Patient Perspectives on Biosimilars: A Survey by the European Federation of Crohn's and Ulcerative Colitis Associations

Switching pattern of biological drugs in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: insight from the VALORE database network

BACKGROUND

Switch patterns among different biologics and from originators to biosimilars (and vice versa) can be complex in patients with psoriasis (PsO) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

OBJECTIVE

To describe switching pattern of biological drugs in PsO/PsA patients and to explore predictors of multiple switches and switch-back.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A large-scale retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Italian VALORE database. Bio-naïve users treated for PsO/PsA during 2010-2022 were included. Time to switch/swap and predictors of multiple switches and switch-back were analyzed.

RESULTS

30,700 bio-naïve users were included. At 3 and 5 years of follow-up, patients with at least one switch/swap were 37.1% and 47.8%, respectively. The median time to first switch/swap was significantly shorter (p-value:<0.001) for TNF-α inhibitors (2,068 days) than anti-IL (2,780 days). At one year of follow-up patients starting with IL-23 switched/swapped biological therapy less frequently than those with anti-IL-12/23 and anti-IL-17 (4.9% vs. 8.7% and 9.4%, respectively). Patients starting with anti-IL-12/23 reported a significantly lower risk of multiple switches and switch-back (0.74, 95%CI: 0.67-0.83; 0.58, 95%CI:0.44-0.77, respectively) than those with TNF-α inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with PsO/PsA starting with TNF-α inhibitors switch/swap more rapidly and frequently than those with anti-IL, which are also associated with a reduced risk of multiple switches during follow-up.

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

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

Biosimilars in IBD: What Every Clinician Needs to Know

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Biosimilars were introduced to decrease biologic-related expenditures, but their uptake in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains suboptimal. Herein, we review biosimilar concepts, current products available for IBD treatment, and resources to support biosimilar utilization.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although a cornerstone of IBD treatment, biologics are costly due to their development. Biosimilars, which are biologic products highly similar to a reference product, aim to decrease these expenditures. Infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab biosimilars are approved for IBD, but uptake remains low due to biosimilar efficacy and safety concerns and delayed market entry. Clinicians can effectively address some of these barriers and help patients and healthcare systems reap the benefits of decreased costs and increased treatment access. Data shows comparable efficacy and safety outcomes with biosimilars in IBD. Several biosimilar products are available and in the pipeline, but efforts are needed from various stakeholders to bolster utilization and generate benefits.

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.

Clinical efficacy and nocebo effect following non-medical biosimilar switch in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate clinical efficacy, biomarker activity, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), adverse events (AEs), and nocebo effect in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients who underwent non-medical biosimilar switching.

METHODS

A prospective observational study of consecutive IBD patients who underwent biosimilar switch. Disease activity, biomarkers, TDM, and AEs, including the nocebo effect were captured 8 weeks before switch, at the time of switch (baseline),12 and 24 weeks after the switch.

RESULTS

210 patients were included [81.4% had Crohn's disease (CD), the median age at inclusion: 42 years (IQR 29-61)]. There was no significant difference in the rates of clinical remission at week 8 before switch, baseline, week12, and 24 after switch: 89.0%,93.4%,86.3%,and 90.8%,p = 0.129. The biomarker remission rates were not significantly different; CRP:81.3%,74.7%,81.2%,73.0%,p = 0.343; fecal calprotectin: 78.3%,74.5%,71.7%,76.3%,p = 0.829. The rates of maintaining therapeutic levels (84.7%,83.9%,83.0%,85.3%,p = 0.597) and prevalence of positive anti-drug antibodies remained unchanged. Drug persistence at 12 week of switch was 97.1%, regardless of disease phenotype and originator. The nocebo effect was observed in 13.3%. The discontinuation rate was 4.8%.

CONCLUSION

Despite a significant number of early nocebo complaints within the first 6 months after the biosimilar switch, no significant changes were found in clinical efficacy, biomarkers, therapeutic drug level, or anti-drug antibodies.

Discontinuation of infliximab treatment in patients with inflammatory bowel disease who retransitioned to originator and those who remained on biosimilar

Background

Many patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have transitioned from an infliximab originator to a biosimilar. However, some patients retransition to the originator (i.e. stop biosimilar and reinitiate the originator). Whether this sign of potential unsatisfactory treatment response is specifically related to the infliximab biosimilar or the patient and/or the disease including patients' beliefs on the biosimilar is unclear.

Objectives

We aimed to compare the risk of and reasons for infliximab discontinuation between retransitioned patients and those remaining on biosimilar.

Design

Non-interventional, multicentre cohort study.

Methods

IBD patients who transitioned from infliximab originator to biosimilar between January 2015 and September 2019 in two Dutch hospitals were eligible for this study. Retransitioned patients (retransitioning cohort) were matched with patients remaining on biosimilar (biosimilar remainder cohort). Reasons for discontinuation were categorised as the unwanted response (i.e. loss of effect or adverse events) or remission. Risk of unwanted discontinuation was compared using Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

Patients in the retransitioning cohort (n = 44) were younger (median age 39.9 versus 44.0 years), more often female (65.9% versus 48.9%) and had shorter dosing intervals (median 48.5 versus 56.0 days) than in the biosimilar remainder cohort (n = 127). Infliximab discontinuation due to unwanted response was 22.7% in the retransitioning and 13.4% in the biosimilar remainder cohort, and due to remission was 2.3% and 9.4%, respectively. Retransitioned patients are at increased risk of discontinuing due to unwanted response compared with biosimilar remainder patients (adjusted HR 3.7, 95% CI: 1.0-13.9). Patients who retransitioned due to an increase in objective disease markers had higher discontinuation rates than patients who retransitioned due to symptoms only (66.7% versus 23.7%).

Conclusion

Retransitioned patients are at increased risk of infliximab discontinuation due to unwanted response. Retransitioning appeared related to the patient and/or disease and not the product. Clinicians might switch patients opting for retransitioning to other treatment regimens.

Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Anti-TNF-Experienced Patients with Crohn's Disease Initiating Vedolizumab Versus Ustekinumab

BACKGROUND

Primary and secondary non-response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy is common in patients with Crohn's disease (CD), yet limited research has compared the effectiveness of subsequent biological therapy.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the effectiveness of vedolizumab and ustekinumab in anti-TNF-experienced patients with CD, focusing on patient-prioritized patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, internet-based cohort study nested within IBD Partners. We identified anti-TNF-experienced patients initiating with CD vedolizumab or ustekinumab and analyzed PROs reported approximately 6 months later (minimum 4 months, maximum 10 months). Co-primary outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains of Fatigue and Pain Interference. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported short Crohn's disease activity index (sCDAI), treatment persistence, and corticosteroid use. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to control for a number of potential confounders and incorporated into linear and logistic regression models for continuous and categorical outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

Overall, 141 vedolizumab and 219 ustekinumab initiators were included in our analysis. After adjustment, we found no differences between treatment groups in our primary outcomes of Pain Interference or Fatigue or the secondary outcome of sCDAI. However, vedolizumab was associated with lower treatment persistence (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.6) and higher corticosteroid use at follow-up assessment (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1-2.6).

DISCUSSION

Among anti-TNF experienced patients with CD, Pain Interference or Fatigue was not significantly different 4-10 months after starting ustekinumab or vedolizumab. However, reduced steroid use and increased persistence suggest superiority of ustekinumab for non-PRO outcomes.

An online survey among US patients with immune-mediated conditions: Attitudes about biosimilars

BACKGROUND: Few surveys about biosimilars have been conducted among US patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate attitudes about biosimilars among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsO/A), and/or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: WebMD, LLC fielded a 16-item online survey to members of the US Dynata consumer panel meeting these criteria: aged 18 years or older; self-reported specialist diagnosis of RA, PsO/A, or IBD of at least 1 year; and not currently receiving an infliximab biosimilar. A quota of 500 was set, stratified by region and condition. The survey was exempt by the institutional review board, exploratory, and not registered. RESULTS: Overall, 44% (n = 221) of patients were on a biologic; 56% (n = 279) were not on a biologic (40% [n = 199] were biologic naive and 16% [n = 80] used biologics in the past). Among all patients, 66% were unaware of biosimilars and 24% were aware (10% unsure). After being shown the US Food and Drug Administration definition of a biosimilar, main concerns were side effects (59%), long-term safety (50%), and not knowing a lot (46%). Among current users, 43% would switch to a biosimilar and 26% would not (32% unsure). Of those unwilling to switch, 51% were concerned about side effects, 42% about financial support, and 40% about efficacy. When those not on a biologic were asked if their doctor prescribed an original anti-tumor necrosis factor α but their insurance required its biosimilar, 49% would switch and 8% would not (43% unsure). 51% of patients surveyed thought pharmacist-level substitution of an interchangeable biosimilar was acceptable with notification. Survey findings were consistent among the RA, PsO/A, and IBD subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Although two-thirds of patients surveyed were unaware of biosimilars, the majority were potentially receptive to biosimilar treatment after being provided with the definition of a biosimilar. Patients expressed a desire to know more about biosimilars in general, how they compare with original biologics, their benefits, and cost. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. (BIPI). WebMD, LLC, fielded the survey. BIPI was given the opportunity to review the article for medical and scientific accuracy and intellectual property considerations. Dr Gibofsky is a consultant/advisor for AbbVie Inc., Biosplice Therapeutics, Lilly, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Pfizer Inc., and he is on the speakers' bureau for AbbVie Inc., Amgen, Lilly, and Pfizer Inc., and has stock ownership in AbbVie Inc., Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Horizon Pharma plc, and Pfizer Inc. Dr Peyrin-Biroulet reports that he has received personal consulting fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Celltrion, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Pharmacosmos, Shire, Genentech, Mitsubishi, Ferring, Norgine, Tillots, Vifor, UCB-Pharma, Hospira, BIPI, and Lilly. Dr McCabe is an employee of BIPI. Dr McGrath was an employee of BIPI at the time the survey was conducted. Mr Jacobson, Mr Franklin, and Ms O'Hara-Levi report no disclosures.

Perceptions towards biologic and biosimilar therapy of patients with rheumatic and gastroenterological conditions

BACKGROUND

Biologic and targeted synthetic disease modifying agents (b/tsDMARDs) have broadened the treatment landscape for autoimmune diseases particularly in patients refractory to conventional DMARDs. More recently, the introduction of biosimilars has reduced the price of bDMARDs, potentially improving accessibility. Though efficacy and safety have been described, patient attitudes to b/tsDMARDs are not well-understood. We aim to investigate patients' beliefs about biologic and biosimilar therapy, and the factors influencing their perceptions.

METHODS

Patient consumer groups (Arthritis Australia, Crohn's and Colitis Australia) assisted in advertising an online questionnaire for people with a self-reported diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis (IA) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The questionnaire incorporated the Belief about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) and the single-item literacy screener (SILS). Sources and favourability of biologic/biosimilar information were analysed, using the chi-square and a non-parametric trend test for unordered and ordered categorical variables respectively, comparing respondents with IA and IBD.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and thirty eight people (686-IA, 144-IBD, 8 both) responded. 658 (79%) used b/tsDMARDs. The BMQ demonstrated high necessity belief (median 4.2) with moderate concerns (median 2.8) about biologics. 95% of respondents obtained medication information from specialists though most used multiple sources (median 4). The most positive resources were specialists and specialist nurses. 73/141 (52%) respondents with IBD obtained information from specialist nurses compared with 202/685 (29%) with IA (p = 0.012). Respondents with limited reading ability on SILS were more likely to discuss information with a general practitioner or pharmacist. Younger respondents and those with higher BMQ concern scores more frequently consulted less reliable sources (e.g. social media). 502 respondents (60%) answered the biosimilar questions. Only 23 (4.6%) reported currently using a biosimilar and 336 (66.9%) were unsure if biosimilars were available in Australia. Specialist recommendation was the most frequent factor that would influence a patient to change from originator to biosimilar (352/495, 71.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a high level of trust in specialists' recommendations about b/tsDMARDs, although most people also utilise additional information sources. Contextual factors influencing resource selection include age, reading ability and degree of concern about medicines. People with IA and IBD have similar attitudes though those with IBD more frequently access specialist nurse advice.

