Rheumatoid Arthritis

Key clinical point: Risk for severe infections significantly increased in patients who were newly diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after initiating biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD).

Major finding: Over a period of 8 years, severe infection rates significantly increased in patients who were newly diagnosed with RA after initiating bDMARD (adjusted difference between pre- and post-bDMARD rates [Δ] 1.85; P  =  .001), whereas no significant change was observed in control individuals from the general population (Δ 0.12; P  =  .29).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based retrospective cohort study including 60,226 patients with newly diagnosed RA and 588,499 age- and sex-matched control individuals without any inflammatory arthritis from the general population who initiated bDMARD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhou VY et al. Risk of severe infections after the introduction of biologic DMARDs in people with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis: A population-based interrupted time-series analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Apr 4). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead158

Key clinical point: Risk for severe infections significantly increased in patients who were newly diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after initiating biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD).

Major finding: Over a period of 8 years, severe infection rates significantly increased in patients who were newly diagnosed with RA after initiating bDMARD (adjusted difference between pre- and post-bDMARD rates [Δ] 1.85; P  =  .001), whereas no significant change was observed in control individuals from the general population (Δ 0.12; P  =  .29).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based retrospective cohort study including 60,226 patients with newly diagnosed RA and 588,499 age- and sex-matched control individuals without any inflammatory arthritis from the general population who initiated bDMARD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhou VY et al. Risk of severe infections after the introduction of biologic DMARDs in people with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis: A population-based interrupted time-series analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Apr 4). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead158

Key clinical point: Risk for severe infections significantly increased in patients who were newly diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after initiating biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD).

Major finding: Over a period of 8 years, severe infection rates significantly increased in patients who were newly diagnosed with RA after initiating bDMARD (adjusted difference between pre- and post-bDMARD rates [Δ] 1.85; P  =  .001), whereas no significant change was observed in control individuals from the general population (Δ 0.12; P  =  .29).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based retrospective cohort study including 60,226 patients with newly diagnosed RA and 588,499 age- and sex-matched control individuals without any inflammatory arthritis from the general population who initiated bDMARD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhou VY et al. Risk of severe infections after the introduction of biologic DMARDs in people with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis: A population-based interrupted time-series analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Apr 4). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead158

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib had a 69% lower risk of developing interstitial lung disease (ILD) than those treated with adalimumab.

Major finding: Compared with adalimumab, tofacitinib resulted in the lowest incidence of ILD (incidence rate ratio 0.43; 95% CI 0.18-1.05), followed by abatacept, tocilizumab, and rituximab. Tofacitinib was associated with a significant 69% reduced risk of developing ILD compared with adalimumab (adjusted hazard ratio 0.31; P  =  .009).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 28,559 patients with RA without preexisting ILD who were newly administered adalimumab, abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib, of which 276 patients were diagnosed with incident ILD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Institutes of Health and other sources. The authors did not report conflicts of interest.

Source: Baker MC et al. Incidence of interstitial lung disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(3):e233640 (Mar 20). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.3640

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib had a 69% lower risk of developing interstitial lung disease (ILD) than those treated with adalimumab.

Major finding: Compared with adalimumab, tofacitinib resulted in the lowest incidence of ILD (incidence rate ratio 0.43; 95% CI 0.18-1.05), followed by abatacept, tocilizumab, and rituximab. Tofacitinib was associated with a significant 69% reduced risk of developing ILD compared with adalimumab (adjusted hazard ratio 0.31; P  =  .009).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 28,559 patients with RA without preexisting ILD who were newly administered adalimumab, abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib, of which 276 patients were diagnosed with incident ILD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Institutes of Health and other sources. The authors did not report conflicts of interest.

Source: Baker MC et al. Incidence of interstitial lung disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(3):e233640 (Mar 20). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.3640

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib had a 69% lower risk of developing interstitial lung disease (ILD) than those treated with adalimumab.

Major finding: Compared with adalimumab, tofacitinib resulted in the lowest incidence of ILD (incidence rate ratio 0.43; 95% CI 0.18-1.05), followed by abatacept, tocilizumab, and rituximab. Tofacitinib was associated with a significant 69% reduced risk of developing ILD compared with adalimumab (adjusted hazard ratio 0.31; P  =  .009).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 28,559 patients with RA without preexisting ILD who were newly administered adalimumab, abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib, of which 276 patients were diagnosed with incident ILD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Institutes of Health and other sources. The authors did not report conflicts of interest.

Source: Baker MC et al. Incidence of interstitial lung disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(3):e233640 (Mar 20). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.3640

Key clinical point: Continuation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) was not superior to withdrawal in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in sustained remission with half-dose csDMARD, suggesting withdrawal of half-dose csDMARD is feasible in some patients.

Major finding: Although discontinuing vs continuing half-dose csDMARD led to a numerically higher risk for flares within 12 months (risk difference 21.5%; 95% CI −3.4% to 49.7%), more patients discontinuing vs continuing half-dose csDMARD showed no radiographic joint damage progression (risk difference 13.9%; 95% CI −10.6% to 38.3%) and regained Disease Activity Score-based remission (80.0% [95% CI 44.4%-97.5%] vs 66.7% [95% CI 9.5%-99.2%]) at the first visit after flare.

Study details: This open-label trial, a part of the ARCTIC REWIND project, included 56 patients with RA who were in sustained remission for ≥12 months with half-dose csDMARD and were randomly assigned to discontinue or continue half-dose csDMARD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Research Council of Norway and other sources. Several authors declared receiving research grants or personal fees from various sources.

