Video: Every Case Tells a Story| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

Biosimilars Are Slowly Climbing Toward Acceptance in Rheumatology

Bryn Nelson, PhD  |  Issue: June 2020  |  June 15, 2020

Signs of Change

Signs of progress are growing, especially in public sector institutions, such as the U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs system, that are negotiating prices and realizing significant cost savings by switching to biosimilars, Dr. Yazdany says.

In a recent study in Arthritis & Rheuma­tology, for example, researchers compared how the University of Penn­sylvania Health System and the Phila­delphia VA Medical Center prescribed biosimilar infliximab vs. its reference biologic, Remicade, from Jan. 1, 2015, through May 31, 2019.4

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

At the University of Pennsylvania, individual physicians chose what to prescribe, says Dr. Kay, the study’s senior author. Consequently, his team found only a small fraction of the health system’s doctors had begun switching over to the biosimilar by the end of 2018.

Through price negotiations, by contrast, the VA Medical Center saved 81% by choosing Renflexis (infliximab-abda), priced at $115.58 per 100 mg vial, vs. $623.48 for Remicade. Through a preferred designation in its national formulary, the VA has urged physicians to use the bio­similar except in special circumstances. By January 2018, the study found, doctors there were prescribing Renflexis or Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) almost exclusively.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

“When there’s a competitive bidding process, such as occurs in Scandinavian and other European countries, the competitive bids drive down the price of the biopharmaceutical,” Dr. Kay says. The biosimilar doesn’t always prevail; in Sweden, for example, the competition led to an 80% price reduction for Humira, which became that country’s adalimumab drug of choice. Whether the reference or biosimilar is selected under a winner-take-all system, “the healthcare system wins in any case,” Dr. Kay says.

Other U.S. insurers have used the com­petition to their advantage. In January, Massachusetts-based Health New England announced that it had saved $1.7 million through a prior authorization program launched Jan. 1, 2019, that prioritized use of biosimilar infliximab. Through the program, the nonprofit health plan said it had achieved a 93% utilization rate for the biosimilar.

Meanwhile, other studies are adding to the body of evidence that biosimilars closely match originator drugs in immunogenicity, safety and efficacy. Dr. Kay cites the
NOR-SWITCH study in Norway, which enrolled 482 stable rheumatology patients on Remicade (infliximab) and randomized them to blindly receive either Remicade or its biosimilar counter­part (now Inflectra, or infliximab-dyyb).5 After a year, the researchers calculated a non-inferiority margin of about 15%, based on the percentage of patients with worsening of disease activity, as assessed by a disease-specific index or a decision to change the treatment.

The study met its primary endpoint of a non-inferior clinical response in aggregate, but demonstrated non-inferiority for only one of the six individual diseases included in the trial. A far larger study would have been needed to have been powered adequately to detect such individual differences, Dr. Kay says. But as the only double-blind, controlled switching trial in a large group of patients, he says, the study was reassuring: “It showed that switching from Remicade to the biosimilar was not inferior to continuing Remicade over 52 weeks.” Likewise, an extension of the trial in which patients on Remicade were switched to the biosimilar for another 26 weeks showed they continued to do well.

Developers, such as Boehringer Ingelheim, maker of an adalimumab biosimilar, are likewise starting trials aimed at achieving “interchangeability” status by the FDA, which indicates a biosimilar yields identical clinical results to its originator counterpart.

Gaining interchangeability status requires extra data about the risk of alternating between drugs or of switching from one to another. With the designation, a pharmacist could theoretically substitute the interchangeable biosimilar for its reference product without the prescribing physician’s authorization, as is the case in some European countries. Preemptive legislation in 32 U.S. states, however, requires notification of both the patient and the provider.6

Guidance from the FDA on interchangeability trials finalized in May 2019 “could potentially have a significant impact on the uptake of biosimilars,” Dr. Yazdany says.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:Biologics/DMARDsResearch Rheum Tagged with:Arthritis & Rheumatologydrug costsinfliximab

Related Articles

    Possible Impact of Biosimilar Infliximab on U.S. Market in Prescriptions, Pricing

    September 8, 2016

    The use of biosimilars for rheuma­tology in the U.S. became a reality when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb), a biosimilar to Remicade (infliximab), in April. What this may mean is increased competition among drug companies with regard to pricing and, therefore, potentially lower costs for U.S. patients, according to Seoyoung…

    Should Patients with Rheumatic Disease Switch from Biologic to Biosimilar?

    January 19, 2018

    SAN DIEGO—Should patients with rheumatic diseases switch from a biologic to its biosimilar? At the 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting’s Great Debate, held Nov. 5, two rheumatologists argued whether to switch or stay put based on safety, efficacy and potential cost savings. First to the podium to make the case for switching, Jonathan Kay, MD, tweaked…

    Biosimilars Great Debate: To Switch or Not?

    November 17, 2017

    SAN DIEGO—Should patients with rheumatic diseases switch from a biologic to its biosimilar? At the 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting’s Great Debate, held Nov. 5, two rheumatologists argued whether to switch or stay put based on safety, efficacy and potential cost savings. First to the podium to make the case for switching, Jonathan Kay, MD, tweaked…

    Marching to the Biosimilar Beat: Questions on Rollout Remain

    September 7, 2023

    The availability of biosimilars for the treatment of patients with rheumatic diseases exploded in 2023. Here’s where we stand and what to expect going forward.

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences