# Severe Hypersensitivity Reactions at Biosimilar versus Originator Rituximab Treatment Initiation, Switch and Over Time: A Cohort Study on the French National Health Data System

Hugo Jourdain, Léa Hoisnard, Emilie Sbidian, Mahmoud Zureik

► To cite this version:

Hugo Jourdain, Léa Hoisnard, Emilie Sbidian, Mahmoud Zureik. Severe Hypersensitivity Reactions at Biosimilar versus Originator Rituximab Treatment Initiation, Switch and Over Time: A Cohort Study on the French National Health Data System. BioDrugs, 2023, 10.1007/s40259-023-00584-8 hal-04099652

HAL Id: hal-04099652

https://hal.science/hal-04099652v1

Submitted on 22 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Severe Hypersensitivity Reactions at Biosimilar versus Originator Rituximab Treatment Initiation, Switch and Over Time: A Cohort Study on the French National Health Data System

Hugo Jourdain¹ ID · Léa Hoisnard²,³,⁴ ID · Emilie Sbidian¹,²,³,⁴,⁵ ID · Mahmoud Zureik¹,⁶ ID

Accepted: 7 February 2023 / Published online: 6 March 2023

© The Author(s) 2023

## Abstract

**Background** Biosimilar products of rituximab came to market in 2017. French pharmacovigilance centers have highlighted an excess of case reports of severe hypersensitivity reactions related to their use compared with the originator product.

**Objective** The aim of this study was to assess the real-world association between biosimilar versus originator rituximab injections and hypersensitivity reactions, among initiators and switchers, at first injection and over time.

**Methods** The French National Health Data System was used to identify all rituximab users between 2017 and 2021. A first cohort consisted of patients who initiated rituximab (originator or biosimilar), while a second cohort consisted of originator-to-biosimilar switchers, matched on age, sex, deliveries history, and pathology, with one or two patients still receiving the originator product. The event of interest was defined as a hospitalization for anaphylactic shock or serum sickness following a rituximab injection.

**Results** A total of 91,894 patients were included in the initiation cohort—17,605 (19%) with the originator product and 74,289 (81%) with a biosimilar. At initiation, 86/17,605 (0.49%) and 339/74,289 (0.46%) events occurred in the originator and biosimilar groups, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio of biosimilar exposure associated with the event was 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80–1.34), and the adjusted hazard ratio for biosimilar versus originator exposure was 1.15 (95% CI 0.93–1.42), showing no increased risk of event with biosimilar use at first injection, and over time. 17,123 switchers were matched to 24,659 non-switchers. No association was found between switch to biosimilars and occurrence of the event.

**Conclusion** Our study does not support any association between exposure to rituximab biosimilars versus originator and hospitalization for a hypersensitivity reaction, either at initiation, at switch, or over time.

## Key Points

Biosimilar products of rituximab were not associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for anaphylactic shock or serum sickness following injections, either at initiation, at switch, or over time.

Clinicians should take into account hypersensitivity reaction risk factors regardless of the product, biosimilar or originator.

## 1 Introduction

Rituximab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the CD20 protein on B lymphocytes. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) granted market approval for rituximab in 1998 and this molecule has been extensively used since then in various pathologies, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphoid leukemia in hematology [1], and inflammatory disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis [2], granulomatosis with polyangiitis [3] and pemphigus vulgaris [4]. In terms of safety, adverse effects include hematologic and cardiac disorders, infections, and hypersensitivity reactions such as anaphylactic shock and serum sickness [5, 6].

Biosimilar products entered the European market in 2017, lowering the cost of rituximab treatment [7]. The active substance of biosimilars is highly similar to the originator's. Biosimilar products are approved provided that data

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<footnote>Hugo Jourdain
hugo.jourdain@assurance-maladie.fr</footnote>
demonstrating biosimilarity to the reference product include physiochemical, non-clinical (mostly in vitro studies), pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies, and generally one comparative phase III clinical trial to demonstrate their bioequivalence, i.e. efficacy and safety [8–10]. Rituximab biosimilars have been widely used since then, especially to treat rituximab-naïve patients [11, 12].

Since 2019, following alerts from pharmacovigilance centers, the Department of Pharmacovigilance at the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety (ANSM) has been documenting cases of severe hypersensitivity reactions in patients treated with rituximab biosimilars, notably after switching from originator to biosimilar product. Several case reports described the same reactions, for rituximab [13] or infliximab injections [14]. In an initiation context, the risk of hypersensitivity reaction has been proven to be highest at first rituximab injection [5, 15]. In addition, switch from originator to biosimilar product may lead to an excess risk of hypersensitivity reaction [16–18], potentially due to pre-sensitization to originator product and development of antidrug antibodies. Thus, although this signal was not identified during the clinical trials carried out on biosimilar rituximab products, it could now be assessed in real-world studies thanks to longer follow-up and a wider study population [19].

The aim of the present study, carried out on a real-world database covering 5 years of experience, was then to assess the association between rituximab biosimilar use (versus originator use) and anaphylaxis or serum sickness in various contexts, among rituximab-naïve patients and among switchers, at first injection and over time.

