Viability of a Serum Infliximab Concentration-Detecting Reagent as a Qualitative Assay for an Infliximab Biosimilar.

The efficacy of infliximab in treating rheumatoid arthritis depends on its serum trough concentration, which must be maintained at a minimum of 1 µg/mL to achieve the desired effects. However, Japan's National Health Insurance system does not cover tests for rheumatoid arthritis patients undergoing treatment with biosimilar infliximab because its performance as a biosimilar remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate whether the Remi-check Q qualitative assay yields comparable results for biosimilar infliximab and the originator product. Infliximab BS 100 "NK" and Remicade 100® were separately diluted in pooled human serum to yield test samples at the following concentrations: 0.30, 0.70, 1.20, and 3.00 µg/mL. Prepared samples were quantitatively assessed using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and qualitatively using Remi-check Q, and the results obtained for the originator and biosimilar product were compared. For both originator and biosimilar infliximab, Remi-check Q yielded a negative result for all 0.30 and 0.70 µg/mL samples and a positive result for all 3.00 µg/mL samples. However, negative results were obtained with a fraction of the 1.20 µg/mL samples (biosimilar, 4/15; originator, 3/15). Concurrence rates between the results of quantitative ELISA and qualitative Remi-check Q analyses were comparable between originator and biosimilar infliximab at all tested concentrations. These results indicate that Remi-check Q yields comparable results for biosimilar infliximab and the originator product on being used as a qualitative assay for trough serum levels.

A randomized phase I study comparing the pharmacokinetics of a bevacizumab (HD204) biosimilar to European Union- and United States of America-sourced bevacizumab.

PURPOSE: This first-in-human study was designed to evaluate the pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence between HD204 and the European Union (EU)-sourced bevacizumab, between HD204 and the United States of America (US)-sourced bevacizumab, and between EU-sourced and US-sourced bevacizumab (NCT03390673). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, 3-way parallel group, single-dose comparative PK study, healthy male subjects were randomized to receive a single 1 mg/kg intravenous dose of HD204, EU-sourced bevacizumab or US-sourced bevacizumab. PK parameters were calculated using non-compartmental methods. PK equivalence was determined using the pre-defined equivalence margin of 0.8-1.25 in terms of AUC(0-∞) for the pairwise comparisons. FINDINGS: Baseline demographics for the 119 randomized subjects were similar across the three groups. The 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of HD204 to US-sourced bevacizumab, HD204 to EU-sourced bevacizumab, and EU-sourced to US-sourced bevacizumab were all within the interval of 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, thus demonstrating equivalency in the PK properties for all three treatment groups. Similarly, the ratio of the geometric means for AUC0-last and Cmax were all within the 80% and 125% margins, supporting the robustness of the primary findings. All other PK parameters, including the half-life (t1/2) clearance (CL), volume of distribution (Vd) and time of maximum concentration (tmax), were comparable. There was no difference between the 3 treatment arms in terms of vital signs, laboratory tests and adverse events. None of the subjects treated with HD204 had positive ADA results. IMPLICATIONS: HD204 demonstrates equivalent pharmacokinetic profiles compared to those of both US-sourced and EU-sourced bevacizumab. (NCT03390673).

A randomized, double-blind, single-dose study (LAVENDER) to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of a combined infusion of ABP 980 and pertuzumab in healthy subjects.

PURPOSE: ABP 980 (KANJINTI™) is a biosimilar to reference product HERCEPTIN® (trastuzumab RP). The goal of this study was to characterize the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of ABP 980 plus pertuzumab (PERJETA®) when co-administered in a single infusion bag in healthy subjects. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, single-dose, 2-arm, parallel-group study (LAVENDER Study) evaluated an intravenous (IV) infusion of ABP 980 (6 mg/kg) plus pertuzumab (420 mg) combined in a single infusion bag relative to an IV infusion of trastuzumab RP (6 mg/kg) plus pertuzumab (420 mg) combined in a single infusion bag given over 60 min. The subjects were followed for 92 days post dosing. RESULTS: A total of 42 subjects were enrolled in the study and treated with investigational product. Due to an operational issue during dosing, the first 6 subjects enrolled in the study were replaced. A total of 36 randomized subjects, n = 18 for ABP 980 plus pertuzumab and n = 18 for trastuzumab RP plus pertuzumab, were treated. Resulting serum concentrations of ABP 980 and trastuzumab RP were similar. There were no serious adverse events, no deaths, and no cardiac disorders during the study. No subject developed anti-drug antibodies throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the safety and tolerability of ABP 980 and pertuzumab admixture in a single infusion bag. The safety profiles and pharmacokinetic parameters of ABP 980 and pertuzumab were consistent with what is known for trastuzumab RP and pertuzumab. CLINICAL TRIAL LISTING: EudraCT 2018-002903-33.

Randomized, Open-Label, Single-Dose, Parallel-Group Pharmacokinetic Study of PF-06410293 (adalimumab-afzb), an Adalimumab Biosimilar, by Subcutaneous Dosing Using a Prefilled Syringe or a Prefilled Pen in Healthy Subjects.

This open-label, single-dose, randomized, parallel-group, 2-arm phase 1 bioequivalence (BE) study assessed the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and tolerability of PF-06410293 (ADL-PF), an adalimumab (ADL) biosimilar, following administration by prefilled pen (PFP) or prefilled syringe (PFS). A total of 164 healthy adult subjects were randomized (1:1) to receive ADL-PF (40 mg subcutaneously) in the lower abdomen or upper anterior thigh by PFS or PFP; 163 subjects were included in the primary PK analysis. The concentration-time profiles of the ADL-PF PFS and PFP treatment arms were similar. The 90% confidence intervals for the test/reference ratios of the primary end points (area under the serum concentration-time profile from time 0 to 2 weeks after dosing and maximum observed serum concentration) fell within the 80.00%-125.00% prespecified margin for BE. Comparable numbers of subjects experienced adverse events (AEs) between treatment groups, and injection-site pain was similar at all times and for the 2 injection-site locations. This study demonstrated the BE of ADL-PF following subcutaneous administration using either a PFS or PFP device. ADL-PF by PFS or PFP injection was well tolerated, with the distribution of AEs, including injection-site reactions, being similar between treatment arms.

Comparison of SB2-Infliximab With Originator-Infliximab in the Measurement of Serum Concentrations: A Short Communication.

BACKGROUND: The optimal use of infliximab depends on the measurement of trough levels with subsequent appropriate dose adjustment. With the introduction of biosimilars, it is important to demonstrate that the biosimilar behaves similarly in the assay used as the originator-infliximab, for which the assays were developed. In this study, the authors aimed to compare the concentrations of SB2-infliximab (Renflexis) with that of originator-infliximab (Remicade) when added to serum from healthy subjects and those with inflammatory bowel disease when measured by commonly used commercial assays. METHODS: Sera from 2 healthy controls, 2 patients with ulcerative colitis (1 with quiescent disease and 1 with active disease), and 2 patients with Crohn disease (1 with quiescent disease and 1 with active disease) were spiked with SB2-infliximab or originator-infliximab at 0-20 mcg/mL. Concentrations were measured using 3 commonly used assay kits (Lisa-Tracker, Shikari Q-Inflix, Promonitor IFX) and one rapid test (Quantum Blue). The results were compared using Bland-Altman techniques. RESULTS: Close agreement was observed between measured concentrations for all assays, irrespective of the origin of the serum. Limits of agreement varied between at worst -0.302 and 0.465 mcg/mL, with the mean difference between the molecules being at worst 0.04 mcg/mL (95% confidence intervals, -0.011 to 0.093). CONCLUSIONS: The originator and SB-2 biosimilar-infliximab behaved similarly in several currently used assays in their concentrations in biological fluids. Clinicians can be confident that therapeutic drug monitoring using platforms designed and developed for the originator-infliximab can be applied to SB-2-infliximab.

Doctor's aptitude for switching from innovator etanercept to biosimilar etanercept in inflammatory rheumatic diseases: experience from a single French rheumatology tertiary care center.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the switch to biosimilar etanercept (bETN), evaluate factors associated with this switch, and evaluate the efficacy of this switch in a real-life setting METHODS: We included patients, from October 2016 to April 2017, with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA) who received innovator ETN (iETN) for at least 6 months. After receiving information on biosimilars, all physicians were invited to propose a switch from iETN to bETN. Factors associated with bETN discontinuation were explored by univariate and multivariate analyses. We estimated the proportion of patients still on bETN over time by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. We assessed serum trough concentrations of iETN and bETN and anti-drug antibodies to ETN. RESULTS: Overall, 183 outpatients were eligible for a potential switch; 94 (51.6%) switched from iETN to bETN. The probability of a switch was greater with an older than younger aged physician (mean [SD] age 50.4 [14.3] with a switch vs 44.8 [11.3] with no switch, p = 0.005) and the physician having a full-time academic position than other position (56.4% with a switch vs 13.5% with no switch, p < 0.001). After a 6-month follow-up, bETN retention rate was 83% (95% CI: 0.76-0.92). The first cause of bETN discontinuation was inefficacy (50%). On multivariate analysis, no factor was independently associated with a bETN switch or discontinuation. Drug trough levels did not significantly differ by discontinuation or continuation of bETN. No patient showed anti-drug antibodies. CONCLUSION: The probability of switching from iETN to bETN was likely related to physician characteristics.

Infliximab concentrations in two non-switching cohorts of patients with inflammatory bowel disease: originator vs. biosimilar.

Biosimilars are replacing originator compounds due to their similar effectiveness, safety and pharmacokinetics. Our objective was to compare the differences in pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes between the originator infliximab (Ifx) and the biosimilar CT-P13 in a patient cohort with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our cohort study included 86 patients from a historical and a prospective cohort from the start of infliximab treatment to 22 weeks later. Serum infliximab, antidrug antibody levels and other serum biomarkers were measured at weeks 0, 2, 6, 14 and 22. Remission outcomes were evaluated at weeks 14 and 22. Drug levels were measured prospectively and analysed using MANOVA. Of the 86 patients, 44 (51%) and 42 (49%) were administered the originator and CT-P13, respectively. Originator trough levels were higher than the biosimilar trough levels (35 vs. 21, 20.1 vs. 11, 6.6 vs. 2.9 and 4.3 vs. 1.7 µg/mL at weeks 2, 6, 14 and 22, respectively). A post-hoc analysis demonstrated changes in mean serum drug levels over time (p < 0.001) and according to the drug employed (p = 0.001). At week 22, 13 (81%) patients administered the originator achieved clinical remission compared with 5 (19%) patients with the biosimilar (p = 0.02). None of the patients administered the originator withdrew from the treatment compared with 7 for the biosimilar. During the study, there were significant differences in serum infliximab levels between the originator and the CT-P13 in the patients with IBD. The clinical outcomes were influenced by the type of compound administered.

Development of Label-Free Immunoassays as Novel Solutions for the Measurement of Monoclonal Antibody Drugs and Antidrug Antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Immunoassays based on label-free technologies (label-free immunoassay [LFIA]) offer an innovative approach to clinical diagnostics and demonstrate great promise for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of monoclonal antibody (mAb) drugs. An LFIA measures immunocomplex formation in real time and allows for quantification on initial binding rate, which facilitates fast measurement within a few minutes. METHODS: Based on thin-film interferometry (TFI) technology, open-access LFIAs were developed for the quantification of the mAb drugs adalimumab (ADL) and infliximab (IFX) and for the detection of the antidrug antibodies (ADAs) to the mAb drugs (ADL-ADAs and IFX-ADAs). RESULTS: The LFIAs for active mAb drugs (ADL and IFX) and for ADAs (ADL-ADAs and IFX-ADAs) were validated. The analytical measurement range (AMR) for both ADL and IFX was from 2 to 100 µg/mL. The AMR for ADL-ADAs was from 5 to 100 µg/mL and for IFX-ADAs was 10 to 100 µg/mL. In the comparison of LFIAs and reporter gene assays, the correlation coefficient was 0.972 for the quantification of ADL and 0.940 for the quantification of IFX. The concordance rate was 90% for the detection of ADL-ADAs and 76% for the detection of IFX-ADAs. CONCLUSIONS: The LFIAs for active mAb drugs and ADAs were appropriate for the TDM of ADL and IFX. The TFI technology has unique advantages compared with other technologies used for the measurement of mAb drugs. Label-free technologies, especially those allowing for open-access LFIAs, have great potential for clinical diagnostics.

A Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Proposed Biosimilar ABP 798 With Rituximab Reference Product in Subjects With Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis.

ABP 798 is a proposed biosimilar to rituximab reference product (RP), an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody. Pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety results from the comparative clinical study that evaluated the PK, PD, safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of ABP 798 versus rituximab RP are presented here. Subjects with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) received 2 doses of ABP 798, United States-sourced RP (rituximab US) or European Union-sourced RP (rituximab EU), each consisting of two 1000-mg infusions 2 weeks apart. For the second dose (week 24), ABP 798- and rituximab EU-treated subjects received the same treatment; rituximab US-treated subjects transitioned to ABP 798. End points included area under the serum concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity and maximum observed serum concentration following the second infusion of the first dose (PK) and percentage of subjects with complete CD19+ cell depletion days 1-33 (PD). Primary analysis established PK similarity between ABP 798 and rituximab RP based on 90% confidence intervals of the adjusted geometric mean ratios being within a prespecified equivalence margin of 0.8 and 1.25. Complete CD19+ B-cell depletion on day 3 among groups confirmed PD similarity. These findings demonstrated PK/PD similarity between ABP 798 and rituximab RP in subjects with moderate to severe RA.

Comparative nonclinical assessments of the biosimilar PF-06410293 and originator adalimumab.

Adalimumab, a recombinant fully human monoclonal antibody targeting tumor necrosis factor (TNF), is approved in the United States and Europe to treat various inflammatory and autoimmune indications. Biosimilars are approved biologics highly similar, but not identical, to approved biotherapeutics. To support clinical development of PF-06410293, an adalimumab biosimilar, nonclinical studies evaluated the structural, functional, toxicologic, and toxicokinetic similarity to originator adalimumab sourced from the United States (adalimumab-US) and European Union (adalimumab-EU). Structural similarity was assessed by peptide mapping. Biologic activity was measured via inhibition of TNF-induced apoptosis and Fc-based functionality assessments. In vivo nonclinical similarity was evaluated in a toxicity study in cynomolgus monkeys administered subcutaneous PF-06410293 or adalimumab-EU (0 or 157 mg/kg/week). Peptide mapping demonstrated PF-06410293, adalimumab-US, and adalimumab-EU had identical amino acid sequences. Comparative functional and binding assessments were similar. Effects of PF-06410293 and adalimumab-EU were similar and limited to pharmacologically mediated decreased cellularity of lymphoid follicles and germinal centers in spleen. Toxicokinetics were similar; maximum plasma concentration and area-under-the-concentration-time curve ratio of PF-06410293:adalimumab-EU ranged from 1.0 to 1.2. These studies supported PF-06410293 entry into clinical development. Many regulatory agencies now only request nonclinical in vivo testing if there is residual uncertainty regarding biosimilarity after in vitro analytical studies.

An in vitro comparison of four different immunoassays for the monitoring of Infliximab biosimilars drug levels.

BACKGROUND: SB2 (Renflexis®, Merck) and CT-P13 (Inflectra®, Pfizer) are biosimilars of the reference Infliximab (Remicade®, Janssen) and are approved in Canada for use in indications for which Infliximab is approved, including inflammatory bowel disease. These biosimilars are structurally different but exhibit comparable physicochemical characteristics, pharmaceutical effectiveness and immunogenicity compared to Infliximab. Optimal Infliximab therapy currently relies on therapeutic drug monitoring offered by several reference laboratories. OBJECTIVE: Because the appropriate dosing depends on accurate determination of drug levels and anti-drug antibodies, the ability of current Infliximab assays to measure the biosimilars and corresponding antibodies needs to be demonstrated. METHODS: The correlation between Infliximab and the biosimilars measured with four different enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for Infliximab detection was evaluated. Spiked serum samples were assayed with kits from (A) Immunodiagnostik/ALPCO Diagnostics, (B) R-Biopharm, (C) Theradiag and (D) Progenika Biopharma. The impact of various concentrations of antibodies to Infliximab on the quantification of biosimilars was also tested. RESULTS: A good correlation of SB2, CT-P13 and reference Infliximab spiked serum samples was observed with the four assays. The observed bias between the original drug and biosimilars is clinically insignificant and less than the usual analytical variability observed with these methods. The quantification of the biosimilars and Infliximab was equally impacted in serums containing antibodies to Infliximab. The recovery of the drugs was inversely correlated with the concentration of anti-Infliximab antibodies, suggesting common immunodominant epitopes for SB2, CT-P13 and Infliximab. CONCLUSION: The ability of these assays to properly quantify the biosimilars Renflexis® and Inflectra® has been demonstrated. The therapeutic drug monitoring required for Infliximab therapy can be adequately performed with the biosimilars using the kits currently in use or available in clinical laboratories.

Switching From Originator Adalimumab to the Biosimilar SB5 in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Short-term Experience From a Single Tertiary Clinical Centre.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients' perspectives after switching from originator to biosimilar adalimumab have yet to be assessed. We evaluated the efficacy of switching from the originator adalimumab to a biosimilar compound [SB5] in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. METHODS: Data on IBD patients who were switched from the originator to biosimilar adalimumab [SB5] at IBD Center ISCARE were analysed. Disease activity was assessed using standard clinical indices (Harvey-Bradshaw index [HBI] for Crohn's disease [CD] and partial Mayo score for ulcerative colitis [UC]), and laboratory parameters (C-reactive protein [CRP] and faecal calprotectin [FC]). Trough levels and anti-drug antibodies were measured. Patients were evaluated 10 weeks [W10] after the switch, and results were compared with the control group of patients on originator compound. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients switched to biosimilar adalimumab were included [CD 86%] and were matched to 93 controls for age, gender, diagnosis, and disease activity. There was no difference in the disease activity in either SWITCH or ORIGINATOR cohorts between Weeks 0 and 10. Similarly, no difference was found between cohorts at both prespecified time points. Moreover, no significant differences in CRP or FC concentrations were seen between W0 and W10 either in the SWITCH, or in the ORIGINATOR cohort [p >0.05]. Adalimumab serum trough levels remained stable after the switch. No new safety signals were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed that switching IBD patients from the originator adalimumab to a biosimilar compound [SB5] does not affect treatment efficacy.

Pharmacokinetic Similarity of ABP 710, a Proposed Biosimilar to Infliximab: Results From a Randomized, Single-Blind, Single-Dose, Parallel-Group Study in Healthy Subjects.

This was a randomized, single-blind, single-dose, 3-arm parallel-group study. Healthy subjects were randomized to receive ABP 710 (n = 50) or infliximab reference product (RP) sourced from the United States (infliximab US; n = 50) or the European Union (infliximab EU; n = 50) 5 mg/kg intravenously over 2 hours. The primary endpoint was area under the serum concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUCinf ) for the comparison of ABP 710 to infliximab US and infliximab EU. Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity. AUCinf was similar across the 3 groups, showing similarity of ABP 710 to infliximab RP as well as similarity of infliximab US with infliximab EU. Geometric mean ratio of AUCinf was 0.89 between ABP 710 and infliximab US, 1.00 between ABP 710 and infliximab EU, and 1.11 between infliximab US and infliximab EU. All 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratios were fully contained within the prespecified standard pharmacokinetic equivalence criteria range of 0.80 to 1.25. Treatment-related adverse events were mild to moderate and reported for 83.7%, 86.0%, and 83.7% of subjects in the ABP 710, infliximab US, and infliximab EU treatment groups, respectively; incidence of antidrug antibody rates observed across the 3 groups were similar. Results of this study demonstrated pharmacokinetic similarity of ABP 710 with infliximab RP following a single 5-mg/kg intravenous injection. The safety and tolerability of ABP 710 and infliximab RP were comparable. These results add to the totality of evidence providing further support that the proposed biosimilar ABP 710 is similar to infliximab RP. (Trial ID: ACTRN12614000903684.).

Laboratory Monitoring of Biological Therapies in Rheumatology: The Role of Immunogenicity.

Biological drugs, such as proteins and immunogens, are increasingly used to treat various diseases, including tumors and autoimmune diseases, and biological molecules have almost completely replaced synthetic drugs in rheumatology. Although biological treatments such as anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs seem to be quite safe, they cause some undesirable effects, such as the onset of infections due to weakening of the immune system. Given the biological nature of these drugs, they might be recognized as extraneous; this would induce an immune reaction that neutralizes their effectiveness or lead to more serious consequences. Laboratories play a pivotal role in appropriate therapeutic management. The aim of this review was to underline the production of anti-drug antibodies during treatment with biological drugs and highlight the role of laboratories in ensuring appropriate use of these drugs.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Pharmacokinetic Equivalence Trial Comparing DRL-Rituximab With MabThera in Patients With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: We sought to compare the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of DRL-rituximab (DRL_RI; potential biosimilar) and innovator rituximab MabThera (Roche, Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany; reference medicinal product [RMP]) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Efficacy, pharmacodynamics (PDs), safety, and immunogenicity were also compared. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, parallel-group study in patients with untreated DLBCL who were eligible to receive cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) therapy. Patients were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to receive DRL_RI or RMP for six 21-day cycles of rituximab plus CHOP, with 18 months of follow-up after day 1, cycle 6 (C6). Primary end point was C1 PKs, measured as area under the plasma concentration-time curve from day 0 to 21 (AUC0-21 days) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax). Equivalence was defined as 90% CIs for the DRL_RI/RMP geometric mean ratios (GMRs) within 80% and 125%. Secondary end points included efficacy noninferiority measured by objective response rate (ORR) at C6 and event-free survival and overall survival at 87 weeks, PK equivalence at C6 and PD equivalence (rate of B-cell depletion and repletion), safety, and immunogenicity. The trial was stopped after sufficient patients for primary end point evaluation were enrolled. Secondary end points are reported as observed. RESULTS: A total of 151 patients were randomly assigned (DRL_RI, n = 76; RMP, n = 75). DRL_RI/RMP GMRs for AUC0-21 days and Cmax in C1 were 99.77 (90% CI, 87.60 to 113.63) and 96.19 (90% CI, 88.65 to 104.38), respectively. ORR at C6 for DRL_RI and RMP were 82.0% and 84.8%, respectively. Rates of B-cell depletion/repletion, immunogenicity, and adverse events were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION: DRL_RI and RMP had equivalent PKs, with comparable efficacy, PDs, safety, and immunogenicity.

Production of monoclonal antibodies for measuring Avastin and its biosimilar by Sandwich ELISA.

The development of Bevacizumab (Avastin) biosimilar products has grown rapidly over the last ten years as the original Avastin's patent will expire soon. The approval of Avastin biosimilars requires the demonstration of similarity between the biosimilar and the reference product. To support pre-clinical and clinical studies, pharmacokinetic (PK) assays are required to measure the biosimilar and Avastin with comparable precision and accuracy. The PK assay of Avastin employed by Genentech was a Sandwich ELISA which could detect the total drug concentration. However, it was developed in-house and not commercially available. Therefore, in most of the Avastin biosimilar pre-clinical studies, the antibody drug concentrations were measured using an indirect ELISA against coated VEGF, which could only measure the free instead of the total antibody drugs. It failed the essential requirement to develop the biosimilars. In this study, we reported the generation of mouse monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that specifically recognize Avastin in a VEGF non-competitive manner. Using a pair of non-VEGF competing anti-Avastin mAbs, a Sandwich ELISA was developed with a lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ) at 400 ng/mL and upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) at 12800 ng/mL. The assay validation was carried out with serum samples from monkey treated with Avastin biosimilar at seven different time points. Our data showed that the Sandwich ELISA kit we developed is sensitive, simple, reproducible and ready for use in human clinical trials.

Analytical and clinical performance evaluation of two POC tests for therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab.

Background Infliximab (IFX) is an effective therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Serum IFX trough concentrations correlate well with clinical, biological and endoscopic outcomes. Therefore, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of infliximab is useful for dose optimization and prevention of secondary treatment failure. In the present study, analytical and clinical performance of two point-of-care (POC) tests, RIDA®QUICK IFX Monitoring assay (R-biopharm) and Quantum Blue® Infliximab assay (Bühlmann), have been evaluated and compared to our established enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (apDia IFX ELISA). Methods Analytical performance was assessed according to the CLSI EP5-A2 protocol using the manufacturer's kit controls and different serial dilution series. Method comparison with our established ELISA was done using a wide range of consecutive patient samples (n=180). Clinical concordance was evaluated by categorization based on well-known therapeutic cut-off points (3-7 µg/mL). Results The analytical performance of both POC tests was inferior to the established ELISA, but acceptable based on the manufacturer's quality claims. Eight-point serial dilution confirmed the analytical performance data in the low-level measuring range. Eleven-point serial dilution demonstrated linearity for both POC tests over the studied concentration range. Method comparison with the ELISA showed significant negative proportional bias for the RIDA®QUICK IFX Monitoring assay. However, good correlation and clinical concordance were shown. Quantum Blue® Infliximab assay showed a significant positive proportional and a negative systematic bias in comparison with the ELISA, resulting in overestimation of IFX levels with impact on clinical concordance data. Conclusions Both POC tests have their own specific benefits and drawbacks but are suitable for therapeutic drug monitoring of IFX. However, long-term monitoring of IFX trough levels requires measurement of IFX concentrations with the same assay.

A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial Comparing the Pharmacokinetics of CT-P16, a Candidate Bevacizumab Biosimilar, with its Reference Product in Healthy Adult Males.

BACKGROUND: CT-P16 is a candidate biosimilar of bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting vascular endothelial growth factor that is used in the treatment of a range of advanced solid cancers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to demonstrate the pharmacokinetic equivalence of CT-P16 and European Union (EU)-approved bevacizumab (EU-bevacizumab) and US-licensed bevacizumab (US-bevacizumab) reference products. METHODS: In this double-blind, parallel-group phase I trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03247673), healthy adult males were randomized (1:1:1) to receive a single dose of CT-P16 5 mg/kg, EU-bevacizumab 5 mg/kg, or US-bevacizumab 5 mg/kg. Primary study endpoints were area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to infinity (AUC∞), AUC from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUClast), and maximum serum concentration (Cmax). Pharmacokinetic equivalence was shown if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean (GM) ratios of the AUC∞, AUClast, and Cmax were within the predefined bioequivalence margin of 80-125%. Safety and immunogenicity were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 144 subjects were randomized: 47 to CT-P16, 49 to EU-bevacizumab, and 48 to US-bevacizumab. The 90% CIs for the GM ratios of AUC∞, AUClast, and Cmax for CT-P16/EU-bevacizumab, CT-P16/US-bevacizumab, and EU-bevacizumab/US-bevacizumab comparisons were all within the bioequivalence margin. Mean serum concentration-time profiles, secondary pharmacokinetic parameters, and safety and immunogenicity profiles were comparable across all three treatment groups. CONCLUSION: CT-P16 demonstrated pharmacokinetic equivalence to EU-bevacizumab and US-bevacizumab. Safety and immunogenicity profiles were similar for CT-P16, EU-bevacizumab, and US-bevacizumab. These data support the further clinical evaluation of CT-P16 as a bevacizumab biosimilar. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03247673.

PF-06881893 (Nivestym™), a Filgrastim Biosimilar, Versus US-Licensed Filgrastim Reference Product (US-Neupogen®): Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, Immunogenicity, and Safety of Single or Multiple Subcutaneous Doses in Healthy Volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Three comparative clinical studies assessed the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), immunogenicity and safety of PF-06881893 (filgrastim-aafi; Nivestym™), a filgrastim biosimilar, versus US-licensed reference product (filgrastim; US-Neupogen®) in healthy volunteers (HVs). METHODS: Two separate open-label, crossover-design PK/PD studies were conducted: a single-dose study (n = 24) and a multiple-dose study (n = 60). In each study, HVs were randomized to Nivestym followed by US-Neupogen, or vice versa. Study drug (5 µg/kg) was administered subcutaneously as a single injection or as five consecutive daily injections. Primary PK and PD endpoints were area under the filgrastim serum concentration-time curve, maximum observed concentration, area under the effect curve (AUEC) for absolute neutrophil count (ANC), maximum observed ANC, AUEC for cluster of differentiation (CD)-34+ count, and maximum observed CD34+ count. In an open-label, parallel-design, non-inferiority, comparative immunogenicity study, HVs were randomized (n = 128/treatment) to Nivestym or US-Neupogen. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with a negative baseline antidrug antibody (ADA) test result and one or more confirmed post-dose positive ADA result. RESULTS: Overall demographics were as follows: female (n = 162/340); White (n = 274/340), Black (n = 58/340), and other (n = 8/340); age (18-65 years); and weight (50.8-96.5 kg). All primary PK and PD endpoints met the pre-specified criteria for PK and PD equivalence. The primary endpoint in the comparative immunogenicity study met pre-specified criteria for non-inferiority. CONCLUSIONS: Nivestym demonstrated PK and PD equivalence in single and multiple subcutaneous-dose settings and non-inferiority for immunogenicity to US-Neupogen, with a comparable safety profile, supporting the demonstration of biosimilarity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov C1121002 (NCT02766647); C1121003 (NCT02766634); C1121012 (NCT02923791).

Effective serum level of etanercept biosimilar and effect of antidrug antibodies on drug levels and clinical efficacy in Chinese patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effective serum level of etanercept biosimilar in Chinese patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who achieve AS Disease Activity Score-C-reactive protein (ASDAS-CRP) < 2.1, and the effect of antidrug antibodies on drug levels and clinical efficacy. METHODS: Our study enrolled 60 patients with AS who were treated with etanercept biosimilar. Serum and clinical data were collected at baseline and treatment weeks 4, 12, and 24. Drug levels and antidrug antibody levels were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay while tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α levels were measured using cytometric bead array. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyse effective serum level of etanercept biosimilar. RESULTS: Patients with ASDAS-CRP ≥ 2.1 exhibited significantly lower drug levels than those with ASDAS-CRP < 2.1 did. The cut-off values of effective serum level of patients with AS who achieved ASDAS-CRP < 2.1 at weeks 4, 12, and 24 were 2.32, 2.12, and 2.36 µg/mL, respectively. Patients with drug levels above the cut-off value had lower Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and TNF-α levels. Antidrug antibodies had no effect on the Assessment of Spondylosis Arthritis International Society (ASAS) remission rates, but patients with antidrug antibodies had lower drug levels and higher TNF-α levels. CONCLUSIONS: Detecting serum drug levels and antidrug antibody levels might facilitate estimation of the clinical efficacy and adjustment of medication regimen during etanercept biosimilar therapy in Chinese patients with AS.