Dataset Information

A phase III randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study comparing SB4 with etanercept reference product in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare the efficacy and safety of SB4 (an etanercept biosimilar) with reference product etanercept (ETN) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate (MTX) therapy.

Methods

This is a phase III, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre study with a 24-week primary endpoint. Patients with moderate to severe RA despite MTX treatment were randomised to receive weekly dose of 50 mg of subcutaneous SB4 or ETN. The primary endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 24. Other efficacy endpoints as well as safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetic parameters were also measured.

Results

596 patients were randomised to either SB4 (N=299) or ETN (N=297). The ACR20 response rate at week 24 in the per-protocol set was 78.1% for SB4 and 80.3% for ETN. The 95% CI of the adjusted treatment difference was -9.41% to 4.98%, which is completely contained within the predefined equivalence margin of -15% to 15%, indicating therapeutic equivalence between SB4 and ETN. Other efficacy endpoints and pharmacokinetic endpoints were comparable. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable (55.2% vs 58.2%), and the incidence of antidrug antibody development up to week 24 was lower in SB4 compared with ETN (0.7% vs 13.1%).

Conclusions

SB4 was shown to be equivalent with ETN in terms of efficacy at week 24. SB4 was well tolerated with a lower immunogenicity profile. The safety profile of SB4 was comparable with that of ETN.

Trial registration numbers

NCT01895309, EudraCT 2012-005026-30.

SUBMITTER: Emery P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5264222 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:This double-blind, active-controlled, randomized, multinational study evaluated the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity of PF-06438179/GP1111 (IxifiTM/Zessly®), an infliximab biosimilar, vs infliximab (Remicade®) reference product sourced from the European Union (infliximab-EU) in biologic-naïve patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate therapy. This paper reports results from the initial 30-week treatment period. METHODS:Patients (N?=?650) were stratified by geographic region and randomized 1:1 to PF-06438179/GP1111 or infliximab-EU (3 mg/kg intravenous at weeks 0, 2, and 6, then every 8 weeks). Dose escalation to 5 mg/kg was allowed starting at week 14 for patients with inadequate RA response. The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology criteria for ??20% clinical improvement (ACR20) response at week 14. Therapeutic equivalence was declared if the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was within the symmetric equivalence margin of ±?13.5%. Statistical analysis was also performed with a two-sided 90% CI using an asymmetric equivalence margin (-?12.0%, 15.0%). RESULTS:Patients (80.3% female; 79.4% seropositive) had a mean RA duration of 6.9 years, and mean baseline Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, four components based on C-reactive protein was 6.0 in both arms. Week 14 ACR20 in the intention-to-treat population was 62.7% for PF-06438179/GP1111 and 64.1% for infliximab-EU. Week 14 ACR20 using nonresponder imputation was 61.1% for PF-06438179/GP1111 and 63.5% for infliximab-EU, and the 95% (-?9.92%, 5.11%) and 90% (-?8.75%, 4.02%) CIs for the treatment difference (-?2.39%) were entirely contained within the prespecified symmetric and asymmetric equivalence margins, respectively. No differences were observed between arms for secondary efficacy endpoints. Overall postdose antidrug antibody (ADA) rates through week 30 were 48.6% and 51.2% for PF-06438179/GP1111 and infliximab-EU, respectively. Efficacy and immunogenicity were similar between treatments for patients with dose escalation (at or after week 14), as well as between treatments for patients without dose escalation. Safety profiles of PF-06438179/GP1111 and infliximab-EU were similar, with no clinically meaningful differences observed between arms, including after ADA development. Serum drug concentrations were similar between arms at each time point during the initial 30-week treatment period. CONCLUSION:PF-06438179/GP1111 and infliximab-EU demonstrated similar efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and PK with or without dose escalation in patients with moderate to severe active RA on background methotrexate. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02222493 . Registered on 21 August 2014. EudraCT, 2013-004148-49 . Registered on 14 July 2014.

Project description:ObjectivePatients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom remission is achieved following combination therapy with methotrexate plus etanercept face an ongoing medication burden. This study was undertaken to investigate whether sustained remission achieved on combination therapy can be maintained with either methotrexate or etanercept monotherapy, as assessed following discontinuation of one or the other medication from the combination.MethodsOf the 371 adult patients with RA who received combination therapy with methotrexate plus etanercept, remission (defined as a Simplified Disease Activity Index [SDAI] score of ≤3.3) was sustained in 253 patients through a 24-week open-label period. These 253 patients then entered a 48-week, double-blind period and were randomized to receive either 1) methotrexate monotherapy (n = 101), 2) etanercept monotherapy (n = 101), or 3) methotrexate plus etanercept combination therapy (n = 51). Patients who subsequently experienced disease-worsening received rescue therapy with the combination regimen at the same dosages as used in the initial run-in period. The primary end point was the proportion of patients in whom SDAI-defined remission was maintained without disease-worsening at week 48 in the etanercept monotherapy group as compared to the methotrexate monotherapy group. Secondary end points included time to disease-worsening, and the proportion of patients in whom SDAI-defined remission was recaptured after initiation of rescue therapy.ResultsBaseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the RA patients were similar across the treatment groups. At week 48, SDAI-defined remission was maintained in significantly more patients in the etanercept monotherapy group than in the methotrexate monotherapy group (49.5% versus 28.7%; P = 0.004). Moreover, as a secondary end point, sustained SDAI-defined remission was achieved in significantly more patients who received combination therapy than in those who received methotrexate monotherapy (52.9% versus 28.7%; P = 0.006). Time to disease-worsening was shorter in those who received methotrexate monotherapy than in those who received etanercept monotherapy or those who received combination therapy (each P < 0.001 versus methotrexate monotherapy). Among the patients who received rescue therapy, SDAI-defined remission was recaptured in 70-80% in each treatment group. No new safety signals were reported.ConclusionThe efficacy of etanercept monotherapy was superior to that of methotrexate monotherapy and similar to that of combination therapy in maintaining remission in patients with RA. SDAI-defined remission was recaptured in most of the patients who were given rescue therapy. These data could inform decision-making when withdrawal of therapy is being considered to reduce treatment burden in patients with well-controlled RA.

Project description:IntroductionIn 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionNearly 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.FundingBiogen International GmbH.