RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The adalimumab biosimilar (ADAbio) Amgevita® has a similar efficacy and safety profile as the adalimumab reference (ADA) Humira®. We studied the clinical consequences of a non-medical switch from ADA to ADAbio in adult patients with mainly established rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and spondyloarthritis (SpA). METHODS: Patients that received treatment with ADA for at least three months were switched to ADAbio. Data was collected retrospectively from 1 year before the switch up to 6 months after. RESULTS: A total of 603 patients were switched from ADA to ADAbio (switch group). During a 1-year follow-up, over 93% of all patients underwent a successful transition in terms of disease activity and safety from ADA to biosimilar, supporting the bioequivalence of both drugs in patients with stable inflammatory rheumatic joint diseases. Forty patients (6.6%) switched back to ADA (re-switch group). There were no objective changes in disease activity score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), or adverse effects before and after the switch between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In line with earlier reports, the transition to ADAbio went successful in the majority of patients with stable inflammatory rheumatic joint diseases. Patient-reported symptoms without objective signs that indicate a flare of disease activity after the switch to ADAbio are probably explained by nocebo effects. A pre-emptive approach to counteract nocebo effects and stimulate placebo response may have a positive impact on health outcomes for patients and preserve the economic benefits of cost savings that can be achieved by prescribing a biosimilar instead of the reference drug.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Making a differential diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is not straightforward. This is partly because of its heterogeneous presentation and partly because many patients with PsA are initially diagnosed with psoriasis and treated in primary care or by dermatologists, with referral to rheumatologists being delayed. Once diagnosed, optimal disease control requires frequent specialist monitoring, adjustment or switching of therapies, and management of comorbidities and concomitant diseases, as well as attention to patients' overall well-being. Given the breadth of expertise that diagnosis and management of PsA requires, we sought to define a collaborative, structured framework that supports the optimisation of multidisciplinary care for patients with PsA in Europe. METHODS: An expert panel comprising four rheumatologists, three dermatologists, two specialist nurses and one psychologist-from Spain, the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Germany, France and Italy-met face-to-face to take part in a modified Delphi exercise. RESULTS: The result of this exercise is a set of recommendations that are based on combining published evidence with the panel's extensive clinical experience. Recommendations can be implemented in a number of ways, but the central call-to-action of this framework is the need for improved collaboration between dermatologists (or primary care physicians) and rheumatologists. This could occur in a variety of different formats: standard referral pathways, multidisciplinary physician meetings to discuss patient cases, or 'one stop', combined clinics. CONCLUSION: We anticipate that when the majority of patients with PsA receive regular multidisciplinary care, improved patient outcomes will follow, although robust research is needed to explore this assumption.