Dataset Information

Therapeutic Equivalence of Biosimilar and Reference Biologic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Biosimilar drugs are potentially lower-cost versions of biologics that may improve access to therapy. However, there is a lack of adequate systematic reviews demonstrating equivalence between these drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Objectives

To assess the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity associated with biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab compared with their reference biologics in patients with RA.

Data sources

MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and LILACS databases were searched from inception to September 2021.

Study selection

Head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab and their biologic reference drugs for RA were assessed.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two authors independently abstracted all data. Meta-analysis was conducted with bayesian random effects using relative risks (RRs) for binary outcomes and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and trial sequential analysis. Specific domains were assessed for the risk of bias in equivalence and noninferiority trials. This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline.

Main outcomes and measures

Equivalence was tested using prespecified margins for the American College of Rheumatology criteria, with at least 20% improvement in the core set measures (ACR20) (ie, RR, 0.94 to 1.06), and for the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (ie, SMD, -0.22 to 0.22). Secondary outcomes included 14 items measuring safety and immunogenicity.

Results

A total of 25 head-to-head trials provided data on 10 642 randomized patients with moderate to severe RA. Biosimilars met equivalence with reference biologics in terms of ACR20 response (24 RCTs with 10 259 patients; RR, 1.01; 95% CrI, 0.98 to 1.04; τ2 = 0.000) and change of HAQ-DI scores (14 RCTs with 5579 patients; SMD, -0.04; 95% CrI, -0.11 to 0.02; τ2 = 0.002) considering prespecified margins of equivalence. Trial sequential analysis found evidence for equivalence for ACR20 since 2017 and HAQ-DI since 2016. Overall, biosimilars were associated with similar safety and immunogenicity profiles compared with reference biologics.

Conclusion and relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, biosimilars of adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept were associated with clinically equivalent treatment effects compared with their reference biologics for the treatment of RA.

SUBMITTER: Ascef BO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10220520 | biostudies-literature | 2023 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Therapeutic Equivalence of Biosimilar and Reference Biologic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Ascef Bruna de Oliveira BO Almeida Matheus Oliveira MO Medeiros-Ribeiro Ana Cristina de AC Oliveira de Andrade Danieli Castro DC Oliveira Junior Haliton Alves de HA de Soárez Patrícia Coelho PC

JAMA network open 20230501 5

<h4>Importance</h4>Biosimilar drugs are potentially lower-cost versions of biologics that may improve access to therapy. However, there is a lack of adequate systematic reviews demonstrating equivalence between these drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity associated with biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab compared with their reference biologics in patients with RA.<h4>Data sources</h4>MEDLINE v ...[more]

PMID: 37234004

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBiologic drugs such as adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab represent major first-line and second-line treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, their high cost poses a massive burden on healthcare systems worldwide. The expiration of patents for these biologics has driven the production of biosimilar drugs, which are potentially less costly and remarkably similar, albeit not identical to the reference molecules. This paper aims to outline the protocol of a systematic review that will investigate the efficacy and safety profile of biosimilars compared to biologics (objective 1) and the impact of switching between biosimilar drugs and reference biologics on the management of RA patients (objective 2).MethodsWe will investigate the effects of any biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on RA patients. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs to assess efficacy and safety outcomes and RCTs with two- or multiple-part designs to evaluate the consequences of switching from reference biologics to biosimilar drugs (and vice-versa). Electronic searches will be performed through MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL (from inception to April 2021). Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data, and evaluate the risk of bias. The latter will be carried out considering specific domains from equivalence trials and switching studies. Random-effects models will be fitted to obtain summary estimates using either relative risk or standardized mean difference as a metric. The primary outcome will be the rate of treatment success according to the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20), and the co-primary outcome will be the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Conclusions will be based on equivalence hypothesis testing using predefined margins of equivalence elicited from a group of experienced rheumatologists and prior studies. The overall certainty of the evidence will be assessed based on the GRADE system.DiscussionThe present investigation proposes a comprehensive, clinician-oriented approach to assess the equivalence and the impact of switching between biosimilars and biologics on the management of patients with RA. Our results will elucidate the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity of biosimilars, and the clinical consequences of substituting biologics with biosimilars in the management of RA.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019137152 and CRD42019137155.

