Immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of biosimilar insulin glargine (Gan & Lee glargine) compared with originator insulin glargine (Lantus®) in patients with type 2 diabetes after 26 weeks' treatment: A randomized open label study.

AIM: To evaluate the equivalence of immunogenicity, safety and efficacy of Gan & Lee (GL) Glargine (Basalin®; Gan & Lee Pharmaceutical) with that of the reference product (Lantus®) in adult participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This was a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, equivalence trial conducted across 57 sites. In total, 567 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to undergo treatment with either GL Glargine or Lantus® for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants in each treatment arm who manifested treatment-induced anti-insulin antibodies (AIA). Secondary endpoints included efficacy and safety metrics, changes in glycated haemoglobin levels, and a comparative assessment of adverse events. Results were analysed using an equivalence test comparing the limits of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for treatment-induced AIA development to the prespecified margins. RESULTS: The percentages of participants positive for treatment-induced glycated haemoglobin by week 26 were similar between the GL Glargine (19.2%) and Lantus® (21.3%) treatment groups, with a treatment difference of -2.1 percentage points and a 90% CI (-7.6%, 3.5%) (predefined similarity margins: -10.7%, 10.7%). The difference in glycated haemoglobin was -0.08% (90% CI, -0.23, 0.06). The overall percentage of participants with any treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the GL Glargine (80.1%) and Lantus® (81.6%) treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: GL Glargine was similar to Lantus® in terms of immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety, based on the current study.

Effectiveness and safety of adalimumab biosimilar in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Adalimumab biosimilar MSB11022 (Idacio ®) has been approved for the same indications as its originator (Humira ®), based on findings from clinical trials in plaque psoriasis. Data on its efficacy and safety in inflammatory bowel disease, however, are scarce. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study of 44 patients with inflammatory bowel disease: 30 were treated with originator adalimumab, 5 were directly started on MSB11022, and 9 switched from originator to biosimilar adalimumab. To evaluate the effectiveness of the use of adalimumab in inflammatory bowel disease, both laboratory markers (fecal calprotectin and C-reactive protein) and scales that measure the activity of inflammatory bowel disease using specific scales (Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI) have been usEd.) for Crohn's disease and Mayo Score for Ulcerative Colitis. Efficacy was evaluated by recording the adverse effects that could occur with the administration of adalimumab (original or biosimilar). The success of the switch was determined by analyzing meaningful differences in effectiveness and safety criteria. Concomitant therapy and the need for dose intensification were also analyzed. Objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of biosimilar adalimumab in adalimumab-naïve patients and patients switched from originator adalimumab. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in clinical disease activity (P=.317) or biochemical parameters [fecal calprotectin (P=.445) and C-reactive protein P=.661)] after the switch from the originator adalimumab to MSB11022. There was not a significant reduction in the concomitant use of corticosteroids and thiopurines (P=.157). No emergency room visits or hospitalizations were observed during the study period and none of the patients experienced serious adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Between originator adalimumab and biosimilar-start cohorts, no differences were observed, between originator adalimumab and switch cohorts, no significant differences were found either, and with the pre- and post-switch to biosimilar comparison, 2 of the 9 patients experienced AEs after the switch. The biosimilar showed a favorable safety profile (one patient with a serious adverse effect (rash) with biosimilar discontinued treatment) and no significant changes to clinical or biochemical parameters were observed after the switch.

Comparison of the Real-World Reporting of Symptoms and Well-Being for the HER2-Directed Trastuzumab Biosimilar Ogivri With Registry Data for Herceptin in the Treatment of Breast Cancer: Prospective Observational Study (OGIPRO) of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab has had a major impact on the treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC). Anti-HER2 biosimilars such as Ogivri have demonstrated safety and clinical equivalence to trastuzumab (using Herceptin as the reference product) in clinical trials. To our knowledge, there has been no real-world report of the side effects and quality of life (QoL) in patients treated with biosimilars using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs). OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this prospective observational study (OGIPRO study) was to compare the ePRO data related to treatment side effects collected with the medidux app in patients with HER2-positive BC treated with the trastuzumab biosimilar Ogivri (prospective cohort) to those obtained from historical cohorts treated with Herceptin alone or combined with pertuzumab and/or chemotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02004496 and NCT03578731). METHODS: Patients were treated with Ogivri alone or combined with pertuzumab and/or chemotherapy and hormone therapy in (neo)adjuvant and palliative settings. Patients used the medidux app to dynamically record symptoms (according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE]), well-being (according to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status scale), QoL (using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire), cognitive capabilities, and vital parameters over 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the mean CTCAE score. Key secondary endpoints included the mean well-being score. Data of this prospective cohort were compared with those of the historical cohorts (n=38 patients; median age 51, range 31-78 years). RESULTS: Overall, 53 female patients with a median age of 54 years (range 31-87 years) were enrolled in the OGIPRO study. The mean CTCAE score was analyzed in 50 patients with available data on symptoms, while the mean well-being score was evaluated in 52 patients with available data. The most common symptoms reported in both cohorts included fatigue, taste disorder, nausea, diarrhea, dry mucosa, joint discomfort, tingling, sleep disorder, headache, and appetite loss. Most patients experienced minimal (grade 0) or mild (grade 1) toxicities in both cohorts. The mean CTCAE score was comparable between the prospective and historical cohorts (29.0 and 30.3, respectively; mean difference -1.27, 95% CI -7.24 to 4.70; P=.68). Similarly, no significant difference was found for the mean well-being score between the groups treated with the trastuzumab biosimilar Ogivri and Herceptin (74.3 and 69.8, respectively; mean difference 4.45, 95% CI -3.53 to 12.44; P=.28). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of patients with HER2-positive BC with the trastuzumab biosimilar Ogivri resulted in equivalent symptoms, adverse events, and well-being as found for patients treated with Herceptin as determined by ePRO data. Hence, integration of an ePRO system into research and clinical practice can provide reliable information when investigating the real-world tolerability and outcomes of similar therapeutic compounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05234021; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05234021.

Utility of real-world evidence in biosimilar development.

Biosimilar development refers to the process of creating a biologic drug that is similar to an existing approved biologic drug, also known as a reference drug. Due to the complex nature of biologics drugs and the inherent variability in their manufacturing process biosimilars are not identical but highly similar to the reference drug in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. Efficacy and safety trials for biosimilars involve large numbers of patients to confirm comparable clinical performance of the biosimilar and the reference product in appropriately sensitive clinical indications and for appropriate sensitive endpoints. The objective of a biosimilar clinical data is to address slight differences observed at previous steps and to confirm comparable clinical performance of the biosimilar and the reference product. In recent years with advances in big data computing, there has been increasing interest to incorporate the totality of information from different data sources (e.g. Real World data and published literature) in design and conduct of clinical trial to support regulatory objectives. The biosimilar development is an ideal framework for utilization of Real-World Evidence in design of trials as potentially large amount of data are available for the reference dug. Hence there may be an opportunity to use RWD in establishing, improving or validating equivalence margins (EQM) for biosimilar designs, specifically in the case there is no historical published data in the intended sensitive population. In this article, we propose a variation of matching method that seems promising to identify the matched set from a real-world data for which the effect size of targeted endpoint would be comparable to historical data. We believe this is a reasonable approach because in design stage, we can view covariates and secondary endpoints as data feature that can be used in a matching method. This approach was illustrated through a case study which indicated the estimate of the primary endpoint is within 1% of published results and thus RWD may be used to justify or estimate the equivalence margin. To ensure consistent results we recommend using this approach in different indications and endpoint scenarios. Thus utilization of RWD/RWE can provide an important opportunity to increase access to biologic therapies, reducing cost by repurposing existing data.

Explainable AI for CHO cell culture media optimization and prediction of critical quality attribute.

Cell culture media play a critical role in cell growth and propagation by providing a substrate; media components can also modulate the critical quality attributes (CQAs). However, the inherent complexity of the cell culture media makes unraveling the impact of the various media components on cell growth and CQAs non-trivial. In this study, we demonstrate an end-to-end machine learning framework for media component selection and prediction of CQAs. The preliminary dataset for feature selection was generated by performing CHO-GS (-/-) cell culture in media formulations with varying metal ion concentrations. Acidic and basic charge variant composition of the innovator product (24.97 ± 0.54% acidic and 11.41 ± 1.44% basic) was chosen as the target variable to evaluate the media formulations. Pearson's correlation coefficient and random forest-based techniques were used for feature ranking and feature selection for the prediction of acidic and basic charge variants. Furthermore, a global interpretation analysis using SHapley Additive exPlanations was utilized to select optimal features by evaluating the contributions of each feature in the extracted vectors. Finally, the medium combinations were predicted by employing fifteen different regression models and utilizing a grid search and random search cross-validation for hyperparameter optimization. Experimental results demonstrate that Fe and Zn significantly impact the charge variant profile. This study aims to offer insights that are pertinent to both innovators seeking to establish a complete pipeline for media development and optimization and biosimilar-based manufacturers who strive to demonstrate the analytical and functional biosimilarity of their products to the innovator. KEY POINTS: • Developed a framework for optimizing media components and prediction of CQA. • SHAP enhances global interpretability, aiding informed decision-making. • Fifteen regression models were employed to predict medium combinations.

EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2023 update.

OBJECTIVE: New modes of action and more data on the efficacy and safety of existing drugs in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) required an update of the EULAR 2019 recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of PsA. METHODS: Following EULAR standardised operating procedures, the process included a systematic literature review and a consensus meeting of 36 international experts in April 2023. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were determined. RESULTS: The updated recommendations comprise 7 overarching principles and 11 recommendations, and provide a treatment strategy for pharmacological therapies. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be used in monotherapy only for mild PsA and in the short term; oral glucocorticoids are not recommended. In patients with peripheral arthritis, rapid initiation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is recommended and methotrexate preferred. If the treatment target is not achieved with this strategy, a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) should be initiated, without preference among modes of action. Relevant skin psoriasis should orient towards bDMARDs targeting interleukin (IL)-23p40, IL-23p19, IL-17A and IL-17A/F inhibitors. In case of predominant axial or entheseal disease, an algorithm is also proposed. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors is proposed primarily after bDMARD failure, taking relevant risk factors into account, or in case bDMARDs are not an appropriate choice. Inflammatory bowel disease and uveitis, if present, should influence drug choices, with monoclonal tumour necrosis factor inhibitors proposed. Drug switches and tapering in sustained remission are also addressed. CONCLUSION: These updated recommendations integrate all currently available drugs in a practical and progressive approach, which will be helpful in the pharmacological management of PsA.

Persistence and safety of anti-TNF biosimilars versus originators in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: an observational study on the French National Health Data System.

OBJECTIVES: Biosimilar-originator equivalence has been demonstrated in phase 3 trials in a few indications of infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab. The objective of our study was to compare the persistence and safety of biosimilars versus originators in all the licensed indications of these molecules. METHODS: We used data from the French National Health Data System (SNDS), covering 99% of the French population, to identify infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab initiators from biosimilar launch (January 2015, May 2016 and October 2018, respectively) to 30 June 2021. Patients were then followed for 1 year. Treatment persistence (duration without treatment discontinuation or modification) and safety (including severe infections, all-cause hospitalisation and death) were compared between originator and biosimilar users by Cox regressions weighting the populations on the inverse probability of treatment. Analyses were performed by molecule, by disease and by biosimilar product. RESULTS: From January 2015 to June 2021, 86 776 patients were included in the study: 22 670, 24 442 and 39 664 patients had initiated infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab, respectively; 49 752 (53%) were biosimilar initiators. We did not find any risk of discontinuation (HRs were below or around 1, here all pathologies and products together: infliximab 0.88 (0.80-0.97), etanercept 0.85 (0.81-0.90) and adalimumab 0.96 (0.91-1.00)) or safety event (infection: infliximab 0.97 (0.78-1.21), etanercept 1.04 (0.81-1.33) and adalimumab 0.98 (0.83-1.16); hospitalisation: infliximab 1.08 (0.96-1.23), etanercept 0.99 (0.87-1.11) and adalimumab 0.91 (0.83-0.99)) associated with biosimilar versus originator use. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows reassuring results regarding the persistence and safety of biosimilar tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors compared with originators in all licensed indications.

