As biosimilar etanercept SB4, sold in many markets as Benepali, has entered the rheumatoid arthritis treatment space, researchers have recognized the need to investigate the retention rates and disease activity scores among patients receiving SB4 and its reference.
As biosimilar etanercept SB4, sold in many markets as Benepali, has entered the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment space, researchers have recognized the need to investigate the retention rates and disease activity scores among patients receiving SB4 and its reference product.
In a study1 presented at the American College of Rheumatology’s (ACRs) Annual Meeting in Chicago, Illinois, researchers will report on their study that compared treatment survival on etanercept biosimilar SB4 with treatment survival on the reference product using real-world data.
Data were collected from 2015-2018 from patients with RA who began treatment with SB4 or the reference product and who had at least 1 followup visit. Drug survival rates during the first 6 months were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves.
In total, 266 patients were treated with SB4 compared with 313 patients administered the reference product. Researchers found that those taking SB4 had a shorter disease duration (7.5 years versus 8.7 years, respectively) and were younger (58 years of age versus 59 years of age, respectively). Fewer patients taking SB4 than the reference had 3 or more comorbidities (39% versus 47%, respectively). In addition, the Kaplan-Meier curves showed higher retention rates over 6 months for SB4 than the reference.
The most frequent reasons for discontinuation of either treatment were adverse events (48% in the SB4 arm and 54% in the reference arm) and ineffectiveness (36% of the SB4 arm and 36% of the reference arm).
The study’s authors concluded that higher retention rates were identified for patients starting biosimilar SB4 compared with those beginning with the originator product.
A second study addressing SB42 that will be presented the meeting evaluated patients’ disease activity after switching from the originator etanercept to SB4. The study was conducted retrospectively across hospitals in Wales, United Kingdom.
To evaluate the disease activity before and after switching, investigators used the disease activity score in a count of 28 joints (DAS28) with C-reactive protein (CRP). The study found that after switching to the biosimilar, 39% of patients had an increase in their DAS28-CRP score.
Out of 102 patients who were in remission at the time of switching, 17% developed low, moderate, or high disease activity. At baseline, 18 patients had low or moderate disease activity, and 56% of this group moved to moderate or high disease activity.
Overall, the researchers noted that, while many patients enrolled in the study saw an increase in disease activity, it was deemed likely that these patients were not truly in disease remission at the time of switching. This finding suggests that the increase may be due to natural fluctuation or spontaneous disease flare in patients with unstable disease.
References
1. Baganz L, Meißner Y, Herzer P, et al. Treatment continuation on the etanercept original in comparison with a biosimilar. Presented at the American College of Rheumatology 2018 meeting, October 19-24, 2018; Chicago, Illinois. Abstract 2512. https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/treatment-continuation-on-the-etanercept-original-in-comparison-with-a-biosimilar/.
2. Rajamani K, Choy E. Change in disease activity after switching etanercept (originator) to biosimilar (Benepali) is associated with active disease at baseline. Presented at the American College of Rheumatology 2018 meeting, October 19-24, 2018; Chicago, Illinois. Abstract 2513. https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/change-in-disease-activity-after-switching-etanercept-originator-to-biosimilar-benepali-is-associated-with-active-disease-at-baseline/.
Addressing Patent Abuse, Reimbursement Models Key to Sustainable Biosimilar Market
April 25th 2025Sonia T. Oskouei, PharmD, emphasized strategies to streamline regulations and evolve to overcome barriers and expand the availability of cost-effective biosimilar treatments across more therapeutic areas.
How AI Can Help Address Cost-Related Nonadherence to Biologic, Biosimilar Treatment
March 9th 2025Despite saving billions, biosimilars still account for only a small share of the biologics market—what's standing in the way of broader adoption and how can artificial intelligence (AI) help change that?
Decade of Biosimilars Yields $36 Billion in Savings and Strengthens Supply Chain
April 24th 2025Dracey Poore, MS, director of biosimilars and emerging therapies at Cardinal Health, highlighted that biosimilars saved $36 billion over the last decade by improving patient access and the supply chain, but continued education and a robust pipeline are crucial for future growth.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
Latest Biosimilar Deals Signal Growth Across Immunology, Oncology Markets
April 14th 2025During Q1 2025, pharmaceutical companies accelerated biosimilar expansion through strategic acquisitions and partnerships in hopes of boosting patient access to lower-cost treatments in immunology and oncology.