Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy after switching from reference infliximab to biosimilar SB2 compared with continuing reference infliximab and SB2 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results of a randomised, double-blind, phase III transition study

Josef S Smolen, Jung-Yoon Choe, Nenad Prodanovic, Jaroslaw Niebrzydowski, Ivan Staykov, Eva Dokoupilova, Asta Baranauskaite, Roman Yatsyshyn, Mevludin Mekic, Wieslawa Porawska, Hana Ciferska, Krystyna Jedrychowicz-Rosiak, Agnieszka Zielinska, Younju Lee, Young Hee Rho, Josef S Smolen, Jung-Yoon Choe, Nenad Prodanovic, Jaroslaw Niebrzydowski, Ivan Staykov, Eva Dokoupilova, Asta Baranauskaite, Roman Yatsyshyn, Mevludin Mekic, Wieslawa Porawska, Hana Ciferska, Krystyna Jedrychowicz-Rosiak, Agnieszka Zielinska, Younju Lee, Young Hee Rho

Abstract

Objectives: Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity results from the phase III study of SB2, a biosimilar of reference infliximab (INF), were previously reported through 54 weeks. This transition period compared results in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switched from INF to SB2 with those in patients who maintained treatment with INF or SB2.

Methods: Patients with moderate to severe RA despite methotrexate treatment were randomised (1:1) to receive SB2 or INF at weeks 0, 2 and 6 and every 8 weeks thereafter until week 46. At week 54, patients previously receiving INF were rerandomised (1:1) to switch to SB2 (INF/SB2 (n=94)) or to continue on INF (INF/INF (n=101)) up to week 70. Patients previously receiving SB2 continued on SB2 (SB2/SB2 (n=201)) up to week 70. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity were assessed up to week 78.

Results: Efficacy was sustained and comparable across treatment groups. American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 responses between weeks 54 and 78 ranged from 63.5% to 72.3% with INF/SB2, 66.3%%-69.4% with INF/INF and 65.6%-68.3% with SB2/SB2. Treatment-emergent adverse events during this time occurred in 36.2%, 35.6% and 40.3%, respectively, and infusion-related reactions in 3.2%, 2.0% and 3.5%. Among patients who were negative for antidrug antibodies (ADA) up to week 54, newly developed ADAs were reported in 14.6%, 14.9% and 14.1% of the INF/SB2, INF/INF and SB2/SB2 groups, respectively.

Conclusions: The efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles remained comparable among the INF/SB2, INF/INF and SB2/SB2 groups up to week 78, with no treatment-emergent issues or clinically relevant immunogenicity after switching from INF to SB2.

Trial registration number: NCT01936181; EudraCT number: 2012-005733-37.

Keywords: anti-tnf; dmards (biologic); rheumatoid arthritis; tnf-alpha; treatment.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: JSS reports receiving grant/research support from AbbVie, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and UCB; consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro-Pharma, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medimmune, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi and UCB. J-YC reports receiving grant/research support and consultant fees from Samsung Bioepis. AB reports receiving grant/research support from AbbVie and Samsung Bioepis. NP, JN, IS, ED, RY, MM, WP, HC, KJ-R and AZ report receiving grant/research support from Samsung Bioepis. YL and YHR are employees of Samsung Bioepis and own stocks in Samsung Biologics.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Patient disposition of the study population. *Percentages of patients completed and discontinued are based on the number of patients rerandomised at week 54. Note: eight patients’ data from sites in eastern Ukraine were excluded from the analysis because of regional issues (n=4 in SB2, n=4 in INF). INF, reference infliximab.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean disease activity score based on a 28-joint count (DAS28 (ESR)) (A), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score (B) and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) score (C) up to week 78. ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; INF, reference infliximab.
Figure 3
Figure 3
American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses up to week 78. The responses before week 54 are retrospective analyses based on the extended full analysis set. For the actual percentages, please refer to online supplementary appendix table S2. INF, reference infliximab.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Incidence of immunogenicity during the transition period. *Patients having at least one positive ADA result during the transition-extension period among all patients regardless of prior ADA result up to week 54 (n=94 in INF/SB2, n=101 in INF/INF, n=201 in SB2/SB2). †Patients having at least one positive ADA result during the transition period among patients with overall negative ADA results up to week 54 (n=41 in INF/SB2, n=47 in INF/INF, n=78 in SB2/SB2). NAb was measured among ADA positive subjects (n=6, 7 and 11). ADA, antidrug antibody; NAb, neutralising antibody; INF, reference infliximab.

