Era of biosimilars in rheumatology: reshaping the healthcare environment

The impact of biosimilar use on healthcare utilization among new users of etanercept for inflammatory arthritis: a population-based regression discontinuity analysis

Background

Epidemiological evidence on biosimilars' real-world performance is limited. On July 18th, 2017, a biosimilar health policy was implemented in British Columbia (BC), Canada, mandating all patients initiating a new biologic medication to be prescribed a biosimilar (if/when available). Exploiting a policy change as a natural experiment, we assessed the real-world impact of biosimilar use for inflammatory arthritis (IA) on health resource utilization as a surrogate marker of real-world effectiveness and safety.

Methods

Using administrative health data, we identified all incident etanercept users for IA in BC with initiation dates between 2014 and 2020 (n = 3004) [63·6% female; mean (S.D.) age at IA disease diagnosis 52·5 (16·6) years]. Healthcare utilization over three years after initiation was assessed using outcomes including - physician visits (PV), all-cause hospitalizations (ACH), infection-related hospitalizations (IRH), length of hospital stays (LOS), and emergency room visits (ERV). Using regression discontinuity design, we compared healthcare utilization risk in patients initiating etanercept immediately before/after policy-change date, representing the intention-to-treat effect. Additionally, we estimated the complier average causal effect of biosimilar use with instrumental variable (IV) control function method.

Findings

Intention-to-treat analyses showed no significant impact of biosimilar policy implementation on PV, HOSP, IRH, LOS, or ERV, with respective adjusted RRs of 0·96 (95% CI: 0·82-1·12), 0·84 (95% CI: 0·49-1·44), 0·91 (95% CI: 0·21-3·86), 0·94 (95% CI: 0·41-2·15), and 0·91 (95% CI: 0·44-1·88). IV analyses indicated biosimilar use in routine settings did not significantly change healthcare utilization, compared to originator etanercept.

Interpretation

No significant impact of biosimilar policy or actual biosimilar use on healthcare utilization was observed, suggesting equivalent real-world effectiveness and safety of biosimilars to originators and no unintended consequences of the policy change.

Funding

CHIR and NSERC.

Switching from Adalimumab Reference Product to and Among Adalimumab Biosimilars Outside the USA: Insights for US Clinicians

Ten adalimumab biosimilars have been introduced in the United States (USA) since 2023, while adalimumab biosimilars have been available for several years in other countries. These experiences of biosimilar uptake outside the USA can inform US-based healthcare professionals on switching in real-life practice settings. Considerations include how healthcare professionals might meaningfully address patient concerns about outcomes to improve patient satisfaction. A search of the MEDLINE database was used to identify publications on switching to and among adalimumab biosimilars in an ex-US setting, with no restriction on publication language and using a time frame of 1 January 2017 through 12 December 2023, coinciding with the European Union approval of the first adalimumab biosimilar, adalimumab-atto, in March 2017. This narrative review aims to provide insights into the efficacy and safety of transitioning to and among adalimumab biosimilars in adult patients from clinical studies but also, more importantly, using real-world evidence (RWE) from outside the USA. Overall, RWE suggested that efficacy and outcomes were consistent in patients who underwent switching from the reference product (RP) across various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases when compared to patients who did not switch from the RP. The ex-US RWE of RP and biosimilar adalimumab switches generally reflected the experiences observed in clinical trials; however, RWE findings elucidated several challenges to biosimilar uptake, including patient education, provider training, and supportive policies.

Efficacy and Safety of Ranibizumab Biosimilar QL1205 in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Phase III Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to demonstrate the clinical equivalence of biosimilar QL1205 and reference ranibizumab, Lucentis, in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

DESIGN

This was a multicenter, double-masked, randomized, controlled phase III trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Treatment-naive patients with active nAMD were randomly assigned to receive QL1205 or reference ranibizumab.

METHODS

Patients received intravitreal injection of QL1205 or reference ranibizumab at a dose of 0.5 mg in the study eye once every 4 weeks for 48 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) by ETDRS letters at week 8 compared with baseline level. Biosimilarity of QL1205 to reference ranibizumab was assessed with an equivalence range for the difference in BCVA letters between -3.49 and +3.49.

RESULTS

Between June 27, 2019 and June 8, 2021, 616 patients were randomized to the QL1205 group (n = 308) and the reference ranibizumab group (n = 308). The mean improvement of BCVA was +6.3 ± 9.13 ETDRS letters in the QL1205 group and +7.3 ± 8.82 ETDRS letters in the reference ranibizumab group at week 8. Both the 90% confidence interval (CI, -2.23 to 0.13) and 95% CI (-2.46 to 0.36) of the difference between the 2 treatment groups (P = 0.1434) were within the predefined equivalence range. Safety profiles were manageable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

QL1205 was biosimilar to reference ranibizumab regarding clinical efficacy, ocular and systemic safety, as well as immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics profiles in the treatment of patients with nAMD.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Biosimilars: A Critical Review of Development, Regulatory Landscape, and Clinical Implications

The biopharmaceutical industry has witnessed significant growth in the development and approval of biosimilars. These biosimilars aim to provide cost-effective alternatives to expensive originator biosimilars, alleviating financial pressures within healthcare. The manufacturing of biosimilars is a highly complex process that involves several stages, each of which must meet strict regulatory standards to ensure that the final product is highly similar to the reference biologic. To gain regulatory approval, biosimilars must undergo rigorous analytical characterization including in vitro assays, bioanalytical evaluations, and clinical similarity studies like pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD) assessments-to demonstrate safety, efficacy, quality comparability with reference products. Leading regulatory agencies such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) have established stringent guidelines for biosimilar evaluation and post-marketing surveillance. Despite this regulatory clarity, challenges around interchangeability, market exclusivity, and patent protection often delay market access and limit adoption, particularly in regions where automatic substitution is restricted. Case studies of biosimilars such as rituximab, adalimumab, filgrastim, and trastuzab reveal both advancements and ongoing hurdles in achieving broader market integration. The introduction of biosimilars has shown potential to reduce healthcare costs; for example, a recent analysis indicates a 20-30% cost reduction in the U.S. due to biosimilar adoption. As the biosimilar market expands, collaborative efforts among regulatory bodies, industry stakeholders, and healthcare providers are essential to enhance access to biologic therapies. This collaboration is poised to improve patient outcomes and catalyse transformative change in global healthcare systems.

Biosimilars in pediatric rheumatology: innovations, challenges, and opportunities

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars are biologic medications designed to closely replicate the properties of previously approved biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). They offer a cost-effective alternative once the original product's patent has expired.

AREAS COVERED

In pediatric rheumatology, the use of biosimilars began in 2013 with the launch of the infliximab biosimilar. Since then, more biosimilars, including etanercept, rituximab, and adalimumab, have been introduced, providing additional treatment options for children with rheumatic diseases. This article explores the role of biosimilars in pediatric rheumatology, particularly in juvenile idiopathic arthritis, focusing on their development, safety, and efficacy, as well as the challenges associated with their clinical adoption. It also addresses the importance of education in improving understanding of biosimilars.

EXPERT OPINION

The article provides insights into their safety, effectiveness, and economic impact by reviewing current literature to help healthcare professionals make informed decisions for treating pediatric rheumatic diseases. Education for both patients and healthcare providers, effective communication, and expectation management play a critical role in ensuring appropriate treatment continuity.

Diabetic macular edema (DME): dissecting pathogenesis, prognostication, diagnostic modalities along with current and futuristic therapeutic insights

One of the most common health concerns disturbing people within working years globally is diabetes mellitus (DM). One well-known consequence of DM is vascular damage, which can manifest as macro- and microangiopathy affecting the ocular retina. Therefore, Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a major sight-threatening complication of diabetic retinopathy (DR) worldwide. It is the most prevalent cause of significant vision impairment in diabetic patients. Long-term vision loss can be avoided by following early DME treatment guidelines in everyday life. Hence, there are various therapeutic approaches for DME management. Currently, the first-line treatment for DME is anti-VEGF family drugs, such as ranibizumab, brolucizumab, bevacizumab, and aflibercept. Nevertheless, relapses of the disease, inadequate response, and resistance during anti-VEGF therapy are still seen because of the intricate pathophysiological foundation of the disease. Consequently, there is an excellent requirement for therapeutic approaches to advance and become better at controlling diseases more satisfactorily and require fewer treatments overall. We conducted a thorough literature search in the current review to present a comprehensive overview of the primary data about the current DME therapeutic agents. We also covered the novel advances in DME management and probable future treatments being investigated and developed. This review recommended that Large clinical trials should afford sufficient evidence to support these innovative treatment modalities.

