No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Comparing Long-Term Infliximab Persistence Following a Switch to a Biosimilar in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: No Cause for Concern
Abstract
Introduction
Several studies have demonstrated that switching stable patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from originator to biosimilar infliximab is noninferior to continuing originator infliximab. However, “real‐world” data comparing long‐term outcomes between switch and nonswitch cohorts is lacking. This study aimed to address this gap by comparing long‐term outcomes in IBD patients across switch and nonswitch cohorts.
Methods
The SAME study was a multicenter, prospective parallel cohort noninferiority study, that enrolled Australian IBD patients in steroid‐free clinical remission on maintenance originator infliximab, who either continued originator infliximab ( n = 141) or switched to biosimilar (CT‐P13) infliximab ( n = 204). Here, we present long‐term outcomes, with treatment persistence beyond 48 weeks as the primary outcome. Disease worsening, defined as any of infliximab discontinuation, dose escalation, antibody development, or adverse event, were secondary outcomes of interest.
Results
Of 345 patients enrolled in the SAME study, 320 (92.7%) patients were followed up beyond 48 weeks (median: 54.2 months [IQR 46.1–59.3]). There were no differences in infliximab discontinuation between switch and nonswitch cohorts (35.3% vs. 37.6%, p = 0.47). Infliximab discontinuation due to disease worsening (21.7% vs. 23.6%), dose escalation (35.2% vs. 32.4%), antibody development (5.3% vs. 11.3%), and infliximab‐related adverse events (7.8% vs. 8.3%), were also comparable (all p > 0.70) between switch and nonswitch cohorts.
Conclusions
Long‐term infliximab persistence was similar between switch and nonswitch cohorts over 4 years of follow‐up. These data represent the longest duration of “real‐world” follow‐up, and should provide further reassurance that nonmedical switching is safe and clinically comparable to ongoing originator infliximab in clinically stable patients with IBD.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Purpose of Review
Biosimilars were introduced to decrease biologic-related expenditures, but their uptake in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains suboptimal. Herein, we review biosimilar concepts, current products available for IBD treatment, and resources to support biosimilar utilization.
Recent Findings
Although a cornerstone of IBD treatment, biologics are costly due to their development. Biosimilars, which are biologic products highly similar to a reference product, aim to decrease these expenditures. Infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab biosimilars are approved for IBD, but uptake remains low due to biosimilar efficacy and safety concerns and delayed market entry. Clinicians can effectively address some of these barriers and help patients and healthcare systems reap the benefits of decreased costs and increased treatment access.
Summary
Data shows comparable efficacy and safety outcomes with biosimilars in IBD. Several biosimilar products are available and in the pipeline, but efforts are needed from various stakeholders to bolster utilization and generate benefits.
Background:
Despite growing awareness of the nocebo effect, few studies have evaluated the nocebo effect using combined assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), clinical indices, and objective biomarkers in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients switching from originator to biosimilar medicines.
Objective:
This study aimed to compare these outcomes across switch and non-switch cohorts to evaluate the nocebo effect in patients with IBD.
Methods:
Parallel cohorts of IBD patients who (1) switched from originator to biosimilar (CT-P13) infliximab and (2) continued biosimilar (CT-P13) infliximab were evaluated over 32 weeks. Clinical disease activity, objective biomarkers and PROMs were assessed at baseline, and weeks 16 and 32 across both cohorts. The PROM of interest was patient-perceived disease activity evaluated using a 0-100 visual analogue scale (VAS) per the IBD-Control Questionnaire.
Results:
Of 81 patients, 47 switched from originator to biosimilar (CT-P13) infliximab. A negative change from baseline patient-reported disease control was observed across the switch cohort compared with the non-switch cohort at week 16 (mean VAS - 8.21 vs. 1.26; p = 0.03), but not at week 32 (mean VAS - 1.21 vs. 1.38; p = 0.58). Corresponding clinical and objective biomarker assessments over these timepoints were comparable across both cohorts.
Conclusion:
This study demonstrated a temporary yet discernible nocebo effect in the first 16 weeks following non-medical switching that was not sustained at week 32. Negative patient perceptions may be overcome by a patient-inclusive approach to non-medical switching in conjunction with close clinical follow-up and disease monitoring.
Background and aims
There are limited comparative data for infliximab and vedolizumab in inflammatory bowel disease patients.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of infliximab and vedolizumab in adult patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis.
Results
We identified six eligible Crohn’s disease and seven eligible ulcerative colitis trials that randomised over 1900 participants per disease cohort to infliximab or vedolizumab. In the Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis cohorts, infliximab yielded better efficacy than vedolizumab for all analysed outcomes (CDAI-70, CDAI-100 responses, and clinical remission for Crohn’s disease and clinical response and clinical remission for ulcerative colitis) during the induction phase, with non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals. In the maintenance phase, similar proportions of infliximab- or vedolizumab-treated patients achieved clinical response, clinical remission, or mucosal healing in both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. For the safety outcomes, rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, and discontinuations due to adverse events were similar in infliximab- and vedolizumab-treated patients in both diseases. The infection rate was higher in infliximab for Crohn’s disease and higher in vedolizumab when treating patients with ulcerative colitis. There was no difference between the treatments in the proportions of patients who reported serious infections in both indications.
Conclusions
Indirect comparison of infliximab and vedolizumab trials in adult patients with moderate-to severe Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis demonstrated that infliximab has better efficacy in the induction phase and comparable efficacy during the maintenance phase and overall safety profile compared to vedolizumab.
Objective: To examine whether non-medical switching of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from originator infliximab to a biosimilar (CT-P13, Inflectra) is safe and clinically non-inferior to continued treatment with originator infliximab.
Design: Prospective, open label, multicentre, parallel cohort, non-inferiority study in seven Australian hospitals over 48 weeks, May 2017 - October 2019.
Participants: Adults (18 years or older) with IBD receiving maintenance originator infliximab (Remicade) who had been in steroid-free clinical remission for at least 12 weeks.
Intervention: Managed program for switching patients in four hospitals from originator to biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13); patients in three other hospitals continued to receive originator infliximab (control).
Main outcome measures: Clinical disease worsening requiring infliximab dose escalation or change in therapy.
Results: The switch group included 204 patients, the control group 141 patients with IBD. Ten patients in the control group (7%) and 16 patients switched to CT-P13 (8%) experienced clinical deterioration; the adjusted risk difference (control v switch group) was -1.1 percentage points (95% CI, -6.1 to 8.2 percentage points), within our pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 15 percentage points. Serious adverse events leading to infliximab discontinuation were infrequent in both the switch (six, 3%) and control (six, 4%) groups.
Conclusion: Switching patients with IBD from originator to biosimilar infliximab is safe and non-inferior to continuing treatment with originator infliximab. Moreover, the introduction of biosimilar infliximab, by increasing market competition, has resulted in substantial cost savings for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Keywords: Crohn’s disease; Inflammatory bowel diseases; Pharmacovigilance.
The act of nonmedical switching, defined as switching stable patients who are generally doing well with their current therapy from an originator biologic to its biosimilar, has been endorsed as a reasonable treatment strategy. The safety and efficacy of nonmedical switching have been evaluated in randomized controlled and real-world evidence studies, which have demonstrated that although many patients maintain treatment response after the switch, some patients experience therapy failure, resulting in therapy discontinuation. It has been postulated that the vast majority, if not all, of these treatment failures result from a “nocebo effect”, defined as patients’ negative expectations toward the therapy change. Reports suggest that the risk of a nocebo effect is higher following a mandated nonmedical switch. Although the nocebo effect is a well-recognized phenomenon in pain studies, evidence is limited in immune-mediated diseases primarily because it is difficult to quantify, especially retrospectively. In spite of this, numerous biosimilar studies in patients with immune-mediated diseases have concluded that nonmedical switching failures are due to a nocebo effect. The objective of this narrative review was to explore the reasons for nonmedical switch failure or discontinuation and the role of the nocebo effect among patients with inflammatory rheumatic and gastrointestinal diseases who switched from an originator biologic to its biosimilar.