# 2 Methods

## 2.1 Data Source

We used data from the French National Health Data System (SNDS); the SNDS covers almost the totality (> 99%) of the French population—68 million residents. Each person is identified by a unique and anonymous number. The SNDS records comprehensive outpatient (procedures and pharmacy deliveries of reimbursed drugs) and inpatient (pharmacy deliveries of expensive drugs, procedures performed during hospital stays, and discharge diagnoses coded according to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision [ICD-10]) reimbursement information since 2006. The SNDS also contains sociodemographic information on sex, age, place of residence, and vital status, among others. Patients' status for 100% reimbursement of care related to a severe and costly long-term disease (LTD) is recorded and LTD diagnosis is coded according to the ICD-10. The SNDS has been

extensively used to conduct pharmacoepidemiological studies, especially on the use, safety, and effectiveness of health products [20–23].

## 2.2 Study Periods and Populations

We included every patient who had at least one delivery of rituximab (Anatomical Therapeutic Classification [ATC] code L01FA01, brand names and additional information are presented in Online Resource Table 1) from 1 October 2017 (date of the commercialization of the first biosimilar of rituximab) to 31 December 2021. The term 'originator' was chosen to designate the reference medicine product, as opposed to the biosimilar product.

A first cohort of initiators was constituted, gathering originator or biosimilar rituximab new users (i.e. having no delivery of rituximab in the past 2 years before the considered delivery—the 2-year threshold was chosen to account for the long half-life of rituximab). The index date was set to the first rituximab delivery date. Initiations occurring with simultaneous deliveries of both biosimilar product and originator product were excluded. There were two groups of exposure—originator and biosimilar. The reference group was the originator group. Exposure was either studied at first injection, or over time.

A second cohort was created, gathering patients who had at least one delivery of originator rituximab within a 2-year time span before the study start date and still under treatment or during the study period, and who switched from originator rituximab to any biosimilar product of rituximab during the study period. The index date was set to the first biosimilar delivery date. Switches occurring with simultaneous deliveries of both biosimilar product and originator product were excluded. To take into account the history of originator deliveries and patient characteristics, and to build an appropriate comparator group for the switching patients, switchers were matched to non-switchers, with up to two patients still treated with the originator product on age (in categories), sex, number of deliveries of rituximab in the past 2 years (1–3 or ≥ 4) and pathology (hematology, inflammatory/immune dysfunction disorders, multiple pathologies, undetermined). Switchers that could be matched with only one non-switcher were kept, but non-matched switchers were excluded. The index date for the non-switcher was set on the date of the rituximab delivery that matched the switcher index date.

Schemes of inclusion and follow-up of both cohorts are schematized in Online Resource Fig. 1.

## 2.3 Patient Characteristics

Sex and age (converted into 10- to 20-year categories) were collected at the index date. Patients without those
characteristics were excluded. Corticosteroid delivery 30 days before rituximab injection was also described (excluding the 40 mg of prednisolone systematically administered just before rituximab injection).

Patients' pathologies were defined at index date, in a two-step process. We first identified pathologies for which rituximab is indicated in France (i.e. non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphoid leukemia, rheumatoid arthritis, Wegener granulomatosis, microscopic polyangiitis, and pemphigus vulgaris) thanks to ICD-10 codes for LTD status or any discharge diagnosis linked to a hospitalization within the 5 years preceding the index date. We also identified off-label indications of rituximab (including, among others, lupus [24], multiple sclerosis [25], and kidney disease [26]) with corresponding ICD-10 codes. ICD-10 codes used for these steps are presented in Online Resource Table 2. Finally, we categorized patients' pathologies as hematology or inflammatory/immune dysfunction disorders according to the first list, and if no pathology was identified, we used the second list. The retained pathology in case of overlap between pathologies was the most recent (based on the start date of the LTD or the start date of hospitalization). A category 'Multiple pathologies' was set for non-distinguishable pathologies, and a category 'Undetermined' included patients with no diagnosis code in their medical background. After population size estimation, we grouped together the categories 'Multiple pathologies' and 'Undetermined' under the term 'Undetermined' in the analyses as these subgroups were very small.

## 2.4 Outcome of Interest

The outcome was hypersensitivity reaction, which was defined by ICD-10 codes for anaphylactic shock (ICD-10 codes T78 and T886) or serum sickness (T805/T806). These ICD-10 codes have already been used in other studies [27–30]. The ICD-10 code for hypersensitivity reaction was retained if the rituximab injection had occurred during the same hospital stay. For the serum sickness code only, the hospital stay could begin no later than 15 days after the rituximab injection.

Duration of hospitalization, transfer to the intensive care unit, and death during hospitalization were documented for patients who experienced an outcome.

History of the outcome was defined as having had at least one hospitalization for an anaphylactic shock or serum sickness coded within the past year before rituximab injection.

## 2.5 Statistical Analysis

First, the initiation cohort was analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, year of inclusion, pathology, corticosteroid delivery, and history of the outcome was

used to estimate the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of biosimilar versus originator rituximab injection associated with the outcome at initiation. To assess the risk of hypersensitivity reaction associated with a rituximab injection over time, we used a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression with time-dependent exposure and covariates, estimating adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs of biosimilar versus originator rituximab injection. The model was adjusted for age, sex, year of inclusion and pathology as fixed covariates, and corticosteroid delivery, history of outcome and delivery number (taken as a linear continuous variable) as time-dependent covariates. As a post hoc sensitivity analysis, we changed the definition of initiation, taking a 10-year period without rituximab injection to be treatment-naïve, and repeated the analyses.

