Real-World Adherence and Drug Survival of Biologics among Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the real-world drug survival, adherence, and discontinuation risk of biologics disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) among patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods: This was a retrospective study using a computerized database. Biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced AS patients who initiated treatment with bDMARDs (tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors {TNF-αis} or interleukin-17 inhibitor {IL-17i}) during 2015-2018 were included. Adherence was assessed using the proportion of days covered (PDC) method. Drug survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Risk of discontinuation was estimated by the Cox proportional hazard model. Results: We identified 343 eligible patients utilizing 481 lines of therapy. The mean age was 44.6 years (SD ± 13.4), 57.7% were males, and 69.7% were biologic-naïve at baseline. The proportion of highly adherent patients (PDC ≥ 0.8) in the biologic-naïve group was 63.5% for golimumab, 69.2% for etanercept, and 71.6% for adalimumab (p > 0.9). Among the biologic-experienced group, secukinumab had the highest proportion of adherent patients (75.7%) and etanercept the lowest (50.0%) reaching statistical difference (p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier analysis did not show a significant difference in drug survival in either the biologic-naïve or the biologic-experienced groups (p = 0.85). Multivariable analysis demonstrated a similar risk for discontinuation for etanercept, golimumab, and secukinumab compared with adalimumab, regardless of biologic-experience status. Conclusions: Adherence, drug survival, and risk for discontinuation were similar for all TNF-αis and the IL-17i SEC, regardless of biologic-experience status. As drug survival is an indirect measure of drug efficacy, n, in real-world settings, we believe caregivers can integrate these results into treatment considerations.

Real-World Drug Survival of Biologics and Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs Among Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: While the variety of biologics (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) available for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has proved to be efficacious in randomized clinical trials, there is a growing importance to understand the benefits and potential drawbacks of these different therapies in real-world settings, which includes bio-experienced and older patients as well. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the real-world adherence, drug survival, and discontinuation risk of bDMARDs and tsDMARDs among patients with PsA, comprising both younger and older patients. METHODS: A retrospective study using a computerized database. Treatment-naïve and treatment-experiencedpatients with PsA, younger and older than 60 years, who initiated treatment with bDMARDs [TNF-α inhibitors (TNF-αis), IL-17 inhibitors (IL-17is), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i)] or tsDMARDs (the PDE-4 inhibitor apremilast) during 2015-2018 were included. Adherence was assessed using the proportion of days covered (PDC) method. Time to discontinuation was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Risk of discontinuation was estimated by Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: We identified 427 eligible patients (22.2 % were older than 60 years), utilizing 673 treatment lines. The proportion of adherent patients (PDC ≥ 0.8) was similar (62.1-66.5%) across all lines of therapy and across different biologics (70.0-72.0%), while apremilast showed the lowest, in both treatment-naïve and experienced settings (43.6% and 25.5%, respectively). The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that in the treatment-naïve TNF-αis had higher drug survival compared with apremilast (P = 0.032). Apremilast also had the lowest drug survival in the treatment-experienced group (P < 0.0001). Kaplan-Meier analysis by age groups showed similar drug survival rates in older (≥ 60 years) and younger (age < 60 years) patients, regardless of treatment-experience status. The multivariable model showed that apremilast had increased risk for discontinuation compared with TNF-αis. CONCLUSION: Adherence, drug survival and risk for discontinuation were similar for all included bDMARDs, regardless of treatment experience status, while apremilast showed lower rates and increased risk. Adherence and discontinuation rate were similar in older and younger patients. With the variety of drug modes of action available for patients with PsA, these findings may assist caregivers in selecting the appropriate treatment.

