Efficacy and Safety of HLX03, an Adalimumab Biosimilar, in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study

Efficacy and safety evaluations of adalimumab biosimilars in the treatment of psoriasis

PURPOSE

We aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab biosimilar agents in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, in order to provide evidence-based reference data for clinical medicine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five databases were searched by electronic retrieval: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, WanFang and CNKI (China National Knowledge Internet). The retrieval period was from the establishment of each database up to April 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on adalimumab biosimilar agents compared with their reference agents in the treatment of moderate-to-serve plague psoriasis were included. A meta-analysis using RevMan software was applied to 8 RCTs involving 2589 patients.

RESULTS

After 16 weeks of medication, there was no significant difference in the response rates of adalimumab biosimilar agents and their reference agents defined as a decrease in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of ≥75% (PASI 75) (p > 0.05), or in the PASI 50, PASI 90 and PASI 100 measures (p > 0.05). After 16 weeks and 24 weeks of medication, there was no significant difference in the incidence rate of serious adverse events (SAEs) between adalimumab biosimilar agents and their reference agents (p > 0.05). After 16 weeks, 24 weeks and 51 weeks of medication, there was no significant difference in withdrawal rate due to SAEs, treatment-emergent adverse events and adverse events of special interest between adalimumab biosimilar agents and their reference agents (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that biosimilar agents of adalimumab have an overall efficacy and safety profile for psoriasis comparable to those of their reference agents.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Structural and functional insights into the spike protein mutations of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants

Since the emergence of the first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), the viral genome has constantly undergone rapid mutations for better adaptation in the host system. These newer mutations have given rise to several lineages/ variants of the virus that have resulted in high transmission and virulence rates compared to the previously circulating variants. Owing to this, the overall caseload and related mortality have tremendously increased globally to > 233 million infections and > 4.7 million deaths as of Sept. 28th, 2021. SARS-CoV-2, Spike (S) protein binds to host cells by recognizing human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (hACE2) receptor. The viral S protein contains S1 and S2 domains that constitute the binding and fusion machinery, respectively. Structural analysis of viral S protein reveals that the virus undergoes conformational flexibility and dynamicity to interact with the hACE2 receptor. The SARS-CoV-2 variants and mutations might be associated with affecting the conformational plasticity of S protein, potentially linked to its altered affinity, infectivity, and immunogenicity. This review focuses on the current circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 and the structure-function analysis of key S protein mutations linked with increased affinity, higher infectivity, enhanced transmission rates, and immune escape against this infection.