Systematic review: effectiveness and safety of switching between originator infliximab and biosimilar infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

INTRODUCTION: Infliximab (IFX) biosimilars are available to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), offering cost reductions versus originator IFX in some jurisdictions. However, concerns remain regarding the efficacy and safety of originator-to-biosimilar switching. This systematic literature review evaluated safety and effectiveness of switching between IFX products in patients with IBD, including multiple switchers. METHODS: Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to capture studies (2012-2022) including patients with IBD who switched between approved IFX products. Effectiveness outcomes: disease activity; disease severity; response to treatment; patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Safety outcomes: incidence and rate of adverse events (AEs); discontinuations due to AEs, failure rate; hospitalizations; surgeries. Immunogenicity outcomes (n, %): anti-drug antibodies; patients receiving concomitant immunomodulatory medication. RESULTS: Data from 85 publications (81 observational, two randomized controlled trials) were included. Clinical effectiveness outcomes were consistent with the known profile of originator IFX with no difference after switching. There were no unexpected/serious AEs after switching, and rates of AEs were generally consistent with the known profile of IFX. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies reported that clinical, PROs, and safety outcomes for originator-to-biosimilar switching were clinically equivalent to originator responses. Limited data are available regarding multiple switches. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42021289144.

Impact of Infliximab-dyyb (Infliximab Biosimilar) on Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes: 1-Year Follow-up Results from an Observational Real-World Study Among Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the US and Canada (the ONWARD Study).

INTRODUCTION: To date, there are limited real-world studies published on the use of infliximab-dyyb, a biosimilar to reference product (RP) infliximab approved for the treatment of moderate to severe inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) in North America. This study examined utilization patterns and the effects of infliximab-dyyb on clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and healthcare resource use (HCRU) in IBD patients in a real-world setting. METHODS: In this prospective, observational study, adult IBD patients in the US and Canada were recruited to initiate treatment with infliximab-dyyb and followed for 12 months. Patients included biologic-naïve users of infliximab-dyyb and patients switching from RP infliximab or other biologics to infliximab-dyyb. Partial Mayo (pMAYO) and Harvey Bradshaw Index (HBI) scores measured clinical outcomes for the UC and CD cohorts, respectively. Key PRO measures included the SIBDQ, EQ-VAS, and psychological outcomes. In addition, work productivity, HCRU, and adverse events (AEs) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 67 CD and 48 UC patients were enrolled (51% female; mean age 44 years; 87% Caucasian; mean BMI 27.9). Thirty-nine patients were biologic-naïve, 57 switched from RP infliximab, and 19 switched from other biologics. Among UC biologic-naïve users, pMAYO decreased from 5.67 to 1.09 (p < 0.0001) and the remission rate increased from 5.6 to 90.9% (p = 0.0015). For UC patients switching from RP infliximab, pMAYO decreased from 1.38 to 0.29 (p = 0.0103). For CD biologic-naïve users, HBI scores and remission rates did not significantly change. The scores on all the PROs significantly improved from baseline to 12 months. A total of 22 AEs occurred consistent with the known AE profile for infliximab. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes among biologic-naïve users of infliximab-dyyb improved for UC and were maintained for CD patients. Biologic-naïve users of infliximab-dyyb showed significant improvements in PROs. Patients switching from RP infliximab to infliximab-dyyb maintained their clinical outcomes and PROs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Number: NCT03801928 (February 23, 2018).

Tofacitinib for the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis: Analysis of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer Rates From the Ulcerative Colitis Clinical Program.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is an oral, small molecule Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). We present integrated analyses of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) incidence in the tofacitinib UC clinical program. METHODS: Nonmelanoma skin cancer events were evaluated from 3 randomized, placebo-controlled studies: 2 identical, 8-week induction studies (NCT01465763, NCT01458951), a 52-week maintenance study (NCT01458574), and an open-label, long-term extension study (NCT01470612). Cohorts analyzed were: Induction, Maintenance, and Overall (patients receiving ≥1 dose of tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily [BID]). An independent adjudication committee reviewed potential NMSC. Proportions and incidence rates (IRs; unique patients with events per 100 patient-years of exposure) for NMSC were evaluated. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for risk factor analysis. RESULTS: Nonmelanoma skin cancer was evaluated for 1124 patients (2576.4 patient-years of tofacitinib exposure; ≤6.8 years' treatment). In the Induction Cohort, NMSC IR was 0.00 for placebo and 1.26 for 10 mg BID. Nonmelanoma skin cancer IR was 0.97 for placebo, 0.00 for 5 mg BID and 1.91 for 10 mg BID in the Maintenance Cohort, and 0.73 (n = 19) in the Overall Cohort. No NMSC was metastatic or led to discontinuation. In the Overall Cohort, Cox regression identified prior NMSC (hazard ratio [HR], 9.09; P = 0.0001), tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) failure (3.32; P = 0.0363), and age (HR per 10-year increase, 2.03; P = 0.0004) as significant independent NMSC risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: For patients receiving tofacitinib, NMSC occurred infrequently. Older age, prior NMSC, and TNFi failure, which are previously reported NMSC risk factors in patients with UC, were associated with increased NMSC risk.