Background:
Several studies have reported positive efficacy outcomes for patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with CT-P13, an infliximab biosimilar. Data from follow-up periods longer than 1 year are still scarce. Here, we assessed the long-term efficacy data, loss of response and safety after switching from infliximab to CT-P13 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.
Methods:
This was a prospective single-center observational study involving patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis switched from infliximab to CT-P13 treatment and reviewed up to 24 months. Efficacy and loss of response were measured using the Harvey-Bradshaw (HB) index and partial Mayo score for patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis respectively. C-reactive protein, infliximab drug levels, adverse events and antidrug antibodies were also monitored throughout the study.
Results:
A total of 64 patients with Crohn's disease and 36 patients with ulcerative colitis were included. Most of them (72%) remained on CT-P13. Overall, 28% of patients discontinued the therapy due to loss of response, adverse events or long-lasting clinical remission. Remission at 18 and 24 months occurred in 69.9% and 68.5% of patients, respectively. Dose increase was performed in 22% of patients, with remission being reached in 60% of them. HB index, partial Mayo score, C-reactive protein and infliximab drug levels did not show significant changes. Serious adverse events were reported in 14% of patients. Overall, two patients developed low levels of antidrug antibodies.
Conclusions:
Most of the patients switching from original infliximab were maintained on CT-P13 at 2 years of follow up with a good profile of efficacy and safety.
Biologics are an integral component in the treatment of various diseases. However, limited patient access
to these medicines remains a significant global challenge, prompting development of safe and effective
biosimilars. A biosimilar is ‘highly similar to a reference (originator) product, for which there are no clinically
meaningful differences between the two products in terms of safety, purity and potency’. Biosimilars
have the potential to offer possible benefits, including lower treatment costs, thereby increasing patient
access and clinical use, which may lead to better overall outcomes. Improved understanding of biosimilars
may enhance confidence and trust in these agents. As increasing numbers of biosimilars achieve regulatory
approval, this overview aims to address enduring knowledge gaps regarding the development and
use of biosimilars.
Competition arising from the increasing availability of biosimilar medicines has resulted in healthcare savings and has provided greater patient access to high cost therapeutics in Europe. The biosimilar market in the USA is relatively new so the full impact of biosimilar availability remains to be seen. Educational initiatives relating to the use of biosimilar medicines are currently being undertaken by regulators, policy makers and industry. The debate on biosimilars has moved on from the appropriateness of the regulatory framework which governs their approval, to the practice of interchangeability. Interchangeability is an important issue for healthcare professionals but different definitions and regulatory frameworks exist in the USA and Europe. In the USA, an interchangeable biological product is a biosimilar which may be substituted by a pharmacist, subject to local State policies. The interchangeability of a biosimilar with its reference medicine will be evaluated by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in cases where approval as an ‘interchangeable product’ is sought. In contrast, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) does not assess or make recommendations on interchangeability, therefore, in Europe, interchangeability does not mean substitution but is generally physician-led or driven by national policy. This paper provides an overview of the regulation of biosimilar medicines. Challenges associated with the demonstration of interchangeability and practical considerations relating to switching are also discussed. Finally, we present policies that have been adopted to date in several European countries, the USA and Australia, which aim to promote the use of biosimilar medicines.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of the study was to estimate the potential savings to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS) in 2015–16 if biosimilar versions of selected biologic medicines (biologics) had been available and listed on the PBS.
Methods: The research involved retrospective analysis of Australian Medicare expenditure data and PBS price data from 2015–16 for biologics, for which biosimilar competition may be available in future, listed on the PBS.
Results: Australian Government expenditure on biologics on the PBS and RPBS was estimated at A367 million dollars would have been saved in PBS and RPBS subsidies. Modelling based on price decreases following listing of biosimilars on the PBS suggests that annual PBS outlays on biologics could be reduced by as much as 24% through the timely introduction of biosimilars.
Conclusions: Biologic medicines represent a large proportion of government expenditure on pharmaceuticals. Reducing the length of monopoly protections on these medicines could generate savings of hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
What is known about the topic? Biologics take up an increasing share of pharmaceutical expenditure, but no previous published studies have examined Australian Government expenditure on biologics or the potential savings from reducing the duration of monopoly protection.
What does this paper add? This paper provides new evidence about Australian Government expenditure on biologics and potential savings for selected medicines that are still subject to monopoly protection and thus are not yet subject to biosimilar competition. In 2015–16 Australian Government expenditure on biologics through the PBS and RPBS was estimated at A367 million dollars would have been saved.
What are the implications for practitioners? Reducing the duration of monopoly protection on biologic medicines could save hundreds of millions of dollars annually that could be redirected to other areas of the healthcare system.
Infliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody directed against tumor necrosis factor alpha, is an established treatment for Crohn's disease but not ulcerative colitis.
Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies--the Active Ulcerative Colitis Trials 1 and 2 (ACT 1 and ACT 2, respectively)--evaluated the efficacy of infliximab for induction and maintenance therapy in adults with ulcerative colitis. In each study, 364 patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis despite treatment with concurrent medications received placebo or infliximab (5 mg or 10 mg per kilogram of body weight) intravenously at weeks 0, 2, and 6 and then every eight weeks through week 46 (in ACT 1) or week 22 (in ACT 2). Patients were followed for 54 weeks in ACT 1 and 30 weeks in ACT 2.
In ACT 1, 69 percent of patients who received 5 mg of infliximab and 61 percent of those who received 10 mg had a clinical response at week 8, as compared with 37 percent of those who received placebo (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). A response was defined as a decrease in the Mayo score of at least 3 points and at least 30 percent, with an accompanying decrease in the subscore for rectal bleeding of at least 1 point or an absolute rectal-bleeding subscore of 0 or 1. In ACT 2, 64 percent of patients who received 5 mg of infliximab and 69 percent of those who received 10 mg had a clinical response at week 8, as compared with 29 percent of those who received placebo (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). In both studies, patients who received infliximab were more likely to have a clinical response at week 30 (P< or =0.002 for all comparisons). In ACT 1, more patients who received 5 mg or 10 mg of infliximab had a clinical response at week 54 (45 percent and 44 percent, respectively) than did those who received placebo (20 percent, P<0.001 for both comparisons).
Patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis treated with infliximab at weeks 0, 2, and 6 and every eight weeks thereafter were more likely to have a clinical response at weeks 8, 30, and 54 than were those receiving placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00036439 and NCT00096655.)
Background
Management strategies and clinical outcomes vary substantially in patients newly diagnosed with Crohn's disease. We evaluated the use of a putative prognostic biomarker to guide therapy by assessing outcomes in patients randomised to either top-down (ie, early combined immunosuppression with infliximab and immunomodulator) or accelerated step-up (conventional) treatment strategies.
Methods
PROFILE (PRedicting Outcomes For Crohn's disease using a moLecular biomarker) was a multicentre, open-label, biomarker-stratified, randomised controlled trial that enrolled adults with newly diagnosed active Crohn's disease (Harvey-Bradshaw Index ≥7, either elevated C-reactive protein or faecal calprotectin or both, and endoscopic evidence of active inflammation). Potential participants had blood drawn to be tested for a prognostic biomarker derived from T-cell transcriptional signatures (PredictSURE-IBD assay). Following testing, patients were randomly assigned, via a secure online platform, to top-down or accelerated step-up treatment stratified by biomarker subgroup (IBDhi or IBDlo), endoscopic inflammation (mild, moderate, or severe), and extent (colonic or other). Blinding to biomarker status was maintained throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was sustained steroid-free and surgery-free remission to week 48. Remission was defined by a composite of symptoms and inflammatory markers at all visits. Flare required active symptoms (HBI ≥5) plus raised inflammatory markers (CRP >upper limit of normal or faecal calprotectin ≥200 μg/g, or both), while remission was the converse—ie, quiescent symptoms (HBI <5) or resolved inflammatory markers (both CRP ≤ the upper limit of normal and calprotectin <200 μg/g) or both. Analyses were done in the full analysis (intention-to-treat) population. The trial has completed and is registered (ISRCTN11808228).
Findings
Between Dec 29, 2017, and Jan 5, 2022, 386 patients (mean age 33·6 years [SD 13·2]; 179 [46%] female, 207 [54%] male) were randomised: 193 to the top-down group and 193 to the accelerated step-up group. Median time from diagnosis to trial enrolment was 12 days (range 0–191). Primary outcome data were available for 379 participants (189 in the top-down group; 190 in the accelerated step-up group). There was no biomarker–treatment interaction effect (absolute difference 1 percentage points, 95% CI –15 to 15; p=0·944). Sustained steroid-free and surgery-free remission was significantly more frequent in the top-down group than in the accelerated step-up group (149 [79%] of 189 patients vs 29 [15%] of 190 patients, absolute difference 64 percentage points, 95% CI 57 to 72; p<0·0001). There were fewer adverse events (including disease flares) and serious adverse events in the top-down group than in the accelerated step-up group (adverse events: 168 vs 315; serious adverse events: 15 vs 42), with fewer complications requiring abdominal surgery (one vs ten) and no difference in serious infections (three vs eight).
Interpretation
Top-down treatment with combination infliximab plus immunomodulator achieved substantially better outcomes at 1 year than accelerated step-up treatment. The biomarker did not show clinical utility. Top-down treatment should be considered standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed active Crohn's disease.
Funding
Wellcome and PredictImmune Ltd.
Background:
The infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 was approved for use in Crohn's disease after clinical comparison with originator infliximab in ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid arthritis; however, concerns about such indication extrapolation have been expressed. This study investigated whether CT-P13 is non-inferior to infliximab in patients with Crohn's disease who were naive to biological therapy.
Methods:
In this randomised, multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority study, we enrolled patients with active Crohn's disease who had not responded to, or were intolerant to, non-biological treatments. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive CT-P13 then CT-P13, CT-P13 then infliximab, infliximab then infliximab, or infliximab then CT-P13, with switching occurring at week 30. Patients received 5 mg/kg CT-P13 or infliximab at weeks 0, 2, 6, and then every 8 weeks up to week 54. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a decrease of 70 points or more in Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) from baseline to week 6. A non-inferiority margin of -20% was set (CT-P13 was non-inferior to infliximab if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than -20). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02096861, and is completed.
Findings:
Between Aug 20, 2014, and Feb 15, 2017, 308 patients were assessed for eligibility, and 220 patients were enrolled: 111 were randomly assigned to initiate CT-P13 (56 to the CT-P13-CT-P13 group and 55 to the CT-P13-infliximab group) and 109 to initiate infliximab (54 to the infliximab-infliximab group and 55 to the infliximab-CT-P13 group). CDAI-70 response rates at week 6 were similar for CT-P13 (77 [69·4%, 95% CI 59·9 to 77·8] of 111) and infliximab (81 [74·3%, 95% CI 65·1 to 82·2] of 109; difference -4·9% [95% CI -16·9 to 7·3]), thereby establishing non-inferiority. Over the total study period, 147 (67%) patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (36 [64%] in the CT-P13-CT-P13 group, 34 [62%] in the CT-P13-infliximab group, 37 [69%] in the infliximab-infliximab group, and 40 [73%] in the infliximab-CT-P13 group).
Interpretation:
This study showed non-inferiority of CT-P13 to infliximab in patients with active Crohn's disease. Biosimilar CT-P13 could be a new option for the treatment of active Crohn's disease.
Funding:
Celltrion, Pfizer.
Introduction: The nocebo effect is defined as a negative effect of a pharmacological or non-pharmacological medical treatment that is induced by patients’ expectations, and that is unrelated to the physiological action of the treatment. The nocebo effect is an important clinical challenge in the current era of biosimilars.
Areas covered: This review aims to answer five key questions about the nocebo effect, namely to reveal its definition, pathophysiology, clinical relevance, contributing factors, and management.
