RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Due to a tender process in Iceland, all patients on Humira® were switched nationwide to its biosimilar Imraldi® in March 2019. The study aimed to explore the patient's perspective of the Humira® and Imraldi® injection devices. METHODS: A standard telephone interview was carried out among patients with inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis, who underwent this nationwide switching program a few months earlier. RESULTS: The response rate was 84.5% (n = 198). The average age was 50.8 years, and 53.5% were female. The patients self-administered the drugs in 96% of the cases. The majority (90.5%) stated that they received individualized instruction on using the Humira® pen, compared to 18.2% who accepted instruction in the case of the Imraldi® pen. Almost half (46.6%) of the patients found it more difficult to use the Imraldi® pen than the Humira® pen, while only 12.5% found the Imraldi® pen easier to use. Firstly, these differences were due to more painful insertion of the needle (62.2%) and secondly, due to the experience, the injection process was different (63.0%). CONCLUSION: Patients with inflammatory disorders who have been treated regularly with adalimumab preferred the Humira® injection device over the Imraldi® device, according to our results. After all, these injection devices' structure and content are not the same, although both contain the same active ingredient, i.e. adalimumab. Our results highlight the importance of thorough information, not only with an information letter but also with the possibilities for individualized introduction in planning switching to biosimilars.
RESUMEN
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic multisystem disease with a complex immunopathology. Its inflammatory state is dominated by pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNFα and activated Th1/Th17. Only proportion of patients achieve clinical remission despite potent biologics targeting these pathways. This study investigated the resolution of inflammation in RA patients (naïve for biologics) receiving TNFα inhibitors (TNFi) and evaluated the biological mechanisms behind treatment response and assessed them using clinical scoring systems. The majority showed a good clinical response after six months (6M) and a significant drop in DAS28-CRP (P ≤ .002), CDAI (P ≤ .0001) and RheumXpert (P ≤ .0001). Before treatment, the patients demonstrated a chronic innate and adaptive inflammatory state. The improved clinical condition was reflected with a decrease in Th17/Tc17 (P ≤ .05) and an increase in Tregs after 6M (P ≤ .05). Using a logistic regression model on serum data, IL-6, IL-18, IL-21, IL-22, IFNγ and TNFα were identified as the main contributing biomarkers in the chronic inflammatory state of RA. A specific test score (STS) was defined and converted to a single cytokine composite test score (CCTS), which showed the disease outcome on a scale 0-100, providing sensitivity and specificity of ≥90%. Thus, the immunological complexity in RA is driven by a complex interplay of pro-inflammatory cytokines and effector T-cell response dominated by Th17/Tc17. In addition, the resolution of inflammation could be linked to a partially Treg-driven homeostatic innate immune response. Therefore, a more complex therapeutic approach against the above markers might be of value to obtain full clinical remission in the future.
