Search

Objective: Successful uptake of biosimilars in rheumatology is limited by lack of real-world evidence regarding effectiveness of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching. We investigated infliximab biosimilars CT-P13-to-GP1111 switching among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA)., Methods: Observational cohort study from the DANBIO registry. Patients were classified as originator-naïve or originator-experienced. Retention rates of 1-year GP1111 treatment were explored (Kaplan-Meier). We identified baseline factors (at the time of switch) associated with withdrawal of GP1111 (multivariable Cox-regression analyses with HRs including originator treatment history). Changes in subjective and objective measures of disease activity 4 months before and after the switch were assessed in individual patients., Results: Of 1605 patients (685 RA, 314 PsA and 606 AxSpA, median disease duration was 9 years, 37% in Clinical Disease Activity Index/Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score remission), 1171 were originator-naïve. Retention rates at 1-year were 83% (95% CI: 81% to 85%) and 92% (95% CI: 90% to 95%) for the originator-naïve and originator-experienced, respectively. GP1111 retention rates were higher in originator-experienced compared to originator-naïve with RA (HR=0.4 (95% CI: 0.2 to 0.7)) and PsA (HR=0.2 (95% CI: 0.1 to 0.8)), but not significantly for AxSpA: HR=0.6 (95% CI: 0.3 to 1.2). Lower disease activity was associated with higher retention. Changes in disease activity preswitch and postswitch were close to zero., Conclusion: This real-world observational study of more than 1600 patients with inflammatory arthritis showed high 1-year retention following a nationwide infliximab biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch. Retention was higher in originator-experienced and in patients with low disease activity, suggesting outcomes to be affected by patient-related rather than drug-related factors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HN: Research grant from AbbVie and Sandoz. AGL: AbbVie, Eli Lilly Denmark A/S, Janssen-Cilag A/S, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB teaching or consultancy fees. OH: AbbVie, Pfizer, Novartis. MLH: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Celtrion, Eli Lilly Denmark A/S, Janssen Biologics B.V, Lundbeck Fonden, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz. Furthermore, chair of the steering committee of the Danish Rheumatology Quality Registry (DANBIO), which receives public funding from the hospital owners and funding from pharmaceutical companies. Co-chair EuroSpA, which generates real-world evidence of treatment of psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis based on secondary data and is partly funded by Novartis. BG: BMS, Pfizer, Sandoz (research grants)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: In 2018, a nationwide mandatory switch from originator to biosimilar adalimumab was conducted in Denmark. The available biosimilar was GP2017 (Hyrimoz) in Eastern regions and SB5 (Imraldi) in Western regions. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of GP2017 versus SB5 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)/psoriatic arthritis (PsA)/axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA)., Methods: Observational cohort study based on the DANBIO registry with geographical cluster pseudo-randomisation, analysed by emulating a randomised clinical trial. Main outcome was adjusted 1-year treatment retention (Cox regression). Furthermore, 6 months' remission rates (logistic regression), reasons for withdrawal and back-switching to originator were investigated (overall and stratified by indication)., Results: Overall, of 1570 eligible patients, 1318 switched and were included (467 RA/321 PsA/530 AxSpA); 623 (47%) switched to GP2017, 695 (53%) to SB5. Baseline characteristics of the two clusters were largely similar, but some differences in registration practice were observed. The combined 1-year retention rate for the two biosimilars was 89.5%. Compared with SB5, estimated risk of withdrawal for GP2017 was lower (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.86) and 6 months' remission rate was higher (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.25 to 2.37). Stratified analyses gave similar results (statistically significant for RA). During 1 year, 8.5% and 12.9% withdrew GP2017 and SB5, respectively (primarily lack of effect and adverse events), of whom 48 patients (3.6%) back-switched., Conclusion: This head-to-head comparison of GP2017 versus SB5 following a mandatory switch from the originator indicated differences in effectiveness in routine care. This may reflect a true difference, but other explanations, for example, differences in excipients, differences between clusters and residual confounding cannot be ruled out., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AGL: AbbVie, Eli Lilly Denmark A/S, Janssen-Cilag A/S, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB teaching or consultancy fees. OH: AbbVie, Pfizer, Novartis. MLH: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Celtrion, Eli Lilly Denmark A/S, Janssen Biologics BV, Lundbeck Fonden, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz. Furthermore, chair of the steering committee of the Danish Rheumatology Quality Registry (DANBIO), which receives public funding from the hospital owners and funding from pharmaceutical companies. Co-chair EuroSpA, which generates real-world evidence of treatment of psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis based on secondary data and is partly funded by Novartis. BG: BMS, Pfizer, Sandoz (research grants)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Nationwide Danish guidelines regarding rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initiating biologic treatment (i.e., biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [DMARDs]) are issued on an approximately annual basis. For biologics-naive patients treated with concomitant methotrexate, mandatory medications included certolizumab pegol (CZP; year 2013-2014, recommended compliance 80%), abatacept (ABA; 2014-2015, 80%), and biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13; 2015-2016, 50%). We hypothesized that these guidelines could be perceived as a surrogate randomization tool in which calendar period rather than patient-specific factors defined the choice of the biologic DMARD. We undertook this study to assess compliance with guidelines (supporting the assumption of surrogate randomization) and to compare the effectiveness of CZP, ABA, and CT-P13 in patients treated according to guidelines., Methods: This was an observational cohort study emulating a randomized trial (using intent-to-treat analyses). RA patients compliant with the treatment guidelines were identified in DANBIO, and information on prior comorbidities was obtained by linking to national registries. Outcome measures included remission rates according to the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) (at 6 and 12 months) and treatment retention at 1 year, compared across treatment regimens. Comorbidity/confounder-adjusted multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were used., Results: Seven hundred seventy-six patients were included in the study (336 receiving CZP, 215 receiving ABA, 225 receiving CT-P13). Compliance with treatment guidelines was high: 70%, 65%, and 59%, respectively. Six-month DAS28 remission rates were 35%, 33%, and 42%, and 12-month rates were 35%, 31%, and 35%, respectively. Compared to CZP, adjusted odds ratios for 6- and 12-month DAS28 remission rates were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.63-1.47) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.47-1.15) for ABA and 1.38 (95% CI 0.91-2.09) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.62-1.49) for CT-P13, respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios for withdrawal (during days 0-90 and days 91-365) were 0.70 (95% CI 0.39-1.27) and 1.16 (95% CI 0.84-1.60) for ABA and 0.58 (95% CI 0.33-1.10) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.59-1.17) for CT-P13, respectively, compared to CZP., Conclusion: The surrogate randomization procedure enabled head-to-head comparisons of CZP, ABA, and CT-P13. Although some differences in estimated effectiveness were observed across drugs, confidence intervals were wide and statistical significance was not reached., (© 2019, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: Although clinical trials support equivalence of originator products and biosimilars for etanercept and infliximab, real-world studies among biologics-naïve patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) are lacking. The objectives were to compare treatment retention in biologics-naïve patients with SpA starting either the originator product or a biosimilar of infliximab and etanercept, and to explore the baseline characteristics of these patients., Methods: Patients with SpA (ankylosing spondylitis/non-radiographical axial SpA/undifferentiated SpA), starting infliximab or etanercept as their first-ever biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug during January 2014-June 2017 were identified in five Nordic biologics-rheumatology registers. Baseline characteristics were retrieved from each registry; comorbidity data were identified through linkage to national health registers. Country-specific data were pooled, and data on infliximab and etanercept were analysed separately. Comparisons of treatment retention between originators and biosimilars were assessed through survival probability curves, retention rates (2 years for infliximab/1 year for etanercept) and Hazard Ratios (HR)., Results: We included 1319 patients starting infliximab (24% originator/76% biosimilar), and 1015 patients starting etanercept (49% originator/51% biosimilar). Baseline characteristics were largely similar for the patients treated with the originators compared with the corresponding biosimilars. Survival probability curves were highly similar for the originator and its biosimilar, as were retention rates: infliximab 2-year retention originator, 44% (95% CI 38% to 50%)/biosimilar, 46% (95% CI: 42% to 51%); and etanercept 1-year retention originator, 66% (95% CI 61% to 70%)/biosimilar, 73% (95% CI 68% to 78%). HRs were not statistically significant., Conclusion: This observational study of biologics-naïve patients with SpA from five Nordic countries showed similar baseline characteristics and very similar retention rates in patients treated with originators versus biosimilars, for both infliximab and etanercept, indicating comparable effectiveness in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BG: grant/research support from Biogen, Pfizer and AbbVie. JA: Karolinska Institutet (through JA) has or has had research agreements with the following pharmaceutical companies, mainly in the context of the ARTIS national safety monitoring programme for rheumatology biologicals: Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis and UCB; Karolinska Institutet has alo received remuneration for JA participating in ad boards arranged by Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer. DN: grant/research support from MSD, Pfizer; consultant for AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer and UCB; speakers' bureau: Novartis and UCB. SP: consultant for Novartis; speakers' bureau: Lilly. MH: grant/research support from BMS, MSD, AbbVie, Roche, Novartis, Biogen and Pfizer; consultant for Eli Lilly; speakers' bureau Orion Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, CellTrion, Merck and Samsung Bioepis. LJ: lecture and consulting fees from Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Eli-Lily and Janssen., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Real-world evidence on effectiveness of switching to biosimila r etanercept is scarce. In Denmark, a nationwide guideline of mandatory switch from 50 mg originator (ETA) to biosimilar (SB4) etanercept was issued for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) in 2016. Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes were studied in ETA-treated patients, who switched to SB4 (switchers) or maintained ETA (non-switchers). Retention rates were compared with that of a historic cohort of ETA-treated patients. Switchers who resumed ETA treatment (back-switchers) were characterised., Methods: Observational cohort study based on the DANBIO registry. Treatment retention was explored by Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression (crude, adjusted)., Results: 1621 (79%) of 2061 ETA-treated patients switched to SB4. Disease activity was unchanged 3 months' preswitch/postswitch. Non-switchers often received 25 mg ETA (ETA 25 mg pens/syringes and powder solution were still available). One-year adjusted retention rates were: non-switchers: 77% (95% CI: 72% to 82%)/switchers: 83% (79% to 87%)/historic cohort: 90% (88% to 92%). Patients not in remission had lower retention rates than patients in remission, both in switchers (crude HR 1.7 (1.3 to 2.2)) and non-switchers (2.4 (1.7 to 3.6)). During follow-up, 120 patients (7% of switchers) back-switched to ETA. Back-switchers' clinical characteristics were similar to switchers, and reasons for SB4 withdrawal were mainly subjective., Conclusion: Seventy-nine per cent of patients switched from ETA to SB4. After 1 year, adjusted treatment retention rates were lower in switchers versus the historic ETA cohort, but higher than in non-switchers. Withdrawal was more common in patients not in remission. The results suggest that switch outcomes in routine care are affected by patient-related factors and non-specific drug effects., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BG: AbbVie, Biogen, Pfizer, MSD. MLH: Orion, BMS, AbbVie, Biogen, Pfizer, MSD, Celltrion. IMJH: Roche. AGL: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB OH: AbbVie, Roche, Novartis. HN: AbbVie, Novartis, Medac. LSA: Pfizer. The remaining authors: none declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)