Source: Lillegraven S et al. Discontinuation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and excellent disease control. JAMA. 2023;329(12):1024-1026 (Mar 28). Doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.0492

Key clinical point: Continuation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) was not superior to withdrawal in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in sustained remission with half-dose csDMARD, suggesting withdrawal of half-dose csDMARD is feasible in some patients.

Major finding: Although discontinuing vs continuing half-dose csDMARD led to a numerically higher risk for flares within 12 months (risk difference 21.5%; 95% CI −3.4% to 49.7%), more patients discontinuing vs continuing half-dose csDMARD showed no radiographic joint damage progression (risk difference 13.9%; 95% CI −10.6% to 38.3%) and regained Disease Activity Score-based remission (80.0% [95% CI 44.4%-97.5%] vs 66.7% [95% CI 9.5%-99.2%]) at the first visit after flare.

Study details: This open-label trial, a part of the ARCTIC REWIND project, included 56 patients with RA who were in sustained remission for ≥12 months with half-dose csDMARD and were randomly assigned to discontinue or continue half-dose csDMARD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Research Council of Norway and other sources. Several authors declared receiving research grants or personal fees from various sources.

Source: Lillegraven S et al. Discontinuation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and excellent disease control. JAMA. 2023;329(12):1024-1026 (Mar 28). Doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.0492

Key clinical point: Continuation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) was not superior to withdrawal in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in sustained remission with half-dose csDMARD, suggesting withdrawal of half-dose csDMARD is feasible in some patients.

Major finding: Although discontinuing vs continuing half-dose csDMARD led to a numerically higher risk for flares within 12 months (risk difference 21.5%; 95% CI −3.4% to 49.7%), more patients discontinuing vs continuing half-dose csDMARD showed no radiographic joint damage progression (risk difference 13.9%; 95% CI −10.6% to 38.3%) and regained Disease Activity Score-based remission (80.0% [95% CI 44.4%-97.5%] vs 66.7% [95% CI 9.5%-99.2%]) at the first visit after flare.

Study details: This open-label trial, a part of the ARCTIC REWIND project, included 56 patients with RA who were in sustained remission for ≥12 months with half-dose csDMARD and were randomly assigned to discontinue or continue half-dose csDMARD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Research Council of Norway and other sources. Several authors declared receiving research grants or personal fees from various sources.

Source: Lillegraven S et al. Discontinuation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and excellent disease control. JAMA. 2023;329(12):1024-1026 (Mar 28). Doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.0492

Key clinical point: Preexisting rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not increase the risk for mortality or severe immune-related adverse events (AE) in patients initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment and thus, should not be considered as a contraindication for initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Major finding: Among patients initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment, those with and without preexisting RA had comparable risks for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.16; P  =  .30) and severe grade ≥3 immune-related AE (aHR 1.06; P  =  .83).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, comparative, cohort study including 11,901 patients who initiated immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment, of which 87 patients with preexisting RA were matched to 203 patients without preexisting autoimmune diseases (comparator group).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Several authors declared being employed and owning stock options or receiving partial salary support, honoraria, consulting fees, research grants, or royalties from different sources.

Source: McCarter KR et al. Mortality and immune-related adverse events after immune checkpoint inhibitor initiation for cancer among patients with pre-existing rheumatoid arthritis: A retrospective, comparative, cohort study. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023 (Mar 27). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00064-4

Key clinical point: Preexisting rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not increase the risk for mortality or severe immune-related adverse events (AE) in patients initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment and thus, should not be considered as a contraindication for initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Major finding: Among patients initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment, those with and without preexisting RA had comparable risks for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.16; P  =  .30) and severe grade ≥3 immune-related AE (aHR 1.06; P  =  .83).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, comparative, cohort study including 11,901 patients who initiated immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment, of which 87 patients with preexisting RA were matched to 203 patients without preexisting autoimmune diseases (comparator group).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Several authors declared being employed and owning stock options or receiving partial salary support, honoraria, consulting fees, research grants, or royalties from different sources.

Source: McCarter KR et al. Mortality and immune-related adverse events after immune checkpoint inhibitor initiation for cancer among patients with pre-existing rheumatoid arthritis: A retrospective, comparative, cohort study. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023 (Mar 27). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00064-4

Key clinical point: Preexisting rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not increase the risk for mortality or severe immune-related adverse events (AE) in patients initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment and thus, should not be considered as a contraindication for initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Major finding: Among patients initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment, those with and without preexisting RA had comparable risks for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.16; P  =  .30) and severe grade ≥3 immune-related AE (aHR 1.06; P  =  .83).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, comparative, cohort study including 11,901 patients who initiated immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment, of which 87 patients with preexisting RA were matched to 203 patients without preexisting autoimmune diseases (comparator group).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Several authors declared being employed and owning stock options or receiving partial salary support, honoraria, consulting fees, research grants, or royalties from different sources.

Source: McCarter KR et al. Mortality and immune-related adverse events after immune checkpoint inhibitor initiation for cancer among patients with pre-existing rheumatoid arthritis: A retrospective, comparative, cohort study. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023 (Mar 27). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00064-4

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Rheumatoid arthritis patients are no more likely to have a heart attack if they are treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) than if they are treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to data presented at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

Results of a large analysis from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register–Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) found no statistical difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI), considering treatment in almost 21,000 patients. The overall propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio for MI risk comparing TNFi and IL-6i was 0.77, but the 95% confidence interval crossed the line for statistical significance.

“This result reassures patients and clinical teams about the long-term treatment effects on myocardial infarction in a real-world setting,” said Tian Zixing, a PhD student at the University of Manchester (England).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an increased risk of myocardial infarction, compared to the general population,” Ms. Tian explained. However, this risk has been “considerably improved” with biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, notably with the TNFi drugs vs. nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The reasoning behind the current analysis was to see if there was any risk associated with IL-6i, as these drugs have been noted to increase low-density cholesterol levels, which in turn can raise the risk for MI.

The study population consisted of all patients registered in the BSRBR-RA over the past 20 years who had started treatment with one of the many TNFi drugs available in the UK – adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), etanercept (Enbrel), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi) – or the two available drugs that target the effects of IL-6 – tocilizumab (RoActemra, but Actemra in the U.S.), which targets IL-6 itself, and sarilumab (Kevzara), which targets the IL-6 receptor.

Clinical follow-up forms, death certificates, and patient reports confirmed by the clinical team were used to identify patients who experienced a MI, but only MIs that occurred while on treatment were counted.

More than 30,000 lines of therapy in 20,898 patients were recorded. Ms. Tian noted that most (> 90%) patients had been treated with a TNFi across all lines of therapy.

“It is very important to consider the treatment sequence,” she said. “Most patients start first-line treatment with a TNF inhibitor, with only a few patients starting an IL-6 inhibitor,” she noted. “IL-6 inhibitors are more commonly used in the later stages of disease, when more cardiovascular risk factors have accumulated.”

Thus, to ensure that the MI risk was fairly evaluated, the statistical analyses compared TNFi and IL-6i according to the line of treatment. “That means only patients on their first-line treatment will be compared to each other, and only those on their second-line treatment will be compared to each other, and so on,” Ms. Tian explained.

Baseline characteristics were broadly similar for patients treated with TNFi and IL-6i drugs, except for hyperlipidemia, which was higher in patients treated with an IL-6i. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of any difference in the MI rates after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.

There are a lot of strengths to these data, but of course the possibilities of residual confounding and confounding by indication exist, Ms. Tian said. There were also missing data that had to be imputed.

“There has been quite a bit around interleukin-1 blockers being cardiovascular protective,” observed Kenneth Baker, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the RA oral abstracts session during which Ms. Tian presented the findings.

“IL-6 is quite good at suppressing CRP [C-reactive protein],” added Dr. Baker, a senior clinical research fellow at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Freeman Hospital, both in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“You’ve hypothesized or extrapolated that the differences in the lipid levels may not be relevant,” he said to Ms. Tian, “but do you think there might be an extra element going on here?” Maybe IL-6i drugs such as tocilizumab are better at suppressing inflammation, and that counterbalances the effects on lipids, he suggested.

Ms. Tian and Dr. Baker disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The BSRBR-RA is managed by the University of Manchester on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. The registry is supported by funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Sanofi, and in the past Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sandoz, SOBI, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Rheumatoid arthritis patients are no more likely to have a heart attack if they are treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) than if they are treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to data presented at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

Results of a large analysis from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register–Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) found no statistical difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI), considering treatment in almost 21,000 patients. The overall propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio for MI risk comparing TNFi and IL-6i was 0.77, but the 95% confidence interval crossed the line for statistical significance.

“This result reassures patients and clinical teams about the long-term treatment effects on myocardial infarction in a real-world setting,” said Tian Zixing, a PhD student at the University of Manchester (England).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an increased risk of myocardial infarction, compared to the general population,” Ms. Tian explained. However, this risk has been “considerably improved” with biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, notably with the TNFi drugs vs. nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The reasoning behind the current analysis was to see if there was any risk associated with IL-6i, as these drugs have been noted to increase low-density cholesterol levels, which in turn can raise the risk for MI.

The study population consisted of all patients registered in the BSRBR-RA over the past 20 years who had started treatment with one of the many TNFi drugs available in the UK – adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), etanercept (Enbrel), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi) – or the two available drugs that target the effects of IL-6 – tocilizumab (RoActemra, but Actemra in the U.S.), which targets IL-6 itself, and sarilumab (Kevzara), which targets the IL-6 receptor.

Clinical follow-up forms, death certificates, and patient reports confirmed by the clinical team were used to identify patients who experienced a MI, but only MIs that occurred while on treatment were counted.

More than 30,000 lines of therapy in 20,898 patients were recorded. Ms. Tian noted that most (> 90%) patients had been treated with a TNFi across all lines of therapy.

“It is very important to consider the treatment sequence,” she said. “Most patients start first-line treatment with a TNF inhibitor, with only a few patients starting an IL-6 inhibitor,” she noted. “IL-6 inhibitors are more commonly used in the later stages of disease, when more cardiovascular risk factors have accumulated.”

Thus, to ensure that the MI risk was fairly evaluated, the statistical analyses compared TNFi and IL-6i according to the line of treatment. “That means only patients on their first-line treatment will be compared to each other, and only those on their second-line treatment will be compared to each other, and so on,” Ms. Tian explained.

Baseline characteristics were broadly similar for patients treated with TNFi and IL-6i drugs, except for hyperlipidemia, which was higher in patients treated with an IL-6i. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of any difference in the MI rates after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.

There are a lot of strengths to these data, but of course the possibilities of residual confounding and confounding by indication exist, Ms. Tian said. There were also missing data that had to be imputed.

“There has been quite a bit around interleukin-1 blockers being cardiovascular protective,” observed Kenneth Baker, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the RA oral abstracts session during which Ms. Tian presented the findings.