References

    1. Dörner T, Strand V, Cornes P, et al. . The changing landscape of biosimilars in rheumatology. Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75:974–82. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209166
    1. Nam JL, Ramiro S, Gaujoux-Viala C, et al. . Efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the 2013 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:516–28. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204577
    1. Putrik P, Ramiro S, Kvien TK, et al. . Variations in criteria regulating treatment with reimbursed biologic DMARDs across European countries. Are differences related to country’s wealth? Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:2010–21. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203819
    1. Putrik P, Ramiro S, Kvien TK, et al. . Inequities in access to biologic and synthetic DMARDs across 46 European countries. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:198–206. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202603
    1. Singh SC, Bagnato KM. The economic implications of biosimilars. Am J Manag Care 2015.
    1. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing monoclonal antibodies – non-clinical and clinical issues. (accessed 12 Apr 2017).
    1. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry Scientific considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity to a reference product. (accessed 12 Apr 2017).
    1. Choe JY, Prodanovic N, Niebrzydowski J, et al. . A randomised, double-blind, phase III study comparing SB2, an infliximab biosimilar, to the infliximab reference product Remicade in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:58–64. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207764
    1. Emery P, Vencovský J, Sylwestrzak A, et al. . A phase III randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study comparing SB4 with etanercept reference product in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:51–7. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207588
    1. Yoo DH, Hrycaj P, Miranda P, et al. . A randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study to demonstrate equivalence in efficacy and safety of CT-P13 compared with innovator infliximab when coadministered with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: the PLANETRA study. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:1613–20. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-203090
    1. Kay J. Editorial: biosimilars: new or deja vu? Arthritis Rheumatol 2016;68:1049–52.
    1. Janssen Biologics B.V. Summary of product characteristics: Remicade; (accessed 28 Feb 2017).
    1. Shin D, Kim Y, Kim YS, et al. . A randomized, phase I pharmacokinetic study comparing SB2 and Infliximab reference product (Remicade(®)) in healthy subjects. BioDrugs 2015;29:381–8. 10.1007/s40259-015-0150-5
    1. Hong J, Lee Y, Lee C, et al. . Physicochemical and biological characterization of SB2, a biosimilar of Remicade® (infliximab). MAbs 2017;9:365–83. 10.1080/19420862.2016.1264550
    1. European Medicines Agency. Summary of opinion (initial authorisation). Flixabi. Infliximab. (accessed 12 Apr 2017).
    1. Samsung Bioepis. Samsung Bioepis' Biologics License Application for SB2 infliximabb: Newsroom; (accessed 12 Apr 2017).
    1. Smolen JS, Choe JY, Prodanovic N, et al. . Comparing biosimilar SB2 with reference infliximab after 54 weeks of a double-blind trial: clinical, structural and safety results. Rheumatology 2017;56:1771-1779 10.1093/rheumatology/kex254
    1. Anderson J, Caplan L, Yazdany J, et al. . Rheumatoid arthritis disease activity measures: american college of rheumatology recommendations for use in clinical practice. Arthritis Care Res 2012;64:640–7. 10.1002/acr.21649
    1. Jørgensen KK, Olsen IC, Goll GL, et al. . Switching from originator infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 compared with maintained treatment with originator infliximab (NOR-SWITCH): a 52-week, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2017;389:2304–16. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30068-5
    1. Glintborg B, Sørensen IJ, Loft AG, et al. . A nationwide non-medical switch from originator infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 in 802 patients with inflammatory arthritis: 1-year clinical outcomes from the DANBIO registry. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:1426–31. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210742
    1. Yoo DH, Prodanovic N, Jaworski J, et al. . Efficacy and safety of CT-P13 (biosimilar infliximab) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: comparison between switching from reference infliximab to CT-P13 and continuing CT-P13 in the PLANETRA extension study. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:355–63. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-208786
    1. Emery P, Vencovský J, Sylwestrzak A, et al. . Long-term efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis continuing on SB4 or switching from reference etanercept to SB4. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:1986–91. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-211591
    1. Griffiths CEM, Thaçi D, Gerdes S, et al. . The EGALITY study: a confirmatory, randomized, double-blind study comparing the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of GP2015, a proposed etanercept biosimilar, vs. the originator product in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis. Br J Dermatol 2017;176:928–38. 10.1111/bjd.15152
    1. Weissenfeld J, Stock S, Lüngen M, et al. . The nocebo effect: a reason for patients' non-adherence to generic substitution? Pharmazie 2010;65:451–6.

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi