Therapeutic Equivalence of Biosimilar and Reference Biologic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Biosimilar drugs are potentially lower-cost versions of biologics that may improve access to therapy. However, there is a lack of adequate systematic reviews demonstrating equivalence between these drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Objectives: To assess the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity associated with biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab compared with their reference biologics in patients with RA. Data Sources: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and LILACS databases were searched from inception to September 2021. Study Selection: Head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab and their biologic reference drugs for RA were assessed. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two authors independently abstracted all data. Meta-analysis was conducted with bayesian random effects using relative risks (RRs) for binary outcomes and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and trial sequential analysis. Specific domains were assessed for the risk of bias in equivalence and noninferiority trials. This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Equivalence was tested using prespecified margins for the American College of Rheumatology criteria, with at least 20% improvement in the core set measures (ACR20) (ie, RR, 0.94 to 1.06), and for the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (ie, SMD, -0.22 to 0.22). Secondary outcomes included 14 items measuring safety and immunogenicity. Results: A total of 25 head-to-head trials provided data on 10 642 randomized patients with moderate to severe RA. Biosimilars met equivalence with reference biologics in terms of ACR20 response (24 RCTs with 10 259 patients; RR, 1.01; 95% CrI, 0.98 to 1.04; τ2 = 0.000) and change of HAQ-DI scores (14 RCTs with 5579 patients; SMD, -0.04; 95% CrI, -0.11 to 0.02; τ2 = 0.002) considering prespecified margins of equivalence. Trial sequential analysis found evidence for equivalence for ACR20 since 2017 and HAQ-DI since 2016. Overall, biosimilars were associated with similar safety and immunogenicity profiles compared with reference biologics. Conclusion and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, biosimilars of adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept were associated with clinically equivalent treatment effects compared with their reference biologics for the treatment of RA.

Quantifying subclinical central nervous lesions in primary antiphospholipid syndrome: the role of magnetization transfer imaging.

PURPOSE: To define the role of magnetization transfer imaging (MTI) in detecting subclinical central nervous system (CNS) lesions in primary antiphospholipid syndrome (PAPS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten non-CNS PAPS patients were compared to 10 CNS PAPS patients and 10 age- and sex-matched controls. All PAPS patients met Sapporo criteria. All subjects underwent conventional MRI and complementary MTI analysis to compose histograms. CNS viability was determined according to the magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) by mean pixel intensity (MPI) and the mean peak height (MPH). Volumetric cerebral measurements were assessed by brain parenchyma factor (BPF) and total/cerebral volume. RESULTS: MTR histograms analysis revealed that MPI was significantly different among groups (P < 0.0001). Non-CNS PAPS had a higher MPI than CNS PAPS (30.5 +/- 1.01 vs. 25.1 +/- 3.17 percent unit (pu); P < 0.05) although lower than controls (30.5 +/- 1.01 vs. 31.20 +/- 0.50 pu; P < 0.05). MPH in non-CNS PAPS (5.57 +/- 0.20% (1/pu)) was similar to controls (5.63 +/- 0.20% (1/pu), P > 0.05) and higher than CNS PAPS (4.71 +/- 0.30% (1/pu), P < 0.05). A higher peak location (PL) was also observed in the CNS PAPS group in comparison with the other groups (P < 0.0001). In addition, a lower BPF was found in non-CNS PAPS compared to controls (0.80 +/- 0.03 vs. 0.84 +/- 0.02 units; P < 0.05) but similar to CNS PAPS (0.80 +/- 0.03 vs. 0.79 +/- 0.05 units; P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that non-CNS PAPS patients have subclinical cerebral damage. The long-termclinical relevance of MTI analysis in these patients needs to be defined by prospective studies.