Counting the costs: a nationwide study on healthcare use following an adalimumab biosimilar switch in >1300 inflammatory arthritis patients

Background

In Denmark, cost savings motivate mandatory biosimilar switches. In 2018, patients switched from originator to biosimilar adalimumab, that is, to GP2017 in Eastern and to SB5 in Western Denmark. However, concerns were raised about additional costs covering, that is, an increased number of outpatient visits due to patient education, treatment monitoring, and patient concerns.

Objectives

To investigate whether the switch led to increased total healthcare costs, defined as costs related to in- and outpatient contacts in hospitals and the primary sector and use of prescription medicine (excluding biological treatment).

Design

Observational cohort study with geographical cluster pseudo-randomization.

Methods

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA), who switched were identified in the nationwide DANBIO registry. Total healthcare costs 9 months before and after the switch were captured from the National Patient and Prescription registries. The difference between pre- and post-switch costs was estimated by a generalized estimation equations (GEE) model.

Results

Overall, 1316 patients switched to GP2017 (n = 621) or SB5 (n = 695). Total healthcare costs were mainly driven by hospital costs. The monthly fluctuations of hospital costs 9 months before and after the switch were largely similar or decreased. In the adjusted analyses (GEE), hospital costs decreased after the switch (by approximately 15%) for GP2017 switchers, especially PsA (estimate = 0.83; 95% CI 0.75-0.92) and AxSpA patients (estimate = 0.85; 0.77-0.93), with no significant changes for SB5 switchers.

Conclusion

We found no increase in total healthcare costs in 9 months following a nationwide mandatory adalimumab originator to biosimilar switch. Our findings were strengthened by similar results for GP2017 and SB5.

Outcomes following switching from etanercept originator to etanercept biosimilar in 1024 patients with RA: a matched-analysis of the BSRBR-RA

OBJECTIVES

Adults with RA are being switched from etanercept originator to biosimilar in non-medical/cost-saving switching. This analysis aims to investigate outcomes in these patients, including (i) drug survival and (ii) disease activity at 6 months and 12 months, compared with those who remain on the originator.

METHODS

Using BSRBR-RA, those who switched directly from etanercept originator to biosimilar were identified and matched to patients receiving the originator, based on gender, age, disease duration and originator start year. Drug survival was calculated; Cox-proportional hazard models assessed differences in drug persistence between those who switched vs remaining on originator. Change in DAS28 after 6 months and 12 months was compared between cohorts. Multiple imputation was used.

RESULTS

A total of 1024 adults with RA switching from etanercept originator to biosimilar were included, with a matched cohort of patients remaining on the originator. Patients who switched onto a biosimilar product were no more likely to discontinue etanercept treatment vs those who remained on the originator; hazard ratio 1.06 (95%CI 0.89-1.26), with 65% of patients remaining on treatment at three years. Ninety-five (9%) patients switched back to the originator within the first year. After 6 months and 12 months, biosimilar patients were no more likely to have a worsening of DAS28 (>0.6 units) compared with those who remained on the originator.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest matched comparative effectiveness analysis showing patients switching from etanercept originator to biosimilar appearing to do just as well with regard to disease activity and drug persistence compared with those who remained on the originator. These data will be reassuring to clinicians and patients regarding non-medical switching.

Outcomes after anti-tumour necrosis factor originator to biosimilar switching in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the UK: a national cohort study

BACKGROUND

For cost-saving purposes, children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) are being switched (for non-medical reasons) from biological originators to biosimilars. Here, we aimed to investigate those who switched from an anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) originator to a biosimilar, regarding drug survival and disease activity, compared with a matched cohort who continued the originator.

METHODS

This analysis included all patients in the UK JIA Biologics Register switching directly from an anti-TNF originator to a biosimilar of the same product. All patients were matched (age, sex, disease duration, calendar year of when patients started originator therapy, line of therapy, and International League of Associations for Rheumatology [ILAR] category) to patients continuing the originator. For those matched successfully, a Cox proportional hazard model assessed whether drug persistence differed between those who switched compared with those who continued the originator. Overall change in the 71-joint juvenile arthritis disease activity score and the proportion of patients with a clinically important worsening score (by ≥1·7 units) after 6 months was compared between cohorts. This analysis was designed to address a priority research area set by our patient partners.

FINDINGS

There were 224 children and young people with non-systemic JIA (139 [62%] were female, and 85 [38%] were male) identified as switching from a biological originator to a biosimilar of the same product from Jan 1, 2017, to July 7, 2023. 143 (64%) patients were originally on adalimumab, 56 (25%) on etanercept, and 25 (11%) on infliximab. Of these, 164 patients were matched successfully to those continuing the originator. There was no evidence that patients switching were more likely to stop treatment compared with those continuing the originator, with a hazard ratio of 1·46 (95% CI 0·93-2·30). Of the 51 patients in the biosimilar group who stopped treatment, 18 (35%) switched back to the originator (14 in the first year), 28 (55%) started a different biological drug, and five (10%) discontinued all treatment by the last follow-up. Of the 87 matched patients with available disease activity, there was no evidence that JADAS-71 worsened more after 6 months, with an odds ratio of 0·71 (95% CI 0·34-1·51; p=0·38).

INTERPRETATION

In this matched comparative effectiveness analysis, children and young people with JIA switched from originators to biosimilars. Disease activity was similar between patients switching compared with those continuing the originator. Three quarters of patients were still receiving their biosimilar after 1 year, with switching back to originator uncommon, at only 9% after 1 year, suggesting good tolerability of non-medical switching in this patient population. This information is reassuring to clinicians and patients regarding the effect of non-medical biological switching.

FUNDING

British Society for Rheumatology, Versus Arthritis, and National Institutes for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.

Non-TNF biologics and their biosimilars in rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory rheumatic disease that affects both the articular and extra-articular structures, leading to significant joint damage, disability and excess mortality. The treatment algorithm of RA has changed tremendously in the past 1-2 decades because of the emergence of novel biological therapies that target different mechanisms of action in addition to TNFα.

AREAS COVERED

This article summarizes the evidence and safety of the non-TNF biological DMARDs in the treatment of RA, including those that target B cells, T-cell co-stimulation, interleukin (IL)-6 and granulocyte-monocyte colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). The targeted synthetic DMARDs such as the Janus kinase inhibitors are not included. The availability of the less costly biosimilars has enabled more patients to receive biological therapy earlier in the course of the disease. The evidence for the non-TNF biosimilar compounds in RA is also reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

There are unmet needs of developing novel therapeutic agents to enhance the response rate and provide more options for difficult-to-treat RA. These include the newer generation biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs. A personalized treatment strategy in RA requires evaluation of the cellular, cytokine, genomic and transcriptomic profile that would predict treatment response to biologic or targeted DMARDs of different mechanisms of action.

Clinical Efficacy of Biosimilar Switch of Adalimumab for Management of Uveitis

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab has demonstrated efficacy in non-infectious uveitis. With the introduction of biosimilar agents such as Amgevita, we aimed to quantify efficacy and tolerability compared to Humira in a multi-centre UK cohort.

METHODS

Patients identified from tertiary uveitis clinics in 3 centres, after institution-mandated switching was implemented.

RESULTS

Data collected for 102 patients, aged 2-75 years, with 185 active eyes. Following switch, rates of uveitis flare were not significantly different (13 events before, 21 after, p = .132). Rates of elevated intraocular pressure were decreased (32 before, 25 afterwards, p = .006) and dosing of oral and intra-ocular steroids was stable. Twenty-four patients (24%) requested to return to Humira, commonly due to pain from injection or technical difficulty with the device.

CONCLUSION

Amgevita is safe and effective for inflammatory uveitis with non-inferiority to Humira. Significant numbers of patients requested to switch back due to side effects including injection site reactions.

Comparative effectiveness of etanercept originator and biosimilar for treating rheumatoid arthritis: implications for cost-savings

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of the etanercept (ETN) originator (Enbrel) and ETN biosimilar SB4 (Brenzys) as first-line treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), while also exploring the potential cost-savings associated with this approach in Australia.

METHODS

Clinical data were obtained from the Optimising Patient outcomes in rheumatoLogy Australian real-world data set. Adult patients with RA who had initiated treatment with the ETN originator or biosimilar as their first-recorded biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug between 1 April 2017 and 31 December 2020 were included. Treatment persistence was analysed using survival analysis. Cost-savings were estimated based on data reported by the Australian National Prescribing Service MedicineWise.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching followed by inverse probability of treatment weighting selected patients taking originator (n = 209) or biosimilar (n = 141) with similar baseline characteristics and eliminated small differences in baseline disease activity. The median time for 50% of the patients to stop treatment was 19.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.7-36.4 months) for the originator and 22.4 months (95% CI, 15.0-33.1 months) for the biosimilar (P = 0.95). As a result of pricing policies established by the Australian Government, introduction of the ETN biosimilar would have resulted in a cost-savings of over AU$9.5 million for 1 year of treatment for the patients reported in this study.

CONCLUSION

Treatment persistence using either ETN originator or biosimilar was similar. The cost of all brands of ETN markedly reduced upon listing of the ETN biosimilar, resulting in significant savings for the Australian Government.

Modelling the opportunity for cost-savings or patient access with biosimilar adalimumab and tocilizumab: a European perspective

OBJECTIVES

Biosimilars improve patient access by providing cost-effective treatment options. This study assessed the potential for savings and expanded patient access with increased use of two biosimilar disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs): (a) approved adalimumab biosimilars and (b) the first tocilizumab biosimilar, representing an established biosimilar field and a recent biosimilar entrant in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

Separate ex-ante analyses were conducted for each country, parameterized using country-specific list prices, unit volumes annually, and market shares for each therapy. Discounting scenarios of 10%, 20%, and 30% were tested for tocilizumab. Outputs included direct cost-savings associated with drug acquisition or the incremental number of patients that could be treated if savings were redirected. Two biosimilar conversion scenarios were tested.

RESULTS

Savings associated with a 100% conversion to adalimumab biosimilar ranged from €10.5 to €187 million (UK and Germany, respectively), or an additional 1,096 to 19,454 patients that could be treated using the cost-savings. Introduction of a tocilizumab biosimilar provided savings up to €29.3 million in the most conservative scenario. Exclusive use of tocilizumab biosimilars (at a 30% discount) could increase savings to €28.8 to €113 million or expand access to an additional 43% of existing tocilizumab users across countries.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the benefits that can be realized through increased biosimilar adoption, not only in an untapped tocilizumab market, but also through incremental increases in well-established markets such as adalimumab. As healthcare budgets continue to face downwards pressure globally, strategies to increase biosimilar market share could prove useful to help manage financial constraints.

Drug utilization and medication adherence for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: an Italian study

Introduction

This study aims to evaluate the persistence, treatment adherence and drug cost associated with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in the management of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in Italy, with a focus on biosimilar drugs.

Methods

This was a retrospective observational study involving eight hospital pharmacies, between January 2017 and December 2020, on naïve patients with at least one b/tsDMARD dispensation indicated for PsA. Patients were followed up for 12 months and persistence and adherence were evaluated by proportion of days covered (PDC). The originator and biosimilar for adalimumab and etanercept were compared. Furthermore, the real annual cost per patient based on adherence to therapy was calculated.

Results

Patients initiating b/tsDMARDs for PsA had a mean persistence of 263 days and 48.6% remained persistent for 1 year. Adherent patients (PDC ≥ 0.8) were 47.6% for the overall population. Similar persistence and adherence were observed between patients treated with the adalimumab originator and its biosimilar, while patients treated with the etanercept originator showed lower persistence and adherence compared to those treated with its biosimilar (mean persistence: 222 vs. 267 days, patient persistent at 1 year: 29.4% vs. 51.5%, mean PDC: 0.53 vs. 0.70, adherent patients: 23.5% vs. 51.5%). The average annual drug cost ranged from €8,724 (etanercept) to €14,783 (ustekinumab), with an annual saving of more than €2,500 by using biosimilars.

Conclusion

Poor adherence to medications contributes to suboptimal clinical outcomes. The comparison between biosimilar and originator offers further evidence in support of the biosimilar to optimizing resources in healthcare.

ADA_ETA_BIO2021: real-world evaluation of adherence, persistence, and cost-effectiveness of originator and biosimilar biologic drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a multicenter study in Italy

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to assess the adherence, persistence, and costs of bDMARDs through a multicentre study of nine Italian hospital pharmacies.

METHODS

The drugs analysed were Abatacept, Adalimumab, Certolizumab, Etanercept, Golimumab and Tocilizumab.Adult subjects with Rheumatoid Arthritis were considered in the analysis.In this study, we calculated the following metrics: Adherence to treatment was evaluated as dose-intensity, which is the ratio between the amount of medication received and probably taken by the patient at home (Received Daily Dose, RDD) and the amount prescribed by the clinician (Prescribed Daily Dose, PDD). Persistence was calculated as the number of days between the first and last dispensing of the same drug. Lastly, costs were assessed based on persistence to treatment and normalized for adherence.

RESULTS

Adherence to treatment was found to be above 0.8 for all drugs studied. The median persistence for a 5-year treatment period was 1.4 years for Abatacept, 1.7 years for Adalimumab, 1.8 years for Certolizumab, 1.4 years for Etanercept, 1.3 years for Golimumab, and 1.6 years for Tocilizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicentre retrospective observational study of bDMARDs used in the treatment of RA showed that, for all the drugs studied, there was no problem with adherence to treatment but rather a difficulty in maintaining treatment with the same drug over time.

Imbalanced machine learning classification models for removal biosimilar drugs and increased activity in patients with rheumatic diseases

OBJECTIVE

Predict long-term disease worsening and the removal of biosimilar medication in patients with rheumatic diseases.

METHODOLOGY

Observational, retrospective descriptive study. Review of a database of patients with immune-mediated inflammatory rheumatic diseases who switched from a biological drug (biosimilar or non-biosimilar) to a biosimilar drug for at least 6 months. We selected the most important variables, from 18 variables, using mutual information tests. As patients with disease worsening are a minority, it is very difficult to make models with conventional machine learning techniques, where the best models would always be trivial. For this reason, we computed different types of imbalanced machine learning models, choosing those with better f1-score and mean ROC AUC.

RESULTS

We computed the best-imbalanced machine learning models to predict disease worsening and the removal of the biosimilar, with f1-scores of 0.52 and 0.63, respectively. Both models are decision trees. In the first one, two important factors are switching of biosimilar and age, and in the second, the relevant variables are optimization and the value of the initial PCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Biosimilar drugs do not always work well for rheumatic diseases. We obtain two imbalanced machine learning models to detect those cases, where the drug should be removed or where the activity of the disease increases from low to high. In our decision trees appear not previously studied variables, such as age, switching, or optimization.

Korean treatment recommendations for patients with axial spondyloarthritis

We aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations for treating axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) in Korea. The development committee was constructed, key clinical questions were determined, and the evidence was searched through online databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, KoreaMed, and Kmbase. Systematic literature reviews were conducted, quality of evidence was determined, and draft recommendations were formulated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology. Recommendations that reached 80% consensus among a voting panel were finalized. Three principles and 21 recommendations were determined. Recommendations 1 and 2 pertain to treatment strategies, regular disease status assessment, and rheumatologist-steered multidisciplinary management. Recommendations 3 and 4 strongly recommend patient education, exercise, and smoking cessation. Recommendations 5-12 address pharmacological treatment of active disease using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoids, sulfasalazine, biologics, and Janus kinase inhibitors. Recommendations 13-16 address treatment in stable disease. We suggest against spa and acupuncture as therapies (Recommendation 17). Recommendations 18 and 19 pertain to total hip arthroplasty and spinal surgery. Monitoring of comorbidities and drug toxicities are recommended (Recommendations 20 and 21). Recommendations for axSpA treatment in a Korean context were developed based on comprehensive clinical questions and evidence. These are intended to guide best practice in the treatment of axSpA.

A place for biosimilars in the changing multiple sclerosis treatment landscape

BACKGROUND

The treatment paradigm for multiple sclerosis (MS), particularly relapsing-remitting MS, is heavily reliant on biologic disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, the current cost of treatment acts as a significant barrier to access for patients. Over the next few years exclusivity periods for key biologic medicines used in MS are likely to end, opening the door for biosimilar medicines to enter the market.

METHODS

In this review, we discuss what biosimilar medicines are, and how the existing experience with biosimilar medicines across multiple therapy areas can inform the assimilation of biosimilar medicines into the MS treatment landscape in Europe and the US.

RESULTS

There is currently a lack of knowledge and awareness around the distinctions and similarities between small molecules, non-biological complex drugs, and biological medicines, as well as the different categories of follow-on successor medicines. These include biosimilar medicines that offer a matching efficacy and safety profile to the reference biologic. Understanding and recognition of the stringency of the approval pathways required for drug categories such as biosimilars are key in building confidence in treatment outcomes. For example, biosimilar medicines are sometimes perceived only as 'copies' of their reference biologic despite undergoing an extensive approval process requiring that no clinically meaningful differences are observed between the biosimilar medicine and the reference medicine. For MS, introduction of biosimilar medicines in the future will enable more people with MS to receive effective treatment, and also expand access to biologic DMTs in MS. Experiences from the use of biosimilars in multiple therapy areas have shown us that this can result in cost-saving benefits for a healthcare system. Introduction of biosimilar medicines in other therapy areas has also demonstrated the importance of appropriate, accurate education and information for their successful integration into clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

In order to realize optimized treatment outcomes in MS in coming years and to find the appropriate place for biosimilar medicines in the changing MS landscape, it is essential that clinicians and people with MS understand the fundamentals of biosimilars, their potential benefits and consistency of treatment provided by a biosimilar medicine, given the matching efficacy and safety profile to its reference medicine. As evidenced in other therapy areas, biosimilar medicines may reduce key barriers to access by providing a cost-effective alternative to the MS treatment arsenal, while providing the same treatment outcomes as reference biologics.

Budget impact analysis and treatment availability with biosimilar TNF inhibitors in rheumatic diseases in Poland: real-world evidence using a nationwide database

OBJECTIVES

Although several years have passed since biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs were introduced to the market, considerable disparities in access still remain. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) have proven to be highly effective and safe for treating patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). The emergence of biosimilars is promising for cost reduction and more equitable, widespread access.

METHODS

A retrospective budget impact analysis based on final drug prices was conducted using 12 687 treatment courses for infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab. Estimated and real-life savings for public payer were calculated from an 8-year perspective of TNFi use. Data on the treatment cost and on the evolution in the number of patients treated was provided.

RESULTS

From a public payer perspective, the estimated total savings amount to over €243 million for TNFi, with over €166 million attributed to treatment cost reduction in RMDs. Real-life savings were calculated as €133 million and €107 million, respectively. The rheumatology sector generated between 68% and 92% of total savings across models, depending on the adopted scenario. The overall decrease in mean annual cost of treatment ranged between 75% and 89% in the study frame. If all budget savings were spent on reimbursement of additional TNFi, a hypothetical total of almost 45 000 patients with RMDs could be treated in 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first nation-level analysis that shows estimated and real-life direct cost-savings for TNFi biosimilars. Transparent criteria for reinvesting savings should be developed on both a local and an international levels.

Randomized Trial of Biosimilar XSB-001 versus Reference Ranibizumab in Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of a ranibizumab biosimilar candidate (XSB-001) versus reference product (Lucentis) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

DESIGN

Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with nAMD.

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to receive intravitreal injections of XSB-001 or reference ranibizumab (0.5 mg [0.05 ml]) in the study eye once every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. Efficacy and safety assessments continued through 52 weeks of treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary end point was change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) by ETDRS letters at week 8. Biosimilarity was concluded if the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) (United States) or 95% CI (rest of world) for the difference in least-squares (LS) mean change in BCVA at week 8 between treatment groups was within the predefined equivalence margin of ± 3.5 letters.

RESULTS

In total, 582 patients (n = 292 XSB-001, n = 290 reference ranibizumab) were randomized. Mean age was 74.1 years, most patients (85.2%) were White, and 55.8% were women. Mean BCVA score at baseline was 61.7 and 61.5 ETDRS letters in the XSB-001 and reference ranibizumab groups, respectively. At week 8, the LS mean (standard error [SE]) change in BCVA from baseline was 4.6 (0.5) ETDRS letters in the XSB-001 group and 6.4 (0.5) letters in the reference ranibizumab group (LS mean [SE] treatment difference: -1.8 [0.7] ETDRS letters; 90% CI, -2.9 to -0.7; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.5). The 90% CI and 95% CI for LS mean difference in change from baseline were within the predefined equivalence margin. At week 52, LS mean (SE) change in BCVA was 6.4 (0.8) and 7.8 (0.8) letters, respectively (LS mean [SE] treatment difference, -1.5 [1.1] ETDRS letters; 90% CI, -3.3 to 0.4; 95% CI, -3.6 to 0.7). There were no clinically meaningful differences between treatments in anatomical, safety, or immunogenicity end points through week 52.

CONCLUSIONS

XSB-001 demonstrated biosimilarity to reference ranibizumab in patients with nAMD. Treatment with XSB-001 for 52 weeks was generally safe and well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to the reference product.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Reversing the Inflammatory Process-25 Years of Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Inhibitors

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, peripheral and/or axial spondyloarthritis, Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis, are characterized by molecular and cellular changes in the immune system. Due to the systemic nature of these diseases, organs such as the liver or cardiovascular system are often affected by the inflammatory process. Tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor therapy reduces the activation of pro-inflammatory signaling cascades, mitigates the chronic inflammatory process by restoring cellular balance, and alleviates clinical consequences, such as pain and tissue damage.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity of biosimilar natalizumab (PB006) to its reference medicine: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

PB006 (Polpharma Biologics S.A; marketed as Tyruko®, Sandoz) is an approved biosimilar to natalizumab (Tysabri®; Biogen [ref-NTZ]). This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, single-dose study was conducted to demonstrate pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) similarity between PB006 and ref-NTZ.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Healthy participants (N = 453) were randomized to receive 3 mg/kg infusion of PB006, US-licensed, or EU-approved ref-NTZ before an 85-day follow-up. Primary PK endpoint was total natalizumab serum concentration over time; secondary PK endpoints explored concentration changes. Primary PD endpoints compared CD19+ cell counts and percentage α4-integrin receptor saturation, per natalizumab's mechanism of action. Secondary PD endpoints explored serum changes in sVCAM-1 and sMAdCAM-1, CD34+, and CD19+ cells. Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity were assessed.

RESULTS

The primary PK endpoint was met, with 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean for serum test/reference ratios contained within a prespecified margin (0.8-1.25). All primary PD endpoints were met, with 90% and 95% CIs within this similarity margin for baseline-adjusted CD19+ cell counts and percentage α4-integrin receptor saturation. All secondary endpoints were similarly contained, except sVCAM. No notable differences in safety, tolerability, or immunogenicity were observed.

CONCLUSION

Similarity was confirmed, with PB006 demonstrating PK/PD behavior consistent with that of ref-NTZ.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT number 2019-003874-15.

Korean treatment recommendations for patients with axial spondyloarthritis

We aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations for treating axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) in Korea. The development committee was constructed, key clinical questions were determined, and the evidence was searched through online databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, KoreaMed, and KMbase. Systematic literature reviews were conducted, quality of evidence was determined, and draft recommendations were formulated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology. Recommendations that reached 80% consensus among a voting panel were finalized. Three principles and 21 recommendations were determined. Recommendations 1 and 2 pertain to treatment strategies, regular disease status assessment, and rheumatologist-steered multidisciplinary management. Recommendations 3 and 4 strongly recommend patient education, exercise, and smoking cessation. Recommendations 5~12 address pharmacological treatment of active disease using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoids, sulfasalazine, biologics, and Janus kinase inhibitors. Recommendations 13~16 address treatment in stable disease. We suggest against spa and acupuncture as therapies (Recommendation 17). Recommendations 18 and 19 pertain to total hip arthroplasty and spinal surgery. Monitoring of comorbidities and drug toxicities are recommended (Recommendations 20 and 21). Recommendations for axSpA treatment in a Korean context were developed based on comprehensive clinical questions and evidence. These are intended to guide best practice in the treatment of axSpA.

A Systematic Literature Review of Injection Site Pain Perception in Adult Patients Treated with Citrate-Free and Citrate-Containing Biologic Agents

OBJECTIVE

To investigate injection site pain (ISP) and other injection site outcomes caused by biologics administered alongside citrate-free (CF) and citrate-containing (CC) formulations.

METHODS

Electronic literature databases (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched for clinical trials and observational studies reporting on injection site outcomes after subcutaneous administration of biologics. Studies with unknown excipient formulations were excluded. The primary outcome was ISP, and secondary outcomes included any other reported injection site reactions (ISRs). Meta-analysis approaches were used to aggregate evidence identified via the conducted systematic literature review.