The Sincerest Form of Flattery? Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Biosimilar medications have the potential to significantly reduce the cost of treatment in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Observational studies have shown similar efficacy and safety of biosimilars to biologic reference products. Shared decision-making is crucial to the successful implementation of these agents.

Patient and Caregivers' Perspectives on Biosimilar Use in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Studies assessing adult inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patient perspectives on biosimilar use revealed that most were unfamiliar with biosimilars and had a negative perception. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perspectives of pediatric patients with IBD and their caregivers regarding biosimilar use and non-medical switches.

METHODS

A survey was given to a cross section of patients with IBD ages 11-21 years receiving the intravenous anti-tumor necrosis factor originator and caregivers of patients with IBD ages 3-21 years receiving the originator. Recruitment occurred via mail, during clinic visits, and infusions. Fisher exact tests were used to test for statistically significant differences.

RESULTS

Response rate amongst caregivers was 49% (n = 98) and among patients was 35% (n = 67). Sixty-four percent of caregivers and 79% of patients had never heard of biosimilars. There was increased discomfort surrounding the use of biosimilars and switching to a biosimilar amongst caregivers who had previously heard of biosimilars compared to caregivers who had not previously heard of biosimilars ( P < 0.05). Similar concerns were not seen in patient respondents. The length of time on the originator had no effect on patient or caregiver concerns related to biosimilar efficacy, adverse effects, or switches.

CONCLUSION

The majority of pediatric patients and caregivers had never heard of biosimilars. Caregivers that had heard of biosimilars before the study were more likely to have a negative perception of them. This study highlights the importance of providing thorough and accurate education to pediatric patients and families regarding the safety and efficacy of biosimilars.

Knowledge, Attitudes and Practice of Healthcare Providers, Healthcare Regulatory Practitioners and Patients Toward Biosimilars in China: Insights From a Nationwide Survey

Objective: With increasing numbers of biosimilars entering the market or in the approval pipeline in China, understanding the current awareness and attitudes of biosimilars still remains the first step to promote uptake. This study aims to investigate the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of multiple stakeholders toward biosimilars, including healthcare providers (HCPs), healthcare regulatory practitioners and patients, and to provide practical information for future uptake of biosimilars in China.

Methods: This nationwide cross-sectional online survey was conducted in mainland China. The questionnaire with a high level of reliability and validity was designed based on previous studies and clinical questions in the Clinical Practice Guideline for Clinical Application of Biosimilars. Logistic regression model was employed to identify possible impact factors, and Spearman’s rank correlation test was used to identify the correlation between knowledge and attitudes. Chi-squared test was used to compare the differences between different stakeholders.

Results: Overall, 599 valid respondents were recruited, of whom 77.63%, 7.01% and 15.36% were HCPs, healthcare regulatory practitioners and patients, respectively. A total of 504 respondents who had heard of biosimilars were included in the KAP analysis. 76.70% of HCPs, 90.24% of healthcare regulatory practitioners and 50.98% of patients had good knowledge about the definition, while less familiarity with the development process and regulations on interchangeability and indication extrapolation was found in the former two groups. For attitudes toward biosimilars, an overall lack of positivity was shown, as only 18.20% HCPs, 14.63% healthcare regulatory practitioners and 23.53% patients were classified as having positive attitudes. More specifically, most respondents were positive about the influence of payment policy on the uptake of biosimilars, but they showed a neutral attitude toward the clinical medication and interchangeability of biosimilars. Efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, interchangeability and indication extrapolation are major concerns when utilizing biosimilars. Regarding practice, our study showed an inadequate utilization of biosimilars in China. Several further suggestions on the regulation of biosimilars were proposed by healthcare regulatory practitioners.

Conclusions: There is still plenty of room for improvement of knowledge, attitudes and practice toward biosimilars among multiple stakeholders in China, which can be improved through high-quality real world evidence, educational programs and other effective measures directed towards barriers.

Exploring the Reasons Behind the Substantial Discontinuation Rate Among Patients Taking CT-P13 in a Large Tertiary Hospital in Western Switzerland: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using Routinely Collected Medical Data

BACKGROUND

CT-P13 is an infliximab biosimilar that was granted market authorization in Switzerland in 2016. Despite the growing literature supporting the equivalence of CT-P13 compared with originator infliximab regarding the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity and the undeniable cost-saving opportunities, CT-P13 remains widely underused in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE

Leaving aside the phenomenon of a low initiation rate, this study aimed to explore the reasons behind the high discontinuation rate observed among the patients taking CT-P13 in a large tertiary hospital in Western Switzerland.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected data. Patients were eligible if they received originator infliximab or CT-P13 between September 2017 and December 2020. They were included if they had received at least two CT-P13 infusions during the same period. Patients were excluded if the follow-up was incomplete prior to or 6 months after their first CT-P13 infusion and if they had an oncological main diagnosis. Primary outcomes were the reasons for treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-six patients were included and classified into two groups: switchers who were treated with originator infliximab and were switched to CT-P13 (n = 85, 54%) and initiators who did not receive originator infliximab prior to CT-P13 treatment (n = 71, 46%). Included patients belonged to three different groups of diagnosis: gastroenterological (67, 43%), rheumatological (61, 39%), and immunological (28, 18%). Twenty-three (27%) switchers and 35 (49%) initiators discontinued CT-P13 after 12 months. Main reasons for CT-P13 discontinuation were lack of efficacy (n = 21, 36%) and secondary loss of response (n = 16, 28%); however, objective assessments were not available. Initiators' probability to discontinue CT-P13 at 12 months was significantly higher than switchers' (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of efficacy and secondary loss of response were the main reasons for the high CT-P13 discontinuation rate observed in a large tertiary hospital in Western Switzerland. Lack of active training and coordination among healthcare professionals and little education in patients may have exacerbated patients' subjective complaints and increased the CT-P13 discontinuation rate.

