FKB327, an adalimumab biosimilar, versus the reference product: results of a randomized, Phase III, double-blind study, and its open-label extension

Survey of Data Package and Sample Size of Comparative Clinical Studies for Biosimilar Developments from PMDA Assessments

BACKGROUND

The Japanese biosimilar guideline requires that the sponsors conduct clinical studies such as comparative pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD), or efficacy studies. In each biosimilar development, the sponsors consider the clinical data package, and thus clinical data packages vary among biosimilar developments.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to elucidate the clinical data packages for the biosimilars approved in Japan. The details of clinical data packages and sample size for the regulatory approvals of biosimilars in Japan was reported.

METHODS

We surveyed the clinical data packages and sample size based on the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) website review reports between 2009 and 2023.

RESULTS

Twenty-four biosimilars have been approved based on the comparative PK and efficacy studies, 10 biosimilars have been approved based on the comparative PK/PD study, and one biosimilar has been approved based on the comparative efficacy study. Regarding the sample size, comparative PK studies were conducted in healthy volunteers or patients for up to 300 cases, although the majority enrolled only 1-100 cases (68.1%, 32/47). Comparative PD studies enrolling 1-30, 31-60, and 61-90 cases totaled 4, 7, and 4 cases, respectively. Finally, comparative efficacy studies enrolling 1-300, 301-600, and 601-900 totaled 6, 10, and 11 cases, respectively. In particular, the oncology and rheumatology areas were the first and second disease areas recruiting 601-900 patients.

CONCLUSION

Large numbers of patients were enrolled to conduct a comparative efficacy study. Efficient biosimilar development should be considered on the basis of the accumulation of scientific understanding of comparable features of biosimilars and their development.

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.

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Design

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

PURPOSE

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

SUMMARY

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

CONCLUSION

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

Impact of switching between reference biologics and biosimilars of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

What is the impact of switching between biologics and biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on efficacy and safety for rheumatoid arthritis? A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed to compare switching and non-switching groups of treatments. Pooled Risk Relative (RR) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs) were obtained. Seventeen randomized trials with a switching phase involving 6,562 patients were included. Results showed that a single switch from biologics to biosimilars compared to continuing biologics had comparable effects for primary and co-primary outcomes, the American College of Rheumatology criteria with 20% response (ACR20) (7 trials, 1,926 patients, RR 0.98, 95% CrIs 0.93 to 1.03) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (5 trials, 1,609 patients, SMD - 0.07, 95% CrIs - 0.23 to 0.1), and within the equivalence margins: ACR20 [RR 0.94, 1.06] and HAQ-DI [SMD - 0.22, 0.22]. The risk of treatment-emergent adverse events, discontinuation, and positive anti-drug antibodies were comparable after switching. Safety results were imprecise, and the follow-up period might not be sufficient to evaluate long-term effects, especially malignancies. Overall, the practice of single switching between approved biologics and biosimilars of Tumour Necrosis Factor inhibitors is efficacious and safe for rheumatoid arthritis.

Real-life data on efficacy and safety of original Adalimumab and biosimilar Adalimumab (ABP 501) in pediatric rheumatic diseases

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the original product (OP) and biosimilar product (BP) of adalimumab in pediatric rheumatic diseases.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study group consisted of patients who had received original or biosimilar adalimumab (ABP 501) therapy for at least 3 months. The patients were divided into uveitis and arthritis groups based on the indication of adalimumab treatment. Assessment of disease activity was performed by Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and by standardization of uveitis nomenclature criteria in patients with uveitis.

RESULTS

The study included 140 patients, of which 87 were treated with OP and 53 with BP. In the arthritis group, 26 (63.4%) and 20 (57.1%) patients reached inactive disease according to JADAS-27 in the original and biosimilar adalimumab groups, respectively. In the uveitis group the mean number of exacerbations throughout the treatment period was 0.84 ± 1.07 in the OP group, and 0.58 ± 0.79 in the BP group. There were 71 treatment-emergent adverse events in the OP group and 38 in the BP group.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between the biosimilar and the original product in efficacy and safety.

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.

