Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a proposed tocilizumab biosimilar MSB11456 versus both the US-licensed and EU-approved products: a randomized, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor (IL-6 R). MSB11456 is a proposed tocilizumab biosimilar. OBJECTIVES: To assess the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity of MSB11456 to both US-licensed and EU-approved tocilizumab. METHODS: Healthy adult volunteers (N = 685) received a single 162 mg subcutaneous injection of MSB11456, US-licensed tocilizumab, or EU-approved tocilizumab in this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Blood samples were taken pre-dose and for up to 48 days post-dose. Primary endpoint pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed using analysis of covariance. Secondary pharmacodynamic measures included serum-soluble IL-6 R and serum C-reactive protein. Safety data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic equivalence (with all corresponding 90% confidence intervals for the geometric least squares mean ratios within the predefined 80.00% to 125.00% equivalence margin) was demonstrated between MSB11456 and both US-licensed and EU-approved tocilizumab, as well as between the reference products. Pharmacodynamic analyses demonstrated similarity of MSB11456 and both US-licensed and EU-approved tocilizumab, as well as between the reference products. Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity were comparable between treatments. CONCLUSION: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity of MSB11456, US-licensed tocilizumab, and EU-approved tocilizumab were demonstrated, and the three products had comparable immunogenicity and safety, supporting MSB11456 as a biosimilar to tocilizumab.

Tocilizumab is a biologic drug that is used to treat autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis. Biologic drugs are very important for the treatment of autoimmune diseases, but their costs limit accessibility. Therefore, the availability of biosimilars, which are biologics that are very similar in structure and function to an existing biologic drug, may provide a significant cost advantage for national healthcare programs and consumers. MSB11456 is a proposed tocilizumab biosimilar. Our study tested the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity of MSB11456 to the approved formulations of tocilizumab in the US and EU (US-licensed and EU-approved tocilizumab) in a large group of healthy adults. Volunteers received a single 162 mg subcutaneous injection of MSB11456, US-licensed tocilizumab, or EU-approved tocilizumab in this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Blood samples were taken before and regularly after the injection, and safety was monitored. We showed that the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of MSB11456, US-licensed and EU-approved tocilizumab were sufficiently similar to claim equivalence between the three products. Safety and immunogenicity were also comparable between the three treatments. These findings suggest that MSB11456 can be considered as a biosimilar to tocilizumab. Biosimilars have improved price competition and led to a reduction in the net costs of biologics, so tocilizumab biosimilars can be expected to contribute to this and potentially improve access to the best available care.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of a Proposed Pegfilgrastim Biosimilar MSB11455 Versus the Reference Pegfilgrastim Neulasta in Healthy Subjects: A Randomized, Double-blind Trial.

PURPOSE: MSB11455 is a proposed biosimilar to the reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®). This pivotal equivalence study (NCT03251248) assessed the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence of MSB11455 to the reference product. METHODS: This 2-way, 2-sequence, group-sequential, crossover study was conducted in healthy subjects. Subjects received a single subcutaneous dose of MSB11455 or the reference product (both 6 mg/0.6 mL) on Day 1 of each study period. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (absolute neutrophil count; ANC) samples were taken predose and up to day 16 post-dose. Non-compartmental parameters were calculated. Immunogenicity samples were taken pre-dose and up to day 84 after the first dose. Safety was assessed throughout the study. FINDINGS: A total of 292 subjects were randomized to therapy and treated; 244 received both treatments. For all primary pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters, 90% repeated confidence intervals of geometric means ratio of MSB11455 to the reference product were within the pre-defined equivalence range (80.00%-125.00%) for AUC0-∞ (96.59-112.82); AUC0-last (97.29-113.96), Cmax (97.13-114.99), maximum observed effect on ANC (98.74-102.39), and area under the effect-time curve from time zero to time to last quantifiable concentration (97.30-100.23). Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity were comparable between treatments. No filgrastim-specific neutralizing antibodies were detected with either treatment sequence. IMPLICATIONS: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence of MSB11455 and the reference product was shown, with comparable immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability between treatments. The study supports the biosimilarity of MSB11455 to the reference product. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03251248.

Immunogenicity and safety of a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar MSB11455 versus the reference pegfilgrastim Neulasta® in healthy subjects: A randomized, double-blind trial.

