Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of Biosimilar Etanercept (Enerceptan) Versus Its Original Form in Combination With Methotrexate in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized, Multicenter, Evaluator-Blinded, Noninferiority Study

2024 Update of the Japan College of Rheumatology Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Secondary publication

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to update the Japan College of Rheumatology Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis (CPG for RA).

METHODS

The recommendations were developed based on the evidence published until the end of June 2022 using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. The steering committee, CPG panel, systematic review (SR) group, and SR support team were organised.

RESULTS

The treatment goal and drug treatment algorithm required no modifications; however, the footnotes of the drug treatment algorithm were modified. SR of 21 new or updated recommendations for subcutaneous methotrexate (n = 1), biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (n = 1), rituximab (n = 5), Janus kinase inhibitors (n = 6), biosimilars (n = 2), older patients (n = 4), and pregnancy and lactation (n = 2) was conducted. The recommendations for comorbidities and surgery and rehabilitation remained unchanged from the 2020 CPG for RA.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2024 CPG for RA, which provide recommendations that reflect the current healthcare environment for rheumatoid arthritis in Japan, can be used effectively as a tool for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients in the treatment of RA.

Biosimilars and immunogenicity: a matter of concern?

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars have transformed treatment modalities across various medical fields such as oncology, rheumatology, and immunology. Despite their potential for reducing healthcare costs, concerns persist regarding their ability to induce an immune response, which could affect efficacy and safety. This review critically evaluates the current evidence on the immunogenicity of biosimilars and discusses the regulatory frameworks guiding their approval and monitoring.

AREAS COVERED

This review includes studies from databases like Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect, published up to April 2024. It explores the 'totality of the evidence' approach used by regulatory bodies like the FDA and EMA, detailing analytical, preclinical, and clinical assessments that ensure biosimilars' similarity to their reference products in terms of structure, function, and clinical outcomes. The review also addresses the challenges and limitations in current research methodologies and the implications of immunogenicity on therapeutic efficacy and patient safety.

EXPERT OPINION

While substantial evidence confirms the safety and efficacy of biosimilars, the review emphasizes the need for continuous regulatory vigilance and advanced methodologies in post-marketing surveillance to capture long-term immunogenicity data effectively. It advocates for integrating cutting-edge analytical techniques and personalized medicine to better manage immunogenic risks associated with biological therapies.

Systematic review and meta-analysis for the 2024 update of the Japan College of Rheumatology clinical practice guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article is to update evidence on the efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and provide information to the taskforce for the 2024 update of the Japan College of Rheumatology clinical practice guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We searched various databases for randomised controlled trials on RA published until June 2022, with no language restriction. For each of the 15 clinical questions, two independent reviewers screened the articles, evaluated the core outcomes, and performed meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Subcutaneous injection of methotrexate (MTX) showed similar efficacy to oral MTX in MTX-naïve RA patients. Ozoralizumab combined with MTX improved drug efficacy compared to the placebo in RA patients with inadequate response (IR) to conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD). Rituximab with and without concomitant csDMARDs showed similar efficacy to other biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) in bDMARD-IR RA patients. Combined Janus kinase inhibitors and MTX achieved similar clinical responses and equal safety during a 4-year period compared to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in MTX-IR RA patients. Biosimilars showed efficacy equivalent to that of the original bDMARDs in csDMARD-IR and bDMARD-IR RA patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides latest evidence for the 2024 update of the Japan College of Rheumatology clinical practice guidelines for RA management.

Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of the biosimilar etanercept compared to the reference formulation original etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: An open-label, randomized, comparative, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The objective of this phase III clinical randomized trial was to establish the therapeutic equivalence of biosimilar etanercept (bio-etanercept) with original etanercept (O-etanercept) for patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

The study (NCT04079374) enrolled patients with moderate to high disease activity rheumatoid arthritis. Enrolled patients were randomized 1:1 into 2 treatment groups, 1 receiving bio-etanercept (study drug) and the other receiving O-etanercept (comparator) at a dose of 25mg twice weekly, for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of patients with an ACR20 response after 24 weeks of treatment. Safety (adverse reaction/adverse event) and immunogenicity of both drugs were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 156 patients (79 in the bio-etanercept group and 77 in the O-etanercept group) who completed 24-week treatment and 4-week follow-up, 82.3% (65 patients) and 90.9% (70 patients) achieved an ACR20 response in the bio-etanercept and O-etanercept groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .16). No significant differences in the occurrence of adverse reactions/adverse events were found between the 2 groups regardless of severity (P = .63 for mild, P = .43 for moderate and P > .99 for severe). The development of antibodies in the bio-etanercept group was observed in 4 (5.1%; visit 6), 4 (5.0%; visit 9), and 3 (3.8%; visit 11) patients, and in 5 (6.4%), 5 (6.5%), and 3 (4.1%) patients in the O-etanercept group. The differences between the 2 groups were not significant (P > .99).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that bio-etanercept was equivalent to the reference formulation.

Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of etanercept biosimilars versus reference biologics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A meta-analysis

Background: Although with the application of etanercept biosimilars in the field of rheumatoid arthritis, the evidences of their efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity are still limited. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of etanercept biosimilars for treating active rheumatoid arthritis compared to reference biologics (Enbrel^®). Methods: PubMed, Embase, Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials of etanercept biosimilars treated in adult patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis from their earliest records to 15 August 2022. The outcomes included ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 response rate at different time points from FAS or PPS, adverse events, and proportion of patients developed anti-drug antibodies. The risk of bias of each included study was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials tool, and the certainty of evidence was rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: Six RCTs with 2432 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Etanercept biosimilars showed more benefits in ACR50 at 24 weeks from PPS [5 RCTs, OR = 1.22 (1.01, 1.47), p = 0.04, I ² = 49%, high certainty], ACR50 at 1 year from PPS [3 RCTs, OR = 1.43 (1.10, 1.86), p < 0.01, I ² = 0%, high certainty] or FAS [2 RCTs, OR = 1.36 (1.04, 1.78), p = 0.03, I ² = 0%, high certainty], and ACR70 at 1 year from PPS [3 RCTs, OR = 1.32 (1.01, 1.71), p = 0.04, I ² = 0%, high certainty]. In terms of other outcomes about efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, the results showed that there was no significant difference between etanercept biosimilars and reference biologics, and the certainty of evidences ranged from low to moderate. Conclusion: Etanercept biosimilars showed more benefits in ACR50 response rate at 1 year than reference biologics (Enbrel^®), other outcomes for clinical efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of etanercept biosimilars were comparable with originator in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022358709.

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.

Recent Advances in Understanding the Pathogenesis of Rheumatoid Arthritis: New Treatment Strategies

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is considered a chronic systemic, multi-factorial, inflammatory, and progressive autoimmune disease affecting many people worldwide. While patients show very individual courses of disease, with RA focusing on the musculoskeletal system, joints are often severely affected, leading to local inflammation, cartilage destruction, and bone erosion. To prevent joint damage and physical disability as one of many symptoms of RA, early diagnosis is critical. Auto-antibodies play a pivotal clinical role in patients with systemic RA. As biomarkers, they could help to make a more efficient diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment decision. Besides auto-antibodies, several other factors are involved in the progression of RA, such as epigenetic alterations, post-translational modifications, glycosylation, autophagy, and T-cells. Understanding the interplay between these factors would contribute to a deeper insight into the causes, mechanisms, progression, and treatment of the disease. In this review, the latest RA research findings are discussed to better understand the pathogenesis, and finally, treatment strategies for RA therapy are presented, including both conventional approaches and new methods that have been developed in recent years or are currently under investigation.

Update on the Safety Profile of Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis from Clinical Trials to Real-World Studies: A Narrative Review

Tofacitinib is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adult patients who do not respond adequately or are intolerant to one or more disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. The tofacitinib RA clinical development program included randomized controlled trials of 6-24-month duration and long-term extension studies with > 7061 patients and 22,875 patient-years of exposure. To date, there are no data from other randomized studies in patients with cardiovascular risk factors comparing the long-term safety of a JAK inhibitor versus an anti-TNF. Real-world studies are necessary to complete the body of evidence supporting the effectiveness and safety of a therapeutic agent. In the case of tofacitinib, real-world data derive from health insurance claims databases, registries (US Corrona Registry, Swiss Registry, and others), national pharmacovigilance programs, and hospital databases (case series). The present article provides complete and up-to-date information on the safety profile of tofacitinib in RA, from clinical trials to real-world studies. Tofacitinib has demonstrated a consistent safety profile during up to 9.5 years of experience in randomized controlled trials and long-term extension studies. Real-world evidence has not added new safety issues with respect to those found in the clinical program. In general, the safety profile of tofacitinib is consistent with that of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, with an increased risk of herpes zoster that seems to be a class effect of Janus kinase inhibitors. The continuous follow-up of therapeutic agents to treat rheumatoid arthritis is needed to adequately establish the safety profile for new mechanisms of action and potential risks associated with their longer term use.