Biosimilars for psoriasis: worldwide overview of regulatory guidelines, uptake and implications for dermatology clinical practice

Orismilast in moderate-to-severe psoriasis: Efficacy and safety from a 16-week, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, and phase 2b trial (IASOS)

BACKGROUND

Orismilast is a novel oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) B/D inhibitor being investigated as a potential treatment for moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and safety of orismilast modified-release formulation in moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized (1:1:1:1 to 20, 30, 40 mg orismilast or placebo, twice daily), double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 2b, 16-week, dose-ranging study evaluated orismilast in adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (NCT05190419). Efficacy end points were analyzed using multiple imputation.

RESULTS

Of 202 randomized patients, baseline characteristics were balanced across arms, except greater severe disease proportions for orismilast vs placebo. Orismilast showed significant improvements in the primary end point, percentage change in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), from baseline to week 16 (orismilast -52.6% to -63.7% and placebo, -17.3%; all P <.001). Greater proportions receiving orismilast achieved PASI75 (39.5%-49.0%; P <.05) and PASI90 (22.0%-28.3%; P <.05 for 20 and 40 mg) vs placebo (PASI75, 16.5% and PASI90, 8.3%) at week 16. Safety findings were as expected with PDE4 inhibition; dose-dependent tolerability effects observed.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size, disease severity imbalance between groups, limited duration and diversity in study population.

CONCLUSION

Orismilast demonstrated greater efficacy vs placebo and a safety profile in line with PDE4 inhibition.

A systematic review investigating at what proportion clinical images are shared in prospective randomized controlled trials involving patients with psoriasis and biological agents

For many patients including those with psoriasis, scientific manuscripts comprising clinical outcomes including psoriasis area severity index (PASI) and/or physician global assessment (PGA) may be difficult to understand. However, most patients can relate to images at baseline and follow-up, particularly for dermatological diseases. This study aimed to assess the proportion of shared clinical images in psoriasis trials. A systematic review adhering to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. The review was limited to randomized controlled trials, and among these, only investigations involving biological agents for treatment of psoriasis were included. The Embase, MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched for eligible studies published from inception to October 26, 2021. In total, 152 studies were included. When combining these, 62,871 patients were randomized. Overall, 203 images were shared depicting 60 patients in the manuscripts yielding an overall sharing rate of 0.1%. Patient images are seldom incorporated in clinical trial manuscripts which impairs interpretation for patients. Inclusion of image material would strengthen the patients' perspective and understanding on what treatment effects that can be expected. As such, this systematic review should be an invitation to the pharmaceutical industry, other sponsors, and editorial offices to improve easy transfer of information to patients using image data.

Uptake of tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor biosimilars for psoriasis: a drug utilization study from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR)

BACKGROUND

Tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNFi) have revolutionized the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Following patent expiry of the originator biologics, TNFi biosimilars became available, presenting the opportunity for significant reductions in drug costs.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the uptake of TNFi biosimilars for psoriasis treatment in the UK and Ireland.

METHODS

This observational cohort study utilizes data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR), a national pharmacovigilance study register for patients with psoriasis on systemic treatments. We analysed biosimilar uptake trends over time in nine geographical regions of England along with Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We assessed the incidence of switching to biosimilars in an originator-user cohort (switchers). Patients on originators infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab at the time originator patents expired, entered the cohort on 1 February 2015, August 2015 and October 2018, respectively, and were followed up until 31 October 2021. Trends in biosimilar initiations were assessed in an adalimumab-naïve cohort who started adalimumab between 1 October 2018 and 31 July 2019 (starters). We assessed the associations between patient factors and originator-to-biosimilar switching and biosimilar initiation using a multivariable Cox regression model and a multivariable logistic regression model, respectively.

RESULTS

Included in the originator-user cohort were 4202 patients (209 on infliximab, 742 on etanercept and 3251 on adalimumab). For infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab, respectively, the cumulative incidence of originator-to-biosimilar switching increased with time to 14.8%, 23.6% and 66.6% after 3 years. Across geographical regions, 3-year switching rates varied from 0% to 43.7% for infliximab; from 0% to 40.4% for etanercept; and from 12.5% to 84.3% for adalimumab. Out of the 528 patients included in the adalimumab-naïve cohort, 67.8% started on biosimilars. Originator-to-biosimilar switching and biosimilar initiation were more common in men and in patients who had lower Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at cohort entry.

