Randomized double-blind clinical trial comparing safety and efficacy of the biosimilar BCD-022 with reference trastuzumab.

BACKGROUND: BCD-022 is a trastuzumab biosimilar which was shown to be equivalent to reference trastuzumab in a wide panel of physicochemical studies as well as preclinical studies in vitro and in vivo. International multicenter phase III clinical trial was conducted to comparatively assess efficacy and safety of BCD-022 and reference trastuzumab in combination with paclitaxel used as the therapy of metastatic HER2(+) breast cancer. Pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity were also studied. METHODS: Patients with no previous treatment for metastatic HER2(+) breast cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to BCD-022 or reference trastuzumab and were treated with trastuzumab + paclitaxel. Therapy continued for 6 cycles of therapy (every 3 weeks), until progression of the disease or unbearable toxicity. Primary study endpoint was overall response rate. Study goal was to prove equivalent efficacy of BCD-022 and reference trastuzumab. Equivalence margins for 95% CI for difference in overall response rates were set at [- 20%; 20%]. RESULTS: In total 225 patients were enrolled into the study, 115 in BCD-022 arm and 110 in reference trastuzumab arm. Overall response rate was 49.6% in BCD-022 arm and 43.6% in reference trastuzumab arm. Limits of 95% CI for difference of overall response rates between arms were [(- 8.05)-19.89%], thus, they lied within predetermined equivalence margins [- 20%; 20%]. Profile of adverse events was similar between groups (any AEs were reported in 93.81% of patients in BCD-022 arm and 94.55% of patients in reference arm). No unexpected adverse reactions were reported throughout the study. No statistically significant differences regarding antibody occurrence rate (either BAb or NAb) was found between BCD-022 (n = 3; 2.65%) and comparator (n = 4; 3.64%). Both drug products are characterized with low occurrence rate and short life of anti-trastuzumab antibodies. Pharmacokinetics assessment after 1st and 6th study drug injection also demonstrated equivalent PK parameters by all outcome measures: AUC0-504, Сmах, Тmax, T1/2. Analysis of Ctrough did not reveal any significant inter-group differences as well. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, results of this study have demonstrated therapeutic equivalence of trastuzumab biosimilar BCD-022 and referent trastuzumab drug. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Study Number NCT01764022 ). The date of registration was January 9, 2013.

Treatment with nanosomal paclitaxel lipid suspension versus conventional paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer patients - a multicenter, randomized, comparative, phase II/III clinical study.

Background: A novel nanosomal paclitaxel lipid suspension (NPLS), free from Cremophor EL (CrEL) and ethanol, was developed to address the solvent-related toxicities associated with conventional paclitaxel formulation. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of NPLS versus CrEL-based paclitaxel (conventional paclitaxel) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Design: A prospective, open-label, randomized, multiple-dose, parallel, phase II/III study. Methods: Adult (18-65 years) female patients with MBC who had previously failed at least one line of chemotherapy were randomized (2:2:1) to NPLS 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (Q3W, n = 48, arm A), NPLS 80 mg/m2 every week (QW, n = 45, arm B) without premedication or conventional paclitaxel (Taxol®, manufactured by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA) 175 mg/m2 Q3W (n = 27, arm C) with premedication. In the extension study, an additional 54 patients were randomized (2:1) to arm A (n = 37) or arm C (n = 17). Results: Pooled data from the primary study and its extension phase included 174 patients. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). As per intent-to-treat analysis, ORR was significantly better in the NPLS QW arm as compared to conventional paclitaxel [44.4% (20/45) versus 22.7% (10/44), (p = 0.04)]. An improvement in ORR with NPLS Q3W versus conventional paclitaxel arm [29.4% (25/85) versus 22.7% (10/44)] (p = 0.53) was observed. Disease control rates observed were improved with NPLS Q3W versus conventional paclitaxel Q3W (77.7% versus 72.7%, p = 0.66) and with NPLS QW versus conventional paclitaxel Q3W (84.4% versus 72.7%, p = 0.20), although not significant. A lower incidence of grade III/IV peripheral sensory neuropathy, vomiting, and dyspnea was reported with NPLS Q3W versus conventional paclitaxel Q3W arms. Conclusion: NPLS demonstrated an improved tumor response rate and a favorable safety profile versus conventional paclitaxel. NPLS 80 mg/m2 QW demonstrated a significantly better response versus conventional paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 Q3W. Trial registration: Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI), CTRI/2010/091/001344 Registered on: 18 October 2010 (https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?EncHid=MjEzNQ==&Enc=&userName=CTRI/2010/091/001344), CTRI/2015/07/006062 Registered on: 31 July 2015 (https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?EncHid=MTE2Mjc=&Enc=&userName=CTRI/2015/07/006062).

Role of nanosomal paclitaxel lipid suspension (NPLS) in the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) Why was the study done? Paclitaxel is a commonly used drug for the treatment of breast cancer. Conventional formulation of paclitaxel is known to cause side effects like injection site reactions. A newer formulation named NPLS was developed to overcome the limitations of the conventional paclitaxel. The current study was done to compare the safety and effectiveness of NPLS and conventional paclitaxel in patients with advanced breast cancer. What did the researchers do? The research team conducted a large study in multiple hospitals across India, involving women with advanced breast cancer who had experienced treatment failure with previous chemotherapy. A total of 174 patients were randomly assigned to receive either of the three treatment schedules: (1) NPLS every 3 weeks, (2) NPLS every week, (3) conventional paclitaxel every 3 weeks. What did the researchers find? The results showed that NPLS, in a weekly schedule, led to better tumor response rates compared to conventional paclitaxel given every 3 weeks. Additionally, NPLS demonstrated a favorable safety profile, as compared to conventional paclitaxel. What do the findings mean? These findings suggest that NPLS could be a promising alternative for women with advanced breast cancer. NPLS improved the response to treatment, with a better safety profile compared to conventional paclitaxel.