“IL-6 is quite good at suppressing CRP [C-reactive protein],” added Dr. Baker, a senior clinical research fellow at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Freeman Hospital, both in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“You’ve hypothesized or extrapolated that the differences in the lipid levels may not be relevant,” he said to Ms. Tian, “but do you think there might be an extra element going on here?” Maybe IL-6i drugs such as tocilizumab are better at suppressing inflammation, and that counterbalances the effects on lipids, he suggested.

Ms. Tian and Dr. Baker disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The BSRBR-RA is managed by the University of Manchester on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. The registry is supported by funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Sanofi, and in the past Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sandoz, SOBI, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Rheumatoid arthritis patients are no more likely to have a heart attack if they are treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) than if they are treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to data presented at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

Results of a large analysis from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register–Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) found no statistical difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI), considering treatment in almost 21,000 patients. The overall propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio for MI risk comparing TNFi and IL-6i was 0.77, but the 95% confidence interval crossed the line for statistical significance.

“This result reassures patients and clinical teams about the long-term treatment effects on myocardial infarction in a real-world setting,” said Tian Zixing, a PhD student at the University of Manchester (England).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an increased risk of myocardial infarction, compared to the general population,” Ms. Tian explained. However, this risk has been “considerably improved” with biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, notably with the TNFi drugs vs. nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The reasoning behind the current analysis was to see if there was any risk associated with IL-6i, as these drugs have been noted to increase low-density cholesterol levels, which in turn can raise the risk for MI.

The study population consisted of all patients registered in the BSRBR-RA over the past 20 years who had started treatment with one of the many TNFi drugs available in the UK – adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), etanercept (Enbrel), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi) – or the two available drugs that target the effects of IL-6 – tocilizumab (RoActemra, but Actemra in the U.S.), which targets IL-6 itself, and sarilumab (Kevzara), which targets the IL-6 receptor.

Clinical follow-up forms, death certificates, and patient reports confirmed by the clinical team were used to identify patients who experienced a MI, but only MIs that occurred while on treatment were counted.

More than 30,000 lines of therapy in 20,898 patients were recorded. Ms. Tian noted that most (> 90%) patients had been treated with a TNFi across all lines of therapy.

“It is very important to consider the treatment sequence,” she said. “Most patients start first-line treatment with a TNF inhibitor, with only a few patients starting an IL-6 inhibitor,” she noted. “IL-6 inhibitors are more commonly used in the later stages of disease, when more cardiovascular risk factors have accumulated.”

Thus, to ensure that the MI risk was fairly evaluated, the statistical analyses compared TNFi and IL-6i according to the line of treatment. “That means only patients on their first-line treatment will be compared to each other, and only those on their second-line treatment will be compared to each other, and so on,” Ms. Tian explained.

Baseline characteristics were broadly similar for patients treated with TNFi and IL-6i drugs, except for hyperlipidemia, which was higher in patients treated with an IL-6i. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of any difference in the MI rates after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.

There are a lot of strengths to these data, but of course the possibilities of residual confounding and confounding by indication exist, Ms. Tian said. There were also missing data that had to be imputed.

“There has been quite a bit around interleukin-1 blockers being cardiovascular protective,” observed Kenneth Baker, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the RA oral abstracts session during which Ms. Tian presented the findings.

“IL-6 is quite good at suppressing CRP [C-reactive protein],” added Dr. Baker, a senior clinical research fellow at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Freeman Hospital, both in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“You’ve hypothesized or extrapolated that the differences in the lipid levels may not be relevant,” he said to Ms. Tian, “but do you think there might be an extra element going on here?” Maybe IL-6i drugs such as tocilizumab are better at suppressing inflammation, and that counterbalances the effects on lipids, he suggested.

Ms. Tian and Dr. Baker disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The BSRBR-RA is managed by the University of Manchester on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. The registry is supported by funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Sanofi, and in the past Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sandoz, SOBI, and UCB.

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.

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.

In evaluating the importance of early aggressive treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), we often look at prognostic factors for severe disease, such as seropositivity, elevated inflammatory markers, and erosions. Eberhard and colleagues looked at the relationship between damage as seen on radiography (including erosions and joint space narrowing) and pain and disability in early RA using an inception cohort with <12 months of symptoms. Over 200 patients in Sweden were followed for 5 years with clinical, laboratory, and radiographic evaluations. Of interest, pain was associated with female sex, tender joint count, and inflammatory markers at various time points but not with radiographic damage. This may reflect that pain is related to current inflammation rather than past joint damage or that pain is related to other factors, such as central sensitization. Radiographic damage was, however, associated with disability and thus remains an important target and outcome measure for assessing treatment effectiveness.

Leon and colleagues also looked at early RA but instead, at the category of difficult-to-treat RA (D2T RA), meaning persistent RA symptoms after a trial of at least two biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. In order to gain better insight in preventing D2T RA, the authors examined its association with potentially modifiable risk factors early in the course of disease. Of the over 600 patients followed in this inception cohort, only about 6% were classified as having D2T RA. The study found that patients who had D2T RA tended to be younger, with a higher tender joint count, higher pain scores, and a higher initial level of disability. The Disease Activity Score (DAS28) itself was higher in patients with D2T RA, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. The small number of patients (35) in the D2T RA group may have affected the findings as well as their wider applicability. However, it is interesting to consider whether the associations may also reflect the impact of noninflammatory factors, as in the previous study, on the classification of D2T RA.

Park and colleagues evaluated the difference in clinical outcomes in postmenopausal patients with RA who underwent menopause at younger than 45 years or 45 years or older. Among over 2800 patients in Korea, those who underwent early menopause were more likely to be seronegative and have high disease activity and worse patient-reported outcome scores in fatigue, sleep, and health-related quality of life despite comparable treatments and prevalence of erosions. The authors suggest this may be related to lower cumulative estrogen exposure; whether this correlates to inflammatory cytokine signatures is not yet known. However, as with the prior studies, central sensitization and noninflammatory pain may also contribute and should be considered in interpreting response to therapy.

Finally, addressing the potential risk for cancer in patients with RA before or during treatment with immunosuppressive medications, Miyata and colleagues reported a study that screened nearly 2200 patients who underwent CT (from neck to pelvis) and compared them with those who underwent routine screening with physical exam plus radiography. The study found that CT screening enhanced cancer detection, with a large number of cancers detected at an earlier stage with CT screening compared with routine screening. The overall number of cancers detected was low (33), and thus routine screening with neck-to-pelvis CT for all patients with RA may not be a cost-effective practice. However, it bears further examination for potentially higher-risk populations or specific cancers.

In evaluating the importance of early aggressive treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), we often look at prognostic factors for severe disease, such as seropositivity, elevated inflammatory markers, and erosions. Eberhard and colleagues looked at the relationship between damage as seen on radiography (including erosions and joint space narrowing) and pain and disability in early RA using an inception cohort with <12 months of symptoms. Over 200 patients in Sweden were followed for 5 years with clinical, laboratory, and radiographic evaluations. Of interest, pain was associated with female sex, tender joint count, and inflammatory markers at various time points but not with radiographic damage. This may reflect that pain is related to current inflammation rather than past joint damage or that pain is related to other factors, such as central sensitization. Radiographic damage was, however, associated with disability and thus remains an important target and outcome measure for assessing treatment effectiveness.

Leon and colleagues also looked at early RA but instead, at the category of difficult-to-treat RA (D2T RA), meaning persistent RA symptoms after a trial of at least two biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. In order to gain better insight in preventing D2T RA, the authors examined its association with potentially modifiable risk factors early in the course of disease. Of the over 600 patients followed in this inception cohort, only about 6% were classified as having D2T RA. The study found that patients who had D2T RA tended to be younger, with a higher tender joint count, higher pain scores, and a higher initial level of disability. The Disease Activity Score (DAS28) itself was higher in patients with D2T RA, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. The small number of patients (35) in the D2T RA group may have affected the findings as well as their wider applicability. However, it is interesting to consider whether the associations may also reflect the impact of noninflammatory factors, as in the previous study, on the classification of D2T RA.

Park and colleagues evaluated the difference in clinical outcomes in postmenopausal patients with RA who underwent menopause at younger than 45 years or 45 years or older. Among over 2800 patients in Korea, those who underwent early menopause were more likely to be seronegative and have high disease activity and worse patient-reported outcome scores in fatigue, sleep, and health-related quality of life despite comparable treatments and prevalence of erosions. The authors suggest this may be related to lower cumulative estrogen exposure; whether this correlates to inflammatory cytokine signatures is not yet known. However, as with the prior studies, central sensitization and noninflammatory pain may also contribute and should be considered in interpreting response to therapy.

Finally, addressing the potential risk for cancer in patients with RA before or during treatment with immunosuppressive medications, Miyata and colleagues reported a study that screened nearly 2200 patients who underwent CT (from neck to pelvis) and compared them with those who underwent routine screening with physical exam plus radiography. The study found that CT screening enhanced cancer detection, with a large number of cancers detected at an earlier stage with CT screening compared with routine screening. The overall number of cancers detected was low (33), and thus routine screening with neck-to-pelvis CT for all patients with RA may not be a cost-effective practice. However, it bears further examination for potentially higher-risk populations or specific cancers.

In evaluating the importance of early aggressive treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), we often look at prognostic factors for severe disease, such as seropositivity, elevated inflammatory markers, and erosions. Eberhard and colleagues looked at the relationship between damage as seen on radiography (including erosions and joint space narrowing) and pain and disability in early RA using an inception cohort with <12 months of symptoms. Over 200 patients in Sweden were followed for 5 years with clinical, laboratory, and radiographic evaluations. Of interest, pain was associated with female sex, tender joint count, and inflammatory markers at various time points but not with radiographic damage. This may reflect that pain is related to current inflammation rather than past joint damage or that pain is related to other factors, such as central sensitization. Radiographic damage was, however, associated with disability and thus remains an important target and outcome measure for assessing treatment effectiveness.

Leon and colleagues also looked at early RA but instead, at the category of difficult-to-treat RA (D2T RA), meaning persistent RA symptoms after a trial of at least two biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. In order to gain better insight in preventing D2T RA, the authors examined its association with potentially modifiable risk factors early in the course of disease. Of the over 600 patients followed in this inception cohort, only about 6% were classified as having D2T RA. The study found that patients who had D2T RA tended to be younger, with a higher tender joint count, higher pain scores, and a higher initial level of disability. The Disease Activity Score (DAS28) itself was higher in patients with D2T RA, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. The small number of patients (35) in the D2T RA group may have affected the findings as well as their wider applicability. However, it is interesting to consider whether the associations may also reflect the impact of noninflammatory factors, as in the previous study, on the classification of D2T RA.

Park and colleagues evaluated the difference in clinical outcomes in postmenopausal patients with RA who underwent menopause at younger than 45 years or 45 years or older. Among over 2800 patients in Korea, those who underwent early menopause were more likely to be seronegative and have high disease activity and worse patient-reported outcome scores in fatigue, sleep, and health-related quality of life despite comparable treatments and prevalence of erosions. The authors suggest this may be related to lower cumulative estrogen exposure; whether this correlates to inflammatory cytokine signatures is not yet known. However, as with the prior studies, central sensitization and noninflammatory pain may also contribute and should be considered in interpreting response to therapy.

Finally, addressing the potential risk for cancer in patients with RA before or during treatment with immunosuppressive medications, Miyata and colleagues reported a study that screened nearly 2200 patients who underwent CT (from neck to pelvis) and compared them with those who underwent routine screening with physical exam plus radiography. The study found that CT screening enhanced cancer detection, with a large number of cancers detected at an earlier stage with CT screening compared with routine screening. The overall number of cancers detected was low (33), and thus routine screening with neck-to-pelvis CT for all patients with RA may not be a cost-effective practice. However, it bears further examination for potentially higher-risk populations or specific cancers.

The small size of a new study of the feasibility of tapering conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) doses to half for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission, and then to zero, makes suspect the validity of its finding of no statistical difference between continuing half doses and stopping altogether, according to one rheumatologist’s analysis.

In the open-label, randomized trial of 56 patients, which was published as a research letter in JAMA, more patients in the group that discontinued csDMARDs experienced flares within 1 year than did the half-dose group, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Most patients in the drug-free group did not experience disease flares, the authors note.

“The results show that in this population, a majority of patients remained flare-free for at least a year after csDMARD discontinuation. This highlights a potential for drug-free remission in a subgroup of RA patients, and the data provide a basis for shared decision-making in this patient group. We know that tapering is a common question from patients and thus think that the data are especially clinically relevant,” first author Siri Lillegraven, MD, MPH, PhD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at the Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, said in an interview.

While several studies have demonstrated that patients with RA can maintain remission on lower doses of medication, James O’Dell, MD, chief of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, urged caution in interpreting these results because the study was so small – just 56 patients. “Every analysis they did favored staying on treatment, but the confidence interval slightly crossed null, so they can’t say [that group] was superior,” Dr. O’Dell said in an interview. He was not involved in the research. “Had this study been double this size and they got the same results, they would have clearly shown that staying on medicines were superior,” he said.

Dr. Lillegraven acknowledged the impact of the trial’s small sample size. “This is a study with a limited study sample, and it is conceivable that a larger study might have shown a statistical difference between the groups,” she said.

In addition to the small number of patients in the study, Dr. O’Dell also noted that this study group was already a selected group of patients who had maintained remission on half-dose therapy for at least 1 year. Even then, “what they showed was that 39% of the patients who they discontinued [then] flared, compared with 17% when they didn’t taper [off medication],” he said. “That’s a pretty important clinical difference.”

While Dr. O’Dell thinks the study was too small to inform practice, he emphasized that tapering off full doses of medications can be beneficial for patients with RA that has been in remission for 6 months or longer. “It seems to take less medicines to keep somebody in remission than it did to get them there in the first place,” he said. “I come out strongly in favor of tapering medications in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are in remission, and that includes tapering and stopping biologics if patients are on conventional therapy,” he added, “but tapering patients off all of their conventional therapy is something that I think is a bridge too far.”

This trial was the second part of the ARCTIC REWIND study, which involved patients with RA that was in sustained remission, per their Disease Activity Score. In the first part of the trial, 160 participants from 10 hospitals in Norway were enrolled and were randomly assigned to either continue their standard csDMARD dosing or taper down to a half dose. Patients whose doses were tapered to a half dose and whose conditions were in remission for 1 year were eligible for the second half the study.

Of the 56 participants who were included, 26 discontinued csDMARD therapy, while 30 continued taking a half dose for 12 months of follow-up. Most patients in both groups had received methotrexate monotherapy (21 in the discontinuation group and 26 in the continued half-dosing group). Triple therapy (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) was used by three patients in the discontinuation group and by two in the half-dose group. Two additional patients in the discontinuation group and two in the half-dose group took other mono/duo therapies. Clinic visits occurred every 4 months; visits were more frequent if there was an increase in disease activity. For patients who experienced a disease flare, full-dose csDMARD treatment was resumed.

Ten patients in the discontinuation group experienced flares during 1 year, compared with five patients in the half-dose group. The risk difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (RD, 21.5%; 95% CI, –3.4% to 49.7%). The median time to flare was 179 days in the discontinuation group and 133 days in the half-dose group.

Of those who experienced flares, 8 of 10 patients in the discontinuation group and 2 of 5 in the half-dose group regained remission when full-dose therapy was resumed.

The study was funded by the Research Council of Norway and the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities. Many of the authors disclosed financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Dell disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The small size of a new study of the feasibility of tapering conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) doses to half for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission, and then to zero, makes suspect the validity of its finding of no statistical difference between continuing half doses and stopping altogether, according to one rheumatologist’s analysis.

In the open-label, randomized trial of 56 patients, which was published as a research letter in JAMA, more patients in the group that discontinued csDMARDs experienced flares within 1 year than did the half-dose group, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Most patients in the drug-free group did not experience disease flares, the authors note.

“The results show that in this population, a majority of patients remained flare-free for at least a year after csDMARD discontinuation. This highlights a potential for drug-free remission in a subgroup of RA patients, and the data provide a basis for shared decision-making in this patient group. We know that tapering is a common question from patients and thus think that the data are especially clinically relevant,” first author Siri Lillegraven, MD, MPH, PhD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at the Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, said in an interview.

While several studies have demonstrated that patients with RA can maintain remission on lower doses of medication, James O’Dell, MD, chief of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, urged caution in interpreting these results because the study was so small – just 56 patients. “Every analysis they did favored staying on treatment, but the confidence interval slightly crossed null, so they can’t say [that group] was superior,” Dr. O’Dell said in an interview. He was not involved in the research. “Had this study been double this size and they got the same results, they would have clearly shown that staying on medicines were superior,” he said.

Dr. Lillegraven acknowledged the impact of the trial’s small sample size. “This is a study with a limited study sample, and it is conceivable that a larger study might have shown a statistical difference between the groups,” she said.

In addition to the small number of patients in the study, Dr. O’Dell also noted that this study group was already a selected group of patients who had maintained remission on half-dose therapy for at least 1 year. Even then, “what they showed was that 39% of the patients who they discontinued [then] flared, compared with 17% when they didn’t taper [off medication],” he said. “That’s a pretty important clinical difference.”

While Dr. O’Dell thinks the study was too small to inform practice, he emphasized that tapering off full doses of medications can be beneficial for patients with RA that has been in remission for 6 months or longer. “It seems to take less medicines to keep somebody in remission than it did to get them there in the first place,” he said. “I come out strongly in favor of tapering medications in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are in remission, and that includes tapering and stopping biologics if patients are on conventional therapy,” he added, “but tapering patients off all of their conventional therapy is something that I think is a bridge too far.”

This trial was the second part of the ARCTIC REWIND study, which involved patients with RA that was in sustained remission, per their Disease Activity Score. In the first part of the trial, 160 participants from 10 hospitals in Norway were enrolled and were randomly assigned to either continue their standard csDMARD dosing or taper down to a half dose. Patients whose doses were tapered to a half dose and whose conditions were in remission for 1 year were eligible for the second half the study.

Of the 56 participants who were included, 26 discontinued csDMARD therapy, while 30 continued taking a half dose for 12 months of follow-up. Most patients in both groups had received methotrexate monotherapy (21 in the discontinuation group and 26 in the continued half-dosing group). Triple therapy (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) was used by three patients in the discontinuation group and by two in the half-dose group. Two additional patients in the discontinuation group and two in the half-dose group took other mono/duo therapies. Clinic visits occurred every 4 months; visits were more frequent if there was an increase in disease activity. For patients who experienced a disease flare, full-dose csDMARD treatment was resumed.

Ten patients in the discontinuation group experienced flares during 1 year, compared with five patients in the half-dose group. The risk difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (RD, 21.5%; 95% CI, –3.4% to 49.7%). The median time to flare was 179 days in the discontinuation group and 133 days in the half-dose group.

Of those who experienced flares, 8 of 10 patients in the discontinuation group and 2 of 5 in the half-dose group regained remission when full-dose therapy was resumed.

The study was funded by the Research Council of Norway and the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities. Many of the authors disclosed financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Dell disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The small size of a new study of the feasibility of tapering conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) doses to half for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission, and then to zero, makes suspect the validity of its finding of no statistical difference between continuing half doses and stopping altogether, according to one rheumatologist’s analysis.

In the open-label, randomized trial of 56 patients, which was published as a research letter in JAMA, more patients in the group that discontinued csDMARDs experienced flares within 1 year than did the half-dose group, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Most patients in the drug-free group did not experience disease flares, the authors note.

“The results show that in this population, a majority of patients remained flare-free for at least a year after csDMARD discontinuation. This highlights a potential for drug-free remission in a subgroup of RA patients, and the data provide a basis for shared decision-making in this patient group. We know that tapering is a common question from patients and thus think that the data are especially clinically relevant,” first author Siri Lillegraven, MD, MPH, PhD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at the Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, said in an interview.

While several studies have demonstrated that patients with RA can maintain remission on lower doses of medication, James O’Dell, MD, chief of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, urged caution in interpreting these results because the study was so small – just 56 patients. “Every analysis they did favored staying on treatment, but the confidence interval slightly crossed null, so they can’t say [that group] was superior,” Dr. O’Dell said in an interview. He was not involved in the research. “Had this study been double this size and they got the same results, they would have clearly shown that staying on medicines were superior,” he said.

Dr. Lillegraven acknowledged the impact of the trial’s small sample size. “This is a study with a limited study sample, and it is conceivable that a larger study might have shown a statistical difference between the groups,” she said.

In addition to the small number of patients in the study, Dr. O’Dell also noted that this study group was already a selected group of patients who had maintained remission on half-dose therapy for at least 1 year. Even then, “what they showed was that 39% of the patients who they discontinued [then] flared, compared with 17% when they didn’t taper [off medication],” he said. “That’s a pretty important clinical difference.”

While Dr. O’Dell thinks the study was too small to inform practice, he emphasized that tapering off full doses of medications can be beneficial for patients with RA that has been in remission for 6 months or longer. “It seems to take less medicines to keep somebody in remission than it did to get them there in the first place,” he said. “I come out strongly in favor of tapering medications in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are in remission, and that includes tapering and stopping biologics if patients are on conventional therapy,” he added, “but tapering patients off all of their conventional therapy is something that I think is a bridge too far.”

This trial was the second part of the ARCTIC REWIND study, which involved patients with RA that was in sustained remission, per their Disease Activity Score. In the first part of the trial, 160 participants from 10 hospitals in Norway were enrolled and were randomly assigned to either continue their standard csDMARD dosing or taper down to a half dose. Patients whose doses were tapered to a half dose and whose conditions were in remission for 1 year were eligible for the second half the study.

Of the 56 participants who were included, 26 discontinued csDMARD therapy, while 30 continued taking a half dose for 12 months of follow-up. Most patients in both groups had received methotrexate monotherapy (21 in the discontinuation group and 26 in the continued half-dosing group). Triple therapy (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) was used by three patients in the discontinuation group and by two in the half-dose group. Two additional patients in the discontinuation group and two in the half-dose group took other mono/duo therapies. Clinic visits occurred every 4 months; visits were more frequent if there was an increase in disease activity. For patients who experienced a disease flare, full-dose csDMARD treatment was resumed.

Ten patients in the discontinuation group experienced flares during 1 year, compared with five patients in the half-dose group. The risk difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (RD, 21.5%; 95% CI, –3.4% to 49.7%). The median time to flare was 179 days in the discontinuation group and 133 days in the half-dose group.

Of those who experienced flares, 8 of 10 patients in the discontinuation group and 2 of 5 in the half-dose group regained remission when full-dose therapy was resumed.

The study was funded by the Research Council of Norway and the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities. Many of the authors disclosed financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Dell disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a citrate-free, 100 mg/mL formulation of the biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz), according to a statement from manufacturer Sandoz.

Hyrimoz, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker that is biosimilar to its reference product Humira, was approved by the FDA in 2018 at a concentration of 50 mg/mL for rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The high-concentration formula is indicated for these same conditions.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Sandoz said that it intends to launch the citrate-free formulation in the United States on July 1. It will be one of up to nine other adalimumab biosimilars that are expected to launch in July. On January 31, Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) became the first adalimumab biosimilar to launch in the United States.

The current label for Hyrimoz contains a black box warning emphasizing certain risks, notably the increased risk for serious infections, such as tuberculosis or sepsis, and an increased risk of malignancy, particularly lymphomas.

Adverse effects associated with Hyrimoz with an incidence greater than 10% include upper respiratory infections and sinusitis, injection-site reactions, headache, and rash.

The approval for the high-concentration formulation was based on data from a phase 1 pharmacokinetics bridging study that compared Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and citrate-free Hyrimoz 100 mg/mL.

“This study met all of the primary objectives, demonstrating comparable pharmacokinetics and showing similar safety and immunogenicity of the Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and Hyrimoz [100 mg/mL],” according to Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The approval for Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL in 2018 was based on preclinical and clinical research comparing Hyrimoz and Humira. In a phase 3 trial published in the British Journal of Dermatology, which included adults with clinically stable but active moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis, Hyrimoz and Humira showed a similar percentage of patients met the primary endpoint of a 75% reduction or more in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) score at 16 weeks, compared with baseline (66.8% and 65%, respectively).

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a citrate-free, 100 mg/mL formulation of the biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz), according to a statement from manufacturer Sandoz.

Hyrimoz, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker that is biosimilar to its reference product Humira, was approved by the FDA in 2018 at a concentration of 50 mg/mL for rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The high-concentration formula is indicated for these same conditions.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Sandoz said that it intends to launch the citrate-free formulation in the United States on July 1. It will be one of up to nine other adalimumab biosimilars that are expected to launch in July. On January 31, Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) became the first adalimumab biosimilar to launch in the United States.

The current label for Hyrimoz contains a black box warning emphasizing certain risks, notably the increased risk for serious infections, such as tuberculosis or sepsis, and an increased risk of malignancy, particularly lymphomas.

Adverse effects associated with Hyrimoz with an incidence greater than 10% include upper respiratory infections and sinusitis, injection-site reactions, headache, and rash.

The approval for the high-concentration formulation was based on data from a phase 1 pharmacokinetics bridging study that compared Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and citrate-free Hyrimoz 100 mg/mL.

“This study met all of the primary objectives, demonstrating comparable pharmacokinetics and showing similar safety and immunogenicity of the Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and Hyrimoz [100 mg/mL],” according to Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The approval for Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL in 2018 was based on preclinical and clinical research comparing Hyrimoz and Humira. In a phase 3 trial published in the British Journal of Dermatology, which included adults with clinically stable but active moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis, Hyrimoz and Humira showed a similar percentage of patients met the primary endpoint of a 75% reduction or more in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) score at 16 weeks, compared with baseline (66.8% and 65%, respectively).

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a citrate-free, 100 mg/mL formulation of the biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz), according to a statement from manufacturer Sandoz.

Hyrimoz, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker that is biosimilar to its reference product Humira, was approved by the FDA in 2018 at a concentration of 50 mg/mL for rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The high-concentration formula is indicated for these same conditions.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Sandoz said that it intends to launch the citrate-free formulation in the United States on July 1. It will be one of up to nine other adalimumab biosimilars that are expected to launch in July. On January 31, Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) became the first adalimumab biosimilar to launch in the United States.

The current label for Hyrimoz contains a black box warning emphasizing certain risks, notably the increased risk for serious infections, such as tuberculosis or sepsis, and an increased risk of malignancy, particularly lymphomas.

Adverse effects associated with Hyrimoz with an incidence greater than 10% include upper respiratory infections and sinusitis, injection-site reactions, headache, and rash.

The approval for the high-concentration formulation was based on data from a phase 1 pharmacokinetics bridging study that compared Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and citrate-free Hyrimoz 100 mg/mL.

“This study met all of the primary objectives, demonstrating comparable pharmacokinetics and showing similar safety and immunogenicity of the Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and Hyrimoz [100 mg/mL],” according to Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The approval for Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL in 2018 was based on preclinical and clinical research comparing Hyrimoz and Humira. In a phase 3 trial published in the British Journal of Dermatology, which included adults with clinically stable but active moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis, Hyrimoz and Humira showed a similar percentage of patients met the primary endpoint of a 75% reduction or more in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) score at 16 weeks, compared with baseline (66.8% and 65%, respectively).

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