Discontinuation of infliximab treatment in patients with inflammatory bowel disease who retransitioned to originator and those who remained on biosimilar.

Background: Many patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have transitioned from an infliximab originator to a biosimilar. However, some patients retransition to the originator (i.e. stop biosimilar and reinitiate the originator). Whether this sign of potential unsatisfactory treatment response is specifically related to the infliximab biosimilar or the patient and/or the disease including patients' beliefs on the biosimilar is unclear. Objectives: We aimed to compare the risk of and reasons for infliximab discontinuation between retransitioned patients and those remaining on biosimilar. Design: Non-interventional, multicentre cohort study. Methods: IBD patients who transitioned from infliximab originator to biosimilar between January 2015 and September 2019 in two Dutch hospitals were eligible for this study. Retransitioned patients (retransitioning cohort) were matched with patients remaining on biosimilar (biosimilar remainder cohort). Reasons for discontinuation were categorised as the unwanted response (i.e. loss of effect or adverse events) or remission. Risk of unwanted discontinuation was compared using Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Patients in the retransitioning cohort (n = 44) were younger (median age 39.9 versus 44.0 years), more often female (65.9% versus 48.9%) and had shorter dosing intervals (median 48.5 versus 56.0 days) than in the biosimilar remainder cohort (n = 127). Infliximab discontinuation due to unwanted response was 22.7% in the retransitioning and 13.4% in the biosimilar remainder cohort, and due to remission was 2.3% and 9.4%, respectively. Retransitioned patients are at increased risk of discontinuing due to unwanted response compared with biosimilar remainder patients (adjusted HR 3.7, 95% CI: 1.0-13.9). Patients who retransitioned due to an increase in objective disease markers had higher discontinuation rates than patients who retransitioned due to symptoms only (66.7% versus 23.7%). Conclusion: Retransitioned patients are at increased risk of infliximab discontinuation due to unwanted response. Retransitioning appeared related to the patient and/or disease and not the product. Clinicians might switch patients opting for retransitioning to other treatment regimens.

Recommendations on TNFα inhibitor biosimilar use in clinical practice: a comparison of European gastroenterology IBD guidance.

BACKGROUND: Professional associations publish guidance advising gastroenterologists on prescribing biosimilars; however, guidelines differ between countries and change over time. This study aimed to map the presence and content of guidance from European gastroenterology associations on TNFα inhibitor biosimilar use and its development over time. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Guidelines on biosimilar prescribing from national gastroenterology associations in the European Economic Area (EEA) partnered with the European Crohn's and Colitis Organization (ECCO) were collected. Treatment guidelines and biosimilar position papers from 2010 to 2022 were included. Data were extracted using a template. RESULTS: 26 of 30 EEA countries have an ECCO-partnered gastroenterology association, of which 14 (53.8%) had national guidelines addressing biosimilars, four (15.4%) followed ECCO's position, and three (11.6%) had treatment guidelines without mentioning biosimilars. From five countries (19.2%) no guidelines were retrieved. Among 18 countries with guidance, 14 (77.8%) associations endorsed initiating biological treatment with biosimilars, and 13 (72.2%) endorsed transitioning from originator to biosimilar. Nine associations published multiple guidelines over time addressing biosimilars; overall, their positions became more encouraging. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of gastroenterology associations endorsed biosimilar use. The lack of (up-to-date) guidelines for some associations indicates an area of improvement to support biosimilar use in clinical practice.

Patients Retransitioning from Biosimilar TNFα Inhibitor to the Corresponding Originator After Initial Transitioning to the Biosimilar: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Transitioning patients from an originator to a corresponding biosimilar has been extensively studied in both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Although transitioning is considered well-tolerated, with no negative impacts on efficacy and/or safety, 2.6-25.8% of patients restart treatment with the originator (retransitioning). Retransitioning to the originator can be considered an indication of biosimilar treatment failure or dissatisfaction with biosimilar treatment. Increasing our knowledge of patients who retransition might help to reduce the number of patients retransitioning. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to estimate the cumulative incidence of patients who retransitioned from a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitor biosimilar to originator and to explore potential patient, disease, and treatment and implementation strategy factors associated with retransitioning. METHOD: We conducted a systematic literature search in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials databases until March 2021. Studies on TNFα inhibitors, biosimilar transitioning, and retransitioning were included. Transitioning was defined as switching from an originator to a biosimilar, and retransitioning was defined as switching from an originator to a biosimilar and back to the originator. Characteristics of the studies were descriptively analyzed. Studies were weighted by the number of patients transitioning, and the primary outcome was the median cumulative incidence of retransitioning. For each of the factors related to patient, disease, and treatment and implementation strategy, studies were stratified according to the categories of that factor. The weighted medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) of the cumulative incidence of retransitioning in these studies were calculated and compared to explore whether a potential association existed between these factors and the cumulative incidence of retransitioning. RESULTS: Of 994 screened publications, 37 were included. The weighted median cumulative incidence of retransitioning was 7.6% (IQR 6.8-17.2). Studies that included only patients with inflammatory bowel disease (6.6 vs. 15.1-17.7% for other indications), included only patients with stable disease (7.0 vs. 13.7% for including all patients), and did not offer retransitioning at the introduction of the biosimilar (7.0 vs. 11.1% for studies that offered retransitioning) reported less retransitioning. In addition, the incidence of retransitioning was lower when extra laboratory monitoring was part of the implementation strategy (1.6 vs. 6.1%) and when gainsharing (patients' healthcare directly benefits from financial savings from transitioning) (1.4 vs. 7.2% for studies without gainsharing) was applied. CONCLUSIONS: In studies on transitioning patients from TNFα originator to biosimilar, 8% of patients retransitioned. Retransitioning appeared to be lower in studies that included only patients with stable disease and in studies that did not offer patients the option of retransitioning at the introduction of the biosimilar. In addition, retransitioning appeared to be lower in studies that implemented extra laboratory monitoring as part of the biosimilar implementation strategy. Clinicians should consider implementing these suggestions as they might reduce retransitioning rates and improve the introduction of biosimilars in clinical practice. PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42021226381.

Incidence of and Reasons and Determinants Associated with Retransitioning from Biosimilar Etanercept to Originator Etanercept.

BACKGROUND: Patients in clinical practice are transitioned from originator etanercept (OR-ETA) to biosimilar etanercept (BS-ETA), but some subsequently retransition. Insights into the incidence of and reasons for retransitioning and the characteristics of these patients could help clinicians successfully introduce biosimilars. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the incidence of and reasons for retransitioning from BS-ETA to OR-ETA in patients with a rheumatic disease (RD) and to explore the determinants thereof. METHODS: This cohort study included all patients with RD who had transitioned from OR-ETA to BS-ETA in a large hospital in the Netherlands in 2016. The incidence of retransitioning to OR-ETA and the 1-year persistence with BS-ETA were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Reasons for retransitioning were classified as related to (1) efficacy, (2) adverse events, (3) the administration device, and (4) other. Determinants for retransitioning, including baseline and treatment characteristics, were assessed in a nested case-control study using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: We included 342 patients (median age 57.8 years; 53.5% females). At 1 year after transitioning, 9.4% of patients had retransitioned to OR-ETA and 69.7% were persistent with BS-ETA. At the end of follow-up (median 4.4 years), 47 patients (13.7%) had retransitioned to OR-ETA. The median time until retransitioning was 0.55 years (interquartile range 0.2-1.3). Most patients (n = 34 [72.3%]) retransitioned because of a (perceived) loss of effect, followed by adverse events (23.4%). In total 3.8% of patients switched to another biological treatment or a Janus kinase inhibitor; 17.1% of patients discontinued BS-ETA without retransitioning or switching within the first year. Univariate determinants for retransitioning included initiating corticosteroids or intensifying immunomodulator treatment (odds ratio [OR] 2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-5.45) and the number of visits to the rheumatology department (OR 2.06; 95% CI 1.55-2.74). In the multivariate analysis, only the number of visits to the rheumatology department remained significantly associated with retransitioning (OR 2.19; 95% CI 1.60-3.01). CONCLUSION: When introducing a biosimilar in clinical care, clinicians should anticipate that one in seven patients will retransition to the originator. A (perceived) loss of effect was the most frequently reported reason for retransitioning. Patients who visited the rheumatology department more frequently had an increased risk of retransitioning, which is likely to be related to patients reporting a loss of effect and to adverse events resulting in more visits to the rheumatology department.

Switching TNFα inhibitors: Patterns and determinants.

The aim of this study was to assess switching patterns and determinants for switching in patients initiating TNFα inhibitor (TNFα-i) treatment. Patients were included who started TNFα-i treatment between July 1, 2012 and December 31, 2017, from three Dutch hospitals, and were diagnosed with rheumatic diseases (RD), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), or psoriasis. Outcomes were switching, defined as initiating another biological; switching patterns including multiple switches until the end of follow-up; determinants for first switch, assessed using multivariate logistic regression. A total of 2228 patients were included (median age 43.3 years, 57% female), of which 52% (n = 1155) received TNFα-i for RD, 43% (n = 967) for IBD, and 5% (n = 106) for psoriasis. About 16.6% of RD patients, 14.5% of IBD patients, and 16.0% of psoriasis patients switched at least once, mainly to another TNFα-i. TNFα-i dose escalation (OR 13.78, 95% CI 1.40-135.0) and high-dose corticosteroids initiation (OR 3.62, 95% CI 1.10-12.15) were determinants for switching in RD patients. TNFα-i dose escalation (OR 8.22, 95% CI 3.76-17.93), immunomodulator initiation/dose escalation (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.04-4.34), high-dose corticosteroids initiation (OR 6.91, 95% CI 2.81-17.01) and serum concentration measurement (OR 5.44, 95% CI 2.74-10.79) were determinants for switching in IBD patients. Switching biological treatment occurred in about one in six patients. RD patients with TNFα-i dose escalation and/or high-dose corticosteroids initiation were more likely to switch. IBD patients with TNFα-i or immunomodulator initiation/dose escalation, high-dose corticosteroids initiation or serum concentration measurement were more likely to switch. These findings might help clinicians anticipating switching in TNFα-i treatment.

Dispensability of Annual Laboratory Follow-Up After More than 2 Years of Valproic Acid Use: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The necessity of annual laboratory follow-up in patients treated with valproic acid (VPA) is controversial. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the need for annual laboratory follow-up of liver enzymes, electrolytes, and full blood count (FBC) in patients treated with VPA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic search in Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (EBMR), MEDLINE, and EMBASE was undertaken in December 2016 to identify all published articles investigating or citing valproic acid, liver function disorders, electrolyte disorders, and FBC deviations. RESULTS: This review included 108 articles. As the number of participants and duration of the study was not adequate in most studies to detect rare adverse events, studies did not demonstrate a clear prevalence of hepatotoxicity. While a transient increase of transaminases is common and seldom harmful, severe hepatotoxicity is a rare phenomenon and is not prevented by routine laboratory monitoring. VPA had no relevant effect on serum calcium, sodium, potassium, and albumin. The prevalence of FBC varied from 0.6 to 27.8%, occurred mostly in the first 2 years of therapy, and was usually asymptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term monitoring in VPA treatment is only necessary when there have been dose adjustments, co-medication switches, or co-morbidity. In uncomplicated cases, annual laboratory follow-up may be discontinued after 2 years of VPA treatment. Encouraging patients to be vigilant is more effective in the detection of hepatotoxicity than laboratory testing. Follow-up of FBC at 3-6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after start or after a dose increase of VPA or interacting medication is sufficient.