Bone Health

Immunology

Hematology

Respiratory

Dermatology

Diabetes

Gastroenterology

Neurology

Oncology

Ophthalmology

Rare Disease

Rheumatology

News

All News

Product Approvals and Launches

Media

All Videos

Insights

Interviews

Peer Exchange

Podcasts

Stakeholder Summit

Compendia

Conferences

Conference Coverage

Conference Listing

CME/CE

Resources

Authors

Biosimilar Resources

Interactive Tools

Partners

Polls and Quizzes

WHEN CHOICE ARRIVES: Competition & Consequences

Subscribe

BIOSIMILAR APPROVALS

Cameron Santoro is an associate editor for The Center for Biosimilars

Videos

Here are the top 5 biosimilar articles for the week of September 16, 2024. 

The Top 5 Biosimilar Articles for the Week of September 16

Articles

The combination of trastuzumab biosimilar and pertuzumab with chemotherapy was effective in treating HER2-positive breast cancer, offering high safety and affordability. 

Trastuzumab Biosimilar and Pertuzumab Effective, Safe in Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer Therapy

Savings from generic and biosimilar drugs totaled $445 billion in 2023, showing promise for the growth of both markets and highlighting the success of expansion policies for these products, according to a new report from the Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM).

AAM Report: Generics and Biosimilars Savings Reach $445 Billion in 2023, Part 1

Amgen’s Pavblu (aflibercept-ayyh) is the fifth biosimilar referencing Eylea (aflibercept) to be approved for American patients with retinal diseases.

FDA Approves Pavblu for Retinal Conditions

About

Contact

Advisory Board

Do Not Sell My Information

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Center for Biosimilars®

Facebook

Twitter

LinkedIn

Business Practice

Business

Development

Legal

Policy

Practice

Regulatory

1rem

MJH Life Sciences™, owner of The Center for Biosimilars®, has acquired the Pharmacy Benefit Management Institute (PBMI), the nation’s leading provider of research and education that informs, advises, and influences the industry on drug cost management.
 

Pharmacy Benefit Management Institute Acquired by MJH Life Sciences

China’s National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) has accepted Henlius Biotech’s new drug application for its denosumab biosimilar, hlx14.
 

Henlius' Denosumab Biosimilar Application Is Accepted by NMPA

Following close on the heels of its US approval for Ruxience (rituximab), Pfizer has gained the European Commission nod and aims to launch in coming months.

Pfizer Gains European Commission Approval for Rituximab Biosimilar

Russian company Biocad gains distribution rights for its rituximab and trastuzumab biosimilars in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Biocad and ICM Gain Biosimilar Foothold in Southeastern Europe

Mylan and Lupin have gained the necessary recommendation to begin marketing their etanercept biosimilar in Europe.

Etanercept Biosimilar Is Recommended for Use in European Union

Alvotech Hf and DSH hope to get an adalimumab biosimilar approved in the United States, Europe, and selected Southeast Asia markets.
 

Alvotech Hf and DKSH Announce Plans to Bring an Adalimumab Biosimilar to Market

What Were the Top Five Legal Issues in Biosimilars in 2016?

Sophia Humphreys, PharmD, MHA, BCBBS, director of system formulary management at Sutter Health, discusses the challenges of expanding biosimilars into new therapeutic areas and highlights the role of education, competitive pricing, and integrated delivery networks (IDNs) in improving adoption and market growth.

’s Institute for Value-Based Medicine (IVBM) event in Seattle, Washington, cohosted with Providence. During the event, she presented on pharmacoeconomic impacts of biosimilar market expansion and participated in a panel discussion. The IVBM event highlighted integrative approaches in neuroscience population health, with additional presentations on the Alzheimer disease landscape, nonopioid pain management, and the impact of biosimilar market expansion.

How do new therapeutic classes and indications for biosimilars influence market expansion?

 I think this goes beyond just patient education. For example, when we started with biosimilars for cancer—curative and supportive agents—they were quickly adopted. But once we moved into immunology, endocrinology, and ophthalmology, we observed more hesitation. One reason is that many of these are maintenance therapies. We’re not talking about starting a new treatment plan but convincing patients who may have already failed several therapies before reaching the [reference] biologic to switch to a biosimilar.

So, first, we needed to educate both patients and providers that biosimilars are highly similar to the reference product. There's no evidence of reduced efficacy, increased immunogenicity, or new safety concerns. Over the past 10 years, we’ve used biosimilars successfully. We also needed to address health care system leaders that expanding biosimilar use across therapeutic classes can increase access to lifesaving, life-altering medications for more patients.

What are the key factors driving competition among adalimumab biosimilars in the market?

 Adalimumab has been a favorite molecule since July 2023, and several factors play a role. It’s quite similar to what we saw with infliximab in autoimmune diseases. Many of these patients are on maintenance treatments. With adalimumab, a key issue is matching the existing product patients are used to. For example, if my patient is using a citrate-free product, you probably don’t want to switch them to a product that isn’t citrate-free, as that could cause more injection-site discomfort. Another consideration is concentration—many patients prefer a higher-concentration formulation.

Interchangeability is also a factor. In states that allow pharmacy-level switching, when a physician prescribes the reference product, a pharmacist can switch it to an interchangeable biosimilar without new authorization. Each state has its own regulations, including the need to inform patients and physicians about the switch. Lastly, we have to ensure the biosimilar is covered by the patient's payer and offers comparable patient support, such as co-pay assistance. For 340B sites, the impact on 340B accumulation must also be considered. These are comprehensive considerations.

What pricing strategies have been employed in the adalimumab biosimilar market, and how effective have they been?

 That’s a $20 billion question. By the end of 2023, we saw 2 main strategies: high WAC [wholesale acquisition cost] with high rebates and low WAC. Almost all biosimilar companies have adopted 1 [or both] of these strategies.

Unfortunately, by the end of 2023, according to IQVIA’s biosimilar report, we hadn’t seen a high adoption rate—less than 5%. However, when infliximab was introduced, its first-year uptake didn’t exceed 5% either. So, while it’s early, we’re already seeing a benefit as [reference] products reduce prices due to competitive pressure. In my view, biosimilars delivered a win to both the health care industry and patients in 2023.

How does the adalimumab biosimilar market serve as a case study for the broader biosimilar industry?

 Time will tell. Adalimumab biosimilars are working hard to promote their products, engage with payers, and connect with patient groups. I hope that in 2 or 3 years, we’ll be able to differentiate which product strategies were more effective—whether interchangeability made a difference, whether high-concentration vs low-concentration mattered, and if syringe size or citrate-free options enhanced adoption. For now, we’re still in the learning phase.

What lessons can be learned from markets with high biosimilar adoption rates to improve uptake in slower markets?

 That’s a great question. First, we need to differentiate between medical benefit and pharmacy benefit. Many of the most successful biosimilars are in the medical benefit space, especially in the "buy and bill" space. IDNs that work closely with GPOs [group purchasing organizations], 340B branches, and formulary management teams perform regular reviews of coverage, patient mix, and ASP vs acquisition cost. This helps them decide which biosimilars to prioritize. Additionally, some IDNs have built biosimilar tools into their EHR [electronic health record] systems to streamline physician workflows. Physicians are extremely busy and can’t be expected to remember which product to use each quarter, so it’s important to build support into the system. Some IDNs have also incorporated prior authorization processes for both the reference product and biosimilars, further streamlining care. Finally, it’s crucial to conduct regular performance reviews and share success metrics with leadership. This continuous improvement process elevates the entire system.

How have early adopters of biosimilars influenced the overall acceptance of these products?

 Early on, systems like Kaiser Permanente, Providence, Yale New Haven, and University Hospitals published data on the success of their biosimilar programs. This real-world evidence from large IDNs across different therapeutic classes has shown several common success factors, such as starting early and conducting comprehensive pharmacoeconomic analysis. Smaller and rural hospitals, which may lack the resources of larger systems, can learn from these pioneers. Early adopters carry the initial resistance, but they also pave the way for the rest of the market to follow.

What strategies should IDNs employ to effectively incorporate biosimilars into their formularies?

 IDNs should stay ahead of the game by closely monitoring FDA approvals and evaluating biosimilars as soon as they are approved. This supports contracting teams when negotiating with GPOs or biosimilar manufacturers, allowing them to promise market share in exchange for beneficial contracts.

Collaboration with payers is also crucial. And ArchMed has published its data showing that its biosimilar-first policy significantly reduced PMPM [per-member per-month] costs. These strategies help harvest the cost-saving potential of biosimilars for both health care systems and patients.

Sophia Humphreys, PharmD, MHA, BCBBS, director of system formulary management at Sutter Health, discusses the challenges of expanding biosimilars into new therapeutic areas and highlights the role of education, competitive pricing, and integrated delivery networks in improving adoption and market growth.

Clinical

Business & Practice

Expanding Biosimilar Adoption: Insights and Strategies With Dr Sophia Humphreys

Gastroenterologists generally are accepting of biosimilars for initiating therapy in patients who are biologics-naïve. However, they remain skeptical of switching patients to biosimilars if their disease is successfully managed with an originator biologic.This practice is called nonmedical switching, and it may be done to get patients on a less expensive form of the same therapy.

 of nonmedical-switching studies of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has detailed the knowledge gaps and study limitations responsible for this hesitation by gastroenterologists.

The majority of studies thus far have suggested nonmedical switching from infliximab to its biosimilar CT-P13 (Inflectra; Remsima) is safe. Previous reviews have 

The systematic review identified 44 studies on switching patients from infliximab (Remicade), the first biologic marketed for use in IBD, to the biosimilar CT-P13; however, only 3 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), only 1 of which has been published. Approximately half of the studies reviewed by the authors, most of which were observational and not intended to change treatment patterns, were not yet published.

The authors of the current review concede that “safety and efficacy of biosimilar use in infliximab-naïve patients is generally accepted,” but they advise caution on nonmedical switching because of study limitations that include the small number of RCTs compared with observational studies, lack of controls in observational studies, lack of long-term data, and a reliance on studies published at conferences for which key study design details are missing.

 by Frank I. Scott of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus agrees that more research is needed before nonmedical switching can be widely adopted.

The review authors found shortcomings with the single published RCT, the 

, which studied a switch from originator infliximab to the biosimilar in 6 inflammatory diseases, including IBD. The study included the use of a composite measure of disease worsening across the same 6 heterogeneous inflammatory diseases, with different dosing regimens and concomitant therapies.

The authors also criticized the inclusion criteria for the trial as having “ill-defined disease-specific criteria,” which they said “introduces the potential for bias and limits the inferences that can be extrapolated to IBD.” Furthermore, they criticized the noninferiority margin, which they say could have demonstrated noninferiority even if up to 50% of the patients switched to CT-P13 experienced disease worsening, based on enrollment numbers.

Although the NOR-SWITCH trial demonstrated noninferiority and included patients with IBD, the data presented on ulcerative colitis and Crohn disease (CD) “did not allay” the concerns of gastroenterologists regarding switching their patients on infliximab to a biosimilar, according to the editorial. The review authors noted “the trend toward increased disease worsening in CD patients has caused some concern in the gastrointestinal community and a desire for more robust data in IBD patients.”

In an IBD subgroup open-label extension of NOR-SWITCH, stable switched patients stayed on CT-P13, and stable patients on infliximab switched to CT-P13. Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were similar between the groups; however, the authors of the systematic review said that “low enrollment numbers precluded conclusive implications to be drawn.”

The other 2 RCTs on nonmedical switching were conducted wholly on patients with IBD. In these trials, similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were reported between groups. However, the authors of the systematic review caution that our understanding of the details of these studies is incomplete because they were presented at conferences and have yet to be published, a concern Scott echoes in his editorial.

The authors of the review acknowledge that, overall, the 21 published observational studies suggest that nonmedical switching from the infliximab originator to the biosimilar is safe, but they also note that study designs were heterogeneous and many lacked a control group. Loss of response and discontinuation rates also varied widely between studies. This variability in observational study design and results make it “difficult for broad generalizations regarding the safety and effectiveness of nonmedical [switching] to be made,” the authors noted, adding that observational studies have not had robust assessments for antidrug antibodies, leading to knowledge gaps regarding immunogenicity.

