Therapy: Biosimilars in rheumatology - why, how and when in 2017

An Update Review of Biosimilars of Adalimumab in Psoriasis - Bioequivalence and Interchangeability

Biologic drugs have revolutionized the treatment of psoriasis and other rheumatological diseases. In recent years, many biosimilar agents that are highly similar in structure and function to their originator products have been developed, including the tumor necrosis factor-alpha antagonist adalimumab. The considerably lower cost of these products has greatly cut the economic burden of the patients and increased the accessibility of biologic therapies worldwide. The US Food and Drug Administration and/or the European Medicines Agency have approved eight biosimilars of adalimumab (ABP 501/BI 695501/SB5/GP2017/FKB327/MSB11022/PF-06410293/CT-P17) for the treatment of psoriasis, and others are under review. Given that these agents showed pharmacokinetic, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles comparable to those of the originator, adalimumab biosimilars were licensed for all indications approved for reference adalimumab based on extrapolation; however, some of the equivalence studies were only conducted in one or two disease populations. This review discusses the bioequivalence of adalimumab biosimilars as demonstrated by various clinical trials, the extrapolation of indications, guidance and policies of the EU and US on interchangeability (nonmedical switching/automatic substitution) between biosimilars and originators, and the real-life practices of switching from reference adalimumab to the respective biosimilars. Further data from real-world studies and post-marketing analyses are needed better to address the efficacy and safety of the transition strategy.

Non-medical Switching from Originator Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors to Their Biosimilars: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Studies

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are widely used biologics for the treatment of several chronic inflammatory diseases. The launch of anti-TNF biosimilars has introduced the possibility of non-medical switching between originator biologics and their biosimilars. However, the potential clinical and patient-reported consequences of non-medical switching remain largely unknown, as much of the evidence comes from poorly or uncontrolled real-world evidence (RWE) studies that often have an element of bias and nonstandardized outcome measures. To appropriately evaluate the safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of non-medical switching from an originator to its biosimilar, we propose that seven key study design elements should be considered when assessing the existing evidence: studies should be (1) randomized and double-blind, (2) adequately controlled, and (3) adequately powered; include (4) multiple switching, (5) an assessment of immunogenicity, and (6) adequate follow-up duration; and (7) report individual patient-level outcomes. This systematic review assessed the robustness and consistency of the current non-medical switching evidence, with a focus on TNF inhibitors. A comprehensive literature search (January 2012-February 2018) identified 98 publications corresponding to 91 studies (17 randomized controlled trials and 74 RWE studies) describing non-medical switching from a TNF inhibitor originator to its biosimilar. When assessing the totality of this evidence, none of the non-medical switching studies conducted to date were found to use all seven of the key design elements, and the absence of these elements dilutes the robustness of the data. Furthermore, discontinuation rates varied widely among studies (0-87%), suggesting heterogeneity and inconclusiveness of the current efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity evidence, particularly at an individual patient level. Therefore, patients should not be indiscriminately switched from an originator TNF inhibitor to its biosimilar for non-medical reasons. Switching decisions should remain between the treating physicians and their patients and be made on a case-by-case basis, relying upon robust scientific evidence.

FUNDING

AbbVie.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary available for this article.

Biosimilar medicines and patient registries – expectations, limitations, and opportunities

Introduction: Biology therapies in a various medical specializations and for a broad spectrum of indications were launched during last two decades. As a new in class the therapies were obliged to provide additional data re gar ding efficacy and safety after their real medical practice integration. Patient registries, databases collecting various patient data, were introduced to grant data on the treatment effectiveness, safety, and long-term on treatment survival. Satisfactory treatment effect and acceptable safety profile were confirmed after couple of years of careful observation. However, the benefits were usually offered at much higher treatment costs compared to the standard therapies. Biologically similar drugs, so-called biosimilars (B.S), are being launched after original molecule patent protection expiry during recent years. They were expected as an ideal solution to avoid distinct impact on the medical budget: comparable effect for less money. The unsubstantiated doubts about biosimilar efficacy and safety were the reason of the late launch in many markets. Since biosimilars are considered as new therapy entities, the cautiousness to certain extent should be required. Information gained from post-marketing observations and patient registries over several years, confirmed the biosimilar product comparable quality. Healthcare budget savings could secure easier therapy access for more new patients.