Expert Commentary: The nocebo effect lowers patients’ quality of life and negatively affects treatment adherence rates in biosimilar-treated patients. It may negatively impact on the cost-savings of biosimilars. Health-care providers in charge of biosimilar-treated patients need to be aware of the nocebo effect and adopt strategies to minimize it. They have to be well-informed and confident about the existing evidence about biosimilars. A good patient-physician relationship will improve patients’ acceptance of biosimilars, and limits the risk of inappropriate negative bias and the nocebo effect.
Background
The infliximab biosimilar has entered daily inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) practice. However, real-life outcomes beyond 1 year after switching are scarce. We aimed to investigate the long-term drug survival, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetics 2 years after switching to CT-P13 in IBD patients.
Methods
We performed a single-center prospective observational cohort study in all Remicade-treated IBD patients who previously switched to CT-P13. We systematically documented reasons for discontinuation, trough levels, and antidrug antibodies to infliximab (ADAs) at baseline, week 16, week 52, and week 104. Clinical and biochemical disease activity (HBI, SCCAI, CRP) and adverse events were registered.
Results
Eighty-three patients were enrolled, 57 had Crohn’s disease, 24 had ulcerative colitis, and 2 were IBD-unclassified. At week 104, 55 of 83 (66%) patients remained on CT-P13, and 3 were lost to follow-up. Reasons for discontinuation were loss of response (n = 10), adverse events (n = 8), and disease remission (n = 7). ADAs were present in 5/83 patients at baseline (before switching), in 2 patients before week 52, and no subsequent ADAs were detected until week 104. Median trough levels and clinical and biochemical disease activity at baseline, week 16, week 52 and week 104 did not significantly change.
Conclusion
In a prospective cohort with >2-year follow-up, 66% of IBD patients continued CT-P13 after switching from Remicade. Two new cases with ADAs were observed in year 1, but subsequently no immunogenicity was detected. These results are reassuring and suggest that switching to CT-P13 does not impact long-term clinical outcomes.
Close
Background:
TNF inhibitors have improved treatment of Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, spondyloarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and chronic plaque psoriasis, but are expensive therapies. The aim of NOR-SWITCH was to examine switching from originator infliximab to the less expensive biosimilar CT-P13 regarding efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity.
Methods:
The study is a randomised, non-inferiority, double-blind, phase 4 trial with 52 weeks of follow-up. Adult patients on stable treatment with infliximab originator treated in a hospital setting for at least 6 months were eligible for participation. Patients with informed consent were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either continued infliximab originator or to switch to CT-P13 treatment, with unchanged dosing regimen. Data were collected at infusion visits in 40 Norwegian study centres. Patients, assessors, and patient care providers were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was disease worsening during 52-week follow-up. 394 patients in the primary per-protocol set were needed to show a non-inferiority margin of 15%, assuming 30% disease worsening in each group. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02148640.
Findings:
Between Oct 24, 2014, and July 8, 2015, 482 patients were enrolled and randomised (241 to infliximab originator, 241 to CT-P13 group; one patient was excluded from the full analysis and safety set for CT-P13) and 408 were included in the per-protocol set (202 in the infliximab originator group and 206 in the CT-P13 group). 155 (32%) patients in the full analysis set had Crohn's disease, 93 (19%) had ulcerative colitis, 91 (19%) had spondyloarthritis, 77 (16%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 30 (6%) had psoriatic arthritis, and 35 (7%) had chronic plaque psoriasis. Disease worsening occurred in 53 (26%) patients in the infliximab originator group and 61 (30%) patients in the CT-P13 group (per-protocol set; adjusted treatment difference -4·4%, 95% CI -12·7 to 3·9). The frequency of adverse events was similar between groups (for serious adverse events, 24 [10%] for infliximab originator vs 21 [9%] for CT-P13; for overall adverse events, 168 [70%] vs 164 [68%]; and for adverse events leading to discontinuation, nine [4%] vs eight [3%], respectively).
Interpretation:
The NOR-SWITCH trial showed that switching from infliximab originator to CT-P13 was not inferior to continued treatment with infliximab originator according to a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15%. The study was not powered to show non-inferiority in individual diseases.
Funding:
Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services.
Objective:
The introduction of anti tumour necrosis factor-α (anti-TNFα) therapy might impact healthcare expenditures, but there are limited data regarding the costs of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) following the introduction of these drugs. We aimed to assess the healthcare costs and productivity losses in a large cohort of IBD patients.
Design:
Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) patients from seven university hospitals and seven general hospitals were invited to fill-out a web-based questionnaire. Cost items were derived from a 3 month follow-up questionnaire and categorised in outpatient clinic, diagnostics, medication, surgery and hospitalisation. Productivity losses included sick leave of paid and unpaid work. Costs were expressed as mean 3-month costs per patients with a 95% CI obtained using non-parametric bootstrapping.
Results:
A total of 1315 CD patients and 937 UC patients were included. Healthcare costs were almost three times higher in CD as compared with UC, €1625 (95% CI €1476 to €1775) versus €595 (95% CI €505 to €685), respectively (p<0.01). Anti-TNFα use was the main costs driver, accounting for 64% and 31% of the total cost in CD and UC. Hospitalisation and surgery together accounted for 19% and <1% of the healthcare costs in CD and 23% and 1% in UC, respectively. Productivity losses accounted for 16% and 39% of the total costs in CD and UC.
Conclusions:
We showed that healthcare costs are mainly driven by medication costs, most importantly by anti-TNFα therapy. Hospitalisation and surgery accounted only for a minor part of the healthcare costs.
We assessed oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) prepared with a pH-sensitive polymer coating in 87 patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 5-ASA at a dosage of either 4.8 or 1.6 g per day or placebo for six weeks. The outcome was monitored by flexible proctosigmoidoscopic examinations and physicians' assessments at three-week intervals and by patients' recordings of daily symptoms. Results showed 24 percent complete and 50 percent partial responses in those receiving 4.8 g of 5-ASA per day as compared with 5 percent complete and 13 percent partial responses in those receiving placebo (P less than 0.0001, rank-sum test). At a dosage of 1.6 g per day, the response was twice as good as with placebo, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.51). Age, sex, duration of disease, duration of active symptoms, or extent of disease did not affect the clinical outcome. We conclude that oral 5-ASA administered in a dosage of 4.8 g per day is effective therapy, at least in the short term, for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis.
We did a randomised controlled trial to assess the benefit of maintenance infliximab therapy in patients with active Crohn's disease who respond to a single infusion of infliximab.
573 patients with a score of at least 220 on the Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) received a 5 mg/kg intravenous infusion of infliximab at week 0. After assessment of response at week 2, patients were randomly assigned repeat infusions of placebo at weeks 2 and 6 and then every 8 weeks thereafter until week 46 (group I), repeat infusions of 5 mg/kg infliximab at the same timepoints (group II), or 5 mg/kg infliximab at weeks 2 and 6 followed by 10 mg/kg (group III). The prespecified co-primary endpoints were the proportion of patients who responded at week 2 and were in remission (CDAI <150) at week 30 and the time to loss of response up to week 54 in patients who responded. Analyses of the co-primary endpoints were by intention to treat.
335 (58%) patients responded to a single infusion of infliximab within 2 weeks. At week 30, 23 of 110 (21%) group I patients were in remission, compared with 44 of 113 (39%) group II (p=0.003) and 50 of 112 (45%) group III (p=0.0002) patients. Thus, patients in groups II and III combined were more likely to sustain clinical remission than patients in group I (odds ratio 2.7, 95% CI 1.6-4.6). Throughout the 54-week trial, the median time to loss of response was 38 weeks (IQR 15 to >54) and more than 54 weeks (21 to >54) for groups II and III, respectively, compared with 19 weeks (10-45) for group I (p=0.002 and p=0.0002, respectively). Infliximab safety was consistent with that seen in other trials of infliximab in Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis. In particular, the incidence of serious infections was similar across treatment groups.
Patients with Crohn's disease who respond to an initial dose of infliximab are more likely to be in remission at weeks 30 and 54, to discontinue corticosteroids, and to maintain their response for a longer period of time, if infliximab treatment is maintained every 8 weeks.