Psoriatic Arthritis

Key clinical point: Vitamin D deficiency in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) had worse impact on the retention rate of the first biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) and response to methotrexate and was associated with severe disease course in terms of sacroiliitis.

Major finding: The risk for discontinuation of the first bDMARD (hazard ratio [HR] 2.129; P  =  .011) and methotrexate discontinuation because of therapy failure (HR 2.168; P  =  .002) were significantly higher among patients with 25(OH)D level of ≤20 vs  20-30 and ≥30 ng/mL, with the prevalence of sacroiliitis being significantly higher in patients with 25(OH)D level of ≤20 vs  ≥30 ng/mL (P  =  .0001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 233 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Rotondo C et al. Vitamin D status and psoriatic arthritis: Association with the risk for sacroiliitis and influence on the retention rate of methotrexate monotherapy and first biological drug survival—A retrospective study. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(6):5368 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.3390/ijms24065368

Key clinical point: Vitamin D deficiency in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) had worse impact on the retention rate of the first biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) and response to methotrexate and was associated with severe disease course in terms of sacroiliitis.

Major finding: The risk for discontinuation of the first bDMARD (hazard ratio [HR] 2.129; P  =  .011) and methotrexate discontinuation because of therapy failure (HR 2.168; P  =  .002) were significantly higher among patients with 25(OH)D level of ≤20 vs  20-30 and ≥30 ng/mL, with the prevalence of sacroiliitis being significantly higher in patients with 25(OH)D level of ≤20 vs  ≥30 ng/mL (P  =  .0001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 233 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Rotondo C et al. Vitamin D status and psoriatic arthritis: Association with the risk for sacroiliitis and influence on the retention rate of methotrexate monotherapy and first biological drug survival—A retrospective study. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(6):5368 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.3390/ijms24065368

Key clinical point: Vitamin D deficiency in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) had worse impact on the retention rate of the first biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) and response to methotrexate and was associated with severe disease course in terms of sacroiliitis.

Major finding: The risk for discontinuation of the first bDMARD (hazard ratio [HR] 2.129; P  =  .011) and methotrexate discontinuation because of therapy failure (HR 2.168; P  =  .002) were significantly higher among patients with 25(OH)D level of ≤20 vs  20-30 and ≥30 ng/mL, with the prevalence of sacroiliitis being significantly higher in patients with 25(OH)D level of ≤20 vs  ≥30 ng/mL (P  =  .0001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 233 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Rotondo C et al. Vitamin D status and psoriatic arthritis: Association with the risk for sacroiliitis and influence on the retention rate of methotrexate monotherapy and first biological drug survival—A retrospective study. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(6):5368 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.3390/ijms24065368

Key clinical point: Psoriatic arthritis with axial involvement (axPsA), defined either clinically or by imaging, showed distinct disease manifestations compared with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) plus psoriasis, indicating that axPsA and axSpA were distinct entities.

Major finding: Regardless of clinical or imaging definition used, patients with axPsA vs  axSpA+psoriasis were significantly more often women and older individuals and less often human leucocyte antigen-B27 positive (all P < .05), as well as had more frequent peripheral manifestations (P < .001) but less frequent uveitis (P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from the RABBIT-SpA, a prospective longitudinal observational study, including 1395 patients with PsA (359 patients had axial involvement) and 1428 patients with axSpA (181 patients had psoriasis).

Disclosures: The study was supported by AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Viatris. The authors did not report conflicts of interest.

Source: Regierer AC et al. Comparison of patients with axial PsA and patients with axSpA and concomitant psoriasis: An analysis of the German register RABBIT-SpA. RMD Open. 2023;9(1):e002837 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002837.

Key clinical point: Psoriatic arthritis with axial involvement (axPsA), defined either clinically or by imaging, showed distinct disease manifestations compared with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) plus psoriasis, indicating that axPsA and axSpA were distinct entities.

Major finding: Regardless of clinical or imaging definition used, patients with axPsA vs  axSpA+psoriasis were significantly more often women and older individuals and less often human leucocyte antigen-B27 positive (all P < .05), as well as had more frequent peripheral manifestations (P < .001) but less frequent uveitis (P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from the RABBIT-SpA, a prospective longitudinal observational study, including 1395 patients with PsA (359 patients had axial involvement) and 1428 patients with axSpA (181 patients had psoriasis).

Disclosures: The study was supported by AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Viatris. The authors did not report conflicts of interest.

Source: Regierer AC et al. Comparison of patients with axial PsA and patients with axSpA and concomitant psoriasis: An analysis of the German register RABBIT-SpA. RMD Open. 2023;9(1):e002837 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002837.

Key clinical point: Psoriatic arthritis with axial involvement (axPsA), defined either clinically or by imaging, showed distinct disease manifestations compared with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) plus psoriasis, indicating that axPsA and axSpA were distinct entities.

Major finding: Regardless of clinical or imaging definition used, patients with axPsA vs  axSpA+psoriasis were significantly more often women and older individuals and less often human leucocyte antigen-B27 positive (all P < .05), as well as had more frequent peripheral manifestations (P < .001) but less frequent uveitis (P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from the RABBIT-SpA, a prospective longitudinal observational study, including 1395 patients with PsA (359 patients had axial involvement) and 1428 patients with axSpA (181 patients had psoriasis).

Disclosures: The study was supported by AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Viatris. The authors did not report conflicts of interest.

Source: Regierer AC et al. Comparison of patients with axial PsA and patients with axSpA and concomitant psoriasis: An analysis of the German register RABBIT-SpA. RMD Open. 2023;9(1):e002837 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002837.

Key clinical point: Triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index demonstrated a positive and robust association with the occurrence of carotid atherosclerosis (CA) and carotid artery plaque (CAP) in patients with psoriatic arthritis, independent of traditional cardiovascular and PsA risk factors.

Major finding: The TyG index was substantially higher in patients with vs  without CA (8.82 vs  8.54; P  =  .002) or CAP (8.88 vs  8.55; P  =  .001), with significant associations observed between continuous TyG and occurrence of CA (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.69; 95% CI 1.02-7.11) and CAP (aOR 3.61; 95% CI 1.15-11.38).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 165 patients with confirmed diagnosis of PsA who underwent carotid ultrasound and had data available for corresponding TyG index.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Xie W et al. Association between triglyceride‑glucose index and carotid atherosclerosis in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead100

Key clinical point: Triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index demonstrated a positive and robust association with the occurrence of carotid atherosclerosis (CA) and carotid artery plaque (CAP) in patients with psoriatic arthritis, independent of traditional cardiovascular and PsA risk factors.

Major finding: The TyG index was substantially higher in patients with vs  without CA (8.82 vs  8.54; P  =  .002) or CAP (8.88 vs  8.55; P  =  .001), with significant associations observed between continuous TyG and occurrence of CA (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.69; 95% CI 1.02-7.11) and CAP (aOR 3.61; 95% CI 1.15-11.38).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 165 patients with confirmed diagnosis of PsA who underwent carotid ultrasound and had data available for corresponding TyG index.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Xie W et al. Association between triglyceride‑glucose index and carotid atherosclerosis in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead100

Key clinical point: Triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index demonstrated a positive and robust association with the occurrence of carotid atherosclerosis (CA) and carotid artery plaque (CAP) in patients with psoriatic arthritis, independent of traditional cardiovascular and PsA risk factors.

Major finding: The TyG index was substantially higher in patients with vs  without CA (8.82 vs  8.54; P  =  .002) or CAP (8.88 vs  8.55; P  =  .001), with significant associations observed between continuous TyG and occurrence of CA (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.69; 95% CI 1.02-7.11) and CAP (aOR 3.61; 95% CI 1.15-11.38).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 165 patients with confirmed diagnosis of PsA who underwent carotid ultrasound and had data available for corresponding TyG index.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Xie W et al. Association between triglyceride‑glucose index and carotid atherosclerosis in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead100

Key clinical point: Real-life study confirms the efficacy, safety, and high retention rate of secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriatic arthritis (PsA), with male sex being an independent predictor of treatment response.

Major finding: The mean 28-Joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein was significantly lower at week 52 vs  baseline (2.2 vs  5.8; P  =  .0001), suggesting remission, with men vs  women being more likely to achieve inactive disease or remission (odds ratio 5.16; 95% CI 1.35-26.63). The treatment retention rate at 1-year follow-up was 75%, with none of the patients discontinuing due to adverse events.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study including 85 patients with moderate-to-severe PsA (n = 56) or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 29) treated with secukinumab and followed for 52 weeks.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding, except open access funding through Projekt DEAL, Germany. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Molica Colella F et al. Effectiveness and safety of secukinumab in ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis: A 52-week real-life study in an Italian cohort. Adv Rheumatol. 2023;63(1):15 (Mar 27). Doi: 10.1186/s42358-023-00295-2

Key clinical point: Real-life study confirms the efficacy, safety, and high retention rate of secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriatic arthritis (PsA), with male sex being an independent predictor of treatment response.

