Dataset Information

Focus on biosimilar etanercept - bioequivalence and interchangeability.

ABSTRACT: The recent approval of reference etanercept (re-ETN) biosimilars SB4, GP2015, and HD203 produced relevant changes in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis due to the considerably lower cost of these products and the consequent savings.To review the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of ETN biosimilars when employed as first-line therapy or after transition from re-ETN. Patients' acceptability was also addressed.The available literature was reviewed through a search of PubMed database, and abstract books of the American College for Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism annual meetings. SB4, GP2015, and HD203 were licensed by the US, European and South Korea regulatory agencies after the bioequivalence to re-ETN was demonstrated through pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies, and randomized, head to head, controlled trials. Based on the evidence of efficacy and safety of SB4 and HD203 in RA, and of GP2015 in psoriasis, by the extrapolation principle, the three biosimilars were approved for all indications licensed for re-ETN, and the regulatory agencies introduced the interchangeability from the originator to the biosimilar. Extrapolation of indications, and particularly interchangeability raised relevant concerns among the rheumatologists due to the low level of evidence supporting the switching strategy (or transition). Rheumatologists' concerns are oriented toward the relevant number of biosimilar discontinuations after the transition ranging from 7%-17% over a short-term follow-up period. As resulted from two studies, at least 20%-30% of the patients claimed more exhaustive information on the switching procedure.Based on the available evidence, re-ETN biosimilars may be a good option as first-line therapy, while further data are needed to definitively establish the efficacy, safety, and the economic reflexes of transitioning from re-ETN.

SUBMITTER: Cantini F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6121755 | biostudies-other | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Focus on biosimilar etanercept - bioequivalence and interchangeability.

Cantini Fabrizio F Benucci Maurizio M

Biologics : targets & therapy 20180830

<h4>Background</h4>The recent approval of reference etanercept (re-ETN) biosimilars SB4, GP2015, and HD203 produced relevant changes in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis due to the considerably lower cost of these products and the consequent savings.<h4>Aims</h4>To review the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of ETN biosimilars when employed as first-line therapy or after transition from re-ETN. Patients' acceptabi ...[more]

PMID: 30214149

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients 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.ObjectiveOur 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsWe 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).ConclusionWhen 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.

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.

Project description:BackgroundBiosimilars have been used for 15 years in the European Union (EU), and have been shown to reduce costs and increase access to important biological medicines. In spite of their considerable exposure and excellent safety record, many prescribers still have doubts on the safety and interchangeability of biosimilars, especially monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and fusion proteins.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to analyse the short- and long-term safety and interchangeability data of biosimilar mAbs and fusion proteins to provide unbiased information to prescribers and policy makers.MethodsData on the safety, immunogenicity and interchangeability of EU-licensed mAbs and fusion proteins were examined using European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and postmarketing safety surveillance reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). As recent biosimilar approvals allow self-administration by patients by the subcutaneous route, the administration devices were also analyzed.ResultsPrelicensing data of EPARs (six different biosimilar adalimumabs, three infliximabs, three etanercepts, three rituximabs, two bevacizumabs, and six trastuzumabs) revealed that the frequency of fatal treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), TEAEs leading to discontinuation of treatment, serious adverse events (SAEs), and main immune-mediated adverse events (AEs) were comparable between the biosimilars and their reference products. The availability of new biosimilar presentations and administration devices may add to patient choice and be an emerging factor in the decision to switch patients. Analysis of postmarketing surveillance data covering up to 7 years of follow-up did not reveal any biosimilar-specific adverse effects. No product was withdrawn for safety reasons. This is in spite of considerable exposure to biosimilars in treatment-naïve patients and in patients switched from the reference medicinal product to the biosimilar. Analysis of data from switching studies provided in regulatory submissions showed that single or multiple switches between the originator and its biosimilar versions had no negative impact on efficacy, safety or immunogenicity.ConclusionsIn line with previous reports of prelicensing studies of biosimilar mAbs and etanercepts, this study demonstrated comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity compared with the reference products. This is the first study to comprehensively analyze postmarketing surveillance data of the biosimilar mAbs and etanercept. An analysis of more than 1 million patient-treatment years of safety data raised no safety concerns. Based on these data, we argue that biosimilars approved in the EU are highly similar to and interchangeable with their reference products. Thus, additional systematic switch studies are not required to support the switching of patients.

