Expert opinion on biological therapy · 2025
Comparative efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of biosimilars and their reference biologic drugs in ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yiu Chin Hang, Or Chung Hin, Almutairi Khalid, Raubenheimer Jacques, Day Richard O, Lu Christine Y
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars and reference biologics (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab) in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS).
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of four electronic databases through 6 January 2025, supplemented by trial registry searches for unpublished trials. We included head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared biosimilars with reference biologics in patients with AS. Effect measures were summarized using random-effects meta-analysis, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The overall certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.
RESULTS: Six head-to-head RCTs (2,107 participants) were included. Biosimilars demonstrated similar efficacy to reference biologics in achieving ASAS20 (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.07) and ASAS40 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94-1.05) responses. No significant differences were observed in other efficacy (e.g. disease activity indices), safety (e.g. adverse events), or immunogenicity outcomes (e.g. anti-drug antibodies). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence supporting the clinical equivalence of biosimilars to reference biologics in AS treatment, reinforcing their potential as safe and effective alternatives.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42024528886.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of four electronic databases through 6 January 2025, supplemented by trial registry searches for unpublished trials. We included head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared biosimilars with reference biologics in patients with AS. Effect measures were summarized using random-effects meta-analysis, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The overall certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.
RESULTS: Six head-to-head RCTs (2,107 participants) were included. Biosimilars demonstrated similar efficacy to reference biologics in achieving ASAS20 (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.07) and ASAS40 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94-1.05) responses. No significant differences were observed in other efficacy (e.g. disease activity indices), safety (e.g. adverse events), or immunogenicity outcomes (e.g. anti-drug antibodies). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence supporting the clinical equivalence of biosimilars to reference biologics in AS treatment, reinforcing their potential as safe and effective alternatives.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42024528886.