CONCLUSIONS

The uptake of biosimilars increased over time and varied considerably across the UK and Ireland; adalimumab had the highest biosimilar uptake rate compared with that of other TNFi drugs.

Adalimumab Biosimilar Efficacy and Safety in a 5-Year-Old Patient with Severe Plaque Psoriasis During SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Outbreak

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects 2% of population. About 0.5–2% of psoriatic cases develop during pediatric age. In most cases, the condition is responsive to topical treatment. However, a small percentage of children require systemic treatment with conventional systemic drugs or biological agents, such as anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α. Adalimumab (ADA) is an anti-TNF-α recently approved for pediatric psoriasis in the European Union (from 4 years of age, 2015). CASE PRESENTATION: We describe our experience treating a 5-year-old female patient affected by severe plaque psoriasis with ADA biosimilar during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic outbreak also using teledermatology. CONCLUSION: The case reported in this article highlights the safety and the effectiveness of ADA biosimilar MSB11022 (Idacio®) in the treatment of a 5-year-old female affected by plaque psoriasis and paves the way to bigger trials for a more extensive use of TNF-α inhibitor biosimilars for psoriasis in pediatric population.

Current evidence on the use of the adalimumab biosimilar SB5 (ImraldiTM): a multidisciplinary perspective

INTRODUCTION

This review provides an overview of data from trials and real-world studies available for SB5 (Imraldi^TM) across three main therapeutic areas: rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search for publications on data for SB5 efficacy/effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity was undertaken.

EXPERT OPINION

Evidence derived from clinical studies suggest that the biosimilar SB5 is a safe and effective alternative to reference adalimumab. Considering that patients suffering from immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis often require long-term biologic treatment, biosimilar medicines (such as SB5) can reduce healthcare costs while increasing access to effective treatments.

Toward the integration of biosimilars into pediatric rheumatology: adalimumab ABP 501 experience of PeRA research group

OBJECTIVES

To review the real-life data, to provide an input to the literature concerning treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with adalimumab (ADL) biosimilar.

METHOD

This multi-centric retrospective study was conducted among children with JIA, followed up for at least 24-weeks from the initiation of ADL biosimilar (ABP 501) treatment. Adverse events and alterations in disease activity scores were figured out.

RESULTS

The median age of the group was 15.5 (5-18) years. JIA categories were oligoarticular (n =12), enthesitis-related (ERA) (n=24), psoriatic (PsA) (n=6), and polyarticular (n=4). Uveitis was detected at the initiation of the disease (n=3), during the disease course (n=5), or before the diagnosis (n=1). The first-line treatment preferences were ADL biosimilar (n=37) and etanercept (n=9). On the 6th month of ABP 501, 40 (86.9%) patients had achieved complete remission. Six patients (1 PsA, 1 polyarticular JIA, and 4 ERA) had ongoing active arthritis. Furthermore, all except one of the patients had remission of ophthalmologic findings. No life-threatening adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

ABP 501 has a gradual increase in prescription in pediatric rheumatology. Real-life data of the cohort announce that ADL biosimilar is a suitable and effective treatment option for patients with JIA in case of indication.

Current Regulatory Requirements for Biosimilars in Six Member Countries of BRICS-TM: Challenges and Opportunities

Background: The aim of the study was to identify, interpret, and compare the current perspectives of regulatory agencies in six member countries of BRICS-TM (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Turkey, and Mexico) on the different criteria used for biosimilar development and marketing authorisation process.

Methods: A semi-quantitative questionnaire was developed covering the organisation of agency, biosimilar development criteria and marketing authorisation process and sent to seven regulatory agencies covering the BRICS-TM countries. All data was kept anonymous and confidential. Data processing and analysis was carried out; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data and content analysis was employed to generate themes for qualitative data.