Comparative efficacy and safety of adalimumab biosimilars and adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis presenting an insufficient response to methotrexate: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the relative efficacy and safety of adalimumab and biosimilars in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) presenting an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining efficacy and safety of adalimumab biosimilars versus adalimumab in patients with active RA despite MTX therapy.

RESULTS

Overall, 8 RCTs involving 3577 patients, including 8 biologic types, met the inclusion criteria. MSB11022 is listed at the top left of the diagonal of the league table, as it was associated with the most favorable surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response rate; FKB327 is listed at the bottom right of the diagonal of the league table, as it was associated with the least favorable results. Based on SUCRA, MSB11022 presented the highest probability of being the best treatment for achieving the ACR20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.623), followed by PF-06410293, CinnoRA, BI 695501, ABP 50, Exemptia, SB5, adalimumab, and FKB327 (SUCRA = 0.390); no difference was observed in ACR20 response rates between biosimilars and adalimumab. Although statistically non-significant, differences in safety ranking were observed for serious adverse events (SAEs) among the interventions, with MSB11022 presenting the highest probability of being safe (SUCRA = 0.865) and Exemptia the lowest (SUCRA = 0.300).

CONCLUSION

No significant difference was detected between adalimumab biosimilars and the originator in terms of ACR20 response rates and SAEs in the studied patients.

Korean clinical practice guidelines on biologics and small molecules for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis

Ulcerative colitis (UC), a relapsing-remitting chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), has a variable natural course but potentially severe disease course. Since the development of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents has changed the natural disease course of moderate-to-severe UC, therapeutic options for patients who failed conventional treatments are expanding rapidly. IBD clinical trials have demonstrated the potential efficacy and safety of novel biologics such as anti-integrin α4β7 and anti-interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibodies and small molecules such as a Janus kinase inhibitor. Anti-TNF biosimilars also have been approved and are widely used in IBD patients. Wise drug choices should be made considering evidence-based efficacy and safety. However, the best position of these drugs remains several questions, with limited data from direct comparative trials. In addition, there are still concerns to be elucidated on the effect of therapeutic drug monitoring and combination therapy with immunomodulators. The appropriate treatment regimens in acute severe UC and the risk of perioperative use of biologics are unclear. As novel biologics and small molecules have been approved in Korea, we present the Korean guidelines for medical management of adult outpatients with moderate-to-severe UC and adult hospitalized patients with acute severe UC, focusing on biologics and small molecules.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Original and Biosimilar Adalimumab in Active Rheumatoid Arthritis in a Real-World National Cohort

Background and Objectives: Real-world evidence should reflect the evidence obtained from controlled trials; therefore, the study aimed to compare biosimilar adalimumab (bADA) to original adalimumab (oADA) in terms of efficacy and safety in a real-life national cohort of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Materials and Methods: The following study is a prospective observational study in which we analyzed patients treated with reimbursed biologics from the Romanian Registry of Rheumatic Diseases (RRBR). RA cases must fulfill the 2010 classification criteria, as well as specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The RRBR database was queried for all RA patients starting oADA or bADA (FKB327, GP2017, MSB11022, SB5 available) from 2 May 2019 (the first bADA initiation) until 26 March 2022 (study search date). Results: The study included 441 patients who started oADA (48.3%) or bADA (51.7%) in the same time period. At baseline, patients starting bADA had a significantly higher mean age and lower prevalence of women. After the first six months of treatment, there were no significant differences between the oADA and bADA regarding rates of Boolean (15.0% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.401), DAS28-CRP (32.4% vs. 34.2%, p = 0.686) and SDAI (16.4% vs. 14.0%, p = 0.483) remission rates. There were 107 cases of adverse events (AE): 81.3% on oADA and 18.7% on bADA. Notably, 51.4% of AE were infections. Regarding severity, 49.5% of AEs were mild, 34.6% were moderate, and 15.9% were severe. Conclusion: Biosimilar adalimumab showed similar efficacy and safety to original adalimumab after the first six months of treatment in RA patients from a national registry.

