No safety or immunogenicity differences were found in patients who switched to a biosimilar and those who continued on a reference biologic or biosimilar.
Image credit: Chinnapong - stock.adobe.com
No difference was found in the safety profiles or immunogenicity rates in patients who were switched and those who stayed on a reference biologic or biosimilar, according to the first systematic review using statistical methods to address switching risk in patients between reference biologics and biosimilars in PLoS One.
Biosimilars are progressively available for the treatment of multiple severe disorders, but some concerns remain about switching a patient to a biosimilar whose condition is stable on the reference biologic.
Researchers analyzed the occurrence of safety events after a switch to or from a biosimilar and its reference biologic in all identified controlled clinical studies that encompassed a biosimilar approved by the FDA.
Growing the availability and use of biosimilars is an important public health strategy for decreasing drug costs and increasing the accessibility of biological products to underserved populations.
Randomized controlled studies and extension studies with a switch treatment period (STP) to or from a biosimilar and its reference biologic were distinguished from publicly available information sustained by the FDA. These findings were strengthened with data from peer reviewed publications that held information not captured in FDA reviews. A total of 44 STPs were recognized from 31 distinctive studies for 21 different biosimilars.
PRISMA guidelines to extract and synthesize the data were followed. Meta-analysis was undertaken to estimate the overall risk difference across studies. Patients who were switched to or from a biosimilar and its reference biologic make up a cohort of 5,252 patients.
Additionally, deaths, serious adverse events, and treatment discontinuation included in safety data illustrated an overall risk difference of -0.00, 0.00, -0.00 across STPs, respectively. Similar incidence of antidrug antibodies and neutralizing antibodies in patients within a STP who were switched to or from a biosimilar to its reference biologic and patients who were not switched were displayed by immunogenicity data. Also, immune-related adverse events like anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity reactions, and injection site reactions were similar in switched and non-switched patients.
Antidrug antibodies and neutralizing bodies showed comparable incidence between No Switch and Switch arms. The study participants in the STPs are symbolic of patients who would be switched to or from a biosimilar and its reference product and mirror actual use. This outcome is constant with empiric evidence and descriptive reviews of switching biosimilars and referencing biologics.
“The findings in this report raise several timely questions regarding the data needed to support approval of biosimilars and how to address regulatory requirements unique to the [Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act] for the 'interchangeable' designation,” said the researchers.
Interchangeability designations allow for pharmacists to substitute a reference product for a biosimilar without needing to obtain permission from a provider. It's intended to increase access to biosimilars and shorten wait times for patients to get their prescriptions. However, many experts question whether designations like this should be needed.
Also, the findings supported efforts to decrease the regulatory burden of switching studies as the default approach for acknowledging the switching standard for the interchangeable designation.
This study also supports the reassessment of the need for switches included in clinical studies for candidate biosimilars since an approved biosimilar will be analytically highly similar to its reference product. As familiarity and the support for biosimilar approvals grows, the amount and types of clinical data consistently performed as part of biosimilar development may be decreased, which would also decrease the time and cost of development.
Some limitations were present in this review, including the small number of patients in the safety evaluations from some source material. There were fewer patients in some STPs, but these differences in STP sample size had been taken into consideration in the meta-analysis.
This study acknowledges one of the concerns of the medical community about the safety of switching between reference products and corresponding biosimilar products.
“Data driven materials such as those contained in this report will facilitate efforts to streamline biosimilar development and achieve the full promise of biosimilars,” concluded the researchers.
Reference
Herndon TM, Ausin C, Brahme NN, et al. Safety outcomes when switching between biosimilars and reference biologics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. Published online October 3, 2023. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0292231
BioRationality: EMA Accepts Waiver of Clinical Efficacy Testing of Biosimilars
April 21st 2025Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, shares his latest citizen's petition to the FDA, calling on the agency to waive clinical efficacy testing in response to the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) efforts towards the same goal.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
BioRationality: Commemorating the 15th Anniversary of the BPCIA
April 8th 2025Affirming that analytical characterization is often sufficient for biosimilar approval, minimizing unnecessary clinical testing, and enhancing FDA-led education to counter stakeholder misconceptions are key recommendations put forth in this opinion piece by Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.