Second, we compared matched switchers and non-switchers at index date using a multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, pathology, number of past rituximab injections, corticosteroid delivery, and history of outcome, giving estimates of adjusted OR and 95% CI of switch versus non-switch associated with the outcome at first injection.

Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression with time-dependent exposure and covariates was used to estimate the adjusted HR and 95% CI of biosimilar versus originator rituximab injection associated with the outcome during the study follow-up among switchers who remained on biosimilar (they were censored if they switched back to originator) treatment versus non-switchers who remained on originator treatment (they were censored if they switched to biosimilar). The model was adjusted for age, sex, number of past rituximab injections, and pathology as fixed covariates, and corticosteroid delivery, history of outcome, and delivery number as time-varying covariates. As a sensitivity analysis, conditional models were performed, to take into account the matching process.

Kaplan–Meier survival curves without the event were computed for each cohort. The linearity of continuous variables was checked comparing Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) of fractional polynomials of degree 2 with the simple linear model. The risk period modeled in the time-dependent Cox regression was fixed to the 15 days after each rituximab injection, to take into account the time window used for event identification. Patients were censored at switch (originator to biosimilar, or biosimilar to originator), death, 1 year after the last rituximab delivery, or on 31 December 2021, whichever came first. Follow-up stopped at first onset of the outcome. The proportionality of hazards was verified for the main exposure variable with Schoenfeld residuals. Figure 2a, b presented in the Online Resource show some examples of inclusions and follow-ups in the initiation cohort and in the switchers/non-switchers cohort.

All extractions from the SNDS were carried out using SAS Enterprise Guide software version 9.4 (SAS Institute,
Inc., Cary, NC, USA); analyses were performed with R version 3.5.2 [31], using multiple packages, including *dplyr* [32], *ggplot2* [33] and *survival* [34].

# 3 Results

The study flow chart is presented in Online Resource Fig. 2.

## 3.1 Initiation

Biosimilar initiators represented 81% of the initiation cohort (n = 74,289) compared with 19% of originator rituximab initiators (n = 17,605). Rituximab biosimilar initiations increased rapidly from 2017 (n = 823, 15% of rituximab initiations) to 2021 (n = 18,904, 94% of rituximab initiations). Patients' characteristics were similar between biosimilar and originator initiators (Table 1). Of the 425 patients who experienced a hypersensitivity reaction at first injection, 86 were originator initiators (0.49% of the originator initiators)

and 339 were biosimilar new users (0.46% of the biosimilar initiators). The adjusted OR of biosimilar versus originator rituximab initiation associated with the outcome was 1.04 (95% CI 0.80–1.34), underlying no statistically significant increased risk of hypersensitivity in the biosimilar group compared with the originator group at initiation, as the 95% CI contained 1. Past corticosteroid delivery had a preventive effect on hypersensitivity reactions, with an adjusted OR of 0.55 (0.43–0.71), history of hypersensitivity reaction was associated with an increased risk of event (OR 11.68 [7.29–18.69]), and increased age was associated with a decreased risk of outcome (Table 2 and Online Resource Table 3).

Over time, 628 patients experienced a hypersensitivity reaction at the time of a rituximab injection, of whom 123 were originator users (0.70% of the originator initiators) and 505 were biosimilar users (0.68% of the biosimilar initiators). Survival curves of biosimilar and originator had an important overlay, with a *p* value of the log-rank of 0.98, showing no difference in the risk of severe

<table><caption>**Table 1** Initiation cohort characteristics at baseline</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Biosimilar rituximab<br>[n = 74,289]</th><th>Originator rituximab<br>[n = 17,605]</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age at baseline, years</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mean age (standard deviation)</td><td>63.2 (17.7)</td><td>61.4 (19.1)</td></tr><tr><td>0–18</td><td>1686 (2.27)</td><td>747 (4.24)</td></tr><tr><td>19–29</td><td>2639 (3.55)</td><td>654 (3.71)</td></tr><tr><td>30–39</td><td>3789 (5.10)</td><td>971 (5.52)</td></tr><tr><td>40–49</td><td>6302 (8.48)</td><td>1576 (8.95)</td></tr><tr><td>50–59</td><td>11,172 (15.04)</td><td>2779 (15.79)</td></tr><tr><td>60–69</td><td>16,845 (22.67)</td><td>3948 (22.43)</td></tr><tr><td>70–79</td><td>19,312 (26.00)</td><td>4075 (23.15)</td></tr><tr><td>80–100</td><td>12,544 (16.89)</td><td>2855 (16.22)</td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>39,771 (53.54)</td><td>9089 (51.63)</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>34,518 (46.46)</td><td>8516 (48.37)</td></tr><tr><td>Year of inclusion</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>823 (1.11)</td><td>4776 (27.13)</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>15,415 (20.75)</td><td>7274 (41.32)</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>19,765 (26.61)</td><td>2626 (14.92)</td></tr><tr><td>2020</td><td>19,382 (26.09)</td><td>1642 (9.33)</td></tr><tr><td>2021</td><td>18,904 (25.45)</td><td>1287 (7.31)</td></tr><tr><td>Pathology</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hematology</td><td>49,556 (66.71)</td><td>11,161 (63.40)</td></tr><tr><td>Inflammatory/immune dysfunction disorders</td><td>21,074 (28.37)</td><td>5544 (31.49)</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple pathologies</td><td>2504 (3.37)</td><td>556 (3.16)</td></tr><tr><td>Undetermined</td><td>1155 (1.55)</td><td>344 (1.95)</td></tr><tr><td>Corticosteroid delivery</td><td>19,922 (26.82)</td><td>4854 (27.57)</td></tr><tr><td>History of outcome</td><td>255 (0.34)</td><td>57 (0.32)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Data are expressed as *n* (%) unless otherwise stated
<table><caption>**Table 2** Estimation of the association between rituximab injection by product type and hypersensitivity reaction in the initiation cohort, at first injection and over time</caption><thead><tr><th>Multivariable logistic regression on the first injection<sup>a</sup></th><th>No event [n (%)]</th><th>Event [n (%)]</th><th>Adjusted OR [95% CI]</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Rituximab exposure</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Originator</td><td>17,519 (19)</td><td>86 (20)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Biosimilar</td><td>73,950 (81)</td><td>339 (80)</td><td>1.04 [0.80–1.34]</td></tr><tr><td>Multivariable time-dependent Cox proportional hazard regression<sup>b</sup></td><td>No event [n (%)]</td><td>Event [n (%)]</td><td>Adjusted HR [95 CI]</td></tr><tr><td>Rituximab exposure</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Originator</td><td>17,482 (19)</td><td>123 (20)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Biosimilar</td><td>73,784 (81)</td><td>505 (80)</td><td>1.15 [0.93–1.42]</td></tr></tbody></table>

OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratio

hypersensitivity reactions following the injection (Fig. 1). Compared with originator use, biosimilar injection was not associated with the outcome, with an HR of 1.15 (95% CI 0.93–1.42), demonstrating no statistically significant increased risk of hypersensitivity in the biosimilar group compared with the originator group at each injection.

We found similar associations as for the logistic model regarding the covariates, with, in addition, a decrease in the risk of event with the number of injections (incremental adjusted HR 0.80 [0.73–0.89]) [Table 2 and Online Resource Table 4].

The sensitivity analysis is presented in Online Resource Table 5, with consistent results with the main results.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Kaplan–Meier survival curve without the outcome and confidence bands for the initiation cohort</figcaption></figure>

<footnote><sup>a</sup>Adjusted for corticosteroid delivery, history of outcome, age (in categories), sex, year of inclusion, and pathology</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>Adjusted for corticosteroid delivery (time-dependent), history of outcome (time-dependent), number of deliveries (time-dependent), age (in categories), sex, year of inclusion, and pathology</footnote>
## 3.2 Switch

A total of 17,123 patients who had a switch from originator to biosimilar were matched to non-switchers, with 7536 (42%) switchers matched to two patients and 9587 (54%) matched to one patient, for a total of 24,659 non-switchers. Only 796 (4%) of the switchers could not be matched and were thus excluded from the study. Characteristics of switchers and matched non-switchers were similar thanks to the matching process (Table 3).

A total of 42 included patients experienced the outcome at the index date, of which 28 were non-switchers (0.11% of the non-switchers) and 14 were switchers (0.08% of the switchers). A switch was not associated with an increased risk of hypersensitivity reaction (adjusted OR 0.74 [0.39–1.42]). Corticosteroid delivery association was

not significant (adjusted OR 0.82 [0.41–1.64]), but history of outcome and age < 19 years at inclusion were associated with an increased risk of outcome (with adjusted OR of 20.45 [7.59–55.12] and 4.11 [1.34–12.67], respectively). Having had a history of at least four injections in the past 2 years decreased the risk of hypersensitivity reaction, with an adjusted OR of 0.45 (0.22–0.92) compared with having had fewer than three past injections (Table 4 and Online Resource Table 7).

Over the study follow-up, 93 patients experienced the outcome, of whom 51 were non-switchers still treated with rituximab originator (0.20% of the non-switchers), and 42 were switchers still treated with rituximab biosimilar (0.24% of the switchers). Survival curves of switchers and non-switchers had an important overlay, with a *p*-value of the log-rank of 0.53, showing no difference in the risk of severe hypersensitivity reactions following the injection (Fig. 2). Biosimilar injections were not associated with an increased risk of hypersensitivity reaction (adjusted HR 1.06 [0.70–1.62]). Regarding covariates, we found the same associations as for the first injection model (Table 4 and Online Resource Table 8).

Sensitivity analyses are presented in Online Resource Table 4, and the results were consistent with the main results.

## 3.3 Details on Patients Who Experienced Hypersensitivity Reactions

Patients who experienced the event of interest are described in Table 5. In both the initiation and switch cohorts, the outcome was mainly due to an anaphylactic shock (around 75% of events). Events occurring in the initiation cohort tended to be more severe than in the switch cohort: 28–30% of initiating cases were transferred in the intensive care unit, while only 24% in the switch cohort were transferred; the outcome of the hospitalization in which the event occurred was death in 18–20% of cases in the initiation cohort, but only 14–16% of cases in the switch cohort. The length of hospital stay tended to be longer at inclusion versus over time.

