Real-World Evidence on Etanercept Biosimilar SB4 in Etanercept-Naïve or Switching Patients: A Systematic Review

Effectiveness of Etanercept Biosimilar Initiating for Etanercept-Naive Patients, Using Ultrasound, Clinical, and Biomarker Assessments in Outcomes of Real-World Therapy (ENPORT-NGSK Study): An Interventional, Multicenter, Open-Label, Single-Arm Clinical Trial

Background/Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of etanercept biosimilar 1 under real-world clinical conditions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), using not only clinical evaluation but also musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS). Methods: This multicenter, interventional, open-label, single-arm clinical trial conducted a 24-week follow-up. Patients with RA with moderate to high disease activity received weekly subcutaneous injections of etanercept biosimilar 1 at 50 mg/dose for 24 weeks. The effectiveness was evaluated with clinical indices and MSUS. Results: Twenty-three patients were evaluated during the study period. The primary endpoint involves a change in the Global OMERACT-EULAR Synovitis Score by MSUS in bilateral second-fifth metacarpophalangeal joints from baseline, demonstrating median (IQR) values of 0 (-4, 1), including 4 (1, 9.8) and 2 (0, 5) at baseline and 24 weeks, respectively. The clinical endpoints exhibited a good treatment response, with 15 (68%) and 18 (86%) patients achieving low disease activity or remission at 12 weeks and 24 weeks, respectively. Additionally, MSUS scores improved at both 12 and 24 weeks compared to baseline. The patients who achieved power doppler remission (total power doppler score = 0) at 24 weeks demonstrated a shorter disease duration and no previous use of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs compared to those with no power doppler remission. Conclusions: Etanercept biosimilar 1 exhibited significant improvements not only in clinical indices but also in MSUS assessment, indicating its effectiveness at the structural level.

Comparative Effectiveness and Persistence of SB4 and Reference Etanercept in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis in Norway

OBJECTIVE

We aim to compare drug effectiveness and persistence between the reference etanercept (ETN) and ETN biosimilar SB4 in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) naive to ETN and to investigate drug effectiveness and persistence in those undergoing a mandatory nonmedical switch from ETN to SB4.

METHODS

We used a retrospective comparative database study including 1,138 patients with PsA treated with ETN or SB4 (years 1999-2021) in Norway. Disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) and drug persistence were compared between unmatched ETN (n = 644) and SB4 (n = 252) cohorts and in matched analyses (n = 144, both cohorts) at baseline using a propensity score (PS) to adjust for confounders. Drug persistence was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

In unmatched analyses, difference in change from baseline between ETN (n = 140) and SB4 (n = 132) for DAS28 at one year was mean 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.96) in favor of ETN. In PS-matched analyses, the difference in change from baseline between ETN (n = 54) and SB4 (n = 54) was mean 0.09 (95% CI -0.33 to 0.50), and the mean difference assessed with an analysis of covariance model was 0.01 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.40), both within predefined equivalence margin (±0.6). Drug persistence at one year was mean 0.75 (95% CI 0.71-0.78) for ETN, mean 0.58 (95% CI 0.51-0.63) for SB4, hazard ratio (HR) 2.45 (95% CI 2.02-2.97) in unmatched analysis, and mean 0.55 (95% CI 0.46-0.63) for ETN, mean 0.60 (95% CI 0.51-0.67) for SB4, HR 1.29 (95%CI 0.94-1.76) in PS-matched cohorts.

CONCLUSION

At one year, outcomes for PsA disease activity and drug persistence were comparable for patients treated with either ETN or SB4. In patients undergoing a mandatory nonmedical switch from ETN to SB4, drug effectiveness was maintained during a two-year period.

Efficacy of switching from originator etanercept to biosimilar YLB113 in real-world patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A retrospective 12 months follow-up study

Purpose: To investigate the disease activity in real-world patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switched from originator etanercept (ETN) to biosimilar YLB113. Methods: Forty one RA patients who switched from ETN to YLB113 were divided into 2 groups based on the Disease Activity Score based on the 28-joint count (DAS28) 12 months after switching (R group: DAS28 < 2.6, N group: DAS28 ≥ 2.6), and the baseline characteristics were statistically examined. A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed to estimate the cut-off value of DAS28 at baseline to achieve remission 12 months after switching. Results: There was no significant difference in the DAS28 at baseline and 12 months after switching (p = .83). Sixteen out of the 20 patients in remission at baseline achieved remission after switching. A univariate analysis revealed the rheumatoid factor (p = .04) and DAS28 (p < .001) at baseline were significantly lower in the R group than in the N group. Furthermore, logistic regression analysis revealed DAS28 was an independent factor (p = .004) for achieving remission 12 months after switching. An ROC curve analysis showed the optimal cut-off value for DAS28 at baseline to achieve remission at 12 months after switching was 2.5. Conclusions: RA patients who achieved remission using originator ETN, were able to maintain remission even if they switched to YLB113.

Effectiveness and Persistence in SB4- and Reference Etanercept-Treated Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients in Ordinary Clinical Practice in Norway

OBJECTIVE

Biosimilars represent cost-effective alternatives to reference biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Our objective was to compare drug effectiveness and drug persistence in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), assessing the etanercept biosimilar SB4 in efficacy and safety compared with reference etanercept in a Phase III, randomized controlled trial. We applied EULAR Points to Consider for Comparative Effectiveness Research in a retrospective database study of etanercept and SB4 in patients treated in clinical practice in Norway.

METHODS

Patients with RA (n = 1,455) treated with etanercept or SB4 between 2010 and 2018 at 5 centers in Norway with ≥1 year of follow-up were included. Disease outcomes (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints [DAS28] at week 52) and drug persistence were compared between unmatched etanercept (n = 575) and SB4 (n = 299) cohorts and matched analyses (n = 172, both cohorts) using propensity score (PS) matching to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

In unmatched analyses, the difference in change from baseline between etanercept (n = 221) and SB4 (n = 106) for DAS28 at week 52 was mean -0.02 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.32, 0.27), demonstrating equivalence by the predetermined equivalence margin (±0.6). In PS-matched analyses, the difference between etanercept (n = 49) and SB4 (n = 49) was 0.03 (95% CI -0.46, 0.52), within the predefined equivalence margin. Persistence using the drug at week 52 was similar between etanercept (0.62 [95% CI 0.57, 0.65]) and SB4 (0.66 [95% CI 0.60, 0.71]) cohorts in the unmatched analysis; in PS-matched cohorts, persistence at week 52 was 0.52 (95% CI 0.44, 0.59) for etanercept and 0.68 (95% CI 0.61, 0.75) for SB4.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes for disease status/drug persistence at week 52 were similar between patients with RA treated with etanercept or SB4.

A place for biosimilars in the changing multiple sclerosis treatment landscape

BACKGROUND

The treatment paradigm for multiple sclerosis (MS), particularly relapsing-remitting MS, is heavily reliant on biologic disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, the current cost of treatment acts as a significant barrier to access for patients. Over the next few years exclusivity periods for key biologic medicines used in MS are likely to end, opening the door for biosimilar medicines to enter the market.

METHODS

In this review, we discuss what biosimilar medicines are, and how the existing experience with biosimilar medicines across multiple therapy areas can inform the assimilation of biosimilar medicines into the MS treatment landscape in Europe and the US.

RESULTS

There is currently a lack of knowledge and awareness around the distinctions and similarities between small molecules, non-biological complex drugs, and biological medicines, as well as the different categories of follow-on successor medicines. These include biosimilar medicines that offer a matching efficacy and safety profile to the reference biologic. Understanding and recognition of the stringency of the approval pathways required for drug categories such as biosimilars are key in building confidence in treatment outcomes. For example, biosimilar medicines are sometimes perceived only as 'copies' of their reference biologic despite undergoing an extensive approval process requiring that no clinically meaningful differences are observed between the biosimilar medicine and the reference medicine. For MS, introduction of biosimilar medicines in the future will enable more people with MS to receive effective treatment, and also expand access to biologic DMTs in MS. Experiences from the use of biosimilars in multiple therapy areas have shown us that this can result in cost-saving benefits for a healthcare system. Introduction of biosimilar medicines in other therapy areas has also demonstrated the importance of appropriate, accurate education and information for their successful integration into clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

In order to realize optimized treatment outcomes in MS in coming years and to find the appropriate place for biosimilar medicines in the changing MS landscape, it is essential that clinicians and people with MS understand the fundamentals of biosimilars, their potential benefits and consistency of treatment provided by a biosimilar medicine, given the matching efficacy and safety profile to its reference medicine. As evidenced in other therapy areas, biosimilar medicines may reduce key barriers to access by providing a cost-effective alternative to the MS treatment arsenal, while providing the same treatment outcomes as reference biologics.

Safety and Effectiveness of Etanercept Biosimilar SB4 for Rheumatic Diseases in South Korea: Real-World Post-marketing Surveillance Data

INTRODUCTION

SB4 is the first approved biosimilar of etanercept, a biologic tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, to treat various autoimmune diseases including axial spondylarthritis (axSpA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and plaque psoriasis (PsO). This post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study of SB4 investigated safety and effectiveness in routine clinical practice and is part of the drug approval process in Korea.

METHODS

This prospective, multi-center, open-label, observational, phase IV PMS study was designed to enroll patients with axSpA, RA, PsA, and PsO in Korea from September 2015 to September 2019. Both etanercept-naïve patients or patients switched from reference etanercept were included. SB4 was administered weekly via subcutaneous injections using pre-filled syringes. Safety was assessed by the incidence of adverse events (AEs), adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and serious adverse events (SAE). Effectiveness was assessed by the change from baseline of investigator-rated Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and disease activity score-28 (DAS28) in patients with RA.

RESULTS

Among 316 enrolled patients, 314 were included in the safety analysis (176 with AS and 138 with RA). The overall incidence of AEs, ADRs and serious AEs were 17.8, 9.9, and 1.3%, respectively. Most AEs were mild (66.7%) or moderate (31.1%) and not related to SB4 (58.9%). Most common AEs were injection site pruritus (1.9%) and injection site rash (1.3%). At week 24, mean disease activity scores significantly decreased compared to baseline in naïve patients with AS and RA (BASDAI 2.7 vs. 6.2, p < 0.0001; DAS28 3.8 vs. 5.7, p < 0.0001) and in switched patients with AS and RA (BASDAI 1.0 vs. 1.3, p = 0.0018; DAS28 2.4 vs. 2.9, p = 0.0893).

CONCLUSION

This first real-world evidence of SB4 from a phase IV PMS study in Korea shows comparable effectiveness to historical SB4 real-world evidence without any new significant safety signals.

Post-switch Effectiveness of Etanercept Biosimilar Versus Continued Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Stable Disease: A Prospective Multinational Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

To better inform clinicians about the use of etanercept biosimilar (SB4) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), COMPANION-B, a prospective real-world observational study, evaluated the effectiveness of the voluntary switch from originator (etanercept, ETN) to SB4 in patients with stable RA (low-disease activity/remission).

METHODS

The study recruited adult patients (18 years or older) with RA (2010 American College of Rheumatology criteria) prescribed ETN as their first or second biologic for at least 6 months across 14 sites in Canada and five in Australia. Patients had stable disease (Disease Activity Score-28 using erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] less than 3.2) at enrollment with no evidence of flare within the previous 3 months. Concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were permitted. Patients could elect to continue ETN or voluntarily switch to SB4 in consultation with their doctors. The primary effectiveness measure was the proportion of patients with disease worsening (defined as a DAS28-ESR increase of at least 1.2 from baseline and minimum score of at least 3.2 or a defined modification in RA treatment) during 12 months of follow-up. The secondary effectiveness measure was the proportion of patients with disease worsening at month 6. Serious adverse events (SAEs) and non-serious adverse reactions (NSARs) were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 163 patients enrolled, 109 elected to continue on ETN and 54 switched to SB4; 65.8% of patients received non-biologic DMARD(s), 52.6% methotrexate, and 10.5% oral corticosteroid(s). At month 12, the proportion of patients with disease worsening was comparable in the ETN group (22.8% [95% CI 15.0-32.2]) and SB4 group (17.6% [95% CI 8.4-30.9]). Similarly, the proportions of patients with disease worsening were also comparable at month 6 (ETN: 7.9% [95% CI 3.5-15.0]; SB4: 7.8% [95% CI 2.2-18.9]). SAEs were low and similar across both groups (ETN: 8.7%; SB4: 5.7%). NSARs were slightly higher in the SB4 vs. ETN group (13.2% vs. 2.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

SB4 demonstrated comparable effectiveness to ETN over 12 months in patients with stable RA who voluntarily switched to the biosimilar in a real-world setting.

Biosimilars: Harmonizing the Approval Guidelines

Biosimilar approval guidelines need rationalization and harmonization to remove the inconsistencies and misconceptions to enable faster, safer, and more cost-effective biosimilars. This paper proposes a platform for a model guideline based on the scientific evaluation of the regulatory filings of the 130+ products approved in the US, UK, and EU and hundreds more in the WHO member countries. Extensive literature survey of clinical data published and reported, including Clinicaltrials.gov, a review of all current guidelines in the US, UK and EU, and WHO, and detailed discussions with the FDA have confirmed that removing the animal and clinical efficacy testing and fixing other minor approaches will enable the creation of a harmonized guideline that will best suit an ICH designation.

Real-world use of an etanercept biosimilar including selective versus automatic substitution in inflammatory arthritis patients: a UK-based electronic health records study

Objective

Biosimilars are approved as an alternative treatment to their originators. We compared the clinical outcomes of etanercept (ETN) biosimilar compared with ETN originator in real-world practice, from two local health boards in Wales with different policies on switching: automatic vs selective.

Methods

Data from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank in Wales were used to create a retrospective cohort study using linked primary and secondary care data. Patients aged ≥18 years with diagnosis codes for RA, PsA or AS were included. Outcomes included treatment failure and DAS-28 score (for RA). The local health board with a policy of automatic switching (i.e. clinician/nurse involvement not mandated) is labelled as automatic switch area, and the other, which required clinician/nurse supervision, as selective switch.

Results

Of 8925 individuals with inflammatory arthritis, 13.3% (365) received ETN biosimilar and 31.5% (863) ETN originator. The treatment discontinuation rate was similar for ETN biosimilar and originator by Kaplan-Meier analysis. More biosimilar failure patients were treated in the automatic switch area (15 vs 4.8%). In the automatic switch area, 28.8% (75 of 260) of patients switched automatically from ETN originator to biosimilar compared with 10.5% (11 of 105) in the selective switch area. ETN biosimilar reduced DAS-28 by 1.6 ± 1.8 in the selective switch area vs 0.4 ± 0.6 in the automatic switch area.

Conclusion

The ETN biosimilar was well tolerated. Fewer people were switched using selective policy, but this was associated with lower failure rates. Automatic switch policy led to more patients being switched and did not lead to significant worsening of disease.

Pharmacists' Perspectives of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

While biosimilars are less expensive than their originator biologics, various factors are known to impede their uptake in clinical practice including concerns regarding their interchangeability, efficacy, and safety. Pharmacists are well positioned to promote the adoption of biosimilars, thus, the aim of the review was to assess pharmacists' knowledge and perceptions of biosimilars to identify the need for pharmacist-directed biosimilar education.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search for published articles indexed in MEDLINE via EBSCOHOST, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Dimensions, and Google Scholar databases. We included studies written in English from their earliest publication dates until December 2021. Only studies concerning pharmacists' perspectives on biosimilars were included. Two reviewers extracted data from the studies that included pharmacists' knowledge, perceptions, and opinions about interchangeability and automatic substitution of biosimilars. We also assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies Assessment (JBI-ACSSA) for quantitative studies and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) for qualitative studies.

RESULTS

Out of the 22 studies included in the review, 19 were cross-sectional quantitative studies, and the other three were qualitative studies. The sample size of the included studies ranged from 19 to 1500 participants. The level of knowledge of biosimilars graded as good, considerable, above average, or excellent among pharmacists varied from study to study, with a range of 47-86%. Only 22-51% of pharmacists were comfortable if biosimilars were prescribed for all of the indications previously used for the originator products. Pharmacists' acceptability of switching from the originator to a biosimilar also varied, with a range of 26-84%. However, most pharmacists viewed the substitution of the originator with a biosimilar without physicians' permission as unacceptable. Data from three studies reported that 22-74% of pharmacists had attended biosimilar training. They obtained information about biosimilars from scientific publications, pharmaceutical companies, and continuing education. Based on the criteria of JBI-ACSSA and CASP, the overall methodological quality of the studies ranged from moderate to high. The majority of the studies did not describe the sampling methods used and the strategies to deal with confounding factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacists' knowledge and perception about biosimilars varied and were limited, especially about interchangeability and substitution, efficacy, safety, and indication extrapolation. A better understanding of biosimilars amongst pharmacists could help them to encourage prescribers' acceptance of biosimilars.

The Non-medical Switch from Reference Adalimumab to Biosimilar Adalimumab is Highly Successful in a Large Cohort of Patients with Stable Inflammatory Rheumatic Joint Diseases: A Real-Life Observational Study

Introduction

The adalimumab biosimilar (ADAbio) Amgevita® has a similar efficacy and safety profile as the adalimumab reference (ADA) Humira®. We studied the clinical consequences of a non-medical switch from ADA to ADAbio in adult patients with mainly established rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and spondyloarthritis (SpA).

Methods

Patients that received treatment with ADA for at least three months were switched to ADAbio. Data was collected retrospectively from 1 year before the switch up to 6 months after.

Results

A total of 603 patients were switched from ADA to ADAbio (switch group). During a 1-year follow-up, over 93% of all patients underwent a successful transition in terms of disease activity and safety from ADA to biosimilar, supporting the bioequivalence of both drugs in patients with stable inflammatory rheumatic joint diseases. Forty patients (6.6%) switched back to ADA (re-switch group). There were no objective changes in disease activity score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), or adverse effects before and after the switch between both groups.

Conclusions

In line with earlier reports, the transition to ADAbio went successful in the majority of patients with stable inflammatory rheumatic joint diseases. Patient-reported symptoms without objective signs that indicate a flare of disease activity after the switch to ADAbio are probably explained by nocebo effects. A pre-emptive approach to counteract nocebo effects and stimulate placebo response may have a positive impact on health outcomes for patients and preserve the economic benefits of cost savings that can be achieved by prescribing a biosimilar instead of the reference drug.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Key Consideration for Evaluating Biosimilar Uptake?

Purpose

This review aims to provide an overview of the impact of TNFis biosimilars, with marketing authorization, in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) scores and explore how PROMs endpoints might add value in biosimilars uptake in RA patients.

Patients and Methods

A comprehensive search of Medline, Scopus, Lilacs, and CINAHL databases was performed for papers published between January 2012 and December 2021. For inclusion, studies had to be prospective, published in a peer-reviewed journal, published in English or Spanish language; studies using PROMs as an outcome measure. After screening title and abstracts and assessing the remaining full texts fulfilling the inclusion criteria, 31 papers were used in this narrative review.

Results

PROMs were used as secondary outcomes in included studies. The most frequently employed domains to assess biosimilar efficacy include physical function, patient global assessment (PtGA), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and fatigue. The results of randomized clinical trials uniformly showed that mean change in PROMs scores is comparable between biosimilar and reference biologic treatment groups. However, open-label and real-world studies revealed high rates of discontinuation of therapy, mainly for subjective worsening of disease activity or non-specific adverse events. Even without objective clinical evidence of inflammation, patients who are considered to have active disease (higher scores on PtGA) have higher discontinuation rates of biosimilars. The available information suggests that the nocebo effect is the most likely cause for the discontinuation of biosimilars.

Conclusion

There is scarce literature surrounding the impact of biosimilars in PROMs, especially in open-label studies. In real-life studies, biosimilars have a higher discontinuation rate than reference products. TNFis biosimilars treatment efficacy in RA depends on disease activity and other factors such as PtGA and fatigue. The nocebo effect is the best explanation for biosimilar's discontinuation.

An Introduction to Biosimilars for the Treatment of Retinal Diseases: A Narrative Review

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of disease across a number of therapeutic areas including retinal diseases. However, on occasion, such treatments may be relatively more expensive compared to small molecule therapies. This can restrict patient access and treatment length leading to suboptimal clinical outcomes. Several biosimilar candidates of ranibizumab and aflibercept are currently in development and the first biosimilar of ranibizumab received EMA approval in August and FDA approval in September 2021. Biosimilars are biological medicines that are highly similar to an already-approved biological medicine (reference product). The physicochemical and clinical similarity of a biosimilar is determined by a rigorous analytical and clinical program, including extensive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis with phase III equivalence studies where appropriate. These phase III studies are carried out in a patient population that is representative of all of the potential approved therapeutic indications of the originator product and the most sensitive for detecting potential differences between the biosimilar and the reference product. Biosimilars have been used successfully across a wide range of therapeutic areas for the past 15 years where they have achieved substantial cost savings that can be reinvested into healthcare systems without affecting the quality of patient care. The current review provides an introduction to biosimilars with the aim of preparing retinal specialists for discussing these products with their patients.

Biosimilar versus originator etanercept: a real-life clinical study

BACKGROUND

Over the last few years, novel therapeutic approaches based on the use of monoclonal antibodies against cytokines, or their cognate receptors, involved in psoriasis progression have shown remarkable results, being capable to reduce disease progression and increase patient's quality of life. Among these is etanercept (Enbrel®, Pfizer, Sandwich, UK) and its biosimilar compound SB4 (Benepali®, Samsung Bioepis, Delft, The Netherlands), both approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. Aim of the present study was to evaluate in a less controlled environment, such as real-life, the actual bioequivalence between the etanercept (ETN) and the SB4 in term of safety, efficacy and patient's quality of life.

METHODS

For this purpose, we analyzed a case study consisting of 65 patients affected by plaque psoriasis, with or without psoriatic arthritis at our dermatological outpatient center of Sant'Andrea Hospital in Rome, all of them under treatment with either ETN or the biosimilar SB4 drug for at least 3 months. The indicators used to evaluate the effectiveness of the therapies were the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for itch, the VAS for pain, and the Dermatology Life Quality Index.

RESULTS

The results showed no significant differences among the two drugs in all the analyzed parameters confirming the equivalence between the ETN and its biosimilar SB4.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we can confirm the overlapping clinical efficacy between ETN and its biosimilar SB4 drug and that even in an uncontrolled environment such as real-life, the biosimilar drugs are an excellent opportunity to reduce health costs allowing to expand the audience of patients who can benefit from these innovative treatments.

Effectiveness of SB4 Transition from Originator Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Subgroup Analysis from the BENEFIT Study

OBJECTIVES

The pan-European BENEFIT study of patients with stable rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who transitioned from reference etanercept to SB4 found no clinically meaningful changes in disease control after transition. The analysis aims to illustrate the peculiarities of the Italian cohort of patients compared with the whole population to provide a more real-life approach to the data for the Italian rheumatologists, ruling out possible local confounding factors.

METHODS

A prospective study for up to 6 months following transition was conducted. Outcome measures of interest include clinical characteristics at time of transition and disease activity scores (Disease Activity Score-28 [DAS28] for RA, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] for axSpA) over time and safety.

RESULTS

One-hundred and eleven subjects (out of the 557 in total enrolled in the study) were derived from 8 Italian sites, including 79 with RA and 32 with axSpA. In both cohorts, the efficacy was maintained at 3 months and 6 months from the transition to the biosimilar with no significant change in mean DAS28 and BASDAI scores: at the end of the 6 months of observation the mean DAS28 and BASDAI was similar to baseline (confidence interval [CI] -0.22, 0.22), while the mean variation of the BASDAI was -0.14. Of note, 100.0% (95% CI 89.1, 100.0) in the axSpA and 90.8% (95% CI 81.5, 95.5) in the RA cohort of patients continued to receive SB4 at month 6 (binary variable with 95% Clopper-Pearson CI).

CONCLUSIONS

Italian patients with stable RA or axSpA who transitioned from originator Etanercept to SB4 maintained clinical response at 6 months post-transition. Both the cohorts are representative of typical patients with long-standing established diagnoses. Most of the patients transitioned to the same dose regimen of biosimilar as that received for the originator, and the regimen remained unchanged at 6 months, supporting the effectiveness of the transition.

Rapid monitoring of health services use following a policy to switch patients from originator to biosimilar etanercept-a cohort study in British Columbia

BACKGROUND

Drug coverage policies that incentivize switching patients from originator to biosimilar products may result in significant health care savings. Our study aimed to detect early impacts on health services utilization following a mandated switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept in British Columbia (BC), Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, population-based cohort study using linked administrative health data from BC (2010-2020). The policy cohort consisted of patients with inflammatory arthritis who used originator etanercept in 2019, prior to BC's Biosimilars Initiative switching policy. Three historical cohorts included patients with inflammatory arthritis who used originator etanercept in the years 2016, 2017, and 2018. We compared the daily cumulative incidences of drug refills and outpatient and inpatient services between the policy and historical cohorts. A likelihood ratio sustained (≥ 31 days) at 7.1 or higher compared with the null hypothesis was chosen a priori as a threshold for a potential impact of the policy.

RESULTS

Each cohort contained between 1694 and 1963 patients. We detected several potential impacts: 1) a transient increase in etanercept refills between months three and eight (cumulative incidence difference of + 3.0%); 2) an anticipated increase in visits to physicians of any specialty between months three and eight (+ 2.6%); and 3) an anticipated increase in visits to a rheumatologist from the end of month three onwards (+ 12.8%). The policy had no impact on incidences of switching to a different biologic antirheumatic drug, visits to emergency departments, or admissions to hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Only transient and/or anticipated increases in drug refills and physician visits were observed during the study period. Additional research on clinical outcomes is recommended to strengthen the evidence that no long-term unintended negative health impacts are associated with BC's Biosimilars Initiative [switching policy].

Efficacy and Drug Survival after Switching from Etanercept to the Biosimilar SB4: A Real-Life Long-Term Study

We evaluated the 3-year drug survival and efficacy of the biosimilar SB4/Benepali in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients, previously treated with etanercept (ETA). Drug survival rate was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazard models were developed to examine predictors of SB4 discontinuation. 236 patients (120 RA, 80 PsA and 36 AS), aged 60.7 ± 13.8 years and with an ETA duration of 4.1 ± 3.4 years were included. The 3-year retention rate for SB4 was 94.4%, 88% and 86% in AS, RA and PsA patients, respectively, with no difference between groups. Patients without comorbid disease had higher retention rates vs. patients with comorbid disease (90% vs. 60%, p < 0.0001). Disease activity, as measured by DAS28, DAPSA and BASDAI remained stable over the 3 years. Comorbid disease (hazard ratio; HR: 4.06, p < 0.0001) and HAQ at baseline (HR: 2.42, p = 0.0024) significantly increased the risk of SB4 discontinuation, while previous ETA duration was negatively associated with SB4 discontinuation (HR: 0.97, p = 0.0064). Forty-one (17.4%) patients left the study due to the interruption of the SB4 treatment, 31 (75.6%) discontinued due to inefficacy and 10 (24.4%) due to adverse events. This real-life study confirms the similar efficacy profile of ETA with long-term retention and a good safety profile in inflammatory arthritis patients.

Outcome of adult patients with JIA treated with the biosimilar Benepali®: results of the biologic register JuMBO

BACKGROUND

To analyze therapy adherence, safety, and outcome in adult patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) treated with the etanercept biosimilar Benepali^® (Biogen Inc, Cambridge, USA).

METHODS

Data from the prospective registry, JuMBO (Juvenile arthritis MTX/Biologics long-term Observation), were used for the analysis. JuMBO is a long-term observational cohort study. It follows adult patients with JIA who were formerly included in the national JIA biologic register (BiKeR Registry). Both registries provide individual trajectories of clinical data and outcomes from childhood to adulthood in JIA patients treated with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients from the German JuMBO registry were treated with Benepali^®. Of these, 74% had switched from Enbrel^® (Pfizer Inc., NYC, USA) the originator of etanercept to Benepali^® for cost reasons. Therapy survival of patients treated with Benepali^® in comparison to Enbrel^® in patients matched by significant parameters was comparable. Adverse events (AE) were reported in 25.3% and serious adverse events (SAE) in 9.6% of patients. Physicians rated no SAE causative related to Benepali^®. The majority of SAEs were surgical/medical procedures and there was only one infection. All efficacy parameters (cJADAS-10, Physician Global Assessment, number of joints with active arthritis, patients' overall well-being, pain, and HAQ) demonstrated improvement over 24 months (p-values were not significant). 9.6% of patients permanently discontinued Benepali® because of an AE.

CONCLUSIONS

Tolerability and effectiveness of the biosimilar Benepali^® were satisfactory and therapy survival was comparable to the originator. Further data on therapy with biologics and biosimilars such as Benepali^® must be collected by registries such as BiKeR and JuMBO in order to optimize therapy and patient outcomes and to reduce costs in the health system in the long term.

Regulatory Evaluation of Biosimilars: Refinement of Principles Based on the Scientific Evidence and Clinical Experience

The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs; also called biosimilars) were adopted by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) in 2009. In 2019, the ECBS considered that a more tailored and potentially reduced clinical data package may be acceptable in cases where this was clearly supported by the available scientific evidence. The goal of this publication is to review the current clinical experience and scientific evidence and to provide an expert perspective for updating the WHO guidelines to provide more flexibility and clarity. As the first step, the relevant guidelines by other regulatory bodies were reviewed in order to identify issues that might help with updating the WHO guidelines. Next, a literature search was conducted for information on the long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars to identify possible long-term problems. Finally, a search for articles concerning the role of clinical studies in the benefit-risk evaluation of biosimilars was conducted. The analysis of other guidelines suggested that the WHO guidelines may need more emphasis on the importance of the state-of-the-art physicochemical and structural comparability exercise and in vitro functional testing. The use of "foreign" reference product will also need clarifications. The value of in vivo toxicological tests in the development of biosimilars is questionable, and the non-clinical part needs revisions accordingly. The concepts of "totality of evidence," "stepwise development," and "residual uncertainty" were applied in the evaluation of the clinical sections of the guideline. The review of long-term safety and efficacy demonstrated the robustness of the current biosimilar development concept. The analysis of the roles of different development phases suggested that the large efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity studies are, in most cases, redundant. The residual uncertainty of safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of biosimilars that has shaped the current regulatory guidelines is now substantially reduced. This will allow the re-evaluation of the non-clinical and clinical requirements of the current WHO main guideline. The shift of the relative impact of the development phases towards physico-chemical and in vitro functional testing will provide a relief to the manufacturers and new challenges to the regulators.

Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching: What is the Rationale and Current Experience?

Over time, clinicians have become increasingly comfortable embracing the prescription of biosimilars-highly similar versions of innovator or reference biological agents-for their patients with inflammatory diseases. Although a switch from a reference product to a licensed biosimilar version (or vice versa) is a medical decision robustly supported by the stepwise accumulation of clinical trial evidence concerning comparable safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy between these products, a switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference product, or a cross-switch, is not. Similarity among biosimilars of a reference product is not a regulatory agency concern and therefore is unlikely to be investigated in randomized controlled trials in the foreseeable future. Yet in clinical practice, across a diverse range of patients, the option to cross-switch from one biosimilar to another can and does arise for valid reasons such as convenience or tolerability issues, or driven by third parties (e.g., payers). In the absence of clinical trial data, clinicians must attempt to objectively evaluate the emerging real-world cross-switching evidence within the context of what is known about the science underpinning a designation of biosimilar. That knowledge then needs to be integrated with what clinicians know about their patients and their disease on a case-by-case basis. This review aims to consolidate relevant emerging real-world data and other key information about biosimilar-to-biosimilar cross-switching for prescribing clinicians. In the absence of clear clinical guidelines addressing this topic at present, this review may serve to facilitate discretionary and educated treatment decision making.

The mode of delivery and content of communication strategies used in mandatory and non-mandatory biosimilar transitions: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Effective patient-provider communication is crucial to promote shared decision-making. However, it is unclear how to explain treatment changes to ensure patient acceptance, such as when transitioning from a bio-originator to a biosimilar. This review investigates communication strategies used to educate patients on transitioning to biosimilars and explores whether the willingness to transition and treatment persistence differs for the delivery (verbal or written) and the amount of information provided. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and relevant conference databases were systematically searched. Communication strategies from 33 studies (88% observational cohort studies) published from 2012 to 2020 were synthesized and willingness to transition, persistence, and subjective adverse events explored. Patients only received information verbally in 11 studies. The remaining 22 studies also provided written information. Cost-saving was the main reason provided for the transition. Patients were most willing to transition when receiving written and verbal information (χ² = 5.83, p = .02) or written information that only addressed a few (3-5) concerns (χ² = 16.08, p < .001). There was no significant difference for persistence or subjective adverse events (p's > .05). Few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. Available data shows more willingness to transition when patients received written and verbal information. Initial documents should contain basic information and consultations or telephone calls used to address concerns.

