Long-term safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of adalimumab biosimilar BI 695501 and adalimumab reference product in patients with moderately-to-severely active rheumatoid arthritis: results from a phase 3b extension study (VOLTAIRE-RAext)

Pooled safety analysis from the VOLTAIRE clinical trials of adalimumab-adbm and adalimumab reference product in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, and chronic plaque psoriasis

OBJECTIVES

This analysis reported the incidence of safety endpoints across five phase 3 randomized controlled clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Crohn's disease (CD), and chronic plaque psoriasis (PsO) who received ≥ 1 dose of adalimumab-adbm or adalimumab reference product (RP).

METHODS

Exposure-adjusted incidence rates for safety endpoints were calculated per 100 patient-years and reported by disease indication and treatment arm. Subgroup analyses by patient age and sex were also conducted.

RESULTS

The mean length of follow-up was 62 weeks, 48 weeks, and 32 weeks for patients with RA, CD, and PsO, respectively. Rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) and discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs) were similar among patients with RA and PsO, but slightly higher among those with CD. Incidence rates of all safety endpoints were consistent between the adalimumab-adbm and adalimumab RP treatment arms within each indication Subgroup analyses of patients with RA, CD, and PsO showed no between-group differences by age and sex.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with RA, CD, and PsO, there were no differences between biosimilar adalimumab-adbm or the adalimumab RP regarding the rate of AEs, SAEs, discontinuations due to AEs, deaths, or any AEs of special interest.

Systematic review and meta-analysis for the 2024 update of the Japan College of Rheumatology clinical practice guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article is to update evidence on the efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and provide information to the taskforce for the 2024 update of the Japan College of Rheumatology clinical practice guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We searched various databases for randomised controlled trials on RA published until June 2022, with no language restriction. For each of the 15 clinical questions, two independent reviewers screened the articles, evaluated the core outcomes, and performed meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Subcutaneous injection of methotrexate (MTX) showed similar efficacy to oral MTX in MTX-naïve RA patients. Ozoralizumab combined with MTX improved drug efficacy compared to the placebo in RA patients with inadequate response (IR) to conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD). Rituximab with and without concomitant csDMARDs showed similar efficacy to other biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) in bDMARD-IR RA patients. Combined Janus kinase inhibitors and MTX achieved similar clinical responses and equal safety during a 4-year period compared to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in MTX-IR RA patients. Biosimilars showed efficacy equivalent to that of the original bDMARDs in csDMARD-IR and bDMARD-IR RA patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides latest evidence for the 2024 update of the Japan College of Rheumatology clinical practice guidelines for RA management.

Treatment with adalimumab in patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a study of treatment trajectories on a patient level in routine care

Background

Previous experiences with non-medical switching of adalimumab (ADA) in patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases (CIRD) come mainly from phase III extension of randomised clinical trials and little from routine care.

Objectives

To analyse treatment trajectories over 2 years in patients with CIRD conducting a non-medical switch from originator to biosimilar ADA.

Design

A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted with data from a third-level rheumatology centre in Germany. CIRD patients on originator ADA who switched to ADA biosimilar from October 2018 onwards were identified and followed until September 2020.

Methods

Patients' characteristics were compared between the four a priori defined treatment trajectories 'continued biosimilar ADA therapy', 'back-switch to originator ADA therapy', 'switch to another biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) therapy' and 'stopped bDMARD therapy/death/drop out'. Factors associated with continuing biosimilar ADA therapy were analysed using Cox proportional hazards regression analyses.

Results

A total of 121 CIRD patients were included. Most patients (66.9%) continued therapy with biosimilar ADA over 2 years, with a treatment retention rate of 73.1%. Whereas 21 patients (17.4%) switched back to originator ADA, mainly due to adverse events, and 8 patients (6.6%) switched to a different bDMARD, mainly due to lack of effect. The estimated risk of withdrawal was lower for longer prior duration on originator ADA [hazard ratio (HR): 0.82; 95% CI: 0.69-0.97] and higher for higher C-reactive protein levels at baseline (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.00-1.39). Male patients, older patients and those for whom originator ADA was their first bDMARD tended to have a lower risk of withdrawal.

Conclusion

Our results indicated that three of four patients continue biosimilar ADA over 2 years with lower risks of withdrawal for male sex, older age, longer prior duration on originator ADA and originator ADA as first bDMARD.

Preparing for the market entry of adalimumab biosimilars in the US in 2023: A primer for specialty pharmacists

PURPOSE

The impact of the market entry of adalimumab biosimilars on clinical practices and specialty pharmacies is explained. A roadmap is also provided for how pharmacists can successfully navigate this landscape.

SUMMARY

Biosimilars have previously been introduced as a mechanism to help curb biologic expenditures, with biosimilars undergoing an abbreviated regulatory approval process that focuses on biosimilarity and generating product competition. Adalimumab is currently the leading product in the biologics market, generating approximately $20 to $30 billion in sales worldwide consecutively from 2019 to 2021. Many adalimumab biosimilars are slated to enter the market in 2023 and become available for patient use. However, compared to other biosimilars, adalimumab biosimilars have several unique considerations, such as interchangeability and concentration, that will impact pharmacy practices and workflows. Because pharmacists embedded in clinical practices and specialty pharmacies will be significantly involved in the processes relating to adalimumab biosimilar implementation, adoption, and use, a primer on understanding the various adalimumab biosimilar products available and considerations surrounding these products with regard to workflow and patient use is critical. Several resources are also provided to help pharmacists successfully navigate the adalimumab biosimilar landscape.

CONCLUSION

The biosimilar landscape continues to evolve, and 2023 will see the launch of several adalimumab biosimilar products, which vary with regard to formulation, concentration, and interchangeability status. Pharmacists are well positioned to educate providers and patients about this landscape and help implement an efficient workflow to support adalimumab biosimilar adoption and use.

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.

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.

Switching Between Adalimumab Reference Product and BI 695501 in Patients with Chronic Plaque Psoriasis (VOLTAIRE-X): A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

BI 695501 is an FDA-approved biosimilar to adalimumab reference product (RP). VOLTAIRE-X was a randomized clinical trial to assess outcomes with a biosimilar monoclonal antibody in line with the FDA requirements for designation as an 'interchangeable' biosimilar.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess whether multiple switches between adalimumab RP and BI 695501 lead to equivalent pharmacokinetics and a similar safety and immunogenicity profile compared with continuous adalimumab RP.

METHODS

We conducted a phase III, double-blind, randomized controlled trial between July 19, 2017, and April 16, 2019. There were 49 investigational sites across Europe and North America. Of 323 screened patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis, 259 were treated with adalimumab RP during the run-in period. Of these, 118 and 120 were randomized to the continuous or switching arms, respectively. Interventions consisted of a run-in period with adalimumab RP 80 mg subcutaneously (SC) on Day 1, then 40 mg SC every other week (EOW) Weeks 2-12. Patients were then randomized to receive adalimumab RP 40 mg EOW Weeks 14-48 (continuous arm) or BI 695501 40 mg Weeks 14 and 16, adalimumab RP 40 mg Weeks 18 and 20, and BI 695501 40 mg EOW Weeks 22 to 48 (switching arm); all interventions were given SC. Primary endpoints were pharmacokinetics parameters, area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUCτ,30-32) and maximum observed drug plasma concentration (Cmax,30-32), measured after the third switch during the Week 30-32 dosing interval.

RESULTS

238 patients (mean [standard deviation] age 44.9 [13.8]; 66.0% male) were treated in the switching (n = 118) or continuous arms (n = 120). Adjusted mean Cmax,30-32 was 7.08 and 7.00 μg/mL in the switching and continuous treatment arms, respectively; adjusted mean AUCτ,30-32 was 2025.8 and 1925.9 μg h/mL. Point estimate for mean ratio for AUCτ,30-32 was 105.2% (90.2% confidence interval [CI] 96.6-114.6), and 101.1% (90.2% CI 93.3-109.7) for Cmax,30-32. Both CIs were within a predefined bioequivalence range of 80.0-125.0%. Treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation in 0.8% and 1.7% of patients in the switching and continuous treatment arms, and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores were highly similar in the two arms across the entire trial period.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated, with highly similar efficacy and immunogenicity, and comparable safety observed in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who received either adalimumab RP continuously or who switched between adalimumab RP and BI 695501.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03210259 (registered July 2017); Eudract.ema.europa.eu: 2016-002254-20.

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.

Adalimumab-Adbm: The First Interchangeable Biosimilar for the Treatment of Inflammatory Diseases

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to review the pharmacologic and clinical profile of adalimumab-adbm (BI 695501), the first interchangeable biosimilar for treatment of inflammatory diseases.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed search was conducted from inception to December 2021 using the keywords BI 695501 and adalimumab-adbm. Information was also obtained from published abstracts and package inserts.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Phase 1, 2 and 3 studies plus relevant literature on adalimumab-adbm pharmacologic and clinical profile were reviewed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Adalimumab-adbm approval was based on a series of phase 3 VOLTAIRE trials, which evaluated the biosimilar's efficacy and safety in the treatment of moderate to severe Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis. Interchangeability status was granted based on data from the VOLTAIRE-X trial. The VOLTAIRE and VOLTAIRE-X studies demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety between adalimumab-adbm and reference adalimumab. Common adverse events included infections and injection site reactions. Similar to reference adalimumab, adalimumab-adbm contains black box warnings related to serious infections and malignancy.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Adalimumab-adbm is the first interchangeable biosimilar to be approved for inflammatory diseases and has the potential to improve patient access to treatment while decreasing medication-related costs. However, it will not be commercially available for patient use until 2023 and its adoption into clinical practice may face potential barriers seen with other biosimilars.

CONCLUSION

As an interchangeable biosimilar with comparable efficacy and safety to reference adalimumab, adalimumab-adbm is an important advance toward cost-effective management of inflammatory diseases.

Influence of information provided prior to switching from Humira to biosimilar adalimumab on UK patients' satisfaction: a cross-sectional survey by patient organisations

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the perceptions and experiences of people with specific immune-mediated inflammatory diseases during the process of switching from Humira to biosimilar adalimumab.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

An anonymised, self-administered, web-based survey.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were drawn from members and non-members of either the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, Crohn's and Colitis UK, or Psoriasis Association. Birdshot Uveitis Society and Olivia's Vision also signposted to the survey links.

RESULTS

A total of 899 people living with various immune mediated inflammatory diseases participated in this survey. Thirty-four per cent of respondents reported poor overall satisfaction with their biosimilar adalimumab after the switch, associated with complaints related to the switching process including lack of shared decision making, scarcity of information provided by or signposted to by the department instigating the switch as well as lack of training with the new injection device. Where training with the new device had been provided, there were significantly reduced reports of pain when injecting the new biosimilar (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.55), side effects (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.47) and difficulty in using the new injection device (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41). Self-reported side effects were reduced by (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.38) when written information was provided by healthcare professionals and by (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.42) with provision of verbal information. Difficulty in using the new injection device was also reduced by provision of satisfactory information such as written documents (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.63) or by verbal communication with healthcare professionals (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.73). Finally, provision of satisfactory written or verbal information was associated with a reduction in any negative perception regarding symptom control with the new biosimilar by (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.57) and by (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.84), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient reported experiences of the process of switching from originator to biosimilar emphasise the importance of clear communication, training and information in order to optimise perception and maximise achievable outcomes with the new treatment.

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.

Safety and efficacy of BI 695501 versus adalimumab reference product in patients with advanced Crohn's disease (VOLTAIRE-CD): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

BI 695501 is a biosimilar that has demonstrated similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to adalimumab reference product in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and chronic plaque psoriasis. The VOLTAIRE-CD study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of BI 695501 with adalimumab reference product in patients with Crohn's disease.

METHODS

This phase 3, randomised, double-blind study was done at 92 centres in 12 countries across Europe and the USA in patients aged 18-80 years with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease (Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI] score 220-450). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 using an interactive response technology system to the BI 695501 group or adalimumab reference product group, stratified by previous exposure to infliximab (yes vs no) and simple endoscopic score for Crohn's disease at screening (<16 vs ≥16). All investigators involved in trial assessments or procedures and all patients were masked to treatment allocation until week 24. Patients received BI 695501 (40 mg/0·8 mL formulation) or adalimumab reference product (either 40 mg/0·4 mL citrate-free or 40 mg/0·8 mL) 160 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on day 15, followed by 40 mg every 2 weeks, via subcutaneous injection. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with clinical response (CDAI decrease ≥70 points) at week 4, with an exploratory non-inferiority margin of 0·76 for the lower limit of the two-sided 90% CI of the risk ratio (RR). The primary analysis was done in a modified full analysis set of all patients who received at least one dose of study medication and had a baseline and at least one post-baseline CDAI assessment. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. After week 4, responders were treated until week 46; those randomly assigned to adalimumab reference product switched to BI 695501 at week 24. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02871635) and EudraCT (2016-000612-14).

FINDINGS

Between Jan 4, 2017, and April 5, 2018, 147 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to BI 695501 (n=72) or adalimumab reference product (n=75). At week 4, 61 (90%) of 68 patients in the BI 695501 group and 68 (94%) of 72 in the adalimumab reference product group had a clinical response (adjusted RR 0·945 [90% CI 0·870-1·028]). In the safety analysis set, 45 (63%) of 72 patients in the BI 695501 group and 42 (56%) of 75 in the adalimumab reference product group had an adverse event during weeks 0-24; 31 (43%) and 34 (45%) had adverse events during weeks 24-56. The most common drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events during weeks 0-24 were weight increase (three [4%] patients in the BI 695501 group) and injection-site erythema and upper respiratory tract infection (three [4%] patients for each event) in the adalimumab reference product group. The only drug-related TEAEs reported in two or more patients during weeks 24-56 were weight increase and increased γ-glutamyltransferase, which occured in two (3%) patients each in the BI 695501 group. No drug-related TEAEs were reported in two or more patients during weeks 24-56 in the adalimumab reference product followed by BI 699501 group. Serious adverse events occurred in six (8%) patients in the BI 695501 group and eight (11%) in the adalimumab reference group between weeks 0-24, and two (3%) and nine (12%) patients between weeks 24-56. Adverse events of special interest occurred in two (3%) patients in each treatment group during weeks 0-24 (acute sinusitis and pulmonary tuberculosis in the BI 695501 group and anal abscess and postoperative wound infection in the adalimumab reference product group) and two (3%) patients in each group during weeks 24-56 (psoas abscess and hypersensitivity in the BI 695501 group and pulmonary tuberculosis and erythematous rash in the adalimumab reference product followed by BI 699501 group).

INTERPRETATION

Safety and efficacy were similar in patients with Crohn's disease treated with BI 695501 or adalimumab reference product. Treatment benefits were maintained in patients receiving adalimumab reference product who switched to BI 695501. These results further support the existing licensure of BI 695501 as an alternative to adalimumab reference product for patients with Crohn's disease, as well as the other indications for which BI 695501 is approved.

FUNDING

Boehringer Ingelheim.

An Update Review of Biosimilars of Adalimumab in Psoriasis - Bioequivalence and Interchangeability

Biologic drugs have revolutionized the treatment of psoriasis and other rheumatological diseases. In recent years, many biosimilar agents that are highly similar in structure and function to their originator products have been developed, including the tumor necrosis factor-alpha antagonist adalimumab. The considerably lower cost of these products has greatly cut the economic burden of the patients and increased the accessibility of biologic therapies worldwide. The US Food and Drug Administration and/or the European Medicines Agency have approved eight biosimilars of adalimumab (ABP 501/BI 695501/SB5/GP2017/FKB327/MSB11022/PF-06410293/CT-P17) for the treatment of psoriasis, and others are under review. Given that these agents showed pharmacokinetic, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles comparable to those of the originator, adalimumab biosimilars were licensed for all indications approved for reference adalimumab based on extrapolation; however, some of the equivalence studies were only conducted in one or two disease populations. This review discusses the bioequivalence of adalimumab biosimilars as demonstrated by various clinical trials, the extrapolation of indications, guidance and policies of the EU and US on interchangeability (nonmedical switching/automatic substitution) between biosimilars and originators, and the real-life practices of switching from reference adalimumab to the respective biosimilars. Further data from real-world studies and post-marketing analyses are needed better to address the efficacy and safety of the transition strategy.

Comparative effectiveness of two adalimumab biosimilars in 1318 real-world patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease mandated to switch from originator adalimumab: nationwide observational study emulating a randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

In 2018, a nationwide mandatory switch from originator to biosimilar adalimumab was conducted in Denmark. The available biosimilar was GP2017 (Hyrimoz) in Eastern regions and SB5 (Imraldi) in Western regions. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of GP2017 versus SB5 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)/psoriatic arthritis (PsA)/axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA).

METHODS

Observational cohort study based on the DANBIO registry with geographical cluster pseudo-randomisation, analysed by emulating a randomised clinical trial. Main outcome was adjusted 1-year treatment retention (Cox regression). Furthermore, 6 months' remission rates (logistic regression), reasons for withdrawal and back-switching to originator were investigated (overall and stratified by indication).

RESULTS

Overall, of 1570 eligible patients, 1318 switched and were included (467 RA/321 PsA/530 AxSpA); 623 (47%) switched to GP2017, 695 (53%) to SB5. Baseline characteristics of the two clusters were largely similar, but some differences in registration practice were observed. The combined 1-year retention rate for the two biosimilars was 89.5%. Compared with SB5, estimated risk of withdrawal for GP2017 was lower (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.86) and 6 months' remission rate was higher (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.25 to 2.37). Stratified analyses gave similar results (statistically significant for RA). During 1 year, 8.5% and 12.9% withdrew GP2017 and SB5, respectively (primarily lack of effect and adverse events), of whom 48 patients (3.6%) back-switched.

CONCLUSION

This head-to-head comparison of GP2017 versus SB5 following a mandatory switch from the originator indicated differences in effectiveness in routine care. This may reflect a true difference, but other explanations, for example, differences in excipients, differences between clusters and residual confounding cannot be ruled out.

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.

Adalimumab Biosimilars in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review of the Evidence for Biosimilarity

Although treatment with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) has significantly improved clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), many patients do not have access to these treatments. As cost-effective alternatives to their reference products (RPs), biosimilars provide an opportunity to increase access to bDMARDs. The European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration have detailed pathways for the approval of biosimilars based on establishing the similarity of the biosimilar to the RP in terms of structure and function, pharmacokinetics (PK), efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. A number of biosimilars of adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept, and rituximab RPs have been approved in the United States and/or European Union. This article is focused on the seven adalimumab biosimilars. A review of the data for the biosimilars FKB327, ABP 501, BI 695501, GP2017, MSB11022, PF-06410293, and SB5 confirm that these products are highly similar to the adalimumab RP with regard to structure, physicochemical and biological properties, PK, safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy in the treatment of RA and other chronic immune-mediated, inflammatory conditions. Data from several switching studies showed no changes in efficacy, safety, trough serum drug concentration, or immunogenicity between the biosimilars and their RP.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02260791, NCT02405780, NCT01970475, NCT02137226, NCT02045979, NCT02744755, NCT02144714, NCT02167139, NCT03014947, NCT02114931, NCT02640612, NCT02167139, NCT03052322, NCT02480153. EudraCT numbers: 2012-005140-23, 2012-000785-37, 2013-003722-84, 2015-000579-28, 2014-002879-29, 2014-000662-21, 2013-004654-13, 2015-002634-41, 2014-005229-11, 2016-002852-26, 2014-000352-29.

Chinese Herbal Formula Huayu-Qiangshen-Tongbi Decoction Compared With Leflunomide in Combination With Methotrexate in Patients With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Open-Label, Randomized, Controlled, Pilot Study

Background: Traditional Chinese Medicine is complementary and an alternative to modern medicine. The combination therapies of herbal products with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs are gradually and widely adopted in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in China. Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Huayu-Qiangshen-Tongbi (HQT) decoction, a Chinese medicine formula, combined with methotrexate (MTX) in the treatment of patients with active RA, in comparison with the combination therapy of MTX with leflunomide (LEF). Methods: This pilot study was a monocenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial with two parallel arms. Ninety patients with active RA were randomly allocated to receive either HQT at a dose of 250 ml twice daily or LEF at a dose of 20 mg once daily, and all participants received MTX at a dose of 10-15 mg once weekly. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) after a 24-week treatment. Results: 84.4% (76/90) patients completed the 24-week observation. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the percentage values of patients achieving the ACR20 response criteria were 72.1% (31/43) in MTX + HQT group and 74.4% (32/43) in MTX + LEF group (p = 0.808). No significant difference was observed in other parameters, including ACR50, ACR70, clinical disease activity index good responses, European League Against Rheumatism good response, remission rate, and low disease activity rate. The results of the per-protocol analysis showed consistency with those of the intention-to-treat analysis. The mean change from baseline at week 24 for the van der Heijde modified total sharp score had no significant difference between two groups (3.59 ± 4.75 and 1.34 ± 8.67 in the MTX + HQT group and MTX + LEF group, respectively, p = 0.613). The frequency of adverse events was similar in both groups (11 cases in the MTX + HQT and 17 cases in the MTX + LEF, p > 0.05). Conclusions: In patients with active RA, treatment with the combination of HQT and MTX was associated with improvement in signs, symptoms, and physical function. With a beneficial clinical response and acceptable tolerability, HQT or other Chinese medicine formula may be a good therapeutic option in combination with MTX for RA treatment. Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trails Registry, ChiCTR-INR-16009031, Registered on 15th August 2016, http://www.chictr.org.cn/enindex.aspx.