An economic evaluation of tofacitinib for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis: modeling the cost of treatment strategies in the United States.

Aims: To evaluate the cost differences between a treatment strategy including tofacitinib (TOFA) vs treatment strategies including adalimumab (ADA), golimumab (GOL), infliximab (IFX), and vedolizumab (VEDO) among all patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) (further stratified by patients naïve/exposed to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors [TNFis]). Materials and methods: An Excel-based decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate costs from the perspective of a third-party US payer over 2 years. Efficacy and safety parameters were taken from prescribing information and published trials. All patients started induction therapy on the first treatment in the strategy and continued if efficacy criteria were met and no major adverse event occurred (in which cases they proceeded to the next treatment in the strategy). Results: The cost per member per month (PMPM) of the TOFA->IFX->VEDO->GOL strategy ($1.11) was lower than that of the ADA->IFX->VEDO->GOL strategy ($1.34; Δ = $-0.23) among the TNFi-naïve population (n = 204 patients out of a plan of one million members). Similarly, the use of TOFA before ADA (i.e. TOFA->ADA->IFX-> VEDO) was also associated with lower PMPM costs than the use of ADA before TOFA (i.e. ADA->TOFA->IFX->VEDO): $1.15 vs $1.25 (Δ = $-0.10). Similar, and often larger, differences were observed in both the overall moderate-to-severe population and the TNFi-exposed population. Sensitivity analyses resulted in the same conclusions. Limitations: Our model relied on efficacy data from prescribing information and published trials, which were not head-to-head and slightly differed with respect to methods. Additionally, our model used representative minor and major ADRs (and the associated costs) to represent toxicity management, which was a simplifying assumption. Conclusions: This analysis, the first of its kind to evaluate TOFA vis-à-vis other advanced therapies in the US, suggests the early use of TOFA among both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-failure patients results in lower PMPM costs compared with other treatment alternatives.

An Economic Evaluation of Tofacitinib Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis After Methotrexate or After 1 or 2 TNF Inhibitors from a U.S. Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Treatment cycling with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), is common among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and can result in reduced clinical efficacy and increased economic burden. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of RA. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the economic effect of tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) treatment directly after methotrexate (MTX) in the MTX-inadequate responder population, or after MTX and 1 TNFi (adalimumab [ADA] or etanercept [ETN]) or 2 TNFi (ADA and ETN) in TNF-inadequate responder patients with RA, from a U.S. payer perspective. METHODS: A decision-tree economic model was used to evaluate costs over 2 years. Treatment response was modeled as American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response. ACR response rates at 6-month intervals were derived from U.S. prescribing information for monotherapy and combination therapy. Safety event rates were sourced from a meta-analysis. It was assumed that 75% of patients switched therapy after an adverse event or lack of response. Cost inputs included drugs, monitoring and administration (including physician visits), health care utilization, and treatment for adverse events. The population comprised all organization members (i.e., RA and non-RA members); RA patients receiving TNFi were estimated using epidemiologic data. Results were based on an organization size of 1 million. Economic endpoints were total 2-year costs, costs per member per month (PMPM), and costs per ACR20/50 responder. RESULTS: 1,321 patients were included for analysis. Based on ACR20 switch criteria and either 100% or 50% monotherapy rates for all treatments, total 2-year costs and costs PMPM were lower for patients receiving tofacitinib as second-line therapy after MTX and as third-line therapy after MTX and 1 TNFi; costs were highest for patients who cycled through 2 TNFi. Similar trends were observed for switch criteria based on ACR50 response and addition of 20% rebates for ADA and ETN and 0% for tofacitinib, although differences were mitigated slightly. CONCLUSIONS: A treatment strategy with tofacitinib as either second- or third-line therapy after MTX may be a lower cost treatment option, compared with fourth-line introduction of tofacitinib after cycling through 2 TNFi following MTX. DISCLOSURES: All aspects of this study were funded by Pfizer. Claxton was an employee of York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, at the time of this study. Taylor is an employee of York Health Economics Consortium, The University of York, which received funding from Pfizer to conduct this study. Soonasra, Bourret, and Gerber are employees of Pfizer and hold stock/stock options in Pfizer. A previous iteration of the data reported in this manuscript (before adjustment for recent drug price increases) was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 28th Annual Meeting and Expo; April 19-22, 2016; held in San Francisco, CA.

Long-Term Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Tofacitinib: ORAL Start and ORAL Scan Post-hoc Analyses.

INTRODUCTION: Here we examine the relationship between achieving different levels of disease activity with tofacitinib (an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis), long-term structural progression, and patient-reported physical function. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of two 24-month, phase III randomized controlled trials in methotrexate (MTX)-naïve (ORAL Start [NCT01039688]) or MTX-inadequate responder (IR) patients (ORAL Scan [NCT00847613]) receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily as either monotherapy or with background MTX. The modified total Sharp score (mTSS) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) were analyzed at month 24 according to disease activity at month 6 defined by the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) or the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, C-reactive protein (DAS28CRP). RESULTS: Mean changes from baseline in mTSS at month 24 were less in patients with CDAI remission at month 6 than in those with CDAI moderate/high disease activity (MDA/HDA) at month 6. A DAS28CRP of < 1.9 most closely approximated CDAI remission (≤ 2.8). Tofacitinib appeared to inhibit joint damage in the presence of persistent inflammation compared with MTX. More patients receiving tofacitinib or MTX with CDAI remission or low disease activity (LDA) at month 6 reported normative HAQ-DI scores (< 0.5) at month 24 than did those with CDAI MDA/HDA. CONCLUSION: Regardless of treatment, in both MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients, remission or LDA at month 6 was associated with successful long-term outcomes: inhibition of structural progression and normative HAQ-DI scores. Long-term outcomes were similar when patients achieved CDAI remission or a DAS28CRP of < 1.9, confirming that this is an appropriate cut-off for remission with DAS28CRP. Tofacitinib potentially inhibits joint damage even with persistent inflammation. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT01039688 and NCT00847613.

Worldwide, 3-Year, Post-Marketing Surveillance Experience with Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Post-marketing surveillance (PMS) is an integral part of monitoring adverse events (AEs) following approval of new drugs. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). An analysis of PMS reports was conducted to evaluate the safety of tofacitinib in a post-marketing setting. METHODS: Worldwide tofacitinib PMS data received in the Pfizer safety database from November 6, 2012 (first marketing authorization of tofacitinib) to November 5, 2015 were analyzed. Serious AEs (SAEs) of interest were reviewed and reporting rates (RRs) were calculated by dividing the number of SAEs by the estimated 100 patient-years of exposure. Patient exposure was calculated based on estimated worldwide sales and an estimated daily regimen of tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily. RESULTS: During the 3-year reporting period, worldwide post-marketing exposure to tofacitinib since approval was estimated to be 34,223 patient-years. In total, 9291 case reports (82.9% non-serious) were received and 25,417 AEs, 102 fatal cases, and 4352 SAEs were reported. The RRs (per 100 patient-years) for SAEs of interest by Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities System Organ Class were 2.57 for infections, 0.91 for gastrointestinal disorders, 0.60 for respiratory disorders, 0.45 for neoplasms, 0.43 for cardiac disorders, and 0.12 for hepatobiliary disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are limitations to these data, no new safety risks were revealed in this real-world setting compared with the safety profile identified in the tofacitinib RA clinical development program. Any risks identified through the tofacitinib development program and PMS will continue to be monitored through pharmacovigilance surveillance. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

The role of nurse practitioners in delivering rheumatology care and services: Results of a U.S. survey.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by inflammation, pain, joint stiffness, and progressive joint destruction. An increased demand for rheumatology healthcare professionals is anticipated in coming years; utilizing more nurse practitioners (NPs) in rheumatology may help meet this demand, and improve early detection and diagnosis of RA. METHODS: The American Association of Nurse Practitioners surveyed, via e-mail, members who were working in primary care settings to understand their educational and professional needs to help manage their patients with RA. Respondents were surveyed about their NP certifications, patient panel, information received from rheumatologists on shared patients, RA tools or resources that would be helpful, confidence in diagnosing and managing patients with RA, interest in learning about particular topics regarding RA medications, and preferences for exchanging educational information with their professional colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this survey indicate that the role of NPs in managing RA could be optimized by improved communication with treating rheumatologists, access to educational tools and resources, and further education and training in the management of RA. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: NPs in primary care can fill a resource gap and provide access to health care for patients with RA.