BACKGROUND: Biosimilars are biologic drugs that have the potential to increase the efficiency of healthcare spending and curb drug-related cost increases. However, their introduction into hospital formularies through initiatives such as non-medical switching must be carefully orchestrated so as not to cause treatment discontinuation or result in increased health resource utilization, such as additional visits or laboratory tests, among others. This retrospective cohort study aims to assess the impact of the introduction of CT-P13 on the healthcare expenditures of patients who were treated with originator infliximab or CT-P13.
METHODS: Gastroenterology, immunoallergology and rheumatology patients treated between September 2017 and December 2020 at a university hospital in Western Switzerland were included and divided into seven cohorts, based on their treatment pathway (i.e., use and discontinuation of CT-P13 and/or originator infliximab). Costs in Swiss francs were obtained from the hospital\'s cost accounting department and length of stay was extracted from inpatient records. Comparisons of costs and length of stay between cohorts were calculated by bootstrapping.
RESULTS: Sixty immunoallergology, 84 rheumatology and 114 gastroenterology patients were included. Inpatient and outpatient costs averaged (sd) CHF 1,611 (1,020) per hospital day and CHF 4,991 (6,931) per infusion, respectively. The mean (sd) length of stay was 20 (28) days. Although immunoallergology and rheumatology patients had higher average costs than gastroenterology patients, differences in costs and length of stay were not formally explained by treatment pathway. Differences in health resource utilization were marginal.
CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of CT-P13 and the disruption of patient treatment management were not associated with differences in average outpatient and inpatient costs and length of stay, in contrast to the results reported in the rest of the literature. Future research should focus on the cost-effectiveness of non-medical switching policies and the potential benefits for patients.

BACKGROUND: Patents and exclusive rights on reference biologics contribute to the emergence of biosimilars. Regulatory bodies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), World Health Organization (WHO), and EMA (European Medicines Agency) for assessing clinical safety, effectiveness, and consequences between biosimilars and reference medications, have established guidelines. Since generic small molecules from reference can be easily swapped, biosimilars cannot be used interchangeably and may not always indicate interchangeability due to highly restrictive properties. It can be replaced with a reference without the healthcare provider\'s help under the interchangeability context.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study is to analyze and compare evidence-based clinical safety, therapeutic potential, and importance (outcomes) of several biosimilars with their references along with clinical uses in chronic diseases.
METHODS: Through a comprehensive systemic literature review of more than 100 articles involving medicinally important drugs whose bio-similarity works optimally, safety-efficacy parameters have been analyzed. Analysis of biosimilar usage, approval, and safety-efficacy aspects are majorly focused upon herein in this review.
RESULTS: From this systemic review, it can be stated that the majority of biosimilars are clinically and statistically equivalent to their originators. As biosimilars have good safety-efficacy aspects with lower prices, their utilization can be more encouraged, which was already done by the FDA with the establishment of a public online database entitled \"Purple Book,\" which includes all information regarding biological drugs.
CONCLUSIONS: To conclude, we suggest widespread use of high-grade biosimilars in clinical practice, maybe via changing, exchanging, or switching, with appropriate clinical monitoring and pharmacovigilance to improve patient accessibility to modern medicines, as it provides similar efficacy and safety parameters across all the accumulated clinical trials and studies.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this work is to compare real-world outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving adalimumab (ADA) bio-originator (non-switchers) to those who had switched from ADA bio-originator to an ADA biosimilar (switchers) on the basis of the hypothesis that these outcomes would differ.
METHODS: Data were drawn from the Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of physicians and their patients in Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) in 2020. Physicians completed a questionnaire for their next ten adult patients with RA, followed by four additional patients who had switched from ADA bio-originator to an ADA biosimilar (switchers). Physician- and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for switchers and non-switchers were compared by propensity score matching.
RESULTS: Three hundred and three rheumatologists provided data for 160 non-switchers and 225 switchers, 140 patients provided data; 51 non-switchers, 89 switchers. According to physician-reported disease activity, non-switchers were more likely to improve on their current ADA treatment than switchers (68%, n = 108 vs. 26%, n = 59 p < 0.001) and less likely to worsen (1%, n = 2 vs. 9%, n = 20; p < 0.01). Physician-reported patient adherence was significantly lower amongst switchers versus non-switchers (0.66 vs. 0.78, respectively; p = 0.04). More non-switchers than switchers were reported by their physicians to be consistent in taking their RA medicine (p < 0.001). Compared with non-switchers, PRO measures indicated quality of life was worse (EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale: 62.9 vs. 71.9; p < 0.001) and activity impairment was greater (Work Productivity Activity Index: 31.0 vs. 24.4; p = 0.02) for switchers, with trends for poorer health status and greater pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Non-medical switching in RA treatment may lead to unforeseen outcomes that should be considered by health decision-makers.

Non-medical switching is when a patient\'s therapy is switched for reasons unrelated to health outcomes. Dermatologists are regularly affected by non-medical switching, as many of their complex patients are on expensive medications, which become first-line targets for cost-containment. This commentary examines the literature on non-medical switching and explores the push and pull factors used to drive medication regimen changes. The system-level cost savings of this practice are substantial and could be used to fund treatment for more vulnerable patients. While there is no substantiated evidence of worse outcomes post-switching, patients may suffer negative psychosocial consequences. Negative patient expectations, which are in part fueled by prescriber suspicion of non-medical switching, seem to contribute to this effect. While non-medical switching is not ideal for all patients, it has the potential to reduce cost while maintaining patient outcomes. The decision to switch should be made only after careful evaluation of the individual patient and their physical and psychological reserve.

BACKGROUND: We investigated how the non-medical switching (NMS) between Etanercept (ETN)/originator and SB4/biosimilar affects treatment efficacy in a rheumatic disease (RD) cohort, evaluating some laboratory parameters as loss of efficacy predictors after NMS.
METHODS: We enrolled 124 patients with RD (rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis): 79 switchers from ETN/originator to SB4 and 45 naïve patients receiving SB4 (first biological treatment). At baseline, 6 (T1), and 12 months (T2), clinical and laboratory parameters were evaluated.
RESULTS: In naïve patients, TNF-α significantly increased at T1 in responders (NR) and non-responders (NNR). TNF-α was lower in NNR than in NR at T1 and T2. In NR and NNR, drug levels (DL) increased between T1 and T2. However, DLs were lower in NNR than in NR at T1 and T2.&nbsp;TNF-α was higher in switcher responders (SR) than in non-responders (SNR) at T1 and T2. In SNR, DLs were higher at baseline than in SR, but they decreased significantly at T1 and T2.
CONCLUSIONS: We observed a decrease in DL and TNF-α levels after NMS in SNR. Moreover, in naïve patients, DL and TNF-α levels were higher in NR than in NNR. Monitoring DL and TNF-α levels may represent a future precision medicine approach to predict loss of efficacy after NMS.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that greatly impacts patient quality of life. Type 2 cytokine interleukin (IL)-13 is integral to the pathogenesis of AD. Tralokinumab is a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody that specifically targets IL-13, preventing downstream signaling of inflammatory pathways that may contribute to AD. Tralokinumab was US Food and Drug administration (FDA) recently approved for the treatment of moderate to severe AD on December 28, 2021. In our review, we will explore the efficacy and adverse effects (AEs) of tralokinumab for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD. A PubMed search for key articles on the emerging clinical data of tralokinumab was performed. Six randomized controlled trials of tralokinumab identified improvements in disease severity measures, including Investigator\'s Global Assessment (IGA) scores and Eczema Area Severity Index 75 (EASI75) scores. Four of these studies demonstrated improvements in quality of life measures with tralokinumab, including pruritus scores, sleep interference scores, Dermatology Life Quality Index, SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD), Patient Oriented Eczema Measure, and The Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36v2) scores. One study identified a similar immune response in patients taking tralokinumab to those taking the Tdap and meningococcal vaccines. Upper respiratory infection, conjunctivitis, and headaches were the most common adverse events. The varying criteria to assess changes in AD disease severity across different studies is a limitation of this review. Tralokinumab is another promising biologic option for the treatment of moderate to severe AD, which may reduce disease burden and improve patient quality of life.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate rheumatologists\' perceptions of biosimilar biologics and Non-Medical Switching (NMS).
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among registered members of the Saudi Society for Rheumatology. The questionnaire focused on biosimilars and NMS. Logistic regression was performed to ascertain the effect of demographics and practice characteristics on the use of biosimilars and NMS.
RESULTS: Out of 249 SSR members, 143 completed the survey, generating a response rate of 57.4%. Of those (59.44%) were men with a mean (±SD) age and years of practice of 42.3 ± 9.13 and 10.3 ± 8.9, respectively. Rheumatologists managing adult patients (81.82%) and Ministry of Health practice (43.36 %) were the majority of respondents. Previous experience in prescribing a biosimilar was reported by 43 (30.07%) participants, with a higher probability among women (p = 0.015). A total of 26 (18.18%) participants had performed NMS on eligible patients. Adequate knowledge on biosimilars was reported by 69 (48.25%) participants. The adequacy of evidence to grant biosimilar approval for the studied indication and extrapolation to treat other conditions was reported by 88 (61.5%) and 69 (48.3%), respectively. The concept of totality-of-the-evidence was well understood by 37.1%. Biosimilars had been previously used by 43 (30.07) participants in their practice. NMS had been attempted by 26 (18.18), while 86 (60.1%) participants believed that NMS might harm patients.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear knowledge gap about the biosimilar approval process among adult and pediatric rheumatologists who took part in the survey. In addition, a large number of participants reported having negative opinions about NMS. There is a need to organize SSR-led educational activities, and develop national guidelines regarding biosimilars and NMS.

To save costs to the healthcare system, forced non-medical switch (NMS) policies that cut drug coverage for originator biologics and fund only less expensive biosimilars are being implemented. However, costs related to the impact of NMS on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) must also be considered. This study aims to summarize the evidence on the economic impact of an originator-to-biosimilar NMS.
A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted. Publications reporting on HCRU or costs associated with originator-to-biosimilar NMS in the real-world setting were searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2008 to February 2020. In addition to hand searching the reference lists of relevant publications and SLRs, key conference websites, PubMed, and various government sites were also searched for the 2 years preceding the search (2018-2020).
A total of 1845 citations were identified, of which 49 were retained for data extraction. Most studies reporting on the HCRU associated with NMS reported on post-NMS HCRU alone without a comparison pre-NMS. However, four studies described a difference in HCRU (i.e., investigations pre- vs post-switch or between non-switchers vs switchers), all of which reported a relative increase in HCRU, including laboratory testing, imaging, medical visits, and hospitalizations, amongst patients who underwent an originator-to-biosimilar NMS. Most studies reporting on the costs associated with NMS reported significant savings following NMS on the basis of drug costs alone. However, four studies specifically reporting on the difference of costs following originator-to-biosimilar NMS all demonstrated an increase in HCRU-related costs associated with NMS (increase in HCRU-related costs of 4-37% or 148-2234 2020 Canadian dollars).
Amongst the studies that reported on the difference in HCRU pre- vs post-switch or between non-switchers and switchers, all showed an increase in HCRU and related costs associated with NMS, suggesting that the expected overall savings due to less costly drug prices may be reduced as a result of an increase in HCRU and its associated costs post-switch. Nevertheless, more real-world studies that include NMS-related healthcare costs in addition to drug costs are needed.

In May 2019, the Government of British Columbia (BC) announced the implementation of the Biosimilars Initiative, mandating the switch of biologic (originator) drugs to biosimilars for certain patient populations in the hopes of optimizing public resources. Through this qualitative study, we aimed to identify patients\' perspectives as they undergo this change. From October 2019 to July 2020, we conducted nine pre- and six post-switch to biosimilar interviews with BC, English speaking participants, who were 18 years or older, and were currently taking a biologic medication. Participants were interviewed pre- and post-switch to a biosimilar medication and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for qualitative analysis. Interviews were thematically analysed and major themes and sub-categories were elucidated. The themes derived from pre and post-switch interviews captured participants\' anticipated or experienced barriers and enablers to the policy change. In general, the fears and apprehension of participants approaching the switch, including concerns surrounding the efficacy and safety of biosimilars, were addressed by their rheumatologist and social support circles. For the most part, participants were able to successfully manage their disease regardless of their baseline concerns about efficacy and safety. Experiences of changes in health delivery models were also observed secondary to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic amongst participants. This study is the first of its kind to characterize the patient perspective regarding the BC Biosimilars Initiative. The incorporation of the patient perspective, including adequate provider-patient communication and shared decision-making can help to inform future non-medical switching policy changes.

In the USA, an interchangeability designation provides biosimilar sponsors with a pathway for achieving what is standard for small-molecule generics: pharmacy-level auto-substitution for an innovator. No other major health authority links interchangeability to automatic substitution, as all require the involvement of the prescriber or patient in a medication change. This editorial considers the clinical impact and practicality of auto-substitution. First, interchangeability is linked to non-medical switching (NMS), the practice of switching treatment in patients with stable disease for non-clinical reasons. NMS may generate negative sentiment in those unwilling or reluctant to switch, which can adversely impact treatment outcomes (i.e., nocebo effect). Indeed, in real-world studies of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, discontinuation rates have been shown to be higher in patients switched to biosimilars for non-medical reasons than in historical cohorts maintained on innovators. Second, interchangeability may impede pharmacovigilance and traceability, as not all jurisdictions require innovators and biosimilars to have distinct biologic names. Third, an interchangeability designation from the US Food and Drug Administration only permits a biosimilar to be automatically substituted for its innovator, not other biosimilars (if available). Pharmacist education would be needed to avoid off-label, automatic substitution among biosimilars of a single innovator. Last, once granted, an interchangeability designation exists in perpetuity under current US federal law. However, the supply chains of innovators and biosimilars are maintained independently, with no requirement for reconfirmation of biosimilarity or interchangeability. We feel that additional guidance is needed for the auto-substitution of biosimilars and innovators to become a reality.