Comparison of the efficacy and safety of the original rituximab and its biosimilar in routine clinical practice

Currently, a biosimilar (BS) of rituximab (RTM) Acellbia® is widely used in Russia for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however, a systematic study of this drug in routine clinical practice has not been conducted.Objective: to compare the results of the use of RTM BS (Acellbia®) and the o...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: D. A. Kusevich, Yu. A. Olyunin, E. L. Nasonov
Format: Article
Language:Russian
Published: IMA-PRESS LLC 2022-06-01
Series:Современная ревматология
Subjects:
Online Access:https://mrj.ima-press.net/mrj/article/view/1293
_version_ 1797876703913050112
author D. A. Kusevich
Yu. A. Olyunin
E. L. Nasonov
author_facet D. A. Kusevich
Yu. A. Olyunin
E. L. Nasonov
author_sort D. A. Kusevich
collection DOAJ
description Currently, a biosimilar (BS) of rituximab (RTM) Acellbia® is widely used in Russia for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however, a systematic study of this drug in routine clinical practice has not been conducted.Objective: to compare the results of the use of RTM BS (Acellbia®) and the original rituximab (oRTM) in the daily clinical practice of a large rheumatology center.Patients and methods. The study involved 127 patients predominantly with seropositive RA, who were divided into four groups. Groups 1 and 2 included 66 bionaive patients with active RA and ineffectiveness of previous therapy. 31 patients of the 1st group received 2 infusions of oRTM at a dose of 500 mg intravenously (IV) 2 weeks apart; 35 patients of the 2nd group – 2 infusions of RTM BS at a dose of 500 mg IV 2 weeks apart. Groups 3 and 4 included 61 patients who had previously received oRTM therapy. These patients received 4 courses of oRTM treatment on average before being included in the study. 30 patients of the 3rd group continued oRTM therapy: they received 2 infusions at a dose of 500 mg IV 2 weeks apart; 31 patients of the 4th group received 2 infusions of RTM BS at a dose of 500 mg IV 2 weeks apart.Results and discussion. During the observation period, the dynamics of the main indicators of RA activity in the 1st and 2nd groups did not differ significantly. Although the indication for rehospitalization was an exacerbation of the disease, 64.5% of patients in the 1st and 77.1% of patients in the 2nd group, preserved a 20% improvement according to the ACR criteria on re-examination. The condition of patients of the 3rd and 4th groups remained generally stable during the observation period. The change in the DAS28 index in most cases was clinically insignificant. There were no significant differences in the dynamics of inflammatory activity among patients who continued oRTM treatment and who received RTM BS.Conclusion. The results of the study show that both the prescription of RTM to bionaive RA patients and repeated courses of treatment with RTM BS and oRTM are comparable in terms of efficacy and tolerability.
first_indexed 2024-04-10T02:05:48Z
format Article
id doaj.art-dea2b2a274014f1686751694d26c3627
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1996-7012
2310-158X
language Russian
last_indexed 2024-04-10T02:05:48Z
publishDate 2022-06-01
publisher IMA-PRESS LLC
record_format Article
series Современная ревматология
spelling doaj.art-dea2b2a274014f1686751694d26c36272023-03-13T08:39:29ZrusIMA-PRESS LLCСовременная ревматология1996-70122310-158X2022-06-01163212810.14412/1996-7012-2022-3-21-282476Comparison of the efficacy and safety of the original rituximab and its biosimilar in routine clinical practiceD. A. Kusevich0Yu. A. Olyunin1E. L. Nasonov2ФГБНУ «Научно-исследовательский институт ревматологии им. В.А. Насоновой»ФГБНУ «Научно-исследовательский институт ревматологии им. В.А. Насоновой»ФГБНУ «Научно-исследовательский институт ревматологии им. В.А. Насоновой»; ФГАОУ ВО «Первый Московский государственный медицинский университет им. И.М. Сеченова»Currently, a biosimilar (BS) of rituximab (RTM) Acellbia® is widely used in Russia for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however, a systematic study of this drug in routine clinical practice has not been conducted.Objective: to compare the results of the use of RTM BS (Acellbia®) and the original rituximab (oRTM) in the daily clinical practice of a large rheumatology center.Patients and methods. The study involved 127 patients predominantly with seropositive RA, who were divided into four groups. Groups 1 and 2 included 66 bionaive patients with active RA and ineffectiveness of previous therapy. 31 patients of the 1st group received 2 infusions of oRTM at a dose of 500 mg intravenously (IV) 2 weeks apart; 35 patients of the 2nd group – 2 infusions of RTM BS at a dose of 500 mg IV 2 weeks apart. Groups 3 and 4 included 61 patients who had previously received oRTM therapy. These patients received 4 courses of oRTM treatment on average before being included in the study. 30 patients of the 3rd group continued oRTM therapy: they received 2 infusions at a dose of 500 mg IV 2 weeks apart; 31 patients of the 4th group received 2 infusions of RTM BS at a dose of 500 mg IV 2 weeks apart.Results and discussion. During the observation period, the dynamics of the main indicators of RA activity in the 1st and 2nd groups did not differ significantly. Although the indication for rehospitalization was an exacerbation of the disease, 64.5% of patients in the 1st and 77.1% of patients in the 2nd group, preserved a 20% improvement according to the ACR criteria on re-examination. The condition of patients of the 3rd and 4th groups remained generally stable during the observation period. The change in the DAS28 index in most cases was clinically insignificant. There were no significant differences in the dynamics of inflammatory activity among patients who continued oRTM treatment and who received RTM BS.Conclusion. The results of the study show that both the prescription of RTM to bionaive RA patients and repeated courses of treatment with RTM BS and oRTM are comparable in terms of efficacy and tolerability.https://mrj.ima-press.net/mrj/article/view/1293ревматоидный артритритуксимаббиоаналогиэффективностьпереносимость
spellingShingle D. A. Kusevich
Yu. A. Olyunin
E. L. Nasonov
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of the original rituximab and its biosimilar in routine clinical practice
Современная ревматология
ревматоидный артрит
ритуксимаб
биоаналоги
эффективность
переносимость
title Comparison of the efficacy and safety of the original rituximab and its biosimilar in routine clinical practice
title_full Comparison of the efficacy and safety of the original rituximab and its biosimilar in routine clinical practice
title_fullStr Comparison of the efficacy and safety of the original rituximab and its biosimilar in routine clinical practice
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the efficacy and safety of the original rituximab and its biosimilar in routine clinical practice
title_short Comparison of the efficacy and safety of the original rituximab and its biosimilar in routine clinical practice
title_sort comparison of the efficacy and safety of the original rituximab and its biosimilar in routine clinical practice
topic ревматоидный артрит
ритуксимаб
биоаналоги
эффективность
переносимость
url https://mrj.ima-press.net/mrj/article/view/1293
work_keys_str_mv AT dakusevich comparisonoftheefficacyandsafetyoftheoriginalrituximabanditsbiosimilarinroutineclinicalpractice
AT yuaolyunin comparisonoftheefficacyandsafetyoftheoriginalrituximabanditsbiosimilarinroutineclinicalpractice
AT elnasonov comparisonoftheefficacyandsafetyoftheoriginalrituximabanditsbiosimilarinroutineclinicalpractice