Comparing tocilizumab biosimilar BAT1806/BIIB800 with reference tocilizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to methotrexate: a phase 3, randomised, multicentre, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilars provide an opportunity to address unmet medical need by expanding access to biological treatments. This study aimed to show equivalent efficacy, and comparable safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetic profiles of a proposed tocilizumab biosimilar BAT1806/BIIB800, to reference tocilizumab, in participants with rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to methotrexate. METHODS: This phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, equivalence study comprised a 24-week initial treatment period (results reported here) and a 24-week secondary treatment period. Participants were recruited at 54 centres across five countries (China, Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, and Bulgaria). Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to methotrexate were randomly assigned (1:1:2) to receive reference tocilizumab up to week 48, or reference tocilizumab up to week 24 followed by BAT1806/BIIB800 up to week 48 (the two reference tocilizumab groups were analysed as a single group in this analysis), or BAT1806/BIIB800 up to week 48 (the BAT1806/BIIB800 group), administered by intravenous infusion once every 4 weeks at a starting dose of 8 mg/kg. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who had a 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12 (for the European Medicines Agency [EMA]) or week 24 (for the US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] and China National Medical Products Administration [NMPA]) using prespecified equivalence margins (95% CI -14·5 to +14·5 [EMA], 90% CI -12·0 to +15·0 [FDA], and 95% CI -13·6 to +13·6 [NMPA]). The International Council for Harmonisation E9(R1) estimand framework, with strategies for addressing intercurrent events, was implemented for the efficacy evaluations with expected differences as per the predefined equivalence margins. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03830203) and EudraCT (2018-002202-31), and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Dec 19, 2018, and Jan 5, 2021, we randomly assigned 621 participants: 309 to the reference tocilizumab group and 312 to the BAT1806/BIIB800 group. The mean age was 50·5 years (SD 12·0), 534 (86%) were women, 87 (14%) were men, and 368 (59%) were White. For the primary estimands, estimated ACR20 response rates were 64·8% in the reference tocilizumab group and 69·0% in the BAT1806/BIIB800 group (treatment difference 4·1% [95% CI -3·6 to 11·9]) at week 12, and 67·9% in the reference tocilizumab group and 69·9% in the BAT1806/BIIB800 group (treatment difference 1·9% [90% CI -4·0 to 7·9; 95% CI -5·2 to 9·1]) at week 24. All confidence intervals were contained within the predefined equivalence margins. Comparable pharmacokinetic and immunogenicity profiles were observed for the reference tocilizumab and BAT1806/BIIB800 groups. Adverse events were reported by 201 (65%) participants in the reference tocilizumab group and 206 (66%) in the BAT1806/BIIB800 group; 196 (63%) participants in the reference tocilizumab group and 201 (64%) participants in the BAT1806/BIIB800 group reported a treatment-emergent adverse event. Five participants had a fatal event (reference tocilizumab n=1; BAT1806/BIIB800 n=4). INTERPRETATION: BAT1806/BIIB800 showed equivalent efficacy, and comparable safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetic profiles as reference tocilizumab. FUNDING: Bio-Thera Solutions and Biogen.

An Introduction to Biosimilars for the Treatment of Retinal Diseases: A Narrative Review.

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of disease across a number of therapeutic areas including retinal diseases. However, on occasion, such treatments may be relatively more expensive compared to small molecule therapies. This can restrict patient access and treatment length leading to suboptimal clinical outcomes. Several biosimilar candidates of ranibizumab and aflibercept are currently in development and the first biosimilar of ranibizumab received EMA approval in August and FDA approval in September 2021. Biosimilars are biological medicines that are highly similar to an already-approved biological medicine (reference product). The physicochemical and clinical similarity of a biosimilar is determined by a rigorous analytical and clinical program, including extensive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis with phase III equivalence studies where appropriate. These phase III studies are carried out in a patient population that is representative of all of the potential approved therapeutic indications of the originator product and the most sensitive for detecting potential differences between the biosimilar and the reference product. Biosimilars have been used successfully across a wide range of therapeutic areas for the past 15 years where they have achieved substantial cost savings that can be reinvested into healthcare systems without affecting the quality of patient care. The current review provides an introduction to biosimilars with the aim of preparing retinal specialists for discussing these products with their patients.

BENEFIT: real-world effectiveness of SB4 after transition from reference etanercept in rheumatoid arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this non-interventional study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the etanercept biosimilar SB4 (BenepaliTM) following transition from reference etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: Data were collected from clinical records of adult patients with stable RA or axSpA, in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Key outcomes included the change from transition to 3 and 6 months in Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) for RA or Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) for axSpA. RESULTS: In total, 358 patients with RA and 199 patients with axSpA were enrolled. The mean individual change in disease score from transition was -0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.11, 0.08) at 3 months and 0.01 (95% CI -0.09, 0.11) at 6 months for DAS28, and -0.01 (95% CI -0.24, 0.21) at 3 months and -0.11 (95% CI -0.31, 0.10) at 6 months for BASDAI. In the RA cohort, 19 (5.3%) and 5 patients (1.4%) reported adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs), respectively. In the axSpA cohort, 12 (6.0%) and 2 patients (1.0%) reported adverse events and SAEs, respectively. One SAE of pneumonia (RA cohort) was considered to be related to SB4 administration. At 6 months post-transition, the SB4 retention rate was 90.8% (95% CI 87.2%, 93.4%) in the RA cohort and 92.4% (95% CI 87.5%, 95.4%) in the axSpA cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Transition from reference etanercept to SB4 is effective and safe in patients with stable RA and axSpA.

Correction to: Unlocking the Value of Anti-TNF Biosimilars: Reducing Disease Burden and Improving Outcomes in Chronic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Narrative Review.

In the original article, under the "Access to treatment" heading.

Unlocking the Value of Anti-TNF Biosimilars: Reducing Disease Burden and Improving Outcomes in Chronic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Narrative Review.

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are chronic conditions that create a significant disease burden on millions of patients while adding a major financial burden to societies and healthcare systems. The introduction of biologic medicines has contributed majorly to improving the clinical outcomes of IMIDs and as such these modalities have gained first- or second-line positions in a wide range of treatment guidelines from different international clinical societies. However, the high cost of these biologics traditionally limited their accessibility and delayed their initiation, leaving millions of patients with unmet medical needs for a more affordable and sustainable solution. The introduction of cost-efficient biosimilar anti-TNFs within Europe since 2013 has allowed more patients with IMIDs to access biologic therapies earlier and for longer, potentially altering the course of the disease into a milder phenotype and reducing the long-term disease burden. This review provides the latest evidence for the impact of biosimilars on patient outcomes and demonstrates their clinical value beyond a reduction in price.

Batch-to-Batch Consistency of SB4 and SB2, Etanercept and Infliximab Biosimilars.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilars must meet stringent regulatory requirements, both at the time of authorization and during their lifecycle. Yet it has been suggested that divergence in quality attributes over time may lead to clinically meaningful differences between two versions of a biologic. Therefore, this study investigated the batch-to-batch consistency across a range of parameters for released batches of the etanercept biosimilar (SB4) and infliximab biosimilar (SB2). METHODS: SB4 (Benepali®) and SB2 (Flixabi®) were both developed by Samsung Bioepis and are manufactured in Europe by Biogen at their facility in Hillerød, Denmark. A total of 120 batches of SB4 and 25 batches of SB2 were assessed for consistency and compliance with specified release parameters, including purity, post-translational glycosylation (SB4 only), protein concentration, and biological activity. RESULTS: The protein concentration, purity, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) binding, and TNF-α neutralization of all batches of SB4 and SB2 were within the strict specification limits set by regulatory agencies, as was the total sialic acid (TSA) content of all batches of SB4. CONCLUSIONS: Quality attributes of SB4 and SB2 batches showed little variation and were consistently within the rigorous specifications defined by regulatory agencies.

Real-World Evidence on Etanercept Biosimilar SB4 in Etanercept-Naïve or Switching Patients: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: In 2016, SB4 (Benepali®) became the first etanercept (ETN) biosimilar to obtain marketing authorisation in Europe. Despite robust analytical and clinical comparisons, outstanding questions remain on SB4 use in routine practice. METHODS: A systematic search for publications on real-world evidence of SB4 effectiveness, safety and drug survival was undertaken using search terms (SB4 OR Benepali OR biosimilar etanercept OR innovator etanercept) in the BIOSIS® Toxicology, BIOSIS Previews®, Embase® and MEDLINE® databases up to 17 January 2019. RESULTS: Of 959 articles identified, eight journal articles, two journal letters and 23 congress abstracts were selected on criteria of original real-world evidence with a clinical focus. As expected with real-world evidence, quality scoring showed that the evidence had high external validity but lower internal validity. A total of 13,552 patients were described across nine European countries and all approved SB4 indications: 2499 were ETN-naïve and 11,053 switched from reference ETN to SB4 (switchers). Switch acceptance rates (a combination of clinicians offering and patients accepting initiation on SB4) ranged between 51.6% and 99.0%; patient support programmes positively contributed to acceptance. Disease activity was generally similar pre- and post-switch (typically 3-month timeframe). Retention rates across studies were at least 75% (up to 12 months follow-up). No new safety signals were identified. Differences in discontinuation rates versus historic controls reported in some studies may have been influenced by differences in treatment practices, lack of clinician confidence and nocebo effects. CONCLUSION: Nearly 2500 ETN-naïve patients have been initiated on SB4 and outcomes are similar to those patients receiving reference ETN. Overall this systematic review of real-world evidence provides additional reassurance that SB4 is as effective and safe as reference ETN in both switched and naïve patients. FUNDING: Biogen International GmbH.

Correction to: To See or NOsee: The Debate on the Nocebo Effect and Optimizing the Use of Biosimilars.

The article "To See or NOsee: The Debate on the Nocebo Effect and Optimizing the Use of Biosimilars", written by Mourad F. Rezk and Burkhard Pieper was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on June 5, 2018 without open access.

To See or NOsee: The Debate on the Nocebo Effect and Optimizing the Use of Biosimilars.

In addition to the general clinical benefit offered, biosimilars may not only generate savings for healthcare budgets but also improve patient access to biologic products. Since the first biosimilar was approved in Europe in 2006, a further 36 different biosimilar drugs have been approved for several indications. Despite the wealth of experience gained and the reported data supporting the use of biosimilars, both in naïve and biologic-experienced patients, some healthcare professionals continue to express doubt regarding the rigorous approval process for biosimilars and uncertainty with how to incorporate them into daily clinical practice. These opinions can be transferred to patients through poor or lack of communication, meaning that patients may lack confidence in treatment quality and, as a result, be susceptible to the nocebo effect. At the 2017 American College of Rheumatology/Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals annual meeting, during a debate the question was asked as to whether the nocebo effect was in fact being used to describe "any result you don't agree with". Here, we detail that the nocebo effect has been demonstrated in a number of clinical trials, and that this effect may negatively affect acceptance in patients switching from an originator product to a biosimilar. Awareness of the potential for the nocebo effect and adoption of enhanced communication techniques may be useful in mitigating the nocebo effect. Effective healthcare professional-patient dialogue is key in transferring confidence to the patient, and has been shown to reduce nocebo effects in patients when switching from an originator to a biosimilar. FUNDING: Biogen International GmbH.

Treatment Outcomes with Biosimilars: Be Aware of the Nocebo Effect.

Over the years, biologic agents have proven their importance in the management of chronic autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease. Biosimilars, which are biologic medicines, are highly similar to approved biologic medicines, and are comprehensively developed and rigorously tested to ensure efficacy and safety are similar to the reference product. A broader armamentarium of biosimilars is expected to improve patients' access to safe and effective biologic medicines, thus offering benefits to healthcare systems around the globe. Here we consider the factors that may compromise the benefits of biosimilars being realized, including patient and physician perception of biosimilars, and an often overlooked factor, the nocebo effect, which is re-emerging with the widespread adoption of biosimilar medicines. We have also described a variety of strategies and recommendations that could help limit the nocebo effect. FUNDING: Biogen.

The road from development to approval: evaluating the body of evidence to confirm biosimilarity.

Biosimilars are products that contain a similar version of the active substance of an already authorized original biologic medicinal product (reference medicinal product). Their development requires special consideration, as similarity to the reference agent needs to be established through a comprehensive comparability exercise. Given the complex nature of these agents, minor structural differences may emerge, but the process of biosimilarity determination is designed to ascertain that the nature and impact of these differences are not clinically significant. Determination of biosimilarity should follow quality-by-design principles, which provide a deep understanding of the product development process, guided by pre-defined objectives, process control and risk management. Compared with novel biologic development, biosimilar development places greater emphasis on establishing preclinical quality characteristics. Determination of comparability of quality characteristics includes assessment of physicochemical properties, biological activity, immunochemical properties, purity, impurity and quantity, with appropriate in vivo pharmacology studies being conducted thereafter. Head-to-head comparisons are then conducted to determine pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics, and efficacy, safety and tolerability in phase I and phase III clinical studies. Post-approval risk management requirements include implementation of pharmacovigilance systems and risk management through, for example, the conduct of pharmacoepidemiological studies. There are several biosimilars used in the field of rheumatology that are available in the European Union, or in development, that offer the potential to increase affordability/accessibility of biological treatment. The role of these agents in rheumatology will be determined by the confidence placed in them by rheumatologists. These prescribers should expect high-quality data evaluated by an extensive assessment process.

Patient Perceptions and Preferences of Two Etanercept Autoinjectors for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Findings from a Patient Survey in Europe.

INTRODUCTION: Benepali® was the first etanercept (Enbrel®) biosimilar to be approved in the European Union. Both Benepali and Enbrel are available as autoinjector devices. In a recent survey, nurses from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK) reported that their patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) would prefer the Benepali autoinjector compared to the Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector. To determine whether patients' perceptions were similar to those of the nurses, this survey evaluated patients' perceptions and preferences of the Benepali autoinjector versus the Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector in the same five European countries. METHODS: Patients with RA using the Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector participated in a 25-min, face-to-face questionnaire-interview. Patients were also shown an instructional video and device-handling leaflet, received a live demonstration on the Benepali autoinjector, and had access to both Benepali and Enbrel MYCLIC training autoinjectors. Patients rated the importance of ten autoinjector attributes on a seven-point scale (1 = not important at all; 7 = extremely important) and provided their autoinjector preferences based on specific attributes. Patients also gave their opinion on which autoinjector they would prefer to use for self-injection. RESULTS: Overall, 220 patients participated in the survey (France, n = 30; Germany, n = 65; Italy, n = 67; Spain, n = 12; UK, n = 46). 'Easy to operate the self-injection' was ranked as the most important attribute (mean score of 6.8), followed by 'easy to grip' (6.5), and 'intuitive/self-explaining usage' (6.3). Patients preferred the Benepali autoinjector, with the attribute of 'easier to operate' being a strong differentiator compared to the Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector. Most patients (74%) reported that they would prefer to use the Benepali autoinjector over the Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector. 'Easy to operate the self-injection' and 'button-free autoinjector' were key drivers when selecting an autoinjector. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in Europe reported a preference for the Benepali autoinjector compared to the Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector. This finding is consistent with results from a recently reported nurse survey. FUNDING: Biogen.

Perceptions and Preferences of Two Etanercept Autoinjectors for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A New European Union-Approved Etanercept Biosimilar (Benepali®) Versus Etanercept (Enbrel®) - Findings from a Nurse Survey in Europe.

INTRODUCTION: Enbrel® (etanercept: manufactured by Immunex Corporation, Newbury Park, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320, USA) was the first biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Europe. More recently, an etanercept biosimilar (Benepali®: manufactured by Biogen Inc, Cambridge, MA 02124, USA) was approved in the European Union. The perceptions and preferences of the Benepali autoinjector versus Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector were evaluated by nurses from Europe. METHODS: The survey involved a 25-min face-to-face questionnaire-interview with nurses from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK, experienced in training patients on using the Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector. Nurses viewed an instructional video and device-handling leaflet, received a live demonstration on the Benepali autoinjector and had access to both Benepali and Enbrel MYCLIC training autoinjectors. Nurses rated the importance of ten autoinjector attributes on a scale of 1-7 (1 = not important at all; 7 = extremely important) and provided their autoinjector preferences based on specific attributes. Nurses also gave their opinion on which autoinjector their patients with RA would prefer. RESULTS: A total of 149 nurses participated in this survey (France, n = 30; Germany, n = 40; Italy, n = 30; Spain, n = 19; UK, n = 30). 'Easy to operate the self-injection' was ranked as the most important attribute (mean score of 6.8), followed by 'easy to grip' (6.6) and 'intuitive/self-explaining usage' (6.6). Nurses preferred the Benepali autoinjector, with attributes of 'easier to operate' and 'more intuitive to use' being strong differentiators compared with the Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector. Most nurses (86%) reported that their patients would prefer the Benepali autoinjector over the Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector. 'Easy to operate the self-injection' and 'button-free autoinjector' were key drivers when selecting an autoinjector. CONCLUSION: Based on these survey results, nurses in Europe reported a preference for the Benepali autoinjector compared with the Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector for the majority of attributes assessed. In particular, attributes of 'easy to operate' and 'more intuitive/self-explaining to use' were highly rated for the Benepali autoinjector, which may allow easy handling of the autoinjector. FUNDING: Biogen International GmBH.

Biosimilarity Versus Manufacturing Change: Two Distinct Concepts.

As products of living cells, biologics are far more complicated than small molecular-weight drugs not only with respect to size and structural complexity but also their sensitivity to manufacturing processes and post-translational changes. Most of the information on the manufacturing process of biotherapeutics is proprietary and hence not fully accessible to the public. This information gap represents a key challenge for biosimilar developers and plays a key role in explaining the differences in regulatory pathways required to demonstrate biosimilarity versus those required to ensure that a change in manufacturing process did not have implications on safety and efficacy. Manufacturing process changes are frequently needed for a variety of reasons including response to regulatory requirements, up scaling production, change in facility, change in raw materials, improving control of quality (consistency) or optimising production efficiency. The scope of the change is usually a key indicator of the scale of analysis required to evaluate the quality. In most cases, where the scope of the process change is limited, only quality and analytical studies should be sufficient while comparative clinical studies can be required in case of major changes (e.g., cell line changes). Biosimilarity exercises have been addressed differently by regulators on the understanding that biosimilar developers start with fundamental differences being a new cell line and also a knowledge gap of the innovator's processes, including culture media, purification processes, and potentially different formulations, and are thus required to ensure that differences from innovators do not result in differences in efficacy and safety.