The search for new therapeutic options for the treatment of systemic sclerosis (SSc) is an urgent issue in rheumatology. The article presents the results of the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial BCD-132-5/LIBERIUS on the efficacy and safety of divozilimab (BCD-132) in the treatment of SSc.Objective: to investigate the efficacy and safety of divozilimab in patients with SSc compared to placebo.Material and methods. After enrolment in the study, patients received divozilimab or placebo for 48 weeks, after which they were switched to an open-label divozilimab therapy until week 96.Results and discussion. Divozilimab was superior to placebo regarding the primary endpoint change in mRSS at week 48 compared to baseline, and the therapy had a positive effect on respiratory function parameters. Divozilimab treatment was well tolerated.Conclusion. Thus, divosilimab may represent a new therapeutic option for patients with SSc.

The article presents the results of the three-year use of netakimab (NTK) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) as part of the phase III BCD-085-5/ASTERA study. Objective : to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of NTK over a three-year period in patients with active AS. Material and methods . BCD-085-5/ASTERA – double-blind, multicenter, randomized phase III clinical trial that enrolled patients with active AS (BASDAI ≥4) and a back pain intensity ≥4 on a numeric rating scale with inefficacy or intolerance of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or biologic drugs. A total of 228 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio and assigned to either the NTK group or the placebo/NTK group. Starting at week 16, patients who did not achieve ASAS20 (20% improvement according to ASAS criteria) received NTK 120 mg once every 2 weeks in an open-label regimen. Patients who achieved ASAS20 response at week 52 in the NTK group and week 68 in the placebo/NTK group continued to receive NTK (120 mg every 2 weeks) until week 156 in the NTK group and until week 172 in the placebo/NTK group. Results and discussion . Over the course of three years of NTK use, most patients experienced a sustained decline in AS activity (according to ASDAS-CRP, BASDAI) with sustained response (ASAS20/40, ASAS5/6) to therapy. Most adverse events reported were mild to moderate. 36.7% of patients had adverse events, which were mainly laboratory abnormalities, blood and lymphatic system abnormalities and infectious complications. Conclusion . The clinical effect of NTK was maintained in most patients with AS over a three-year period, with no significant loss of response. NTK was well tolerated and the safety profile remained favorable.

The aim – to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity of seniprutug (BCD-180) in patients with radiographic active axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA, or ankylosing spondylitis).Subjects and methods. 260 patients with active r-axSpA and inadequate response to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were randomized into three groups: seniprutug (BCD-180) at doses of 5 mg/kg or 7 mg/kg, or placebo. BCD-180 was administered on weeks 0–12–36. Patients in the placebo group were switched to BCD-180 at a dose of 5 mg/kg at week 24 and continued therapy at week 36. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving 40% improvement by Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society scale (ASAS40) at week 24. Secondary endpoints were proportion achieving ASAS20/40, improvement of 5 out of 6 criteria of ASAS (ASAS5/6), ASAS partial remission, clinically important improvement in ASDAS-CRP (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein) (ASDAS-CII) and major improvement in ASDAS-CRP (ASDAS-MI). The dynamics of the disease activity status according to ASDAS-CRP, the BASDAI (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index) and BASFI (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index) indices, as well as the dynamics of laboratory markers (C-reactive protein anderythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)) were analyzed. Safety was assessed by the frequency and profile of adverse events (AEs) and adverse reactions (ARs).Results. The proportion of patients achieving ASAS40 at week 24 with seniprutug (BCD-180) at the dose of 7 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg was 51.4% and 40.8%, respectively, compared with 24% in the placebo group (p=0.0012 and p=0.0417, respectively). Analysis of secondary endpoints showed that in patients with r-axSpA, BCD-180 at both study doses was significantly superior to placebo at week 24 in the following measures: decrease in the proportion of subjects with very high disease activity (ASDAS-CRP>3.5) achieving ASDAS-CII, ASAS20, ASAS5/6. A statistically significant decrease in the ASDAS-CRP, BASDAI, BASFI indices, as well as the concentration of CRP and ESR were demonstrated. Tolerability of seniprutug therapy was assessed as acceptable. Infusion reactions were the most common observed adverse events, the vast majority of which were mild to moderate in severity according to CTCAE 5.0 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) and developed predominantly during the first administration. The proportion of patients with binding antibodies was 5.1%. However, no neutralizing antibodies were detected.Conclusion. Seniprutug (BCD-180) demonstrated superiority over placebo in clinical efficacy with a favorable safety profile and low immunogenicity as a treatment of r-axSpA.

