Challenges and opportunities for quality densitometry in Latin America.

Latin America and the Caribbean region account for 8% of the world's total population. Experts from 18 countries were invited to contribute to this article to provide the best available data on the number, types, and quality of densitometry, DXA experts, the local/national incidence and prevalence of osteoporosis and fragility fractures, and other uses and information on the challenges and opportunities for quality densitometry with examples of local initiatives. Osteoporosis is the primary reason for densitometry in our region, which is not a priority for public health in most countries. Access and quality are major challenges, and there is a clear trend to concentrate on densitometry services in the largest cities. Urgent action is needed to face the rapidly increasing burden of osteoporosis in our region, including robust and up to date epidemiology, access to health professionals, and quality densitometry. Health professionals require better access to training, courses, and other activities at a more local or regional level.

Comparison of biosimilar CT-P10 and innovator rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled Phase 3 trial.

This multinational, randomized, double-blind trial, (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02149121) was designed to demonstrate equivalence in pharmacokinetics and efficacy between CT-P10 and innovator rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Adults with active RA were treated with CT-P10, United States-sourced RTX (US-RTX; Rituxan®), or European Union-sourced RTX (EU-RTX; MabThera®) at weeks 0 and 2. The co-primary pharmacokinetic endpoints were area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to last measurable concentration (AUC0-last), AUC from time zero to infinity (AUC0-∞), and maximum concentration (Cmax) after two infusions. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 24 in Disease Activity Score using 28 joints-C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). Pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety were also assessed. 372 patients were randomly assigned to CT-P10 (n = 161) or RTX (n = 211 [US-RTX, n = 151; EU-RTX, n = 60]). For the co-primary pharmacokinetic endpoints, 90% confidence intervals (CI) for ratios of geometric means (CT-P10/US-RTX, CT-P10/EU-RTX or EU-RTX/US-RTX) all fell within the equivalence margin of 80-125%. Adjusted least squares (LS) mean (standard error) change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 was -2.13 (0.175) for CT-P10 and -2.09 (0.176) for RTX. The 95% CI (-0.29, 0.21) of the estimated treatment difference between CT-P10 and RTX (-0.04) was entirely within the efficacy equivalence margin of ±0.5. Pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety profiles were similar for CT-P10 and RTX. The pharmacokinetics of CT-P10, US-RTX, and EU-RTX were equivalent. CT-P10 and RTX were also equivalent in terms of efficacy and displayed similar pharmacodynamic, immunogenicity, and safety profiles up to week 24.

Efficacy, Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Up to Two Courses of the Rituximab Biosimilar CT-P10 Versus Innovator Rituximab in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results up to Week 72 of a Phase I Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: CT-P10 is a biosimilar of innovator rituximab (RTX), a biological therapy used to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have responded inadequately to anti-tumor necrosis factor agents. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the clinical profile of CT-P10 versus RTX in patients with RA who received up to two courses of treatment and were followed for up to 72 weeks. METHODS: In this multicenter double-blind phase I study, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive CT-P10 1000 mg or RTX 1000 mg at weeks 0 and 2. Based on disease activity, patients could receive a second course of treatment between weeks 24 and 48. Efficacy endpoints, including mean change from baseline in Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28), safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics were evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 154 patients were randomized to CT-P10 or RTX (n = 103 and 51, respectively); 137 (n = 92 and 45) completed the first course of treatment, of whom 83 (n = 60 and 23) were re-treated. Improvements from baseline in all efficacy endpoints were highly similar between the CT-P10 and RTX groups over both treatment courses. At week 24 after the second course, mean change from week 0 of the first course in DAS28 erythrocyte sedimentation rate was -2.47 and -2.04 for CT-P10 and RTX, respectively, (p = 0.1866) and in DAS28 C-reactive protein was -2.32 and -2.00, respectively (p = 0.3268). The proportion of patients positive for antidrug antibodies at week 24 after the second treatment course was 20.0% and 21.7% in the CT-P10 and RTX groups, respectively. The safety profile of CT-P10 was comparable to that of RTX, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RA, efficacy, safety, and other clinical data were comparable between CT-P10 and RTX after up to two courses of treatment over 72 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01534884).

Efficacy and Safety of Switching from Innovator Rituximab to Biosimilar CT-P10 Compared with Continued Treatment with CT-P10: Results of a 56-Week Open-Label Study in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: CT-P10 is a biosimilar candidate of innovator rituximab (RTX) that demonstrated a comparable clinical profile to RTX in a phase I randomized controlled trial (RCT) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01534884). OBJECTIVE: This open-label extension (OLE) study (NCT01873443) compared the efficacy and safety of CT-P10 in patients with RA who received CT-P10 from the outset (i.e., from the start of the RCT and also in the OLE; 'maintenance group') with those who received RTX during the RCT and switched to CT-P10 during the OLE ('switch group'). METHODS: Patients who completed the RCT were recruited. Based on the Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28) and predefined safety criteria, patients could receive up to two courses of CT-P10 during the OLE. Efficacy [DAS28 and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response], safety and immunogenicity were assessed. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were enrolled; 58 and 29 had previously received CT-P10 or RTX, respectively, in the RCT. Of these, 38 (65.5%) and 20 (69.0%) were treated with CT-P10 in the OLE and therefore comprised the maintenance and switch groups, respectively. The mean change in DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) from baseline (week 0 of RCT) at week 24 of the first OLE treatment course in the maintenance and switch groups was -2.7 and -2.4, respectively. The proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR responses was also comparable between groups. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 13.2 and 15.0% of patients in the maintenance and switch groups, respectively, at week 24 of the first OLE course. CT-P10 treatment was well-tolerated when administered for up to 2 years or after switching from RTX. CONCLUSION: In this study population, comparable efficacy and safety profiles were observed in patients who switched from RTX to CT-P10 and those maintained on CT-P10 throughout treatment.