Adalimumab biosimilars, ABP501 and SB5, are equally effective and safe as adalimumab originator

Clinical experience of using biosimilars in Crohn's disease and their effectiveness

INTRODUCTION

The approval of biosimilars in the management of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) has offered an answer to a growing concern about healthcare costs, and availability of treatments. Several studies have been conducted to demonstrate proof of biosimilars effectiveness as treatment in Crohn's disease (CD).

AREAS COVERED

Since 2013, the European Medicines Agency has approved five biosimilars for infliximab and eight for adalimumab. Initial data leading to approval were extrapolated from studies conducted in patients with rheumatological or dermatological diseases, but recent studies filled the gap of clinical data among patients with IBD. In this review, 75 studies were included, with data from a total of 20 707 patients with CD. Clinical data on biosimilars in the treatment of CD show equivalence in terms of efficacy, either as induction or maintenance of treatment and regardless of previous exposure to originator or other biosimilar.

EXPERT OPINION

Since biosimilar market entry, utilization of infliximab increased by 89.9% and by 22.4% for adalimumab in European countries. With a 10-year insight since the first approval of biosimilar in Europe, biosimilars prescriptions should be implemented in routine clinical practice given the efficacy and safety profile.

Anti-TNFα in inflammatory bowel disease: from originators to biosimilars

The introduction of anti-tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) biologics significantly innovated inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment and increased medical costs. The recent expiration of patents of some anti-TNFα biologics (such as infliximab and adalimumab) facilitated the development of biosimilars. Comparable pharmacokinetic, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles between anti-TNFα originators and biosimilars were demonstrated in different studies. Anti-TNFα biosimilars hold promise for reducing the high cost of biologics and increasing patient access to biologics. In this review, we outline the current data on the use of anti-TNFα originators and biosimilars in patients with IBD, with a focus on the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles of infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars. The potential benefits, challenges, and future directions of anti-TNFα biosimilars are also discussed in the review.

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.

Clinical use of biologics for Crohn's disease in adults: lessons learned from real-world studies

INTRODUCTION

The therapeutic armamentarium for managing Crohn's disease (CD) has expanded significantly in recent decades. Several biologics with three different mechanisms of action [anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, anti-integrin α4β7, and anti-IL 12/23] are currently available to manage CD.

AREA COVERED

This narrative review aims to summarize the most significant efficacy and safety data on the use of infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADA), vedolizumab (VDZ) and ustekinumab (UST) for the treatment of CD obtained from studies conducted in the real world (RW), compared to the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

EXPERT OPINION

RW studies reported that biologic agents included in this analysis have higher remission rates and lower adverse event rates than findings from RCTs for treating patients with CD. All biological agents have proven effective and safe in RW studies, even when using biosimilars or switching to subcutaneous administration of the molecules for which they are available. Finally, anti-TNF-α agents, particularly IFX, have a higher rate of adverse events (AEs) than VDZ and UST. Therefore, patients at higher risk of AEs may benefit from other biologics than anti-TNF-α. However, further long-term RW studies are needed to confirm these findings.

An Update on Anti-TNF Biosimilar Switching-Real-World Clinical Effectiveness and Safety

Background

Biological medications for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) account for a significant burden on provincial budgets. In an effort to curb these rising costs, nationwide switching to biosimilars is expected to be complete in Canada before the end of 2023. Biosimilar products do not require the same rigor for licensing as the originator and therefore there has been appropriate scepticism as to how biosimilars will perform in real-world practice.

Methods

We have performed a systematic review including real-world observational studies of adult patients with IBD. The primary outcome was clinical effectiveness and/or safety in patients who had switched from originator to biosimilar anti-TNF. Secondary outcomes included loss of response (LOR), treatment persistence or cessation and immunogenicity.

Results

We included 43 studies (7,462 patients [70 percent Crohn's disease: 30 percent ulcerative colitis]; 32 infliximab studies, and 11 adalimumab studies). For infliximab, 75 percent patients were in clinical remission at the time of switch and 75 percent maintained clinical remission beyond 12 months, compared to 78 percent of patients who continued originator. For adalimumab, 86 percent patients were in remission at the time of switch with 82 percent maintaining remission at 6 months follow-up. Injection site pain was higher in patients who switched to a citrate containing adalimumab biosimilar, compared with those who continued originator. All other outcomes (LOR, treatment cessation or persistence and serious adverse events) were similar to patients who continued originator (in comparator cohorts or the available literature).

Conclusion

Whilst ongoing vigilance is required, these data are reassuring to both patients and clinicians and will significantly help to reduce health-care costs across Canada.

Adalimumab Persistence and Its Biosimilar in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Real-World Study

Adalimumab biosimilar experience is still recent. Interchangeability differences could reduce persistence times. Our goal was to compare biosimilar persistence differences with a reference. A retrospective observational study was performed in three groups divided according to the adalimumab received. The primary outcome measure was persistence, represented with Kaplan-Meier analysis, and we secondarily evaluated security, efficacy, and biomarkers. We obtained approval from the regional ethical committee, and the study was conducted following the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013. Data from 104 patients were collected: 50 received the biosimilar, 29 received the reference, and 25 switched from the original to the biosimilar. After a follow-up of 12 months, the biosimilar's persistence was higher, without differences in mild adverse events per group. In contrast, there were differences in severe events, with the switched group's frequency being higher. Biomarkers were reduced at similar proportions in all groups, and 43% had a clinical response at week 20 without differences. Adalimumab biosimilars are a valuable option for IBD based on clinical equivalence that are less expensive than the original drug. Their use does not have a detrimental influence on disease, although there are a few nuances in terms of interchangeability. These results support increasing confidence in using biosimilars, thus promoting the better sustainability of health systems.

Treatment persistence and switching patterns of ABP 501 in European patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Background

Approval of the adalimumab (ADA) biosimilar ABP 501 for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) indications was based on the principle of extrapolation, without indication-specific clinical trial data.

Objectives

To evaluate the real-world treatment patterns of ABP 501 in patients with IBD.

Design

Retrospective analysis of pharmacy claims data from Germany and France.

Methods

Continuously insured adult IBD patients who initiated ABP 501 between October 2018 and March 2020 were included. Treatment persistence, adherence, and post-ABP 501 switching patterns were evaluated for two mutually exclusive groups: ADA-naïve patients (i.e. no baseline use of ADA products) and ADA-experienced patients (i.e. previously treated with ADA products).

Results

A total of 3362 German patients and 733 French patients were included, with 54.4% and 65.3% being ADA-naïve patients, respectively. Median persistence (95% CI) on ABP 501 was 10.9 months (9.8-11.6) in ADA-naïve patients and 14.2 months (12.7-15.2) in ADA-experienced patients in Germany; for the French cohort, ADA-naïve and -experienced patients had median persistence of 12.8 months (10.2-14.7) and 11.5 months (8.8-14.4), respectively. During the first 12 months of ABP 501 initiation, 53.7% of German patients and 51.0% of French patients were adherent to the therapy. About 20% of patients in both countries switched from ABP 501 to another targeted therapy. In the German cohort, ADA-naïve patients most frequently switched to non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitor biologics, but ADA-experienced patients most commonly switched to reference product (RP); in the French cohort, patients most often switched to RP regardless of prior exposure to ADA products.

Conclusion

About 50% of patients persisted on and were adherent to ABP 501 therapy during the first 12 months after treatment initiation in two large European countries. Post-ABP 501, switching patterns varied between countries, indicating diversified treatment practices warranting further research on reason(s) for switching and potential overall treatment outcomes.

Real-World Experience of Adalimumab Biosimilar (ABP 501) Use in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Europe

INTRODUCTION

Approval of adalimumab biosimilar ABP 501 (Amgevita®) for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was based upon the principle of extrapolation. Real-world experience of ABP 501 utilization in IBD can provide useful information to healthcare providers and patients.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the 2020-2021 Adelphi IBD Disease Specific Programme™ conducted in five major European countries. Participating gastroenterologists completed a point-in-time survey to provide patient medical record data, and patients voluntarily completed questionnaires to report health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Descriptive analyses were conducted for "ABP 501 initiators" (received ABP 501 as first advanced therapy) and "RP-ABP 501 switchers" (switched to ABP 501 from reference product [RP; Humira®] as first advanced therapy).

RESULTS

This analysis included 239 ABP 501 initiators and 136 RP-ABP 501 switchers. At consultation, initiators had been on ABP 501 treatment for a median of 7.5 months and switchers had received ABP 501 for a median of 7.7 months following the switch from a median of 14.0 months treatment with RP. About 74% of initiators and 89% of switchers were reported by their treating physicians as being in clinical remission. Physicians and patients reported satisfaction with ABP 501 in the range of 92-99% across both groups. Patient self-assessment, including EuroQol visual analogue scale, Short IBD Questionnaire, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scores, suggested minimal impairment of HRQoL while on ABP 501. The most common reason for RP to ABP 501 switch was lower healthcare costs.

CONCLUSION

Both patients with IBD and treating physicians reported high levels of satisfaction with ABP 501 among initiators and switchers.

Comparison of Performances of Adalimumab Biosimilars SB5, ABP501, GP2017, and MSB11022 in Treating Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Real-Life, Multicenter, Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars have entered the therapeutic armamentarium of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), allowing for the treatment of a greater number of patients for their reduced cost than the originator. However, comparative data on the efficacy and safety of the various ADA biosimilars remains scarce.We compare the efficacy and safety of ADA biosimilars SB5, ABP501, GP2017, and MSB11022 in treating IBD outpatients in a real-life Italian setting.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on consecutive IBD outpatients with complete clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic data. Clinical activity was measured using the Mayo score in ulcerative colitis (UC) and the Harvey-Bradshaw Index in Crohn's disease (CD). The primary endpoints were the following: (1) induction of remission in patients new to biologics and patients new to ADA but previously exposed to other anti-tumor necrosis factor agents or other biologics; (2) maintenance of remission in patients switched from the ADA originator to an ADA biosimilar; and (3) safety of various biosimilars.

RESULTS

A total of 533 patients were enrolled according to the inclusion criteria: 162 patients with UC and 371 patients with CD. Clinical remission was obtained in 79.6% of patients new to biologics and 59.2% of patients new to ADA but not to other biologics; clinical remission was maintained in 81.0% of patients switched from the originator, and adverse events were recorded in 6.7% of patients. There was no significant difference between the 4 ADA biosimilars for each predetermined endpoint.

CONCLUSIONS

Adalimumab biosimilars are effective and safe in IBD treatment, both in new patients and in patients switched from the ADA originator. No difference in efficacy and safety was found between ADA biosimilars.

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.

Non-medical switch from the originator to biosimilar and between biosimilars of adalimumab in inflammatory bowel disease - a prospective, multicentre study

INTRODUCTION

Clinical data on the efficacy and safety of non-medical switch between adalimumab(ADA) biosimilars are limited.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate medium-term clinical efficacy, drug sustainability and safety comparing non-medical switches from the originator to biosimilar ADA, and between ADA biosimilars.

METHODS

276 consecutive patients on maintenance ADA therapy (n = 205 Crohn's disease, n = 71 ulcerative colitis) were included. Data on clinical efficacy, biomarkers and adverse events were collected at four time points: 8-12 weeks prior switch, at baseline/switch, 8-12 weeks and 20-24 weeks after switch. Drug survival was evaluated after a median 40(IQR:35-42) weeks follow-up.

RESULTS

A total 174 patients underwent a non-medical switch from the originator to a biosimilar, and 102 patients had a biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch. No significant difference was found in clinical remission rates at any time point in patients switching from originator to biosimilar(87.3%/88.5%/86.5%/85.7%) or biosimilar to biosimilar(74.5%/78.4%/85.3%/79.8%). Mean C-reactive protein levels remained unchanged in both cohorts(p = 0.856 and p = 0.525). Drug survival was similar between the two cohorts with a probability of 91.6%(SE: 2.2) and 87.0%(SE:3.4) to stay on drug after 40 weeks(log-rank:0.96; p = 0.327). Five cases of injection related adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Clinical benefit was sustained following non-medical switch from originator to biosimilar, or between biosimilars in adalimumab treated IBD patients.

A review of the therapeutic management of ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic relapsing and remitting gastrointestinal disorder of uncertain aetiology. The last two decades have seen an expansion in the therapeutic arsenal used to treat UC. This has resulted in improved clinical remission and response rates. Nonetheless, staples in our current medical management originate from trials conducted in the early 20th century. In this review article, we aim to outline the key milestones in the history of the medical management of UC in addition to highlighting promising therapeutic developments for the future.

Differential retention of adalimumab and etanercept biosimilars compared to originator treatments: Results of a retrospective French multicenter study

Objectives

Previous studies demonstrated equivalence in terms of efficacy and safety of biosimilars (bsDMARDs) compared to original treatments (boDMARDs) and in switching situations. Less is known about what happens when initiating a bsDMARD in a molecule naïve patient. The objectives of our study were to compare the retention of treatment of subcutaneous boDMARDs and bsDMARDs globally, depending on the disease [rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), or psoriatic arthritis (PsA)], molecule [etanercept (ETN) or adalimumab (ADA)], line of treatment, or presence of citrate in the context of first use of each molecule (namely initiation) and to analyze treatment retention's predictive factors.

Materials and methods

This multicenter retrospective study used data from shared medical records of the RIC-FRANCE network, encompassing the prescription of hospital rheumatologists and attached practitioners, of patients with RA, SpA, or PsA, with the starting ETN between 03/10/2016 and 31/07/2020, or ADA between 23/10/2018 and 31/07/2020. Clinical data were collected from medical records. Retention analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test. Retention's predictive factors were analyzed using Cox proportional-hazard ratio.

Results

Eight hundred forty-five prescriptions were analyzed: 340 boDMARDs and 505 bsDMARDs. About 57% of prescriptions concerned women. The mean age was 51.8 years. About 38% were prescriptions for RA, 16% for PsA, and 46% for SpA. An increase in the initiation over time was observed for both ETN and ADA. The retention rate of bsDMARDs was superior to boDMARDs' one (39 vs. 23 months; p = 0.045). When molecules are compared, the difference was significant only for ETN (45 vs. 19 months for boDMARD; p = 0.0265). When comparing diseases, the difference in favor of bsDMARDs was significant in patients with RA only (p = 0.041). Citrated treatments displayed better retention compared to citrate-free treatments (p = 0.0137). Multivariable analysis of predictive factors for the cessation of treatment found shorter disease duration, boDMARD prescription, hospital practitioner prescription, late line of treatment, and female sex as significant. More side effects were observed with boDMARDs, especially more infections (17.8% vs. 7.8%).

Conclusion

Even if bsDMARDs' prescription increases over time, its penetration rate is still below expectations. bsDMARDs displayed better retention compared to boDMARDs, especially for ETN, and in patients with RA. Citrated treatments had better retention. Prescription by a full-time hospital-based rheumatologist is associated with poorer retention.

Switching Among Biosimilars: A Review of Clinical Evidence

Biological medicines have improved patients' outcomes, but their high costs may limit access. Biosimilars, alternatives that have demonstrated high similarity in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to an already licensed originator biological product, could increase competition and decrease prices. Given the expanding number of biosimilars, patients may switch from originator to biosimilar or among biosimilars. Randomized trials and observational studies conducted with multiple biosimilars over many disease areas confirmed the safety and efficacy of switching from originator to biosimilar. This study summarizes evidence on switching between biosimilars for which there are concerns to provide future guidance. A systematic search (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) for studies on anti-TNF agents, assessing clinical efficacy and safety of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch in chronic inflammatory diseases, was performed. We retrieved 320 records and included 19 clinical studies. One study with historical control compared switching between biosimilars to maintenance of the same biosimilar. Ten were controlled cohort studies comparing switching between two biosimilars vs. switching from originator to a biosimilar or vs. multiple switches. Eight were single-arm cohort studies, where participants switched from one biosimilar to another, and the outcomes were compared before and after the switch. Overall, these studies did not highlight significant concerns in switching between biosimilars. Therefore, switching studies seem difficult to perform and unnecessary with the body of evidence suggesting no real problems in practice coupled with stringent regulatory requirements. Monitoring the use of biosimilars in clinical practice could support clinical decision-making, rational use of biological medicines, and help to further realize possible savings.

