A phase 3 study comparing Samsung Bioepis’ etanercept biosimilar, SB4, to its reference found that SB4 had comparable efficacy—including radiographic progression—to week 52 of treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
A phase 3 study comparing Samsung Bioepis’ etanercept biosimilar, SB4, to its reference found that SB4 had comparable efficacy—including radiographic progression—to week 52 of treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
SB4 has been approved by regulatory authorities in the Republic of Korea, the European Union, Australia, and Canada. Pharmacokinetic equivalence between the biosimilar and its reference was demonstrated in an earlier phase 1 study, and equivalent efficacy and comparable safety of the 2 drugs had been demonstrated up to 24 weeks in the phase 3 study. A paper published in Rheumatology provided data up to week 52.
Conducted at 73 centers across 10 countries in Europe, Latin America, and Asia, the study monitored 596 patients with RA who had been diagnosed for 6 months to 15 years and who had taken methotrexate for 6 months or more at the time of screening. Patients were randomized to receive either SB4 (n = 299) or reference etanercept (n = 297) for up to 52 weeks by self-administered injection, with background methotrexate and folic acid.
The primary study endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a response of ACR20 (or the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts; patient assessments of pain, global disease activity, and physical function; physician global assessment of disease activity; and acute phase reactant). Efficacy endpoints up to week 52 included ACR20 as well as ACR50 and ACR70 (50% and 70% improvement in the same areas as ACR20); the numeric index of the ACR response, and change in Disease Activity Score 28 scale score (DAS28).
Radiographs of the hands and feet were taken at baseline and week 52, and the images were evaluated by 2 independent readers for changes in the modified total Sharp score (mTSS). Safety assessments included incidents of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and anti-drug antibodies (ADAs).
The researchers found that ACR responses of SB4 and reference etanercept were comparable over the time course of the study:
Among patients who had ACR responses at week 24, a similar proportion of patients in both treatment arms maintained the level of response at week 52. Among patients who did not have an ACR response at week 24, a similar proportion in both arms achieved ACR responses at week 52.
DAS28 improved by 2.91 from the baseline for the SB4 group and by 2.80 for the reference etanercept group. While radiographic progression from baseline up to week 52 was comparable between the groups, the average change in mTSS from the baseline value was .045 and 0.74 in the SB4 and reference etanercept groups, respectively (95% confidence interval, —0.80 to 0.26).
In terms of safety, 175 patients (58.5%) in the SB4 group and 179 (60.3%) in the reference etanercept group reported at least 1 treatment emergent AE during the study up to week 52: upper respiratory tract infections and increased expression of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) were the most common AEs in the SB4 arm; injection site erythema and increases in ALT were the most commonly reported AEs in the etanercept group. Most AEs were mild to moderate in severity.
Incidence of ADAs was significantly lower in the SB4 arm up to week 52. After week 24, only 1 patient in the SB4 arm developed ADAs. The overall incidence of ADAs to week 52 was 1% for the SB4 arm and 13.2% for the reference etanercept group. The difference in immunogenicity profiles between the 2 treatments did not affect clinical efficacy or safety, the authors note.
The authors conclude that SB4 not only improves clinical and functional outcomes, but also reduces the rate of radiographic progression to an extent that is comparable to that of reference etanercept.
Julie Reed: Why 2024 Is Important for Biosimilars
April 17th 2024Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, showcases how the biosimilar industry is expected to develop throughout 2024, including major policy changes and hope for continued improvement in market share for adalimumab biosimilars.
Decoding the Patent Puzzle: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Biosimilars
March 17th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Ha Kung Wong, JD, an intellectual patent attorney and partner at Venable LLP, details the confusing landscape that is the US patent system and how it can be improved to help companies overcome barriers to biosimilar competition.
Alvotech’s Stelara Biosimilar, Selarsdi, Receives FDA Approval
April 16th 2024Alvotech’s Selarsdi (ustekinumab-aekn), a biosimilar referencing Stelara (ustekinumab), gained FDA approval, making it the second ustekinumab biosimilar and second for the company to be given the green light for the American market.
Biosimilars Rheumatology Roundup for February 2024—Podcast Edition
March 3rd 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® revisited all the major rheumatology biosimilar news from February 2024, including the FDA approval of the 10th adalimumab biosimilar, the promise for an oral delivery system for ustekinumab, and the impact of adalimumab products on COVID-19 antibodies.
Global Biosimilar Market Projected to Reach $1.3 Trillion by 2032
April 11th 2024The global biosimilar market is projected to surge from $25.1 billion in 2022 to approximately $1.3 trillion by 2032, with a compound annual growth rate of 17.6%, driven mainly by the increasing prevalence of cancer and the cost-effectiveness of biosimilars, as outlined in a report by Towards Healthcare.
Biosimilars Council: PBM Rebate Schemes Cost Americans, Payers $6 Billion
April 10th 2024A report from the Biosimilars Council evaluating IQVIA data found that rebate schemes orchestrated by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are costing US patients and payers billions of dollars by suppressing biosimilar adoption.