Efficacy, Safety and Immunogenicity of AVT02 Versus Originator Adalimumab in Subjects with Moderate to Severe Chronic Plaque Psoriasis: A Multicentre, Double-Blind, Randomised, Parallel Group, Active Control, Phase III Study

A systematic review of 454 randomized controlled trials using the Dermatology Life Quality Index: experience in 69 diseases and 43 countries

BACKGROUND

Over 29 years of clinical application, the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) has remained the most used patient-reported outcome (PRO) in dermatology due to its robustness, simplicity and ease of use.

OBJECTIVES

To generate further evidence of the DLQI's utility in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to cover all diseases and interventions.

METHODS

The methodology followed PRISMA guidelines and included seven bibliographical databases, searching articles published from 1 January 1994 until 16 November 2021. Articles were reviewed independently by two assessors, and an adjudicator resolved any opinion differences.

RESULTS

Of 3220 screened publications, 454 articles meeting the eligibility criteria for inclusion, describing research on 198 190 patients, were analysed. DLQI scores were primary endpoints in 24 (5.3%) of studies. Most studies were of psoriasis (54.1%), although 69 different diseases were studied. Most study drugs were systemic (85.1%), with biologics comprising 55.9% of all pharmacological interventions. Topical treatments comprised 17.0% of total pharmacological interventions. Nonpharmacological interventions, mainly laser therapy and ultraviolet radiation treatment, comprised 12.2% of the total number of interventions. The majority of studies (63.7%) were multicentric, with trials conducted in at least 42 different countries; 40.2% were conducted in multiple countries. The minimal clinically importance difference (MCID) was reported in the analysis of 15.0% of studies, but only 1.3% considered full score meaning banding of the DLQI. Forty-seven (10.4%) of the studies investigated statistical correlation of the DLQI with clinical severity assessment or other PRO/quality of life tools; and 61-86% of studies had within-group scores differences greater than the MCID in 'active treatment arms'. The Jadad risk-of-bias scale showed that bias was generally low, as 91.8% of the studies had Jadad scores of ≥ 3; only 0.4% of studies showed a high risk of bias from randomization. Thirteen per cent had a high risk of bias from blinding and 10.1% had a high risk of bias from unknown outcomes of all participants in the studies. In 18.5% of the studies the authors declared that they followed an intention-to-treat protocol; imputation for missing DLQI data was used in 34.4% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides a wealth of evidence of the use of the DLQI in clinical trials to inform researchers' and -clinicians' decisions for its further use. Recommendations are also made for improving the reporting of data from future RCTs using the DLQI.

The totality of evidence approach in the development of AVT02 (adalimumab), a biosimilar to Humira

The development of a biosimilar is based on comparative structural, physicochemical, functional and clinical assessments. The sum of these analyses encompasses the 'totality of evidence', which demonstrates no clinically meaningful differences between the biosimilar and the reference product (RP). Once biosimilarity has been established, provided there is suitable scientific justification, clinical data may be extrapolated to other indications of the RP. AVT02 has been developed as a biosimilar to high-concentration, low-volume Humira (adalimumab), an anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha monoclonal antibody approved for various chronic inflammatory indications. The totality of evidence for AVT02 is described, supporting its approval as an adalimumab biosimilar for all approved indications globally. Analytical similarity assessments using mass spectrometry methods demonstrated identical amino acid sequences for AVT02 and the RP, with high similarity in terms of primary structure, post-translational modifications and higher-order structural attributes. The mechanism of action was assessed by various cell-based potency assays and binding assays, and the results demonstrated that AVT02 is highly similar to the RP. No clinically meaningful differences in terms of purity, potency and safety were observed, and minor differences in a few physiochemical attributes did not impact the in vitro biologic activity and were not considered clinically relevant. Clinical similarity was demonstrated by comparing the pharmacokinetic, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles of AVT02 with those of the RP. Clinical studies supported similar pharmacokinetic and comparable immunogenicity profiles between AVT02 and the RP in healthy participants and participants with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis, with no new safety signals detected. The totality of evidence described demonstrates the biosimilarity of AVT02 to the RP, thereby fulfilling the scientific and regulatory requirements for AVT02 as a high-concentration biosimilar for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis and all approved indications of the RP.

Biosimilars in Dermatology Review

Background

Safe and effective biosimilar medications have the potential to significantly increase access to these valuable drugs. The two current biosimilars available in dermatology in the United States (US) are infliximab and rituximab which were Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in 2016 and 2018 respectively. There has been significant interest in this topic as a number of biosimilar versions of adalimumab will be available in 2023.

Objective

This review will discuss biosimilar basics and the experience with biosimilars used in dermatology in the US, Asia, and Europe.

Methods

All articles in Ovid/Medline from 2015 to Feb 2023 on biosimilars were reviewed with a particular emphasis on medications used in dermatology. Other reports from pharmaceutical manufacturers and blogs following the development of the biosimilar industry provided key insights.

Results

Biosimilars have been able to produce significant savings and market share increases, particularly in Europe, where there has been a longer experience. The specifics depend on drug prescribing practices and incentives in the individual country. This degree of savings and market share increases have not been realized with the current biosimilars available in the US.

Conclusion

While biosimilars have resulted in significant savings compared to originator drugs, it is clear that prescribing incentives and physician education are crucial in achieving these savings. To what degree biosimilar market share will increase in the US remains to be determined.

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.

A systematic review investigating at what proportion clinical images are shared in prospective randomized controlled trials involving patients with psoriasis and biological agents

For many patients including those with psoriasis, scientific manuscripts comprising clinical outcomes including psoriasis area severity index (PASI) and/or physician global assessment (PGA) may be difficult to understand. However, most patients can relate to images at baseline and follow-up, particularly for dermatological diseases. This study aimed to assess the proportion of shared clinical images in psoriasis trials. A systematic review adhering to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. The review was limited to randomized controlled trials, and among these, only investigations involving biological agents for treatment of psoriasis were included. The Embase, MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched for eligible studies published from inception to October 26, 2021. In total, 152 studies were included. When combining these, 62,871 patients were randomized. Overall, 203 images were shared depicting 60 patients in the manuscripts yielding an overall sharing rate of 0.1%. Patient images are seldom incorporated in clinical trial manuscripts which impairs interpretation for patients. Inclusion of image material would strengthen the patients' perspective and understanding on what treatment effects that can be expected. As such, this systematic review should be an invitation to the pharmaceutical industry, other sponsors, and editorial offices to improve easy transfer of information to patients using image data.

Navigating adalimumab biosimilars: an expert opinion

The patent expiry of Humira® in 2018 opened up the current European market to eight adalimumab biosimilars - (in alphabetical order) Amgevita®, Amsparity®, Hulio®, Hukyndra®, Hyrimoz®, Idacio®, Imraldi® and Yuflyma® - for the treatment of various immune and inflammatory conditions. Amjevita, Hadlima®, Hyrimoz and Yuflyma have recently become available in the USA, with others expected to reach this market in 2023 as the US patent protection for Humira ends. Although adalimumab biosimilars demonstrate efficacy, safety and immunogenicity similar to the originator, they may differ in product excipient(s) and preservatives, along with their device type(s). Physicians may find it both difficult and time consuming to navigate their way among the array of available adalimumab biosimilars when they need to make a treatment decision. This article explores the characteristics of various adalimumab biosimilars to help clinicians navigate the various options available across Europe and the USA. In addition to drug selection, effective patient-physician communication is needed to nurture realistic patient expectations and minimise potential nocebo effects when prescribing biosimilars.

Biomarkers and biologics related with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis

Over the past half century, psoriasis is considered as an immune-mediated inflammatory skin disease with the combined hallmarks of autoimmunity and autoinflammation, according to growing volumes of clinical and experimental findings. There is currently no cure for psoriasis, current treatment strategies focus on symptom control, disease minimization, and patient's quality of life enhancement. To meet these challenges, it keeps imperative to discover potential biomarkers, so that not only can they be used for the prediction and monitoring of psoriasis disease in clinic, but also can provide novel therapeutic targets or treatment strategies for psoriasis sufferers. This review systematically demonstrates the research progress of psoriasis-related biomarkers and elaborates their related mechanisms in the pathological development of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. In addition, we summarize the development of biologic therapies for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in order to drive the broader discussion of psoriasis as an autoimmune-mediated inflammatory skin disease.

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.

Assessment of real-life patient handling experience of AVT02 administered subcutaneously via autoinjector in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis: an open-label, single-arm clinical trial, then an extension phase of AVT02 administered with a prefilled syringe

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the ability of patients, naïve to adalimumab treatment and self-injection with an autoinjector (AI), to successfully self-administer AVT02, an adalimumab biosimilar, using a custom, ergonomic AI (Alvotech hf., Reykjavik, Iceland).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a single-arm, open-label study, consisting of an 8-week active period and 48-week extension phase. Patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) self-administered 40 mg AVT02 subcutaneously via AI in the active period, followed by prefilled syringe in the extension phase. The primary endpoint was the percentage of successful self-injections up to Week 8. Usability and robustness of the AI were evaluated in the active period; safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetic and immunogenicity data were assessed throughout the study.

RESULTS

The AI success rate was 100%. No handling events were noted up to Week 8. Both Ctrough measurements and immunogenicity profile were in line with expectations from previous studies, with no unexpected safety signals.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that AVT02-AI can be successfully and reliably used for repeated self-injections of AVT02 by moderate to severe RA patients, despite no previous experience of adalimumab self-administration. The extension phase provides long-term efficacy and safety data for AVT02 in RA.

STUDY IDENTIFIER

NCT04224194.

A multicenter, randomized, open-label, 2-arm parallel study to compare the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of AVT02 administered subcutaneously via prefilled syringe or autoinjector in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

AVT02 is an adalimumab biosimilar, with bioequivalence previously established along with clinical similarity. This study assessed the pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity of a single dose of 100 mg/mL AVT02 administered via prefilled syringe (PFS) or autoinjector (AI).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this open-label, 2-arm, parallel-group study, healthy adults were randomized 1:1 to receive one 40 mg (100 mg/mL) dose of AVT02 subcutaneously via PFS (N = 102) or AI (N = 105). Primary PK parameters (Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-inf) were evaluated up to Day 64 of the study. Secondary PK parameters, safety, tolerability and immunogenicity were also assessed.

RESULTS

The 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric least squares means were contained within the pre-specified 80-125% equivalence margins for the primary PK parameters, demonstrating bioequivalence of AVT02 when administered by PFS or AI. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable between the two groups, with a low frequency of injection site reactions observed. Immunogenicity profiles were also similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Bioequivalence was demonstrated for a single dose of AVT02 administered via PFS or AI. These results will help to increase availability of devices for patients, enabling treatment choice and flexibility.

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.

A randomized, adaptive design, double-blind, 3-arm, parallel study assessing the pharmacokinetics and safety of AVT02, a high-concentration (100 mg/mL) adalimumab biosimilar, in healthy adult subjects (ALVOPAD FIRST)

BACKGROUND

This study (ALVOPAD FIRST) assessed bioequivalence, safety, and immunogenicity of AVT02, an adalimumab biosimilar, compared with reference product adalimumab (EU- and US-approved Humira®).

METHODS

Healthy subjects (N = 392) were randomized 1:1:1 to receive one 40 mg dose of AVT02, EU-reference product, or US-reference product subcutaneously. An interim analysis was planned when ~30 subjects per arm had completed the study, to optimize final sample size. The primary PK parameters were C_max, AUC_0-t, and AUC_0-inf. Bioequivalence was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means for the primary PK parameters were all contained within the prespecified margins of 80% and 125%. Safety and immunogenicity were assessed until Day 64.

RESULTS

The 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means for the primary PK parameters, based on Fisher's Combination test analysis, were all contained within the prespecified bioequivalence margins of 80% and 125%, supporting the demonstration of bioequivalence between AVT02 and both EU- and US-reference product. The safety and immunogenicity profiles were comparable across all three treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

PK bioequivalence was supported between AVT02, US-licensed- and EU-approved-reference product adalimumab. Similar safety and immunogenicity were also demonstrated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov identifier: NCT03849313).