Biosimilars in Rheumatic Diseases: Regulatory Guidelines, Efficacy and Safety Implications in Saudi Arabia

Consensus-Based Overarching Principles and Recommendations on the Use of Biosimilars in the Treatment of Inflammatory Arthritis in the Gulf Region

BACKGROUND

Though biologic agents have significantly improved the treatment of inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis), high costs, stringent regulations, strict reimbursement criteria, and existing patents have limited patient access to treatments. While being highly similar in quality, safety, and efficacy to biologic reference products, biosimilars can reduce the financial burden and prevent underutilization of medication.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this initiative was to develop an evidence-based consensus of overarching principles and recommendations aimed at standardizing the use of biosimilars in treating inflammatory arthritis in the Gulf region.

METHODS

A task force of practicing rheumatologists, a clinical pharmacist, a health economist, patients, regulators, and payors from across the Gulf region developed recommendations and overarching principles based on the outputs of a systematic literature review conducted to address Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) questions specific to key challenges regarding the use of biosimilars for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis in the region. As the data before 2017 have been previously reviewed in another publication, the current review focused on data published between January 2017 and August 2022 (PROSPERO ID CRD42022364002). Consensus on each statement required a level of agreement of 70% or greater.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached for five overarching principles and nine recommendations by the task force. The principles emphasize the importance of improving the awareness, understanding, and perception of biosimilars, as well as the need for regulated regional real-world data generation and protocols to make biosimilars a viable and affordable treatment option for all patients. The consensus recommendations advocate the need for shared treatment decisions between rheumatologists and patients when considering biosimilars. They further recommend that confirmation of a biosimilar's efficacy and safety in a single indication is sufficient for extrapolation to other diseases for which the reference product has been approved. Finally, there is a need for pharmacovigilance and national health policies governing the adoption and prescription of biosimilars in clinical practice across the region.

CONCLUSIONS

These are the first consensus recommendations for the Gulf region based on a systematic literature review and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, integrating clinical evidence with clinical expertise to optimize decision making for the use of biosimilars in patients with inflammatory arthritis. They were formulated based on predominantly international data because of the limited regional data and therefore can be generalized to serve as recommendations for healthcare professionals in other parts of the world.

Perception of Biosimilar Biologics and Non-Medical Prescription Switching among Rheumatologists: A Saudi Society for Rheumatology Initiative

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate rheumatologists’ perceptions of biosimilar biologics and Non-Medical Switching (NMS).

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among registered members of the Saudi Society for Rheumatology. The questionnaire focused on biosimilars and NMS. Logistic regression was performed to ascertain the effect of demographics and practice characteristics on the use of biosimilars and NMS.

Results

Out of 249 SSR members, 143 completed the survey, generating a response rate of 57.4%. Of those (59.44%) were men with a mean (±SD) age and years of practice of 42.3 ± 9.13 and 10.3 ± 8.9, respectively. Rheumatologists managing adult patients (81.82%) and Ministry of Health practice (43.36 %) were the majority of respondents. Previous experience in prescribing a biosimilar was reported by 43 (30.07%) participants, with a higher probability among women (p = 0.015). A total of 26 (18.18%) participants had performed NMS on eligible patients. Adequate knowledge on biosimilars was reported by 69 (48.25%) participants. The adequacy of evidence to grant biosimilar approval for the studied indication and extrapolation to treat other conditions was reported by 88 (61.5%) and 69 (48.3%), respectively. The concept of totality-of-the-evidence was well understood by 37.1%. Biosimilars had been previously used by 43 (30.07) participants in their practice. NMS had been attempted by 26 (18.18), while 86 (60.1%) participants believed that NMS might harm patients.

Conclusion

There is a clear knowledge gap about the biosimilar approval process among adult and pediatric rheumatologists who took part in the survey. In addition, a large number of participants reported having negative opinions about NMS. There is a need to organize SSR-led educational activities, and develop national guidelines regarding biosimilars and NMS.

Regulatory considerations in biosimilars: Middle East and Africa regions

Biotherapeutic products whose patent protection has expired yield way to the development and approval of the more affordable "follow on medicines," known as biosimilars. These products need to have been shown as comparable in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to the reference product (RP). In countries of the Middle East and Africa (MEA), there is a tremendous rise in deaths related to non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This class of diseases contributes to more than 38 million deaths worldwide annually, and they account for 74% of all deaths in MEA regions. The African continent consists of 54 countries, with each country having its own regulatory authority. To date, of the 54 African states, South Africa is the only country that has established a clear regulatory framework for biosimilar approval. This article highlights the prospects of biosimilars in the MEA market. The regulatory framework in the various MEA countries has also been discussed.

Improving the understanding of originator and biosimilar biologics among healthcare providers in Saudi Arabia

The loss of patentability of many originator biologics has led to the rapid introduction of biosimilar agents. The anticipated economic benefit of introducing such agent has been accompanied by vagueness surrounding their biotechnology, approval requirements, positioning in treatment paradigms and potential for adverse events. The Second Symposium on Biologics and Biosimilars “Beyond Clinical Practice” was held on 24th-26th January 2020 aiming at improving the understanding of these new agents in a diverse interactive conference and to guide stakeholders how to introduce biosimilars into clinical practice. The symposium consisted of 4 tracks and 3 workshops. A total of 217 participants attended the meeting. The majority were pharmacists (78.8%) followed by physicians (18.9%) and other healthcare providers (2.3%). The workshops covered the following topics: basics of pharmacoeconomics, pharmacovigilance and patients’ perspective toward biosimilar biologics. While, the 4 main tracks included: Introduction to biosimilars, challenges in clinical practice, regulatory and pharmacoeconomic aspects and Challenges in biosimilar pharmacovigilance.

Pharmacovigilance of Biopharmaceuticals in Rheumatic Diseases, Adverse Events, Evolution, and Perspective: An Overview

Since we have gained an understanding of the immunological pathophysiology of rheumatic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, treatment based on biological drugs has become a fundamental axis. These therapies are oriented towards the regulation of cytokines such as tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1, and the modulation of cell-mediated immunity (B cells and T cells) by anti CD20 or anti CTAL-4 agents, and can increase the risk of associated infections or adverse events (AE). In this context, the entry of biotherapeutics represented a challenge for pharmacovigilance, risk management and approval by the main global regulatory agencies regarding biosimilars, where efficacy and safety are based on comparability exercises without being an exact copy in terms of molecular structure. The objective of this review is divided into three fundamental aspects: (i) to illustrate the evolution and focus of pharmacovigilance at the biopharmaceutical level, (ii) to describe the different approved recommendations of biopharmaceuticals (biological and biosimilars) and their use in rheumatic diseases (RDs) such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and other less frequent RD like cryopyrin-associated autoinflammatory syndromes (CAPS), and (iii) to identify the main AE reported in the post-marketing phase of RD biopharmaceuticals.