Mandatory switching to biosimilars to reduce health care costs and expand access to biologic therapies has been criticized by gastroenterologists, “who cite a lack of high-quality controlled trials to support such decisions in stable patients,” according to the review article. Several countries have instituted some measure of mandated switching to biosimilars, such as 

, and these policies have drawn criticism from 

. According to the editorial, “While nonmedical switching policies have been enacted, there has been incomplete pharmacovigilance reporting.”

Both the systematic review and accompanying editorial stress the need to ensure patient safety before cost reduction, as well as that future studies should address the knowledge gaps regarding long-term effectiveness and immunogenicity. They also recommend a greater reliance on published RCTs as opposed to those only available as conference abstracts.

Although the totality of the evidence is reassuring, the jury is still out on nonmedical switching to biosimilars, according to new study results.
 

Gastroenterologists Want More Evidence on Nonmedical Switching

The main hurdle preventing biosimilars from coming to market is the primary patent on the originator product, not supplementary patents, according to a European 

. Investigators also found that product exclusivity extensions, which are customary in Europe, delay the market entry of competitor products.

A patent protects the intellectual property of pharmaceutical manufacturers, guaranteeing them market exclusivity for a set number of years to recoup their drug development costs. Pharmaceutical corporations routinely get secondary patents for tweaks to those drugs to extend their exclusivity, but the study of biosimilar litigation in Europe found that secondary patents were not sufficient to delay the market entry of biosimilars for 9 top-selling monoclonal antibodies.

“Except for 1 patent on trastuzumab where the decision to reject the patent was overturned in appeal, biosimilar developers have won all identified opposition and national patent litigation cases. This indicates that some patents on trastuzumab were seen as a real hurdle for biosimilar entry, but that biosimilar developers can challenge these patents and win,” the authors wrote.

In the United States, patents are often considered 

 barriers to biosimilar market entry, and the multiple patent filings over individual products are known as patent thickets. 

 on patent litigation have been sought to improve access to these lower-cost medicines. In Europe, the authors of this new study suggest, some patent barriers may be more illusory than real.

The drugs in the study received the standard 20-year European patent protection, and much of that time elapsed before development and approval stages were complete and the products could be brought to market. Many of the drugs received 5-year exclusivity extensions through the award of a supplementary protection certificate (SPC); in some cases, extensions were awarded to encourage the development of pediatric medicine.

In total, the drugs studied had market exclusivity for between 10 and 17 years, which the study authors described as “rather large” but consistent with European guidance that innovators “should be able to enjoy an overall maximum of 15 years of exclusivity” after marketing authorization is received.

Innovators sought to extend that exclusivity by patenting variations on the formulation, new dosage regimens, routes of administration, and combination therapies. They also sought to protect their markets by developing next-generation products related to the patented antibody.

The study authors analyzed patent filings and legal challenges from biosimilar developers to determine how basic patents, patent extensions, and secondary patents affected market entry for biosimilars. They provided detailed case studies of 3 monoclonal antibodies used for to treat cancer: trastuzumab (Herceptin), bevacizumab (Avastin), and cetuximab (Erbitux).

They found that the developers of each reference product filed for multiple patents after receipt of their original product patent; however, in most cases, the secondary patents were either not upheld by the European Patent Office or successfully challenged by competitors in court.

The European Medicines Agency has approved more than 50 biosimilars since 2005, with the first monoclonal antibody biosimilars approved in 2013. The study authors noted biosimilar developers face “substantial hurdles arising from patents taken after the basic patent,” but they said those hurdles are “surmountable, given that many cases were observed to have been won by biosimilar developers and agreements were made to settle ongoing cases.” In some cases, rather than litigate, the biosimilar developers were able to “invent around” a patent.

The authors also found patents on new formulations were not an effective protection strategy; they noted that these secondary patents often are ruled invalid because they are not “inventive.” They noted that AbbVie filed a patent for a formulation of Humira with less injection pain but that this patent was later revoked.

Patenting of a new administration route is a desirable strategy for an innovator seeking to retain market share, they wrote. For example, an agent becomes more convenient for patients if a subcutaneous route for a previously intravenously delivered drug becomes available. The authors add that this path is also open to developers of biosimilars. Celltrion received European market authorization for a subcutaneous formulation of its infliximab biosimilar (Remsima) in 2019. Biosimilars developers may also take advantage of new techniques for production of the antibody, which may be patentable.

A new dosage regimen may be patentable if it provides “unexpected advantages” over previous regimens. Biosimilar developers may have the option to leave the patented dosage regimen out of the label of the biosimilar, but they prefer to use a dosage regimen consistent with that of the reference product, according to the authors. At the basic patent expiration of adalimumab (Humira) in 2017, there were still 2 dose regimen patents active. However, biosimilar developers eventually gained market entry in 2018 following litigation.

The authors concluded that in Europe, secondary patents have not been the major barrier for biosimilars; instead, “the key protection instruments are the basic patent and the additional protection provided by the award of an SPC with possible pediatric extension, which provide for an average effective market protection of the innovator product of 15 years.”

Additionally, in cases where biosimilars were not available until several years after patent expiration, the authors attributed some of this delay to the complexity of development and manufacturing, not the patent strategies of the developers of the originator biologics.

Moorkens E, Vulto AG, Huys I. An overview of patents on therapeutic monoclonal antibodies in Europe: are they a hurdle to biosimilar market entry? 

. 2020;12(1):1743517. doi: 10.1080/19420862.2020.1743517.

European investigators say their analysis of court cases involving innovator monoclonal antibodies suggests secondary patents have generally failed to stop biosimilar competition.

In Europe, Secondary Patents Can't Stop Biosimilars, Study Says

When it comes to product launches and approvals, Australia and the United States are roughly equal in terms of the maturity of their biosimilars markets. A recent study revealed another similarity: Despite a national initiative to make the Australian public more aware of biosimilars, Australian patients may have very low familiarity with biosimilar therapy.  

Investigators did a single-clinic study (N = 132) of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) during the 2017 period when the etanercept biosimilar (SB4, Brenzys) became the first biosimilar medicine for RA in Australia.

“The proportion of our cohort who were familiar with biosimilar therapy was very low (6%); this result matched the 9% to 11% biosimilar awareness levels among patients with inflammatory conditions in the United States and Europe,” the investigators wrote.

However, the same study revealed that more than three-quarters of patients with RA were open to using biosimilars if recommended by their rheumatologist.

The authors noted that Australia’s national, single payer system spends approximately US $1.4 billion yearly on biologics and it has been estimated that widespread use of biosimilars could potentially reduce that by up to 24%. The Australian Department of Health launched a 

in 2015 to educate prescribers, pharmacists, and patients on the benefits of biosimilars. Australia is encouraging the use of biosimilars, aiming to expand patient access to biologics.

In May 2019, Australia's Generic Biosimilar Medicines Association furthered this effort by launching an educational 

 on biosimilars for prescribers, pharmacists, and patients.

The etanercept biosimilar became available for dispensing through community pharmacies in 

. The investigators conducted the study “prior to any significant prescribing of biosimilars” with the goal of understanding the perception of biosimilars by patients not yet familiar with these drugs. Patients with RA who visited a clinic in an Australian tertiary hospital between August 2017 and February 2018 were invited to participate.

Although there has been much investigation into physician awareness, knowledge, and attitudes regarding biosimilars, the authors say the patient perspective has been less studied, particularly in Australia. They noted patient acceptance is important for widespread adoption of biosimilars, citing inadequate patient acceptance as a leading factor inhibiting switching from originator to biosimilar in European rheumatology studies.

Each patient in the Australian study was asked about their awareness and potential acceptance of biosimilars before being shown a visual aid explaining the concept of biosimilars, after which biosimilar acceptance was assessed again.

Although just 6% of patients surveyed were familiar with biosimilars, prior to education, 77% reported they would accept a biosimilar if it were recommended by their rheumatologist.

Other international studies have shown high acceptance rates (Germany, 70%; France, 89%) when biosimilars were first introduced in those countries. Just 5% of patients in the Australian study said they would refuse a biosimilar. Another 18% were unsure, but 50% said they wanted to know more about biosimilars after seeing the visual aid.

The investigators also found that patients who routinely refuse generics were significantly more likely to refuse biosimilars.

Among those who said they would refuse a biosimilar, 57% were concerned about efficacy, and 14% were concerned about safety. Among those who would accept biosimilars, approximately 12% to 15% reported concerns about efficacy, safety, operating a new injection device or changing medicines.

Overall, only 25% of patients were concerned about pharmacy-level substitution without consulting the prescriber. In Australia, pharmacists are allowed to substitute a biosimilar for the reference biologic unless the prescriber explicitly 

 it. Some Canadian provinces have implemented automatic 

 of biosimilars for reference biologics. In the United States, many states have considered or implemented policies allowing pharmacists to switch to biosimilars unless the physician has indicated otherwise.  

The investigators said the low awareness in Australia “identifies a need to improve Australian patient awareness of biosimilars.”

However, “this study demonstrates a high baseline patient acceptance of biosimilar concept  despite being initially unfamiliar and highlights the impact of patients’ trust in their rheumatologist,” they concluded.

The investigators cautioned the study was conducted with the patients of a single clinic where the majority of patients were satisfied with their treatment. They concede the same level of patient trust might not be found in other settings.

Kovitwanichkanont T, Raghunath S, Wang D, et al. Who is afraid of biosimilars? Openness to biosimilars in an Australian cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. 

. 2020;50(3):374—377. doi:10.1111/imj.14753.

Patients in an Australian clinic were generally open to using biosimilars but knew little about them, according to a recent study.
 

Patient Awareness of Biosimilars Is Poor in Australia, Study Says

Switching children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) from anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) originators to biosimilars showed similar disease activity and drug persistence compared to those continuing the originators, with a low rate of switching back, in a 

The results indicated good tolerability of non-medical switching between reference and biosimilar TNF inhibitors. The authors conducted the analysis to address the lack of data on the outcomes of children and young people with JIA who are switched from anti-TNF originators to biosimilars for non-medical reasons, particularly regarding drug survival and disease activity. The findings provide much-needed evidence that supports the safety and effectiveness of non-medical switching, reassuring patients, families, and clinicians about the use of biosimilars in this population.

Regarding biosimilar TNF inhibitor accessibility, patients in the UK have access to 10 approved adalimumab biosimilars, 4 infliximab biosimilars, and 3 etanercept biosimilars, all of which were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) prior to the 

 Additionally, the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has 

 all biosimilars as being interchangeable with their reference agents upon approval.

 found that there remains a lack of understanding and/or confidence in biosimilars among providers and patients, leading to diminished provider willingness to prescribe biosimilars and patient perceptions about the safety of switching to a biosimilar.

 The authors of the present study also noted that studies for adalimumab and etanercept biosimilars tend to be in rheumatoid arthritis populations, leaving some providers, patients, and caregivers to question the safety of extrapolated indications.

“The results from this analysis will be reassuring to clinicians, patients, and their families considering a non-medical switch, and suggests good tolerance of non-medical switching in this patient population,” the authors wrote.

The present study relied on data from the UK JIA Biologics Register, focusing on children younger than 16 years with JIA starting biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy by July 7, 2023. Patients with systemic JIA or those who began treatment over 6 months before registration were excluded. The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of biosimilars with originator drugs in controlling arthritis.

Participants were drawn from 2 national cohorts, with data collected at the start of therapy and during follow-up at 6 months, 1 year, and annually. Patients switching to biosimilars were matched with those continuing originator therapy based on key characteristics. The study assessed drug survival using Kaplan-Meier estimates and treatment discontinuation risks with Cox proportional hazard models. Disease activity was measured using the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS-71) at the start and 6 months post-switch. Statistical analyses included multiple imputation for missing data, with sensitivity analyses conducted for adalimumab therapy.

The study analyzed 224 children and young people with non-systemic JIA who transitioned from an originator to a biosimilar between January 1, 2017, and July 7, 2023. Most patients (64%) switched from reference adalimumab to a biosimilar, with 75% of these having initiated adalimumab as their first biological therapy. The median age at the start of the originator therapy was 11 years, and 14 years at the switch to the biosimilar. The cohort was predominantly female (62%) and White (88%).

Out of the 209 patients with follow-up data, 164 were matched with patients who continued on the originator therapy for comparative analysis. The median age at the time of switching was 13 years, and the median disease duration was 5 years. The study found that 31% of patients in the biosimilar group discontinued treatment during a median follow-up of 2 years, compared to 40% in the originator group over a median follow-up of 2.2 years.

The study found no significant difference in treatment discontinuation rates between those who switched to biosimilars and those who continued on the originator (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.93-2.30). At 1-year post-switch, 76% (95% CI, 68-82) of biosimilar patients and 87% (95% CI, 79-92) of originator patients remained on therapy. At 2 years, 64% (95% CI, 54-72) of biosimilar patients and 70% (95% CI, 59-79) of originator patients were still on therapy.

Of the 51 patients who stopped biosimilar treatment, 35% switched back to the originator, with a median time to restart the originator of 0 days (IQR, 0-14), and 55% switched to a different biological therapy due to ineffectiveness. Injection-related issues, such as stinging or painful injections, were reported by 22% of those who discontinued biosimilars, with 8 patients returning to the originator.

Regarding disease activity, there was insufficient evidence to indicate a clinically significant worsening in those who switched to biosimilars compared to those who continued on the originator, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.34-1.51). Specifically for adalimumab, the HR for treatment discontinuation was 1.70 (95% CI, 0.90-3.21), and the OR for worsening disease activity 6 months after the switch was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.27-1.74). There was no significant difference in the change in disease activity score from the index date to 6 months between the cohorts.

Limitations included potential misclassification of disease activity for early treatment stoppers, difficulty interpreting unadjusted JADAS-71 changes, unmatched patients with rare characteristics, unmeasured confounders, and low patient numbers limiting drug-specific analyses.

1. Outcomes after anti-tumour necrosis factor originator to biosimilar switching in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the UK: a national cohort study. 

. 2024;6(7):e438-e446. doi:10.1016/S2665-9913(24)00087-0

2. Biosimilar approvals. The Center for Biosimilars

. Updated March 22, 2024. Accessed August 26, 2024. 

https://www.centerforbiosimilars.com/biosimilar-approvals

3. Hagen T. The Brexit rollout from the biosimilars perspective. The Center for Biosimilars. March 26, 2021. August 26, 2024. 

https://www.centerforbiosimilars.com/view/the-brexit-rollout-from-the-biosimilars-perspective

4. Jeremias S. Biosimilar adoption in the UK: patient and consultant views on safety and switching. The Center for Biosimilars. June 26, 2024. Accessed August 26, 2024. 

https://www.centerforbiosimilars.com/view/biosimilar-adoption-in-the-uk-patient-and-consultant-views-on-safety-and-switching

5. Juvenile idiopathic arthritis. National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society. Accessed August 26, 2024. 

https://nras.org.uk/resource/juvenile-idiopathic-arthritis/

Switching children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) from anti–tumor necrosis factor originators to biosimilars showed similar disease activity and drug persistence, with good tolerability, supporting the safety and effectiveness of non-medical switching.

Comparable Disease Activity, Drug Persistence in Patients With JIA Who Switch to Biosimilars

 clinicians from 63 countries to better understand whether biosimilars have improved access to biologic treatment in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). They found that adalimumab and infliximab biosimilars are available in most cases, and the lower cost of biosimilars was the main driver of treatment choice.

Crohn disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), collectively referred to as 

Researchers surveyed clinicians from 63 countries and found that adalimumab and infliximab biosimilars, primarily chosen for their lower cost, are widely available and have improved access to biologic treatment in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

The Center for Biosimilars

Articles

Latest Updated Articles