OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics (PK) of SB2 to the infliximab reference product (INF) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate therapy.
METHODS: This is a phase III, randomised, double-blind, multinational, multicentre parallel group study. Patients with moderate to severe RA despite methotrexate therapy were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either SB2 or INF of 3 mg/kg. The primary end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 30. Inclusion of the 95% CI of the ACR20 response difference within a ±15% margin was required for equivalence.
RESULTS: 584 subjects were randomised into SB2 (N=291; 290 analysed) or INF (N=293). The ACR20 response at week 30 in the per-protocol set was 64.1% in SB2 versus 66.0% in INF. The adjusted rate difference was -1.88% (95% CI -10.26% to 6.51%), which was within the predefined equivalence margin. Other efficacy outcomes such as ACR50/70, disease activity score measured by 28 joints and European League against Rheumatism response were similar between SB2 and INF. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable (57.6% in SB2 vs 58.0% in INF) as well as the incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADA) to infliximab up to week 30 (55.1% in SB2 vs 49.7% in INF). The PK profile was similar between SB2 and INF. Efficacy, safety and PK by ADA subgroup were comparable between SB2 and INF.
CONCLUSIONS: SB2 was equivalent to INF in terms of ACR20 response at week 30. SB2 was well tolerated with a comparable safety profile, immunogenicity and PK to INF.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01936181.
Objectives To evaluate equivalence in efficacy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and compare the safety of the biosimilar HD203 with innovator etanercept (ETN) plus methotrexate (MTX) (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01270997). Methods Patients with active RA received 25 mg HD203 or ETN subcutaneously twice-weekly with MTX for 48 weeks in a phase III, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group design. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving the American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20) at week 24 for per-protocol study completer set (PPS). Secondary end points included ACR response criteria, ACRn, European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, change in Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28), patient-reported outcomes, safety and immunogenicity. Results Of the 294 randomised patients (HD203, n=147; ETN, n=147), 233 comprised the 24-week PPS (n=115 and 118, respectively). ACR20 at week 24 was achieved by 83.48% and 81.36% of PPS patients, respectively, demonstrating equivalent efficacy within predefined margins of ±20% (treatment difference 2.12%, 95% CI -7.65% to 11.89%). Outcomes for secondary end points were consistent with the primary efficacy findings. Groups were comparable for overall incidences of treatment-emergent (all-causality) adverse events (AEs) (HD203 113 (76.9%) vs ETN 114 (78.1%) ( p=0.804)), adverse drug reactions, serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs. Few patients (HD203, n=8; ETN, n=3) tested positive for anti-drug antibodies. Conclusion The study met the primary objective of demonstrating equivalent efficacy of HD203 and ETN. HD203 was well tolerated, with safety comparable with ETN in this population of patients with RA. Trial registration number NCT01270997; Results.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of SB4 (an etanercept biosimilar) with reference product etanercept (ETN) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate (MTX) therapy.
METHODS: This is a phase III, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre study with a 24-week primary endpoint. Patients with moderate to severe RA despite MTX treatment were randomised to receive weekly dose of 50 mg of subcutaneous SB4 or ETN. The primary endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 24. Other efficacy endpoints as well as safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetic parameters were also measured.
RESULTS: 596 patients were randomised to either SB4 (N=299) or ETN (N=297). The ACR20 response rate at week 24 in the per-protocol set was 78.1% for SB4 and 80.3% for ETN. The 95% CI of the adjusted treatment difference was -9.41% to 4.98%, which is completely contained within the predefined equivalence margin of -15% to 15%, indicating therapeutic equivalence between SB4 and ETN. Other efficacy endpoints and pharmacokinetic endpoints were comparable. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable (55.2% vs 58.2%), and the incidence of antidrug antibody development up to week 24 was lower in SB4 compared with ETN (0.7% vs 13.1%).
CONCLUSIONS: SB4 was shown to be equivalent with ETN in terms of efficacy at week 24. SB4 was well tolerated with a lower immunogenicity profile. The safety profile of SB4 was comparable with that of ETN.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01895309, EudraCT 2012-005026-30.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the single-dose pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and immunogenicity of the biosimilar infliximab (BOW015) to reference infliximab (rIFX) in healthy volunteers and to establish bioequivalence.
METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, single-dose study, subjects received either BOW015 or rIFX. Both drugs were administered as a single IV 5 mg/kg dose over 2 hours on day 1. PK sampling occurred 10 times over 3 days and during safety and immunogenicity follow-up on day 4 and 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 12 weeks after the infusion.
RESULTS: Of the 84 healthy male Caucasian subjects randomized, 43 received BOW015 and 41 received rIFX. PK parameters (geometric mean) for BOW015 vs. rIFX were as follows; C(max) 142.47 vs. 126.74 μg/mL, AUC(0-t) 36,211 vs. 34,304 h×μg/mL, and AUC(0-inf) 36,775 vs. 34,801 h×μg/mL. The point estimates of the BOW015/rIFX geometric mean ratios (90% CI) were; C(max) 1.13 (1.07 - 1.18), AUC(0-t) 1.06 (0.98 - 1.14), and AUC(0-inf) 1.06 (0.98 - 1.15). Overall, anti-drug antibodies were detected in 18.6% of BOW015-treated subjects and 24.4% of rIFX-treated subjects. A total of 26 (60.5%) subjects in the BOW015 group reported 50 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and 27 (65.9%) subjects in the rIFX group reported 54 TEAEs.
CONCLUSIONS: Bioequivalence of BOW015 to rIFX is demonstrated as 90% CIs for the study drug mean ratios of C(max), AUC(0-t), and AUC(0-inf) were within the log-transformed ± 20% equivalence range of 0.80 - 1.25. Safety and immunogenicity were also comparable.
AIMS: SB4 has been developed as a biosimilar of etanercept. The primary objective of the present study was to demonstrate the pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence between SB4 and European Union -sourced etanercept (EU-ETN), SB4 and United States-sourced etanercept (US-ETN), and EU-ETN and US-ETN. The safety and immunogenicity were also compared between the treatments.
METHODS: This was a single-blind, three-part, crossover study in 138 healthy male subjects. In each part, 46 subjects were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive a single 50 mg subcutaneous dose of the treatments (part A: SB4 or EU-ETN; part B: SB4 or US-ETN; and part C: EU-ETN or US-ETN) in period 1, followed by the crossover treatment in period 2 according to their assigned sequences. PK equivalence between the treatments was determined using the standard equivalence margin of 80-125%.
RESULTS: The geometric least squares means ratios of AUCinf , AUClast and Cmax were 99.04%, 98.62% and 103.71% (part A: SB4 vs. EU-ETN); 101.09%, 100.96% and 104.36% (part B: SB4 vs. US-ETN); and 100.51%, 101.27% and 103.29% (part C: EU-ETN vs. US-ETN), respectively, and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals were completely contained within the limits of 80-125 %. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable, and the incidence of the antidrug antibodies was lower in SB4 compared with the reference products.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated PK equivalence between SB4 and EU-ETN, SB4 and US-ETN, and EU-ETN and US-ETN in healthy male subjects. SB4 was well tolerated, with a lower immunogenicity profile and similar safety profile compared with those of the reference products.
BACKGROUND: CT-P13 (Remsima®, Inflectra®) is a biosimilar of the infliximab reference product (RP; Remicade®) and is approved in Europe and elsewhere, mostly for the same indications as RP. The aim of this study was to compare the 54-week efficacy, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of CT-P13 with RP in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), with a focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).
METHODS: This was a multinational, double-blind, parallel-group study in patients with active AS. Participants were randomized (1:1) to receive CT-P13 (5 mg/kg) or RP (5 mg/kg) at weeks 0, 2, 6 and then every 8 weeks up to week 54. To assess responses, standardized assessment tools were used with an intention-to-treat analysis of observed data. Anti-drug antibodies (ADAs), PK parameters, and safety outcomes were also assessed.
RESULTS: Of 250 randomized patients (n = 125 per group), 210 (84.0 %) completed 54 weeks of treatment, with similar completion rates between groups. At week 54, Assessment of Spondylo Arthritis international Society (ASAS)20 response, ASAS40 response and ASAS partial remission were comparable between treatment groups. Changes from baseline in PROs such as mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI; CT-P13 -3.1 versus RP -2.8), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI; -2.9 versus -2.7), and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores (9.26 versus 10.13 for physical component summary; 7.30 versus 6.54 for mental component summary) were similar between treatment groups. At 54 weeks, 19.5 % and 23.0 % of patients receiving CT-P13 and RP, respectively, had ADAs. All observed PK parameters of CT-P13 and RP, including maximum and minimum serum concentrations, were similar through 54 weeks. The influence of ADAs on PK was similar in the two treatment groups. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. There was no notable difference between treatment groups in the incidence of adverse events, serious adverse events, infections and infusion-related reactions.
CONCLUSIONS: CT-P13 and RP have highly comparable efficacy (including PROs) and PK up to week 54. Over a 1-year period, CT-P13 was well tolerated and displayed a safety profile comparable to RP; no differences in immunogenicity were observed.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01220518 . Registered 4 October 2010.
AIM: In this study, efficacy, tolerability and safety of biosimilar adalimumab (Exemptia; Zydus Cadila) was compared with reference adalimumab (Humira; AbbVie) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHOD: In this multicentre, prospective, randomized, double-blind, active controlled parallel arm study, 120 patients with moderate to severe RA were given 40 mg of either test adalimumab (Exemptia) or reference adalimumab (Humira) by subcutaneous route every other week for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was proportion of responders in two tretament groups by American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) at week 12. The secondary endpoints were change in Disease Activity Score of 28 joints - C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and proportion of patients with an ACR50 and ACR70 response in two treatment groups at week 12. Safety outcomes were also assessed.
RESULTS: After 12 weeks, patients treated every other week with test adalimumab (Zydus Cadila) had statistically similar response rates as compared to reference adalimumab (AbbVie): ACR20 (82% vs. 79.2%; P > 0.7); ACR50 (46%, vs. 43.4%; P > 0.7); ACR70 (14% vs. 15.1%; P > 0.8). The change in DAS28-CRP score was -2.1 ± 1.09 and -2.1 ± 1.21, in test and reference products, respectively. It was statistically significant compared to baseline, but not significantly different between the two products. Three serious adverse events and no death was reported during the study. Both adalimumab preparations were safe and well tolerated in this study.
CONCLUSION: The results demonstrated biosimilarity with respect to efficacy, tolerability and safety of test adalimumab (Exemptia) and reference adalimumab (Humira) in patients with moderate to severe RA.
To compare the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics (PK) of SB2 to the infliximab reference product (INF) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate therapy.
METHODS:
This is a phase III, randomised, double-blind, multinational, multicentre parallel group study. Patients with moderate to severe RA despite methotrexate therapy were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either SB2 or INF of 3 mg/kg. The primary end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 30. Inclusion of the 95% CI of the ACR20 response difference within a ±15% margin was required for equivalence.
RESULTS:
584 subjects were randomised into SB2 (N=291; 290 analysed) or INF (N=293). The ACR20 response at week 30 in the per-protocol set was 64.1% in SB2 versus 66.0% in INF. The adjusted rate difference was -1.88% (95% CI -10.26% to 6.51%), which was within the predefined equivalence margin. Other efficacy outcomes such as ACR50/70, disease activity score measured by 28 joints and European League against Rheumatism response were similar between SB2 and INF. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable (57.6% in SB2 vs 58.0% in INF) as well as the incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADA) to infliximab up to week 30 (55.1% in SB2 vs 49.7% in INF). The PK profile was similar between SB2 and INF. Efficacy, safety and PK by ADA subgroup were comparable between SB2 and INF.
CONCLUSIONS:
SB2 was equivalent to INF in terms of ACR20 response at week 30. SB2 was well tolerated with a comparable safety profile, immunogenicity and PK to INF.
