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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Neoadjuvant PF-05280014 (a potential trastuzumab biosimilar) versus trastuzumab for operable HER2+ breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This randomised, double-blind study compared pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of PF-05280014 (potential trastuzumab biosimilar) and trastuzumab reference product (Herceptin) sourced from the European Union (trastuzumab-EU) as neoadjuvant treatment for operable human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer. METHODS: Patients (N = 226), stratified by primary tumour size and hormone receptor status, were randomised 1:1 to PF-05280014 or trastuzumab-EU (8 mg/kg loading dose; 6 mg/kg thereafter), each with docetaxel and carboplatin, every 3 weeks for six treatment cycles. Primary endpoint was percentage of patients with trough plasma concentration (Ctrough) >20 µg/ml at Cycle 5 (Cycle 6 predose). Efficacy endpoints included pathological complete response and objective response rate. Non-inferiority of PF-05280014 to trastuzumab-EU was declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the stratified difference between groups in the percentage of patients with Cycle 5 Ctrough >20 µg/ml was above the prespecified non-inferiority margin of - 12.5%. RESULTS: For PF-05280014 vs trastuzumab-EU patients, respectively, 92.1% vs 93.3% had Cycle 5 Ctrough >20 µg/ml; the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (- 8.02%, 6.49%) for the stratified difference between groups was above the non-inferiority margin (- 12.5%). Pathological complete response (47.0% vs 50.0%) and central radiology review-assessed objective response (88.1% vs 82.0%) rates were comparable. Incidence of all-causality, grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events was 38.1% vs 45.5%; antidrug antibody rates were 0% vs 0.89%. CONCLUSIONS: PF-05280014 demonstrated non-inferior pharmacokinetics and comparable efficacy, safety and immunogenicity to trastuzumab-EU in patients with operable HER2-positive breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Single-dose euglycaemic clamp studies demonstrating pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity between MK-1293 insulin glargine and originator insulin glargine (Lantus) in subjects with type 1 diabetes and healthy subjects.

AIMS: MK-1293 is an insulin glargine that has an amino acid sequence identical to that of Lantus, the originator insulin glargine. Two euglycaemic clamp studies, 1 in subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and 1 in healthy subjects, were conducted to demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) similarity between MK-1293 and Lantus commercially procured in both the European Union (EU-Lantus) and the USA (US-Lantus). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Both studies were single-dose, randomized, double-blind, single-centre, crossover studies with ≥7 days between dosing periods. A 2-treatment, 4-period replicate crossover study in T1D subjects (N = 76) compared the PK and PD of MK-1293 to EU-Lantus for 30 hours after dosing. A 3-period crossover study in healthy subjects (N = 109) compared the PK and PD of MK-1293, EU-Lantus and US-Lantus for 24 hours after dosing. In both studies, all subjects received single 0.4 units/kg subcutaneous doses of MK-1293 or Lantus in all dosing periods. Pharmacokinetic assessment was based on LC-MS/MS-based measurement of the major insulin glargine metabolite (M1) and PD was characterized using the euglycaemic clamp platform. RESULTS: In both studies, pre-specified similarity criteria were met between MK-1293 and Lantus for comparison of PK (AUC0-24 and Cmax of M1) and PD (GIR-AUC0-24 , GIR-AUC0-12 , GIR-AUC12-24 , and GIRmax ) primary endpoints. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Based on comparative assessment in both T1D and healthy subjects, it can be concluded that the PK and PD properties of MK-1293 are highly similar to those of Lantus. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02059174).

Evaluation of Infliximab and Anti-infliximab LISA-TRACKER Immunoassays for the Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of SB2 Infliximab Biosimilar.

