BENEFIT: real-world effectiveness of SB4 after transition from reference etanercept in rheumatoid arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this non-interventional study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the etanercept biosimilar SB4 (BenepaliTM) following transition from reference etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: Data were collected from clinical records of adult patients with stable RA or axSpA, in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Key outcomes included the change from transition to 3 and 6 months in Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) for RA or Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) for axSpA. RESULTS: In total, 358 patients with RA and 199 patients with axSpA were enrolled. The mean individual change in disease score from transition was -0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.11, 0.08) at 3 months and 0.01 (95% CI -0.09, 0.11) at 6 months for DAS28, and -0.01 (95% CI -0.24, 0.21) at 3 months and -0.11 (95% CI -0.31, 0.10) at 6 months for BASDAI. In the RA cohort, 19 (5.3%) and 5 patients (1.4%) reported adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs), respectively. In the axSpA cohort, 12 (6.0%) and 2 patients (1.0%) reported adverse events and SAEs, respectively. One SAE of pneumonia (RA cohort) was considered to be related to SB4 administration. At 6 months post-transition, the SB4 retention rate was 90.8% (95% CI 87.2%, 93.4%) in the RA cohort and 92.4% (95% CI 87.5%, 95.4%) in the axSpA cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Transition from reference etanercept to SB4 is effective and safe in patients with stable RA and axSpA.

The road from development to approval: evaluating the body of evidence to confirm biosimilarity.

Biosimilars are products that contain a similar version of the active substance of an already authorized original biologic medicinal product (reference medicinal product). Their development requires special consideration, as similarity to the reference agent needs to be established through a comprehensive comparability exercise. Given the complex nature of these agents, minor structural differences may emerge, but the process of biosimilarity determination is designed to ascertain that the nature and impact of these differences are not clinically significant. Determination of biosimilarity should follow quality-by-design principles, which provide a deep understanding of the product development process, guided by pre-defined objectives, process control and risk management. Compared with novel biologic development, biosimilar development places greater emphasis on establishing preclinical quality characteristics. Determination of comparability of quality characteristics includes assessment of physicochemical properties, biological activity, immunochemical properties, purity, impurity and quantity, with appropriate in vivo pharmacology studies being conducted thereafter. Head-to-head comparisons are then conducted to determine pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics, and efficacy, safety and tolerability in phase I and phase III clinical studies. Post-approval risk management requirements include implementation of pharmacovigilance systems and risk management through, for example, the conduct of pharmacoepidemiological studies. There are several biosimilars used in the field of rheumatology that are available in the European Union, or in development, that offer the potential to increase affordability/accessibility of biological treatment. The role of these agents in rheumatology will be determined by the confidence placed in them by rheumatologists. These prescribers should expect high-quality data evaluated by an extensive assessment process.

Biosimilarity Versus Manufacturing Change: Two Distinct Concepts.

As products of living cells, biologics are far more complicated than small molecular-weight drugs not only with respect to size and structural complexity but also their sensitivity to manufacturing processes and post-translational changes. Most of the information on the manufacturing process of biotherapeutics is proprietary and hence not fully accessible to the public. This information gap represents a key challenge for biosimilar developers and plays a key role in explaining the differences in regulatory pathways required to demonstrate biosimilarity versus those required to ensure that a change in manufacturing process did not have implications on safety and efficacy. Manufacturing process changes are frequently needed for a variety of reasons including response to regulatory requirements, up scaling production, change in facility, change in raw materials, improving control of quality (consistency) or optimising production efficiency. The scope of the change is usually a key indicator of the scale of analysis required to evaluate the quality. In most cases, where the scope of the process change is limited, only quality and analytical studies should be sufficient while comparative clinical studies can be required in case of major changes (e.g., cell line changes). Biosimilarity exercises have been addressed differently by regulators on the understanding that biosimilar developers start with fundamental differences being a new cell line and also a knowledge gap of the innovator's processes, including culture media, purification processes, and potentially different formulations, and are thus required to ensure that differences from innovators do not result in differences in efficacy and safety.