[Comparative characteristics of the efficacy and safety of the original alteplase and its complete biosimilar in the treatment of ischemic stroke in real clinical practice]. / Sravnitel'naya kharakteristika effektivnosti i bezopasnosti original'noi alteplazy i ee bioanaloga pri lechenii ishemicheskogo insul'ta v real'noi klinicheskoi praktike.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comparative analysis between the original alteplase and its biosimilar in terms of efficacy and safety in real clinical practice in the Republic of Belarus. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The cohort study included 420 patients. All included patients underwent thrombolytic therapy with alteplase within 4.5 hours of the onset of stroke symptoms according to the approved tactics of the Republic of Belarus and international recommendations. The patients were divided into 2 groups: 215 received the drug Revelisa, 205 - Actilyse. RESULTS: The patients were comparable in gender, age, ASPECTS assessment, but had statistically significant difference in NIHSS was found, due to the large number of patients with NIHSS=16-25 in the Actilyse group. The assessment of premorbid disability also showed a statistically significant difference: there were more patients in the Revelisa group who had functional limitations of varying degrees before the disease, 83 (38.6%) versus 62 (28.3%) patients in the comparison group. Clinical outcomes were comparable, the proportion of patients achieving mRS=0-1 at discharge was 41.5% in group A and 42.8% in group P. The Revelisa demonstrated a statistically significant lower number of deaths in 15 (7.0%) and 29 (14.1%) in the comparison group. The development of a greater number of clinically insignificant petechial hemorrhages was noted after the use of Actilyse. CONCLUSION: The analysis demonstrated a high level of safety in the use of alteplase preparations in routine practice. The compared fibrinolytics had comparable effectiveness in achieving functional independence after ischemic stroke, despite the more premorbid disability of patients who received a biosimilar.

'Totality of Evidence' Approach in the Development of GP2017, an Approved Adalimumab Biosimilar.

INTRODUCTION: Hyrimoz®, (GP2017 [SDZ-ADL]), is a biosimilar to Humira® (REF-ADL). SDZ-ADL was approved in 2018 by both the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the indications of REF-ADL not protected by orphan exclusivity. In 2023, the US FDA and EMA also approved a citrate-free high-concentration formulation (HCF) of SDZ-ADL. TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE-THE APPROACH: Approval of SDZ-ADL was based on data gathered using the US FDA, EMA and World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended step-wise Totality of Evidence approach. This approach is a robust dataset confirming high confidence in analytical, functional, pharmacokinetic (PK) and clinical biosimilarity between the biosimilar and reference medicine determined through analytical and clinical investigation. EVIDENCE OF BIOSIMILARITY: Evidence supporting the biosimilarity of SDZ-ADL and REF-ADL was reported at each stage of investigation. Comprehensive comparative analytical and functional assessments demonstrated that SDZ-ADL was analytically indistinguishable from REF-ADL in required critical quality attributes, including receptor binding. Phase I clinical data showed PK similarity of SDZ-ADL and REF-ADL in healthy volunteers, with similar safety, tolerability and immunogenicity profiles. Phase III confirmatory efficacy and safety studies, ADACCESS (included in US/EU dossiers) and ADMYRA (separate to US/EU dossiers), both confirmed that SDZ-ADL's efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity matched REF-ADL in all patient groups with no clinically meaningful differences. More recently, this data package was the basis for a citrate-free HCF of SDZ-ADL to be developed, and its PK, safety and immunogenicity were confirmed against the initially approved formulation of SDZ-ADL. CONCLUSION: Overall, the Totality of Evidence provided for biosimilar adalimumab, SDZ-ADL, confirmed the analytical, functional and clinical similarity of SDZ-ADL to REF-ADL, supporting its regulatory approval and providing a data bridge with which to evaluate and support the approval of citrate-free HCF SDZ-ADL for clinical use.

A biosimilar is a type of medicine that is designed to match the structure and function of a 'reference' biologic medicine. Hyrimoz^® (SDZ-ADL) is a biosimilar of the adalimumab reference medicine, Humira^® ([REF-ADL]). SDZ-ADL was approved in the US and Europe in 2018. For SDZ-ADL to be approved, a collection of evidence needed to be created, called the 'Totality of Evidence.' The purpose of this collection of data is to show there is a high confidence that the new biosimilar medicine matches the reference medicine, from the structure of the medicine to the effect of the medicine on the human body. For SDZ-ADL, this investigation started with comparing the physical structure and other functional properties of SDZ-ADL versus REF-ADL and ended with clinical studies in both healthy volunteers and in patients with diseases treated with adalimumab. This Totality of Evidence gathered for biosimilar adalimumab, SDZ-ADL, confirmed the similarity of SDZ-ADL to REF-ADL and therefore supported the approval of SDZ-ADL. In 2018, a citrate-free high-concentration version (high concentration formulation [HCF]) of REF-ADL was launched that matched REF-ADL. HCF REF-ADL has since become the primary formulation of REF-ADL used in practice. In 2023, a HCF version of SDZ-ADL was also approved in the US and EU based on evidence confirming that HCF SDZ-ADL matched SDZ-ADL. As SDZ-ADL had been previously confirmed to match the reference medicine, this meant that HCF SDZ-ADL could be directly compared against SDZ-ADL to confirm biosimilarity and support its approval.

Clinical Pharmacology of GP40321 (Insulin Glulisine Biosimilar): Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Comparability in a Hyperinsulinemic-Euglycemic Clamp Procedure.

The aim of the study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of T-glu (GP40321, test drug), and reference insulin glulisine in a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp procedure. During this study, 34 healthy male volunteers underwent the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp procedure following subcutaneous 0.3 U/kg injection of T-glu or reference insulin glulisine in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Plasma glucose levels were monitored every 5 minutes for 8 hours. Glucose infusion rate adjustment was based on the blood glucose measurements. Evaluation of PD was performed using the glucose infusion rate values, while PK was calculated using insulin concentrations measured via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The study results showed that the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratios of primary PK and PD of T-glu and reference insulin glulisine were within 80%-125% comparability limits, and that the safety profiles were comparable. PK, PD, and safety similarity of T-glu and reference insulin glulisine was demonstrated.

Comparison of safety and effectiveness between etanercept biosimilar LBEC0101 and reference in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in real-world data using the KURAMA cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Biosimilars are anticipated to be widely used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), owing to their cost efficiency; LBEC0101 was the first etanercept (ETN) biosimilar approved in Japan. However, there are limited real-world data comparing its safety and effectiveness with those of a reference product. METHODS: This study used data from the Kyoto University Rheumatoid Arthritis Management Alliance cohort, including patients with RA who received ETN therapy-ETN reference product (ETN-RP) or LBEC0101-between 2015 and 2021. Serum ETN levels were measured using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. RESULTS: The 1-year continuation rates of ETN-RP and LBEC0101 were 58.7% and 74.4%, respectively. Effectiveness of treatment was evaluated in 18 patients; both products significantly reduced the 28-joint RA disease activity score and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR). Moreover, to determine equivalence, we analysed 11 patients who switched from ETN-RP to LBEC0101; the DAS28-ESR and serum ETN levels before and after switching were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world cohort study confirmed that the biosimilar of ETN, LBEC0101, was comparable to the reference product in terms of continuation rate, effectiveness at initiation of introduction, and effect persistence before and after switching in clinical practice.

Characteristics and 6-Month Outcomes in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Initiating Infliximab Biosimilar IFX-dyyb in a Real-World Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world studies describing biosimilar initiation or switching in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are limited. The aim of this study was to assess treatment patterns and effectiveness of real-world patients with RA initiating infliximab biosimilar IFX-dyyb (CT-P13; Inflectra®) in the USA. METHODS: This observational study evaluated patients with RA from the CorEvitas RA Registry who initiated IFX-dyyb and had Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) recorded at baseline and 6 months. The primary outcome was reaching low disease activity (LDA; CDAI ≤ 10) at 6 months in patients with moderate or high disease activity (CDAI > 10) at baseline. Secondary outcomes were change at 6 months in CDAI and certain patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Patient data were stratified by prior treatment: biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (tsDMARD)-naïve, reference infliximab (IFX-REF) or IFX biosimilar, or a non-IFX biologic or tsDMARD. RESULTS: Of 318 patients initiating IFX-dyyb, 176 had baseline and 6-month CDAI scores; 73 (41%) switched from IFX, 61 (35%) switched from another non-IFX/biologic/tsDMARD, 32 (18%) were naïve to biologics/tsDMARDs, and 10 (6%) switched from an IFX biosimilar. Among patients with moderate or high disease activity at baseline, 32.9% (95% CI 22.9, 42.9) achieved LDA at 6 months. Mean 6-month change from baseline in CDAI was - 1.8 (95% CI - 3.3, - 0.3) overall; - 4.7 (- 7.6, - 1.7) in patients who switched from a non-IFX biologic/tsDMARD, - 4.1 (- 7.8, - 0.3) in biologic/tsDMARD-naïve patients, and 1.1 (- 0.4, 2.6) in patients who switched from IFX-REF/IFX biosimilar. Other clinical outcomes/PROs improved at 6 months. Of the IFX-dyyb initiators, 68% remained on IFX-dyyb at 6 months. CONCLUSION: In this real-world population of patients with RA initiating IFX-dyyb, the majority switched from IFX-REF or a non-IFX biologic/tsDMARD. CDAI remained stable in patients switching from IFX-REF/IFX biosimilar and improved in patients switching from a non-IFX biologic/tsDMARD and in biologic/tsDMARD-naïve patients.