Project description:BackgroundMultiple switches (transitions) between biosimilars of the same reference biologic are now a reality, and they are expected to become more common in the future as more biosimilars enter the market. Switching between two biosimilars of the same reference biologic is generally driven by affordability, formulary requirements, or the relocation/travel of the patient. Evidence of whether switching between biosimilars of the same reference biologic provides similar safety and efficacy profiles is reviewed here.MethodsA systematic search was undertaken using electronic databases (to December 2021): Biosis, Embase, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews/Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Ovid. Publications were evaluated for effectiveness and/or safety data linked to switching from one biosimilar to another.ResultsThe systematic search yielded 982 citations. After eliminating duplicates, 626 citations remained for the initial title/abstract screening phase. Following the initial screening, 240 records were chosen; more thorough examination yielded 35 citations. After comprehensive screening and expert advice, 23 studies were selected, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder have been published as abstracts. Overall, 3657 patients were included in these studies. All studies were observational in nature; no randomized clinical trials were identified. The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints. Across the studies, data are provided on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns. The majority of studies examined switches between biosimilar infliximabs, although switches between biosimilar adalimumabs, etanercepts, and rituximabs were also identified. Two use-pattern studies and one case report were also detected and are discussed.ConclusionWithin the limitations of this systematic review, available data suggests that biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching is a safe and effective clinical practice, although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance. No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date.

Project description:ImportanceThere are conflicting data on the association of antidrug antibodies with response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).ObjectiveTo analyze the association of antidrug antibodies with response to treatment for RA.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study analyzed data from the ABI-RA (Anti-Biopharmaceutical Immunization: Prediction and Analysis of Clinical Relevance to Minimize the Risk of Immunization in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients) multicentric, open, prospective study of patients with RA from 27 recruiting centers in 4 European countries (France, Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK). Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had RA diagnosis, and were initiating a new bDMARD. Recruitment spanned from March 3, 2014, to June 21, 2016. The study was completed in June 2018, and data were analyzed in June 2022.ExposuresPatients were treated with a new bDMARD: adalimumab, infliximab (grouped as anti-tumor necrosis factor [TNF] monoclonal antibodies [mAbs]), etanercept, tocilizumab, and rituximab according to the choice of the treating physician.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the association of antidrug antibody positivity with EULAR (European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology; formerly, European League Against Rheumatism) response to treatment at month 12 assessed through univariate logistic regression. The secondary end points were the EULAR response at month 6 and at visits from month 6 to months 15 to 18 using generalized estimating equation models. Detection of antidrug antibody serum levels was performed at months 1, 3, 6, 12, and 15 to 18 using electrochemiluminescence (Meso Scale Discovery) and drug concentration for anti-TNF mAbs, and etanercept in the serum was measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.ResultsOf the 254 patients recruited, 230 (mean [SD] age, 54.3 [13.7] years; 177 females [77.0%]) were analyzed. At month 12, antidrug antibody positivity was 38.2% in patients who were treated with anti-TNF mAbs, 6.1% with etanercept, 50.0% with rituximab, and 20.0% with tocilizumab. There was an inverse association between antidrug antibody positivity (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.38; P < .001) directed against all biologic drugs and EULAR response at month 12. Analyzing all the visits starting at month 6 using generalized estimating equation models confirmed the inverse association between antidrug antibody positivity and EULAR response (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.18-0.65; P < .001). A similar association was found for tocilizumab alone (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.83; P = .03). In the multivariable analysis, antidrug antibodies, body mass index, and rheumatoid factor were independently inversely associated with response to treatment. There was a significantly higher drug concentration of anti-TNF mAbs in patients with antidrug antibody-negative vs antidrug antibody-positive status (mean difference, -9.6 [95% CI, -12.4 to -6.9] mg/L; P < 001). Drug concentrations of etanercept (mean difference, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.2-1.2] mg/L; P = .005) and adalimumab (mean difference, 1.8 [95% CI, 0.4-3.2] mg/L; P = .01) were lower in nonresponders vs responders. Methotrexate comedication at baseline was inversely associated with antidrug antibodies (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.25-1.00; P = .05).Conclusions and relevanceResults of this prospective cohort study suggest an association between antidrug antibodies and nonresponse to bDMARDs in patients with RA. Monitoring antidrug antibodies could be considered in the treatment of these patients, particularly nonresponders to biologic RA drugs.

Project description:ObjectiveTo address the efficacy and safety of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of biologic drugs for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, inflammatory arthritis, and psoriasis.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Central, and CINAHL, from database inception to 23 May 2024.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesTrials including people with inflammatory bowel disease, inflammatory arthritis, and psoriasis were selected. Selected trials also randomly assigned people to either proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors or other biologic drugs in the intervention group, and to either no therapeutic drug monitoring or standard care in the control group. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen search records and collect data from eligible trials. For each outcome, a frequentist, pairwise, random effects meta-analysis was done and the certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations).ResultsOf 10 eligible trials identified, reporting on 2383 patients, two investigated induction with infliximab (533 patients), four assessed maintenance with infliximab (901 patients), and three assessed maintenance with adalimumab (710 patients). One trial was of maintenance with infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept (239 patients). For patients who had induction with infliximab, the effects of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring on remission and adverse events were uncertain. Low certainty evidence suggested that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring may have little or no effect on disease activity, physical function, mental health, and quality of life. For patients who had maintenance with infliximab, low certainty evidence suggested that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring may increase the proportion of patients who had sustained disease control or remission (relative risk 1.26 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.40), absolute risk difference of 146 more per 1000 patients treated for one year (95% CI 78 to 224). Additionally, this treatment and monitoring may reduce disease worsening, and may have little or no effect on disease activity, physical function, mental health, and quality of life. The effects of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab on adverse events and formation of anti-drug antibodies were uncertain. For patients who had maintenance with adalimumab, the effects of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring were uncertain.ConclusionProactive therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab during maintenance may help patients to have sustained disease control or remission. No compelling evidence supported the effectiveness of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab during induction or proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of adalimumab during maintenance.Systematic review registrationhttps://osf.io/x4m28/.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare methotrexate based disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naive to or with an inadequate response to methotrexate.DesignSystematic review and Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis of trials assessing methotrexate used alone or in combination with other conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic drugs, or tofacitinib in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis.Data sourcesTrials were identified from Medline, Embase, and Central databases from inception to 19 January 2016; abstracts from two major rheumatology meetings from 2009 to 2015; two trial registers; and hand searches of Cochrane reviews.Study selection criteriaRandomized or quasi-randomized trials that compared methotrexate with any other DMARD or combination of DMARDs and contributed to the network of evidence between the treatments of interest.Main outcomesAmerican College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response (major clinical improvement), radiographic progression, and withdrawals due to adverse events. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.Results158 trials were included, with between 10 and 53 trials available for each outcome. In methotrexate naive patients, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%), compared with 41% with methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression, but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of 5 units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate plus infliximab. After an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy, methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate plus leflunomide, methotrexate plus intramuscular gold, methotrexate plus most biologics, and methotrexate plus tofacitinib. The probability of response was 61% with triple therapy and ranged widely (27-70%) with other treatments. No treatment was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate plus abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.ConclusionsTriple therapy (methotrexate plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine) and most regimens combining biologic DMARDs with methotrexate were effective in controlling disease activity, and all were generally well tolerated in both methotrexate naive and methotrexate exposed patients.

Dataset Information

Therapeutic Equivalence of Biosimilar and Reference Biologic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance

Objectives

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction and synthesis

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusion and relevance

Publications

Therapeutic Equivalence of Biosimilar and Reference Biologic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets