Efficacy and safety of a proposed omalizumab biosimilar compared to the reference product in the management of uncontrolled moderate-to-severe allergic asthma: a multicenter, phase III, randomized, double-blind, equivalency clinical trial.

Background and aims: Allergic asthma has a considerable burden on the quality of life. A significant portion of moderate-to-severe allergic asthma patients need omalizumab, an anti-immunoglobulin-E monoclonal antibody, as an add-on therapy. In this phase III clinical trial P043 (Zerafil®, CinnaGen, Iran) efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were compared with Xolair® (the originator omalizumab). The primary outcome was the rate of protocol-defined asthma exacerbations. Methods: Exacerbation rates, Asthma Control Test (ACT) results, spirometry measurements, immunogenicity, and safety were evaluated. Each subject received either medication with a dose ranging from 150 to 375 mg based on pre-treatment serum total IgE level (IU/mL) and body weight (kg) every two or four weeks for a duration of 28 weeks. Results: Exacerbation rates were 0.150 (CI: 0.079-0.220) in the P043 group, and 0.190 (CI: 0.110-0.270) in the omalizumab group (per-protocol). The least squares mean differences of predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in the First second (FEV1) were -2.51% (CI: -7.17-2.15, P=0.29) and -3.87% (CI: -8.79-1.04, P=0.12), pre- and post-bronchodilator use. The mean ± SD of ACT scores at the screening and the last visit were 10.62 ± 2.93 and 20.93 ± 4.26 in P043 and 11.09 ± 2.75 and 20.46 ± 5.11 in the omalizumab group. A total of 288 adverse events were reported for the 256 enrolled participants. Among all, "dyspnea" and "headache" were the most reported ones. The overall incidence of adverse events (P=0.62) and serious adverse events (P=0.07) had no significant differences between the two groups. None of the samples were positive for anti-drug antibodies. Conclusion: P043 was equivalent to omalizumab in the management of asthma in reduction of exacerbations. There was no significant difference in other efficacy and safety parameters. Clinical trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05813470) and www.IRCT.ir (IRCT20150303021315N20).

Biosimilar Uptake In The US: Patient And Prescriber Factors.

Among 196,766 commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients who newly initiated biologic drugs with available biosimilar versions, biosimilar initiation increased from 1 percent in 2013 to 34 percent in 2022. Patients were less likely to initiate biosimilars if they were younger than age eighteen or the drug was prescribed by a specialist or administered in a hospital outpatient facility.

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.

Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of the biosimilar etanercept compared to the reference formulation original etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: An open-label, randomized, comparative, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this phase III clinical randomized trial was to establish the therapeutic equivalence of biosimilar etanercept (bio-etanercept) with original etanercept (O-etanercept) for patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: The study (NCT04079374) enrolled patients with moderate to high disease activity rheumatoid arthritis. Enrolled patients were randomized 1:1 into 2 treatment groups, 1 receiving bio-etanercept (study drug) and the other receiving O-etanercept (comparator) at a dose of 25mg twice weekly, for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of patients with an ACR20 response after 24 weeks of treatment. Safety (adverse reaction/adverse event) and immunogenicity of both drugs were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 156 patients (79 in the bio-etanercept group and 77 in the O-etanercept group) who completed 24-week treatment and 4-week follow-up, 82.3% (65 patients) and 90.9% (70 patients) achieved an ACR20 response in the bio-etanercept and O-etanercept groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .16). No significant differences in the occurrence of adverse reactions/adverse events were found between the 2 groups regardless of severity (P = .63 for mild, P = .43 for moderate and P > .99 for severe). The development of antibodies in the bio-etanercept group was observed in 4 (5.1%; visit 6), 4 (5.0%; visit 9), and 3 (3.8%; visit 11) patients, and in 5 (6.4%), 5 (6.5%), and 3 (4.1%) patients in the O-etanercept group. The differences between the 2 groups were not significant (P > .99). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that bio-etanercept was equivalent to the reference formulation.

Industry perspective on regulatory authority (RA) quality reviews of biosimilar applications - an evaluation of RA guidance and expectations for chemical, manufacturing, and controls information through in-depth query analysis.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the type and quantity of quality information (i.e. Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control) requested by the US FDA and EMA in queries pertaining to biosimilar applications. METHODS: Numbers/types of queries received following regulatory submissions (FDA/EMA, n = 7/n = 5) for seven biosimilars (PF-filgrastim [Nivestym], PF-rituximab [Ruxience®], PF-trastuzumab [Trazimera®], PF-bevacizumab [Zirabev®], PF-pegfilgrastim [Nyvepria®], PF-adalimumab [Abrilada™/Amsparity®], PF-infliximab [Ixifi]) from a single product portfolio were analyzed considering published regulatory authority (RA) guidance and in relation to sections/subsections of Module 3: Quality from the Common Technical Document regulatory dossier and topics based on keyword assignment. RESULTS: Queries were most frequently assigned (FDA/EMA %, range) to Drug Substance Manufacture (subsection 3.2.S.2; 21-35%/13-50%), Control of Drug Substance (3.2.S.4; 3-11%/5-17%), Drug Product Pharmaceutical Development (3.2.P.2; 1-12%/1-15%) and Manufacture (3.2.P.3; 17-41%/2-13%), and Analytical Similarity (3.2.R; 4-21%/4-20%). The proportion of Drug Substance and Drug Product queries was significantly different between RAs (n1 = 952, n2 = 468, p-value <0.001; two-sample proportion z-test). Topic assignments included: Control (12-27%/12-28%), Manufacturing (56-72%/34-66%), Stability (1-12%/2-24%), Biosimilarity (5-16%/5-25%), and Container Closure (0-3%/0-9%). CONCLUSION: The focus of both RAs on topics related to manufacturing and controls is valuable in understanding expectations for scientific and technical content related to gaining biosimilar approval.

Revisions to the requirement of the Japanese clinical study data for biosimilar developments in Japan.

BACKGROUND: The 'Questions and Answers (Q&A)' document regarding Japanese biosimilar guideline elucidated that Japanese participant enrollment in at least one comparative clinical study was required for the marketing authorization application (MAA) of biosimilars in Japan. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: To discuss the requirement of Japanese clinical study data for biosimilar development, the trend in comparative clinical studies conducted for approved biosimilars of monoclonal antibodies and fusion proteins was analyzed, and the consistency of the results between the overall population and the Japanese population according to the publicly available information was reviewed. RESULTS: The number of comparative clinical studies enrolling Japanese participants was 25 cases, and the type and percentage were 13 (52%) and 12 (48%) cases of comparative pharmacokinetic study and comparative efficacy study, respectively. In all comparative clinical studies, consistent results between the overall population and the Japanese population were shown. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicated that Japanese participant enrollment in comparative clinical studies may not always be necessary for biosimilar development when certain conditions are satisfied. This has been described in the revised Q&A document published by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in January 2024.

Infliximab biosimilar GP1111: a review of 5 years' post-approval experience.

INTRODUCTION: Infliximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor alpha, and GP1111 (Zessly®, Sandoz) is the most recently approved infliximab biosimilar in Europe. We reviewed the approval process and key evidence for GP1111, focusing primarily on the indications of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). AREAS COVERED: This narrative review discusses preclinical, clinical, and real-world data for GP1111. EXPERT OPINION: Results from the Phase III REFLECTIONS trial in patients with moderate-to-severe active RA despite methotrexate therapy confirmed the similarity in efficacy and safety between GP1111 and reference infliximab. Switching from reference infliximab to GP1111 in REFLECTIONS had no impact on efficacy or safety. Since the European approval of GP1111 in March 2018, real-world data have also confirmed the efficacy and safety of switching from another infliximab biosimilar to GP1111 in patients with RA and IBD. In addition, budget impact analysis of various sequential targeted treatments in patients with RA found that GP1111 was cost-effective when used early after failure of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Therefore, 5 years' post-approval experience with GP1111 in RA and IBD, and key clinical and real-world evidence, support the safety and efficacy of continued use of GP1111 in all infliximab-approved indications.

Systematic review: effectiveness and safety of switching between originator infliximab and biosimilar infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

INTRODUCTION: Infliximab (IFX) biosimilars are available to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), offering cost reductions versus originator IFX in some jurisdictions. However, concerns remain regarding the efficacy and safety of originator-to-biosimilar switching. This systematic literature review evaluated safety and effectiveness of switching between IFX products in patients with IBD, including multiple switchers. METHODS: Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to capture studies (2012-2022) including patients with IBD who switched between approved IFX products. Effectiveness outcomes: disease activity; disease severity; response to treatment; patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Safety outcomes: incidence and rate of adverse events (AEs); discontinuations due to AEs, failure rate; hospitalizations; surgeries. Immunogenicity outcomes (n, %): anti-drug antibodies; patients receiving concomitant immunomodulatory medication. RESULTS: Data from 85 publications (81 observational, two randomized controlled trials) were included. Clinical effectiveness outcomes were consistent with the known profile of originator IFX with no difference after switching. There were no unexpected/serious AEs after switching, and rates of AEs were generally consistent with the known profile of IFX. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies reported that clinical, PROs, and safety outcomes for originator-to-biosimilar switching were clinically equivalent to originator responses. Limited data are available regarding multiple switches. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42021289144.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Demonstration of Physicochemical and Functional Similarity of Biosimilar Pegfilgrastim-cbqv to Pegfilgrastim.

BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim-cbqv/CHS-1701 (UDENYCA®) (hereafter referred to as pegfilgrastim-cbqv) was approved in 2018 by the US Food and Drug Administration as a biosimilar for pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) (hereafter referred to as pegfilgrastim). Both pegfilgrastim-cbqv and pegfilgrastim are conjugates of recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor (r-metHuG-CSF) with a 20 kDa polyethylene glycol (PEG) indicated to decrease the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in patients receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs. The demonstration of analytical similarity for PEG-protein conjugates presents unique challenges since both the protein and PEG attributes must be characterized. OBJECTIVE: The current study demonstrates the analytical similarity of pegfilgrastim-cbqv and the reference product, pegfilgrastim. In addition to the physicochemical and functional characterization of the protein, the study assessed attributes specific to PEGylation including PEG size and polydispersity, site of attachment, linker composition, and PEGylation process-related variants. METHODS: The structural, functional, and stability attributes of pegfilgrastim-cbqv and pegfilgrastim were compared using state-of-the-art analytical methods. For the protein, the primary structure, disulfide structure, and secondary and tertiary structures were assessed using traditional protein characterization techniques such as mass spectrometry (MS), circular dichroism (CD), intrinsic fluorescence, and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), as well as more advanced techniques such as two-dimensional (2D) nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and hydrogen deuterium exchange (HDX). For the PEG moiety, the site of attachment, occupancy, linker composition, size and polydispersity were compared using mass spectrometry (both intact and after endoprotease digestion), multiangle light scattering detection (MALS), and Edman degradation. Purity assessments included the assessment of both protein variants and PEGylation variants using chromatographic and electrophoretic analytical separation techniques. The functional similarity between pegfilgrastim-cbqv and pegfilgrastim was compared using both a cell-based bioassay and surface plasmon resonance (SPR). The degradation rates and stability profiles were compared under accelerated and stressed conditions. RESULTS: Biosimilarity was demonstrated by a thorough assessment of physiochemical and functional attributes, as well as comparative stability, of pegfilgrastim-cbqv relative to pegfilgrastim. These studies demonstrated identical primary structure and disulfide structure, highly similar secondary and tertiary structure, as well as functional similarity. The impurity profile of pegfilgrastim-cbqv was comparable to that of pegfilgrastim with only minor differences in PEGylation variants and a slight offset in the PEG molar mass. These differences were not clinically relevant. The degradation profiles were qualitatively and quantitatively similar under accelerated and stress conditions. CONCLUSION: The structural, functional, and stability data demonstrate that pegfilgrastim-cbqv is highly similar to the reference product, pegfilgrastim.

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.

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.

Reduction of biologic pricing following biosimilar introduction: Analysis across 57 countries and regions, 2012-19.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the entry of biosimilars on the pricing of eight biologic products in 57 countries and regions. METHODS: We utilized an interrupted time series design and IQVIA MIDAS® data to analyze the annual sales data of eight biologic products (adalimumab, bevacizumab, epoetin, etanercept, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and trastuzumab) across 57 countries and regions from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019. We examined the immediate and long-term changes in biologics ex-manufacturer pricing following the entry of biosimilars to the market. RESULTS: Following the entry of biosimilars, the average price per dose of biologic product was immediately reduced by $438 for trastuzumab, $112 for infliximab, and $110 for bevacizumab. The persistent effect of biosimilars' market entry led to further reductions in price per dose every year: by $49 for adalimumab, $290 for filgrastim, $21 for infliximab, and $189 for trastuzumab. Similarly, we analyzed the impact of biosimilars on four biologics' prices in the US, where the prices of three biologics significantly decreased every year, with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and infliximab decreasing by $955, $753, and $104, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of biosimilars has significantly reduced the prices of biologics both globally and in the US. These findings not only demonstrate the economic benefits of increasing biosimilar utilization, but also emphasize the importance of biosimilars in controlling healthcare costs. Policies should aim to expand the availability of biosimilars to counteract the exponential growth of medical spending caused by the use of biologics.

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.