The economic burden of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis patients in the United States

BACKGROUND

Previous U.S. economic burden estimates for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) varied from $85.6 to 148.1 billion annually. However, these estimates do not reflect comparative amounts spent on RA treatment options in addition to other medical expenditures. Therefore, this study's goal was to comparatively analyze the overall economic burden of U.S. patients treated for RA using conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) versus TNF alpha biologic DMARDs.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective observational study analyzed Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component data from 2016 to 2018. Healthcare utilization, total medical expenditures, and out-of-pocket expenditures were compared between RA medication groups.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-five adult RA patients experiencing 603 RA-related events, including at least one medical visit, between 2016 and 2018 were identified. Rheumatic arthritis-attributable medical expenditures among patients prescribed DMARDs were $11.4 billion. Average total medical expenditures were significantly higher for the TNF alpha biologic group $26,216.67 (95% CI: $19,502.84-$32,930.5) versus $5,388.52 (95% CI: $2,768.25-$8,008.79) for the conventional DMARD group (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RA patients receiving TNF alpha biologics experienced significantly higher total medical and out-of-pocket expenditures; however, they have experienced fewer or no occurrences of high-cost drivers of healthcare utilization compared to patients receiving conventional DMARDs.

Adalimumab biosimilars in the therapy of Crohn´s disease and ulcerative colitis: Prospective multicentric clinical monitoring

Objective

The adalimumab biosimilars FKB327 and GP2017 were approved for the therapy of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Relatively few prospective studies with biosimilar adalimumab in patients with IBD have been published. The aim of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the biosimilar adalimumab.

Material and methods

Adalimumab biosimilars FKB327 (Hulio^®) and GP2017 (Hyrimoz^®) were indicated to 50 naive patients in terms of biological therapy with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC). Effectiveness of therapy was evaluated via the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index [CDAI] or the Mayo Scoring System [MSS] in patients with CD or UC, respectively, before and after 12 weeks. Additional goals were to evaluate weight changes, laboratory tests and complications or adverse events of this therapy.

Results

In CD patients, remission (CDAI <150) was achieved in 73.5% of cases, partial response (≥70-point decrease in CDAI score from baseline) in 11.8%, no response in 11.8% and 2.9% patients discontinued therapy. In UC patients, remission (total score on partial Mayo index ≤2 points) was achieved only in 18.8% of cases, partial response (≥2-point decrease in partial Mayo score from baseline) in 43.8%, no response in 25.0% and 12.5% patients discontinued therapy. There were statistically significant improvements in CDAI, MSS, haemoglobin, fecal calprotectin, albumin and CRP serum levels after 12 weeks of therapy. Seven adverse events were identified, three of which resulted in therapy being discontinued.

Conclusions

This prospective observational study proved the effectiveness of the adalimumab biosimilars FKB327 and GP2017 in IBD.

Efficacy and safety of HLX01 in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy: a phase 3 study

Background

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of HLX01, a rituximab biosimilar, as combination therapy with methotrexate in Chinese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who had inadequate responses to methotrexate.

Methods

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, biologic-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to methotrexate were randomized 2:1 to receive 1000 mg HLX01 or placebo intravenously on days 1 and 15. On the first day of weeks 24 and 26, patients in both groups received 1000 mg HLX01 via intravenous infusion. The primary endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response rate at week 24. Secondary endpoints including efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were assessed up to week 48.

Results

Between 28 May 2018 and 11 September 2020, 275 patients were randomized to the HLX01 group (n = 183) or the placebo group (n = 92). At week 24, the proportion of patients achieving ACR20 response was significantly greater in the HLX01 group compared with the placebo group in the intention-to-treat population (60.7% vs 35.9%; P < 0.001) and per-protocol set (60.3% vs 37.1%; P < 0.001). Most secondary efficacy endpoints favoured HLX01 when assessed at weeks 12, 24, 36 and 48. Incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups. Infusion-related reactions occurred more frequently following the initial two doses of HLX01 than the subsequent doses.

Conclusions

HLX01 plus methotrexate improved clinical outcomes compared with placebo in Chinese patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had inadequate responses to methotrexate. This treatment regimen was well tolerated, showing comparable safety profiles to placebo.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03522415. Registered on 11 May 2018.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13075-022-02821-x.