MSB11455 is a proposed biosimilar to the currently licensed reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta® ). This study was designed primarily to compare the immunogenicity of MSB11455 and Neulasta® . As secondary objectives, the safety and tolerability of MSB11455 and Neulasta® were also compared. Healthy adult subjects were randomized to either MSB11455 or Neulasta® , stratified by antipolyethylene glycol (PEG) antibody status at screening and study site. Subjects received a single subcutaneous dose of MSB11455 or Neulasta® (both 6 mg/0.6 mL) on day 1 of each of two study periods (same product in both periods), separated by a washout of 28-35 days. Immunogenicity samples were taken predose and up to day 84 post-first dose. Noninferiority was confirmed if the upper limit of the exact one-sided adjusted 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in antidrug antibody (ADA)-positive rates was < 10%. Safety was assessed throughout the study. Overall, 336 subjects were randomized and treated (N = 168 in each group). Noninferiority of MSB11455 over Neulasta® was demonstrated for immunogenicity; the difference in confirmed treatment-induced ADA-positive rate between MSB11455 and Neulasta® was -0.6% (upper limit of the exact one-sided adjusted 95% CI: 6.25%). ADAs were mostly directed against the PEG moiety of pegfilgrastim. No filgrastim-specific neutralizing antibodies were detected in either treatment group. Safety and tolerability were as expected for pegfilgrastim, and comparable between treatments. This study supports and strengthens the available evidence for the biosimilarity of MSB11455 to Neulasta® .

Reduced B lymphocyte and immunoglobulin levels after atacicept treatment in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: results of a multicenter, phase Ib, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalating trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and tolerability of atacicept in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and the biologic effect of atacicept on B lymphocyte and immunoglobulin levels. Atacicept is a TACI-Ig fusion protein that inhibits B cell stimulation by binding to B lymphocyte stimulator and a proliferation-inducing ligand. METHODS: This phase Ib, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalating trial comprised 6 cohorts of patients treated with atacicept or placebo in a 3:1 ratio of active drug to placebo (n = 8 per group; n = 7 in cohort 5). Cohorts 1-4 received a single subcutaneous dose of placebo or either 0.3 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, or 9 mg/kg of atacicept. Cohorts 5 and 6 received weekly doses of placebo or either 1 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg of atacicept for 4 weeks. Patients were followed up for 6 weeks (cohorts 1-4) or 9 weeks (cohorts 5 and 6). Patients with mild-to-moderate SLE were enrolled. RESULTS: Biologic activity of atacicept was demonstrated by dose-dependent reductions in immunoglobulin levels and in mature and total B cell numbers. This effect was most pronounced in the repeated-dose cohorts and was sustained throughout the followup period. There were no changes in the numbers of T cells, natural killer cells, or monocytes. Mild injection-site reactions occurred more frequently among the atacicept group than the placebo group. There were no differences in the frequency or type of adverse events and no severe or serious adverse events in patients treated with atacicept. CONCLUSION: Atacicept administered subcutaneously was well tolerated and demonstrated biologic activity consistent with the proposed mechanism of action.

Health-related quality of life and health locus of control beliefs among HIV-infected treated patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the relations between health locus of control (HLOC) beliefs and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in 302 HIV-infected patients enrolled in a French cohort, 44 months (M44) after they began highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). METHODS: HLOC beliefs were measured with the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLOC) scale and HRQL, with the Medical Outcome Study Short-Form Health Survey (MOS-SF-36). RESULTS: Internal HLOC beliefs at the initiation of treatment were associated with both physical HRQL in multivariate analysis, while chance HLOC beliefs on beginning HAART were associated with mental HRQL at M44. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest the importance of considering the psychological characteristics and psychosocial beliefs of patients at the initiation of ARV treatment to optimise the long-term HRQL of HIV-infected patient and to develop adaptive intervention on coping strategies.

Depression and clinical progression in HIV-infected drug users treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To disentangle the impact of adherence from that of injecting drug status and depressive syndrome on HIV clinical progression in a cohort of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART)-treated HIV patients infected through drug use. DESIGN: MANIF 2000 is a French cohort of HIV-infected drug users with scheduled medical visits every 6 months. Only patients enrolled in the MANIF 2000 cohort who had a CD4 cell count >200 cells/microl at HAART initiation were selected. The follow-up period included all post-HAART initiation visits. METHODS: HIV clinical progression was defined as either AIDS-related death or reaching a CD4 level <200 cells/microl. Adherence was assessed using a self-administered questionnaire and a structured face-to-face interview. Depressive symptoms were evaluated by a Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) score at each visit. Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate crude and adjusted relative hazards and 95% confidence intervals and thus identify independent predictors of clinical progression. RESULTS: Of the 305 HAART-treated patients in the cohort, 243 had CD4 cell count >200 cells/microl at HAART initiation. At the first visit after HAART initiation, median CD4 cell count was 466 cells/microl and 45% had undetectable viral load. Injecting drug users accounted for 17% of the study group. Over the follow-up period, 32 patients experienced HIV clinical progression. Probable depression was encountered in 46% of patients and non-adherence in 31% of the sample. After adjustment on baseline CD4 cell count, predictors of clinical progression were: having a higher level of cumulative non-adherence over the follow-up period [HR (95% CI)=1.2 (1.1-1.3) per 10% increase] and having a high score of depressive symptoms following HAART initiation [HR (95% CI)=5.3 (2.21-3.0)]. CONCLUSIONS: Although depressive syndrome is known to influence non-adherence behaviours that are amongst the major reasons for clinical progression, it is also a predictor of clinical progression in HIV-infected intravenous drug users on HAART, independently of non-adherence behaviours. HIV care providers should be more sensitive to depressive symptoms in order to detect them early and supply HIV patients with specific care. Further research is needed to determine whether treating depressive symptoms may improve adherence and thus delay disease progression and mortality.

