A narrative review of the comparative safety of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have improved the outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). DMARDs are classified into three categories: conventional synthetic DMARDs, biological DMARDs (including biosimilars), and targeted synthetic DMARDs. DMARDs, by way of their effect on the immune system, are associated with increased risk of adverse events, including infections, malignancies, cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal perforations, and other less common events. AREAS COVERED: In this narrative literature review performed with searches of the PubMed database from 1 January 2010 through 1 January 2023, we compare the risk of safety events between DMARDs using data from both randomized clinical trials and observational studies. EXPERT OPINION: DMARD use in RA is associated with higher rates of serious infections, tuberculosis reactivation, opportunistic infections, and possibly malignancies. Specific biologic DMARDs and higher doses are associated with elevated risks of various adverse events (gastrointestinal perforations, thromboembolism, serious infection). Shared decision-making is paramount when choosing a treatment regimen for patients based on their own comorbidities. JAKi are the newest class of medications used for RA with robust safety data provided in clinical trials. However, more real-world evidence and phase-IV pharmacovigilance data are needed to better understand comparative safety profile of DMARDs in RA.

Rheumatology: What You May Have Missed in 2023.

Many patients with rheumatologic conditions receive care from physicians other than rheumatologists. Here we note key findings from 6 studies in rheumatology published in 2023 that offer valuable insights for internal medicine specialists and subspecialists outside of rheumatology. The first study investigated the effect of low-dose glucocorticoids on patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over 2 years and challenged existing perceptions about the risks of glucocorticoids in this setting. The second study focused on the updated guideline for preventing and treating glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. With the chronic and widespread use of glucocorticoids, the American College of Rheumatology emphasized the importance of assessing fracture risk and initiating pharmacologic therapy when appropriate. The third study explored the potential use of methotrexate in treating inflammatory hand osteoarthritis, suggesting a novel approach to managing this challenging and common condition. The results of the fourth article we highlight suggest that sarilumab has promise as an adjunct treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica relapse during glucocorticoid dosage tapering. The fifth study evaluated sublingual cyclobenzaprine for fibromyalgia treatment, noting both potential benefits and risks. Finally, the sixth article is a systematic review and meta-analysis that assessed the therapeutic equivalence of biosimilars and reference biologics in the treatment of patients with RA. Knowledge of this recent literature will be useful to clinicians regardless of specialty who care for patients with these commonly encountered conditions.

Efficacy and safety of biosimilar trastuzumab (CT-P6) in routine clinical practice in the Republic of Korea: a real-world post-marketing surveillance study.

BACKGROUND: The trastuzumab biosimilar CT-P6 is approved for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer (EBC), metastatic breast cancer (MBC), and metastatic gastric cancer (MGC). The objective of this post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study was to evaluate the real-world safety and effectiveness of CT-P6 in patients with HER2-positive cancers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This open-label, observational, prospective, PMS study collected data via investigator surveys from 35 centers in the Republic of Korea (5 October 2018-4 October 2022). Eligible patients with HER2-positive EBC, MBC, or MGC started CT-P6 treatment during routine clinical practice, followed by 1-year observation. Evaluations included adverse events (AEs), adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and effectiveness. RESULTS: Safety was analyzed in 642 patients (494 EBC, 94 MBC, 54 MGC). Overall, 325 (50.6%) patients experienced 1316 AEs, and 550 ADRs occurred in 199 (31.0%) patients. Unexpected ADRs occurred in 62 (9.7%) patients. Unexpected ADRs and ADRs of special interest did not raise any new safety signals. Among trastuzumab-naïve patients, 34/106 (32.1%) with EBC achieved pathological complete response; 30/74 (40.5%) MBC and 24/49 (49.0%) MGC patients achieved complete or partial response. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, CT-P6 demonstrated safety and efficacy findings consistent with previous CT-P6 studies.

Dermatologists' Perspectives on Biosimilars.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilars are biologic agents the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has deemed to have no clinical difference from their reference biologics. In dermatology,  biosimilars are approved for the treatment of psoriasis and hidradenitis suppurativa. Although dermatologists are high prescribers of biologics, they are more reluctant to prescribe biosimilars than other specialists. This survey-based study sought to characterize dermatologists’ current perspectives on biosimilars.  Methods: A 27-question survey was distributed via email to dermatologists between September and October of 2022.  Results: Twenty percent of respondents would not prescribe a biosimilar for an FDA-approved indication. When asked about the greatest barriers to biosimilar adoption, 61% had concerns about biosimilar safety and efficacy, 24% reported uncertainty about state laws for interchangeability and substitutions, and 20% had concerns about biosimilar safety without concerns about efficacy. Thirty-five percent of respondents felt moderately or extremely knowledgeable about biosimilar interchangeability.  Conclusion: Biosimilars are safe and effective for treating approved dermatological conditions and may lower patient costs compared to their reference products. Patients are not always offered biosimilar therapy as an option, which may be due to unfamiliarity among dermatologists.  This survey suggests a need for more research and educational initiatives, such as modules and workshops that focus on biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability guidelines. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(4):doi:10.36849/JDD.7755.

Factors associated with hematological adverse reactions of drugs authorized via the centralized procedure.

Serious hematological adverse drug reactions (HADRs) may lead to or prolong hospitalization and even cause death. The aim of this study was to determine the regulatory factors associated with HADRs caused by drugs that were authorized up to July 2023 by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and to evaluate the frequency of HADRs. Using a cross-sectional approach, the type and frequency of HADRs were collected from the Summaries of Product Characteristics of Drugs Authorized by the EMA and analyzed within proprietary, nonproprietary, and biosimilar/biological frameworks. Multivariate statistical analysis was used to investigate the associations of generic status, biosimilar status, conditional approval, exceptional circumstances, accelerated assessment, orphan drug status, years on the market, administration route, and inclusion on the Essential Medicines List (EML) with HADRs. In total, 54.78% of proprietary drugs were associated with HADRs at any frequency, while anemia, leucopenia, and thrombocytopenia were observed in approximately 36% of the patients. The predictors of any HADR, anemia, and thrombocytopenia of any frequency are generic status, biosimilar status, and inclusion on the EML, while the only protective factor is the administration route. Biosimilars and their originator biologicals have similar frequencies of HADRs; the only exception is somatropin. Knowledge of the regulatory factors associated with HADRs could help clinicians address monitoring issues when new drugs are introduced for the treatment of patients.

PB006: A Natalizumab Biosimilar.

PB006 (Tyruko®) is the first biosimilar of the reference monoclonal anti-α4-integrin antibody natalizumab. It is approved for use in the same indications for which reference natalizumab is approved, as a single disease-modifying therapy in adults with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). PB006 has similar physicochemical and pharmacodynamic properties to those of reference natalizumab, and the pharmacokinetic similarity of the agents has been demonstrated in a study in healthy subjects. PB006 demonstrated clinical efficacy similar to that of reference natalizumab in patients with RRMS, and was generally well tolerated in this population. The tolerability, safety and immunogenicity profiles of PB006 were similar to those of reference natalizumab, and switching from reference natalizumab to PB006 appeared to have no impact on tolerability or immunogenicity. The role of reference natalizumab in the management of RRMS is well established and PB006 provides an effective biosimilar alternative for patients requiring natalizumab therapy.

A pharmacokinetic study comparing the biosimilar HEC14028 and Dulaglutide (Trulicity®) in healthy Chinese subjects.

This study aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PKs), safety, and immunogenicity of the biosimilar HEC14028 compared to reference Trulicity® (dulaglutide) in healthy male Chinese subjects. This study was a single-center, randomized, open, single-dose, parallel-controlled comparative Phase I clinical trial, including a screening period of up to 14 days, a 17-day observation period after administration, and a 7-day safety follow-up period. A total of 68 healthy male subjects were randomly assigned (1:1) to the test group (HEC14028) and the reference group (dulaglutide) (single 0.75 mg abdominal subcutaneous dose). The primary objective was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic characteristics of HEC14028 and compare the pharmacokinetic similarities between HEC14028 and dulaglutide. The primary PK endpoints were maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the blood concentration-time curve from zero time to the estimated infinite time (AUC0-∞). The study results showed that HEC14028 and dulaglutide were pharmacokinetically equivalent: 90% confidence interval (CI) of Cmax and AUC0-∞ geometric mean ratios were 102.9%-122.0% and 97.1%-116.9%, respectively, which were both within the range of 80.00%-125.00%. No grade 3 or above treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), TEAEs leading to withdrawal from the trial, or TEAEs leading to death were reported in this study. Both HEC14028 and dulaglutide showed good and similar safety profiles, and no incremental immunogenicity was observed in subjects receiving HEC14028 and dulaglutide.

Immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of biosimilar insulin glargine (Gan & Lee glargine) compared with originator insulin glargine (Lantus®) in patients with type 2 diabetes after 26 weeks' treatment: A randomized open label study.

AIM: To evaluate the equivalence of immunogenicity, safety and efficacy of Gan & Lee (GL) Glargine (Basalin®; Gan & Lee Pharmaceutical) with that of the reference product (Lantus®) in adult participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This was a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, equivalence trial conducted across 57 sites. In total, 567 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to undergo treatment with either GL Glargine or Lantus® for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants in each treatment arm who manifested treatment-induced anti-insulin antibodies (AIA). Secondary endpoints included efficacy and safety metrics, changes in glycated haemoglobin levels, and a comparative assessment of adverse events. Results were analysed using an equivalence test comparing the limits of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for treatment-induced AIA development to the prespecified margins. RESULTS: The percentages of participants positive for treatment-induced glycated haemoglobin by week 26 were similar between the GL Glargine (19.2%) and Lantus® (21.3%) treatment groups, with a treatment difference of -2.1 percentage points and a 90% CI (-7.6%, 3.5%) (predefined similarity margins: -10.7%, 10.7%). The difference in glycated haemoglobin was -0.08% (90% CI, -0.23, 0.06). The overall percentage of participants with any treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the GL Glargine (80.1%) and Lantus® (81.6%) treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: GL Glargine was similar to Lantus® in terms of immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety, based on the current study.

Equivalence trial of proposed denosumab biosimilar GP2411 and reference denosumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis: the ROSALIA study.

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody used to reduce risk of fractures in osteoporosis. ROSALIA was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, integrated phase I/phase III study comparing the efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), immunogenicity, and safety of proposed biosimilar denosumab GP2411 with reference denosumab (REF-DMAb) (Prolia®; Amgen). Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomized 1:1 to 2 60-mg doses of GP2411 or REF-DMAb, one at study start and one at week 26. At week 52, the REF-DMAb group was re-randomized 1:1 to a third dose of REF-DMAb or switch to GP2411. The primary efficacy endpoint was percentage change from baseline (%CfB) in LS-BMD at week 52. Secondary efficacy endpoints were %CfB in LS-BMD, FN-BMD, and TH-BMD at weeks 26 and 78 (and week 52 for FN-BMD and TH-BMD). Primary PK and PD endpoints were the area under the serum concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity and maximum drug serum concentration at week 26, and the area under the effect-time curve of the %CfB in serum CTX at week 26. Secondary PK and PD endpoints included drug serum concentrations and %CfB in serum CTX and P1NP during the study period. Similar efficacy was demonstrated at week 52, with 95% CIs of the difference in %CfB in LS-BMD between treatment groups fully contained within prespecified equivalence margins. Similarity in PK and PD was demonstrated at week 26. Immunogenicity was similar between groups and was not impacted by treatment switch. The rate of new vertebral fractures was comparable. Treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between groups (63.6% [GP2411/GP2411]; 76.0% [REF-DMAb/REF-DMAb]; 76.6% [REF-DMAb/GP2411]). In conclusion, ROSALIA showed similar efficacy, PK and PD, and comparable safety and immunogenicity of GP2411 to REF-DMAb in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Denosumab is a biologic treatment that stops bone breakdown. This clinical trial evaluated how similar GP2411 (a denosumab biosimilar in development) is compared with European-approved reference denosumab in women with post-menopausal osteoporosis. Biosimilars are highly similar to the original treatment ('reference denosumab') and may have a lower price. 263 patients were randomly assigned to receive GP2411 and 264 to reference denosumab. Treatment was given at the study beginning, at Week 26 and at Week 52. 124 patients were re-assigned at Week 52 to test the effect of changing from reference denosumab to GP2411. The study showed similarity in how the body interacts with the treatments, what effects the treatment has (both measured over 26 weeks), and bone mineral density (measured over 78 weeks). Antibody responses to GP2411 were detected in similar proportions of patients on each treatment. Reported adverse events were similar between treatments before Week 52, and from Week 52 to 78, and <5% of patients experienced serious adverse events. A change of treatment from reference denosumab to GP2411 did not affect outcomes. These results showed similarity between GP2411 and reference denosumab in this population. In future, GP2411 may enable more patients to benefit from denosumab.