Results: Out of the seven regulatory agencies included in the study, six representatives provided the responses. The perspectives of these six regulatory agencies varied on a number of aspects relating to the review criteria for biosimilar development and licencing process. The most prevalent model for data assessment is the “full review” of a marketing authorisation application. There is lack of a standard approach across the agencies on sourcing of the reference biological product, in vivo toxicity studies and confirmatory clinical studies. Most agencies restrict interaction with biosimilar developers and any scientific advice is non-binding. The marketing authorisation approval depends on scientific assessment of the dossier, sample analysis and GMP certification. The agencies do not issue any public assessment report specifying the summary basis of biosimilar approval.

Conclusion: Regulatory agencies across the six emerging economies are steadily improving the regulatory mechanism in the area of biosimilars. However, there remains scope for increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the processes by encouraging open and transparent interaction with developers, adopting a flexible approach toward accepting advanced analytical data in lieu of clinical studies and enhancing regulatory reliance amongst agencies. This will help to simplify the new biosimilar development programmes and make them more cost-effective.

Biosimilars for the treatment of patients with psoriasis: A consensus statement from the Biosimilar Working Group of the International Psoriasis Council

Background

As biosimilars have become available in various parts of the world, the International Psoriasis Council has reviewed aspects of their use.

Objective

To provide consensus statements from the Biosimilar Working Group about the use of biosimilars in patients with psoriasis.

Methods

A semiqualitative structured process was employed to approve the consensus statements on biosimilars using the nominal group technique. The final statements were validated by a survey of the paricipants. The approval of the consensus statements was predefined as >80% positive opinions.

Results

A consensus was reached in 36/38 statements regarding regulatory considerations, extrapolation of indication, interchangeability, substitution at the pharmacy level, pharmacovigilance, traceability, naming, biosimilar policy, education, and cost of biosimilars. Example statements include "Switching a stable patient from a reference product to a biosimilar product is appropriate if the patient and physician agree to do so" and "Patients and patients' organisations should be involved in all decision making and policy development about the use of biosimilars."

Conclusion

The International Psoriasis Council Biosimilar Working Group provides consensus statements for the use of biosimilars in the treatment of patients with psoriasis. We suggest that these statements provide global guidance to clinicians, healthcare organizations, pharmaceutical companies, regulators, and patients regarding the development and use of biosimilars in patients with psoriasis.

Enhanced NF-κB signaling in type-2 dendritic cells at baseline predicts non-response to adalimumab in psoriasis

Biologic therapies have transformed the management of psoriasis, but clinical outcome is variable leaving an unmet clinical need for predictive biomarkers of response. Here we perform in-depth immunomonitoring of blood immune cells of 67 patients with psoriasis, before and during therapy with the anti-TNF drug adalimumab, to identify immune mediators of clinical response and evaluate their predictive value. Enhanced NF-κBp65 phosphorylation, induced by TNF and LPS in type-2 dendritic cells (DC) before therapy, significantly correlates with lack of clinical response after 12 weeks of treatment. The heightened NF-κB activation is linked to increased DC maturation in vitro and frequency of IL-17⁺ T cells in the blood of non-responders before therapy. Moreover, lesional skin of non-responders contains higher numbers of dermal DC expressing the maturation marker CD83 and producing IL-23, and increased numbers of IL-17⁺ T cells. Finally, we identify and clinically validate LPS-induced NF-κBp65 phosphorylation before therapy as a predictive biomarker of non-response to adalimumab, with 100% sensitivity and 90.1% specificity in an independent cohort. Our study uncovers important molecular and cellular mediators underpinning adalimumab mechanisms of action in psoriasis and we propose a blood biomarker for predicting clinical outcome.

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.

Long-term safety and efficacy of anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha biosimilar agents in the treatment of psoriasis: a single Center study

Biosimilar anti-TNF-alpha drugs are widely used in the treatment of psoriasis, but only few studies reported the long term experience of the various biosimilar agents in the real world practice.A monocentric retrospective observational study was performed to assess the long term efficacy, tolerability and safety of biosimilars adalimumab (bADA), biosimilar etanercept (bETN) and biosimilar infliximab (bIFX) in psoriasis patients.A total of 73 patients (19 patient treated with bADA, 37 with bETN and 17 with bIFX) were enrolled and observed up to 48 months of follow-up. Regarding the efficacy, across all biosimilar treatments combined, the mean PASI score was ≤2 (1.2) after 12 months of treatments. Notably, the mean PASI score remaneid relatively stable during all 48 months of follow-up. With regard to tolerability and safety in the present study, 34 (28%) patients experienced adverse events during all biosimilar therapy, and 3 (4.3%) discontinued treatment. No severe adverse events, death or malignancy cases were recorded during the study period.Our results support that biosimilar anti TNF-alpha are effective and well tolerated drugs for the long-term treatment of psoriasis.

Pattern of use of biologics in psoriasis among Indian dermatologists - A cross sectional survey

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Biologics are a relatively new class of highly effective drugs in the management of psoriasis. They act on specific immune processes, achieve rapid and sustained clearance and do not cause target organ damage unlike conventional systemic therapy. It appears that their use in our country is not as widespread as in developed nations despite these benefits ; their prohibitive cost may be a major factor for the limited usage. This survey aimed to find out the extent of use and factors hindering usage of biologics for the management of psoriasis by Indian dermatologists.

METHODS

It was a cross-sectional questionnaire based study. The questionnaire was designed after a focussed group discussion, followed by validation. The survey was sent in the form of a link to Indian dermatologists. The responses were recorded in excel-sheet and the data was analyzed by SPSS ver 25.

RESULTS

Of the 310 participants who took part, 287 completed the survey. Two hundred (70%) were users of biologics, while 87 (30%) had never used them. Cost was the major factor which prevented biologic use. Majority of the respondents used biologics in less than 2 cases per month. Secukinumab was the most common biologic used followed by etanercept. The factors which determined choice of biologics were convenience, cost, previous experience, co-morbid conditions and recommendations by an expert.

LIMITATIONS

A small sample size was the limitation of the study. Dermatologists who do not use biologics may be under-represented in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Biologics are not used optimally by Indian dermatologists for management of psoriasis. The cost, fear of adverse effects, lack of awareness and inadequate felt need are major factors which prevent their regular use.

Safety and Effectiveness of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha Biosimilar Agents in the Treatment of Psoriasis

Biologic drugs have revolutionized the treatment of psoriasis and other chronic inflammatory diseases. In recent years, many tumor necrosis factor-alpha 'biosimilar' agents have been developed. These biosimilars are similar in structure and function to their originator molecules, although they are not identical. Given that the safety and efficacy of the original biologic have already been proven, biosimilars are only required to show bioequivalence, or non-inferiority, to the reference biologic to be approved. Based on extrapolation of these non-inferiority data, biosimilars may be subsequently approved for all indications of the originator biologic, even without being directly studied in these various conditions. These biosimilar agents have been purported as a method to reduce the costs of biologic therapies, thereby increasing the accessibility of these medications and subsequently improving the treatment of psoriasis worldwide. The US Food and Drug Administration and/or the European Medicines Agency have approved biosimilars of adalimumab (Amjevita/Amgevita/Solymbic, Cyltezo, Imraldi/Hadlima, Hyrimoz/Hefiya/Halimatoz, Idacio, Hulio, Abrilada), etanercept (Erelzi, Benepali/Eticovo), and infliximab (Inflectra/Remsima, Renflexis/Flixabi, Ixifi/Zessly) for the treatment of psoriasis, and others are under review. There are many phase III data supporting the bioequivalence of these anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha biosimilar agents in treating psoriasis and rheumatologic disease, which are discussed here. In general, these biosimilar agents have been shown to have equivalent efficacy, tolerability, and immunogenicity profiles compared to their originators in patients with rheumatologic disease, although studies in patients with psoriasis are fairly limited. Additional switching studies and post-marketing safety analyses are needed to assess the interchangeability of biosimilar agents with their reference products.

Biosimilars in psoriasis: what should your positioning be?

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of biosimilars into our therapeutic arsenal has revolutionized the accessibility of biological treatments to patients with psoriasis, mainly from an economic standpoint. At this point, it is interesting to assess what their current positioning is.

AREAS COVERED

A bibliographic review has been carried out that includes the technical sheets of the different drugs, criteria for the use of biosimilars, the current situation of the main prescribing countries, and data on actual clinical practice in the period 2015-2020 using the Pubmed® and Embase databases. ®.Accessibility varies from country to country, regardless of the standards set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or European Medicines Agency (EMA), owing to the need for biosimilars to be submitted for approval to local regulatory agencies. The switching/interchangeability/substitution criteria are not homogeneous, with variable outcomes ranging from clinical trials (for example, Norway) to mere non-binding recommendations.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of biosimilars is appropriate for a high percentage of patients. Its position as first-line drugs compared to traditional systemic drugs and the new anti-IL molecules must be reviewed since clinical choice cannot be based on economic aspects only.

Are biosimilars approved for use in psoriasis safe enough to replace leading biologic therapies? A review

Introduction: Many tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha 'biosimilar' agents have been approved for the treatment of psoriasis and other autoinflammatory conditions. These biosimilars have the same structure as the originator biologic and have been shown to be equivalent in terms of safety and efficacy. However, given the method by which biosimilars are manufactured, they are not exact replicas of the originator, unlike generic forms of non-biologic medications. Therefore, there is controversy regarding whether these agents should be considered interchangeable with their originator biologics.Areas covered: The objective of this review is to summarize the safety data for each of the approved TNF-alpha biosimilars to determine whether or not these agents have appropriate safety profiles to replace their originator biologics.Expert opinion: Based on extrapolation of phase III investigations in patients with rheumatologic diseases, each of the approved anti-TNF agents have comparable efficacy, tolerability, and safety profiles to their originators. Studies in patients with psoriasis are more limited. Transitioning from a biologic to its biosimilar has also been shown to be similarly safe and immunogenetic compared to maintenance therapy with the originator. More post-marketing studies are needed to demonstrate the long-term safety in patients with psoriasis.

AURIEL-PsO: a randomized, double-blind phase III equivalence trial to demonstrate the clinical similarity of the proposed biosimilar MSB11022 to reference adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis

BACKGROUND

MSB11022 is a proposed adalimumab biosimilar.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of MSB11022 with reference adalimumab.

METHODS

AURIEL-PsO was a double-blind randomized controlled equivalence trial, in which patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis were randomized 1 : 1 to MSB11022 or reference adalimumab. The primary end point was ≥ 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) at week 16, with a prespecified equivalence interval of ± 18%. Patients with a ≥50% improvement in PASI at week 16 were eligible to enter a double-blind extension period: patients receiving MSB11022 continued treatment, and patients receiving reference adalimumab were rerandomized 1 : 1 either to continue reference adalimumab or to switch to MSB11022. Other efficacy end points and safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated at scheduled visits up to weeks 52 (efficacy and immunogenicity), 54 and 66 (safety).

RESULTS

In total, 443 patients were randomized. The difference in PASI 75 response rates at week 16 between the treatment arms was -1·9%, and the 95% confidence interval (-7·8% to 4·1%) was within the prespecified equivalence interval. No notable difference in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was observed between treatment arms up to the end of the trial, and no new safety signals were observed. Following treatment switch at week 16, no clinically meaningful differences in safety or immunogenicity were seen between treatment arms through to the end of the observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic equivalence between MSB11022 and reference adalimumab was demonstrated. AURIEL-PsO provides evidence to support the similarity of both products with regard to efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. What's already known about this topic? Adalimumab is a fully human antitumour necrosis factor-α monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of multiple inflammatory disorders, including psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel diseases and ankylosing spondylitis. MSB11022 is a proposed adalimumab biosimilar that has shown structural and functional similarity to the reference product in an extensive analytical comparability exercise. MSB11022 has demonstrated bioequivalence and comparable safety and immunogenicity profiles in a phase I study in healthy volunteers. What does this study add? This phase III study confirmed equivalent efficacy for MSB11022 and reference adalimumab in patients without any immunomodulation comedication in moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis at week 16. The efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of MSB11022 and reference adalimumab were similar over the respective observation periods (week 52 for efficacy and immunogenicity, week 66 for safety). A switch from reference adalimumab to MSB11022 at week 16 did not impact efficacy, safety or immunogenicity.

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.

Biological Therapies in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Can Biosimilars Reduce Access Inequities?

Biological therapies are an effective treatment for a range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel diseases. However, due to their high costs, considerable differences in their utilization exist across the world, even among the various European countries, with many countries restricting access despite professional society guideline recommendations. Adoption of biologics by healthcare providers has been particularly poor in many Central and Eastern European countries. Differences in utilization have also been observed across medical specialties, healthcare providers, and at a regional and national level. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the different market access policies for biologics in Europe and to investigate reasons for such differences. One of the potential solutions for providing broader access to IMID patients, where cost is the major barrier, is to encourage the use of biosimilars in place of their reference products. Biosimilars are generally less expensive alternatives to already licensed biological therapies and are approved on the basis that they are similar to the reference product in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. Budget impact models predict considerable cost savings following the introduction of biosimilars in the next few years. These savings could be used to increase access to biologics and other innovative therapies.

GP2017, an adalimumab biosimilar: pharmacokinetic similarity to its reference medicine and pharmacokinetics comparison of different administration methods

Background: To compare the pharmacokinetics of Sandoz biosimilar adalimumab (GP2017) with reference adalimumab (Humira) in healthy volunteers (PK similarity study) and to compare the pharmacokinetics of GP2017 administered by autoinjector (AI) or prefilled syringe (PFS; delivery study). Methods: Healthy male subjects were randomized to receive a single 40 mg subcutaneous injection of GP2017, US-licensed or EU-authorized reference adalimumab (US/EU-Humira; PK similarity study) or a single 40 mg subcutaneous injection of GP2017 via AI or PFS (delivery study). Pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity were assessed over 72 days post-injection. Results: The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for C_max and AUC_0-inf were 1.05 (0.99-1.11) and 1.04 (0.96-1.13) for GP2017/EU-Humira and 1.00 (0.94-1.06) and 1.08 (1.00-1.18) for GP2017/US-Humira, all within the prespecified margin of 0.80-1.25 (PK similarity study). Pharmacokinetic parameters of GP2017 matched between AI and PFS (delivery study). Safety and immunogenicity were similar across groups in both studies. Conclusion: PK similarity between GP2017, EU- and US-Humira was demonstrated. The safety profile of GP2017 was consistent with previous reports for Humira. These results contribute to the 'totality-of-the-evidence' supporting biosimilarity of GP2017 to Humira. PK and tolerability were equivalent for GP2017 dosed by AI or PFS. Trial registration: PK similarity study EudraCT no. 2015-000579-28; Delivery study: EudraCT no. 2014-002879-29.

Comparative safety assessments of the biosimilar APZ001 and Erbitux in pre-clinical animal models

PURPOSE

To evaluate the toxicity of Erbitux as well as its biosimilar APZ001 antibody (APZ001) in pre-clinical animal models including mice, rabbits and cynomolgus monkeys.

METHODS

We performed analysis of normal behavior activity, autonomic and non-autonomic nervous functions, nervous-muscle functions, nervous excitability and sensorimotor functions on CD-1 mice. Subsequently, we studied that effects of APZ001 and Erbitux on respiratory system, cardiovascular system and kidney in Cynomolgus monkey models and performed local tolerance experiments on New Zealand rabbits.

RESULTS

The comparisons between APZ001 and Erbitux showed no significant differences in mice autonomic nervous system, nervous muscle functions, non-autonomic nervous functions, nervous excitability and sensorimotor functions between treated and untreated group (p>0.05). APZ001 and Erbitux showed negative effect on CD-1 mice in the present of pentobarbital sodium anesthesia (p>0.05). Single administrations of high, medium or low doses of APZ001 did not lead to monkey urine volume alterations (p>0.05). In human tissues, APZ001 and Erbitux showed positive signals in endocardium, lung type II alveolar epithelial cell and surrounding vessels, but showed negative results in kidney and liver tissues. No hemolysis phenomenon and serious side-effects in vessels and muscles were observed in rabbits when administrated with APZ001 and Erbitux respectively.

CONCLUSION

The safety comparisons between APZ001 antibody and Erbitux showed that these two antibodies showed highly similarities in mice, rabbits and cynomolgus monkey animal models in consideration of pharmaceutical effects, indicating APZ001 might be a suitable substitute for Erbitux.

Differential efficacy of biologic treatments targeting the TNF-α/IL-23/IL-17 axis in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis

Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis cause significant physical and psychological burdens for afflicted individuals. An accelerated TNF-α/IL-23/IL-17 axis is their major pathomechanism; therefore, anti-TNF-α/IL-23/IL-17 biologics are very effective for the treatment of skin and joint lesions in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Given that the IL-17 signature is more upregulated in the skin than in synovium in psoriatic arthritis, anti-IL-23/IL-17 agents seem to be superior to anti-TNF-α remedies in the treatment of skin lesions. In this review, we focus on the differential efficacy of anti-TNF-α/IL-23/IL-17 biologics in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

Psoriasis: from Pathogenesis to Targeted Therapies

Over the last decade, the management of psoriasis has witnessed a paradigm shift. Thanks to the increasing knowledge about the pathogenesis of psoriasis, targeted treatments with monoclonal antibodies have been developed. These antibodies, which target the pathogenic TNF/IL-23/IL-17-pathway, were shown to be safe and efficacious in the management of most patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. Recently, molecular and genetic studies in pustular and erythrodermic psoriasis have identified additional inflammatory pathways, providing evidence that psoriasis is a heterogeneous disease and highlighting the requirement for personalized disease characterization for treatment optimization. In this article, we will review these advances and provide an update on the currently available treatment arsenal. We discuss the efficacy and safety profile of these individual therapeutic agents and describe their use in special indications. We will also describe the current understanding of psoriasis as a systemic disease associated with multiple comorbidities and illustrate its impact in the management of psoriatic patients. Finally, we discuss ongoing therapeutic developments as well as unmet needs and future perspectives in the field of psoriasis.

Biosimilar Drugs for Psoriasis: Principles, Present, and Near Future

Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory, lifelong disease with a high prevalence (afflicting approximately 1-5% of the population worldwide) and is associated with significant morbidity. The introduction of biologic therapies has improved the management of this disease. Multiple biologic medicines that block cytokine signaling, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists (adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab) and inhibitors of interleukin (IL)-17 (brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab), IL-23 (guselkumab), or IL-12/23 (ustekinumab), are approved for the treatment of psoriasis. Despite the clinical benefits associated with use of biologics in psoriasis, many patients are not treated with biologic therapy, and access to treatment may be limited for various reasons, such as high treatment costs. Patents for many biologics have expired or will soon expire, and biosimilar versions of these agents are available or in development. A biosimilar is a biological product that is highly similar to an approved biologic (i.e., originator or reference) product, and has no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, or potency when compared with the reference product. Biosimilars may offer less expensive treatment options for patients with psoriasis; they also may increase access to and address problems with underutilization of biologic therapy. Biosimilar development and approval follows a well-regulated process in many countries, with guidelines developed by the European Medicines Agency, US Food and Drug Administration, and World Health Organization. Currently, several anti-TNF biosimilars are available for use in patients with psoriasis, and other monoclonal antibodies are in development. This review provides dermatologists and those who treat and/or manage psoriasis with a working knowledge of the scientific principles of biosimilar development and approval. It also examines real-world experience with biosimilars available for or used in dermatology that will enable physicians to make informed treatment decisions for their patients with psoriasis.

FUNDING

Pfizer Inc.

Autoimmunity and autoimmune co-morbidities in psoriasis

Psoriasis is characterized by widespread scaly erythematous plaques that cause significant physical and psychological burdens for the affected individuals. Accelerated inflammation driven by the tumour necrosis factor-α/interleukin-23/interleukin-17 axis is now known to be the major mechanism in the development of psoriasis. In addition, psoriasis has an autoimmune nature that manifests as autoreactive T cells and is co-morbid with other autoimmune diseases, such as autoimmune bullous diseases, vitiligo, alopecia and thyroiditis. In this article, we review the recent topics on autoimmunity and autoimmune co-morbidities in psoriasis.