BACKGROUND: ABP 710 is being developed as a biosimilar to infliximab reference product (RP). Analytical similarity and pharmacokinetic equivalence between the two have been previously demonstrated. Here we report results from a comparative clinical study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of ABP 710 relative to the RP in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 50-week equivalence study, patients with moderate to severe active RA despite methotrexate received 3-mg/kg infusions of ABP 710 or RP at predetermined intervals based on initial randomization and then with re-randomization at week 22. The primary endpoint was response difference (RD) of ACR20 at week 22, with clinical equivalence evaluated based on 90% CI of - 15%, 15%. Secondary endpoints included Disease Activity Score 28-joint count C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 across time, as well as safety and immunogenicity assessments.
RESULTS: A total of 558 patients were randomized for the initial treatment (ABP 710 n = 279; RP n = 279). The estimated RD of ACR20 at week 22 was 9.37% with 90% CI (2.67%, 15.96%). The lower bound was within the pre-specified criteria, thus confirming non-inferiority; the upper bound exceeded the pre-specified criteria by 0.96% such that superiority could not be ruled out statistically. In a post hoc analysis with adjustment for random imbalance in baseline factors, the CI of RD was narrowed (0.75%, 13.62%). Changes from baseline in DAS28-CRP as well as ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 response rates across time and hybrid ACR evaluations were similar for the initial and initial/re-randomized treatment groups. Adverse events and incidence of anti-drug antibodies were similar between treatment groups.
CONCLUSIONS: These efficacy and safety results support similarity with no clinically meaningful differences between ABP 710 and infliximab RP. Although we were unable to statistically confirm non-superiority, post hoc analysis was supportive of non-superiority. DAS28-CRP, ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, and hybrid ACR evaluations over the entire study were consistently comparable as were safety and immunogenicity.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02937701. Registered August 30, 2016.
Introduction: YLB113 is a biosimilar of the reference product (RP), etanercept, under development for treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other approved indications. A phase 3 study was conducted in Europe, Japan, and India to compare the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of YLB113 with the RP over a treatment period of 52 weeks. Methods: Overall, 528 patients with moderate-to-severe RA receiving concomitant methotrexate were randomized to receive a once-weekly, subcutaneous dose of 50 mg YLB113 or the RP. The primary endpoint was ACR20 response rate at week 24, with similarity confirmed if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for YLB113 and the RP was within the range of − 15 to 15%. Safety and immunogenicity endpoints were assessed to week 52. Results: Based on the European analysis, in the full analysis set, ACR20 response at week 24 was 83.3% and 88.5% for YLB113 and the RP, respectively. Responses were within the predefined clinical equivalence margin. The sensitivity analysis in the per protocol set revealed a similar proportion of subjects exhibiting ACR20 response at week 24 between groups, with a difference of − 5.1% (95% CI − 11.07 to 0.81). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable between groups, and the incidence of antidrug antibody development to week 24 favored YLB113 (0.8 vs. 8.3%). Conclusions: This study demonstrated biosimilarity of YLB113 to the RP regarding efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in patients with moderate-to-severe RA. Based on the same mechanism of action, biosimilarity could be extrapolated to other therapeutic indications approved for etanercept. Trial registration: EudraCT Number: 2015-002,809-12.
Objectives: This study aimed to demonstrate the equivalence of NI-071, an infliximab biosimilar (BS), and the infliximab reference product (RP) for treating Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractory to methotrexate.Methods: In this multicenter two-period phase III study, patients were treated with BS or RP for 30 weeks (Period I) in a randomized double-blind manner and then with BS for the following 24 weeks (Period II). The efficacy and safety of BS and RP were compared.Results: The disease activity score in 28-joint count based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein and the American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70-based efficacy profiles of BS were similar to those of RP during Period I (30 weeks) including evaluations at week 14, a critical time point. BS efficacy was maintained throughout the 54-week study period. BS efficacy profile matched the RP profile until week 54 after the drug switch from RP to BS at week 30. The safety profiles of BS and RP were comparable and the long-term safety of BS was confirmed.Conclusion: BS demonstrated equivalent efficacy and safety to RP at treatment weeks 14 and 30, and long-term safety until week 54 in Japanese RA patients.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, serum drug concentrations, immunogenicity, and safety of FKB327 with the adalimumab reference product (RP) in combination with methotrexate in patients with moderate-to-severe, active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 in a double-blind study (NCT02260791), received 40 mg of FKB327 or RP by subcutaneous injection every other week for 24 weeks (Period I), then re-randomized 2:1, remaining on the same study drug or switching to the other up to week 54 in an open-label extension (Period II, NCT02405780). Efficacy was evaluated using American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) response rate difference at week 24 with equivalence margins of ± 13% and - 12% to + 15% using 95% and 90% confidence intervals (CIs), respectively. Efficacy, serum drug concentrations, immunogenicity, and safety were compared at week 54.
RESULTS: A total of 730 patients were randomized in Period I (n = 367 FKB327, n = 363 RP), and 645 transitioned to Period II (n = 216 FKB327-FKB327, n = 108 FKB327-RP, n = 108 RP-FKB327, n = 213 RP-RP). At week 24, ACR20 response rates were 74.1% with FKB327 versus 75.7% with RP. 95% and 90% CI of the response rate difference were - 7.9 to 4.7% and - 7.3 to 3.6%, respectively, meeting predefined equivalence margins. The ACR20 response rate remained over 70% of patients to week 54 with all treatment sequences. In Period I, mean trough serum drug concentrations were slightly higher for patients receiving FKB327 than those receiving RP. Mean concentrations were stable over time and reflected steady state in Period II. The proportions of patients with samples positive for neutralizing antidrug antibodies (ADAs) were comparable (57.7% with FKB327 vs. 55.5% with RP) at week 24, and no consistent difference in ADA were seen between continuous and switched treatments in Period II. Efficacy was slightly reduced in the small proportion of patients with high ADA titers in all treatment groups. No clinically significant differences were observed in the incidence of commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events between the treatments across Periods I and II.
CONCLUSION: FKB327 was equivalent to RP in clinical efficacy and demonstrated comparable safety and immunogenicity in patients with moderate-to-severe RA. No effect of switching between FKB327 and RP was observed.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02260791, Registered 29 July 2014. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02405780, Registered 17 July 2015.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of MSB11022 (acetate-buffered formulation), an adalimumab biosimilar, with the reference product.
METHOD: AURIEL-RA study was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group trial (NCT03052322). Patients with moderately-to-severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to methotrexate were randomized 1:1 to MSB11022 or reference adalimumab. The primary endpoint was the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest (AESIs) (predefined as hypersensitivity) up to week 52. The key secondary endpoint was ACR20 (≥ 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology core set measurements from baseline) at week 12. Other efficacy endpoints, quality of life, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated up to week 52. Secondary safety endpoints were evaluated up to week 52 and at a 4-month safety follow-up.
RESULTS: In total, 288 patients were randomized. The proportion of patients experiencing ≥ 1 treatment-emergent AESI up to week 52 was similar between trial arms: 6 patients (4.2%; 95% CI 1.56, 8.91) receiving MSB11022, and 8 patients (5.5%; 95% CI 2.41, 10.58) receiving reference adalimumab. No clinically meaningful differences in efficacy, quality of life, or immunogenicity were seen between treatment arms up to week 52. No notable difference in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was observed between treatment arms up to the end of the follow-up period.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest MSB11022 and reference adalimumab are similar in patients with moderately-to-severely active rheumatoid arthritis in terms of safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy. AURIEL-RA provides evidence to support the similarity of MSB11022 and adalimumab.Key Points• Incidences of hypersensitivity events were similar for MSB11022 (modified buffer) and reference adalimumab.• There was no difference in local reactions between MSB11022 (modified buffer) and reference adalimumab.• AURIEL-RA confirms the equivalence in efficacy and immunogenicity of MSB11022 (modified buffer) and reference adalimumab.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, including capacity for inhibition of radiographic progression, and safety of upadacitinib, a JAK1‐selective inhibitor, as compared to placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have experienced an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: In total, 1,629 RA patients with an inadequate response to MTX were randomized (2:2:1) to receive upadacitinib (15 mg once daily), placebo, or adalimumab (40 mg every other week) while continuing to take a stable background dose of MTX. The primary end points were achievement of an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) improvement response and a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C‐reactive protein level (DAS28‐CRP) of <2.6 in the upadacitinib group compared to the placebo group at week 12; inhibition of radiographic progression was evaluated at week 26. The study was also designed and powered to test for the noninferiority and superiority of upadacitinib compared to adalimumab, as measured both clinically and functionally. RESULTS: At week 12, both primary end points were met in patients receiving upadacitinib compared to those receiving placebo (P ≤ 0.001). An ACR20 improvement response was achieved by 71% of patients in the upadacitinib group compared to 36% in the placebo group, and a DAS28‐CRP score of <2.6 was observed in 29% of patients receiving upadacitinib compared to 6% of patients receiving placebo. Upadacitinib was superior to adalimumab based on the ACR50 response rate, achievement of a DAS28‐CRP score of ≤3.2, change in pain severity score, and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index. At week 26, more patients receiving upadacitinib than those receiving placebo or adalimumab achieved low disease activity or remission (P ≤ 0.001). Radiographic progression was significantly inhibited in patients receiving upadacitinib and was observed in fewer upadacitinib‐treated patients than placebo‐treated patients (P ≤ 0.001). Up to week 26, adverse events (AEs), including serious infections, were comparable between the upadacitinib and adalimumab groups. The proportions of patients with serious AEs and AEs leading to discontinuation were highest in the adalimumab group; the proportions of patients with herpes zoster and those with creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevations were highest in the upadacitinib group. Three malignancies, 5 major adverse cardiovascular events, and 4 deaths were reported among the groups, but none occurred in patients receiving upadacitinib. Six venous thromboembolic events were reported (1 in the placebo group, 2 in the upadacitinib group, and 3 in the adalimumab group). CONCLUSION: Upadacitinib was superior to placebo and adalimumab for improving signs, symptoms, and physical function in RA patients who were receiving background MTX. In addition, radiographic progression was significantly inhibited by upadacitinib as compared to placebo. The overall safety profile of upadacitinib was generally similar to that of adalimumab, except for higher rates of herpes zoster and CPK elevations in patients receiving upadacitinib.
BCD-055 is a biosimilar of innovator infliximab (IFX). Here we present the 54-week results from phase 3 clinical study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to demonstrate the equivalent efficacy and safety of BCD-055 and IFX in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. 426 adults with active RA were enrolled. Patients were randomized into 2 study arms in 2:1 ratio to receive BCD-055 or IFX innovator in dose of 3 mg/kg at week 0, 2, 6 and then every 8 weeks up to week 54. Primary efficacy endpoint was the rate of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at week 14. The equivalence margin was set as 15%. Immunogenicity and safety were also assessed. Rate of ACR20 at week 14 in PP (Per-Protocol) population was 71.2% in BCD-055 group and 67.9% in IFX group. Difference in ACR20 rates between groups was 3.2% with 95% CI [- 7.0%; 13.5%] (р = 0.587). Throughout 54-week study period, both groups were characterized by similar rates of ACR20/50/70 response at all timepoints without significant differences (p > 0.05). The rates of adverse events (AE) were similar in groups (74.64% in BCD-055 arm vs 66.67% in IFX arm, p = 0.111). Antibodies to infliximab were detected in 28.46% patients for BCD-055 arm and 26.56% for IFX arm (p = 0.786). BCD-055 and IFX were comparable in efficacy (including radiographic progression), safety and immunogenicity throughout the 54-week study.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID, number NCT02762838.
BACKGROUND: This double-blind, active-controlled, randomized, multinational study evaluated the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity of PF-06438179/GP1111 (IxifiTM/Zessly®), an infliximab biosimilar, vs infliximab (Remicade®) reference product sourced from the European Union (infliximab-EU) in biologic-naïve patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate therapy. This paper reports results from the initial 30-week treatment period.
METHODS: Patients (N = 650) were stratified by geographic region and randomized 1:1 to PF-06438179/GP1111 or infliximab-EU (3 mg/kg intravenous at weeks 0, 2, and 6, then every 8 weeks). Dose escalation to 5 mg/kg was allowed starting at week 14 for patients with inadequate RA response. The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology criteria for ≥ 20% clinical improvement (ACR20) response at week 14. Therapeutic equivalence was declared if the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was within the symmetric equivalence margin of ± 13.5%. Statistical analysis was also performed with a two-sided 90% CI using an asymmetric equivalence margin (- 12.0%, 15.0%).
RESULTS: Patients (80.3% female; 79.4% seropositive) had a mean RA duration of 6.9 years, and mean baseline Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, four components based on C-reactive protein was 6.0 in both arms. Week 14 ACR20 in the intention-to-treat population was 62.7% for PF-06438179/GP1111 and 64.1% for infliximab-EU. Week 14 ACR20 using nonresponder imputation was 61.1% for PF-06438179/GP1111 and 63.5% for infliximab-EU, and the 95% (- 9.92%, 5.11%) and 90% (- 8.75%, 4.02%) CIs for the treatment difference (- 2.39%) were entirely contained within the prespecified symmetric and asymmetric equivalence margins, respectively. No differences were observed between arms for secondary efficacy endpoints. Overall postdose antidrug antibody (ADA) rates through week 30 were 48.6% and 51.2% for PF-06438179/GP1111 and infliximab-EU, respectively. Efficacy and immunogenicity were similar between treatments for patients with dose escalation (at or after week 14), as well as between treatments for patients without dose escalation. Safety profiles of PF-06438179/GP1111 and infliximab-EU were similar, with no clinically meaningful differences observed between arms, including after ADA development. Serum drug concentrations were similar between arms at each time point during the initial 30-week treatment period.
CONCLUSION: PF-06438179/GP1111 and infliximab-EU demonstrated similar efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and PK with or without dose escalation in patients with moderate to severe active RA on background methotrexate.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02222493 . Registered on 21 August 2014. EudraCT, 2013-004148-49 . Registered on 14 July 2014.
BACKGROUND: This double-blind, randomized, 78-week study evaluated the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of PF-06410293, a candidate adalimumab biosimilar, versus adalimumab reference product (Humira®) sourced from the EU (adalimumab-EU) in biologic-naïve patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate (MTX) (10-25 mg/week). We report results for the first 26 weeks of treatment.
METHODS: Patients with active RA (N = 597) were randomly assigned (1:1) to PF-06410293 or adalimumab-EU, while continuing with MTX treatment. The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) at week 12. Therapeutic equivalence was concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ACR20 difference between the two arms was entirely contained within the symmetric equivalence margin (±14%). Additionally, a two-sided 90% CI was calculated by using an asymmetric equivalence margin (-12%, 15%). Secondary efficacy endpoints to week 26 included ACR20/50/70, change from baseline Disease Activity Score based on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [DAS28-4(CRP)], European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, DAS28-4(CRP) of less than 2.6, and ACR/EULAR remission. QuantiFERON-TB testing was performed at screening and week 26.
RESULTS: Patients (78.7% of whom were female and whose mean age was 52.5 years) had a mean baseline RA duration of 6.8 years. The mean baseline DAS28-4(CRP) values were 5.9 (PF-06410293) and 6.1 (adalimumab-EU). The observed week-12 ACR20 values were 68.7% (PF-06410293) and 72.7% (adalimumab-EU) in the intention-to-treat population. With non-responder imputation, the treatment difference in week-12 ACR20 was -2.98% and corresponding CIs-95% CI (-10.38%, 4.44%) and 90% CI (-9.25%, 3.28%)-were entirely contained within the equivalence margins (symmetric and asymmetric, respectively). The secondary efficacy endpoints were similar between arms. Over 26 weeks, injection-site reactions occurred in 1.7% versus 2.0%, hypersensitivity events in 4.4% versus 8.4%, pneumonia in 0.7% versus 2.0%, and opportunistic infections in 2.4% versus 1.7% in the PF-06410293 and adalimumab-EU arms, respectively. One death due to myocardial infarction occurred (adalimumab-EU arm). Rates of anti-drug antibody incidence were 44.4% (PF-06410293) and 50.5% (adalimumab-EU).
CONCLUSIONS: The study results demonstrate that efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of PF-06410293 and adalimumab-EU were similar during the first 26 weeks of treatment in patients with active RA on background MTX.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02480153 . First posted on June 24, 2015; EU Clinical Trials Register EudraCT number: 2014-000352-29 . Start date: October 27, 2014.
Objective SB5 is a biosimilar agent for adalimumab ( ADA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, pharmacokinetics ( PK), safety, and immunogenicity of SB5 in comparison with reference ADA in patients with rheumatoid arthritis ( RA). Methods In this phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients with moderately to severely active RA despite treatment with methotrexate were randomized 1:1 to receive SB5 or reference ADA at a dosage of 40 mg subcutaneously every other week. The primary efficacy end point was the response rate based on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria ( ACR20) at week 24 in the per-protocol set (completer analysis). Additional end points included efficacy, PK, safety, and immunogenicity assessments. Results Of the 544 patients randomized to receive a study drug, the full analysis set comprised 542 patients (269 in the SB5 group, 273 in the reference ADA group) and the per-protocol set comprised 476 patients (239 receiving SB5, 237 receiving reference ADA). The ACR20 response rate at week 24 in the per-protocol set was equivalent between those receiving SB5 and those receiving reference ADA (72.4% and 72.2%, respectively); the difference in the ACR20 response rate (0.1%, [95% confidence interval −7.83%, 8.13%]) was within the predefined equivalence margin (±15%). Similar results were seen in the full analysis set (missing data being considered a nonresponse). The SB5 and reference ADA treatment groups were comparable across other end points, including the ACR 50% and ACR 70% improvement response rates, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, PK data, incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events, and the antidrug antibody response. Subgroup analyses showed that the efficacy and safety of SB5 and reference ADA were comparable regardless of antidrug antibody status. Conclusion The ACR20 response rate at week 24 was equivalent between patients treated with the biosimilar agent SB5 and those treated with reference ADA. SB5 and reference ADA were both well tolerated, with comparable safety profiles, in patients with RA.
ABP 710 is being developed as a biosimilar to infliximab reference product (RP). Analytical similarity and pharmacokinetic equivalence between the two have been previously demonstrated. Here we report results from a comparative clinical study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of ABP 710 relative to the RP in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS:
In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 50-week equivalence study, patients with moderate to severe active RA despite methotrexate received 3-mg/kg infusions of ABP 710 or RP at predetermined intervals based on initial randomization and then with re-randomization at week 22. The primary endpoint was response difference (RD) of ACR20 at week 22, with clinical equivalence evaluated based on 90% CI of - 15%, 15%. Secondary endpoints included Disease Activity Score 28-joint count C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 across time, as well as safety and immunogenicity assessments.
RESULTS:
A total of 558 patients were randomized for the initial treatment (ABP 710 n = 279; RP n = 279). The estimated RD of ACR20 at week 22 was 9.37% with 90% CI (2.67%, 15.96%). The lower bound was within the pre-specified criteria, thus confirming non-inferiority; the upper bound exceeded the pre-specified criteria by 0.96% such that superiority could not be ruled out statistically. In a post hoc analysis with adjustment for random imbalance in baseline factors, the CI of RD was narrowed (0.75%, 13.62%). Changes from baseline in DAS28-CRP as well as ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 response rates across time and hybrid ACR evaluations were similar for the initial and initial/re-randomized treatment groups. Adverse events and incidence of anti-drug antibodies were similar between treatment groups.
CONCLUSIONS:
These efficacy and safety results support similarity with no clinically meaningful differences between ABP 710 and infliximab RP. Although we were unable to statistically confirm non-superiority, post hoc analysis was supportive of non-superiority. DAS28-CRP, ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, and hybrid ACR evaluations over the entire study were consistently comparable as were safety and immunogenicity.
TRIAL REGISTRATION:
ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02937701. Registered August 30, 2016.