Under the Umbrella of Clinical Pharmacology: Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Infliximab and Adalimumab, and a Bridge to an Era of Biosimilars

Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) have revolutionized the treatment of many chronic inflammatory diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). IBD is a term that comprises two quite similar, yet distinctive, disorders-Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Two blockbuster MAbs, infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADL), transformed the pharmacological approach of treating CD and UC. However, due to the complex interplay of pharmacology and immunology, MAbs face challenges related to their immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safety. To ease the burden of IBD and other severe diseases, biosimilars have emerged as a cost-effective alternative to an originator product. According to the current knowledge, biosimilars of IFX and ADL in IBD patients are shown to be as safe and effective as their originators. The future of biosimilars, in general, is promising due to the potential of making the health care system more sustainable. However, their use is accompanied by misconceptions regarding their effectiveness and safety, as well as by controversy regarding their interchangeability. Hence, until a scientific consensus is achieved, scientific data on the long-term effectiveness and safety of biosimilars are needed.

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.

Nirvana: A Qualitative Study of Posttraumatic Growth in Adolescents and Young Adults with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

(1) Background: Psychosomatic discomfort is prevalent among adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Post-traumatic growth (PTG) has been a protective factor in earlier research. However, little is known regarding PTG among AYAs with IBD. This study investigates the generation of PTG in adolescents and young adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and finds positive coping skills employed in clinical nursing practice. (2) Methods: In 2021, 32 individuals were interviewed utilizing a semi-structured interview guide. This study used qualitative content analysis. (3) Results: The interviews revealed five themes: spiritual change, internalized supportiveness, cognitive re-shaping, externalized behaviors, and future-oriented thinking. (4) Conclusions: The research revealed the presence of PTG in AYAs with IBD. To give tailored care to patients, medical professionals must monitor the state of their PTG development in a planned and focused manner.

Emerging role of biosimilars in the clinical care of inflammatory bowel disease patients

The increasing incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) globally has redirected the healthcare system's focus towards safe and affordable pharmacological interventions. The inception of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) had resulted in a trend shift from surgical interventions. However, as the patents of approved anti-TNF-α drugs expire, biological copies of the many approved products are in the pipeline. The most commonly used biosimilar for IBD has been infliximab, followed by Adalimumab biosimilars which have been approved in major countries across the world. Although biosimilars are approved on the basis of similarity of their reference product, the lack of real-world evidence of its safety in ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease patients has contributed to physicians’ hesitancy. However, biosimilars are expected to reduce treatment costs and provide economic benefits.

Adalimumab and ABP 501 in the Treatment of a Large Cohort of Patients with Inflammatory Arthritis: A Real Life Retrospective Analysis

The recent introduction of ABP 501, an adalimumab biosimilar, in the treatment of rheumatic diseases was supported by a comprehensive comparability exercise with its originator. On the other hand, observational studies comparing adalimumab and ABP 501 in inflammatory arthritis are still lacking. The main aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of the treatment with adalimumab, both the originator and ABP 501, in a large cohort of patients affected by autoimmune arthritis in a real life setting. We retrospectively analysed the baseline characteristics and the retention rate in a cohort of patients who received at least a course of adalimumab (originator or ABP 501) from January 2003 to December 2020. We stratified the study population according to adalimumab use: naive to original (oADA), naive to ABP 501 (bADA) and switched from original to ABP 501 (sADA). The oADA, bADA and sADA groups included, respectively, 724, 129 and 193 patients. In each group, the majority of patients had a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. The total observation period was 9805.6 patient-months. The 18-month retentions rate in oADA, bADA and sADA was, respectively, 81.5%, 84.0% and 88.0% (p > 0.05). The factors influencing the adalimumab retention rate were an axial spondylarthritis diagnosis (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.70; p = 0.04), switch from oADA to ABP 501 (HR 0.53; p = 0.02) and year of prescription (HR 1.04; p = 0.04). In this retrospective study, patients naive to the adalimumab originator and its biosimilar ABP 501 showed the same retention rate. Patients switching from the originator to biosimilar had a higher retention rate, even though not statistically significant, when compared to naive.

