Efficacy and Safety of Adalimumab Biosimilars: Current Critical Clinical Data in Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lu X
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8055954 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7991039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE OF REVIEW:Adalimumab is one of the top-selling drugs worldwide. Its imminent patent expiration has seen the emergence of numerous biosimilar agents. In this article, we recap the evidence from bio-originator trials in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to provide context for a critical review of biosimilar trial data. RECENT FINDINGS:Currently, three adalimumab biosimilars are approved in Europe and/or the USA: Amgen's ABP 501 (AMJEVITA/Solymbic), Boehringer Ingelheim's BI 695501 (Cyltezo) and Samsung Bioepis's SB5 (Imraldi). All three agents met their pre-specified equivalence criteria. Subtle differences in adverse events and clinical responses between the reference and biosimilar products were noted. The introduction of adalimumab biosimilars will offer exciting opportunities in improving treatment access and increasing treatment options for RA and other licensed indications. Real-world data will further provide assurances on efficacy as well as safety.
| S-EPMC6097048 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The global development of a biosimilar product is a methodologically complex affair, lined with potential design pitfalls and operational missteps to be avoided. Without careful attention to experimental design and meticulous execution, a development programme may fail to demonstrate equivalence, as would be anticipated for a biosimilar product, and not receive regulatory approval based on current guidance. In order to demonstrate similarity of a biosimilar product versus the originator (ie, the branded product), based on regulatory guidance, a stepwise approach is usually taken, starting with a comprehensive structural and functional characterisation of the new biological moiety. Given the sequential nature of the review process, the extent and nature of the non-clinical in vivo studies and the clinical studies to be performed depend on the level of evidence obtained in these previous step(s). A clinical efficacy trial is often required to further demonstrate biosimilarity of the two products (biosimilar vs branded) in terms of comparative safety and effectiveness. Owing to the focus on demonstrating biosimilarity and not safety and efficacy de novo, designing an adequate phase III (potentially pivotal) clinical efficacy study of a biosimilar may present some unique challenges. Using adalimumab as an example, we highlight design elements that may deserve special attention.
| S-EPMC4746581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To date, the impact of background glucocorticoids (GC) on the efficacy and safety of abatacept or adalimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is not clearly established. This post hoc analysis of (AMPLE) trial (NCT00929864) compared efficacy and safety outcomes over 2 years in patients treated with abatacept or adalimumab plus background methotrexate (MTX), who continued GC (?10 mg/day) versus those who were not receiving GC (no-GC). Of 646 randomized patients, 317 received abatacept + MTX (161 GC, 156 no-GC) and 326 received adalimumab + MTX (162 GC, 164 no-GC). At Year 2, the adjusted mean changes from baseline in Disease Activity Score (DAS28 C-reactive protein (CRP)) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) were not significantly different in the GC versus no-GC subgroups receiving abatacept or adalimumab. A similar proportion of patients achieved remission, HAQ-DI score improvement ?0.3 and radiographic progression rates. No clinically meaningful safety differences were observed between GC versus no-GC subgroups either with abatacept or adalimumab. In patients with active RA of similar baseline disease activity treated with abatacept or adalimumab plus background MTX, there was no additional value of background GC on clinical, functional or radiographic outcomes over two years.
