ArticleBiomedicines2022
Adalimumab Originator vs. Biosimilar in Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Multicentric Retrospective Study.
Article in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- European S2k guidelines for hidradenitis suppurativa/acne inversa part 2: Treatment.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025Guideline
- Treatment trajectories and patterns following non-medical switching to biosimilar adalimumab in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa: a retrospective observational multicenter study from Saudi Arabia.Future science OA · 2026Article
- Neuropathic Pain Management Using Novel Biologics in Moderate-to-Severe Hidradenitis Suppurativa.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Safety and Efficacy of Adalimumab Biosimilar in Psoriasis and Hidradenitis Suppurativa:Saudi medical journal · 2026Observational
- Hidradenitis suppurativa: state-of-the-art review and update.Dermatology reports · 2026Article
- Originator versus biosimilar adalimumab in hidradenitis suppurativa: A multicenter real-world analysis of clinical response, maintenance of response, and switching.JAAD international · 2026Article
- Switching from Adalimumab Reference Product to and Among Adalimumab Biosimilars Outside the USA: Insights for US Clinicians.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2025Review
- Hidradenitis suppurativa, from basic science to surgery and a new era of tailored targeted therapy: An expert opinion paper.Archives of dermatological research · 2025Review
- Factors associated with therapeutic response to adalimumab in hidradenitis suppurativa: evidence from the Belgian patients of the European Registry for Hidradenitis Suppurativa (ERHS-Be).Archives of dermatological research · 2025Article
- Golimumab and certolizumab pegol for the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa: a literature review and future perspective.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2024Review
- The Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilars in Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Comprehensive Review.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2024Review
- Drug survival and safety of biosimilars and originator adalimumab in the treatment of psoriasis: a multinational cohort study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Current Medical and Surgical Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa-A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare adalimumab originator vs. biosimilar in HS patients, and to evaluate the effect of a switch to a biosimilar, or a switch back to the originator, in terms of treatment ineffectiveness. Patients with a diagnosis of HS were enrolled from 14 Italian sites. Treatment ineffectiveness was measured using Hurley score. The major analyses were 1) comparison between the two treatment groups (non-switcher analysis), and 2) the cross-over trend of Hurley score between treatment switchers (switcher analysis). Cox and Poisson regression models were used to compare the treatment ineffectiveness between groups. A total of 326 patients were divided into four groups: 171 (52.5%) taking originator; 61 (18.7%) patients taking biosimilar; 66 (20.2%) switchers; 28 (8.6%) switchers from originator to biosimilar and switched. A greater loss of efficacy was observed in the group allocated to the biosimilar than the originator group. The switcher analysis showed an effectiveness loss in the biosimilar compared to the originator. These results seem to indicate that a switch from one drug to the other may lead to a greater risk of inefficacy. A return to the previous treatment also does not ensure efficaciousness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.