The results of investigating the efficacy and safety of non-medical switching from the original rituximab to its biosimilar in rheumatoid arthritis patients (AMBIRA study)

Wide usage of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) biosimilars in clinical practice has greatly increased the availability of biologic therapy for rheumatic patients. Nevertheless, not only economic expediency but efficacy and safety are the key principals of any treatment including biologic DMARDs.

Objective. To investigate the efficacy and safety of switching from the original rituximab (MabThera®, “F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.”, Switzerland) to its biosimilar (Acellbia®, “BIOCAD”, Russia) by non-medical reasons in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

Subjects and methods. 40 rheumatoid arthritis patients on basic therapy who had taken at least one course of original rituximab (MabThera®) 1000 mg twice in 2 weeks more than 6 months ago were included. They were switched to equal-dose biosimilar (Acellbia®) by non-medical reasons and were observed throughout the year. At 12, 24 weeks and one year after switching dynamics of the next parameters were evaluated: pain level according to visual analogue scale (VAS), tender joint count (TJC), swollen joint count (SJC), acute inflammatory and immunological markers, disease activity score (DAS28) calculated using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) or C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) index and safety profile.

Results. All the data are presented as median of indicator in the moment of measurement after switching therapy (Meperiod). In 12-week period TJC [(Me]_0=9.50, Me_12=6.0, p< 0.01) and SJC (Me_0=2,0, Me_12=1,0, p<0.01) were decreased with positive dynamics on the 24 and 48 weeks. Also, similar results were observed in the VAS pain level. DAS28 showed significant decreasing during observation: Me0=4.38, Me24=3.55, Meyear=3.49, p<0.01 for DAS28-ESR; and Me0=3.91, Me24=3.15, Meyear=3.03, p<0.01 for DAS28-CRP. Immunological markers were increased or stable during the first months after switching, but then they were significantly decreased: Me0=45.0 U/ml, Meyear=23.0 U/ml, p<0.01 for rheumatoid factor; and Me0=88.0 U/ml, Meyear=50.5 U/ml, p<0.01 for anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide. HAQ index was stabilized during 1 year: Me0=1.00, Meyear=0.75, p<0.01. Severe infusion reactions on Acellbia® were not observed, safety profile was similar to MabThera®.

Conclusion. Our investigation revealed that non-medical switching from original rituximab (MabThera®, “F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.”, Switzerland) to its biosimilar (Acellbia®, “BIOCAD”, Russia) has no significant influence on the therapy efficacy and safety.

1. Dorner T, Burmester GR. The role of B-cells in rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2003;15(3):246-252. DOI: 10.1097/00002281-200305000-00011

2. Anti-B-cell therapy in rheumatology: focus on rituximab. Edited by Nasonov EL. Moscow: IMA-PRESS; 2012: 119-152 (In Russ.).

3. Cytokines. Edited by Ketlinsky SA, Simbirtsev AS. Saint Petersburg: Foliant; 2008. (in Russ.).

4. Boross P, Leusen JHW. Mechanisms of action of CD20 antibodies. Am J Cancer Res. 2012;2(6):676-690.

5. Smolen JS, fandewc RBM, Bijlsma JWJ, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(6):685-699. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216655

6. Nasonov EL. Biosimilars in rheumatology. Nauchnoprakticheskaya revmatologi-ya = Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2016;54(6):628-640 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.14412/1995-4484-2016-628-640

7. Association of Rheumatologists of Russia. Clinical guidelines “Rheumatoid arthritis” (approved by the Ministry of Health of Russia), 2018 (Electronic resource) (In Russ.). https://legalacts.ru/doc/klinicheskie-rekomendat-sii-revmatoidnyi-artrit-utv-minzdravom-rossii/

8. Tarp S, Furst D, Boers M, et al. Risk of serious adverse effects of biological and targeted drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review meta-analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017;56(3):417-425. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kew442

9. Ramiro S, Sepriano A, Chatzidionysiou K, et al. Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(6):1101-1136. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210708

10. Smolen JS, Goncalves J, Quinn M, et al. Era of biosimilars in rheumatology: reshaping the healthcare environment. RMD open. 2019;5(1):e000900. DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2019-000900

11. Johansen ME, Richardson C. Estimation of potential savings through therapeutic substitution. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(6):769-775. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1704

12. Nasonov EL, Zonova EV, Ivanova ON, et al. The results of a phase III comparative clinical trial of Rituximab (Acellbia® and Mabthera®) in rheumatoid arthritis (The BIORA study). Nauchnoprakticheskaya revmatologi-ya = Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2016;54(5):510-519 (In Russ). DOI: 10.14412/1995-4484-2016-510-519

13. Alekseev SM, Kaplanov KD, Ivanov RA, Chernyaeva EV. Current approach to development of biosimilar products containing monoclonal antibodies as an active substance - non-clinical and clinical studies of the first Russian Rituximab biosimilar, Acellbia®. Research and Practical Medicine Journal. 2015;2(1):8-12 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17709/2409-2231-2015-2-1-8-12

14. Avdeeva AS, Cherkasova MV, Kusevich DA, et al. Clinical and immunological effects of the original and biosimilar rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Klinicheskaya farma-kologiya i terapiya = Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019;28(4):30-36 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.32756/0869-5490-2019-4-30-36

15. Fransen J, van Riel PLCM. The Disease Activity Score and the EULAR response criteria. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2009;35(4):745-757. DOI: 10.1016/j.rdc.2009.10.001

16. Glantz Stanton A, Glantz Stanton S. Primer of Biostatistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, Medical Pub. Division; 2002:320.

17. Cohen SB, Burgos-Vargas R, Emery P, et al. Extension study of PF-05280586, a potential rituximab biosimilar, versus rituximab in subjects with active rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018;70(11):1598-1606. DOI: 10.1002/acr.23586

18. Tony H-P, Kruger K, Cohen SB, et al. Brief report: Safety and immunogenicity of rituximab biosimilar GP 2013 after switch from reference rituximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2019;71(1):88-94. DOI: 10.1002/acr.23771

19. Shim SC, Bo/ic-Majslorovic L, Berrocal Kasay A, et al. Efficacy and safety of switching from rituximab to biosimilar CT-P10 in rheumatoid arthritis: 72-week data from a randomized Phase 3 trial. Rheumatology. 2019;58(12):2193-2202. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez152

20. Smolen JS, Choe J-Y, Prodanovic N, et al. Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy after switching from reference infliximab to biosimilar SB2 compared with continuing reference infliximab and SB2 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results of a randomised, double-blind, phase III transition study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(2):234-240. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-211741

21. J0rgensen KK, Olsen IC, Goll GL, et al. Switching from originator infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 compared with maintained treatment with originator infliximab (NOR-SWITCH): A 52-week, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10086):2304-2316. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30068-5

22. Goll GL, J0rgensen KK, Sexton J, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) after switching from originator infliximab: open-label extension of the NOR-SWITCH trial. J Intern Med. 2019;285(6):653-669. DOI: 10.1111/joim.12880

23. Cohen SB, Alonso-Ruiz A, Klimiuk PA, et al. Similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of adalimumab biosimilar BI 695501 and Humira reference product in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis: results from the phase III randomised VOLTAIRE-RA equivalence study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(6):914-921. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212245

24. Weinblatt ME, Baranauskaite A, Dokoupilova E, et al. Switching from reference adalimumab to SB5 (adalimumab biosimilar) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Fifty-two-week phase III randomized study results. Arthritis Rheumatol (Hoboken). 2018;70(6):832-840. DOI: 10.1002/art.40444

25. Moots R, Azevedo V, Coindreau JL, et al. Switching between reference biologics and biosimilars for the treatment of rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology inflammatory conditions: Considerations for the clinician. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2017;19(6):37. DOI: 10.1007/s11926-017-0658-4

26. Girolomoni G, Feldman SR, Emery P, et al. Comparison of injection-site reactions between the etanercept biosimilar SB4 and the reference etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis from a phase III study. Br J Dermatol. 2018;178(3):e215-e216. DOI: 10.1111/bjd.16032

27. Emery P, Vencovsky J, Sylwestrzak A, et al. 52-week results of the phase 3 randomized study comparing SB4 with reference etanercept in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology. 2017;56(12):2093-2101. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kex269

28. Glintborg B, Loft AG, Omerovic E, et al. To switch or not to switch: results of a nationwide guideline of mandatory switching from originator to biosimilar etanercept. One-year treatment outcomes in 2061 patients with inflammatory arthritis from the DANBIO registry. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(2):192-200. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213474

29. Davies R, Kearsley-Fleet L, Lunt M, et al. O22 Frequency and reasons for switching back to etanercept originator following initial switch to etanercept biosimilar. Rheumatology. 2019;58(3):0. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez105.021