Relevance of Adalimumab Product Attributes to Patient Experience in the Biosimilar Era: A Narrative Review

Adalimumab (ADL, Humira®, reference product), an anti-TNF-α biologic, has transformed the treatment of chronic, immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. However, the high cost of ADL therapy has driven the development of more affordable ADL biosimilars, agents with no clinically meaningful differences from the reference product. This review summarizes the product attributes of reference ADL and the nine ADL biosimilars approved and available in the USA in relation to patient experience of injection-site pain (ISP). Product formulation, delivery volume and device features (e.g., type and needle gauge size) influence patient experience of ISP with potential clinical consequences. Citrate-free formulations generally cause less ISP; injection volumes of > 1.5 ml may be associated with increased ISP. Reference ADL and all ADL biosimilars offer a citrate-free formulation, and reference ADL and four ADL biosimilars offer a high-concentration solution that allows a smaller injection volume. All available ADL products are injected subcutaneously using either a pre-filled pen (PFP) or pre-filled syringe (PFS). Patients prefer the PFP, but the PFS permits better control over the speed and duration of injection. Smaller (29-gauge) needle outer diameter is associated with less ISP; reference ADL and seven ADL biosimilars offer a device with a 29-gauge needle. In the USA, an approved biosimilar can be designated "interchangeable," allowing pharmacy-level substitution, where state law permits. In the USA, two ADL biosimilars have received interchangeability designation; others are seeking interchangeability designation from the Food and Drug Administration (n = 2), are being evaluated in clinical studies to support interchangeability (n = 2), or do not have/are not seeking interchangeability designation (n = 3). Product-related attributes influence patient experience of ISP caused by subcutaneous ADL injection. Reference ADL and ADL biosimilar products differ in their attributes, so discussion with patients about treatment options is essential to optimize adherence and outcomes.

The Impact of Biosimilar Use on Total Cost of Care and Provider Financial Performance in the Medicare Oncology Care Model: A Population-Based Simulation Study

INTRODUCTION

Payment for oncology care is increasingly moving from fee-for-service to value-based payment (VBP). VBPs are agreements in which providers are held accountable for total cost of care (TCOC) through risk-sharing arrangements with payers that tie reimbursement levels to TCOC benchmarks. Oncology biosimilars may play an important role in managing financial risk in the VBPs like Medicare's Oncology Care Model (OCM), but there has been limited research in this area. The objective of this study is to estimate the impact of biosimilar adoption on TCOC and oncology provider financial performance under the terms of the Medicare OCM.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based simulation study using the Medicare Limited Data Set (LDS) and the methodology of Medicare's OCM. The primary outcome was the simulated average change in TCOC per 6-month episode of care attributable to use of biosimilars as an alternative to reference products. The study population consisted of episodes of care in 2020 and using the reference product or corresponding biosimilar for bevacizumab, rituximab, trastuzumab, epoetin alfa, filgrastim, or pegfilgrastim. TCOC was calculated for each episode of care with use of reference products only and compared with TCOC with corresponding biosimilars. The simulation calculated TCOC outcomes in cohorts of 100 episodes sampled from the Medicare LDS study population using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.

RESULTS

Among the total of 8281 6-month oncology care episodes identified in the study period (initiating January 2020 to July 2020) in Medicare claims, 1586 (19.2%) episodes met OCM and study criteria and were included. Applying the simulation methods to these observed episodes, biosimilar substitution reduced mean TCOC per episode by $1193 (95% CI $583-1840). The cost reduction from biosimilars represented 2.4% of the average TCOC benchmark and led to a 15% reduction in the risk of providers needing to pay recoupments to Medicare for exceeding TCOC benchmarks.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of our simulation study using observed Medicare claims and OCM criteria, we found that biosimilar substitution for reference products can significantly lower episode TCOC and improve provider financial performance under the terms of the largest value-based payment model implemented to date.

Clinical Similarity of Biosimilars and Reference Drugs: A Comprehensive Review and New Hope for Public Health in a New Frontier

BACKGROUND

Patents and exclusive rights on reference biologics contribute to the emergence of biosimilars. Regulatory bodies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), World Health Organization (WHO), and EMA (European Medicines Agency) for assessing clinical safety, effectiveness, and consequences between biosimilars and reference medications, have established guidelines. Since generic small molecules from reference can be easily swapped, biosimilars cannot be used interchangeably and may not always indicate interchangeability due to highly restrictive properties. It can be replaced with a reference without the healthcare provider's help under the interchangeability context.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study is to analyze and compare evidence-based clinical safety, therapeutic potential, and importance (outcomes) of several biosimilars with their references along with clinical uses in chronic diseases.

METHODS

Through a comprehensive systemic literature review of more than 100 articles involving medicinally important drugs whose bio-similarity works optimally, safety-efficacy parameters have been analyzed. Analysis of biosimilar usage, approval, and safety-efficacy aspects are majorly focused upon herein in this review.

RESULTS

From this systemic review, it can be stated that the majority of biosimilars are clinically and statistically equivalent to their originators. As biosimilars have good safety-efficacy aspects with lower prices, their utilization can be more encouraged, which was already done by the FDA with the establishment of a public online database entitled "Purple Book," which includes all information regarding biological drugs.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, we suggest widespread use of high-grade biosimilars in clinical practice, maybe via changing, exchanging, or switching, with appropriate clinical monitoring and pharmacovigilance to improve patient accessibility to modern medicines, as it provides similar efficacy and safety parameters across all the accumulated clinical trials and studies.

Within-subject pharmacokinetic variability has a strong influence on individual exposure ratios in bioequivalence studies, hence on drug formulation interchangeability

INTRODUCTION

Bioequivalence between a reference and a generic drug is based on the hypothesis that a ± 20% change in blood exposure (or ± 10% for drugs with narrow therapeutic index, NTI) following the generic/reference switch will not have any therapeutic consequences. However, the individual exposure ratio between generic and reference can be higher than 1.20 (or 1.10). This study aims to analyse the different parameters influencing the individual exposure ratio, hence the conditions for reference/generic interchangeability.

METHODS

Bioequivalence studies with a double cross-over design for a virtual drug were simulated using 100 random sets of 12, 24, 48 or 100 pairs of areas under the curve (AUC), varying the generic/reference AUC geometric mean ratios between 0.80 and 1.25 and the within-subject exposure variance of the reference and the generic formulations.

RESULTS

The proportion of subjects with an exposure generic/reference ratio outside the ± 10% or ± 20% acceptance intervals increases when (1) the reference within-subject variance increases; (2) the ratio of the generic within-subject variance on the reference within-subject variance increases; and (3) the generic/reference mean AUC ratio diverges from 1.0. When only considering replicated administrations of the reference, the individual exposure ratio increases with the within-subject variance, yielding values outside the usually accepted individual exposure ratio range of 0.5 to 2 for drugs with narrow therapeutic index as soon as the within-subject variance standard deviation is ≥ 0.25 (equivalent to within-patient CV% > 25%).

CONCLUSIONS

Interchangeability between reference and generic formulations, especially for drugs with narrow therapeutic index can only be assumed if, the within-subject variance of generic is less or equal to the within-subject variance of reference or, if this is not the case, if the distribution of the generic/generic individual exposure ratios is included within the therapeutic margins of the reference drug.

Consensus statement on the use of biosimilar drugs in immune-mediated diseases in Spain

OBJECTIVE

To improve knowledge about biosimilar medicines and to generate a consensus framework on their use.

METHODS

Qualitative study. A multidisciplinary group of experts in biosimilar medicines was established (1dermatologist, 1hospital pharmacist, 1rheumatologist, and 1gastroenterologist) who defined the sections and topics of the document. A narrative literature review was performed in Medline to identify articles on biosimilar medicines. Systematic reviews, controlled, pre-clinical, clinical, and real-life studies were selected. Based on the results of the review, several general principles and recommendations were generated. The level of agreement was tested in a Delphi that was extended to 66 health professionals who voted from 1 (totally disagree) to 10 (totally agree). Agreement was defined if at least 70% of the participants voted ≥7.

RESULTS

The literature review included 555 articles. A total of 10 general principles and recommendations were voted upon. All reached the level of agreement established. The document includes data on the main characteristics of biosimilar medicines (definition, development, approval, indication extrapolation, interchangeability, financing, and traceability); published evidence (biosimilarity, efficacy, effectiveness, safety, immunogenicity, efficiency, switch); barriers and facilitators to its use; and data on information for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Authorized biosimilar medicines meet all the characteristics of quality, efficacy, and safety. They also significantly help improve patient access to biological therapies and contribute to health system sustainability.

Levothyroxine Bioequivalence Study and Its Narrow Therapeutic Index: Comparative Bioavailability Results Between Two Formulations Available in Latin America

INTRODUCTION

The history of levothyroxine has been linked to advances in the treatment of thyroid disease and to date it is the standard therapy for the treatment of hypothyroidism. Bioequivalence studies are the most widely used method to demonstrate interchangeability, although controversy persists regarding the best design for this molecule declared as a narrow therapeutic index product in many countries. This study aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetic profile of two formulations of levothyroxine to determine bioequivalence between them.

METHODS

This two-period, randomized, crossover, blind study was conducted in 80 healthy volunteers, of both sexes, using a single levothyroxine dose of 600 μg with a washout period of 42 days. Blood sampling was performed at - 30 min, - 15 min, and 0 h pre-dose and 30 min, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 24, and 48 h post-dose.

RESULTS

A total of 78 subjects successfully completed both periods. There were no serious adverse events during the study and both formulations were well tolerated. Baseline correction of serum levothyroxine concentrations was performed before statistical analysis. The mean maximum plasma concentration of the test product (Levotiroxina MK®) was 57.49 ng/mL while for the reference product it reached 59.32 ng/mL. Importantly, both test and reference formulations reached maximum concentrations in plasma at about the same time. The areas under the pharmacokinetic curves with the test product showed AUC0-t of 1407.1 ng h/mL and the reference product 1394.3 ng h/mL. The bioequivalence statistical analysis showed that the 90% confidence interval (CI90%) of the ratio of test over reference formulation was within the bioequivalence margins of 90-111%. For Cmax, the test/reference ratio was 96.2% with CI90% of 91.6-100.9%, and for AUC0-t the test/reference ratio was 99.9 with CI90% of 93.3-107.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Both formulations have the same pharmacokinetic profile and are bioequivalent in the narrow therapeutic index required by some health authorities.

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.

Interchangeability and adverse events in originator-rituximab and its biosimilar (CT-P10) among rheumatic patients: a real-life experience

Biosimilars offer cost-effective and safe treatment options both for patients and healthcare systems. CT-P10 is the first biosimilar of rituximab approved in Europe for use in all indications of originator rituximab (oRTX). This study aimed to provide real-life data on treatment changes and adverse events in patients who received oRTX or CT-P10. We retrospectively reviewed treatment-related adverse events [infusion-related reactions (IRRs), infections, hypogammaglobulinemia] in patients treated with at least one dose of oRTX (MabThera^®) or CT-P10 (Truxima^®) between 2020 and 2021 and had at least 6 months follow-up after rituximab infusion in a rheumatology clinic. The switches between oRTX and CT-P10 were performed according to drug availability at the hospital pharmacy at the time of infusion according to the local hospital procedure. Physicians were not involved in the decision of biosimilar selection. A total of 128 patients (CT-P10, n = 64; oRTX, n = 64) were included. CT-P10 was switched in 52 (40.6%) patients who had previously used oRTX, and 48 (37.5%) patients remained on oRTX. We demonstrated no difference between patients treated with oRTX or CT-P10 in the rates of IRRs, in which all reactions were grade 1 and 2. Comparable rates of infections (p > 0.05) and the rate of hypogammaglobulinemia (p > 0.05) were found in both groups with no significant difference. CT-P10 provides a safe treatment alternative in patients who require rituximab therapy. The rational use of biosimilars can be supported by evolving evidence on interchangeability and switching in real-life settings, which will help clinicians in decision-making.

Assessing an aflatoxin exposure biomarker: Exploring the interchangeability and correlation between venous and capillary blood samples

Exposure to dietary aflatoxins has been recognized as a potential threat to child nutrition and growth, in addition to being a known carcinogen. The ability to accurately assess concentration of aflatoxin in the blood of at-risk individuals is therefore very important to inform public health policies and on-the-ground programs around the world. Venous blood is frequently used to quantify biomarkers of exposure such as AFB1-lysine adducts. However, venous blood collection methods are invasive, requiring highly trained staff, which makes this method challenging to implement, especially in resource-limited settings. In contrast, capillary blood collection by fingerprick is less invasive and has the potential for application in point-of-need monitoring. The aim of this exploratory study was to investigate the correlation and interchangeability of capillary and venous human blood samples in the quantification of AFB1-lysine adduct concentration. A total of 72 venous and capillary blood samples were collected from 36 women of reproductive age (16-49 years) in northern Uganda. All sample specimens were analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection. Regression analysis and Bland-Altman analysis were performed to compare AFB1-lysine concentrations between venous and capillary sample pairs. Bland-Altman analysis of albumin-normalized AFB1-lysine data-bias was -0.023 pg/mg-albumin and the 95% limits of agreement were 0.51 to -0.56 pg/mg-albumin for log-transformed data. There was a positive correlation between albumin-normalized venous and capillary AFB1-lysine concentrations with r of 0.71 (p < .0001). A lack of any accepted clinical cutoff for aflatoxin exposure makes definition of an 'acceptable' limit for statistical analysis and comparison of methods challenging. Our data suggests a positive correlation between albumin-normalized AFB1-lysine concentrations in venous and capillary sample pairs, but relatively weak agreement and interchangeability based on Bland-Altman analysis.

An Introduction to Biosimilars for the Treatment of Retinal Diseases: A Narrative Review

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of disease across a number of therapeutic areas including retinal diseases. However, on occasion, such treatments may be relatively more expensive compared to small molecule therapies. This can restrict patient access and treatment length leading to suboptimal clinical outcomes. Several biosimilar candidates of ranibizumab and aflibercept are currently in development and the first biosimilar of ranibizumab received EMA approval in August and FDA approval in September 2021. Biosimilars are biological medicines that are highly similar to an already-approved biological medicine (reference product). The physicochemical and clinical similarity of a biosimilar is determined by a rigorous analytical and clinical program, including extensive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis with phase III equivalence studies where appropriate. These phase III studies are carried out in a patient population that is representative of all of the potential approved therapeutic indications of the originator product and the most sensitive for detecting potential differences between the biosimilar and the reference product. Biosimilars have been used successfully across a wide range of therapeutic areas for the past 15 years where they have achieved substantial cost savings that can be reinvested into healthcare systems without affecting the quality of patient care. The current review provides an introduction to biosimilars with the aim of preparing retinal specialists for discussing these products with their patients.

Interchangeability of player movement variables from different athlete tracking systems in professional soccer

This study assessed the interchangeability between 10-Hz multi-GNSS GPS devices (Vector®) and two optical tracking systems (TRACAB® and Second Spectrum®). The agreement between data from the optical tracking systems when processed with manufacturer and GPS-filtered software was also assessed. Thirty players competing in the English Premier League were monitored using three different tracking systems across five matches. To determine the interchangeability between systems, player movement variables including, total distance, high-speed running distance (19.8-25.2 km·h^-1), sprinting distance (>25.2 km·h^-1), efforts >19.8 km·h^-1 and maximal speed were compared. Equations were formed using linear regression and linear mixed-effects models to allow interchangeability of player movement variables between systems. Over half of the variance of most interchangeability equations were explained and associated with very strong positive correlations (r > 0.72). Small to huge differences were found between systems for most player movement variables. Data of optical tracking systems had decreased values in speed variables >19.8 km·h^-1 when processed through GPS software. This study provides equations for practitioners to interchange player movement variables between TRACAB, Second Spectrum and Vector GPS systems with reduced error. This will enable practitioners to combine and share data captured with different tracking systems to analyse and improve their training.

Design and construction of an interchangeable RF coil system for rodent spinal cord MR imaging at 9.4 T

Rodent models of spinal cord injury (SCI) have been widely used in pre-clinical studies. Injuries may occur at different levels of the lumbar and thoracic cord, and the number of segments injured and their depths may vary along the spine. It is thereby challenging to build one universal RF coil that exhibits optimal performance for all spinal cord imaging applications, especially in an animal scanner with small in-bore space and limited hardware configurations. We developed an interchangeable RF coil system for a 9.4 T small animal MRI scanner, in which the users can select an optimal coil specialized for imaging specific parts of a rat spine. We also developed the associated animal management device for immobilization and positioning. The whole system allows ease of RF coil exchange, animal fixation, and positioning, and thus reduces the animal preparation time before the MRI scan significantly. Compared to a commercial general-purpose 2-cm-diameter coil that was used in our previous studies, the specialized coil optimized for Sprague-Dawley rat lumbar spinal cord imaging exhibits up to 2.4 times SNR improvement.

Community pharmacists' preparedness for substituting biologics and dispensing biosimilars - Lessons learned from a multinational survey

Interchangeability between biological medicines and biosimilars, and subsequent substitution by pharmacists represent an important opportunity for costs savings for health care systems. Because biological medicines are complex products, the expert role of the pharmacist to inform patients and support physicians is indispensable. However, regulations on substitution of biosimilars differ around the globe, such that a substitution that is allowed in one country may be forbidden in another. Overall, pharmacists' knowledge of biosimilar medicines is incomplete and hesitancy to engage in substitutions is perceptible. As counter-balancing remedy, continued education about biosimilars is needed among practicing community pharmacists.

[Use of biosimilars in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis : An overview]

In der Therapie der rheumatoiden Arthritis sind seit ca. 20 Jahren Biologika ein fester Bestandteil. Da Arzneimittelpatente in der Regel nach 10 Jahren auslaufen, wurden in den letzten Jahren Biosimilars auf den Markt gebracht. In vielen Studien konnte gezeigt werden, dass sie bei vergleichbarer Sicherheit und Effektivität eine gleichwertige Alternative zum Referenzarzneimittel darstellen. In manchen Fällen zeigten sich sogar geringere Raten an unerwünschten Arzneimittelwirkungen im Vergleich zu den Referenzarzneimitteln. Weiterhin können durch Biosimilars erhebliche Kosten eingespart werden, die sich allein in Deutschland auf einen jährlichen dreistelligen Millionenbetrag belaufen. Dabei lassen sich große regionale Unterschiede bei der Verschreibungshäufigkeit von Biosimilars in Deutschland ausmachen, die sich auch im Einsparungspotenzial widerspiegeln. Eine Umstellung auf ein Biosimilar ist unter Einbezug des Patienten gut möglich und auch erwünscht. In diesem Sinne ist auch die Erstverschreibung eines Biosimilars statt des Referenzarzneimittels zu befürworten.

Central-Laboratory analyzers: interchangeability and reference intervals for sodium, potassium, glucose, lactate and hemoglobin

Background

Blood-Gas Analyzers (BGAs) are commonly used in parallel with central laboratory analyzers (CLAs). Given the often-divergent results between BGAs and CLAs this study aims to: 1. Determine whether the measurements of potassium (K), sodium (Na), glucose (Glu), lactate (Lact) and total hemoglobin (ctHb) on BGAs and CLAs are interchangeable; 2. Establish reference intervals (RIs) for both analyzer systems using an indirect statistical approach.

Methods

During a one-year study period K, Na, Glu, Lact and ctHb measurements from 500 arterial blood samples, measured on ABL 90 FLEX BGAs were compared with corresponding venous samples measured on Roche c8000 and Sysmex XN-9000 analyzers. Interchangeability of methods was tested based on the Acceptable Change Limit, Total Change Limit and the guidelines published by the German Medical Association for quality assurance in medical laboratories criteria. Indirect RIs were estimated based on all routine analysis data using the software Reference Limit Estimator (RLE).

Results

With the exception of Na, the BGAs differed significantly from the CLAs for the tested analytes (P < 0.001) but, with the exception of ctHb, did meet the interchangeability criteria. For K, Na, Gluc and ctHb the reference intervals obtained with RLE did not differ statistically between the analyzer systems.

Conclusion

The interchangeability criteria were met for Na, K and Gluc and Lact. The indirect RIs obtained with RLE, are comparable between two systems for Na, K, Gluc an ctHb. Lact differed significantly in the lower reference limit between the BGAs and CLAs. The simultaneous use of both analyzing systems is thus only advisable for Na, K and Gluc.

Knowledge and perception of biosimilars in ambulatory care: a survey among Belgian community pharmacists and physicians

Background

With the approval of biosimilars for subcutaneously administered products, such as adalimumab, etanercept and insulin, biosimilars become increasingly available in ambulatory care. Little is known about the knowledge and attitudes of healthcare providers who are in charge of dispensing and prescribing biosimilars in this context. This study aims to assess the knowledge and perception about biosimilars among community pharmacists and physicians.

Methods

Belgian community pharmacists (n = 177) and physicians (n = 30) were surveyed on their knowledge, experience with dispensing/prescribing biologicals including biosimilars, perception regarding interchangeability, switching and substitution and informational and educational needs. Descriptive and statistical analyses were performed.

Results

Only 32% of community pharmacists and 52% of physicians had yet dispensed/prescribed a biosimilar. Approximately 35% of community pharmacists felt insufficiently trained to counsel patients with biosimilar therapy, which was significantly higher compared to their self-assessed competence to counsel patients with biological therapy in general (p = 0.023). Community pharmacists experienced questions about similarity between reference products and biosimilars (47%) and their interchangeability (42%). Over 40% of physicians found patient uncertainty about efficacy and safety challenging when prescribing biosimilars. A similar proportion of physicians would only prescribe a biosimilar in indications for which the biosimilar has been tested clinically. The majority of pharmacists (58%) was in favor of substitution of biologicals, on the condition that the prescriber would be contacted. Also over 40% of physicians was open to this approach in case of substitution. Educational support, budget for additional staff and transparency about savings were considered suitable stimuli to incentivize biosimilar use. The need for information about biologicals including biosimilars was nearly unanimous among community pharmacists. Also 67% of physicians requested more information. Both community pharmacists and physicians preferred to be informed by their respective professional associations.

Conclusions

This study showed a substantial need for targeted educational measures to increase the knowledge and confidence about both biological medicines in general and biosimilars in particular among Belgian community pharmacists and physicians. The results may inform educational and policy measures to stimulate biosimilar use in ambulatory care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40545-021-00330-x.

The Automatic Substitution of Biosimilars: Definitions of Interchangeability are not Interchangeable

In the USA, an interchangeability designation provides biosimilar sponsors with a pathway for achieving what is standard for small-molecule generics: pharmacy-level auto-substitution for an innovator. No other major health authority links interchangeability to automatic substitution, as all require the involvement of the prescriber or patient in a medication change. This editorial considers the clinical impact and practicality of auto-substitution. First, interchangeability is linked to non-medical switching (NMS), the practice of switching treatment in patients with stable disease for non-clinical reasons. NMS may generate negative sentiment in those unwilling or reluctant to switch, which can adversely impact treatment outcomes (i.e., nocebo effect). Indeed, in real-world studies of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, discontinuation rates have been shown to be higher in patients switched to biosimilars for non-medical reasons than in historical cohorts maintained on innovators. Second, interchangeability may impede pharmacovigilance and traceability, as not all jurisdictions require innovators and biosimilars to have distinct biologic names. Third, an interchangeability designation from the US Food and Drug Administration only permits a biosimilar to be automatically substituted for its innovator, not other biosimilars (if available). Pharmacist education would be needed to avoid off-label, automatic substitution among biosimilars of a single innovator. Last, once granted, an interchangeability designation exists in perpetuity under current US federal law. However, the supply chains of innovators and biosimilars are maintained independently, with no requirement for reconfirmation of biosimilarity or interchangeability. We feel that additional guidance is needed for the auto-substitution of biosimilars and innovators to become a reality.

Biosimilars in Malaysia: Regulatory Framework, Approved Products, and Adverse Effects

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars are a cost-effective alternative to original biologic medicines that allow patients access to biologic therapies for various chronic diseases. Our paper aims to provide an overview of biosimilars in Malaysia with emphasis on the comparison of Malaysian guidelines with guidelines from well-established regulatory agencies, a review of biosimilars' market approval and their reported adverse effects (AEs) as well as clinical trials conducted in Malaysia.

METHODS

We searched the official websites of the National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (NPRA) Malaysia and three other well-established agencies, online databases of Medline® and EMBASE for guidelines on legislation and regulations of biosimilars. Meanwhile, we extracted the reports of AEs involving biosimilars in Malaysia from the NPRA database and for global AEs from the World Health Organisation VigyLize database. The ClinicalTrials.gov Website by the U.S. National Library of Medicines was the source for data on clinical trials.

RESULTS

Malaysia followed the principles of the European Medicines Agency biosimilar regulations and issued their guideline in 2008. Since then, NPRA has approved 24 biosimilar products and recorded 499 AE reports, of which 43 (8.6%) were serious. NPRA has also approved ten Phase III clinical trials in Malaysia with four trials still ongoing.

CONCLUSION

Malaysia follows a stringent regulatory pathway for the approval of biosimilars enacted by well-established regulatory agencies to maintain the quality, efficacy and safety of biosimilars. Introducing biosimilars to the Malaysian market would improve patients' accessibility to biologic therapies.

[Biosimilars in the European Union: current situation and challenges]

Biosimilars are medicinal products that are highly similar to approved biopharmaceuticals. Biosimilars enable patient access to biological therapies that would otherwise be restricted or delayed due to cost reasons. After the successful introduction of low-molecular biosimilars in 2006, highly complex monoclonal antibodies have also been available since 2013 as biosimilars for treating autoimmune diseases and oncologic indications. In principle, the biosimilar concept can be applied to all well-characterized biologicals; in the future, blood clotting factors or drugs containing nucleic acids, such as DNA or RNA gene therapy or mRNA vaccines, will also be an option for biosimilar development.In some instances, biosimilarity can be demonstrated by physicochemical and functional similarity, and additional comparative clinical efficacy and safety studies have been considered no longer necessary for several product categories in recent years. Switching a patient from a reference drug to a biosimilar or from one biosimilar to another (interchangeability) has so far been considered harmless. Since February 2020, there has been a provisional decision in Germany that patients should be switched according to an economic prescription method. Further scientific findings on the interchangeability of biosimilars and experiences with the supply practices of biosimilars should be collected and evaluated.In this article, the current situation regarding marketing authorizations of biosimilars in the European Union is reviewed. The role of clinical trials for biosimilars is presented, and challenges of biosimilar development and views on interchangeability are discussed.

Drug switching in the Netherlands: a cohort study of 20 active substances

BACKGROUND

For a patient, drug switches are not desirable (either between a brand-name drug and a generic drug, or between two generic drugs of the same active substance). Research into the causes of drug switches, and related adverse drug reactions, is hampered by the absence of quantitative data on drug switches.

METHODS

We describe the frequency of drug switches in the Netherlands for a selection of active substances. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Drug Information System of the National Health Care Institute in the Netherlands. We studied the Dutch patient population from mid-2009 to 2016. The selection of active substances (n = 20) was made based on a report by Lareb, the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre, on adverse drug reactions related to drug switching, and we used qualitative and quantitative descriptive analyses. A drug switch is defined as the replacement of a patient's prescribed drug with a similar drug from a different manufacturer.

RESULTS

We identified 23.8 million drug switches on a total of 206 million (11.6%) similar drug dispenses. The frequency of drug switches demonstrated a yearly peak in the period from January to March. In some months, for atorvastatin, losartan, pantoprazole, and irbesartan, more than 60% of similar drug dispenses were drug switches. Most drug switches (80.3%) were between two generic drugs, and 0.12% of these involved a drug from a European parallel import. The proportion of drug switches between two brand-name drugs decreased from 14.5 to 5.53% during our study period, and of these, 86.5% involved a drug from a European parallel import.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug switching is common in the Netherlands, and most of the drug switches we studied are between generic drugs. The observed annual peak of drug switches is most likely explained by a specific Dutch reimbursement policy. Not only are the data valuable as is, but they also serve as a first step towards elucidating the reasons for the occurrence of these drug switches. In addition, these data can be used to put into perspective the adverse drug reactions associated with drug switching.

Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D, and comparison of their psychometric properties in a spinal postoperative Spanish population

OBJECTIVE

EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) and Short-Form Six-Dimensions (SF-6D) are widely used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years in cost-utility analysis. The choice of the instrument could influence the results of cost-utility analysis. Our objective was to compare the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D and SF-6D in a postoperative Spanish population, as well as assess their interchangeability in a cost-utility analysis.

DESIGN

Ambispective study.

SETTING

Tertiary public hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

275 Spanish patients who had undergone surgery for lumbar disc herniation.

INTERVENTION(S)

Patients completed EQ-5D-3L and Short-Form 36 (SF-36v2) questionnaires. Internal consistency, floor and ceiling effects, agreement, and construct validity (convergent validity, including dimension-to-dimension correlations, and "known groups" validity) were assessed. The Spanish tariffs were applied.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Cronbach's α coefficient, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, Lin's concordance correlation coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plot.

RESULTS

Main findings were: (a) lack of agreement between EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities (Lin's concordance correlation coefficient: 0.664 [95% CI: 0.600-0.720]; the Bland-Altman plot showed a mean difference of 0.0835 and wide limits of agreement [- 0.2602-0.4272]). (b) Lack of correlation between domains that theoretically measure similar aspects of quality of life, with the exception of "pain" domain.

CONCLUSIONS

The preference-based EQ-5D and SF-6D instruments showed valid psychometric properties to assess generic outcome in a Spanish population who had undergone surgery for lumbar disc herniation; however, utility scores derived from the measures were different. Thus, these two instruments cannot be used interchangeably to perform a cost-utility analysis, and they should both be included in sensitivity analyses.

Pertussis vaccination in mixed markets: Recommendations from the Global Pertussis Initiative

The Global Pertussis Initiative is an expert scientific forum that publishes consensus recommendations concerning pertussis for many regions of the world. Here, we give recommendations for the primary vaccination of infants in those countries where whole-cell pertussis (wP)- and acellular pertussis (aP)-containing combination vaccines are used in parallel. A selective literature review was performed concerning the influence on safety, immunogenicity, and effectiveness of mixing wP- and aP-containing vaccines for primary immunization of infants. In addition, local data were collected from various countries and the results discussed in a face-to-face meeting. Very few data addressing issues of mixing combination vaccines were identified, and no data were available concerning the effectiveness or duration of protection. It was also found that pharmacovigilance data are scarce or lacking in those countries where they would be needed the most. We then identified frequent problems occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where both vaccine types are used. Relying on local knowledge, we give practical recommendations for a variety of situations in different settings. Specific needs for additional data addressing these issues were also identified. International bodies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), as well as vaccine producers should try to find ways to highlight the problems of mixing wP- and aP-containing combination vaccines with robust data. Countries are urged to improve on their pharmacovigilance for vaccines. For practicing physicians, our recommendations offer guidance when wP- and aP-containing vaccines are used in parallel during primary immunization.

[Interchangeability and substitution of biosimilars]

The rationality of the interchangeability of biosimilars is based on broad scientific evidence and numerous clinical experiences in real life which show no sign of reduced efficacy or different tolerance compared to the original molecule. The substitution of biosimilars (pharmaceutical act) remains widely contested in many countries, notably in France. However, it would make it possible to make very significant savings in a context of major acceleration in health spending. This reluctance is unfounded in light of the quality of biosimilars authorized in Europe and their rigorous evaluation. It is therefore essential to improve the information of health professionals and patients on these biosimilars.

Interchangeability of two Enterovirus 71 inactivated vaccines in Chinese children: A phase IV, open-label, and randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In China, three inactivated Enterovirus 71 (EV71) vaccines have been approved. Although the vaccines in an immunization series should be from a single manufacture, children sometimes have to receive EV71 vaccines from more than one manufacturers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the interchangeability and safety of vaccination with EV71 vaccines from two manufacturers among Chinese children.

METHODS

We conducted an open label and randomized controlled study among children aged 6-35 months from November 2018 to January 2019. The participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive EV71 vaccines in one of the four different schedules (two using a single vaccine for all doses from one manufacture, and two mixed schedules using vaccines from two manufactures). Blood samples were collected pre-vaccination (Day 0) and one month after the second dose (Day 60) for neutralizing antibody assay. Immunogenicity was assessed in the per-protocol cohort and safety was assessed in the total vaccinated cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 300 children were enrolled and randomized, of whom 89.0% (267/300) were included in the per-protocol cohort for immunogenicity analysis. The seroconversion rates of the EV71 neutralizing antibody in four groups ranged from 98.4% to 100.0%, and were not significantly different among the groups. Compared with other groups, geometric mean titer was higher in group D, in which the participants received Institute of Medical Biology Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) vaccine in the first dose and the Sinovac vaccine in the second dose. Safety profiles were similar among the four groups and no serious adverse events related to the vaccination were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Interchangeability of EV71 vaccines from two manufactures to complete an immunization series showed good immunogenicity and safety. The antibody response levels may vary by vaccination sequences of EV71 vaccines from the two manufacturers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.govNCT03873740.

Biosimilars in rheumatology

Biotechnologicals are an invaluable resource in the treatment of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) non-responsive or intolerant to conventional therapies. However, they are the main driver for increase in direct costs and represent a significant economic burden to healthcare systems worldwide. Since biosimilars are similar and more affordable versions of previously licenced biotechnologicals, they are expected to contribute to healthcare system sustainability and reduce inequities in treatment access. The landmark approval of CT-P13 as the first infliximab biosimilar paved the way for new infliximab but also etanercept, adalimumab and rituximab biosimilars. In Europe, North America and some countries of Asia, development is strictly regulated and only those presenting a totality-of-evidence dossier with highly similar physicochemical, biological and clinical performances are endorsed by regulatory agencies as biosimilars. The current article addresses the importance of biosimilar medicines in the treatment of IRD, as well as their innovative development and regulatory pathways, clinical evidence of similarity and challenges that may undermine their widespread use and success.

Update on biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease: Position and recommendations in Mexico

The biotechnology-derived medicines known as biosimilars are defined as non-originator treatments that have demonstrated quality, efficacy, and safety comparable to the reference biologic drug. Clinical trials have shown that the infliximab biosimilar, CT-P13, and the candidates for the adalimumab biosimilars, ABP 501 and ZRC 3197, are not significantly different, with respect to efficacy and safety, from the originator drugs in patients with other autoimmune diseases. However, controversy has arisen over the use of biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease, due to the incipient evidence not only in patients with no previous biotechnology treatment, but also in patients in remission, that could be switched to a biosimilar for non-medical reasons. The present review is the first critical analysis by different specialists in the area of gastroenterology on the use of biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease, the evidence on interchangeability, the extrapolation of indications, efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and the clinical impact of the Mexican health regulations. The aim of our review was to make the positioning and recommendations of these new therapeutic options known, given that they have a potential cost-benefit for both patients and healthcare institutions.

Interchangeability of Licensed Nurses in Nursing Homes: Perspectives of Directors of Nursing

BACKGROUND

Licensed nurse (registered nurse [RN] and licensed practical nurse [LPN]) roles in nursing homes are often viewed as interchangeable. Interchangeability occurs when the differences in RN and LPN education and scopes of practice are not recognized or acknowledged, leading to staffing patterns where the roles and clinical contributions of RNs and LPNs are perceived as equivalent.

PURPOSE

This study describes the perspectives of directors of nursing about interchangeability between RNs and LPNs and factors that contribute to interchangeability.

METHOD

This is a secondary analysis of data from a larger study in which 44 Directors of Nursing from Nurisng Homes in two different states were interviewed about their perceptions of the roles of RNs and LPNs.

FINDINGS

Interchangeability of RNs and LPNs was influenced by directors of nursing's knowledge and awareness of the scopes of practice for the two types of licensed nurses, corporate policies, and educational background of RNs. The findings suggest opportunities for better differentiating roles through the use of job descriptions that more clearly delineate the distinctive contributions of both RNs and LPNs in nursing home settings.

DISCUSSION

While increasing the number of RNs in nursing homes is desirable, there is immediate opportunity to ensure that the few RNs in nursing homes are used effectively to ensure that the professional nursing care needs of residents are met. NOTE: The review process and decision for this article was managed by Barbara S. Smith, PhD, R, FAAN Associate Editor, Nursing Outlook.

Regulation of biosimilar medicines and current perspectives on interchangeability and policy

Competition arising from the increasing availability of biosimilar medicines has resulted in healthcare savings and has provided greater patient access to high cost therapeutics in Europe. The biosimilar market in the USA is relatively new so the full impact of biosimilar availability remains to be seen. Educational initiatives relating to the use of biosimilar medicines are currently being undertaken by regulators, policy makers and industry. The debate on biosimilars has moved on from the appropriateness of the regulatory framework which governs their approval, to the practice of interchangeability. Interchangeability is an important issue for healthcare professionals but different definitions and regulatory frameworks exist in the USA and Europe. In the USA, an interchangeable biological product is a biosimilar which may be substituted by a pharmacist, subject to local State policies. The interchangeability of a biosimilar with its reference medicine will be evaluated by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in cases where approval as an 'interchangeable product' is sought. In contrast, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) does not assess or make recommendations on interchangeability, therefore, in Europe, interchangeability does not mean substitution but is generally physician-led or driven by national policy. This paper provides an overview of the regulation of biosimilar medicines. Challenges associated with the demonstration of interchangeability and practical considerations relating to switching are also discussed. Finally, we present policies that have been adopted to date in several European countries, the USA and Australia, which aim to promote the use of biosimilar medicines.

Accuracy of Cirrus HD-OCT and Topcon SP-3000P for measuring central corneal thickness

PURPOSE

To compare and analyze the interchangeability of three measuring systems, each based on a different technique, for central corneal thickness (CCT) analysis.

METHODS

CCT measurements were measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT), non-contact specular microscopy (NCSM), and ultrasonic pachymetry (USP) in 60 eyes of 60 healthy patients with a mean age of 66.5±15.0 years and a mean spherical equivalent of 0.43±1.14 D. Analysis of variations in measurement concordance and correlation among the three different methods were performed. Comparison of CCT measurements were done using Bland-Altman plots (with bias and 95% confidence intervals), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and paired t-student analysis.

RESULTS

Mean CCT values were: 549.20±26.91μm for USP (range 503-618μm), 514.20±27.49μm for NCSM (range 456-586μm) and 542.80±25.56μm for OCT (range 486-605μm). CCT values obtained with NCMS were significantly lower than those obtained with OCT and USP methods. NCMS CCT value was 36.08±10.72μm lower than USP value (p<0.05), and NCMS CCT value was 7.88±8.86μm lower than OCT value (p<0.05). ICC between USP-NCSM pair was 0.488 and 0.909 between USP-OCT pair.

CONCLUSION

OCT and UPS offered highly comparable results, whereas NCSM offered lower mean CCT values compared to the other two methods. Therefore, NCSM should not be considered a reliable method for measuring CCT and should rather be considered for assessing longitudinal changes in the same patient.

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

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

FUNDING

Pfizer Inc.

Switching from an originator anti-TNF to a biosimilar in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: Can it be recommended? A systematic review

AIM

To review the effectiveness and safety of switching from an originator anti-TNF (Remicade^®) to a biosimilar (CT-P13) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

Electronic and manual search up to September 2017.

RESULTS

We identified 24 studies evaluating switching between Remicade^® and CT-P13 in 1326 patients. Disease control (no worsening after switching) was confirmed in most of the patients (weighted mean, 88%; 95% CI=86-89%). No unexpected adverse effects were reported in any of the studies.

CONCLUSION

The risks of switching from Remicade^® to a biosimilar seem to be purely theoretical and are not supported by the (still limited) real-world clinical practice experience. On the contrary, a steadily increasing number of publications have shown that there seem to be no safety or efficacy concerns about switching. Therefore, switching from originator to biosimilar infliximab in patients with IBD may be considered acceptable.

Biosimilars in the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Supporting Evidence in 2017

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Monoclonal antibodies targeting tumor necrosis factor-alpha, integrin molecules, and interleukin-12/23 have become backbone therapies for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. While clinically effective, these biologic therapies come with significant expense, contributing to overall healthcare spending in the USA. Biosimilars have the potential to significantly reduce expenditures secondary to the use of biologic medications such as infliximab and adalimumab, though their complicated manufacturing process results in inherent differences in structure when compared to the originator compounds. In this article, we review the available literature regarding biosimilars in IBD.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several biosimilar agents to infliximab and adalimumab are currently FDA-approved, with many more currently in development. Initial clinical trials for approval have been conducted in one of the original indications for each originator biologic. There are growing data demonstrating similar clinical efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of each of the approved infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars, both through indication extrapolation from other diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis, as well observational data in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Further research is ongoing regarding the efficacy and safety of substitution and interchangeability of biosimilars, as well as therapeutic drug monitoring for biosimilar agents. Research to date supports the utilization of reference biologics and biosimilars for new initiators, while additional data are being accrued regarding the interchangeability between these agents.

Strengths, weaknesses and future challenges of biosimilars' development. An opinion on how to improve the knowledge and use of biosimilars in clinical practice

Biosimilars started receiving the marketing authorization by European Medicine Agency since 2006. The development of biosimilars follows a well-defined step-wise approach, the so-called comparability exercise, which aims to compare non-clinical (mainly quality features and biological activity) and clinical (efficacy and safety profiles) features of new biosimilars with their respective reference products. Despite the undeniable advantages of such procedure, some concerns (such as the absence of switching studies or the evaluation of efficacy and safety in all therapeutic indications) still exist about its. In particular, the European regulatory framework on biosimilars approval does not include the conduction of switching studies demonstrating the interchangeability to be carried out before marketing authorization. This is one of the main aspects that negatively affects healthcare professionals' clinical decisions on switch. In order to achieve a better knowledge on safety and efficacy of biosimilar drugs, real world data should be collected and post-marketing efficacy and safety clinical studies (including those evaluating specific endpoints, therapeutic regimens and patients population), should be planned. also the conduction of well-designed switching studies is highly advisable, especially in the case of biosimilar drugs used in oncology settings. Lastly, considering the critical role of antidrug antibodies on efficacy/safety profile of biologic drugs, studies based on therapeutic drug monitoring would be useful in order to achieve treatment optimization. Implementing the above strategies could be helpful to fill the gap in knowledge observed in the present European biosimilar regulatory framework.

Immunogenicity of aluminum-adsorbed hepatitis A vaccine (Havrix®) administered as a third dose after primary doses of Japanese aluminum-free hepatitis A vaccine (Aimmugen®) for Japanese travelers to endemic countries

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis A vaccination is recommended for travelers to endemic countries. Several inactivated aluminum-adsorbed hepatitis A vaccines are available worldwide, but only one licensed hepatitis A vaccine is available in Japan. This vaccine is a lyophilized inactivated aluminum-free hepatitis A vaccine (Aimmugen®). The standard schedule of Aimmugen® is three doses (at 0, 2-4 weeks, and 6 months). Japanese people will go abroad after receiving 2 doses of Aimmugen®. Some long-term travelers will receive the third dose of hepatitis A vaccine at their destination, at 6-24 months after 2 doses of Aimmugen®. Aimmugen® is not available in countries other than Japan. They receive inactivated aluminum-adsorbed hepatitis A vaccine instead of a third dose of Aimmugen®. This study was undertaken to determine whether the booster vaccination with an aluminum-adsorbed hepatitis A vaccine is effective following two doses of Aimmugen®.

METHODS

Subjects were healthy Japanese adults aged 20 years or older who had received two doses of Aimmugen®. Subjects received a booster dose of Havrix®1440 intramuscularly as the third dose. Serology samples for hepatitis A virus antibody titers were taken 4-6 weeks later. Anti-hepatitis A virus antibody titers were measured by an inhibition enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

RESULTS

Subjects were 20 healthy Japanese adults, 6 men and 14 women. The mean age ± standard deviation was 37.2 ± 13.3. The seroprotection rate (SPR, anti-hepatitis A virus antibody titer ≥10 mIU/mL) was 85% at enrollment, and increased to 100% after vaccination with Havrix®. The geometric mean anti-hepatitis A virus antibody titer increased from 39.8 mIU/mL to 2938.2 mIU/mL.

CONCLUSION

The three scheduled doses consisting of two doses of Aimmugen® plus a third dose with Havrix® is more immunogenic than using only two doses of Aimmugen®. The vaccination with Havrix® could be allowed to be used instead of a third dose of Aimmugen®. (UMIN000009351).

The rise of biosimilars: How they got here and where they are going

Biosimilars have become a subject of great interest in the past few years. The European Union and the United States are seeing an increasing number of biosimilar applications and approvals. The development of a biosimilar is significantly more complex and costly than a small molecule generic product. In the European Union, there has been a wider use of these medications compared to the United States. More biosimilars are gaining approval in the United States, and these products will likely alter the healthcare system in highly impactful ways. Understanding the regulatory process, the risks, and benefits will enable clinicians to be prepared and maximize the utility of these medications when they enter the market. This article introduces the concept of a biosimilar, discusses the regulatory process in the United States, and reviews the risks and benefits of these products.

Current state of biosimilars in Mexico: The position of the Mexican College of Rheumatology, 2016

The present document is a position statement of the Mexican College of Rheumatology on the use of biosimilars in rheumatic diseases. This position considers that biosimilars should be considered as interchangeable, that automatic substitution without previous notice in stable patients during follow-up is not ethical, that the approval of a biosimilar should only be given after exhaustive review of preclinical and clinical data marked by Mexican regulations, that it should be clearly stated in the nomenclature of biologic drugs which is the innovator and which is the biosimilar, that it is not correct to choose a biosimilar as treatment based only on economic reasons or extrapolate indications based only on the approval of the innovator and in the absence of safety and efficacy data for the biosimilar.

Immunogenicity and safety of a booster dose of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in children primed with the 10-valent or 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in the Czech Republic and Slovakia

BACKGROUND

Although both the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) and the 10-valent pneumococcal non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae protein D-conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV) are widely used, it is unclear how interchangeable they are in terms of immunogenicity.

METHODS

Two phase 3, open-label, multicenter studies were conducted to assess the immunogenicity and safety of a booster dose of PCV13 in children primed with PHiD-CV or PCV13. In the Czech Republic, 12-15-month-old children received a PCV13 booster after 3-dose priming with either PHiD-CV or PCV13. In Slovakia, 11-12-month-old children received PCV13 following 2-dose priming with either PHiD-CV or PCV13. Serum IgG concentrations were assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and functional antibodies were assessed by opsonophagocytic assay (OPA) before the booster and at 1 and 12months afterward. The primary objective of these studies was to assess non-inferiority of OPA titers for serotype 19A in PHiD-CV-primed subjects compared to those in PCV13-primed children 1month post-booster.

RESULTS

A total of 98 subjects in the Czech Republic and 89 subjects in Slovakia were included. One month after the PCV13 booster dose, the IgG and OPA immune responses to serotype 19A in subjects primed with 2 or 3 doses of PHiD-CV were non-inferior to those in subjects primed with PCV13. Non-inferior and persistent immune responses to most other vaccine serotypes were also observed after the PCV13 booster in PHiD-CV-primed subjects. No safety issues were raised in either study.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, robust IgG and OPA immunological responses were observed after booster vaccination with PCV13 in children primed with 2 or 3 doses of PHiD-CV or PCV13, including for serotypes not included in PHiD-CV. These results suggest that these vaccines are interchangeable in terms of safety and immunogenicity and that PCV13 can be used as a booster in the context of mixed schedules. (EudraCT numbers: 2012-005366-35 and 2012-005367-27).

Biosimilars to recombinant human FSH medicines: comparable efficacy and safety to the original biologic

Two recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH)-bearing similar biological medicines (biosimilars) have been authorized by the European Commission. Biosimilar is a regulatory concept alluding to the evidence-based high-standard comparability studies needed to demonstrate its equivalence to a reference original biologic. Because biosimilar development represents a shift from the long-lasting existing paradigms, a thorough understanding of the science behind it will contribute to helping prescribers make informed treatment choices. Contrary to chemically-synthesized medicines, biologics are subject to an inherent molecular variability. From the experience with original biologics, regulatory authorities have accumulated a wealth of knowledge as to what minor batch-to-batch physicochemical variations may be therapeutically acceptable in a given product. Furthermore, in spite of analytically detectable differences, the two original rFSH-bearing medicines currently on the market share fundamentally the same therapeutic profile. Unlike those original medicines, a biosimilar of an rFSH product and the corresponding reference biologic share essentially the same active pharmaceutical ingredient. They are also administered via the same route, at the same dose, and for the same indications. This article revises the background evidence over which the biosimilarity principle has been built, and highlights the therapeutic potential for follitropin biosimilars in order to reassure physicians on their benefit.

Insights on the use of biosimilars in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

Biologic therapy, such as those that target tumor necrosis factor (TNF) signaling, has proven to be an efficacious method of treatment for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with regards to symptom management and mucosal healing. However, the rising prevalence of IBD worldwide and the ever-increasing burden of biologic pharmaceuticals in the health care industry is alarming for insurance companies, clinicians, and patients. The impending patent expiry and the relatively high costs of biologics, particularly anti-TNF agents, have paved the way for biosimilar development for IBD. The United States Food and Drug Administration defines a biosimilar as a biological product that is highly similar to its reference medicinal product, with no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity, and potency. The hope with biosimilars is that their entry into the market will be able to drive competition between pharmaceutical companies to reduce prices like that of the generic market, and that access to appropriate biologic treatments for IBD patients is increased in the long-term. Yet, there are challenging issues such as indication extrapolation and interchangeability that are still being debated in the field of IBD and must be addressed in future issued guidance. This review will discuss the issues and implications concerning the use of biosimilar therapy for IBD.

Extrapolation and Interchangeability of Infliximab and Adalimumab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

OPINION STATEMENT

Infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars have been approved by the FDA and European Medicines Agency and have already been introduced to the international market. Availability into the US market is imminent. Biosimilars are highly similar to the reference biologic product but should not be referred to as, nor equated with, generic medications as no two biosimilars can ever be identical. Regulatory pathways for biosimilar approval consider the totality of evidence for biosimilar approvals, but the preponderance of development relies on analytic and functional testing and allows extrapolation between indications to reduce the financial burden of completing comparative clinical trials for each indication. Neither CT-P13 (infliximab biosimilar) nor ABP 501 (adalimumab biosimilar) was clinically tested in patients with inflammatory bowel disease prior to being submitted for approval by regulatory agencies. The body of available evidence suggests that these drugs will perform similarly to their originators. The pathway for interchangeability of biosimilars has yet to be clarified by federal regulators and currently remains determined by states within the USA. However, preliminary data suggests that switching from originator to biosimilar is safe with minimal differences in clinical efficacy.

Awareness, Knowledge, and Perceptions of Biosimilars Among Specialty Physicians

Introduction

The Biosimilars Forum conducted a survey through an independent organization from November 20, 2015 to January 4, 2016 in order to assess current levels of awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of biosimilars among US specialty physicians who already prescribe biologics. The survey was intended to provide a baseline level of knowledge about biosimilars and will be repeated in 2–3 years in order to monitor trends over time.

Methods

A 19-question survey was created by the Biosimilars Forum and was administered by an independent third party.

Results

Responses were obtained from 1201 US physicians across specialties that are high prescribers of biologics, including dermatologists, gastroenterologists, hematologist-oncologists, medical oncologists, nephrologists, and rheumatologists.

Conclusions

The results of this survey highlight a significant need for evidence-based education about biosimilars for physicians across specialties. Five major knowledge gaps were identified: defining biologics, biosimilars, and biosimilarity; understanding the approval process and the use of “totality of evidence” to evaluate biosimilars; understanding that the safety and immunogenicity of a biosimilar are comparable to the originator biologic; understanding the rationale for extrapolation of indications; and defining interchangeability and the related rules regarding pharmacy-level substitution.

Funding: Biosimilars Forum.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-016-0431-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Regulation of Biosimilars in Latin America

This article summarizes the regulatory scenario on biological medications in Latin America focusing on comparability studies, extrapolation of indications, interchangeability and pharmacovigilance issues. In the case of comparability studies, what is being discussed is the possibility of decreasing the clinical trials requirement, but that the molecule should be well characterized in the studies of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. With the worldwide-level approval of the first monoclonal antibody biosimilar, infliximab, extrapolation of indications are being discussed, since the behavior of the Latin America regulatory agencies has been different with regard to such issue. Another issue discussed by the regulatory agencies is the interchangeability between biological medications and their biosimilars, mainly due to the fact that there is a clear confusion on interchangeability and substitution concepts. Finally, the pharmacovigilance debate, according to what takes place globally, is related to the need for identifying and differentiating the reference biological medication and its biosimilars for traceability purposes.

