Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Apr 16;23(1):119.
doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02487-x.

Comparative efficacy of subcutaneous (CT-P13) and intravenous infliximab in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-regression of individual patient data from two randomised trials

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparative efficacy of subcutaneous (CT-P13) and intravenous infliximab in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-regression of individual patient data from two randomised trials

Bernard Combe et al. Arthritis Res Ther. .

Abstract

Background: A subcutaneous (SC) formulation of infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 is approved in Europe for the treatment of adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It may offer improved efficacy versus intravenous (IV) infliximab formulations.

Methods: A network meta-regression was conducted using individual patient data from two randomised trials in patients with RA, which compared CT-P13 SC with CT-P13 IV, and CT-P13 IV with reference infliximab IV. In this analysis, CT-P13 SC was compared with CT-P13 IV, reference infliximab IV and pooled data for both reference infliximab IV and CT-P13 IV. Outcomes included changes from baseline in 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and rates of remission, low disease activity or clinically meaningful improvement in functional disability per Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI).

Results: The two studies enrolled 949 patients with RA; pooled data for 840 and 751 patients were evaluable at weeks 30 and 54, respectively. For the CT-P13 SC versus pooled IV treatment arm comparison, differences in changes from baseline in DAS28-CRP (- 0.578; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.831, - 0.325; p < 0.0001), CDAI (- 3.502; 95% CI - 5.715, - 1.289; p = 0.002) and SDAI (- 4.031; 95% CI - 6.385, - 1.677; p = 0.0008) scores at 30 weeks were statistically significant in favour of CT-P13 SC. From weeks 30 to 54, the magnitude of the differences increased and remained statistically significant in favour of CT-P13 SC. Similar results were observed for the comparison of CT-P13 SC with CT-P13 IV and with reference infliximab IV. Statistically significant differences at week 30 favoured CT-P13 SC over the pooled IV treatment arms for the proportions of patients achieving EULAR-CRP good response, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 and ACR70 responses, DAS28-CRP-defined remission, low disease activity (DAS28-CRP, CDAI and SDAI criteria) and clinically meaningful HAQ-DI improvement.

Conclusions: CT-P13 SC was associated with greater improvements in DAS28-CRP, CDAI and SDAI scores and higher rates of clinical response, low disease activity and clinically meaningful improvement in functional disability, compared with CT-P13 IV and reference infliximab IV.

Trial registration: EudraCT, 2016-002125-11 , registered 1 July 2016; EudraCT 2010-018646-31 , registered 23 June 2010.

Keywords: CT-P13; Disease activity; Indirect treatment comparison; Individual patient data; Infliximab; Intravenous; Network meta-regression; Rheumatoid arthritis; Subcutaneous; Tumour necrosis factor inhibitor.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

BC received honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi and UCB; and research grants from Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. YA declares no competing interests. RA received honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai and UCB; and research grants from Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. RC received a speaker’s fee and a consultation grant from AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius-Kabi, Gilead-Galapagos, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung-Bioepis, Sanofi and UCB. PD received speaker’s fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Lilly and Sanofi. FI received a speaker’s fee and consultation grant from AbbVie, Actelion, BMS, Biogen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB. MTN received consulting fees from AbbVie, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen and Sanofi; speakers fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Roche and Sanofi; and research funding from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. MT is a consultant at Creativ-Ceutical, an international consulting firm providing services to public and private organisations. Creativ-Ceutical provides services for most pharmaceutical industry companies including Celltrion. SJL is a full-time employee of Celltrion Inc. TSK is a full-time employee of Celltrion Healthcare. JN is a full-time employee of Celltrion Healthcare. GP is a full-time employee of Celltrion Inc. DHY is on the speaker’s bureau for Celltrion and Celltrion Healthcare.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Imputation of week-54 CT-P13 3.5 results based on CT-P13 regression model. EU, European Union; IV, intravenous; MTX, methotrexate; PD, pharmacodynamics; PK, pharmacokinetics
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Change from baseline in DAS28-CRP (a), CDAI (b) and SDAI (c) at weeks 30/54. CDAI, Clinical Disease Activity Index; CRP, C-reactive protein; DAS28-CRP, 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein; IV, intravenous; SDAI, Simple Disease Activity Index; SC, subcutaneous; SD, standard deviation. *CT-P13 IV vs CT-P13 SC p < 0.05, CT-P13 SC vs reference infliximab IV p < 0.05 and CT-P13 IV vs reference infliximab IV p ≥ 0.05. p-values derive from the meta-regression efficacy analysis of week-30 and week-54 data (Tables 3 and 4)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Safiri S, Kolahi AA, Hoy D, Smith E, Bettampadi D, Mansournia MA, Almasi-Hashiani A, Ashrafi-Asgarabad A, Moradi-Lakeh M, Qorbani M, Collins G, Woolf AD, March L, Cross M. Global, regional and national burden of rheumatoid arthritis 1990–2017: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease study 2017. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(11):1463–1471. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215920. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Smolen JS, Aletaha D, Barton A, Burmester GR, Emery P, Firestein GS, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018;4:18002. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2018.1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/basics/rheumatoid-arthritis.html. [cited 2021 January 29].
    1. Smolen JS, Aletaha D, McInnes IB. Rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 2016;388(10055):2023–2038. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30173-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sparks JA. Rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(1):ITC1–ITC16. doi: 10.7326/AITC201901010. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types