Current evidence on the use of the adalimumab biosimilar SB5 (ImraldiTM): a multidisciplinary perspective

INTRODUCTION

This review provides an overview of data from trials and real-world studies available for SB5 (Imraldi^TM) across three main therapeutic areas: rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search for publications on data for SB5 efficacy/effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity was undertaken.

EXPERT OPINION

Evidence derived from clinical studies suggest that the biosimilar SB5 is a safe and effective alternative to reference adalimumab. Considering that patients suffering from immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis often require long-term biologic treatment, biosimilar medicines (such as SB5) can reduce healthcare costs while increasing access to effective treatments.

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.

Switching from Biosimilar to Biosimilar Adalimumab, Including Multiple Switching, in Crohn's Disease: A Prospective Study

No data are available regarding the safety and effectiveness of the biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch of adalimumab in any disease, and in particular in Crohn’s disease (CD). The aim of our study was to provide real world data on switching from biosimilar adalimumab to another biosimilar, including multiple switching. We conducted a prospective, single-centre observational study in which we consecutively recruited all CD patients who switched from adalimumab biosimilar ABP 501 to biosimilar SB5 from January to July 2021. Sixty-one patients were included in the final analysis, of whom 43/61 (70.5%) were multiple switches (Humira^® → ABP 501 → SB5). After 6 months of follow up, 88.5% (54/61) of patients maintained SB5 on therapy. The success of the switch (defined as no systemic corticosteroids within 6 months, non-discontinuation of SB5, no dose escalation) was achieved by 82.0% (50/61) of patients. At multivariate analysis, C-reactive protein > 5 mg/L predicted switch failure (p = 0.03). Seven patients (11.5%) experienced side effects, compared to one patient (1.6%) in the 6 pre-switch months (p = 0.03). In conclusion, switching from biosimilar to biosimilar of adalimumab did not lead to signs of safety or loss of efficacy other than those already known in the literature for the class of drugs.

A propensity score-weighted comparison between adalimumab originator and its biosimilars, ABP501 and SB5, in inflammatory bowel disease: a multicenter Italian study

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab is an effective and safe biological drug for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Nowadays, several biosimilar agents are available, but data regarding their efficacy and safety in patients with IBD are still lacking. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and tolerability between adalimumab originator, ABP501 and SB5 biosimilars in patients with IBD in the short term (after induction and after 6 months of treatment) through a propensity score-weighted multicenter cohort study.

METHODS

We included 156 patients with IBD, 69 patients with ulcerative colitis and 87 patients with Crohn's disease (CD) receiving ABP501 or SB5 biosimilars from January 2019 to April 2020 for moderate-to-severe disease. For comparison, a group of age- and sex-matched patients treated with adalimumab originator was used. We collected clinical and biochemical data after induction and at 6 months of treatment. Endoscopic data were recorded only at baseline.

RESULTS

Overall, clinical benefit was achieved by 86.4% and 85.3% after induction and at 6 months, respectively, without a statistically significant difference between the three treatment groups (p = 0.68 and p = 0.46). However, after induction, we found significant differences between the two types of the disease (ulcerative colitis or CD, p = 0.004), with a greater clinical benefit achieved by patients with CD. Also, the therapeutic optimization rate between the three drugs was not statistically significant different (p = 0.30). All treatments showed a good safety profile, with only 10 patients who needed to stop therapy because of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Adalimumab biosimilars seem to be as effective and safe as the originator in patients with IBD. Surely, they represent a great opportunity to reduce the costs of biological therapies, however larger and longer real-life studies are necessary.