Statistical evaluation of the scaled criterion for drug interchangeability

As more and more generic drug products become available in the marketplace, it is a concern whether these generic drug products can be used interchangeably in terms of their quality, safety, and efficacy. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicates that an approved generic drug product can serve as a substitute for the innovative drug product. The FDA, however, does not indicate that approved generic drug products can be used interchangeably even if they are bioequivalent to the same innovative drug product. In the past decade, several criteria for assessing interchangeability were proposed in regulatory guidances and/or literature. Chow, Xu, and Endrenyi proposed a scaled criterion for drug interchangeability (SCDI), which takes both intra-subject variability and subject-by-drug variability into consideration. In this paper, the performance of this criterion is statistically evaluated by deriving the upper confidence limit of the test statistic and extrapolating expression of the power to facilitate sample size calculation. The performance of SCDI is also compared with that of the criterion for assessment of individual bioequivalence (IBE) for addressing drug switchability recommended by the FDA, which also takes into account the subject-by-drug variability, under various parameter specifications.

Bioequivalence study between two formulations of ciclosporin A (Cyclavance® oral solution and Atopica® soft capsules) following a single oral administration to dogs

Background

Ciclosporin is a selective immunomodulator used for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in dogs. A new 100 mg/ml oral solution formulation (Cyclavance®, Virbac) was developed as a pharmaceutical equivalent to the marketed capsule formulations (Atopica®, Novartis Animal Health) containing 25, 50 mg, or 100 mg of ciclosporin A. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the pharmacokinetic profiles and bioequivalence of the two formulations following a single oral administration to dogs. This randomised, two-period, two-sequence, crossover bioequivalence study was conducted in 40 healthy dogs under fasting conditions. Each dog received either one 50 mg capsule of Atopica® or 0.5 ml of Cyclavance®. After dosing, blood samples were collected during a 48-h time period at 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 h. Blood ciclosporin A concentrations were measured by using an HPLC-MS/MS method. Cmax, Tmax, t1/2, AUC0-t, AUC0-∞ and Kel were determined for the two ciclosporin formulations. Bioequivalence was to be concluded if the 90 % confidence intervals were within the range of 80 % to 125 % for Cmax and AUC0-t. Dogs were monitored once daily throughout the study period for adverse effects.

Results

The 90 % confidence intervals for Cyclavance®/Atopica® mean ratios of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic variables Cmax and AUC0-t were within the conventional bioequivalence range of 80 % to 125 % (Point estimate: 101.2 % and 101.4 % respectively). Except for salivation reported after administration of both products, or vomiting and diarrhoea reported after Atopica® administration, both formulations were well tolerated in the 40 healthy dogs over the 48-h study period.

Conclusions

The two ciclosporin oral formulations demonstrated similar pharmacokinetic profiles and were found to be bioequivalent, and therefore, interchangeable.

Biosimilars: A consideration of the regulations in the United States and European union

Biosimilars are defined as biological products that are highly similar to a reference product, notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components. Biosimilars show no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, and potency of the product in comparison to the reference product. With the ever looming patent expiry of some major high cost biologics, biosimilar production is becoming ever more lucrative to companies. Europe (EU) set the precedent, followed by the United States (US) in early 2012, for the approval process for biosimilars. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of the regulatory processes in the US and EU and to determine the requirements of each in the approval process of a biosimilar. The current Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency's (EMA) guidance documents for biosimilars were reviewed revealing a need for further clarifications, as well as specifically addressing Celltrion's and Sandoz's application for approval for the biosimilars infliximab and filgrastim, respectively. Currently, the FDA and EMA focus on comparability in terms of the clinical, pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD), preclinical, biological activity, and physiochemical characterization results, as well as requiring a robust and consistent manufacturing process. Both the EU and US have prepared guidance documents for biosimilars that will result in biotherapeutics that are as safe and efficacious as the innovator product but the necessity exists to globally harmonize international nonproprietary naming nomenclature and clarify how the concept of pharmacovigilance, extrapolation, and interchangeability will be handled and regulated in the future.

Biosimilars - terms of use

The impending expiry of the patent on a number of leading biologic drugs has led to a surge in the development of 'biosimilar' or 'follow-on' products. However, in contrast to generic small-molecule medicines, biosimilars are not identical to their reference products. The differences and complexities surrounding both the molecular structure and the manufacturing process for biologics and biosimilars have resulted in a lack of clarity regarding the terms used in different parts of the world to define various aspects of development and utilization such as regulatory approval, pharmacovigilance, interchangeability and treatment-naivety. This makes quantitative evaluation of biosimilars a great challenge to both the scientific community and regulatory agencies. This manuscript attempts to clarify the terms used and address an important knowledge gap which is currently resulting in an increasing rush to position biosimilars for certain indications and patients in the absence of agreed upon definitions.

Equivalence tests for interchangeability based on two one-sided probabilities

A test treatment is considered to be interchangeable with its reference treatment if they are equivalent and expected to produce the same clinical result in any given patient. To assess interchangeability, FDA Draft Guidance (1999) and Guidance for Industry (2001, 2003) recommend using individual bioequivalence (IBE) and population bioequivalence (PBE) procedures. Chow (1999) and Chow and Liu (1999) gave a discussion on the limitation of the aggregate criteria of the IBE and PBE proposed therein. They mentioned that it is not clear whether IBE or PBE can imply average bioequivalence. Alternative approaches have been proposed to address the weakness of IBE and PBE. Dong et al. (2014) discuss the tolerance interval method and an approximate test for interchangeability defined by a two-sided probability. These tests may not be able to test for the two one-sided tests (TOST) with asymmetric margins around the true mean difference. In addition, the tests of two-sided probability provide no direction when failing the equivalence in interchangeability. Thus, we reexamine the statistical properties of the two one-sided tolerance interval approaches proposed by Tsong and Shen (2007, 2008). In this project, we extend their approach for parallel arms trials and paired/crossover data without the assumption of equal sample sizes and variances. We also develop the exact power function and assess the type I error rate of our proposed approach. In addition, we study the sample size determination based on the interchangeability testing utilizing the tolerance interval method.

Equivalence assessment for interchangeability based on two-sided tests

Interchangeability was originally developed in order to assess drug bioequivalence beyond average bioequivalence. In 2003, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a Guidance documenting the procedures on using in vivo bioequivalence crossover trial to assess interchangeability between test and reference products. In general, this FDA Guidance describes interchangeability in terms of population and individual bioequivalence. The Guidance procedures were criticized for their lack of sampling distribution of the test statistics. As a result, the critical points were generated from simulation studies without adjusting for sample size. Further more, they lack consistency with average bioequivalence required in the 1992 FDA Guidance. Alternative interchangeability or interchangeability procedures were proposed to measure the probability of individual response difference under two treatments within prespecified lower and upper limits. Interchangeability is claimed if this probability is greater than a prespecified threshold. Tse et al. (2006) proposed an approximate distribution of the estimated probability based on the second-order Taylor expansion. For the same interchangeability probability hypothesis, Liu and Chow (1997) and Tsong and Shen (2007) also proposed a tolerance interval-based approach that can be extended to clinical trials with parallel arm design under the normality assumption. In this article, we first generalized the two-sided tolerance interval based interchangeability without equal sample size and variance assumption. We also derived a power function for the proposed method, and performed simulation studies to compare the type I error rate, power, and sample size between the Tse approximated test and the generalized tolerance interval approach for interchangeability assessment.