Cost-Effectiveness of Early Treatment with Originator Biologics or Their Biosimilars After Methotrexate Failure in Patients with Established Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence supports the clinical benefits of early aggressive biologic treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but the cost-effectiveness of early intervention with originator biologics such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) or their biosimilars has not been well studied. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate lifetime costs and utilities for patients with established RA who do not respond to methotrexate (MTX) therapy. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing a standard intervention pathway (addition of originator biologic TNFis to MTX monotherapy at 12 months) and two early intervention pathways (either addition of originator biologic TNFis or addition of biosimilar TNFis to MTX monotherapy at 6 months). RESULTS: Early intervention with an originator biologic TNFi at 6 months was associated with increases in total lifetime costs of £1692 and utilities of 0.10 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient compared with standard intervention at 12 months, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £17,335/QALY. Early intervention with a biosimilar TNFi increased costs by £70 and utilities by 0.10 QALYs per patient and was associated with an ICER of £713/QALY. CONCLUSION: Switching from MTX monotherapy to combination therapy with either an originator biologic or biosimilar TNFis at 6 months after csDMARD failure in patients with RA was cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Barriers towards effective pharmacovigilance systems of biosimilars in rheumatology: A Latin American survey.

PURPOSE: This review summarises the current status of regulatory guidelines for the approval of biosimilars in Latin America and highlights the main barriers to effective pharmacovigilance in this region. We also report results from a survey of Latin American rheumatologists assessing their understanding of prescribing biosimilars and the pharmacovigilance of these drugs. METHODS: We reviewed the current guidelines for the regulatory approval of biosimilars and barriers to effective pharmacovigilance in Latin American countries. Rheumatologists attending the II Pan-American League of Rheumatology Associations PANLAR Review Course (Biosimilars update) in Lima, Peru were asked to complete a short survey to determine their knowledge of biosimilars. RESULTS: Many Latin American countries continue to lag behind Europe and the United States in establishing regulatory guidance and effective pharmacovigilance systems for biosimilars. Results from our survey also highlight a lack of awareness regarding the availability of biosimilars, their nomenclature, automatic substitution, and reporting adverse drug reactions because of these drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The main barriers to effective pharmacovigilance in Latin America are the lack of consensus on the interchangeability of reference biologics and biosimilars, and the need for more suitably trained personnel to carry out effective postmarketing pharmacovigilance of biosimilars. Inconsistencies in biosimilar nomenclature make it difficult to adequately trace drugs and record adverse drug reactions associated with their use, creating a barrier to the global pharmacovigilance of biologics.

Variability of intended copies for etanercept (Enbrel®): Data on multiple batches of seven products.

Fusion protein and monoclonal antibody-based tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors represent established treatment options for a range of inflammatory diseases. Regulatory authorities have outlined the structural characterization and clinical assessments necessary to establish biosimilarity of a new biotherapeutic product with the innovator biologic drug. Biologic products that would not meet the minimum World Health Organization's standard for evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products are available in some countries; in some cases relevant data to assess biosimilarity and appropriate regulatory approval pathways are lacking. Batches of seven intended copy (IC) products for etanercept (Enbrel®) were subjected to a subset of test methods used in the routine release and heightened characterization of Enbrel®, to determine key attributes of identity, quality, purity, strength, and activity. While a number of quality attributes of the IC lots tested met the release specifications for Enbrel®, none fell within these limits across all methods performed, and there were no IC lots that satisfied the criteria typically applied by the innovator to support comparability with Enbrel®. Although the consequences of these differences are largely unknown, the potential for unanticipated clinical outcomes should not be overlooked.

Switching Between Reference Biologics and Biosimilars for the Treatment of Rheumatology, Gastroenterology, and Dermatology Inflammatory Conditions: Considerations for the Clinician.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Biosimilars of the reference biologic therapeutics infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, and rituximab are entering the market. Clinical and real-world data on the effects of reference â†’ biosimilar switching are limited. This review was carried out to assess the current body of switching data. RECENT FINDINGS: Fifty-three switching studies were identified. Infliximab publications covered CT-P13 (25 studies), SB2 (1), infliximab NK (1), and unspecified infliximab biosimilars (2). Etanercept publications covered SB4 (2) and GP2015 (2). Adalimumab publications covered ABP 501 (2) and SB5 (1). Rituximab publications covered CT-P10 (1). Efficacy and safety data generally showed no differences between patients who switched treatments versus those who did not. No differences were seen pre- and post-switch. Immunogenicity data were presented in 19/37 (51%) studies. Additional data from switching studies of these therapies are still required, as is continuing pharma-covigilance. Switching should remain a case-by-case clinical decision made by the physician and patient on an individual basis supported by scientific evidence.

Evaluation of whether extremely high enthesitis or Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) scores suggest fibromyalgia and confound the anti-TNF response in early non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Differentiating between pain from spondyloarthritis (SpA) and pain from fibromyalgia is challenging. We evaluated patients with non-radiographic axial SpA (nr-axSpA) to determine the percentage of patients with extremely high enthesitis and/or Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) scores, the relationship between extreme scores and depression, and the effect of extreme scores on treatment outcomes with etanercept. METHODS: Patients with nr-axSpA received double-blind etanercept 50 mg or placebo weekly and were divided into those who did vs did not have extreme scores at baseline. Extreme scores were defined as the highest quintile for enthesitis score (≥6), and/or scores ≥8 on three of five BASDAI items (excluding morning stiffness duration). Depression was assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, depression subscale (HADS-D) and medication use. Week 12 outcomes included Assessment of SpondyloArthritis (ASAS) 40 and ASAS partial remission. RESULTS: At baseline, 35/213 (16.4%) patients met extreme enthesitis criteria, 31 (14.6%) met extreme BASDAI criteria, 12 (5.6%) met both, and 135 (63.4%) met neither. More patients with extreme scores than without met the HADS-D definition of depression: 35/68 (51.5%) vs. 27/118 (22.9%), p<0.0001. For patients with vs. without extreme scores who received etanercept, no significant difference existed in week 12 ASAS 40: 13/41 (31.7%) vs. 21/60 (35.0%), respectively, or ASAS partial remission: 8/41 (19.5%) vs. 19/60 (31.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Extreme enthesitis and/or BASDAI scores were associated with measurements of depression, but did not affect week 12 ASAS 40 or ASAS partial remission.

Differentiating biosimilarity and comparability in biotherapeutics.

The manufacture of biologics is a complex process involving numerous steps. Over time, differences may arise as a result of planned changes to the manufacturing processes of a biologic from the same manufacturer. Comparability is the regulatory process that outlines the scope of an assessment required of an already licensed biologic after a manufacturing process change made by the same manufacturer. The aim of a comparability assessment is to demonstrate that any pre-manufacturing and post-manufacturing changes have no adverse impact on quality, safety, and efficacy of the biologic. A comparability assessment is distinct from a biosimilarity assessment, which involves extensive assessment of a biologic that is highly similar to the originator (reference product) in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. The US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and World Health Organization have applied the fundamental comparability concepts into their respective biosimilarity guidance documents. In this review, we examine the rationale behind the distinct, highly regulated approval processes governing changes that may occur over time to an originator biologic due to planned manufacturing changes (as described by a comparability exercise) and those that outline the approval of a proposed biosimilar drug, based on its relationship with the reference product (biosimilarity evaluations).

Clinical and regulatory perspectives on biosimilar therapies and intended copies of biologics in rheumatology.

Biologics are vital to the management of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory and autoimmune conditions. Nevertheless, access to these highly effective treatments remains an unmet medical need for many people around the world. As patents expire for existing licensed biologic (originator) products, biosimilar products can be approved by regulatory authorities and enter clinical use. Biosimilars are highly similar copies of originator biologics approved through defined and stringent regulatory processes after having undergone rigorous analytical, non-clinical, and clinical evaluations. The introduction of high-quality, safe, and effective biosimilars has the potential to expand access to these important medicines. Biosimilars are proven to be similar to the originator biologic in terms of safety and efficacy and to have no clinically meaningful differences. In contrast, "intended copies" are copies of originator biologics that have not undergone rigorous comparative evaluations according to the World Health Organization recommendations, but are being commercialized in some countries. There is a lack of information about the efficacy and safety of intended copies compared with the originator. Furthermore, they may have clinically significant differences in formulation, dosages, efficacy, or safety. In this review, we explore the differences between biosimilars and intended copies and describe key concepts related to biosimilars. Familiarity with these topics may facilitate decision making about the appropriate use of biosimilars for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

The APC and PreSAP trials: a post hoc noninferiority analysis using a comprehensive new measure for gastrointestinal tract injury in 2 randomized, double-blind studies comparing celecoxib and placebo.

BACKGROUND: Previous gastrointestinal (GI) outcomes of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) trials have focused on upper GI events, although recent evidence suggests NSAID-related lower GI effects are important and clinically relevant. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the long-term GI adverse event (AE) profile of celecoxib in a nonarthritis population. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to determine the incidence of serious GI AEs, using a new Clinically Significant Upper and/or Lower GI Events end point. METHODS: Patients from 2 colorectal adenoma recurrence studies were included. Patients received celecoxib 200 mg/400 mg BID, 400 mg once daily, or placebo over 3 years. The analysis measured noninferiority, using a prespecified definition of noninferiority. Celecoxib was predefined to be noninferior to placebo if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) with celecoxib was <1.25, at any dose, compared with the placebo (calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model). RESULTS: A total of 3588 patients were included; in the primary analysis, the HR for celecoxib (any dose) compared with placebo was 1.22 (95% CI: 0.69-2.18; P = 0.4948). In the secondary dose analyses, the HR associated with a 400-mg daily dose, compared with placebo, was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.55-1.96; P = 0.9149); for 800 mg/d, the HR was 1.79 (95% CI: 0.82-3.89; P = 0.1427). In a third covariate analysis, low-dose aspirin use (HR = 2.33; 95% CI: 1.33-4.08) and age ≥65 years (HR = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.05-3.15) was suggested to have a statistically significant association with increased risk of GI AEs. Study limitations include retrospective evaluation and small sample size of patients with GI AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The noninferiority of celecoxib to placebo was not established because the HR for the time to the first Clinically Significant Upper and/or Lower GI Event was greater than the prespecified upper limit of 95% CI for noninferiority. In addition, HRs associated with daily doses of 400 or 800 mg celecoxib compared with placebo were not significant. However, a significantly increased risk of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events was observed in low-dose aspirin users (≤162.5 mg average daily use) and in patients ≥65 years of age.