## 4 Discussion

In this two-cohort study based on the French National Health Data System, we did not show an increased risk of hypersensitivity reaction associated with the injection of rituximab biosimilar compared with rituximab originator, neither in an initiation or switch context, nor for the first injection or over time.

This result is consistent with clinical trials [8–10, 35], observational studies, and systematic reviews dealing with monoclonal antibodies or fusion proteins [36–42], in which

<table><caption>**Table 3** Switch cohort characteristics at baseline</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Switchers<br>[n = 17,123]</th><th>Non-switchers<br>[n = 24,659]</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age at baseline, years</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mean age (standard deviation)</td><td>61.9 (26.9)</td><td>63.0 (16.7)</td></tr><tr><td>0–18</td><td>287 (1.68)</td><td>465 (1.89)</td></tr><tr><td>19–29</td><td>538 (3.14)</td><td>649 (2.63)</td></tr><tr><td>30–39</td><td>1007 (5.88)</td><td>1201 (4.87)</td></tr><tr><td>40–49</td><td>1830 (10.69)</td><td>2235 (9.06)</td></tr><tr><td>50–59</td><td>3034 (17.72)</td><td>4137 (16.78)</td></tr><tr><td>60–69</td><td>4206 (24.56)</td><td>6076 (24.64)</td></tr><tr><td>70–79</td><td>3961 (23.13)</td><td>6117 (24.81)</td></tr><tr><td>80–100</td><td>2260 (13.20)</td><td>3779 (15.33)</td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>8225 (48.03)</td><td>12,391 (50.25)</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>8898 (51.97)</td><td>12,268 (49.75)</td></tr><tr><td>Year of inclusion</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>1398 (8.16)</td><td>10,766 (43.66)</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>9032 (52.75)</td><td>8211 (33.30)</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>3721 (21.73)</td><td>2298 (9.32)</td></tr><tr><td>2020</td><td>1807 (10.55)</td><td>1804 (7.32)</td></tr><tr><td>2021</td><td>1165 (6.80)</td><td>1580 (6.41)</td></tr><tr><td>Pathology</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hematology</td><td>8820 (51.51)</td><td>15,976 (64.79)</td></tr><tr><td>Inflammatory/immune dysfunction disorders</td><td>8016 (46.81)</td><td>8265 (33.52)</td></tr><tr><td>Multiple pathologies</td><td>173 (1.01)</td><td>252 (1.02)</td></tr><tr><td>Undetermined</td><td>114 (0.67)</td><td>166 (0.67)</td></tr><tr><td>Number of past injections</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1–3</td><td>8711 (50.87)</td><td>11,651 (47.25)</td></tr><tr><td>4+</td><td>8412 (49.13)</td><td>13,008 (52.75)</td></tr><tr><td>Corticosteroid delivery</td><td>4673 (27.29)</td><td>7619 (30.90)</td></tr><tr><td>History of outcome</td><td>71 (0.41)</td><td>128 (0.52)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Data are expressed as *n* (%) unless otherwise stated
<table><caption>**Table 4** Estimation of the association between rituximab injection by product type and hypersensitivity reaction in the switch cohort, at first injection and over time</caption><thead><tr><th>Multivariable logistic regression on the first injection<sup>a</sup></th><th>No event [n (%)]</th><th>Event [n (%)]</th><th>Adjusted OR [95% CI]</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Rituximab exposure</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Non-switch</td><td>24,631 (59)</td><td>28 (67)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Switch</td><td>17,109 (41)</td><td>14 (33)</td><td>0.74 [0.39–1.42]</td></tr><tr><td>Multivariable time-dependent Cox proportional hazard regression<sup>b</sup></td><td>No event [n (%)]</td><td>Event [n (%)]</td><td>Adjusted HR [95% CI]</td></tr><tr><td>Rituximab exposure</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Non-switch: originator</td><td>24,608 (59)</td><td>51 (55)</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Switch: biosimilar</td><td>17,081 (41)</td><td>42 (45)</td><td>1.06 [0.70–1.62]</td></tr></tbody></table>

OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratio

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Kaplan–Meier survival curve without the outcome and confidence bands for the switch cohort</figcaption></figure>

the authors showed no difference between the biosimilar product and originator product in terms of safety and immunogenicity, and in particular regarding hypersensitivity reactions, at either initiation or switch [16, 18, 43]. However, these studies were small and thus could not detect the rare events we were able to study.