Major finding: The mean 28-Joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein was significantly lower at week 52 vs  baseline (2.2 vs  5.8; P  =  .0001), suggesting remission, with men vs  women being more likely to achieve inactive disease or remission (odds ratio 5.16; 95% CI 1.35-26.63). The treatment retention rate at 1-year follow-up was 75%, with none of the patients discontinuing due to adverse events.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study including 85 patients with moderate-to-severe PsA (n = 56) or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 29) treated with secukinumab and followed for 52 weeks.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding, except open access funding through Projekt DEAL, Germany. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Molica Colella F et al. Effectiveness and safety of secukinumab in ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis: A 52-week real-life study in an Italian cohort. Adv Rheumatol. 2023;63(1):15 (Mar 27). Doi: 10.1186/s42358-023-00295-2

Key clinical point: Real-life study confirms the efficacy, safety, and high retention rate of secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriatic arthritis (PsA), with male sex being an independent predictor of treatment response.

Major finding: The mean 28-Joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein was significantly lower at week 52 vs  baseline (2.2 vs  5.8; P  =  .0001), suggesting remission, with men vs  women being more likely to achieve inactive disease or remission (odds ratio 5.16; 95% CI 1.35-26.63). The treatment retention rate at 1-year follow-up was 75%, with none of the patients discontinuing due to adverse events.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study including 85 patients with moderate-to-severe PsA (n = 56) or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 29) treated with secukinumab and followed for 52 weeks.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding, except open access funding through Projekt DEAL, Germany. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Molica Colella F et al. Effectiveness and safety of secukinumab in ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis: A 52-week real-life study in an Italian cohort. Adv Rheumatol. 2023;63(1):15 (Mar 27). Doi: 10.1186/s42358-023-00295-2

Key clinical point: Tofacitinib was more effective and as safe as placebo in men and women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA); however, men were more likely to achieve minimal disease activity (MDA) with tofacitinib due to differences in baseline disease activity.

Major finding: At 3 months, tofacitinib was more efficacious than placebo irrespective of sex (P < .001); however, MDA was achieved by a higher proportion of men vs  women receiving tofacitinib (P < .05), although the American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 response was comparable. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in men and women receiving tofacitinib at doses of 5 mg (67.5% and 70.2%, respectively) or 10 mg (70.0% and 72.8%, respectively) twice daily.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of data pooled from phase 3 randomized controlled trials included 816 patients with PsA who received tofacitinib, adalimumab, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer. Some authors declared being employees, holding shares, or having other ties with various sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Eder L et al. Sex differences in the efficacy, safety and persistence of patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with tofacitinib: A post-hoc analysis of phase 3 trials and long-term extension. RMD Open. 2023;9:e002718 (Mar 23). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002718

Key clinical point: Tofacitinib was more effective and as safe as placebo in men and women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA); however, men were more likely to achieve minimal disease activity (MDA) with tofacitinib due to differences in baseline disease activity.

Major finding: At 3 months, tofacitinib was more efficacious than placebo irrespective of sex (P < .001); however, MDA was achieved by a higher proportion of men vs  women receiving tofacitinib (P < .05), although the American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 response was comparable. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in men and women receiving tofacitinib at doses of 5 mg (67.5% and 70.2%, respectively) or 10 mg (70.0% and 72.8%, respectively) twice daily.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of data pooled from phase 3 randomized controlled trials included 816 patients with PsA who received tofacitinib, adalimumab, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer. Some authors declared being employees, holding shares, or having other ties with various sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Eder L et al. Sex differences in the efficacy, safety and persistence of patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with tofacitinib: A post-hoc analysis of phase 3 trials and long-term extension. RMD Open. 2023;9:e002718 (Mar 23). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002718

Key clinical point: Tofacitinib was more effective and as safe as placebo in men and women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA); however, men were more likely to achieve minimal disease activity (MDA) with tofacitinib due to differences in baseline disease activity.

Major finding: At 3 months, tofacitinib was more efficacious than placebo irrespective of sex (P < .001); however, MDA was achieved by a higher proportion of men vs  women receiving tofacitinib (P < .05), although the American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 response was comparable. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in men and women receiving tofacitinib at doses of 5 mg (67.5% and 70.2%, respectively) or 10 mg (70.0% and 72.8%, respectively) twice daily.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of data pooled from phase 3 randomized controlled trials included 816 patients with PsA who received tofacitinib, adalimumab, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer. Some authors declared being employees, holding shares, or having other ties with various sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Eder L et al. Sex differences in the efficacy, safety and persistence of patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with tofacitinib: A post-hoc analysis of phase 3 trials and long-term extension. RMD Open. 2023;9:e002718 (Mar 23). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002718

Key clinical point: COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with the worsening of disease activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were treated with targeted therapies; however, COVID-19 vaccination may worsen disease activity in patients treated with interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23-i).

Major finding: The flare rate was not significantly different in the 6 months post-vaccination vs  the pre-vaccination period (P  =  .797), with no significant change in disease activity score in 28 joints before or after vaccination in the overall population. However, COVID-19 vaccination significantly worsened disease activity in patients treated with IL-12/23-i vs  tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (P  =  .019).

Study details: The data come from a prospective observational study including 1765 patients total with PsA (n = 587) or rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1178) treated with targeted therapies who were vaccinated for COVID-19 with any of the available vaccines.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos Biopharma Spain SLU, and Roche Farma. Two authors reported ties with various sources, including Galapagos or Roche.

Source: Álvaro-Gracia JM et al. Effects of COVID-19 vaccination on disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis on targeted therapy in the COVIDSER study. RMD Open. 2023;9(1):e002936 (Mar 16). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002936

Key clinical point: COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with the worsening of disease activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were treated with targeted therapies; however, COVID-19 vaccination may worsen disease activity in patients treated with interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23-i).

Major finding: The flare rate was not significantly different in the 6 months post-vaccination vs  the pre-vaccination period (P  =  .797), with no significant change in disease activity score in 28 joints before or after vaccination in the overall population. However, COVID-19 vaccination significantly worsened disease activity in patients treated with IL-12/23-i vs  tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (P  =  .019).

Study details: The data come from a prospective observational study including 1765 patients total with PsA (n = 587) or rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1178) treated with targeted therapies who were vaccinated for COVID-19 with any of the available vaccines.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos Biopharma Spain SLU, and Roche Farma. Two authors reported ties with various sources, including Galapagos or Roche.

Source: Álvaro-Gracia JM et al. Effects of COVID-19 vaccination on disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis on targeted therapy in the COVIDSER study. RMD Open. 2023;9(1):e002936 (Mar 16). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002936

Key clinical point: COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with the worsening of disease activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were treated with targeted therapies; however, COVID-19 vaccination may worsen disease activity in patients treated with interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23-i).

Major finding: The flare rate was not significantly different in the 6 months post-vaccination vs  the pre-vaccination period (P  =  .797), with no significant change in disease activity score in 28 joints before or after vaccination in the overall population. However, COVID-19 vaccination significantly worsened disease activity in patients treated with IL-12/23-i vs  tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (P  =  .019).

Study details: The data come from a prospective observational study including 1765 patients total with PsA (n = 587) or rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1178) treated with targeted therapies who were vaccinated for COVID-19 with any of the available vaccines.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos Biopharma Spain SLU, and Roche Farma. Two authors reported ties with various sources, including Galapagos or Roche.

Source: Álvaro-Gracia JM et al. Effects of COVID-19 vaccination on disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis on targeted therapy in the COVIDSER study. RMD Open. 2023;9(1):e002936 (Mar 16). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002936

The investigational interleukin-17A inhibitor izokibep showed higher response rates across a number of symptoms in adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in an extension of its phase 2 trial out to 46 weeks, according to an announcement reporting some of the long-term data by the drug’s developer, Acelyrin.

Izokibep is an antibody mimetic designed to inhibit IL-17A that the company says has “high potency and the potential for robust tissue penetration due to its small molecular size, about one-tenth the size of a monoclonal antibody.”

“Patients want both rapid and meaningful improvement of their symptoms, as well as lasting – and ideally improving – resolution of disease over time. Building on the 16-week data for izokibep reported at EULAR and ACR [American College of Rheumatology] last year, the 46-week data now show not only continued but marked improvements over time in key areas of psoriatic arthritis including joint pain, skin psoriasis, and enthesitis,” Philip J. Mease, MD, director of rheumatology research at the Swedish Medical Center and clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle, and an investigator in the izokibep PsA program, said in the announcement.

The phase 2 trial tested two doses of izokibep – 40 mg and 80 mg – given by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks – against placebo in 135 adult patients with active PsA. For inclusion in the trial, patients had to have at least three swollen and at least three tender joints and an inadequate response to prior therapy including NSAIDs, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. At week 16, the placebo group transitioned to 80 mg izokibep every 2 weeks and the trial treatment period continued for up to 46 weeks.

The trial’s primary endpoint of a 50% or higher level of improvement in ACR response criteria (ACR 50) was achieved by 48% of those on the 40 mg dose at week 16 and by 50% at week 46. For the 80-mg group, this rate rose from 52% to 79%. In the group that went from placebo to 80 mg, the ACR 50 rose from 13% with placebo to 73% with izokibep at week 46.

Resolution of enthesitis, measured by the Leeds Enthesitis Index, among those on the 40 mg dose, was achieved by 63% at week 16 and 83% at week 46, and among those on the 80 mg dose, 88% at week 16 and 89% at week 46. Those on placebo who switched to 80 mg of izokibep at week 16 had an 80% rate of enthesitis resolution at week 46.

Total resolution of skin involvement – 100% clearance of psoriasis based on the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) – was observed at 46 weeks in 50% of those on 40 mg, 71% of those on 80 mg, and 67% of those on 80 mg after week 16.

In its announcement, Acelyrin did not report withdrawal rates from the study after 16 weeks and through 46 weeks, although the statement said that izokibep “was generally well tolerated through 46 weeks, which is in line with previous trials of izokibep.” The most common adverse event was localized injection site reactions, with the majority graded mild to moderate in severity. They were generally the size of a quarter to half-dollar, and typically presented within the first few injections, after which they declined in incidence. In the trial, a case of vulvar cancer was determined to be potentially drug related, the company said.

Acelyrin is currently conducting a phase 2b/3 trial in PsA evaluating a range of doses, including significantly higher doses than in the phase 2 trial, that the company said “could potentially result in better ACR, PASI, and enthesitis resolution responses.”

The drug has been tested at doses up to 160 mg, in some cases for up to 3 years, in more than 400 patients with psoriasis, spondyloarthritis, noninfective uveitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.

The full 46-week data from this trial will be presented at a future scientific meeting, according to the company.

The investigational interleukin-17A inhibitor izokibep showed higher response rates across a number of symptoms in adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in an extension of its phase 2 trial out to 46 weeks, according to an announcement reporting some of the long-term data by the drug’s developer, Acelyrin.

Izokibep is an antibody mimetic designed to inhibit IL-17A that the company says has “high potency and the potential for robust tissue penetration due to its small molecular size, about one-tenth the size of a monoclonal antibody.”

“Patients want both rapid and meaningful improvement of their symptoms, as well as lasting – and ideally improving – resolution of disease over time. Building on the 16-week data for izokibep reported at EULAR and ACR [American College of Rheumatology] last year, the 46-week data now show not only continued but marked improvements over time in key areas of psoriatic arthritis including joint pain, skin psoriasis, and enthesitis,” Philip J. Mease, MD, director of rheumatology research at the Swedish Medical Center and clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle, and an investigator in the izokibep PsA program, said in the announcement.

The phase 2 trial tested two doses of izokibep – 40 mg and 80 mg – given by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks – against placebo in 135 adult patients with active PsA. For inclusion in the trial, patients had to have at least three swollen and at least three tender joints and an inadequate response to prior therapy including NSAIDs, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. At week 16, the placebo group transitioned to 80 mg izokibep every 2 weeks and the trial treatment period continued for up to 46 weeks.

The trial’s primary endpoint of a 50% or higher level of improvement in ACR response criteria (ACR 50) was achieved by 48% of those on the 40 mg dose at week 16 and by 50% at week 46. For the 80-mg group, this rate rose from 52% to 79%. In the group that went from placebo to 80 mg, the ACR 50 rose from 13% with placebo to 73% with izokibep at week 46.

Resolution of enthesitis, measured by the Leeds Enthesitis Index, among those on the 40 mg dose, was achieved by 63% at week 16 and 83% at week 46, and among those on the 80 mg dose, 88% at week 16 and 89% at week 46. Those on placebo who switched to 80 mg of izokibep at week 16 had an 80% rate of enthesitis resolution at week 46.

Total resolution of skin involvement – 100% clearance of psoriasis based on the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) – was observed at 46 weeks in 50% of those on 40 mg, 71% of those on 80 mg, and 67% of those on 80 mg after week 16.

In its announcement, Acelyrin did not report withdrawal rates from the study after 16 weeks and through 46 weeks, although the statement said that izokibep “was generally well tolerated through 46 weeks, which is in line with previous trials of izokibep.” The most common adverse event was localized injection site reactions, with the majority graded mild to moderate in severity. They were generally the size of a quarter to half-dollar, and typically presented within the first few injections, after which they declined in incidence. In the trial, a case of vulvar cancer was determined to be potentially drug related, the company said.

Acelyrin is currently conducting a phase 2b/3 trial in PsA evaluating a range of doses, including significantly higher doses than in the phase 2 trial, that the company said “could potentially result in better ACR, PASI, and enthesitis resolution responses.”

The drug has been tested at doses up to 160 mg, in some cases for up to 3 years, in more than 400 patients with psoriasis, spondyloarthritis, noninfective uveitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.

The full 46-week data from this trial will be presented at a future scientific meeting, according to the company.

The investigational interleukin-17A inhibitor izokibep showed higher response rates across a number of symptoms in adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in an extension of its phase 2 trial out to 46 weeks, according to an announcement reporting some of the long-term data by the drug’s developer, Acelyrin.

Izokibep is an antibody mimetic designed to inhibit IL-17A that the company says has “high potency and the potential for robust tissue penetration due to its small molecular size, about one-tenth the size of a monoclonal antibody.”

“Patients want both rapid and meaningful improvement of their symptoms, as well as lasting – and ideally improving – resolution of disease over time. Building on the 16-week data for izokibep reported at EULAR and ACR [American College of Rheumatology] last year, the 46-week data now show not only continued but marked improvements over time in key areas of psoriatic arthritis including joint pain, skin psoriasis, and enthesitis,” Philip J. Mease, MD, director of rheumatology research at the Swedish Medical Center and clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle, and an investigator in the izokibep PsA program, said in the announcement.

The phase 2 trial tested two doses of izokibep – 40 mg and 80 mg – given by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks – against placebo in 135 adult patients with active PsA. For inclusion in the trial, patients had to have at least three swollen and at least three tender joints and an inadequate response to prior therapy including NSAIDs, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. At week 16, the placebo group transitioned to 80 mg izokibep every 2 weeks and the trial treatment period continued for up to 46 weeks.

The trial’s primary endpoint of a 50% or higher level of improvement in ACR response criteria (ACR 50) was achieved by 48% of those on the 40 mg dose at week 16 and by 50% at week 46. For the 80-mg group, this rate rose from 52% to 79%. In the group that went from placebo to 80 mg, the ACR 50 rose from 13% with placebo to 73% with izokibep at week 46.

Resolution of enthesitis, measured by the Leeds Enthesitis Index, among those on the 40 mg dose, was achieved by 63% at week 16 and 83% at week 46, and among those on the 80 mg dose, 88% at week 16 and 89% at week 46. Those on placebo who switched to 80 mg of izokibep at week 16 had an 80% rate of enthesitis resolution at week 46.

Total resolution of skin involvement – 100% clearance of psoriasis based on the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) – was observed at 46 weeks in 50% of those on 40 mg, 71% of those on 80 mg, and 67% of those on 80 mg after week 16.

In its announcement, Acelyrin did not report withdrawal rates from the study after 16 weeks and through 46 weeks, although the statement said that izokibep “was generally well tolerated through 46 weeks, which is in line with previous trials of izokibep.” The most common adverse event was localized injection site reactions, with the majority graded mild to moderate in severity. They were generally the size of a quarter to half-dollar, and typically presented within the first few injections, after which they declined in incidence. In the trial, a case of vulvar cancer was determined to be potentially drug related, the company said.

Acelyrin is currently conducting a phase 2b/3 trial in PsA evaluating a range of doses, including significantly higher doses than in the phase 2 trial, that the company said “could potentially result in better ACR, PASI, and enthesitis resolution responses.”

The drug has been tested at doses up to 160 mg, in some cases for up to 3 years, in more than 400 patients with psoriasis, spondyloarthritis, noninfective uveitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.

The full 46-week data from this trial will be presented at a future scientific meeting, according to the company.

Patients with active PsA require early effective therapy to improve long-term outcomes. The choice of therapy should balance effectiveness and potential toxicity. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a relatively new class of drugs that have been shown to be efficacious in treating PsA, but there are concerns about safety. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in patients with psoriatic disease, Yang and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 phase 2/3 randomized controlled trials including 6802 patients with PsA or moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who received at least one JAK inhibitor. They demonstrated that, compared with placebo, JAK inhibitors were associated with a significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20 response rate (relative risk [RR] 2.09; P < .00001), with the response being the highest for filgotinib (RR 2.40; P < .00001), followed by upadacitinib, tofacitinib, and deucravacitinib. However, the overall incidence of adverse events was higher with JAK inhibitors vs placebo (RR 1.17; P < .00001) and significantly higher with 10-mg vs 5-mg tofacitinib (P = .03). Thus, JAK inhibitors are efficacious in the treatment of PsA but are associated with adverse effects, particularly at higher doses.

Safety is best assessed in real-world observational studies. Clinical trials have raised concerns about a higher cancer risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with patients treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. To evaluate this further, Huss and colleagues conducted an observational cohort study that evaluated prospectively collected data from national Swedish data sources on 4443 patients with PsA and 10,447 patients with RA, all without previous cancer, who received JAK inhibitors, TNF inhibitors, or other non–TNF inhibitor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Overall, use of JAK inhibitors vs TNF inhibitors was not significantly associated with a higher risk for cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer, especially in RA. In patients with PsA, there was a trend toward higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer, but it was not statistically significant. The study provides reassurance that JAK inhibitors are generally as safe, as are TNF inhibitors in PsA, but continued vigilance is required.

