Difference between SB4 and reference etanercept in the hepatobiliary disorders not considered to be caused by SB4: response to letter by Scheinberg and Azevedo: Table 1

Safety of biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis as used in clinical practice: results from the ARTIS programme

OBJECTIVE

Longitudinal clinical registry-infrastructures such as Anti-Rheumatic Therapies in Sweden (ARTIS) allow simultaneous comparison of the safety of individual immunomodulatory drugs used in clinical practice, with consistent definitions of treatment cohorts, follow-up and outcomes. Our objective was to assess and compare incidence rates of key safety outcomes for individual targeted synthetic or biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/ts DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), updating previous reports and including newer treatments including Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKi).

METHODS

Nationwide register-based cohort study including all patients with RA in Sweden registered as starting any b/tsDMARD 1 January 2010 through 31 December 2020, followed until 30 June 2021 (N=20 117). The incidence rates of selected outcomes, identified through national healthcare registers, were compared between individual b/tsDMARDs, adjusted for confounding by demographics, RA disease characteristics and comorbidity.

RESULTS

There were marked differences in treatment discontinuations due to adverse events (rates per 1000 person-years ranged from 18 on rituximab to 57 on tofacitinib), but few significant differences were observed for the serious adverse events under study. Neither cardiovascular events nor general serious infections were more frequent on baricitinib or tofacitinib versus bDMARDs, but JAKi were associated with higher rates of hospital-treated herpes zoster (HR vs etanercept, 3.82 (95% CI 2.05 to 7.09) and 4.00 (1.59 to 10.06)). Low number of events limited some comparisons, in particular for sarilumab and tofacitinib.

CONCLUSION

Data from ARTIS supports that the b/tsDMARDs currently used to treat RA have acceptable and largely similar safety profiles, but differences exist in particular concerning tolerability and specific infection risks.

Real-world observational study of biosimilars in inflammatory arthritis treatment: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

The use of biological agents in patients with rheumatic diseases has achieved the therapeutic target, i.e., remission or low disease activity. The share of biological agents has been growing with the approval of biosimilars, which have been recognized for their equivalent efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity to the original as well as their reduced economic burden.

AREA COVERED

Biosimilars are being examined for their bioequivalence to reference products in randomized-controlled trials; however, the use of biosimilars in actual clinical practice is complicated owing to issues with switching and comorbidities. Therefore, this review describes real-world data in the rapidly evolving field of biosimilars in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthropathy, including ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis.

EXPERT OPINION

According to published data, the use of biosimilars for inflammatory arthritis led to no significant inferiority in treatment outcomes and resulted in considerable cost savings in the real-world. Currently, beyond the use of biosimilars, issues with the interchangeability of biosimilars, including immunogenicity, should be addressed. Strategies to overcome these concerns will improve treatment efficacy and safety in patients with inflammatory arthritis.

To switch or not to switch: results of a nationwide guideline of mandatory switching from originator to biosimilar etanercept. One-year treatment outcomes in 2061 patients with inflammatory arthritis from the DANBIO registry

OBJECTIVES

Real-world evidence on effectiveness of switching to biosimila r etanercept is scarce. In Denmark, a nationwide guideline of mandatory switch from 50 mg originator (ETA) to biosimilar (SB4) etanercept was issued for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) in 2016. Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes were studied in ETA-treated patients, who switched to SB4 (switchers) or maintained ETA (non-switchers). Retention rates were compared with that of a historic cohort of ETA-treated patients. Switchers who resumed ETA treatment (back-switchers) were characterised.

METHODS

Observational cohort study based on the DANBIO registry. Treatment retention was explored by Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression (crude, adjusted).

RESULTS

1621 (79%) of 2061 ETA-treated patients switched to SB4. Disease activity was unchanged 3 months' preswitch/postswitch. Non-switchers often received 25 mg ETA (ETA 25 mg pens/syringes and powder solution were still available). One-year adjusted retention rates were: non-switchers: 77% (95% CI: 72% to 82%)/switchers: 83% (79% to 87%)/historic cohort: 90% (88% to 92%). Patients not in remission had lower retention rates than patients in remission, both in switchers (crude HR 1.7 (1.3 to 2.2)) and non-switchers (2.4 (1.7 to 3.6)). During follow-up, 120 patients (7% of switchers) back-switched to ETA. Back-switchers' clinical characteristics were similar to switchers, and reasons for SB4 withdrawal were mainly subjective.

CONCLUSION

Seventy-nine per cent of patients switched from ETA to SB4. After 1 year, adjusted treatment retention rates were lower in switchers versus the historic ETA cohort, but higher than in non-switchers. Withdrawal was more common in patients not in remission. The results suggest that switch outcomes in routine care are affected by patient-related factors and non-specific drug effects.

Etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Etanercept was the first specific anticytokine therapy approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Its clinical efficacy and safety has been demonstrated by several clinical trials in early as well as established disease. Etanercept, along with other TNF inhibitors, have revolutionized management of RA and dramatically improved disease activity, function, quality of life and mortality for these patients. It is structurally distinct from other TNF inhibitors and thus has desirable profiles for immunogenicity, drug survival and infection rate. With the increasing number of etanercept biosimilars, there will likely be a resurgence of their prescription. This article reviews the pharmacology, efficacy and safety of the etanercept reference product, and its biosimilars, in the context of RA treatment.

Switching Between Reference Biologics and Biosimilars for the Treatment of Rheumatology, Gastroenterology, and Dermatology Inflammatory Conditions: Considerations for the Clinician

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Biosimilars of the reference biologic therapeutics infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, and rituximab are entering the market. Clinical and real-world data on the effects of reference → biosimilar switching are limited. This review was carried out to assess the current body of switching data.

RECENT FINDINGS

Fifty-three switching studies were identified. Infliximab publications covered CT-P13 (25 studies), SB2 (1), infliximab NK (1), and unspecified infliximab biosimilars (2). Etanercept publications covered SB4 (2) and GP2015 (2). Adalimumab publications covered ABP 501 (2) and SB5 (1). Rituximab publications covered CT-P10 (1). Efficacy and safety data generally showed no differences between patients who switched treatments versus those who did not. No differences were seen pre- and post-switch. Immunogenicity data were presented in 19/37 (51%) studies. Additional data from switching studies of these therapies are still required, as is continuing pharma-covigilance. Switching should remain a case-by-case clinical decision made by the physician and patient on an individual basis supported by scientific evidence.

The safety of emerging biosimilar drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), often administered in combination with methotrexate, target specific inflammatory mediators and have transformed the treatment of rheumatic diseases, especially rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but also the spondyloarthritides. However, the high cost of these drugs in many countries restricts patient access. As many bDMARDs have reached or are near to patent expiration, numerous biosimilar drugs are in development and some have already been approved. Biosimilars are generally priced lower than their reference products (RPs), or bio-originators, and as prices come down it is hoped that patient access to these drugs will increase, making the safety of these drugs an area of major interest. Areas covered: This article reviews publicly available safety data on biosimilars in RA. Expert opinion: Most available data for biosimilars in RA relate to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and rituximab (an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody). As biosimilar use around the world increases, evidence supporting the clinical safety of the biosimilars compared with their RPs also grows. To date, no new safety concerns have been raised in studies with TNFi or rituximab biosimilars for the treatment of RA; safety profiles have been consistent with those of their RPs. However, careful post-marketing pharmacovigilance remains necessary.