Available data from comparative clinical trials and observational studies strongly confirm the equivalence between CT-P13 and originator infliximab for the treatment of rheumatologic diseases.
A new review of studies analyzing the benefits and concerns of CT-P13, Celltrion’s infliximab biosimilar (marketed as Remsima and Inflectra) to Janssen’s originator drug Remicade, concludes that available data from comparative clinical trials and observational studies strongly confirm the equivalence between CT-P13 and originator infliximab for the treatment of rheumatologic diseases from both a pharmacodynamic (PD) and clinical point of view. Andrea Becciolini, MD, of the Department of Rheumatology at the University of Milan Gaetano Pini Institute, and coauthors said that their analysis of the literature, published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, suggests interchangeability between originator infliximab and CT-P13 is a feasible and safe strategy to be applied in real-life clinical practice.
CT-P13 was approved in 2013, and was the first infliximab biosimilar approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for marketing in the European Union (EU) for all the indications of the reference product. Inflectra was approved by the FDA in 2016. The EMA’s approval was granted based on a complete comparative research program that included 2 “crucial” randomized controlled trials: the PLANETAS (Program evaLuating the Autoimmune disease iNvEstigational Drug cT-p13 in Ankylosing Spondylitis [AS] patients) trial and the PLANETRA (Program evaLuating the Autoimmune disease iNvEstigational drug cT-p13 in Rheumatoid Arthritis [RA] patients) trial.
PLANETAS was a phase 1 trial comparing pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and efficacy of innovator infliximab and CT-P13, each given as monotherapy infused intravenously in 250 patients with active AS. PLANETRA was a phase 3 trial comparing safety and efficacy of innovator infliximab and CT-P13, each administered intravenously in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in 606 patients with active RA who had inadequate responses to MTX.
Based on the results from these 2 trials and EMA approval, nearly all national EU drug agencies initially licensed CT-P13 for the treatment of treatment-naïve AS and RA patients. Later, by extrapolation, the EMA approved other indications granted to the originator infliximab. Subsequent extension studies of PLANETAS and PLANETRA that were published provided crucial data about the safety and efficacy of switching from innovator infliximab to CT-P13 in both AS and RA patients.
In addition, the authors note, recently published observational data from the NOR-SWITCH study and the DANBIO registry “represent the most important and comprehensive source of data on [CT-P13] today, and may be crucial for improving knowledge on efficacy and safety of a switching strategy.” However, the authors note that most regulatory agencies, including the EMA, require further post-marketing surveillance, and encourage the use of registries on biosimilars so that there is a detailed body of data on risks and safety concerns including immunogenicity and detection of any new safety problems.
Becciolini and coauthors conclude that long-term open-label extensions of comparative trials and the first real-life switching experiments for CT-P13 did not show unexpected differences in its efficacy or safety profile. Likewise, there were no unexpected differences in the immunogenicity of patients who switched from originator infliximab to CT-P13 compared with the group treated only with CT-P13. Although all these studies alone are not adequate to completely satisfy the new study design requirements proposed by the FDA concerning interchangeability, the favorable findings may be reassuring about single switches between originator infliximab and CT-P13. Taken together, the authors state, the findings “significantly affect the landscape of biosimilar regulatory pathways and strongly support CT-P13 introduction as a great opportunity for expanding the accessibility to these very effective and high-cost therapies.”
Spanish Real-World Study: Adalimumab Biosimilar MSB11022 Safe, Effective in IBD
May 18th 2024A real-world study in Spain on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients found no meaningful changes in clinical or biochemical markers or differences in effectiveness between the adalimumab originator and the biosimilar MSB11022 (Idacio; Fresenius Kabi) in adalimumab-naïve patients.
What AmerisourceBergen's Report Reveals About Payers, Biosimilar Pricing Trends
May 28th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Tasmina Hydery and Brian Biehn from AmerisourceBergen discussed results from a recent survey, that were also presented at Asembia 2023, diving into the payer perspective on biosimilars and current pricing trends across the US biosimilar industry.
AMCP Posters Tackle Interchangeability and Medicaid, Factors Driving Biosimilar Access
April 24th 2024Two posters from the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) annual meeting explore how an interchangeable insulin glargine biosimilar plays into Medicaid budgets and the top factors driving access to biosimilars.
Pipelines and Preparation: How the US Can Prepare for More RA Biosimilars
April 16th 2023What can practices do to prepare for all the biosimilars to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) coming down the pipeline? And how can they ensure that the lower-than-anticipated adoption rates for infliximab biosimilars are not repeated? Robert Zutaut, RPh, from McKesson Provider Solutions, tackles all this and more on this episode of Not So Different.
Global Biosimilar Market Projected to Reach $1.3 Trillion by 2032
April 11th 2024The global biosimilar market is projected to surge from $25.1 billion in 2022 to approximately $1.3 trillion by 2032, with a compound annual growth rate of 17.6%, driven mainly by the increasing prevalence of cancer and the cost-effectiveness of biosimilars, as outlined in a report by Towards Healthcare.
Study: More Biosimilar Competition Is Not Lowering Patient OOP Costs
March 29th 2024Despite more biosimilars entering the market and generating significant savings for payers and health care systems, these savings are not resulting in lower out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for patients, according to a recent study.