Switching from originator adalimumab to biosimilar SB5 in a rheumatology cohort: persistence on treatment, predictors of drug interruption and safety analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aims:
Medical and non-medical switching strategies have been adopted in Europe in
SUBMITTER: Bruni C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8804457 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and aimsMultiple adalimumab [ADA] biosimilars are now approved for use in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]; however, effectiveness and safety data remain scarce. We aimed to investigate long-term outcomes of the ADA biosimilar SB5 in IBD patients following a switch from the ADA originator [SB5-switch cohort] or after start of SB5 [SB5-start cohort].MethodsWe performed an observational cohort study in a tertiary IBD referral centre. All IBD patients treated with Humira underwent an elective switch to SB5. We identified all these patients in a biological prescription database that prospectively registered all ADA start and stop dates including brand names. Data on IBD phenotype, C-reactive protein [CRP], drug persistence, ADA drug and antibody levels, and faecal calprotectin were collected.ResultsIn total, 481 patients were treated with SB5, 256 in the SB5-switch cohort (median follow-up: 13.7 months [IQR 8.6-15.2]) and 225 in the SB5-start cohort [median follow-up: 8.3 months [4.2-12.8]). Of the SB5-switch cohort, 70.8% remained on SB5 beyond 1 year; 90/256 discontinued SB5, mainly due to adverse events [46/90] or secondary loss of response [37/90]. In the SB5-start cohort, 81/225 discontinued SB5, resulting in SB5-drug persistence of 60.3% beyond 1 year. No differences in clinical remission [p = 0.53], CRP [p = 0.80], faecal calprotectin [p = 0.40] and ADA trough levels [p = 0.55] were found between baseline, week 26 and week 52 following switch. Injection site pain was the most frequently reported adverse event.ConclusionSwitching from ADA originator to SB5 appeared effective and safe in this study with over 12 months of follow-up.
| S-EPMC8684477 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBiologics, regardless of whether they are biosimilars or reference products, are inherently variable due to their size, complexity, and the manufacturing process involved to produce them. Since a drift or evolution of quality attributes of a biologic may impact its clinical safety or efficacy, it is critical for the manufacturer to carefully control the manufacturing process and monitor the quality attributes of a biologic.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to demonstrate that the quality profile of the SB5 drug product has been consistent over its production history from 2013 to 2022. SB5 is a biosimilar referencing adalimumab (Humira, trademark of AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd) and SB5 has been approved by 14 regulatory authorities including the European Commission in August 2017 (brand name Imraldi™) and the US Food and Drug Administration in July 2019 (brand name Hadlima™).MethodsA total of 93 SB5 drug product batches manufactured between 2013 and 2022 were analyzed for a series of release parameters to evaluate the consistency in their critical quality attributes including purity, charge variants, and functional activities (TNF-α binding activity and TNF-α neutralizing potency).ResultsThe purity, charge variants, and functional activities of all batches were consistent over time and within the stringent acceptance criteria defined by regulatory agencies to ensure the safety and efficacy of SB5.ConclusionThe data presented in this study provide evidence that the quality of SB5 has remained consistent and tightly controlled even through process changes such as manufacturing site transfers and change in formulation.
| S-EPMC9971099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:The 24-week equivalent efficacy and comparable safety results of the biosimilar SB5 and reference adalimumab (ADA) from the phase III randomized study in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been reported previously. We undertook this transition study to evaluate patients who switched from ADA to SB5 or who continued to receive SB5 or ADA up to 52 weeks. METHODS:In this phase III study, patients were initially randomized 1:1 to receive SB5 or ADA (40 mg subcutaneously every other week). At 24 weeks, patients receiving ADA were rerandomized 1:1 to continue with ADA (ADA/ADA group) or to switch to SB5 (ADA/SB5 group) up to week 52; patients receiving SB5 continued with SB5 for 52 weeks (SB5 group). Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were evaluated up to 52 weeks. RESULTS:The full analysis set population consisted of 542 patients (269 in the SB5 group, 273 in the ADA overall group [patients who were randomized to receive ADA at week 0], 125 in the ADA/SB5 group, and 129 in the ADA/ADA group). The percentages of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, or 70% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20, ACR50, or ACR70 response) at week 24 were maintained after the transition from ADA to SB5, and these response rates were comparable across treatment groups throughout the study. ACR20 response rates ranged from 73.4% to 78.8% at week 52. Radiographic progression was minimal and comparable across treatment groups. The safety profile and the incidence of antidrug antibodies were comparable across treatment groups after transition. CONCLUSION:SB5 was well tolerated over 1 year in patients with RA, with efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity comparable to those of ADA. Switching from ADA to SB5 had no treatment-emergent issues such as increased adverse events, increased immunogenicity, or loss of efficacy.
| S-EPMC6001519 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5765475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe objective of this study was to demonstrate comparable pharmacokinetic (PK), safety, and tolerability parameters of the adalimumab biosimilar SB5 administered via autoinjector (AI) pen or prefilled syringe (PFS).Patients and methodsIn this phase 1, randomized, open-label, single-dose, parallel-group study, healthy subjects aged 18-55 years were randomized 1:1 to a single dose of 40 mg SB5 delivered subcutaneously via AI or PFS. PK parameters, safety, and tolerability were assessed for 57 days post-dose. The primary endpoint was area under the curve (AUC) of the concentration-time curve from zero to infinity (AUCinf) and from zero to last quantifiable concentration (AUClast) and maximum serum concentration (Cmax). Equivalence was determined using predefined margins of 0.80-1.25 for the 90% CI for the ratio of SB5 AI to SB5 PFS.ResultsNinety-five subjects were randomized to each group. Mean serum concentration-time profiles were superimposable between groups. Mean values for AUCinf, AUClast, and Cmax were similar between the SB5 AI and SB5 PFS groups. For the primary endpoints, the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric least squares means for SB5 AI to SB5 PFS ranged between 0.9503 and 1.2240, which were all within the equivalence margin of 0.80-1.25. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and injection site reactions was similar between groups.ConclusionIn healthy subjects receiving a single dose of SB5 via AI or PFS, PK parameters and corresponding 90% CIs were within the predefined margins, showing bioequivalence between the two delivery methods. Safety and tolerability assessments were also similar between groups.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT02326233.Eudract number2014-005178-12.
| S-EPMC6225915 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSB5 is an approved biosimilar of adalimumab, a monoclonal anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) antibody. This study compared pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity between a new high-concentration, low-volume, and citrate-free formulation (40 mg/0.4 ml, SB5-HC) and the current low-concentration formulation with higher volume (40 mg/0.8 ml, SB5-LC) to evaluate the bioequivalence of the two formulations.MethodsThis study was a randomized, single-blind, two-arm, parallel-group, single-dose study in healthy male subjects. Subjects were randomized to receive either SB5-HC or SB5-LC via subcutaneous injection using a pre-filled syringe. Primary endpoints were the area under the curve of the concentration-time curve from zero to infinity (AUCinf) and maximum serum concentration (Cmax). Bioequivalence was achieved if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric least squares mean (LSMean) of primary endpoints were within the pre-defined bioequivalence margins of 0.80-1.25. Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity.ResultsSubjects (n = 188) were randomized to SB5-HC (n = 94) or SB5-LC (n = 94). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two treatment groups. The mean values for AUCinf and Cmax were similar between the SB5-HC and SB5-LC groups. For the primary endpoints, the geometric LSMean ratios (90% CI) for AUCinf and Cmax were 0.920 (0.8262-1.0239) and 0.984 (0.9126-1.0604), respectively, placing the corresponding 90% CIs well within the pre-defined bioequivalence margin of 0.80-1.25. All treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were considered mild to moderate and were reported for 44.7% and 51.1% of subjects in the SB5-HC and SB5-LC groups, respectively. Immunogenicity assessed by frequency of occurrence of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) and neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) was comparable between groups.ConclusionsThis bridging study demonstrated PK equivalence and comparable safety and tolerability of subcutaneous injection of SB5 via SB5-HC or SB5-LC.ClinicaltrialsGOV IDENTIFIER: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04514796 .
| S-EPMC9309445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdalimumab is an effective and safe biological drug for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Nowadays, several biosimilar agents are available, but data regarding their efficacy and safety in patients with IBD are still lacking. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and tolerability between adalimumab originator, ABP501 and SB5 biosimilars in patients with IBD in the short term (after induction and after 6 months of treatment) through a propensity score-weighted multicenter cohort study.MethodsWe included 156 patients with IBD, 69 patients with ulcerative colitis and 87 patients with Crohn's disease (CD) receiving ABP501 or SB5 biosimilars from January 2019 to April 2020 for moderate-to-severe disease. For comparison, a group of age- and sex-matched patients treated with adalimumab originator was used. We collected clinical and biochemical data after induction and at 6 months of treatment. Endoscopic data were recorded only at baseline.ResultsOverall, clinical benefit was achieved by 86.4% and 85.3% after induction and at 6 months, respectively, without a statistically significant difference between the three treatment groups (p = 0.68 and p = 0.46). However, after induction, we found significant differences between the two types of the disease (ulcerative colitis or CD, p = 0.004), with a greater clinical benefit achieved by patients with CD. Also, the therapeutic optimization rate between the three drugs was not statistically significant different (p = 0.30). All treatments showed a good safety profile, with only 10 patients who needed to stop therapy because of adverse events.ConclusionAdalimumab biosimilars seem to be as effective and safe as the originator in patients with IBD. Surely, they represent a great opportunity to reduce the costs of biological therapies, however larger and longer real-life studies are necessary.
| S-EPMC8295962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionReal-world data on the comparative effectiveness and safety of switching among different epoetins (including originators and biosimilars) are limited. In light of current debate about interchangeability, prescribers, some patient groups and decision makers are calling for additional post-marketing evidence on the clinical effects of switching between originator and biosimilar epoetins in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of switching versus non-switching and of switching from originator/biosimilar epoetin alpha (ESA α) to any other epoetin in CKD patients.MethodsAn observational, record-linkage, multi-database, retrospective cohort study was carried out in four Italian geographical areas. All subjects with at least one ESA α dispensing between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2015 were retrieved. Switching was defined as any transition between originator/biosimilar ESA α to any other epoetin in a series of two consecutive prescriptions up to 2 years. Switchers were matched 1:1 with non-switchers by baseline propensity score and by duration of ESA α treatment. Switchers and non-switchers were followed up from switching date to a maximum of 1 year. Lack of effectiveness and safety of switching versus non-switching were evaluated through Cox regression models (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]). A direct comparison between the two switcher categories (switchers from originator/biosimilar ESA α to any other epoetin) was also performed.ResultsOverall, 14,400 incident users of ESA α for anaemia due to CKD (61.4% originator, 38.6% biosimilar) were available for analysis. During the follow-up, we found no differences on effectiveness (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79-1.31 originators; HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.75-1.79 biosimilars) and safety outcomes (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77-1.50 originators; HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.66-2.21 biosimilars) between switchers and non-switchers of ESA α. Cumulative probabilities of recording an adverse event, either in terms of lack of effectiveness or safety issue, were the same for two switching categories CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale Italian observational multi-database study, switching versus non-switching as well as switching from biosimilar/originator ESA α to any other epoetin in CKD patients is not associated with any effectiveness and safety outcomes.
| S-EPMC6858470 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesThe 52-week, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority, government-funded NOR-SWITCH trial demonstrated that switching from infliximab originator to less expensive biosimilar CT-P13 was not inferior to continued treatment with infliximab originator. The NOR-SWITCH extension trial aimed to assess efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients on CT-P13 throughout the 78-week study period (maintenance group) versus patients switched to CT-P13 at week 52 (switch group). The primary outcome was disease worsening during follow-up based on disease-specific composite measures.MethodsPatients were recruited from 24 Norwegian hospitals, 380 of 438 patients who completed the main study: 197 in the maintenance group and 183 in the switch group. In the full analysis set, 127 (33%) had Crohn's disease, 80 (21%) ulcerative colitis, 67 (18%) spondyloarthritis, 55 (15%) rheumatoid arthritis, 20 (5%) psoriatic arthritis and 31 (8%) chronic plaque psoriasis.ResultsBaseline characteristics were similar in the two groups at the time of switching (week 52). Disease worsening occurred in 32 (16.8%) patients in the maintenance group vs. 20 (11.6%) in the switch group (per-protocol set). Adjusted risk difference was 5.9% (95% CI -1.1 to 12.9). Frequency of adverse events, anti-drug antibodies, changes in generic disease variables and disease-specific composite measures were comparable between arms. The study was inadequately powered to detect noninferiority within individual diseases.ConclusionThe NOR-SWITCH extension showed no difference in safety and efficacy between patients who maintained CT-P13 and patients who switched from originator infliximab to CT-P13, supporting that switching from originator infliximab to CT-P13 is safe and efficacious.
| S-EPMC6850326 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim was to study the effect of non-mandatory transitioning from etanercept originator to etanercept biosimilar on retention rates in a setting promoting shared decision-making.MethodsIn 2016, all patients treated with etanercept originator and stable disease at the Rheumatology department in Bernhoven were offered transitioning to etanercept biosimilar by an opt-in approach. A historical cohort of patients treated with etanercept originator in 2015 was identified as the control group. Etanercept discontinuation was compared between the cohorts using Cox regression. To study the nocebo effect, reasons for discontinuation were categorized into objective reasons (e.g. laboratory abnormalities, increase in swollen joint count, allergic reaction) and subjective health complaints (symptoms perceptible only to the patient, e.g. tiredness, arthralgia). An adjusted Kaplan-Meier curve for retention of the etanercept biosimilar was made, censoring subjective health complaints as the reason for discontinuation.ResultsSeventy of the 79 patients eligible for transitioning agreed to transition (89%). The 1-year crude retention rate of etanercept in the transition cohort was 73% (95% CI: 0.62, 0.83), compared with a retention rate of 89% (95% CI: 0.81, 0.95) in the historical cohort (P = 0.013). This resulted in a higher risk of treatment discontinuation in the transition cohort (adjusted hazard ratio = 2.73; 95% CI: 1.23, 6.05, P = 0.01). After adjusting for the nocebo effect, the cohorts had comparable retention rates (86 vs 89%, P = 0.51).ConclusionNon-mandatory transition from etanercept originator to its biosimilar using an opt-in approach in a setting promoting shared decision-making resulted in a higher discontinuation of etanercept compared with the historical cohort. This could be attributed largely to the nocebo effect.
| S-EPMC7519774 | biostudies-literature