Adalimumab is a biological therapy used to treat different chronic inflammatory diseases. At present, there is an increasing number of adalimumab biosimilars. To assume the acceptability of interchangeability between reference adalimumab and biosimilars, there should be evidence about efficacy and safety of this switching. Regulation of this practice falls under the authority of individual European UnionMember States. The aim of this study is to systematically review the evidence on the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars in different chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.Methods: Studies presenting data about switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars were identified by sensitive search strategies in Medline and EMBASE from 1 January 2004 to 30 June 2021.Results: A total of 471 references were obtained and 21 finally included in the analysis (total number of patients switching: 2802). Eight different adalimumab biosimilars were tested after receiving reference adalimumab. Eight articles included rheumatoid arthritis (RA), one miscellaneous rheumatic disease, six psoriasis (PSO) and six inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Overall, the efficacy results in the switching groups were comparable to those obtained in the arms of continuous biosimilar and continuous reference adalimumab. There were no significant differences in treatment emergent adverse events, anti-drug or neutralising antibodies among the three groups.Conclusions: Switching between reference adalimumab and biosimilars has no impact on efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with RA, PSO and IBD. This finding was consistent for the different adalimumab biosimilars analysed. These conclusions could probably be extended to other rheumatic diseases such as psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

No abstract

Objective To describe in detail an innovative program based on telemedicine for semi-automated prioritization of referrals from Primary Care (PC) to Rheumatology, for reproducibility purposes, and to present the results of the implementation study. Methods The context and situation were carefully analyzed, paying attention to all processes in place, referral numbers, waiting times, and number of complementary tests prior to discharge from Rheumatology. The composition of the team, aims, users, scope, and implementation phases were defined. Eight process indicators were established and measured before and 32 months after the program implementation. Results The program, which includes IT circuits, algorithms based on response to specific guideline-based checklists, e-consultation, and appointments based on priority, was fully implemented in our health area after a pilot study in two PC centers. After implementation, 6185 rheumatology referrals showed an e-consultation response delay of 8.95 days, and to first face-to-face visit (after e-consultation) of 12.6 (previous delay before program implementation was 83.1 days). Resolution by e-consultation reached 20% (1195 patients did not need seeing the rheumatologist to have the problem solved), and 1369 patients (32%) were discharged after the first visit. The overall resolution rate was 44.0% (2564 discharges/5830 e-consultations). From a random sample of 100 visits, only 10% of patients needed additional complementary tests to make a diagnosis and decision by Rheumatology (20.9% decrease from previous period). Conclusion A careful analysis of the situation and processes, with implementation of simple IT circuits, allows for the improvement of the efficiency and resolution of problems in Rheumatology.