Role of biologics and biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease: current trends and future perspectives.
ABSTRACT: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is an idiopathic chronic inflammatory disease of the gastrointestinal system. The spectrum is of predominantly two types, namely, ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. The incidence of IBD has been increasing steadily since 1990, and so the number of agents used in their treatment. Biologics that are derived partly or completely from living biological sources such as animals and humans have become widely available, which provide therapeutic benefits to the IBD patients. Currently, monoclonal antibodies against tumor necrosis factor-alpha (infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab), integrins (vedolizumab and natalizumab), and interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 antagonists (ustekinumab) are approved for use in IBD. Biosimilars of infliximab and adalimumab are also available for the treatment of IBD. This review summarizes the clinical pharmacology, studies leading to their approval, overall indications and their use in IBD, usage in pregnancy and lactation, and the adverse effects of these agents. This review also summarizes the recent advances and future perspectives specific to biologics and biosimilars in IBD.
Project description:Over the last decade, biologics have gained an important place for the treatment of moderate to severe inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and many randomized control trials have evaluated their efficacy.The goal of this review is to analyze the results of these trials and to highlight the evidence and indications emerging from these studies for their implementation in the management of IBD patients.A PubMed search was realized to screen high-quality clinical trials studying biologic agents currently available in clinics for the treatment of IBD. Words used were: "infliximab," "adalimumab," "certolizumab," "golimumab," "natalizumab," "vedolizumab," "ustekinumab," "azathioprine," "methotrexate," "Crohn's disease," and "ulcerative colitis."In Crohn's disease, studies supporting induction and maintenance therapies were documented for infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab, natalizumab, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab. Infliximab, adalimumab, and certolizumab have evidences for fistulizing Crohn's disease and only infliximab and adalimumab have evidences for mucosal healing. In ulcerative colitis, studies supporting induction, maintenance, and mucosal healing were found with infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, and vedolizumab. Only infliximab was associated with evidences for combination therapy with thiopurine and acute severe colitis in ulcerative colitis.Management with biologics in IBD patients is well validated by high-quality clinical trials.
Project description:A systematic review was conducted to explore the immunogenicity of biologic agents across inflammatory diseases and its potential impact on efficacy/safety.Literature searches were conducted through November 2016 to identify controlled and observational studies of biologics/biosimilars administered for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), psoriasis (Ps), Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis.Of >21,000 screened publications, 443 were included. Anti-drug antibody (ADAb) rates varied widely among biologics across diseases (and are not directly comparable because of immunoassay heterogeneity); the highest overall rates were reported with infliximab (0-83%), adalimumab (0-54%), and infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 (21-52%), and the lowest with secukinumab (0-1%), ustekinumab (1-11%), etanercept (0-13%), and golimumab (0-19%). Most ADAbs were neutralizing, except those to abatacept and etanercept. ADAb+ versus ADAb- patients had lower rates of clinical response to adalimumab (RA, PsA, JIA, AS, Ps), golimumab (RA), infliximab (RA, PsA, AS, Ps), rituximab (RA), ustekinumab (Ps), and CT-P13 (RA, AS). Higher rates of infusion-related reactions were reported in infliximab- and CT-P13-treated ADAb+ patients. Background immunosuppressives/anti-proliferatives reduced biologic immunogenicity across diseases.Based on reviewed reports, biologic/biosimilar immunogenicity differs among agents, with the highest rates observed with infliximab and adalimumab. As ADAb formation in biologic-/biosimilar-treated patients may increase the risk of lost response, the immunogenicity of these agents is an important (albeit not the only) consideration in the treatment decision-making process.
Project description:To compare biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy persistence between biologics among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who previously used ?1 other biologic.Using a large United States administrative claims dataset, we identified adult patients with RA initiating abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, or tocilizumab between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2012 (initiation date = index). Patients were required to have used ?1 other biologic before index. Outcomes were biologic persistence, defined in two alternative ways: (1) time from initiation until switching to a different biologic (time to switch) and (2) time from initiation until switching or the first occurrence of a 90-day gap in treatment with the initiated biologic (time to switch/discontinuation). Rituximab was excluded from analyses due to retreatment based on clinical evaluation, which complicates the measurement of persistence. Multivariable survival analyses compared persistence outcomes between tocilizumab and the other biologics, adjusting for patient characteristics.The sample comprised 9,782 biologic initiations; mean age 54 years and 82% female. Compared with tocilizumab, the hazards of switching biologic therapy were significantly higher for abatacept [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.19, P = 0.041], adalimumab (HR = 1.39, P < 0.001), certolizumab (HR = 1.39, P < 0.001), golimumab (HR = 1.20, P = 0.047), and infliximab (HR = 1.33, P < 0.001), but not significantly different for etanercept (HR = 1.19, P = 0.095); the hazards of switching/discontinuing biologic therapy were significantly higher for adalimumab (HR = 1.16, P = 0.014) and certolizumab (HR = 1.15, P < 0.012), but not significantly different for abatacept (HR = 1.08, P = 0.229), etanercept (HR = 0.97, P = 0.644), golimumab (HR = 0.99, P = 0.829), and infliximab (HR = 0.97, P = 0.721).This is one of the first studies of biologic persistence to focus specifically on patients with RA who are not naïve to biologic treatment. Among patients with RA who previously used ?1 other biologic, tocilizumab-treated patients had similar or significantly better biologic persistence compared with other biologics.
