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.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative efficacy and safety of infliximab and its biosimilars in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who showed an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).
METHODS: We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing the efficacy and safety of infliximab biosimilars versus the originator product in patients with active RA despite receiving MTX.
RESULTS: Overall, 7 RCTs involving 3168 patients, including 7 biologic agents, met the inclusion criteria. The NI-071 was listed at the top left of the diagonal of the league table because it was associated with the most favorable surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response rate. SB2 was listed at the bottom right of the diagonal of the league table because it was associated with the least favorable results. Based on SUCRA, NI-071 had the highest probability of being the best treatment agent in terms of the ACR20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.731), followed by ABP 710, CT-P13, BCD-055, infliximab, Exemptia, PF-06438179, and SB2 (SUCRA = 0.311). Although statistically non-significant differences in safety ranking were observed for serious adverse events (SAEs) among the treatment options, ABP 710 presented the highest safety probability (SUCRA = 0.739) while BCD-055 showed the lowest safety profile (SUCRA = 0.289).
CONCLUSION: No significant difference in ACR20 response rates and SAEs were detected between infliximab biosimilars and the originator in the investigated study populations.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of biosimilars compared with reference biological disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as a part of the process of developing the 2020 update of the Japan College of Rheumatology guidelines for the management of RA.
METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Japan Centra Revuo Medicina were searched for articles to conduct a systematic review (SR). The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.
RESULTS: Twenty randomized controlled trials were included (biosimilars of infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab). A meta-analysis revealed that the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of achieving the American College of Rheumatology 50% response (ACR50) at week 24 and serious adverse events (SAEs) for biosimilars compared with the reference bDMARDs were 1.04 (0.98-1.10) and 0.84 (0.61-1.18), respectively. The RRs of achieving ACR50 and SAEs at week 24 were respectively 0.93 (0.69-1.26) and 2.15 (0.55-8.35) in the patients who switched to biosimilars from the reference bDMARDs and 0.92 (0.76-1.12) and 1.41 (0.32-6.15) in those who continued the reference bDMARDs.
CONCLUSION: Biosimilars and reference bDMARDs were equally useful for the management of RA.
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.
DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.
PURPOSE: This article assesses the relative efficacy and safety of infliximab biosimilars in treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: A frequentist, random-effects network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate evidence from randomized controlled trials that examined the use of infliximab biosimilars for treatment of patients with RA. PubMed and MEDLINE and other sources were searched for reports evaluating rates of response to treatment with the reference product (infliximab) vs an infliximab biosimilar. The primary efficacy outcome of interest was the rate of attainment of ACR20 (ie, 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology core measures). The primary safety outcome was the rate of treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs). Data were extracted by the primary author, and an assessment for risks of methodological bias was performed for each evaluated study.
RESULTS: Five studies that enrolled a total of 2,499 patients were included. Overall comparisons using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) did not indicate statistically significant differences in response to treatment with biosimilar agents relative to each other or the infliximab reference product. ORs for ACR20 response for biosimilars vs infliximab were as follows: 1.475 (95% CI, 0.940-2.315) for infliximab-axxq, 1.259 (95% CI, 0.854-1.855) for infliximab-dyyb, 0.865 (95% CI, 0.5511.358) for infliximab-qbtx, and 0.832 (95% CI, 0.506-1.367) for infliximab-abda. Similar findings were observed in reported SAE rates among patients treated with the various biosimilars.
CONCLUSION: ACR20 response appears to be comparable and nonsignificantly different between infliximab biosimilars. In the absence of any meaningful differences in safety or efficacy, biosimilar cost may be the deciding factor in choosing a treatment or agent for formulary inclusion.
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.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of first-line biologic disease modifying drugs(boDMARDs), and their approved biosimilars (bsDMARDs), compared with conventional (csDMARD) treatment, in terms of ACR (American College of Rheumatology) and EULAR (European League against Rheumatism) responses.
METHODS: Systematic literature search, on eight databases to January 2017, sought ACR and EULAR data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of boDMARDs / bsDMARDs (in combination with csDMARDs, or monotherapy). Two adult populations: methotrexate (MTX)-naïve patients with severe active RA; and csDMARD-experienced patients with moderate-to-severe active RA. Network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation using a random effects model with a probit link function for ordered categorical.
RESULTS: Forty-six RCTs met the eligibility criteria. In the MTX-naïve severe active RA population, no biosimilar trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. MTX plus methylprednisolone (MP) was most likely to achieve the best ACR response. There was insufficient evidence that combination boDMARDs was superior to intensive (two or more) csDMARDs. In the csDMARD-experienced, moderate-to-severe RA population, the greatest effects for ACR responses were associated with tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy, and combination therapy (plus MTX) with bsDMARD etanercept (ETN) SB4, boDMARD ETN and TCZ. These treatments also had the greatest effects on EULAR responses. No clear differences were found between the boDMARDs and their bsDMARDs.
CONCLUSIONS: In MTX-naïve patients, there was insufficient evidence that combination boDMARDs was superior to two or more csDMARDs. In csDMARD-experienced patients, boDMARDs and bsDMARDs were comparable and all combination boDMARDs / bsDMARDs were superior to single csDMARD.
The effect of five approved tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab) on joint destruction in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been compared versus methotrexate (MTX) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but have not been compared directly to each other or to an otherwise untreated placebo control. The present analysis compares effects of standard doses, high doses, and low doses of TNFis on radiographic joint destruction in RA and relate these effects to MTX and placebo by means of a Bayesian network meta-analysis. We identified 31 RCTs of the effect of TNFis on joint destruction and 5 RCTs with controls, which indirectly could link otherwise untreated placebo controls to the TNFi treatments in the network. The previously untested comparison with placebo was performed to estimate not only the effect relative to another drug, but also the absolute attainable effect. Compared to placebo there was a highly significant inhibitory effect on joint destruction of infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab, which was about 0.9% per year as monotherapy and about 1.2% per year when combined with MTX. Although significantly better than MTX and placebo, golimumab seemed inferior to the remaining TNFis. There was no difference between original reference drugs (Remicade, Enbrel) and the almost identical copy drugs (biosimilars).
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the relative efficacy and safety of biosimilar-infliximab and originator-infliximab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) compared to placebo plus MTX in active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of biosimilar + MTX and infliximab + MTX and placebo + MTX (MTX group) in patients with active RA despite treatment with MTX.
RESULTS: Seven RCts involving 2606 patients met the inclusion criteria. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response rate was significantly higher in the biosimilar + MTX group than in the MTX group (odds ratio [OR] 3.31, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.74-6.06). Similarly, the ACR20 response rate was significantly higher in the infliximab + MTX group than in the MTX group (OR 3.15, 95% CrI 1.99-4.70). There was no difference in the ACR20 response rate between the biosimilar+ MTX and infliximab + MTX groups. Ranking probability based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that treatment with biosimilar + MTX had the highest probability of achieving the ACR20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.7964), followed by infliximab + MTX (SUCRA = 0.7018) and MTX alone (SUCRA = 0.0018). The ACR50 and ACR70 response rates showed a similar distribution pattern to the ACR20 response rate. By contrast, the safety based on the number of serious adverse events (SAEs) did not differ significantly among the three interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilar- and originator-infliximab, in combination with MTX, represent effective interventions for active RA, with a low risk of SAEs. No significant difference between biosimilar- and originator-infliximab was found in terms of efficacy and safety.
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.
