Background Sandoz adalimumab SDZ-ADL (GP-2017) is an approved adalimumab biosimilar with similar efficacy and comparable safety and immunogenicity to reference adalimumab (ref-ADL) as confirmed by analytical, pharmacokinetic and confirmatory studies. ADMYRA, a phase III double-blind study, was conducted with an aim to generate efficacy, safety and immunogenicity comparability data in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) having inadequate response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX). The study also evaluated an aspect of 'switching' reference product to the biosimilar in terms of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity up to Week 48. Methods Eligible patients (N = 353) were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous (sc) SDZ-ADL 40 mg (n = 177) or ref-ADL (n = 176) every other week from Week 0 to Week 24. At Week 24, all patients with at least a moderate response by Disease Activity Score-28 including high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) in the SDZ-ADL group continued SDZ-ADL (n = 159), and in the ref-ADL group were switched to SDZ-ADL (n = 166), treated for up to 46 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in DAS28-CRP from baseline at Week 12. Other efficacy endpoints included proportion of patients with European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, EULAR remission, Boolean remission, safety and immunogenicity. Results The DAS28-CRP score changes from baseline at Week 12 were similar between SDZ-ADL (− 2.16) and ref-ADL (− 2.18) with a mean difference (95% CI) of 0.02 (− 0.24 to 0.27), which was within the pre-specified equivalence margin of ± 0.6. After switching treatment from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL, the mean DAS28-CRP change was similar between the SDZ-ADL and 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL' group (− 3.09 vs − 3.05). The proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR response was 69.2%/29.0% in the SDZ-ADL group and 68.0%/29.6% in the 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL' group. The proportion of patients in EULAR remission was 51.4% and 54.4% and in Boolean remission was 16.8% and 21.6% for SDZ-ADL and 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL' groups, respectively. The secondary endpoints were similar across the treatment groups. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and injection-site reactions were low and similar between SDZ-ADL and 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL' groups (AEs 70.6% vs 68.8%, injection-site reactions 4.0% vs 6.3%), and most of these patients experienced AEs of mild or moderate severity. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 24.2% and 25.6% of patients treated with SDZ-ADL and 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL', respectively, from baseline to Week 48, of which 72.5% in SDZ-ADL and 79.1% in 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL' groups were neutralizing. Conclusions In patients with moderate-to-severe RA who had an inadequate response to DMARDs, SDZ-ADL demonstrated a similar efficacy and a comparable safety and immunogenicity profile to ref-ADL. Efficacy was sustained after switching from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL with no impact on safety (NCT02744755).

Introduction: Secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that directly inhibits interleukin-17A, has demonstrated robust efficacy in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis (PsO), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS), with a rapid onset of action, sustained long-term clinical responses and a consistently favourable safety profile across phase 3 trials. Here, we report the clinical data at enrolment from SERENA, designed to investigate the real-world use of secukinumab across all three indications. Methods: SERENA is an ongoing, longitudinal, observational study conducted at 438 sites across Europe in patients with moderate to severe plaque PsO, active PsA or active AS. Patients should have received at least 16 weeks of secukinumab treatment before enrolment in the study.

Objectives:To determine preference, satisfaction, usability and local tolerability by patients, physicians and study nurses of two subcutaneously administered methotrexate (MTX) formulations of different concentrations.Methods:This was an open-label, comparative, within-patient controlled, multicentre study of 132 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). MTX treatment consisted of 20 mg/week administered as a medium-concentration formulation (MC) (2.0 ml of 10 mg/ml solution in prefilled syringe; separate needle) compared to a novel high-concentration formulation (HC) (0.4 ml of 50 mg/ml in prefilled syringe; pre-attached needle). Each treatment was given for three weeks. Questionnaires and visual analogue scales were used to measure outcomes.Results:At the end of the study, 93% of the patients preferred HC over MC as further treatment. Overall assessment of HC was “good” or “very good” in 90.6% vs 34.4% in MC-treated patients. Physician’s and patients global assessment of syringe usability showed highly statistically significant differences (P < 0.0001) in favour of HC. Overall assessment by study nurses’ and investigators’ was “good” (18.8%) or “very good” (81.2%) for HC and “good” in 31.3% or “very good” in 12.5% for MC, and no preference in 50%. Local tolerability improved slightly also with HC.Conclusions:The total smaller volume of administered drug and the improved usability of a pre-attached needle in combination with a smaller prefilled syringe resulted in preference of the patients of HC over MC. The slightly improved local tolerability may also have added to this preference. This assessment was confirmed by similar assessments made by healthcare professionals.Eudra-CT number: 2007-003591-19.

Objective. Autoantibodies against CD74 (anti-CD74) are associated with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The present multicenter study, the International Spondyloarthritis Autoantibody (InterSpA) trial, was undertaken to compare the sensitivity and specificity of anti-CD74 and HLA-B27 in identifying patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).Methods. Patients ages 18-45 years with inflammatory back pain of ≤2 years' duration and a clinical suspicion of axSpA were recruited. HLA-B27 genotyping and magnetic resonance imaging of sacroiliac joints were performed in all patients. One hundred forty-nine patients with chronic inflammatory back pain (IBP) not caused by axSpA served as controls, and additional controls included 50 AS patients and 100 blood donors whose specimens were analyzed.Results. One hundred patients with inflammatory back pain received a diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA from the investigators and fulfilled the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria. The mean age was 29 years, and the mean symptom duration was 12.5 months. The sensitivity of IgA anti-CD74 and IgG anti-CD74 for identifying the 100 axSpA patients was 47% and 17%, respectively. The specificity of both IgA anti-CD74 and IgG anti-CD74 was 95.3%. The sensitivity of HLA-B27 was 81%. The positive likelihood ratios were 10.0 (IgA anti-CD74), 3.6 (IgG anti-CD74), and 8.1 (HLA-B27). Assuming a 5% pretest probability of axSpA in chronic back pain patients, the posttest probability, after consideration of the respective positive test results, was 33.3% for IgA anti-CD74, 15.3% for IgG anti-CD74, and 28.8% for HLA-B27. A combination of IgA anti-CD74 and HLA-B27 results in a posttest probability of 80.2%.Conclusion. IgA anti-CD74 may be a useful tool for identifying axSpA. The diagnostic value of the test in daily practice requires further confirmation.

Objective To evaluate ES for quantification of spinal mobility in patients with axSpA. Methods A total of 153 individuals, 39 females and 114 males, were examined:134 axSpA patients, 40 non-(nr-) and 94 radiographic (r)-axSpA, and 19 healthy controls (HC), respectively. The results were compared using mean ES scores and modeling was performed using multivariable logistic regression models resulting in good validity and high discriminative power. Results ES measurements showed meaningful differences between axSpA patients and HC (all p<0.001) as well as between r- and nr-axSpA (p<0.01). In axSpA patients a negative correlation between ES and BASMI values was found: -0.76≤r≤-0.52 (p<0.05). BASFI scores showed a similar trend (r > -0.39). Patients with r-axSpA had a more limited and slower spinal mobility than those with nr-axSpA. Other patient reported outcomes did almost not correlate. Conclusion This study shows that the ES is an objective performance measure and a valid tool to assess spinal mobility in axSpA, also based on OMERACT criteria. RoK and RoM scores provide additional information on physical function of axSpA patients.