Dataset Information

Review of Biosimilar Trials and Data on Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE OF REVIEW:Etanercept was the first tumour necrosis factor inhibitor approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the United States (US) and Europe. The recent patent expiration of the etanercept originator ENBREL in Europe has facilitated the development of biosimilar products, creating the prospect of reduced treatment costs. In this article, we review the original trials for etanercept in RA to facilitate critical appraisal of biosimilar trial data. RECENT FINDINGS:Two etanercept biosimilars are currently approved in Europe and/or the US, SB4 (Benepali) and GP2015 (Erelzi), having met the pre-specified equivalence criteria for biosimilarity. Trial data demonstrates subtle differences in clinical outcomes and adverse events between the biosimilars and the reference product (RP). The development of etanercept biosimilars may reduce the financial burden of treating RA, but real-world data regarding efficacy and safety in comparison to the RP will be vital to assess for meaningful differences.

SUBMITTER: Chadwick L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6244902 | biostudies-other | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Review of Biosimilar Trials and Data on Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Chadwick Laura L Zhao Sizheng S Mysler Eduardo E Moots Robert J RJ

Current rheumatology reports 20181109 12

<h4>Purpose of review</h4>Etanercept was the first tumour necrosis factor inhibitor approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the United States (US) and Europe. The recent patent expiration of the etanercept originator ENBREL in Europe has facilitated the development of biosimilar products, creating the prospect of reduced treatment costs. In this article, we review the original trials for etanercept in RA to facilitate critical appraisal of biosimilar trial data.<h4>Recent findings</h4>Two ...[more]

PMID: 30411183

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although several randomized clinical trials have confirmed that there is no difference in efficacy between etanercept and its biosimilar versions in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), limited real-world evidence is available. We conducted a cohort study to compare the effectiveness and treatment persistence between the reference etanercept (ETN) and the biosimilar GP2015 in RA patients in a real-life setting. Adults with a diagnosis of RA who initiated treatment with ETN or GP2015, between January 2007 and December 2019, were included. The follow-up period was 52 weeks. The primary outcome was the mean of change in the DAS28-CRP values and the adjusted mean difference from baseline to 52 weeks between ETN and GP2015. Other effectiveness endpoints assessed were the rate of patients who achieved remission or low disease activity (LDA) at week 52, who showed a reduction of DAS28-CRP value greater than or equal to 1.2 from baseline to week 52 and rate of good responder patients (those meeting both effectiveness measures) at week 52. Treatment effectiveness over time (baseline, 26 and 52 weeks) was compared between the ETN and GP2015 groups using mixed effects models. Treatment persistence (probability of maintaining the same treatment over time) was also evaluated and shown using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. A total of 115 RA patients were included (ETN, n = 90; GP2015, n = 25). No differences were observed in the primary outcome: DAS28-CRP score decreased from baseline to week 52 [5.1 to 2.7 (mean of change -2.37) in ETN group and 5.0 to 2.2 (mean of change -2.84) in GP2015 group, p-value = 0.372] and the adjusted mean difference was -0.37 (-1.03 to 0.29). No differences were also observed in the other effectiveness endpoints assessed among patients treated with ETN or GP2015: rate of patients who achieved remission (54.1% vs. 66.7%, p-value = 0.303) and LDA (71.6% vs. 80.9%, p-value = 0.391) at week 52, reduction of DAS28-CRP value greater than or equal to 1.2 from baseline to week 52 (75.6% vs. 80.9%, p-value = 0.613) and rate of good responder patients (58.1% vs. 76.1%, p-value = 0.202). Drug survival was 82% and 80% for ETN and GP2015, respectively (log-rank p-value = 0.804). Etanercept and its biosimilar GP2015 show similar effectiveness and treatment persistence in RA patients in a real-life setting.

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.

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: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.

Dataset Information

Review of Biosimilar Trials and Data on Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Publications

Review of Biosimilar Trials and Data on Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets