Biosimilars are coming: ready or not

Biosimilars have had a sizeable impact on the availability and use of biologic medicines in Australia, particularly those prescribed for supportive care in oncology or to treat inflammatory diseases. Biosimilars of oncology drugs that modify disease processes are likely to be the next ‘wave’ of biosimilars to receive regulatory approval, both internationally and in Australia. Given their more tailored development pathway relative to reference biologics, biosimilar versions of these drugs have the potential to reduce substantially the burden on the healthcare system and increase patient access to treatment. However, there is some uncertainty regarding the regulatory approval pathway and expected clinical characteristics of biosimilars among Australian physicians. This review outlines the concept of biosimilarity and details the regulatory pathway leading to the approval of biosimilars. It also highlights the potential benefits to patients and the healthcare system, as well as opportunities stemming from the use of biosimilars in Australia. The Australian regulatory framework and rationale underlying the extrapolation of indications for a biosimilar to others held by the originator biologic, in the absence of a comparative clinical study, is also described. In addition to the benefits biosimilars may bring, Australia’s established cooperative clinical trial group programmes afford an opportunity for further innovation by providing a mechanism to expand the use of certain biosimilars to new disease indications.     

Insights on the use of biosimilars in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

Biologic therapy, such as those that target tumor necrosis factor(TNF) signaling, has proven to be an efficacious method of treatment for patients with inflammatory bowel disease(IBD) with regards to symptom management and mucosal healing. However, the rising prevalence of IBD worldwide and the everincreasing burden of biologic pharmaceuticals in the health care industry is alarming for insurance companies, clinicians, and patients. The impending patent expiry and the relatively high costs of biologics, particularly anti-TNF agents, have paved the way for biosimilar development for IBD. The United States Food and Drug Administration defines a biosimilar as a biological product that is highly similar to its reference medicinal product, with no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity, and potency. The hope with biosimilars is that their entry into the market will be able to drive competition between pharmaceutical companies to reduce prices like that of the generic market, and that access to appropriate biologic treatments for IBD patients is increased in the long-term. Yet, there are challenging issues such as indication extrapolation and interchangeability that are still being debated in the field of IBD and must be addressed in future issued guidance. This review will discuss the issues and implications concerning the use of biosimilar therapy for IBD.     

Does Similarity Breed Contempt? A Review of the Use of Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The introduction of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies directed against tumor necrosis factor-α has revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) by improving quality of life, decreasing the frequency and length of hospital admissions, and reducing corticosteroid use. Nevertheless, biologics are very expensive, substantially contributing to the cost of care for patients with IBD. To reduce this cost and improve treatment access, biosimilars, which are therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (biologicals) similar to but not identical to the reference biologic, were introduced. Despite their potential benefits, the adoption and uptake of biosimilars have varied considerably across the USA and Europe. Here, we highlight the current biosimilar therapeutic landscape, discuss barriers to their use, and provide an overview of published studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of biosimilars in IBD.

     

Biosimilars in immune‐mediated inflammatory diseases: initial lessons from the first approved biosimilar anti‐tumour necrosis factor monoclonal antibody

The introduction of targeted biological therapies has revolutionised the management of immune‐mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) such as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease. Following treatment with these therapies, many patients experience significant improvements in different aspects of their disease, including symptoms, work productivity and other outcomes relevant for individuals and society. However, due to the complexity of biological drug development and manufacturing processes, the costs of these therapies are relatively high. Indeed, the financial burden on healthcare systems due to biological therapies is considerable and lack of patient access to effective treatment remains a concern in many parts of the world. As many reference biological therapies have now reached or are near to patent expiry, a number of ‘biosimilar’ drugs have been developed for use in various clinical settings, and some of these drugs are already in use in several countries. While the potential pharmacoeconomic benefits of cost‐effective biosimilars seem clear, several issues have been raised regarding, for example, the definition of biosimilarity and the validity of indication extrapolation, as well as the ‘switchability’ and relative immunogenicity of biosimilars and their reference drugs. In this review, these issues will be discussed with reference to CT‐P13, a biosimilar of the anti‐tumour necrosis factor monoclonal antibody infliximab, which is approved in Europe and elsewhere for the treatment of various IMIDs. Other important issues, including those related to data collection during nonclinical and clinical development of biosimilars, are also discussed.     