Real-World Data of Adherence and Drug Survival of Biologics in Treatment-Naïve and Treatment-experienced Adult Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatics drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) are important treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). As more of these drugs become available, there is a greater need to assess their real-world adherence and drug survival. METHODS: Treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients with RA who initiated treatment with bDMARDs and tofactinib during 2015-2018 in a large Israeli health maintenance organization were included. Adherence and time to treatment suspension were recorded. Odds for adherence were estimated using a multivariable logistic regression model. Risk for treatment suspension was estimated using a mixed-effect Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: The analysis included 753 eligible patients (61.8% treatment-naïve) treated with 1287 treatment episodes (tofacitinib 24.2%, tocilizumab 17.5%, etanercept 16.0%, adalimumab 10.4%, abatacept 9.9%, rituximab 9.0%, golimumab 6.9%, certolizumab pegol 3.6%, infliximab 1.9%, and sarilumab 0.5%). Good adherence was measured for almost all drugs, yet over 50% of all treatment episodes were suspended. Older age was associated with reduced risk for treatment suspension while higher number of primary care visits and higher Charlson's comorbidity score were associated with increased risk. Compared to etanercept, treatment with adalimumab, certolizumab, or rituximab was associated with increased risk for treatment suspension (HR 1.68 95% CI 1.27-2.22, HR 1.62 95% CI 1.00-2.60, and HR 2.72 95% CI 2.02-3.67, respectively). CONCLUSION: Treatment choice primarily depends on disease activity and prognosis. Real-world data, showing differences in drug survival of bDMARDs and tsDMARD, can also be used in the variety of considerations when choosing treatment. Future studies could separate patients with RA into subgroups, which would also account for potential drug survival differences and enable personalized therapy.

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

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this work is to compare real-world outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving adalimumab (ADA) bio-originator (non-switchers) to those who had switched from ADA bio-originator to an ADA biosimilar (switchers) on the basis of the hypothesis that these outcomes would differ. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of physicians and their patients in Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) in 2020. Physicians completed a questionnaire for their next ten adult patients with RA, followed by four additional patients who had switched from ADA bio-originator to an ADA biosimilar (switchers). Physician- and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for switchers and non-switchers were compared by propensity score matching. RESULTS: Three hundred and three rheumatologists provided data for 160 non-switchers and 225 switchers, 140 patients provided data; 51 non-switchers, 89 switchers. According to physician-reported disease activity, non-switchers were more likely to improve on their current ADA treatment than switchers (68%, n = 108 vs. 26%, n = 59 p < 0.001) and less likely to worsen (1%, n = 2 vs. 9%, n = 20; p < 0.01). Physician-reported patient adherence was significantly lower amongst switchers versus non-switchers (0.66 vs. 0.78, respectively; p = 0.04). More non-switchers than switchers were reported by their physicians to be consistent in taking their RA medicine (p < 0.001). Compared with non-switchers, PRO measures indicated quality of life was worse (EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale: 62.9 vs. 71.9; p < 0.001) and activity impairment was greater (Work Productivity Activity Index: 31.0 vs. 24.4; p = 0.02) for switchers, with trends for poorer health status and greater pain. CONCLUSIONS: Non-medical switching in RA treatment may lead to unforeseen outcomes that should be considered by health decision-makers.

Switching from originator infliximab to biosimilar versus continuing on originator in inflammatory bowel disease: results from the observational Project NORTH study.

OBJECTIVE: Project NORTH compared real-world clinical and economic outcomes in Swedish patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who switched from originator infliximab to its biosimilar. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from electronic medical records and Swedish national registries were linked. Switchers (patients switching from originator infliximab to its biosimilar between 1 April 2014, and 31 December 2017) and non-switchers (patients who received originator infliximab and did not switch to a biosimilar by 31 December 2017) were followed up until 31 October 2019. RESULTS: Baseline concomitant medication use, disease duration, and inflammatory markers were lower among switchers than non-switchers. At 6 months, the proportion of patients with stable disease was higher among switchers than non-switchers (71/109 [65%] vs 54/107 [50%]; p = .0385); differences were not significant in subsequent follow-ups. At 6 and 24 months, 98% and 93% of switchers, respectively, used concomitant medications versus 96% and 79% of non-switchers. Throughout the study, all-cause treatment discontinuation occurred in 74 (67%) switchers and 105 (95%) non-switchers. At 36-months, mean (SD) number of IBD-related in-patient care days was higher among non-switchers (2.95 [4.71]) than switchers (1.40 [4.20]), as were total medical costs (€16,740 vs €3,872). CONCLUSIONS: No substantial differences in clinical outcomes or healthcare resource utilization were observed between switchers and non-switchers. Several analyses indicate that non-switchers might have more poorly controlled/severe disease than switchers at baseline. Overall, numerous difficulties might arise when executing a high-quality, real-world study, including possible selection bias for patients with better disease control for NMS, limiting the generalizability of the results.

Not the same, but is it the same? Cycling of biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Experience in the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social.

INTRODUCTION: Available data for biocomparable drugs are not enough to make clear decisions with respect to the potential consequences of a change for non-medical reasons in efficacy, security and inmunogenicity in patients. In the near future, options on biological treatments, biocomparable drugs, non biocomparable drugs and new chemical synthesis options will grow. Therefore, it is important to know how patients behave in persistence of treatment after a change for non- medical reasons, which already happens on a regular basis in social security institutions in Mexico. This information will help us to better understand the standard of treatment for patients with chronic immunomediated conditions. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to measure the impact of change for non-medical reasons in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with an innovative biological on persistence of treatment after changing to a biocomparable drug or a non-biocomparable drug, compared with those patients staying with the innovative biological. STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational study (non-interventionist) of paired cohorts, where an historic cohort obtained by review of clinical records of stable patients in which no modifications to treatment were made for at least six months is compared with two cohorts of patients whose treatments were switched to another treatment with the same therapeutic mechanism for-non-medical reasons (cycling). RESULTS: We included 264 RA patients (ACR/EULAR, 2010); 132 were switched for non-medical reasons, and 132 were not switched. Two-hundred and thirty (87.1%) were female. Average age was 53.9 years, ranging from 16 to 84 years. Two-hundred and sixty-three patients were Latino (99.6%); one was Caucasian. Persistence of treatment 12 months after the change was 84.8% (85.8% in Enbrel/Infinitam, 78.9% for Remicade/Remsima). No statistical difference was found with respect to RA clinical activity measured by DAS28 12 months after the switch (P > .05). In the 134 switched patients, 20 discontinued the new treatment due to lack of efficacy of the new drug and were changed to a different drug with a different biologic target. Although no differences were found in the cohorts of switched patients with respect to DAS 28 after 12 months of use, we did find differences in the frequency of adverse events. Forty-two patients had an adverse event in the drug switch cohorts: 33 in the Enbrel-Infinitam group and 9 in the Remicade-Remsima group. CONCLUSIONS: The persistence of treatment after switching from an innovative drug to a biocomparable or a non- biocomparable in RA patients did not show statistically significative differences in our cohorts, but we did find a higher number of adverse events when comparing those who were changed with those who continued on an innovative drug. Twenty patients in the switch groups had to receive a new drug with a different biological target due to lack of efficacy of the switched drug.

Not the same, but ¿is it the same? Cycling of biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Experience in the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. / No es el mismo pero ¿es igual? Cycling de agentes biológicos en artritis reumatoide. Experiencia en el Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social.

INTRODUCTION: Available data for biocomparable drugs are not enough to make clear decisions with respect to the potential consequences of a change for non-medical reasons in efficacy, security and inmunogenicity in patients. In the near future, options on biological treatments, biocomparable drugs, non biocomparable drugs and new chemical synthesis options will grow. Therefore, it is important to know how patients behave in persistence of treatment after a change for non-medical reasons, which already happens on a regular basis in social security institutions in Mexico. This information will help us to better understand the standard of treatment for patients with chronic immunomediated conditions. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to measure the impact of change for non-medical reasons in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with an innovative biological on persistence of treatment after changing to a biocomparable drug or a non-biocomparable drug, compared with those patients staying with the innovative biological. STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational study (non-interventionist) of paired cohorts, where an historic cohort obtained by review of clinical records of stable patients in which no modifications to treatment were made for at least six months is compared with two cohorts of patients whose treatments were switched to another treatment with the same therapeutic mechanism for-non-medical reasons (cycling). RESULTS: We included 264 RA patients (ACR/EULAR, 2010); 132 were switched for non-medical reasons, and 132 were not switched. Two-hundred and thirty (87.1%) were female. Average age was 53.9years, ranging from 16 to 84years. Two-hundred and sixty-three patients were Latino (99.6%); one was Caucasian. Persistence of treatment 12months after the change was 84.8% (85.8% in Enbrel/Infinitam, 78.9% for Remicade/Remsima). No statistical difference was found with respect to RA clinical activity measured by DAS28 12months after the switch (P>.05). In the 134 switched patients, 20 discontinued the new treatment due to lack of efficacy of the new drug and were changed to a different drug with a different biologic target. Although no differences were found in the cohorts of switched patients with respect to DAS28 after 12months of use, we did find differences in the frequency of adverse events. Forty-two patients had an adverse event in the drug switch cohorts: 33 in the Enbrel-Infinitam group and 9 in the Remicade-Remsima group. CONCLUSIONS: The persistence of treatment after switching from an innovative drug to a biocomparable or a non-biocomparable in RA patients did not show statistically significative differences in our cohorts, but we did find a higher number of adverse events when comparing those who were changed with those who continued on an innovative drug. Twenty patients in the switch groups had to receive a new drug with a different biological target due to lack of efficacy of the switched drug.

The Challenges of Switching Therapies in an Evolving Multiple Biosimilars Landscape: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence.

With the increasing availability of biosimilars, the practice of switching therapies for non-medical reasons between an originator biologic and an analogous biosimilar has become more common. The evidence to support this practice mostly comes from single-switch randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world (RW) evidence studies. However, as more biosimilars of the same originator enter the market, multiple switching events between originators and biosimilars is becoming a reality, despite limited evidence to support the efficacy and safety of such practice. Some countries have established guidelines, policies, or laws related to interchangeability and/or automatic substitution, whereas others have left these practices unregulated or controlled by other components of the healthcare system. Collectively, guidelines on single non-medical switching are often vague, with even less focus given to multiple non-medical switching, leaving this practice mostly unregulated. This narrative review will first discuss the current regulatory perspectives on non-medical switching and challenges associated with switching therapies, particularly with the availability of multiple biosimilars. We will then review the current evidence from RCTs and RW studies in the light of three different multiple-switch scenarios currently taking place in clinical practice: switching between an originator and a single biosimilar, switching between biosimilars of the same originator, and the clinical practice of switching back to the originator (i.e., switchbacks) after a failure of the initial non-medical switch to the analogous biosimilar.

Long-Term Safety of Adalimumab in 29,967 Adult Patients From Global Clinical Trials Across Multiple Indications: An Updated Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The safety profile of adalimumab was previously reported in 23,458 patients across multiple indications. Here we report the long-term safety of adalimumab in adults with plaque psoriasis (Ps), hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, peripheral spondyloarthritis, Crohn's disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC), and non-infectious uveitis (UV). METHODS: Safety data from 77 clinical trials were pooled. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) that occurred after the first study dose and within 70 days (5 half-lives) after the last study dose. RESULTS: A total of 29,967 patients were included, representing 56,916 patient-years (PY) of exposure. The most frequently reported SAE of interest was infection (3.7/100 PY) with highest incidences in CD, RA, UV, and UC (3.5/100 PY-6.9/100 PY); serious infections in Ps (1.8/100 PY) and HS (2.8/100 PY) were lower. The observed number of deaths was below what would be expected in an age- and sex-adjusted population for most adalimumab-treated patients (including Ps). Lack of real-life data and limited long-term data (> 5 years) for most patients are limitations of this analysis. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of adalimumab was consistent with previous findings and no new safety signals were observed.

Non-medical Switching from Originator Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors to Their Biosimilars: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Studies.

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are widely used biologics for the treatment of several chronic inflammatory diseases. The launch of anti-TNF biosimilars has introduced the possibility of non-medical switching between originator biologics and their biosimilars. However, the potential clinical and patient-reported consequences of non-medical switching remain largely unknown, as much of the evidence comes from poorly or uncontrolled real-world evidence (RWE) studies that often have an element of bias and nonstandardized outcome measures. To appropriately evaluate the safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of non-medical switching from an originator to its biosimilar, we propose that seven key study design elements should be considered when assessing the existing evidence: studies should be (1) randomized and double-blind, (2) adequately controlled, and (3) adequately powered; include (4) multiple switching, (5) an assessment of immunogenicity, and (6) adequate follow-up duration; and (7) report individual patient-level outcomes. This systematic review assessed the robustness and consistency of the current non-medical switching evidence, with a focus on TNF inhibitors. A comprehensive literature search (January 2012-February 2018) identified 98 publications corresponding to 91 studies (17 randomized controlled trials and 74 RWE studies) describing non-medical switching from a TNF inhibitor originator to its biosimilar. When assessing the totality of this evidence, none of the non-medical switching studies conducted to date were found to use all seven of the key design elements, and the absence of these elements dilutes the robustness of the data. Furthermore, discontinuation rates varied widely among studies (0-87%), suggesting heterogeneity and inconclusiveness of the current efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity evidence, particularly at an individual patient level. Therefore, patients should not be indiscriminately switched from an originator TNF inhibitor to its biosimilar for non-medical reasons. Switching decisions should remain between the treating physicians and their patients and be made on a case-by-case basis, relying upon robust scientific evidence. FUNDING: AbbVie.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary available for this article.

The design of clinical trials to support the switching and alternation of biosimilars.

INTRODUCTION: Loss of exclusivity for biological therapeutics opens the door for biosimilar development. Biosimilars must demonstrate structural, functional, and clinical similarity with a currently approved biological originator product. A therapeutic alternative for biologic-naive patients, a single switch from an originator to biosimilar has also been studied in clinically stable patients; further, switching therapy multiple times (alternating) between an originator and a biosimilar has been investigated. Because biosimilars are not identical to originators and no robust clinical data have convincingly demonstrated that switching or alternating therapy of stable patients is safe and efficacious, there is an imperative need to understand the characteristics of well-designed clinical trials to support these practices. Areas covered: Clinical trials of biosimilars are reviewed, with an emphasis on trial designs that incorporate therapy switching, including the NOR-SWITCH study as an example. Expert opinion: As currently designed, biosimilar clinical trials provide insufficient information to support switching or alternating between originator products and their biosimilars. Lack of regulatory guidance contributes to this void. More robust data are required to inform the safety and efficacy of switching or alternating therapies, particularly regarding immunogenicity risks. Studies that also include alternations of therapy are needed to address these knowledge gaps.

Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies: the scientific basis for extrapolation.

INTRODUCTION: Biosimilars are biologic products that receive authorization based on an abbreviated regulatory application containing comparative quality and nonclinical and clinical data that demonstrate similarity to a licensed biologic product. Extrapolation of safety and efficacy has emerged as an important way to simplify biosimilar development. Regulatory authorities have generally reached the consensus that extrapolation of similarity from one indication to other approved indications of the reference product can be permitted if it is scientifically justified. AREAS COVERED: Recently, the first biosimilar, biosimilar infliximab (Remsima/Inflectra) to the innovator monoclonal antibody infliximab (Remicade), was approved in the European Union, Canada and South Korea; the USA subsequently approved its first biosimilar, a less complex molecule (filgrastim-sndz). Based on two clinical trials of biosimilar infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis, the European Medicines Agency allowed extrapolation to all eight approved indications for innovator infliximab, whereas Health Canada did not permit extrapolation to the indications for ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. These differing decisions on extrapolation of indications for biosimilar infliximab highlight important unanswered regulatory and scientific questions. Here, we propose substantive scientific considerations for indication extrapolation. EXPERT OPINION: The preclinical and clinical criteria that are currently required to merit indication extrapolation have not been rigorously evaluated.