Project description:ObjectivesEtanercept biosimilars show comparable efficacy to their originators among biologic-naïve patients with RA in randomized controlled trials. Nationwide guidelines have obligated prescribing of etanercept biosimilars from 2016, resulting in significant cost savings. This analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of etanercept originator vs etanercept biosimilar amongst biologic-naïve RA patients treated in routine clinical practice in the UK.MethodsBiologic-naïve RA patients starting etanercept in the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register in Rhematoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) cohort study from 2010 were included. Data collected at start of therapy includes patient demographics and disease activity. Follow-up data includes changes in disease activity and anti-rheumatic therapy. Six- and 12-month primary outcomes include DAS for 28-joints (DAS28) remission, EULAR response and minimal clinically important difference in function. Etanercept drug survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression, including reasons for treatment withdrawal. Multiple imputation accounted for missing data. Propensity-decile adjustment was used to account for confounding by indication.ResultsA total of 1806 biologic-naïve RA patients started etanercept: 1009 originator, 797 biosimilar. At 6 and 12 months, the proportion of patients achieving DAS28 remission and EULAR response were similar between treatments. During follow-up, 19% of originator patients switched onto etanercept biosimilar. Patients were censored at time of switch. Patients on originator were no more likely to stop therapy vs biosimilar; 71% of originator and 76% of biosimilar patients remained on therapy at 1 year.ConclusionsIn one of the largest analyses of patients with RA, biologic-naïve RA patients treated with etanercept originator showed similar outcomes vs biosimilar using real-world data. Drug survival, and disease activity after 6 and 12 months of therapy, was similar between cohorts.

Project description:IntroductionEnbrel® (etanercept: manufactured by Immunex Corporation, Newbury Park, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320, USA) was the first biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Europe. More recently, an etanercept biosimilar (Benepali®: manufactured by Biogen Inc, Cambridge, MA 02124, USA) was approved in the European Union. The perceptions and preferences of the Benepali autoinjector versus Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector were evaluated by nurses from Europe.MethodsThe survey involved a 25-min face-to-face questionnaire-interview with nurses from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK, experienced in training patients on using the Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector. Nurses viewed an instructional video and device-handling leaflet, received a live demonstration on the Benepali autoinjector and had access to both Benepali and Enbrel MYCLIC training autoinjectors. Nurses rated the importance of ten autoinjector attributes on a scale of 1-7 (1 = not important at all; 7 = extremely important) and provided their autoinjector preferences based on specific attributes. Nurses also gave their opinion on which autoinjector their patients with RA would prefer.ResultsA total of 149 nurses participated in this survey (France, n = 30; Germany, n = 40; Italy, n = 30; Spain, n = 19; UK, n = 30). 'Easy to operate the self-injection' was ranked as the most important attribute (mean score of 6.8), followed by 'easy to grip' (6.6) and 'intuitive/self-explaining usage' (6.6). Nurses preferred the Benepali autoinjector, with attributes of 'easier to operate' and 'more intuitive to use' being strong differentiators compared with the Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector. Most nurses (86%) reported that their patients would prefer the Benepali autoinjector over the Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector. 'Easy to operate the self-injection' and 'button-free autoinjector' were key drivers when selecting an autoinjector.ConclusionBased on these survey results, nurses in Europe reported a preference for the Benepali autoinjector compared with the Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector for the majority of attributes assessed. In particular, attributes of 'easy to operate' and 'more intuitive/self-explaining to use' were highly rated for the Benepali autoinjector, which may allow easy handling of the autoinjector.FundingBiogen International GmBH.

Dataset Information

Focus on biosimilar etanercept - bioequivalence and interchangeability.

Publications

Focus on biosimilar etanercept - bioequivalence and interchangeability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets