Efficacy and Safety of Etanercept Biosimilars Compared With the Originator for Treatment of Juvenile Arthritis: A Prospective Observational Study

Outcomes after anti-tumour necrosis factor originator to biosimilar switching in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the UK: a national cohort study

BACKGROUND

For cost-saving purposes, children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) are being switched (for non-medical reasons) from biological originators to biosimilars. Here, we aimed to investigate those who switched from an anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) originator to a biosimilar, regarding drug survival and disease activity, compared with a matched cohort who continued the originator.

METHODS

This analysis included all patients in the UK JIA Biologics Register switching directly from an anti-TNF originator to a biosimilar of the same product. All patients were matched (age, sex, disease duration, calendar year of when patients started originator therapy, line of therapy, and International League of Associations for Rheumatology [ILAR] category) to patients continuing the originator. For those matched successfully, a Cox proportional hazard model assessed whether drug persistence differed between those who switched compared with those who continued the originator. Overall change in the 71-joint juvenile arthritis disease activity score and the proportion of patients with a clinically important worsening score (by ≥1·7 units) after 6 months was compared between cohorts. This analysis was designed to address a priority research area set by our patient partners.

FINDINGS

There were 224 children and young people with non-systemic JIA (139 [62%] were female, and 85 [38%] were male) identified as switching from a biological originator to a biosimilar of the same product from Jan 1, 2017, to July 7, 2023. 143 (64%) patients were originally on adalimumab, 56 (25%) on etanercept, and 25 (11%) on infliximab. Of these, 164 patients were matched successfully to those continuing the originator. There was no evidence that patients switching were more likely to stop treatment compared with those continuing the originator, with a hazard ratio of 1·46 (95% CI 0·93-2·30). Of the 51 patients in the biosimilar group who stopped treatment, 18 (35%) switched back to the originator (14 in the first year), 28 (55%) started a different biological drug, and five (10%) discontinued all treatment by the last follow-up. Of the 87 matched patients with available disease activity, there was no evidence that JADAS-71 worsened more after 6 months, with an odds ratio of 0·71 (95% CI 0·34-1·51; p=0·38).

INTERPRETATION

In this matched comparative effectiveness analysis, children and young people with JIA switched from originators to biosimilars. Disease activity was similar between patients switching compared with those continuing the originator. Three quarters of patients were still receiving their biosimilar after 1 year, with switching back to originator uncommon, at only 9% after 1 year, suggesting good tolerability of non-medical switching in this patient population. This information is reassuring to clinicians and patients regarding the effect of non-medical biological switching.

FUNDING

British Society for Rheumatology, Versus Arthritis, and National Institutes for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.

Management of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases after treatment failure with a first tumour necrosis factor inhibitor: A narrative review

The emergence of biologics with different modes of action (MoAs) and therapeutic targets has changed treatment patterns in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. While tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) are often utilized as the first biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, some patients may not respond adequately (primary failure), fail to sustain response over time (secondary failure), or experience intolerable adverse events. Whether these patients would benefit more from cycling to a different TNFi or switching to a biologic with a different MoA is still unclear. We discuss here treatment outcomes of TNFi cycling versus MoA switching after treatment failure with a first TNFi in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, focusing specifically on rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Treatment guidelines for these patients are ambiguous and, at times, contradictory in their recommendations. However, this is due to a lack of high-quality head-to-head data to definitively support cycling between TNFis after failure to a first-line TNFi over switching to a different MoA.

Real-life data on efficacy and safety of original Adalimumab and biosimilar Adalimumab (ABP 501) in pediatric rheumatic diseases

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the original product (OP) and biosimilar product (BP) of adalimumab in pediatric rheumatic diseases.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study group consisted of patients who had received original or biosimilar adalimumab (ABP 501) therapy for at least 3 months. The patients were divided into uveitis and arthritis groups based on the indication of adalimumab treatment. Assessment of disease activity was performed by Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and by standardization of uveitis nomenclature criteria in patients with uveitis.

RESULTS

The study included 140 patients, of which 87 were treated with OP and 53 with BP. In the arthritis group, 26 (63.4%) and 20 (57.1%) patients reached inactive disease according to JADAS-27 in the original and biosimilar adalimumab groups, respectively. In the uveitis group the mean number of exacerbations throughout the treatment period was 0.84 ± 1.07 in the OP group, and 0.58 ± 0.79 in the BP group. There were 71 treatment-emergent adverse events in the OP group and 38 in the BP group.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between the biosimilar and the original product in efficacy and safety.

Toward the integration of biosimilars into pediatric rheumatology: adalimumab ABP 501 experience of PeRA research group

OBJECTIVES

To review the real-life data, to provide an input to the literature concerning treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with adalimumab (ADL) biosimilar.

METHOD

This multi-centric retrospective study was conducted among children with JIA, followed up for at least 24-weeks from the initiation of ADL biosimilar (ABP 501) treatment. Adverse events and alterations in disease activity scores were figured out.

RESULTS

The median age of the group was 15.5 (5-18) years. JIA categories were oligoarticular (n =12), enthesitis-related (ERA) (n=24), psoriatic (PsA) (n=6), and polyarticular (n=4). Uveitis was detected at the initiation of the disease (n=3), during the disease course (n=5), or before the diagnosis (n=1). The first-line treatment preferences were ADL biosimilar (n=37) and etanercept (n=9). On the 6th month of ABP 501, 40 (86.9%) patients had achieved complete remission. Six patients (1 PsA, 1 polyarticular JIA, and 4 ERA) had ongoing active arthritis. Furthermore, all except one of the patients had remission of ophthalmologic findings. No life-threatening adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

ABP 501 has a gradual increase in prescription in pediatric rheumatology. Real-life data of the cohort announce that ADL biosimilar is a suitable and effective treatment option for patients with JIA in case of indication.