Biologics are vital to the management of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory and autoimmune conditions. Nevertheless, access to these highly effective treatments remains an unmet medical need for many people around the world. As patents expire for existing licensed biologic (originator) products, biosimilar products can be approved by regulatory authorities and enter clinical use. Biosimilars are highly similar copies of originator biologics approved through defined and stringent regulatory processes after having undergone rigorous analytical, non-clinical, and clinical evaluations. The introduction of high-quality, safe, and effective biosimilars has the potential to expand access to these important medicines. Biosimilars are proven to be similar to the originator biologic in terms of safety and efficacy and to have no clinically meaningful differences. In contrast, “intended copies” are copies of originator biologics that have not undergone rigorous comparative evaluations according to the World Health Organization recommendations, but are being commercialized in some countries. There is a lack of information about the efficacy and safety of intended copies compared with the originator. Furthermore, they may have clinically significant differences in formulation, dosages, efficacy, or safety. In this review, we explore the differences between biosimilars and intended copies and describe key concepts related to biosimilars. Familiarity with these topics may facilitate decision making about the appropriate use of biosimilars for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

ObjectiveTo understand the levels of awareness, usage, and knowledge of biosimilars among patients, caregivers, and the general population in the US and the European Union; perceptions of biosimilars compared to originator biologics; perceived benefits and drawbacks of clinical trials; and whether advocacy groups impact patients’ willingness to try a biosimilar.MethodsAn international survey was conducted which contained up to 56 closed-ended (requiring yes/no or ranking answers) and open-ended questions, depending on the population assigned. The survey was divided into distinct sections, including medication-class awareness, usage, and knowledge about biologic and biosimilar therapies; perceptions of clinical trials; and involvement in advocacy groups. Interviews were conducted in adults categorized as: 1) diagnosed: patients with inflammatory bowel disease including Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma; 2) diagnosed advocacy: individuals with these diseases who participated in patient support groups; 3) caregiver: has a loved one with these conditions and is involved in medical decisions; 4) general population: aged 18–64 years, without these conditions. Statistical analyses among groups within a region (US or EU) used column proportions test with a 95% confidence interval.ResultsIn all, 3,198 individuals responded. Awareness about biologic therapies was significantly higher in diagnosed, diagnosed advocacy, and caregiver groups (45%–78%) versus general population (27%; P<0.05). Across all groups, awareness of biosimilars was low; only 6% of the general population reported at least a general impression of biosimilars. Awareness was significantly higher in the diagnosed advocacy group (20%–30%; P<0.05). Gaps in knowledge about biosimilars included safety, efficacy, and access to these agents. Respondents had generally positive perceptions of clinical trials, although barriers to participation were identified.ConclusionAn immediate need exists for patient education about biosimilars and clinical trials to ensure educated and informed decisions are made about biosimilar use.

No abstract

BackgroundPatients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), who by definition have radiographic sacroiliitis, typically experience symptoms for a decade or more before being diagnosed. Yet, even patients without radiographic sacroiliitis (i.e., nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis [nr-axSpA]) report a significant disease burden. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence and clinical characteristics of nr-axSpA among patients with inflammatory back pain (IBP) in rheumatology clinics in a number of countries across the world. A secondary objective was to estimate the prevalence of IBP among patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).MethodsData were collected from 51 rheumatology outpatient clinics in 19 countries in Latin America, Africa, Europe, and Asia. As consecutive patients with CLBP (N = 2517) were seen by physicians at the sites, their clinical histories were evaluated to determine whether they met the new Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria for IBP. For those who did, their available clinical history (e.g., family history, C-reactive protein [CRP] levels) was documented in a case report form to establish whether they met criteria for nr-axSpA, AS, or other IBP. Patients diagnosed with nr-axSpA or AS completed patient-reported outcome measures to assess disease activity and functional limitations.ResultsA total of 2517 patients with CLBP were identified across all sites. Of these, 974 (38.70 %) fulfilled the criteria for IBP. Among IBP patients, 29.10 % met criteria for nr-axSpA, and 53.72 % met criteria for AS. The prevalence of nr-axSpA varied significantly by region (p < 0.05), with the highest prevalence reported in Asia (36.46 %) and the lowest reported in Africa (16.02 %). Patients with nr-axSpA reported mean ± SD Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Scores based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate and CRP of 2.62 ± 1.17 and 2.52 ± 1.21, respectively, indicating high levels of disease activity (patients with AS reported corresponding scores of 2.97 ± 1.13 and 2.93 ± 1.18). Similarly, the overall Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score of 4.03 ± 2.23 for patients with nr-axSpA (4.56 ± 2.17 for patients with AS) suggested suboptimal disease control.ConclusionsThese results suggest that, in the centers that participated in the study, 29 % of patients with IBP met the criteria for nr-axSpA and 39 % of patients with CLBP had IBP. The disease burden in nr-axSpA is substantial and similar to that of AS, with both groups of patients experiencing inadequate disease control. These findings suggest the need for early detection of nr-axSpA and initiation of available treatment options to slow disease progression and improve patient well-being.

The manufacture of biologics is a complex process involving numerous steps. Over time, differences may arise as a result of planned changes to the manufacturing processes of a biologic from the same manufacturer. Comparability is the regulatory process that outlines the scope of an assessment required of an already licensed biologic after a manufacturing process change made by the same manufacturer. The aim of a comparability assessment is to demonstrate that any pre-manufacturing and post-manufacturing changes have no adverse impact on quality, safety, and efficacy of the biologic. A comparability assessment is distinct from a biosimilarity assessment, which involves extensive assessment of a biologic that is highly similar to the originator (reference product) in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. The US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and World Health Organization have applied the fundamental comparability concepts into their respective biosimilarity guidance documents. In this review, we examine the rationale behind the distinct, highly regulated approval processes governing changes that may occur over time to an originator biologic due to planned manufacturing changes (as described by a comparability exercise) and those that outline the approval of a proposed biosimilar drug, based on its relationship with the reference product (biosimilarity evaluations).