Clinical similarity of the biosimilar ABP 501 compared with adalimumab after single transition: long-term results from a randomized controlled, double-blind, 52-week, phase III trial in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of biologic sequential treatments for moderate-to-severe psoriasis: A Malaysian healthcare system perspective

OBJECTIVE

In Malaysia, there is now a dearth of recommendations pertaining to the priority of biologic treatments for the effective management of psoriasis, given the multitude of available therapeutic alternatives. Present analysis reports results of a cost-effectiveness model that determines the most optimal arrangement of biologic treatments, with a particular focus of adding biosimilars to the existing treatment pathway for psoriasis in Malaysia.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare the cost effectiveness of various biologic sequential treatments in a hypothetical cohort of moderate to severe psoriasis patient in Malaysia over a lifetime horizon. The model simulated the progression of patients through three lines of active biologic therapy, before transitioning to best supportive care. Costs and effects were discounted annually at a rate of 3%.

RESULTS

First line secukinumab has produced lowest incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) when compared to first line systemic [ICERs value; US$152,474 (first set analysis) and US$110,572 (second set analysis)] and first line phototherapy [ICERs value; US$147,057 (first set analysis) and US$107,616 (second set analysis)]. However, these values were slightly higher than the Malaysian based threshold of three times gross domestic product per capita, US$104,337. A 40% reduction in the unit costs of reference biologics renders most of the evaluated treatment sequences cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

Adding biosimilar to the current treatment sequence could achieve cost savings ranging from 4.3% to 10.8% without significant loss of effectiveness. Given the significant impact of comorbidities and the resulting decline in quality of life among individuals with psoriasis, it may be justifiable to establish a threshold of up to US$184,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for the provision of therapies in the context of Malaysia.

Treatment Persistence and Switching Patterns of Adalimumab Biosimilar ABP 501 in European Patients with Rheumatologic Diseases

INTRODUCTION

ABP 501 was an adalimumab (ADA) biosimilar approved for treating immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). In this retrospective study, we aimed to examine the treatment patterns of ABP 501 among patients with these IMIDs using German and French pharmacy claims databases.

METHODS

Patients with RA, PsA, or AS who initiated ABP 501 between October 2018 and March 2020 and were observed continuously for ≥ 365 days both before and after ABP 501 initiation were included. Descriptive analyses of persistence and switch after ABP 501 discontinuation were conducted and reported for each disease cohort by prior use of ADA products (patients naïve to ADA or patients experienced with ADA).

RESULTS

Median (95% confidence interval) persistence on ABP 501 was 9.4 (8.6-10.3), 10.2 (9.0-11.7), and 12.1 (11.0-13.1) months in German patients, and 11.7 (9.9-13.3), 7.1 (5.8-8.4), and 10.8 (9.6-11.9) months in French patients for RA, PsA, and AS, respectively. For patients who switched from ABP 501 to another targeted therapy during the first 12 months of follow-up, switching patterns varied between patients naïve to ADA and patients experienced with ADA in both Germany and France, with patients naïve to ADA switching most frequently to other targeted therapies including non-ADA tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), non-TNFi biologic, or Janus Kinase inhibitor (JAKi) and patients experienced with ADA switching most frequently back to ADA reference product (RP).

CONCLUSIONS

Across three rheumatologic diseases, about half of patients persisted on ABP 501 at the end of 12 months after treatment initiation in both Germany and France. Patients experienced with ADA were more likely to switch back to ADA RP, regardless of indication and country, suggesting a possible nocebo effect. Future studies are warranted to understand reasons of discontinuation and switching.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Increasing Access to Effective Systemic Treatments in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Narrative Review

Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated inflammatory disease with a worldwide prevalence ranging between 0.51 and 11.43%. It results in a large clinical and social burden, with patients frequently suffering from reduced quality of life, psychologic distress and debilitating comorbidities. Biologic agents are used to establish and maintain disease control in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis and are essential to improving quality of life. However, a substantial proportion of patients have limited access to therapy due to economics, health policies and clinical considerations, which creates clinical unmet needs that disadvantage both patients and healthcare professionals. Biosimilars are a cost-effective alternative to off-patent biologic therapies, and there is mounting evidence to suggest they offer a valuable pharmacoeconomic strategy to lower healthcare costs in patients with psoriasis. Furthermore, the introduction of biosimilars can increase the number of patients able to receive biologics, allowing these patients to be treated earlier in the disease course, potentially modifying the course of their disease and reducing the risk of comorbidities. In time, the emergence of additional data, particularly those related to long-term safety, efficacy in extrapolated indications and the effects of switching, should reassure physicians and help overcome the final hurdles for a wider implementation of biosimilars. This review aims to provide an overview of current treatment approaches for patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis in the biosimilars era and explores both the current challenges and potential opportunities to improve access to high-quality, effective treatments.

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.

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.

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.

Cost per responder of Adalimumab biosimilars MSB11022 and ABP 501 versus the originator and methotrexate in chronic plaque psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Pharmacoeconomic studies comparing the cost of adalimumab biosimilars versus the originator and conventional drugs in psoriasis are lacking.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

To assess the cost per responder of adalimumab biosimilars versus the originator and methotrexate for psoriasis treatment. A cost per responder analysis comparing adalimumab biosimilars MSB11022 (Idacio®) and ABP 501 (Amgevita®), and methotrexate to the originator (Humira®) was performed. The incremental cost per responder was calculated by multiplying the cost of treatment based on the perspective of the National Healthcare System and number needed to treat for each therapy.

RESULTS

Considering the PASI75 response rate at 16 weeks, the cost per responder for MSB11022 and ABP 501 compared to the originator was € 500 versus 1,831 and € 968 versus 1,949, respectively. For the same endpoint, the cost per responder for subcutaneous or oral methotrexate was € 543 or 34 compared to 2,117 for adalimumab originator. At an indirect comparison among methotrexate, MSB11022 and ABP 501, the costs per PASI75 responder at week 16 were 2%, 26%, 27% and 50% of that of the originator, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of biosimilars was confirmed as a valuable pharmacoeconomic strategy to lower healthcare cost in patients with psoriasis.

A randomized, double-blind phase III study to demonstrate the clinical similarity of biosimilar SCT630 to reference adalimumab in Chinese patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis

INTRODUCTION

This phase III study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of SCT630 with the reference adalimumab.

METHODS

A total of 367 Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis were randomly assigned to receive 80 mg of SCT630 or adalimumab subcutaneously at week 1, 40 mg at week 2, then 40 mg biweekly. At week 16, those with 50 % or more improvement in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) were eligible to enter an extension period up to week 52. Patients on SCT630 continued the same treatment, whereas patients receiving adalimumab were re-randomized at a ratio of 1:1 to adalimumab or SCT630 group. The primary endpoint was percentage improvement in PASI at week 16. Other endpoints included PASI 50/75/90/100, Physician's Global Assessment, Dermatology Life Quality Index, safety, and immunogenicity.

RESULTS

PASI improvement at week 16 was 85.07 % for SCT630 and 84.82 % for adalimumab. The mean difference (3.10 %, 95 % CI: -1.875 %, 8.066 %) was within the equivalence interval. Other efficacy endpoints, safety and immunogenicity profiles were similar across the two groups. There were no safety or immunogenicity difference between switched/continued groups.

CONCLUSION

This phase III study demonstrated the equivalences in efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of SCT630 to adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

Efficacy and Safety of Anti-TNF Biosimilars for Psoriasis in Pediatric and Geriatric Populations: A 72-Week Real-Life Study

Purpose

To determine the efficacy and safety of adalimumab (ADA) and etanercept (ETA) biosimilars in elderly and children with psoriasis.

Methods

A real-life retrospective observational study was conducted on pediatric (<18 years) and geriatric (≥65 years) psoriasis patients treated with anti-TNF biosimilar agents referring to the Psoriasis Unit of the University of Naples Federico II, Italy, from January 2018 to January 2022. At baseline, demographic characteristics (age and sex), data on psoriasis duration and severity (measured by Psoriasis Area Severity Index [PASI] and body surface area [BSA]), presence of psoriatic arthritis if applicable, comorbidities, and previous psoriasis treatments were recorded. Patients were monitored by regular follow-ups (week 12, 24, 48 and 72) through clinical and haematological assessments and adverse events (AEs) were registered.

Results

A total of 11 children and 23 elderly psoriasis patients were enrolled. Concerning children, 6 (54.5%) were under ADA biosimilar and 5 (45.5%) under ETA biosimilar. ETA and ADA biosimilars were equally effective and safe for up to 72 weeks (mean PASI and BSA < 3). No significant AEs were reported, and none discontinued treatment. In the elderly, 15 (65.2%) were treated with ADA biosimilar and 8 (34.8%) with ETA biosimilar. ETA and ADA biosimilars were equally effective up to 72 weeks (mean PASI < 4 and mean BSA < 5%). AEs (mainly mild) were registered in 9 subjects (39.1%). Also, 4 (17.4%) patients discontinued biologicals for secondary lack of efficacy (3, 75%) or AEs (1, 25%).

Conclusion

Our study found that ADA and ETA biosimilars are effective and safe for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in children and the elderly. No statistically significant efficacy and safety differences were found between ADA and ETA biosimilars in both children and the elderly. Geriatric patients displayed a higher discontinuation rate and side effects than the pediatric counterpart even if without approaching statistical significance.

[Translated article] Practical Update of the Guidelines Published by the Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (GPs) on the Treatment of Psoriasis With Biologic Agents: Part 2-Management of Special Populations, Patients With Comorbid Conditions, and Risk

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Since its inception, the Psoriasis Group (GPs) of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AEDV) has worked to continuously update recommendations for the treatment of psoriasis based on the best available evidence and incorporating proposals arising from and aimed at clinical practice. An updated GPs consensus document on the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis was needed because of changes in the treatment paradigm and the approval in recent years of a large number of new biologic agents.

METHODOLOGY

The consensus document was developed using the nominal group technique complemented by a scoping review. First, a designated coordinator selected a group of GPs members for the panel based on their experience and knowledge of psoriasis. The coordinator defined the objectives and key points for the document and, with the help of a documentalist, conducted a scoping review of articles in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2021. The review included systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as clinical trials not included in those studies and high-quality real-world studies. National and international clinical practice guidelines and consensus documents on the management of moderate to severe psoriasis were also reviewed. The coordinator then drew up a set of proposed recommendations, which were discussed and modified in a nominal group meeting. After several review processes, including external review by other GPs members, the final document was drafted.

RESULTS

The present guidelines include updated recommendations on assessing the severity of psoriasis and criteria for the indication of systemic treatment. They also include general principles for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and define treatment goals for these patients as well as criteria for the indication and selection of initial and subsequent therapies Practical issues, such as treatment failure and maintenance of response, are also addressed.

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 efficacy and safety 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 efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2021: 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 19 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 167, and randomised participants to 58,912, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.5 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (57%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (140) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (57/167) had high risk of bias; 23 unclear risk, and most (87) low risk. Most studies (127/167) 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, except anti-IL23. 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) 50.19, 95% CI 20.92 to 120.45), bimekizumab (RR 30.27, 95% CI 25.45 to 36.01), ixekizumab (RR 30.19, 95% CI 25.38 to 35.93), risankizumab (RR 28.75, 95% CI 24.03 to 34.39). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than other anti-IL17 drugs (secukinumab and brodalumab) and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and brodalumab) and anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab) except tildrakizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents (adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept). Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab; adalimumab 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 low- to moderate-certainty for all the comparisons (except methotrexate versus placebo, which was high-certainty). 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 44.5 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 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 and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies 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.

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.

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

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

Practical update of the Recommendations Published by the Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (GPS) on the Treatment of Psoriasis with Biologic Therapy. Part 1. Concepts and General Management of Psoriasis with Biologic Therapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A new, updated AEDV Psoriasis Group consensus document on the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis was needed owing to the approval, in recent years, of a large number of new drugs and changes in the treatment paradigm.

METHODOLOGY

The consensus document was developed using the nominal group technique and a scoping review. First, a designated coordinator selected a group of Psoriasis Group members for the panel. The coordinator defined the objectives and key points for the document and, with the help of a documentalist, conducted a scoping review of articles in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2021. The review included systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as clinical trials not included in those studies and high-quality real-world studies. National and international clinical practice guidelines and consensus documents on the management of moderate to severe psoriasis were also reviewed. Based on these reviews, the coordinator drew up a set of proposed recommendations, which were then discussed and modified in a nominal group meeting. After several review processes, including external review by other GPs members, the final document was drafted.

RESULTS

The present guidelines include general principles for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and also define treatment goals and criteria for the indication of biologic therapy and the selection of initial and subsequent therapies. Practical issues, such as treatment failure and maintenance of response, are also addressed.

Long-term data on the proposed adalimumab biosimilar BCD-057 in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis: A randomized controlled trial

Introduction

The objective of this study was to demonstrate that BCD-057 is similar to innovator adalimumab (iADA) in terms of efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics in steady state in the target population of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (NCT02762955).

Methods

Patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive 80 mg of BCD-057 or iADA at week 0 and 40 mg thereafter every other week from week 1. At week 24 patients from iADA group were re-randomized (1:1) to continue iADA or to be switched to BCD-057. The primary efficacy endpoint was 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index from baseline (PASI 75), secondary endpoints included PASI percent improvement and relative change in affected Body Surface Area (BSA) from baseline at weeks 16, 24, 33, and 55. Safety was assessed through monitoring of adverse events (AEs) and antidrug antibodies. Pharmacokinetics was evaluated at steady state.

Results

Overall, 346 adult patients were included in the study (174/172 patients in BCD-057/iADA arms, respectively). At week 16 PASI 75 was achieved by 60.34% and 63.37% of patients in BCD-057 and iADA arms, respectively (p = 0.5622). Bounds of the calculated 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between PASI 75 responses in arms [-13.26%; 7.2%] fall within the equivalence margin [-15% to 15%] demonstrating equivalent efficacy of BCD-057 and iADA. At week 55 81.61%, 85.56%, and 80.49% of patients in BCD-057, iADA and iADA/BCD-057 arms achieved PASI 75. Comparison of the secondary endpoints did not show significant differences between arms. A comparable pharmacokinetics was shown at steady state. Safety profiles and proportions of patients with antidrug antibodies were similar between arms. The switch from the iADA to BCD-057 did not affect the immunogenicity profile.

Conclusion

Obtained data demonstrate that BCD-057 and iADA are highly similar in clinical efficacy, pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

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).

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

A single-centre, observational, retrospective, real-life study evaluating adalimumab biosimilar ABP 501 in the treatment of plaque-type psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in originator-naïve patients and in patients undergoing non-medical switch from originator

BACKGROUND

ABP 501 is a biosimilar to the anti-tumor necrosis factor-alfa monoclonal antibody adalimumab and despite its effectiveness and safety in the treatment of psoriasis was demonstrated in randomized clinical trials, no real-life data are available, in particular in patients undergoing non-medical switch from originator to biosimilar.

METHODS

We retrospectively searched our clinical records for all patients receiving ABP 501 between March 10, 2019 and September 7, 2019 at our Department. Therefore, we identified 94 patients, 46 patients underwent non-medical switch from adalimumab reference product to ABP 501.

RESULTS

In originator-naïve patients, mean PASI significantly improved from baseline to week 24 (p < .0001) in both Pso and PsA cohorts. In these patients, mean DAS-28 ESR improved with no significant differences from baseline. In patients undergoing non-medical switch from adalimumab reference product to ABP 501, no significant difference in PASI or DAS-28 ESR were observed from week 16 before switch to week 24 after switch.

CONCLUSIONS

AB- 501 is an effective treatment for plaque-type psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis regardless if patients are originator-naïve or if they were switched from the reference product.

The global landscape on interchangeability of biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Long-term safety, immunogenicity and efficacy comparing FKB327 with the adalimumab reference product in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: data from randomised double-blind and open-label extension studies

Background/Objective

FKB327 is a biosimilar of the antitumour necrosis factor adalimumab reference product (RP). A randomised, double-blind (DB) phase 3 study compared the efficacy of FKB327 with the RP in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) inadequately controlled with methotrexate (MTX). A subsequent randomised open-label extension (OLE) study with treatment switching assessed long-term safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity of FKB327 compared with the RP.

Methods

Patients with moderate-to-severe, active RA on a stable dose of MTX were randomised 1:1 to receive FKB327 or the RP (40 mg subcutaneously every other week) for 24 weeks. Patients who completed the DB study were enrolled in the OLE and rerandomised 2:1 to receive FKB327 or the RP; two-thirds continued on the same treatment and one-third switched for 30 weeks. All patients received FKB327 through Week 76. Long-term efficacy, safety and immunogenicity were assessed.

Results

Of 728 patients in the DB study, 645 were enrolled in the FKB327-OLE study. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response rates for all treatment groups at Week 30 in the OLE ranged from 83.2% to 85.9%. ACR20 response rates remained stable for all patients regardless of single- or double-switching treatment and were similar for all treatment sequences through Week 76. The safety profile and incidence of antidrug antibodies were comparable across sequences.

Conclusion

Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity were similar among patients with RA treated with FKB327 or the RP for up to 2 years, and were not affected by single- or double-switching treatment.

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

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, 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. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, 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 efficacy and safety 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 efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

For this living systematic review we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to September 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers to the same date. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to eligible RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse events). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons, according to CINeMA, as either 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 on treatment hierarchy: 0% (treatment is the worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (treatment is the best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 158 studies (18 new studies for the update) in our review (57,831 randomised participants, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (58%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 20 treatments. In all, 133 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (53/158) as being at high risk of bias; 25 were at an unclear risk, and 80 at low risk. Most studies (123/158) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report their source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in reaching PASI 90. At class level, in reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the non-biological systemic agents. At drug level, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab and guselkumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Ustekinumab and adalimumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than etanercept; ustekinumab was more effective than certolizumab, and the clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab was similar. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and three non-biological drugs: fumaric acid esters (FAEs), ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab, and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar, except for ixekizumab which had a better chance of reaching PASI 90 compared with secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab. The clinical effectiveness of these seven drugs was: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 50.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.96 to 120.67, SUCRA = 93.6; high-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 32.48, 95% CI 27.13 to 38.87; SUCRA = 90.5; high-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.76, 95% CI 23.96 to 34.54; SUCRA = 84.6; high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86; SUCRA = 81.4; high-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 25.79, 95% CI 21.61 to 30.78; SUCRA = 76.2; high-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.52, 95% CI 21.25 to 30.64; SUCRA = 75; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 23.55, 95% CI 19.48 to 28.48; SUCRA = 68.4; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as mirikizumab, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to moderate certainty for all the comparisons. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. 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, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the evidence for all the interventions was of low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials directly comparing active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between non-biological systemic agents and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. 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.

PASI 100 response rates in moderate to severe psoriasis: a systematic literature review and analysis of clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

Response to treatments in psoriasis can be assessed using the PASI response 50, 75, 90 or 100. Achieving a PASI 100 response would mean a complete resolution of the patient's basal lesions. Therefore, PASI 100 score has been increasingly used in the context of research, but its role in daily practice is currently controversial.

OBJECTIVE

(1) To analyze PASI 100 response rates to pharmacological treatments; (2) To examine clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommendations/comments on PASI 100.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR). Selection criteria concerned patients with psoriasis, reporting PASI 100.

RESULTS

Overall, 65 studies were included. Patients on methotrexate achieved at 16 weeks a PASI 100 of 7.3%. For TNF inhibitors rates were: 3.7-11.1% at 12 weeks, 13.7-20% at 16 weeks, 10.7-24% at 24 weeks and 21.8-34.8% at 1 year. IL-17 inhibitors achieved 23.3-44% at 12 weeks, 44.3-57.2% at 16 weeks, 39.7-67.5% at 24 weeks and 41.4-67.5% at 1 year. And the reported by IL-12/23 inhibitors were 12%/23.8% at 12 weeks, 32.7%/50% at 16 weeks, 44% at 24 weeks and 41.8%/56.3% at 1 year. PASI 100 response is scarcely commented in the CPGs.

CONCLUSIONS

PASI 100 response rate is an endpoint fundamentally restricted to research.

Drug survival of ixekizumab, TNF inhibitors, and other IL-17 inhibitors in real-world patients with psoriasis: The Corrona Psoriasis Registry

To compare drug survival of ixekizumab to other IL‐17 inhibitors (IL‐17i) and TNF inhibitors (TNFi) among patients with psoriasis (PsO) in a real‐world setting. Participants included adult PsO patients enrolled in the Corrona Psoriasis Registry who initiated ixekizumab, TNFi, or other IL‐17i between 16 March 2016 to 10 August 2019 and completed ≥1 follow‐up visit. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to estimate the risk for drug discontinuation in the ixekizumab group relative to the other drugs. Among the 1604 drug initiations, 552 initiated ixekizumab, 450 initiated TNFi, and 602 initiated other IL‐17i. Mean age was 51 years, 49% were women, and 52% were obese (BMI > 30). Ixekizumab patients had a higher proportion of patients with PASI >12 at drug initiation (24%) than TNFi (15%) and other IL‐17i (19%). Over a median of 11 months of follow‐up, 723/1604 (45%) drug discontinuations occurred. Persistence of ixekizumab, TNFi, and other IL‐17i at 24‐months were 68%, 33%, and 46%, among biologic‐naïve patients (n = 543), and 46%, 23%, and 36%, for biologic‐experienced patients (n = 1061), respectively. Ixekizumab patients had a 64% lower risk of discontinuation vs TNFi (HR = 0.36; 95% CI 0.27‐0.47) and a 31% lower risk vs other IL‐17i (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.55‐0.87) after adjustment for biologic experience and other covariates. HRs were similar when limited to patients with moderate‐to‐severe PsO (BSA > 3, PASI > 3, and IGA > 1, n = 1076) at initiation. In our study of real‐world patients with PsO, initiators of ixekizumab had more prolonged drug survival than both initiators of TNFi and other IL‐17i up to 2 years of follow‐up.

Similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the biosimilar BI 695501 and adalimumab reference product in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis: results from the randomized Phase III VOLTAIRE-PSO study

Background: BI 695501 is an approved biosimilar to Humira® reference product (RP). Research design and methods: In this randomized Phase III trial (VOLTAIRE-PSO), patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis received BI 695501 or adalimumab RP (24-week treatment). Primary efficacy endpoint: the proportion of patients with ≥75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) response at week 16 (±18% equivalence limits for two-sided 95% confidence interval between treatment groups). Safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity were also assessed. Results: Baseline characteristics were balanced between treated groups (BI 695501, n = 159; adalimumab RP, n = 158). PASI 75 response rates (full analysis set, n = 158; n = 157) were 68.2% (BI 695501) and 70.4% (adalimumab RP) at week 16 (95% CI: -14.4%, 8.7%), and 75.3% and 72.4%, at week 24, respectively. At week 24, 41.5% (BI 695501) and 44.9% (adalimumab RP) of treated patients had treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), 3.1% and 4.4% had serious AEs, and 0.0% and 1.9% had AEs of special interest. Of treated patients, 75.3% (BI 695501) and 77.9% (adalimumab RP) were anti-drug antibody-positive. Conclusion: These data demonstrate equivalent efficacy and highly similar safety and immunogenicity between BI 695501 and adalimumab RP in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. Study identifier: NCT02850965.

Challenges for biosimilars: focus on rheumatoid arthritis

Healthcare systems worldwide are struggling to find ways to fund the cost of innovative treatments such as gene therapies, regenerative medicine, and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). As the world's best known mAbs are close to facing patent expirations, the biosimilars market is poised to grow with the hope of bringing prices down for cancer treatment and autoimmune disorders, however, this has yet to be realized. The development costs of biosimilars are significantly higher than their generic equivalents due to therapeutic equivalence trials and higher manufacturing costs. It is imperative that academics and relevant companies understand the costs and stages associated with biologics processing. This article brings these costs to the forefront with a focus on biosimilars being developed for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). mAbs have remarkably changed the treatment landscape, establishing their superior efficacy over traditional small chemicals. Five blockbuster TNFα mAbs, considered as first line biologics against RA, are either at the end of their patent life or have already expired and manufacturers are seeking to capture a significant portion of that market. Although in principle, market-share should be available, withstanding that the challenges regarding the compliance and regulations are being resolved, particularly with regards to variation in the glycosylation patterns and challenges associated with manufacturing. Glycan variants can significantly affect the quality attributes requiring characterization throughout production. Successful penetration of biologics can drive down prices and this will be a welcome change for patients and the healthcare providers. Herein we review the biologic TNFα inhibitors, which are on the market, in development, and the challenges being faced by biosimilar manufacturers.

Immunogenicity of biologic therapies in psoriasis: Myths, facts and a suggested approach

With biologic drugs dominating the therapeutic space for severe immune-mediated inflammatory disease, it is critical for clinicians to be familiar with the concept of drug immunogenicity, with the potential for our patients to develop antidrug antibodies (ADA) of clinical relevance. Whilst there are clear differences between different therapeutic biologics in terms of reported ADA rates, there is no accepted dermatology guideline or grouping of drugs by risk of clinically relevant ADA, nor a consensus on approach to ADA management. This is partly because making valid comparisons of immunogenicity across drugs is fundamentally flawed: the differing types of ADA assay, trial design and included patient population - as well as the molecular structure of the biologic molecules themselves - are all highly influential on reported ADA prevalence and impact on clinical response. Therefore, the first part of this article aims to give an overview of ADA that also clarifies common misconceptions on the subject, whilst the second part of this article outlines Phase III immunogenicity data on commonly used biologics for psoriasis, the most common dermatological indication. Based on this, and acknowledging current limitations in available evidence, we propose a working categorization of biologics together with a broad approach to management: Group 1 - biologics with higher risk of clinically relevant ADA; Group 2 - biologics with lower risk of clinically relevant ADA; and Group 3 - biologics with no established risk of clinically relevant ADA. However, these groupings represent a working concept only; more research is required, using comparable ADA assays and consistent reporting of related outcomes. Finally, there is an urgent need for better characterization of individuals at particular risk of developing ADA to inform future clinical decision-making.