Comparison of Adalimumab to Other Targeted Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Few studies compared adalimumab to other targeted therapies in head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but multiple comparisons are not available. This Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis evaluated which targeted therapy is more likely to achieve ACR50 response with good safety at 24 weeks of treatment in RA. A systematic literature review was conducted for head-to-head phase 3 RCTs that compared adalimumab to other targeted therapies in combination with methotrexate (MTX) or as monotherapy to treat RA patients, and searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrial.gov. The outcomes of interest were ACR50 response and withdrawals due to adverse events at 24 weeks. WinBUGS 1.4 software (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK) was used to perform the analyses, using a random effect model. Sixteen studies were included in the analysis. The most favorable SUCRA for the ACR50 response rate at 24 weeks of treatment in combination with MTX was ranked by upadacitinib, followed by baricitinib, tofacitinib and filgotinib. As monotherapy, the highest probability was ranked by tocilizumab followed by sarilumab. No significant differences in safety profile among treatment options were found. Jak-inhibitors in combination with MTX and interleukin-6 antagonism as monotherapy showed the highest probability to achieve ACR50 response after 24 weeks of treatment. None of assessed targeted therapies were associated to risk of withdrawal due to adverse events. Key messages: Direct and indirect comparison between adalimumab and other targeted therapies demonstrated some differences in terms of efficacy that may help to drive RA treatment. Jak-inhibitors and interleukine-6 antagonists ranked as first in the probability to achieve ACR50 response after 24 weeks of treatment in combination with methotrexate or monotherapy, respectively.

Comparison of two biosimilarity studies of FKB327 with the adalimumab reference product: randomized phase 1 studies of single-blind, single-dose subcutaneous injection in healthy Japanese male participants

Background

FKB327 has been developed as a biosimilar of the adalimumab reference product (RP). We compared the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and immunogenicity of FKB327 with those of the adalimumab RP after a single dose by subcutaneous (SC) injection in Japanese male participants.

Methods

Two randomized, single-blind, single-dose studies were conducted in healthy Japanese male participants to compare PK characteristics between FKB327 and the RP. Study 1 included 130 participants who were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive a subcutaneous injection of 40 mg of either FKB327 or the RP into the abdomen. In Study 2, another 130 subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either drug as in Study 1, but the drug administration site was changed to the thigh. The primary PK endpoints of both studies were area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to the last measurable concentration (AUC_0-t) and maximum serum concentration; area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 360 h was also evaluated as one of the primary endpoints in Study 1. Biosimilarity in terms of pharmacokinetics was determined if the 90% confidence interval of the mean difference in geometric mean ratio of all primary PK parameters was within the prespecified equivalence criteria (0.80–1.25). Immunogenicity and safety were also evaluated as secondary endpoints.

Results

The serum concentration-time profiles were comparable between the FKB327 and the RP treatment groups in both studies. Primary PK parameters were within the prespecified bioequivalence range in Study 2, although AUC_0-t was slightly outside the upper side of the range in Study 1. No differences in safety profile were observed in these studies. The incidence of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) and impact of ADAs on PK profile were similar among the treatment groups in both studies.

Conclusion

Biosimilarity between FKB327 and the RP after a single 40-mg SC injection was confirmed in healthy Japanese male participants by modifying the study design.

Trial registration

jRCT2071200058 (https://jrct.niph.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCT2071200058, https://rctportal.niph.go.jp/en/detail?trial_id=jRCT2071200058) and jRCT2071200057 (https://jrct.niph.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCT2071200057, https://rctportal.niph.go.jp/en/detail?trial_id=jRCT2071200057). Retrospectively registered 25/11/2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40360-021-00545-3.

Tailored first-line biologic and targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 2021 updated ITABIO statements

INTRODUCTION

In 2015, the Italian board for the TAilored BIOlogic therapy (ITABIO) proposed evidence-based decisional statements for first-line tailored biologic therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Taking into account the new licensed drugs, the aim of the present review was to update the previous statements.

AREAS COVERED

A narrative review of the most recent evidence on the efficacy and safety of old and newly licensed drugs for the treatment of articular and extra-articular RA was performed. In addition, host-related variables potentially driving the therapy choice, such as the infection risk, the cardiovascular risk, the risk of deep vein thrombosis, thromboembolism, pregnancy, and obesity were analyzed. Consequently, several statements for personalized therapy were formulated, thus providing a decisional algorithm useful for proper personalized therapy of RA patients in clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

Several clinical variables related to specific drug and host characteristics may drive the choice toward anti-TNF and non-anti-TNF biologics, or anti-JAKs, thus allowing to personalize the therapy. Consequently, the right therapy for the right patient would ensure a successful therapeutic intervention.

