Jacobs Ira, Petersel Danielle, Isakov Leah, Lula Sadiq, Lea Sewell K
Pfizer Essential Health, Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, NY, 10017-5755, USA.
Envision Pharma Group, London, UK.
BioDrugs. 2016 Dec;30(6):525-570. doi: 10.1007/s40259-016-0201-6.
Clinicians are required to assimilate, critically evaluate, and extrapolate information to support appropriate use of biosimilars across indications.
The objective of this study was to systematically collate all published data in order to assess the weight (quantity and quality) of available evidence for each molecule and inform and support healthcare decision-making in chronic inflammatory diseases.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science were searched to September 2015. Selected conference proceedings were searched from 2012 to July 2015. Studies disclosing biosimilars with unique identifiers were categorized by originator, study type, and indication. Risk of bias assessments were performed. Intended copies were differentiated as commercially available agents without evidence of rigorous comparative biosimilarity evaluations.
Proposed biosimilars for adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and rituximab are reported in the published literature. Across indications, approved biosimilars infliximab CT-P13, SB2, and etanercept SB4 have published studies involving the largest number of patients or healthy subjects (n = 1405, 743, and 734, respectively), mostly in rheumatoid arthritis. At data cut-off, only CT-P13 had published data in ankylosing spondylitis (n = 250; randomized control trial) and ulcerative colitis/Crohn's disease (n = 336; observational studies). Published data were not available for ongoing studies in psoriasis patients. Four intended copies were identified in published studies (total: n = 1430; n = 1372 in observational studies). Thematic analysis of non-empirical publications showed that indication extrapolation remains an issue, particularly for gastroenterologists.
While most agents display a moderate to high degree of similarity to their originator in the published studies identified, large discrepancies persist in the overall amount and type of data available in the public domain. Significant gaps exist particularly for intended copies, reinforcing the need to maintain a clear differentiation between these molecules and true biosimilars.
临床医生需要吸收、严格评估并推断信息,以支持生物类似药在各适应症中的合理使用。
本研究的目的是系统整理所有已发表的数据,以评估每种分子现有证据的权重(数量和质量),并为慢性炎症性疾病的医疗决策提供信息和支持。
检索MEDLINE、EMBASE和ISI科学网至2015年9月。检索2012年至2015年7月选定的会议论文集。披露具有唯一标识符的生物类似药的研究按原研药、研究类型和适应症分类。进行偏倚风险评估。意向仿制品被区分为无严格生物类似性比较评估证据的市售药物。
已发表文献中报道了阿达木单抗、依那西普、英夫利昔单抗和利妥昔单抗的拟生物类似药。在各适应症中,已批准的生物类似药英夫利昔单抗CT-P13、SB2和依那西普SB4发表的研究涉及的患者或健康受试者数量最多(分别为n = 1405、743和734),主要是在类风湿性关节炎方面。截至数据截止时,只有CT-P13发表了强直性脊柱炎(n = 250;随机对照试验)和溃疡性结肠炎/克罗恩病(n = 336;观察性研究)的数据。银屑病患者正在进行的研究尚无发表的数据。在已发表的研究中确定了四种意向仿制品(总计:n = 1430;观察性研究中n = 1372)。对非实证性出版物的主题分析表明适应症外推仍然是一个问题,尤其是对胃肠病学家而言。
虽然在已确定的已发表研究中,大多数药物与其原研药显示出中度至高度的相似性,但公共领域中可用数据的总量和类型仍存在较大差异。特别是意向仿制品存在显著差距,这进一步凸显了在这些分子与真正的生物类似药之间保持明确区分的必要性。