Article Text

SAT0169 Maintenance and improvement in clinical efficacy between week 12 and 24 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with sb4 or reference etanercept
  1. P Emery1,
  2. J Vencovsky2,
  3. E Keystone3,
  4. J Ghil4,
  5. SY Cheong4,
  6. EE Hong4
  1. 1Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, Leeds, United Kingdom
  2. 2Institute of Rheumatology, Prague, Czech Republic
  3. 3Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada
  4. 4Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd., Incheon, Korea, Republic Of


Background SB4 is approved by the European Commission as a biosimilar of the reference etanercept (ETN).

Objectives To evaluate the maintenance and improvement in clinical efficacy between week 12 and 24 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with SB4 or ETN from a post-hoc analysis of phase III results.

Methods Patients with RA were randomised to receive 50 mg/week of either SB4 or ETN with background methotrexate. American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) responses were compared at week 12 and week 24. At week 12, patients with available assessment results were categorised as ACR responders or ACR non-responders and EULAR responders (patients with moderate or good EULAR response) or EULAR non-responders. The same was assessed for week 24 and patients with missing data at week 24 were regarded as non-responders.

Results A total of 551 patients (283 patients from SB4 and 268 patients from ETN) completed 24 weeks of the study. In both treatment groups, efficacy was well maintained between week 12 and week 24. Among patients who were ACR20, 50, or 70 responders at week 12, 90.8% vs. 91.4%, 80.5% vs. 80.6%, and 74.5 vs. 77.5% of patients from SB4 and ETN, respectively, maintained their responses at week 24. Likewise, EULAR response was maintained by 93.1% vs. 92.6% of patients who had a good or moderate response at week 12. (Table).

The improvement in ACR responses between week 12 and 24 was comparable between SB4 and ETN group (Table). In SB4 and ETN, respectively, 42.1% vs. 50.5% of 12-week ACR20 non-responders became ACR20 responders at week 24. Similarly, 20.9% vs. 21.9% of 12-week ACR50 non-responders became ACR50 responders and 13.0% vs. 11.4% of 12-week ACR70 non-responders became ACR70 responders. The improvement in EULAR responses was also comparable between SB4 and ETN. 43.2% vs. 52.2% of 12-week EULAR non-responders in SB4 and ETN, respectively, became EULAR responders at week 24.

Conclusions Efficacy of SB4 and ETN was well maintained and the maintenance rate was comparable between week 12 and week 24. In addition, a similar and considerable proportion of patients in SB4 and ETN who did not achieve a clinical response at week 12 reached clinical response at week 24. These results suggest that etanercept non-responders at week 12 may benefit from continuing treatment up to 24 weeks.

Disclosure of Interest P. Emery Grant/research support from: Abbvie, BMS, Pifzer, USB, MSD, Novartis, Lilly, Consultant for: Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd., J. Vencovsky Consultant for: Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd., Biogen, E. Keystone Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant for: Abbott, AstraZeneca, Biotest, BMS, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Speakers bureau: Abbott, AstraZeneca, BMS Canada, Janssen, J. Ghil Employee of: Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd., S. Y. Cheong Employee of: Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd., E. Hong Employee of: Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd.

Statistics from

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.