There are limited data on the effect of disease activity on pregnancy outcomes in individuals with PsA. Using data from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway linked to data from a Norwegian nationwide observational register recruiting women with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, Skorpen and colleagues evaluated the association of active disease and cesarean section (CS) rates in singleton births in women with PsA (n = 121), axial spondyloarthritis (n = 312), and controls (n = 575,798). Compared with control individuals, women with PsA had a higher risk for CS (risk difference [RD] 15.0%; P < .001) and for emergency CS (RD 10.6%; P < .001), with active disease in the third trimester further amplifying both risks (CS: RD 17.7%; P = .028; emergency CS: RD 15.9%; P = .015). Thus, although in many patients disease activity decreases during pregnancy, this study highlights the importance of pregestational counseling and disease control along with regular monitoring of PsA during pregnancy such that disease activity remains well controlled.

Patients with active PsA require early effective therapy to improve long-term outcomes. The choice of therapy should balance effectiveness and potential toxicity. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a relatively new class of drugs that have been shown to be efficacious in treating PsA, but there are concerns about safety. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in patients with psoriatic disease, Yang and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 phase 2/3 randomized controlled trials including 6802 patients with PsA or moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who received at least one JAK inhibitor. They demonstrated that, compared with placebo, JAK inhibitors were associated with a significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20 response rate (relative risk [RR] 2.09; P < .00001), with the response being the highest for filgotinib (RR 2.40; P < .00001), followed by upadacitinib, tofacitinib, and deucravacitinib. However, the overall incidence of adverse events was higher with JAK inhibitors vs placebo (RR 1.17; P < .00001) and significantly higher with 10-mg vs 5-mg tofacitinib (P = .03). Thus, JAK inhibitors are efficacious in the treatment of PsA but are associated with adverse effects, particularly at higher doses.

Safety is best assessed in real-world observational studies. Clinical trials have raised concerns about a higher cancer risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with patients treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. To evaluate this further, Huss and colleagues conducted an observational cohort study that evaluated prospectively collected data from national Swedish data sources on 4443 patients with PsA and 10,447 patients with RA, all without previous cancer, who received JAK inhibitors, TNF inhibitors, or other non–TNF inhibitor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Overall, use of JAK inhibitors vs TNF inhibitors was not significantly associated with a higher risk for cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer, especially in RA. In patients with PsA, there was a trend toward higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer, but it was not statistically significant. The study provides reassurance that JAK inhibitors are generally as safe, as are TNF inhibitors in PsA, but continued vigilance is required.

There are limited data on the effect of disease activity on pregnancy outcomes in individuals with PsA. Using data from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway linked to data from a Norwegian nationwide observational register recruiting women with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, Skorpen and colleagues evaluated the association of active disease and cesarean section (CS) rates in singleton births in women with PsA (n = 121), axial spondyloarthritis (n = 312), and controls (n = 575,798). Compared with control individuals, women with PsA had a higher risk for CS (risk difference [RD] 15.0%; P < .001) and for emergency CS (RD 10.6%; P < .001), with active disease in the third trimester further amplifying both risks (CS: RD 17.7%; P = .028; emergency CS: RD 15.9%; P = .015). Thus, although in many patients disease activity decreases during pregnancy, this study highlights the importance of pregestational counseling and disease control along with regular monitoring of PsA during pregnancy such that disease activity remains well controlled.

Patients with active PsA require early effective therapy to improve long-term outcomes. The choice of therapy should balance effectiveness and potential toxicity. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a relatively new class of drugs that have been shown to be efficacious in treating PsA, but there are concerns about safety. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in patients with psoriatic disease, Yang and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 phase 2/3 randomized controlled trials including 6802 patients with PsA or moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who received at least one JAK inhibitor. They demonstrated that, compared with placebo, JAK inhibitors were associated with a significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20 response rate (relative risk [RR] 2.09; P < .00001), with the response being the highest for filgotinib (RR 2.40; P < .00001), followed by upadacitinib, tofacitinib, and deucravacitinib. However, the overall incidence of adverse events was higher with JAK inhibitors vs placebo (RR 1.17; P < .00001) and significantly higher with 10-mg vs 5-mg tofacitinib (P = .03). Thus, JAK inhibitors are efficacious in the treatment of PsA but are associated with adverse effects, particularly at higher doses.

Safety is best assessed in real-world observational studies. Clinical trials have raised concerns about a higher cancer risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with patients treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. To evaluate this further, Huss and colleagues conducted an observational cohort study that evaluated prospectively collected data from national Swedish data sources on 4443 patients with PsA and 10,447 patients with RA, all without previous cancer, who received JAK inhibitors, TNF inhibitors, or other non–TNF inhibitor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Overall, use of JAK inhibitors vs TNF inhibitors was not significantly associated with a higher risk for cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer, especially in RA. In patients with PsA, there was a trend toward higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer, but it was not statistically significant. The study provides reassurance that JAK inhibitors are generally as safe, as are TNF inhibitors in PsA, but continued vigilance is required.

There are limited data on the effect of disease activity on pregnancy outcomes in individuals with PsA. Using data from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway linked to data from a Norwegian nationwide observational register recruiting women with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, Skorpen and colleagues evaluated the association of active disease and cesarean section (CS) rates in singleton births in women with PsA (n = 121), axial spondyloarthritis (n = 312), and controls (n = 575,798). Compared with control individuals, women with PsA had a higher risk for CS (risk difference [RD] 15.0%; P < .001) and for emergency CS (RD 10.6%; P < .001), with active disease in the third trimester further amplifying both risks (CS: RD 17.7%; P = .028; emergency CS: RD 15.9%; P = .015). Thus, although in many patients disease activity decreases during pregnancy, this study highlights the importance of pregestational counseling and disease control along with regular monitoring of PsA during pregnancy such that disease activity remains well controlled.

Patients with active PsA require early effective therapy to improve long-term outcomes. The choice of therapy should balance effectiveness and potential toxicity. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a relatively new class of drugs that have been shown to be efficacious in treating PsA, but there are concerns about safety. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in patients with psoriatic disease, Yang and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 phase 2/3 randomized controlled trials including 6802 patients with PsA or moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who received at least one JAK inhibitor. They demonstrated that, compared with placebo, JAK inhibitors were associated with a significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20 response rate (relative risk [RR] 2.09; P < .00001), with the response being the highest for filgotinib (RR 2.40; P < .00001), followed by upadacitinib, tofacitinib, and deucravacitinib. However, the overall incidence of adverse events was higher with JAK inhibitors vs placebo (RR 1.17; P < .00001) and significantly higher with 10-mg vs 5-mg tofacitinib (P = .03). Thus, JAK inhibitors are efficacious in the treatment of PsA but are associated with adverse effects, particularly at higher doses.

Safety is best assessed in real-world observational studies. Clinical trials have raised concerns about a higher cancer risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with patients treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. To evaluate this further, Huss and colleagues conducted an observational cohort study that evaluated prospectively collected data from national Swedish data sources on 4443 patients with PsA and 10,447 patients with RA, all without previous cancer, who received JAK inhibitors, TNF inhibitors, or other non–TNF inhibitor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Overall, use of JAK inhibitors vs TNF inhibitors was not significantly associated with a higher risk for cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer, especially in RA. In patients with PsA, there was a trend toward higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer, but it was not statistically significant. The study provides reassurance that JAK inhibitors are generally as safe, as are TNF inhibitors in PsA, but continued vigilance is required.

There are limited data on the effect of disease activity on pregnancy outcomes in individuals with PsA. Using data from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway linked to data from a Norwegian nationwide observational register recruiting women with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, Skorpen and colleagues evaluated the association of active disease and cesarean section (CS) rates in singleton births in women with PsA (n = 121), axial spondyloarthritis (n = 312), and controls (n = 575,798). Compared with control individuals, women with PsA had a higher risk for CS (risk difference [RD] 15.0%; P < .001) and for emergency CS (RD 10.6%; P < .001), with active disease in the third trimester further amplifying both risks (CS: RD 17.7%; P = .028; emergency CS: RD 15.9%; P = .015). Thus, although in many patients disease activity decreases during pregnancy, this study highlights the importance of pregestational counseling and disease control along with regular monitoring of PsA during pregnancy such that disease activity remains well controlled.

Patients with active PsA require early effective therapy to improve long-term outcomes. The choice of therapy should balance effectiveness and potential toxicity. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a relatively new class of drugs that have been shown to be efficacious in treating PsA, but there are concerns about safety. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in patients with psoriatic disease, Yang and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 phase 2/3 randomized controlled trials including 6802 patients with PsA or moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who received at least one JAK inhibitor. They demonstrated that, compared with placebo, JAK inhibitors were associated with a significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20 response rate (relative risk [RR] 2.09; P < .00001), with the response being the highest for filgotinib (RR 2.40; P < .00001), followed by upadacitinib, tofacitinib, and deucravacitinib. However, the overall incidence of adverse events was higher with JAK inhibitors vs placebo (RR 1.17; P < .00001) and significantly higher with 10-mg vs 5-mg tofacitinib (P = .03). Thus, JAK inhibitors are efficacious in the treatment of PsA but are associated with adverse effects, particularly at higher doses.

