Comparative efficacy and safety of etanercept biosimilars in comparison with etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have insufficient response to methotrexate: A network meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to assess the relative efficacy and safety of etanercept biosimilars and etanercept originators in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who showed an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). Materials and methods: We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of etanercept biosimilars vs. etanercept originators in patients with active RA despite treatment with MTX. Results: Three RCTs involving 1,200 patients, including 4 types of biologics, were included. Ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that LBEC0101 had a high probability of being the better treatment in terms of the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response rate (SUCRA = 0.744), followed by HD203 (SUCRA = 0.457), SB4 (SUCRA = 0.446), and etanercept (SUCRA = 0.352), although no difference in the ACR20 response rate between the biosimilars and etanercept groups was found. Although not statistically significant, there was a difference in the ranking probability of safety based on serious adverse events (SAEs) among interventions. Ranking probability based on SUCRA values indicated that LBEC0101 had the highest probability of being the safest treatment (SUCRA = 0.638), followed by SB4 (SUCRA = 0.495) and HD203 (SUCRA = 0.475), while etanercept had the lowest probability of being the safest treatment (SUCRA = 0.393). Conclusion: No significant difference was found between etanercept biosimilars and etanercept originators in patients with active RA despite treatment with MTX in terms of the ACR20 response rate and SAEs.