The global landscape on interchangeability of biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars hold the potential to be an integral healthcare component that can significantly improve affordability and thereby accessibility of the otherwise expensive biotherapeutic products. Regulators, payors, and policymakers, each have a major role to play in successful adoption of biosimilars. One of the issues that has been a point of frequent discussion is that of interchangeability of biosimilars.

AREAS COVERED

This article aims to review the position that the major regulatory bodies have taken on interchangeability of biosimilars. Key issues that remain are also discussed. Adalimumab and etanercept have been chosen as real-world case studies to demonstrate interchangeability considerations. The need for gaining global harmonization on interchangeability is highlighted.

EXPERT OPINION

A global harmonization on the interchangeability can likely accelerate biosimilar adoption and result in better accessibility to biologics. Experience gained with real-world studies supports switching to biosimilars from originators however post-marketing pharmacovigilance should be in place to assess the risk-benefit profile of biosimilars in the long run.

Multi-modal Imaging in Etanercept-induced Uveitis: A Case Series

Introduction:

To report with multi-modal imaging the clinical course of 3 patients with new-onset uveitis following treatment with etanercept.

Methods:

Retrospective case-note reviews were conducted of 3 patients previously established on etanercept who developed new-onset acute uveitis.

Results and Discussion:

Three patients were assessed with a mean age of 44.3 (43-47). Etanercept was indicated for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in two patients and psoriatic arthritis in 1 patient. Duration of etanercept treatment ranged from 7 to 10 years; however, in two cases, treatment recently changed to an etanercept biosimilar agent. Two patients were diagnosed with bilateral panuveitis and one patient had chronic relapsing anterior uveitis. Infection screen was negative in all three patients. 2 patients developed cystoid macular oedema as viewed on Spectral Domain OCT. Fundus fluorescein angiography was performed in one patient who demonstrated bilateral retinal vasculitis. All three patients were started on systemic and topical treatment. One patient received sub-tenon triamcinolone injection. Etanercept was discontinued for all patients. 1 of 3 patients lost vision at 7 months. 2 patients demonstrated long-term remission and one patient required intravitreal steroid implantation to stabilize an ongoing intraocular inflammation. Two patients who had complete remission were commenced on Adalimumab while the third patient was commenced on Secukinumab.

Conclusion:

The clinical course of uveitis developing paradoxically following etanercept treatment is variable. Multi-modal imaging is useful for the clinician that helps in diagnosing and monitoring associated macular oedema and retinal ischaemia. Cessation of etanercept and systemic corticosteroid treatment are often required to prevent ocular morbidity.

The switch from etanercept originator to SB4: data from a real-life experience on tolerability and persistence on treatment in joint inflammatory diseases

Aims:

Switching from originator to biosimilar is part of current practice in inflammatory rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (iRMDs) such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondylarthritis (axSpA), with evidences derived from both etanercept (ETN) to SB4-switching randomized controlled trials and real-life registries. We investigated the safety and treatment persistence of ETN/SB4 in a multi-iRMD cohort derived from two rheumatology departments in our region.

Methods:

Adult patients with iRMDs, treated with ETN for at least 6 months and switched to SB4 in stable clinical condition, were eligible for this retrospective evaluation. Retrospective data on adverse events, loss of efficacy and persistence on treatment were collected until latest available follow-up.

Results:

A total of 220 patients (85 RA, 81 PsA, 33 axSpA, 14 juvenile idiopathic arthritis and seven other conditions; 142 females, mean age 58 ± 7 years, disease duration 12 ± 4 years, ETN duration 7 ± 4 years) were enrolled, with median follow-up of 12.1 (9.7–15.8) months. A total of 50 patients (22.7%) presented with at least one adverse event, with 36 (16.4%) disease flares and 30 (13.6%: 11 for safety and 19 loss of efficacy) SB4 withdrawals. Cumulative SB4 treatment persistence was 99.1%, 88.6% and 64.6% at 6, 12 and 18 months respectively. Back-switch to ETN was performed in 17/30 cases, the remaining cases were managed with change of biologic disease modifying or conventional synthetic anti-rheumatic drug. Age was the only significant predictor of SB4 interruption at 6 months.

Conclusion:

Our real-life data confirm the safety profile of switching from ETN to SB4, with slightly higher treatment persistence rates compared with other real-life registries.