BACKGROUND: SB2, an infliximab (IFX) biosimilar to the reference infliximab (R.I.) product (Remicade), received approval in the European Union for all IFX indications. Many decision algorithms based on the measurement of IFX trough levels and antibodies to infliximab are being increasingly used to optimize IFX treatment. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether the biosimilar SB2 could be efficiently monitored using the LISA-TRACKER IFX and anti-IFX assays developed by Theradiag (Croissy Beaubourg, France). METHODS: Standard curves of R.I. and SB2 were compared, and then accuracy of the LISA-TRACKER IFX assay in detecting the spiked concentration of SB2 was measured. Levels of IFX from SB2 spiked samples and R.I. clinical samples were calculated. Intra-run and inter-run imprecision were also measured with SB2 spiked samples. The ability of polyclonal antibodies directed against R.I. to block the detection of SB2 using the LISA-TRACKER IFX assay and the capacity of SB2 to block the detection of anti-R.I. antibodies using the LISA-TRACKER anti-IFX assay were tested. RESULTS: Twelve patients treated with SB2 including 2 patients with SB2-specific antibodies were measured with the LISA-TRACKER anti-IFX assay. We demonstrated that the LISA-TRACKER assay is suitable for the quantification of SB2 in human serum samples. The percentage of recovery was between 82% and 113%. High intra-run and inter-run imprecisions were obtained with the LISA-TRACKER infliximab assay for the quantification of SB2 (SD ranged from 3.3% to 17.9%). The SB2-blocking capacity of R.I. polyclonal antibodies in spiked samples was demonstrated with inhibition between 80% and 97%. SB2 trough levels and anti-SB2 antibodies have also been confirmed in SB2-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: LISA-TRACKER IFX and anti-IFX assays are suitable for the monitoring of patients treated with SB2.

A randomised, single-blind, single-dose, three-arm, parallel-group study in healthy subjects to demonstrate pharmacokinetic equivalence of ABP 501 and adalimumab.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity of biosimilar candidate ABP 501 relative to adalimumab reference product from the USA and European Union (EU) and evaluate safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of ABP 501. METHODS: Randomised, single-blind, single-dose, three-arm, parallel-group study; healthy subjects were randomised to receive ABP 501 (n=67), adalimumab (USA) (n=69) or adalimumab (EU) (n=67) 40 mg subcutaneously. Primary end points were area under the serum concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUCinf) and the maximum observed concentration (Cmax). Secondary end points included safety and immunogenicity. RESULTS: AUCinf and Cmax were similar across the three groups. Geometrical mean ratio (GMR) of AUCinf was 1.11 between ABP 501 and adalimumab (USA), and 1.04 between ABP 501 and adalimumab (EU). GMR of Cmax was 1.04 between ABP 501 and adalimumab (USA) and 0.96 between ABP 501 and adalimumab (EU). The 90% CIs for the GMRs of AUCinf and Cmax were within the prespecified standard PK equivalence criteria of 0.80 to 1.25. Treatment-related adverse events were mild to moderate and were reported for 35.8%, 24.6% and 41.8% of subjects in the ABP 501, adalimumab (USA) and adalimumab (EU) groups; incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADAbs) was similar among the study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study demonstrated PK similarity of ABP 501 with adalimumab (USA) and adalimumab (EU) after a single 40-mg subcutaneous injection. No new safety signals with ABP 501 were identified. The safety and tolerability of ABP 501 was similar to the reference products, and similar ADAb rates were observed across the three groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT number 2012-000785-37; Results.

