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a systematic search of four electronic databases through 6 January 2025, supplemented by trial registry searches for unpublished trials.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.

强直性脊柱炎生物仿制药及其参比生物药物的比较疗效、安全性和免疫原性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 医学-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
96
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信