain challenging. Future research should focus on the clinical exchange between biosimilars and original drugs, as well as the extrapolation of biosimilars' indications.

Comparing the pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity of HLX02 to US- and EU-approved trastuzumab in healthy Chinese male subjects: A Phase I, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND

HLX02, the first China-manufactured trastuzumab biosimilar, is approved in Europe (EU) and China. This study evaluated bioequivalence between HLX02 and US-approved trastuzumab (US-trastuzumab).

METHOD

In this double-blind, parallel-group, Phase I study, healthy Chinese men were randomized (1:1:1) to receive a single 6 mg/kg dose of HLX02, reference US-trastuzumab, or reference EU-approved trastuzumab (EU-trastuzumab). Equivalence in PK profiles was demonstrated if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for the difference between the least square means of the area under the curve (AUC) from time 0 to infinity (AUC∞) were 0.8-1.25.

RESULTS

Pharmacokinetic profiles of the three trastuzumab products were similar in 111 Chinese men. Equivalence was confirmed between HLX02 and US-trastuzumab (GMR for AUC∞ 1.009, 90% CI 0.950-1.072); HLX02 and EU-trastuzumab (GMR for AUC∞ 1.068, 90% CI 1.005-1.135); and EU- and US-trastuzumab (GMR for AUC∞ 0.945, 90% CI 0.889-1004). Exploratory analysis of all other PK parameters also demonstrated equivalence between any two of the three trastuzumab products. HLX02 had similar safety and immunogenicity profiles to US- and EU-trastuzumab.

CONCLUSION

HLX02 is bioequivalent to US-trastuzumab and EU-trastuzumab, with similar safety and immunogenicity profiles. US- and EU-trastuzumab were also bioequivalent to each other.

Real-world observational cohort study of treatment patterns and safety outcomes of infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (CONNECT-IBD)

BACKGROUND

The objective of this non-interventional, observational prospective cohort study (CONNECT-IBD) was to assess the use of CT-P13 (Inflectra®) in the treatment of patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) in the context of treatment with reference infliximab (IFX; Remicade®).

METHODS

Patients (recruited April 2015 to October 2018) at 150 sites across 13 European countries were followed for up to 2 years. Primary outcomes were safety, population characteristics, and drug utilization patterns. Secondary outcomes included clinical assessment of disease activity. Data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Overall, 2543 patients (CD, n = 1676; UC, n = 867) were included. In the CT-P13 cohort (n = 1522), median disease duration was 63 (0-579) months and 30% of patients were IFX naïve; median duration of prior IFX treatment was 5 months. During the observation period, median duration of drug exposure was 14 (0-28) months. 41% of patients reported 912 all-causality treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 24% experienced treatment-related TEAEs. Most TEAEs were of mild-to-moderate severity. Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were reported by 17% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Safety information for CT-P13 in this large study was consistent with the known safety profile for IFX and did not alter the established benefit-risk profile of CT-P13.

Outcomes Following Adalimumab Bio-originator to Biosimilar Switch-A Comparison Using Real-world Patient- and Physician-Reported Data in European Countries

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this work is to compare real-world outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving adalimumab (ADA) bio-originator (non-switchers) to those who had switched from ADA bio-originator to an ADA biosimilar (switchers) on the basis of the hypothesis that these outcomes would differ.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of physicians and their patients in Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) in 2020. Physicians completed a questionnaire for their next ten adult patients with RA, followed by four additional patients who had switched from ADA bio-originator to an ADA biosimilar (switchers). Physician- and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for switchers and non-switchers were compared by propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Three hundred and three rheumatologists provided data for 160 non-switchers and 225 switchers, 140 patients provided data; 51 non-switchers, 89 switchers. According to physician-reported disease activity, non-switchers were more likely to improve on their current ADA treatment than switchers (68%, n = 108 vs. 26%, n = 59 p < 0.001) and less likely to worsen (1%, n = 2 vs. 9%, n = 20; p < 0.01). Physician-reported patient adherence was significantly lower amongst switchers versus non-switchers (0.66 vs. 0.78, respectively; p = 0.04). More non-switchers than switchers were reported by their physicians to be consistent in taking their RA medicine (p < 0.001). Compared with non-switchers, PRO measures indicated quality of life was worse (EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale: 62.9 vs. 71.9; p < 0.001) and activity impairment was greater (Work Productivity Activity Index: 31.0 vs. 24.4; p = 0.02) for switchers, with trends for poorer health status and greater pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-medical switching in RA treatment may lead to unforeseen outcomes that should be considered by health decision-makers.

Safety and Effectiveness of SB2 (Infliximab Biosimilar) in Adult Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Post-Marketing Surveillance in Korea

INTRODUCTION

SB2 is a biosimilar of infliximab (IFX), which is approved for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), adult and pediatric Crohn's disease (CD), adult and pediatric ulcerative colitis (UC), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and plaque psoriasis (PsO). The drug approval process in Korea includes post-marketing surveillance (PMS) studies to re-examine the safety and effectiveness of approved new medications.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multi-center, open-label, observational, phase 4 PMS study of IFX-naïve patients or patients switched from reference IFX or another IFX-biosimilar to SB2 in all approved indications. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the safety of SB2 reported as adverse events (AEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the effectiveness measured as investigators' overall effectiveness assessment, categorized as improved, stable, or worsened. Furthermore, disease-specific activity scores were collected for each indication [28-joint Modified Disease Activity Score (DAS28) for RA, Korean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (KBASDAI), Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and Full Mayo Score for UC].

RESULTS

In the safety and effectiveness analysis, 180 and 128 patients were included, respectively. Most patients (83.9%) were IFX-naïve patients and 16.1% were switched patients. RA (48.9%) and AS (31.1%) were the most frequent indications. Overall, 23 (12.8%) patients reported AEs and 14 (7.8%) patients reported ADRs. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported by 3 (1.7%) patients. As per investigators' overall effectiveness assessments, SB2 was effective in 94.6% (105/111) of IFX-naïve patients and 82.4% (14/17) of switched patients. In IFX-naïve patients, disease activity scores decreased significantly from baseline to week 30 (week 24 for AS); mean (SD) changes of disease scores for each indication were DAS28 - 1.9 (0.79) for RA, KBASDAI - 3.8 (1.68) for AS, CDAI - 200.4 (112.47) for CD, and Full Mayo Score - 6.6 (2.92) for UC. The persistence rate of SB2 treatments was 88.3% with median treatment duration of 30.1 weeks.

CONCLUSION

This PMS study of the IFX-biosimilar SB2 in Korea confirmed the safety and effectiveness of SB2 in major indications.

Malaysian Hospital Pharmacists' Perspectives and Their Role in Promoting Biosimilar Prescribing: A Nationwide Survey

BACKGROUND

With the increasing availability biosimilars, the role of pharmacists as drug information specialists has expanded to include promoting biosimilar acceptance among prescribers.

OBJECTIVES

Our study aimed to determine Malaysian hospital pharmacists' perspectives on biosimilars and to identify factors influencing the successful promotion of biosimilars to prescribers.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional, web-based survey of hospital pharmacists across Malaysia. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with pharmacists successfully promoting biosimilar use.

RESULTS

Of the 913 responses, over 60% of pharmacists believed that patients may safely be switched from the originator product to a biosimilar and would have the same clinical outcome. Many lacked training in biosimilars (62.8%); yet most (80.6%) perceived pharmacists to play a critical role in promoting biosimilar prescribing. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the strongest factor associated with pharmacists' successful promotion of biosimilars to prescribers was having confidence (odds ratio [OR], 3.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.10-5.26). Respondents who had prior experience handling biosimilars were more likely to be successful in promoting biosimilar use than those without (OR, 1.76; 95% CI 1.16-2.66). The pharmacists' top perceived barrier to promote biosimilars in clinical practice was efficacy concerns.

CONCLUSION

Although Malaysian pharmacists are in favour of biosimilars, they lack training to promote biosimilar use. Among the factors associated with successful promotion of biosimilars to prescribers are pharmacist confidence, their previous experience handling biosimilars, and prior biosimilar training.

Post-switch Effectiveness of Etanercept Biosimilar Versus Continued Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Stable Disease: A Prospective Multinational Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

To better inform clinicians about the use of etanercept biosimilar (SB4) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), COMPANION-B, a prospective real-world observational study, evaluated the effectiveness of the voluntary switch from originator (etanercept, ETN) to SB4 in patients with stable RA (low-disease activity/remission).

METHODS

The study recruited adult patients (18 years or older) with RA (2010 American College of Rheumatology criteria) prescribed ETN as their first or second biologic for at least 6 months across 14 sites in Canada and five in Australia. Patients had stable disease (Disease Activity Score-28 using erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] less than 3.2) at enrollment with no evidence of flare within the previous 3 months. Concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were permitted. Patients could elect to continue ETN or voluntarily switch to SB4 in consultation with their doctors. The primary effectiveness measure was the proportion of patients with disease worsening (defined as a DAS28-ESR increase of at least 1.2 from baseline and minimum score of at least 3.2 or a defined modification in RA treatment) during 12 months of follow-up. The secondary effectiveness measure was the proportion of patients with disease worsening at month 6. Serious adverse events (SAEs) and non-serious adverse reactions (NSARs) were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 163 patients enrolled, 109 elected to continue on ETN and 54 switched to SB4; 65.8% of patients received non-biologic DMARD(s), 52.6% methotrexate, and 10.5% oral corticosteroid(s). At month 12, the proportion of patients with disease worsening was comparable in the ETN group (22.8% [95% CI 15.0-32.2]) and SB4 group (17.6% [95% CI 8.4-30.9]). Similarly, the proportions of patients with disease worsening were also comparable at month 6 (ETN: 7.9% [95% CI 3.5-15.0]; SB4: 7.8% [95% CI 2.2-18.9]). SAEs were low and similar across both groups (ETN: 8.7%; SB4: 5.7%). NSARs were slightly higher in the SB4 vs. ETN group (13.2% vs. 2.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

SB4 demonstrated comparable effectiveness to ETN over 12 months in patients with stable RA who voluntarily switched to the biosimilar in a real-world setting.

Trastuzumab biosimilar HLX02 versus reference trastuzumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer: a model-based economic evaluation for China

BACKGROUND

HLX02 is a newly marketed trastuzumab biosimilar in China, but whether its price reflects a potential benefit in terms of its value remains unclear. In addition, the development of biosimilars in China is just beginning, and the state encourages health economic evaluation of newly marketed biosimilars.

METHODS

Based on the previously published randomized controlled trial data, a Markov model was used to perform health economic evaluation of HLX02 and trastuzumab in the treatment of HER2-positive recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and evaluate the robustness of the model with sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The model results showed that the 5-year mortality rate was 84.4% in the HLX02 group, while the mortality rate was 91.2% in the trastuzumab group. When without accounting for the cost of second-line treatment, patients treated with HLX02 had an increased life expectancy of 0.138 QALYs and a $421.11 lower cost compared with patients in the trastuzumab group, with an ICER value of -$3,051.52/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

At the willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,653/QALY in China, HLX02 is more cost-effective than trastuzumab. However, the relevant systems for the regulation of biosimilars still need to be improved.

The whole experience of public hospital physicians from several specialties with biopharmaceutical effectiveness, safety, adverse drug reactions and interchangeability: A qualitative study

Background

Although there is increasing support for biosimilar medicines by the Iraqi Ministry of Health (MOH), there is scarce information about whether physicians accept these medicines and support movement toward replacing reference medicines with their biosimilar counterparts.