Emerging biologics in inflammatory bowel disease

Early biologic therapy is recommended in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and poor prognostic factors and in those refractory to conventional medications. Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents are the most commonly used biologic agents. However, some patients may not have an initial response to anti-TNF therapy, and one-third will develop loss of response over time. Anti-TNF drugs can also be associated with side effects. In addition, the use of biologics is currently limited by their cost, especially in developing countries. A number of new therapeutic targets, including novel small molecules, and cellular therapy are available or under investigation. These novel molecules include oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor (tofacitinib), interleukin inhibitor (ustekinumab), oral SMAD7 antisense oligonucleotide (mongersen), and anti-integrin inhibitors (vedolizumab). Here, we review the mechanisms of action, the efficacy, and the safety data of these novel agents. Biological products that are highly similar to reference biologic products whose patents have expired—also known as "biosimilars"—can be produced at lower cost with similar efficacy, and are also available for the treatment of IBD. We review the efficacy data for such agents as well.

     

Current therapies in rheumatoid arthritis: A Latin American perspective

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic inflammatory disease affecting the synovium of joints, tendons, and some extra-articular sites. RA prevalence in Latin America ranges from 0.4 to 1.6%. Early treatment of RA translates into a substantial reduction in the cost to society. In light of this, early disease clinics are being established in some countries. Barriers to RA management, such as delay in referral to rheumatologists and limited access to therapy, have been identified. Evidence-based treatment guidelines have been adapted by countries according to their own situations. The need for keeping accurate records of biologics prescribed has been addressed by biologic registries, thereby contributing toward a better understanding of rheumatic diseases and their treatment. Current biologics include the tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors (etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab), B-cell depletion agent (rituximab), interleukin-6 receptor blocker (tocilizumab), and T-cell co-stimulatory blocker (abatacept). Future therapies include kinase inhibitors (tofacitinib and fostamatinib), alternative TNF-α inhibitors (golimumab and certolizumab), and biosimilars.     

Precision medicine in inflammatory bowel disease:Individualizing the use of biologics and small molecule therapies

The advent of biologics and small molecules in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has marked a significant turning point in the prognosis of IBD, decreasing the rates of corticosteroid dependence, hospitalizations and improving overall quality of life. The introduction of biosimilars has also increased affordability and enhanced access to these otherwise costly targeted therapies. Biologics do not yet represent a complete panacea: A subset of patients do not respond to first-line anti-tumor necros...     

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.     

Biosimilars for Immune-Mediated Chronic Diseases in Primary Care: What a Practicing Physician Needs to Know

The introduction of biologics has revolutionized the treatment of immune-mediated diseases, but high cost and limited patient access remain hurdles, and some physicians are concerned that biosimilars are not similar enough. The purpose of this narrative review is to describe biosimilar safety, efficacy, nomenclature, extrapolation and interchangeability. In the United States, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act created an abbreviated pathway for licensing of a biologic that is biosimilar to another licensed product (i.e., the reference product). This approval pathway differs from that of generic small-molecule drugs because biologics are too complex to be perfectly duplicated, and follows a process designed to demonstrate that any differences between the biosimilar and its reference product have no significant impact on safety and efficacy. The US approval process requires extensive analytical assessments, animal studies and clinical trials, assuring that biosimilar products provide clinical results similar to those of the reference product.     

Biosimilars: A cure to the U.S. health care cost conundrum?

As the cost of healthcare continues to rise and patents on biologics near expiration, biosimilars are gaining visibility as a mechanism for cost reduction. Yet, the introduction of biosimilars into the U.S. market will be complex, due to the related complexity of production, research requirements, and regulatory uncertainty. The purpose of this paper is to frame the relevant issues in order to provide context for stakeholders. It is particularly crucial that clinicians understand the scientific, regulatory, legislative and economic considerations involved in order to ensure that the path to approval is consistent with their needs and that appropriate utilization occurs, once approved.     

ECCO position statement: The use of biosimilar medicines in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)

Biologics have become key agents for the management of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Biosimilars are biological medicines similar to previously authorized biologics and are already available in some countries. This ECCO Position Statement defines the collective view of European specialist in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) concerning biosimilars. Biosimilars are not comparable to generic small molecules, since both efficacy and toxicity are difficult to predict due to subtle molecular changes that can have profound effects on clinical efficacy and immunogenicity. Direct evidence of safety and benefit from clinical trials in IBD, post-marketing pharmacoviligance, and unequivocal identification of the product as a biosimilar should be requirements before approval. Switching from an established biologic to a biosimilar to save costs is likely to be as inappropriate and inefecctive as switching between current biologics that act on the same target, except when there is loss of response.     

