ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The 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. METHODS: Patients 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. RESULTS: Baseline 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. CONCLUSION: The 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.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Arthritis/drug therapy , Colitis, Ulcerative/drug therapy , Infliximab/therapeutic use , Psoriasis/drug therapy , Adult , Antibodies, Monoclonal/adverse effects , Double-Blind Method , Drug Substitution , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Norway , Time Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Large-scale observational cohorts may be used to study the effectiveness and rare side effects of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in ankylosing spondylitis (AS), but may be hampered by differences in baseline characteristics and disease activity across countries. We aimed to explore the research infrastructure in the five Nordic countries regarding bDMARD treatment in AS. METHOD: This observational cohort study was based on data from biological registries in Denmark (DANBIO), Sweden (SRQ/ARTIS), Finland (ROB-FIN), Norway (NOR-DMARD), and Iceland (ICEBIO). Data were collected for the years 2010-2016. Registry coverage, registry inventory (patient characteristics, disease activity measures), and national guidelines for bDMARD prescription in AS were described per country. Incident (first line) and prevalent bDMARD use per capita, country, and year were calculated. In AS patients who started first line bDMARDs during 2010-2016 (n = 4392), baseline characteristics and disease activity measures were retrieved. RESULTS: Registry coverage of bDMARD-treated patients ranged from 60% to 95%. All registries included extensive prospectively collected data at patient level. Guidelines regarding choice of first line drug and prescription patterns varied across countries. During the period 2010-2016 prevalent bDMARD use increased (p < 0.001), whereas incident use tended to decrease (p for trend < 0.004), with large national variations (e.g. 2016 incidence: Iceland 10.7/100 000, Finland 1.7/100 000). Baseline characteristics were similar regarding C-reactive protein, but differed for other variables, including the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) (range 3.5-6.3) and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) (2.7-3.8) (both p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Collaboration across the five Nordic biological registries regarding bDMARD use in AS is feasible but national differences in coverage, prescription patterns, and patient characteristics must be taken into account depending on the scientific question.