Objectives

The study objectives were to 1) explore in-depth the perceptions of Iraqi physicians working in public hospitals about the difference in effectiveness and safety between biosimilar medicines and their reference biological counterparts, 2) evaluate physicians' barriers to prescribing biosimilar medicines, 3) assess the adherence of physicians to the new pharmacovigilance regulations on reporting biopharmaceutical adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and 4) identify any barriers facing physicians to reporting biopharmaceutical- ADRs.

Methods

This qualitative study included face-to-face and virtual semi-structured interviews involving physicians from different disciplines who had experience with biological or biosimilar medicines. The interviews were conducted between November 6, 2020, and February 7, 2021. Thematic analyses were used to analyze qualitative data generated from the interviews.

Results

The study sample included 36 physicians (6 women and 30 men) from seven different specialties at ten governmental hospitals mainly in Baghdad, and one physician was from Mosul, Iraq. Because most physicians had insufficient experience with biosimilar medications and were not sure about their effectiveness, the majority were hesitant to prescribe them. Most physicians preferred to prescribe reference biological medicines initially. However, the initial prescribing and switching between a reference and counterpart biosimilar relies on its availability. They chose biosimilar medications that have been approved by the U.S. FDA or EMA. Most physicians were unaware about the new pharmacovigilance regulations to report adverse biopharmaceutical reactions. The physicians tended to underreport biopharmaceutical ADRs and believed that inadequate physician-pharmacist collaboration negatively impacts preventing and reporting ADRs.

Conclusions

Medicine procurement in healthcare settings should focus on sustainably securing high-quality biopharmaceuticals rather than looking only at costs to enhance physician experience and patient clinical outcomes. Promoting documentation, monitoring, and physician-pharmacist collaboration is pivotal to prevent, monitor, and treat biopharmaceutical ADRs.

•

It explored the experience of physicians with the safety and effectiveness of biopharmaceutical medications.

•

It was the first in-depth, field-based study investigating the facilitators and barriers of biosimilar medicines prescribing among Iraqi physicians.

•

The study findings help to assess the impact of the regulations of the Iraqi Pharmacovigilance Center regarding biopharmaceuticals.

•

The study can explain in depth the barriers facing physicians to report ADRs related to biopharmaceutical medications

•

It can assist health officials to approve and procure biopharmaceuticals in a way helps physicians and satisfy patient needs

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.

Nurses' Knowledge and Attitudes towards Biosimilar Medicines as Part of Evidence-Based Nursing Practice-International Pilot Study within the Project Biosimilars Nurses Guide Version 2.0

Introduction: The increasing availability of biosimilars can increase patient access to these drugs and reduce the economic burden. Nurses play a key role in the education, administration, pharmacovigilance and management of the side effects of biosimilars. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and attitudes of nurses towards biosimilar drugs in different countries. Methods: An international cross-sectional study was conducted from November 2021 to February 2022. The survey was carried out using Computer-Assisted Web Interview (CAWI), sent by the CAWI panel via the website. Results: The results showed that nurses with a greater level of education felt most knowledgeable about biosimilars (χ2 = 105.813, df = 2, p < 0.001). One-third of nurses with a doctorate and a second degree said biosimilars are used in their workplace (χ2 = 48.169, df = 4, p < 0.001); most nurses with a second degree said that they had never heard of biosimilars (41%). Doctorate-level nurses thought knowledge is the key factor to increasing biosimilar uptake (97%). Conclusions: Nurses are not knowledgeable about biosimilars. Most would like to participate in training on biosimilars. This is a very important topic, because biosimilars are constantly evolving in medicine.

Rituximab biosimilar HLX01 versus reference rituximab in the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: Real-world clinical experience

INTRODUCTION

HLX01 is the first rituximab biosimilar produced in China and the first monoclonal antibody biosimilar marketed in China. The purpose of this study was to comprehensively evaluate whether HLX01 is clinically consistent with the original drug based on real-world data to provide evidence for the clinical substitution of biosimilars in China.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective study was conducted to select patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who met the inclusion criteria and were treated with HLX01 or reference rituximab. Baseline characteristics, efficacy and safety results were recorded, and the corresponding statistical analysis was performed for various indicators.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma were included and divided into two groups that received HLX01 or reference rituximab. The results showed no significant difference in the overall response rate (86.7% vs. 88.9%; p = 1.000) or complete response rate (46.7% vs. 55.6%; p = 0.889) between the two groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves also showed no significant difference in time-to-event variables between the two groups (log-rank = 0.244). Safety was also comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

HLX01 is a suitable replacement for reference rituximab in the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and is relatively inexpensive, thereby reducing the economic burden of patients. Nevertheless, the conclusion of this study still needs to be further validated by large-sample real-world data and explored for HLX01 in other indications, such as follicular lymphoma.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Anti-rheumatoid drugs advancements: New insights into the molecular treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of more than 100 types of arthritis. This chronic autoimmune disorder affects the lining of synovial joints in about 0.5% of people and may induce severe joints deformity and disability. RA impacts health life of people from all sexes and ages with more prevalence in elderly and women people. Significant improvement has been noted in the last two decades revealing the mechanisms of the development of RA, the improvement of the early diagnosis and the development of new treatment options. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) remain the most known treatments used against RA. However, not all patients respond well to these drugs and therefore, new solutions are of immense need to improve the disease outcomes. In the present review, we discuss and highlight the recent findings concerning the different classes of RA therapies including the conventional and modern drug therapies, as well as the recent emerging options including the phyto-cannabinoid and cell- and RNA-based therapies. A better understanding of their mechanisms and pathways might help find a specific target against inflammation, cartilage damage, and reduce side effects in arthritis.

Management of Non-response and Loss of Response to Anti-tumor Necrosis Factor Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy has been successfully used as first-line biologic treatment for moderate-to-severe inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), in both "step-up" and "top-down" approaches, and has become a cornerstone of IBD management. However, in a proportion of patients the effectiveness of anti-TNF therapy is sub-optimal. Either patients do not achieve adequate initial response (primary non-response) or they lose response after initial success (loss of response). Therapeutic drug monitoring determines drug serum concentrations and the presence of anti-drug antibodies (ADAbs) and can help guide treatment optimization to improve patient outcomes. For patients with low drug concentrations who are ADAb-negative or display low levels of ADAbs, dose escalation is recommended. Should response remain unchanged following dose optimization the question whether to switch within class (anti-TNF) or out of class (different mechanism of action) arises. If ADAb levels are high and the patient has previously benefited from anti-TNF therapy, then switching within class is a viable option as ADAbs are molecule specific. Addition of an immunomodulator may lead to a decrease in ADAbs and a regaining of response in a proportion of patients. If a patient does not achieve a robust therapeutic response with an initial anti-TNF despite adequate drug levels, then switching out of class is appropriate. In conjunction with the guidance above, other factors including patient preference, age, comorbidities, disease phenotype, extra-intestinal manifestations, and treatment costs need to be factored into the treatment decision. In this review we discuss current evidence in this field and provide guidance on therapeutic decision-making in clinical situations.

A review of biosimilars for rheumatoid arthritis

Biologics are effective, though costly, medications for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Biosimilars are medications that have no clinically meaningful differences when compared with their corresponding reference biologics but cost significantly less. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medication Agency have approved biosimilars for adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and rituximab for the treatment of RA. Streamlined approval processes are expected to expedite biosimilar development while maintaining strict safety and efficacy standards. Encouragingly, many analyses have demonstrated the potential for massive healthcare savings if biosimilars are used over biologics. Challenges to biosimilar uptake, including patient and provider hesitancy, can likely be overcome with the education of all stakeholders within healthcare systems.

Multiple Switches From the Originator Infliximab to Biosimilars Is Effective and Safe in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Though a single nonmedical switch from the originator infliximab (IFX) to a biosimilar is considered effective and safe for most patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), very limited data are available on multiple successive switches.

