Back

Comparative Effectiveness and Cardiovascular Outcomes of Infliximab reference product and Biosimilars in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Alnahdi, A. H.; Chaudhry, N.; Alshehri, A.; Liu, Q.; Svensson, M.; Zimmermann, E. M.; Jiao, T.

2026-01-27 gastroenterology
10.64898/2026.01.25.26344807 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundAnti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF), particularly infliximab, have transformed inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management, but their high cost imposes a significant economic burden. Infliximab biosimilars were introduced to reduce the unmet needs. Despite the approval of infliximab biosimilars, real-world evidence of cardiovascular safety and effectiveness of infliximab biosimilars is lacking among patients with IBD. In this trial emulation, we compared the effectiveness and cardiovascular safety between patients who initiated infliximab reference product (IFX-RP) and biosimilars (IFX-BP). MethodsUsing the Merative Marketscan Research database (2011-2023), we conducted a retrospective cohort study to emulate the target trial where biologic-naive adults were randomly assigned to initiate IFX-RP or IFX-BP. Primary outcomes included healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) over one year. Propensity score matching was applied to mimic the randomization. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol effects were estimated. ResultsAfter matching, 850 patients (425 per group) were included. HRU was comparable between IFX-RP and IFX-BP groups across outpatient visits, hospitalizations, surgeries, and emergency visit. During follow-up, MACE events were more frequent in the IFX-BP group (9 vs. 3), with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 3.04 (95% CI: 0.82-11.23). Although the difference was not statistically significant, consistent directional trends were observed across analyses. Sensitivity analyses supported primary results. ConclusionOur study found comparable effectiveness between IFX-RP and IFX-BP in routine clinical care. While cardiovascular events were infrequent, the potential signal suggesting increased MACE risk associated with infliximab biosimilars warrants further investigation. Continued pharmacovigilance is essential to ensure the cardiovascular safety of biosimilars. SummaryInfliximab biosimilars, introduced to reduce the economic burden of anti-TNF therapy in IBD, demonstrated comparable real-world effectiveness to the infliximab reference product in a target trial emulation using Merative MarketScan data, while a potential signal of increased cardiovascular risk underscores the need for ongoing pharmacovigilance and further investigation. Key MessagesO_LIWhat is known? Infliximab biosimilars demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety to the reference product in IBD, but cardiovascular outcomes remain underexplored. C_LIO_LIWhat is new here? This U.S. real-world study emulating a target trial found similar effectiveness between infliximab reference and biosimilar products, with a possible trend toward increased cardiovascular risk in biosimilar users. C_LIO_LIHow can this study help patient care? Findings highlight the need for continued pharmacovigilance and cardiovascular monitoring when prescribing infliximab biosimilars to optimize safety in IBD management. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
American Journal of Gastroenterology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
20.0%
2
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
3
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.4%
4
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.0%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 30%
5.0%
50% of probability mass above
6
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
7
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.1%
8
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
9
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.3%
10
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
11
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
12
Gut
36 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.8%
13
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
14
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
15
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
16
The Journal of Pain
26 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
17
Rheumatology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
18
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
19
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.8%
21
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 80%
0.5%
22
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
23
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%