Additional Data in Expanded Patient Populations and New Indications Support the Practice of Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching.

As of 31 December, 2023, 31 observational studies have been published, including a total of 6081 patients who underwent a switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic. Most studies evaluated infliximab, while a smaller number evaluated adalimumab, rituximab or etanercept. Indications studied now include sarcoidosis, as well as the indications previously reported of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis/ankylosing spondylitis and inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis). This updated data set includes eight additional studies and 2386 more patients compared with those included in an earlier systematic review of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching. In addition, since the earlier systematic review was published in 2022, the European Medicines Agency has stated that reference-to-biosimilar and biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching in the European Union is safe and efficacy remains unchanged after switching. Furthermore, following a review of the available evidence, the US Food and Drug Administration has confirmed that initial safety and immunogenicity concerns related to biosimilar switching are unfounded and that no differences are observed in efficacy, safety or immunogenicity following one or more switches. The availability of this new efficacy and safety data together with the supportive statements from the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration re-confirm the conclusion that as a scientific matter, biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching is an effective clinical practice, with no new safety concerns. Any suggestions to the contrary are not supported by the evidence.

Safety and Effectiveness of a Biosimilar Recombinant Human Growth Hormone in Children Requiring Growth Hormone Treatment: Analysis of Final Data from PATRO Children, an International, Post-Marketing Surveillance Study.

Purpose: Omnitrope® (somatropin) was approved as a biosimilar recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) in 2006. Here, we report final data from the PAtients TReated with Omnitrope® (PATRO) Children study, a post-marketing surveillance study designed to monitor the long-term safety and effectiveness of this treatment in pediatric patients. Methods: The study population included all pediatric patients treated with Omnitrope® (biosimilar rhGH), administered via daily injection, in routine clinical practice. The primary objective was to assess long-term safety, with effectiveness assessed as a secondary objective. Results: In total, 7359 patients were enrolled and treated in the PATRO Children study; 86.0% were treatment-naïve at baseline. Growth hormone deficiency was the most frequent indication (57.9%), followed by patients born small for gestational age (SGA; 26.6%). The mean (SD) duration of exposure to biosimilar rhGH was 3.66 years (2.39). A total of 16,628 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 3981 (54.1%) patients, most of which were mild/moderate. AEs suspected to be treatment related occurred in 8.3% of patients, most frequently headache (1.6%), injection-site pain (1.1%), or injection-site hematoma (1.1%). The incidence rate (IR) of type 2 diabetes mellitus was 0.11 per 1000 person-years (PY) across all patients, and 0.13 per 1000 PY in patients born SGA. The IR of newly diagnosed primary malignancies was 0.22 per 1000 PY across all patients. In the 6589 patients included in the effectiveness population, a sustained catch-up growth was observed across all indications. After 5 years of treatment, height SDS increased from baseline by a median (range) of +1.79 (-3.7 to 6.2) in treatment-naïve patients and +0.73 (-1.4 to 3.7) in pretreated patients. Conclusion: This final analysis of the PATRO Children study indicates that biosimilar rhGH is well tolerated and effective in real-world clinical practice. These data are consistent with the well-characterized safety profile of rhGH treatment in pediatric patients.

[Comparative characteristics of the efficacy and safety of the original alteplase and its complete biosimilar in the treatment of ischemic stroke in real clinical practice]. / Sravnitel'naya kharakteristika effektivnosti i bezopasnosti original'noi alteplazy i ee bioanaloga pri lechenii ishemicheskogo insul'ta v real'noi klinicheskoi praktike.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comparative analysis between the original alteplase and its biosimilar in terms of efficacy and safety in real clinical practice in the Republic of Belarus. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The cohort study included 420 patients. All included patients underwent thrombolytic therapy with alteplase within 4.5 hours of the onset of stroke symptoms according to the approved tactics of the Republic of Belarus and international recommendations. The patients were divided into 2 groups: 215 received the drug Revelisa, 205 - Actilyse. RESULTS: The patients were comparable in gender, age, ASPECTS assessment, but had statistically significant difference in NIHSS was found, due to the large number of patients with NIHSS=16-25 in the Actilyse group. The assessment of premorbid disability also showed a statistically significant difference: there were more patients in the Revelisa group who had functional limitations of varying degrees before the disease, 83 (38.6%) versus 62 (28.3%) patients in the comparison group. Clinical outcomes were comparable, the proportion of patients achieving mRS=0-1 at discharge was 41.5% in group A and 42.8% in group P. The Revelisa demonstrated a statistically significant lower number of deaths in 15 (7.0%) and 29 (14.1%) in the comparison group. The development of a greater number of clinically insignificant petechial hemorrhages was noted after the use of Actilyse. CONCLUSION: The analysis demonstrated a high level of safety in the use of alteplase preparations in routine practice. The compared fibrinolytics had comparable effectiveness in achieving functional independence after ischemic stroke, despite the more premorbid disability of patients who received a biosimilar.

Persistence and safety of anti-TNF biosimilars versus originators in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: an observational study on the French National Health Data System.

OBJECTIVES: Biosimilar-originator equivalence has been demonstrated in phase 3 trials in a few indications of infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab. The objective of our study was to compare the persistence and safety of biosimilars versus originators in all the licensed indications of these molecules. METHODS: We used data from the French National Health Data System (SNDS), covering 99% of the French population, to identify infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab initiators from biosimilar launch (January 2015, May 2016 and October 2018, respectively) to 30 June 2021. Patients were then followed for 1 year. Treatment persistence (duration without treatment discontinuation or modification) and safety (including severe infections, all-cause hospitalisation and death) were compared between originator and biosimilar users by Cox regressions weighting the populations on the inverse probability of treatment. Analyses were performed by molecule, by disease and by biosimilar product. RESULTS: From January 2015 to June 2021, 86 776 patients were included in the study: 22 670, 24 442 and 39 664 patients had initiated infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab, respectively; 49 752 (53%) were biosimilar initiators. We did not find any risk of discontinuation (HRs were below or around 1, here all pathologies and products together: infliximab 0.88 (0.80-0.97), etanercept 0.85 (0.81-0.90) and adalimumab 0.96 (0.91-1.00)) or safety event (infection: infliximab 0.97 (0.78-1.21), etanercept 1.04 (0.81-1.33) and adalimumab 0.98 (0.83-1.16); hospitalisation: infliximab 1.08 (0.96-1.23), etanercept 0.99 (0.87-1.11) and adalimumab 0.91 (0.83-0.99)) associated with biosimilar versus originator use. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows reassuring results regarding the persistence and safety of biosimilar tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors compared with originators in all licensed indications.

Safety of biologic agents for the management of rheumatic diseases during pregnancy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the current understanding regarding the use of biologic therapeutics in pregnancy. RECENT FINDINGS: Our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the potential fetal and infant exposure to biologics as well as a growing body of empirical evidence from real world use of biologics in pregnancy have demonstrated that biologics are generally compatible preconception and during pregnancy. Long-term effects of exposure to biologic agents in utero are not known, but will be uncovered in time. Biosimilars, which are becoming more popular, may not always share the same safety profiles as their originators. SUMMARY: Biologics have revolutionized the management of rheumatologic disease and ushered in a new era of clinical remission among patients. These agents, developed and introduced into clinical use at the beginning of the new millennium, are very potent, yet their efficacy in treating disease often in reproductive aged women, raises questions regarding their safety during pregnancy. These therapeutics can cause immunosuppression and can inhibit immunologic circuits that are not only involved in disease pathophysiology but hypothetically could impact the development of the fetal immune system. Reassuringly, biologics, typically antibodies or antibody-based proteins, are introduced to the fetus via the typical route of transplacental antibody transfer, and thus only begin to be transferred in appreciable amounts in the second trimester (after organogenesis). From theoretic and empirical standpoints, biologic use during pregnancy appears well tolerated for fetal development and to not substantially affect infant immune development.

