Comparison of Performances of Adalimumab Biosimilars SB5, ABP501, GP2017, and MSB11022 in Treating Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Real-Life, Multicenter, Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars have entered the therapeutic armamentarium of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), allowing for the treatment of a greater number of patients for their reduced cost than the originator. However, comparative data on the efficacy and safety of the various ADA biosimilars remains scarce.We compare the efficacy and safety of ADA biosimilars SB5, ABP501, GP2017, and MSB11022 in treating IBD outpatients in a real-life Italian setting. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on consecutive IBD outpatients with complete clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic data. Clinical activity was measured using the Mayo score in ulcerative colitis (UC) and the Harvey-Bradshaw Index in Crohn's disease (CD). The primary endpoints were the following: (1) induction of remission in patients new to biologics and patients new to ADA but previously exposed to other anti-tumor necrosis factor agents or other biologics; (2) maintenance of remission in patients switched from the ADA originator to an ADA biosimilar; and (3) safety of various biosimilars. RESULTS: A total of 533 patients were enrolled according to the inclusion criteria: 162 patients with UC and 371 patients with CD. Clinical remission was obtained in 79.6% of patients new to biologics and 59.2% of patients new to ADA but not to other biologics; clinical remission was maintained in 81.0% of patients switched from the originator, and adverse events were recorded in 6.7% of patients. There was no significant difference between the 4 ADA biosimilars for each predetermined endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab biosimilars are effective and safe in IBD treatment, both in new patients and in patients switched from the ADA originator. No difference in efficacy and safety was found between ADA biosimilars.

We treated 533 IBD patients with adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars SB5, APB501, GP2017, and MSB11022. No differences between these 4 ADA biosimilars were found for reaching remission in naive patients, maintaining remission for nonmedical switching, clinical response, steroid-free remission, surgery rate, mucosal healing, or safety.

Replacement of Adalimumab Originator to Adalimumab Biosimilar for a Non-Medical Reason in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Real-life Comparison of Adalimumab Biosimilars Currently Available in Italy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars have been included into the therapeutic armamentarium of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); however, comparative data on the efficacy and safety of the different ADA biosimilars after replacing the ADA originator for a non-medical reason remains scarce. We aimed to compare in a real-life setting the efficacy and safety of four ADA biosimilars SB5, APB501, GP2017, and MSB11022 in IBD patients after replacing the originator for a non-medical reason. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was performed on consecutive IBD patients, analyzing clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic data. The primary endpoints of the study were maintenance of clinical remission and safety of the different biosimilars. RESULTS: 153 patients were enrolled, 26 with UC and 127 with CD. Clinical remission was maintained in 124 out of 153 (81%) patients after a median (IQR) follow-up of 12 (6-24) months, without any significant difference between the four ADA biosimilars. ADA biosimilars dosage was optimized in five patients (3.3%). Loss of remission was significantly higher in UC patients (10/26 patients, 38.5%) than in CD patients (19/127 patients, 14.9%, p<0.025). Adverse events occurred in 12 (7.9%) patients; the large majority were mild. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in efficacy and safety was found between ADA biosimilars when used to replace the ADA originator for a non-medical reason. However, in UC patients the replacement of ADA originator for this reason should be carefully assessed.

Adalimumab Biosimilar GP2017 versus Adalimumab Originator in Treating Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Real-Life, Multicenter, Observational Study.

The approval of adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has reduced the cost of treatment. While several ADA biosimilars are currently available, comparative data on the ADA biosimilar GP2017 (HyrimozTM) and its originator (HumiraTM) in IBD are lacking. We compared the efficacy and safety of GP2017 versus originator in IBD outpatients in an Italian real-life setting. This retrospective analysis enrolled consecutive IBD patients with complete clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic data. Clinical activity was assessed with the Mayo score in ulcerative colitis (UC) and the Harvey-Bradshaw Index in Crohn's disease (CD). The primary endpoints were the induction of remission and the safety of GP2017 versus ADA originator. One hundred and thirty-four patients (30.6% with UC and 69.4% with CD, median age 38 years) were enrolled: 62 (46.3%) patients were treated with GP2017, and 72 (53.7%) with ADA originator; 118 (88.1%) patients were naïve to ADA. Clinical remission was obtained in 105 (78.4%) patients, during a median follow-up of 12 months, 82.3% and 75% in the GP2017 and ADA originator groups, respectively (p = 0.311). Treatment was well tolerated in both groups. This analysis of real-world data suggests that GP2017 and its originator are equivalent in terms of efficacy and safety in patients with IBD.

Long-term, Real-life, Observational Study in Treating Outpatient Ulcerative Colitis with Golimumab.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Several studies have found Golimumab (GOL) effective and safe in the short-term treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC), but few long-term data are currently available from real world. Our aim was to assess the long-term real-life efficacy and safety of GOL in managing UC outpatients in Italy. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter study assessing consecutive UC outpatients treated with GOL for at least 3-month of follow-up was made. Primary endpoints were the induction and maintenance of remission in UC, defined as Mayo score ≤2. Several secondary endpoints, including clinical response, colectomy rate, steroid free remission and mucosal healing, were also assessed during the follow-up. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-eight patients were enrolled and followed up for a median (IQR) time of 9 (3-18) months (mean time follow-up: 33.1±13 months). Clinical remission was achieved in 57 (32.1%) patients: these patients continued with GOL, but only 6 patients (3.4%) were still under clinical remission with GOL at the 42nd month of follow-up. Clinical response occurred in 64 (36.4%) patients; colectomy was performed in 8 (7.8%) patients, all of them having primary failure. Steroid-free remission occurred in 23 (12.9%) patients, and mucosal healing was achieved in 29/89 (32.6%) patients. Adverse events occurred in 14 (7.9%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Golimumab does not seem able to maintain long-term remission in UC in real life. The safety profile was good.