SUMMARY BackgroundOptimising infliximab therapy is recommended in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients who lose response to infliximab; however, there are no data on the outcome of ulcerative colitis (UC) patients after doubling the dose.

Introduction: The expiry of patents for biologics has led to the introduction of biosimilars for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). These treatment alternatives may allow earlier and wider access to appropriate therapy for patients without increasing the economic burden on health-care systems. Prescription of biosimilars to treatment-naïve patients is well accepted; however, additional considerations must be taken into account when switching clinically stable patients from reference products to biosimilars. Area covered: We discuss the current considerations related to switching from reference products to biosimilars from a physician and patient perspective. We review the clinical data and real-life experience on switching patients with IMIDs, present the position of the relevant medical societies, and discuss the importance of patient-physician communication and need for shared decision-making. Expert opinion: The introduction of biosimilars provides an opportunity to expand access to treatment for patients with IMIDs across Europe and support the financial sustainability of health-care systems. We anticipate that as the real-world evidence base grows, confirming the results of clinical trials, there will be a corresponding increase in physician and patient acceptance, not only to initiating treatment with a biosimilar, but also to switching medication from a reference product to a biosimilar.

Background: Infliximab [IFX] and adalimumab [ADA] are effective in Crohn's disease [CD] for induction and maintenance therapy. However, high annual rate of discontinuation for loss of response or intolerance may lead to a switch to another anti-tumor necrosis factor agent. Patients with successive failure to IFX and ADA are becoming more frequent. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and the tolerance of re-treatment with IFX in CD patients who successively failed IFX and ADA. Methods: A total of 61 patients with CD who received and discontinued successively IFX and ADA, and who were re-exposed to IFX, were identified in four French tertiary centers and retrospectively analyzed. Clinical data, follow-up and outcome were abstracted from medical records. Results: Median treatment duration after reintroduction was 16 months, and probability of remaining under IFX was 60% and 51%, respectively, at 12 and 24 months. In all 29 patients discontinued the second IFX treatment due to intolerance [13], primary non-response [8], loss of response [7] or patient's wish [1]. Remission was achieved in 42% at week 6-8 after IFX re-induction, and was predictive of better long-term response [p = 0.006]. In multivariate analysis, receiving co-immunosuppression in both first and second IFX treatments [p = 0.04] and shorter interval between first and second IFX treatments [p = 0.017] were independently associated with longer duration of second IFX treatment. Conclusion: For CD patients who successively failed IFX and ADA, reintroducing IFX is feasible and often clinically efficient, particularly in patients who received co-immunosuppression during both first and second IFX treatments.