Real-world clinical scenarios during introduction of trastuzumab biosimilar for HER2-positive breast cancer in the European Union.

Aim: Trastuzumab-anns is an intravenously administered biosimilar to trastuzumab approved by the EMA and US FDA for treatment of HER2+ early and metastatic breast cancer as well as metastatic gastric cancer. Lack of real-world characterization of biosimilar use has hindered uptake. Methods: This observational chart review characterizes 488 patients who received trastuzumab-anns in EU clinical practice settings. Results: Approximately 2/3rds of patients initiated trastuzumab-anns in adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings and most were naive new starters (70%). 30% were switchers from another trastuzumab, among whom 48% switched from trastuzumab iv. reference product. Common reasons for trastuzumab-anns discontinuation were a switch to another biosimilar product (34.8%, n = 85) or to trastuzumab reference product (15.6%, n = 38). Conclusion: Trastuzumab-anns was widely used in various treatment settings for HER2+ breast cancer.

Some patients have a type of breast cancer caused by abnormal amounts of a normal growth factor receptor. This growth factor receptor, known as human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2), plays a role in normal life changes that occur in breast tissue, including during pregnancy. HER-2 exists on the surface of breast cells and sends a signal inside cells for growth and proliferation. Sometimes an abnormal amount of HER-2 appears on breast cell surfaces, which causes HER-2 to promote excessive growth and proliferation and leads to HER2+ breast cancer. HER2+ breast cancer can be treated with trastuzumab, a medicine that specifically blocks HER-2 signals, and stops cancer cell growth. Trastuzumab has greatly improved outcomes for women worldwide with HER2+ breast cancer but trastuzumab is not always available due, in part, to its high cost. Biosimilars are medicines that are highly similar, but not identical, to the brand name (original) product and have been shown in clinical trials to result in no meaningful difference in efficacy and safety compared with the original product. Trastuzumab-anns is an intravenously administered biosimilar to trastuzumab. Biosimilars are as effective and safe as original products, although more cost-effective, such that physicians and patients can benefit from more information about their use in the real world. This study provided information about trastuzumab-anns use from clinical oncology practices in seven European countries. The study provides real world evidence that trastuzumab-anns is used widely across different patients with HER2+ breast cancer, including those with metastatic disease.

Ranibizumab Biosimilars in Treating Retinal Disorders: A Cost-Effective Revolution?

Ranibizumab, is a humanized, monoclonal antibody fragment that binds and inactivates vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) and VEGF-B. One of the main indications for an intravitreal treatment with ranibizumab is age-related macular degeneration (AMD), which is a retinal disease with a high worldwide socioeconomic impact. Biosimilars constitute biological products that demonstrate similar pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics with a reference product, as well as comparable clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. Since the approval of the first biosimilar Razumab, there has been a variety of new biosimilars available on the market. They offer the advantage of the same good clinical and safety results at a better price. All Ranibizumab biosimilars that have gained approval were tested in double masked Phase 3 clinical studies. The use of Ranibizumab biosimilars in neovascular AMD is well reported in the bibliography. Nevertheless, over the last few years, there is a tendency of using biosimilars in other retinal diseases like retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), diabetic macular edema (DME) or polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV). In conclusion, ranibizumab biosimilars offer a promising avenue for the management of retinal diseases, especially in countries with lower socioeconomic status, where there is lack of availability of innovator ranibizumab. However, further research is required to fully explore their efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes in a plethora of retinal diseases.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of a proposed biosimilar MSB11456 with tocilizumab reference product in subjects with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: results of a randomised double-blind study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of the proposed biosimilar MSB11456 versus European Union (EU)-approved tocilizumab reference product in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, multinational, parallel-group study (NCT04512001). METHODS: Adult patients with moderate-to-severe active RA and inadequate clinical response to ≥1 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (synthetic or biologic) receiving methotrexate were randomised to receive 24 weekly subcutaneous 162 mg injections of either MSB11456 or EU-approved tocilizumab. Equivalence between treatments was considered if the 95% CI (European Medicines Agency)/90% CI (US Food and Drug Administration) for the difference in mean change from baseline to week 24 in Disease Activity Score-28 Joint Count with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) between treatments was entirely within prespecified equivalence intervals (-0.6 to 0.6 and -0.6 to 0.5, respectively). At week 24, patients were rerandomised to continued treatment or MSB11456. Secondary efficacy endpoints to week 52, and safety and immunogenicity to week 55 were also evaluated. RESULTS: At week 24, the least squares mean difference in the change from baseline in DAS28-ESR between treatments was 0.01 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.22) in the 604 randomised patients. Similarity between treatments was shown for all other efficacy, safety and immunogenicity endpoints, including in patients who switched from EU-approved tocilizumab to MSB114466. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic equivalence was demonstrated for efficacy endpoints, and safety and immunogenicity analyses support the similarity of the two treatments. The results of this study strengthen the evidence that the proposed biosimilar MSB11456 and EU-approved tocilizumab exert similar clinical effects.