Safety is best assessed in real-world observational studies. Clinical trials have raised concerns about a higher cancer risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with patients treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. To evaluate this further, Huss and colleagues conducted an observational cohort study that evaluated prospectively collected data from national Swedish data sources on 4443 patients with PsA and 10,447 patients with RA, all without previous cancer, who received JAK inhibitors, TNF inhibitors, or other non–TNF inhibitor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Overall, use of JAK inhibitors vs TNF inhibitors was not significantly associated with a higher risk for cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer, especially in RA. In patients with PsA, there was a trend toward higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer, but it was not statistically significant. The study provides reassurance that JAK inhibitors are generally as safe, as are TNF inhibitors in PsA, but continued vigilance is required.

There are limited data on the effect of disease activity on pregnancy outcomes in individuals with PsA. Using data from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway linked to data from a Norwegian nationwide observational register recruiting women with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, Skorpen and colleagues evaluated the association of active disease and cesarean section (CS) rates in singleton births in women with PsA (n = 121), axial spondyloarthritis (n = 312), and controls (n = 575,798). Compared with control individuals, women with PsA had a higher risk for CS (risk difference [RD] 15.0%; P < .001) and for emergency CS (RD 10.6%; P < .001), with active disease in the third trimester further amplifying both risks (CS: RD 17.7%; P = .028; emergency CS: RD 15.9%; P = .015). Thus, although in many patients disease activity decreases during pregnancy, this study highlights the importance of pregestational counseling and disease control along with regular monitoring of PsA during pregnancy such that disease activity remains well controlled.

Patients with active PsA require early effective therapy to improve long-term outcomes. The choice of therapy should balance effectiveness and potential toxicity. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a relatively new class of drugs that have been shown to be efficacious in treating PsA, but there are concerns about safety. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in patients with psoriatic disease, Yang and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 phase 2/3 randomized controlled trials including 6802 patients with PsA or moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who received at least one JAK inhibitor. They demonstrated that, compared with placebo, JAK inhibitors were associated with a significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20 response rate (relative risk [RR] 2.09; P < .00001), with the response being the highest for filgotinib (RR 2.40; P < .00001), followed by upadacitinib, tofacitinib, and deucravacitinib. However, the overall incidence of adverse events was higher with JAK inhibitors vs placebo (RR 1.17; P < .00001) and significantly higher with 10-mg vs 5-mg tofacitinib (P = .03). Thus, JAK inhibitors are efficacious in the treatment of PsA but are associated with adverse effects, particularly at higher doses.

Safety is best assessed in real-world observational studies. Clinical trials have raised concerns about a higher cancer risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with patients treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. To evaluate this further, Huss and colleagues conducted an observational cohort study that evaluated prospectively collected data from national Swedish data sources on 4443 patients with PsA and 10,447 patients with RA, all without previous cancer, who received JAK inhibitors, TNF inhibitors, or other non–TNF inhibitor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Overall, use of JAK inhibitors vs TNF inhibitors was not significantly associated with a higher risk for cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer, especially in RA. In patients with PsA, there was a trend toward higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer, but it was not statistically significant. The study provides reassurance that JAK inhibitors are generally as safe, as are TNF inhibitors in PsA, but continued vigilance is required.

There are limited data on the effect of disease activity on pregnancy outcomes in individuals with PsA. Using data from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway linked to data from a Norwegian nationwide observational register recruiting women with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, Skorpen and colleagues evaluated the association of active disease and cesarean section (CS) rates in singleton births in women with PsA (n = 121), axial spondyloarthritis (n = 312), and controls (n = 575,798). Compared with control individuals, women with PsA had a higher risk for CS (risk difference [RD] 15.0%; P < .001) and for emergency CS (RD 10.6%; P < .001), with active disease in the third trimester further amplifying both risks (CS: RD 17.7%; P = .028; emergency CS: RD 15.9%; P = .015). Thus, although in many patients disease activity decreases during pregnancy, this study highlights the importance of pregestational counseling and disease control along with regular monitoring of PsA during pregnancy such that disease activity remains well controlled.

Rheumatologist Marcus Snow, MD, is comfortable with prescribing biosimilars as a first-line, first-time biologic, and discussing them with patients.

“If a biosimilar is on the market, it has gone through rigorous study proving its effectiveness and equivalence to a bio-originator,” said Dr. Snow, a rheumatologist with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care.

The formulary makes a big difference in the conversation about options, he said. “The formularies dictate what we can prescribe. It may not be appropriate, but it is reality. The cost of biologics for a patient without insurance coverage makes it impossible to afford.”

He will often tell patients that he’ll fight any changes or formulary restrictions he does not agree with. “However, when I see patients in follow-up, even if there is no known change on the horizon, I may bring up biosimilars when we have a moment to chat about them to familiarize them with what may happen in the future.”

The need for patient education on biosimilars presents a barrier to realizing their potential to save money and expand choice, noted Cardinal Health in its 2023 biosimilars report. Of 103 rheumatologists who responded to a Cardinal Health survey, 85% agreed that patient education was important. But those conversations can take an uncomfortable turn if the patient pushes back against taking a biosimilar owing to cost or safety concerns.

It’s not uncommon for a patient to express some anxiety about biosimilars, especially if they’re doing well on a current treatment plan. Most patients do not want any changes that may lead to worsening disease control, Dr. Snow said.

Kaiser Permanente

Patients and physicians alike often don’t understand the mechanics of biosimilars. “There’s a lot of misinformation about this,” said Sameer Awsare, MD, an associate executive director for The Permanente Medical Group in Campbell, Calif. Patients should know that a biosimilar will be as clinically efficacious as the medicine they’ve been on, with the same safety profiles, said Dr. Awsare, who works with Kaiser Permanente’s pharmacy partners on biosimilars.
 

Insurance often drives the conversation

The global anti-inflammatory biologics market is anticipated to reach $150 billion by 2027, according to a recent CVS report. As of March 2023, the Food and Drug Administration had approved 40 biosimilars to 11 different reference products. There are 28 on the U.S. market and 100 more in development. Projected to save more than $180 billion over the next 5 years, they are anticipated to expand choice and drive competition.

Rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists are frequent prescribers, although their choices for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab [Remicade] originator and adalimumab [Humira] originator) and anti-CD20 agents, such as rituximab (Rituxan) originator.

Benefit design or formulary usually dictates what medicine a patient receives. “Because of significantly higher out-of-pocket cost or formulary positioning, patients may end up with a generic or a biosimilar instead of a brand-name medicine or branded biologic,” said Robert Popovian, PharmD, MS, chief science policy officer of the Global Healthy Living Foundation.

Insurers rarely offer both Remicade and biosimilar infliximab, allowing the doctor to choose, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, who prescribes infliximab biosimilars. Most often, the payer will choose the lower-cost biosimilar. “I am fine with the biosimilar, either as a new start or a switch from the reference product.”

However, the patient might feel differently. They can form an attachment to the reference medication if it has prevented severe illness. “They do not want to change, as they feel they are going on a ‘new’ medication that will not work as well,” Dr. Regueiro said.

This is where the education comes in: to reassure patients that a biosimilar will work just as well as the reference product. “For patients who have done well for years on a biologic, more time needs to be spent reassuring them and answering questions,” compared with a patient just starting on a biosimilar, he advised.

But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.

Julie Miller Photography

Especially with psoriasis, which has so many strong options for reference drugs, a switch may be hard to justify, said dermatologist Stephanie K. Fabbro, MD, assistant professor at Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown. “If I have a preference, I would rather switch a patient to a drug from a different class without a biosimilar option to reduce the possibility of pushback.”

Dr. Fabbro, part of the core faculty in the Riverside Methodist Hospital Dermatology Residency Program in Columbus, will share data from clinical trials and postmarket surveillance with patients to support her decision.
 

Conversations about cost

Patients may also push back if they don’t save money when switching to a biosimilar. “This dilemma raises the question of who is profiting when a biosimilar is dispensed,” Dr. Popovian said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that take additional concessions from biopharmaceutical manufacturers in the form of rebates and fees will often pocket this money as profit instead of passing savings back to the patient to help reduce their out-of-pocket requirement, he added.

If an originator biologic and a biosimilar are available, “as a pharmacist, I will choose the medicine that will incur the lowest out-of-pocket cost for the patient,” Dr. Popovian said.

Discussing cost – and who dictates which biosimilar is on the formulary – is an important conversation to have with patients, said Vivek Kaul, MD, Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

Providing equivalent clinical efficacy while saving costs is the economic reality of biosimilars, Dr. Kaul said. Third-party payers regularly evaluate how to provide the same quality of care while saving money. Physicians and patients alike “must be mindful that as time goes on, if the science on biosimilars stays robust, if the adoption is more widespread and the cost-saving proposition turns out to be true, more formularies will be attracted to replacing the reference product with the biosimilar counterpart.”

Providers and patients can weigh the options if a formulary suddenly switches to a biosimilar, Dr. Kaul continued. “You can accept the novel product on the formulary or may have to face out-of-pocket expenses as a patient.” If providers and patients have concerns about the biosimilar, they can always appeal if there’s solid scientific evidence that supports reverting back to the reference product.

“If you think the biosimilar is equally efficacious, comes at a lower cost, and is right for the patient, then the providers should tell the patient that,” he added.

