Biosimilars: An opportunity. Position statement of the French Rheumatology Society (SFR) and Inflammatory Rheumatic Disease Club (CRI)

2024 update of the recommendations of the French Society of Rheumatology for the diagnosis and management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis

The French Society of Rheumatology recommendations for managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been updated by a working group of 21 rheumatology experts, 4 young rheumatologists and 2 patient association representatives on the basis of the 2023 version of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations and systematic literature reviews. Two additional topics were addressed: people at risk of RA development and RA-related interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD). Four general principles and 19 recommendations were issued. The general principles emphasize the importance of a shared decision between the rheumatologist and patient and the need for comprehensive management, both drug and non-drug, for people with RA or at risk of RA development. In terms of diagnosis, the recommendations stress the importance of clinical arthritis and in its absence, the risk factors for progression to RA. In terms of treatment, the recommendations incorporate recent data on the cardiovascular and neoplastic risk profile of Janus kinase inhibitors. With regard to RA-ILD, the recommendations highlight the importance of clinical screening and the need for high-resolution CT scan in the presence of pulmonary symptoms. RA-ILD management requires collaboration between rheumatologists and pulmonologists. The treatment strategy is based on controlling disease activity with methotrexate or targeted therapies (mainly abatacept or rituximab). The prescription for anti-fibrotic treatment should be discussed with a pulmonologist with expertise in RA-ILD.

Multidisciplinary team intervention to reduce the nocebo effect when switching from the originator infliximab to a biosimilar

Objectives

To evaluate an intervention to reduce the nocebo effect (NE) when switching from the originator infliximab (OI) to the infliximab biosimilar SB2 in chronic inflammatory rheumatic disease (CIRD).

Methods

An intervention was built with healthcare professionals (HPs) and a patient representative, based on a systematic review of interventions reducing the NE in musculoskeletal diseases and semi-directed questioning of five patients. Our strategy consisted of training HPs, switch information given by the nurses, a consistent vocabulary. All CIRD patients switched from OI to SB2 were included for the intervention. The primary outcome was the SB2 retention rate (RR) at 34 weeks. Secondary outcomes were the SB2 RR at 12 months, discontinuation rates due to a possible NE and comparison with a historical cohort of CIRD patients receiving the OI and 6 published European cohorts.

Results

45 patients were included from March 2018 (rheumatoid arthritis, n=17, spondylarthritis, n=28). After 34 weeks, the SB2 RR was 91.2%, similar to the historical cohort RR (p=0.41) but higher than the 3 European cohort RRs (p<0.05). At 12 months, the SB2 RR was 84.5% vs 88.4% for the historical cohort (p=0.52). SB2 discontinuation due to a possible NE was 6.6% after 12 months.

Conclusions

A tailored communication with a prominent role of nurses reduced the NE in non-medical switches from the OI to SB2 as compared to published results. The RR was similar to the historical cohort RR. The methodology used to construct this intervention may help improve the outcomes of switches with upcoming biosimilars.

Nonmedical Switching From Originators to Biosimilars: Does the Nocebo Effect Explain Treatment Failures and Adverse Events in Rheumatology and Gastroenterology?

The act of nonmedical switching, defined as switching stable patients who are generally doing well with their current therapy from an originator biologic to its biosimilar, has been endorsed as a reasonable treatment strategy. The safety and efficacy of nonmedical switching have been evaluated in randomized controlled and real-world evidence studies, which have demonstrated that although many patients maintain treatment response after the switch, some patients experience therapy failure, resulting in therapy discontinuation. It has been postulated that the vast majority, if not all, of these treatment failures result from a "nocebo effect", defined as patients' negative expectations toward the therapy change. Reports suggest that the risk of a nocebo effect is higher following a mandated nonmedical switch. Although the nocebo effect is a well-recognized phenomenon in pain studies, evidence is limited in immune-mediated diseases primarily because it is difficult to quantify, especially retrospectively. In spite of this, numerous biosimilar studies in patients with immune-mediated diseases have concluded that nonmedical switching failures are due to a nocebo effect. The objective of this narrative review was to explore the reasons for nonmedical switch failure or discontinuation and the role of the nocebo effect among patients with inflammatory rheumatic and gastrointestinal diseases who switched from an originator biologic to its biosimilar.

[What's new in clinical dermatology?]

In this article, we performed a review of all new data of clinical relevance for the dermatologists that were published in the medical literature between September, 2017 and September, 2018. Besides advances that will be useful in day-to-day dermatological practice, we intended to give a more general perspective to this review by taking into account certain international health issues that might in final concern each of us in a globalized world. Focus were more particularly done on the following topics: infectious diseases (including sexually transmitted infections), neglected tropical diseases, adverse effects of drugs, bullous diseases, allergology, wound healing, dermatology on black skin, and public health dermatology.

Patients' information and perspectives on biosimilars in rheumatology: A French nation-wide survey

OBJECTIVE

To assess the patients' information about biosimilars and to identify the patients' incentives and deterrents to concur with the use of biosimilars.

METHODS

Nation-wide cross-sectional study assessing information and concerns about biosimilars of French patients treated for rheumatic inflammatory diseases, whether they were treated or not by a biological DMARD. The assessment was available online from March to July 2017.

RESULTS

Among the 629 respondents, 43% knew what biosimilars were. The main sources of information were rheumatologists and patient associations. Among patients treated with a biosimilar, 44% were not informed before they received the treatment. The patients' concerns focused on the non-similar molecular structure (46%), efficacy (60%) and safety (57%) comparatively to the originator biologic. 15% of respondents would refuse to switch their biologic to its biosimilar. More than 50% of respondents would warily accept to switch medications and interrupt the treatment if in doubt. Being informed about biosimilars and a good understanding of the definition of biosimilars were characteristics associated with better adherence to biosimilars. The rheumatologist was considered the most influent source of information about biosimilars and was considered reliable when deciding to switch a biologic to its biosimilar. Patient were reluctant to substitution of the medications by pharmacists (2%). Medico-economical issues acted as an incentive and a deterrent to accept the switch of medication.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilars are largely unknown to patients. Information seems to be instrumental in improving the patients' adherence to biosimilars and could help preserving the therapeutic relationship and avoiding a nocebo effect.

Acceptance rate and sociological factors involved in the switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept (SB4)

OBJECTIVE

To study acceptance rate and factors influencing acceptance of the switch from originator etanercept (Enbrel©) to biosimilar etanercept (SB4, Bénépali©) in patients with rheumatic disease.

METHODS

Patients with a well-controlled rheumatic disease consulting in our rheumatology department were offered the switch for SB4. After oral and written information concerning biosimilar, free choice to accept the switch was left to the patients. The main outcome was primary switch acceptance rate defined by switch acceptance during the initial consult. Real switch adherence, socio-cultural factors and beliefs influencing switch acceptance rate were retrieved during a telephonic interview at distance from the consultation.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were eligible for the switch: 32 (62%) with spondyloarthritis and 20 (38%) with rheumatoid arthritis. The primary acceptance rate was 92% (48/52). Patients refusing the switch were more likely to report a bad opinion on generic drugs (100% vs 11%, p < 0.001). Other patient characteristics were roughly identical except for a statistical trend in the refusal group toward older age (61.4vs 50.7years, p = 0.08) and longer disease duration (26vs 12.1years, p = 0.05). Despite initial acceptance, two patients did not begin SB4 after receiving negative information by their regular pharmacist. Real SB4 switch rate was 85% (44/52) and 86% (38/44) of patients reported a good experience of the switch.

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptance rate of the switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept is high. Patient information, physician and pharmacist knowledge on biosimilars should be taken into account in order to improve their diffusion.