Long-term outcomes with HLX01 (HanliKang®), a rituximab biosimilar, in previously untreated patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: 5-year follow-up results of the phase 3 HLX01-NHL03 study.

HLX01 (HanliKang®) is a rituximab biosimilar that showed bioequivalence to reference rituximab in untreated CD20-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the phase 3 HLX01-NHL03 study. Here, we report the 5-year follow-up results from the open-label extension part. Patients were randomised to either rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or HLX01 plus CHOP (H-CHOP) every 21 days for up to six cycles. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Of the 407 patients enrolled in HLX01-NHL03, 316 patients (H-CHOP = 157; R-CHOP = 159) were included in the 5-year follow-up for a median duration of 65.1 (range, 2.2-76.5) months. 96.5% of the patients had an International Prognostic Index (IPI) of 1 or 2, and 17.7% had bone marrow involvement. The 5-year OS rates were 81.0% (95% CI: 74.9-87.5%) and 75.4% (95% CI: 68.9-82.6%)( HR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.47-1.20; p = 0.23) while 5-year PFS rates were 77.7% (95% CI: 71.4-84.6%) and 73.0% (95% CI: 66.3-80.3%) (HR: 0.84, 95% CI 0.54-1.30; p = 0.43) in the H-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively. Treatment outcomes did not differ between groups regardless of IPI score and were consistent with the primary analysis. H-CHOP and R-CHOP provided no significant difference in 5-year OS or PFS in previously untreated patients with low or low-intermediate risk DLBCL.

Efficacy and safety of biosimilar Peg-filgrastim after autologous stem cell transplant in myeloma and lymphoma patients: a comparative study with biosimilar Filgrastim, Lenograstim, and originator Peg-filgrastim.

Data about biosimilar Peg-filgrastim (bioPEG) in autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) are still scarce. The aim of this study has been to assess efficacy and safety of bioPEG among lymphoma and myeloma patients undergoing ASCT, comparing these data with historical controls receiving other G-CSFs. Furthermore, an economic evaluation has been included to estimate the savings by using bioPEG. This is a prospective cohort study comparing lymphoma and myeloma patients undergoing ASCT and receiving bioPEG (n = 73) with three historical consecutive cohorts collected retrospectively who received other G-CSFs (Lenograstim - Leno - n = 101, biosimilar Filgrastim - bioFIL n = 392, and originator Peg-filgrastim - oriPEG n = 60). We observed a significantly shorter time to neutrophils and platelet engraftment (p < 0.001) in patients treated with bioPEG and oriPEG. Moreover, patients who received bioPEG showed a shorter hospitalization time (p < 0.001) and a lower transfusion need (p < 0.001). We did not observe any significant difference in terms of transplant-related mortality, mucositis, and diarrhea among the four groups. No serious adverse events were associated with bioPEG. Similar data were obtained after running a stratified analysis for lymphomas and myeloma separately conducted by using a propensity score matching. The average total cost per patient of bioPEG was € 18218.9 compared to € 23707.8, € 20677.3 and € 19754.9 of Leno, oriPEG, and bioFIL, respectively. In conclusion, bioPEG seems to be as effective as the originator and more effective than short-acting G-CSFs in terms of post-transplant engraftment in myeloma and lymphoma patients undergoing ASCT. Moreover, bioPEG was cost-effective when compared with the other G-CSFs.