RESULTS

A total of two observational studies, two cross-over/sequential trials, and three head-tohead comparison trials directly comparing CF with CC biologics were identified, as well as seven placebo-controlled trials. Evidence from five of the seven direct comparison studies suggested reduced pain perception at the injection site when CF formulations were applied. Findings for other ISRs were balanced between both formulations, with slightly favorable results for preparations without citrate. A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials found no significant difference between arms with CF formulations and placebo regarding the proportion of patients experiencing ISP (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.30-1.28).

CONCLUSION

Excipient formulations are rarely specified in studies assessing pain and other ISRs of subcutaneously administered biologics. The available data indicate that subcutaneous administration of biologic agents without citrate may be associated with lower pain perception outcomes compared with treatment using CC formulations. Importantly, ISP is influenced by many factors which may have affected the results. More research is needed to assess how formulation excipients influence ISRs.

Systematic review of efficacy and meta-analysis of safety of ranibizumab biosimilars relative to reference ranibizumab anti-VEGF therapy for nAMD treatment

TOPIC

This systematic review and meta-analysis provides a summary of the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab biosimilars relative to reference ranibizumab anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

METHODS

We conducted systematic searches from January 2003 to August 2022 on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials. We included studies reporting changes in early treatment diabetic retinopathy study-measured best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), number of patients who lost or gained more than 15 letters in BCVA from baseline, changes in retinal thickness and adverse events between treatment arms. The following studies were excluded: studies that did not report visual outcomes following biosimilar and reference ranibizumab intravitreal injections, study arms combining anti-VEGF agents with laser or steroid injections, sham injections as a control comparator, studies without English full texts and non-comparative, observational study design.

RESULTS

Five studies reported on four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 1544 eyes at baseline were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The studies in our systematic review found no significant differences between reference ranibizumab and ranibizumab biosimilar medications (FYB201, SB11, RanizuRel and Lupin's ranibizumab) for visual and anatomical outcomes. No significant differences were detected between biosimilar and reference ranibizumab for treatment emergent adverse events (risk ratio, RR 1.06, 95% CI (0.91 to 1.23), p=0.45, I²=52%) or IOP-related adverse events with significant heterogeneity (RR 2.59, 95% CI (0.11 to 62.25), p=0.56, I²=76%).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review of four RCTs demonstrated no significant difference in visual outcomes, retinal thickness outcomes, as well as meta-analysis of adverse events between biosimilar and reference ranibizumab therapies for nAMD treatment.

Outcomes Following Adalimumab Bio-originator to Biosimilar Switch-A Comparison Using Real-world Patient- and Physician-Reported Data in European Countries

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this work is to compare real-world outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving adalimumab (ADA) bio-originator (non-switchers) to those who had switched from ADA bio-originator to an ADA biosimilar (switchers) on the basis of the hypothesis that these outcomes would differ.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of physicians and their patients in Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) in 2020. Physicians completed a questionnaire for their next ten adult patients with RA, followed by four additional patients who had switched from ADA bio-originator to an ADA biosimilar (switchers). Physician- and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for switchers and non-switchers were compared by propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Three hundred and three rheumatologists provided data for 160 non-switchers and 225 switchers, 140 patients provided data; 51 non-switchers, 89 switchers. According to physician-reported disease activity, non-switchers were more likely to improve on their current ADA treatment than switchers (68%, n = 108 vs. 26%, n = 59 p < 0.001) and less likely to worsen (1%, n = 2 vs. 9%, n = 20; p < 0.01). Physician-reported patient adherence was significantly lower amongst switchers versus non-switchers (0.66 vs. 0.78, respectively; p = 0.04). More non-switchers than switchers were reported by their physicians to be consistent in taking their RA medicine (p < 0.001). Compared with non-switchers, PRO measures indicated quality of life was worse (EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale: 62.9 vs. 71.9; p < 0.001) and activity impairment was greater (Work Productivity Activity Index: 31.0 vs. 24.4; p = 0.02) for switchers, with trends for poorer health status and greater pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-medical switching in RA treatment may lead to unforeseen outcomes that should be considered by health decision-makers.

Safety and Effectiveness of Multiple Switching Between Originators and Biosimilars: Literature Review and Status Report on Interchangeability

To date, numerous biosimilars are available in Europe and the practice of switching between originator and biosimilar or between two different biosimilars has become very widespread. However, multiple switching has not been adequately studied. The aim of this study is to conduct a literature review to assess the effectiveness and safety of multiple switches. All PubMed articles involving multiple switches from originator to biosimilars or between different biosimilars were considered. The relevant data on effectiveness and safety were extracted from these studies and the results were reported through descriptive analysis. Fifteen studies were considered, of which 11 were observational and 4 clinical trials. Inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis were the most studied diseases. All studies reported that the effectiveness and safety in patients whose treatment involved multiple switches, was comparable to patients whose treatment involved a single or no switch at all. Some therapeutic fields such as oncology and renal insufficiency were not represented at all in the multiple switch studies. New evidence is desperately needed and should be made available to the scientific community and decision-makers.

Consistency of Product Quality for SB5, an Adalimumab Biosimilar

BACKGROUND

Biologics, regardless of whether they are biosimilars or reference products, are inherently variable due to their size, complexity, and the manufacturing process involved to produce them. Since a drift or evolution of quality attributes of a biologic may impact its clinical safety or efficacy, it is critical for the manufacturer to carefully control the manufacturing process and monitor the quality attributes of a biologic.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to demonstrate that the quality profile of the SB5 drug product has been consistent over its production history from 2013 to 2022. SB5 is a biosimilar referencing adalimumab (Humira, trademark of AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd) and SB5 has been approved by 14 regulatory authorities including the European Commission in August 2017 (brand name Imraldi™) and the US Food and Drug Administration in July 2019 (brand name Hadlima™).

METHODS

A total of 93 SB5 drug product batches manufactured between 2013 and 2022 were analyzed for a series of release parameters to evaluate the consistency in their critical quality attributes including purity, charge variants, and functional activities (TNF-α binding activity and TNF-α neutralizing potency).

RESULTS

The purity, charge variants, and functional activities of all batches were consistent over time and within the stringent acceptance criteria defined by regulatory agencies to ensure the safety and efficacy of SB5.

CONCLUSION

The data presented in this study provide evidence that the quality of SB5 has remained consistent and tightly controlled even through process changes such as manufacturing site transfers and change in formulation.

Efficacy and Safety of Proposed Biosimilar Natalizumab (PB006) in Patients With Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: The Antelope Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Proposed biosimilar natalizumab (biosim-NTZ) PB006 is the first biosimilar monoclonal antibody therapy developed for multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment.

Objective

To evaluate matching efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity between biosim-NTZ and reference natalizumab (ref-NTZ) in patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS).

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Antelope trial was a phase 3, parallel-group, randomized, active-controlled study, conducted between October 2019 and March 2021, with last patient follow-up visit on August 23, 2021. The study took place in 48 centers in 7 countries. Of 531 patients with RRMS aged 18 to 60 years screened, 266 were excluded before randomization in line with study criteria. Eligible participants had 1 or more documented relapse within the previous year and either 1 or more gadolinium-enhancing T1-weighted or 9 or more T2-weighted brain lesions, Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 0 to 5.0 (inclusive), and John Cunningham virus index of 1.5 or less at screening. One patient withdrew consent before dosing.

Interventions

Intravenous infusions every 4 weeks of biosim-NTZ, 300 mg, or ref-NTZ, 300 mg (1:1 randomization), from week 0 to week 44 (end-of-study visit: week 48). At week 24, the ref-NTZ group was rerandomized and 30 patients were switched to biosim-NTZ for the remainder of the study.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the cumulative number of new active lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (new gadolinium-enhancing T1-weighted lesions and new/enlarging T2-weighted lesions without double counting) over 24 weeks. Additional end points included further magnetic resonance imaging parameters, annualized relapse rate, and Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale score. Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity assessments included adverse events, laboratory evaluations, and positivity for anti-John Cunningham virus antibodies and antinatalizumab antibodies.

Results

A total of 264 participants (mean [SD] age, 36.7 [9.38] years; 162 [61.4%] female) received treatment with biosim-NTZ (n = 131) or ref-NTZ (n = 133). At week 24, the model-based mean difference in cumulative number of new active lesions between biosim-NTZ and ref-NTZ treatment groups was 0.17 (least square means [SE]: biosim-NTZ, 0.34 [0.34]; ref-NTZ, 0.45 [0.28]; 95% CI, -0.61 to 0.94 within the prespecified margins of ±2.1). No significant differences between treatment groups were observed across secondary efficacy end points, safety, tolerability, or immunogenicity assessments.

Conclusions and Relevance

Biosim-NTZ matched ref-NTZ in efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity for patients with RRMS in the tested setting. This phase 3 trial supports proposed biosim-NTZ as a biosimilar alternative to ref-NTZ for treating RRMS.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04115488.

Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Accelerated Atherosclerosis, New Biomarkers, and the Effects of Biological Therapy

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), one of the most common of the chronic inflammatory autoimmune diseases (CIADs), is recognized as an independent cardiovascular risk factor. Traditional risk factors such as smoking, arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, and obesity are frequently found in RA. Given the increased risk of mortality and morbidity associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) in RA patients, screening for risk factors is important. Moreover, there is a need to identify potential predictors of subclinical atherosclerosis. Recent studies have shown that markers such as serum homocysteine, asymmetric dimethylarginine, or carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) are correlated with cardiovascular risk. Although RA presents a cardiovascular risk comparable to that of diabetes, it is not managed as well in terms of acute cardiovascular events. The introduction of biological therapy has opened new perspectives in the understanding of this pathology, confirming the involvement and importance of the inflammatory markers, cytokines, and the immune system. In addition to effects in inducing remission and slowing disease progression, most biologics have demonstrated efficacy in reducing the risk of major cardiovascular events. Some studies have also been conducted in patients without RA, with similar results. However, early detection of atherosclerosis and the use of targeted therapies are the cornerstone for reducing cardiovascular risk in RA patients.

Continuous effectiveness and safety after a hospital-wide switch to adalimumab biosimilar: An observational study in rheumatoid arthritis patients

The objective of this study was to examine the maintenance of effect and safety after a hospital-wide switch for economic reasons from adalimumab originator Humira® to biosimilar Amgevita® in real-world rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and patient satisfaction with the switch. We conducted a single-center retrospective observational study of RA patients on the course of their disease activity (DAS28, ESR, and CRP), health-related quality of life (SF-36), and functional disability (HAQ-DI) before and up to 1 year after the switch, supplemented with a cross-sectional survey on satisfaction and experienced side effects approximately 18 months after the switch. Treatment outcomes were analyzed with linear mixed modeling and generalized estimating equations. Of 52 RA patients sufficient data were available. Disease activity levels, the proportion of patients in remission, and SF-36 and HAQ-DI scores did not significantly change from before the switch. Overall, patients were satisfied with the switch. Three patients (7.9%) stopped the biosimilar due to side effects. In conclusion, switching to the adalimumab biosimilar did not result in increased disease activity or worse patient-reported outcomes. Also, there was no apparent evidence of increased side effects. Patients themselves were mostly satisfied with the switching experience.

Efficacy and safety of a new ranibizumab biosimilar CKD-701 using a pro re nata treatment regimen in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: A phase 3 randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed to establish the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity equivalence of the proposed biosimilar CKD-701 with the reference ranibizumab in patients with treatment-naïve neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 312 participants with active subfoveal choroidal neovascularization were randomly assigned to either the CKD-701 (n = 156) or reference ranibizumab (n = 156) arms. The initial 3-month loading intraocular injections were followed by pro re nata (PRN) dosing for 9 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with less than 15-letters of corrected visual acuity (BCVA) loss at 3 months visit (one month after last loading injection) compared to the baseline time point. The presence of retinal fluid, and changes in BCVA and central retinal thickness (CRT) were assessed as secondary efficacy outcomes. Immunogenicity and safety were evaluated in both treatment arms.

RESULTS

In the CKD-701 arm, 143 (97.95%) patients lost <15 letters in the BCVA at 3 months compared to 143 (98.62%) in the reference arm (P = 0.67). The BCVA improved with a mean improvement of +7.0 (CKD-701) and +6.2 (ranibizumab) letters at 3 months (P = 0.43). The least-squares mean (SE) changes in CRT at 3 months from the baseline were -119.3 (12.0) μm and -124.5 (11.9) μm in the CKD-701 and ranibizumab groups, respectively (P = 0.74). The proportion of participants with subretinal or intraretinal fluid at 3, 6, and 12 months was similar between the study arms. The number (SE) of injections were 8.36 (3.13) in the CKD-701 and 8.26 (2.92) in ranibizumab (P = 0.62). The occurrence of adverse events and antidrug antibody in the study arms were also not statistically different.

CONCLUSION

CKD-701 is a biosimilar to the reference ranibizumab in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity for the treatment of patients with nAMD. Moreover, improvement and maintenance of visual outcome were achieved through PRN regimen.

Infliximab biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease: clinical outcomes in real-world patients from the DANBIO registry

OBJECTIVE

Successful uptake of biosimilars in rheumatology is limited by lack of real-world evidence regarding effectiveness of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching. We investigated infliximab biosimilars CT-P13-to-GP1111 switching among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA).

METHODS

Observational cohort study from the DANBIO registry. Patients were classified as originator-naïve or originator-experienced. Retention rates of 1-year GP1111 treatment were explored (Kaplan-Meier). We identified baseline factors (at the time of switch) associated with withdrawal of GP1111 (multivariable Cox-regression analyses with HRs including originator treatment history). Changes in subjective and objective measures of disease activity 4 months before and after the switch were assessed in individual patients.

RESULTS

Of 1605 patients (685 RA, 314 PsA and 606 AxSpA, median disease duration was 9 years, 37% in Clinical Disease Activity Index/Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score remission), 1171 were originator-naïve. Retention rates at 1-year were 83% (95% CI: 81% to 85%) and 92% (95% CI: 90% to 95%) for the originator-naïve and originator-experienced, respectively. GP1111 retention rates were higher in originator-experienced compared to originator-naïve with RA (HR=0.4 (95% CI: 0.2 to 0.7)) and PsA (HR=0.2 (95% CI: 0.1 to 0.8)), but not significantly for AxSpA: HR=0.6 (95% CI: 0.3 to 1.2). Lower disease activity was associated with higher retention. Changes in disease activity preswitch and postswitch were close to zero.

CONCLUSION

This real-world observational study of more than 1600 patients with inflammatory arthritis showed high 1-year retention following a nationwide infliximab biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch. Retention was higher in originator-experienced and in patients with low disease activity, suggesting outcomes to be affected by patient-related rather than drug-related factors.

The second decade of anti-TNF-a therapy in clinical practice: new lessons and future directions in the COVID-19 era

Since the late 1990s, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors (anti-TNFs) have revolutionized the therapy of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) affecting the gut, joints, skin and eyes. Although the therapeutic armamentarium in IMIDs is being constantly expanded, anti-TNFs remain the cornerstone of their treatment. During the second decade of their application in clinical practice, a large body of additional knowledge has accumulated regarding various aspects of anti-TNF-α therapy, whereas new indications have been added. Recent experimental studies have shown that anti-TNFs exert their beneficial effects not only by restoring aberrant TNF-mediated immune mechanisms, but also by de-activating pathogenic fibroblast-like mesenchymal cells. Real-world data on millions of patients further confirmed the remarkable efficacy of anti-TNFs. It is now clear that anti-TNFs alter the physical course of inflammatory arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, leading to inhibition of local and systemic bone loss and to a decline in the number of surgeries for disease-related complications, while anti-TNFs improve morbidity and mortality, acting beneficially also on cardiovascular comorbidities. On the other hand, no new safety signals emerged, whereas anti-TNF-α safety in pregnancy and amid the COVID-19 pandemic was confirmed. The use of biosimilars was associated with cost reductions making anti-TNFs more widely available. Moreover, the current implementation of the "treat-to-target" approach and treatment de-escalation strategies of IMIDs were based on anti-TNFs. An intensive search to discover biomarkers to optimize response to anti-TNF-α treatment is currently ongoing. Finally, selective targeting of TNF-α receptors, new forms of anti-TNFs and combinations with other agents, are being tested in clinical trials and will probably expand the spectrum of TNF-α inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for IMIDs.

Real-world single-centre experience of rheumatoid arthritis patients requiring four or more higher cost drugs: response and duration of treatment

The cost-effectiveness of higher cost drugs (HCDs) after several failures is disputed by some purchasers of services for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We were interested to explore our service experience of using HCDs beyond the third choice to document response rates and duration of treatments.

METHOD

Records from our multi-disciplinary team meeting (MDT) that is used to decide on the use of HCDs were used to identify all RA patients who had been exposed to four or more HCDs. Notes were scrutinised for sequence of treatments, duration and response to treatments and reasons for stopping at each choice point.

RESULTS

From a total of 2648 RA patients in our service, 49 (< 2%) had been exposed to four or more HCDs. Response rates based on descriptive assessments for fourth to sixth choices were between 50 and 55% as well as some partial responders. There were responders and failures to all drugs at every choice point. Patients who had responded to one drug were more likely to respond to the next. Patients often responded to drugs for approximately 2 years. Only four patients had stopped looking for the next HCD.

CONCLUSION

Patients often respond to late choice HCDs. There are responders and failures at each time point and they are difficult to predict. There is no justification for restricting the number of HCDs that can be tried for RA. Key Points • Less than 2% of our RA patients required 4 or more higher cost drugs. • Fourth to sixth choice drugs still worked in 50 to 55% of patients. • There is no justification for CCGs restricting the number of drugs that can be tried.

A review of biosimilars for rheumatoid arthritis

Biologics are effective, though costly, medications for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Biosimilars are medications that have no clinically meaningful differences when compared with their corresponding reference biologics but cost significantly less. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medication Agency have approved biosimilars for adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and rituximab for the treatment of RA. Streamlined approval processes are expected to expedite biosimilar development while maintaining strict safety and efficacy standards. Encouragingly, many analyses have demonstrated the potential for massive healthcare savings if biosimilars are used over biologics. Challenges to biosimilar uptake, including patient and provider hesitancy, can likely be overcome with the education of all stakeholders within healthcare systems.

Usability Study of PF-06410293, an Adalimumab Biosimilar, by Prefilled Pen: Open-Label, Single-Arm, Sub-Study of a Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this sub-study was to evaluate injection success of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and their caregivers administering the adalimumab (ADL) biosimilar, PF-06410293 (ADL-PF: adalimumab-afzb; Abrilada^®/Amsparity^®/Xilbrilada^®) by prefilled pen (PFP) during the open-label treatment period in year two (weeks 52-78) of a phase 3 multinational, double-blind, clinical study (NCT02480153) comparing ADL-PF and reference ADL (Humira^®) sourced from the EU.

METHODS

This sub-study included adult patients with active RA not adequately controlled by methotrexate. Patients received subcutaneous ADL-PF 40 mg by prefilled syringe (PFS) at weeks 52 and 54, then six biweekly doses (weeks 56-66) of ADL-PF 40 mg each via a single-use PFP device. Training was given on first injection at week 56; all injections were given by patients/caregivers. The primary endpoint was delivery system success rate (DSSR): the percentage of participants (i.e., actual PFP user) achieving delivery success for each of the six attempted PFP injections. Injection success was recorded by the observer (Observer Assessment Tool) and participant (Participant Assessment Tool).

RESULTS

In total, 50 patients with no experience self-injecting with an autoinjector/injection pen were included (74.0% female; mean age at screening, 54.9 years; mean RA duration, 8.0 years). Of these, 49 (98.0%) completed the sub-study and 46 (92.0%) received all six PFP injections. Overall DSSR (n = 294 injections) across visits was 100% (95% CI 92.0-100.0%). Complete injection was confirmed following inspection of 292 used and returned PFPs. A total of 47/49 (95.9%) participants who completed the sub-study elected to continue study treatment using PFP injections, rather than switching back to the PFS.

CONCLUSIONS

All actual PFP users could safely and effectively administer ADL-PF by PFP at each visit, and nearly all participants who completed the sub-study elected to continue study treatment using PFP injections.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02480153; EudraCT number: 2014-000352-29.

Qualitative Analysis of the Design and Implementation of Benefit-Sharing Programs for Biologics Across Europe

BACKGROUND

To encourage the rational prescribing of biologics, payers across Europe have experimented with the implementation of benefit-sharing programs. Benefit-sharing programs are incentive programs that promote the use of 'best-value' off-patent biologics and biosimilars by driving changes in prescribing practices. The aim of these programs is to generate savings that can be shared among stakeholders involved (e.g. health authorities/payers, health care professionals, hospital managers/administration) and are generally used to improve the quality of health care and to increase patients' access to innovative services and medicines. However, the scarcity of information concerning the design, implementation and outcomes of benefit-sharing programs limits the transfer of knowledge to institutions aiming to adopt these types of incentive schemes in the future.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to map benefit-sharing experiences across Europe, to compare their design and implementation characteristics and to assess the impact of the different benefit-sharing strategies on the use of 'best-value' biologics.

METHOD

Our approach was based on a literature review and on semi-structured interviews with payers/insurers, regulators, health care professionals and industry representatives.

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed variable design characteristics for benefit-sharing programs, depending on the organization of the health care system, the specific timeframe, the care setting and the policy environment. All these aspects can influence the robustness of benefit-sharing initiatives and their potential to stay in effect over time. We also noted a generalized lack of transparency regarding the distribution of savings and how they are reinvested. This lack of transparency has raised questions on how to optimally implement benefit-sharing in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

To realize the full potential of benefit-sharing programs, we identify the importance of (i) setting up and timely monitoring success indicators for these programs; (ii) including quality of care and access to care parameters as success indicators; (iii) establishing clear pathways for the transparent redistribution/reinvestment of savings and (iv) transparently communicating with patients about the outcomes of benefit-sharing programs.

Effectiveness of SB4 Transition from Originator Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Subgroup Analysis from the BENEFIT Study

OBJECTIVES

The pan-European BENEFIT study of patients with stable rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who transitioned from reference etanercept to SB4 found no clinically meaningful changes in disease control after transition. The analysis aims to illustrate the peculiarities of the Italian cohort of patients compared with the whole population to provide a more real-life approach to the data for the Italian rheumatologists, ruling out possible local confounding factors.

METHODS

A prospective study for up to 6 months following transition was conducted. Outcome measures of interest include clinical characteristics at time of transition and disease activity scores (Disease Activity Score-28 [DAS28] for RA, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] for axSpA) over time and safety.

RESULTS

One-hundred and eleven subjects (out of the 557 in total enrolled in the study) were derived from 8 Italian sites, including 79 with RA and 32 with axSpA. In both cohorts, the efficacy was maintained at 3 months and 6 months from the transition to the biosimilar with no significant change in mean DAS28 and BASDAI scores: at the end of the 6 months of observation the mean DAS28 and BASDAI was similar to baseline (confidence interval [CI] -0.22, 0.22), while the mean variation of the BASDAI was -0.14. Of note, 100.0% (95% CI 89.1, 100.0) in the axSpA and 90.8% (95% CI 81.5, 95.5) in the RA cohort of patients continued to receive SB4 at month 6 (binary variable with 95% Clopper-Pearson CI).

CONCLUSIONS

Italian patients with stable RA or axSpA who transitioned from originator Etanercept to SB4 maintained clinical response at 6 months post-transition. Both the cohorts are representative of typical patients with long-standing established diagnoses. Most of the patients transitioned to the same dose regimen of biosimilar as that received for the originator, and the regimen remained unchanged at 6 months, supporting the effectiveness of the transition.

A randomized, adaptive design, double-blind, 3-arm, parallel study assessing the pharmacokinetics and safety of AVT02, a high-concentration (100 mg/mL) adalimumab biosimilar, in healthy adult subjects (ALVOPAD FIRST)

BACKGROUND

This study (ALVOPAD FIRST) assessed bioequivalence, safety, and immunogenicity of AVT02, an adalimumab biosimilar, compared with reference product adalimumab (EU- and US-approved Humira®).

METHODS

Healthy subjects (N = 392) were randomized 1:1:1 to receive one 40 mg dose of AVT02, EU-reference product, or US-reference product subcutaneously. An interim analysis was planned when ~30 subjects per arm had completed the study, to optimize final sample size. The primary PK parameters were C_max, AUC_0-t, and AUC_0-inf. Bioequivalence was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means for the primary PK parameters were all contained within the prespecified margins of 80% and 125%. Safety and immunogenicity were assessed until Day 64.

RESULTS

The 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means for the primary PK parameters, based on Fisher's Combination test analysis, were all contained within the prespecified bioequivalence margins of 80% and 125%, supporting the demonstration of bioequivalence between AVT02 and both EU- and US-reference product. The safety and immunogenicity profiles were comparable across all three treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

PK bioequivalence was supported between AVT02, US-licensed- and EU-approved-reference product adalimumab. Similar safety and immunogenicity were also demonstrated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov identifier: NCT03849313).

