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

A randomized, double-blind, phase III study assessing clinical similarity of SB17 (proposed ustekinumab biosimilar) to reference ustekinumab in subjects with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Ustekinumab (UST) is a safe and effective treatment for moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity of the proposed UST biosimilar SB17 with reference UST in subjects with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

In this randomized double-blind study, subjects were randomized to receive 45 mg of SB17 or UST subcutaneously at week 0, 4, and every 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at week 12 with an equivalence margin of [-15%, 15%]. Other secondary efficacy, safety, PK, and immunogenicity endpoints were measured through week 28.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-nine subjects were randomized to SB17, 254 to UST. Adjusted difference of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index change from baseline at week 12 of -0.6% (95% confidence interval; -3.780, 2.579) was within the equivalence margin. Physician's Global Assessment and Dermatology Life Quality Index were also comparable. Overall treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable (SB17: 48.2%, UST: 48.8%). The overall incidence of antidrug antibodies up to Week 28 was 13.3% with SB17 and 39.4% with UST.

LIMITATIONS

Data were only through week 28.

CONCLUSION

SB17 was clinically biosimilar to UST up to week 28.

Effectiveness and safety of adalimumab biosimilar in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab biosimilar MSB11022 (Idacio ®) has been approved for the same indications as its originator (Humira ®), based on findings from clinical trials in plaque psoriasis. Data on its efficacy and safety in inflammatory bowel disease, however, are scarce.

METHODS

Retrospective, observational study of 44 patients with inflammatory bowel disease: 30 were treated with originator adalimumab, 5 were directly started on MSB11022, and 9 switched from originator to biosimilar adalimumab. To evaluate the effectiveness of the use of adalimumab in inflammatory bowel disease, both laboratory markers (fecal calprotectin and C-reactive protein) and scales that measure the activity of inflammatory bowel disease using specific scales (Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI) have been usEd.) for Crohn's disease and Mayo Score for Ulcerative Colitis. Efficacy was evaluated by recording the adverse effects that could occur with the administration of adalimumab (original or biosimilar). The success of the switch was determined by analyzing meaningful differences in effectiveness and safety criteria. Concomitant therapy and the need for dose intensification were also analyzed. Objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of biosimilar adalimumab in adalimumab-naïve patients and patients switched from originator adalimumab.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in clinical disease activity (P=.317) or biochemical parameters [fecal calprotectin (P=.445) and C-reactive protein P=.661)] after the switch from the originator adalimumab to MSB11022. There was not a significant reduction in the concomitant use of corticosteroids and thiopurines (P=.157). No emergency room visits or hospitalizations were observed during the study period and none of the patients experienced serious adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Between originator adalimumab and biosimilar-start cohorts, no differences were observed, between originator adalimumab and switch cohorts, no significant differences were found either, and with the pre- and post-switch to biosimilar comparison, 2 of the 9 patients experienced AEs after the switch. The biosimilar showed a favorable safety profile (one patient with a serious adverse effect (rash) with biosimilar discontinued treatment) and no significant changes to clinical or biochemical parameters were observed after the switch.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy and safety evaluations of adalimumab biosimilars in the treatment of psoriasis

PURPOSE

We aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab biosimilar agents in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, in order to provide evidence-based reference data for clinical medicine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five databases were searched by electronic retrieval: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, WanFang and CNKI (China National Knowledge Internet). The retrieval period was from the establishment of each database up to April 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on adalimumab biosimilar agents compared with their reference agents in the treatment of moderate-to-serve plague psoriasis were included. A meta-analysis using RevMan software was applied to 8 RCTs involving 2589 patients.

RESULTS

After 16 weeks of medication, there was no significant difference in the response rates of adalimumab biosimilar agents and their reference agents defined as a decrease in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of ≥75% (PASI 75) (p > 0.05), or in the PASI 50, PASI 90 and PASI 100 measures (p > 0.05). After 16 weeks and 24 weeks of medication, there was no significant difference in the incidence rate of serious adverse events (SAEs) between adalimumab biosimilar agents and their reference agents (p > 0.05). After 16 weeks, 24 weeks and 51 weeks of medication, there was no significant difference in withdrawal rate due to SAEs, treatment-emergent adverse events and adverse events of special interest between adalimumab biosimilar agents and their reference agents (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that biosimilar agents of adalimumab have an overall efficacy and safety profile for psoriasis comparable to those of their reference agents.

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

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

Navigating adalimumab biosimilars: an expert opinion

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

Effectiveness of biosimilar adoption within a UK tertiary hospital: 6-year follow-up

Health systems encourage switching from originators to biosimilars as biosimilars are more cost-effective. The speed and completeness of biosimilar adoption is a measure of efficiency. We describe the approach to biosimilar adoption at a single hospital Trust and compare its efficiency against the English average. We additionally follow up patients who reverted to a previously used biologic, having switched to a biosimilar, to establish whether they benefitted from re-establishing prior treatment. The approach we describe resulted in a faster and more complete switch to biosimilars, which saved an additional £380 000 on drug costs in 2021/2022. Of patients who reverted to their original biologic, 87% improved short-term, and a time on treatment analysis showed the benefit was retained long term. Our approach to biosimilar adoption outperformed the English average and permits patients to revert to their original biosimilar post-switch if appropriate.

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.

Emerging Treatments and the Clinical Trial Landscape for Hidradenitis Suppurativa Part I: Topical and Systemic Medical Therapies

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is an oftentimes debilitating condition that presents with painful nodules, abscesses, and sinus tracts. This condition is challenging to treat, in part because the pathogenesis of the condition is incompletely understood but also because there are limited therapeutic options. HS research is undergoing explosive growth with multiple new molecular pathways under study, which will hopefully lead to improved disease control for patients. Part I of this review will provide an overview of the emerging topical and systemic therapies under investigation for HS.

Adalimumab originator versus adalimumab biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease in Australia

BACKGROUND

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

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Adalimumab Biosimilar Efficacy and Safety in a 5-Year-Old Patient with Severe Plaque Psoriasis During SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Outbreak

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects 2% of population. About 0.5–2% of psoriatic cases develop during pediatric age. In most cases, the condition is responsive to topical treatment. However, a small percentage of children require systemic treatment with conventional systemic drugs or biological agents, such as anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α. Adalimumab (ADA) is an anti-TNF-α recently approved for pediatric psoriasis in the European Union (from 4 years of age, 2015). CASE PRESENTATION: We describe our experience treating a 5-year-old female patient affected by severe plaque psoriasis with ADA biosimilar during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic outbreak also using teledermatology. CONCLUSION: The case reported in this article highlights the safety and the effectiveness of ADA biosimilar MSB11022 (Idacio®) in the treatment of a 5-year-old female affected by plaque psoriasis and paves the way to bigger trials for a more extensive use of TNF-α inhibitor biosimilars for psoriasis in pediatric population.

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.

A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing the Pharmacokinetics and Tolerability of the Proposed Adalimumab Biosimilar MSB11022 Delivered via Autoinjector and Pre-filled Syringe in Healthy Subjects

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to demonstrate the bioequivalence, and compare the safety and tolerability of MSB11022, a proposed biosimilar of adalimumab, when delivered by either an autoinjector (AI) or a pre-filled syringe (PFS).

METHODS

In this pharmacokinetic (PK), parallel group, open-label study, 216 healthy volunteers were randomised 1:1 to receive a single subcutaneous injection of a 40 mg/0.8 mL dose of MSB11022 administered via AI or PFS. Coprimary PK endpoints were maximum observed concentration (C_max), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC_0-t), and AUC from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC_0-inf). PK equivalence between the AI and PFS administration methods was declared if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of geometric least square means was entirely contained within the 80-125% equivalence margin for all coprimary endpoints. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The 90% CI for the three coprimary PK endpoints (C_max, AUC_0-t and AUC_0-inf) were entirely contained within the predefined equivalence margins of 80-125%. Mean serum concentration-time profiles were similar following injection via AI or PFS. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable across both treatment groups. Study device-related TEAEs were reported by 11.3% and 13.1% of subjects in the AI and PFS treatment groups, respectively. Study drug-related TEAEs were reported by 28.3% and 34.6% of subjects in the AI and PFS treatment groups, respectively. Few subjects experienced injection-site reactions, mainly pain and erythema, regardless of the administration method.

CONCLUSION

Delivery of MSB11022 via an AI is bioequivalent to delivery via a PFS. The safety and tolerability profile of MSB11022 was comparable across administration methods. The development of an AI for MSB11022 provides a choice of self-injection devices available to patients, potentially improving treatment compliance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov trial identifier: NCT04018599.

Switching from Adalimumab Originator to Biosimilar: Clinical Experience in Patients with Hidradenitis Suppurativa

Adalimumab is currently the only biological medicine approved by the FDA for the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). The breakout of biosimilar drugs made them more accessible due to their impact on pharmacoeconomics. However, packaging, formulation, or excipients are unique characteristics of each drug. In that way, switching from adalimumab originator to biosimilar and between biosimilars could have implications in the clinical practice. The objective of this study is to describe our clinical experience in switching from adalimumab originator to biosimilar and switching back again. A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted that included seventeen patients with HS treated with adalimumab originator in the maintenance phase, and that achieved Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR), who were switched to adalimumab biosimilar for no medical reasons. The reason for the change was to improve pharmacoeconomic efficiency, following our hospital policies on biologics. Median duration with adalimumab originator treatment before switching was 48 weeks. After switching, 41.2% of patients maintained HiSCR response without additional issues, while 58.8% (10/17) reported problems after the change. Switching from adalimumab originator to biosimilar in well-controlled patients could imply problems in efficacy and adherence. Switching back to adalimumab originator appears to solve most of the problems, but some patients can lose confidence in the drug and discontinue it. It would be worthwhile to evaluate the benefit–risk ratio individually when switching an HS patient to adalimumab biosimilar.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of HLX03, an Adalimumab Biosimilar, in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study

INTRODUCTION

Adalimumab has been used successfully in the treatment of psoriasis. The objective of the study is to compare the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity between HLX03, an adalimumab biosimilar, and adalimumab in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

In this double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study, 262 patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis were randomized (1:1) to receive HLX03 or adalimumab (80 mg at week 1, 40 mg at week 2, and then 40 mg every 2 weeks) for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score at week 16 comparing to baseline. Equivalence was demonstrated if 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between group difference fell within the equivalence margins of ± 15%. Other efficacy endpoints, safety and immunogenicity were also evaluated.

RESULTS

In the full analysis set, PASI improvements at week 16 was 83.5% (n = 131) in the HLX03 group and 82.0% (n = 130) in the adalimumab group, with a least-square-mean difference of 1.5% (95% CI - 3.9% to 6.8%). There were no significant between-group differences in all secondary efficacy analyses including proportion of patients achieving ≥ 75% improvement from baseline PASI (PASI 75), physician global assessment (PGA) 0/1 (clear or almost clear) and change in dermatology life quality index (DLQI) score. The incidences of adverse events and the proportion of patients with antidrug antibodies were also comparable between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

HLX03 demonstrated equivalent efficacy, similar safety and immunogenicity to reference adalimumab, supporting its development as an alternative treatment for patients with plaque psoriasis in China.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinadrugtrials.org.cn, CTR20171123 (November 27, 2017); ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03316781 (October 20, 2017).

Adalimumab and anti-adalimumab LISA-TRACKER immunoassays performance criteria for therapeutic drug monitoring of adalimumab-amgen biosimilar (ABP501)

BACKGROUND

ABP501 is a biosimilar to Reference Adalimumab (HUMIRA®) produced by AMGEN. Adalimumab (ADA) has a marketing authorization for Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis and other inflammatory or autoimmune diseases. The aim of this study was to evaluate the LISA-TRACKER assays developed by Theradiag (France), for the monitoring of ABP501 and anti-ABP501 antibodies in human serum.

RESULTS

68 ABP501 clinical samples were measured with the LISA TRACKER Duo Adalimumab assay. LISA TRACKER has been validated as suitable for quantification of ABP501 in human serum samples. Accuracy of the LISA-TRACKER was measured using 3 human serum matrices spiked with known levels of biosimilar, 3 levels spanning the dynamic range. Percentages of recovery were ranged from 90 to 120% for biosimilar batch1, and between 93 and 105% for biosimilar batch2. The acceptance criteria (CV < 20%) were met for intra-run (from 3.8 to 16.5%) and inter-run imprecision (from 4.4 to 13.9%) including the two batches. All results were comprised within ± 20% from results, obtained with the kit and sample unexposed in order to evaluate stability of the sample, stability of the kit and consistency of the results. In any case, but two, all percentages of inhibition were > 50% for specificity. Specificity was tested with Biosimilar spiked samples, Biosimilar with Humira® spiked samples, and clinical samples from patients treated with adalimumab biosimilar. All of these samples were spiked with polyclonal antibodies directed against Humira®. Specificity inhibition and specificity detection steps were also part of the validation parameters. Reagents made with ABP501 gave similar results than reagents made with Humira® meeting acceptance criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

LISA-TRACKER ADA and anti-ADA assays are reliable for the monitoring of patients treated with ABP501.

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

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

Therapeutic applications of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies: Systematic review of the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in autoimmune disorders

PURPOSE

Biosimilars are biological products that could be used instead of reference biological drugs to provide a less costly option for treating patients with autoimmune disorders. With the introduction of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies into the drug market, the main concern is confirming the similarity in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of these biosimilars with their reference products. The presence of valuable comparative clinical trials to demonstrate these similarities with analytical methods is challenging. This review discusses the similarity between biosimilar mAbs and reference products as candidates for autoimmune diseases.

METHODS

Data on efficacy endpoints, adverse events, production of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs), and neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) were collected from trials.

FINDINGS

Overall, these data suggest the similarity between biosimilar mAbs and reference products in terms of safety and efficacy.

IMPLICATIONS

Biosimilars are used in a wider range of diseases, and by examining their similarities in all those diseases with reference drugs, more comprehensive results can be obtained.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

Understanding Superiority, Noninferiority, and Equivalence for Clinical Trials

Randomized control trialsare the gold standard for testing the efficacy of new interventions. Historically, superiority trials were methods of choice as reference (standard) interventions were not established for many disease conditions. However currently, reference interventions are available for most of adverse conditions. Despite this, many investigators are using superiority trials in comparison to more suitable noninferiority and equivalence trials. The application of noninferiority and equivalence trials is on the rise, but by and large, these trials are poorly understood, ill-conceived, inappropriately analyzed, and reported and misinterpreted.

Meta-analysis and Indirect Comparisons: on Methods, Paradigms, and Biologic Treatments for Psoriasis

Meta-analysis offers a way to assess the clinical efficacy of a treatment by combining the results of randomized clinical trials while maintaining randomization; the combined effects, with their confidence intervals, can be represented with a forest plot. The efficacy of several different treatment options can be assessed with either direct or indirect comparisons. Indirect comparisons may be placebo-anchored as well as network meta-analyses (NMA) that use either a frequentist or Bayesian approach, depending on the statistical framework and the definition of probability selected. Indirect comparisons may also adjust for covariates or utilize individual participant data. Bayesian NMA are able to establish a rank order of efficacy based on probabilities or credibility intervals, which can be described by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve(SUCRA). Statistical superiority is demonstrated by pairwise comparisons, which are generally presented in league tables. This review provides clinical practitioners with detailed descriptions of these methods, drawing on examples from recently published NMA that rank the relative efficacy of biologic treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis. According to NMA findings, the four most effective treatments in both the short term (10-16 weeks) and the long term (approximately one year) are, in rank order, risankizumab (first in all studies that include it), brodalumab, guselkumab, and ixekizumab. However, the between-treatment differences are not always significant.

Metabolic, pharmacokinetic, and toxicological issues of biologic therapies currently used in the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa

INTRODUCTION

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic, relapsing, debilitating inflammatory dermatologic disease of the terminal hair follicles at intertriginous sites clinically characterized by painful inflammatory nodules, abscesses, draining sinus tracts, and dermal fibrosis. The management of hidradenitis suppurativa is a challenge and usually consists of both medical and surgical approaches, which must often be combined for best outcome. The introduction of biological therapies, specifically TNFα-inhibitors such as adalimumab, has profoundly changed the therapeutic armamentarium of the disease.

AREAS COVERED

The PubMed database was searched using combinations of the following keywords: hidradentis suppurativa, biologic therapy, TNF-α inhibitors, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, adverse effects, pharmacodynamics, pharmacology, adverse events, pharmacokinetics, drug interaction. This article reviews and updates the chemistry, pharmacokinetics, mechanism of action, adverse effects, drug interactions of on-label and off-label use of TNF-α inhibitors in HS.

EXPERT OPINION

Biologic agents, particularly adalimumab, exhibit clinical efficacy in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa. Careful patient selection and close monitoring during treatment are mandatory to provide safe and effective use of the TNF-α inhibitor. Familiarity with biologic agents is crucial because these agents could become a consolidated treatment option in the clinician's therapeutic approaches.

Biosimilar switching in inflammatory bowel disease: from evidence to clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

After patents' expiration of biological originators, several biosimilars of infliximab and adalimumab have been authorized. The approval is based on data extrapolated from other indications for which the originator has been previously tested. Despite rigorous approval processes by regulatory entities, physicians' and patients' knowledge about biosimilars is limited and some concerns about their use persist.

AREAS COVERED

This article summarizes the evidence on efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars currently approved in Europe for IBD treatment, by reviewing the literature on PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases up to mid-July 2020. Particular emphasis was placed on the need to further improve communication with patients and physicians' knowledge on biosimilars.

EXPERT OPINION

Adoption of biosimilars in clinical practice represents a great opportunity from an economic point of view, reducing healthcare costs and increasing patients' access to effective biologic treatments. Clinicians should be aware and confident of the latest evidence on available biosimilars and be very careful in communicating information to patients. Nocebo effect should not be overlooked since it can negatively influence outcomes of biosimilar-treated subjects, limiting the wide use of biosimilars. Evaluating the outcomes of reverse, multiple, and cross-switch will be a challenge for the next years.

Safety and Effectiveness of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha Biosimilar Agents in the Treatment of Psoriasis

Biologic drugs have revolutionized the treatment of psoriasis and other chronic inflammatory diseases. In recent years, many tumor necrosis factor-alpha 'biosimilar' agents have been developed. These biosimilars are similar in structure and function to their originator molecules, although they are not identical. Given that the safety and efficacy of the original biologic have already been proven, biosimilars are only required to show bioequivalence, or non-inferiority, to the reference biologic to be approved. Based on extrapolation of these non-inferiority data, biosimilars may be subsequently approved for all indications of the originator biologic, even without being directly studied in these various conditions. These biosimilar agents have been purported as a method to reduce the costs of biologic therapies, thereby increasing the accessibility of these medications and subsequently improving the treatment of psoriasis worldwide. The US Food and Drug Administration and/or the European Medicines Agency have approved biosimilars of adalimumab (Amjevita/Amgevita/Solymbic, Cyltezo, Imraldi/Hadlima, Hyrimoz/Hefiya/Halimatoz, Idacio, Hulio, Abrilada), etanercept (Erelzi, Benepali/Eticovo), and infliximab (Inflectra/Remsima, Renflexis/Flixabi, Ixifi/Zessly) for the treatment of psoriasis, and others are under review. There are many phase III data supporting the bioequivalence of these anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha biosimilar agents in treating psoriasis and rheumatologic disease, which are discussed here. In general, these biosimilar agents have been shown to have equivalent efficacy, tolerability, and immunogenicity profiles compared to their originators in patients with rheumatologic disease, although studies in patients with psoriasis are fairly limited. Additional switching studies and post-marketing safety analyses are needed to assess the interchangeability of biosimilar agents with their reference products.