METHODS

We performed a prospective multicenter cohort study of adult IBD patients who underwent 2 switches from the originator IFX to CT-P13 to SB2 (group 1), 1 switch from CT-P13 to SB2 (group 2), and 1 switch from the originator IFX to CT-P13 (group 3). Patients were assessed at 4 and 12 months since the most recent switch for remission using clinical (physician's assessment) and biochemical (C-reactive protein [CRP], and fecal calprotectin [FC]) measures. Patients discontinuing treatment for ineffectiveness or adverse events before month 12 were imputed as nonremitters.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-six patients (Crohn's disease 71%, ulcerative colitis 27.8%, IBD unclassified 1.2%; group 1, 69; group 2, 80; group 3, 27) were included. At 12 months after the most recent switch 76.9% (40 of 52, group 1), 65.7% (46 of 70, group 2) and 76.9% (20 of 26, group 3) of patients were in clinical remission. Treatment persistence at 12 months was 85.0%, 87.0%, and 70.1%, respectively. There were no significant differences in the rate of clinical, CRP, FC remission, or treatment persistence at 12 months between the 3 groups. Infusion reactions occurred in 1.7% of patients (3/176), all in patients with antidrug antibodies from group 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple successive switching and switching between biosimilars of IFX seemed to be effective and safe.

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

Purpose

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

Patients and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

A Developer's Perspective on Clinical Evidence and Benefits for Rituximab Biosimilar Uptake, with a Focus on CT-P10

To date, four rituximab biosimilars have received regulatory approval from the European Medicines Agency and/or US Food and Drug Administration. CT-P10 was the first rituximab biosimilar to be approved by each agency, in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Regulatory approval of CT-P10 followed demonstration of pharmacokinetic equivalence to the reference product in a phase I study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Phase III pivotal studies of CT-P10 subsequently demonstrated equivalence or non-inferiority of pharmacokinetics and efficacy between CT-P10 and reference rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, advanced-stage follicular lymphoma, and low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma. Almost 5 years after its initial regulatory approval, significant real-world experience has accumulated with CT-P10 use, particularly in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, one of the indications approved by extrapolation. This article summarises the pivotal data underlying regulatory approval for the four licensed rituximab biosimilars, before focusing on real-world data gathered with CT-P10. These data provide further support for the safety and effectiveness of CT-P10 and should boost healthcare professional and patient confidence in its use. Pharmacoeconomic analyses support the potential healthcare system cost savings offered by rituximab biosimilar uptake, which could lead to improved patient access to biologic treatments. Opportunities arising from biosimilar uptake extend further, potentially enabling innovative investigator-led research and therapeutic advances.

Switching from Adalimumab Originator to Biosimilar: Clinical Experience in Patients with Hidradenitis Suppurativa

Adalimumab is currently the only biological medicine approved by the FDA for the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). The breakout of biosimilar drugs made them more accessible due to their impact on pharmacoeconomics. However, packaging, formulation, or excipients are unique characteristics of each drug. In that way, switching from adalimumab originator to biosimilar and between biosimilars could have implications in the clinical practice. The objective of this study is to describe our clinical experience in switching from adalimumab originator to biosimilar and switching back again. A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted that included seventeen patients with HS treated with adalimumab originator in the maintenance phase, and that achieved Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR), who were switched to adalimumab biosimilar for no medical reasons. The reason for the change was to improve pharmacoeconomic efficiency, following our hospital policies on biologics. Median duration with adalimumab originator treatment before switching was 48 weeks. After switching, 41.2% of patients maintained HiSCR response without additional issues, while 58.8% (10/17) reported problems after the change. Switching from adalimumab originator to biosimilar in well-controlled patients could imply problems in efficacy and adherence. Switching back to adalimumab originator appears to solve most of the problems, but some patients can lose confidence in the drug and discontinue it. It would be worthwhile to evaluate the benefit–risk ratio individually when switching an HS patient to adalimumab biosimilar.

