A phase III randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study comparing SB4 with etanercept reference product in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy

Paul Emery, Jiří Vencovský, Anna Sylwestrzak, Piotr Leszczyński, Wieslawa Porawska, Asta Baranauskaite, Vira Tseluyko, Vyacheslav M Zhdan, Barbara Stasiuk, Roma Milasiene, Aaron Alejandro Barrera Rodriguez, Soo Yeon Cheong, Jeehoon Ghil, Paul Emery, Jiří Vencovský, Anna Sylwestrzak, Piotr Leszczyński, Wieslawa Porawska, Asta Baranauskaite, Vira Tseluyko, Vyacheslav M Zhdan, Barbara Stasiuk, Roma Milasiene, Aaron Alejandro Barrera Rodriguez, Soo Yeon Cheong, Jeehoon Ghil

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of SB4 (an etanercept biosimilar) with reference product etanercept (ETN) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate (MTX) therapy.

Methods: This is a phase III, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre study with a 24-week primary endpoint. Patients with moderate to severe RA despite MTX treatment were randomised to receive weekly dose of 50 mg of subcutaneous SB4 or ETN. The primary endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 24. Other efficacy endpoints as well as safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetic parameters were also measured.

Results: 596 patients were randomised to either SB4 (N=299) or ETN (N=297). The ACR20 response rate at week 24 in the per-protocol set was 78.1% for SB4 and 80.3% for ETN. The 95% CI of the adjusted treatment difference was -9.41% to 4.98%, which is completely contained within the predefined equivalence margin of -15% to 15%, indicating therapeutic equivalence between SB4 and ETN. Other efficacy endpoints and pharmacokinetic endpoints were comparable. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable (55.2% vs 58.2%), and the incidence of antidrug antibody development up to week 24 was lower in SB4 compared with ETN (0.7% vs 13.1%).

Conclusions: SB4 was shown to be equivalent with ETN in terms of efficacy at week 24. SB4 was well tolerated with a lower immunogenicity profile. The safety profile of SB4 was comparable with that of ETN.

Trial registration numbers: NCT01895309, EudraCT 2012-005026-30.

Keywords: Anti-TNF; DMARDs (biologic); Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Conflict of interest statement

All authors received funding for clinical research from Samsung Bioepis: PE received consulting fees; JV, AS, PL, WP, AB, VT, VMZ, BS, RM, and AABR received research grants; SYC and JG are full-time employee of Samsung Bioepis. In addition, PE reports receiving grant/research support from AbbVie, Pfizer and consultancy fee from AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, USB, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Lilly; JV served on speakers bureau for USB, Pfizer, AbbVie, MSD; PL reports receiving grant/research support from Roche, MSD, Janssen, Novo-Nordisk, UCB, Pfizer, Novartis, GSK, BM, served as paid instructor for Novo-Nordisk, and served on speakers bureau for MSD, UCB, Roche, Amgen; AB reports receiving grant/research support from AbbVie.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Summary of patient disposition. A total of 777 patients were screened and 181 patients were excluded mainly due to meeting the exclusion criteria. Multiple screening failure reasons were possible. All patients randomised were included in the full analysis set and the safety set. Of the 551 patients who completed 24 weeks of treatment, 481 patients were included in the per-protocol set. ETN, reference product etanercept.
Figure 2
Figure 2
American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates at week 24. The adjusted treatment difference and its 95% CI were analysed with baseline C reactive protein as a covariate and stratified by region. (A) ACR 20% (ACR20) response rates of SB4 and etanercept (ETN) in the per-protocol set and full analysis set. (B) ACR50 response rates of SB4 and ETN in the per-protocol set and full analysis set. (C) ACR70 response rates of SB4 and ETN in the per-protocol set and full analysis set. *One patient from the SB4 group was excluded from the FAS due to missing efficacy data at baseline.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Estimated time–response curves of American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response rate up to week 24 in the per-protocol set. For details of the estimation process, please refer to the main text. ETN, reference product etanercept.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Changes over time in the disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) responses at week 24 in the full analysis set. (A) Change in DAS28 up to week 24. (B) EULAR response based on DAS28. (C) Proportion of patients achieving low-disease activity score (LDAS) defined as DAS28 ≤3.2 and remission defined as DAS28 ≤2.6. ETN, reference product etanercept.

