Ab0292 efficacy and Safety of Two Biosimilar Etanercept After the Switch From Their Corresponding Originator in the Treatment of Patients With Autoimmune Arthritis; A Retrospective Analysis in a Real Life Setting

Abstract

Background:The available biosimilars of etanercept are as effective and well tolerated as their bio originator molecule in the naive treatment of chronic autoimmune arthritis. More data about the switching from the bio originator are needed.Objectives:To compare the clinical outcomes of the treatment with etanercept biosimilars (SB4 and GP2015) naïve and after the switch from their corresponding originator in patients affected by autoimmune arthritis in a real life settingMethods:We retrospectively analyzed the baseline characteristics and the retention rate in a cohort of patients who received at least a course of etanercept (originator or biosimilar) in our Rheumatology Units from January 2000 to January 2020. We stratified the study population according to biosimilar use. Descriptive data are presented by medians (interquartile range [IQR]) for continuous data or as numbers (percentages) for categorical data. Drug survival distribution curves were computed by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by a stratified log-rank test. A Cox proportional hazards regression analysis stratified by indication, drug, age, disease duration, sex, treatment line, biosimilar use and prescription year was performed. P values≤0.05 were considered statistically significant.Results:477 patients (65% female, median age 56 [46-75] years, median disease duration 97 [40.25-178.75] months) treated with etanercept were included in the analysis. 257 (53.9%) were affect by rheumatoid arthritis, 139 (29.1%) by psoriatic arthritis, and 81 (17%) by axial spondylarthritis. 298 (62.5%) were treated with etanercept originator, 97 (20.3%) with SB4, and 82 (17.2%) with GP2015. Among the biosimilars 90/179 (50.3%) patients were naïve to etanercept treatment. Among the 89 switchers we observed 8 treatment discontinuations: one due to surgical infection complication, three due to disease flare, two due to subjective worsening and one due to remission. The overall 6- and 12-month retentions rate were 92.8% and 80.2%. The 6- and 12-month retention rate for etanercept, SB4 and GP2015 were 92.7%, 93.4% and 90.2%, and 82%, 74.5% and 88.1% respectively, without significant differences among the three groups (p=0.374). Patients switching from originator to biosimilars showed and overall higher treatment survival when compared to naive (12-month retention rate 81.2% vs 70.8%, p=0.036). The Cox proportional hazard regression analysis highlighted that the only predictor significantly associated with an overall higher risk of treatment discontinuation was the year of prescription (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.13; p<0.0001).Conclusion:In our retrospective study etanercept originator and its biosimilars (SB4 and GP2015) showed the same effectiveness. Patients switching from originator to biosimilar showed an significant higher retention rate when compared to naive. The only predictor of treatment discontinuation highlighted by the Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was the year of treatment prescription.Disclosure of Interests:Francesco Girelli: None declared, Alarico Ariani: None declared, Marco Bruschi: None declared, Andrea Becciolini Speakers bureau: Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB and AbbVie, Lucia Gardelli: None declared, Maurizio Nizzoli: None declared