Switching to Biosimilar SDZ-ADL in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: 48-Week Efficacy, Safety and Immunogenicity Results From the Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind ADMYRA Study

Clinical outcomes of switching to adalimumab biosimilar (MSB11022) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: RESTART Spanish Registry

OBJECTIVE

MSB11022 is a biosimilar of adalimumab that has been shown comparable bioequivalence, safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity profiles to the reference adalimumab in healthy volunteers or in patients with psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This is the first study conducted under clinical practice conditions evaluating the switch from reference adalimumab to MSB11022 in patients with RA.

METHODS

Retrospective and multicenter study with data from the medical records of patients with RA who switched from reference adalimumab or another biosimilar to MSB11022 and maintained this treatment for at least 6 months. Information registered comes from baseline visit, the moment of the switch, and the follow-up visits.

RESULTS

Data from 86 patients were evaluated (median age 63.5 years, 75.6% female, 44.2% had erosive RA). Only 3.5% of the patients received biologic therapy prior to adalimumab. At baseline, median DAS28-CRP was 1.77 (80.2% in remission and 96.5% with low disease activity) and median CDAI was 4.00 (44.2% in remission and 90.7% with low disease activity). After a median follow-up of 8 months, median DAS28-CRP was 1.87 (86.0% in remission and 94.2% with low disease activity) and median CDAI was 4.00 (38.5% in remission and 95.3% with low disease activity). Only three patients experienced pain, swelling, and stinging at the injection site or a locally extensive hematoma in the area of administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Adalimumab biosimilar MSB11022 maintained the efficacy benefits provided by previous adalimumab treatments with a safety profile in line with that already described for other biosimilars.

Effect of treatment with original or biosimilar adalimumab on SARS-CoV2 vaccination antibody titers

The technological process of production of biosimilars determines the degree of biosimilarity to the original biological drug. In particular, the focus is on the similarity of immunogenic responses. The primary endpoint of our retrospective study was to find the differences in SARS-CoV-2 antibody amount between patients treated with original adalimumab and biosimilar adalimumab MSB11022 (Idacio) and the differences in the SARS-CoV-2 antibody amount between patients treated with and without biological treatment. We collected the gender, autoimmune disease type, age, and treatment data of the patients in the outpatient clinic MEDICAL PLUS, s.r.o., Uherske Hradiste. These patients suffer from autoimmune rheumatic diseases. All patients received the mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech - BNT162b2), with a 21-day (interquartile range, 21-24) gap between the two vaccinations. Patients receiving adalimumab were able to develop cellular immune responses after the second vaccination dose, as well as the individuals without adalimumab. In the period of 6-23 weeks after the second vaccination dose (D63 - D182), the SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels did not change significantly in the patients receiving the original adalimumab, while in the patients receiving biosimilar adalimumab a significant decrease was revealed. A statistically significant difference in the SARS-CoV-2 antibody amount between the patients without biological treatment (median: 504.3 U/mL) and with biological treatment (Original and Biosimilar - median: 47.2 and 28.2 U/mL, respectively) was confirmed on day 182. According to our observation, the effect of the treatment type on the increase/decrease of antibodies over time is dominant, while the impact of other variables (gender, methotrexate treatment, autoimmune disease type, and age) was confirmed as insignificant or minor.

'Totality of Evidence' Approach in the Development of GP2017, an Approved Adalimumab Biosimilar

INTRODUCTION

Hyrimoz®, (GP2017 [SDZ-ADL]), is a biosimilar to Humira® (REF-ADL). SDZ-ADL was approved in 2018 by both the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the indications of REF-ADL not protected by orphan exclusivity. In 2023, the US FDA and EMA also approved a citrate-free high-concentration formulation (HCF) of SDZ-ADL.

TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE-THE APPROACH

Approval of SDZ-ADL was based on data gathered using the US FDA, EMA and World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended step-wise Totality of Evidence approach. This approach is a robust dataset confirming high confidence in analytical, functional, pharmacokinetic (PK) and clinical biosimilarity between the biosimilar and reference medicine determined through analytical and clinical investigation.