The efficacy and safety of levilimab (LVL) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been confirmed in controlled clinical trials. This article presents the results of a preliminary analysis of a non-interventional observational study of LVL in RA patients. Objective: to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LVL in the treatment of patients with RA in real-world clinical practice. Materials and methods. The HELIOS study is a retrospective-prospective, multicenter, non-interventional study of retention rate of LVL therapy and the safety of LVL in patients with RA in real-world clinical practice. Patients received medical care, including LVL, according to routine clinical practice for the treatment of RA and Russian instructions for medical use of the drug. This article presents the results of an analysis of the efficacy and safety of LVL after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment. Efficacy was assessed using the DAS28-CRP/ESR, SDAI, CDAI and patient assessment of pain, fatigue and morning stiffness according to VAS (0–100 mm). Results and discussion. 524 patients from 42 medical centers in the Russian Federation were enrolled in the study from June 2022 to November 2023. The majority of patients were female (83.2 %) and the mean age of patients was 53 years. A statistically significant decrease in DAS28-CRP/ESR, SDAI, CDAI, patient assessment of pain, fatigue and morning stiffness (VAS) was observed after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, regardless of previous treatment with biologics or Jak inhibitors (JAKi). LVL was well tolerated by patients, the most frequently reported adverse events were infections, changes in peripheral blood and laboratory abnormalities characteristic of treatment with IL-6R inhibitors. Conclusion. In real-world clinical practice, LVL has been shown to be highly effective and well tolerated in patients with RA when prescribed as the first biologic disease-modifying antirheaumatic drus (bDMARD) and after switching from other bDMARDs or JAKi.

Background. Previously, 24-week results of phase III double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical study (SOLAR) of levilimab in subjects with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) proved a superiority of levilimab over placebo. Here we present 1-year efficacy and safety data of the SOLAR study.Objective – to evaluate the efficacy and safety of levilimab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in subjects with MTX resistant active RA.Methods. The study was conducted at 21 clinical sites in Russia and Belarus. All randomized subjects have completed the study between November 2019 and October 2021.154 adults, aged ≥18 years with confirmed diagnosis of RA were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either levilimab (162 mg, SC, QW) + MTX (n=102) or placebo + MTX (n=52).After W24 of the study all subjects continued to receive open label levilimab. Subjects who have achieved DAS28-CRP≤2.6 at W24 were switched to maintenance (Q2W) regimen of levilimab at W28 (LVL QW/Q2W and PBO/LVL Q2W arms). Those with DAS28-CRP>2.6 at W28 continued with QW regimen (LVL QW and PBO/LVL QW arm). The PBO/LVL Q2W arm contained only one subject, thus not included in the analysis. The efficacy analysis was done in a population of all randomized subjects. Those with missing data due to study discontinuation or rescue therapy prescription were considered non-responders. Otherwise, the analysis was performed on complete cases.Safety was assessed through monitoring of adverse events (AEs) in a population of those, who received at least on dose of LVL (n=152).Results. Better response to treatment was observed in LVL QW/Q2W as it composed of those who reach DAS28-CRP≤2.6 at W24. At this time point 15/27 (55.6%) of them achieved ACR70; 23/27 (85.2%) achieved DAS28-CRP remission (<2.6) and 7/27 (25.9%) achieved ACR/EULAR 2011 remission of RA. After switching to LVL Q2W, rates of ACR70 and DAS28-CRP<2.6 did not significantly changed until W52: 17/27 (63.0%) and 21/27 (77.8%), respectively, yet the proportion of subject with ACR/EULAR 2011 remission further increased and reached 12/27 (44.4%).LVL QW arm was diminished by subjects who achieved high response to treatment at W24 and composed LVL QW/Q2W arm. Thus, ACR70, and remissions rate in this arm was close to zero at W24. However, continuation of LVL QW in those who not achieved DAS28-CRP≤2.6 at W24 induced ACR70 response in 37/75 (36.0%), DAS28-CRP remission in 35/75 (46.7%) and ACR/EULAR 2011 remission in 8/75 (10.7%) at W52.The most common adverse events (reported in ≥5% of subjects) were blood cholesterol increase (30.3%), ALT increase (23.0%), lymphocyte count decrease (17.1%), ANC decrease (16.4%). blood triglycerides increase (13.8%), bilirubin increase (11.2%), AST increase (9.9%), WBC decrease (9.9%), IGRA with Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigen positive (7.2%) and injection site reactions (5.9%). No deaths were occurred.Conclusions. Open label period confirmed the lasting efficacy and safety of levilimab in combination with MTX in subjects with MTX resistant active RA and suggested the possibility of switching to maintenance (Q2W) regimen in those who achieved remission of RA at week 24.