References

    1. Murray KM, Dahl SL. Recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor (p75) Fc fusion protein (TNFR:Fc) in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Pharmacother 1997;31:1335–8.
    1. Goffe B, Cather JC. Etanercept: An overview. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003;49(2 Suppl):S105–11. 10.1016/mjd.2003.554
    1. Fuchs BS, Hadi S. Use of etanercept in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Rev Recent Clin Trials 2006;1:259–63. 10.2174/157488706778250131
    1. Emery P, Breedveld FC, Hall S, et al. . Comparison of methotrexate monotherapy with a combination of methotrexate and etanercept in active, early, moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (COMET): a randomised, double-blind, parallel treatment trial. Lancet 2008;372:375–82. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61000-4
    1. Emery P, Hammoudeh M, FitzGerald O, et al. . Sustained remission with etanercept tapering in early rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1781–92. 10.1056/NEJMoa1316133
    1. Enbrel Summary of Product Characteristics. (27 Feb 2015).
    1. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived proteins as active substance: non-clinical and clinical issues. (EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/42832/2005). 22 February 2006. (27 Feb 2015).
    1. Kay J. Biosimilars: a regulatory perspective from America. Arthritis Res Ther 2011;13:112 10.1186/ar3310
    1. Dorner T, Strand V, Castaneda-Hernandez G, et al. . The role of biosimilars in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:322–8. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202715
    1. Lee YJ, Shin D, Kim Y, et al. . A Phase I pharmacokinetic study comparing SB4, an etanercept biosimilar, and etanercept reference product (Enbrel®) in healthy male subjects. EULAR Congress; 2015; Rome, Italy: European League Against Rheumatism; SAT0176
    1. Weinblatt ME, Kremer JM, Bankhurst AD, et al. . A trial of etanercept, a recombinant tumor necrosis factor receptor:Fc fusion protein, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate. N Engl J Med 1999;340:253–9. 10.1056/NEJM199901283400401
    1. Combe B, Codreanu C, Fiocco U, et al. . Etanercept and sulfasalazine, alone and combined, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite receiving sulfasalazine: a double-blind comparison. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:1357–62. 10.1136/ard.2005.049650
    1. Keystone EC, Schiff MH, Kremer JM, et al. . Once-weekly administration of 50 mg etanercept in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:353–63. 10.1002/art.20019
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Non-inferiority clinical trials. (27 Feb 2015).
    1. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin. (EMEA/CPMP/EWP/2158/99). 27 July 2005. (27 Feb 2015).
    1. Reeve R, Pang L, Ferguson B, et al. . Rheumatoid arthritis disease progression modeling. Ther Innov Regul Sci 2013;47:641–50. 10.1177/2168479013499571
    1. Klareskog L, van der Heijde D, de Jager JP, et al. . Therapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with each treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;363:675–81. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15640-7
    1. Bathon JM, Martin RW, Fleischmann RM, et al. . A comparison of etanercept and methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1586–93. 10.1056/NEJM200011303432201
    1. Moreland LW, Schiff MH, Baumgartner SW, et al. . Etanercept therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:478–86. 10.7326/0003-4819-130-6-199903160-00004
    1. Kay JC, Chandrashekara A, Olakkengil S, et al. A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, active comparator study of the efficacy and safety of BOW015, a biosimilar infliximab, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis on stable methotrexate doses. EULAR Congress; 2014; Paris, France: OP0012.
    1. Yoo DH, Piotrowski P, Ramiterre M, et al. . A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study demonstrates clinical equivalence of CT-P13 to infliximab when co-administered with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. EULAR Congress; 2012; Berlin, Germany: FRI0143.
    1. Bae SC, Choe JS, Park JY, et al. . A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 equivalence trial comparing the etanercept biosimilar, HD2013, with Enbrel®, in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). EULAR Congress; 2014; Paris, France: OP0011.
    1. Lopez-Olivo MA, Tayar JH, Martinez-Lopez JA, et al. . Risk of malignancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologic therapy: a meta-analysis. Jama 2012;308:898–908. 10.1001/2012.jama.10857
    1. Combe B, Codreanu C, Fiocco U, et al. . Efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes of combination etanercept and sulfasalazine versus etanercept alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind randomised 2-year study. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:1146–52. 10.1136/ard.2007.087106
    1. Dore RK, Mathews S, Schechtman J, et al. . The immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy of etanercept liquid administered once weekly in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2007;25:40–6.
    1. Zeltser R, Valle L, Tanck C, et al. . Clinical, histological, and immunophenotypic characteristics of injection site reactions associated with etanercept: a recombinant tumor necrosis factor alpha receptor: Fc fusion protein. Arch Dermatol 2001;137:893–9.
    1. Genovese MC, Bathon JM, Martin RW, et al. . Etanercept versus methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: two-year radiographic and clinical outcomes. Arthritis Rheum 2002;46:1443–50. 10.1002/art.10308
    1. Singh SK. Impact of product-related factors on immunogenicity of biotherapeutics. J Pharm Sci 2011;100:354–87. 10.1002/jps.22276
    1. Hermeling S, Crommelin DJ, Schellekens H, et al. . Structure-immunogenicity relationships of therapeutic proteins. Pharm Res 2004;21:897–903. 10.1023/B:PHAM.0000029275.41323.a6
    1. Rosenberg AS. Effects of protein aggregates: an immunologic perspective. Aaps j 2006;8:E501–7. 10.1208/aapsj080359
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Immunogenicity assessment for therapeutic protein products. (27 Feb 2015).
    1. Jamnitski A, Krieckaert CL, Nurmohamed MT, et al. . Patients non-responding to etanercept obtain lower etanercept concentrations compared with responding patients. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:88–91. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-200184
    1. Keystone E, Freundlich B, Schiff M, et al. . Patients with moderate rheumatoid arthritis (RA) achieve better disease activity states with etanercept treatment than patients with severe RA. J Rheumatol 2009;36:522–31. 10.3899/jrheum.080663

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere