Real-world experience of rituximab biosimilar GP2013 in rheumatoid arthritis patients naïve to or switched from reference rituximab.

Randomized controlled trials showed high comparability of biosimilar rituximab (bs-RTX) GP2013 to biologic originator RTX (bo-RTX). Data on effectiveness of switching from bo-RTX to bs-RTX, starting therapy with bs-RTX, and bs-RTX drug survival in real-world setting are sparse. To explore long-term drug effectiveness and survival of bs-RTX GP2013 in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients both naïve to and mandatory switched from bo-RTX, and to clarify reasons for treatment cessation. Retrospective observational cohort study including RA outpatient clinic patients treated with bs-RTX between 2018 and 2021 in Norway. Patients were examined and monitored using recommended measures for disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). For description of population medians and interquartile range were used. Difference between observation times was assessed with Signed-Rank test, drug survival with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Reasons for discontinuation were ascertained. Among 110 patients, at baseline, 88 were mandatory switched from bo-RTX and 22 were RTX-naïve. During 2-year follow-up, disease activity and PROs measures remained stable in switchers subgroup and improved in subgroup starting bs-RTX for the first time. Overall drug survival was 80.0% after 1 year and 57.7% after 2 years and was significantly higher in bs-RTX-switched than in bs-RTX-naïve patients (p = 0.036). Two most frequently reported reasons for drug discontinuation were remission (38.6%) and doctor's decision (27.1%). RA patients treated with bs-RTX had satisfactory treatment response and drug retention rates which supports equivalence of bs-RTX GP2013 to bo-RTX, both in patients naïve to and mandatory switched from bo-RTX.

[Cerebrolysin in the treatment of cognitive impairment]. / Tserebrolizin v lechenii kognitivnykh narushenii.

Cognitive impairment is one of the most important problems of modern health care. Currently, according to WHO, more than 55 million people worldwide are living with dementia. Dementia is one of the leading causes of disability and addiction among older people worldwide. Even more significant is the number of patients with mild cognitive impairment who have an increased risk of progression to dementia compared to people of the same age without cognitive impairment. The number of patients with cognitive impairment has also increased due to the consequences of COVID-19. It is necessary to use drugs that not only improve cognitive functions, but also slow down their progression. One of these drugs is cerebrolysin, the effectiveness of which has been confirmed in various types of cognitive impairment. Cerebrolysin, being a preparation from the brain of a pig, belongs to the group of biological drugs. In the production of Cerebrolysin very strict measures are taken to comply with the technology, which ensures the quality and identity of the product from batch to batch. The experience of many years of clinical use of Cerebrolysin testifies not only to its high efficiency, but also to its safety. It should be taken into account that similar substances can be developed in relation to biological products - biosimilars or biosimilars, which can be considered comparable only in case of equivalent pharmacokinetic parameters, efficacy and safety.

Positioning of tofacitinib in treatment of ulcerative colitis: a global perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Tofacitinib has emerged as a useful drug for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). AREAS COVERED: There is an unmet need for cost-effective, non-immunogenic drugs with a safe adverse effect profile to treat patients with ulcerative colitis. In the present review, we evaluate the available literature to inform the appropriate positioning of tofacitinib in the current drug landscape and identify subsets where its use should be done with caution. EXPERT OPINION: Tofacitinib is helpful in the treatment of patients where the standard conventional or biological therapies have failed or were not tolerated. With lower costs of the generic drug than the biologicals (or biosimilars), it could be an important therapy in low- to middle-income countries. The risk of infections, especially Herpes Zoster and tuberculosis, needs to be addressed before initiation. Tofacitinib should be avoided in patients with venous thromboembolism and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Due to limited evidence, the use is not recommended in pregnancy, while it should be used with caution in elderly citizens. Future trials should look into the head-to-head comparison of tofacitinib with biologicals. The role of tofacitinib in acute severe colitis needs evaluation with comparative trials with current standards of care.

How to select a best-value biological medicine? A practical model to support hospital pharmacists.

PURPOSE: With the growing availability of biosimilars on the global market, clinicians and pharmacists have multiple off-patent biological products to choose from. Besides the competitiveness of the product's price, other criteria should be considered when selecting a best-value biological. This article aims to provide a model to facilitate transparent best-value biological selection in the off-patent biological medicines segment. SUMMARY: The presented model was developed on the basis of established multicriteria decision analysis tools for rational and transparent medicine selection, ie, the System of Objectified Judgement Analysis and InforMatrix. Criteria for the model were informed by earlier research, a literature search, and evaluation by the authors. The developed model includes up-to-date guidance on criteria that can be considered in selection and provides background on the allocation of weights that may aid hospital pharmacists and clinicians with decision-making in practice. Three main categories of criteria besides price were identified and included in the model: (1) product-driven criteria, (2) service-driven criteria, and (3) patient-driven criteria. Product-driven criteria include technical product features and licensed therapeutic indications. Service-driven criteria consist of supply conditions, value-added services, and environment and sustainability criteria. Patient-driven criteria contain product administration elements such as ease of use and service elements such as patient support programs. Relative weighting of the criteria is largely context dependent and should in a given setting be determined at the beginning of the process. CONCLUSION: The practical model described here may support hospital pharmacists and clinicians with transparent and evidence-based best-value biological selection in clinical practice.

The second decade of anti-TNF-a therapy in clinical practice: new lessons and future directions in the COVID-19 era.

Since the late 1990s, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors (anti-TNFs) have revolutionized the therapy of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) affecting the gut, joints, skin and eyes. Although the therapeutic armamentarium in IMIDs is being constantly expanded, anti-TNFs remain the cornerstone of their treatment. During the second decade of their application in clinical practice, a large body of additional knowledge has accumulated regarding various aspects of anti-TNF-α therapy, whereas new indications have been added. Recent experimental studies have shown that anti-TNFs exert their beneficial effects not only by restoring aberrant TNF-mediated immune mechanisms, but also by de-activating pathogenic fibroblast-like mesenchymal cells. Real-world data on millions of patients further confirmed the remarkable efficacy of anti-TNFs. It is now clear that anti-TNFs alter the physical course of inflammatory arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, leading to inhibition of local and systemic bone loss and to a decline in the number of surgeries for disease-related complications, while anti-TNFs improve morbidity and mortality, acting beneficially also on cardiovascular comorbidities. On the other hand, no new safety signals emerged, whereas anti-TNF-α safety in pregnancy and amid the COVID-19 pandemic was confirmed. The use of biosimilars was associated with cost reductions making anti-TNFs more widely available. Moreover, the current implementation of the "treat-to-target" approach and treatment de-escalation strategies of IMIDs were based on anti-TNFs. An intensive search to discover biomarkers to optimize response to anti-TNF-α treatment is currently ongoing. Finally, selective targeting of TNF-α receptors, new forms of anti-TNFs and combinations with other agents, are being tested in clinical trials and will probably expand the spectrum of TNF-α inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for IMIDs.

Interchangeability for Biologics is a Legal Distinction in the USA, Not a Clinical One.

Biologics are increasingly vital medicines that significantly reduce morbidity as well as mortality, yet access continues to be an issue even in apparently wealthy countries, such as the USA. While patient access is expected to improve with the introduction of biosimilars, misperceptions in a significant part based on terminology continue to make a sustained contribution by biosimilars difficult. Patients are and will continue to suffer needlessly if biosimilars continue to be impugned. Consequently, it is increasingly urgent that semantics are clarified, and in particular, the implication that interchangeable biologics are better biosimilars dismissed. This paper distinguishes between the real differences between biologics that matter clinically to patients and discusses the actual meaning of a US Food and Drug Administration designation of interchangeability for a biosimilar product. This will help highlight where there is need for further Food and Drug Administration education and which stakeholders likely need that education the most.

Re-Routing Infliximab Therapy: Subcutaneous Infliximab Opens a Path Towards Greater Convenience and Clinical Benefit.

Subcutaneous infliximab recently received approval for the treatment of various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases in Europe, following pivotal clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. Subcutaneous infliximab demonstrated an improved pharmacokinetic profile compared with intravenous infliximab: the more stable exposure and increased systemic drug concentrations mean it has been cited as a biobetter. Alongside the pharmacokinetic advantages, potential benefits for efficacy, immunogenicity, and health-related quality-of-life outcomes have been suggested with subcutaneous infliximab. During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the benefits of subcutaneous over intravenous therapies became apparent: switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab reduced the hospital visit-related healthcare resource burden and potential viral transmission. Clinical advantages observed in pivotal trials are also being seen in the real world. Accumulating experience from four European countries (the UK, Spain, France, and Germany) in patients with rheumatic diseases and inflammatory bowel disease supports clinical trial findings that subcutaneous infliximab is well tolerated, increases serum drug concentrations, and offers maintained or improved efficacy outcomes for patients switching from intravenous infliximab. Initial evidence is emerging with subcutaneous infliximab treatment after intravenous infliximab failure. High patient satisfaction and pharmacoeconomic benefits have also been reported with subcutaneous infliximab. Treatments aligned with patient preferences for the flexibility and convenience of at-home subcutaneous administration could boost adherence and treatment outcomes. Altogether, findings suggest that switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab could be advantageous, and healthcare professionals should be prepared to discuss supporting data as part of shared decision making during patient consultations.

The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor infliximab is one treatment option that may be appropriate for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Patients may prefer tumor necrosis factor inhibitors administered via the subcutaneous (SC) or intravenous (IV) route, with preferences influencing treatment satisfaction and outcomes. In 2019, CT-P13 SC became the first SC infliximab product to receive regulatory approval in Europe, based on pivotal clinical studies that compared SC infliximab to IV infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. Subcutaneous infliximab is now approved in Europe for the treatment of adults with rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and psoriasis. Patients began to switch from IV to SC infliximab outside clinical trials in March 2020, during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Switching from IV to SC infliximab allowed patients to self-administer treatment at home rather than attend hospital for infusions, reducing potential hospital-acquired infections and lessening the strain on healthcare systems during the pandemic. Clinical trial evidence and growing real-world experience demonstrate that SC infliximab offers clinical advantages in terms of an improved pharmacokinetic profile and potential efficacy, immunogenicity, and health-related quality-of-life benefits compared with IV infliximab. Patients have also reported increased satisfaction with SC infliximab after switching from IV infliximab. Together with the long-standing flexibility and convenience benefits of SC administration, the clinical advantages of SC infliximab make it a valid therapeutic option for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. This warrants discussion with appropriate patients as part of shared treatment decision making.

Perspectives on Subcutaneous Infliximab for Rheumatic Diseases and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Before, During, and After the COVID-19 Era.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has prompted significant changes in patient care in rheumatology and gastroenterology, with clinical guidance issued to manage ongoing therapy while minimising the risk of nosocomial infection for patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Subcutaneous (SC) formulations of biologics enable patients to self-administer treatments at home; however, switching between agents may be undesirable. CT-P13 SC is the first SC formulation of infliximab that received regulatory approval and may be termed a biobetter as it offers significant clinical advantages over intravenous (IV) infliximab, including improved pharmacokinetics and a convenient mode of delivery. Potential benefits in terms of reduced immunogenicity have also been suggested. With a new SC formulation, infliximab provides an additional option for dual formulation, which enables patients to transition from IV to SC administration route without changing agent. Before COVID-19, clinical trials supported the efficacy and safety of switching from IV to SC infliximab for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and SC infliximab may have been selected on the basis of patient and HCP preferences for SC agents. During the pandemic, patients with rheumatic diseases and IBD have successfully switched from IV to SC infliximab, with some clinical benefits and high levels of patient satisfaction. As patients switched to SC therapeutics, the reduction in resource requirements for IV infusion services may have been particularly welcome given the pandemic, facilitating reorganisation and redeployment in overstretched healthcare systems, alongside pharmacoeconomic benefits and a reduction in exposure to nosocomial infection. Telemedicine and contactless healthcare have been pushed to the forefront during the pandemic, and a lasting shift towards remote patient management and community/home-based drug administration is anticipated. SC infliximab supports the implementation of this paradigm for future improvements of healthcare value delivered. The accumulation of real-world data during the pandemic supports the high level of confidence, with patients, physicians, and healthcare systems benefitting from its uptake.

Biosimilars in Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis in Iran.

Biological drugs are manufactured via some changes made to the living organisms by genetic engineering. Notably, biological drugs are very expensive and their importation can impose economic pressure, especially on poorer countries. Thereafter, manufacturing these drugs has been considered by policymakers in many countries, resulting in the production of biosimilars. Iran requires a wide range of biological drugs due to the growing number of patients with multiple sclerosis. On the other hand, the poor economic situation of Iran due to repeated sanctions has had a great impact on the health care system, which has prevented the allocation of sufficient financial resources in this regard. Therefore, manufacturing biosimilar drugs due to their lower cost has received much attention in various fields of treatment.

Switch to subcutaneous infliximab during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: preliminary results.

A new subcutaneous formulation of the infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 has recently been developed for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), providing response rates similar to intravenous treatment. The use of this new formulation was requested, in an effort to limit patient attendance at intravenous infusion centers and to maintain biological treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this observational, retrospective and descriptive study was to assess CT-P13 efficacy and safety after switching from intravenous to a subcutaneous formulation in patients with IBD receiving maintenance therapy. This article shows preliminary results after six months of follow-up.

Healthcare system conversion to a biosimilar: Trials and tribulations.

PURPOSE: While biologic medications have transformed the care and management of millions of patients, they are a large financial strain on the healthcare system. Biosimilar medications present a great opportunity to improve care affordability. However, despite streamlined approval processes and the potential for cost savings, the acceptance and adoption of biosimilars have been slow. This descriptive report illustrates the preparation for, challenges of, and execution of an enterprise-wide biosimilar conversion within a large healthcare system. The 3 phases of biosimilar conversion utilized at our institution included selection of a biosimilar, pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committee approval, and implementation. SUMMARY: When selecting a biosimilar, clinical data, medication safety, cost, institutional cost savings, payer coverage, patient assistance programs, and additional patient services should be taken into consideration to ensure patient care is not affected. Understanding and endorsement of biosimilar use by physician leadership, care managers, and pharmacists are crucial before implementation. P&T committee approval with clear delineation of the patient population (naive vs experienced), disease states, and whether the biosimilar would be the preferred medication should be obtained. Transparent communication of clear expectations to patients and coordination with the information technology (IT), contracting, and supply chain departments are necessary before the go-live date. Contracting and IT implementations should ideally take potential changes in biosimilar adoption into consideration and have enough flexibility to account for these changes. Planned evaluations of patients' experiences with the change to the biosimilar should be incorporated as part of the implementation plan. CONCLUSION: The barriers to biosimilar adoption are plentiful. Careful planning, clear communication, and coordination with all affected disciplines can ensure successful biosimilar conversion.

Comparing cost of intravenous infusion and subcutaneous biologics in COVID-19 pandemic care pathways for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease: A brief UK stakeholder survey.

OBJECTIVES: One important group of people at higher risk from the SARS-CoV-2(COVID-19) pandemic are those with autoimmune conditions including rheumatoid arthritis/inflammatory bowel disease. To minimise infection risk, many people have been switched from intravenous to subcutaneous biologics including biosimilars. DESIGN: The survey was designed to understand comparative economic issues related to the intravenous infusion vs subcutaneous biologic administration routes for infliximab. The survey focused on direct cost drivers/indirect cost drivers. Acquisition costs of medicines were not included due to data not being available publicly. Wider policy implications linked to the pandemic were also explored. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Semistructured single telephone interviews were carried out with twenty key stakeholders across the National Health Service(NHS) from 35 clinical/42 pharmacy/28 commissioning roles. The interviews were undertaken virtually during April 2020. From interview (n = 20) results, a simple cost analysis was developed plus a qualitative analysis of reports on wider policy/patient impacts. RESULTS: Key findings included evidence of significant variation in local infusion tariffs UK wide, with interviewees reporting that not all actual costs incurred are captured in published tariff costs. A cost analysis showed administration costs 50% lower in the subcutaneous compared to infusion routes, with most patients administering subcutaneous medicines themselves. Other indirect benefits to this route included less pressure on infusion unit waiting times/reduced risk of COVID-19 infection plus reduced patient 'out of pocket' costs. However, this was to some extent offset by increased pressure on home-care and community/primary care services. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from infusion to subcutaneous routes is currently driven by the COVID-19 pandemic in many services. A case for biologics (infusion vs subcutaneous) must be made on accurate real-world economic analysis. In an analysis of direct/indirect costs, excluding medicine acquisition costs, subcutaneous administration appears to be the more cost saving option for many patients even without the benefit of industry funded home-care. What's known One important group of people at high risk in COVID-19 pandemic are those with autoimmune conditions, including those with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. Depending on the complexity of their condition, some of the patients in this group may be receiving intravenous biologic infusion therapy which under normal circumstances is administered within a hospital or day hospital setting. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has published new guidance to ensure that patients having intravenous treatment are assessed for possible switching to the same treatment in subcutaneous form. What's new A cost analysis showed that administration costs for subcutananous routes are 50% lower than for infusion routes, with most patients administering subcutaneous medicines themselves. Other indirect benefits to this route included less pressure on infusion unit waiting times and reduced risk of COVID-19 infection, along with reduced patient costs. Cost savings were partly offset by increased pressure on home-care and community/primary care services.

Patient perspectives on the British Columbia Biosimilars Initiative: a qualitative descriptive study.

In May 2019, the Government of British Columbia (BC) announced the implementation of the Biosimilars Initiative, mandating the switch of biologic (originator) drugs to biosimilars for certain patient populations in the hopes of optimizing public resources. Through this qualitative study, we aimed to identify patients' perspectives as they undergo this change. From October 2019 to July 2020, we conducted nine pre- and six post-switch to biosimilar interviews with BC, English speaking participants, who were 18 years or older, and were currently taking a biologic medication. Participants were interviewed pre- and post-switch to a biosimilar medication and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for qualitative analysis. Interviews were thematically analysed and major themes and sub-categories were elucidated. The themes derived from pre and post-switch interviews captured participants' anticipated or experienced barriers and enablers to the policy change. In general, the fears and apprehension of participants approaching the switch, including concerns surrounding the efficacy and safety of biosimilars, were addressed by their rheumatologist and social support circles. For the most part, participants were able to successfully manage their disease regardless of their baseline concerns about efficacy and safety. Experiences of changes in health delivery models were also observed secondary to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic amongst participants. This study is the first of its kind to characterize the patient perspective regarding the BC Biosimilars Initiative. The incorporation of the patient perspective, including adequate provider-patient communication and shared decision-making can help to inform future non-medical switching policy changes.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2021.

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2021 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2021 were reviewed-including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, generics, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic influence, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2021 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2020, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the United States grew 4.9% compared to 2019, for a total of $535.3 billion. Utilization (a 2.9% increase) and new drugs (a 1.8% increase) drove this increase, with price changes having minimal influence (a 0.3% increase). Adalimumab was the top drug in 2020, followed by apixaban and insulin glargine. Drug expenditures were $35.3 billion (a 4.6% decrease) and $98.4 billion (an 8.1% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, growth was driven by new products and increased utilization, whereas in hospitals the decrease in expenditures was driven by reduced utilization. Several new drugs that will influence spending are expected to be approved in 2021. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures along with the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: For 2021, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 4% to 6%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 7% to 9% and 3% to 5%, respectively, compared to 2020. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

Biologic Drugs for Rheumatoid Arthritis in the Context of Biosimilars, Genetics, Epigenetics and COVID-19 Treatment.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects around 1.2% of the adult population. RA is one of the main reasons for work disability and premature retirement, thus substantially increasing social and economic burden. Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) were shown to be an effective therapy especially in those rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, who did not adequately respond to conventional synthetic DMARD therapy. However, despite the proven efficacy, the high cost of the therapy resulted in limitation of the widespread use and unequal access to the care. The introduction of biosimilars, which are much cheaper relative to original drugs, may facilitate the achievement of the therapy by a much broader spectrum of patients. In this review we present the properties of original biologic agents based on cytokine-targeted (blockers of TNF, IL-6, IL-1, GM-CSF) and cell-targeted therapies (aimed to inhibit T cells and B cells properties) as well as biosimilars used in rheumatology. We also analyze the latest update of bDMARDs' possible influence on DNA methylation, miRNA expression and histone modification in RA patients, what might be the important factors toward precise and personalized RA treatment. In addition, during the COVID-19 outbreak, we discuss the usage of biologicals in context of effective and safe COVID-19 treatment. Therefore, early diagnosing along with therapeutic intervention based on personalized drugs targeting disease-specific genes is still needed to relieve symptoms and to improve the quality of life of RA patients.