The article contains the data obtained during the 156-week follow-up of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in the ASTERA phase III study.Objective: to evaluate the effect impact of netakimab (NTK) on quality of life (QoL), back pain and work capacity in patients with active AS.Material and methods. The study enrolled 228 patients with active AS who were randomized 1:1 to receive NTK 120 mg or placebo. At week 52, patients in Group 1 (NTK) who achieved ASAS20 continued therapy (NTK at a dose of 120 mg once every 2 weeks) until week 156. Patients in Group 2 (placebo/NTK) received the study drug at a dose of 120 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks from week 20 until week 68, after which the efficacy of therapy was determined (by achieving an ASAS20 response). Patients who achieved ASAS20 received treatment (NTK at a dose of 120 mg once every 2 weeks) until week 172.Results and discussion. Under NTK therapy, a significant improvement in QoL was observed in the assessment of the physical and psychological components of the SF-36 questionnaire, which was maintained during the three years of therapy: increase in indicator by 12.68±9.92; 13.27±10.14; 12.92±10.03; 14.10±10.35; 14.76±9.77 and 6.10±11.59; 5.50±11.82; 6.32±11.01; 5.87±11.45; 5.25±11.98 points at week 52, 76, 104, 128 and 156, respectively. During the extended therapy period, a reduction in the proportion of working hours missed for health reasons, an improvement in work capacity and work efficiency and an increase in daily activity were observed. Back pain (BASDAI question 2) and nocturnal back pain decreased steadily during the entire follow-up period compared to the screening values.Conclusion. NTK is an effective therapy for active AS that improves QoL scores, significantly reduces pain intensity and improves work productivity.

Levilimab (LVL) is a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor (IL6R). The article presents data obtained during 56 weeks of the AURORA phase II study.Objective: to evaluate the efficacy safety and immunogenicity of LVL in methotrexate (MTX) resistant patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Materials and methods. 105 patients with active RA were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio into two LVL or placebo groups. LVL was administered subcutaneously at a dose of 162 mg every week (QW) or every other week (Q2W). All patients received MTX. After evaluating the primary endpoint of 20% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR20) at week 12, patients in the placebo group were switched to LVL Q2W. The study duration was 56 weeks. The frequency, profile, degree and severity of adverse events were determined in each group for safety assessment. The immunogenicity of LVL was determined by the proportion of patients with identified binding and neutralizing antidrug antibodies. Results. LVL in both regimens was superior to placebo. At week 12, the incidence of ACR20 achievement was 77.1% (LVL QW), 57.1% (LVL Q2W), and 17.1% (placebo) with 95% confidence intervals [37.53; 82.54] (p<0.0001) and [19.08; 68.42] (p=0.003) for the effect difference between LVL and placebo groups. The clinical response, more pronounced in the LVL QW group, persisted until week 52 with an increase in the proportion of patients with ACR50/70, low activity and RA remission. The most common treatment-related adverse events were laboratory abnormalities (predominantly grade 1–2) such as neutropenia, elevated alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase levels, hypercholesterolemia, and elevated triglyceride levels. Antidrug antibodies were not identified.Conclusion. In MTX-resistant patients with active RA, the efficacy of both LVL regimens at a dose of 162 mg in combination with MTX was significantly superior to MT monotherapy. LVL QW lead to highest treatment response. LVL has been shown to be well tolerated and low immunogenicity. LVL safety profile is similar to IL6R inhibitors.