EVIDENCE OF BIOSIMILARITY

Evidence supporting the biosimilarity of SDZ-ADL and REF-ADL was reported at each stage of investigation. Comprehensive comparative analytical and functional assessments demonstrated that SDZ-ADL was analytically indistinguishable from REF-ADL in required critical quality attributes, including receptor binding. Phase I clinical data showed PK similarity of SDZ-ADL and REF-ADL in healthy volunteers, with similar safety, tolerability and immunogenicity profiles. Phase III confirmatory efficacy and safety studies, ADACCESS (included in US/EU dossiers) and ADMYRA (separate to US/EU dossiers), both confirmed that SDZ-ADL's efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity matched REF-ADL in all patient groups with no clinically meaningful differences. More recently, this data package was the basis for a citrate-free HCF of SDZ-ADL to be developed, and its PK, safety and immunogenicity were confirmed against the initially approved formulation of SDZ-ADL.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the Totality of Evidence provided for biosimilar adalimumab, SDZ-ADL, confirmed the analytical, functional and clinical similarity of SDZ-ADL to REF-ADL, supporting its regulatory approval and providing a data bridge with which to evaluate and support the approval of citrate-free HCF SDZ-ADL for clinical use.

Persistence and safety of anti-TNF biosimilars versus originators in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: an observational study on the French National Health Data System

OBJECTIVES

Biosimilar-originator equivalence has been demonstrated in phase 3 trials in a few indications of infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab. The objective of our study was to compare the persistence and safety of biosimilars versus originators in all the licensed indications of these molecules.

METHODS

We used data from the French National Health Data System (SNDS), covering 99% of the French population, to identify infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab initiators from biosimilar launch (January 2015, May 2016 and October 2018, respectively) to 30 June 2021. Patients were then followed for 1 year. Treatment persistence (duration without treatment discontinuation or modification) and safety (including severe infections, all-cause hospitalisation and death) were compared between originator and biosimilar users by Cox regressions weighting the populations on the inverse probability of treatment. Analyses were performed by molecule, by disease and by biosimilar product.

RESULTS

From January 2015 to June 2021, 86 776 patients were included in the study: 22 670, 24 442 and 39 664 patients had initiated infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab, respectively; 49 752 (53%) were biosimilar initiators. We did not find any risk of discontinuation (HRs were below or around 1, here all pathologies and products together: infliximab 0.88 (0.80-0.97), etanercept 0.85 (0.81-0.90) and adalimumab 0.96 (0.91-1.00)) or safety event (infection: infliximab 0.97 (0.78-1.21), etanercept 1.04 (0.81-1.33) and adalimumab 0.98 (0.83-1.16); hospitalisation: infliximab 1.08 (0.96-1.23), etanercept 0.99 (0.87-1.11) and adalimumab 0.91 (0.83-0.99)) associated with biosimilar versus originator use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows reassuring results regarding the persistence and safety of biosimilar tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors compared with originators in all licensed indications.

Signal-to-noise ratio to assess magnitude, kinetics and impact on pharmacokinetics of the immune response to an adalimumab biosimilar

Background: The antidrug antibody (ADA) signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio was explored as a novel immunogenicity measure to evaluate the immune response of healthy subjects to a single dose of GP2017, an adalimumab biosimilar. Methodology/results: Bioanalytical methods used for the analysis of ADA S/N ratios and ADA titers were validated for sensitivity, precision and drug interference. ADA S/N ratios strongly correlated with ADA titers. Correlations between ADA area under the curve and ADAmax and pharmacokinetics (PK) were stronger for ADA S/N ratio than for ADA titers. Conclusion: ADA S/N ratio allowed for a more sensitive evaluation of the magnitude and kinetics of the immune response, was better correlated with adalimumab PK and was superior to ADA titers in assessing the impact of the immune response on PK.

Safety outcomes when switching between biosimilars and reference biologics: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Biosimilars are increasingly available for the treatment of many serious disorders, however some concerns persist about switching a patient to a biosimilar whose condition is stable while on the reference biologic. Randomized controlled studies and extension studies with a switch treatment period (STP) to or from a biosimilar and its reference biologic were identified from publicly available information maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These findings were augmented with data from peer reviewed publications containing information not captured in FDA reviews. Forty-four STPs were identified from 31 unique studies for 21 different biosimilars. Data were extracted and synthesized following PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the overall risk difference across studies. A total of 5,252 patients who were switched to or from a biosimilar and its reference biologic were identified. Safety data including deaths, serious adverse events, and treatment discontinuation showed an overall risk difference (95% CI) of -0.00 (-0.00, 0.00), 0.00 (-0.01, 0.01), -0.00 (-0.01, 0.00) across STPs, respectively. Immunogenicity data showed similar incidence of anti-drug 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. Immune related adverse events such as anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity reactions, and injections site reactions were similar in switched and non-switched patients. This first systematic review using statistical methods to address the risk of switching patients between reference biologics and biosimilars finds no difference in the safety profiles or immunogenicity rates in patients who were switched and those who remained on a reference biologic or a biosimilar.

Impact of switching between reference biologics and biosimilars of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

What is the impact of switching between biologics and biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on efficacy and safety for rheumatoid arthritis? A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed to compare switching and non-switching groups of treatments. Pooled Risk Relative (RR) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs) were obtained. Seventeen randomized trials with a switching phase involving 6,562 patients were included. Results showed that a single switch from biologics to biosimilars compared to continuing biologics had comparable effects for primary and co-primary outcomes, the American College of Rheumatology criteria with 20% response (ACR20) (7 trials, 1,926 patients, RR 0.98, 95% CrIs 0.93 to 1.03) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (5 trials, 1,609 patients, SMD - 0.07, 95% CrIs - 0.23 to 0.1), and within the equivalence margins: ACR20 [RR 0.94, 1.06] and HAQ-DI [SMD - 0.22, 0.22]. The risk of treatment-emergent adverse events, discontinuation, and positive anti-drug antibodies were comparable after switching. Safety results were imprecise, and the follow-up period might not be sufficient to evaluate long-term effects, especially malignancies. Overall, the practice of single switching between approved biologics and biosimilars of Tumour Necrosis Factor inhibitors is efficacious and safe for rheumatoid arthritis.

Adalimumab originator versus adalimumab biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease in Australia

BACKGROUND

Biosimilar adalimumabs have improved treatment access, but without any clinical advantage, distributors rely on delivery device design-enhancements, support services, and removal of painful excipients to capture market share. Prescribers, however, are often unaware of these differences. This article compares and contrasts originator versus biosimilar adalimumab agents to identify key differences that might influence adalimumab selection.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We reviewed listed adalimumab biosimilars in Australia and compared them to the originator adalimumab. Similarities and differences identified were confirmed with the manufacturers via two rounds of interviews: the first to collate a list of features and benefits of their product, and the second to consolidate and confirm the data.

RESULTS

The originator adalimumab Humira [by AbbVie, U.S.A] and four adalimumab biosimilars (Amgevita [by Amgen, U.S.A], Hadlima [by Organon, U.S.A], Hyrimoz [by Sandoz, Switzerland], and Idacio [by Fresenius Kabi, Germany]) are included in this review. Key differences identified include product formulation, dosages available, delivery devices, physician support, patient support, and the supply of other biosimilar products by the company.

CONCLUSION

Adalimumab biosimilars are different from each other with unique advantages and disadvantages likely to influence prescriber and patients. Therefore, the choice of agent should be individualized to the needs of the patient and the healthcare service.

Biosimilars in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a pharmacokinetic overview

INTRODUCTION

As of May 2023, 19 and 18 biosimilars have been approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) respectively.

AREA COVERED

Pharmacokinetic results of phase 1 studies of approved biosimilars were reviewed by systematic literature search. The impact of immunogenicity on the pharmacokinetic data and clinical response was assessed, and the potential benefit of monitoring serum concentrations of biologic drugs is discussed. The advantage of subcutaneous CT-P13 (an infliximab biosimilar) in clinical practice is reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

Biosimilars are approved based on the totality of evidence including comparable physiochemical properties, PK / PD profiles, and clinical efficacy and safety to the originator. To utilize biosimilars more effectively, physicians should be aware of the utility of combination DMARD therapy to reduce immunogenicity and maintain efficacy and PK profile. PK monitoring, however, is not currently recommended in clinical practice. CT-P13 subcutaneous (SC) is the first SC infliximab used for treatment of RA patients. Based on data from clinical studies and the real world, SC-infliximab is an attractive therapeutic option compared to IV formulations of infliximab based on its efficacy, pharmacokinetics, patient-reported outcomes, and safety profile.