Comparative effectiveness of two adalimumab biosimilars in 1318 real-world patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease mandated to switch from originator adalimumab: nationwide observational study emulating a randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

In 2018, a nationwide mandatory switch from originator to biosimilar adalimumab was conducted in Denmark. The available biosimilar was GP2017 (Hyrimoz) in Eastern regions and SB5 (Imraldi) in Western regions. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of GP2017 versus SB5 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)/psoriatic arthritis (PsA)/axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA).

METHODS

Observational cohort study based on the DANBIO registry with geographical cluster pseudo-randomisation, analysed by emulating a randomised clinical trial. Main outcome was adjusted 1-year treatment retention (Cox regression). Furthermore, 6 months' remission rates (logistic regression), reasons for withdrawal and back-switching to originator were investigated (overall and stratified by indication).

RESULTS

Overall, of 1570 eligible patients, 1318 switched and were included (467 RA/321 PsA/530 AxSpA); 623 (47%) switched to GP2017, 695 (53%) to SB5. Baseline characteristics of the two clusters were largely similar, but some differences in registration practice were observed. The combined 1-year retention rate for the two biosimilars was 89.5%. Compared with SB5, estimated risk of withdrawal for GP2017 was lower (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.86) and 6 months' remission rate was higher (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.25 to 2.37). Stratified analyses gave similar results (statistically significant for RA). During 1 year, 8.5% and 12.9% withdrew GP2017 and SB5, respectively (primarily lack of effect and adverse events), of whom 48 patients (3.6%) back-switched.

CONCLUSION

This head-to-head comparison of GP2017 versus SB5 following a mandatory switch from the originator indicated differences in effectiveness in routine care. This may reflect a true difference, but other explanations, for example, differences in excipients, differences between clusters and residual confounding cannot be ruled out.

What Are the Preferences of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis for Treatment Modification? A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

Optimal care of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients entails regular assessment of disease activity and appropriate adjustment of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) until a predefined treatment goal is achieved. This raises questions about the approach to treatment decision making among RA patients and their preference for associated treatment changes. We aimed to systematically identify and synthesize the available evidence of RA patients' preferences regarding DMARD modification with an emphasis on escalating, tapering, stopping, or switching of DMARDs.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken to gauge the breadth of evidence from the range of studies relating to RA patients' preferences for DMARD modification. Pertinent databases were searched for relevant studies published between 1988 and 2019. Conventional content analysis was applied to generate themes about how patients perceive changes to their RA treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 1730 distinct articles identified, 32 were included for review. Eight studies investigated RA patients' perceptions of switching to other DMARDs, 18 studies reported RA patients' preferences for escalating treatment, and six studies explored the possibility of tapering or stopping of biologic DMARDs. Four overarching themes relating to RA patients' preferences for treatment modification were identified: (i) patient satisfaction, (ii) patients' beliefs, (iii) information needs, and (iv) patient-clinician relationships.

CONCLUSION

Uptake of treatment changes in clinical practice can be improved by understanding how RA patients approach the decision to modify their treatment and how this relates to their satisfaction, beliefs, information needs, and relationships with clinicians. Future work is needed to systematically determine the significance of these factors in RA patients' decision-making processes.

Treatment journey in rheumatoid arthritis with biosimilars: from better access to good disease control through cost savings and prevention of nocebo effects

Early diagnosis and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are of critical importance to halt the progression of the disease. Optimal use of advanced imaging techniques or biomarkers may facilitate early diagnosis of RA. Even though many disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are available for RA treatment, biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) offer expanding therapeutic options and good outcomes in patients with RA who do not have a sufficient response to conventional synthetic DMARDs. However, high costs of bDMARDs have limited patient access to optimised disease management and increased the cost burden for healthcare systems. The advent of biosimilars led to significant cost savings driven by price competition among the reference products, which could be beneficial for healthcare systems. Healthcare provider (HCP)–patient communication and informed shared decision-making are crucial to prevent the occurrence of a nocebo effect, which results from negative perceptions that patients may have and could lead to less effective outcomes. Research has demonstrated that effective communication between HCPs and patients utilising positive framing can improve acceptance by patients to be initiated on or switched to a biosimilar and can help to integrate biosimilars into routine clinical practice to maximise benefits for patients with RA.

Biological Therapies for Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Overview for the Clinician

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a disease characterised by inflammation of synovial joints and poses a substantial healthcare burden on both the individual and society. One of the most significant shifts in the RA therapeutic landscape has occurred with the introduction of biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). There are five classes of bDMARDs currently available, each with a different molecular target and subtle differences in their efficacy and safety profile. This review also describes the “real-world” use of bDMARDs and how they fit into the overall RA treatment guidelines.

Pharmacokinetic equivalence of CT-P17 to high-concentration (100 mg/ml) reference adalimumab: A randomized phase I study in healthy subjects

This study aimed to demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence of a single dose of the proposed adalimumab biosimilar CT-P17 to United States-licensed adalimumab (US-adalimumab) and European Union-approved adalimumab (EU-adalimumab). This double-blind, parallel-group, phase I trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03970824) was conducted at 10 hospitals (Republic of Korea), in which healthy subjects (1:1:1) were randomized to receive a single 40 mg (100 mg/ml) subcutaneous injection of CT-P17, US-adalimumab, or EU-adalimumab. Primary end points were PK equivalence in terms of: area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC0-inf ); AUC from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-last ); and maximum serum concentration (Cmax ). PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means (GLSMs) for pairwise comparisons were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%. Additional PK end points, safety, and immunogenicity were evaluated. Of the 312 subjects who were randomized (103 CT-P17; 103 US-adalimumab; 106 EU-adalimumab), 308 subjects received study drug. AUC0-inf , AUC0-last , and Cmax were equivalent among CT-P17, US-adalimumab, and EU-adalimumab, because 90% CIs for the ratios of GLSMs were within the 80-125% equivalence margin for each pairwise comparison. Secondary PK end points, safety, and immunogenicity were similar between treatment groups. In conclusion, PK equivalence for single-dose administration of CT-P17, EU-adalimumab, and US-adalimumab was demonstrated in healthy adults. Safety and immunogenicity profiles were comparable between treatment groups and consistent with previous reports for adalimumab biosimilars.

Current and Emerging DMARDs for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the most prevalent form of inflammatory arthritis. It is a profoundly serious and severe disease that if it goes untreated could have severe consequences to the joints and health of the patient who carries this diagnosis. The treatment of RA has dramatically changed since the year 2000, with the discovery of the TNFis, then other biologics, and finally the JAKi. All these new medications with or without methotrexate in combination, tight control and treat to target have produced a revolution in the outcome of this disease. We reviewed and summarized the treatment options, and the most significant papers for each one of these new drugs. The reader could have a full picture with all the references of the recent publications. We also updated the biosimilar situation in RA, as well as the new drugs that will be coming to the market in the next 5 years.

Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilar FYB201 Compared with Ranibizumab in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration

PURPOSE

This trial was conducted to investigate the clinical equivalence of the proposed biosimilar FYB201 and reference ranibizumab in patients with treatment-naive, subfoveal choroidal neovascularization caused by neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

DESIGN

This was a prospective, multicenter, evaluation-masked, parallel-group, 48-week, phase III randomized study.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 477 patients were randomly assigned to receive FYB201 (n = 238) or reference ranibizumab (n = 239).

METHODS

Patients received FYB201 or reference ranibizumab 0.5 mg by intravitreal (IVT) injection in the study eye every 4 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) by Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters at 8 weeks before the third monthly IVT injection. Biosimilarity of FYB201 to its originator was assessed via a 2-sided equivalence test, with an equivalence margin in BCVA of 3 ETDRS letters.

RESULTS

The BCVA improved in both groups, with a mean improvement of +5.1 (FYB201) and +5.6 (reference ranibizumab) ETDRS letters at week 8. The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) least squares mean difference for the change from baseline between FYB201 and reference ranibizumab was -0.4 ETDRS letters with a 90% confidence interval (CI) of -1.6 to 0.9. Primary end point was met as the 90% CI was within the predefined equivalence margin. Adverse events were comparable between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

FYB201 is biosimilar to reference ranibizumab in terms of clinical efficacy and ocular and systemic safety in the treatment of patients with nAMD.