Duc Binh Phan, Anthony P Bewley, Philip Laws, Teena Mackenzie, Catherine H Smith, Christopher E M Griffiths, Mark Lunt, Richard B Warren, Zenas Z N Yiu
{"title":"Effectiveness of Adalimumab Biosimilars and Originator for Psoriasis.","authors":"Duc Binh Phan, Anthony P Bewley, Philip Laws, Teena Mackenzie, Catherine H Smith, Christopher E M Griffiths, Mark Lunt, Richard B Warren, Zenas Z N Yiu","doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.0055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The uncertainties about the real-world effectiveness of adalimumab biosimilars limit their widespread adoption for psoriasis.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of adalimumab biosimilars Amjevita and Imraldi with Humira for psoriasis.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>An emulation of 2 targeted pragmatic clinical trials was conducted using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR), a prospective pharmacovigilance registry tracking individuals receiving biologic and conventional systemic treatments for psoriasis in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Data from patients with psoriasis using adalimumab registered to BADBIR were included. Data were collected from September 2007 to January 2023, and data were analyzed from January to September 2023.</p><p><strong>Exposures: </strong>The effectiveness of initiating Amjevita and Imraldi were compared with initiating Humira among adalimumab-naive patients, and the effectiveness of switching from Humira to either Amjevita or Imraldi were compared with continuing Humira among patients who had been using Humira consistently for more than 2 years.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The study outcomes were absolute Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of 2 or less and PASI score of 4 or less at 12 months after the index date. Inverse propensity treatment weighting was used to analyze receiving either biosimilars or Humira to account for confounding. Multiple imputations were used to account for missing PASI data at 12 months and inverse probability of censoring weighting to account for censorship due to deviation from the treatments under investigation. Logistic regression models were fitted to compare the outcomes between study cohorts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 11 400 included patients, 6924 (60.7%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 45.3 (12.5) years. A total of 6133 patients were identified in the new user analysis (5416 starting Humira, 382 starting Amjevita, and 335 starting Imraldi) and 5267 patients in the switcher analysis (3808 continuing Humira, 847 switching to Amjevita, and 612 switching to Imraldi). Amjevita and Imraldi new users had no significantly different probability of achieving a PASI score of 2 or less (Amjevita: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.78-1.25; Imraldi: aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64-1.07) and a PASI score of 4 or less (Amjevita: aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.84-1.37; Imraldi: aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.69-1.20) compared with Humira new users. Patients who switched to Amjevita and Imraldi also had no statistically significant differences in achieving a PASI score of 2 or less (Amjevita: aOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94-1.51; Imraldi: aOR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.18) and a PASI score of 4 or less (Amjevita: aOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.96-1.84; Imraldi: aOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.70-1.41) compared with those who continued Humira.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this study, Amjevita and Imraldi were as effective as Humira for both new starters and patients switching to biosimilars from Humira.</p>","PeriodicalId":14734,"journal":{"name":"JAMA dermatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.0055","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Importance: The uncertainties about the real-world effectiveness of adalimumab biosimilars limit their widespread adoption for psoriasis.
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of adalimumab biosimilars Amjevita and Imraldi with Humira for psoriasis.
Design, setting, and participants: An emulation of 2 targeted pragmatic clinical trials was conducted using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR), a prospective pharmacovigilance registry tracking individuals receiving biologic and conventional systemic treatments for psoriasis in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Data from patients with psoriasis using adalimumab registered to BADBIR were included. Data were collected from September 2007 to January 2023, and data were analyzed from January to September 2023.
Exposures: The effectiveness of initiating Amjevita and Imraldi were compared with initiating Humira among adalimumab-naive patients, and the effectiveness of switching from Humira to either Amjevita or Imraldi were compared with continuing Humira among patients who had been using Humira consistently for more than 2 years.
Main outcomes and measures: The study outcomes were absolute Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of 2 or less and PASI score of 4 or less at 12 months after the index date. Inverse propensity treatment weighting was used to analyze receiving either biosimilars or Humira to account for confounding. Multiple imputations were used to account for missing PASI data at 12 months and inverse probability of censoring weighting to account for censorship due to deviation from the treatments under investigation. Logistic regression models were fitted to compare the outcomes between study cohorts.
Results: Of 11 400 included patients, 6924 (60.7%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 45.3 (12.5) years. A total of 6133 patients were identified in the new user analysis (5416 starting Humira, 382 starting Amjevita, and 335 starting Imraldi) and 5267 patients in the switcher analysis (3808 continuing Humira, 847 switching to Amjevita, and 612 switching to Imraldi). Amjevita and Imraldi new users had no significantly different probability of achieving a PASI score of 2 or less (Amjevita: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.78-1.25; Imraldi: aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64-1.07) and a PASI score of 4 or less (Amjevita: aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.84-1.37; Imraldi: aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.69-1.20) compared with Humira new users. Patients who switched to Amjevita and Imraldi also had no statistically significant differences in achieving a PASI score of 2 or less (Amjevita: aOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94-1.51; Imraldi: aOR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.18) and a PASI score of 4 or less (Amjevita: aOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.96-1.84; Imraldi: aOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.70-1.41) compared with those who continued Humira.
Conclusions and relevance: In this study, Amjevita and Imraldi were as effective as Humira for both new starters and patients switching to biosimilars from Humira.
期刊介绍:
JAMA Dermatology is an international peer-reviewed journal that has been in continuous publication since 1882. It began publication by the American Medical Association in 1920 as Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology. The journal publishes material that helps in the development and testing of the effectiveness of diagnosis and treatment in medical and surgical dermatology, pediatric and geriatric dermatology, and oncologic and aesthetic dermatologic surgery.
JAMA Dermatology is a member of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed, general medical and specialty publications. It is published online weekly, every Wednesday, and in 12 print/online issues a year. The mission of the journal is to elevate the art and science of health and diseases of skin, hair, nails, and mucous membranes, and their treatment, with the aim of enabling dermatologists to deliver evidence-based, high-value medical and surgical dermatologic care.
The journal publishes a broad range of innovative studies and trials that shift research and clinical practice paradigms, expand the understanding of the burden of dermatologic diseases and key outcomes, improve the practice of dermatology, and ensure equitable care to all patients. It also features research and opinion examining ethical, moral, socioeconomic, educational, and political issues relevant to dermatologists, aiming to enable ongoing improvement to the workforce, scope of practice, and the training of future dermatologists.
JAMA Dermatology aims to be a leader in developing initiatives to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion within the specialty and within dermatology medical publishing.