GP2017-HCF, a high concentration formulation, demonstrates similar pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity and safety to GP2017, an approved adalimumab biosimilar

BACKGROUND

GP2017 is an adalimumab biosimilar. The objective of this study is to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) of GP2017 in its approved formulation and GP2017-high concentration formulation (HCF) in a randomized, double-blind, two-arm PK bridging study.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Healthy male subjects received a single 40 mg subcutaneous injection of either GP2017-HCF (n = 162) or GP2017 (n = 168). PK, safety, and immunogenicity were assessed over 72 days post-injection.

RESULTS

The 90% confidence intervals [CIs] of geometric mean ratios between GP2017-HCF and GP2017 for Cmax, AUC0-inf, AUC0-360 and AUC0-last were within the pre-defined margin of 0.80 to 1.25; thus, PK comparability between GP2017-HCF and GP2017 was demonstrated. Subgroup analysis of PK comparability by anti-drug antibody (ADA) subpopulation showed that the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios between GP2017-HCF and GP2017 for Cmax, AUC0-inf, AUC0-360 and AUC0-last were within the margin of 0.80 to 1.25 in ADA-positive and ADA-negative subjects. The proportions of subjects with positive ADA responses and with neutralizing antibodies were comparable between the GP2017-HCF and GP2017 groups. GP2017-HCF and GP2017 were well tolerated, and there were no reports of deaths or other serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Results show PK comparability between GP2017-HCF and GP2017 and comparable safety and tolerability.

Assessing the Interchangeability of AVT02 and Humira® in Participants with Moderate‑to‑Severe Chronic Plaque Psoriasis: Pharmacokinetics, Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity Results from a Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Parallel-Group Study

BACKGROUND

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) interchangeability guidelines state that the primary endpoint in a switching study should assess the impact of switching between the proposed interchangeable product and the reference product on clinical pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (if available), as these assessments are generally sensitive to changes in immunogenicity and/or exposure that may arise due to switching. In addition, interchangeability designation requires no clinically meaningful difference in safety and efficacy of switching between the biosimilar and reference, compared with when using the reference product alone.

OBJECTIVES

 The aim of this study was to investigate the PK, immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety in participants undergoing repeated switches between Humira^® and AVT02 as part of a global interchangeable development program.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis comprises three parts: lead-in period (weeks 1-12), switching module (weeks 12-28), and the optional extension phase (weeks 28-52). Following the lead-in period during which all participants received the reference product (80 mg in week 1, followed by 40 mg every other week), participants with a clinical response of ≥ 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI75) were randomized 1:1 to receive AVT02 alternating with the reference product (switching arm) or reference product only (non-switching arm). At week 28, participants who were PASI50 responders could opt to take part in an open-label extension phase receiving AVT02 up to week 50, with an end of study visit at week 52. PK, safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy were evaluated at various timepoints throughout the study for both switching and non-switching arms.

RESULTS

In total, 550 participants were randomized to switching (277) and non-switching arms (273). The switching versus non-switching arithmetic least square means ratio [90% confidence intervals (CIs)] was 101.7% (91.4-112.0%) for the area under the concentration-time curve over the dosing interval from weeks 26-28 (AUC_{tau, W26-28}) and 108.1% (98.3-117.9%) for maximum concentration over the dosing interval from weeks 26-28 (C_{max, W26-28}). The 90% CIs for the switching versus non-switching arithmetic means ratio for primary endpoints AUC_{tau, W26-28} and C_{max, W26-28} were within the prespecified limits of 80-125%, demonstrating comparable PK profiles between groups. In addition, the PASI, Dermatology Life Quality Index, and static Physician's Global Assessment efficacy scores were highly similar for both treatment groups. There were no clinically meaningful differences between the immunogenicity and safety assessments of repeated switching between AVT02 and the reference product, versus the reference product alone.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that the risk, in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of switching between the biosimilar and the reference product, is not greater than the risk of using the reference product alone, as required by the FDA for interchangeability designation. Beyond the scope of interchangeability, a consistent long-term safety and immunogenicity profile, with no impact on the trough levels up to 52 weeks, was established.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04453137; date of registration: 1 July 2020.

Korean clinical practice guidelines on biologics and small molecules for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC), a relapsing-remitting chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), has a variable natural course but potentially severe disease course. Since the development of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents has changed the natural disease course of moderate-to-severe UC, therapeutic options for patients who failed conventional treatments are expanding rapidly. IBD clinical trials have demonstrated the potential efficacy and safety of novel biologics such as anti-integrin α4β7 and anti-interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibodies and small molecules such as a Janus kinase inhibitor. Anti-TNF biosimilars also have been approved and are widely used in IBD patients. Wise drug choices should be made considering evidence-based efficacy and safety. However, the best position of these drugs remains several questions, with limited data from direct comparative trials. In addition, there are still concerns to be elucidated on the effect of therapeutic drug monitoring and combination therapy with immunomodulators. The appropriate treatment regimens in acute severe UC and the risk of perioperative use of biologics are unclear. As novel biologics and small molecules have been approved in Korea, we present the Korean guidelines for medical management of adult outpatients with moderate-to-severe UC and adult hospitalized patients with acute severe UC, focusing on biologics and small molecules.

Fetal and Neonatal Adverse Drug Reactions Associated with Biologics Taken During Pregnancy by Women with Autoimmune Diseases: Insights from an Analysis of the World Health Organization Pharmacovigilance Database (VigiBase®)

INTRODUCTION

Published data on the safety of biologics other than tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors during pregnancy are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to detect pharmacovigilance signals for fetal and neonatal adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to biologics taken by pregnant women with autoimmune diseases.

METHODS

We performed a disproportionality analysis of the World Health Organization's VigiBase^® pharmacovigilance database from 1968 to June 1, 2021. Data were collected in June 2021. By using terms for different hierarchical levels of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, we selected the following fetal or neonatal ADRs: stillbirth, premature birth, low birth weight, small for gestational age, and congenital malformations. The frequency of all identified ADRs for biologics of interest (adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, anakinra, canakinumab, tocilizumab, sarilumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, belimumab, abatacept, and rituximab) was compared with that of all other reports for all other drugs and quoted as the reporting odds ratio (ROR) [95% confidence interval]. Reports with known concomitant use of teratogenic drugs were excluded from the main analysis. Other analyses included ROR stratifications by therapeutic indication in the periods 1968-2021 and 2001-2021, and an analysis after excluding reports with steroids.

RESULTS

In the main analysis, the RORs were particularly high for musculoskeletal malformations with anakinra (7.18 [3.50-14.73]), canakinumab (19.54 [12.82-29.79]), and abatacept (5.09 [2.77-9.33]), and for immune system disorders with canakinumab (347.88 [217.9-555.50]) and rituximab (9.27 [2.95-29.15]). After the exclusion of reports with steroids, the ROR was significant for neonatal infections with belimumab (28.49 [5.75-141.25]).

CONCLUSION

We identified possible associations with some adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes, suggesting that vigilance is required when prescribing certain biologics during pregnancy.

Adalimumab Biosimilar GP2017 versus Adalimumab Originator in Treating Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Real-Life, Multicenter, Observational Study

The approval of adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has reduced the cost of treatment. While several ADA biosimilars are currently available, comparative data on the ADA biosimilar GP2017 (Hyrimoz^TM) and its originator (Humira^TM) in IBD are lacking. We compared the efficacy and safety of GP2017 versus originator in IBD outpatients in an Italian real-life setting. This retrospective analysis enrolled consecutive IBD patients with complete clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic data. Clinical activity was assessed with the Mayo score in ulcerative colitis (UC) and the Harvey–Bradshaw Index in Crohn’s disease (CD). The primary endpoints were the induction of remission and the safety of GP2017 versus ADA originator. One hundred and thirty-four patients (30.6% with UC and 69.4% with CD, median age 38 years) were enrolled: 62 (46.3%) patients were treated with GP2017, and 72 (53.7%) with ADA originator; 118 (88.1%) patients were naïve to ADA. Clinical remission was obtained in 105 (78.4%) patients, during a median follow-up of 12 months, 82.3% and 75% in the GP2017 and ADA originator groups, respectively (p = 0.311). Treatment was well tolerated in both groups. This analysis of real-world data suggests that GP2017 and its originator are equivalent in terms of efficacy and safety in patients with IBD.