Levilimab is anti-interleukin-6 receptor (IL6R) monoclonal antibody. The article presents data obtained during 24 weeks of the SOLAR phase III study.Objective: to confirm efficacy and safety of levilimab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with methotrexate resistant active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Patients and methods. 154 adult patients, aged ≥18 years with the diagnosis of RA (ACR/EULAR 2010) and confirmed disease activity at screening despite treatment with MTX for at least 12 weeks (in a stable dose 15-25 mg/week). Patients were randomized 2:1 in levilimab (162 mg once a week, subcutaneously) + MTX (n=102) or placebo + MTX (n=52) group.The hypothesis of superiority of levilimab over placebo was tested for two co-primary efficacy endpoints: proportion of subjects who achieved ACR20 at week 12 and proportion of subjects who achieved low disease activity (LDA) of RA (DAS28-CRP <3.2) at week 24. Safety was assessed through monitoring of adverse events (AEs).Results and discussion. Seventy (68.6%) subjects who received levilimab and 20 (38.5%) who received placebo achieved ACR20 response at week 12. Fifty three (52%) subjects who received levilimab and 3 (5,8%) subjects who received placebo achieved LDA at week 24. The most common adverse events (reported in ≥5% of subjects) in levilimab and placebo arms, respectively were (by decreasing frequency): blood c holesterol increase (24% vs 12%), alanine aminotransferase elevation (11% vs 8%), lymphocyte count decrease (9% vs 8%), blood total bilirubin increase (11% vs 0%), blood triglycerides increase (10% vs 2%), aspartate aminotransferase elevation (7% vs 4%), positive interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) with M.tuberculosis antigen blood test (5% vs 6%), absolute neutrophil count decrease (8% vs 0%). No deaths were occurred.Conclusion. The study confirmed superior efficacy of levilimab + MTX over placebo + MTX in subjects with MTX resistant active RA. Levilimab showed favorable safety profile and low immunogenicity. No new important safety risks were detected.

Netakimab (NTK) is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-17A.Objective. The main objective of BCD-085-5/ASTERA study was to prove superiority of NTK over placebo and assess its’ safety in patients with active AS.Subjects and methods. BCD-085-5/ASTERA was a double-blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III study, which included 228 adult patients with active AS, persisting despite active treatment with NSAIDs. AS was considered active at BASDAI score ≥ 4.0. Patients were blindly randomized (1:1) to receive subcutaneous injections of NTK (120 mg) or placebo at weeks 0, 1, 2 and then every other week up to week 14. Starting from week 16 all patients from NTK group and patients from placebo group not achieving ASAS20 were switched to open label 120 mg NTK s/c once every two weeks. The total duration of treatment with NTK was 3 years.Results. Higher proportion of patients had ASAS40 response at week 16 (primary endpoint) in NTK arm compared to placebo (40,4 vs 2,6%, р <0,0001, 95% CI [27,4%; 48,1%]). Spinal pain subsided and laboratory inflammation markers decreased within one week after the first NTK injection. NTK safety profile was comparable to that of placebo. The most common for NTK adverse events were neutropenia (7,0%) and ALT increase (6,1%).Conclusion. Subcutaneous NTK at 120 mg dose demonstrated superior efficacy vs placebo, with fast onset of response and favorable safety profile when used in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

Netakimab (NTK) is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-17A. Objective . The main objective of BCD-085-5/ASTERA study was to prove superiority of NTK over placebo and assess its’ safety in patients with active AS. Subjects and methods . BCD-085-5/ASTERA was a double-blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III study, which included 228 adult patients with active AS, persisting despite active treatment with NSAIDs. AS was considered active at BASDAI score ≥ 4.0. Patients were blindly randomized (1:1) to receive subcutaneous injections of NTK (120 mg) or placebo at weeks 0, 1, 2 and then every other week up to week 14. Starting from week 16 all patients from NTK group and patients from placebo group not achieving ASAS20 were switched to open label 120 mg NTK s/c once every two weeks. The total duration of treatment with NTK was 3 years. Results . Higher proportion of patients had ASAS40 response at week 16 (primary endpoint) in NTK arm compared to placebo (40,4 vs 2,6%, р <0,0001, 95% CI [27,4%; 48,1%]). Spinal pain subsided and laboratory inflammation markers decreased within one week after the first NTK injection. NTK safety profile was comparable to that of placebo. The most common for NTK adverse events were neutropenia (7,0%) and ALT increase (6,1%). Conclusion . Subcutaneous NTK at 120 mg dose demonstrated superior efficacy vs placebo, with fast onset of response and favorable safety profile when used in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

Netakimab (NTK) is a humanized anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody. To date, the drug has been approved to treat ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis, and plaque psoriasis. The paper gives the data obtained during 52-week follow-up of AS patients in the phase III ASTERA study.Objective: to study the efficacy and safety of NTK when used long in patients with active AS.Patients and methods. The investigation enrolled 228 patients with active AS, in whom nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or biological agents were ineffective. The patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive NTK 120 mg or placebo. The drug was administered subcutaneously at weeks 0, 1, 2, and then once every 2 weeks. Patients who received placebo and achieved a 20% improvement according to the ASAS criteria (ASAS20) were excluded from the study at week 16. At this week, patients who took placebo and did not achieve an ASAS20 response were switched to subcutaneous NTK at 120 mg dose once every two weeks. The follow-up period was 52 weeks.Results and discussion. Patients with active AS who received NTK were more likely to respond to treatment than those who took placebo. The proportion of people who achieved 40% improvement (ASAS40) during treatment with NTK increased throughout the follow-up period and amounted to 80.7% at week 52. Positive changes were achieved in all used clinical and laboratory parameters of AS activity. There was also a decrease in inflammatory changes, as shown by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The adverse events (AEs) were mainly laboratory abnormalities and upper respiratory tract infections. Treatment-related AEs were recorded in no more than one third of patients and they were mild to moderate. Severe AEs were singular.Conclusion. Response to NTK therapy generates in the first weeks of drug use and increases throughout a year. The safety profile of NTK when used long is generally favorable.

The paper presents the results of a double-blind (BCD-085-3/AILAS) phase II clinical trial of the original interleukin 17A (IL17A) inhibitor BCD-085 prescribed at different doses to patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and those of an extended (BCD-085-3ext/AILAS-II) trial characterizing the efficacy and safety of this drug when used for a year.The objective of the AILAS study is to determine the therapeutically effective and safe dose of BCD-085 in the treatment of active AS. The efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of BCD-085 during its annual use were additionally evaluated in the extended trial.Subjects and methods. The investigation enrolled 89 patients diagnosed as having active (BASDAI scores >4.0; mean spinal pain scores >4.0) AS that met the 1984 New York classification criteria. After the end of the screening period, the patients were randomized at a ratio of 1:1:1:1 in one of four groups that received 40; 80 or 120 mg of BCD-085 subcutaneously or placebo on day 1 of weeks 0, 1, 2 and then once every two weeks up to week 12. The primary end point was the number of patients who achieved an ASAS20 response at week 16. The investigation evaluated the safety of the drug, by calculating the total incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) and the number of cases of premature therapy termination because of AEs.Results and discussion. An ASAS20 response at week 16 was achieved in 72.7% of patients receiving 40 mg of BCD-085, in 81.8% of those receiving 80 mg, in 90.9% of those receiving 120 mg, and in 42.9% of cases in the placebo group (p=0.004). The superiority of BCD-085 over placebo was proven for 80- and 120-mg doses. The fastest and most pronounced effect was observed in patients treated with 120 mg of BCD-085. In the extended study, an ASAS20 response at week 52 was recorded in 86.4% of patients. One or more AEs during the first 16 weeks of therapy were reported in 11 (50.0%) patients of the 40-mg group; in 6 (27.3%) of the 80 mg group; in 4 (18.2%) of the 120 mg group and in 7 (31.8%) of the placebo group (p=0.183). The frequency and spectrum of AEs did not significantly differ in patients who received placebo and BCD-085 in different doses. No SAE was recorded.Conclusion. Phase II study yielded data demonstrating the high efficacy and good tolerance of BCD-085 in the treatment of active AS. The best effect and optimal tolerance were demonstrated for a dose of 120 mg.

Objective: to assess quality-of-life (QoL) dynamics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when initiating therapy with biological agents (BAs) in real clinical practice.Patients and methods. The investigation enrolled patients with RA from the patient cohort participating in the TERMINAL-II multicenter Russian study, who newly initiated BA therapy. In the self-assessment terminal, the patient completed HAQ, EQ-5D, and RAPID-3 questionnaires. DAS28, SDAI, CDAI, and RAPID-3 were used to determine disease activity. The patient's functional status and QoL were assessed using the HAQ index and the EQ-5D questionnaire, respectively. The efficiency of the therapy was analyzed 6 months after the start of the study according to the standard procedures.Results and discussion. The investigation enrolled 156 RA patients: 79.6% females; mean age, 45.8±13.2 years; disease duration, 7.6±5.6 years. The patients had high RA activity (a mean DAS28 of 5.2±1.2, a mean SDAI of 39.5±16.4, a mean CDAI of 27.5±10.4, and a mean RAPID-3 of 15.1±3.6) and previous inefficacy of synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) after at least 6 months of therapy. Only 1.2% of patients had a good functional status comparable to the population-based control (HAQ 40.5). 70% of patients needed to take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The first BA was chosen in accordance with the recommendations for administration of BAs and in terms of their availability in a specific region of the Russian Federation. The first prescribed BA was tumor necrosis factor-a (TNF-a) inhibitors in 112 (71.8%)patients, anti-B-cell therapy in 14 (9.0%), an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor in 16 (10.3%), and a leukocyte costimulatory inhibitor in 14 (9.0%). Comparison of the patients receiving newly initiated therapy with TNF-a inhibitors and drugs with other mechanisms of action showed that the patients who had abatacept received higher doses of methotrexate (MTX), but lower doses of glucocorticoids (GCs) than those who were prescribed rituximab and tocilizumab. A statistically significant decrease in DAS28, SDAI, CDAI, and RAPID-3 scores was achieved after 6 months of therapy. Improvements of functional status and QoL in patients were also noted (p<0.0001). The patients continued to receive MTX. During the follow-up period, its dose remained almost unchanged: it averaged 15.7±3.8 and 15.7±3.7 mg/week at the beginning and the end of the study, respectively. Due to decreased inflammation, the dose of CS was reduced (on average, from 5.8±2.5 to 5.1±2.6 mg/day; p=0.02), the number of patients requiring NSAIDs declined (from 72.4 to 63.8%). DAS28, SDAI, and CDAI remission and low disease activity were achieved in 38.1, 16.5, and 20% of patients, respectively. The functional status improved in most patients with RA: 20, 50, and 70% improvements in HAQ were observed in 59.4, 46.9, and 28.7% of cases, respectively. QoL improvements were seen in two thirds of the patients: 30, 50, and 70% improvements in 58.3, 29.5, and in 23.7%. After 6-month follow-up, GC therapy was completely discontinued in 4.6% of patients; their dose was reduced in 5.3%, and 8.6% completely refused to take NSAIDs.Conclusion. Biologic therapy was shown to be effective in RA patients with an inadequate response to synthetic NSAIDs in real clinical practice. The patients preferred the subcutaneous injection of BAs. Biologic treatment in most patients was initiated with TNF-a inhibitors, mainly with adalimumab. Six-month therapy could reduce disease activity and improve functional status and health-related QoL in two thirds of severe patients.

The paper gives data on the clinical efficiency and safety profile of long-term use of the infliximab (INF) biosimilar BCD-055 versus the reference drug Remicade® (REM) in a population of patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).Subjects and methods. An international multicenter randomized double-blind Phase III clinical trial was conducted in 199 patients who were randomized into two groups in a 2:1 ratio and who received BCD-055 or REM at a dose of 5 mg/kg at 0, 2, and 6 weeks, then every 8 weeks. Efficiency assessment was made at 14, 30 and 54 weeks in patients who received at least one dose of INF [intent-to-treat (ITT)], as well as at 54 weeks in those who completed the study according to the Protocol (PP) (per protocol). The efficiency endpoints were the proportion of patients who had achieved ASAS20/ASAS40 responses; changes in BASDAI, BASMI, BASFI, MASES, and SF-36 scores. Immunogenicity was assessed by the proportion of patients in each group with identified binding and neutralizing antibodies (BAbs and NAbs) against INF. The safety analysis included the overall rate of adverse events (AEs), including those that met the respective criteria for serous AEs (SAEs), and grade 3–4 toxicity, as well as the number of cases of early termination of the study because of AEs and SAEs.Results and discussion. The ITT population included 199 patients and the PP one consisted of 161 people. The groups were not statistically different in the rate of and reasons for patient withdrawal from the study. A comparable number of patients achieved ASAS20/ASAS40 responses at 14, 30, 54 weeks (р ≥ 0.05). At 54 week, the proportion of patients who received BCD-055 and REM therapy and achieved an ASAS20 response was 67.42 and 52.24% in the ITT population (p = 0.053) and 80.91 and 68.63% in the PP population (p = 0.128). The BCD-055 and drug comparison groups achieved an ASAS40 response in 53.03 and 38.81% in the ITT population (p = 0.081) and in 63.64 and 50.98% in the PP one (p = 0.177). The proportion of persons with identified BAbs and NAbs was comparable: 21.26 and 3.15% in the BCD-055 group (p = 0.920) and 20.63 and 6.35% in the group REM (p = 0.443), respectively. It was found that the presence of NAbs did not affect the therapeutic response. Both groups did not differ in the detection rate and profile of AEs and SAEs or in the rate of patient withdrawal due to AEs. Most identified AEs were mild to moderate.Conclusion. The efficacy of the INF biosimilar BCD-055 used long in patients with AS did not significantly differ from that of the original drug REM; the safety profile of both drugs was comparable.

This article presents results from two clinical trials of infliximab biosimilar, BCD-055, including comparative data on the pharmacokinetics (PK), efficacy and safety of BCD-055 and innovator infliximab (IFX) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Objective : The purpose of phase I clinical study ASART-1 was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic and safety profile of BCD-055 and to prove its equivalence with Remicade®, phase III study ASART-2 was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of BCD-055 in comparison with Remicade® in patients with active AS. Patients and methods : Both studies were conducted as international multi-center randomized double-blind studies in direct comparison with innovator IFX. Inclusion and exclusion criteria, main examination methods, and drug regimens were the same in both trials. A total of 199 patients were enrolled in the studies. After the screening, the patients were stratified by CRP and BASDAI score, randomized (1:1 ratio in ASART-1; 2:1 ratio in ASART-2) into 2 arms and received BCD-055 or innovator IFX at a dose 5 mg/kg IV at 0, 2, 6 and then every 8 weeks (up to week 54). The primary endpoint for PK profile evaluation was the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC(0-tau)), maximum serum concentration of infliximab at steady state Cmax,ss. Efficacy was assessed by achieving ASAS20 at week 30, the endpoints for safety profile were the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events during the maintenance-dosing phase and withdrawals from the study due to the safety reasons. Results : A total of 81 patients (ASART-1 study) were included in PK analysis, 199 patients were in efficacy and safety analysis. AUC(0-tau) value were 25,420,996.25±11,635,015.74 (ng/ml) Cmax,ss for BCD-055 and 26,114,705.71±12,102,376.9 (ng/ml)⋅h for INF innovator (p>0.05). Cmax,ss for BCD-055/Remicade® was 122,752 [99,401–151,553] ng/ml and 119,844 [98,120–132,772] ng/ml, respectively (p>0.05). ASAS20 was achieved at week 30 by 81.30% of the patients in the BCD-055 group, and 67.74% in the INF innovator group (p=0.061). The analysis of secondary endpoints (BASDAI, BASMI, BASFI, MASES, quality of life, chest excursion, and number of pathologically changed joints) showed no difference between the biosimilar and innovator groups. BCD-055 and innovator IFX showed highly similar safety profiles in both studies without cases of unexpected toxicity. The rates of AEs were equivalent for both drugs and were 48.48% and 58.21% of patients in the BCD-055 and Remicade®, respectively. Conclusion : BCD-055 is found to be equivalent in terms of PK, and showed the similarity in efficacy and safety profile compared with innovator IFX in patients with active AS.

The Russian biotechnological company «BIOCAD» has designed a chimeric monoclonal antibody against CD20 (BCD-020, Acellbia®) that is a biosimilar of rituximab (RTM; MabThera®, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Switzerland). In recent years, there has been evidence that RTM can be used at lower doses than those given in the standard recommendations and instructions for the use of this drug. This serves as the basis for the BCD-020-4/ALTERRA (ALTErnative Rituximab regimen in Rheumatoid Arthritis) trial, the objective of which was to investigate the efficiency and safety of using Acellbia® (at a dose of 600 mg twice at a 2-week interval) as the first biological agent (BA) for methotrexate (MTX)-resistant active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The investigation enrolled 159 patients aged 18 to 80 years with active RA. After 24 weeks 65.7 and 29.4% of patients achieved 20% improvement by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria in the Acellbia® + MTX and placebo (PL) + MTX groups, respectively (p<0.0001). The differences in the ACR20 response rate in the two groups were 36.3% (95% CI, 19.27–53.28%). There were significant differences between the groups in the ACR50 response rates: 28.4% and 5.9% (p=0.001) and in the ACR70 ones: 12.8% and only 2.0%, respectively (p=0.036). Analysis of all recorded adverse events (AE) frequency showed no significant differences between the patients in the study and control groups and demonstrates its equivalence with that of RTM (MabThera®); all the AE were expectable. It is noted that antibodies to RTM with binding and neutralizing activities had no impact on the efficiency and safety of therapy.

This article presents results from two clinical trials of infliximab biosimilar, BCD-055, including comparative data on the pharmacokinetics (PK), efficacy and safety of BCD-055 and innovator infliximab (IFX) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS).Objective: The purpose of phase I clinical study ASART-1 was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic and safety profile of BCD-055 and to prove its equivalence with Remicade®, phase III study ASART-2 was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of BCD-055 in comparison with Remicade® in patients with active AS.Patients and methods: Both studies were conducted as international multi-center randomized double-blind studies in direct comparison with innovator IFX. Inclusion and exclusion criteria, main examination methods, and drug regimens were the same in both trials. A total of 199 patients were enrolled in the studies. After the screening, the patients were stratified by CRP and BASDAI score, randomized (1:1 ratio in ASART-1; 2:1 ratio in ASART-2) into 2 arms and received BCD-055 or innovator IFX at a dose 5 mg/kg IV at 0, 2, 6 and then every 8 weeks (up to week 54). The primary endpoint for PK profile evaluation was the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC(0-tau)), maximum serum concentration of infliximab at steady state Cmax,ss. Efficacy was assessed by achieving ASAS20 at week 30, the endpoints for safety profile were the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events during the maintenance-dosing phase and withdrawals from the study due to the safety reasons.Results: A total of 81 patients (ASART-1 study) were included in PK analysis, 199 patients were in efficacy and safety analysis. AUC(0-tau) value were 25,420,996.25±11,635,015.74 (ng/ml) Cmax,ss for BCD-055 and 26,114,705.71±12,102,376.9 (ng/ml)⋅h for INF innovator (p>0.05). Cmax,ss for BCD-055/Remicade® was 122,752 [99,401–151,553] ng/ml and 119,844 [98,120–132,772] ng/ml, respectively (p>0.05). ASAS20 was achieved at week 30 by 81.30% of the patients in the BCD-055 group, and 67.74% in the INF innovator group (p=0.061). The analysis of secondary endpoints (BASDAI, BASMI, BASFI, MASES, quality of life, chest excursion, and number of pathologically changed joints) showed no difference between the biosimilar and innovator groups. BCD-055 and innovator IFX showed highly similar safety profiles in both studies without cases of unexpected toxicity. The rates of AEs were equivalent for both drugs and were 48.48% and 58.21% of patients in the BCD-055 and Remicade®, respectively.Conclusion: BCD-055 is found to be equivalent in terms of PK, and showed the similarity in efficacy and safety profile compared with innovator IFX in patients with active AS.

The article considers the results of an international multicenter randomized clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of the brand-name drug rituximab (MabThera), a monoclonal antibody against CD20 antigen of B cells, and its biosimi-lar drug (Acellbia®) (the BIORA study) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractory to therapy with tumor necrosis factor-а inhibitors.Objective: to provide evidence for the therapeutic equivalence of Acellbia® and MabThera® and also to assess their interchangeability.Subjects and methods. The trial enrolled adult patients with active seropositive RA, who were randomized into two groups (1:1): 1) the patients who received Acellbia® 1000 mg intravenously on days 1 and 15; 2) those who had MabThera® in a similar way. When RA activity persisted at 24 weeks, there was re-randomization (1:1) with a partial overlap: Group 1 patients were randomized into group AA (the drug of the second therapy cycle was Acellbia®) or Group AM (that was MabThera®), the similar methodology was followed in Group 2 (Groups MM and MA). Throughout the study, the patients received methotrexate at a stable dose of 7.5—25 mg/week and folic acid at a dose of 5 mg/week. The follow-up lasted 48 weeks.Results and discussion. 24 weeks after treatment initiation, the ACR20 response was observed in 84.1% of the patients in the Acellbia® group (95% CI, 74.75—90.50) and in 87% in the MabThera® group (95% CI, 77.71—92.79%; p = 0.773), which suggests that the drugs are therapeutically equivalent. In the second phase of the study, the efficiency of therapy remained high; there were no differences in Groups AA/MM, AA/AM and MM/MA. In both phases, the safety profile of the drugs was comparable; the immunogenicity of treatment remained low. The findings suggest that the brand-name MabThera® and its biosimilar drug Acellbia® are equivalent. Switching from the biosimilar drug to the brand-name one and vice versa has no negative impact on treatment outcomes.

The results of multicenter, open-label trial aimed at assessing the effectiveness, safety, and compliance of medication Ketonal Duo in 602 patients with osteoarthritis (OA) are presented. The trial duration was 28 days. The medication demonstrated a reliable analgesic effect and good tolerance; adverse events were observed in 4.7% of patients. The effect was observed in 97.9% of patients with OA according to the physician's opinion and in 99.1% as reported by the patients. Most patients and physicians consider the medication to have maximal convenience.