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.

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.

Secondary failure: immune responses to approved protein therapeutics

Recombinant therapeutic proteins are a broad class of biological products used to replace dysfunctional human proteins in individuals with genetic defects (e.g., factor VIII for hemophilia) or, in the case of monoclonal antibodies, bind to disease targets involved in cancers, autoimmune disorders, or other conditions. Unfortunately, immunogenicity (immune response to the drug) remains a key impediment, potentially affecting the safety and efficacy of these therapeutics. Immunogenicity risk is routinely evaluated during the licensure of therapeutic proteins. However, despite eliciting anti-drug immune responses in at least some patients, most protein drugs are nevertheless licensed as they address unmet medical needs. The pre-licensure immunogenicity assessments of therapeutic proteins are the subject of numerous reviews and white papers. However, observation and clinical management of the immunogenicity of approved therapeutic proteins face additional challenges. We survey the immunogenicity of approved therapeutic proteins, discuss the clinical management of immunogenicity, and identify the challenges to establishing clinically relevant immunogenicity assays for use in routine clinical practice.

The response to TNF blockers depending on their comparator in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials: the lessebo effect, a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of the biological reference agents (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in pivotal superiority placebo-controlled trials (reference agent vs placebo) vs their effect in equivalence active comparator-controlled trials (reference agent vs biosimilar).

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, databases were searched for randomized, double-blind, controlled trials up to March 2020 comparing a biological reference agent vs placebo or biosimilar. The study assessed the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 responses of the reference agent in these groups (Reference-pbo and Reference-bs, respectively). The effect of the reference agent in both groups was estimated with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI), pooled using random-effects models and then compared using a meta-regression model.

RESULTS

We included 31 trials. The main characteristics of the population (disease duration and activity, % seropositivity and methotrexate dose) of the population in both groups were similar. The meta-analysis found a better ACR20 response to the biological originator in the Reference-bs group with a global rate of 70% (95%CI, 66-74) compared with 59% (95%CI, 55-62) in the reference-pbo group (p= 0.001). A significant difference was also found for ACR 50 [44% (95%CI, 39-50) vs 35% (95%CI, 31-39) respectively, p< 0.01].

CONCLUSION

Effect of the reference biologic agent was better when compared with an active drug to a placebo. This could be linked to an increased placebo effect in active comparator-controlled studies or a nocebo effect in placebo-controlled studies. This effect can be called the Lessebo effect.

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

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

Comparative efficacy and safety of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and their biosimilars in patients with rheumatoid arthritis having an insufficient response to methotrexate : A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFI) biosimilars to TNFI originators in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who responded inadequately to methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effectiveness and safety of TNFI biosimilars to TNFIs in patients with RA who had not responded adequately to MTX.

RESULTS

A total of 18 RCTs (8 adalimumab, 7 infliximab, and 3 etanercept) comprising 4039 patients randomized to TNFI biosimilars and 3905 to TNFI treatment were included. The American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) response rate was significantly higher for TNFI biosimilar-treated patients than for TNFI-treated patients (odds ratio, OR 1.140, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.031-1.261, P = 0.011); however, subgroup analysis by the TNFI type showed that the ACR20 response rates were not different among the biosimilars of adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept compared with the originators. The ACR50 response rate was significantly higher for TNFI biosimilar-treated patients than for TNFI treated patients (OR 1.096, 95% CI 1.001-1.200, P = 0.047). Subgroup analysis by the TNFI type showed that the ACR50 response rates did not differ among the biosimilars of adalimumab and infliximab compared with the originators; however, the ACR50 response rate was significantly higher in etanercept biosimilar-treated patients than in etanercept-treated patients (OR 1.406, 95% CI 1.111-1.780, P = 0.005). No significant difference was observed between the TNFI biosimilars and TNFIs as per ACR70. There was no significant difference in the number of patients who experienced adverse events (AEs) between TNFI biosimilars and TNFIs (OR 0.961, 95% CI 0.876-1.055, P = 0.402); however, subgroup analysis by the TNFI type showed that the adalimumab biosimilar caused fewer AEs than adalimumab (OR 0.865, 95% CI 0.756-0.989, P = 0.034). Serious AEs and withdrawals due to AEs did not differ between TNFI biosimilars and TNFIs.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that TNFI biosimilars had an overall comparable efficacy and safety profile compared with their originators in RA patients.

Efficacy and safety of switching from reference adalimumab to CT-P17 (100 mg/ml): 52-week randomised study in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of switching from reference adalimumab to adalimumab biosimilar CT-P17 with continuing reference adalimumab/CT-P17 in active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

This double-blind, phase III study randomised (1:1) subjects with active RA to receive 40 mg (100 mg/ml) CT-P17 or European Union-sourced reference adalimumab subcutaneously every 2 weeks (Q2W) until week (W) 24 (treatment period [TP] 1). Thereafter, subjects receiving reference adalimumab were randomised (1:1) to continue reference adalimumab or switch to CT-P17 from W26 (both Q2W until W48; TP2). Subjects receiving CT-P17 in TP1 continued CT-P17. W0-W24 results were previously reported; we present W26-W52 findings. Endpoints were efficacy (including joint damage progression), pharmacokinetics, safety and immunogenicity.

RESULTS

Of 607 subjects who initiated TP2 treatment, 303 continued CT-P17, 153 continued reference adalimumab and 151 switched to CT-P17. Efficacy improvements up to W24 were maintained during TP2; efficacy was comparable among groups. At W52, 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response rates were 80.5% (continued CT-P17), 77.8% (continued reference adalimumab) and 82.2% (switched to CT-P17). Joint damage progression was minimal. Mean trough serum adalimumab concentrations were similar among groups. CT-P17 and reference adalimumab safety profiles were numerically similar and switching did not affect immunogenicity. At W52, 28.4% (continued CT-P17), 27.0% (continued reference adalimumab) and 28.3% (switched to CT-P17) of subjects were anti-drug antibody-positive.

CONCLUSION

Efficacy, pharmacokinetics, safety and immunogenicity of CT-P17 and reference adalimumab were comparable after 1 year of treatment, including after switching from reference adalimumab to CT-P17.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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.

Overview of Humira® Biosimilars: Current European Landscape and Future Implications

Humira® (adalimumab) by AbbVie has been the top-selling biologic drug product for the last few years - reaching nearly $20 billion in annual sales in 2018. Upon the October 2018 release of four adalimumab biosimilars into the European market, those sales began to shrink. By the end of 2019, the annual sales of Humira®, albeit still high, dipped closer to $19 billion as nearly 35% of European patients had been switched from Humira® to a biosimilar. Diminishing sales are expected to continue as the adoption of adalimumab biosimilars increases in Europe and Humira®'s patent protection is lost in the United States come 2023. In this review we discuss how impactful the availability of biosimilars has been to the European adalimumab market approximately two years after their release. We further analyze the marketed biosimilars with regards to differences in their formulation, delivery devices, biological activity, physicochemical properties, clinical trials data, and current financial foothold. More importantly, though, we highlight how "similar" these biosimilars are to Humira®. In doing so, we seek to educate the public on what they may be able to expect once adalimumab biosimilars enter the United States market in 2023.

Anti-TNF Alpha Antibody Humira with pH-dependent Binding Characteristics: A constant-pH Molecular Dynamics, Gaussian Accelerated Molecular Dynamics, and In Vitro Study

Humira is a monoclonal antibody that binds to TNF alpha, inactivates TNF alpha receptors, and inhibits inflammation. Neonatal Fc receptors can mediate the transcytosis of Humira-TNF alpha complex structures and process them toward degradation pathways, which reduces the therapeutic effect of Humira. Allowing the Humira-TNF alpha complex structures to dissociate to Humira and soluble TNF alpha in the early endosome to enable Humira recycling is crucial. We used the cytoplasmic pH (7.4), the early endosomal pH (6.0), and pKa of histidine side chains (6.0-6.4) to mutate the residues of complementarity-determining regions with histidine. Our engineered Humira (W1-Humira) can bind to TNF alpha in plasma at neutral pH and dissociate from the TNF alpha in the endosome at acidic pH. We used the constant-pH molecular dynamics, Gaussian accelerated molecular dynamics, two-dimensional potential mean force profiles, and in vitro methods to investigate the characteristics of W1-Humira. Our results revealed that the proposed Humira can bind TNF alpha with pH-dependent affinity in vitro. The W1-Humira was weaker than wild-type Humira at neutral pH in vitro, and our prediction results were close to the in vitro results. Furthermore, our approach displayed a high accuracy in antibody pH-dependent binding characteristics prediction, which may facilitate antibody drug design. Advancements in computational methods and computing power may further aid in addressing the challenges in antibody drug design.

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

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

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.

Immunogenicity of an adalimumab biosimilar, FKB327, and its reference product in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Aim

This study, FKB327‐003, is a phase 3, open‐label extension (OLE) study comparing the long‐term immunogenicity of an adalimumab biosimilar, FKB327 (F), with the reference product (RP).

Methods

In the OLE, patients completing 24 weeks of an initial randomized, double‐blind (DB) study (Period 1) with clinical response and no safety concerns were rerandomized to F or RP, so that two‐thirds of patients remained on the same treatment and one‐third switched to the alternate treatment for weeks 24 through 54 (OLE weeks 0‐30; Period 2), then all received F through week 100 (OLE week 76; Period 3). Treatment sequences were F‐F‐F (no switch), RP‐F‐F and RP‐RP‐F (single switch), and F‐RP‐F (double switch). Patients who entered the OLE study were evaluated for immunogenicity across switching sequences.

Results

The proportion of patients with positive antidrug antibody (ADA) status at the end of Period 1 was 61.7% and 60.0% for F and RP, respectively. The proportion of patients with positive ADA status did not increase throughout Period 1, and was similar for F and RP at all time points. At the end of Period 3, the proportion of patients with positive ADA status was lower in all treatment sequences, at 51.1%, 54.4%, 48.1%, and 42.5% for F‐F‐F, F‐RP‐F, RP‐F‐F, and RP‐RP‐F, respectively.

Conclusion

The RP and F showed comparable immunogenicity characteristics after long‐term administration. Development of ADAs with the RP and F was similar, and was not impacted by switching and double switching between F and RP treatment.

Efficacy of pharmacological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature research informing the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To inform the 2019 update of the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A systematic literature research (SLR) to investigate the efficacy of any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) (conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD, biological (b) and biosimilar DMARD, targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD) or glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in patients with RA was done by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 2016 and 8 March 2019.

RESULTS

234 abstracts were selected for detailed assessment, with 136 finally included. They comprised the efficacy of bDMARDs versus placebo or other bDMARDs, efficacy of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (JAKi) across different patient populations and head-to-head of different bDMARDs versus JAKi or other bDMARDs. Switching of bDMARDs to other bDMARDs or tsDMARDs, strategic trials and tapering studies of bDMARDs, csDMARDs and JAKi were assessed. The drugs evaluated included abatacept, adalimumab, ABT-122, baricitinib, certolizumab pegol, SBI-087, CNTO6785, decernotinib, etanercept, filgotinib, golimumab, GCs, GS-9876, guselkumab, hydroxychloroquine, infliximab, leflunomide, mavrilimumab, methotrexate, olokizumab, otilimab, peficitinib, rituximab, sarilumab, salazopyrine, secukinumab, sirukumab, tacrolimus, tocilizumab, tofacitinib, tregalizumab, upadacitinib, ustekinumab and vobarilizumab. The efficacy of many bDMARDs and tsDMARDs was shown. Switching to another tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi bDMARDs after TNFi treatment failure is efficacious. Tapering of DMARDs is possible in patients achieving long-standing stringent clinical remission; in patients with residual disease activity (including patients in LDA) the risk of flares is increased during the tapering. Biosimilars are non-inferior to their reference products.

CONCLUSION

This SLR informed the task force regarding the evidence base of various therapeutic regimen for the development of the update of EULAR's RA management recommendation.