How to Choose the Biologic Therapy in a Bio-Naïve Patient with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The availability of biologic therapies in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is increasing significantly. This represents more options to treat patients, but also more difficulties in choosing the therapies, especially in the context of bio-naïve patients. Most evidence of safety and efficacy came from clinical trials comparing biologics with placebo, with a lack of head-to-head studies. Network meta-analysis of biologics and real-world studies have been developed to solve this problem. Despite the results of these studies, there are also other important factors to consider before choosing the biologic, such as patient preferences, comorbidities, genetics, and inflammatory markers. Given that resources are limited, another important aspect is the cost of biologic therapy, since biosimilars are widely available and have been demonstrated to be effective with a significant decrease in costs. In this review, we summarize the evidence comparing biologic therapy in both Crohn´s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) in different clinical situations. We also briefly synthesize the evidence related to predictors of biologic response, as well as the biologic use in extraintestinal manifestations and the importance of the drug-related costs.

A Review of the Totality of Evidence for the Development and Approval of ABP 710 (AVSOLA), an Infliximab Biosimilar

ABP 710 (AVSOLA^®) is a biosimilar to infliximab reference product (RP), a monoclonal antibody targeting tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα). It is approved in the USA and Canada for all the same indications as infliximab RP. Approval of ABP 710 was based on the totality of evidence (TOE) generated using a stepwise approach to assess its similarity with infliximab RP with regard to analytical (structural and functional) characteristics, pharmacokinetic parameters, and clinical efficacy and safety. ABP 710 was shown to be analytically similar to infliximab RP including in amino acid sequence, primary peptide structure, and glycan mapping and purity. ABP 710 was also demonstrated to be similar to infliximab RP with regard to functional characterization including in vitro binding, effector functions, and signaling pathways important for the mechanisms of action for clinical efficacy in multiple indications of immune-mediated inflammatory disorders including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), especially binding to both soluble and membrane-bound TNFα. Pharmacokinetic similarity of ABP 710 with infliximab RP was demonstrated in healthy volunteers following a single 5 mg/kg intravenous dose. Comparative clinical efficacy of ABP 710 with infliximab RP was demonstrated in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Safety and immunogenicity were also demonstrated to be similar for both ABP 710 and the RP. Overall, the TOE supported the conclusion that ABP 710 is highly similar to infliximab RP and supported scientific justification for extrapolation to all approved indications of infliximab RP, including IBD.

Efficacy and Safety of HLX03, an Adalimumab Biosimilar, in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study

INTRODUCTION

Adalimumab has been used successfully in the treatment of psoriasis. The objective of the study is to compare the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity between HLX03, an adalimumab biosimilar, and adalimumab in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

In this double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study, 262 patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis were randomized (1:1) to receive HLX03 or adalimumab (80 mg at week 1, 40 mg at week 2, and then 40 mg every 2 weeks) for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score at week 16 comparing to baseline. Equivalence was demonstrated if 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between group difference fell within the equivalence margins of ± 15%. Other efficacy endpoints, safety and immunogenicity were also evaluated.

RESULTS

In the full analysis set, PASI improvements at week 16 was 83.5% (n = 131) in the HLX03 group and 82.0% (n = 130) in the adalimumab group, with a least-square-mean difference of 1.5% (95% CI - 3.9% to 6.8%). There were no significant between-group differences in all secondary efficacy analyses including proportion of patients achieving ≥ 75% improvement from baseline PASI (PASI 75), physician global assessment (PGA) 0/1 (clear or almost clear) and change in dermatology life quality index (DLQI) score. The incidences of adverse events and the proportion of patients with antidrug antibodies were also comparable between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

HLX03 demonstrated equivalent efficacy, similar safety and immunogenicity to reference adalimumab, supporting its development as an alternative treatment for patients with plaque psoriasis in China.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinadrugtrials.org.cn, CTR20171123 (November 27, 2017); ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03316781 (October 20, 2017).

Systematic review: the association between the gut microbiota and medical therapies in inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

The gut microbiota has been implicated in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), with Faecalibacterium prausnitizii associated with protection, and certain genera (including Shigella and Escherichia) associated with adverse features. The variability of patient response to medical therapies in IBD is incompletely understood. Given the recognised contribution of the microbiota to treatment efficacy in other conditions, there may be interplay between the gut microbiota, IBD medical therapy and IBD phenotype.

AIMS

To evaluate the bidirectional relationship between IBD medical therapies and the gut microbiota.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE. All original studies analysing interactions between the gut microbiota and established IBD medical therapies were included.

RESULTS

We screened 1296 records; 19 studies were eligible. There was heterogeneity in terms of sample analysis, treatment protocols, and outcome reporting. Increased baseline α-diversity was observed in responders versus non-responders treated with exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN), infliximab, ustekinumab or vedolizumab. Higher baseline Faecalibacterium predicted response to infliximab and ustekinumab. A post-treatment increase in Faecalibacterium prausnitzii was noted in responders to aminosalicylates, anti-TNF medications and ustekinumab; conversely, this species decreased in responders to EEN. Escherichia was a consistent marker of unfavourable drug response, and its presence in the gut mucosa correlated with inflammation in aminosalicylate-treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Both gut microbiota diversity and specific taxonomic features (including high abundance of Faecalibacterium) are associated with the efficacy of a range of IBD therapies. These findings hold promise for a potential role for the gut microbiota in explaining the heterogeneity of patient response to IBD treatments.

Population pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous infliximab CT-P13 in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Infliximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody against tumour necrosis factor-alpha for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Recently, a subcutaneous formulation of CT-P13, an infliximab biosimilar, was approved for clinical use.

AIMS

To characterise CT-P13 pharmacokinetics (PK) and its clinically relevant determinants after subcutaneous administration through population PK modelling.

METHODS

Data from a two-part Phase I study with intravenous (5 mg/kg) and variable maintenance subcutaneous dosing of CT-P13 with frequent PK sampling in patients with CD or UC were used. Population PK analysis was conducted by non-linear mixed effects modelling. Covariates affecting PK parameters were chosen based on their clinical relevance (effect size of ≥20%) using a full fixed-effect modelling approach.

RESULTS

CT-P13 PK was described by a two-compartment model with linear elimination. The half-life in a typical 70 kg patient with serum albumin of 44 g/L was 10.8 days. The typical value for clearance was 0.355 L/d, absorption constant 0.273/d, bioavailability 79.1%, central volume of distribution 3.10 L and peripheral volume of distribution 1.93 L. Clinically relevant covariates affecting clearance were body weight (+43.2% from 70 to 120 kg), the presence of anti-drug antibodies (+39%) and serum albumin concentration (+30.1% from 44 to 32 g/L). Simulated drug exposure was comparable between routes of administration for patients weighing 50 or 70 kg, but lower with subcutaneous dosing in patients weighing 120 kg.

CONCLUSIONS

This first population PK model for subcutaneous CT-P13 supports fixed subcutaneous maintenance dosing, although heavy patients had lower cumulative drug exposure.

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.

Treatment journey in rheumatoid arthritis with biosimilars: from better access to good disease control through cost savings and prevention of nocebo effects

Early diagnosis and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are of critical importance to halt the progression of the disease. Optimal use of advanced imaging techniques or biomarkers may facilitate early diagnosis of RA. Even though many disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are available for RA treatment, biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) offer expanding therapeutic options and good outcomes in patients with RA who do not have a sufficient response to conventional synthetic DMARDs. However, high costs of bDMARDs have limited patient access to optimised disease management and increased the cost burden for healthcare systems. The advent of biosimilars led to significant cost savings driven by price competition among the reference products, which could be beneficial for healthcare systems. Healthcare provider (HCP)–patient communication and informed shared decision-making are crucial to prevent the occurrence of a nocebo effect, which results from negative perceptions that patients may have and could lead to less effective outcomes. Research has demonstrated that effective communication between HCPs and patients utilising positive framing can improve acceptance by patients to be initiated on or switched to a biosimilar and can help to integrate biosimilars into routine clinical practice to maximise benefits for patients with RA.