ObjectiveTo determine the rates of asymptomatic viral carriage and seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in healthcare workers.DesignA cross-sectional study of asymptomatic healthcare workers undertaken on 24/25 April 2020.SettingUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (UHBFT), UK.Participants545 asymptomatic healthcare workers were recruited while at work. Participants were invited to participate via the UHBFT social media. Exclusion criteria included current symptoms consistent with COVID-19. No potential participants were excluded.InterventionParticipants volunteered a nasopharyngeal swab and a venous blood sample that were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein antibodies, respectively. Results were interpreted in the context of prior illnesses and the hospital departments in which participants worked.Main outcome measureProportion of participants demonstrating infection and positive SARS-CoV-2 serology.ResultsThe point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 viral carriage was 2.4% (n=13/545). The overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was 24.4% (n=126/516). Participants who reported prior symptomatic illness had higher seroprevalence (37.5% vs 17.1%, χ2=21.1034, p<0.0001) and quantitatively greater antibody responses than those who had remained asymptomatic. Seroprevalence was greatest among those working in housekeeping (34.5%), acute medicine (33.3%) and general internal medicine (30.3%), with lower rates observed in participants working in intensive care (14.8%). BAME (Black, Asian and minority ethnic) ethnicity was associated with a significantly increased risk of seropositivity (OR: 1.92, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.23, p=0.01). Working on the intensive care unit was associated with a significantly lower risk of seropositivity compared with working in other areas of the hospital (OR: 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78, p=0.02).Conclusions and relevanceWe identify differences in the occupational risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 between hospital departments and confirm asymptomatic seroconversion occurs in healthcare workers. Further investigation of these observations is required to inform future infection control and occupational health practices.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics (PK) of SB2 to the infliximab reference product (INF) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate therapy.MethodsThis is a phase III, randomised, double-blind, multinational, multicentre parallel group study. Patients with moderate to severe RA despite methotrexate therapy were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either SB2 or INF of 3 mg/kg. The primary end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 30. Inclusion of the 95% CI of the ACR20 response difference within a ±15% margin was required for equivalence.Results584 subjects were randomised into SB2 (N=291; 290 analysed) or INF (N=293). The ACR20 response at week 30 in the per-protocol set was 64.1% in SB2 versus 66.0% in INF. The adjusted rate difference was −1.88% (95% CI −10.26% to 6.51%), which was within the predefined equivalence margin. Other efficacy outcomes such as ACR50/70, disease activity score measured by 28 joints and European League against Rheumatism response were similar between SB2 and INF. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable (57.6% in SB2 vs 58.0% in INF) as well as the incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADA) to infliximab up to week 30 (55.1% in SB2 vs 49.7% in INF). The PK profile was similar between SB2 and INF. Efficacy, safety and PK by ADA subgroup were comparable between SB2 and INF.ConclusionsSB2 was equivalent to INF in terms of ACR20 response at week 30. SB2 was well tolerated with a comparable safety profile, immunogenicity and PK to INF.Trial registration numberNCT01936181.

ObjectiveThe 24‐week equivalent efficacy and comparable safety results of the biosimilar SB5 and reference adalimumab (ADA) from the phase III randomized study in patients with moderate‐to‐severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been reported previously. We undertook this transition study to evaluate patients who switched from ADA to SB5 or who continued to receive SB5 or ADA up to 52 weeks.MethodsIn this phase III study, patients were initially randomized 1:1 to receive SB5 or ADA (40 mg subcutaneously every other week). At 24 weeks, patients receiving ADA were rerandomized 1:1 to continue with ADA (ADA/ADA group) or to switch to SB5 (ADA/SB5 group) up to week 52; patients receiving SB5 continued with SB5 for 52 weeks (SB5 group). Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were evaluated up to 52 weeks.ResultsThe full analysis set population consisted of 542 patients (269 in the SB5 group, 273 in the ADA overall group [patients who were randomized to receive ADA at week 0], 125 in the ADA/SB5 group, and 129 in the ADA/ADA group). The percentages of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, or 70% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20, ACR50, or ACR70 response) at week 24 were maintained after the transition from ADA to SB5, and these response rates were comparable across treatment groups throughout the study. ACR20 response rates ranged from 73.4% to 78.8% at week 52. Radiographic progression was minimal and comparable across treatment groups. The safety profile and the incidence of antidrug antibodies were comparable across treatment groups after transition.ConclusionSB5 was well tolerated over 1 year in patients with RA, with efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity comparable to those of ADA. Switching from ADA to SB5 had no treatment‐emergent issues such as increased adverse events, increased immunogenicity, or loss of efficacy.

Objective SB5 is a biosimilar agent for adalimumab (ADA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and immunogenicity of SB5 in comparison with reference ADA in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsIn this phase III, randomized, double‐blind, parallel‐group study, patients with moderately to severely active RA despite treatment with methotrexate were randomized 1:1 to receive SB5 or reference ADA at a dosage of 40 mg subcutaneously every other week. The primary efficacy end point was the response rate based on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at week 24 in the per‐protocol set (completer analysis). Additional end points included efficacy, PK, safety, and immunogenicity assessments.ResultsOf the 544 patients randomized to receive a study drug, the full analysis set comprised 542 patients (269 in the SB5 group, 273 in the reference ADA group) and the per‐protocol set comprised 476 patients (239 receiving SB5, 237 receiving reference ADA). The ACR20 response rate at week 24 in the per‐protocol set was equivalent between those receiving SB5 and those receiving reference ADA (72.4% and 72.2%, respectively); the difference in the ACR20 response rate (0.1%, [95% confidence interval −7.83%, 8.13%]) was within the predefined equivalence margin (±15%). Similar results were seen in the full analysis set (missing data being considered a nonresponse). The SB5 and reference ADA treatment groups were comparable across other end points, including the ACR 50% and ACR 70% improvement response rates, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, PK data, incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events, and the antidrug antibody response. Subgroup analyses showed that the efficacy and safety of SB5 and reference ADA were comparable regardless of antidrug antibody status.ConclusionThe ACR20 response rate at week 24 was equivalent between patients treated with the biosimilar agent SB5 and those treated with reference ADA. SB5 and reference ADA were both well tolerated, with comparable safety profiles, in patients with RA.