One may hypothesize that the pharmacovigilance signal raised by the ANSM might be due to the fast scale-up of rituximab biosimilar initiations, which replaced originator rituximab initiation almost completely by 2019, as shown in Online Resource Fig. 3a. As hypersensitivity reactions, and especially severe reactions, occurred mainly during the first

<footnote><sup>a</sup>Adjusted for corticosteroid delivery, history of outcome, history of past rituximab injections (in categories), age (in categories), sex, year of inclusion, and pathology</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>Adjusted for corticosteroid delivery (time-dependent), history of outcome (time-dependent), number of deliveries (time-dependent), history of past rituximab injections (in categories), age (in categories), sex, year of inclusion, and pathology</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 5** Details on patients who experienced hypersensitivity reactions</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Events at initiation in the initiation cohort [n = 425]</th><th>Events over time in the initiation cohort [n = 628]</th><th>Events at inclusion in the switch cohort [n = 42]</th><th>Events over time in the switch cohort [n = 93]</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ICD-10 code</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>T78<sup>a</sup></td><td>216 (50.82)</td><td>320 (50.96)</td><td>23 (54.76)</td><td>50 (53.76)</td></tr><tr><td>T886<sup>b</sup></td><td>93 (21.88)</td><td>129 (20.54)</td><td>9 (21.43)</td><td>19 (20.43)</td></tr><tr><td>T805/6<sup>c</sup></td><td>127 (29.88)</td><td>196 (31.21)</td><td>10 (23.81)</td><td>25 (26.88)</td></tr><tr><td>Length of hospital stay, days</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Average (SD)</td><td>17.1 (29.0)</td><td>13.8 (24.9)</td><td>21.0 (32.7)</td><td>12.6 (24.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Median (IQR)</td><td>5 (3–18)</td><td>4 (2–13)</td><td>6 (2–27.5)</td><td>3 (2–10)</td></tr><tr><td>Transfer to the intensive care unit</td><td>126 (29.65)</td><td>177 (28.18)</td><td>10 (23.81)</td><td>22 (23.66)</td></tr><tr><td>Death during hospitalization</td><td>83 (19.53)</td><td>112 (17.83)</td><td>6 (14.29)</td><td>15 (16.13)</td></tr></tbody></table>

ICD-10 International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, IQR interquartile range, SD standard deviation

<sup>a</sup>T78: adverse effects, not elsewhere classified, including anaphylactic shock due to an adverse food reaction (T780); other adverse food reactions, not elsewhere classified (T781); anaphylactic shock, unspecified (T782); angioneurotic oedema (T783); and allergy, unspecified (T784)

<sup>b</sup>T886: anaphylactic shock due to an adverse effect of a correct drug or medicament properly administered

<sup>c</sup>T805/6: anaphylactic shock due to serum (T805), other serum reactions (T806)

injection of rituximab in our study, the fast increase of biosimilar initiations might have provoked disequilibrium in the number of reported cases of hypersensitivity in biosimilar new users versus originator users. In addition, there might be a detection bias in pharmacovigilance reports due to a particular focus on novel products such as biosimilars. Indeed, the number of cases of hypersensitivity has remained fairly constant since biosimilar rituximab market approval (as shown in Online Resource Fig. 3b).

Our study has several strengths. First, as the study was based on an exhaustive database, we were able to include almost every patient living in France and to identify every event of interest. Second, the problem of compliance often blamed on medico-administrative databases does not apply here because the treatment is taken at a hospital facility. Third, indication bias, often argued in observational studies, is very limited in our case, as originator and biosimilar products are considered interchangeable (as demonstrated by the fast adoption of the biosimilar products). Finally, we found some known and documented associations between the covariates and the outcome: protective effect of corticosteroids, highest risk at initiation and decreasing risk afterwards [5], and increased risk in patients with a history of outcome and in children [44].

On the other hand, we should discuss the potential limitations of this study. First, as the event is quite rare, the study might not be powered enough to exclude a weak association between the exposure to biosimilars and the outcome, in particular for the switch analyses, showing large 95% CIs. In addition, due to this issue, we did not adjust on complementary risk factors such as medical exposures, for example some antibiotics or proton pump inhibitors [45], or

comorbidities such as asthma [29]. Nevertheless, the consistency of the results in the analyses and the sensitivity analyses gives confidence in the study's conclusions. Additionally, as the study was carried out on a national level and on an exhaustive database, this limitation should not be significant. Furthermore, due to the medico-administrative nature of the database, clinical information such as treatment indication is not systematically recorded; we used algorithms and proxies to categorize patients' pathologies (i.e. delivery of rituximab with a history of LTD or hospitalization with a specific ICD-10 code). Our algorithm could be improved, especially to reduce the number of patients with an undetermined pathology. In addition, the category 'Multiple pathologies or pathology undetermined' was inexplicably associated with the outcome, and we did not find an increased risk of hypersensitivity reaction in patients with inflammatory/immune dysfunction disorders as previously found [46]. However, the group category 'Multiple pathologies or pathology undetermined' was very small (less than 5% of initiators and 2% of switchers/non-switchers), and excluding it from the analyses did not change the OR and HR estimates.

## 5 Conclusion

The results of this study are reassuring regarding the use of rituximab biosimilars, in the context of fast scale-up and political incentives to prescribe biosimilar products. Further real-world studies may still also be carried out with other biosimilar products and studying other product-specific adverse effects to confirm that biosimilar initiation
or originator to biosimilar switching does not lead to an
increase in signals.

**Supplementary Information** The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-023-00584-8.

**Acknowledgments** This work was supported by the French National Health Insurance (CNAM), the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety (ANSM) and the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP).

Declarations

**Funding** The authors are employees of the French National Health Insurance (CNAM), the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety (ANSM) and the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) and received no funding for this study. The funding source did not intervene at any step of the study.

**Conflicts of interest** Hugo Jourdain, Léa Hoisnard, Emilie Sbidian, and Mahmoud Zureik have no conflicts of interest to report.

