Biosimilars in IBD: from theory to practice

Switching to Subcutaneous Infliximab Maintenance Therapy Is Effective in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest that subcutaneous infliximab is effective and safe for treating patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Real-world studies with larger cohorts are needed to confirm the efficacy of subcutaneous treatment.

AIMS

The aim was to assess real-world treatment persistence, clinical outcomes, infliximab concentrations, and treatment safety after switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab treatment with patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

METHODS

This retrospective register-based study included patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were in clinical remission and switched from intravenous infliximab maintenance therapy to subcutaneous infliximab in two tertiary centers.

RESULTS

A total of 274 patients (104 Crohn's disease and 170 ulcerative colitis) were included. After the switch, the treatment persistence at 12 months was 94.8% in patients with Crohn's disease and 88.8% in patients with ulcerative colitis. Only 11.3% (n = 31) of the patients discontinued the treatment during 79-week median follow-up. Compared to the baseline, no change occurred in clinical disease activity at the time points of 3, 6, and 12 months, based on the Harvey-Bradshaw Index or partial Mayo Score (p = 0.792 and p = 0.426, respectively). Infliximab median concentrations were higher (p < 0.0001) during subcutaneous treatment (16.75 µg/ml) compared to the intravenous treatment median trough levels before the switch (6.71 µg/ml). In total, 15.0% (n = 41) of the patients reported adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Switching to subcutaneous infliximab maintenance therapy was associated with high treatment persistence, a stable disease course, increased infliximab concentrations, and an acceptable safety profile.

Real-world individual and comparative analysis of adverse event reporting for adalimumab and etanercept using public FDA adverse event reporting system data

OBJECTIVE

We analyzed adverse events (AEs) related to adalimumab and etanercept using the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to detect unexpected AEs. Subsequently, we compared the discrepancy in serious outcomes involving the same injection site reactions (ISRs) between two different medications.

METHODS

Four algorithms, including reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and the multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS) were used to identify AE signals. These signals were standardized to preferred terms (PTs), and categorized at the system organ classification (SOC) level using the MedDRA system for further analysis. Serious outcomes were defined as death, disability, hospitalization, or life-threatening. The term "multiple serious outcomes" refers to instances that involve two or more of these serious consequences.

RESULTS

Adalimumab had 186,697 AE reports (736 PTs and 28 SOCs), while etanercept had 289,989 AE reports (294 PTs and 21 SOCs). At the PT level, we identified new unexpected AEs in adalimumab that related to multiple serious outcomes like intestinal obstruction, osteoarthritis, hernia, paternal drugs affecting the fetus, intestinal fistula, anal fistula, and postoperative adhesion. At the PT level of etanercept, we discerned unanticipated AEs related to multiple serious outcomes such as knee arthroplasty, joint destruction, finger deformity, and Felty's syndrome. At the SOC level, we paid special attention to the gastrointestinal disorders in adalimumab, with many unexpected PTs, as well as the vascular disorders and cardiac disorders in etanercept. For both drugs, the most common SOC is general disorders and administration site conditions, with ISRs being the most prevalent AEs within this category. The results indicate that etanercept has a greater variety of serious outcomes involving shared ISRs than adalimumab (p < 0.01) and also exhibits higher reported rates for these serious consequences (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Upon individual analysis, we identified unanticipated AEs in adalimumab and etanercept, respectively. Comparative analysis suggests that, despite similar ISRs, etanercept necessitates heightened vigilance due to its potential for more serious outcomes.

The Efficacy, Safety, and Persistence of Therapy after Non-Medical Switching from an Originator Adalimumab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Real-Life Experience from Two Tertiary Centres

During the last two decades, an increased number of molecules with multiple mechanisms of action have been approved for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), with a substantial increase in the costs related to therapy, which has become a concern for payers, regulators, and healthcare professionals. Biosimilars are biologic medical products that are highly structurally similar to their reference products; have no clinically meaningful differences in terms of immunogenicity, safety, or effectiveness; and are available at a lower price. Materials and Methods: This was an observational prospective study conducted in two IBD centres in Bucharest and included 53 patients, 27 male (M) and 26 female (F), diagnosed with IBD according to standard clinical, endoscopic, radiological, and histological criteria, who were non-medically switched at the indication of the National Insurance House to a biosimilar of Adalimumab. Aims: The aim was to determine the rates of clinical remission, adverse effects, and treatment persistence at one year. Results: No significant differences were found in terms of the faecal calprotectin (FC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels 6 and 12 months after changing from the originator biologic treatment to a biosimilar. Only one patient required a change in their biological treatment following the clinical and biological loss of response. The main adverse effect reported by the patients was pain at the injection site. Of the 53 patients, only 2 reported pain at the injection site, and 1 patient reported experiencing abdominal pain and rectal bleeding immediately after the switch, but no recurrence was observed clinically or endoscopically. Conclusions: This observational study is the first to be carried out in Romania that shows that, after a non-medical switch, biosimilars of Adalimumab are as efficient and safe as the originator Adalimumab in the clinical treatment of patients with IBD.

A TNF-α blocking peptide that reduces NF-κB and MAPK activity for attenuating inflammation

Overexpression of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) is implicated in many inflammatory diseases, including septic shock, hepatitis, asthma, insulin resistance and autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease. The TNF-α signaling pathway is a valuable target, and anti-TNF-α drugs are successfully used to treat autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Here, we study anti-inflammatory activity of an anti-TNF-α peptide (SN1-13, DEFHLELHLYQSW). In the cellular level assessment, SN1-13 inhibited TNF-α-induced cytotoxicity and blocks TNF-α-triggered signaling activities (IC50 = 15.40 μM). Moreover, the potential binding model between SN1-13 and TNF-α/TNFRs conducted through molecular docking revealed that SN1-13 could stunt TNF-α mediated signaling thought blocking TNF-α and its receptor TNFR1 and TNFR2. These results suggest that SN1-13 would be a potential lead peptide to treat TNF-α-mediated inflammatory diseases.

Adalimumab originator versus adalimumab biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease in Australia

BACKGROUND

Biosimilar adalimumabs have improved treatment access, but without any clinical advantage, distributors rely on delivery device design-enhancements, support services, and removal of painful excipients to capture market share. Prescribers, however, are often unaware of these differences. This article compares and contrasts originator versus biosimilar adalimumab agents to identify key differences that might influence adalimumab selection.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We reviewed listed adalimumab biosimilars in Australia and compared them to the originator adalimumab. Similarities and differences identified were confirmed with the manufacturers via two rounds of interviews: the first to collate a list of features and benefits of their product, and the second to consolidate and confirm the data.

RESULTS

The originator adalimumab Humira [by AbbVie, U.S.A] and four adalimumab biosimilars (Amgevita [by Amgen, U.S.A], Hadlima [by Organon, U.S.A], Hyrimoz [by Sandoz, Switzerland], and Idacio [by Fresenius Kabi, Germany]) are included in this review. Key differences identified include product formulation, dosages available, delivery devices, physician support, patient support, and the supply of other biosimilar products by the company.

CONCLUSION

Adalimumab biosimilars are different from each other with unique advantages and disadvantages likely to influence prescriber and patients. Therefore, the choice of agent should be individualized to the needs of the patient and the healthcare service.

Recommendations on TNFα inhibitor biosimilar use in clinical practice: a comparison of European gastroenterology IBD guidance

BACKGROUND

Professional associations publish guidance advising gastroenterologists on prescribing biosimilars; however, guidelines differ between countries and change over time. This study aimed to map the presence and content of guidance from European gastroenterology associations on TNFα inhibitor biosimilar use and its development over time.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Guidelines on biosimilar prescribing from national gastroenterology associations in the European Economic Area (EEA) partnered with the European Crohn's and Colitis Organization (ECCO) were collected. Treatment guidelines and biosimilar position papers from 2010 to 2022 were included. Data were extracted using a template.

RESULTS

26 of 30 EEA countries have an ECCO-partnered gastroenterology association, of which 14 (53.8%) had national guidelines addressing biosimilars, four (15.4%) followed ECCO's position, and three (11.6%) had treatment guidelines without mentioning biosimilars. From five countries (19.2%) no guidelines were retrieved. Among 18 countries with guidance, 14 (77.8%) associations endorsed initiating biological treatment with biosimilars, and 13 (72.2%) endorsed transitioning from originator to biosimilar. Nine associations published multiple guidelines over time addressing biosimilars; overall, their positions became more encouraging.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of gastroenterology associations endorsed biosimilar use. The lack of (up-to-date) guidelines for some associations indicates an area of improvement to support biosimilar use in clinical practice.

Discovery of an Anti-TNF-α 9-mer Peptide from a T7 Phage Display Library for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Inhibiting TNF-α-mediated acute inflammation is an effective treatment against inflammatory bowel disease. In this study, TNF-α-based T7 phage display library screening combined with in vitro and in vivo assays was applied. A lead peptide, pep2 (ACHAWAPTR, K_D = 5.14 μM), could directly bind to TNF-α and block TNF-α-triggered signaling activation. Peptide pep2 inhibits TNF-α-induced cytotoxicity and attenuates the inflammation by decreasing NF-κB and MAPK signaling activities in a variety of cells. Furthermore, pep2 attenuated colitis induced by dextran sodium sulfate in mice in both prophylactic and therapeutic settings. Moreover, pep2 reduced the phosphorylation of p38, ERK1/2, JNK1/2, p65, and IκBα in colonic tissues as well as downregulated inflammatory genes. And HIS3, TRP5, and ARG9 may be the key amino acids in pep2 to bind TNF-α by molecular docking. Collectively, targeting TNF-α with pep2 can attenuate the inflammation in vivo and vitro by inhibiting NF-κB and MAPK signaling pathways.

Emerging drugs for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: review of phase II and III clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Current therapeutic options for patients with ulcerative colitis comprise monoclonal antibodies against tumor necrosis factor (TNF), alpha4/beta7 integrin, and interleukin (IL)12/23 as well as small molecules such as tofacitinib, upadacitinib, ozanimod, and filgotinib. However, many patients fail to respond to these agents or have loss of response over time. Therefore, there is a large unmet clinical need for new therapeutic agents.

AREAS COVERED

Here, we review recent phase 2/3 studies in active ulcerative colitis and discuss preliminary data on the efficacy (clinical, endoscopic, and histologic remission) and safety of novel drugs including Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, IL23 blockers, integrin inhibitors, and S1P1R modulators.

EXPERT OPINION

We highlight the potential impact of these agents for the future therapeutic landscape of this disease with special emphasis on clinical impact, unmet needs, safety aspects, and advanced combination therapy.

Systematic Literature Review of Real-World Evidence on Dose Escalation and Treatment Switching in Ulcerative Colitis

Background

Currently approved biologic therapies for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis have well-established efficacy. However, many patients fail to respond or lose response, leading to dose escalation or treatment switching.

Objective

We sought to identify real-world evidence on dose escalation and treatment switching and associated clinical and economic outcomes among adults with ulcerative colitis treated with infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, or tofacitinib.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE (up to 26 August 2020), and conference proceedings (2017-2020) for studies in adults with ulcerative colitis to assess clinical response and remission, colectomy, adverse events, and economic outcomes related to dose escalation and treatment switching.

Results

In 56 studies, dose escalation and treatment switching involving infliximab and/or adalimumab were most frequently investigated. Rates of clinical response after dose escalation were 20-95% (1.8-36 months), clinical remission rates were 10-94% (1.8-36 months), colectomy rates were 0-33% (12-38 months), and adverse event rates were 0-18%. Treatment switching rates in 21 studies were 4-70% over 3-62 months, with switch due to loss of response rates of 4-35% over 12-62 months (7 studies). Up to 35% of patients underwent colectomy 12-120 weeks after switching, and 13-38% experienced adverse events. Data relating to economic outcomes were limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, but demonstrated increased direct costs associated with both dose escalation and treatment switching.

Conclusion

Dose escalation and treatment switching are common with existing therapies. However, clinical response and remission rates vary, and a proportion of patients fail to achieve optimal clinical and economic outcomes. This highlights the need for more efficacious and durable treatments for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis.

Tackling Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Targeting Proinflammatory Cytokines and Lymphocyte Homing

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are characterized by chronic inflammatory disorders that are a result of an abnormal immune response mediated by a cytokine storm and immune cell infiltration. Proinflammatory cytokine therapeutic agents, represented by TNF inhibitors, have developed rapidly over recent years and are promising options for treating IBD. Antagonizing interleukins, interferons, and Janus kinases have demonstrated their respective advantages in clinical trials and are candidates for anti-TNF therapeutic failure. Furthermore, the blockade of lymphocyte homing contributes to the excessive immune response in colitis and ameliorates inflammation and tissue damage. Factors such as integrins, selectins, and chemokines jointly coordinate the accumulation of immune cells in inflammatory regions. This review assembles the major targets and agents currently targeting proinflammatory cytokines and lymphatic trafficking to facilitate subsequent drug development.

The Non-medical Switch from Reference Adalimumab to Biosimilar Adalimumab is Highly Successful in a Large Cohort of Patients with Stable Inflammatory Rheumatic Joint Diseases: A Real-Life Observational Study

Introduction

The adalimumab biosimilar (ADAbio) Amgevita® has a similar efficacy and safety profile as the adalimumab reference (ADA) Humira®. We studied the clinical consequences of a non-medical switch from ADA to ADAbio in adult patients with mainly established rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and spondyloarthritis (SpA).

Methods

Patients that received treatment with ADA for at least three months were switched to ADAbio. Data was collected retrospectively from 1 year before the switch up to 6 months after.

Results

A total of 603 patients were switched from ADA to ADAbio (switch group). During a 1-year follow-up, over 93% of all patients underwent a successful transition in terms of disease activity and safety from ADA to biosimilar, supporting the bioequivalence of both drugs in patients with stable inflammatory rheumatic joint diseases. Forty patients (6.6%) switched back to ADA (re-switch group). There were no objective changes in disease activity score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), or adverse effects before and after the switch between both groups.

Conclusions

In line with earlier reports, the transition to ADAbio went successful in the majority of patients with stable inflammatory rheumatic joint diseases. Patient-reported symptoms without objective signs that indicate a flare of disease activity after the switch to ADAbio are probably explained by nocebo effects. A pre-emptive approach to counteract nocebo effects and stimulate placebo response may have a positive impact on health outcomes for patients and preserve the economic benefits of cost savings that can be achieved by prescribing a biosimilar instead of the reference drug.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Physician Preferences for Biologics in Moderate-to-Severe Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Retrospective Chart Review in Europe

Background

With many options available for treating inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Europe, this study sought to characterize physician treatment preferences and real-world treatment patterns in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD).

Methods

This was a retrospective, noninterventional, physician-administered study. Gastroenterologists and general practitioners (n = 348) in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom provided information on treatment preferences and extracted information from records of patients with moderate-to-severe UC (n = 587) or CD (n = 417) who had received biologic, biosimilar or Janus kinase inhibitor therapies (2014-2019) and had IBD-related medical history available 6 months before and after treatment initiation.

Results

Physicians largely preferred infliximab and adalimumab or their biosimilars as first-line therapy for UC (originators, 65.8%; biosimilars, 26.1%) and CD (originators, 61.8%; biosimilars, 30.5%). Effectiveness was the most cited reason for treatment preference (92%-93% of physicians). Three-quarters of patients (UC, 75.8%; CD, 73.6%) received infliximab or adalimumab originators in the first line, with more patients receiving infliximab biosimilars than adalimumab biosimilars (12.4%-12.5% and 0.5%-4.1%, respectively, across UC and CD). Persistence was longer for first-line infliximab than adalimumab (UC, 26.6 vs 21.2 months; CD, 31.2 vs 26.7 months) and was generally shorter for their respective biosimilars. Nonbiologic treatments were used in combination with biologics in 14.1% (UC) and 11.5% (CD) of patients. Most patients received 1 biologic therapy (UC, 90.6%; CD, 83.2%); only 9.4% (UC) and 16.8% (CD) received a second biologic.

Conclusions

Infliximab and adalimumab originators dominated first-line biologic therapy for moderate-to-severe UC and CD. Understanding real-world treatment patterns can help assess new treatment uptake and suggest opportunities for improving treatment.

Effectiveness and Safety of Nonmedical Switch From Adalimumab Originator to SB5 Biosimilar in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Twelve-Month Follow-Up From the TABLET Registry

BACKGROUND

Few data are currently available about SB5 in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of SB5 in a cohort of patients with IBD in stable remission switched from the adalimumab (ADA) originator and in a cohort of patients with IBD naïve to ADA.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients with IBD who started ADA treatment with SB5 (naïve cohort) and those who underwent a nonmedical switch from the ADA originator to SB5 (switching cohort). Clinical remission and safety were assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. In addition, in a small cohort of patients who were switched, we assessed the ADA serum trough levels and antidrug antibodies at baseline, 3, and 6 months.

RESULTS

In the naïve cohort, the overall remission rate at 12 months was 60.42%, whereas in the switching cohort it was 89.02%. Fifty-three (36.3%) patients experienced an adverse event, and injection site pain was the most common; it was significantly more frequent in the switching cohort (P = 0.001). No differences were found in terms of ADA serum trough levels at baseline, 3, and 6 months after switching. No patient developed antidrug antibodies after the switch.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that SB5 seemed effective and safe in IBD, both in the naïve cohort and in the switching cohort. Further studies are needed to confirm these data in terms of mucosal healing.

Real-world data on the infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 (Remsima®) in inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

In recent years, biological therapies have revolutionized the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); however, they are expensive. The development of biosimilar products has allowed us to reduce healthcare costs and improve patients' access to these treatments. Although various studies support the similarity between infliximab and its biosimilar CT-P13 in terms of efficacy and safety, there are unmet needs regarding research on these agents in the context of IBD.

AIM

To analyze clinical response rates to CT-P13 and adverse events in IBD patients treated in real-life practice.

METHODS

An observational, prospective, multicenter study of IBD patients treated with CT-P13 in clinical practice who were naïve to biological treatments or failed to respond to other anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs or had switched from infliximab originator was carried out. No diagnostic or follow-up interventions were conducted on patients outside usual clinical practice. The primary endpoints were clinical response rates and number of adverse events. The primary efficacy variable was the proportion of patients who were in clinical remission and/or had a clinical response at 3, 6, 9, and 12 mo.

RESULTS

A total of 220 IBD patients treated with CT-P13 (Remsima®) were included in the study: 87 (40%) with ulcerative colitis and 133 (60%) with Crohn's disease. Mean age of the patients was 41.47 (SD 15.74) years, and 58% were female. Nineteen (9%) patients started treatment with CT-P13 after switching from infliximab. Of the remaining 201 patients, 142 (65%) were naïve to biologic agents. At baseline, 68.6% (n = 138/201) of patients presented with active disease. After 12 mo of treatment, 14.8% (n = 12/81) presented with active disease, and 64.2% (n = 52/81) were in clinical remission without corticosteroids. After 3 mo, 75.5% (n = 115/152) had a clinical response or achieved clinical remission, which was sustained for 12 mo (85.2%; n = 69/81). There was a decrease in specific IBD indices at 3, 6, 9, and 12 mo (P < 0.001). A total of 34 adverse events were reported by 27 (12.3%) patients, 9 (26.5%) of which were serious.

CONCLUSION

CT-P13 is an effective and safe infliximab biosimilar for the treatment of IBD in real-life practice and may be a valid and attractive alternative for the treatment of IBD.

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.

Biosimilar Interchangeability and Emerging Treatment Strategies for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Commentary

This commentary summarizes a collection of key references published within the last ten years, and identifies pharmacologic research directions to improve treatment access and success through greater biosimilar or “follow-on” biologic utilization combined with other targeted small molecule agents that possess unique pathophysiologic mechanisms for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) in adult and pediatric patients. Since they are not identical to the originator or reference biologic agent, all biosimilars are not generically equivalent. However, in the US and other countries, they are considered therapeutically interchangeable if the manufacturer has demonstrated no clinically meaningful differences from the reference product. Comparisons of different clinical initiation and switching scenarios are discussed with reference to interchangeability, immunogenicity, nocebo effect, cost effectiveness, and time courses for discontinuation rates.

Biosimilars accessible in the market for the treatment of cancer

Biosimilars are the biological product clinically identical to a biologic reference standard regarding their strength, purity, and safety. A large segment of biosimilars has been developed for the treatment of cancer. This review aims to discuss various facets of biosimilars and explicates on biosimilars accessible in the market for cancer clinical intervention. It also illustrates the outcomes of recent clinical trial studies concerning biosimilars. Further, it also crosstalk the safety profiles, regulatory approval requirements, and allied challenges therein. The work will be of significant interest to researchers working in the field of biologics and biosimilars.

Biosimilar knowledge and viewpoints among Brazilian inflammatory bowel disease patients

BACKGROUND

In this analysis we aimed to describe Brazilian inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients' knowledge and perceptions regarding biosimilars and compare with viewpoints from non-Brazilian patients.

METHODS

An online survey consisting of 19 questions was made available by the European Federation of Crohn's and Ulcerative Colitis Associations between July 2018 and December 2018. Only respondents who had heard of biosimilars were asked to respond to all of the questions.

RESULTS

A total of 102 Brazilian IBD patients responded to the survey. The majority (78.4%) of patients had been exposed to anti-tumor-necrosis-factor drugs and 63.4% of them had heard of biosimilars. Brazilian respondents worried significantly more about biosimilars being less effective than the originator (62.5% versus 47.9%, p value 0.03) and molecular differences between biosimilars and originators (53.1% versus 31.8, p value 0.001) as compared with non-Brazilian IBD patients. The majority of Brazilian (75%) and non-Brazilian (64.1%) respondents thought that the lower cost of biosimilars should not come before their safety and efficacy (p value 0.09). In addition, 79.1% of Brazilian respondents believed that the arrival of biosimilars will have an impact on the management of IBD.

CONCLUSIONS

Brazilian patients reported higher rates of misconceptions regarding biosimilars than non-Brazilian IBD patients. Although patients still worry about different aspects regarding biosimilars, they also tend to be confident that biosimilars will have an impact on the management of their disease. With the recent approval of many biosimilars in Brazil and the imminent widespread use of these drugs, our data raise awareness for the need of providing patient education to prevent negative expectations toward switching to biosimilars.

Improving SDS-PAGE method for monoclonal antibodies: The advantages of Tris-Acetate over Tris-Glycine SDS-PAGE system and comparison with CE-SDS method

Present study compares two different buffer systems for the electrophoretic separation of the IgG₁ and IgG₂ Monoclonal Antibodies using SDS-PAGE method. A modified Tris-acetate system was shown to be superior for separation of these proteins in a 6-20% gradient gel as compared with the traditionally used Tris-glycine method. This modified Tris-acetate buffer system showed sharper bands, more accurate determination of molecular weight, higher resolution, and better estimation of sub-fragments with closer results to those obtained by Capillary Gel Electrophoresis. Also in a parallel experiment, effect of IgG deglycosylation by PNGase-F enzyme was investigated and revealed no significant improvement on the SDS-PAGE results.

DISCONTINUATION RATES FOLLOWING A SWITCH FROM A REFERENCE TO A BIOSIMILAR BIOLOGIC IN PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

BACKGROUND

Biologics have revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, these drugs had a significant influence on treatment-related costs, which resulted in the development of biosimilars.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the drug discontinuation rate in the IBD population who switched from originator to biosimilars in real-world switching studies and address potential nocebo effects as reasons for drug discontinuation.

METHODS

Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and abstract databases of selected congresses were screened for reports of monoclonal antibody (mAb) switching with a minimum post-switch follow-up of >6 months or three infusions. All available information on discontinuation rates was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 30 observational studies were included, involving 3,594 patients with IBD. Twenty-six studies reported a switch from infliximab to CT-P13, two studies involved a switch to SB2, and switching information was not available in two studies. The discontinuation rates were 8%, 14%, and 21% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. The main reasons for drug discontinuation and their respective risks were: disease worsening (2%), remission (4%), loss of adherence (4%), adverse events (5%), and loss of response (7%). The quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low depending on the outcome analyzed. Subjective symptoms leading to drug discontinuation were infrequently reported, and the nocebo effect was clearly assessed in just one of the included papers.

CONCLUSION

Discontinuation rates following a switch to a biosimilar in patients with IBD increase over time. However, it was not possible to confirm the nocebo effect as a reason for discontinuation. Therefore, long-term studies evaluating the use of biosimilars to monitor adverse events and potential nocebo effects in post-marketing surveillance are still needed.

Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Over the past 2 decades, biological therapy with monoclonal antibodies targeting tumor necrosis factor-α has become a cornerstone of treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Although clinically effective, the biological therapies remain expensive, and their availability and utilization have been at times limited due to their high costs. Biosimilars are biological products similar to but not identical to the original biological agent or "reference biologic," also called "originator biologic." It is hoped that the use of biosimilars might enable these agents to become more available and, thus, decrease further expenditures related to the use of the original reference agents such as infliximab and adalimumab. In this study, we review the currently available evidence and shortcomings of these data supporting the use of biosimilars for the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, including their efficacy and safety as related to initiating therapy with biosimilar agents or switching between reference and biosimilar biologic agents.

Biosimilars: The viewpoint of Italian patients with inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

The viewpoint on biosimilars among patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is largely unknown.

AIMS

We aimed at exploring the confidence and opinion on biosimilars among Italian patients with IBD.

METHODS

An anonymous, 20-item, questionnaire was sent via e-mail to all members of the Italian IBD patients' association (AMICI Onlus). Three sets of questions were formulated: 1: Characteristics of respondents; 2: The use of biologics and biosimilars in clinical practice; 3: General opinions on biologics and biosimilars.

RESULTS

Of the 4,302 total surveys sent, there were 1,749 respondents (response rate: 40.6%). There was an equal distribution between males and females (48.3% and 51.7%, respectively), and between patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis (46.9% and 51.3%, respectively), while most of the patients were aged between 19 and 45 years and between 46 and 65 years (45.5% and 42.0%, respectively). Approximately 45% of the respondents declared to have never been informed about the existence of biosimilars. The great majority of patients (73.9%) did not know if originators and biosimilars could be considered equivalent, or if efficacy or safety of biosimilars could be lower than those of originators. Approximately half of the respondents (53.5%) had no idea that the use of low-cost biosimilars could be useful to increase the overall economic resources for the treatment of IBD.

CONCLUSIONS

An extensive lack of knowledge and confidence in biosimilars exists among Italian patients with IBD. Efforts carried out by scientific societies and IBD patients' associations are required to overcome this issue.

The cost-effectiveness of biologic versus non-biologic treatments and the health-related quality of life among a sample of patients with inflammatory bowel disease in a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia

AIMS

This study's objectives were to examine and compare the cost-effectiveness of biologic and non-biologic therapies in the improvement of the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Saudi Arabia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the medical records of patients with IBD treated at a tertiary-care hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Drug utilization costs and HRQoL scores were evaluated at baseline and after six months of treatment. Patients' HRQoL was measured using the Arabic version of the standardized EuroQol 5 Dimensional 3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire with a visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and 69 patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) were included in the study (N = 156), and 59 (37.82%) were treated with biologics. Similar effects of both types of medications were found on the HRQoL domains of mobility, usual activities, and pain and discomfort, while biologics outperformed non-biologics on the self-care domain. The mean utilization cost of a biologic-based treatment over a six-month period was SAR 25,690.46 (USD 6,850.79) higher than that of the non-biologic treatment (95% confidence interval (CI): 24,548.55-27,465.11), and the change in the ED-5D-3L VAS score from baseline to follow-up was 4.78 points (95% CI: 1.96-14.00). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that IBD therapy with biologic-based treatment is always more expensive, but also more effective in improving HRQoL 99.45% of the time. Adalimumab was found to be less cost effective than infliximab in the management of CD.

LIMITATIONS

Information bias cannot be ruled out, as this investigation was a retrospective cohort study with a relatively small sample that was not randomized.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this analysis can serve as a foundation to introduce HRQoL-based recommendations for the use of biologics in the management of IBD in Saudi Arabia.

Nocebo effect and biosimilars in inflammatory bowel diseases: what's new and what's next?

INTRODUCTION

The use of biosimilars for the treatment of patients with chronic inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) showed to be a valid strategy to reduce the economic burden of biologics on health-care costs and to increase patient access to treatment. However, the nocebo effect constitutes an important limitation to the wide use of biosimilars.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a literature overview to summarize information on nocebo effect in IBD population and to provide physicians with practical key strategies to prevent the nocebo effect in daily clinical practice and to improve patients' outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the proven efficacy and safety of biosimilars, further clinical studies are needed to define the effects of reverse and multiple switches in the management of patients with IBD. The development of new subcutaneous formulations, better accepted by patients, could contribute to reduce patients' negative expectations, and limit the nocebo effect.

Safety of Janus Kinase Inhibitors in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases or Other Immune-mediated Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Inhibitors of Janus kinases (JAKs) are being developed for treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases and other immune-mediated diseases. Tofacitinib is effective in treatment of ulcerative colitis, but there are safety concerns. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the safety profile of tofacitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib, and baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel diseases, psoriasis, or ankylosing spondylitis.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1990, through July 1, 2019. We performed a manual review of conference databases from 2012 through 2018. The primary outcome was incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. We also estimated incidence rates of serious infections, herpes zoster infection, non-melanoma skin cancer, other malignancies, major cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and mortality. We performed a meta-analysis, which included controlled studies, to assess the relative risk of these events.

RESULTS

We identified 973 studies; of these, 82 were included in the final analysis, comprising 66,159 patients with immune-mediated diseases who were exposed to a JAK inhibitor. Two-thirds of the included studies were randomized controlled trials. The incidence rate of AEs was 42.65 per 100 person-years and of serious AEs was 9.88 per 100 person-years. Incidence rates of serious infections, herpes zoster infection, malignancy, and major cardiovascular events were 2.81 per 100 person-years, 2.67 per 100 person-years, 0.89 per 100 person-years, and 0.48 per 100 person-years, respectively. Mortality was not increased in patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with patients given placebo or active comparator (relative risk 0.72; 95% confidence interval 0.40-1.28). The meta-analysis showed a significant increase in risk of herpes zoster infection among patients who received JAK inhibitors (relative risk 1.57; 95% confidence interval 1.04-2.37).

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found an increased risk of herpes zoster infection among patients with immune-mediated diseases treated with JAK inhibitors. All other AEs were not increased among patients treated with JAK inhibitors.

Biosimilars to Antitumor Necrosis Factor Agents in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Anti- tumor Necrosis Factor (anti-TNF) agents are the backbone treatment of moderate to severe cases of inflammatory bowel disease. One of the main drawbacks of these agents is the high cost. The introduction of biosimilar products to anti-TNF agents is expected to lower the cost. Health care providers ought to be aware of the available data that addresses the safety and efficacy of biosimilars in IBD patients. This article outlines the current evidence-based data regarding the available biosimilar products, their safety, efficacy and how to deal with patients’ concerns.

Biosimilars: concept, current status, and future perspectives in inflammatory bowel diseases

The inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), which consist of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, are chronic, incurable immunemediated inflammatory disorders of the intestine. As IBD incidence continues to increase globally and its mortality is low, prevalent cases of IBD are rapidly increasing, thereby leading to a substantial increase in health care costs. Although the introduction of biologic agents for IBD management has revolutionized the armamentarium of IBD therapy, the high cost of this therapy is concerning. With the expirations of patents for existing biologic agents (originals), biosimilars with cheaper costs have been highlighted in the field of IBD. Despite concerns regarding their short- and long-term efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and interchangeability, increasing evidence via prospective observations and phase III or IV clinical trials, which aim to prove the "biosimilarity" of biosimilars to originals, has partly confirmed their efficacy, safety, and interchangeability. Additionally, although patients and physicians are reluctant to use biosimilars, a positive budget impact has been reported owing to their use in different countries. In the near future, multiple biosimilars with lower costs, and efficacy and safety profile similar to originals, could be used to treat IBD; thus, further consideration and knowledge dissemination are warranted in this new era of biosimilars.

The Clinical Implications of Nocebo Effects for Biosimilar Therapy

Nocebo effects encompass negative responses to inert interventions in the research setting and negative outcomes with active treatments in the clinical research or practice settings, including new or worsening symptoms and adverse events, stemming from patients' negative expectations and not the pharmacologic action of the treatment itself. Numerous personality, psychosocial, neurobiological, and contextual/environmental factors contribute to the development of nocebo effects, which can impair quality of life and reduce adherence to treatment. Biologics are effective agents widely used in autoimmune disease, but their high cost may limit access for patients. Biosimilar products have gained regulatory approval based on quality, safety, and efficacy comparable to that of originator biologics in rigorous study programs. In this review, we identified gaps in patients' and healthcare professionals' awareness, understanding, and perceptions of biosimilars that may result in negative expectations and nocebo effects, and may diminish their acceptance and clinical benefits. We also examined features of nocebo effects with biosimilar treatment that inform research and clinical practices. Namely, when biosimilars are introduced to patients as possible treatment options, we recommend adoption of nocebo-reducing strategies to avoid negative expectations, including delivery of balanced information on risk-benefit profiles, framing information to focus on positive attributes, and promoting shared decision-making processes along with patient empowerment. Healthcare professionals confident in their knowledge of biosimilars and aware of bias-inducing factors may help reduce the risk of nocebo effects and improve patients' adherence in proposing biosimilars as treatment for autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease.

The Breakthrough of Biosimilars: A Twist in the Narrative of Biological Therapy

The coming wave of patent expiries of first generation commercialized biotherapeutical drugs has seen the global market open its doors to close copies of these products. These near perfect substitutes, which are termed as “biosimilars”, do not need to undergo intense clinical trials for their approval. However, they are mandated to produce identical similarity from their reference biologics in terms of clinical safety and efficacy. As such, these biosimilar products promise to foster unprecedented access to a wide range of life-saving biologics. However, seeing this promise be fulfilled requires the development of biosimilars to be augmented with product trust, predictable regulatory frameworks, and sustainable policies. It is vital for healthcare and marketing professionals to understand the critical challenges surrounding biosimilar use and implement informed clinical and commercial decisions. A proper framework of pharmacovigilance, education, and scientific exchange for biologics and biosimilars would ensure a dramatic rise in healthcare access and market sustainability. This paper seeks to collate and review all relevant published intelligence of the health and business potential of biosimilars. In doing so, it provides a visualization of the essential steps that are required to be taken for global biosimilar acceptance.

Anti-TNF biosimilars in Crohn's Disease: a patient-centric interdisciplinary approach

Introduction: The purpose of this review is to highlight the role of biosimilars in early treatment in IBD and introduce ways to facilitate a patient-centric switching process through multidisciplinary approach. Areas covered: We summarize existing scientific literature related to the role of biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease in terms of early treatment and cost-saving and implementing switching process. Expert opinion: Use of anti-TNF biosimilars in patients has the potential for large drug-acquisition cost-saving, which can be reinvested into early treatment. Managed switched programs for adalimumab can add further benefits in the future.

Mechanism-Based Treatment Strategies for IBD: Cytokines, Cell Adhesion Molecules, JAK Inhibitors, Gut Flora, and More

BACKGROUND

Although TNF inhibitors revolutionized the therapy of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), we have been reaching a point where other therapies with different mechanisms of action are necessary. A rising number of elderly IBD patients with contraindications to established therapies and a growing group of patients losing response to anti-TNF therapy compel us to find safer, better-tolerated, and, ideally, personalized treatment options. However, in order to choose the right drug to fit a patient, it is indispensable to understand the pathomechanism involved in IBD.

SUMMARY

The aim of this review is to explain the inflammatory signaling pathways in IBD and how to inhibit them with current and future therapeutic approaches. Next to biologic agents targeting inflammatory cytokines (anti-TNF agents, anti-IL-12/-23 agents, and specific inhibitors of IL-23), biologics blocking leukocyte trafficking to the gut (anti-integrin antibodies) are available nowadays. More recently, small molecules inhibiting the JAK-STAT pathway (JAK inhibitors) or preventing lymphocyte trafficking (sphingosine-1-phosphate modulators) have been approved or are under investigation. Furthermore, modifying the microbiota has potential therapeutic effects on IBD, and autologous hematopoietic or mesenchymal stem cell transplantation may be considered for a highly selected group of IBD patients.

KEY MESSAGE

Physicians should understand the different mechanisms of action of the potential therapies for IBD to select the right drug for the right patient.

The Evolution of Health Care Utilisation and Costs for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Over Ten Years

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] places an economic strain on health systems due to expensive pharmaceutical therapy, risk of hospitalisation and surgery, and long-term monitoring. The evolving treatment guidelines advocate rapid scale-up to biologic agents in order to improve health outcomes and quality of life. This study evaluated changes in health care utilisation and expenditures for IBD in Switzerland over time.

METHODS

We extracted clinical, patient, and resource consumption data from the Swiss IBD Cohort Study between 2006 and 2016. Average unit costs for IBD-related events were derived from Swiss claims data and pharmaceutical price lists. We used multivariate regression, controlling for patient-level characteristics, to estimate trends and determinants of direct and indirect costs and resource utilisation.

RESULTS

We included 2365 adults diagnosed with Crohn's disease [CD; N = 1353] and ulcerative colitis [UC; N = 1012]. From 2006-16, mean health care expenditures per patient per year were 9504 euros [70% drugs, 23% inpatient, 7% outpatient] for CD and 5704 euros [68% drugs, 22% inpatient, 10% outpatient] for UC. Health care costs increased by 7% [CD] and 10% [UC] per year, largely due to rising pharmaceutical expenditures driven by increased biologic agent use. Inpatient, outpatient, and indirect costs fluctuated and did not offset increased pharmaceutical costs. Disease characteristics were important predictors of costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased expenditure for IBD was marked by a shift towards greater pharmaceutical management over the past decade. This study highlights the need to identify cost-effective treatment strategies in the face of increased uptake and expenditures associated with innovative treatments.

Switching to biosimilars: current perspectives in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

Introduction: The expiry of patents for biologics has led to the introduction of biosimilars for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). These treatment alternatives may allow earlier and wider access to appropriate therapy for patients without increasing the economic burden on health-care systems. Prescription of biosimilars to treatment-naïve patients is well accepted; however, additional considerations must be taken into account when switching clinically stable patients from reference products to biosimilars. Area covered: We discuss the current considerations related to switching from reference products to biosimilars from a physician and patient perspective. We review the clinical data and real-life experience on switching patients with IMIDs, present the position of the relevant medical societies, and discuss the importance of patient-physician communication and need for shared decision-making. Expert opinion: The introduction of biosimilars provides an opportunity to expand access to treatment for patients with IMIDs across Europe and support the financial sustainability of health-care systems. We anticipate that as the real-world evidence base grows, confirming the results of clinical trials, there will be a corresponding increase in physician and patient acceptance, not only to initiating treatment with a biosimilar, but also to switching medication from a reference product to a biosimilar.

Use of biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease: a position update of the Italian Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IG-IBD)

The first infliximab biosimilar for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was introduced in 2013, and today eight anti-TNF alpha biosimilars (three for infliximab and five for adalimumab) have been approved and licensed by the European Medicines Agency. Biosimilars present great potential in terms of cost saving and possible consequential reinvestment in the health care system. The increasing knowledge about the process of biosimilar development and use in IBD and the publication of many prospective clinical studies and real-life clinical experiences have progressively changed the point of view of IBD physicians. In the present position paper, the Italian Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease present and discuss their updated statements and positions on this topic, with emphasis on the concepts of biosimilarity and extrapolation across indications, safety and immunogenicity, interchangeability and switching, automatic substitution, and, finally, patient education about biosimilars.

Consensus report: clinical recommendations for the prevention and management of the nocebo effect in biosimilar-treated IBD patients

BACKGROUND

The nocebo effect is a negative effect of a pharmacological or nonpharmacological medical treatment that is induced by patients' expectations, and that is unrelated to the physiological action of the treatment. The nocebo effect can negatively affect treatment outcomes.

AIM

To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the prevention and management of the nocebo effect in biosimilar-treated patients with IBD.

METHODS

The "NOCE-BIO Consensus Group" was composed of 19 members from five European countries, and with different fields of expertise. A literature review on the nocebo effect, with specific focus on information about its prevention and management in biosimilar-treated IBD patients, was performed. Preliminary statements were formulated and voted on during a consensus group meeting held in Milan, Italy, in July 2018. A statement was accepted if >75% of participants voted 4 ("agree") or 5 ("strongly agree") on a scale of 1-5.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 11 recommendation statements. Seven statements reached consensus after one voting round and four statements reached consensus after two voting rounds. All statements were supported by very low-quality level of evidence. The panel agreed that patient-health-care provider relationship is a key driver of acceptance of biosimilars, which limits the risk of negative bias and the nocebo effect. Lack of knowledge among patients and health-care providers about the effectiveness and safety of biosimilars should be minimized. Education about biosimilars needs to be tailored to the individual patient, and positive framing is recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

The nocebo effect is under-recognised in the era of biosimilars, although it may negatively impact on the cost-savings of biosimilars. Future research should focus on the magnitude, the risk factors, the impact, and the management of the nocebo effect in biosimilars-treated IBD patients.

Role of Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Intestinal fibrosis is an inevitable complication in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD], occurring in its two major clinical manifestations: ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Fibrosis represents the final outcome of the host reaction to persistent inflammation, which triggers a prolonged wound healing response resulting in the excessive deposition of extracellular matrix, eventually leading to intestinal dysfunction. The process of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition [EMT] represents an embryonic program relaunched during wound healing, fibrosis and cancer. Here we discuss the initial observations and the most recent findings highlighting the role of EMT in IBD-associated intestinal fibrosis and fistulae formation. In addition, we briefly review knowledge on the cognate process of endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition [EndMT]. Understanding EMT functionality and the molecular mechanisms underlying the activation of this mesenchymal programme will permit designing new therapeutic strategies to halt the fibrogenic response in the intestine.

Switching from infliximab to biosimilar in inflammatory bowel disease: overview of the literature and perspective

BACKGROUND

Biological therapy has revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). After the expiration of patents for biological innovator products, development of biosimilars increased. CT-P13 was the first biosimilar approved for the same indications as the reference product; however, the approval was based on extrapolated data from rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Our aim was to review clinical studies about switching from originator infliximab (IFX-O) to biosimilar infliximab (IXF-B) in IBD, focusing on recently published data and the future of biosimilars.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched for original articles published up to 1 December 2018 reporting data on IFX-B in IBD.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies assessing switching from IFX-O to IFX-B, 14 assessing induction therapy with IFX-B were found. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity were discussed. Studies confirm that CT-P13 is safe and equally efficient as the reference product for both induction and maintenance therapy; and that switching from the reference product to biosimilar is non-inferior to continuous biosimilar use. However, efficacy and safety data on Flixabi (SB2) in IBD patients is lacking.

CONCLUSION

Switching from the originator to a biosimilar in patients with IBD is acceptable, although scientific and clinical evidence is lacking regarding reverse switching, multiple switching and cross-switching among biosimilars in IBD patients.

Development and Validation of Risk Matrices Concerning Ulcerative Colitis Outcomes-Bayesian Network Analysis

BACKGROUND

Ulcerative colitis [UC] is a chronic inflammatory disease often accompanied by severe and distressing symptoms that, in some patients, might require a surgical intervention [colectomy]. This study aimed at determining the risk of experiencing progressive disease or requiring colectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a multicentre study: patients' data [n = 1481] were retrieved from the Portuguese database of inflammatory bowel disease patients. Bayesian networks and logistic regression were used to build risk matrices concerning the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

The derivation cohort included a total of 1210 patients, of whom 6% required a colectomy and 37% had progressive disease [over a median follow-up period of 12 syears]. The risk matrices show that previously hospitalised patients with extensive disease, who are not on immunomodulators and who are refractory to corticosteroid treatment, are the ones at the highest risk of undergoing a colectomy [88%]; whereas male patients, with extensive disease and less than 40 years old at diagnosis, are the ones at the highest risk of experiencing progressive disease [72%]. These results were internally and externally validated, and the AUC [area under the curve] of the ROC [receiver operating characteristic] analysis for the derivation cohort yielded a high discriminative power [92% for colectomy and 72% for progressive disease].

CONCLUSIONS

This study allowed the construction of risk matrices that can be used to accurately predict a UC patient's likelihood of requiring a colectomy or of facing progressive disease, and can be used to individualise therapeutic strategies.

Drug utilization and cost associated with inflammatory bowel disease management in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

There has been an increase in incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) outside the western countries. Treatment costs are an essential component for healthcare planning and priority setting. The utilization patterns and annual administration and cost of IBD medications are largely unknown in countries with an increasing incidence of disease, Saudi Arabia being an example.

AIM

To evaluate the use of non-biologic and biologic agents and their associated annual administration costs in a sample of patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

Single-center retrospective chart review was performed to determine the use of biologic and non-biologic medications among IBD patients in a tertiary care hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Daily and the annual acquisition cost of different IBD therapeutic agents was calculated. The utilization rates and cost of each type of medication by CD and UC patients were compared.

RESULTS

Data of 258 CD patients and 249 UC patients were analyzed. Infliximab and adalimumab were the most commonly prescribed biologics among the study sample, however, their utilization rates were significantly higher among CD than UC patients (36.82% vs. 11.24%, and 20.54% vs. 9.64%, respectively, P < 0. 01). Azathioprine utilization rate was also higher among CD patients compared to their UC counterparts (71.71% vs. 40.16%, respectively, P < 0.01). However, the utilization rate of mesalazine in the UC patients was significantly higher than their CD counterparts (85.53% vs. 14.34% for CD, P < 0.01). The annual cost of biologics (including administration and lab test cost) ranged from 5572 USD for ustekinumab to 18,424 USD for vedolizumab. On the other hand, the annual cost of non-biologics ranged from 16 USD for prednisone to 527 USD for methotrexate.

CONCLUSION

Biologics are extensively used in the management of IBD, particularly CD, and their utilization costs are significantly higher than non-biologics. Future studies should examine the cost effectiveness of IBD medications especially in countries with increasing incidence such as Saudi Arabia.

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

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

Bioequivalence studies with anti-TNF biosimilars

Introduction: Biosimilars, as defined by the European Medicines Agency, have been used in Europe since 2006. The landscape was considerably expanded when the first biosimilar of a monoclonal was approved and introduced in the European market. CT-P13 was developed by Celltrion as an infliximab biosimilar in 2013, not without controversy. As these complex molecules cannot be completely identical, some experts, clinicians, and even patients were skeptical regarding the real bioequivalence of the drugs. Currently, several new infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars are available or will reach the market in a few months. Areas covered: Our goal is to review, mainly from a clinical perspective, the available evidence for bioequivalence of anti-TNF biosimilars. We aim to take into account not only preclinical studies, mostly done for regulatory issues, but also data from clinical studies. Expert opinion: We can conclude that bioequivalence with originator is well demonstrated in those drugs which have followed European Medicines Agency regulatory pathways. Switching from originator to biosimilar appears safe for all indications. However, there are few data available for switching from one biosimilar to another, or for complete interchangeability. Prospective studies and strict pharmacovigilance are recommended.

Paradigm Shift of Healthcare Cost for Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Claims Data-Based Analysis in Japan

Anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNFα) agents are used for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). However, biologic drugs present a large economic burden on health insurance systems. We aimed to estimate the mean annual health care cost per patient with IBD and cost contribution of anti-TNFα agents. We performed an analysis of patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) based on a large-scale administrative claims database constructed by Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC) Co. Ltd., comprising inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy claims data. We evaluated all claims from 1 April 2013 through 31 March 2016. Descriptive statistics were used to measure median health care costs paid per member per year (PMPY) and the relative cost contribution of anti-TNFα agents. A total 1405 patients with CD and 5771 with UC were included. Median costs PMPY were approximately six times higher for CD than UC (JPY 1,957,320 and JPY 278,760, respectively). Medication cost for anti-TNFα agents was the main cost driver, accounting for 59.9% and 17.8% of the total costs for CD and UC, respectively. In Japan, costs for anti-TNFα agents have resulted in drug costs exceeding inpatient costs for IBD. Optimized use of anti-TNFα agents and introduction of biosimilars for anti-TNFα agents can be expected to substantially reduce the health care costs of IBD.

Infusion administration billing for vedolizumab and infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease

AIMS

Increasing use of biologics has led to interest in treatment components with potential for cost savings. This study was aimed at comparing administration times and associated costs of infliximab and vedolizumab infusions for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study used claims data from the Symphony Health Integrated Dataverse to identify IBD patients using infliximab or vedolizumab between 20 May 2014 and 29 February 2016. Use of Current Procedural Terminology administration codes was evaluated and costs calculated using the 2016 Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule. Assessments included infusion times, associated costs, productivity loss using average wage estimates from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, and home infusion adoption.

RESULTS

A total of 10,051 infliximab and 3114 vedolizumab patients with first-hour claims were identified; 52.0% were female and 64.5% had Crohn's disease. There were 48,377 infliximab first-hour claims (mean 4.8 infusions per patient); 46,462 (96.0%) had a second-hour claim. In comparison, there were 14,717 vedolizumab claims (mean 4.7 infusions per patient), with only 411 (2.8%) second-hour claims, resulting in vedolizumab cost savings of approximately $1.27 million. The difference in second-hour infusions resulted in 46,051 additional hours of productivity loss with infliximab, and lost wages averaging $1.18 million (range $0.68-$1.77 million).

LIMITATIONS

Administration costs were inferred as charge costs and not directly assessed. Productivity loss assessed time spent on infusion only, and included a small proportion of patients beyond working age.

CONCLUSIONS

Second-hour infusion billing was significantly lower with vedolizumab than with infliximab, corresponding to cost savings and reduced productivity loss.

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

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

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Positioning Tofacitinib in the Treatment Algorithm of Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis

Treatment options for ulcerative colitis (UC) remain limited because conventional therapies do not succeed at controlling the disease in a considerable percentage of patients, while up to 30% of those receiving biologics are primary nonresponders and 10%-20% lose response per year, requiring an increase in the treatment dose or the use of a different drug. Recently, tofacitinib, an orally administered small molecule that inhibits the Janus kinases, was proven efficacious for inducing and maintaining remission in adult patients with moderate to severe UC. Tofacitinib may represent a therapeutic alternative for the management of UC, pending approval by the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and other international regulatory authorities. Herein, we review tofacitinib's efficacy and safety data reported from randomized controlled trials in UC populations, with the aim to define how this new molecule could be inserted into the therapeutic algorithm of patients with UC.

The nocebo effect: a clinical challenge in the era of biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

The nocebo effect is defined as a negative effect of a pharmacological or non-pharmacological medical treatment that is induced by patients' expectations, and that is unrelated to the physiological action of the treatment. The nocebo effect is an important clinical challenge in the current era of biosimilars. Areas covered: This review aims to answer five key questions about the nocebo effect, namely to reveal its definition, pathophysiology, clinical relevance, contributing factors, and management. Expert commentary: The nocebo effect lowers patients' quality of life and negatively affects treatment adherence rates in biosimilar-treated patients. It may negatively impact on the cost-savings of biosimilars. Health-care providers in charge of biosimilar-treated patients need to be aware of the nocebo effect and adopt strategies to minimize it. They have to be well-informed and confident about the existing evidence about biosimilars. A good patient-physician relationship will improve patients' acceptance of biosimilars, and limits the risk of inappropriate negative bias and the nocebo effect.