Abstract
Objectives
Biosimilar-originator equivalence has been demonstrated in phase 3 trials in a few indications of infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab. The objective of our study was to compare the persistence and safety of biosimilars versus originators in all the licensed indications of these molecules.
Methods
We used data from the French National Health Data System (SNDS), covering 99% of the French population, to identify infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab initiators from biosimilar launch (January 2015, May 2016 and October 2018, respectively) to 30 June 2021. Patients were then followed for 1 year. Treatment persistence (duration without treatment discontinuation or modification) and safety (including severe infections, all-cause hospitalisation and death) were compared between originator and biosimilar users by Cox regressions weighting the populations on the inverse probability of treatment. Analyses were performed by molecule, by disease and by biosimilar product.
Results
From January 2015 to June 2021, 86 776 patients were included in the study: 22 670, 24 442 and 39 664 patients had initiated infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab, respectively; 49 752 (53%) were biosimilar initiators. We did not find any risk of discontinuation (HRs were below or around 1, here all pathologies and products together: infliximab 0.88 (0.80–0.97), etanercept 0.85 (0.81–0.90) and adalimumab 0.96 (0.91–1.00)) or safety event (infection: infliximab 0.97 (0.78–1.21), etanercept 1.04 (0.81–1.33) and adalimumab 0.98 (0.83–1.16); hospitalisation: infliximab 1.08 (0.96–1.23), etanercept 0.99 (0.87–1.11) and adalimumab 0.91 (0.83–0.99)) associated with biosimilar versus originator use.
Conclusions
Our study shows reassuring results regarding the persistence and safety of biosimilar tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors compared with originators in all licensed indications.
Keywords: Biological Therapy; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Spondylitis, Ankylosing
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC
Biosimilar-originator equivalence was proven in phase 3 randomised clinical trials in few indications of infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab, and then extrapolated to all the other indications of these molecules.
We thus aimed to address the persistence and safety of biosimilar products compared with originator products for each brand name product and each licensed indication of each molecule.
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS
This is the largest cohort of biosimilar or originator infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab initiators from 2015 to 2021.
This is the first observational study to address persistence and safety endpoints by comparing marketed biosimilar products and originator products of the tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitor family in a systematic approach for each licensed indication and each branded product.
We did not show any difference in persistence or safety between biosimilar products and their originators in any licensed indication.
HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY
This study provides reassuring results regarding the use of anti-TNF alpha biosimilar products in real life.
Marketed biosimilars of TNF-alpha inhibitors can thus be used more broadly in order to limit the financial impact of these molecules on health systems.
Introduction
Tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors are a class of biotherapies that have significantly improved the therapeutic care of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Infliximab (IFX), etanercept (ETA) and adalimumab (ADA), the first three marketed molecules of this class, were used and reimbursed respectively in 2000, 2003 and 2005 in France and indicated, according to the molecule, in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis in rheumatology, psoriasis and hidradenitis suppurativa in dermatology, Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis in gastroenterology and uveitis in ophthalmology.1 However, these treatments were expensive, leading to an issue of either access for patients or healthcare system sustainability due to the large number of patients treated. TNF-alpha inhibitors patent expiry and biosimilars progressive market approvals partly answered these issues by lowering the cost of treatment.2 The active substance of biosimilars is highly similar to the originator’s. Biosimilar products are approved provided that the data demonstrating biosimilarity to the originator product include physiochemical, non-clinical (mostly in vitro studies), pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics studies and generally one comparative phase 3 clinical trial to demonstrate their bioequivalence.3 The bioequivalence of the biosimilar products is then extrapolated to the other indications of the originator product. Several observational studies assessed the effectiveness of biosimilar products in these remaining indications and showed that there was no difference between originator and biosimilar products. However, they were often small,4 5 non-comparative6–8 or pathology-specific,9–12 as we already did for inflammatory bowel diseases using the same database from 2015 to 2017.13 14
In Europe, four IFX, four ETA and 12 ADA biosimilars have been approved from 2015, 2016 and 2018, respectively,15 based on bioequivalence data demonstrated in 1–3 indications. In France, the use of biosimilar products has experienced a significant increase since their market approval.16
The aim of the present study was to assess and compare the persistence under biosimilar versus originator treatment among initiators for each biosimilar product, taken separately and overall, for each pathology for which the originator products of IFX, ETA and ADA were indicated. In addition, we also compared the safety profiles of biosimilar and originator users in major adverse events.
Methods
Study design
We built cohorts of IFX, ETA and ADA initiators, exposed to the originator molecule or to a biosimilar molecule, from the date of reimbursement of the first biosimilar product for each molecule (2015, 2016 and 2018, respectively) and followed the patients for 1 year.
Data source
We used data from the French National Health Data System (SNDS). The SNDS covers almost the totality (>99%) of the French population—68 million residents. Each person is identified by a unique and anonymous number. The SNDS records comprehensive outpatient (procedures and pharmacy deliveries of reimbursed drugs) and inpatient (pharmacy deliveries of expensive drugs, procedures performed during hospital stays and discharge diagnoses coded according to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10)) reimbursement information since 2006. The SNDS also contains sociodemographic information on sex, age, place of residence and vital status, among others. Patients’ status for 100% reimbursement of care related to a severe and costly long-term disease (LTD) is recorded and LTD diagnosis is coded according to the ICD-10. The SNDS has been extensively used to conduct pharmacoepidemiological studies, especially on the use, safety and effectiveness of health products.17–21
Study periods and populations
Inclusion periods differed for each originator molecule, according to the date of reimbursement in France of the first biosimilar for each of the three studied TNF-alpha inhibitor originators: IFX (ATC L04AB02), ETA (ATC L04AB01) and ADA (ATC L04AB04). Inclusions started on 27 January 2015 for IFX users, on 10 May 2016 for ETA users and on 9 October 2018 for ADA users. Every patient initiating treatment, that is, having a first delivery with no delivery of IFX, ETA or ADA within the year before initiation, between the inclusion start date and 30 June 2021, was included in the study.
Patient characteristics
Sociodemographic characteristics (sex, age, affiliation to complementary universal health insurance—CSS, deprivation index and region of residence) were collected at the index date. Comorbidities were assessed within 5 years before the index date. The history of visits to a specialist was assessed within 2 years before the index date. The history of dispensing of corticosteroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, non-biological systemic drugs on the one side and biological and targeted drugs on the other side was assessed within the year before the index date (ATC codes and grouping specified in online supplemental table 1). The pathology treated by the TNF-alpha inhibitor was defined at the index date. ATC codes, ICD-10 codes and the procedure used for pathology definition were presented in a previous study.16 Patients under 18 or treated with a molecule not indicated for their pathology were excluded.
rmdopen-2023-003531supp001.pdf (1.1MB, pdf)
Exposure, outcome, censoring and safety
The exposure of interest was, within a molecule, originator use versus biosimilar use. Specific exposure to each marketed biosimilar product (CT-P13 and SB2 for IFX; SB4 and GP2015 for ETA; ABP501, MSB11022, FKB327, GP2017 and SB5 for ADA; the other biosimilar products were excluded due to a lack of patients) was assessed as a subgroup analysis. Exposure was defined at the index date and reassessed at each subsequent delivery or non-delivery. The main outcome was persistence in treatment, defined as a period of continued treatment with the same product. Discontinuation, specified as a treatment gap of more than 60 days after the theoretical coverage period of each molecule (56 days for IFX, 28 days for ETA and ADA), and treatment modification, defined as the delivery of a different biologic molecule, were considered outcome events. Censoring events included intra-molecule switching (at least two consecutive deliveries of a different product from the same molecule), death and the end of the 1-year follow-up period. Safety events included severe infection,22 major adverse cardiovascular events,23 immunological disorders, cancer, anaphylaxis,24 identified through ICD-10-coded hospitalisation discharges (specified in online supplemental table 2), death and all-cause hospitalisations for at least one night, except pathology-related hospitalisations.
Statistical analysis
Patients’ characteristics at inclusion and during the follow-up (follow-up duration and outcome, censoring and safety event rates) were described. To account for the indication bias on exposure groups, a stabilised propensity score of treatment was computed using a logistic regression modelling the probability of initiating a biosimilar compared with the originator adjusted for all the covariates measured at inclusion (year of inclusion, age in categories, sex, affiliation to complementary universal health insurance, deprivation index, region of residence, main comorbidities, number of consultations and hospitalisations linked to the pathology in categories, drug history). Covariate balance was assessed graphically, plotting the standardised mean difference in covariates and the distribution of the propensity score before and after weighting. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), truncating the first and 99th percentiles of weights to keep non-extreme weights, was used in Cox proportional hazards regressions comparing the risk of non-persistence for biosimilar users versus originator users. As ponderation was not sufficient to balance the covariates completely (as shown in online supplemental figures 1–3), we further adjusted the model for all the covariates included in the propensity score model. A univariate unweighted Cox proportional hazards regression was also computed. All the analyses were repeated for each pathology and each biosimilar treatment group (all together and each biosimilar taken separately). The proportionality of the hazards hypothesis was confirmed using the test of Schoenfeld residuals. The 0.05 p value threshold was corrected by dividing it by the number of pathologies tested for each molecule (six for IFX, four for ETA and eight for ADA) to follow the Bonferroni correction,25 and two-sided tests were carried out. The p values and p value thresholds were reported in Supplementary tables. The whole method was repeated for three of the safety events, namely severe infections, all-cause hospitalisation and death. Lastly, we only described (effectives and proportions) the other events as they were less frequent and we lacked the power to carry out multivariable analyses.
All extractions from the SNDS were carried out with SAS Enterprise Guide software V.7.15; analyses were done with R26 V.3.5.2, using multiple packages including dplyr,27 ggplot2, 28 survival 29 and cobalt.30
Sensitivity analyses
Several sensitivity analyses were carried out. First, the biosimilar to originator switch was considered as a treatment discontinuation outcome, as we made the hypothesis that this switch would correspond to a medical switch for lack of efficacy of the biosimilar. Second, the intra-molecule switch was defined as a three-consecutive delivery change of product (and not two), not to misclassify a punctual switch due to stock issues. We also considered the intra-molecule switch at the first delivery to be comprehensive. In addition, we modified the definition of discontinuation, taking a 30-day or 90-day (vs 60-day gap in the main analysis) gap in addition to the theoretical covering period of the molecules. Fourth, we restricted the analyses to at least 6-month persistent patients, to analyse only treatment responders. Fifth, we modified the inclusion criteria, carrying out an additional analysis by changing the definition of TNF initiation to ‘no delivery of any of the three TNF-alpha within the past 5 years’ to prevent including non-initiating patients. We also restricted the analyses to calendar years with at least 10% of patients included in each group to have a minimal balance for this variable, and we repeated the analyses for each year of inclusion as a subgroup analysis. Additionally, the follow-up was extended to 2 years and also restricted to the pre-COVID-19 time period to exclude pandemic-specific discontinuations and the delay in care for new biologics users in the postlockdown period. Finally, the relative risk (RR) of non-persistence at 1 year was computed using the IPTW Kaplan-Meier survival estimate at 1 year; the CI for this estimate was assessed using the percentiles of the RR estimates on 1000 bootstraps.
Results
Patient characteristics
A total of 86 776 patients were included, of whom 22 670 were IFX users, 24 442 were ETA users and 39 664 were ADA users. Among IFX users, 5292 (23%) initiated treatment with the originator product, 14 678 (65%) with CT-P13 and 2700 (12%) with SB2; 2042 (9%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 4059 (18%) ankylosing spondylitis, 611 (3%) psoriatic arthritis, 9531 (42%) Crohn’s disease, 5054 (22%) ulcerative colitis and 1373 (6%) psoriasis. Among ETA users, 13 354 (55%) initiated treatment with the originator product, 8917 (36%) with SB4 and 2171 (9%) with GP2015; 11 265 (46%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 9702 (40%) ankylosing spondylitis, 1556 (6%) psoriatic arthritis and 1919 (8%) psoriasis. Among ADA users, 18 378 (46%) initiated treatment with the originator product, 10 048 (25%) with ABP501, 4189 (11%) with FKB327, 3939 (10%) with SB5, 1870 (5%) with MSB11022 and 1240 (3%) with GP2017; 5111 (13%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 11 091 (28%) ankylosing spondylitis, 1857 (5%) psoriatic arthritis, 11 047 (28%) Crohn’s disease, 5991 (15%) ulcerative colitis, 3651 (9%) psoriasis, 231 (1%) hidradenitis suppurative and 685 (1%) uveitis.
Patients’ characteristics at inclusion were similar between biosimilar and originator product users within each molecule, as shown in table 1 and online supplemental tables 3–5. The only significant difference came from the year of inclusion, as biosimilar product uptake was progressive throughout the years.
Table 1.
Main patients’ characteristics at baseline
| Infliximab | Etanercept | Adalimumab | ||||
| Originator | Biosimilars | Originator | Biosimilars | Originator | Biosimilars | |
| Effective | 5292 | 17 378 | 13 354 | 11 088 | 18 378 | 21 286 |
| Mean age (SD) | 43.2 (15.9) | 43.3 (16.2) | 50.5 (15.0) | 51.8 (15.0) | 43.4 (15.3) | 45.1 (14.9) |
| Median age (Q1-Q3) | 42 (30–54) | 42 (30–55) | 50 (39–61) | 52 (40–63) | 42 (31–54) | 45 (33–56) |
| Male | 2486 (47.0) | 8415 (48.4) | 4805 (36.0) | 4143 (37.4) | 8232 (44.8) | 9492 (44.6) |
| Pathologies | ||||||
| Rheumatoid arthritis | 472 (8.9) | 1570 (9.0) | 5640 (42.2) | 5625 (50.7) | 1607 (8.7) | 3504 (16.5) |
| Ankylosing spondylitis | 806 (15.2) | 3253 (18.7) | 5447 (40.8) | 4255 (38.4) | 3570 (19.4) | 7521 (35.3) |
| Psoriatic arthritis | 155 (2.9) | 456 (2.6) | 905 (6.8) | 651 (5.9) | 620 (3.4) | 1237 (5.8) |
| Crohn’s disease | 2369 (44.8) | 7162 (41.2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 6270 (34.1) | 4777 (22.4) |
| Ulcerative colitis | 1044 (19.7) | 4010 (23.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3685 (20.1) | 2306 (10.8) |
| Psoriasis | 446 (8.4) | 927 (5.3) | 1362 (10.2) | 557 (5.0) | 1929 (10.5) | 1722 (8.1) |
| Hidradenitis suppurativa | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 188 (1) | 43 (0.2) |
| Uveitis | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 509 (2.8) | 176 (0.8) |
| Number of consultations linked to the pathology* | ||||||
| 0 | 880 (16.6) | 2613 (15.0) | 1291 (9.7) | 679 (6.1) | 1467 (8.0) | 1621 (7.6) |
| 1–2 | 1321 (25.0) | 4339 (25.0) | 2419 (18.1) | 1934 (17.4) | 3704 (20.2) | 4530 (21.3) |
| 3–4 | 1069 (20.2) | 3848 (22.1) | 3226 (24.2) | 2821 (25.4) | 4771 (26.0) | 6014 (28.3) |
| 5+ | 2022 (38.2) | 6578 (37.9) | 6418 (48.1) | 5654 (51) | 8436 (45.9) | 9121 (42.8) |
| Number of hospitalisations linked to the pathology* | ||||||
| 0 | 284 (5.4) | 667 (3.8) | 7713 (57.8) | 5838 (52.7) | 7878 (42.9) | 10 020 (47.1) |
| 1 | 1379 (26.1) | 5246 (30.2) | 3400 (25.5) | 3422 (30.9) | 5995 (32.6) | 6800 (31.9) |
| 2 | 1235 (23.3) | 4945 (28.5) | 1085 (8.1) | 961 (8.7) | 2426 (13.2) | 2535 (11.9) |
| 3+ | 2394 (45.2) | 6520 (37.5) | 1156 (8.7) | 867 (7.8) | 2079 (11.3) | 1931 (9.1) |
| Drug history* | ||||||
| Other biologics | 726 (13.7) | 3344 (19.2) | 2491 (18.7) | 2055 (18.5) | 2149 (11.7) | 2738 (12.9) |
| Other systemic | 2953 (55.8) | 10 267 (59.1) | 6859 (51.4) | 6650 (60) | 10 209 (55.6) | 11 497 (54.0) |
| Steroids | 3598 (68.0) | 12 301 (70.8) | 9387 (70.3) | 8004 (72.2) | 13 473 (73.3) | 15 007 (70.5) |
| Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug | 1932 (36.5) | 6881 (39.6) | 9472 (70.9) | 7698 (69.4) | 7710 (42.0) | 12 249 (57.5) |
Detailed patients’ characteristics at inclusion are presented in online supplemental tables 3–5.
