Robert J Moots1,2, Cinzia Curiale3, Danielle Petersel4, Catherine Rolland5, Heather Jones4, Eduardo Mysler6. 1. University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. R.J.Moots@liverpool.ac.uk. 2. Department of Musculoskeletal Biology, Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, Clinical Sciences Centre, Aintree University Hospital, Longmoor Lane, Liverpool, L9 7AL, UK. R.J.Moots@liverpool.ac.uk. 3. Pfizer, Rome, Italy. 4. Pfizer, Collegeville, PA, USA. 5. Envision Pharma Group, Horsham, West Sussex, UK. 6. Organización Médica de Investigación, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Regulatory approval of biosimilar versions of originator biotherapeutics requires that new biological products be highly similar to originator products, with no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, and potency. In some trials of biosimilars of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and plaque psoriasis (PsO), pre-specified margins for efficacy and safety have been met, but differences in treatment responses between pivotal originator trials and biosimilar trials have been noted. The objective of this systematic review was to examine these differences. METHODS: Searches were conducted to identify comparative randomized clinical trials of approved or proposed biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab. RESULTS: Of 83 publications identified, 16 publications were included for analysis (RA: originators, n = 5; biosimilars, n = 6; PsO: originators, n = 2; biosimilars, n = 3). American College of Rheumatology 20% response rates were higher among patients with RA receiving originator biologics and biosimilars in biosimilar trials than among patients receiving the originator biologics in pivotal trials. In etanercept studies in PsO, a difference was observed in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75% response rates between biosimilar and pivotal trials. Insufficient efficacy data were available from adalimumab and infliximab biosimilar studies in PsO to determine any differences in treatment responses between pivotal and biosimilar studies. CONCLUSIONS: Observed differences in treatment response rates between pivotal originator trials and trials of originator biologics and their respective biosimilars may be attributable to fundamental differences in study design and/or baseline patient characteristics, which require further analysis.
OBJECTIVE: Regulatory approval of biosimilar versions of originator biotherapeutics requires that new biological products be highly similar to originator products, with no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, and potency. In some trials of biosimilars of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and plaque psoriasis (PsO), pre-specified margins for efficacy and safety have been met, but differences in treatment responses between pivotal originator trials and biosimilar trials have been noted. The objective of this systematic review was to examine these differences. METHODS: Searches were conducted to identify comparative randomized clinical trials of approved or proposed biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab. RESULTS: Of 83 publications identified, 16 publications were included for analysis (RA: originators, n = 5; biosimilars, n = 6; PsO: originators, n = 2; biosimilars, n = 3). American College of Rheumatology 20% response rates were higher among patients with RA receiving originator biologics and biosimilars in biosimilar trials than among patients receiving the originator biologics in pivotal trials. In etanercept studies in PsO, a difference was observed in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75% response rates between biosimilar and pivotal trials. Insufficient efficacy data were available from adalimumab and infliximab biosimilar studies in PsO to determine any differences in treatment responses between pivotal and biosimilar studies. CONCLUSIONS: Observed differences in treatment response rates between pivotal originator trials and trials of originator biologics and their respective biosimilars may be attributable to fundamental differences in study design and/or baseline patient characteristics, which require further analysis.
Authors: Vibeke Strand; Joao Gonçalves; Timothy P Hickling; Heather E Jones; Lisa Marshall; John D Isaacs Journal: BioDrugs Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 5.807
Authors: Nick Bansback; Jeffrey R Curtis; Jie Huang; Zeling He; Michael Evans; Tracy Johansson; Kaleb Michaud; Gabriela Schmajuk; Katherine P Liao Journal: ACR Open Rheumatol Date: 2020-01-06
Authors: Bruna O Ascef; Matheus O Almeida; Ana Cristina de Medeiros Ribeiro; Danieli C O Andrade; Haliton A de Oliveira Júnior; Tiago V Pereira; Patrícia C de Soárez Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-07-17