Systematic review: efficacy and safety of switching patients between reference and biosimilar infliximab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biosimilar versions of widely prescribed drugs, including the tumour-necrosis factor antagonist infliximab, are becoming increasingly available. As biosimilars are not identical copies of reference products, evidence may be required to demonstrate that switching between a reference biologic and biosimilars is safe and efficacious. To establish interchangeability, US Food and Drug Administration guidance states that studies must demonstrate that biosimilars remain equivalent or non-inferior to a reference product after multiple switches between products. AIMS: To investigate the evidence evaluating the safety and efficacy of switching between reference and biosimilar infliximab in patients with inflammatory disorders, including Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis. METHODS: Published studies presenting data on switching between reference and biosimilar infliximab were identified by searching the MEDLINE database. Congress abstracts were identified by searching the EMBASE database and manually searching abstracts from relevant congresses. RESULTS: A total of 113 journal articles and 149 abstracts were found. Of these, 70 were considered relevant and included in this analysis. Most of the publications were uncontrolled, observational studies. Data from six randomised, controlled trials were identified. In general, the evidence revealed no clinically important efficacy or safety signals associated with switching. CONCLUSIONS: While available data have not identified significant risks associated with a single switch between reference and biosimilar infliximab, the studies available currently report on only single switches and were mostly observational studies lacking control arms. Additional data are needed to explore potential switching risks in various populations and scenarios.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".