*Drug history was assessed within the year before inclusion; the number of consultations linked to the pathology within 2 years before inclusion and the number of hospitalisations within 5 years before inclusion.
Q1-Q3, quarter 1-quarter 3; SD, Standard deviation.
Persistence
All pathologies taken together, patients treated with a biosimilar of IFX were followed on average for 280 days (SD 112 days), slightly more than originator IFX users (269 (120) days). Both groups had similar discontinuation or molecule switch rates at 1 year (38.9% (n=6761) in the biosimilar group and 38.3% (n=2026) in the originator group).
In ETA users, patient follow-ups in the biosimilar versus originator groups were close (264 (118) days vs 253 (120) days). The biosimilar group experienced fewer events than the originator group (45.7% (n=5064) compared with 52.2% (n=6965)).
Patients treated with a biosimilar of ADA were followed on average for 267 days (SD 117 days), slightly less than originator ADA users (273 (114) days). Event rates at 1 year in both groups were similar (42.8% (n=9104) in the biosimilar group and 43.1% (n=7916) in the originator group).
IPTW aHR (presented in tables 2–4 and online supplemental tables 9–17) of event were close to 1 and CIs covered 1, except for several subgroups: in the IFX cohort, biosimilar use showed a better persistence in Crohn’s disease (aHR 0.83 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.96), driven by the CTP13); in the ETA cohort, biosimilar use showed a better persistence in rheumatology (rheumatoid arthritis: aHR 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93); ankylosing spondylitis: aHR 0.88 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.96) and psoriasis: aHR 0.80 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.00); in the ADA cohort, biosimilar use showed a better persistence in ankylosing spondylitis (aHR 0.89 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97). In addition, each biosimilar product subgroup had better or similar persistence than the originator groups (online supplemental tables 9–17). All the sensitivity analyses (shown in online supplemental figure 4) were consistent with the results of the main analysis.
Table 2.
Risk of non-persistence of biosimilar use versus originator use in infliximab-initiating patients, by pathology
| Pathology | Reference events | Biosimilars events | Crude HR | P value | IPTW aHR | P value |
| Rheumatoid arthritis | 48% (228/472) | 51% (798/1570) | 0.95 (0.78 to 1.16) | 0.534 | 0.88 (0.63 to 1.23) | 0.300 |
| Ankylosing spondylitis | 41% (330/806) | 43% (1407/3253) | 0.98 (0.84 to 1.16) | 0.797 | 0.84 (0.67 to 1.07) | 0.057 |
| Psoriasic arthritis | 39% (61/155) | 44% (199/456) | 1.08 (0.74 to 1.60) | 0.580 | 0.87 (0.45 to 1.69) | 0.590 |
| Crohn’s disease | 35% (829/2369) | 32% (2272/7162) | 0.85 (0.77 to 0.95) | <0.001 | 0.83 (0.71 to 0.96) | <0.001 |
| Ulcerative colitis | 38% (394/1044) | 41% (1626/4010) | 1.05 (0.91 to 1.22) | 0.375 | 0.90 (0.74 to 1.11) | 0.193 |
| Psoriasis | 41% (184/446) | 50% (459/927) | 1.28 (1.02 to 1.61) | 0.005 | 0.98 (0.70 to 1.36) | 0.845 |
HR are presented in point estimates (CI); bold font denotes significant differences. Bonferroni-corrected p value=0.00833.
IPTW computed through a multivariable logistic regression.
aHR, adjusted HR; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting.
Table 3.
Risk of non-persistence of biosimilar use versus originator use in etanercept-initiating patients, by pathology
| Pathology | Reference events | Biosimilars events | Raw HR | P value | IPTW aHR | P value |
| Rheumatoid arthritis | 48% (2731/5640) | 42% (2380/5625) | 0.84 (0.78 to 0.90) | <0.001 | 0.85 (0.78 to 0.93) | <0.001 |
| Ankylosing spondylitis | 55% (2977/5447) | 49% (2078/4255) | 0.86 (0.80 to 0.92) | <0.001 | 0.88 (0.80 to 0.96) | <0.001 |
| Psoriasic arthritis | 53% (484/905) | 49% (320/651) | 0.86 (0.72 to 1.03) | 0.033 | 0.82 (0.65 to 1.03) | 0.031 |
| Psoriasis | 57% (773/1362) | 51% (286/557) | 0.90 (0.76 to 1.07) | 0.123 | 0.80 (0.65 to 1.00) | 0.011 |
HRs are presented in point estimates (CI); bold font denotes significant differences. Bonferroni-corrected p value=0.0125.
IPTW computed through a multivariable logistic regression.
aHR, adjusted HR; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting.
Table 4.
Risk of non-persistence of biosimilar use versus originator use in adalimumab-initiating patients, by pathology
| Pathology | Reference events | Biosimilars events | Raw HR | P value | IPTW aHR | P value |
| Rheumatoid arthritis | 51% (822/1607) | 47% (1664/3504) | 0.89 (0.79 to 1.00) | 0.006 | 0.99 (0.87 to 1.13) | 0.881 |
| Ankylosing spondylitis | 51% (1803/3570) | 45% (3388/7521) | 0.83 (0.76 to 0.90) | <0.001 | 0.89 (0.81 to 0.97) | <0.001 |
| Psoriatic arthritis | 54% (333/620) | 48% (592/1237) | 0.88 (0.73 to 1.06) | 0.061 | 0.81 (0.65 to 1.01) | 0.009 |
| Crohn’s disease | 34% (2127/6270) | 33% (1581/4777) | 1.05 (0.96 to 1.15) | 0.173 | 1.01 (0.92 to 1.12) | 0.679 |
| Ulcerative colitis | 42% (1546/3685) | 42% (966/2306) | 1.08 (0.97 to 1.21) | 0.056 | 1.07 (0.95 to 1.21) | 0.109 |
| Psoriasis | 53% (1027/1929) | 49% (846/1722) | 0.90 (0.80 to 1.02) | 0.028 | 0.95 (0.83 to 1.10) | 0.374 |
| Hidradenitis suppurativa | 43% (80/188) | 33% (14/43) | 0.81 (0.36 to 1.78) | 0.455 | 0.85 (0.27 to 2.74) | 0.711 |
| Uveitis | 35% (178/509) | 30% (53/176) | 0.97 (0.63 to 1.48) | 0.825 | 0.90 (0.54 to 1.51) | 0.581 |
HRs are presented in point estimates (CI); bold font denotes significant differences. Bonferroni-corrected p value=0.00625.
IPTW computed through a multivariable logistic regression.
aHR, adjusted HR; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting.
Safety
Across molecules, adverse event rates were mostly similar. The most common adverse events were severe infection, all-cause hospitalisation and death, with 6.0% (n=1370), 2.3% (n=566) and 2.5% (n=982) of IFX, ETA and ADA patients having experienced hospitalisation for severe infection, respectively; 19.5% (n=4424), 10.2% (n=2495) and 8.8% (n=3505) of IFX, ETA and ADA patients having experienced all-cause hospitalisation, respectively; and 0.8% (n=173), 0.3% (n=71) and 0.2% (n=74) of IFX, ETA and ADA patients having died before the end of the follow-up, respectively. Weighted Cox proportional hazard models showed no difference between biosimilar and originator users regarding these adverse events (figure 1, online supplemental tables 18–20). The description of other safety outcomes for each group is available in online supplemental tables 6–8. All the sensitivity analyses (shown in online supplemental figure 5) were consistent with the results of the main analysis.
Figure 1.
Estimation of the association between product type exposure (biosimilar vs originator, with originator as a reference) and major adverse events in antitumour necrosis factor-alpha-initiating patients, by molecule and adverse event type (crude HRs are presented in grey, whereas IPTW HRs, adjusted on all the covariates, are presented in black). HR values are presented in point estimates (CI) for the IPTW models only. aHR adjusted HR; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting.
Discussion
The marketed biosimilar TNF-alpha inhibitors had been approved based on specific phase 3 randomised controlled trials in 1–3 indications, and their equivalence was then extrapolated in all the other indications of the molecule. In this systematic observational study based on the SNDS gathering all French patients, we showed no difference in terms of persistence or safety between biosimilar TNF-alpha inhibitors and originator products, within each molecule analysed, namely, IFX, ETA and ADA, in all their respective licensed indications.
We have consistent results with the clinical trials that led to the market authorisation of the biosimilar products (as shown in table 5) but also with observational studies in other indications demonstrating either no difference between biosimilars and originators9 11 12 14 or a better persistence in biosimilar-treated patients (IFX CT-P13 had already been shown to be slightly beneficial in Crohn’s disease in a study carried out on the same database,13 and ETA biosimilars had better retention in a French recent study).31 For the first time, our study assessed, in a large unselected population, persistence and safety in all the indications and all the anti-TNF-alpha products altogether.
Table 5.
Results overview filling the randomised controlled trial gaps with subgroup analyses by biosimilar product in all the indicated pathologies
| Rheumatoid arthritis | Ankylosing spondylitis | Psoriatic arthritis | Crohn’s disease | Ulcerative colitis | Psoriasis | Hidradenitis suppurativa | Uveitis | |
| Infliximab | ||||||||
| CT-P13 | Yoo and colleagues37 | Park and colleagues38 | Ye and colleagues39 | |||||
| SB2 | Choe and colleagues40 | |||||||
| ALL | ||||||||
| Etanercept | ||||||||
| GP2015 | Matucci-Cerinic and colleagues41 | Griffiths and colleagues42 | ||||||
| SB4 | Emery and colleagues43 | |||||||
| ALL | ||||||||
| Adalimumab | ||||||||
| ABP501 | Cohen and colleagues44 | Papp and colleagues45 | ||||||
| FKB327 | Genovese and colleagues46 | |||||||
| SB5 | Weinblatt and colleagues47 | |||||||
| MSB11022 | Edwards and colleagues48 | Hercogova and colleagues49 | ||||||
| GP2017 | Wiland and colleagues50 | Blauvelt and colleagues51 | ||||||
| ALL | ||||||||
Grey box: no persistence difference. Blue box: statistically higher persistence with biosimilar. Brown box: not enough patients to conclude. Blank box: not indicated. Randomised controlled trials are shown, with the authors and reference number of the study in the respective box.
While clinical trials mainly focus on efficacy endpoints, our study intends to assess biosimilar versus originator equivalence in its globality: persistence first, as a proxy of real-world effectiveness, but also safety, through a complete description and advanced statistical comparative analyses.
Biosimilar products share the same amino acid sequence as originator products, but their tri-dimensional structure, exact formulation and excipients may vary from one product to another. Manufacturing processes may alter the composition of biosimilar or originator products over time (referred to as molecule drift),32 potentially triggering a divergence between products from the clinical trial lots to the actual packs used in the real world. In addition, the extrapolation paradigm can be questioned by practitioners and patients, even irrationally, and educational efforts had to be made to counter prescription inertia33 and the nocebo effect.34 The aim of our study was then to break down the remaining barriers to the adoption of biosimilar products.
Our study has several strengths. First, as it was based on a comprehensive database, we were able to include almost every patient living in France and having initiated one of the three studied anti-TNF-alpha, which represented almost 90 000 patients, and to follow them through their contact with health services. It allowed us to use a systematic approach to compare biosimilar and originator products in a real-life setting based on the events of interest in all of the licensed indications of the three TNF-alpha inhibitors at stake and to carry out subgroup analyses on each biosimilar product. Second, we tested the robustness of our results with many sensitivity analyses. The selection of the population could have been a source of bias, in particular as the definition of initiation (no delivery of any of the three TNF-alpha within the past year) allowed multiple initiations for different products. The sensitivity analysis we carried out with a modified definition (no delivery of any of the three TNF-alpha within the past 5 years) did not differ from the main analysis. We also varied the outcome definition, the follow-up duration and the statistical methods. None of these modifications changed the main results of our study. Third, the indication bias, often argued in observational studies, should be limited in our case, as the originator and biosimilar products are vastly considered interchangeable (as demonstrated by the well-balanced groups at inclusion and the fast adoption of the biosimilar products).16
Our study has nonetheless several limitations. First, we do not report long-term persistence and safety data, censoring patient follow-ups for 1 year only. We adopted this approach to be comparable with randomised clinical trials on biosimilars, which generally report equivalence data at 52 weeks, and to have similar follow-ups between both exposure groups. As biosimilar uptake was progressive, the biosimilar group would have had a shorter follow-up without our arbitrary right censoring. Second, we included a sufficient number of patients to get enough events for most of our analyses. However, for several pathology subgroups, we did not have enough sample size to show results at the drug level. Moreover, as we took an interest in adverse events in the therapeutic sequence with limited follow-up, safety was reported only for a few event types and results had to be pulled at the molecule level. Third, we were somewhat limited by the nature of the database we used, as it does not capture most patients and disease characteristics, such as baseline disease activity or autoantibody status. We were not able to use the same clinical outcomes as in clinical trials, such as the American College of Rheumatology criteria, the Psoriasis Area Severity Index and the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index. We had thus to identify many covariates (such as pathology) and outcomes (medical discontinuation) with indirect information or proxies, which can be questionable. Specifically regarding intra-molecule switches, we could not distinguish between medical and non-medical switches and thus chose to consider switches as censoring events, which could be an explanation for the beneficial effects found in some biosimilar groups. Also, other factors, such as patient and physician preferences, which are not recorded in the database, could influence drug prescription and continuation. As a consequence, in spite of the fact that our algorithms and methodological choices were validated by a large number of previous studies based on the SNDS and specific to the diseases we studied,13 14 22 35 36 residual bias by indication and misclassification error cannot be precluded. Finally, our systematic approach can be disputable, as we used the same outcome criteria and adjustment covariates for each of our analyses. We think this is in fact one of the interests of the study, as our methodology is highly reproducible in time (for data updates with more patients and more follow-up) and space (in other countries and data sources).
To conclude, our study shows reassuring results regarding the persistence and safety of biosimilars compared with the originator anti-TNF-alpha product in all licensed indications of these molecules in a real-world use context. As originator and biosimilar products seem interchangeable, biosimilar products should be used more broadly.
Footnotes
Contributors: Literature search: all; study design: all; data extraction and collection: HJ; statistical analysis: HJ; interpretation of the results: all; drafting of the manuscript: HJ; revision of the manuscript: all; supervision: ES and MZ and guarantor: MZ. HJ and MZ confirm that they had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Funding: The authors are employees of the French National Health Insurance (CNAM), the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety (ANSM) and the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) and received no funding for this study. The funding source did not intervene at any step of the study.
Competing interests: None declared.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material: This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
Data availability statement
No data are available. In accordance with data protection legislation and the French regulation, the authors cannot publicly release the data from the French National Health Data System.
Ethics statements
Patient consent for publication
Not applicable.
Ethics approval
EPI-PHARE has permanent regulatory access to the data via its constitutive bodies ANSM and CNAM, thus this present work did not require the approval from the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL). The study was registered on the study register of EPI-PHARE under the number T-2022-11-433.
References
- 1. Jang D-I, Lee A-H, Shin H-Y, et al. The role of tumor necrosis factor alpha (tnf-α) in autoimmune disease and current tnf-α inhibitors in therapeutics. Int J Mol Sci 2021;22:2719. 10.3390/ijms22052719 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Kvien TK, Patel K, Strand V. The cost savings of biosimilars can help increase patient access and lift the financial burden of health care systems. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2022;52:151939. 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.11.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Wolff-Holz E, Tiitso K, Vleminckx C, et al. Evolution of the EU biosimilar framework: past and future. BioDrugs 2019;33:621–34. 10.1007/s40259-019-00377-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Carballo N, Pérez García C, Grau S, et al. Real-world effectiveness and persistence of reference etanercept versus biosimilar etanercept GP2015 among rheumatoid arthritis patients: A cohort study. Front Pharmacol 2022;13:980832. 10.3389/fphar.2022.980832 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Cingolani L, Barberio B, Zingone F, et al. Adalimumab biosimilars, ABP501 and SB5, are equally effective and safe as adalimumab originator. Sci Rep 2021;11:10368. 10.1038/s41598-021-89790-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Takeuchi T, Nishikawa K, Yamada F, et al. Real-world safety and efficacy of CT-P13, an infliximab biosimilar, in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis patients naïve to or switched from biologics. Mod Rheumatol 2022;32:718–27. 10.1093/mr/roab068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Yoo W-H, Kang YM, Kim DW, et al. Safety and effectiveness of etanercept biosimilar sb4 for rheumatic diseases in South Korea: real-world post-marketing surveillance data. Rheumatol Ther 2023;10:329–41. 10.1007/s40744-022-00515-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. López-Ferrer A, Vilarrasa E, Armesto S, et al. Drug survival of adalimumab biosimilars in real-world treatment of psoriasis: a Spanish multicenter study. Dermatol Ther 2022;35:e15831. 10.1111/dth.15831 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Lindström U, Glintborg B, Di Giuseppe D, et al. Treatment retention of infliximab and etanercept originators versus their corresponding biosimilars: nordic collaborative observational study of 2334 biologics naïve patients with spondyloarthritis. RMD Open 2019;5:e001079. 10.1136/rmdopen-2019-001079 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Pinto AS, Cunha MM, Pinheiro F, et al. Effectiveness and safety of original and biosimilar etanercept (Enbrel® vs Benepali®) in bDMARD-naïve patients in a real-world cohort of Portugal. ARP Rheumatol 2022;1:109–16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Di Giuseppe D, Lindstrom U, Bower H, et al. Comparison of treatment retention of originator vs biosimilar products in clinical rheumatology practice in Sweden. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2022;61:3596–605. 10.1093/rheumatology/keab933 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Kim HA, Lee E, Lee SK, et al. Retention rate and efficacy of the biosimilar CT-P13 versus reference infliximab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a propensity score-matched analysis from the korean college of rheumatology biologics registry. BioDrugs 2020;34:529–39. 10.1007/s40259-020-00432-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Meyer A, Rudant J, Drouin J, et al. effectiveness and safety of reference infliximab and biosimilar in crohn disease: a French equivalence study. Ann Intern Med 2019;170:99–107. 10.7326/M18-1512 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Meyer A, Rudant J, Drouin J, et al. The effectiveness and safety of infliximab compared with biosimilar CT-P13, in 3112 patients with ulcerative colitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2019;50:269–77. 10.1111/apt.15323 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. ANSM . État des Lieux sur LES Médicaments Biosimilaires; 2022.
- 16. Jourdain H, Hoisnard L, Sbidian E, et al. TNF-alpha inhibitors biosimilar use in France: a nationwide population-based study using the French national health data system. Sci Rep 2022;12:19569. 10.1038/s41598-022-24050-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Tuppin P, Rudant J, Constantinou P, et al. Value of a national administrative database to guide public decisions: From the système national D’information interrégimes de l’assurance maladie (SNIIRAM) to the système national des données de santé (SNDS) in France. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 2017;65 Suppl 4:S149–67. 10.1016/j.respe.2017.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Weill A, Nguyen P, Labidi M, et al. Use of high dose cyproterone acetate and risk of intracranial meningioma in women: cohort study. BMJ 2021;372:37. 10.1136/bmj.n37 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Semenzato L, Botton J, Drouin J, et al. Chronic diseases, health conditions and risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization and in-hospital mortality during the first wave of the epidemic in France: a cohort study of 66 million people. Lancet Reg Health Eur 2021;8:100158. 10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Bouillon K, Baricault B, Botton J, et al. Effectiveness of BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1-S vaccines against severe covid-19 outcomes in a nationwide mass vaccination setting: cohort study. BMJ Med 2022;1:e000104. 10.1136/bmjmed-2021-000104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Botton J, Jabagi MJ, Bertrand M, et al. Risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, and pulmonary embolism following COVID-19 vaccines in adults younger than 75 years in France. Ann Intern Med 2022;175:1250–7.:M22-0988. 10.7326/M22-0988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Penso L, Dray-Spira R, Weill A, et al. Association between biologics use and risk of serious infection in patients with psoriasis. JAMA Dermatol 2021;157:1056–65. 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.2599 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Pina Vegas L, Le Corvoisier P, Penso L, et al. Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients initiating biologics/apremilast for psoriatic arthritis: a nationwide cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2022;61:1589–99. 10.1093/rheumatology/keab522 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Jourdain H, Hoisnard L, Sbidian E, et al. Severe hypersensitivity reactions at biosimilar versus originator rituximab treatment initiation, switch and over time: a cohort study on the French national health data system. BioDrugs 2023;37:397–407. 10.1007/s40259-023-00584-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Sedgwick P. Multiple hypothesis testing and bonferroni’s correction. BMJ 2014;349. 10.1136/bmj.g6284 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. R Core Team . R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2022. Available: https://www.R-project.org
- 27. Wickham H, François R, Henry L, et al. Dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation; 2022.
- 28. Hadley W. Ggplot2: elegant Graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New York; 2016. Available: https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org [Google Scholar]
- 29. Therneau TM. A package for survival analysis in R. 2022. Available: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival
- 30. Greifer N. Cobalt: Covariate balance tables and plots. 2022. Available: https://ngreifer.github.io/cobalt/
- 31. Larid G, Baudens G, Dandurand A, et al. Differential retention of adalimumab and etanercept biosimilars compared to originator treatments: results of a retrospective French multicenter study. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022;9:989514. 10.3389/fmed.2022.989514 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Ramanan S, Grampp G. Drift, evolution, and divergence in biologics and biosimilars manufacturing. BioDrugs 2014;28:363–72. 10.1007/s40259-014-0088-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Sarnola K, Merikoski M, Jyrkkä J, et al. Physicians’ perceptions of the uptake of biosimilars: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2020;10:e034183. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034183 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Odinet JS, Day CE, Cruz JL, et al. The Biosimilar nocebo effect? A systematic review of double-blinded versus open-label studies. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2018;24:952–9. 10.18553/jmcp.2018.24.10.952 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Pina Vegas L, Penso L, Claudepierre P, et al. Long-term persistence of first-line biologics for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in the FRench health insurance database. JAMA Dermatol 2022;158:513–22. 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.0364 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Hoisnard L, Pina Vegas L, Dray-Spira R, et al. Risk of major adverse cardiovascular and venous thromboembolism events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis exposed to JAK inhibitors versus adalimumab: a nationwide cohort study. Ann Rheum Dis 2023;82:182–8. 10.1136/ard-2022-222824 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Yoo DH, Hrycaj P, Miranda P, et al. A randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study to demonstrate equivalence in efficacy and safety of CT-P13 compared with innovator infliximab when coadministered with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: the PLANETRA study. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:1613–20. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-203090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Park W, Yoo DH, Jaworski J, et al. Comparable long-term efficacy, as assessed by patient-reported outcomes, safety and pharmacokinetics, of CT-P13 and reference infliximab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: 54-week results from the randomized, parallel-group PLANETAS study. Arthritis Res Ther 2016;18:25. 10.1186/s13075-016-0930-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Ye BD, Pesegova M, Alexeeva O, et al. Efficacy and safety of biosimilar CT-P13 compared with originator infliximab in patients with active Crohn’s disease: an international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority study. The Lancet 2019;393:1699–707. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32196-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Choe J-Y, Prodanovic N, Niebrzydowski J, et al. A randomised, double-blind, phase III study comparing SB2, an infliximab biosimilar, to the infliximab reference product remicade in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:58–64. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207764 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Matucci-Cerinic M, Allanore Y, Kavanaugh A, et al. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of GP2015, an etanercept biosimilar, compared with the reference etanercept in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: 24-week results from the comparative phase III, randomised, double-blind EQUIRA study. RMD Open 2018;4:e000757. 10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000757 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Griffiths CEM, Thaçi D, Gerdes S, et al. The EGALITY study: a confirmatory, randomized, double-blind study comparing the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of GP2015, a proposed etanercept biosimilar, vs. the originator product in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis. Br J Dermatol 2017;176:928–38. 10.1111/bjd.15152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Emery P, Vencovský J, Sylwestrzak A, et al. A phase III randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study comparing SB4 with etanercept reference product in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:51–7. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207588 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Cohen S, Genovese MC, Choy E, et al. Efficacy and safety of the biosimilar ABP 501 compared with adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, phase III equivalence study. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:1679–87. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210459 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Papp K, Bachelez H, Costanzo A, et al. Clinical similarity of biosimilar ABP 501 to adalimumab in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase III study. J Am Acad Dermatol 2017;76:1093–102. 10.1016/j.jaad.2016.12.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Genovese MC, Kellner H, Arai Y, et al. Long-term safety, immunogenicity and efficacy comparing FKB327 with the adalimumab reference product in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: data from randomised double-blind and open-label extension studies. RMD Open 2020;6:e000987. 10.1136/rmdopen-2019-000987 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Weinblatt ME, Baranauskaite A, Niebrzydowski J, et al. Phase III randomized study of SB5, an adalimumab biosimilar, versus reference adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018;70:40–8. 10.1002/art.40336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Edwards CJ, Monnet J, Ullmann M, et al. Safety of adalimumab biosimilar MSB11022 (acetate-buffered formulation) in patients with moderately-to-severely active rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol 2019;38:3381–90. 10.1007/s10067-019-04679-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Hercogová J, Papp KA, Chyrok V, et al. AURIEL-PsO: a randomized, double-blind phase III equivalence trial to demonstrate the clinical similarity of the proposed biosimilar MSB11022 to reference adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis. Br J Dermatol 2020;182:316–26. 10.1111/bjd.18220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Wiland P, Jeka S, Dokoupilová E, et al. Switching to biosimilar SDZ-ADL in patients with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis: 48-week efficacy, safety and immunogenicity results from the phase III, randomized, double-blind ADMYRA study. BioDrugs 2020;34:809–23. 10.1007/s40259-020-00447-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Blauvelt A, Lacour J-P, Fowler JF, et al. Phase III randomized study of the proposed adalimumab biosimilar GP2017 in psoriasis: impact of multiple switches. Br J Dermatol 2018;179:623–31. 10.1111/bjd.16890 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
rmdopen-2023-003531supp001.pdf (1.1MB, pdf)
Data Availability Statement
No data are available. In accordance with data protection legislation and the French regulation, the authors cannot publicly release the data from the French National Health Data System.