| S-EPMC7356046 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:Evaluate open-label sarilumab monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis switching from adalimumab monotherapy in MONARCH (NCT02332590); assess long-term safety and efficacy in patients continuing sarilumab during open-label extension (OLE). Methods:During the 48-week OLE, patients received sarilumab 200 mg subcutaneously once every 2 weeks. Safety (March 2017 cut-off) and efficacy, including patient-reported outcomes, were evaluated. Results:In the double-blind phase, patients receiving sarilumab or adalimumab monotherapy showed meaningful improvements in disease activity; sarilumab was superior to adalimumab for improving signs, symptoms and physical function. Overall, 320/369 patients completing the 24-week double-blind phase entered OLE (155 switched from adalimumab; 165 continued sarilumab). Sarilumab safety profile was consistent with previous reports. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups; no unexpected safety signals emerged in the first 10 weeks postswitch. Among switch patients, improvement in disease activity was evident at OLE week 12: 47.1%/34.8% had changes ≥1.2 in Disease Activity Score (28 joints) (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate/DAS28-C-reactive protein. In switch patients achieving low disease activity (LDA: Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤10; Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) ≤11) by OLE week 24, 70.7%/69.5% sustained CDAI/SDAI LDA at both OLE weeks 36 and 48. Proportions of switch patients achieving CDAI ≤2.8 and SDAI ≤3.3 by OLE week 24 increased through OLE week 48. Improvements postswitch approached continuation-group values, including scores ≥normative values. Conclusions:During this OLE, there were no unexpected safety issues in patients switching from adalimumab to sarilumab monotherapy, and disease activity improved in many patients. Patients continuing sarilumab reported safety consistent with prolonged use and had sustained benefit.
| S-EPMC6802992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo demonstrate equivalent efficacy of the proposed high-concentration (100 mg/ml), citrate-free adalimumab biosimilar CT-P17 to European Union-approved adalimumab (EU-adalimumab) in subjects with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsThis randomized, double-blind phase III study ( ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03789292) randomized (1:1) subjects with active RA at 52 centers to receive CT-P17 or EU-adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks until week 52. Results to week 24 are reported here. The primary endpoint was 20% improvement by American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) response rate at week 24. Equivalence was concluded if the corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) for the estimate of treatment difference were within predefined equivalence margins: - 15 to 15% (95% CI; European Medicines Agency assumption); - 12 to 15% (90% CI; Food and Drug Administration assumption). Additional efficacy, pharmacokinetic, usability, safety, and immunogenicity endpoints were evaluated.Results648 subjects were randomized (324 CT-P17; 324 EU-adalimumab). The ACR20 response rate at week 24 was 82.7% (n = 268/324) in both groups (intention-to-treat population). The 95% CI (- 5.94 to 5.94) and 90% CI (- 4.98 to 4.98) were within predefined equivalence margins for both assumptions and equivalent efficacy was concluded. Additional endpoints and overall safety were comparable between groups. Mean trough serum concentrations of CT-P17 were slightly higher than those of EU-adalimumab. Immunogenicity was slightly lower numerically for the CT-P17 group than for the EU-adalimumab group.ConclusionsCT-P17 and EU-adalimumab have equivalent efficacy and comparable safety and immunogenicity in subjects with active RA. Overall safety of CT-P17 is consistent with the known safety profile of reference adalimumab.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03789292 . Registered 28 December 2018-retrospectively registered.
| S-EPMC7863328 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of switching from reference adalimumab to adalimumab biosimilar CT-P17 with continuing reference adalimumab/CT-P17 in active RA.MethodsThis double-blind, phase III study randomized (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 randomized (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. End points were efficacy (including joint damage progression), pharmacokinetics, safety and immunogenicity.ResultsOf 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 ACR 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.ConclusionEfficacy, 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.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03789292.
| S-EPMC8996790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesMavrilimumab, a human monoclonal antibody targeting the alpha subunit of the granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor, was evaluated in a phase 2 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to investigate efficacy and safety in subjects with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsSubcutaneous mavrilimumab (10 mg, 30 mg, 50 mg, or 100 mg) or placebo was administered every other week for 12 weeks in subjects on stable background methotrexate therapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects achieving a ≥1.2 decrease from baseline in Disease Activity Score (DAS28-CRP) at week 12.Results55.7% of mavrilimumab-treated subjects met the primary endpoint versus 34.7% placebo (p=0.003) at week 12; for the 10 mg, 30 mg, 50 mg, and 100 mg groups, responses were 41.0% (p=0.543), 61.0% (p=0.011), 53.8% (p=0.071), and 66.7% (p=0.001) respectively. Response rate differences from placebo were observed at week 2 and increased throughout the treatment period. The 100 mg dose demonstrated a significant effect versus placebo on DAS28-CRP<2.6 (23.1% vs 6.7%, p=0.016), all categories of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria (ACR20: 69.2% vs 40.0%, p=0.005; ACR50: 30.8% vs 12.0%, p=0.021; ACR70: 17.9% vs 4.0%, p=0.030), and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (-0.48 vs -0.25, p=0.005). A biomarker-based disease activity score showed a dose-dependent decrease at week 12, indicating suppression of disease-related biological pathways. Adverse events were generally mild or moderate in intensity. No significant hypersensitivity reactions, serious or opportunistic infections, or changes in pulmonary parameters were observed.ConclusionsMavrilimumab induced rapid clinically significant responses in RA subjects, suggesting that inhibiting the mononuclear phagocyte pathway may provide a novel therapeutic approach for RA.
| S-EPMC3756523 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the safety of abatacept treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using integrated data from multiple clinical trials.MethodsData from nine double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of abatacept treatment (seven intravenous, two subcutaneous) in patients with RA were pooled, focusing on safety events in the double-blind treatment period of each study. Incidence rates (IRs) of adverse events (AEs) per 100 patient-years of exposure were calculated for abatacept- and placebo-treated patients. AEs in abatacept-treated patients were combined regardless of dose and formulation.ResultsIn total, 2653 patients received abatacept and 1485 received placebo, with 2357 and 1254 patient-years of exposure, respectively. The mean (SD) durations of exposure in the abatacept and placebo groups were 10.8 (3.3) and 10.3 (3.5) months, respectively. The IRs (95% confidence interval [CI]) for serious AEs were 14.8 (13.3, 16.5) and 14.6 (12.5, 17.0) in the abatacept and placebo groups, respectively. Death occurred in 12 (0.5%) and 12 (0.8%) patients in the abatacept and placebo groups, respectively, and was most commonly caused by cardiac disorders. Malignancies were observed in 31 patients (1.2%) treated with abatacept (IR: 1.32 [95% CI: 0.90, 1.87]) versus 14 (0.9%; IR: 1.12 [0.61, 1.88]) who received placebo. Solid organ tumor was the most frequent malignancy reported in both groups (abatacept: 1.0%; IR: 1.11 [95% CI: 0.72, 1.62]; placebo: 0.8%; 0.96 [0.50, 1.67]).ConclusionIn this integrated analysis, the IRs of safety events in the abatacept and placebo groups were similar with no new safety concerns identified.
| S-EPMC6858048 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDifficult-to-treat Rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA) is primarily characterised by failure of at least two different mechanism of action biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARDs) with evidence of active/progressive disease. While a variety of drugs have been used in previous studies to treat D2T RA, there has been no systematic summary of these drugs. This study conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials aimed at analyzing the efficacy and safety of individual therapeutic agents for the treatment of D2T RA and recommending the optimal therapeutic dose.MethodsThe English databases were searched for studies on the treatment of D2T RA published between the date of the database's establishment and March, 2024. This study uses R 3.1.2 for data analysis, and the rjags package runs JAGS 3.4.0.20. The study fitted a stochastic effects Bayesian network meta-analysis for each outcome measure.ResultA total of 42 studies were included in this study. Compared with placebo, the improvement of Disease Activity Score of 28 Joints (DAS28) score is ranked from high to low as tocilizumab, baricitinib and opinercept. The improvement of American College of Rheumatology 50 response (ACR50) score in patients with drug use was ranked from good to poor as follows: olokizumab, tocilizumab, adalimumab, baricitinib, and upadacitinib, and 8 mg/4w tocilizumab demonstrated the best efficacy. Notably, rituximab is generally the safest drug. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors and T cell costimulation modulators are effective in D2T RA refractory to biologic DMARDs, while JAK inhibitors and interleukin-6 (IL-6) inhibitors show effectiveness in D2T RA refractory to csDMARDs.ConclusionTocilizumab and rituximab have better efficacy and safety in the treatment of D2T RA, and the 8 mg/4w dose of tocilizumab may be the first choice for achieving disease remission.
| S-EPMC11351028 | biostudies-literature