MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411621246 · doi:10.1007/s11096-025-01956-6

Comparative effectiveness and safety of biosimilars versus reference biologics in rheumatoid arthritis during treatment initiation: a systematic review of real-world evidence

2025· review· en· W4411621246 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chin Hang Yiu, Grace Tsz Yan Yau, Richard O. Day, Jacques Raubenheimer, Christine Y. Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Pharmacy · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Sydney
KeywordsBiosimilarMedicineObservational studyRheumatoid arthritisCINAHLAdverse effectMEDLINEIntensive care medicineFamily medicineInternal medicinePsychological interventionNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Effective management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) often requires the use of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). Biosimilar drugs (biosimilars), licensed pharmaceutical products that exhibit high similarity to their reference biological products (originators), have emerged as more affordable alternatives. AIM: To compare the real-world effectiveness and safety of biosimilars and originators of bDMARDs in the management of RA at treatment initiation. METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, International Pharmaceutical Abstract and CINAHL from database inception to 18th April 2025. Observational studies utilising real-world data (e.g., electronic health records, biologics registries) that compared clinical outcomes between patients initiating treatment with either a biosimilar or an originator for RA were included. Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and a narrative synthesis was conducted to summarise key findings. RESULTS: A total of 13 retrospective cohort studies were included, providing data on 34,280 patients initiating treatment with bDMARDs for RA. Treatment retention was the most investigated effectiveness outcome (n = 11), and all studies found that biosimilars were associated with comparable retention profiles compared to originators. No significant differences were identified for other effectiveness outcomes (e.g., disease activity indices). For safety outcomes, adverse events (AEs) were documented in eight studies. However, seven of these studies were of poor quality in assessing safety outcomes due to inadequate control for confounding factors. CONCLUSION: In real-world settings, biosimilars generally demonstrate comparable effectiveness to originators. Future investigations are warranted to examine the comparative safety profiles of biosimilars and originators.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.011
Bibliometrics0.0120.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.286
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical PharmacySame topicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsFrench-language works237,207