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.

Long-Term Real-World Post-approval Safety Data of Multiple Biosimilars from One Marketing-Authorization Holder After More than 18 Years Since Their First Biosimilar Launch.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilars are additional treatment options that are approved based on robust analytical and clinical comparisons with their reference biologic. At the time of initial approval, the full safety profile of a biosimilar is inferred from the reference biologic. Nonetheless, there are still lingering concerns related to the long-term safety of biosimilars. Therefore, we reviewed the post-approval pharmacovigilance data for eight marketed biosimilars from one Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) to summarize their safety experience in a real-world setting for up to 18 years since their first biosimilar launch. METHODS: Post-approval cumulative patient exposure and safety experience for eight Sandoz biosimilars [adalimumab (Hyrimoz®), epoetin alfa (Binocrit®), etanercept (Erelzi®), filgrastim (Zarzio®), infliximab (Zessly®), pegfilgrastim (Ziextenzo®), rituximab (Rixathon®), and somatropin (Omnitrope®)] was summarized based on the available pharmacovigilance data from Periodic Safety Update Reports (PSURs) and the corresponding health authority-authored PSUR assessment reports, where available, as of 31 January 2023. Exposure to all biosimilars was calculated in patient treatment days (PTD) except for rituximab, which was expressed in number of patient doses (PD). RESULTS: The combined post-approval cumulative exposure to seven out of the eight marketed Sandoz biosimilars was more than 1.3 billion PTD and for rituximab more than 1.8 million PD. Overall, a critical analysis of the cumulative safety data of all eight Sandoz biosimilar PSURs concluded that the overall benefit-risk profile of each remains favorable and is consistent with the respective reference biologics. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest reviews of post-approval biosimilar pharmacovigilance data to date by one MAH. The real-world experience of all eight marketed Sandoz biosimilars for up to 18 years demonstrates that Sandoz biosimilars can be used as safely as their respective reference biologics. Therefore, patients and healthcare providers can be confident in the clinical benefit and safety of Sandoz biosimilars. It is reasonable to believe that similar conclusions about safety may be reached for other biosimilars developed and approved to the high standards as are already in place by major health authorities such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The long-term safety of biosimilars demonstrated here provides strong support for the concept of biosimilarity.

Future Evolution of Biosimilar Development by Application of Current Science and Available Evidence: The Developer's Perspective.

Biosimilars have been available in the USA for over a decade, and in Europe for almost two decades. In that time, biosimilars have become established in the treatment landscape for a wide range of diseases, facilitating patient access and affordability of healthcare. However, patients can still struggle to access biological therapies in some markets. There is a need to streamline the process of developing biosimilars without compromising their quality, safety, or efficacy. This opinion piece considers the efficiencies that could be achieved within the biosimilar approval process. In clinical trials for biosimilars, clinical efficacy endpoints have been shown to be less sensitive measures of biosimilarity than biochemical, biophysical, and biological functional assays. Additional clinical efficacy studies comparing potential biosimilars and reference products do not add information that is useful for regulatory purposes. Large clinical studies of biosimilars with immunogenicity endpoints are of limited value, given the quality control processes in place for all biologics, including biosimilars. The expectation for multiple-switch studies for US interchangeability designation should be reconsidered immediately, and the category should be eliminated in the future. As biosimilars are typically approved globally based on a single set of clinical trials, and all subsequent manufacturing changes are already carefully monitored by regulatory authorities, comparative pharmacokinetic testing of EU and US reference products is unnecessary. Manufacturers and regulators could take greater advantage of existing real-world evidence. Streamlining biosimilar development would enable biosimilar development of more and a wider variety of biological drugs, accelerating biosimilar development without impacting patient safety or effectiveness.

Switching from One Biosimilar to Another Biosimilar of the Same Reference Biologic: A Systematic Review of Studies.

BACKGROUND: Multiple switches (transitions) between biosimilars of the same reference biologic are now a reality, and they are expected to become more common in the future as more biosimilars enter the market. Switching between two biosimilars of the same reference biologic is generally driven by affordability, formulary requirements, or the relocation/travel of the patient. Evidence of whether switching between biosimilars of the same reference biologic provides similar safety and efficacy profiles is reviewed here. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken using electronic databases (to December 2021): Biosis, Embase, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews/Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Ovid. Publications were evaluated for effectiveness and/or safety data linked to switching from one biosimilar to another. RESULTS: The systematic search yielded 982 citations. After eliminating duplicates, 626 citations remained for the initial title/abstract screening phase. Following the initial screening, 240 records were chosen; more thorough examination yielded 35 citations. After comprehensive screening and expert advice, 23 studies were selected, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder have been published as abstracts. Overall, 3657 patients were included in these studies. All studies were observational in nature; no randomized clinical trials were identified. The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints. Across the studies, data are provided on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns. The majority of studies examined switches between biosimilar infliximabs, although switches between biosimilar adalimumabs, etanercepts, and rituximabs were also identified. Two use-pattern studies and one case report were also detected and are discussed. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this systematic review, available data suggests that biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching is a safe and effective clinical practice, although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance. No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date.

The Importance of Countering Biosimilar Disparagement and Misinformation.

Biosimilar use is limited in some healthcare systems because biosimilars are not well understood by many healthcare professionals and patients. The knowledge gap is exacerbated by disparagement of biosimilars and dissemination of misinformation, whether intentional or otherwise. There are several different types of disparagement and misinformation directed towards biosimilars as a class, including statements about biosimilar science or policy that are factually incorrect; misleading information, where the information is correct, but is provided out of context; incomplete information, where only partial or a limited set of facts are provided; creation of a false narrative, especially in scientific and medical literature, that provides a set of references to support incorrect conclusions; and negative message framing of factual statements to create a negative perception. Disparagement and misinformation about biosimilars can be countered by educational efforts, appropriate oversight, and regulatory activities with the option of enforcement action by governmental agencies, if warranted. Balanced educational materials about biosimilars should be made easily accessible. Physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and patient advocacy groups should work together to provide patients with consistent, positive messages about the value of biosimilars.

Methodologic considerations for noninterventional studies of switching from reference biologic to biosimilars.

PURPOSE: As more biosimilars become available in the United States, postapproval noninterventional studies describing biosimilar switching and comparing effectiveness and/or safety between switchers and nonswitchers will play a key role in generating real-world evidence to inform clinical practices and policy decisions. Ensuring sound methodology is critical for making valid inferences from these studies. METHODS: The Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) convened a workgroup consisting of academic researchers, industry scientists, and practicing clinicians to establish best practice recommendations for the conduct of noninterventional studies of biosimilar and reference biologic switching. The workgroup members participated in eight teleconferences between August 2017 and February 2018 to discuss specific topics and build consensus. RESULTS: This report provides workgroup recommendations covering five main considerations relating to noninterventional studies describing reference biologic to biosimilar switching and comparing reference biologic to biosimilars for safety and effectiveness in the presence of switching at treatment initiation and during follow-up: (a) selecting appropriate data sources from a range of available options including insurance claims, electronic health records, and registries; (b) study designs; (c) outcomes of interest including health care utilization and clinical endpoints; (d) analytic approaches including propensity scores, disease risk scores, and instrumental variables; and (e) special considerations including avoiding designs that ignore history of biologic use, avoiding immortal time bias, exposure misclassification, and accounting for postindex switching. CONCLUSION: Recommendations provided in this report provide a framework that may be helpful in designing and critically evaluating postapproval noninterventional studies involving reference biologic to biosimilar switching.

Comment on Hernandez-Vasquez et al., a bibliometric analysis of the global research on biosimilars.

A bibliometric analysis provided by Hernandez-Vasquez et al. listed the institutions that have published most extensively in the field of biosimilars. Sandoz and Novartis International were considered as separate entities, but are both are divisions of the same parent company. When considered as a single entity for purposes of tracking publications, Sandoz-Novartis is among the leaders in the number of articles published about biosimilars.

Switching Reference Medicines to Biosimilars: A Systematic Literature Review of Clinical Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the possibility that switching from reference biologic medicines to biosimilars could lead to altered clinical outcomes, including enhanced immunogenicity, compromised safety, or diminished efficacy for patients, a systematic literature review was conducted of all switching studies between related biologics (including biosimilars). METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using the Medline® and Embase® databases up to 30 June 2017 employing specific medical subject heading terms. Additionally, the snowball method and a hand search were also applied. Publications were considered if they contained efficacy or safety information related to a switch from a reference medicine to a biosimilar. Non-English, non-human studies, editorials, notes, and short surveys were excluded. RESULTS: Primary data were available from 90 studies that enrolled 14,225 unique individuals. They included protein medicines used in supportive care as well as those used as therapeutic agents. The medicines contained seven different molecular entities that were used to treat 14 diseases. The great majority of the publications did not report differences in immunogenicity, safety, or efficacy. The nature and intensity of safety signals reported after switching from reference medicines to biosimilars were the same as those already known from continued use of the reference medicines alone. Three large multiple switch studies with different biosimilars did not show differences in efficacy or safety after multiple switches between reference medicine and biosimilar. Two publications reported a loss of efficacy or increased dropout rates. CONCLUSIONS: While use of each biologic must be assessed individually, these results provide reassurance to healthcare professionals and the public that the risk of immunogenicity-related safety concerns or diminished efficacy is unchanged after switching from a reference biologic to a biosimilar medicine.

Maintaining consistent quality and clinical performance of biopharmaceuticals.

INTRODUCTION: Biopharmaceuticals are large protein based drugs which are heterogeneous by nature due to post translational modifications resulting from cellular production, processing and storage. Changes in the abundance of different variants over time are inherent to biopharmaceuticals due to their sensitivity to subtle process differences and the necessity for regular manufacturing changes. Product variability must thus be carefully controlled to ensure that it does not result in changes in safety or efficacy. AREAS COVERED: The focus of this manuscript is to provide improved understanding of the science and strategies used to maintain the quality and clinical performance of biopharmaceuticals, including biosimilars, throughout their lifecycle. This review summarizes rare historical instances where clinically relevant changes have occurred, defined here as clinical drift, and discusses modern tools used to prevent such changes, including improved analytics, quality systems and regulatory frameworks. EXPERT OPINION: Despite their size complexity and heterogeneity, modern analytics, manufacturing quality systems and comparability requirements for the evaluation of manufacturing changes cumulatively help to ensure the consistent quality and clinical performance of biopharmaceuticals throughout their product lifecycle. Physicians and patients can expect the same safety and efficacy from biopharmaceuticals and their respective biosimilars irrespective of batch or production history.

Pharmacovigilance of Biologics in a Multisource Environment.

It is important that systems are in place to ensure that appropriate and comprehensive records are kept for use of all medications. It is fundamental to an effective pharmacovigilance system that patient medical records contain sufficient information to identify which medication has been prescribed, when it was administered, and at what dose. The availability of biologics from multiple sponsors has raised questions by some health care providers about the ability of current pharmacovigilance systems to trace specific biologics. In this article, periodic safety update reports were used to assess current postapproval safety monitoring for 3 biosimilars (epoetin alfa, somatropin, and filgrastim) that collectively represented nearly 350 million patient days of treatment worldwide. The reference products have each been marketed for over 10 years, forming a strong baseline of postmarketing safety data against which the safety of biosimilars can be compared. Published data from Denmark were also reviewed as additional evidence of how current pharmacovigilance systems are able to attribute adverse events to particular medicines. Collectively, the data show that spontaneous adverse drug reactions are reported by brand name in the majority of cases and are attributable to a specific medicine. Also discussed are the informational elements critical to monitoring biologics, or indeed any medicine, to ensure the availability of complete information so medicines that a patient has received can be quickly identified should a safety event occur. We support the addition of a single data element, the batch/lot number, to enhance the value of current pharmacovigilance systems. Adoption of 2-D barcodes in the European Union (EU) and standardized numerical identifiers in the United States addresses this need, since they include batch/lot numbers. These identifiers are already being implemented in the United States and the EU to improve patient safety, reduce medication errors, facilitate anticounterfeiting, and enable effective product recalls and adverse event reporting. Importantly, electronic identifiers will ameliorate safety reporting concerns with respect to biosimilars, while concurrently achieving these much broader public health objectives through more complete pharmacovigilance data. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded by Sandoz, a Novartis division. The authors were fully responsible for the content, editorial decisions, and opinions expressed in this article. No author received an honorarium related to the development of this manuscript. Sagi and Cohen are employees of Sandoz, and Woollett is an employee of Avalere Health. Study concept and design were contributed by Sagi and Woollett, along with Cohen. Data were primarily collected by Sagi, along with Woollett, and data interpretation was provided by all the authors. The manuscript was written by Woollett, along with Sagi and Cohen, and revised by Sagi and Cohen, along with Woollett.