Use of biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease: Statements of the Italian Group for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The introduction of biological therapies, particularly anti-TNFα agents, has revolutionized the management of inflammatory bowel disease in those cases which are refractory to conventional treatment; however these drugs are not risk-free and their use has substantially increased the cost of treatment. As marketing protection expires for original, first-generation biopharmaceuticals, lower-cost “copies” of these drugs produced by competitor companies—referred to as biosimilars—are already entering the market. In September 2013, the European Medicines Agency approved two infliximab biosimilars for treatment of adult and paediatric inflammatory bowel disease patients, a decision based largely on efficacy and safety data generated in studies of patients with ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid arthritis. For many clinicians, extrapolation practices and the general question of interchangeability between biosimilars and reference biologics are cause for concern. In the present paper, the Italian Group for inflammatory bowel disease presents its statements on these issues, with emphasis on the peculiar clinical characteristics of inflammatory bowel disease and the importance of providing physicians and patients with adequate information and guarantees on the safety and efficacy of these new drugs in the specific setting of inflammatory bowel disease.     

Biosimilars for inflammatory bowel disease: how can healthcare professionals help address patients’ concerns?

Introduction: The patent expiration of some biologics used in chronic conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has led to the development of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies. The tailored regulatory approval route for biosimilar development ensures that approved biosimilars show similarity to their originators in terms of efficacy and safety, and avoids unnecessary repetition of clinical trials carried out with the originator product. However, some patients may still have concerns about using biosimilars and it is the responsibility of healthcare professionals (HCPs) to alleviate these concerns.

Areas covered: This review highlights clinical and real-world evidence supporting efficacy and safety of biosimilars in patients with IBD. Moreover, based on international surveys, potential patient concerns are highlighted, along with possible actions HCPs can take to address these concerns.

Expert commentary: The rising use of biosimilars in IBD is expected to have a positive impact on the availability of biologics and healthcare costs. Several biosimilars have been approved for use and more are likely to come to the market in the future; however, transitioning patients to biosimilars could pose an unexpected challenge without the help and support of HCPs.     

Current status of novel biologics and small molecule drugs in the individualized treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

Treatment strategies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are rapidly evolving with the development of biologics and small molecule drugs (SMDs). However, these drugs are not guaranteed to be effective in all patients, and a “ceiling effect” of biologic monotherapy may occur. This issue highlights an unmet need for optimizing the use of biologics and predicting therapeutic responses. Thus, the development of new drugs with novel mechanisms of action is urgently needed for patients with primary nonresponse and secondary loss of response to conventional biologics and SMDs. In addition, combining different biologics or SMDs has been proposed as a novel strategy to enhance treatment efficacy in IBD, which theoretically has multidimensional anti-inflammatory potential. Based on the current evidence available for IBD, dual targeted therapy may be a promising strategy for refractory IBD patients who have failed in multiple biologic trea-tments or who have extraintestinal manifestation. Additionally, identifying the subgroup of IBD patients who are responding to biological combination therapies is also equally important in stable disease remission. In this review, we sum-marize the newly developed biologics and SMDs and the current status of bio-logics/SMDs to highlight the development of individualized treatment in IBD.     

Biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease: A review of post-marketing experience

Biologic compounds are obtained from living organisms or cell cultures by means of biotechnology methods.A similar biologic drug, commonly called biosimilar, is a product copied by a native approved biologic drug whose license has expired. Biosimilar drugs usually are marketed at a lower price and provide important financial savings for public healthcare systems. Some differences between biosimilars and original biologic drugs might exist but they are acceptable if they fall within defined "boundaries of tolerance": differences in some features between the two molecules are considered important only if clinical relevant. Considering that the efficacy of the innovator biologic drug has already been established, the clinical studies required for approval of a biosimilar could be reduced compared with those required for the approval of the originator. In this review, real life data available in inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with biosimilars are reported, documenting in general satisfactory outcomes, sustained efficacy and no sign of increased immunogenicity, although, further controlled data are awaited.     

Low molecular weight heparins differ substantially: impact on developing biosimilar drugs

Generic drugs are an important component for meaningful health-care reform currently being debated in the United States. Aside from defining the period of drug exclusivity, however, there is a critical need to ensure that generics of biologic medicines (biosimilars) are safe and effective. For low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs), the standard of care for management of venous thromboembolism, their complex structure and polypharmacological actions make producing a generic LMWH more challenging than a generic small molecule medicine. Because biosimilar LMWHs will be used interchangeably with their branded product, inherent variability between products could lead to important differences in potency, safety, or effectiveness, including unanticipated immune responses. Awareness of the specific problems associated with biosimilar LMWH development led to new recommendations from several expert bodies. This article discusses the implications of these differences for the production of biosimilar LMWHs and provides recommendations to address the limitations in the pending U.S. Congress legislation, a well-intentioned undertaking but one that must preserve the health and welfare of citizens who require these critical care medications.     

