MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404532483 · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljae454

Drug survival and safety of biosimilars for treating psoriasis compared with originator adalimumab: a multinational cohort study

2024· article· en· W4404532483 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Duc Binh Phan, Hugo Jourdain, M.Á. Descalzo, Alicia González-Quesada, Mahmoud Zureik, R. Rivera, Antonio Sahuquillo‐Torralba, Mark Lunt, I. García‐Doval, É. Sbidian, Richard B. Warren, Zenas Z N Yiu

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNovartis PortugalJanssen AustraliaCaisse nationale de l'Assurance MaladieBristol-Myers Squibb CanadaAbbVie CanadaPsoriasis AssociationLEO PharmaAssistance publique-Hôpitaux de ParisCilagUniversity of ManchesterBritish Association of DermatologistsAlmirallBoehringer Ingelheim EspañaAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisManchester Biomedical Research Centre
KeywordsBiosimilarAdalimumabMedicinePsoriasisMultinational corporationCohortInternal medicineCohort studyOncologyFamily medicineDermatologyBusinessDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The lack of evidence from routine clinical settings has limited the widespread adoption of adalimumab biosimilars for the treatment of psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the drug survival and safety of adalimumab biosimilars with Humira® in psoriasis. METHODS: We conducted a prevalent new-user cohort study using data from the French National Health Data System (SNDS), the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) and the Spanish Registry of Systemic Therapy in Psoriasis (BIOBADADERM). Adalimumab-naïve patients initiating adalimumab biosimilars (new users) were compared with Humira new users. Patients switching from Humira to biosimilars (switchers) were compared with those who continued Humira treatment. Patients were matched 1 : 1 based on previous adalimumab exposure time to create equal-sized cohorts of biosimilar and Humira users. Co-primary outcomes included drug discontinuation and serious adverse events (SAEs). Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazard models. Meta-analyses using random-effect models were performed to combine results from the three databases. RESULTS: In total, 7387 biosimilar new users and 3654 switchers were matched and compared with Humira users. No differences in all-cause discontinuation were found between biosimilar and Humira new users [HR 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.04]. Switching from Humira to biosimilars was associated with a higher discontinuation rate than remaining on Humira (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.19-1.52). Similar results were observed for discontinuation due to ineffectiveness or adverse events. Risks of SAEs were similar between biosimilar new users and Humira new users [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.80-1.05] or between switchers and continuous Humira users (IRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83-1.01). CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab biosimilars can be considered viable alternatives to Humira for new patients, with comparable effectiveness and safety. However, owing to the higher likelihood of discontinuation, patients who switch from Humira to biosimilars may require closer monitoring and support.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsFrench-language works237,207