Repeated switches between reference product etanercept and biosimilar do not affect disease activity or retention rate of etanercept over 24 months – a cohort study with historical controls

Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars compared with the biologic etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biosimilar etanercept presents itself as an innovative therapeutic opportunity for inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, however, its efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in relation to the reference biological agent for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis is still questioned. With this in mind, this study aimed to verify the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the use of the biosimilar etanercept in relation to the reference biologic in patients over 18 years of age with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the parameters of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) selecting only Phase III randomized clinical trials. The search strategy was constructed with the MeSH terms "Etanercept", "Biological Products", "Arthritis, Rheumatoid", "Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals" and was performed in Medline via PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EBSCO and Lilacs in January 2023. The analysis measures were relative risk (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. The statistical analysis for preparing meta-analyses was developed by the Review Manager 5.1.4 software.

RESULTS

This systematic review selected 6 eligible studies with a sample population of n = 2355. The main efficacy outcomes showed that both drugs did not present statistically significant differences in ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses within 6 months (RR 1.00; 95% CI = 0.94 to 1.07; RR 1.09; 95% CI = 0.94 to 1.26; RR 1.04; 95% CI = 0.82 to 1.31, respectively), with I2 ranging from 55 to 63% and 0.04 ≤ P ≥ 0.08. Adverse events were mostly mild or moderate, and serious adverse events were not statistically significant. Regarding immunogenicity, only 5.4% of the ADA-positive biosimilar group had positive neutralizing antibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, this review found that biosimilar etanercept had efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity similar to those for the biological reference.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This systematic review was registered on the PROSPERO platform under number CRD42020166610.

Initial prescriptions and medication switches of biological products: an analysis of prescription pathways and determinants in the Swiss healthcare setting

OBJECTIVES

Biological products have contributed to extraordinary advances in disease treatments over the last decade. However, the cost-saving potential of imitator products, so-called biosimilars, is still under-researched in Switzerland. This study aims to assess biosimilars' prescriptions at treatment initiation and their determinants, as well as biological therapy switches.

DESIGN

The study included all patients who had at least one biosimilar available on the market at the time when they were prescribed a biological product. We analysed longitudinal data for biosimilar prescriptions in Switzerland using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to quantify the associations with individual, pharmaceutical and provider-related variables.

SETTING

The analysis is based on de-identified claims data of patients with mandatory health insurance at Helsana, one of the Swiss health insurance companies with a substantial enrollee base in mandatory health insurance.

PARTICIPANTS

Overall, 18 953 patients receiving at least one biological product between 2016 and 2021 were identified.

OUTCOME MEASURES

We differentiated between initial prescriptions and follow-up prescriptions. Our regression focused on initial prescriptions due to evidence indicating that patients tend to follow the medication prescribed at therapy initiation.

RESULTS

Although biosimilars' market share was low (28.6%), the number of prescriptions has increased (from 1016 in 2016 to 6976 in 2021). Few patients with medication switches (n=1492, 8.5%) were detected. Increased relative price difference (difference in the price of available biosimilars relative to price of corresponding reference product) was associated with decreased probability of biosimilar prescriptions, whereas male sex, an increase of available imitator drugs on the market, larger packaging sizes, and prescriptions from specialists or physicians in outpatient settings were associated with increased biosimilar use.

CONCLUSION

The low number of biosimilar prescriptions, despite the proliferating biosimilar market, indicates a high potential for biosimilar diffusion. The findings indicate that patients typically adhere to the therapy options initially chosen and are less inclined to make changes following the initiation of treatment. Our research highlights the need for awareness initiatives to improve understanding among patients and physicians, enabling informed, shared decision-making about biosimilar prescriptions.

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.

Differential retention of adalimumab and etanercept biosimilars compared to originator treatments: Results of a retrospective French multicenter study

Objectives

Previous studies demonstrated equivalence in terms of efficacy and safety of biosimilars (bsDMARDs) compared to original treatments (boDMARDs) and in switching situations. Less is known about what happens when initiating a bsDMARD in a molecule naïve patient. The objectives of our study were to compare the retention of treatment of subcutaneous boDMARDs and bsDMARDs globally, depending on the disease [rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), or psoriatic arthritis (PsA)], molecule [etanercept (ETN) or adalimumab (ADA)], line of treatment, or presence of citrate in the context of first use of each molecule (namely initiation) and to analyze treatment retention's predictive factors.

Materials and methods

This multicenter retrospective study used data from shared medical records of the RIC-FRANCE network, encompassing the prescription of hospital rheumatologists and attached practitioners, of patients with RA, SpA, or PsA, with the starting ETN between 03/10/2016 and 31/07/2020, or ADA between 23/10/2018 and 31/07/2020. Clinical data were collected from medical records. Retention analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test. Retention's predictive factors were analyzed using Cox proportional-hazard ratio.

Results

Eight hundred forty-five prescriptions were analyzed: 340 boDMARDs and 505 bsDMARDs. About 57% of prescriptions concerned women. The mean age was 51.8 years. About 38% were prescriptions for RA, 16% for PsA, and 46% for SpA. An increase in the initiation over time was observed for both ETN and ADA. The retention rate of bsDMARDs was superior to boDMARDs' one (39 vs. 23 months; p = 0.045). When molecules are compared, the difference was significant only for ETN (45 vs. 19 months for boDMARD; p = 0.0265). When comparing diseases, the difference in favor of bsDMARDs was significant in patients with RA only (p = 0.041). Citrated treatments displayed better retention compared to citrate-free treatments (p = 0.0137). Multivariable analysis of predictive factors for the cessation of treatment found shorter disease duration, boDMARD prescription, hospital practitioner prescription, late line of treatment, and female sex as significant. More side effects were observed with boDMARDs, especially more infections (17.8% vs. 7.8%).

Conclusion

Even if bsDMARDs' prescription increases over time, its penetration rate is still below expectations. bsDMARDs displayed better retention compared to boDMARDs, especially for ETN, and in patients with RA. Citrated treatments had better retention. Prescription by a full-time hospital-based rheumatologist is associated with poorer retention.

Incidence of and Reasons and Determinants Associated with Retransitioning from Biosimilar Etanercept to Originator Etanercept

Background

Patients in clinical practice are transitioned from originator etanercept (OR-ETA) to biosimilar etanercept (BS-ETA), but some subsequently retransition. Insights into the incidence of and reasons for retransitioning and the characteristics of these patients could help clinicians successfully introduce biosimilars.

Objective

Our objective was to assess the incidence of and reasons for retransitioning from BS-ETA to OR-ETA in patients with a rheumatic disease (RD) and to explore the determinants thereof.

Methods

This cohort study included all patients with RD who had transitioned from OR-ETA to BS-ETA in a large hospital in the Netherlands in 2016. The incidence of retransitioning to OR-ETA and the 1-year persistence with BS-ETA were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier estimator. Reasons for retransitioning were classified as related to (1) efficacy, (2) adverse events, (3) the administration device, and (4) other. Determinants for retransitioning, including baseline and treatment characteristics, were assessed in a nested case–control study using conditional logistic regression.

Results

We included 342 patients (median age 57.8 years; 53.5% females). At 1 year after transitioning, 9.4% of patients had retransitioned to OR-ETA and 69.7% were persistent with BS-ETA. At the end of follow-up (median 4.4 years), 47 patients (13.7%) had retransitioned to OR-ETA. The median time until retransitioning was 0.55 years (interquartile range 0.2–1.3). Most patients (n = 34 [72.3%]) retransitioned because of a (perceived) loss of effect, followed by adverse events (23.4%). In total 3.8% of patients switched to another biological treatment or a Janus kinase inhibitor; 17.1% of patients discontinued BS-ETA without retransitioning or switching within the first year. Univariate determinants for retransitioning included initiating corticosteroids or intensifying immunomodulator treatment (odds ratio [OR] 2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03–5.45) and the number of visits to the rheumatology department (OR 2.06; 95% CI 1.55–2.74). In the multivariate analysis, only the number of visits to the rheumatology department remained significantly associated with retransitioning (OR 2.19; 95% CI 1.60–3.01).

Conclusion

When introducing a biosimilar in clinical care, clinicians should anticipate that one in seven patients will retransition to the originator. A (perceived) loss of effect was the most frequently reported reason for retransitioning. Patients who visited the rheumatology department more frequently had an increased risk of retransitioning, which is likely to be related to patients reporting a loss of effect and to adverse events resulting in more visits to the rheumatology department.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-021-00501-x.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

In 2016, SB4 (Benepali®) became the first etanercept (ETN) biosimilar to obtain marketing authorisation in Europe. Despite robust analytical and clinical comparisons, outstanding questions remain on SB4 use in routine practice.

METHODS

A systematic search for publications on real-world evidence of SB4 effectiveness, safety and drug survival was undertaken using search terms (SB4 OR Benepali OR biosimilar etanercept OR innovator etanercept) in the BIOSIS® Toxicology, BIOSIS Previews®, Embase® and MEDLINE® databases up to 17 January 2019.

RESULTS

Of 959 articles identified, eight journal articles, two journal letters and 23 congress abstracts were selected on criteria of original real-world evidence with a clinical focus. As expected with real-world evidence, quality scoring showed that the evidence had high external validity but lower internal validity. A total of 13,552 patients were described across nine European countries and all approved SB4 indications: 2499 were ETN-naïve and 11,053 switched from reference ETN to SB4 (switchers). Switch acceptance rates (a combination of clinicians offering and patients accepting initiation on SB4) ranged between 51.6% and 99.0%; patient support programmes positively contributed to acceptance. Disease activity was generally similar pre- and post-switch (typically 3-month timeframe). Retention rates across studies were at least 75% (up to 12 months follow-up). No new safety signals were identified. Differences in discontinuation rates versus historic controls reported in some studies may have been influenced by differences in treatment practices, lack of clinician confidence and nocebo effects.

CONCLUSION

Nearly 2500 ETN-naïve patients have been initiated on SB4 and outcomes are similar to those patients receiving reference ETN. Overall this systematic review of real-world evidence provides additional reassurance that SB4 is as effective and safe as reference ETN in both switched and naïve patients.

FUNDING

Biogen International GmbH.