Document resource
Background and Importance Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, autoimmune, systemic joint disease. Although disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) remain the first-line treatment for RA control, biological therapies have changed the treatment paradigm, with etanercept (Enbrel ) being the first approved for moderate-to-severe RA. With the emergence of biosimilars as a more sustainable alternative for healthcare systems, Benepali and Erelzi were introduced at our hospital, prompting patient switches in 2019 and 2024, respectively. The implementation of the Immunotherapy Pharmaceutical Consultation (IPC) in 2024 aimed to provide patients with the information and training for managing their medication, as well as to mitigate the nocebo effect, thereby ensuring the rational use of resources and the safety and effectiveness of therapies.Aim and Objectives To analyse the impact of switching between etanercept formulations in RA patients and the role of IPC follow-up, particularly regarding treatment persistence, pharmacovigilance, and patient-reported quality of life data.Material and Methods Patients treated with etanercept between 2016 and 2024 were identified using the hospital’s pharmaceutical management system. Data from medical records and results from the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, applied during IPC visits, were collected using Google Forms and analysed using Excel.Results Among the 124 RA patients analysed, 50 initiated therapy with Enbrel and 74 with Benepali. Following the Erelzi introduction in 2024, none of the six patients who switched from Enbrel progressed to a subsequent treatment line (STL). However, of those who switched from Benepali , six progressed to STL and one reverted to the previous formulation. Regarding the 15 patients who underwent two consecutive switches (Enbrel → Benepali → Erelzi ), four progressed to STL. According to the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, 26% reported no change, 31% improvement, and 43% worsening in perceived health status post-switch to Erelzi. Ten suspected adverse drug reactions were reported since IPC implementation, with some patients requiring additional consultations due to clinical events.Conclusion and Relevance The switching process proved to be safe and effective, without compromising treatment efficacy, with transitions to subsequent therapy lines likely associated with the natural progression of the disease. The IPC was essential in monitoring the switch, identifying clinical events, and ensuring the rational and safe use of biological therapies in RA.Conflict of Interest No conflict of interest