Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of SDZ ETN, an Etanercept Biosimilar, in Patients with Rheumatic Diseases: Final Results from Multi-Country COMPACT Study.

INTRODUCTION: COMPACT, a non-interventional study, evaluated the persistence, effectiveness, safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial-spondyloarthritis (axSpA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with SDZ ETN (etanercept [ETN] biosimilar) in Europe and Canada. METHODS: Patients (aged ≥ 18 years) who have been treated with SDZ ETN were categorised on the basis of prior treatment status (groups A-D): patients in clinical remission or with low disease activity under treatment with reference ETN or biosimilar ETN and switched to SDZ ETN; patients who received non-ETN targeted therapies and switched to SDZ ETN; biologic-naïve patients who started SDZ ETN after conventional therapy failure; or disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve patients with RA considered suitable for treatment initiation with a biologic and started on treatment with SDZ ETN. The primary endpoint was drug persistence, defined as time from study enrolment until discontinuation of SDZ ETN treatment. RESULTS: Of the 1466 patients recruited, 844 (57.6%) had RA, 334 (22.8%) had axSpA and 288 (19.6%) had PsA. Patients had an ongoing SDZ ETN treatment at the time of enrolment for an observed average of 138 days (range 1-841); 22.7% of patients discontinued SDZ ETN through 12 months of study observation. Overall, all the patients receiving SDZ ETN showed good treatment persistence at 12 months with discontinuation rates of 15.2%, 25.7% and 27.8% in groups A, B and C, respectively. Across all patient groups, no major differences were observed in the disease activity and PRO scores between baseline and month 12. Injection-site reactions were low across the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: These results support the effectiveness and safety of SDZ ETN treatment in patients with RA, axSpA or PsA in real-life conditions. The treatment persistence rates observed were consistent with previously published reports of patients treated with reference or other biosimilar ETN. No new safety signals were identified.

Switching from One Biosimilar to Another Biosimilar of the Same Reference Biologic: A Systematic Review of Studies.

BACKGROUND: Multiple switches (transitions) between biosimilars of the same reference biologic are now a reality, and they are expected to become more common in the future as more biosimilars enter the market. Switching between two biosimilars of the same reference biologic is generally driven by affordability, formulary requirements, or the relocation/travel of the patient. Evidence of whether switching between biosimilars of the same reference biologic provides similar safety and efficacy profiles is reviewed here. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken using electronic databases (to December 2021): Biosis, Embase, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews/Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Ovid. Publications were evaluated for effectiveness and/or safety data linked to switching from one biosimilar to another. RESULTS: The systematic search yielded 982 citations. After eliminating duplicates, 626 citations remained for the initial title/abstract screening phase. Following the initial screening, 240 records were chosen; more thorough examination yielded 35 citations. After comprehensive screening and expert advice, 23 studies were selected, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder have been published as abstracts. Overall, 3657 patients were included in these studies. All studies were observational in nature; no randomized clinical trials were identified. The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints. Across the studies, data are provided on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns. The majority of studies examined switches between biosimilar infliximabs, although switches between biosimilar adalimumabs, etanercepts, and rituximabs were also identified. Two use-pattern studies and one case report were also detected and are discussed. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this systematic review, available data suggests that biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching is a safe and effective clinical practice, although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance. No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date.

Treatment with SDZ-ADL, an Adalimumab Biosimilar, in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriasis, or Psoriatic Arthritis: Results of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures from Two Phase III Studies (ADMYRA and ADACCESS).

BACKGROUND: SDZ-ADL (GP2017; Sandoz GmbH, Austria) is an EMA-/FDA-approved adalimumab biosimilar. The effect of SDZ-ADL on quality of life (QoL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) was assessed as part of two phase III studies, one in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis (PsO; ADACCESS) and the other in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA; ADMYRA). Additionally, ADACCESS included patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: ADACCESS included 465 patients with PsO, whereas ADMYRA included 353 patients with RA. Both studies evaluated and confirmed equivalent efficacy, similar safety, and immunogenicity of SDZ-ADL with reference adalimumab (ref-ADL). A third of patients underwent multiple (four) treatment switches between study treatments starting at Week 17 (ADACCESS); all patients switched from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL at Week 24 (ADMYRA). Assessed PROs included Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and EuroQol five-dimension health status questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) in ADACCESS, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue Scale (FACIT-Fatigue) score in ADMYRA, and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) in both studies. RESULTS: In both studies, baseline scores for all PRO assessments were comparable between the two treatment groups. In ADACCESS, mean DLQI decreased from baseline in both groups, and the mean (standard deviation [SD]) percent reductions from baseline in DLQI were comparable between groups at Week 17 (SDZ-ADL, - 64.5 [80.3]; ref-ADL, - 70.6 [41.7]), which were sustained after the switch at Week 51 ('continued SDZ-ADL,' - 79.7 [36.2]; 'continued ref-ADL,' - 80.8 [44.6]; 'switched to SDZ-ADL,' - 70.7 [32.2]; 'switched to ref-ADL,' - 69.3 [49.6]). In ADACCESS, the proportion of patients with an EQ-5D-5L score of 1 (no problems) increased from baseline for all five dimensions in all treatment groups and was comparable between treatment groups at Week 51. In ADACCESS, in patients with PsA at baseline, mean (SD) HAQ-DI scores decreased from baseline in both treatment groups, and scores were comparable between groups at Week 17 (SDZ-ADL, 0.5 [0.6]; ref-ADL, 0.5 [0.6]) and after switching at Week 51 ('continued SDZ-ADL,' 0.4 [0.5]; 'continued ref-ADL,' 0.4 [0.6]; 'switched to SDZ-ADL,' 0.5 [0.8]; 'switched to ref-ADL,' 0.7 [0.6]). In ADMYRA, proportion of patients achieving HAQ-DI in the normal range (≤ 0.5) was comparable between treatment groups at Week 24 (SDZ-ADL, 37.8%; ref-ADL, 36.3%) and after switching at Week 48 ('SDZ-ADL,' 41.6%; 'ref-ADL/switched to SDZ-ADL,' 40.0%). In ADMYRA, mean FACIT-Fatigue scores increased from baseline in both treatment groups. At Week 24, mean (SD) percent change from baseline in the FACIT-Fatigue scores was 75.4 (135.5) in SDZ-ADL and 73.0 (96.3) in ref-ADL groups; the scores were sustained after switching at Week 48. CONCLUSION: Treatment with SDZ-ADL and ref-ADL resulted in comparable improvements in PROs as well as QoL scores across the three diseases, PsO, PsA, and RA. Switching between SDZ-ADL and ref-ADL had no negative impact on PROs across the reported period. CLINICAL TRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02744755, NCT02016105.