Switching Between Adalimumab Reference Product and BI 695501 in Patients with Chronic Plaque Psoriasis (VOLTAIRE-X): A Randomized Controlled Trial

Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling to predict the exposure and provide dosage regimens of adalimumab in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab has been approved for treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). This study aimed to develop a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for adalimumab in JIA patients to optimize personalized treatment.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search identified 13 clinical studies as the dataset for constructing and validating a PBPK model of adalimumab. Initially, a PBPK model for adalimumab in adults was constructed using PK-Sim and Mobi software. Subsequently, virtual pediatric populations were created by incorporating age-dependent parameters from the PK-Sim database, extending the model to JIA patients. Finally, based on the developed PBPK model for adalimumab in JIA patients, dosing regimens were evaluated for different age groups.

RESULTS

This study successfully developed and validated a PBPK model for adalimumab in both adult and pediatric populations. The model for adults accurately predicted 92.90% of the concentrations within 0.5-2 times the observed values, while the pediatric model predicted 90.62% of the concentrations within 0.5-2-fold range. For pediatric patients with JIA, age- and weight-based dosing is recommended to achieve trough concentrations comparable to those in adults.

CONCLUSION

A PBPK model for adalimumab in pediatric patients with JIA was developed, providing a basis for personalized dosing regimens in this population.

A Randomised, Double-Blind Trial to Compare the Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of the Biosimilar Ustekinumab FYB202 with Reference Ustekinumab in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars allow more patients access to affordable treatment options and help reduce the financial burden on healthcare systems. This multicentre trial compared the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the approved biosimilar ustekinumab FYB202 with reference ustekinumab.

METHODS

Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old with stable moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis for ≥ 6 months and inadequate treatment response to or intolerance of ≥ 1 previous systemic treatment. Patients were randomised (1:1) to double-blind treatment with FYB202 or reference ustekinumab; patients in the reference group who achieved Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 percent improvement at week 28 were re-randomised to FYB202 or reference product. The primary efficacy endpoint was percent improvement in PASI score from baseline to week 12. Therapeutic equivalence was demonstrated if, depending on the regulatory requirement with respect to the significance level, the two-sided 95% and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were within the pre-defined equivalence intervals of ± 11% and ± 10%, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 392 patients were randomised to FYB202 (n = 197) or reference ustekinumab (n = 195). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. Mean percent improvement in PASI score at week 12 was equivalent between FYB202 and reference ustekinumab with an estimated least-squares mean treatment difference of 3.27% and the two-sided 95% (- 0.90%, 7.44%) and 90% (- 0.22%, 6.77%) CIs fully contained within the pre-defined equivalence margins. Safety and immunogenicity profiles were comparable between groups. Switching from reference product to FYB202 had no clinically relevant effect on efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity.

CONCLUSION

FYB202 demonstrated therapeutic equivalence to reference ustekinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04595409; EudraCT 2019-004364-21.

Switching from Adalimumab Reference Product to and Among Adalimumab Biosimilars Outside the USA: Insights for US Clinicians

Ten adalimumab biosimilars have been introduced in the United States (USA) since 2023, while adalimumab biosimilars have been available for several years in other countries. These experiences of biosimilar uptake outside the USA can inform US-based healthcare professionals on switching in real-life practice settings. Considerations include how healthcare professionals might meaningfully address patient concerns about outcomes to improve patient satisfaction. A search of the MEDLINE database was used to identify publications on switching to and among adalimumab biosimilars in an ex-US setting, with no restriction on publication language and using a time frame of 1 January 2017 through 12 December 2023, coinciding with the European Union approval of the first adalimumab biosimilar, adalimumab-atto, in March 2017. This narrative review aims to provide insights into the efficacy and safety of transitioning to and among adalimumab biosimilars in adult patients from clinical studies but also, more importantly, using real-world evidence (RWE) from outside the USA. Overall, RWE suggested that efficacy and outcomes were consistent in patients who underwent switching from the reference product (RP) across various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases when compared to patients who did not switch from the RP. The ex-US RWE of RP and biosimilar adalimumab switches generally reflected the experiences observed in clinical trials; however, RWE findings elucidated several challenges to biosimilar uptake, including patient education, provider training, and supportive policies.

Biosimilars versus biological therapy in inflammatory bowel disease: challenges and targeting strategies using drug delivery systems

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a multifactorial illness with a climbing prevalence worldwide. While biologics are commonly prescribed especially for severe cases, they may worsen patients' outcomes due to financial burden. Consequently, there has been an increased focus on biosimilars to improve overall disease outcomes by maintaining similar efficacy and safety while minimizing the cost of therapy. Infliximab-dyyb was the first biosimilar approved by US-FDA for IBD. Since that, the US-FDA approved 14 biosimilars with different mechanisms of action and different routes of administration for IBD patients (four infliximab biosimilars, nine adalimumab biosimilars, and most recently one ustekinumab biosimilar). It should be noted that more biologics are in the pipeline as golimumab and natalizumab patents are set to expire in the near future, and biosimilars are now in pre-clinical to phase 3 trials. Different studies have evaluated biologics' effectiveness and safety and concluded that the majority of available biosimilars are efficacious and have similar adverse effect profiles compared to their reference biologics. It is worth mentioningthat post-marketing surveillance reports revealed some risks associated with biosimilars which should be taken into consideration in future research and clinical trials to avoid health hazards. Most biologics and biosimilars are administered parenterally which results in several drawbacks such as raised risk of infections, hypersensitivity, autoimmunity, development of malignancies, liver toxicity as well as worsening of heart failure. Several drug delivery systems based on passive and active targeting mechanisms are under active investigation to overcome these limitations. This review sheds light on the emergence of biologics and biosimilars as alternatives in IBD management, the differences between them, challenges and risks, and future perspectives in IBD therapy and new trends in drug delivery systems.

Antidrug antibodies to adalimumab do not associate with immunologically related adverse events

Introduction

Unwanted immune responses (UIRs) to biologics can negatively impact treatment efficacy and pharmacokinetics and/or induce adverse events (AEs). We characterized the UIR profile of adalimumab (ADL) using data from a phase 3, randomized, interchangeability study of reference ADL (ADL-REF; Humira®) and ADL biosimilar PF-06410293 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Eligible patients (18-70 years, moderate-to-severe active RA) received ADL-REF from weeks 0-10 (lead-in period) then were randomized 1:1 to: 3 switches between PF-06410293 and ADL-REF or continuous ADL-REF treatment until week 32. As interchangeability of PF-06410293 with ADL-REF was previously demonstrated, data were combined across groups to describe the development of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) and their impact on pharmacokinetics and immunologically related AEs. Pharmacokinetic endpoints included maximum observed serum concentration (Cmax), area under serum concentration-time curve over dosing interval (AUCtau), time of maximum observed serum concentration (Tmax), average serum concentration (Cav), and apparent clearance (CL/F), determined from robust pharmacokinetic sampling during weeks 30-32; and predose concentrations (Ctrough) at prespecified sampling time points. Other endpoints: patients (%) with ADA-positive and neutralizing ADA (NAb)-positive samples, time of first ADA/NAb detected, ADA titers over time, persistence of ADA/NAb, and immunologically related AEs by ADA/NAb status.

Results

Of 427 randomized patients, 59% were ADA-positive, 52% had persistent ADA, 14% were NAb-positive, and 10% had persistent NAb. In most patients, ADA/NAb first developed within 16 weeks of ADL treatment regardless of pre-existing (baseline day 1) ADA. ADA/NAb titers stabilized by week 16 without boosters. Ctrough was lower in patients with ADA-positive than ADA-negative samples throughout the study. From weeks 30-32, AUCtau, Cmax, and Cav were lower in ADA-positive than ADA-negative samples at week 30, especially in patients with ADA-positive/NAb-positive samples. Only 3% of patients had immunologically related AEs. Most were injection site and hypersensitivity reactions, and none were considered severe or serious or associated with the presence of ADA/NAb. Presence of pre-existing ADA did not increase the potential for immunologically related responses to ADL.

Conclusions

Presence of ADA (with or without NAb) was associated with lower drug concentrations and faster clearance but not with the development of immunologically related AEs.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT0423021.

From the Masterclasses in Dermatology 2024 Meeting: Updates in Psoriasis Treatments

Psoriasis (PsO) is an immune-mediated, chronic inflammatory skin disease that significantly impairs quality of life. Its treatment landscape is rapidly evolving, providing better disease control. Here, we highlight updates in biologics, obtaining coverage for biologics under Medicare, the PsO-to-psoriatic arthritis (PsA) transition, and orally administered drugs, as presented at the 2024 Masterclass in Dermatology in Puerto Rico. We provide a concise overview of the evolving therapeutic landscape and its impact on personalized care for patients with PsO. The toolkit of biologics is expanding, with agents that target interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 pathways addressing symptoms across multiple disease domains. Interchangeable biosimilars reduce financial barriers to access, particularly for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. An IL-36 receptor antibody, spesolimab, demonstrates efficacy in generalized pustular psoriasis. Further, Medicare has expanded coverage of certain biologics, addressing challenges to treating patients of this population. PsA is an important comorbidity that can significantly reduce quality of life. Recent studies suggest that biologic therapies-including TNF inhibitors, as well as anti-IL-17, anti-IL-23, and anti-IL-12/23 agents-protect against arthritis onset in PsO patients. In addition to traditional modes of delivery, novel formulations address widespread preference for orally administered therapies. Deucravacitinib, a tyrosine kinase (TYK) 2 inhibitor, is highly selective, effective, and safe. Additionally, JNJ-77242113, an investigational IL-23 receptor antagonist, constitutes an orally administered, targeted biologic therapy. Together, these developments are shaping the future for patients with PsO. It is our goal to simplify the complexities of emerging treatment options, offering clinicians a concise and useful guide for patient management.

Pooled safety analysis from the VOLTAIRE clinical trials of adalimumab-adbm and adalimumab reference product in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, and chronic plaque psoriasis

OBJECTIVES

This analysis reported the incidence of safety endpoints across five phase 3 randomized controlled clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Crohn's disease (CD), and chronic plaque psoriasis (PsO) who received ≥ 1 dose of adalimumab-adbm or adalimumab reference product (RP).

METHODS

Exposure-adjusted incidence rates for safety endpoints were calculated per 100 patient-years and reported by disease indication and treatment arm. Subgroup analyses by patient age and sex were also conducted.

RESULTS

The mean length of follow-up was 62 weeks, 48 weeks, and 32 weeks for patients with RA, CD, and PsO, respectively. Rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) and discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs) were similar among patients with RA and PsO, but slightly higher among those with CD. Incidence rates of all safety endpoints were consistent between the adalimumab-adbm and adalimumab RP treatment arms within each indication Subgroup analyses of patients with RA, CD, and PsO showed no between-group differences by age and sex.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with RA, CD, and PsO, there were no differences between biosimilar adalimumab-adbm or the adalimumab RP regarding the rate of AEs, SAEs, discontinuations due to AEs, deaths, or any AEs of special interest.

Comparing anti-drug antibody signal-to-noise ratios to assess immunogenicity and interchangeability in adalimumab biosimilar studies

BACKGROUND

To support an interchangeability designation for Sandoz adalimumab biosimilar (GP2017), antidrug antibody (ADA) signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios were assessed in the GP2017 ADACCESS trial to directly assess potential changes in immunogenicity.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

ADACCESS was a 51-week trial in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis that included patients treated continuously with reference adalimumab (cH), and patients who experienced four switches between reference adalimumab and GP2017 (H2H). ADAs were measured every 6 weeks during the switching phase using an electrochemiluminescence assay. A non-parametric analysis was performed to estimate the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the median of difference in ADA S/N ratios between the cH and H2H treatment groups at week 41. If the 90% CI was within the margin of -0.16 to 0.16 (representing assay noise), this was considered a non-clinically meaningful difference in immunogenicity.

RESULTS

The 90% CIs of the median of difference in ADA S/N ratios between the two treatment groups were within the defined margin of -0.16 to 0.16 at week 41, and at all other time points. Efficacy and safety data were also similar between the treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of ADA S/N ratios showed no increase in immunogenicity following up to four switches between reference adalimumab and GP2017.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02016105.

Possibilities and Limitations in Substituting anti-Drug Antibody Titers with Signal-to-Noise Ratios: A Comprehensive Comparison Using Two Clinical Trial Datasets of Adalimumab

Immunogenicity assessment is vital in clinical trials and is measured through a multi-tiered approach (screening, confirmatory and titer assays). However, recent studies have suggested that titer results could be reported from ADA signal-to-noise ratios (S/N ratios=sample mean signal/negative control mean signal). More data analysis using two clinical trials of adalimumab: SB5-1003 (single-dose, healthy participants) and SB5-4001 (multiple-dose, interchangeability study, patients with plaque psoriasis), therefore, is indispensable whether substituting ADA S/N ratio as an alternative way of reporting titer results has no impact on interpretation on clinical outcome. In this study, we demonstrated that there is a strong correlation between S/N ratios and titers and no impact on overall PK results. Nonetheless, sub-analyses with time or adalimumab level showed a change in the regression between S/N ratios and titers, leading to different titer values from the same S/N ratio. These data demonstrate that S/N ratios may fully replace titers in limited circumstances such as a biosimilar study which goal is to prove equivalence between the originator and candidate product, but need a caution in other cases.

Effects of Adalimumab-adbm Versus Adalimumab Reference Product on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from VOLTAIRE-RA

INTRODUCTION

This post hoc analysis of VOLTAIRE-RA compared patient-reported outcomes, including health-related quality of life (HRQoL), in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) before and after treatment with biosimilar adalimumab-adbm or adalimumab reference product.

METHODS

HRQoL was assessed by 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) Physical and Mental Component Summary (PCS and MCS, respectively) and domain scores at baseline and weeks 12/24. Results were considered clinically meaningful if improvements were greater than or equal to minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) of 2.5 for PCS and MCS and 5.0 for domain scores. Comparisons with age- and sex-matched norms and treatment-associated changes in domain scores from baseline were quantified using spydergrams and the health utility SF-6D measure. All comparisons between treatment groups were descriptive in nature.

RESULTS

No differences in PCS scores were reported between treatment groups at baseline or weeks 12/24. MCS scores slightly favored the reference product group at baseline, and differences in scores at weeks 12/24 generally reflected those differences. Improvements in PCS scores greater than or equal to MCID at weeks 12/24 were reported by over 65% of patients in both treatment groups, while over 56% experienced improvements in MCS scores greater than or equal to MCID at weeks 12/24. Similar proportions receiving reference product and adalimumab-adbm reported scores greater than or equal to US age- and sex-matched normative values at week 24: 14-39% versus 15-36%, respectively, compared with baseline (1-17%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with moderate to severely active RA, adalimumab-adbm and adalimumab reference product were both associated with clinically meaningful improvements in SF-36 PCS, MCS, and domain scores that were highly similar at weeks 12/24. The high proportion of patients reporting scores greater than or equal to normative values in both treatment groups is notable, as this represents a treatment goal that was difficult to achieve in earlier RA trials. Video abstract available for this article.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

VOLTAIRE-RA (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02137226; EudraCT number, 2012-002945-40). Video abstract (MP4 29755 KB).

Anti-TNFα in inflammatory bowel disease: from originators to biosimilars

The introduction of anti-tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) biologics significantly innovated inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment and increased medical costs. The recent expiration of patents of some anti-TNFα biologics (such as infliximab and adalimumab) facilitated the development of biosimilars. Comparable pharmacokinetic, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles between anti-TNFα originators and biosimilars were demonstrated in different studies. Anti-TNFα biosimilars hold promise for reducing the high cost of biologics and increasing patient access to biologics. In this review, we outline the current data on the use of anti-TNFα originators and biosimilars in patients with IBD, with a focus on the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles of infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars. The potential benefits, challenges, and future directions of anti-TNFα biosimilars are also discussed in the review.

Systematic review: effectiveness and safety of switching between originator infliximab and biosimilar infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

Infliximab (IFX) biosimilars are available to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), offering cost reductions versus originator IFX in some jurisdictions. However, concerns remain regarding the efficacy and safety of originator-to-biosimilar switching. This systematic literature review evaluated safety and effectiveness of switching between IFX products in patients with IBD, including multiple switchers.

METHODS

Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to capture studies (2012-2022) including patients with IBD who switched between approved IFX products. Effectiveness outcomes: disease activity; disease severity; response to treatment; patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Safety outcomes: incidence and rate of adverse events (AEs); discontinuations due to AEs, failure rate; hospitalizations; surgeries. Immunogenicity outcomes (n, %): anti-drug antibodies; patients receiving concomitant immunomodulatory medication.

RESULTS

Data from 85 publications (81 observational, two randomized controlled trials) were included. Clinical effectiveness outcomes were consistent with the known profile of originator IFX with no difference after switching. There were no unexpected/serious AEs after switching, and rates of AEs were generally consistent with the known profile of IFX.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies reported that clinical, PROs, and safety outcomes for originator-to-biosimilar switching were clinically equivalent to originator responses. Limited data are available regarding multiple switches.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42021289144.

Clinical Guide to Navigating the Landscape of Biosimilars for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Annual out-of-pocket expenditures for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are estimated to be as high as $41,000, with medications, such as biologics, being one of the main cost contributors. Although biologics have revolutionized IBD management, these medications are costly owing to their molecular makeup and manufacturing processes. Biosimilars, which are biologic medications that are highly similar to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved reference product with no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, or potency, offer the same therapeutic benefits at a reduced cost. Other additional benefits offered with biosimilars include increased treatment access and fostered development of new therapeutic options. Despite the expansion of biosimilars in IBD, their adoption and utilization have been suboptimal in the United States. This article provides an overview of the biosimilar landscape in IBD, including FDA-approved biosimilars available, and a clinical guide to navigate switching to biosimilars in various clinical scenarios based on current evidence.

Biosimilars in IBD: What Every Clinician Needs to Know

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Biosimilars were introduced to decrease biologic-related expenditures, but their uptake in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains suboptimal. Herein, we review biosimilar concepts, current products available for IBD treatment, and resources to support biosimilar utilization.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although a cornerstone of IBD treatment, biologics are costly due to their development. Biosimilars, which are biologic products highly similar to a reference product, aim to decrease these expenditures. Infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab biosimilars are approved for IBD, but uptake remains low due to biosimilar efficacy and safety concerns and delayed market entry. Clinicians can effectively address some of these barriers and help patients and healthcare systems reap the benefits of decreased costs and increased treatment access. Data shows comparable efficacy and safety outcomes with biosimilars in IBD. Several biosimilar products are available and in the pipeline, but efforts are needed from various stakeholders to bolster utilization and generate benefits.

Biosimilars in Dermatology Review

Background

Safe and effective biosimilar medications have the potential to significantly increase access to these valuable drugs. The two current biosimilars available in dermatology in the United States (US) are infliximab and rituximab which were Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in 2016 and 2018 respectively. There has been significant interest in this topic as a number of biosimilar versions of adalimumab will be available in 2023.

Objective

This review will discuss biosimilar basics and the experience with biosimilars used in dermatology in the US, Asia, and Europe.

Methods

All articles in Ovid/Medline from 2015 to Feb 2023 on biosimilars were reviewed with a particular emphasis on medications used in dermatology. Other reports from pharmaceutical manufacturers and blogs following the development of the biosimilar industry provided key insights.

Results

Biosimilars have been able to produce significant savings and market share increases, particularly in Europe, where there has been a longer experience. The specifics depend on drug prescribing practices and incentives in the individual country. This degree of savings and market share increases have not been realized with the current biosimilars available in the US.

Conclusion

While biosimilars have resulted in significant savings compared to originator drugs, it is clear that prescribing incentives and physician education are crucial in achieving these savings. To what degree biosimilar market share will increase in the US remains to be determined.

Summary of Research: Switching Between Adalimumab Reference Product and BI 695501 in Patients with Chronic Plaque Psoriasis (VOLTAIRE-X): A Randomized Controlled Trial

This Summary of Research overviews the results of the VOLTAIRE-X study (NCT03210259), which looked at what happened when people with plaque psoriasis continually took the adalimumab reference product (adalimumab RP; known by the brand name Humira®) or switched three times between taking the adalimumab RP and BI 695501 (adalimumab-adbm, known by the brand name Cyltezo®), an adalimumab biosimilar. The VOLTAIRE-X study showed that the pharmacokinetics of adalimumab were similar in people who stayed continuously on adalimumab RP and people who switched between adalimumab RP and adalimumab-adbm. There were no differences in effectiveness, side effects, or antibodies to adalimumab when comparing people who stayed continuously on adalimumab RP with those who switched between adalimumab RP and the adalimumab biosimilar adalimumab-adbm. On the basis of these results, adalimumab-adbm was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as interchangeable with adalimumab RP, meaning that a pharmacist can substitute the biosimilar adalimumab-adbm for adalimumab RP without requiring permission from the original prescriber (unless required to by state law).

Preparing for the market entry of adalimumab biosimilars in the US in 2023: A primer for specialty pharmacists

PURPOSE

The impact of the market entry of adalimumab biosimilars on clinical practices and specialty pharmacies is explained. A roadmap is also provided for how pharmacists can successfully navigate this landscape.

SUMMARY

Biosimilars have previously been introduced as a mechanism to help curb biologic expenditures, with biosimilars undergoing an abbreviated regulatory approval process that focuses on biosimilarity and generating product competition. Adalimumab is currently the leading product in the biologics market, generating approximately $20 to $30 billion in sales worldwide consecutively from 2019 to 2021. Many adalimumab biosimilars are slated to enter the market in 2023 and become available for patient use. However, compared to other biosimilars, adalimumab biosimilars have several unique considerations, such as interchangeability and concentration, that will impact pharmacy practices and workflows. Because pharmacists embedded in clinical practices and specialty pharmacies will be significantly involved in the processes relating to adalimumab biosimilar implementation, adoption, and use, a primer on understanding the various adalimumab biosimilar products available and considerations surrounding these products with regard to workflow and patient use is critical. Several resources are also provided to help pharmacists successfully navigate the adalimumab biosimilar landscape.

CONCLUSION

The biosimilar landscape continues to evolve, and 2023 will see the launch of several adalimumab biosimilar products, which vary with regard to formulation, concentration, and interchangeability status. Pharmacists are well positioned to educate providers and patients about this landscape and help implement an efficient workflow to support adalimumab biosimilar adoption and use.

Multiple switching between the biosimilar adalimumab PF-06410293 and reference adalimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a phase 3, open-label, randomised, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND

An adalimumab biosimilar with an interchangeability designation could increase access to effective treatment for more patients. We aimed to assess the interchangeability of adalimumab biosimilar PF-06410293 (adalimumab-afzb) and reference adalimumab using a multi-switch study design.

METHODS

We did an open-label, randomised, parallel-group study at 61 community (n=29), hospital (n=12), and academic (n=20) sites in ten countries (Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, Ukraine, and USA). Eligible patients were aged 18-70 years and met the 2010 American College of Rheumatology-European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis for at least 4 months with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, based on their physician's evaluation. Eligible patients had been receiving methotrexate for at least 12 weeks and been on a stable dose for at least 4 weeks before the first dose of study medication. All patients received subcutaneous reference adalimumab (40 mg/0·4 mL [100 mg/mL] every 2 weeks) for 10 weeks before randomisation. At week 10, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either three switches between subcutaneous reference adalimumab (40 mg/0·4 mL [100 mg/mL] every 2 weeks) and adalimumab-afzb (40 mg/0·8 mL [50 mg/mL] every 2 weeks; switching group), or continuous dosing with subcutanous reference adalimumab (40 mg/0·4 mL [100 mg/mL] every 2 weeks; non-switching group) with stratification by bodyweight groups. Patients, investigators, and site personnel were not masked to treatment allocation. Primary endpoints were maximum observed serum concentration (Cmax) and area under plasma concentration-time curve (AUCτ) during weeks 30-32 in the pharmacokinetic population. Interchangeability was based on geometric mean ratios and corresponding 90% CIs within prespecified equivalence margins of 80-125% for both primary endpoints. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of adalimumab-afzb or reference adalimumab. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04230213.

FINDINGS

Of the 569 patients assessed for eligibility between Jan 13, 2020, and June 22, 2021, 445 were enrolled, and 427 completed the first 10 weeks and were randomly assigned (213 to the switching group and 214 to the non-switching group). Participants had a median age of 56 years (IQR 46-63), 354 (83%) of 427 patients were women and 73 (17%) were men, and 422 (99%) were White. In the pharmacokinetic population (n=380), no clinically meaningful differences were observed in mean steady-state pharmacokinetic parameters between the switching and non-switching groups (geometric mean AUC 2237 μg × h/mL in the switching group and 2125 μg × h/mL in the non-switching group; Cmax 8·21 μg/mL in the switching group and 8·00 μg/mL in the non-switching group). Geometric mean ratios and 90% CIs for AUCτ (105·31, 89·16-124·39) and Cmax (102·56, 89·78-117·17) were within prespecified equivalence margins. No meaningful differences were observed in the proportion of patients who had serious adverse events (three [1%] of 213 patients in the switching group vs eight [4%] of 214 patients in the non-switching group), grade 3 or higher adverse events of special interest, discontinuations due to adverse events (eight [4%] vs nine [4%]), or immunogenic reactions in antidrug antibody-positive patients. No deaths were reported during the study.

INTERPRETATION

The risk of multiple switches between reference adalimumab and adalimumab-afzb with respect to diminished efficacy (using pharmacokinetics as a surrogate) or safety is not greater than the risk of using reference adalimumab alone.

FUNDING

Pfizer. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

Current and emerging prospects in the psoriatic treatment

Psoriasis is an autoimmune chronic disorder that causes inflammation and a scaly epidermis. The exact pathogenesis of the disease is not known yet. According to the studies, psoriasis is considered an immune-mediated disease. Until now it is believed that genetic and environmental factors are responsible for the disease. There are many comorbidities associated with psoriasis which increases difficulties as patients in some cases get addicted to drugs, alcohol, and smoking which reduces their quality of life. The patient may face social ignorance or suicidal thoughts which may arise in the patient's mind. Due to the undefined trigger of the disease, the treatment is not fully established but by considering the severe impact of the disease researchers are focusing on novel approaches for successful treatment. which has succeeded to a large extent. Here we review pathogenesis, problems faced by psoriatic patients, the need for the development of new treatments over conventional therapies, and the history of psoriatic treatments. We thoroughly focus on emerging treatments like biologics, biosimilars, and small molecules which are now showing more efficacy and safety than conventional treatments. Also, this review article discusses novel approaches which are now in research such as drug repurposing, treatment by stimulation of the vagus nerve, regulation of microbiota, and autophagy for improving disease conditions.