Comparative efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of biosimilars and their reference biologic drugs in ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
IF 3.6 3区 医学Q2 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Chin Hang Yiu, Chung Hin Or, Khalid Almutairi, Jacques Raubenheimer, Richard O Day, Christine Y Lu
{"title":"Comparative efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of biosimilars and their reference biologic drugs in ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Chin Hang Yiu, Chung Hin Or, Khalid Almutairi, Jacques Raubenheimer, Richard O Day, Christine Y Lu","doi":"10.1080/14712598.2025.2512126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars and reference biologics (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab) in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic search of four electronic databases through 6 January 2025, supplemented by trial registry searches for unpublished trials. We included head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared biosimilars with reference biologics in patients with AS. Effect measures were summarized using random-effects meta-analysis, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The overall certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six head-to-head RCTs (2,107 participants) were included. Biosimilars demonstrated similar efficacy to reference biologics in achieving ASAS20 (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.07) and ASAS40 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94-1.05) responses. No significant differences were observed in other efficacy (e.g. disease activity indices), safety (e.g. adverse events), or immunogenicity outcomes (e.g. anti-drug antibodies). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study provides evidence supporting the clinical equivalence of biosimilars to reference biologics in AS treatment, reinforcing their potential as safe and effective alternatives.</p><p><strong>Protocol registration: </strong>www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42024528886.</p>","PeriodicalId":12084,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2025.2512126","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars and reference biologics (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab) in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS).
Methods: We conducted a systematic search of four electronic databases through 6 January 2025, supplemented by trial registry searches for unpublished trials. We included head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared biosimilars with reference biologics in patients with AS. Effect measures were summarized using random-effects meta-analysis, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The overall certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.
Results: Six head-to-head RCTs (2,107 participants) were included. Biosimilars demonstrated similar efficacy to reference biologics in achieving ASAS20 (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.07) and ASAS40 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94-1.05) responses. No significant differences were observed in other efficacy (e.g. disease activity indices), safety (e.g. adverse events), or immunogenicity outcomes (e.g. anti-drug antibodies). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings.
Conclusions: This study provides evidence supporting the clinical equivalence of biosimilars to reference biologics in AS treatment, reinforcing their potential as safe and effective alternatives.
Protocol registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42024528886.
本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在比较生物仿制药和参比生物制剂(阿达木单抗、依那西普、英夫利昔单抗)治疗强直性脊柱炎(AS)的疗效、安全性和免疫原性。方法:到2025年1月6日,我们对四个电子数据库进行了系统检索,并辅以试验注册库检索未发表的试验。我们纳入了在AS患者中比较生物仿制药与参考生物制剂的头对头随机对照试验(rct)。使用随机效应荟萃分析总结效果测量,并使用Cochrane RoB 2工具评估偏倚风险。使用推荐、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)系统评估证据的总体确定性。结果:共纳入6项头对头随机对照试验(2107名受试者)。在实现ASAS20(风险比[RR] 1.01, 95%可信区间[CI] 0.96-1.07)和ASAS40(风险比[RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.94-1.05)应答方面,生物仿制药的疗效与参考生物制剂相似。在其他疗效(如疾病活动性指数)、安全性(如不良事件)或免疫原性结果(如抗药物抗体)方面未观察到显著差异。敏感性和亚组分析证实了这些发现的稳健性。结论:本研究为AS治疗中生物类似药与参考生物药的临床等效性提供了证据,增强了它们作为安全有效替代品的潜力。协议注册:www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero标识为CRD42024528886。
期刊介绍:
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy (1471-2598; 1744-7682) is a MEDLINE-indexed, international journal publishing peer-reviewed research across all aspects of biological therapy.
Each article is structured to incorporate the author’s own expert opinion on the impact of the topic on research and clinical practice and the scope for future development.
The audience consists of scientists and managers in the healthcare and biopharmaceutical industries and others closely involved in the development and application of biological therapies for the treatment of human disease.
The journal welcomes:
Reviews covering therapeutic antibodies and vaccines, peptides and proteins, gene therapies and gene transfer technologies, cell-based therapies and regenerative medicine
Drug evaluations reviewing the clinical data on a particular biological agent
Original research papers reporting the results of clinical investigations on biological agents and biotherapeutic-based studies with a strong link to clinical practice
Comprehensive coverage in each review is complemented by the unique Expert Collection format and includes the following sections:
Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results;
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.