Efficacy of infliximab, abatacept, and cenicriviroc for the treatment of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted to investigate the efficacy of infliximab, abatacept, and cenicriviroc in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The patient's clinical status was assessed daily on an 8-point ordinal scale. We evaluated the totality of evidence on the efficacy of the 3 immunomodulators by considering all possible changes in the clinical status of each patient over time. We demonstrated that infliximab accelerated improvement and reduced deterioration of clinical status when added to standard of care. There was also evidence for the benefit of abatacept. There was no evidence for the benefit of cenicriviroc.

Evaluating treatment efficacy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, with applications to Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trials.

BACKGROUND: The current endpoints for therapeutic trials of hospitalized COVID-19 patients capture only part of the clinical course of a patient and have limited statistical power and robustness. METHODS: We specify proportional odds models for repeated measures of clinical status, with a common odds ratio of lower severity over time. We also specify the proportional hazards model for time to each level of improvement or deterioration of clinical status, with a common hazard ratio for overall treatment benefit. We apply these methods to Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trials. RESULTS: For remdesivir versus placebo, the common odds ratio was 1.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.23-1.79; p < 0.001), and the common hazard ratio was 1.27 (95% CI = 1.09-1.47; p = 0.002). For baricitinib plus remdesivir versus remdesivir alone, the common odds ratio was 1.32 (95% CI = 1.10-1.57; p = 0.002), and the common hazard ratio was 1.30 (95% CI = 1.13-1.49; p < 0.001). For interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir versus remdesivir alone, the common odds ratio was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.79-1.14; p = 0.56), and the common hazard ratio was 0.98 (95% CI = 0.85-1.12; p = 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed methods comprehensively characterize the treatment effects on the entire clinical course of a hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

'Totality of Evidence' Approach in the Development of GP2017, an Approved Adalimumab Biosimilar.

INTRODUCTION: Hyrimoz®, (GP2017 [SDZ-ADL]), is a biosimilar to Humira® (REF-ADL). SDZ-ADL was approved in 2018 by both the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the indications of REF-ADL not protected by orphan exclusivity. In 2023, the US FDA and EMA also approved a citrate-free high-concentration formulation (HCF) of SDZ-ADL. TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE-THE APPROACH: Approval of SDZ-ADL was based on data gathered using the US FDA, EMA and World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended step-wise Totality of Evidence approach. This approach is a robust dataset confirming high confidence in analytical, functional, pharmacokinetic (PK) and clinical biosimilarity between the biosimilar and reference medicine determined through analytical and clinical investigation. EVIDENCE OF BIOSIMILARITY: Evidence supporting the biosimilarity of SDZ-ADL and REF-ADL was reported at each stage of investigation. Comprehensive comparative analytical and functional assessments demonstrated that SDZ-ADL was analytically indistinguishable from REF-ADL in required critical quality attributes, including receptor binding. Phase I clinical data showed PK similarity of SDZ-ADL and REF-ADL in healthy volunteers, with similar safety, tolerability and immunogenicity profiles. Phase III confirmatory efficacy and safety studies, ADACCESS (included in US/EU dossiers) and ADMYRA (separate to US/EU dossiers), both confirmed that SDZ-ADL's efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity matched REF-ADL in all patient groups with no clinically meaningful differences. More recently, this data package was the basis for a citrate-free HCF of SDZ-ADL to be developed, and its PK, safety and immunogenicity were confirmed against the initially approved formulation of SDZ-ADL. CONCLUSION: Overall, the Totality of Evidence provided for biosimilar adalimumab, SDZ-ADL, confirmed the analytical, functional and clinical similarity of SDZ-ADL to REF-ADL, supporting its regulatory approval and providing a data bridge with which to evaluate and support the approval of citrate-free HCF SDZ-ADL for clinical use.