Some studies have questioned whether the biosimilars will save money, compared with the reference drug, Dr. Fabbro noted. Medicare, for example, may pay only for a certain percentage of an approved biosimilar, saddling the patient with a monthly copay costing thousands of dollars. “It is unclear whether biosimilar manufacturers will have the same level of patient support programs as the reference drug companies.”

For that reason, physicians should also inform patients about the robust patient assistance and copay assistance programs many reference drug manufacturers offer, she said.

Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients

Safety and ease of use are other common concerns about biosimilars. Patients may ask if the application is different, or why it’s advantageous to switch to a biosimilar, Dr. Awsare said.

Sometimes the syringe or injector for a biosimilar might look different from that of the originator drug, he said.

Anecdotally, Dr. Fabbro has heard stories of patients having injection reactions that they did not experience with the reference drug or having a disease flare-up after starting a biosimilar. 

rubberball/Getty Images

As is the case with reference products, in their conversations with patients, clinicians should address the adverse event profile of biosimilars, offering data points from published studies and clinical guidelines that support the use of these products. “There should be an emphasis on patient education around efficacy and any side effects, and how the profile of the reference product compares with a proposed biosimilar,” Dr. Kaul suggested.

When Dr. Snow discusses biosimilars and generics, “I make sure to share this in an understandable way based on the patient’s scientific background, or lack thereof,” he said. If there is enough time, he also discusses how European- and U.S.-sourced biologics are slightly different.

Pharmacists should tell patients to expect the same clinical outcomes from a biosimilar, Dr. Popovian said. However, if they have any reduction in efficacy or potential safety concerns, they should communicate with their physician or pharmacist immediately.

In Dr. Regueiro’s practice, a pharmacist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease often has a one-on-one meeting with patients to educate and answer questions. “Additionally, we provide them the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation web link on biosimilars,” said Dr. Regueiro.
 

A village approach to education

When biosimilars first came out, there were no formal education materials, Dr. Awsare said. Kaiser Permanente decided to create its own educational materials, not just for patients but also to help educate its primary care doctors; the rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists using the biosimilars; the nurses infusing patients; and the pharmacists preparing the biosimilars.

The health system also has a different approach to choosing medication. Instead of having an insurance company or PBM decide what’s in the formulary, clinicians work with the pharmacists at Kaiser to look at clinical evidence and decide which biosimilar to use. Most of its plans also provide lower copays to patients when they use the biosimilar. 

This was the approach for Humira biosimilars, Dr. Awsare said. Eight will be on the market in 2023. “Our rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists looked at the data from Europe, looked at some real-world evidence, and then said: ‘We think this one’s going to be the best one for our patients.’ ”

Having clinicians choose the biosimilar instead of a health plan makes it a lot easier to have conversations with patients, he said. “Once we’ve moved that market share to that particular biosimilar, we give our physicians the time to have those discussions.”

Clinical pharmacists also provide educational support, offering guidance on issues such as side effects, as patients transition to the biosimilar. “We like to use the word ‘transition’ because it’s essentially the same biologic. So, you’re not actually switching,” Dr. Awsare said.

No consensus on interchangeability

Whether the conversation on interchangeability will affect patient conversations with physicians depends on who you ask.

If a biosimilar has an interchangeability designation, it means that the pharmacist can substitute it without the intervention of the clinician who prescribed the reference product. It does not relate to the quality, safety, or effectiveness of biosimilars or interchangeable biosimilar products, Dr. Popovian said.

The United States is the only country that has this designation. Even though it’s not identical to the originator drug, a biosimilar has the same clinical efficacy and safety profile. “So clinically, interchangeability is meaningless,” Dr. Awsare said.

In its report on biosimilars in the autoimmune category, CVS acknowledged that interchangeability was important but would not be a significant factor in driving adoption of biosimilars. However, in a Cardinal Health survey of 72 gastroenterologists, 38% cited the interchangeability of biosimilars as a top concern for adalimumab biosimilars, along with transitioning patients from Humira to a biosimilar (44%).

“Patient education regarding biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability appears paramount to the acceptance of these products, particularly for patients who are switched from a reference product,” Dr. Kaul noted in the Cardinal Health report.

Wherever supported by data, Dr. Kaul recommends incorporating biosimilar use and interchangeability into best practice guidelines going forward. “That will go a long way in disseminating the latest information on this topic and position this paradigm for increased adoption among providers.”

Some physicians like Dr. Snow aren’t that concerned with interchangeability. This hasn’t affected conversations with patients, he said. Multiple studies demonstrating the lack of antibody formation with multiple switches from different biosimilar drugs has eased his concern about multiple switches causing problems.

“Initially, there was a gap in demonstrating the long-term effect of multiple switches on antibody production and drug effectiveness. That gap has started to close as more data from Europe’s experience with biosimilars becomes available,” Dr. Snow said.
 

Resources for physicians, patients

The federal government has taken steps to advance biosimilars education and adoption. In 2021, President Biden signed the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act into law, which directs the FDA to develop or improve continuing education programs that address prescribing of biosimilars and biological products.

The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit. The Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs has also created an online 40-hour curriculum for health care professionals called the Board-Certified Biologics and Biosimilars Specialist Program.

Dr. Fabbro recommended patients use the FDA page Biosimilar Basics for Patients to educate themselves on biosimilars. The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars, is another free resource for patients.

“While much has changed, the continued need for multistakeholder education, awareness, and dedicated research remains even more important as we expand into newer therapeutic areas and classes,” wrote the authors of the Cardinal Health report.

Help patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.

Dr. Regueiro is on advisory boards and consults for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET PharmaSolutions, Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fabbro is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences, on the speakers bureau for Valchlor, and on the advisory boards of Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Popovian, Dr. Snow, Dr. Awsare, and Dr. Kaul had no disclosures.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Rheumatologist Marcus Snow, MD, is comfortable with prescribing biosimilars as a first-line, first-time biologic, and discussing them with patients.

“If a biosimilar is on the market, it has gone through rigorous study proving its effectiveness and equivalence to a bio-originator,” said Dr. Snow, a rheumatologist with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care.

The formulary makes a big difference in the conversation about options, he said. “The formularies dictate what we can prescribe. It may not be appropriate, but it is reality. The cost of biologics for a patient without insurance coverage makes it impossible to afford.”

He will often tell patients that he’ll fight any changes or formulary restrictions he does not agree with. “However, when I see patients in follow-up, even if there is no known change on the horizon, I may bring up biosimilars when we have a moment to chat about them to familiarize them with what may happen in the future.”

The need for patient education on biosimilars presents a barrier to realizing their potential to save money and expand choice, noted Cardinal Health in its 2023 biosimilars report. Of 103 rheumatologists who responded to a Cardinal Health survey, 85% agreed that patient education was important. But those conversations can take an uncomfortable turn if the patient pushes back against taking a biosimilar owing to cost or safety concerns.

It’s not uncommon for a patient to express some anxiety about biosimilars, especially if they’re doing well on a current treatment plan. Most patients do not want any changes that may lead to worsening disease control, Dr. Snow said.

Kaiser Permanente

Patients and physicians alike often don’t understand the mechanics of biosimilars. “There’s a lot of misinformation about this,” said Sameer Awsare, MD, an associate executive director for The Permanente Medical Group in Campbell, Calif. Patients should know that a biosimilar will be as clinically efficacious as the medicine they’ve been on, with the same safety profiles, said Dr. Awsare, who works with Kaiser Permanente’s pharmacy partners on biosimilars.
 

Insurance often drives the conversation

The global anti-inflammatory biologics market is anticipated to reach $150 billion by 2027, according to a recent CVS report. As of March 2023, the Food and Drug Administration had approved 40 biosimilars to 11 different reference products. There are 28 on the U.S. market and 100 more in development. Projected to save more than $180 billion over the next 5 years, they are anticipated to expand choice and drive competition.

Rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists are frequent prescribers, although their choices for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab [Remicade] originator and adalimumab [Humira] originator) and anti-CD20 agents, such as rituximab (Rituxan) originator.

Benefit design or formulary usually dictates what medicine a patient receives. “Because of significantly higher out-of-pocket cost or formulary positioning, patients may end up with a generic or a biosimilar instead of a brand-name medicine or branded biologic,” said Robert Popovian, PharmD, MS, chief science policy officer of the Global Healthy Living Foundation.

Insurers rarely offer both Remicade and biosimilar infliximab, allowing the doctor to choose, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, who prescribes infliximab biosimilars. Most often, the payer will choose the lower-cost biosimilar. “I am fine with the biosimilar, either as a new start or a switch from the reference product.”

However, the patient might feel differently. They can form an attachment to the reference medication if it has prevented severe illness. “They do not want to change, as they feel they are going on a ‘new’ medication that will not work as well,” Dr. Regueiro said.

This is where the education comes in: to reassure patients that a biosimilar will work just as well as the reference product. “For patients who have done well for years on a biologic, more time needs to be spent reassuring them and answering questions,” compared with a patient just starting on a biosimilar, he advised.

But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.

Julie Miller Photography

Especially with psoriasis, which has so many strong options for reference drugs, a switch may be hard to justify, said dermatologist Stephanie K. Fabbro, MD, assistant professor at Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown. “If I have a preference, I would rather switch a patient to a drug from a different class without a biosimilar option to reduce the possibility of pushback.”

Dr. Fabbro, part of the core faculty in the Riverside Methodist Hospital Dermatology Residency Program in Columbus, will share data from clinical trials and postmarket surveillance with patients to support her decision.
 

Conversations about cost

Patients may also push back if they don’t save money when switching to a biosimilar. “This dilemma raises the question of who is profiting when a biosimilar is dispensed,” Dr. Popovian said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that take additional concessions from biopharmaceutical manufacturers in the form of rebates and fees will often pocket this money as profit instead of passing savings back to the patient to help reduce their out-of-pocket requirement, he added.

If an originator biologic and a biosimilar are available, “as a pharmacist, I will choose the medicine that will incur the lowest out-of-pocket cost for the patient,” Dr. Popovian said.

Discussing cost – and who dictates which biosimilar is on the formulary – is an important conversation to have with patients, said Vivek Kaul, MD, Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

Providing equivalent clinical efficacy while saving costs is the economic reality of biosimilars, Dr. Kaul said. Third-party payers regularly evaluate how to provide the same quality of care while saving money. Physicians and patients alike “must be mindful that as time goes on, if the science on biosimilars stays robust, if the adoption is more widespread and the cost-saving proposition turns out to be true, more formularies will be attracted to replacing the reference product with the biosimilar counterpart.”

Providers and patients can weigh the options if a formulary suddenly switches to a biosimilar, Dr. Kaul continued. “You can accept the novel product on the formulary or may have to face out-of-pocket expenses as a patient.” If providers and patients have concerns about the biosimilar, they can always appeal if there’s solid scientific evidence that supports reverting back to the reference product.

“If you think the biosimilar is equally efficacious, comes at a lower cost, and is right for the patient, then the providers should tell the patient that,” he added.

Some studies have questioned whether the biosimilars will save money, compared with the reference drug, Dr. Fabbro noted. Medicare, for example, may pay only for a certain percentage of an approved biosimilar, saddling the patient with a monthly copay costing thousands of dollars. “It is unclear whether biosimilar manufacturers will have the same level of patient support programs as the reference drug companies.”

For that reason, physicians should also inform patients about the robust patient assistance and copay assistance programs many reference drug manufacturers offer, she said.

Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients

Safety and ease of use are other common concerns about biosimilars. Patients may ask if the application is different, or why it’s advantageous to switch to a biosimilar, Dr. Awsare said.

Sometimes the syringe or injector for a biosimilar might look different from that of the originator drug, he said.

Anecdotally, Dr. Fabbro has heard stories of patients having injection reactions that they did not experience with the reference drug or having a disease flare-up after starting a biosimilar. 

rubberball/Getty Images

As is the case with reference products, in their conversations with patients, clinicians should address the adverse event profile of biosimilars, offering data points from published studies and clinical guidelines that support the use of these products. “There should be an emphasis on patient education around efficacy and any side effects, and how the profile of the reference product compares with a proposed biosimilar,” Dr. Kaul suggested.

When Dr. Snow discusses biosimilars and generics, “I make sure to share this in an understandable way based on the patient’s scientific background, or lack thereof,” he said. If there is enough time, he also discusses how European- and U.S.-sourced biologics are slightly different.

Pharmacists should tell patients to expect the same clinical outcomes from a biosimilar, Dr. Popovian said. However, if they have any reduction in efficacy or potential safety concerns, they should communicate with their physician or pharmacist immediately.

In Dr. Regueiro’s practice, a pharmacist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease often has a one-on-one meeting with patients to educate and answer questions. “Additionally, we provide them the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation web link on biosimilars,” said Dr. Regueiro.
 

A village approach to education

When biosimilars first came out, there were no formal education materials, Dr. Awsare said. Kaiser Permanente decided to create its own educational materials, not just for patients but also to help educate its primary care doctors; the rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists using the biosimilars; the nurses infusing patients; and the pharmacists preparing the biosimilars.

The health system also has a different approach to choosing medication. Instead of having an insurance company or PBM decide what’s in the formulary, clinicians work with the pharmacists at Kaiser to look at clinical evidence and decide which biosimilar to use. Most of its plans also provide lower copays to patients when they use the biosimilar. 

This was the approach for Humira biosimilars, Dr. Awsare said. Eight will be on the market in 2023. “Our rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists looked at the data from Europe, looked at some real-world evidence, and then said: ‘We think this one’s going to be the best one for our patients.’ ”

Having clinicians choose the biosimilar instead of a health plan makes it a lot easier to have conversations with patients, he said. “Once we’ve moved that market share to that particular biosimilar, we give our physicians the time to have those discussions.”

Clinical pharmacists also provide educational support, offering guidance on issues such as side effects, as patients transition to the biosimilar. “We like to use the word ‘transition’ because it’s essentially the same biologic. So, you’re not actually switching,” Dr. Awsare said.

No consensus on interchangeability

Whether the conversation on interchangeability will affect patient conversations with physicians depends on who you ask.

If a biosimilar has an interchangeability designation, it means that the pharmacist can substitute it without the intervention of the clinician who prescribed the reference product. It does not relate to the quality, safety, or effectiveness of biosimilars or interchangeable biosimilar products, Dr. Popovian said.

The United States is the only country that has this designation. Even though it’s not identical to the originator drug, a biosimilar has the same clinical efficacy and safety profile. “So clinically, interchangeability is meaningless,” Dr. Awsare said.

In its report on biosimilars in the autoimmune category, CVS acknowledged that interchangeability was important but would not be a significant factor in driving adoption of biosimilars. However, in a Cardinal Health survey of 72 gastroenterologists, 38% cited the interchangeability of biosimilars as a top concern for adalimumab biosimilars, along with transitioning patients from Humira to a biosimilar (44%).

“Patient education regarding biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability appears paramount to the acceptance of these products, particularly for patients who are switched from a reference product,” Dr. Kaul noted in the Cardinal Health report.

Wherever supported by data, Dr. Kaul recommends incorporating biosimilar use and interchangeability into best practice guidelines going forward. “That will go a long way in disseminating the latest information on this topic and position this paradigm for increased adoption among providers.”

Some physicians like Dr. Snow aren’t that concerned with interchangeability. This hasn’t affected conversations with patients, he said. Multiple studies demonstrating the lack of antibody formation with multiple switches from different biosimilar drugs has eased his concern about multiple switches causing problems.

“Initially, there was a gap in demonstrating the long-term effect of multiple switches on antibody production and drug effectiveness. That gap has started to close as more data from Europe’s experience with biosimilars becomes available,” Dr. Snow said.
 

Resources for physicians, patients

The federal government has taken steps to advance biosimilars education and adoption. In 2021, President Biden signed the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act into law, which directs the FDA to develop or improve continuing education programs that address prescribing of biosimilars and biological products.

The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit. The Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs has also created an online 40-hour curriculum for health care professionals called the Board-Certified Biologics and Biosimilars Specialist Program.

Dr. Fabbro recommended patients use the FDA page Biosimilar Basics for Patients to educate themselves on biosimilars. The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars, is another free resource for patients.

“While much has changed, the continued need for multistakeholder education, awareness, and dedicated research remains even more important as we expand into newer therapeutic areas and classes,” wrote the authors of the Cardinal Health report.

Help patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.

Dr. Regueiro is on advisory boards and consults for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET PharmaSolutions, Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fabbro is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences, on the speakers bureau for Valchlor, and on the advisory boards of Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Popovian, Dr. Snow, Dr. Awsare, and Dr. Kaul had no disclosures.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Rheumatologist Marcus Snow, MD, is comfortable with prescribing biosimilars as a first-line, first-time biologic, and discussing them with patients.

“If a biosimilar is on the market, it has gone through rigorous study proving its effectiveness and equivalence to a bio-originator,” said Dr. Snow, a rheumatologist with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care.

The formulary makes a big difference in the conversation about options, he said. “The formularies dictate what we can prescribe. It may not be appropriate, but it is reality. The cost of biologics for a patient without insurance coverage makes it impossible to afford.”

He will often tell patients that he’ll fight any changes or formulary restrictions he does not agree with. “However, when I see patients in follow-up, even if there is no known change on the horizon, I may bring up biosimilars when we have a moment to chat about them to familiarize them with what may happen in the future.”

The need for patient education on biosimilars presents a barrier to realizing their potential to save money and expand choice, noted Cardinal Health in its 2023 biosimilars report. Of 103 rheumatologists who responded to a Cardinal Health survey, 85% agreed that patient education was important. But those conversations can take an uncomfortable turn if the patient pushes back against taking a biosimilar owing to cost or safety concerns.

It’s not uncommon for a patient to express some anxiety about biosimilars, especially if they’re doing well on a current treatment plan. Most patients do not want any changes that may lead to worsening disease control, Dr. Snow said.

Kaiser Permanente

Patients and physicians alike often don’t understand the mechanics of biosimilars. “There’s a lot of misinformation about this,” said Sameer Awsare, MD, an associate executive director for The Permanente Medical Group in Campbell, Calif. Patients should know that a biosimilar will be as clinically efficacious as the medicine they’ve been on, with the same safety profiles, said Dr. Awsare, who works with Kaiser Permanente’s pharmacy partners on biosimilars.
 

Insurance often drives the conversation

The global anti-inflammatory biologics market is anticipated to reach $150 billion by 2027, according to a recent CVS report. As of March 2023, the Food and Drug Administration had approved 40 biosimilars to 11 different reference products. There are 28 on the U.S. market and 100 more in development. Projected to save more than $180 billion over the next 5 years, they are anticipated to expand choice and drive competition.

Rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists are frequent prescribers, although their choices for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab [Remicade] originator and adalimumab [Humira] originator) and anti-CD20 agents, such as rituximab (Rituxan) originator.

Benefit design or formulary usually dictates what medicine a patient receives. “Because of significantly higher out-of-pocket cost or formulary positioning, patients may end up with a generic or a biosimilar instead of a brand-name medicine or branded biologic,” said Robert Popovian, PharmD, MS, chief science policy officer of the Global Healthy Living Foundation.

Insurers rarely offer both Remicade and biosimilar infliximab, allowing the doctor to choose, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, who prescribes infliximab biosimilars. Most often, the payer will choose the lower-cost biosimilar. “I am fine with the biosimilar, either as a new start or a switch from the reference product.”

However, the patient might feel differently. They can form an attachment to the reference medication if it has prevented severe illness. “They do not want to change, as they feel they are going on a ‘new’ medication that will not work as well,” Dr. Regueiro said.

This is where the education comes in: to reassure patients that a biosimilar will work just as well as the reference product. “For patients who have done well for years on a biologic, more time needs to be spent reassuring them and answering questions,” compared with a patient just starting on a biosimilar, he advised.

But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.

Julie Miller Photography

Especially with psoriasis, which has so many strong options for reference drugs, a switch may be hard to justify, said dermatologist Stephanie K. Fabbro, MD, assistant professor at Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown. “If I have a preference, I would rather switch a patient to a drug from a different class without a biosimilar option to reduce the possibility of pushback.”

Dr. Fabbro, part of the core faculty in the Riverside Methodist Hospital Dermatology Residency Program in Columbus, will share data from clinical trials and postmarket surveillance with patients to support her decision.
 

Conversations about cost

Patients may also push back if they don’t save money when switching to a biosimilar. “This dilemma raises the question of who is profiting when a biosimilar is dispensed,” Dr. Popovian said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that take additional concessions from biopharmaceutical manufacturers in the form of rebates and fees will often pocket this money as profit instead of passing savings back to the patient to help reduce their out-of-pocket requirement, he added.

If an originator biologic and a biosimilar are available, “as a pharmacist, I will choose the medicine that will incur the lowest out-of-pocket cost for the patient,” Dr. Popovian said.

Discussing cost – and who dictates which biosimilar is on the formulary – is an important conversation to have with patients, said Vivek Kaul, MD, Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

Providing equivalent clinical efficacy while saving costs is the economic reality of biosimilars, Dr. Kaul said. Third-party payers regularly evaluate how to provide the same quality of care while saving money. Physicians and patients alike “must be mindful that as time goes on, if the science on biosimilars stays robust, if the adoption is more widespread and the cost-saving proposition turns out to be true, more formularies will be attracted to replacing the reference product with the biosimilar counterpart.”

Providers and patients can weigh the options if a formulary suddenly switches to a biosimilar, Dr. Kaul continued. “You can accept the novel product on the formulary or may have to face out-of-pocket expenses as a patient.” If providers and patients have concerns about the biosimilar, they can always appeal if there’s solid scientific evidence that supports reverting back to the reference product.

“If you think the biosimilar is equally efficacious, comes at a lower cost, and is right for the patient, then the providers should tell the patient that,” he added.

Some studies have questioned whether the biosimilars will save money, compared with the reference drug, Dr. Fabbro noted. Medicare, for example, may pay only for a certain percentage of an approved biosimilar, saddling the patient with a monthly copay costing thousands of dollars. “It is unclear whether biosimilar manufacturers will have the same level of patient support programs as the reference drug companies.”

For that reason, physicians should also inform patients about the robust patient assistance and copay assistance programs many reference drug manufacturers offer, she said.

Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients

Safety and ease of use are other common concerns about biosimilars. Patients may ask if the application is different, or why it’s advantageous to switch to a biosimilar, Dr. Awsare said.

Sometimes the syringe or injector for a biosimilar might look different from that of the originator drug, he said.

Anecdotally, Dr. Fabbro has heard stories of patients having injection reactions that they did not experience with the reference drug or having a disease flare-up after starting a biosimilar. 

rubberball/Getty Images

As is the case with reference products, in their conversations with patients, clinicians should address the adverse event profile of biosimilars, offering data points from published studies and clinical guidelines that support the use of these products. “There should be an emphasis on patient education around efficacy and any side effects, and how the profile of the reference product compares with a proposed biosimilar,” Dr. Kaul suggested.

When Dr. Snow discusses biosimilars and generics, “I make sure to share this in an understandable way based on the patient’s scientific background, or lack thereof,” he said. If there is enough time, he also discusses how European- and U.S.-sourced biologics are slightly different.

Pharmacists should tell patients to expect the same clinical outcomes from a biosimilar, Dr. Popovian said. However, if they have any reduction in efficacy or potential safety concerns, they should communicate with their physician or pharmacist immediately.

In Dr. Regueiro’s practice, a pharmacist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease often has a one-on-one meeting with patients to educate and answer questions. “Additionally, we provide them the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation web link on biosimilars,” said Dr. Regueiro.
 

A village approach to education

When biosimilars first came out, there were no formal education materials, Dr. Awsare said. Kaiser Permanente decided to create its own educational materials, not just for patients but also to help educate its primary care doctors; the rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists using the biosimilars; the nurses infusing patients; and the pharmacists preparing the biosimilars.

The health system also has a different approach to choosing medication. Instead of having an insurance company or PBM decide what’s in the formulary, clinicians work with the pharmacists at Kaiser to look at clinical evidence and decide which biosimilar to use. Most of its plans also provide lower copays to patients when they use the biosimilar. 

This was the approach for Humira biosimilars, Dr. Awsare said. Eight will be on the market in 2023. “Our rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists looked at the data from Europe, looked at some real-world evidence, and then said: ‘We think this one’s going to be the best one for our patients.’ ”

Having clinicians choose the biosimilar instead of a health plan makes it a lot easier to have conversations with patients, he said. “Once we’ve moved that market share to that particular biosimilar, we give our physicians the time to have those discussions.”

Clinical pharmacists also provide educational support, offering guidance on issues such as side effects, as patients transition to the biosimilar. “We like to use the word ‘transition’ because it’s essentially the same biologic. So, you’re not actually switching,” Dr. Awsare said.

No consensus on interchangeability

Whether the conversation on interchangeability will affect patient conversations with physicians depends on who you ask.

If a biosimilar has an interchangeability designation, it means that the pharmacist can substitute it without the intervention of the clinician who prescribed the reference product. It does not relate to the quality, safety, or effectiveness of biosimilars or interchangeable biosimilar products, Dr. Popovian said.

The United States is the only country that has this designation. Even though it’s not identical to the originator drug, a biosimilar has the same clinical efficacy and safety profile. “So clinically, interchangeability is meaningless,” Dr. Awsare said.

In its report on biosimilars in the autoimmune category, CVS acknowledged that interchangeability was important but would not be a significant factor in driving adoption of biosimilars. However, in a Cardinal Health survey of 72 gastroenterologists, 38% cited the interchangeability of biosimilars as a top concern for adalimumab biosimilars, along with transitioning patients from Humira to a biosimilar (44%).

“Patient education regarding biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability appears paramount to the acceptance of these products, particularly for patients who are switched from a reference product,” Dr. Kaul noted in the Cardinal Health report.

Wherever supported by data, Dr. Kaul recommends incorporating biosimilar use and interchangeability into best practice guidelines going forward. “That will go a long way in disseminating the latest information on this topic and position this paradigm for increased adoption among providers.”

Some physicians like Dr. Snow aren’t that concerned with interchangeability. This hasn’t affected conversations with patients, he said. Multiple studies demonstrating the lack of antibody formation with multiple switches from different biosimilar drugs has eased his concern about multiple switches causing problems.

“Initially, there was a gap in demonstrating the long-term effect of multiple switches on antibody production and drug effectiveness. That gap has started to close as more data from Europe’s experience with biosimilars becomes available,” Dr. Snow said.
 

Resources for physicians, patients

The federal government has taken steps to advance biosimilars education and adoption. In 2021, President Biden signed the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act into law, which directs the FDA to develop or improve continuing education programs that address prescribing of biosimilars and biological products.

The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit. The Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs has also created an online 40-hour curriculum for health care professionals called the Board-Certified Biologics and Biosimilars Specialist Program.

Dr. Fabbro recommended patients use the FDA page Biosimilar Basics for Patients to educate themselves on biosimilars. The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars, is another free resource for patients.

“While much has changed, the continued need for multistakeholder education, awareness, and dedicated research remains even more important as we expand into newer therapeutic areas and classes,” wrote the authors of the Cardinal Health report.

Help patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.

Dr. Regueiro is on advisory boards and consults for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET PharmaSolutions, Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fabbro is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences, on the speakers bureau for Valchlor, and on the advisory boards of Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Popovian, Dr. Snow, Dr. Awsare, and Dr. Kaul had no disclosures.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.