Moving forward: Implementing health psychology research to improve patient acceptance of biosimilars

As more biosimilars enter the pharmaceutical market, patient acceptance remains a significant barrier to their uptake. Psychological factors, such as negative expectations, are important causes of patient hesitancy. As a result, patients can develop nocebo responses following a transition, discontinue biosimilar treatment early, or have poor adherence. These negative outcomes may offset some of the cost-saving potential of biosimilars. Key healthcare professionals such as pharmacists, physicians, and nurses already play a noteworthy role in educating and transitioning patients. However, given the psychological aspect of biosimilar acceptance, it is logical for healthcare professionals and researchers to draw on research and theory from health psychology. This commentary outlines how a multidisciplinary approach can add to the understanding of the mechanisms behind patient resistance to biosimilars and help engage patients in the transitioning process. It also explores how health psychology strategies that have been successful in similar areas can be translated to help conduct more effective transitions. Future directions in research are discussed.

Perceptions About Biosimilar Medicines Among Belgian Patients in the Ambulatory Care

Background and objectives: Biosimilar medicines have been on the European market for 15 years. Despite the extensive and positive experience with biosimilars across Europe, their uptake remains limited in Belgium. One of the possible factors limiting uptake in clinical practice is the inadequate understanding and lack of trust in biosimilars among patients. This study aimed to assess the level of knowledge and perceptions about biosimilar medicines among Belgian patients in the ambulatory care.

Methods: This study consisted of online questionnaires among Belgian patients in the ambulatory care (i.e., rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, diabetes mellitus type I and II). The results were collected between December 2020 and February 2021. The data were analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics.

Results: In total, 657 patients across all disease areas of interest participated in this study. Only 38% of patients had heard of biosimilars before. Of those patients, most (58%) were aware that biosimilars are as safe and effective as their reference product. The vast majority of respondents (68%) would agree with transitioning to a biosimilar if their physician prescribed it, only 3% would never agree with a transition to a biosimilar. If a physician would propose to change their current originator biological therapy with its biosimilar, nearly all patients (95%) want their physician to explain the decision and inform them. For additional information about biosimilars, Belgian patients prefer brochures or folders (41%), or available resources on the internet (35%). Physicians were indicated as the preferred source of information (95%), followed by pharmacists (51%), academia (39%), and patient associations (35%). Most patients require information regarding the safety and efficacy (78%), price and reimbursement (64%), and the clinical development process (56%) of the biosimilar.

Conclusion: Belgian patients require information about biosimilar medicines. However, most patients are open and positive towards transitioning their current biological therapy with its biosimilar if sufficiently supported by their healthcare providers.

Outcome of Reverse Switching From CT-P13 to Originator Infliximab in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Patients suffering from inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) and treated with originator infliximab are increasingly being switched to biosimilars. Some patients, however, are "reverse switched" to treatment with the originator. Here we assess the prevalence of reverse switching, including its indication and outcomes.

METHODS

In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, data on patients with IBD from 9 hospitals in the Netherlands were collected. All adult patients with IBD were included if they previously had been switched from originator infliximab to the biosimilar CT-P13 and had a follow-up time of at least 52 weeks after the initial switch. The reasons for reverse switching were categorized into worsening gastrointestinal symptoms, adverse effects, or loss of response to CT-P13. Drug persistence was analyzed through survival analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 758 patients with IBD were identified. Reverse switching was observed in 75 patients (9.9%). Patients with reverse switching were predominantly female (70.7%). Gastrointestinal symptoms (25.5%) and dermatological symptoms (21.8%) were the most commonly reported reasons for reverse switching. In 9 patients (12.0%), loss of response to CT-P13 was the reason for reverse switching. Improvement of reported symptoms was seen in 73.3% of patients after reverse switching and 7 out of 9 patients (77.8%) with loss of response regained response. Infliximab persistence was equal between patients who were reverse-switched and those who were maintained on CT-P13.

CONCLUSIONS

Reverse switching occurred in 9.9% of patients, predominantly for biosimilar-attributed adverse effects. Switching back to originator infliximab seems effective in patients who experience adverse effects, worsening gastrointestinal symptoms, or loss of response after switching from originator infliximab to CT-P13.

A bio-what? Medical companions' perceptions towards biosimilars and information needs in rheumatology

Patient perceptions influence biosimilar uptake in non-mandatory transitions. Companions (support people) are often actively involved in the patient's medical journey and are likely to have unique perceptions of biosimilars, which may shape patient attitudes. This study explores the congruence between patient and companion perceptions towards biosimilars and their information needs. Patients taking bio-originators for rheumatic diseases (59% for rheumatoid arthritis) and their companions received an explanation about biosimilars. Participants (N = 78) completed questionnaires assessing their familiarity with biosimilars, perceptions, concerns, and benefits of being accompanied. Contingency tables and paired sample t-tests were used to explore differences in familiarity, confidence in knowledge, and perceptions. Intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the degree of congruence for perceptions towards biosimilars. Companions were significantly less familiar with biosimilars (p = 0.014, Cramer's V = 0.28) and reported lower confidence in their knowledge (p = 0.006, Cohen's d = 0.47) than patients. Companions and patients had moderate to good congruency for perceptions toward confidence in biosimilar use and safety, efficacy, and side-effect expectations (intra-class correlation coefficients ranging from 0.75 to 0.81). Companions and patients were most concerned about safety and effectiveness. Companions also reported concerns about cost savings driving the transition, while patients had concerns about uncertainty and testing. Patients reported the ability for discussion, improved understanding, and validation as benefits of being accompanied. Companions and patients have similar levels of perceptions and expectations towards biosimilars but report some unique information needs. Future educational interventions should involve companions and address their concerns to help improve biosimilar acceptance.

Switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars in chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: A systematic literature review

AIMS

Adalimumab is a biological therapy used to treat different chronic inflammatory diseases. At present, there is an increasing number of adalimumab biosimilars. To assume the acceptability of interchangeability between reference adalimumab and biosimilars, there should be evidence about efficacy and safety of this switching. Regulation of this practice falls under the authority of individual European Union Member States. The aim of this study is to systematically review the evidence on the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars in different chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

METHODS

Studies presenting data about switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars were identified by sensitive search strategies in Medline and EMBASE from 1 January 2004 to 30 June 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 471 references were obtained and 21 finally included in the analysis (total number of patients switching: 2802). Eight different adalimumab biosimilars were tested after receiving reference adalimumab. Eight articles included rheumatoid arthritis (RA), one miscellaneous rheumatic disease, six psoriasis (PSO) and six inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Overall, the efficacy results in the switching groups were comparable to those obtained in the arms of continuous biosimilar and continuous reference adalimumab. There were no significant differences in treatment emergent adverse events, anti-drug or neutralising antibodies among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars has no impact on efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with RA, PSO and IBD. This finding was consistent for the different adalimumab biosimilars analysed. These conclusions could probably be extended to other rheumatic diseases such as psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

The Burden of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Europe in 2020

New data suggest that incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD] are still increasing worldwide, and approximately 0.2% of the European population suffer from IBD at the present time. Medical therapy and disease management have evolved significantly in recent decades, with an emphasis on tight objective monitoring of disease progression and a treat-to-target approach in Europe and also worldwide, aiming to prevent early bowel damage and disability. Surgery rate declined over time in Europe, with 10-30% of CD and 5-10% of UC patients requiring a surgery within 5 years. The health economic burden associated with IBD is high in Europe. Direct health care costs [approximately €3500 in CD and €2000 in UC per patient per year] have shifted from hospitalisation and surgery towards drug-related expenditures with the increasing use of biologic therapy and other novel agents, and substantial indirect costs arise from work productivity loss [approximately €1900 per patient yearly]. The aim of this paper is to provide an updated review of the burden of IBD in Europe by discussing current data on epidemiology, disease course, risk for surgery, hospitalisation, and mortality and cancer risks, as well as the economic aspects, patient disability, and work impairment, by discussing the latest population-based studies from the region.

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.

Is There Any Research Evidence Beyond Surveys and Opinion Polls on Automatic Substitution of Biological Medicines? A Systematic Review

Background

Biosimilars are expected to decrease growing health care expenditures. Given that uptake of biosimilars has been modest, automatic substitution has been suggested to increase their use, but the practice is not yet allowed or implemented in many jurisdictions.

Methods

A systematic review was performed by searching databases Scopus, Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, and Web of Science. Peer-reviewed, original studies written in English and published during the period January 1, 2006 to April 24, 2021 reporting any interventions, pilots or any other studies including experiences or perceptions of any relevant stakeholders on automatic substitution of biologics were included without limitation by setting or geography. The quality of the included studies were evaluated by pre-determined criteria.

Results

Altogether, 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 23 were surveys, and four semi-structured interviews reporting mainly stakeholders’ perceptions on automatic substitution. Most of the studies (56%, 15/27) were from Europe. Studies were conducted among prescribers (n = 12), pharmacists (n = 5), patients (n = 4), payers (n = 1), and mixed stakeholders (n = 5). The primary objective of the majority (81%, 22/27) of the studies was to investigate some other biosimilar topic than automatic substitution. The reported perceptions of substitution were mainly negative. Studies evaluating risks, safety or effectiveness, or reporting real-life experiences of biologic substitution were lacking except one intervention and two prospective risk management studies. The overall quality of the studies was low to moderate, and the results were not generalizable due to convenience sampling not representing the populations of interest, and low response rates.

Conclusions

The current research evidence on the automatic substitution of biologics is scarce and of low to moderate quality, reflecting low stakeholder knowledge and their cautious attitude towards biosimilars. The safe and efficient implementation of automatic substitution requires well-designed practices, pilot studies, and evolving legislation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-021-00493-8.

Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Activity in Adverse Events Reporting after Placebo Administration

Participants of clinical trials who receive a placebo treatment often report a variety of adverse events, sometimes called nocebo effects. The reason why these adverse events occur is not clear, and understanding the underlying mechanisms represents a challenge that is likely to improve the interpretation of clinical trials as well as medical practice. Here, we studied 192 healthy subjects who received placebo oxygen through a mask after reading (READ) or not reading (NO-READ) a list of possible adverse events of oxygen breathing: headache, chest pain, abdominal pain, and cough. The whole hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis was assessed just before and right after placebo breathing by measuring the hypothalamic corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH), pituitary adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), and adrenal cortisol (COR). In addition, both state and trait anxiety were assessed. We found that 64.5% of the NO-READ group reported no adverse events, 30.2% had one, and only 5.2% had two adverse events. In contrast, only 20.8% of the READ group reported no adverse events, whereas 1, 2, 3, and 4 adverse events were reported with a frequency of 21.8%, 19.8%, 19.8%, and 17.7%, respectively. In addition, when the READ group reported three and four adverse events, CRH, ACTH, and COR were significantly increased compared to the NO-READ group, along with an increase in state anxiety scores. These data indicate that hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal activity and state anxiety are increased in those subjects who report many adverse events after reading a list of adverse events, thus highlighting a possible neuroendocrine mechanism after placebo administration.

Lessons from International Experience with Biosimilar Implementation: An Application of the Diffusion of Innovations Model

Although biosimilars offer cost savings in Canadian healthcare, uptake is low. We discuss the literature on international experiences with biosimilar adoption in the context of the Diffusion of Innovations model. We highlight potential challenges with biosimilar implementation and gaps in research needed to inform implementation efforts. We observe a lack of systematic description of implementation design and evaluation and a paucity of in-depth and engaged research to understand stakeholders' pragmatic considerations and the knowledge, messages and meanings that shape clinician and patient decisions to choose biosimilars.

The global landscape on interchangeability of biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars hold the potential to be an integral healthcare component that can significantly improve affordability and thereby accessibility of the otherwise expensive biotherapeutic products. Regulators, payors, and policymakers, each have a major role to play in successful adoption of biosimilars. One of the issues that has been a point of frequent discussion is that of interchangeability of biosimilars.

AREAS COVERED

This article aims to review the position that the major regulatory bodies have taken on interchangeability of biosimilars. Key issues that remain are also discussed. Adalimumab and etanercept have been chosen as real-world case studies to demonstrate interchangeability considerations. The need for gaining global harmonization on interchangeability is highlighted.

EXPERT OPINION

A global harmonization on the interchangeability can likely accelerate biosimilar adoption and result in better accessibility to biologics. Experience gained with real-world studies supports switching to biosimilars from originators however post-marketing pharmacovigilance should be in place to assess the risk-benefit profile of biosimilars in the long run.