A biosimilar is a type of medicine that is designed to match the structure and function of a 'reference' biologic medicine. Hyrimoz^® (SDZ-ADL) is a biosimilar of the adalimumab reference medicine, Humira^® ([REF-ADL]). SDZ-ADL was approved in the US and Europe in 2018. For SDZ-ADL to be approved, a collection of evidence needed to be created, called the 'Totality of Evidence.' The purpose of this collection of data is to show there is a high confidence that the new biosimilar medicine matches the reference medicine, from the structure of the medicine to the effect of the medicine on the human body. For SDZ-ADL, this investigation started with comparing the physical structure and other functional properties of SDZ-ADL versus REF-ADL and ended with clinical studies in both healthy volunteers and in patients with diseases treated with adalimumab. This Totality of Evidence gathered for biosimilar adalimumab, SDZ-ADL, confirmed the similarity of SDZ-ADL to REF-ADL and therefore supported the approval of SDZ-ADL. In 2018, a citrate-free high-concentration version (high concentration formulation [HCF]) of REF-ADL was launched that matched REF-ADL. HCF REF-ADL has since become the primary formulation of REF-ADL used in practice. In 2023, a HCF version of SDZ-ADL was also approved in the US and EU based on evidence confirming that HCF SDZ-ADL matched SDZ-ADL. As SDZ-ADL had been previously confirmed to match the reference medicine, this meant that HCF SDZ-ADL could be directly compared against SDZ-ADL to confirm biosimilarity and support its approval.

The totality of evidence approach in the development of AVT02 (adalimumab), a biosimilar to Humira.

The development of a biosimilar is based on comparative structural, physicochemical, functional and clinical assessments. The sum of these analyses encompasses the 'totality of evidence', which demonstrates no clinically meaningful differences between the biosimilar and the reference product (RP). Once biosimilarity has been established, provided there is suitable scientific justification, clinical data may be extrapolated to other indications of the RP. AVT02 has been developed as a biosimilar to high-concentration, low-volume Humira (adalimumab), an anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha monoclonal antibody approved for various chronic inflammatory indications. The totality of evidence for AVT02 is described, supporting its approval as an adalimumab biosimilar for all approved indications globally. Analytical similarity assessments using mass spectrometry methods demonstrated identical amino acid sequences for AVT02 and the RP, with high similarity in terms of primary structure, post-translational modifications and higher-order structural attributes. The mechanism of action was assessed by various cell-based potency assays and binding assays, and the results demonstrated that AVT02 is highly similar to the RP. No clinically meaningful differences in terms of purity, potency and safety were observed, and minor differences in a few physiochemical attributes did not impact the in vitro biologic activity and were not considered clinically relevant. Clinical similarity was demonstrated by comparing the pharmacokinetic, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles of AVT02 with those of the RP. Clinical studies supported similar pharmacokinetic and comparable immunogenicity profiles between AVT02 and the RP in healthy participants and participants with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis, with no new safety signals detected. The totality of evidence described demonstrates the biosimilarity of AVT02 to the RP, thereby fulfilling the scientific and regulatory requirements for AVT02 as a high-concentration biosimilar for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis and all approved indications of the RP.

Demonstrating the high similarity between the biosimilar AVT02 (adalimumab) and Humira, supporting AVT02 to be used to treat all conditions currently treated with Humira Biosimilars are drugs that have similar quality, effectiveness, and safety profiles to an already approved biological drug, which is referred to as the 'reference product (RP)'. Although biosimilars have identical amino acids (the building blocks that make up proteins) to the RPs, they are manufactured in living cells which leads to a small amount of natural variability. Therefore, extensive testing is required to confirm that a biosimilar is highly similar to the RP. The 'totality of evidence' is a set of tests to demonstrate that there are no meaningful differences between the biosimilar and the RP, in other words, that there is 'biosimilarity' between the biosimilar and RP. Once biosimilarity has been proven, the biosimilar may be used to treat all the diseases currently treated with the RP, without the need for separate clinical trials in each disease. AVT02 has been developed as a biosimilar to Humira, an antibody approved for various chronic inflammatory diseases such as chronic plaque psoriasis (PsO). A step-by-step approach was used to show biosimilarity of AVT02 to Humira. This included clinical studies (in healthy individuals and participants with moderate to severe chronic PsO) and non-clinical studies (comparisons of the chemistry of the drugs and how they work in the body). Clinical studies in healthy individuals and participants with PsO showed that AVT02 and Humira were taken up and degraded by the body in a similar way, peoples' immune response to the two drugs were similar, and both drugs had similar side effects. No clinically meaningful differences in the purity, effectiveness, and safety of AVT02 compared with Humira were seen. The evidence demonstrates the biosimilarity of AVT02 to Humira and supports the use of AVT02 to treat all conditions which are currently treated with Humira.

SB8, an approved bevacizumab biosimilar based on totality of evidence: scientific justification of extrapolation.

SB8 is a biosimilar of bevacizumab based on its similarity demonstrated by physicochemical, functional, non-clinical and clinical studies. Supported by the concept of extrapolation, SB8 was authorized and is used in a similar manner across all types of tumors as reference bevacizumab. Furthermore, SB8 offers convenience with prolonged stability compared with reference bevacizumab in diluted form. Although a biosimilar must demonstrate biosimilarity to a reference product with the 'totality of evidence' in a stringent regulatory process for marketing authorization, some concerns remain among healthcare practitioners, particularly about extrapolation. This review summarizes the concepts of the totality of evidence and extrapolation in biosimilar development and the role of bevacizumab biosimilars in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer as an extrapolated indication.

A review of the totality of evidence supporting the development and approval of a pegfilgrastim biosimilar (LA-EP2006).

OBJECTIVE: The totality-of-evidence approach requires that similarity between a proposed biosimilar and a reference biologic is demonstrated across a range of analytical, preclinical, and clinical parameters to establish biosimilarity. We describe the totality of evidence for Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006 [marketed as Ziextenzo]) that supported its regulatory approval in Europe and the United States. METHODS: Analytical similarity to the reference biologic [marketed by Amgen as Neulasta] was first investigated with regard to physiochemical quality attributes such as primary structure, pegylation, higher-order structures, variants and impurities, molecular size variants, and formulation (protein content, pH, excipients, etc.). In vitro biological activity studies were performed to examine the primary mechanism of action of pegfilgrastim. Bioequivalence (clinical pharmacokinetics [PK] and pharmacodynamics [PD]) of Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim to the reference biologic was studied in healthy volunteers; efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were assessed during confirmatory clinical efficacy studies in patients undergoing treatment for breast cancer. RESULTS: No meaningful or relevant differences were identified between Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim and the reference biologic during analytical testing. Similar receptor binding and induction of cellular proliferation in vitro confirmed no functional differences between the biologics. Clinical studies in healthy adult participants demonstrated PK/PD biosimilarity and a similar safety profile between biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastim. Clinical studies in a sensitive patient population also demonstrated similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity between Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim and the reference biologic. CONCLUSIONS: The totality of evidence confirms that Sandoz biosimilar pegfilgrastim matches the reference biologic and will therefore provide equivalent efficacy and safety in all eligible indications.

Evaluating the Efficacy of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccines.

A large number of studies are being conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of candidate vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Most phase 3 trials have adopted virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 as the primary efficacy end point, although laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is also of interest. In addition, it is important to evaluate the effect of vaccination on disease severity. To provide a full picture of vaccine efficacy and make efficient use of available data, we propose using SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic COVID-19, and severe COVID-19 as dual or triple primary end points. We demonstrate the advantages of this strategy through realistic simulation studies. Finally, we show how this approach can provide rigorous interim monitoring of the trials and efficient assessment of the durability of vaccine efficacy.

Evaluating the Efficacy of Therapies in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

There is a proliferation of clinical trials worldwide to find effective therapies for patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The endpoints that are currently used to evaluate the efficacy of therapeutic agents against COVID-19 are focused on clinical status at a particular day or on time to a specific change of clinical status. To provide a full picture of the clinical course of a patient and make complete use of available data, we consider the trajectory of clinical status over the entire follow-up period. We also show how to combine the evidence of treatment effects on the occurrences of various clinical events. We compare the proposed and existing endpoints through extensive simulation studies. Finally, we provide guidelines on establishing the benefits of treatments.

Scientific rationale underpinning the development of biosimilar rituximab in hematological cancers and inflammatory diseases.

Sandoz rituximab (SDZ-RTX; Rixathon®; GP2013), a rituximab biosimilar, was approved in June 2017 in Europe in all indications of reference rituximab. The stepwise SDZ-RTX development program generated extensive physicochemical, structural, functional, and biological data demonstrating a match with reference rituximab on all clinically relevant attributes. A focused clinical development program followed, in two indications selected for sensitivity to detect potential differences versus reference rituximab: rheumatoid arthritis (pivotal pharmacokinetics and efficacy evaluation) and follicular lymphoma (pivotal efficacy/safety evaluation). These trials demonstrated highly similar pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles. The totality of evidence for biosimilarity for SDZ-RTX, combined with knowledge that B-cell depletion is common to each approved indication, allowed SDZ-RTX approval for use in all indications of reference rituximab.

Totality of evidence in the development of ABP 215, an approved bevacizumab biosimilar.

ABP 215 (MVASI™) is the first approved biosimilar to Avastin® (bevacizumab). It is approved in the USA and the European Union (EU) for all bevacizumab indications in these jurisdictions except for ovarian cancer in the USA due to orphan drug exclusivity. ABP 215 was shown to be structurally, functionally and clinically (pharmacokinetic, efficacy and safety) similar to the bevacizumab reference product; the pharmacokinetic study was conducted in healthy adult men (n = 202); safety and efficacy were evaluated in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 642). Together, these results comprise the totality of evidence that provides scientific justification for extrapolation to all approved indications of the reference product and supports the clinical value of ABP 215 as an additional treatment option.

A Review of the Totality of Evidence Supporting the Development of the First Adalimumab Biosimilar ABP 501.

ABP 501 [United States: AMJEVITA™ (adalimumab-atto); European Union: AMGEVITA® (adalimumab)] is the first approved biosimilar to adalimumab [reference product (RP)], a monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting tumor necrosis factor-alfa (TNF-α). ABP 501 has received approval for use in indications that adalimumab RP is approved for, except those protected by regulatory exclusivity. A systematic step-wise totality of evidence (TOE) approach formed the basis of approval of ABP 501; this involved methodical accumulation of scientifically robust comparative data supporting similarity in analytical, preclinical, and clinical [pharmacokinetics (PK)], efficacy, safety and immunogenicity) evaluations. As a foundational first step, comprehensive analytical assessments demonstrated that ABP 501 is structurally and functionally similar to adalimumab RP in critical quality attributes. Preclinical assessments confirmed similar activity in assessing mechanisms of action and toxicology. Clinical evaluation included a phase 1 PK equivalence study in healthy subjects and two comparative phase 3 studies that evaluated ABP 501 and adalimumab RP in two sensitive patient populations, plaque psoriasis (PsO) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The PK profiles of ABP 501 and adalimumab RP were similar in healthy subjects as well as patients with PsO and RA. The pivotal phase 3 study in patients with PsO demonstrated that ABP 501 was clinically similar to adalimumab RP in terms of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in both the primary and transition phases. The pivotal phase 3 study in patients with RA also established clinical similarity between ABP 501 and adalimumab RP; an open-label extension of this study demonstrated sustained efficacy over an additional 72 weeks, with no new safety or immunogenicity concerns with ABP 501 treatment. Overall, the TOE supported the conclusion that ABP 501 is highly similar to adalimumab RP and provided scientific justification for extrapolation to all the approved indications of adalimumab RP not protected by exclusivities.Funding: Amgen Inc.

Talking to patients about biosimilars.

Biologic therapies target aberrant pathways in diseases including diabetes, cancer and autoimmune disorders. Despite recent scientific advances, patient access to these agents can be limited. Biosimilars are designed to be highly similar to the originator biologic, targeting the same biological pathways, with comparable efficacy and safety. Biosimilars have the advantage of lower treatment costs, offering the potential for increased clinical use and patient access. Several biosimilars are approved for clinical use in the USA and Europe; however, there is a lack of awareness about biosimilars among healthcare providers and patients. This overview of the scientific basis of biosimilars and current indications aim to enhance discussions with patients and increase understanding of the role of biosimilars in individual treatment plans.

Bevacizumab biosimilars: scientific justification for extrapolation of indications.

The first biosimilar of bevacizumab was approved by the US FDA; other potential biosimilars of bevacizumab are in late-stage clinical development. Their availability offers opportunity for increased patient access across a number of oncologic indications. The regulatory pathway for biosimilar approval relies on the totality of evidence that includes a comprehensive analytical assessment, and a clinical comparability study in a relevant disease patient population. Extrapolation of indications for a biosimilar to other eligible indications held by the originator, in the absence of direct clinical comparison, frequently forms part of the regulatory judgment. Herein, we consider the evidence required to demonstrate biosimilarity for bevacizumab biosimilars, with particular focus on the rationale for extrapolation across oncologic indications.

Improving the power to establish clinical similarity in a Phase 3 efficacy trial by incorporating prior evidence of analytical and pharmacokinetic similarity.

To improve patients' access to safe and effective biological medicines, abbreviated licensure pathways for biosimilar and interchangeable biological products have been established in the US, Europe, and other countries around the world. The US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency have published various guidance documents on the development and approval of biosimilars, which recommend a "totality-of-the-evidence" approach with a stepwise process to demonstrate biosimilarity. The approach relies on comprehensive comparability studies ranging from analytical and nonclinical studies to clinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) and efficacy studies. A clinical efficacy study may be necessary to address residual uncertainty about the biosimilarity of the proposed product to the reference product and support a demonstration that there are no clinically meaningful differences. In this article, we propose a statistical strategy that takes into account the similarity evidence from analytical assessments and PK studies in the design and analysis of the clinical efficacy study in order to address residual uncertainty and enhance statistical power and precision. We assume that if the proposed biosimilar product and the reference product are shown to be highly similar with respect to the analytical and PK parameters, then they should also be similar with respect to the efficacy parameters. We show that the proposed methods provide correct control of the type I error and improve the power and precision of the efficacy study upon the standard analysis that disregards the prior evidence. We confirm and illustrate the theoretical results through simulation studies based on the biosimilars development experience of many different products.

Scientific rationale for extrapolation of biosimilar data across cancer indications: case study of CT-P10.

For a biosimilar to gain regulatory approval, a comprehensive comparability exercise must demonstrate that it is highly similar to its originator biologic, or reference product. Once biosimilarity has been shown, it is possible to approve the biosimilar for additional indications held by the reference product, without clinical trials in these indications. Extrapolation of clinical data is permitted by regulatory agencies as long as it is scientifically justified. CT-P10, a biosimilar of rituximab, was recently approved in Europe for all indications held by its reference product, incorporating both autoimmune diseases and hematological cancers. Here, we review the scientific rationale for extrapolation in biosimilar development using the example of CT-P10 as a case study.

Use of statistical and pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling and simulation to improve decision-making: A section summary report of the trends and innovations in clinical trial statistics conference.

The application of modeling and simulation (M&S) methods to improve decision-making was discussed during the Trends & Innovations in Clinical Trial Statistics Conference held in Durham, North Carolina, USA on May 1-4, 2016. Uses of both pharmacometric and statistical M&S were presented during the conference, highlighting the diversity of the methods employed by pharmacometricians and statisticians to address a broad range of quantitative issues in drug development. Five presentations are summarized herein, which cover the development strategy of employing M&S to drive decision-making; European initiatives on best practice in M&S; case studies of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics modeling in regulatory decisions; estimation of exposure-response relationships in the presence of confounding; and the utility of estimating the probability of a correct decision for dose selection when prior information is limited. While M&S has been widely used during the last few decades, it is expected to play an essential role as more quantitative assessments are employed in the decision-making process. By integrating M&S as a tool to compile the totality of evidence collected throughout the drug development program, more informed decisions will be made.