Infliximab is an effective treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Biosimilars­biologic drugs designed to be very similar to the originator products­are now available that may be more affordable with matching efficacy and safety. IFX-dyyb is a US Food and Drug Administration-approved infliximab biosimilar but little is known about its use in real-world clinical practice in patients with RA in the USA. This study used data from a large observational registry to look at treatment patterns and effectiveness of IFX-dyyb in adults with RA. One hundred and seventy-six patients were included who had data available at both baseline and at 6 months. Most patients (47%) switched to IFX-dyyb from the originator infliximab or another infliximab biosimilar; 35% switched from another RA treatment, and 18% were new to treatment. Six months after starting IFX-dyyb, 68% of patients were still receiving treatment. A measure of clinical disease activity remained stable in patients who switched from originator infliximab or another biosimilar, while this measure improved in patients switching to IFX-dyyb from other treatments or starting treatment for the first time. Other clinical measures and patient-reported outcomes such as pain and fatigue also improved over 6 months with IFX-dyyb. This real-world study of patients with RA initiating IFX-dyyb in the USA adds to our knowledge of the use of biosimilars in this patient population.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Trastuzumab Biosimilars to Herceptin for Adjuvant Treatment of HER2+ Breast Cancer.

Background: Ontario publicly funds reference trastuzumab (Herceptin) and four biosimilar trastuzumab products for adjuvant treatment of HER2+ breast cancer. We assessed the real-world safety and effectiveness of biosimilar trastuzumab compared to Herceptin for adjuvant treatment of patients with HER2+ breast cancer. Methods: This was a population-based, retrospective study comparing the safety and effectiveness of biosimilar trastuzumab and Herceptin for neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment of HER2+ breast cancer from 2016 to 2021. Treatment patients started biosimilar trastuzumab from November 2019 to June 2021; historical comparator patients started Herceptin from June 2016 to October 2019. Safety outcomes death within 30 days of last dose of trastuzumab, direct hospitalization, emergency department visit leading to hospitalization, early treatment discontinuation, and in-patient admission for congestive heart failure were measured using logistic/negative binomial regression. Overall survival (OS) was measured using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression. Propensity score matching was applied. Results: From June 2016 to 2021, 5071 patients with breast cancer were treated with neoadjuvant/adjuvant trastuzumab. The rate of direct hospitalization (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.74-0.98, p-value: 0.032) was significantly lower in biosimilar compared to Herceptin patients. OS (log-rank test p = 0.98) and risk of mortality (HR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.72-2.30, p-value = 0.39) did not significantly differ between treatment groups. Conclusions: Biosimilar trastuzumab demonstrated similar safety and effectiveness to Herceptin. The findings can help improve confidence in and use of biosimilars and demonstrate the value of real-world evidence generation for supporting biosimilar implementations and reassessments.

Biosimilars of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for ophthalmic diseases: A review.

The development of intravitreally injected biologic medicines (biologics) acting against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) substantially improved the clinical outcomes of patients with common VEGF-driven retinal diseases. The relatively high cost of branded agents, however, represents a financial burden for most healthcare systems and patients, likely resulting in impaired access to treatment and poorer clinical outcomes for some patients. Biosimilar medicines (biosimilars) are clinically equivalent, potentially economic alternatives to reference products. Biosimilars approved by leading health authorities have been demonstrated to be similar to the reference product in a comprehensive comparability exercise, generating the totality of evidence necessary to support analytical, pre-clinical, and clinical biosimilarity. Anti-VEGF biosimilars have been entering the field of ophthalmology in the US since 2022. We review regulatory and scientific concepts of biosimilars, the biosimilar development landscape in ophthalmology, with a specific focus on anti-VEGF biosimilars, and discuss opportunities and challenges facing the uptake of biosimilars.

Treatment Persistence and Switching Patterns of Adalimumab Biosimilar ABP 501 in European Patients with Rheumatologic Diseases.

INTRODUCTION: ABP 501 was an adalimumab (ADA) biosimilar approved for treating immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). In this retrospective study, we aimed to examine the treatment patterns of ABP 501 among patients with these IMIDs using German and French pharmacy claims databases. METHODS: Patients with RA, PsA, or AS who initiated ABP 501 between October 2018 and March 2020 and were observed continuously for ≥ 365 days both before and after ABP 501 initiation were included. Descriptive analyses of persistence and switch after ABP 501 discontinuation were conducted and reported for each disease cohort by prior use of ADA products (patients naïve to ADA or patients experienced with ADA). RESULTS: Median (95% confidence interval) persistence on ABP 501 was 9.4 (8.6-10.3), 10.2 (9.0-11.7), and 12.1 (11.0-13.1) months in German patients, and 11.7 (9.9-13.3), 7.1 (5.8-8.4), and 10.8 (9.6-11.9) months in French patients for RA, PsA, and AS, respectively. For patients who switched from ABP 501 to another targeted therapy during the first 12 months of follow-up, switching patterns varied between patients naïve to ADA and patients experienced with ADA in both Germany and France, with patients naïve to ADA switching most frequently to other targeted therapies including non-ADA tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), non-TNFi biologic, or Janus Kinase inhibitor (JAKi) and patients experienced with ADA switching most frequently back to ADA reference product (RP). CONCLUSIONS: Across three rheumatologic diseases, about half of patients persisted on ABP 501 at the end of 12 months after treatment initiation in both Germany and France. Patients experienced with ADA were more likely to switch back to ADA RP, regardless of indication and country, suggesting a possible nocebo effect. Future studies are warranted to understand reasons of discontinuation and switching.

Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Aflibercept Biosimilar (P041) Compared with Originator Product in Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the noninferiority of biosimilar aflibercept (P041, CinnaGen) to the originator aflibercept (AFL, Regeneron) in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. DESIGN: This was a phase Ш, 52-week, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, and active control trial involving eyes in a 1:1 ratio. SUBJECTS: Patients with active subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration randomized into the 2 groups of P041 and AFL. METHODS: Patients received an injection of aflibercept every 4 weeks for 3 doses, followed by administration every 8 weeks up to week 48. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the noninferiority analysis of eyes maintaining vision at week 52. Secondary outcomes included the changes in visual acuity and retinal thickness, safety evaluation, and immunogenicity during the study. RESULTS: In total, 168 eyes of 168 patients were included. At week 52, the proportion of patients maintaining vision was 94.44% in the P041 group compared with 94.52% in the AFL group. The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference of maintaining vision from baseline did not exceed the predefined noninferiority margin of 10% (difference, -0.0008; 95% CI, -0.074 to 0.074; P = 0.98). Secondary outcomes indicated similar results in both arms (all P > 0.05). Safety measured outcomes and immunogenicity were similar between the 2 study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilar aflibercept was noninferior to AFL in eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Other efficacy and safety findings also indicated the similarity of 2 products. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Analytical and Functional Similarity of Aflibercept Biosimilar ABP 938 with Aflibercept Reference Product.

INTRODUCTION: ABP 938 is being developed as a biosimilar candidate to aflibercept reference product (RP), a biologic used for certain angiogenic eye disorders. This study was designed to provide a comparative analytical assessment of the structural and functional attributes of ABP 938 and aflibercept RP sourced from the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). METHODS: Structural and functional characterization studies were performed using state-of-the-art analytical techniques that were appropriate to assess relevant quality attributes and capable of detecting qualitative and quantitative differences in primary structure, higher-order structure and biophysical properties, product-related substances and impurities, general properties, and biological activities. RESULTS: ABP 938 had the same amino acid sequence and exhibited similar secondary and tertiary structures, and biological activity as aflibercept RP. There were minor differences in a small number of biochemical attributes which are not expected to impact clinical performance. In addition, aflibercept RP sourced from the US and EU were analytically similar. CONCLUSIONS: ABP 938 was structurally and functionally similar to aflibercept RP. Since aflibercept RP sourced from the US and EU were analytically similar, this allows for the development of a scientific bridge such that a single-source RP can be used in nonclinical and clinical studies.

Eylea^® (aflibercept) is a biologic medication approved for the treatment of patients with certain eye diseases that can result in low vision or blindness. Biosimilars are biologic medications that are highly similar to an existing approved biologic medication, often called a reference product. Biosimilars have the potential to reduce medication costs despite having no clinically significant differences in quality, efficacy, and safety from their reference products. ABP 938 is currently being developed as a biosimilar to aflibercept reference product. We have conducted similarity studies to compare multiple batches of ABP 938 and aflibercept reference product sourced from both the United States and the European Union, using state-of-the-art analytical methods. The results demonstrated that ABP 938 had the same amino acid sequence and similar structural and biological activities as aflibercept reference product. Before biosimilars can be used as medicines, studies such as this one are required by the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory authorities to ensure that biosimilars are as safe and effective as their reference products.

Efficacy, Safety and Immunogenicity of Sun's Ranibizumab Biosimilar in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Phase 3, Double-Blind Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to evaluate comparability in terms of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of Sun's ranibizumab biosimilar with reference ranibizumab in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). METHODS: This prospective, randomised, double-blind, two-group, parallel-arm, multicentre, phase 3 comparative study included patients with nAMD ≥ 50 years, randomised (in a 2:1 ratio) in a double-blind manner to receive 0.5 mg (0.05 mL) intravitreal injection of either Sun's ranibizumab or reference ranibizumab in the study eye every 4 weeks until week 16 (total of four doses). RESULTS: Primary endpoint results demonstrated equivalence in the proportion of patients who lost fewer than 15 letters from baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) to the end of week 16 (99% of patients in Sun's ranibizumab and 100% in reference ranibizumab; p > 0.9999), with the proportional difference (90% confidence interval) at -1% (-2.51, +0.61) lying within a pre-specified equivalence margin. Visual acuity improved by 15 or more letters in 43% of Sun's ranibizumab group and 37% of the reference ranibizumab group (p = 0.4267). The mean increase in BCVA was 15.7 letters in Sun's ranibizumab group and 14.6 letters in the reference ranibizumab group (p < 0.001 within both groups and p = 0.5275 between groups). The mean change in central macular thickness was comparable between groups (p = 0.7946). Anti-ranibizumab antibodies were found in one patient of the reference ranibizumab group, while neutralising antibodies were not found in any patients. Both products were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Sun's ranibizumab biosimilar is found to be therapeutically equivalent to reference ranibizumab in patients with nAMD. There were no additional safety or immunogenicity concerns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CTRI/2020/09/027629, registered on 07 September 2020.

A Regulatory Perspective on Biosimilar Medicines.

By definition, biosimilar medicinal products are biological medicinal products that are similar to other biological medicinal products that are already on the market-the reference medicinal products. Access to biosimilar medicines is a current reality. However, to achieve this goal, it is extremely important to consistently and scientifically substantiate the regulatory requirements necessary for biosimilar medicines when accessing the market. Based on an analysis of the raw materials and the type of methods used in the manufacturing processes of biological medicines, it is known that this tends to be more complex for the quality of the finished product than the manufacture of molecules obtained through a chemical process. It is then relevant to highlight the main differences between both products: biological medicines manufactured using biotechnology and the current generics containing active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) obtained from synthetic processes. Once arriving at the approval process of these medicinal products, it is imperative to analyse the guidance documents and the regulatory framework that create the rules that allow these biosimilar medicinal products to come to the market. The present review aimed at documenting comparatively the specific provisions of European legislation, through the European Medicines Agency (EMA), as well as the legislation of the United States of America, through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This was then translated into a critical appraisal of what concerns the specific criteria that determine the favourable evaluation of a biosimilar when an application for marketing authorisation is submitted to different regulatory agencies. The gathered evidence suggests that the key to the success of biosimilar medicines lies in a more rigorous and universal regulation as well as a greater knowledge, acceptance, and awareness of health professionals to enable more patients to be treated with biological strategies at an earlier stage of the disease and with more affordable medicines, ensuring always the safety and efficacy of those medicines.