Impact of immunogenicity on efficacy and tolerability of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: pooled analysis of biosimilar studies in rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: SB4, SB2, and SB5 are biosimilars of etanercept (ETN), infliximab (INF), and adalimumab (ADA), respectively. This pooled analysis evaluated the immunogenicity of these treatments across three phase III randomized controlled trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods: Patients had to have at least one anti-drug antibody (ADAb) assessment up to the time of the primary endpoint from each study (week 24 in SB4 and SB5 studies; week 30 in SB2 study). The effect of ADAbs on American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response and the incidences of injection-site reactions (ISRs)/infusion-related reactions (IRRs) were evaluated.Results: The study included 1709 patients. The cumulative incidences of ADAbs were 30.3% in the all-treatments-combined group, 29.1% in the biosimilars combined group, and 31.5% in the reference products combined group. ACR20 response rates were significantly lower in ADAb-positive patients in the all-treatments-combined [odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 1.77 (1.37, 2.27), p < 0.0001], biosimilars combined [2.24 (1.53, 3.30), p < 0.0001], and reference products combined [1.49 (1.06, 2.09), p = 0.0225] groups. ADAb-positive patients also had a higher likelihood of developing ISRs/IRRs in the all-treatments-combined group [0.56 (0.31, 1.01), p = 0.0550], predominantly due to the results observed with SB2 + INF combined rather than with SB4 + ETN or SB5 + ADA combined.Conclusion: In this pooled analysis, ADAbs were associated with reduced efficacy in patients with RA treated with biosimilars (SB4, SB2, and SB5) or their reference products (ETN, INF, and ADA). ADAbs were associated with an increased incidence of ISRs/IRRs in those treated with SB2 + INF.Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT01936181 (SB2 study), NCT01895309 (SB4 study), and NCT02167139 (SB5 study).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".