**Ethics approval** EPI-PHARE has permanent regulatory access to the data via its constitutive bodies ANSM and CNAM, thus this present work did not require approval from the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL). The study was registered on the EPI-PHARE study register.

**Consent** Given that the data are anonymous, no informed consent to participate or publish was required.

**Availability of data and material** In accordance with data protection legislation and the French regulation, the authors cannot publicly release the data from the French National Health Data System.

**Code availability** Not applicable.

**Author contributions** Literature search: All authors. Study design: All authors. Data extraction and collection: HJ. Statistical analysis: HJ. Interpretation of the results. All authors. Drafting of the manuscript: HJ. Revision of the manuscript. All authors. Supervision: ES, MZ. All authors confirm that they had full access to all the data in the study and accept responsibility to submit the manuscript for publication.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

References

1. Salles G, et al. Rituximab in B-cell hematologic malignancies: a review of 20 years of clinical experience. Adv

Ther. 2017;34(10):2232-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-017-0612-x.

2. Tavakolpour S, et al. A comprehensive review of rituximab therapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Clin Rheumatol. 2019;38(11):2977-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-019-04699-8.

3. Hassan RI, Gaffo AL. Rituximab in ANCA-associated vasculitis. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-017-0632-1.

4. Frampton JE. Rituximab: a review in pemphigus vulgaris. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2020;21(1):149-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40257-019-00497-9.

5. Levin AS, Otani IM, Lax T, Hochberg E, Banerji A. Reactions to rituximab in an outpatient infusion center: a 5-year review. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017;5(1):107.e1-113.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2016.06.022.

6. Paul F, Cartron G. Infusion-related reactions to rituximab: frequency, mechanisms and predictors. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2019;15(4):383-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/1744666X.2019.1562905.

7. Kvien TK, Patel K, Strand V. The cost savings of biosimilars can help increase patient access and lift the financial burden of health care systems. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2022;52:151939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.11.009.

8. Kim WS, et al. Efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety of the biosimilar CT-P10 compared with rituximab in patients with previously untreated advanced-stage follicular lymphoma: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4(8):e362-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30120-5.

9. Jurczak W, et al. Rituximab biosimilar and reference rituximab in patients with previously untreated advanced follicular lymphoma (ASSIST-FL): primary results from a confirmatory phase 3, double-blind, randomised, controlled study. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4(8):e350-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30106-0.

10. Sharman JP, et al. A randomized, double-blind, efficacy and safety study of PF-05280586 (a rituximab biosimilar) compared with rituximab reference product (MabThera®) in subjects with previously untreated CD20-positive, low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma (LTB-FL). BioDrugs. 2020;34(2):171-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-019-00398-7.

11. Franceschetti A, Baskett A, Baynton E, Baldock D, Karki C. Comparative analysis of biosimilar rituximab usage in treating non-Hodgkin lymphoma and rheumatoid arthritis: results from a multi-country study in Europe. Value Health. 2018;21:S169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.1007.

12. Otremba B, Borchardt J, Kuske A, Hollnagel-Schmitz M, Losch FO. Real-world use and acceptance of rituximab biosimilars in non-Hodgkin lymphoma in an oncologist network in Germany. Future Oncol. 2020;16(15):1001-12. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2020-0180.

13. Prakash G, et al. Infusion related hypersensitivity reactions with bio-similar anti cd-20 monoclonal antibody rituximab in Indian patients: a retrospective study. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2018;34(2):273-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12288-017-0885-x.

14. Scherlinger M, Schaeverbeke T, Truchetet M-E. Serum sickness-like disease after switching to biosimilar infliximab. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017;56(11):2032-4. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kex268.

15. Karmacharya P, et al. Rituximab-induced serum sickness: a systematic review. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2015;45(3):334-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2015.06.014.

16. Tony H, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of rituximab biosimilar GP2013 after switch from reference rituximab in patients with
active rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2019;71(1):88-94.
https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.23771.

17. Strand V, Gonçalves J, Hickling TP, Jones HE, Marshall L, Isaacs JD. Immunogenicity of biosimilars for rheumatic diseases, plaque psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease: a review from clinical trials and regulatory documents. BioDrugs. 2020;34(1):27-37.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-019-00394-x.

18. Urru SAM, SpilaAlegiani S, Guella A, Traversa G, Campomori A. Safety of switching between rituximab biosimilars in oncohematology. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):5956. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85563-1.

19. Nava-Parada P, Shelbaya A, Nabhan C. Rituximab biosimilars in hematologic malignancies: the need for a real-world approach. Future Oncol. 2020;16(26):2017-27. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2020-0131.

20. Tuppin P, et al. Value of a national administrative database to guide public decisions: From the système national d'information interrégimes de l'Assurance Maladie (SNIIRAM) to the système national des données de santé (SNDS) in France. Revue d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique. 2017;65:S149-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respe.2017.05.004.

21. Billioti S, de Gage M, Bertrand SG, Zureik M. Intravitreal anti-VEGF use in France: a cross-sectional and longitudinal nationwide observational study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2022;100(2):e502-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.14929.

22. Weill A, et al. Use of high dose cyproterone acetate and risk of intracranial meningioma in women: cohort study. BMJ. 2021;372:n37. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n37.

23. Semenzato L, et al. Chronic diseases, health conditions and risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization and in-hospital mortality during the first wave of the epidemic in France: a cohort study of 66 million people. Lancet Regional Health Europe. 2021;8:100158.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100158.

24. Leandro M, Isenberg DA. Rituximab—the first twenty years. Lupus. 2021;30(3):371-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961203320982668.

25. Chisari CG, Sgarlata E, Arena S, Toscano S, Luca M, Patti F. Rituximab for the treatment of multiple sclerosis: a review. J Neurol. 2022;269(1):159-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-020-10362-z.

26. Chauhan K, Mehta AA. Rituximab in kidney disease and transplant. Anim Models Exp Med. 2019;2(2):76-82.

27. Mesfin YM, Cheng AC, Tran AHL, Buttery J. Positive predictive value of ICD-10 codes to detect anaphylaxis due to vaccination: a validation study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2019;28(10):1353-60. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.4877.

28. Tuttle KL, Wickner P. Capturing anaphylaxis through medical records. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2020;124(2):150-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2019.11.026.

29. Chaaban MR, Warren Z, Baillargeon JG, Baillargeon G, Resto V, Kuo Y. Epidemiology and trends of anaphylaxis in the United States, 2004-2016. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9(6):607-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.22293.

30. Goud R, et al. ICD-10 anaphylaxis algorithm and the estimate of vaccine-attributable anaphylaxis incidence in Medicare. Vaccine. 2021;39(38):5368-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.08.004.

31. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria; 2022. https://www.R-project.org. Accessed 24 Nov 2022.

32. Wickham H, François R, Henry L, Müller K. dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. 2022. https://dplyr.tidyverse.org/. Accessed 24 Nov 2022.

33. Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer; 2016. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org.

34. Therneau TM. A package for survival analysis in R. Mayo Clinic; 2022. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival.

35. Courville J, et al. Factors influencing infusion-related reactions following dosing of reference rituximab and PF-05280586, a rituximab biosimilar. BioDrugs. 2021;35(4):459-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-021-00487-6.

36. McKinnon RA, et al. Biosimilarity and interchangeability: principles and evidence: a systematic review. BioDrugs. 2018;32(1):27-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-017-0256-z.

37. Cohen HP, Blauvelt A, Rifkin RM, Danese S, Gokhale SB, Woollett G. Switching reference medicines to biosimilars: a systematic literature review of clinical outcomes. Drugs. 2018;78(4):463-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-018-0881-y.

38. Kurki P, van Aerts L, Wolff-Holz E, Giezen T, Skibeli V, Weise M. Interchangeability of biosimilars: a European perspective. BioDrugs. 2017;31(2):83-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-017-0210-0.

39. Wiland P, et al. Biosimilar switching—current state of knowledge. Reumatologia. 2018;56(4):234-42. https://doi.org/10.5114/reum.2018.77975.

40. Barbier L, Ebbers HC, Declerck P, Simoens S, Vulto AG, Huys I. The efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of switching between reference biopharmaceuticals and biosimilars: a systematic review. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;108(4):734-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1836.

41. Kurki P, Barry S, Bourges I, Tsantili P, Wolff-Holz E. Safety, immunogenicity and interchangeability of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies and fusion proteins: a regulatory perspective. Drugs. 2021;81(16):1881-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-021-01601-2.

42. Ebbers HC, Schellekens H. Are we ready to close the discussion on the interchangeability of biosimilars? Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(10):1963-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2019.06.016.

43. Lee K, et al. The clinical outcomes of rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 (Truxima®) with CHOP as first-line treatment for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: real-world experience. Leuk Lymphoma. 2020;61(7):1575-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2020.1742906.

44. Soyer O, et al. Severe hypersensitivity reactions to biological drugs in children with rheumatic diseases. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2019;30(8):833-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/pai.13114.

45. Montañez MI, et al. Epidemiology, mechanisms, and diagnosis of drug-induced anaphylaxis. Front Immunol. 2017;8:614. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2017.00614.

46. Bayer G, et al. Rituximab-induced serum sickness is more frequent in autoimmune diseases as compared to hematological malignancies: a French nationwide study. Eur J Intern Med. 2019;67:59-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2019.06.009.
## Authors and Affiliations

Hugo Jourdain¹ ID • Léa Hoisnard²,³,⁴ ID • Emilie Sbidian¹,²,³,⁴,⁵ ID • Mahmoud Zureik¹,⁶ ID

1. EPI-PHARE, French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety (ANSM) and French National Health Insurance (CNAM), 143-147 Boulevard Anatole France, 93285 Saint-Denis, France

2. Fédération Hospitalo-Universitaire TRUE InnovaTive theRapy for immUne disordErs, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Henri Mondor Hospital, 94010 Créteil, France

3. INSERM, Centre d'Investigation Clinique 1430, 94010 Créteil, France

4. EpiDermE Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics, EA7379, Paris Est Créteil University UPEC, 94010 Créteil, France

5. Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 94000 Créteil, France

6. University Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, University Paris-Sud, Inserm, Anti-Infective Evasion and Pharmacoepidemiology, CESP, Montigny le Bretonneux, France