Impact of HAART-related side effects on unsafe sexual behaviours in HIV-infected injecting drug users: 7-year follow up.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of non-lipodystrophy HAART-related side effects on unprotected sexual behaviours among HIV-infected drug users. DESIGNAND PARTICIPANTS: HAART-treated patients who reported having occasional partners during the follow-up period after HAART initiation were selected among patients of the MANIF 2000 cohort of HIV-infected drug users. METHODS: Visits where patients reported unsafe sexual behaviours with occasional partners were compared to visits where they reported safe sexual behaviours using a logistic model based on Generalized Estimating Equations. RESULTS: One-hundred and ninety-two HAART-treated patients reported occasional sexual partners at least once during follow-up, accounting for a total of 464 visits. Among these 192 patients, 134 (70%) declared at least once unsafe sexual behaviours with occasional partners. During follow-up, three or more HAART-related side effects were reported in 273 of the 464 visits. When comparing visits where patients reported unsafe sexual behaviours with occasional partners (n = 249) with those where they reported safe sexual behaviours (n = 215), experiencing three or more HAART-related side effects was significantly associated with unsafe sex after adjustment for cofactors such as injecting drug status, reporting more than two sexual partners and having sex more than once a week. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived side effects play a role in determining unsafe sexual behaviours. HIV prevention interventions must consider the negative impact of HAART-related side effects on sexual risk-taking behaviours. Drug maintenance programs contribute to sexual risk reduction among drug injecting patients.

Pregabalin reduces pain and improves sleep and mood disturbances in patients with post-herpetic neuralgia: results of a randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

This study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of pregabalin-a novel alpha(2)-delta ligand with analgesic, anxiolytic, and anticonvulsant activity-for treating neuropathic pain in patients with post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). Two hundred and thirty-eight patients were randomised into this multicentre, doubleblind, placebo-controlled trial to receive 150 (n=81), 300 mg/day (n=76) pregabalin, or placebo (n=81) for 8 weeks. Among the exclusion criteria was failure to respond to previous treatment for PHN with gabapentin at doses > or =1200 mg/day. Endpoint mean pain scores were significantly reduced in patients receiving 150 or 300 mg/day pregabalin compared with placebo. Efficacy was observed as early as week 1 and was maintained throughout the study. Significantly more patients in both pregabalin groups (150 mg, 26%; 300 mg, 28%) were responders (> or =50% decrease in mean pain score from baseline to endpoint) than in the placebo group (10%). Additionally, by week 1 and for the study's duration, 150 and 300 mg/day pregabalin significantly reduced weekly mean sleep interference scores. More pregabalin-treated patients than placebo-treated patients reported that they were 'much improved' or 'very much improved'. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measurements using the SF-36 Health Survey demonstrated improvement in the mental health domain for both pregabalin dosages, and bodily pain and vitality domains were improved in the 300 mg/day group. The most frequent adverse events were dizziness, somnolence, peripheral oedema, headache, and dry mouth. Pregabalin efficaciously treated the neuropathic pain of PHN. Additionally, pregabalin was associated with decreased sleep interference and significant improvements in HRQoL measures.

A sequential procedure for comparing two experimental treatments with a control.

A procedure is described in which patients are randomized between two experimental treatments and a control. At a series of interim analyses, each experimental treatment is compared with control. One of the experimental treatments might then be found sufficiently superior to the control for it to be declared the best treatment, and the trial stopped. Alternatively, experimental treatments might be eliminated from further consideration at any stage. It is shown how the procedure can be conducted while controlling overall error probabilities. Data concerning evaluation of different doses of riluzole in the treatment of motor neurone disease are used for illustration.