Risks and benefits of the use of concomitant immunosuppressives and biologics in inflammatory bowel disease

With the introduction of biologic therapies for inflammatory bowel disease, significant questions have arisen regarding their best optimization. Although initial recommendations were to combine immunosuppressives with biologics to reduce immunogenicity, trials with 3 different anti-tumor necrosis factor agents (infliximab, adalimumab, and certolizumab) and a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets alpha-4 integrins (natalizumab) have failed to demonstrate the clinical superiority of combination therapy when high-dose induction and scheduled maintenance therapy was prescribed for up to 1 year. However, immunosuppressive agents should be considered with episodic biologic therapy to decrease immunogenicity and secondary loss of response. The issue of whether induction with biologics and maintenance therapy with immunosuppressives as monotherapy is as safe and effective as induction and maintenance with biologics alone still remains to be addressed. Further, with the use of concomitant immunosuppressives and biologics, evolving data raise concerns for an increase in adverse events, including opportunistic infections, neurological disorders, and cancer. Specific therapeutic decisions need to be individualized and the clinician must help the patient weigh quality-of-life issues with readiness to assume possible risks.     

Biosimilars: The viewpoint of Italian patients with inflammatory bowel disease

BackgroundThe viewpoint on biosimilars among patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is largely unknown.AimsWe aimed at exploring the confidence and opinion on biosimilars among Italian patients with IBD.MethodsAn anonymous, 20-item, questionnaire was sent via e-mail to all members of the Italian IBD patients‘ association (AMICI Onlus). Three sets of questions were formulated: 1: Characteristics of respondents; 2: The use of biologics and biosimilars in clinical practice; 3: General opinions on biologics and biosimilars.ResultsOf the 4,302 total surveys sent, there were 1,749 respondents (response rate: 40.6%). There was an equal distribution between males and females (48.3% and 51.7%, respectively), and between patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis (46.9% and 51.3%, respectively), while most of the patients were aged between 19 and 45 years and between 46 and 65 years (45.5% and 42.0%, respectively). Approximately 45% of the respondents declared to have never been informed about the existence of biosimilars. The great majority of patients (73.9%) did not know if originators and biosimilars could be considered equivalent, or if efficacy or safety of biosimilars could be lower than those of originators. Approximately half of the respondents (53.5%) had no idea that the use of low-cost biosimilars could be useful to increase the overall economic resources for the treatment of IBD.ConclusionsAn extensive lack of knowledge and confidence in biosimilars exists among Italian patients with IBD. Efforts carried out by scientific societies and IBD patients’ associations are required to overcome this issue.     

Biosimilars in rheumatic diseases: structural and functional variability that may impact clinical and regulatory decisions

Biologics as therapeutic interventions for human disease represent both a distinctly modern novelty and an echo of ancient, or at least old, medical practice. The similarity lies in the sense that in both the synthetic effort occurs in living organisms (an extract of a plant, animal tissue, or a cell culture) while the difference is apparent in the bioengineering required in modern methods and the corresponding flexibility to customize the therapeutic product. Although the concept of looking to living systems as a source of medically useful compounds either for research or for actual patient care has never vanished, the development of biochemistry and advances in medicinal chemistry made production by total synthesis the standard for a safe, reliable, and commercial drug production at sufficient scale. In this interval was where much of the modern apparatus for approving medical therapies came to be developed, and as such, the most proper extension of the regulatory regime to modern biologics is not entirely obvious. In particular, the notion of generics for off-patent conventional pharmaceuticals and their role in the marketplace with respect to increasing the accessibility of treatment is not congruent with the relationship between what are known as biosimilars and off-patent originating biologics. In this article, we review elements of the scientific basis for challenges in the production, use, and regulation of biosimilars. In light of these advances, we propose suggestions to modify constraints on biosimilar regulations in the interest of patient care and access to therapies.     

炎症性肠病与微生态制剂

炎症性肠病(inflammatory bowel disease,IBD)是一种病因尚不清楚的慢性肠道炎症性肠病,包括溃疡性结肠炎(ulcera-tive colitis,UC)和克罗恩病(Crohn’s disease,CD)两大类。其发病机制至今仍不清楚,遗传易感性、黏膜免疫和肠道微生态环境三者的相互作用被认为可能参与IBD的发病。目前的治疗包括传统治疗和生物制剂,药物治疗包括5大类型,分别是抗炎药物、免疫抑制剂、生物制剂、抗生素及症状缓解药物。微生物在IBD发病中的作用一直受到重视,本文就微生态制剂在炎症性肠病中的应用情况作一综述。