Investigators in Spain said they found no significant differences in outcomes for patients who switched from adalimumab originator to 1 of multiple adalimumab biosimilars.
Switching between reference adalimumab (Humira) and its approved biosimilars results in no differences in efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, investigators in Spain have concluded following a systematic review of available studies that was published in British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.
The authors conducted a systematic review of the 21 studies that met their inclusion criteria. These included 2802 adult patients treated with 8 adalimumab biosimilars for chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Investigators reviewed 8 studies on rheumatoid arthritis, 6 on psoriasis, 6 on inflammatory bowel diseases, and 1 on multiple diseases.
Adalimumab, a monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor alpha, was first approved by the FDA in 2002 and European Commission in 2003. By 2017, the authors said, “it was the best-selling drug worldwide, with global sales of $18 billion.”
In the European Union, Humira’s key patent expired in 2018, and adalimumab biosimilars have long been available there for patient treatment. In the United States, Humira’s compound patent expired in 2016; however, due to other patents and settlements between AbbVie and biosimilar manufacturers, biosimilars will not enter the US market until 2023.
The systematic review encompassed studies on adalimumab biosimilars approved in the United States and European Union:
Of the 21 studies, 19 assessed clinical efficacy and 10 of these were double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. According to the authors, no significant differences in efficacy (or effectiveness) were demonstrated between switch and no-switch groups in these trials.
Nocebo Effect and Pain
Safety was investigated in 18 studies. The authors found that infection was the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse event, and rates of adverse events were similar between switch and no-switch groups in these studies. Notably, the authors wrote, their finding “contradicts the information from some systematic reviews where there appears to be a greater number of treatment cessations following the switching due to the possible nocebo effect.”
Greater pain at the injection site was reported in switch groups than no-switch groups in 2 studies reviewed by the authors, which they noted were nonrandomized studies, indicating a possible nocebo effect. They suggested “careful communication among all the implicated health professionals—doctors, nurses and pharmacists—and a clear explanation of the treatment schedule to the patient could help to minimize this nocebo effect.”
Fifteen studies evaluated immunogenicity, which was indicated by the percentage of patients who developed neutralizing antidrug antibodies (ADAs). Rates of development of ADAs were comparable, with no significant differences between reference adalimumab, biosimilar, and switching groups in these studies, according to the authors.
The authors concluded their systematic review suggests switching between adalimumab and its biosimilars has “no impact on efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.” They said this finding was consistent across the different adalimumab biosimilars they studied.
The authors contended their review is significant because “both health care professionals and patients, as well as health administrations, need this information to conduct safe switching of these medicines and gain confidence in their management.”
They wrote their review was limited by the relatively small number of studies, which did not allow them to conduct a meta-analysis, and the quality of the studies, some of which were not blinded and randomized. Also, just 1 study investigated multiple switches, and none investigated switching between different biosimilars.
Reference
Pego Reigosa JM, García Beloso N, Altabás González I, et al. Switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars in chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: a systematic literature review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. Published online October 8, 2021. doi:10.1111/bcp.15101
Boosting Health Care Sustainability: The Role of Biosimilars in Latin America
November 21st 2024Biosimilars could improve access to biologic treatments and health care sustainability in Latin America, but their adoption is hindered by misconceptions, regulatory gaps, and weak pharmacovigilance, requiring targeted education and stronger regulations.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
Eye on Pharma: EU Aflibercept Approvals; Biosimilars Canada Campaign; Celltrion Data
November 19th 2024The European Commission grants marketing authorization to 2 aflibercept biosimilars; Biosimilars Canada launches new campaign to provide sustainable solutions to employers; Celltrion shares positive data for 2 biosimilars.
Can Global Policies to Boost Biosimilar Adoption Work in the US?
November 17th 2024On this special episode of Not So Different honoring Global Biosimilars Week, Craig Burton, executive director of the Biosimilars Council, explores how global policies—from incentives to health equity strategies—could boost biosimilar adoption in the US.
Subcutaneous Infliximab CT-P13 Superior to Placebo as Maintenance Therapy for IBD
November 16th 2024In 2 randomized controlled trials of maintenance therapy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), the subcutaneous formulation of the infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 demonstrated superiority to placebo in patients with Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis.
