Ankylosing spondylitis

Administration of infliximab within 4 weeks of elective knee or hip arthroplasty did not have any significant effect on patients’ risk of serious infection after surgery, whereas the use of glucocorticoids increased that risk, in an analysis of a Medicare claims database.

“This increased risk with glucocorticoids has been suggested by previous studies [and] although this risk may be related in part to increased disease severity among glucocorticoid treated patients, a direct medication effect is likely. [These data suggest] that prolonged interruptions in infliximab therapy prior to surgery may be counterproductive if higher dose glucocorticoid therapy is used in substitution,” wrote the authors of the new study, led by Michael D. George, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Dr. George and his colleagues examined data from the U.S. Medicare claims system on 4,288 elective knee or hip arthroplasties in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis who received infliximab within 6 months prior to the operation during 2007-2013 (Arthritis Care Res. 2017 Jan 27. doi: 10.1002/acr.23209).

The patients had to have received infliximab at least three times within a year of their procedure to establish that they were receiving stable therapy over a long-term period. The investigators also looked at oral prednisone, prednisolone, and methylprednisolone prescriptions and used data on average dosing to determine how much was administered to each subject.

“Although previous studies have treated TNF stopping vs. not stopping as a dichotomous exposure based on an arbitrary (and variable) stopping definition, in this study the primary analysis evaluated stop timing as a more general categorical exposure using 4-week intervals (half the standard rheumatoid arthritis dosing interval) to allow better assessment of the optimal stop timing,” the authors explained.

Stopping infliximab within 4 weeks of the operation did not significantly influence the rate of serious infection within 30 days (adjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60-1.34) and neither did stopping within 4-8 weeks (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.62-1.36) when compared against stopping 8-12 weeks before surgery. Of the 4,288 arthroplasties, 270 serious infections (6.3%) occurred within 30 days of the operation.

There also was no significant difference between stopping within 4 weeks and 8-12 weeks in the rate of prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the operation (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.52-1.87). Overall, prosthetic joint infection occurred 2.9 times per 100 person-years.

However, glucocorticoid doses of more than 10 mg per day were risky. The odds for a serious infection within 30 days after surgery more than doubled with that level of use (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.30-3.40), while the risk for a prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the surgery also rose significantly (HR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.30-5.60).

[email protected]

Administration of infliximab within 4 weeks of elective knee or hip arthroplasty did not have any significant effect on patients’ risk of serious infection after surgery, whereas the use of glucocorticoids increased that risk, in an analysis of a Medicare claims database.

“This increased risk with glucocorticoids has been suggested by previous studies [and] although this risk may be related in part to increased disease severity among glucocorticoid treated patients, a direct medication effect is likely. [These data suggest] that prolonged interruptions in infliximab therapy prior to surgery may be counterproductive if higher dose glucocorticoid therapy is used in substitution,” wrote the authors of the new study, led by Michael D. George, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Dr. George and his colleagues examined data from the U.S. Medicare claims system on 4,288 elective knee or hip arthroplasties in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis who received infliximab within 6 months prior to the operation during 2007-2013 (Arthritis Care Res. 2017 Jan 27. doi: 10.1002/acr.23209).

The patients had to have received infliximab at least three times within a year of their procedure to establish that they were receiving stable therapy over a long-term period. The investigators also looked at oral prednisone, prednisolone, and methylprednisolone prescriptions and used data on average dosing to determine how much was administered to each subject.

“Although previous studies have treated TNF stopping vs. not stopping as a dichotomous exposure based on an arbitrary (and variable) stopping definition, in this study the primary analysis evaluated stop timing as a more general categorical exposure using 4-week intervals (half the standard rheumatoid arthritis dosing interval) to allow better assessment of the optimal stop timing,” the authors explained.

Stopping infliximab within 4 weeks of the operation did not significantly influence the rate of serious infection within 30 days (adjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60-1.34) and neither did stopping within 4-8 weeks (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.62-1.36) when compared against stopping 8-12 weeks before surgery. Of the 4,288 arthroplasties, 270 serious infections (6.3%) occurred within 30 days of the operation.

There also was no significant difference between stopping within 4 weeks and 8-12 weeks in the rate of prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the operation (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.52-1.87). Overall, prosthetic joint infection occurred 2.9 times per 100 person-years.

However, glucocorticoid doses of more than 10 mg per day were risky. The odds for a serious infection within 30 days after surgery more than doubled with that level of use (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.30-3.40), while the risk for a prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the surgery also rose significantly (HR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.30-5.60).

[email protected]

Administration of infliximab within 4 weeks of elective knee or hip arthroplasty did not have any significant effect on patients’ risk of serious infection after surgery, whereas the use of glucocorticoids increased that risk, in an analysis of a Medicare claims database.

“This increased risk with glucocorticoids has been suggested by previous studies [and] although this risk may be related in part to increased disease severity among glucocorticoid treated patients, a direct medication effect is likely. [These data suggest] that prolonged interruptions in infliximab therapy prior to surgery may be counterproductive if higher dose glucocorticoid therapy is used in substitution,” wrote the authors of the new study, led by Michael D. George, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Dr. George and his colleagues examined data from the U.S. Medicare claims system on 4,288 elective knee or hip arthroplasties in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis who received infliximab within 6 months prior to the operation during 2007-2013 (Arthritis Care Res. 2017 Jan 27. doi: 10.1002/acr.23209).

The patients had to have received infliximab at least three times within a year of their procedure to establish that they were receiving stable therapy over a long-term period. The investigators also looked at oral prednisone, prednisolone, and methylprednisolone prescriptions and used data on average dosing to determine how much was administered to each subject.

“Although previous studies have treated TNF stopping vs. not stopping as a dichotomous exposure based on an arbitrary (and variable) stopping definition, in this study the primary analysis evaluated stop timing as a more general categorical exposure using 4-week intervals (half the standard rheumatoid arthritis dosing interval) to allow better assessment of the optimal stop timing,” the authors explained.

Stopping infliximab within 4 weeks of the operation did not significantly influence the rate of serious infection within 30 days (adjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60-1.34) and neither did stopping within 4-8 weeks (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.62-1.36) when compared against stopping 8-12 weeks before surgery. Of the 4,288 arthroplasties, 270 serious infections (6.3%) occurred within 30 days of the operation.

There also was no significant difference between stopping within 4 weeks and 8-12 weeks in the rate of prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the operation (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.52-1.87). Overall, prosthetic joint infection occurred 2.9 times per 100 person-years.

However, glucocorticoid doses of more than 10 mg per day were risky. The odds for a serious infection within 30 days after surgery more than doubled with that level of use (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.30-3.40), while the risk for a prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the surgery also rose significantly (HR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.30-5.60).

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has proposed a regulatory path for biosimilar biologics that are interchangeable with the reference product, paving the way for a new generation of less-expensive versions of these unique drugs.

But bringing an interchangeable biosimilar to market won’t be easy. The bar for interchangeability will be high, requiring that manufacturers prove switching between the new and older products is safe. And clinicians, while cautiously optimistic, aren’t thrilled with the industry payoff that could come with the designation: freedom for insurance companies and pharmacies to switch products at the dispensing level without requiring a new prescription.

The draft FDA guidance for industry, “Considerations in Demonstrating Interchangeability With a Reference Product,” arises from the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. That section of the Affordable Care Act provides for abbreviated approval pathways for biological products that are demonstrated to be “highly similar” (biosimilar) to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-approved biological product.

The difference between these appellations is subtle but critical to the regulatory process – and perhaps to patient safety. Regulators recognize that the structure of these large, highly complex molecules can never precisely replicate the reference product. But to be labeled a “biosimilar,” developers must prove that the new product functions essentially the same; there can be no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity, and potency. Unlike a generic medication, a biosimilar can’t be substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy level. If a physician wants the patient on that biosimilar, the script must specify it.

Interchangeables jump a higher regulatory bar

An “interchangeable biosimilar,” though, would have to jump a higher regulatory bar. Not only must it produce the same clinical result as the reference product, it also must be benignly interchangeable with it, conferring no additional risk if a patient switches from the reference to the biosimilar and back again. A pharmacist could, if permitted by state law, substitute an interchangeable product for the reference product without going through the prescriber.

Like biosimilars, interchangeable products need not be tested in every disease for which the reference drug is approved, according to the document. Once they are proved safe for one indication, those data can be extrapolated to allow approval for the other indications as well. Nor do biosimilars need to prove efficacy per se, as their molecular similarity to the reference product ensures that they bind to the same receptor and exert the same therapeutic effect.

The biosimilar/interchangeable market has been slow to take off in the United States. There are no approved interchangeable biosimilars, and only four biosimilars – three of which were approved in 2016:

• Sandoz’ filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio).

• Pfizer’s and Celltrion’s infliximab-dyyb (Inflectra).

• Sandoz’ etanercept-szzs (Erelzi).

• Amgen’s adalimumab-atto (Amjevita).

Switching studies is the key to achieving the interchangeable designation, according to the FDA document. They must include at least two full switches between the candidate product and the reference product, which must be licensed in the United States.

But because these products are so structurally diverse, the FDA isn’t imposing a one-size-fits-all process on them. Instead, the molecular complexity and immunogenicity of each product will dictate its approval requirements.

Those with relatively low structural complexity, high molecular similarity to the reference product, and a low incidence of immunogenic adverse events may only need a single switching study to achieve the “interchangeability” designation.

The bar will be higher for a product with high structural complexity that is not as similar to the reference product, or which has been associated with immunogenic adverse events. For this product, FDA might also require extensive safety postmarketing data for the product as a licensed biosimilar, as well as a switching study.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety will be the primary endpoints of a switching study. Efficacy data are not necessary but can be used as supportive endpoints. Any safety signals in a switching study would raise regulatory eyebrows whether they came from the candidate product or the reference product. Since the study replicates what could happen if the two were used sequentially, it makes little difference from which product the event might arise.

“If an apparent difference in immune response or adverse events is noticed between the switching and nonswitching arms of the study ... it would raise concerns as to whether the proposed interchangeable product is interchangeable, regardless of whether the proposed interchangeable product or the reference product or the switching of the two products actually caused the event,” the document notes.

The E.U. vs. U.S. experience

The United States is only now getting a taste of what has become common fare in the European Union, said Angus Worthing, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Government Affairs Committee. The European Medicines Agency approved its first biosimilar in 2006. Since then, 23 such drugs have come on the market, at an average price of about 30% less than the reference drug. Prices for some drugs have dropped as much as 70% in countries in which national health care systems abandoned the reference product in favor of the competing biosimilar, Dr. Worthing said in an interview.

“But the U.S. doesn’t have a national health care system, so it won’t work like that here.” In fact, he noted, brand-new data show that Medicare actually paid 22% more for the infliximab biosimilar Inflectra than it did for Remicade in the last quarter of 2016.

It’s not immediately apparent why this is the case, but it’s probably related to company discounts and rebates on these very expensive drugs. According to the report in Inside Health Policy, Janssen Biotech may have increased its discount on the drug to compete with Inflectra’s launch price of 15% below Remicade’s wholesale cost. Prices won’t moderate as much in the United States as in the European Union until several biosimilars of the same class appear, Dr. Worthing said.

There have already been allegations that big pharma manipulates international and national pricing to reduce biosimilar competition.

In June, Russian biotech company Biocad filed a lawsuit in New York charging Roche/Genentech with price fixing. The suit alleges that the companies cut the cost of three cancer drugs (Avastin, Herceptin, and Rituxan/MabThera) in Russia, where Biocad markets biosimilars for each. At the same time, Biocad alleges, the companies raised U.S. prices on those drugs to make up for the money they were losing on the Russian market.

Nonmedical switching raises concerns

Academic medical societies and clinicians interviewed for this article view the proposed approval pathway with cautious optimism. While acknowledging the potential benefit of reducing the costs of prohibitively expensive drugs, they uniformly insist that patient safety – not economic pressure – should be the driving force here.

“I was initially skeptical, and I do believe that we need very close pharmacovigilance in monitoring these for safety,” said Gideon Smith, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “But there has been huge uptake of these products in the E.U., and the data are so extensive that we can be reasonably confident these drugs are effective, and no good reason to believe the safety will be any different.”

He is not as comfortable with the prospect of pharmacy-level substitution of an interchangeable biosimilar with the reference product – a feeling that other clinicians echoed.

“I think this is a fundamental issue that should have been dealt with on a federal level. Physicians should always be involved in the decision,” said Dr. Smith, who spoke at an FDA advisory committee meeting last summer on behalf of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD).

*This article was updated 1/31/2017.

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

The Food and Drug Administration has proposed a regulatory path for biosimilar biologics that are interchangeable with the reference product, paving the way for a new generation of less-expensive versions of these unique drugs.

But bringing an interchangeable biosimilar to market won’t be easy. The bar for interchangeability will be high, requiring that manufacturers prove switching between the new and older products is safe. And clinicians, while cautiously optimistic, aren’t thrilled with the industry payoff that could come with the designation: freedom for insurance companies and pharmacies to switch products at the dispensing level without requiring a new prescription.

The draft FDA guidance for industry, “Considerations in Demonstrating Interchangeability With a Reference Product,” arises from the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. That section of the Affordable Care Act provides for abbreviated approval pathways for biological products that are demonstrated to be “highly similar” (biosimilar) to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-approved biological product.

The difference between these appellations is subtle but critical to the regulatory process – and perhaps to patient safety. Regulators recognize that the structure of these large, highly complex molecules can never precisely replicate the reference product. But to be labeled a “biosimilar,” developers must prove that the new product functions essentially the same; there can be no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity, and potency. Unlike a generic medication, a biosimilar can’t be substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy level. If a physician wants the patient on that biosimilar, the script must specify it.

Interchangeables jump a higher regulatory bar

An “interchangeable biosimilar,” though, would have to jump a higher regulatory bar. Not only must it produce the same clinical result as the reference product, it also must be benignly interchangeable with it, conferring no additional risk if a patient switches from the reference to the biosimilar and back again. A pharmacist could, if permitted by state law, substitute an interchangeable product for the reference product without going through the prescriber.

Like biosimilars, interchangeable products need not be tested in every disease for which the reference drug is approved, according to the document. Once they are proved safe for one indication, those data can be extrapolated to allow approval for the other indications as well. Nor do biosimilars need to prove efficacy per se, as their molecular similarity to the reference product ensures that they bind to the same receptor and exert the same therapeutic effect.

The biosimilar/interchangeable market has been slow to take off in the United States. There are no approved interchangeable biosimilars, and only four biosimilars – three of which were approved in 2016:

• Sandoz’ filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio).

• Pfizer’s and Celltrion’s infliximab-dyyb (Inflectra).

• Sandoz’ etanercept-szzs (Erelzi).

• Amgen’s adalimumab-atto (Amjevita).

Switching studies is the key to achieving the interchangeable designation, according to the FDA document. They must include at least two full switches between the candidate product and the reference product, which must be licensed in the United States.

But because these products are so structurally diverse, the FDA isn’t imposing a one-size-fits-all process on them. Instead, the molecular complexity and immunogenicity of each product will dictate its approval requirements.

Those with relatively low structural complexity, high molecular similarity to the reference product, and a low incidence of immunogenic adverse events may only need a single switching study to achieve the “interchangeability” designation.

The bar will be higher for a product with high structural complexity that is not as similar to the reference product, or which has been associated with immunogenic adverse events. For this product, FDA might also require extensive safety postmarketing data for the product as a licensed biosimilar, as well as a switching study.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety will be the primary endpoints of a switching study. Efficacy data are not necessary but can be used as supportive endpoints. Any safety signals in a switching study would raise regulatory eyebrows whether they came from the candidate product or the reference product. Since the study replicates what could happen if the two were used sequentially, it makes little difference from which product the event might arise.

“If an apparent difference in immune response or adverse events is noticed between the switching and nonswitching arms of the study ... it would raise concerns as to whether the proposed interchangeable product is interchangeable, regardless of whether the proposed interchangeable product or the reference product or the switching of the two products actually caused the event,” the document notes.

The E.U. vs. U.S. experience

The United States is only now getting a taste of what has become common fare in the European Union, said Angus Worthing, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Government Affairs Committee. The European Medicines Agency approved its first biosimilar in 2006. Since then, 23 such drugs have come on the market, at an average price of about 30% less than the reference drug. Prices for some drugs have dropped as much as 70% in countries in which national health care systems abandoned the reference product in favor of the competing biosimilar, Dr. Worthing said in an interview.

“But the U.S. doesn’t have a national health care system, so it won’t work like that here.” In fact, he noted, brand-new data show that Medicare actually paid 22% more for the infliximab biosimilar Inflectra than it did for Remicade in the last quarter of 2016.

It’s not immediately apparent why this is the case, but it’s probably related to company discounts and rebates on these very expensive drugs. According to the report in Inside Health Policy, Janssen Biotech may have increased its discount on the drug to compete with Inflectra’s launch price of 15% below Remicade’s wholesale cost. Prices won’t moderate as much in the United States as in the European Union until several biosimilars of the same class appear, Dr. Worthing said.

There have already been allegations that big pharma manipulates international and national pricing to reduce biosimilar competition.

In June, Russian biotech company Biocad filed a lawsuit in New York charging Roche/Genentech with price fixing. The suit alleges that the companies cut the cost of three cancer drugs (Avastin, Herceptin, and Rituxan/MabThera) in Russia, where Biocad markets biosimilars for each. At the same time, Biocad alleges, the companies raised U.S. prices on those drugs to make up for the money they were losing on the Russian market.

Nonmedical switching raises concerns

Academic medical societies and clinicians interviewed for this article view the proposed approval pathway with cautious optimism. While acknowledging the potential benefit of reducing the costs of prohibitively expensive drugs, they uniformly insist that patient safety – not economic pressure – should be the driving force here.

“I was initially skeptical, and I do believe that we need very close pharmacovigilance in monitoring these for safety,” said Gideon Smith, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “But there has been huge uptake of these products in the E.U., and the data are so extensive that we can be reasonably confident these drugs are effective, and no good reason to believe the safety will be any different.”

He is not as comfortable with the prospect of pharmacy-level substitution of an interchangeable biosimilar with the reference product – a feeling that other clinicians echoed.

“I think this is a fundamental issue that should have been dealt with on a federal level. Physicians should always be involved in the decision,” said Dr. Smith, who spoke at an FDA advisory committee meeting last summer on behalf of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD).

*This article was updated 1/31/2017.

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

The Food and Drug Administration has proposed a regulatory path for biosimilar biologics that are interchangeable with the reference product, paving the way for a new generation of less-expensive versions of these unique drugs.

But bringing an interchangeable biosimilar to market won’t be easy. The bar for interchangeability will be high, requiring that manufacturers prove switching between the new and older products is safe. And clinicians, while cautiously optimistic, aren’t thrilled with the industry payoff that could come with the designation: freedom for insurance companies and pharmacies to switch products at the dispensing level without requiring a new prescription.

The draft FDA guidance for industry, “Considerations in Demonstrating Interchangeability With a Reference Product,” arises from the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. That section of the Affordable Care Act provides for abbreviated approval pathways for biological products that are demonstrated to be “highly similar” (biosimilar) to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-approved biological product.

The difference between these appellations is subtle but critical to the regulatory process – and perhaps to patient safety. Regulators recognize that the structure of these large, highly complex molecules can never precisely replicate the reference product. But to be labeled a “biosimilar,” developers must prove that the new product functions essentially the same; there can be no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity, and potency. Unlike a generic medication, a biosimilar can’t be substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy level. If a physician wants the patient on that biosimilar, the script must specify it.

Interchangeables jump a higher regulatory bar

An “interchangeable biosimilar,” though, would have to jump a higher regulatory bar. Not only must it produce the same clinical result as the reference product, it also must be benignly interchangeable with it, conferring no additional risk if a patient switches from the reference to the biosimilar and back again. A pharmacist could, if permitted by state law, substitute an interchangeable product for the reference product without going through the prescriber.

Like biosimilars, interchangeable products need not be tested in every disease for which the reference drug is approved, according to the document. Once they are proved safe for one indication, those data can be extrapolated to allow approval for the other indications as well. Nor do biosimilars need to prove efficacy per se, as their molecular similarity to the reference product ensures that they bind to the same receptor and exert the same therapeutic effect.

The biosimilar/interchangeable market has been slow to take off in the United States. There are no approved interchangeable biosimilars, and only four biosimilars – three of which were approved in 2016:

• Sandoz’ filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio).

• Pfizer’s and Celltrion’s infliximab-dyyb (Inflectra).

• Sandoz’ etanercept-szzs (Erelzi).

• Amgen’s adalimumab-atto (Amjevita).

Switching studies is the key to achieving the interchangeable designation, according to the FDA document. They must include at least two full switches between the candidate product and the reference product, which must be licensed in the United States.

But because these products are so structurally diverse, the FDA isn’t imposing a one-size-fits-all process on them. Instead, the molecular complexity and immunogenicity of each product will dictate its approval requirements.

Those with relatively low structural complexity, high molecular similarity to the reference product, and a low incidence of immunogenic adverse events may only need a single switching study to achieve the “interchangeability” designation.

The bar will be higher for a product with high structural complexity that is not as similar to the reference product, or which has been associated with immunogenic adverse events. For this product, FDA might also require extensive safety postmarketing data for the product as a licensed biosimilar, as well as a switching study.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety will be the primary endpoints of a switching study. Efficacy data are not necessary but can be used as supportive endpoints. Any safety signals in a switching study would raise regulatory eyebrows whether they came from the candidate product or the reference product. Since the study replicates what could happen if the two were used sequentially, it makes little difference from which product the event might arise.

“If an apparent difference in immune response or adverse events is noticed between the switching and nonswitching arms of the study ... it would raise concerns as to whether the proposed interchangeable product is interchangeable, regardless of whether the proposed interchangeable product or the reference product or the switching of the two products actually caused the event,” the document notes.

The E.U. vs. U.S. experience

The United States is only now getting a taste of what has become common fare in the European Union, said Angus Worthing, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Government Affairs Committee. The European Medicines Agency approved its first biosimilar in 2006. Since then, 23 such drugs have come on the market, at an average price of about 30% less than the reference drug. Prices for some drugs have dropped as much as 70% in countries in which national health care systems abandoned the reference product in favor of the competing biosimilar, Dr. Worthing said in an interview.

“But the U.S. doesn’t have a national health care system, so it won’t work like that here.” In fact, he noted, brand-new data show that Medicare actually paid 22% more for the infliximab biosimilar Inflectra than it did for Remicade in the last quarter of 2016.

It’s not immediately apparent why this is the case, but it’s probably related to company discounts and rebates on these very expensive drugs. According to the report in Inside Health Policy, Janssen Biotech may have increased its discount on the drug to compete with Inflectra’s launch price of 15% below Remicade’s wholesale cost. Prices won’t moderate as much in the United States as in the European Union until several biosimilars of the same class appear, Dr. Worthing said.

There have already been allegations that big pharma manipulates international and national pricing to reduce biosimilar competition.

In June, Russian biotech company Biocad filed a lawsuit in New York charging Roche/Genentech with price fixing. The suit alleges that the companies cut the cost of three cancer drugs (Avastin, Herceptin, and Rituxan/MabThera) in Russia, where Biocad markets biosimilars for each. At the same time, Biocad alleges, the companies raised U.S. prices on those drugs to make up for the money they were losing on the Russian market.

Nonmedical switching raises concerns

Academic medical societies and clinicians interviewed for this article view the proposed approval pathway with cautious optimism. While acknowledging the potential benefit of reducing the costs of prohibitively expensive drugs, they uniformly insist that patient safety – not economic pressure – should be the driving force here.

“I was initially skeptical, and I do believe that we need very close pharmacovigilance in monitoring these for safety,” said Gideon Smith, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “But there has been huge uptake of these products in the E.U., and the data are so extensive that we can be reasonably confident these drugs are effective, and no good reason to believe the safety will be any different.”

He is not as comfortable with the prospect of pharmacy-level substitution of an interchangeable biosimilar with the reference product – a feeling that other clinicians echoed.

“I think this is a fundamental issue that should have been dealt with on a federal level. Physicians should always be involved in the decision,” said Dr. Smith, who spoke at an FDA advisory committee meeting last summer on behalf of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD).

*This article was updated 1/31/2017.

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

Two recent reports that provide opposing evidence about the potential for inflammatory bowel disease patients to develop articular manifestations after starting vedolizumab raise questions for future studies to answer in regard to a plausible mechanism for the adverse event and its relative importance.

The two reports, one a case series of 5 patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who developed articular manifestations after beginning vedolizumab (Entyvio) and the other a prospective cohort study of 53 patients with IBD who started vedolizumab without any subsequent cases of induction or flare of arthritis and/or sacroiliitis, came to somewhat different conclusions about the beneficial or paradoxical effects of vedolizumab’s blockade of the alpha4beta7 receptor on articular manifestations of IBD.

The five-patient cases series reported by Gaëlle Varkas, MD, a doctoral student at the University of Ghent, Belgium, and her colleagues consisted of five IBD patients, aged 26-50 years, who developed either new onset or an exacerbation of sacroiliitis or arthritis soon after starting vedolizumab. All but one of the patients was female (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Nov 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210233). In these patients, the investigators said, vedolizumab did not “seem to show any efficacy in and might even induce arthritis and/or sacroiliitis.”

The first was a 50-year-old woman who had progressive back pain with MRI-confirmed bilateral sacroiliitis about 2 months after beginning vedolizumab. The second patient, a 28-year-old woman with no previous history of spondyloarthropathy, had lower limb pain, a painful left shoulder, and arthritis of one wrist. Ultrasound examination confirmed intercarpal effusions and synovial hyperproliferation.

The third patient was 30 years old and male. He had both ankylosing spondylitis and Crohn’s disease, and experienced arthralgias, elevated C-reactive protein, and MRI-confirmed axial skeletal inflammation 4 weeks after starting vedolizumab.

The fourth patient was a 47-year-old woman with no previous history of spondyloarthropathy who developed MRI-confirmed sacroiliitis after beginning vedolizumab. The fifth patient, a 26-year-old woman, developed polyarticular joint pain after starting vedolizumab. Examination of this patient showed synovitis and enthesitis of multiple joints of the appendicular skeleton.

In discussion, Dr. Varkas and her colleagues noted that “one of the many hypotheses is that integrins and adhesion molecules play a role in the interception of recirculating activated lymphocytes between the gut and the synovial membrane due to the inhibition of the alpha4beta7 integrin homing at the level of the gut.” However, the investigators also acknowledged that other hypotheses may also account for their findings. “Alternatively, in the presence of vedolizumab, cellular recruitment may be mediated by yet to be determined adhesion molecules. This recirculation theory might explain the short mean interval of 64 days between vedolizumab initiation and the expression of symptoms.”

Another group, publishing its prospective cohort study in a letter, had different findings (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Jan 17. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-211011).

“Although the hypotheses proposed by the authors to explain such events sounds reasonable,” wrote Ambrogio Orlando, MD, and his coauthors, their experience of the effect of vedolizumab on spondyloarthritis differed.

In the report on 53 patients who began treatment with vedolizumab at Villa Sofia-Cervello Hospital, Palermo, Italy, where Dr. Orlando and his associates work, almost all (96%) had been steroid dependent and 81% had been treated with at least one tumor necrosis factor inhibitor. About two-thirds had completed the induction phase of vedolizumab treatment during follow-up, which lasted a mean of 2.6 months. Of the 14 patients (26%) who had active IBD-associated spondyloarthropathy when starting vedolizumab, 6 (46.2%) saw “a sharp clinical benefit after the initiation of vedolizumab,” wrote Dr. Orlando and his colleagues. Five of these six patients experienced clinical remission of gut symptoms by 12 weeks of therapy.

Dr. Orlando and his colleagues wrote that “our preliminary prospective data indicate a potential benefit of vedolizumab on IBD-associated spondyloarthropathy.”

Looking for mechanistic reasons for this apparent benefit, Dr. Orlando and his collaborators wrote that “the previous demonstration of alpha4beta7 in the joint and the recent evidence of the upregulation of mucosal vascular address in cell adhesion molecule (MadCAM-1) in the high endothelial venules of bone marrow in patients with active axial SpA seem to strengthen the hypothesis of a beneficial rather than a paradoxical effect of alpha4beta7 blockade on articular manifestations of IBD.”

Two authors of the case series reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, as did Dr. Orlando and two other authors of the letter describing the prospective study.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

Two recent reports that provide opposing evidence about the potential for inflammatory bowel disease patients to develop articular manifestations after starting vedolizumab raise questions for future studies to answer in regard to a plausible mechanism for the adverse event and its relative importance.

The two reports, one a case series of 5 patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who developed articular manifestations after beginning vedolizumab (Entyvio) and the other a prospective cohort study of 53 patients with IBD who started vedolizumab without any subsequent cases of induction or flare of arthritis and/or sacroiliitis, came to somewhat different conclusions about the beneficial or paradoxical effects of vedolizumab’s blockade of the alpha4beta7 receptor on articular manifestations of IBD.

The five-patient cases series reported by Gaëlle Varkas, MD, a doctoral student at the University of Ghent, Belgium, and her colleagues consisted of five IBD patients, aged 26-50 years, who developed either new onset or an exacerbation of sacroiliitis or arthritis soon after starting vedolizumab. All but one of the patients was female (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Nov 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210233). In these patients, the investigators said, vedolizumab did not “seem to show any efficacy in and might even induce arthritis and/or sacroiliitis.”

The first was a 50-year-old woman who had progressive back pain with MRI-confirmed bilateral sacroiliitis about 2 months after beginning vedolizumab. The second patient, a 28-year-old woman with no previous history of spondyloarthropathy, had lower limb pain, a painful left shoulder, and arthritis of one wrist. Ultrasound examination confirmed intercarpal effusions and synovial hyperproliferation.

The third patient was 30 years old and male. He had both ankylosing spondylitis and Crohn’s disease, and experienced arthralgias, elevated C-reactive protein, and MRI-confirmed axial skeletal inflammation 4 weeks after starting vedolizumab.

The fourth patient was a 47-year-old woman with no previous history of spondyloarthropathy who developed MRI-confirmed sacroiliitis after beginning vedolizumab. The fifth patient, a 26-year-old woman, developed polyarticular joint pain after starting vedolizumab. Examination of this patient showed synovitis and enthesitis of multiple joints of the appendicular skeleton.

In discussion, Dr. Varkas and her colleagues noted that “one of the many hypotheses is that integrins and adhesion molecules play a role in the interception of recirculating activated lymphocytes between the gut and the synovial membrane due to the inhibition of the alpha4beta7 integrin homing at the level of the gut.” However, the investigators also acknowledged that other hypotheses may also account for their findings. “Alternatively, in the presence of vedolizumab, cellular recruitment may be mediated by yet to be determined adhesion molecules. This recirculation theory might explain the short mean interval of 64 days between vedolizumab initiation and the expression of symptoms.”

Another group, publishing its prospective cohort study in a letter, had different findings (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Jan 17. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-211011).

“Although the hypotheses proposed by the authors to explain such events sounds reasonable,” wrote Ambrogio Orlando, MD, and his coauthors, their experience of the effect of vedolizumab on spondyloarthritis differed.

In the report on 53 patients who began treatment with vedolizumab at Villa Sofia-Cervello Hospital, Palermo, Italy, where Dr. Orlando and his associates work, almost all (96%) had been steroid dependent and 81% had been treated with at least one tumor necrosis factor inhibitor. About two-thirds had completed the induction phase of vedolizumab treatment during follow-up, which lasted a mean of 2.6 months. Of the 14 patients (26%) who had active IBD-associated spondyloarthropathy when starting vedolizumab, 6 (46.2%) saw “a sharp clinical benefit after the initiation of vedolizumab,” wrote Dr. Orlando and his colleagues. Five of these six patients experienced clinical remission of gut symptoms by 12 weeks of therapy.

Dr. Orlando and his colleagues wrote that “our preliminary prospective data indicate a potential benefit of vedolizumab on IBD-associated spondyloarthropathy.”

Looking for mechanistic reasons for this apparent benefit, Dr. Orlando and his collaborators wrote that “the previous demonstration of alpha4beta7 in the joint and the recent evidence of the upregulation of mucosal vascular address in cell adhesion molecule (MadCAM-1) in the high endothelial venules of bone marrow in patients with active axial SpA seem to strengthen the hypothesis of a beneficial rather than a paradoxical effect of alpha4beta7 blockade on articular manifestations of IBD.”

Two authors of the case series reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, as did Dr. Orlando and two other authors of the letter describing the prospective study.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

Two recent reports that provide opposing evidence about the potential for inflammatory bowel disease patients to develop articular manifestations after starting vedolizumab raise questions for future studies to answer in regard to a plausible mechanism for the adverse event and its relative importance.

The two reports, one a case series of 5 patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who developed articular manifestations after beginning vedolizumab (Entyvio) and the other a prospective cohort study of 53 patients with IBD who started vedolizumab without any subsequent cases of induction or flare of arthritis and/or sacroiliitis, came to somewhat different conclusions about the beneficial or paradoxical effects of vedolizumab’s blockade of the alpha4beta7 receptor on articular manifestations of IBD.

The five-patient cases series reported by Gaëlle Varkas, MD, a doctoral student at the University of Ghent, Belgium, and her colleagues consisted of five IBD patients, aged 26-50 years, who developed either new onset or an exacerbation of sacroiliitis or arthritis soon after starting vedolizumab. All but one of the patients was female (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Nov 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210233). In these patients, the investigators said, vedolizumab did not “seem to show any efficacy in and might even induce arthritis and/or sacroiliitis.”

The first was a 50-year-old woman who had progressive back pain with MRI-confirmed bilateral sacroiliitis about 2 months after beginning vedolizumab. The second patient, a 28-year-old woman with no previous history of spondyloarthropathy, had lower limb pain, a painful left shoulder, and arthritis of one wrist. Ultrasound examination confirmed intercarpal effusions and synovial hyperproliferation.

The third patient was 30 years old and male. He had both ankylosing spondylitis and Crohn’s disease, and experienced arthralgias, elevated C-reactive protein, and MRI-confirmed axial skeletal inflammation 4 weeks after starting vedolizumab.

The fourth patient was a 47-year-old woman with no previous history of spondyloarthropathy who developed MRI-confirmed sacroiliitis after beginning vedolizumab. The fifth patient, a 26-year-old woman, developed polyarticular joint pain after starting vedolizumab. Examination of this patient showed synovitis and enthesitis of multiple joints of the appendicular skeleton.

In discussion, Dr. Varkas and her colleagues noted that “one of the many hypotheses is that integrins and adhesion molecules play a role in the interception of recirculating activated lymphocytes between the gut and the synovial membrane due to the inhibition of the alpha4beta7 integrin homing at the level of the gut.” However, the investigators also acknowledged that other hypotheses may also account for their findings. “Alternatively, in the presence of vedolizumab, cellular recruitment may be mediated by yet to be determined adhesion molecules. This recirculation theory might explain the short mean interval of 64 days between vedolizumab initiation and the expression of symptoms.”

Another group, publishing its prospective cohort study in a letter, had different findings (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Jan 17. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-211011).

“Although the hypotheses proposed by the authors to explain such events sounds reasonable,” wrote Ambrogio Orlando, MD, and his coauthors, their experience of the effect of vedolizumab on spondyloarthritis differed.

In the report on 53 patients who began treatment with vedolizumab at Villa Sofia-Cervello Hospital, Palermo, Italy, where Dr. Orlando and his associates work, almost all (96%) had been steroid dependent and 81% had been treated with at least one tumor necrosis factor inhibitor. About two-thirds had completed the induction phase of vedolizumab treatment during follow-up, which lasted a mean of 2.6 months. Of the 14 patients (26%) who had active IBD-associated spondyloarthropathy when starting vedolizumab, 6 (46.2%) saw “a sharp clinical benefit after the initiation of vedolizumab,” wrote Dr. Orlando and his colleagues. Five of these six patients experienced clinical remission of gut symptoms by 12 weeks of therapy.

Dr. Orlando and his colleagues wrote that “our preliminary prospective data indicate a potential benefit of vedolizumab on IBD-associated spondyloarthropathy.”

Looking for mechanistic reasons for this apparent benefit, Dr. Orlando and his collaborators wrote that “the previous demonstration of alpha4beta7 in the joint and the recent evidence of the upregulation of mucosal vascular address in cell adhesion molecule (MadCAM-1) in the high endothelial venules of bone marrow in patients with active axial SpA seem to strengthen the hypothesis of a beneficial rather than a paradoxical effect of alpha4beta7 blockade on articular manifestations of IBD.”

Two authors of the case series reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, as did Dr. Orlando and two other authors of the letter describing the prospective study.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

Most of the minority of axial spondyloarthritis patients who do not respond to their first tumor necrosis factor inhibitor still meet classification criteria for the condition 5-10 years later, but more than half respond to a second TNFi and most also have comorbidities that could affect the spondyloarthritis evaluation, according to findings from a single-center cohort study.

The study’s finding of TNFi primary inefficacy in 27 (12%) of 222 patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who were given their first TNFi during 2004-2009 is in line with previous results of about 5%-15% primary inefficacy for a first TNFi in axSpA. However, the French investigators, led by Sandra Kossi of Cochin Hospital in Paris, noted that the difficulty of making an axSpA diagnosis and the presence of certain comorbidities “could interfere either with the activity of SpA (falsely heightened disease activity) or with the response to TNFi (falsely heightened inefficacy).” They sought to report the characteristics of axSpA patients with primary inefficacy after their first TNFi in the 5- to 10-year period after their prescription (Rheumatology [Oxford]. 2017 Jan 9. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kew456).

A total of 25 of the patients with primary inefficacy underwent re-evaluation 5-10 years (mean of 6 years) later. The investigators defined primary inefficacy as “treatment interruption 3-4 months after treatment onset, with a rheumatologist assessment in the medical file citing lack of efficacy as primary reason for drug interruption.”

The patients with primary TNFi inefficacy had a mean age of 53 years at the time of follow-up, and about half were female. All the patients still had symptoms and back pain, but symptoms were moderate based on a mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score of 42. Overall, nine were taking a TNFi and nine were taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, while others used analgesics or nonpharmacologic measures.

Primary TNFi inefficacy occurred significantly more often occurred among females (48% vs. 27%; P = .04), older aged patients at first TNFi use (45 vs. 39 years; P = .04), patients with higher mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index scores (68 vs. 42; P = .03), and in those who did not have an abnormally elevated C-reactive protein level (33% vs. 63%; P = .02). Patients with primary TNFi inefficacy had lower rates of HLAB27 positivity (56% vs. 72%) or radiographic sacroiliitis (67% vs. 81%), but the differences were not statistically significant.

At follow-up, 21 (84%) patients met Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society classification criteria for axSpA, and 20 (80%) met the axSpA diagnosis according to the rheumatologists’ opinion, with 17 (68%) fulfilling both.

A total of 18 (72%) had at least one of the following comorbidities: widespread pain syndrome, osteoarthritis, or depression. Five patients – all females – had widespread pain syndrome according to the Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool questionnaire. Another 10 patients had osteoarthritis of lower-limb peripheral joints or of the spine, while an additional 8 had self-declared depression, for which 3 were taking antidepressants.

By the time of follow-up, 16 (64%) had switched to another TNFi, including 9 who had received two TNFi drugs and 7 who had received three or more. The second TNFi was considered efficacious in nine patients. The retention rate of the second TNFi at 1 year among those with primary inefficacy was 50%, and overall, nine patients were still prescribed a TNFi at the time of follow-up.

The fact that most of the patients with primary inefficacy to their first TNFi had confirmed axSpA but also had comorbidities that could affect axSpA evaluation “is important because practitioners might consider that primary inefficacy to TNFi leads to reconsidering the diagnosis of SpA (i.e. the notion of a TNFi prescription being used as the diagnostic test). We suggest here that primary inefficacy should not be considered as equivalent to a diagnostic error, and that a second prescription of TNFi may be of use in such patients, although painful comorbidities should certainly be screened for and taken into account.”

The study was funded by the Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris. The investigators had no conflicts of interest to declare.

[email protected]

Most of the minority of axial spondyloarthritis patients who do not respond to their first tumor necrosis factor inhibitor still meet classification criteria for the condition 5-10 years later, but more than half respond to a second TNFi and most also have comorbidities that could affect the spondyloarthritis evaluation, according to findings from a single-center cohort study.

The study’s finding of TNFi primary inefficacy in 27 (12%) of 222 patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who were given their first TNFi during 2004-2009 is in line with previous results of about 5%-15% primary inefficacy for a first TNFi in axSpA. However, the French investigators, led by Sandra Kossi of Cochin Hospital in Paris, noted that the difficulty of making an axSpA diagnosis and the presence of certain comorbidities “could interfere either with the activity of SpA (falsely heightened disease activity) or with the response to TNFi (falsely heightened inefficacy).” They sought to report the characteristics of axSpA patients with primary inefficacy after their first TNFi in the 5- to 10-year period after their prescription (Rheumatology [Oxford]. 2017 Jan 9. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kew456).

A total of 25 of the patients with primary inefficacy underwent re-evaluation 5-10 years (mean of 6 years) later. The investigators defined primary inefficacy as “treatment interruption 3-4 months after treatment onset, with a rheumatologist assessment in the medical file citing lack of efficacy as primary reason for drug interruption.”

The patients with primary TNFi inefficacy had a mean age of 53 years at the time of follow-up, and about half were female. All the patients still had symptoms and back pain, but symptoms were moderate based on a mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score of 42. Overall, nine were taking a TNFi and nine were taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, while others used analgesics or nonpharmacologic measures.

Primary TNFi inefficacy occurred significantly more often occurred among females (48% vs. 27%; P = .04), older aged patients at first TNFi use (45 vs. 39 years; P = .04), patients with higher mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index scores (68 vs. 42; P = .03), and in those who did not have an abnormally elevated C-reactive protein level (33% vs. 63%; P = .02). Patients with primary TNFi inefficacy had lower rates of HLAB27 positivity (56% vs. 72%) or radiographic sacroiliitis (67% vs. 81%), but the differences were not statistically significant.

At follow-up, 21 (84%) patients met Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society classification criteria for axSpA, and 20 (80%) met the axSpA diagnosis according to the rheumatologists’ opinion, with 17 (68%) fulfilling both.

A total of 18 (72%) had at least one of the following comorbidities: widespread pain syndrome, osteoarthritis, or depression. Five patients – all females – had widespread pain syndrome according to the Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool questionnaire. Another 10 patients had osteoarthritis of lower-limb peripheral joints or of the spine, while an additional 8 had self-declared depression, for which 3 were taking antidepressants.

By the time of follow-up, 16 (64%) had switched to another TNFi, including 9 who had received two TNFi drugs and 7 who had received three or more. The second TNFi was considered efficacious in nine patients. The retention rate of the second TNFi at 1 year among those with primary inefficacy was 50%, and overall, nine patients were still prescribed a TNFi at the time of follow-up.

The fact that most of the patients with primary inefficacy to their first TNFi had confirmed axSpA but also had comorbidities that could affect axSpA evaluation “is important because practitioners might consider that primary inefficacy to TNFi leads to reconsidering the diagnosis of SpA (i.e. the notion of a TNFi prescription being used as the diagnostic test). We suggest here that primary inefficacy should not be considered as equivalent to a diagnostic error, and that a second prescription of TNFi may be of use in such patients, although painful comorbidities should certainly be screened for and taken into account.”

The study was funded by the Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris. The investigators had no conflicts of interest to declare.

[email protected]

Most of the minority of axial spondyloarthritis patients who do not respond to their first tumor necrosis factor inhibitor still meet classification criteria for the condition 5-10 years later, but more than half respond to a second TNFi and most also have comorbidities that could affect the spondyloarthritis evaluation, according to findings from a single-center cohort study.

The study’s finding of TNFi primary inefficacy in 27 (12%) of 222 patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who were given their first TNFi during 2004-2009 is in line with previous results of about 5%-15% primary inefficacy for a first TNFi in axSpA. However, the French investigators, led by Sandra Kossi of Cochin Hospital in Paris, noted that the difficulty of making an axSpA diagnosis and the presence of certain comorbidities “could interfere either with the activity of SpA (falsely heightened disease activity) or with the response to TNFi (falsely heightened inefficacy).” They sought to report the characteristics of axSpA patients with primary inefficacy after their first TNFi in the 5- to 10-year period after their prescription (Rheumatology [Oxford]. 2017 Jan 9. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kew456).

A total of 25 of the patients with primary inefficacy underwent re-evaluation 5-10 years (mean of 6 years) later. The investigators defined primary inefficacy as “treatment interruption 3-4 months after treatment onset, with a rheumatologist assessment in the medical file citing lack of efficacy as primary reason for drug interruption.”

The patients with primary TNFi inefficacy had a mean age of 53 years at the time of follow-up, and about half were female. All the patients still had symptoms and back pain, but symptoms were moderate based on a mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score of 42. Overall, nine were taking a TNFi and nine were taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, while others used analgesics or nonpharmacologic measures.

Primary TNFi inefficacy occurred significantly more often occurred among females (48% vs. 27%; P = .04), older aged patients at first TNFi use (45 vs. 39 years; P = .04), patients with higher mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index scores (68 vs. 42; P = .03), and in those who did not have an abnormally elevated C-reactive protein level (33% vs. 63%; P = .02). Patients with primary TNFi inefficacy had lower rates of HLAB27 positivity (56% vs. 72%) or radiographic sacroiliitis (67% vs. 81%), but the differences were not statistically significant.

At follow-up, 21 (84%) patients met Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society classification criteria for axSpA, and 20 (80%) met the axSpA diagnosis according to the rheumatologists’ opinion, with 17 (68%) fulfilling both.

A total of 18 (72%) had at least one of the following comorbidities: widespread pain syndrome, osteoarthritis, or depression. Five patients – all females – had widespread pain syndrome according to the Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool questionnaire. Another 10 patients had osteoarthritis of lower-limb peripheral joints or of the spine, while an additional 8 had self-declared depression, for which 3 were taking antidepressants.

By the time of follow-up, 16 (64%) had switched to another TNFi, including 9 who had received two TNFi drugs and 7 who had received three or more. The second TNFi was considered efficacious in nine patients. The retention rate of the second TNFi at 1 year among those with primary inefficacy was 50%, and overall, nine patients were still prescribed a TNFi at the time of follow-up.

The fact that most of the patients with primary inefficacy to their first TNFi had confirmed axSpA but also had comorbidities that could affect axSpA evaluation “is important because practitioners might consider that primary inefficacy to TNFi leads to reconsidering the diagnosis of SpA (i.e. the notion of a TNFi prescription being used as the diagnostic test). We suggest here that primary inefficacy should not be considered as equivalent to a diagnostic error, and that a second prescription of TNFi may be of use in such patients, although painful comorbidities should certainly be screened for and taken into account.”

The study was funded by the Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris. The investigators had no conflicts of interest to declare.

[email protected]

Payment for the infliximab biosimilar drug Inflectra will now be covered by Medicare, the drug’s manufacturer, Pfizer, said in an announcement.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) included Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) in its January 2017 Average Sales Price pricing file, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2017. Pfizer said that Inflectra is priced at a 15% discount to the current wholesale acquisition cost for the infliximab originator Remicade, but this price does not include discounts to payers, providers, distributors, and other purchasing organizations.

For the first quarter of 2017, the payment limit set by the CMS for Inflectra is $100.306 per 10-mg unit and $82.218 for Remicade.

Various national and regional wholesalers across the country began receiving shipments of Inflectra in November 2016, according to Pfizer.

In conjunction with the availability of Inflectra, Pfizer announced its enCompass program, “a comprehensive reimbursement service and patient support program offering coding and reimbursement support for providers, copay assistance to eligible patients who have commercial insurance that covers Inflectra, and financial assistance for eligible uninsured and underinsured patients.”

The FDA approved Inflectra in April 2016 for all of the same indications as Remicade: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, plaque psoriasis, and ulcerative colitis.

[email protected]

Payment for the infliximab biosimilar drug Inflectra will now be covered by Medicare, the drug’s manufacturer, Pfizer, said in an announcement.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) included Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) in its January 2017 Average Sales Price pricing file, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2017. Pfizer said that Inflectra is priced at a 15% discount to the current wholesale acquisition cost for the infliximab originator Remicade, but this price does not include discounts to payers, providers, distributors, and other purchasing organizations.

For the first quarter of 2017, the payment limit set by the CMS for Inflectra is $100.306 per 10-mg unit and $82.218 for Remicade.

Various national and regional wholesalers across the country began receiving shipments of Inflectra in November 2016, according to Pfizer.

In conjunction with the availability of Inflectra, Pfizer announced its enCompass program, “a comprehensive reimbursement service and patient support program offering coding and reimbursement support for providers, copay assistance to eligible patients who have commercial insurance that covers Inflectra, and financial assistance for eligible uninsured and underinsured patients.”

The FDA approved Inflectra in April 2016 for all of the same indications as Remicade: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, plaque psoriasis, and ulcerative colitis.

[email protected]

Payment for the infliximab biosimilar drug Inflectra will now be covered by Medicare, the drug’s manufacturer, Pfizer, said in an announcement.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) included Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) in its January 2017 Average Sales Price pricing file, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2017. Pfizer said that Inflectra is priced at a 15% discount to the current wholesale acquisition cost for the infliximab originator Remicade, but this price does not include discounts to payers, providers, distributors, and other purchasing organizations.

For the first quarter of 2017, the payment limit set by the CMS for Inflectra is $100.306 per 10-mg unit and $82.218 for Remicade.

Various national and regional wholesalers across the country began receiving shipments of Inflectra in November 2016, according to Pfizer.

In conjunction with the availability of Inflectra, Pfizer announced its enCompass program, “a comprehensive reimbursement service and patient support program offering coding and reimbursement support for providers, copay assistance to eligible patients who have commercial insurance that covers Inflectra, and financial assistance for eligible uninsured and underinsured patients.”

The FDA approved Inflectra in April 2016 for all of the same indications as Remicade: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, plaque psoriasis, and ulcerative colitis.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – Women are almost twice as likely as men to develop extra-articular manifestations of ankylosing spondylitis such as uveitis and inflammatory bowel disease, according to an analysis of patients in the Ankylosing Spondylitis Registry of Ireland.

Each of those manifestations exerts its own difficulties upon patients over and above the inflammatory back pain of the underlying disease, Gillian Fitzgerald, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Many patients can develop several of these separate manifestations – a circumstance that seriously affects their quality of life.

The findings of the large registry study were a bit surprising, she said during presentation of the study at a press briefing, as ankylosing spondylitis is generally thought to affect largely men. “However, this isn’t the case,” said Dr. Fitzgerald of St. James’s Hospital, Dublin. “Recent studies show that women can be affected as often as men are.”

In light of those findings, Dr. Fitzgerald and her coauthors wanted to further define the gender differences, especially with regard to extra-articular manifestations.

They accessed data on 564 patients in the registry, which was established in 2013. The majority of patients (78%) were men; the mean age was 47 years. Patients had a mean disease duration of nearly 21 years. For almost half that time (9 years) they had remained undiagnosed, Dr. Fitzgerald added. They had a mean age of about 47 years, and 78% fulfilled the modified New York criteria for ankylosing spondylitis.

Overall, extra-articular manifestations were common, with 35% having uveitis, 18% psoriasis, and 10% inflammatory bowel disease.

Uveitis was significantly more common among women (47% vs. 32%) and among those with disease duration of more than 10 years (40% vs. 22% with less than 10 years).

Inflammatory bowel disease was also significantly more common among women (16.5% vs. 8%). It wasn’t related to disease duration, but it was related to elevated baseline C-reactive protein, peptic ulcer disease, and osteoporosis.

In a multivariate regression analysis, women were 70% more likely to experience an extra-articular manifestation of the disease than were men (hazard ratio, 1.7). Having the disease for more than 10 years more than doubled the risk of an extra-articular manifestation (HR, 2.4).

Dr. Fitzgerald discussed the study’s findings in a video interview at the meeting. She had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

WASHINGTON – Women are almost twice as likely as men to develop extra-articular manifestations of ankylosing spondylitis such as uveitis and inflammatory bowel disease, according to an analysis of patients in the Ankylosing Spondylitis Registry of Ireland.

Each of those manifestations exerts its own difficulties upon patients over and above the inflammatory back pain of the underlying disease, Gillian Fitzgerald, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Many patients can develop several of these separate manifestations – a circumstance that seriously affects their quality of life.

The findings of the large registry study were a bit surprising, she said during presentation of the study at a press briefing, as ankylosing spondylitis is generally thought to affect largely men. “However, this isn’t the case,” said Dr. Fitzgerald of St. James’s Hospital, Dublin. “Recent studies show that women can be affected as often as men are.”

In light of those findings, Dr. Fitzgerald and her coauthors wanted to further define the gender differences, especially with regard to extra-articular manifestations.

They accessed data on 564 patients in the registry, which was established in 2013. The majority of patients (78%) were men; the mean age was 47 years. Patients had a mean disease duration of nearly 21 years. For almost half that time (9 years) they had remained undiagnosed, Dr. Fitzgerald added. They had a mean age of about 47 years, and 78% fulfilled the modified New York criteria for ankylosing spondylitis.

Overall, extra-articular manifestations were common, with 35% having uveitis, 18% psoriasis, and 10% inflammatory bowel disease.

Uveitis was significantly more common among women (47% vs. 32%) and among those with disease duration of more than 10 years (40% vs. 22% with less than 10 years).

Inflammatory bowel disease was also significantly more common among women (16.5% vs. 8%). It wasn’t related to disease duration, but it was related to elevated baseline C-reactive protein, peptic ulcer disease, and osteoporosis.

In a multivariate regression analysis, women were 70% more likely to experience an extra-articular manifestation of the disease than were men (hazard ratio, 1.7). Having the disease for more than 10 years more than doubled the risk of an extra-articular manifestation (HR, 2.4).

Dr. Fitzgerald discussed the study’s findings in a video interview at the meeting. She had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

WASHINGTON – Women are almost twice as likely as men to develop extra-articular manifestations of ankylosing spondylitis such as uveitis and inflammatory bowel disease, according to an analysis of patients in the Ankylosing Spondylitis Registry of Ireland.

Each of those manifestations exerts its own difficulties upon patients over and above the inflammatory back pain of the underlying disease, Gillian Fitzgerald, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Many patients can develop several of these separate manifestations – a circumstance that seriously affects their quality of life.

The findings of the large registry study were a bit surprising, she said during presentation of the study at a press briefing, as ankylosing spondylitis is generally thought to affect largely men. “However, this isn’t the case,” said Dr. Fitzgerald of St. James’s Hospital, Dublin. “Recent studies show that women can be affected as often as men are.”

In light of those findings, Dr. Fitzgerald and her coauthors wanted to further define the gender differences, especially with regard to extra-articular manifestations.

They accessed data on 564 patients in the registry, which was established in 2013. The majority of patients (78%) were men; the mean age was 47 years. Patients had a mean disease duration of nearly 21 years. For almost half that time (9 years) they had remained undiagnosed, Dr. Fitzgerald added. They had a mean age of about 47 years, and 78% fulfilled the modified New York criteria for ankylosing spondylitis.

Overall, extra-articular manifestations were common, with 35% having uveitis, 18% psoriasis, and 10% inflammatory bowel disease.

Uveitis was significantly more common among women (47% vs. 32%) and among those with disease duration of more than 10 years (40% vs. 22% with less than 10 years).

Inflammatory bowel disease was also significantly more common among women (16.5% vs. 8%). It wasn’t related to disease duration, but it was related to elevated baseline C-reactive protein, peptic ulcer disease, and osteoporosis.

In a multivariate regression analysis, women were 70% more likely to experience an extra-articular manifestation of the disease than were men (hazard ratio, 1.7). Having the disease for more than 10 years more than doubled the risk of an extra-articular manifestation (HR, 2.4).

Dr. Fitzgerald discussed the study’s findings in a video interview at the meeting. She had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

WASHINGTON – Statins lowered all-cause mortality by 32% in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a retrospective cohort study.

The magnitude of benefit from statins in these two disease states is greater than that found in the general population (estimated 9%-14% reduction in all-cause mortality) and than that reported in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, 21% reduction), said Amar Oza, MD, a second-year rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“This is a unique study. The benefit of statins has not been looked at in AS and PsA, specifically,” Dr. Oza explained. “More data are needed” to establish this benefit with certainty, he added.

The data were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, and Dr. Oza discussed the findings in a video interview.

The study compared 2,904 patients with AS or PsA who initiated statins between 2000 and 2014 with 2,904 propensity-matched AS or PsA patients who did not initiate statins during that period. Patients were drawn from a United Kingdom general population database.

The investigators used a propensity score that accounted for 50 confounding variables to match the two cohorts. These variables included, but were not limited to, disease duration, socioeconomic status, body mass index, lifestyle factors, and medication use.

“This study is the first step in elucidating the benefit of statins in AS and PsA. It is a good step forward. If additional data substantiate that AS and PsA patients have a low threshold for statins, I can envision statins for both primary and secondary prevention in this patient population,” Dr. Oza stated.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Statins lowered all-cause mortality by 32% in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a retrospective cohort study.

The magnitude of benefit from statins in these two disease states is greater than that found in the general population (estimated 9%-14% reduction in all-cause mortality) and than that reported in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, 21% reduction), said Amar Oza, MD, a second-year rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“This is a unique study. The benefit of statins has not been looked at in AS and PsA, specifically,” Dr. Oza explained. “More data are needed” to establish this benefit with certainty, he added.

The data were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, and Dr. Oza discussed the findings in a video interview.

The study compared 2,904 patients with AS or PsA who initiated statins between 2000 and 2014 with 2,904 propensity-matched AS or PsA patients who did not initiate statins during that period. Patients were drawn from a United Kingdom general population database.

The investigators used a propensity score that accounted for 50 confounding variables to match the two cohorts. These variables included, but were not limited to, disease duration, socioeconomic status, body mass index, lifestyle factors, and medication use.

“This study is the first step in elucidating the benefit of statins in AS and PsA. It is a good step forward. If additional data substantiate that AS and PsA patients have a low threshold for statins, I can envision statins for both primary and secondary prevention in this patient population,” Dr. Oza stated.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Statins lowered all-cause mortality by 32% in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a retrospective cohort study.

The magnitude of benefit from statins in these two disease states is greater than that found in the general population (estimated 9%-14% reduction in all-cause mortality) and than that reported in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, 21% reduction), said Amar Oza, MD, a second-year rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“This is a unique study. The benefit of statins has not been looked at in AS and PsA, specifically,” Dr. Oza explained. “More data are needed” to establish this benefit with certainty, he added.

The data were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, and Dr. Oza discussed the findings in a video interview.

The study compared 2,904 patients with AS or PsA who initiated statins between 2000 and 2014 with 2,904 propensity-matched AS or PsA patients who did not initiate statins during that period. Patients were drawn from a United Kingdom general population database.

The investigators used a propensity score that accounted for 50 confounding variables to match the two cohorts. These variables included, but were not limited to, disease duration, socioeconomic status, body mass index, lifestyle factors, and medication use.

“This study is the first step in elucidating the benefit of statins in AS and PsA. It is a good step forward. If additional data substantiate that AS and PsA patients have a low threshold for statins, I can envision statins for both primary and secondary prevention in this patient population,” Dr. Oza stated.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Certolizumab pegol is not transmitted into human breast milk in any clinically meaningful level, a postmarketing pharmacokinetic study has determined.

While there were individual differences in how much of the TNF inhibitor did cross into milk, none of the 17 women in the study transmitted more than 0.076 mcg/mL in any sample, Megan Clowse, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“This is well below even 1% of the expected plasma concentration of a therapeutic dose,” said Dr. Clowse, a rheumatologist and director of the Duke Autoimmunity in Pregnancy Registry at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “Additionally, the mean relative infant dose was 0.125% – also far below the cutoff of less than 10% of the adult dose, the level generally thought to be of little concern for infant well-being.”

©Jupiterimages/Thinkstock

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

WASHINGTON – Certolizumab pegol is not transmitted into human breast milk in any clinically meaningful level, a postmarketing pharmacokinetic study has determined.

While there were individual differences in how much of the TNF inhibitor did cross into milk, none of the 17 women in the study transmitted more than 0.076 mcg/mL in any sample, Megan Clowse, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“This is well below even 1% of the expected plasma concentration of a therapeutic dose,” said Dr. Clowse, a rheumatologist and director of the Duke Autoimmunity in Pregnancy Registry at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “Additionally, the mean relative infant dose was 0.125% – also far below the cutoff of less than 10% of the adult dose, the level generally thought to be of little concern for infant well-being.”

©Jupiterimages/Thinkstock

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

WASHINGTON – Certolizumab pegol is not transmitted into human breast milk in any clinically meaningful level, a postmarketing pharmacokinetic study has determined.

While there were individual differences in how much of the TNF inhibitor did cross into milk, none of the 17 women in the study transmitted more than 0.076 mcg/mL in any sample, Megan Clowse, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“This is well below even 1% of the expected plasma concentration of a therapeutic dose,” said Dr. Clowse, a rheumatologist and director of the Duke Autoimmunity in Pregnancy Registry at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “Additionally, the mean relative infant dose was 0.125% – also far below the cutoff of less than 10% of the adult dose, the level generally thought to be of little concern for infant well-being.”

©Jupiterimages/Thinkstock

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

WASHINGTON – Data from the first randomized trial of switching from an originator biologic to a biosimilar of the originator indicate that the infliximab biosimilar Remsima is no different from the infliximab originator Remicade in the rate of disease worsening over 1 year across a combination of all its approved indications.

The outcomes of the Norwegian, double-blind, noninferiority trial, called NOR-SWITCH, indicate similar rates of disease worsening across patients switched to Remsima and those who stayed on Remicade. However, exploratory group analyses conducted on the different disease subgroups in the trial (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, spondyloarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis) showed a potentially concerning level of disease worsening among Crohn’s disease patients on Remsima with a confidence interval that nearly fell entirely within the range favoring Remicade.

In the United States, Remsima, also known as CT-P13, is marketed by Pfizer as Inflectra.

WASHINGTON – Data from the first randomized trial of switching from an originator biologic to a biosimilar of the originator indicate that the infliximab biosimilar Remsima is no different from the infliximab originator Remicade in the rate of disease worsening over 1 year across a combination of all its approved indications.

The outcomes of the Norwegian, double-blind, noninferiority trial, called NOR-SWITCH, indicate similar rates of disease worsening across patients switched to Remsima and those who stayed on Remicade. However, exploratory group analyses conducted on the different disease subgroups in the trial (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, spondyloarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis) showed a potentially concerning level of disease worsening among Crohn’s disease patients on Remsima with a confidence interval that nearly fell entirely within the range favoring Remicade.

In the United States, Remsima, also known as CT-P13, is marketed by Pfizer as Inflectra.

WASHINGTON – Data from the first randomized trial of switching from an originator biologic to a biosimilar of the originator indicate that the infliximab biosimilar Remsima is no different from the infliximab originator Remicade in the rate of disease worsening over 1 year across a combination of all its approved indications.

The outcomes of the Norwegian, double-blind, noninferiority trial, called NOR-SWITCH, indicate similar rates of disease worsening across patients switched to Remsima and those who stayed on Remicade. However, exploratory group analyses conducted on the different disease subgroups in the trial (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, spondyloarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis) showed a potentially concerning level of disease worsening among Crohn’s disease patients on Remsima with a confidence interval that nearly fell entirely within the range favoring Remicade.

In the United States, Remsima, also known as CT-P13, is marketed by Pfizer as Inflectra.

BOSTON – Biosimilar versions of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have arrived in the United States, but even the best, most efficacious drugs are worthless if patients don’t want to take them.

“The science is important, the medicine is important, but at the end of the day, acceptance and use is what’s going to measure success,” said Seth D. Ginsberg, at a biosimilars symposium sponsored by Corrona, a business that provides registry data and consulting services to biopharmaceutical companies.

Ingram/thinkstock

Biosimilar confidence

His group has launched “Operation: Biosimilar Confidence” which is designed to educate patients and physicians about the clinical value and scientific underpinnings of biosimilars, as well as the thorough development, review, and regulatory processes involved.

The goal of the project is to instill confidence in patients by helping them to understand the manufacturer’s safety track record, reliability of the biosimilar supply chain, and the availability to them of support services, if they make the switch to a biosimilar.

“Generics don’t have equivalent patient-support programs, and the projection is theoretically that [biosimilar] manufacturers won’t either. We will not accept that. We are going to do everything we can for those patients, to advocate for the continuation of the support programs that we rely on as patients,” he said.

Patient concerns

Surveys of patient concerns about biosimilars have highlighted four key areas:

• What is the manufacturer’s overall safety record in both biologic agents and small-molecule therapies?
• Supply-chain logistic – Will the manufacturer commit to consistent production and supply?
• Will biosimilar manufacturers provide patient support at levels equal to those offered by innovator biologic makers, and what kind of support will be available – phone, websites, social media, copays, etc.?
• Payer ethics – Will payers offer lower copays, deductibles, or premiums, and are payers as concerned as patients about product safety, supply chain, and support?

The implementation strategy for the campaign will focus on speaking directly to patients through CreakyJoints.org, partner Global Healthy Living Foundation, patient and physician organizations, social and conventional media, advertising, and one-on-one encounters.

“We have to talk directly and indirectly to employers and employee-advocacy groups. We have to let these big self-insured employers understand what the perspective of the patient is and what life is like thanks to these medicine, and why biosimilars are a critical component to the success of living with these conditions,” he said.

Advocates also have to work with the media to create “a surround-sound message that reaches all audiences with additional frequency.”

“We cannot allow Wall Street Journal business analysts to dictate the conversations about biosimilars. Why? They’re looking at one thing, and only one thing, and they’re ignoring the patient perspective,” Ginsberg said.

Lastly, patient groups need to work closely with payers, physician groups, and manufacturers to ensure that biosimilars can be smoothly integrated into the healthcare system, he emphasized.

“I want to be crystal clear here: We can’t wait for biosimilars. Bring it on! We want them,” he said.

BOSTON – Biosimilar versions of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have arrived in the United States, but even the best, most efficacious drugs are worthless if patients don’t want to take them.

“The science is important, the medicine is important, but at the end of the day, acceptance and use is what’s going to measure success,” said Seth D. Ginsberg, at a biosimilars symposium sponsored by Corrona, a business that provides registry data and consulting services to biopharmaceutical companies.

Ingram/thinkstock

Biosimilar confidence

His group has launched “Operation: Biosimilar Confidence” which is designed to educate patients and physicians about the clinical value and scientific underpinnings of biosimilars, as well as the thorough development, review, and regulatory processes involved.

The goal of the project is to instill confidence in patients by helping them to understand the manufacturer’s safety track record, reliability of the biosimilar supply chain, and the availability to them of support services, if they make the switch to a biosimilar.

“Generics don’t have equivalent patient-support programs, and the projection is theoretically that [biosimilar] manufacturers won’t either. We will not accept that. We are going to do everything we can for those patients, to advocate for the continuation of the support programs that we rely on as patients,” he said.

Patient concerns

Surveys of patient concerns about biosimilars have highlighted four key areas:

• What is the manufacturer’s overall safety record in both biologic agents and small-molecule therapies?
• Supply-chain logistic – Will the manufacturer commit to consistent production and supply?
• Will biosimilar manufacturers provide patient support at levels equal to those offered by innovator biologic makers, and what kind of support will be available – phone, websites, social media, copays, etc.?
• Payer ethics – Will payers offer lower copays, deductibles, or premiums, and are payers as concerned as patients about product safety, supply chain, and support?

The implementation strategy for the campaign will focus on speaking directly to patients through CreakyJoints.org, partner Global Healthy Living Foundation, patient and physician organizations, social and conventional media, advertising, and one-on-one encounters.

“We have to talk directly and indirectly to employers and employee-advocacy groups. We have to let these big self-insured employers understand what the perspective of the patient is and what life is like thanks to these medicine, and why biosimilars are a critical component to the success of living with these conditions,” he said.

Advocates also have to work with the media to create “a surround-sound message that reaches all audiences with additional frequency.”

“We cannot allow Wall Street Journal business analysts to dictate the conversations about biosimilars. Why? They’re looking at one thing, and only one thing, and they’re ignoring the patient perspective,” Ginsberg said.

Lastly, patient groups need to work closely with payers, physician groups, and manufacturers to ensure that biosimilars can be smoothly integrated into the healthcare system, he emphasized.

“I want to be crystal clear here: We can’t wait for biosimilars. Bring it on! We want them,” he said.

BOSTON – Biosimilar versions of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have arrived in the United States, but even the best, most efficacious drugs are worthless if patients don’t want to take them.

“The science is important, the medicine is important, but at the end of the day, acceptance and use is what’s going to measure success,” said Seth D. Ginsberg, at a biosimilars symposium sponsored by Corrona, a business that provides registry data and consulting services to biopharmaceutical companies.

Ingram/thinkstock

Biosimilar confidence

His group has launched “Operation: Biosimilar Confidence” which is designed to educate patients and physicians about the clinical value and scientific underpinnings of biosimilars, as well as the thorough development, review, and regulatory processes involved.

The goal of the project is to instill confidence in patients by helping them to understand the manufacturer’s safety track record, reliability of the biosimilar supply chain, and the availability to them of support services, if they make the switch to a biosimilar.

“Generics don’t have equivalent patient-support programs, and the projection is theoretically that [biosimilar] manufacturers won’t either. We will not accept that. We are going to do everything we can for those patients, to advocate for the continuation of the support programs that we rely on as patients,” he said.

Patient concerns

Surveys of patient concerns about biosimilars have highlighted four key areas:

• What is the manufacturer’s overall safety record in both biologic agents and small-molecule therapies?
• Supply-chain logistic – Will the manufacturer commit to consistent production and supply?
• Will biosimilar manufacturers provide patient support at levels equal to those offered by innovator biologic makers, and what kind of support will be available – phone, websites, social media, copays, etc.?
• Payer ethics – Will payers offer lower copays, deductibles, or premiums, and are payers as concerned as patients about product safety, supply chain, and support?

The implementation strategy for the campaign will focus on speaking directly to patients through CreakyJoints.org, partner Global Healthy Living Foundation, patient and physician organizations, social and conventional media, advertising, and one-on-one encounters.

“We have to talk directly and indirectly to employers and employee-advocacy groups. We have to let these big self-insured employers understand what the perspective of the patient is and what life is like thanks to these medicine, and why biosimilars are a critical component to the success of living with these conditions,” he said.

Advocates also have to work with the media to create “a surround-sound message that reaches all audiences with additional frequency.”

“We cannot allow Wall Street Journal business analysts to dictate the conversations about biosimilars. Why? They’re looking at one thing, and only one thing, and they’re ignoring the patient perspective,” Ginsberg said.

Lastly, patient groups need to work closely with payers, physician groups, and manufacturers to ensure that biosimilars can be smoothly integrated into the healthcare system, he emphasized.

“I want to be crystal clear here: We can’t wait for biosimilars. Bring it on! We want them,” he said.