An Introduction to Biosimilars for the Treatment of Retinal Diseases: A Narrative Review

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of disease across a number of therapeutic areas including retinal diseases. However, on occasion, such treatments may be relatively more expensive compared to small molecule therapies. This can restrict patient access and treatment length leading to suboptimal clinical outcomes. Several biosimilar candidates of ranibizumab and aflibercept are currently in development and the first biosimilar of ranibizumab received EMA approval in August and FDA approval in September 2021. Biosimilars are biological medicines that are highly similar to an already-approved biological medicine (reference product). The physicochemical and clinical similarity of a biosimilar is determined by a rigorous analytical and clinical program, including extensive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis with phase III equivalence studies where appropriate. These phase III studies are carried out in a patient population that is representative of all of the potential approved therapeutic indications of the originator product and the most sensitive for detecting potential differences between the biosimilar and the reference product. Biosimilars have been used successfully across a wide range of therapeutic areas for the past 15 years where they have achieved substantial cost savings that can be reinvested into healthcare systems without affecting the quality of patient care. The current review provides an introduction to biosimilars with the aim of preparing retinal specialists for discussing these products with their patients.

Tailored first-line biologic and targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 2021 updated ITABIO statements

INTRODUCTION

In 2015, the Italian board for the TAilored BIOlogic therapy (ITABIO) proposed evidence-based decisional statements for first-line tailored biologic therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Taking into account the new licensed drugs, the aim of the present review was to update the previous statements.

AREAS COVERED

A narrative review of the most recent evidence on the efficacy and safety of old and newly licensed drugs for the treatment of articular and extra-articular RA was performed. In addition, host-related variables potentially driving the therapy choice, such as the infection risk, the cardiovascular risk, the risk of deep vein thrombosis, thromboembolism, pregnancy, and obesity were analyzed. Consequently, several statements for personalized therapy were formulated, thus providing a decisional algorithm useful for proper personalized therapy of RA patients in clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

Several clinical variables related to specific drug and host characteristics may drive the choice toward anti-TNF and non-anti-TNF biologics, or anti-JAKs, thus allowing to personalize the therapy. Consequently, the right therapy for the right patient would ensure a successful therapeutic intervention.

Comparison of treatment retention of originator vs biosimilar products in clinical rheumatology practice in Sweden

OBJECTIVES

To compare treatment retention between biosimilars and their originator products among first starters (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab and rituximab), as well as after non-medical switch.

METHODS

Patients with rheumatic diseases starting, for the first time, an originator or biosimilar etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, and rituximab were identified in the national Swedish Rheumatology Quality register. Moreover, patients switching from an originator to its biosimilar were identified, and individually matched to patients continuing on the originator. One-year treatment retention was calculated, and hazard ratios (HR) for discontinuation with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated, adjusting for comorbidities and socioeconomic factors.

RESULTS

In total, 21443 first treatment courses were identified. The proportion of patients still on drug at one year, and the HR for discontinuation, revealed no differences across adalimumab (Humira, Imraldi, Amgevita and Hyrimoz) nor across rituximab products (Mabthera, Ritemvia/Truxima and Rixathon). The proportions on drug at one year were similar for Benepali (77%) and Enbrel (75%) and the adjusted HR for Benepali compared to Enbrel was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.83-0.99). For infliximab, the proportion still on drug at one year was 67% for Remicade and 66% for Remsima/Inflectra, and the HR in comparison with Remicade was: 1.16 (95% CI: 1.02-1.33).Among 2925 patients switching from an originator drug to one of its biosimilars, we noted no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences in drug survival compared those who remained on originator therapy.

CONCLUSION

This large observational study supports the equivalence of bDMARD biosimilar products and originators when used in routine rheumatology care.

An update on the adalimumab biosimilar landscape following the approval of the first high-concentration biosimilar

Biosimilars can reduce healthcare costs and expand patient access to biologic therapies. Currently, eight adalimumab biosimilars have received regulatory approval from the EMA and/or the US FDA. Following recent EMA approval of the first high-concentration adalimumab biosimilar, CT-P17, this review provides a contemporary update on adalimumab biosimilars currently licensed in Europe and the USA. The totality of evidence from each clinical development program is summarized, and characteristics of each formulation and/or device that potentially affect the convenience of treatment for patients are discussed. Future perspectives are considered, including the potential impact of the FDA's first interchangeability designation for an adalimumab biosimilar, ahead of their entry into the US marketplace in 2023.

Switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars in chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: A systematic literature review

AIMS

Adalimumab is a biological therapy used to treat different chronic inflammatory diseases. At present, there is an increasing number of adalimumab biosimilars. To assume the acceptability of interchangeability between reference adalimumab and biosimilars, there should be evidence about efficacy and safety of this switching. Regulation of this practice falls under the authority of individual European Union Member States. The aim of this study is to systematically review the evidence on the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars in different chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

METHODS

Studies presenting data about switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars were identified by sensitive search strategies in Medline and EMBASE from 1 January 2004 to 30 June 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 471 references were obtained and 21 finally included in the analysis (total number of patients switching: 2802). Eight different adalimumab biosimilars were tested after receiving reference adalimumab. Eight articles included rheumatoid arthritis (RA), one miscellaneous rheumatic disease, six psoriasis (PSO) and six inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Overall, the efficacy results in the switching groups were comparable to those obtained in the arms of continuous biosimilar and continuous reference adalimumab. There were no significant differences in treatment emergent adverse events, anti-drug or neutralising antibodies among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars has no impact on efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with RA, PSO and IBD. This finding was consistent for the different adalimumab biosimilars analysed. These conclusions could probably be extended to other rheumatic diseases such as psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

Efficacy and safety of switching from reference adalimumab to CT-P17 (100 mg/ml): 52-week randomised study in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of switching from reference adalimumab to adalimumab biosimilar CT-P17 with continuing reference adalimumab/CT-P17 in active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

This double-blind, phase III study randomised (1:1) subjects with active RA to receive 40 mg (100 mg/ml) CT-P17 or European Union-sourced reference adalimumab subcutaneously every 2 weeks (Q2W) until week (W) 24 (treatment period [TP] 1). Thereafter, subjects receiving reference adalimumab were randomised (1:1) to continue reference adalimumab or switch to CT-P17 from W26 (both Q2W until W48; TP2). Subjects receiving CT-P17 in TP1 continued CT-P17. W0-W24 results were previously reported; we present W26-W52 findings. Endpoints were efficacy (including joint damage progression), pharmacokinetics, safety and immunogenicity.

RESULTS

Of 607 subjects who initiated TP2 treatment, 303 continued CT-P17, 153 continued reference adalimumab and 151 switched to CT-P17. Efficacy improvements up to W24 were maintained during TP2; efficacy was comparable among groups. At W52, 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response rates were 80.5% (continued CT-P17), 77.8% (continued reference adalimumab) and 82.2% (switched to CT-P17). Joint damage progression was minimal. Mean trough serum adalimumab concentrations were similar among groups. CT-P17 and reference adalimumab safety profiles were numerically similar and switching did not affect immunogenicity. At W52, 28.4% (continued CT-P17), 27.0% (continued reference adalimumab) and 28.3% (switched to CT-P17) of subjects were anti-drug antibody-positive.

CONCLUSION

Efficacy, pharmacokinetics, safety and immunogenicity of CT-P17 and reference adalimumab were comparable after 1 year of treatment, including after switching from reference adalimumab to CT-P17.

The global landscape on interchangeability of biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars hold the potential to be an integral healthcare component that can significantly improve affordability and thereby accessibility of the otherwise expensive biotherapeutic products. Regulators, payors, and policymakers, each have a major role to play in successful adoption of biosimilars. One of the issues that has been a point of frequent discussion is that of interchangeability of biosimilars.

AREAS COVERED

This article aims to review the position that the major regulatory bodies have taken on interchangeability of biosimilars. Key issues that remain are also discussed. Adalimumab and etanercept have been chosen as real-world case studies to demonstrate interchangeability considerations. The need for gaining global harmonization on interchangeability is highlighted.

EXPERT OPINION

A global harmonization on the interchangeability can likely accelerate biosimilar adoption and result in better accessibility to biologics. Experience gained with real-world studies supports switching to biosimilars from originators however post-marketing pharmacovigilance should be in place to assess the risk-benefit profile of biosimilars in the long run.

Efficacy and Safety of Adalimumab Biosimilars: Current Critical Clinical Data in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Adalimumab, as a TNF inhibitor biologic for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, is one of the top-selling drugs worldwide. As its various patents have gradually expired, experiments on its biosimilars are constantly being implemented. In this review, we summarized clinical trials of seven biosimilars currently approved by the FDA and/or EMA for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, namely: ABP 501 (Amjevita/Amgevita/Solymbic), BI 695501 (Cyltezo), SB5 (Imraldi/Hadlima), GP2017 (Hyrimoz/Hefiya/Halimatoz), MSB11022 (Idacio), FKB327 (Hulio), and PF-06410293 (Abrilada). Overall, these biosimilars showed similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to adalimumab. All biosimilar switching trials indicated that switching from adalimumab to a biosimilar does not have a significant impact on efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity.

Treatment with SDZ-ADL, an Adalimumab Biosimilar, in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriasis, or Psoriatic Arthritis: Results of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures from Two Phase III Studies (ADMYRA and ADACCESS)

Background

SDZ-ADL (GP2017; Sandoz GmbH, Austria) is an EMA-/FDA-approved adalimumab biosimilar. The effect of SDZ-ADL on quality of life (QoL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) was assessed as part of two phase III studies, one in patients with moderate‐to‐severe chronic plaque psoriasis (PsO; ADACCESS) and the other in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA; ADMYRA). Additionally, ADACCESS included patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

ADACCESS included 465 patients with PsO, whereas ADMYRA included 353 patients with RA. Both studies evaluated and confirmed equivalent efficacy, similar safety, and immunogenicity of SDZ-ADL with reference adalimumab (ref-ADL). A third of patients underwent multiple (four) treatment switches between study treatments starting at Week 17 (ADACCESS); all patients switched from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL at Week 24 (ADMYRA). Assessed PROs included Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and EuroQol five-dimension health status questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) in ADACCESS, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue Scale (FACIT-Fatigue) score in ADMYRA, and Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI) in both studies.

Results

In both studies, baseline scores for all PRO assessments were comparable between the two treatment groups. In ADACCESS, mean DLQI decreased from baseline in both groups, and the mean (standard deviation [SD]) percent reductions from baseline in DLQI were comparable between groups at Week 17 (SDZ-ADL, − 64.5 [80.3]; ref-ADL, − 70.6 [41.7]), which were sustained after the switch at Week 51 (‘continued SDZ-ADL,’ − 79.7 [36.2]; ‘continued ref-ADL,’ − 80.8 [44.6]; ‘switched to SDZ-ADL,’ − 70.7 [32.2]; ‘switched to ref-ADL,’ − 69.3 [49.6]). In ADACCESS, the proportion of patients with an EQ-5D-5L score of 1 (no problems) increased from baseline for all five dimensions in all treatment groups and was comparable between treatment groups at Week 51. In ADACCESS, in patients with PsA at baseline, mean (SD) HAQ-DI scores decreased from baseline in both treatment groups, and scores were comparable between groups at Week 17 (SDZ-ADL, 0.5 [0.6]; ref-ADL, 0.5 [0.6]) and after switching at Week 51 (‘continued SDZ-ADL,’ 0.4 [0.5]; ‘continued ref-ADL,’ 0.4 [0.6]; ‘switched to SDZ-ADL,’ 0.5 [0.8]; ‘switched to ref-ADL,’ 0.7 [0.6]). In ADMYRA, proportion of patients achieving HAQ-DI in the normal range (≤ 0.5) was comparable between treatment groups at Week 24 (SDZ-ADL, 37.8%; ref-ADL, 36.3%) and after switching at Week 48 (‘SDZ-ADL,’ 41.6%; ‘ref-ADL/switched to SDZ-ADL,’ 40.0%). In ADMYRA, mean FACIT-Fatigue scores increased from baseline in both treatment groups. At Week 24, mean (SD) percent change from baseline in the FACIT-Fatigue scores was 75.4 (135.5) in SDZ-ADL and 73.0 (96.3) in ref-ADL groups; the scores were sustained after switching at Week 48.

Conclusion

Treatment with SDZ-ADL and ref-ADL resulted in comparable improvements in PROs as well as QoL scores across the three diseases, PsO, PsA, and RA. Switching between SDZ-ADL and ref-ADL had no negative impact on PROs across the reported period.

Clinical trials.gov identifier

NCT02744755, NCT02016105.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-021-00470-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.