Observational study of inflammatory arthritis treatment by etanercept originator switched to an etanercept biosimilar

Comparative effectiveness of etanercept originator and biosimilar for treating rheumatoid arthritis: implications for cost-savings

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of the etanercept (ETN) originator (Enbrel) and ETN biosimilar SB4 (Brenzys) as first-line treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), while also exploring the potential cost-savings associated with this approach in Australia.

METHODS

Clinical data were obtained from the Optimising Patient outcomes in rheumatoLogy Australian real-world data set. Adult patients with RA who had initiated treatment with the ETN originator or biosimilar as their first-recorded biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug between 1 April 2017 and 31 December 2020 were included. Treatment persistence was analysed using survival analysis. Cost-savings were estimated based on data reported by the Australian National Prescribing Service MedicineWise.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching followed by inverse probability of treatment weighting selected patients taking originator (n = 209) or biosimilar (n = 141) with similar baseline characteristics and eliminated small differences in baseline disease activity. The median time for 50% of the patients to stop treatment was 19.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.7-36.4 months) for the originator and 22.4 months (95% CI, 15.0-33.1 months) for the biosimilar (P = 0.95). As a result of pricing policies established by the Australian Government, introduction of the ETN biosimilar would have resulted in a cost-savings of over AU$9.5 million for 1 year of treatment for the patients reported in this study.

CONCLUSION

Treatment persistence using either ETN originator or biosimilar was similar. The cost of all brands of ETN markedly reduced upon listing of the ETN biosimilar, resulting in significant savings for the Australian Government.

Investigation of treatment continuity, usefulness, and nocebo effect in switching from the original etanercept to its biosimilar in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A JET observational study in Japanese clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

To assess the usefulness and onset of nocebo effects after switching from the original etanercept (ETN) to a biosimilar (BS) in routine clinical practice at rheumatology clinics in Japan (13 sites).

METHODS

A total of 165 patients (87.0% women, age = 57.88 ± 15.07 years, and disease duration = 10.32 ± 7.71 years), whose low disease activity was maintained with the original ETN for ≥12 weeks, and who agreed to switch treatment to its BS, were included. The end-points were disease activity score 28 (DAS28)-C-reactive protein and DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed between the changes in DAS28-C-reactive protein and DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate >12 weeks before switching and >12 weeks after switching (P = 0.132 and 0.334, respectively). The treatment continuation rate during the 52 weeks after switching to BS was 97.3%. During this period, BS was discontinued in only four patients, and no nocebo effects were suspected in these four patients.

CONCLUSION

Switching from ETN to BS was effective even in routine clinical practice at rheumatology clinics in Japan, and no nocebo effects were observed. Sufficient explanations to patients by rheumatologists and the additional payment for drug costs between patients at hospital visits effectively improved the continuation rate without any nocebo effect.

Rapid monitoring of health services use following a policy to switch patients from originator to biosimilar etanercept—a cohort study in British Columbia

Background

Drug coverage policies that incentivize switching patients from originator to biosimilar products may result in significant health care savings. Our study aimed to detect early impacts on health services utilization following a mandated switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept in British Columbia (BC), Canada.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, population-based cohort study using linked administrative health data from BC (2010–2020). The policy cohort consisted of patients with inflammatory arthritis who used originator etanercept in 2019, prior to BC’s Biosimilars Initiative switching policy. Three historical cohorts included patients with inflammatory arthritis who used originator etanercept in the years 2016, 2017, and 2018. We compared the daily cumulative incidences of drug refills and outpatient and inpatient services between the policy and historical cohorts. A likelihood ratio sustained (≥ 31 days) at 7.1 or higher compared with the null hypothesis was chosen a priori as a threshold for a potential impact of the policy.

Results

Each cohort contained between 1694 and 1963 patients. We detected several potential impacts: 1) a transient increase in etanercept refills between months three and eight (cumulative incidence difference of + 3.0%); 2) an anticipated increase in visits to physicians of any specialty between months three and eight (+ 2.6%); and 3) an anticipated increase in visits to a rheumatologist from the end of month three onwards (+ 12.8%). The policy had no impact on incidences of switching to a different biologic antirheumatic drug, visits to emergency departments, or admissions to hospitals.

Conclusions

Only transient and/or anticipated increases in drug refills and physician visits were observed during the study period. Additional research on clinical outcomes is recommended to strengthen the evidence that no long-term unintended negative health impacts are associated with BC’s Biosimilars Initiative [switching policy].

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41927-021-00235-x.

Patients Retransitioning from Biosimilar TNFα Inhibitor to the Corresponding Originator After Initial Transitioning to the Biosimilar: A Systematic Review

Background

Transitioning patients from an originator to a corresponding biosimilar has been extensively studied in both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Although transitioning is considered well-tolerated, with no negative impacts on efficacy and/or safety, 2.6–25.8% of patients restart treatment with the originator (retransitioning). Retransitioning to the originator can be considered an indication of biosimilar treatment failure or dissatisfaction with biosimilar treatment. Increasing our knowledge of patients who retransition might help to reduce the number of patients retransitioning.

Objective

Our objective was to estimate the cumulative incidence of patients who retransitioned from a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitor biosimilar to originator and to explore potential patient, disease, and treatment and implementation strategy factors associated with retransitioning.

Method

We conducted a systematic literature search in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials databases until March 2021. Studies on TNFα inhibitors, biosimilar transitioning, and retransitioning were included. Transitioning was defined as switching from an originator to a biosimilar, and retransitioning was defined as switching from an originator to a biosimilar and back to the originator. Characteristics of the studies were descriptively analyzed. Studies were weighted by the number of patients transitioning, and the primary outcome was the median cumulative incidence of retransitioning. For each of the factors related to patient, disease, and treatment and implementation strategy, studies were stratified according to the categories of that factor. The weighted medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) of the cumulative incidence of retransitioning in these studies were calculated and compared to explore whether a potential association existed between these factors and the cumulative incidence of retransitioning.

Results

Of 994 screened publications, 37 were included. The weighted median cumulative incidence of retransitioning was 7.6% (IQR 6.8–17.2). Studies that included only patients with inflammatory bowel disease (6.6 vs. 15.1–17.7% for other indications), included only patients with stable disease (7.0 vs. 13.7% for including all patients), and did not offer retransitioning at the introduction of the biosimilar (7.0 vs. 11.1% for studies that offered retransitioning) reported less retransitioning. In addition, the incidence of retransitioning was lower when extra laboratory monitoring was part of the implementation strategy (1.6 vs. 6.1%) and when gainsharing (patients’ healthcare directly benefits from financial savings from transitioning) (1.4 vs. 7.2% for studies without gainsharing) was applied.

Conclusions

In studies on transitioning patients from TNFα originator to biosimilar, 8% of patients retransitioned. Retransitioning appeared to be lower in studies that included only patients with stable disease and in studies that did not offer patients the option of retransitioning at the introduction of the biosimilar. In addition, retransitioning appeared to be lower in studies that implemented extra laboratory monitoring as part of the biosimilar implementation strategy. Clinicians should consider implementing these suggestions as they might reduce retransitioning rates and improve the introduction of biosimilars in clinical practice.

PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42021226381

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-021-00508-4.

The global landscape on interchangeability of biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars hold the potential to be an integral healthcare component that can significantly improve affordability and thereby accessibility of the otherwise expensive biotherapeutic products. Regulators, payors, and policymakers, each have a major role to play in successful adoption of biosimilars. One of the issues that has been a point of frequent discussion is that of interchangeability of biosimilars.

AREAS COVERED

This article aims to review the position that the major regulatory bodies have taken on interchangeability of biosimilars. Key issues that remain are also discussed. Adalimumab and etanercept have been chosen as real-world case studies to demonstrate interchangeability considerations. The need for gaining global harmonization on interchangeability is highlighted.

EXPERT OPINION

A global harmonization on the interchangeability can likely accelerate biosimilar adoption and result in better accessibility to biologics. Experience gained with real-world studies supports switching to biosimilars from originators however post-marketing pharmacovigilance should be in place to assess the risk-benefit profile of biosimilars in the long run.

The Challenges of Switching Therapies in an Evolving Multiple Biosimilars Landscape: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence

With the increasing availability of biosimilars, the practice of switching therapies for non-medical reasons between an originator biologic and an analogous biosimilar has become more common. The evidence to support this practice mostly comes from single-switch randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world (RW) evidence studies. However, as more biosimilars of the same originator enter the market, multiple switching events between originators and biosimilars is becoming a reality, despite limited evidence to support the efficacy and safety of such practice. Some countries have established guidelines, policies, or laws related to interchangeability and/or automatic substitution, whereas others have left these practices unregulated or controlled by other components of the healthcare system. Collectively, guidelines on single non-medical switching are often vague, with even less focus given to multiple non-medical switching, leaving this practice mostly unregulated. This narrative review will first discuss the current regulatory perspectives on non-medical switching and challenges associated with switching therapies, particularly with the availability of multiple biosimilars. We will then review the current evidence from RCTs and RW studies in the light of three different multiple-switch scenarios currently taking place in clinical practice: switching between an originator and a single biosimilar, switching between biosimilars of the same originator, and the clinical practice of switching back to the originator (i.e., switchbacks) after a failure of the initial non-medical switch to the analogous biosimilar.

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.