Usability of the SB11 Pre-filled Syringe (PFS) in Patients with Retinal Diseases.

INTRODUCTION: SB11 (Byooviz™; Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd.) is a ranibizumab (Lucentis®; Genentech, Inc.) biosimilar targeting vascular endothelial growth factor A for the treatment of retinal diseases. The pre-filled syringe (PFS) presentation of SB11 offers an alternative administration method to the vial, with the potential for enhanced safety and efficient syringe preparation. The objective of this study was to assess the ability of healthcare professionals (HCPs) to follow the instructions for use to prepare and administer SB11 PFS intravitreal (IVT) injections to patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) or macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO). METHODS: This study was an open-label, single-arm, single-dose clinical study to evaluate the usability of the SB11 PFS in patients with nAMD or macular edema secondary to RVO. Four HCPs prepared and administered 0.5 mg SB11 PFS IVT injections to 34 patients. Product use task completion (12 tasks in total) was assessed by independent observers. Safety was assessed up to 7 days after injection of the investigational product. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients were enrolled and completed the study. All 12 tasks were successfully completed in 34 (100%) patients without a use-related failure. Most patients (32 patients, 94.1%) experienced no adverse events (AEs), whereas 2 (5.9%) patients experienced three treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) which were mild to moderate in severity. There were no severe or serious TEAEs reported during the study. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that HCPs were able to successfully prepare and administer the SB11 PFS via IVT injection. No unexpected safety issues were identified. The SB11 PFS is a promising alternative for therapeutic administration of SB11 in patients with retinal disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT06176963; EudraCT number 2021-003566-12.

Rational approach to the prescription of anti-rheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a product leaflet-based strategy in Italy.

The treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has dramatically changed in the past 30 years. Currently, numerous conventional, biologic, and targeted synthetic DMARDs have been licensed and used following recommendations provided by international and national scientific societies. However, the availability of biosimilars and the increasing necessity of savings impacted on the local/national prescription of these drugs. The information provided by data sheet of every single drug is a decisive factor on the choice of a certain treatment merged with the patient's profile. Thus, our purpose was to construct a rational algorithm for the treatment strategy in RA according to costs and the product leaflet of the biologic and targeted-synthetic DMARDs currently licensed in Italy. We used the most recent available recommendations and then we performed a review of the literature considering all the factors that are known to influence drug safety/effectiveness. All these factors were considered in the context of the data sheets of currently available originators and biosimilars.

ARE WE READY FOR MULTIPLE SWITCHES BETWEEN REFERENCE PRODUCTS AND BIOSIMILARS?

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) currently impose an immense social and economic burden on society in terms of both direct and indirect healthcare costs. Their incurable and progressive nature results in an unavoidable lifetime expense. The introduction of infliximab more than two decades ago had revolutionized IBD treatment. Nowadays, while biologic drugs comprise various vital therapeutic options for patients, they can be associated to significant costs to healthcare systems. The most crucial benefit of biosimilars is that they bring more significant cost reduction and increase access to advanced therapies. They also allow the treatment of newly diagnosed patients and dose optimization for those who need it. There is an inverse relationship between price and demand for treatment with biologics. For a more significant reduction in cost to be possible, greater use of biosimilars is necessary. For this to occur, it is imperative not only to use biosimilars in naïve patients but also to switch to biosimilars in those patients who have started therapy with reference biologics. At present, randomized and observational studies have demonstrated effectiveness and safety results in recommending a single switch between a reference product and a biosimilar, and vice versa. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the literature and discuss whether scientific evidence is enough to support multiple switches of biologics and biosimilars in IBD patients.

Biomass specific perfusion rate as a control lever for the continuous manufacturing of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies from CHO cell cultures.

Continuous manufacturing enables high volumetric productivities of biologics such as monoclonal antibodies. However, it is challenging to maintain both high viable cell densities and productivities at the same time for long culture durations. One of the key controls in a perfusion process is the perfusion rate which determines the nutrient availability and potentially controls the cell metabolism. Cell Specific Perfusion Rate (CSPR) is a feed rate proportional to the viable cell density while Biomass Specific Perfusion Rate (BSPR) is a feed rate proportional to the biomass (cell volume multiply by cell density). In this study, perfusion cultures were run at three BSPRs in the production phase. Low BSPR favored a growth arresting state that led to gradual increase in cell volume, which in turn led to an increase in net perfusion rate proportional to the increase in cell volume. Consequently, at low BSPR, while the cell viability and cell density decreased, high specific productivity of 55 pg per cell per day was achieved. In contrast, the specific productivity was lower in bioreactors operating at a high BSPR. The ability to modulate the cell metabolism by using BSPR was confirmed when the specific productivity increased after lowering the BSPR in one of the bioreactors that was initially operating at a high BSPR. This study demonstrated that BSPR significantly influenced cell growth, metabolism, and productivity in cultures with variable cell volumes.

Budget impact analysis of biosimilar natalizumab in the US.

OBJECTIVES: Biosimilars provide an opportunity for a more sustainable and cost-effective treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS). This study evaluated the potential financial impact of implementing a formulary change from reference to biosimilar natalizumab (NTZ) from the US commercial payer perspective. STUDY DESIGN: The budget impact of transitioning to biosimilar NTZ for the treatment of relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) was estimated over a 3-year time horizon based on real-world dosing. Additional scenario analyses were conducted by varying the price differential of biosimilar NTZ. METHODS: The target population was estimated from a 1-million-member hypothetical commercial health plan. Model inputs were drug acquisition costs and treatment-related and patient coinsurance costs. Budget impact and cost savings per member per year were calculated by assuming a biosimilar uptake of 10% in year 1 to 20% in year 3. RESULTS: Over 3 years, 255 patients were estimated to be treated with high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies for RRMS. The inclusion of biosimilar NTZ onto a formulary would result in cumulative cost savings to payers of $452,611 over 3 years, with mean savings per treated member per year of $1179, $1769, and $2359 in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that budget impact results were most sensitive to drug acquisition costs of both reference and biosimilar NTZ. CONCLUSION: Adoption of biosimilar NTZ can yield considerable cost savings to US health plans that could result in increased treatment access for patients with RRMS.

AVT04: An Ustekinumab Biosimilar.

AVT04 (Uzpruvo®) is a biosimilar of the reference anti-interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 monoclonal antibody ustekinumab. It is approved in the EU for plaque psoriasis, paediatric plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and Crohn's disease as per the reference product. AVT04 has similar physicochemical characteristics to those of reference ustekinumab, and the pharmacokinetic similarity of the agents has been shown in healthy volunteers and patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. AVT04 demonstrated clinical efficacy similar to that of reference ustekinumab in patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis, and was generally well tolerated in this population. The tolerability, safety and immunogenicity profiles of AVT04 were similar to those of reference ustekinumab, and switching from reference ustekinumab to AVT04 had no impact on efficacy, safety or immunogenicity. The role of reference ustekinumab in the management of inflammatory diseases is well established and AVT04 provides an effective biosimilar alternative for patients requiring ustekinumab therapy.

Modelling the opportunity for cost-savings or patient access with biosimilar adalimumab and tocilizumab: a European perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Biosimilars improve patient access by providing cost-effective treatment options. This study assessed the potential for savings and expanded patient access with increased use of two biosimilar disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs): (a) approved adalimumab biosimilars and (b) the first tocilizumab biosimilar, representing an established biosimilar field and a recent biosimilar entrant in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: Separate ex-ante analyses were conducted for each country, parameterized using country-specific list prices, unit volumes annually, and market shares for each therapy. Discounting scenarios of 10%, 20%, and 30% were tested for tocilizumab. Outputs included direct cost-savings associated with drug acquisition or the incremental number of patients that could be treated if savings were redirected. Two biosimilar conversion scenarios were tested. RESULTS: Savings associated with a 100% conversion to adalimumab biosimilar ranged from €10.5 to €187 million (UK and Germany, respectively), or an additional 1,096 to 19,454 patients that could be treated using the cost-savings. Introduction of a tocilizumab biosimilar provided savings up to €29.3 million in the most conservative scenario. Exclusive use of tocilizumab biosimilars (at a 30% discount) could increase savings to €28.8 to €113 million or expand access to an additional 43% of existing tocilizumab users across countries. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the benefits that can be realized through increased biosimilar adoption, not only in an untapped tocilizumab market, but also through incremental increases in well-established markets such as adalimumab. As healthcare budgets continue to face downwards pressure globally, strategies to increase biosimilar market share could prove useful to help manage financial constraints.

Nanosimilars: A Scientific or A Regulatory Debate?

The paper highlights the necessity for a robust regulatory framework for assessing nanomedicines and their off-patent counterparts, termed as nanosimilar, which could be considered as 'similar' to the prototype nanomedicine,based on essential criteria describing the 'similarity'. The term 'similarity' should be focused on criteria that describe nanocarriers, encompassing their physicochemical, thermodynamic, morphological, and biological properties, including surface interactions and pharmacokinetics. Nanocarriers can be regarded as advanced self-assembled excipients (ASAEs) due to their complexity and chaotic behavior and should be evaluated by using essential criteria in order for off-patent nanomedicines be termed as nanosimilars, from a regulatory perspective. Collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry, regulatory bodies, and artificial intelligence (AI) startups is pivotal for the precise characterization and approval processes for nanomedicines and nanosimilars and embracing innovative tools and terminology facilitates the development of a sustainable regulatory framework, ensuring safety and efficacy. This crucial shift toward precision R&D practices addresses the complexity inherent in nanocarriers, paving the way for therapeutic advancements with economic benefits.

Immunomodulation profile of the biosimilar trastuzumab MYL-1401O in a bioequivalence phase I study.

The initial Phase-I single centre, single dose, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study was planned to assess the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalence of the trastuzumab biosimilar (MYL-1401O) compared to the reference Herceptin®. Their respective immunomodulation profile presented in this paper involved healthy males receiving a single infusion of both monoclonals, separated by a washout period. Sixty parameters were assessed in total, including serum cytokines, peripheral mononuclear cell (PBMC) subsets, cell activation and response to recall antigens and mitogen, pre- and post- infusion, as well as a cytokine release assay (CRA) at baseline. Trastuzumab infusion induced a transient and weak peak of serum IL-6 at 6 h, and a modulation of mononuclear cell subset profile and activation level, notably CD16 + cells. Except for CD8 + T cells, there were no significant differences between Herceptin® and MYL-1401O. In CRA, PBMC stimulated with MYL-1401O or Herceptin® similarly secreted IL-6, TNF-α, IL-1ß, GM-CSF, IFN-γ, and IL-10, but no or low level of IL-2. Interestingly, some observed adverse events correlated with IL-2 and IFN-γ in CRA. MYL-1401O exhibited a very similar immunomodulation profile to Herceptin®, strongly supporting its bioequivalence. This approach may thus be included in a proof-of-concept study. CRA may be used as a predictive assay for the evaluation of clinical monoclonals.

Microfluidic capillary electrophoresis - mass spectrometry for rapid charge-variant and glycoform assessment of monoclonal antibody biosimilar candidates.

Early-stage cell line screening is a vital step in developing biosimilars of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). While the quality of the manufactured antibodies is commonly assessed by charge-based separation methods employing UV absorbance detection, these methods lack the ability to identify resolved mAb variants. We evaluated the performance of microfluidic capillary electrophoresis coupled to mass spectrometry (MCE-MS) as a rapid tool for profiling mAb biosimilar candidates from clonal cell lines. A representative originator sample was used to develop the MCE-MS method. The addition of dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) to the background electrolyte yielded up to 60-fold enhancement of the protein MS signal. The resulting electropherograms consistently provided resolution of mAb charge variants within 10 min. Deconvoluted mass spectra facilitated the identification of basic variants such as C-terminal lysine and proline amidation, while the acidic variants could be assigned to deamidated forms. The MCE-MS method also allowed the identification of 18 different glycoforms in biosimilar samples. To mimic early-stage cell line selection, samples from five clonal cell lines that all expressed the same biosimilar candidate mAb were compared to their originator mAb. Based on the similarity observed in charge variants and glycoform profiles acquired by MCE-MS, the most promising candidate could be selected. The MCE-MS method demonstrated good overall reproducibility, as confirmed by a transferability study involving two separate laboratories. This study highlights the efficacy of the MCE-MS method for rapid proteoform screening of clonal cell line samples, underscoring its potential significance as an analytical tool in biosimilar process development.

The retrospective evaluation of efficacy and safety data after switching from originator rituximab to biosimilar rituximab (CT-P10) in patients diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus: a single-center experience.

OBJECTIVE: In our study, we analyzed the efficacy and safety data of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) after switching to biosimilar rituximab (RTX). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients who switched to RTX were included in the study. Efficacy data were analyzed using the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score, and safety data were analyzed using the frequency of side effects. RESULTS: The mean treatment duration of originator RTX was 35.6 ± 23.0 months, and the median treatment duration of biosimilar RTX was 17 months. The SLEDAI-2K score, approximately three months after the first dose of biosimilar RTX, was significantly lower (p = 0.027). A statistically significant difference was found between the SLEDAI-2K score assessed at the follow-up visit three months after the last dose of originator RTX and the SLEDAI-2K score obtained approximately three months after the first dose of biosimilar RTX (p = 0.011) and the calculated median SLEDAI-2K score was significantly lower than the SLEDAI-2K score assessed after administration of originator RTX. The side effect frequency that developed during the treatment of originator RTX was 15.3 per 100 patient-years. The most common side effect was infection, which was 15.3 per 100 patient-years. The most frequent infection was urinary tract infection. The side effect frequency during treatment of biosimilar RTX was 39 per 100 patient-years, and the most frequent infection was pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, SLEDAI-2K scores demonstrated that no efficacy loss was experienced after switching to CT-P10 molecule, which is a biosimilar RTX. It was observed that switching to biosimilar RTX did not decrease treatment efficacy in the patient group diagnosed with SLE and biosimilar RTX was found to be safe.

Cost-Effectiveness of Biosimilars vs Leflunomide in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Importance: Among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to methotrexate, a treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) provides better clinical efficacy compared with conventional synthetic DMARDs recommended by current treatment guidelines; but its cost-effectiveness evidence remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar DMARDs after failure with methotrexate vs leflunomide and inform formulary listing decisions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation's cost-effectiveness analysis was performed at a Hong Kong public institution using the Markov disease transition model to simulate the lifetime disease progression and cost for patients with RA, using monetary value in 2022. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed to test the internal validity of the modeling conclusion. Participants included patients diagnosed with RA from 2000 to 2021 who were retrieved retrospectively from local electronic medical records to generate model input parameters. Statistical analysis was performed from January 2023 to March 2024. Interventions: The model assesses 3 competing treatment sequences initiated with biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13), biosimilar adalimumab (ABP-501), and leflunomide; all used in combination with methotrexate. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lifetime health care cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of the simulated cohort. Results: In total, 25 099 patients with RA were identified (mean [SD] age, 56 [17] years; 19 469 [72.7%] women). In the base-case analysis, the lifetime health care cost and QALYs for the treatment sequence initiated with leflunomide were US $154 632 and 14.82 QALYs, respectively; for biosimilar infliximab, they were US $152 326 and 15.35 QALYs, respectively; and for biosimilar adalimumab, they were US $145 419 and 15.55 QALYs, respectively. Both biosimilar sequences presented lower costs and greater QALYs than the leflunomide sequence. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (US$/QALY) comparing biosimilar infliximab sequence vs leflunomide sequence and biosimilar adalimumab sequence vs leflunomide sequence ranged from -15 797 to -8615 and -9088 to 10 238, respectively, all below the predefined willingness-to-pay threshold (US $48 555/QALY gain). In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of treatment sequence initiated with leflunomide, biosimilar infliximab, and biosmilar adalimumab being cost-effective out of 10 000 iterations was 0%, 9%, and 91%, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation study, the treatment sequences initiated with biosimilar DMARDs were cost-effective compared with the treatment sequence initiated with leflunomide in managing patients with RA who experienced failure with the initial methotrexate treatment. These results suggest the need to update clinical treatment guidelines for initiating biosimilars immediately after the failure of methotrexate for patients with RA.

Formulary Coverage of Brand-Name Adalimumab and Biosimilars Across Medicare Part D Plans.

This study examines formulary coverage of brand-name adalimumab and biosimilars across Medicare Part D plans.

Bridging the gap: The future of biosimilars regulations.

Biosimilar vaccines and immunotherapeutic are innovative approaches in medical research. This commentary addresses the current disparities in regulations of biosimilar vaccines and immunotherapeutic products across different nations. It also navigates the benefits of global regulatory alignment and challenges that may be encountered. The current discrepancies in regulations across different countries, which pose significant challenges for the development and approval of biosimilar vaccines and immunotherapeutic products. These disparities often lead to delayed market access, increased development costs, and hindered innovation. The commentary stresses that such obstacles could be mitigated through harmonized regulations, resulting in faster approvals, reduced healthcare costs, and improved patient outcomes. Moreover, the commentary explores the specific complexities associated with biosimilar vaccines and immunotherapeutic, such as the intricate evaluation of biosimilarity due to their molecular composition and immunogenic properties. In conclusion, the editorial advocates for collaborative efforts to overcome the challenges in achieving global regulatory harmonization for biosimilars. This includes establishing uniform standards, fostering international cooperation among regulatory agencies, and promoting educational initiatives for healthcare providers and regulators. The ultimate goal is to ensure that patients worldwide have timely access to safe, effective, and affordable biosimilar treatments.

Charting the Etanercept Journey: Tracing Cost Dynamics in Poland's Off-Patent Market from Reference Drug Rivalry to Biosimilar Monopoly.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the pricing of etanercept (ETN) reference and biosimilar drugs in a changing competitive to monopolized market. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive, retrospective analysis of ETN market competition, specifically changes in tender price based on shifts in market monopoly, including the effects on cost evolution, in the off-patent market in Poland. We included a total of 473 tenders for ETN purchase in dedicated biologic drug reimbursement programs, covering both pre-filled syringes and automatic injectors. This study covers the timeframe from November 2017 to December 2023, throughout which we evaluated a unique setting of ETN market re-monopolization from the perspective of payer, hospital and patient benefits resulting from changing cost calculations. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2022, Erelzi was recorded as having the largest total tender volume (59%), with a mean price [per ETN daily defined dose (DDD)] of €7.28, followed by Enbrel (31%, €8.34) and Benepali (10%, €9.45), respectively. Over the last 6 months of waning market competition, the mean price for winning bids was estimated at €5.69. After market re-monopolization by an ETN biosimilar, the mean price of winning bids increased to €8.09, and continued to increase (€9.71) in the last 6 months of available follow-up. In contrast to the competitive era, no significant relationship between tender volume and winning price was recorded after re-monopolization. In the most recent tenders, mean ETN prices increased up to €15.82, nearly tripling the lowest prices of the competitive market period. In the early re-monopolization market, mean annual treatment cost per patient is estimated at over €3800, which exceeds therapy costs in the prior competitive market years, and is expected to increase to over €6200 based on the most recent tenders. On a healthcare system level, this corresponds to over €3.42 million excess costs due to market monopoly. Higher ETN prices resulted in downstream failure of regulatory incentives to promote affordable biologics. Due to higher pricing, hospitals lost over an estimated €2.52 million, with possible risk of treatment restrictions. For the same reason, the public payer achieved comparable savings, allowing for partial coverage of higher reimbursement expenses. CONCLUSIONS: This nation-level scenario of market re-monopolization by a biosimilar drug confirms net loss and excess costs for the healthcare payer, as can be expected from economic theory. The upwards drug repricing and restriction of treatment availability occurs much more rapidly than the decrement in a period of market competition.

Barriers and Enablers Affecting the Uptake of Biosimilar Medicines Viewed Through the Lens of Actor Network Theory: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Biosimilars represent an opportunity to realise savings against the costs of innovative medicines. Despite efforts made by stakeholders, there are numerous barriers to the uptake of biosimilars. To realise the promise of biosimilars reducing costs, barriers must be identified, understood, and overcome, and enablers magnified. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the enablers and barriers affecting uptake of biosimilars through the application of a classification system to organise them into healthcare professional (HCP), patient, or systemic categories. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, eConlit, and Embase. Included were primary research studies published in English between Jan 2017 through June 2023 focused on enablers and barriers affecting uptake of biosimilars. Excluded studies comprised comparisons of biosimilar efficacy and safety versus the reference biologic. One reviewer extracted data that included classification of barriers or enablers, the sub-classification, and the identification of the degree of agency associated with the actor through their role and associations as a mediator within their network, through the application of Actor Network Theory. The data were validated by a second reviewer (PV). RESULTS: Of the 94 studies included, 59 were cross-sectional, 20 were qualitative research, 12 were cohort studies, and three were economic evaluations. Within the review, 51 of the studies included HCP populations and 35 included patients. Policies and guidelines were the most cited group of enablers, overall. Systemic enablers were addressed in 29 studies. For patients, the most frequently cited enabler was positive framing of a biosimilar, while for HCPs, cost benefit was the most frequently noted enabler. The most frequently discussed systemic barrier to biosimilar acceptance was lack of effective policies or guidelines, followed by lack of financial incentives, while the most significant barriers for HCPs and patients, respectively, were their lack of general knowledge about biosimilars and concerns about safety and efficacy. Systemic actors and HCPs most frequently acted with broad degree of agency as mediators, while patient most frequently acted with a narrow degree of agency as mediators within their networks. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers and enablers affecting uptake of biosimilars are interconnected within networks, and can be divided into systemic, HCP, and patient categories. Understanding the agency of actors within networks may allow for more comprehensive and effective approaches. Systemic enablers in the form of policies appear to be the most effective overall levers in affecting uptake of biosimilars, with policy makers advised to give careful consideration to appropriately educating HCPs and positively framing biosimilars for patients.

Demonstration of Physicochemical and Functional Similarity of the Biosimilar BAT1806/BIIB800 to Reference Tocilizumab.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Tocilizumab is an immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-6 receptor (IL-6R). BAT1806/BIIB800 (tocilizumab-bavi) has been developed as a biosimilar to the reference product tocilizumab (TCZ). The objective of this study was to demonstrate physicochemical and functional similarity between BAT1806/BIIB800 and TCZ in a comprehensive comparability exercise. METHODS: A comprehensive panel of over 20 methods was used to generate datasets comparing critical and non-critical product quality attributes for 10 BAT1806/BIIB800 lots and 44 TCZ lots (16 sourced from China, 16 from the EU, and 12 from the US). Primary structure, higher-order structure, and physicochemical properties were assessed using liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry, various spectroscopy techniques/methods, capillary electrophoresis, and thermoanalytical techniques. Fragment antigen-binding (Fab)- and fragment crystallizable (Fc)-mediated biological properties were assessed using cell-based assays, immunoassays, flow cytometry, and kinetic binding assays. RESULTS: BAT1806/BIIB800 and TCZ (irrespective of source) were shown to be similar in terms of structural and functional properties. No differences were observed in terms of the most critical quality attributes, that is, soluble-IL-6R binding and inhibition of IL-6-mediated cell proliferation. BAT1806/BIIB800 and TCZ demonstrated similarity in terms of Fab- and Fc-mediated binding and biological activity. Minor differences were observed in glycosylation (afucosylation and sialylation), glycation, aggregation, and charge variants, which were demonstrated to be not clinically relevant. CONCLUSION: BAT1806/BIIB800 and TCZ were highly similar for all critical quality attributes. Where differences were observed in less critical quality attributes, additional analytical assessments and clinical study results determined these to be not clinically meaningful.

Outcomes of Rituximab-abbs versus Rituximab in Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in a Noninferiority Study.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) is one of the first line treatments for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Rituximab comprises most of the treatment cost for this regimen; therefore, biosimilars, such as rituximab-abbs are crucial to provide affordable care. Although rituximab-abbs was studied primarily in follicular lymphoma, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved this drug for all indications of the reference product on the basis of extrapolation. Effectiveness and safety data surrounding the use of rituximab-abbs in DLBCL is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rituximab-abbs and reference product rituximab as R-CHOP treatment for patients with DLBCL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This noninferiority (NI) study compared the 2-year overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and incidence of adverse events (AEs) between rituximab-abbs and its reference product (RP) in R-CHOP among adult patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL. The study inclusion period was from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020. Analyses were performed on the basis of a noninferiority lower limit of 10% for OS and ORR, and an upper limit of 10% for serious AEs. RESULTS: There were 240 patients who received RP rituximab, while 295 patients received rituximab-abbs. The cohort had a mean age of 63.7±12.2 years and 43% were female. The 2-year OS was 81.0% and 79.6% (NI p < 0.01) while the ORR was 80.0% and 69.6% (NI p < 0.01), among the rituximab-abbs and rituximab groups, respectively. The incidence of infusion reaction AEs (NI p < 0.01) and noninfusion reaction AEs (NI p < 0.01) also met noninferiority. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that rituximab-abbs was noninferior to rituximab in both effectiveness and safety among patients receiving R-CHOP for DLBCL in this study. Long-term follow-up would be needed to confirm these results.

Sustaining competition for biosimilars on the pharmacy benefit: Use it or lose it.

Congress passed the Biologic Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, specifically to offer market competition as a counterweight to the rising costs of biologic medicines. As of April 15, 2024, 49 biosimilars have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 15 biologic categories. Biosimilar competition has been undeniably successful: Through 2022, biosimilars have saved the US health system $23.6 billion, without significant care disruption or reduced quality. Through 2023, adalimumab biosimilar competition has added an additional $6.5 billion to this total, primarily through greater rebates from the reference manufacturer. Despite launching at discounts as great as 85%, adalimumab biosimilars have not been given preferred formulary positioning in the vast majority of cases and have thus gained only 3% of market share through 2023, largely because of payers' and pharmacy benefit managers' preference for rebates over discounts. This situation may negatively influence future biosimilar development, posing a threat to a biosimilar pipeline that represents hundreds of billions in savings over the next 10 years.