Dataset Information

Treatment with SDZ-ADL, an Adalimumab Biosimilar, in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriasis, or Psoriatic Arthritis: Results of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures from Two Phase III Studies (ADMYRA and ADACCESS).

ABSTRACT:

Background

SDZ-ADL (GP2017; Sandoz GmbH, Austria) is an EMA-/FDA-approved adalimumab biosimilar. The effect of SDZ-ADL on quality of life (QoL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) was assessed as part of two phase III studies, one in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis (PsO; ADACCESS) and the other in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA; ADMYRA). Additionally, ADACCESS included patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

ADACCESS included 465 patients with PsO, whereas ADMYRA included 353 patients with RA. Both studies evaluated and confirmed equivalent efficacy, similar safety, and immunogenicity of SDZ-ADL with reference adalimumab (ref-ADL). A third of patients underwent multiple (four) treatment switches between study treatments starting at Week 17 (ADACCESS); all patients switched from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL at Week 24 (ADMYRA). Assessed PROs included Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and EuroQol five-dimension health status questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) in ADACCESS, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue Scale (FACIT-Fatigue) score in ADMYRA, and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) in both studies.

Results

In both studies, baseline scores for all PRO assessments were comparable between the two treatment groups. In ADACCESS, mean DLQI decreased from baseline in both groups, and the mean (standard deviation [SD]) percent reductions from baseline in DLQI were comparable between groups at Week 17 (SDZ-ADL, - 64.5 [80.3]; ref-ADL, - 70.6 [41.7]), which were sustained after the switch at Week 51 ('continued SDZ-ADL,' - 79.7 [36.2]; 'continued ref-ADL,' - 80.8 [44.6]; 'switched to SDZ-ADL,' - 70.7 [32.2]; 'switched to ref-ADL,' - 69.3 [49.6]). In ADACCESS, the proportion of patients with an EQ-5D-5L score of 1 (no problems) increased from baseline for all five dimensions in all treatment groups and was comparable between treatment groups at Week 51. In ADACCESS, in patients with PsA at baseline, mean (SD) HAQ-DI scores decreased from baseline in both treatment groups, and scores were comparable between groups at Week 17 (SDZ-ADL, 0.5 [0.6]; ref-ADL, 0.5 [0.6]) and after switching at Week 51 ('continued SDZ-ADL,' 0.4 [0.5]; 'continued ref-ADL,' 0.4 [0.6]; 'switched to SDZ-ADL,' 0.5 [0.8]; 'switched to ref-ADL,' 0.7 [0.6]). In ADMYRA, proportion of patients achieving HAQ-DI in the normal range (≤ 0.5) was comparable between treatment groups at Week 24 (SDZ-ADL, 37.8%; ref-ADL, 36.3%) and after switching at Week 48 ('SDZ-ADL,' 41.6%; 'ref-ADL/switched to SDZ-ADL,' 40.0%). In ADMYRA, mean FACIT-Fatigue scores increased from baseline in both treatment groups. At Week 24, mean (SD) percent change from baseline in the FACIT-Fatigue scores was 75.4 (135.5) in SDZ-ADL and 73.0 (96.3) in ref-ADL groups; the scores were sustained after switching at Week 48.

Conclusion

Treatment with SDZ-ADL and ref-ADL resulted in comparable improvements in PROs as well as QoL scores across the three diseases, PsO, PsA, and RA. Switching between SDZ-ADL and ref-ADL had no negative impact on PROs across the reported period. CLINICAL TRIALS.

Gov identifier

NCT02744755, NCT02016105.

SUBMITTER: Blauvelt A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7952364 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:SB5 is a biosimilar agent for adalimumab (ADA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and immunogenicity of SB5 in comparison with reference ADA in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS:In this phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients with moderately to severely active RA despite treatment with methotrexate were randomized 1:1 to receive SB5 or reference ADA at a dosage of 40 mg subcutaneously every other week. The primary efficacy end point was the response rate based on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at week 24 in the per-protocol set (completer analysis). Additional end points included efficacy, PK, safety, and immunogenicity assessments. RESULTS:Of the 544 patients randomized to receive a study drug, the full analysis set comprised 542 patients (269 in the SB5 group, 273 in the reference ADA group) and the per-protocol set comprised 476 patients (239 receiving SB5, 237 receiving reference ADA). The ACR20 response rate at week 24 in the per-protocol set was equivalent between those receiving SB5 and those receiving reference ADA (72.4% and 72.2%, respectively); the difference in the ACR20 response rate (0.1%, [95% confidence interval -7.83%, 8.13%]) was within the predefined equivalence margin (±15%). Similar results were seen in the full analysis set (missing data being considered a nonresponse). The SB5 and reference ADA treatment groups were comparable across other end points, including the ACR 50% and ACR 70% improvement response rates, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, PK data, incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events, and the antidrug antibody response. Subgroup analyses showed that the efficacy and safety of SB5 and reference ADA were comparable regardless of antidrug antibody status. CONCLUSION:The ACR20 response rate at week 24 was equivalent between patients treated with the biosimilar agent SB5 and those treated with reference ADA. SB5 and reference ADA were both well tolerated, with comparable safety profiles, in patients with RA.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Tofacitinib is a Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ulcerative colitis, and has been investigated in psoriasis (PsO). Routine pharmacovigilance of an ongoing, open-label, blinded-endpoint, tofacitinib RA trial (Study A3921133; NCT02092467) in patients aged ?50 years and with ?1 cardiovascular risk factor identified a higher frequency of pulmonary embolism (PE) and all-cause mortality for patients receiving tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily versus those receiving tumour necrosis factor inhibitors and resulted in identification of a safety signal for tofacitinib. Here, we report the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), PE, venous thromboembolism (VTE; DVT or PE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) from the tofacitinib RA (excluding Study A3921133), PsA and PsO development programmes and observational studies. Data from an ad hoc safety analysis of Study A3921133 are reported separately within. METHODS:This post-hoc analysis used data from separate tofacitinib RA, PsO and PsA programmes. Incidence rates (IRs; patients with events per 100 patient-years' exposure) were calculated for DVT, PE, VTE and ATE, including for populations stratified by defined baseline cardiovascular or VTE risk factors. Observational data from the US Corrona registries (including cardiovascular risk factor stratification), IBM MarketScan research database and the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database were analysed. RESULTS:12 410 tofacitinib-treated patients from the development programmes (RA: n=7964; PsO: n=3663; PsA: n=783) were included. IRs (95% CI) of thromboembolic events among the all tofacitinib cohorts' average tofacitinib 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily treated patients for RA, respectively, were: DVT (0.17 (0.09-0.27) and 0.15 (0.09-0.22)); PE (0.12 (0.06-0.22) and 0.13 (0.08-0.21)); ATE (0.32 (0.22-0.46) and 0.38 (0.28-0.49)). Among PsO patients, IRs were: DVT (0.06 (0.00-0.36) and 0.06 (0.02-0.15)); PE (0.13 (0.02-0.47) and 0.09 (0.04-0.19)); ATE (0.52 (0.22-1.02) and 0.22 (0.13-0.35)). Among PsA patients, IRs were: DVT (0.00 (0.00-0.28) and 0.13 (0.00-0.70)); PE (0.08 (0.00-0.43) and 0.00 (0.00-0.46)); ATE (0.31 (0.08-0.79) and 0.38 (0.08-1.11)). IRs were similar between tofacitinib doses and generally higher in patients with baseline cardiovascular or VTE risk factors. IRs from the overall Corrona populations and in Corrona RA patients (including tofacitinib-naïve/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-treated and tofacitinib-treated) with baseline cardiovascular risk factors were similar to IRs observed among the corresponding patients in the tofacitinib development programme. No signals of disproportionate reporting of DVT, PE or ATE with tofacitinib were identified in the FAERS database. CONCLUSIONS:DVT, PE and ATE IRs in the tofacitinib RA, PsO and PsA programmes were similar across tofacitinib doses, and generally consistent with observational data and published IRs of other treatments. As expected, IRs of thromboembolic events were elevated in patients with versus without baseline cardiovascular or VTE risk factors, and were broadly consistent with those observed in the Study A3921133 ad hoc safety analysis data, although the IR (95% CI) for PE was greater in patients treated with tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily in Study A3921133 (0.54 (0.32-0.87)), versus patients with baseline cardiovascular risk factors treated with tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily in the RA programme (0.24 (0.13-0.41)).