Patients' real-world experience with inflammatory bowel disease: A cross-sectional survey in tertiary care centres from the GETAID group

BACKGROUND

Patients' experience with healthcare professionals could influence their clinical outcomes.

AIMS

To assess inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients' experience with their disease, their treatment and their relationship with their physician.

METHODS

A one-week cross-sectional study was conducted in 42 IBD centres. 2011 consecutive outpatients with IBD completed an anonymous self-report questionnaire assessing their experience with and knowledge of IBD.

RESULTS

A quantitative assessment of the doctor-patient relationship revealed that patients' knowledge of IBD and IBD treatment ranged from 7.4 to 8.3 out of 10. In addition to IBD physicians, other sources of information about IBD and current treatment mainly included the internet (80% and 63%, respectively) and general practitioners (61% and 54%). Knowledge about education programmes (28%) was poor, resulting in a lack of willingness to further use these resources (25%). Concerns about IBD treatment were raised in 76% of patients, mostly related to the fear of adverse events (47%) and a lack of efficacy (33%). The need of alternative healthcare professionals was reported by 89% of the sample.

CONCLUSION

In a large cohort of patients, we highlighted gaps in the management of patients with IBD regarding the need for higher-quality information and the implementation of alternative healthcare professionals.

The European Perspective and History on Biosimilars for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

With the expiration of biologics' patents, biosimilars entered the market as a promising opportunity to reduce health-care costs in the field of inflammatory bowel diseases. Although biosimilars were initially poorly accepted, the growing evidence about their efficacy and safety has changed this situation, resulting in their widespread use. However, there is still an unmet need of improving patients' education about biosimilars to minimize nocebo responses and to accept nonmedical switching. Looking to the future, the use of recently authorized adalimumab biosimilars and the first attempts of adopting different strategies of switching (eg, cross-, multiple-) will fill some residual knowledge gaps.

Informing Patients about Biosimilar Medicines: The Role of European Patient Associations

Biosimilar medicines support the sustainability of national healthcare systems, by reducing costs of biological therapies through increased competition. However, their adoption into clinical practice largely depends on the acceptance of healthcare providers and patients. Patients are different from health care professionals (HCPs), who are informing themselves professionally. For patients, the biosimilar debate only becomes actual when they are confronted with disease and drug choices. This paper provides a literature review on how patients are and should be informed about biosimilars, searching in scientific databases (i.e., Medline, Embase). Several large surveys have shown a lack of knowledge and trust in biosimilars among European patients in recent years. This review identified five main strategies to inform patients about biosimilars: (1) provide understandable information, (2) in a positive and transparent way, (3) tailored to the individual’s needs, (4) with one voice, and (5) supported by audiovisual material. Moreover, the importance of a multistakeholder approach was underlined by describing the role of each stakeholder. Patients are a large and diffuse target group to be reached by educational programs. Therefore, patient associations have become increasingly important in correctly informing patients about biosimilar medicines. This has led to widespread biosimilar information for patients among European patient associations. Therefore, a web-based screening of European Patients’ Forum (EPF) and International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations (IAPO) member organizations on publicly available information about biosimilars was performed. We found that the level of detail, correctness, and the tone of the provided information varied. In conclusion, it is paramount to set up a close collaboration between all stakeholders to communicate, develop, and disseminate factual information about biosimilars for patients.

Clinical Practice of Adalimumab and Infliximab Biosimilar Treatment in Adult Patients With Crohn's Disease

The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors has significantly changed the treatment landscape in Crohn's disease (CD). The overall therapeutic achievements with TNF inhibitors such as infliximab, adalimumab, and certolizumab pegol paved the way to push the boundaries of treatment goals beyond symptomatic relief and toward cessation of objective signs of inflammation, including endoscopic remission. Even though these agents are widely used for the treatment of moderate to severe CD, heterogeneity still exists in translating evidence-based guidelines on the use of anti-TNF agents into actual treatment algorithms in CD. This might be due to several reasons including disparities in health expenditure policies; lack of harmonization between countries; and variations in assessment of disease severity, use of disease monitoring tools, or application of treatment targets by physicians. With the advent of biosimilars, patent-free versions of reference biologics are now available to minimize health inequalities in drug availability. In this context, this article aims to provide practical clinical guidance for the use of infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars in patients with moderate to severe CD by outlining different clinical scenarios that patients may encounter during their treatment journey.

Greater awareness of biosimilars and shared decision-making among patients attending rheumatology practices in Colorado, United States: Real-world data

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of studies and educational programs focused on biosimilars and shared decision-making among patients diagnosed with various rheumatic diseases.

AIM

To improve knowledge and awareness of biosimilars and shared decision-making among patients attending rheumatology practices in Colorado as well as to assess a rheumatology patient’s interest in discussing biosimilars as well as shared decision-making with others (e.g., medical professionals, family members, friends).

METHODS

Our goal was to work with 80 rheumatology teams in Colorado.  We developed and distributed 2000 multi-page brochures to each participating office and later conducted an online anonymous survey.

RESULTS

There were a total of 49 (2.5%) rheumatology patients who responded to our survey. After reading our educational booklet, many survey respondents identified the correct answer in most questions focused on biosimilars or shared decision-making. Our survey results suggest that patients attending rheumatology practices in Colorado are generally not involved in discussions with their providers regarding treatment plans or options. The improvement in scores after reading our educational materials was statistically significant for biosimilars and shared decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the level of knowledge and awareness of biosimilars and shared decision-making among patients attending rheumatology practices in Colorado was low. More educational programs as well as follow up trainings to measure changes in knowledge and awareness regarding biosimilars and shared decision-making among patients attending rheumatology practices are recommended.

Consensus document on the management preferences of patients with ulcerative colitis: points to consider and recommendations

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Our objective was to define, describe and organize (on the basis of consensus) the patient's preferences in the management of ulcerative colitis (UC), in order to further incorporate them in daily practice and improve patients satisfaction, adherence to the treatment and quality of care.

METHODS

Qualitative study. A narrative literature review in Medline using Mesh and free-text terms was conducted to identify articles on UC patient preferences as well as clinical scenarios that may influence the preferences. The results were presented and discussed in a multidisciplinary nominal group meeting composed of six gastroenterologists, one primary care physician, one nurse practitioner and one expert patient. Key clinical scenarios and patient preferences were then defined, generating a series of points to consider and recommendations. The level of agreement with the final selection of preferences was established following a Delphi process.

RESULTS

The narrative review retrieved 69 articles of qualitative design and moderate quality. The following key clinical scenarios were identified: diagnosis, follow-up, surgery, and special situations/patients profiles such as adolescents or women. Patient preferences were classified into information, treatment (pharmacological and non-pharmacological), follow-up, relations with health professionals, relations with the health system and administration. Finally, 11 recommendations on patient preferences for UC in relation to its management reached the level of agreement established.

CONCLUSION

The consensual description of patient's preferences contribute to identify different areas for improvement in healthcare practice.

Patients' Willingness and Perspectives Toward Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Regulatory Cell Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Background

Inflammatory bowel disease is a life-changing disease resulting from recurrent intestinal inflammation. Current therapies (eg, steroids and biologics) are associated with mild to severe side effects, and none provide a cure. Recent research has focused on genetically engineering gut-specific anti-inflammatory T-regulatory cells (CAR-Tregs) to control intestinal inflammation, a logistically and conceptually complex approach. The purpose of our study was to understand patients' willingness to try CAR-Treg given 2 hypothetical scenarios-in a clinical trial or as a new treatment.

Methods

We surveyed people living with inflammatory bowel disease about their willingness to try CAR-Treg. The online survey was developed using patient focus groups and associated literature. We recruited participants through email and social media. We used descriptive and inferential statistics to analyze closed-ended questions and inductive thematic analysis to analyze open-ended follow-up questions.

Results

Survey participants indicated high willingness to try CAR-Treg therapy in both a clinical trial and as a new treatment. Willingness to try was not correlated with disease state or medication history. Women were less likely than men to indicate willingness to participate in a clinical trial. Participants' reasons for being willing to try CAR-Treg therapy included the wish to change their current treatment and the calling to participate in research. Participants that were not willing to try CAR-Treg mentioned the lack of long-term data and the success of their current therapy.

Conclusions

This is the first study to our knowledge to investigate patient willingness to try CAR-Treg therapy. Our results demonstrate the promise of moving this therapy into clinical practice as most patients indicated willingness to try.

Biosimilar switching in inflammatory bowel disease: from evidence to clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

After patents' expiration of biological originators, several biosimilars of infliximab and adalimumab have been authorized. The approval is based on data extrapolated from other indications for which the originator has been previously tested. Despite rigorous approval processes by regulatory entities, physicians' and patients' knowledge about biosimilars is limited and some concerns about their use persist.

AREAS COVERED

This article summarizes the evidence on efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars currently approved in Europe for IBD treatment, by reviewing the literature on PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases up to mid-July 2020. Particular emphasis was placed on the need to further improve communication with patients and physicians' knowledge on biosimilars.

EXPERT OPINION

Adoption of biosimilars in clinical practice represents a great opportunity from an economic point of view, reducing healthcare costs and increasing patients' access to effective biologic treatments. Clinicians should be aware and confident of the latest evidence on available biosimilars and be very careful in communicating information to patients. Nocebo effect should not be overlooked since it can negatively influence outcomes of biosimilar-treated subjects, limiting the wide use of biosimilars. Evaluating the outcomes of reverse, multiple, and cross-switch will be a challenge for the next years.

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.

Head-to-head trials in inflammatory bowel disease: past, present and future

With the increase in the number of novel drugs for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), comparing therapeutic options or strategies has become a key challenge in IBD trials. Head-to-head trials designed and powered to enable formal comparisons are the gold standard in comparative research. Indeed, these trials are requested by some health authorities for evaluating the positioning of new treatments in IBD, as well as helping prescribing physicians to select the most appropriate treatment options for their patients. Despite head-to-head trials including aminosalicylate therapy in IBD having been performed decades ago, the first results of a randomized controlled trial directly comparing biologic agents with different modes of action have only now been published, mainly owing to important methodological issues. This Perspective provides an overview of the past, current and future concepts in IBD trial design, with a detailed focus on the role of comparative research and the challenges and pitfalls in undertaking and interpreting the results from such studies.

Impact of a medical interview on the decision to switch from originator infliximab to its biosimilar in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

To lighten the burden on health-care spending, switching from the infliximab originator to a biosimilar in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is advocated. However, the uptake of biosimilars lacks initiatives aimed at educating patients.

AIMS

To explore the impact of a gastroenterologist's interview on IBD patients' acceptance for switching from infliximab bio-originator Remicade® to its biosimilar CT-P13 Inflectra®.

METHODS

After the interview of 138 included patients, 120 properly responded to a self-administered questionnaire to collect consent about the switch and relevant data. French national IBD patients' association (Association François Aupetit) provided an information sheet on biosimilars.

RESULTS

93 (67.0%) out of 138 and 82 (68.3%) out of 120 patients switched treatment. 114 (79.8%) had never heard about biosimilars. Paradoxically, having heard about biosimilars was associated with a poorer chance to switch (Odds Ratio OR [95% CI] = 0.13 [0.02-0.72]). On the contrary, the more satisfied about generics, the more patients accepted the switch (OR [95% CI] = 1.31 [1.01-1.69]). There were 1.47 (Relative Risk RR [95% CI] = 1.47 [1.07-2.01]) times more chance to agree to the switch if the interview modified the patient's opinion on biosimilars.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that an organized information provided to the patient is a contributive way to enhance patient's acceptance of biosimilars in IBD.

Multidisciplinary management of the nocebo effect in biosimilar-treated IBD patients: Results of a workshop from the NOCE-BIO consensus group

The high cost of biological drugs for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) considerably impacts on health-care budgets. Since the patent of biological products expired, cheaper biosimilars have entered the market. Available data coming from real-world cohorts and clinical trials indicate that the efficacy and safety of biosimilars is comparable to that of the originator drugs. Treating IBD patients with a biosimilar may be complicated by the risk of the nocebo effect, a negative effect of a pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatment, induced by patients's expectations and unrelated to the physiological action of the treatment. The nocebo effect can negatively affect treatment outcomes and hamper the cost-savings of biosimilars. Reducing the nocebo effect requires a multidisciplinary effort of all health-care providers in charge of biosimilar-treated IBD patients. The aim of the review is to reflect the key messages of an international workshop on this topic, including viewpoints from the perspective of physicians, nurses, psychologists, pharmacists and patients.

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

Biologics have transformed the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Biosimilars-biologic medicines with no clinically meaningful differences in safety or efficacy from licensed originators-can stimulate market competition and have the potential to expand patient access to biologics within the parameters of treatment recommendations. However, maximizing the benefits of biosimilars requires cooperation between multiple stakeholders. Regulators and developers should collaborate to ensure biosimilars reach patients rapidly without compromising stringent quality, safety, or efficacy standards. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations and payer policies should be updated following biosimilar market entry, minimizing the risk of imposing nonmedical barriers to biologic treatment. In RA, disparities between treatment guidelines and national reimbursement criteria could be addressed to ensure more uniform patient access to biologics and enable rheumatologists to effectively implement treat-to-target strategies. In IBD, the cost-effectiveness of biologic treatment earlier in the disease course is likely to improve when biosimilars are incorporated into pharmacoeconomic analyses. Patient understanding of biosimilars is crucial for treatment success and avoiding nocebo effects. Full understanding of biosimilars by physicians and carefully considered communication strategies can help support patients initiating or switching to biosimilars. Developers must operate efficiently to be sustainable, without undermining product quality, the reliability of the supply chain, or pharmacovigilance. Developers should also facilitate information sharing to meet the needs of other stakeholders. Such collaboration will help to ensure a sustainable future for both the biosimilar market and healthcare systems, supporting the availability of effective treatments for patients.

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.

Patients' perspectives after switching from infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A 12-month prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients' perspectives after switching from infliximab to a biosimilar have yet to be assessed.

AIM

To assess patients' perspectives in a prospective manner after switching from infliximab to CT-P13.

METHODS

113 consecutive patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on maintenance therapy with infliximab were switched to CT-P13. Patients' perspectives were assessed by questionnaires, including the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) and FACIT-F (questionnaire regarding fatigue), and patient-reported outcomes (IBD disability index) at the inclusion and after the fourth CT-P13 infusion.

RESULTS

After one year, the patients' perspectives did not change after the switch according to BMQ-general, BMQ-specific necessity and BMQ-specific concerns subscales. No difference was observed in the mean IBD-DI score, while a significant improvement in fatigue was observed according to the FACIT-F questionnaire. Patients' concerns were raised about the use of biosimilars and the risks of switching with a significant improvement after switching (65% vs. 42%, respectively, p = 0.01). Fourteen (12.4%) patients experienced loss of response to CT-P13, including 12 with restoration of steroid-free clinical remission after CT-P13 dose optimization.

CONCLUSION

Although some concerns were reported, no difference was observed in patients' perspectives after switching from infliximab to CT-P13.

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.

Changes in inflammatory bowel disease patients' perspectives on biosimilars: A follow-up survey

Background and aims

The aim of this survey was to find out whether the perspectives of patients with inflammatory bowel disease concerning biosimilars have changed since the publication of our last survey carried out in 2014-2015.

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

In total, 1619 patients with inflammatory bowel disease responded the questionnaire. Most respondents were from Europe (79%), followed by Asia (8%), South America (7%) and Africa (5%). Some 44% of them had heard of biosimilars, and only these respondents continued to the biosimilar-specific questions. Respondents worried significantly more about biosimilars being less effective than the originator (50% in current and 39% in previous survey, p = 0.0004). However, respondents were more likely to believe that biosimilars will have an impact on the management of inflammatory bowel disease (75% in current and 62% in previous survey).

Conclusions

Many patients with inflammatory bowel disease remain unfamiliar with biosimilars. Although patients still worry about different aspects regarding biosimilars, they also tend to be more confident that biosimilars will have an impact on the management of their disease. More patient education is still needed to raise awareness about biosimilars.

Nocebos in rheumatology: emerging concepts and their implications for clinical practice

Nocebo effects are noxious reactions to therapeutic interventions that occur because of negative expectations of the patient. In the past decade, neurobiological data have revealed specific neural pathways induced by nocebos (that is, interventions that cause nocebo effects), as well as the associated mechanisms and predisposing factors of nocebo effects. Epidemiological data suggest that nocebos can have a notable effect on medication adherence, clinical outcomes and health-care policy. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) indicate that withdrawal of treatment by placebo-arm participants owing to adverse events is common; a proportion of these events could be nocebo effects. Moreover, in large-scale, open-label studies of patients with RMDs who transition from bio-originator to biosimilar therapeutics, biosimilar retention rates were much lower than in previous double-blind switch RCTs. This discrepancy suggests that in addition to the lack of response in some patients because of intrinsic differences between the drugs, nocebos might have an important role in low biosimilar retention, thus increasing the need for awareness and early identification of nocebo effects by rheumatologists and allied health-care professionals.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Luminal Crohn's Disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Crohn's disease (CD) is a lifelong illness with substantial morbidity, although new therapies and treatment paradigms have been developed. We provide guidance for treatment of ambulatory patients with mild to severe active luminal CD.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review to identify published studies of the management of CD. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Statements were developed through an iterative online platform and then finalized and voted on by a group of specialists.

RESULTS

The consensus includes 41 statements focused on 6 main drug classes: antibiotics, 5-aminosalicylate, corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, biologic therapies, and other therapies. The group suggested against the use of antibiotics or 5-aminosalicylate as induction or maintenance therapies. Corticosteroid therapies (including budesonide) can be used as induction, but not maintenance therapies. Among immunosuppressants, thiopurines should not be used for induction, but can be used for maintenance therapy for selected low-risk patients. Parenteral methotrexate was proposed for induction and maintenance therapy in patients with corticosteroid-dependent CD. Biologic agents, including tumor necrosis factor antagonists, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab, were recommended for patients failed by conventional induction therapies and as maintenance therapy. The consensus group was unable to clearly define the role of concomitant immunosuppressant therapies in initiation of treatment with a biologic agent.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal management of CD requires careful patient assessment, acknowledgement of patient preferences, evidence-based use of existing therapies, and thorough assessment to define treatment success.