Project description:Background:Multiple targeted immunomodulators (TIMs) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treatment are available, but limited studies have directly compared these agents. This study indirectly compared the efficacy of TNF-α, interleukins, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors for treatment of active PsA. Methods:A systematic literature review was conducted to identify phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, and apremilast in active PsA. Joint (ACR20/50/70) and skin outcomes (PASI75/90) at Week 24 with each TIM were estimated via a Bayesian network meta-analysis, and the incremental cost per responder over the first 24 weeks of treatment was calculated. Similar analyses were conducted in a subgroup of biologic-naïve patients. Results:Seventeen RCTs were identified; 13 included ACR and/or PASI responses at Week 24. Among the overall population, patients receiving adalimumab, golimumab, and infliximab showed higher ACR20/50/70 (adalimumab: 61.2/42.8/40.8%, golimumab: 61.6/39.8/27.4%, infliximab: 56.2/57.1/34.2%) and PASI75/90 (72.7/55.5%, 74.1/57.2%, and 77.1/61.0%, respectively) responses at Week 24 compared with other TIMs. In terms of cost-effectiveness, these treatments were also associated with the lowest incremental cost per responder for both skin and joint outcomes. Similar rankings of efficacy and incremental cost per responder were observed in the analysis among biologic-naive patients. Conclusions:Adalimumab, golimumab, and infliximab were associated with higher efficacy and lower incremental costs per responder for both joint and skin responses in active PsA.
Project description:The effect of five approved tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab) on joint destruction in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been compared versus methotrexate (MTX) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but have not been compared directly to each other or to an otherwise untreated placebo control. The present analysis compares effects of standard doses, high doses, and low doses of TNFis on radiographic joint destruction in RA and relate these effects to MTX and placebo by means of a Bayesian network meta-analysis. We identified 31 RCTs of the effect of TNFis on joint destruction and 5 RCTs with controls, which indirectly could link otherwise untreated placebo controls to the TNFi treatments in the network. The previously untested comparison with placebo was performed to estimate not only the effect relative to another drug, but also the absolute attainable effect. Compared to placebo there was a highly significant inhibitory effect on joint destruction of infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab, which was about 0.9% per year as monotherapy and about 1.2% per year when combined with MTX. Although significantly better than MTX and placebo, golimumab seemed inferior to the remaining TNFis. There was no difference between original reference drugs (Remicade, Enbrel) and the almost identical copy drugs (biosimilars).
Project description:Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are chronic inflammatory disorders of the gastrointestinal tract. Treatment options include biologic therapies; however, a proportion of patients lose response to biologics, partly due to the formation of anti-drug antibodies (ADAbs). Concomitant immunosuppressive agents reduce the development of ADAbs. This review article aims to assess the immunogenicity of biologic therapies and their clinical implications. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for articles published January 2009 to August 2015 reporting immunogenicity to adalimumab (ADM), certolizumab pegol (CZP), golimumab, infliximab (IFX), ustekinumab, and vedolizumab in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Eligible articles were reviewed and quality assessed by independent reviewers. Overall, 122 publications reporting 114 studies were assessed. ADAbs were reported for all agents, but the percentage of patients developing ADAbs was extremely variable, with the highest (65.3%) being for IFX administration to patients with IBD. ADAb presence was frequently associated with a reduction in primary efficacy and a loss of response, and, for IFX, an increase in adverse events (AEs). Lower serum levels of ADM, CZP and IFX were seen in ADAbs-positive rather than ADAbs-negative patients; pharmacokinetic data were unavailable for other therapies. Little information was available regarding the timing of ADAb development; studies reported their detection from as early as 10-14 days up to months after treatment initiation. Biologic therapies carry an intrinsic risk of immunogenicity, although reported rates of ADAbs vary considerably. The clinical implications of immunogenicity are a concern for effective treatment; further research, particularly into the more recently approved biologics, is required.
Project description:Background:Vedolizumab is a biologic drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) who have had inadequate response to, lost response to, or were intolerant of immunomodulators or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker therapy, or who had an inadequate response with, were intolerant to, or demonstrated dependence on corticosteroid therapy. The biologics approved by the FDA for CD and/or UC include adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab. Objective:To assess the budget impact of including vedolizumab in a health plan formulary among current options as a preferred first-line biologic therapy for UC and CD rather than only for patients who failed anti-TNF therapy. Methods:We developed a 3-year budget impact model for a 1-million-member health plan. Comparators included all currently approved brand-name biologic and biosimilar agents for the treatment of UC (ie, adalimumab, infliximab, and golimumab) and CD (ie, adalimumab, certolizumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab). Clinical inputs included therapy response probabilities, disease remission, and surgery risk. Given the lack of head-to-head clinical trials, we estimated indirect comparisons of treatment efficacy based on clinical trial data using the Bucher method. The drug and medical costs were obtained from published literature. The model compared hypothetical health plan costs for 2 scenarios-(1) a market mix with vedolizumab included on the formulary with currently existing first- and second-line preferred treatments, and (2) vedolizumab included only with existing preferred second-line treatments on the hypothetical formulary. These scenarios were compared in the context of 3 hypothetical health plan formulary cases. Results:Including vedolizumab in a hypothetical formulary with currently preferred first-line biologic treatment options (Scenario 1) resulted in cost-savings compared with vedolizumab as a preferred second-line biologic option (Scenario 2). The total cost-savings were from $0.13 million to $1.63 million in year 1, and from $0.38 million to $4.68 million in year 3. The per-member per-month cost-savings were from $0.01 to $0.14 in year 1 and from $0.03 to $0.39 in year 3. Conclusion:Based on our model's results, including vedolizumab among the current health plan formulary biologic options as a preferred first-line treatment for UC and CD can result in substantial cost-savings compared with including vedolizumab as a preferred second-line treatment only.
Project description:Rheumatoid arthritis patients have been treated with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and the newer biologic drugs. We sought to compare and rank the biologics with respect to efficacy. We performed a literature search identifying 54 publications encompassing 9 biologics. We conducted a multiple treatment comparison regression analysis letting the number experiencing a 50% improvement on the ACR score be dependent upon dose level and disease duration for assessing the comparable relative effect between biologics and placebo or DMARD. The analysis embraced all treatment and comparator arms over all publications. Hence, all measured effects of any biologic agent contributed to the comparison of all biologic agents relative to each other either given alone or combined with DMARD. We found the drug effect to be dependent on dose level, but not on disease duration, and the impact of a high versus low dose level was the same for all drugs (higher doses indicated a higher frequency of ACR50 scores). The ranking of the drugs when given without DMARD was certolizumab (ranked highest), etanercept, tocilizumab/ abatacept and adalimumab. The ranking of the drugs when given with DMARD was certolizumab (ranked highest), tocilizumab, anakinra/rituximab, golimumab/ infliximab/ abatacept, adalimumab/ etanercept [corrected]. Still, all drugs were effective. All biologic agents were effective compared to placebo, with certolizumab the most effective and adalimumab (without DMARD treatment) and adalimumab/ etanercept (combined with DMARD treatment) the least effective. The drugs were in general more effective, except for etanercept, when given together with DMARDs.
Project description:<h4>Objective</h4>To study cost-effectiveness of an interleukin (IL)-17A inhibitor secukinumab, with other biologics and apremilast in patients with Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from payer perspective in Finland.<h4>Methods</h4>In this semi-Markov model, subcutaneous (SC) secukinumab was compared with SC treatments etanercept and its biosimilar, certolizumab pegol, adalimumab and its biosimilar, golimumab, ustekinumab, intravenous (IV) treatment infliximab, as well as oral non-biologic apremilast. Patients without prior exposure (naïve) to biologics and without moderate to severe psoriasis were considered for secukinumab 150 mg group. Secukinumab 300 mg group included naïve patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and all patients with prior biologic exposure. The PsA Response Criteria (PsARC) at 12-week was primary criteria for treatment response. Other clinical as well as cost related model inputs were derived from relevant clinical trials as well as Finnish publications. The key model outcomes were quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. An annual 3% discount rate was applied to all future costs and benefits. Model input variations were assessed through sensitivity analyses and alternative scenario analyses.<h4>Results</h4>For a lifetime horizon (60 years), secukinumab 150 mg dominated all branded SC biologics and apremilast with highest QALY of 8.01 and lowest lifetime cost of €187,776, while it was cost-effective against IV infliximab among biologic-naïve patients without moderate to severe psoriasis. Secukinumab 300 mg was cost-effective against all branded SC biologics and apremilast and dominated IV infliximab among biologic-naïve patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, while it was cost-effective in biologic experienced patients. With the one-way sensitivity analysis, PsARC response, drug acquisition cost, and health assessment questionnaire score were the most important parameters affecting the outcomes. Across all treatment groups, patients on secukinumab were most likely to achieve highest net monetary benefit than other competitors in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. With alternative scenario analysis, results largely remained unchanged.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Secukinumab is a cost-effective treatment for PsA patients from a Finnish payer's perspective.
Project description:Background:Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an inflammatory disease of the colon and rectum. Treatment options include biologics and tofacitinib. Objectives:We aim to summarize the evidence on efficacy and safety of biologics and tofacitinib in moderate-to-severe UC. Methods:PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials assessing adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, vedolizumab, and tofacitinib in UC. Efficacy outcomes included induction and maintenance of clinical response, clinical remission and mucosal healing. Safety outcomes included adverse events and serious adverse events. Results:The overview involved 31 meta-analyses. All four biologics and tofacitinib were superior to placebo regarding efficacy. Indirect comparisons suggested that infliximab may be better than adalimumab and golimumab to induce clinical response and mucosal healing. Safety analyses indicated no increased rates of adverse events, except for infliximab. Conclusions:Biologics and tofacitinib are efficacious and safe for treating UC. These findings can support clinical decision-making.