Immunogenicity of Biosimilars for Rheumatic Diseases, Plaque Psoriasis, and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Review from Clinical Trials and Regulatory Documents

The goal of this narrative review was to summarize immunogenicity data of biosimilars or biosimilar candidates for rheumatic diseases, plaque psoriasis, or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), available in peer-reviewed publications or regulatory documents. PubMed records and regulatory documents were searched for immunogenicity data of TNFα or CD20 inhibitor biosimilars or biosimilar candidates. Data collected included the proportion of patients positive for anti-drug antibodies (ADAbs), proportion with neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) among ADAb-positive patients, ADAb/nAb assay characteristics, cross-reactivity, and the effects of ADAbs on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and safety. We identified eight biosimilars or biosimilar candidates for adalimumab (BI 695501, SB5, ABP 501, GP2017, PF-06410293, MSB-11022, FKB-327, ZRC-3197) four for etanercept (SB4, GP2015, CHS-0214, LBEC0101), and three each for infliximab (SB2, CT-P13, GP1111) and rituximab (CT-P10, GP2013, PF-05280586) with immunogenicity data. Randomized, head-to-head trials with reference products varied in design and methodology of ADAb/nAb detection. The lowest proportions of ADAb-positive (0–13%) and nAb-positive patients (0–3%) were observed in the trials of etanercept and its biosimilars, and the highest with adalimumab, infliximab, and their biosimilars (ADAbs: ≤ 64%; nAbs: ≤ 100%). The most common method of ADAb detection was electrochemiluminescence, and ADAb positivity was associated with nominally inferior efficacy and safety. Overall, there were no significant immunogenicity differences between biosimilars and reference products. However, there are many discrepancies in assessing and reporting clinical immunogenicity. In conclusion, immunogenicity data of biosimilars or biosimilar candidates for TNFα or CD20 inhibitors were collected in trials that varied in design and procedures for ADAb/nAb detection. In general, immunogenicity parameters of biosimilars are similar to those of their reference products.

The Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of Switching Between Reference Biopharmaceuticals and Biosimilars: A Systematic Review

To date, no consensus exists among stakeholders about switching patients between reference biological products (RPs) and biosimilars, which may have been curbing the implementation of biosimilars in clinical practice. This study synthesizes the available data on switching and assesses whether switching patients from a RP to its biosimilar or vice versa affects efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity outcomes. A total of 178 studies, in which switch outcomes from a RP to a biosimilar were reported, was identified. Data were derived from both randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence. Despite the limitations stemming from a lack of a robust design for most of the studies, the available switching data do not indicate that switching from a RP to a biosimilar is associated with any major efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity issues. Some open-label and observational studies reported increased discontinuation rates after switching, which were mainly attributed to nocebo effects. Involvement of the prescriber in any decision to switch should remain and attention should be paid to the mitigation of a potential nocebo effect.

Belgian IBD Research Group [BIRD] Position Statement 2019 on the Use of Adalimumab Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

The emergence of biosimilars is generally considered as an opportunity to guarantee accessibility to affordable treatments and to enhance financial sustainability of national health systems. Since 2017, five biosimilars of adalimumab were approved by the European Medicines Agency [EMA] for use in inflammatory bowel disease: ABP 510, SB5, GP2017, FKB327, and MSB11022. In this position statement, the available efficacy and safety data of the different adalimumab biosimilars in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are summarised. Furthermore, the Belgian IBD research group [BIRD] formulates statements concerning the use of adalimumab biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease.

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

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, 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. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, 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. This is the baseline update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017, in preparation for this Cochrane Review becoming a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our research using the following databases to January 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings. We also searched five trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports (until June 2019). We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse effects (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 140 studies (31 new studies for the update) in our review (51,749 randomised participants, 68% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (59%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 19 treatments. In all, 117 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (57/140) as being at high risk of bias; 42 were at an unclear risk, and 41 at low risk. Most studies (107/140) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report the source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90. At class level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, infliximab, all of the anti-IL17 drugs (ixekizumab, secukinumab, bimekizumab and brodalumab) and the anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab, but not tildrakizumab) were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and 3 anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept. Adalimumab and ustekinumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than certolizumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and between two conventional drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness for these seven drugs was similar: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 29.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.94 to 43.70, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 88.5; moderate-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.12, 95% CI 23.17 to 34.12, SUCRA = 88.3, moderate-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 27.67, 95% CI 22.86 to 33.49, SUCRA = 87.5, high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86, SUCRA = 83.5, low-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.84, 95% CI 20.90 to 31.95; SUCRA = 81; moderate-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 23.97, 95% CI 20.03 to 28.70, SUCRA = 75.4; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 21.96, 95% CI 18.17 to 26.53, SUCRA = 68.7; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just under half of the treatment estimates in total, and moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were very 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, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab were the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence (low-certainty evidence for bimekizumab). This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, but the evidence for all the interventions was of very low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. 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.

SB5 shows cross-immunogenicity to adalimumab but not infliximab: results in patients with inflammatory bowel disease or rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

The primary objective of this study was to analyze the cross-reactivity of antidrug antibodies to reference adalimumab (ADL) and SB5 (adalimumab biosimilar) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Sera from patients with IBD and RA with or without antibodies to adalimumab (ATA+ or ATA-, respectively) were tested for cross-reactivity with SB5 and ADL. Functional inhibition of tumor necrosis factor-α binding was measured. Sera from patients with antibodies to reference infliximab (ATI+) were examined for cross-reactivity to SB5. Sera were tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

RESULTS

All 30 anti-ADL ATA+ sera from patients with IBD and all 4 anti-SB5 ATA+ sera from patients with RA were cross-reactive with ADL and SB5 (range of mean concentrations: IBD, 20.99-21.31 μg/ml; RA, 16.46-17.48 μg/ml). In general, there was no significant difference between mean ATA titers. A strong correlation was detected in all ATA+ samples (rho = 0.997 to >0.999; p < 0.001 each). However, ATA- sera were not reactive to either ADL or SB5. anti-ADL ATA+ sera similarly neutralized functional activity of ADL and SB5; no functional inhibition was observed with ATA- sera. ATI+ sera did not cross-react with SB5.

CONCLUSIONS

ADL and SB5 show cross-immunogenicity in sera from patients with IBD or RA, supporting shared immune-dominant epitopes. ATI+ sera did not cross-react with SB5, suggesting different immunogenic epitopes between infliximab and SB5.

AURIEL-PsO: a randomized, double-blind phase III equivalence trial to demonstrate the clinical similarity of the proposed biosimilar MSB11022 to reference adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis

BACKGROUND

MSB11022 is a proposed adalimumab biosimilar.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of MSB11022 with reference adalimumab.

METHODS

AURIEL-PsO was a double-blind randomized controlled equivalence trial, in which patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis were randomized 1 : 1 to MSB11022 or reference adalimumab. The primary end point was ≥ 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) at week 16, with a prespecified equivalence interval of ± 18%. Patients with a ≥50% improvement in PASI at week 16 were eligible to enter a double-blind extension period: patients receiving MSB11022 continued treatment, and patients receiving reference adalimumab were rerandomized 1 : 1 either to continue reference adalimumab or to switch to MSB11022. Other efficacy end points and safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated at scheduled visits up to weeks 52 (efficacy and immunogenicity), 54 and 66 (safety).

RESULTS

In total, 443 patients were randomized. The difference in PASI 75 response rates at week 16 between the treatment arms was -1·9%, and the 95% confidence interval (-7·8% to 4·1%) was within the prespecified equivalence interval. No notable difference in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was observed between treatment arms up to the end of the trial, and no new safety signals were observed. Following treatment switch at week 16, no clinically meaningful differences in safety or immunogenicity were seen between treatment arms through to the end of the observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic equivalence between MSB11022 and reference adalimumab was demonstrated. AURIEL-PsO provides evidence to support the similarity of both products with regard to efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. What's already known about this topic? Adalimumab is a fully human antitumour necrosis factor-α monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of multiple inflammatory disorders, including psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel diseases and ankylosing spondylitis. MSB11022 is a proposed adalimumab biosimilar that has shown structural and functional similarity to the reference product in an extensive analytical comparability exercise. MSB11022 has demonstrated bioequivalence and comparable safety and immunogenicity profiles in a phase I study in healthy volunteers. What does this study add? This phase III study confirmed equivalent efficacy for MSB11022 and reference adalimumab in patients without any immunomodulation comedication in moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis at week 16. The efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of MSB11022 and reference adalimumab were similar over the respective observation periods (week 52 for efficacy and immunogenicity, week 66 for safety). A switch from reference adalimumab to MSB11022 at week 16 did not impact efficacy, safety or immunogenicity.

IBI303, a biosimilar to adalimumab, for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis in China: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 equivalence trial

BACKGROUND

China approved adalimumab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in 2013. However, the cost of the standard dose regimen exceeds ¥15 000 (around US$2250) per month, which is well beyond affordability for most Chinese patients. No biosimilars of adalimumab are available in China; IBI303 is a monoclonal antibody against TNFα that is currently in development. This study aimed to assess the clinical equivalence of IBI303 to adalimumab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

METHODS

This phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel, randomised controlled equivalence trial was done in 20 centers across China. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 40 mg of IBI303 or 40 mg of adalimumab as a subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks until week 22. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were between 18 and 65 years old, fulfilled the 1984 Modified New York Criteria for ankylosing spondylitis, were non-responders, inadequate responders, or intolerant to treatment with NSAIDs for 4 or more weeks, and had active ankylosing spondylitis defined by two or more indicators of disease severity. The investigators, site staff, patients, sponsors, and the contract research organisation were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who met the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) Response Criteria for a 20% improvement (ASAS20) at week 24 after treatment. Equivalence was established if the 95% CI of the difference in responses between groups was between -15% and 15%. Efficacy analyses were done in the full analysis population and in the per-protocol population. Safety analyses were done in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one drug dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02893254.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 22, 2016, and May 11, 2018, 438 patients were randomly allocated either to the biosimilar IBI303 group (n=220) or the adalimumab group (n=218). In the full analysis population, 165 (75%) of 220 patients in the IBI303 group (95% CI 68·7-80·6) and 158 (72%) of 218 patients in the adalimumab group (66·0-78·3) reached the primary outcome of ASAS20 at week 24. The difference between the two groups was 2·3% with a 95% CI of -5·9 to 10·6, which fell within the pre-specified equivalence boundaries at week 24 (-15 to 15). In the per-protocol population, 163 (80%) of 203 patients in the IBI303 group reached ASAS20 at week 24 (95% CI 74·1-85·5), compared with 150 (80%) of 188 patients in the adalimumab group (73·3-85·3%). The difference between the groups was 0·6% with a 95% CI of -7·4 to 8·6%, which also fell within the pre-specified equivalence boundaries at week 24. Safety and tolerability profiles were similar between the two groups; 174 (79%) of 220 patients in the IBI303 group and 178 (82%) of 218 patients in the adalimumab group had treatment-emergent adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

This trial showed therapeutic equivalence of IBI303 and adalimumab in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. The efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of both drugs are highly similar. IBI303 could be an alternative treatment option for patients with ankylosing spondylitis in China.

FUNDING

Innovent Biologics, National Major Scientific and Technological Special Project for "Significant New Drugs Development".

Regulatory Perspectives on Biopharmaceuticals for Chronic Inflammatory Diseases in North Africa: A Narrative Review

Introduction of innovative biopharmaceuticals has dramatically changed the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases, but access to these very effective agents may be limited by economic constraints in some regions. The development of biosimilar products at a lower cost may allow wider access to treatment, but rigorous scientific evaluation is required to ensure similar quality, efficacy, and safety. The World Health Organization, European Medicines Agency, and United States Food and Drug Administration have created stringent guidelines for biosimilar regulatory approval, stipulating that high similarity be demonstrated in comprehensive comparability studies. Although these regulatory standards have been adapted in many countries, the legal/regulatory frameworks required for biosimilar authorization remain in development elsewhere, including North Africa. In some countries, “intended copies” are available despite inadequate evidence of comparability to the reference product and failure to satisfy biosimilar regulatory requirements. In North Africa, as the regulatory pathway for biosimilars is established, regulators will address several important challenges, including criteria for comparability, switching/substitution, post-marketing monitoring/risk management, and product naming conventions. Caution is advised to ensure that lower cost and broader access are not achieved at the expense of patient safety, and educational initiatives should be undertaken for clinicians/patients. In this review, we define the various types of biopharmaceuticals currently available for the treatment of chronic inflammatory disease, provide an overview of regulatory requirements for biosimilar approval and an update on the availability of these agents globally and in North Africa, and discuss crucial concerns related to their use from the viewpoint of North African rheumatologists.

Assessing the relative efficacy of interleukin-17 and interleukin-23 targeted treatments for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of PASI response

INTRODUCTION

New generation biologics, including interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 inhibitors, have delivered higher rates of skin clearance than older treatments in head-to-head studies. However, studies comparing these new biologics directly to one another are limited.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the short-term efficacy of available (or imminently available) biologic and non-biologic systemic therapies for treating patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating biologic treatments, apremilast and dimethyl fumarate. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched from the 1st January 2000 to 22nd November 2018. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) using a random-effects multinomial likelihood model with probit link and meta-regression to adjust for cross-trial variation in placebo responses compared the efficacy of interventions at inducing different levels of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response during the induction period. A range of sensitivity analyses was undertaken.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven trials (34,816 patients) were included in the NMA. The base-case analysis showed that all active treatments were superior to placebo. IL-17 inhibitors, guselkumab and risankizumab were found to be more efficacious than tildrakizumab, ustekinumab, all TNF inhibitors and non-biologic systemic treatments at inducing all levels of PASI response. In addition, brodalumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab were significantly more efficacious than secukinumab; no significant difference was found in the comparison with guselkumab. The greatest benefit of brodalumab, ixekizumab, guselkumab, and risankizumab was seen for PASI 90 and PASI 100 response. Results were consistent across all analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In the NMA brodalumab, ixekizumab, risankizumab and guselkumab showed the highest levels of short-term efficacy. There were differences in efficacy between treatments within the same class. Longer-term analyses are needed to understand differences between these drugs beyond induction in what is a life-long condition.

A Review of the Totality of Evidence Supporting the Development of the First Adalimumab Biosimilar ABP 501

ABP 501 [United States: AMJEVITA™ (adalimumab-atto); European Union: AMGEVITA® (adalimumab)] is the first approved biosimilar to adalimumab [reference product (RP)], a monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting tumor necrosis factor-alfa (TNF-α). ABP 501 has received approval for use in indications that adalimumab RP is approved for, except those protected by regulatory exclusivity. A systematic step-wise totality of evidence (TOE) approach formed the basis of approval of ABP 501; this involved methodical accumulation of scientifically robust comparative data supporting similarity in analytical, preclinical, and clinical [pharmacokinetics (PK)], efficacy, safety and immunogenicity) evaluations. As a foundational first step, comprehensive analytical assessments demonstrated that ABP 501 is structurally and functionally similar to adalimumab RP in critical quality attributes. Preclinical assessments confirmed similar activity in assessing mechanisms of action and toxicology. Clinical evaluation included a phase 1 PK equivalence study in healthy subjects and two comparative phase 3 studies that evaluated ABP 501 and adalimumab RP in two sensitive patient populations, plaque psoriasis (PsO) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The PK profiles of ABP 501 and adalimumab RP were similar in healthy subjects as well as patients with PsO and RA. The pivotal phase 3 study in patients with PsO demonstrated that ABP 501 was clinically similar to adalimumab RP in terms of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in both the primary and transition phases. The pivotal phase 3 study in patients with RA also established clinical similarity between ABP 501 and adalimumab RP; an open-label extension of this study demonstrated sustained efficacy over an additional 72 weeks, with no new safety or immunogenicity concerns with ABP 501 treatment. Overall, the TOE supported the conclusion that ABP 501 is highly similar to adalimumab RP and provided scientific justification for extrapolation to all the approved indications of adalimumab RP not protected by exclusivities.Funding: Amgen Inc.