Similar pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rapid-acting insulin lispro products SAR342434 and US- and EU-approved Humalog in subjects with type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of 3 rapid-acting insulin lispro products: SAR342434 solution, United States (US)-approved Humalog and European Union (EU)-approved Humalog. METHODS: In a single-centre, randomized, double-blind, 3-treatment, 3-period, 6-sequence, crossover, euglycaemic clamp study (NCT02273258), adult male subjects with type 1 diabetes were randomized to receive 0.3 U/kg of SAR342434 solution, US-approved and EU-approved Humalog under fasted conditions. PK and PD (glucose infusion rate [GIR]) were assessed up to 12 hours. RESULTS: Of the 30 subjects randomized, 28 completed all 3 treatment periods. Mean concentration and GIR vs time profiles were similar for all 3 products. Exposure (INS-Cmax , INS-AUClast and INS-AUC) and activity (GIRmax and GIR-AUC0-12h ) of SAR342434, US-approved and EU-approved Humalog were similar in all comparisons (point estimates of treatment ratios, 0.95-1.03 for PK parameters and 1.00-1.07 for PD parameters), with 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of geometric least squares means within the pre-specified bioequivalence limit (0.80-1.25) and no significant differences in time-related parameters. Within-subject variability of exposure and activity was low across the 3 clamps, indicating high day-to-day reproducibility in clamp performance, irrespective of the individual product. Adverse events were similar for all 3 products. No safety concerns were noted in vital signs or in laboratory and electrocardiogram data. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate similarity in insulin lispro exposure profiles and PD activity of SAR342434 solution to both US- and EU-approved Humalog, and between both US- and EU-approved Humalog, supporting the use of SAR342434 solution for injection as a follow-on product.

Comparison of the pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity of MSB11022, a biosimilar of adalimumab, with Humira(®) in healthy subjects.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety and tolerability of the proposed adalimumab biosimilar MSB11022 (Merck) with Humira(®) (AbbVie), sourced from both the US (US reference product [US-RP]) and Europe (European reference medicinal product [EU-RMP]). METHODS: In this phase 1 double-blind, parallel group trial (EMR200588-001), 213 healthy volunteers were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to receive a single dose (40 mg) of MSB11022, US-RP or EU-RMP in order to achieve 80% power assuming a 5% difference among groups and a 10% dropout rate. Following a preplanned blinded sample size re-assessment after more than 50% of the originally planned subjects had been observed, the sample size was increased to 237 (79 per arm) to ensure 213 completers. Primary PK endpoints analyzed by non-compartmental methods, were area under the curve (AUC) from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC(0,∞)), maximum observed concentration (Cmax ), and AUC from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC(0,tlast )). PK equivalence was declared if the 90% CI for the test : reference ratio lay within the 80-125% equivalence margin. Bioequivalence was demonstrated if all three PK parameters met the PK equivalence criteria. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS: Mean serum concentration-time profiles for the three treatments were similar. MSB11022 demonstrated PK equivalence to US-RP and EU-RMP for all primary endpoints. The geometric means of AUC(0,∞), Cmax and AUC(0,tlast ) following a single dose of MSB11022 were 2276.05 µg ml(-1)  h, 3.44 µg ml(-1)   and 1983.90 µg ml(-1)  h, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were similar across all groups, with treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) reported by 62.8%, 56.3% and 62.0% of subjects within the MSB11022, US-RP and EU-RMP groups, respectively. Most of the TEAEs were considered mild and unrelated to study drug. No deaths or severe AEs related to the study drug were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Bioequivalence between MSB11022, US-RP and EU-RMP was demonstrated. Safety, tolerability and immunogenicity profiles were similar between subjects receiving MSB11022 and US-RP or EU-RMP. These data support the further clinical evaluation of MSB11022 as a proposed biosimilar of adalimumab.

Use of population approach non-linear mixed effects models in the evaluation of biosimilarity of monoclonal antibodies.

PURPOSE: Population pharmacokinetic analyses (PPK) have been used to establish bioequivalence for small molecules and some biologicals. We investigated whether PPK could also be useful in biosimilarity testing for monoclonal antibodies (MAbs). METHODS: Data from a biosimilarity trial with two trastuzumab products were used to build population pharmacokinetic models. First, a combined model was developed and similarity between test and reference product was evaluated by performing a covariate analysis with trastuzumab drug product (test or reference) on all model parameters. Next, two separate models were developed, one for each drug product. The model structure and parameters were compared and evaluated for differences. RESULTS: Drug product could not be identified as statistically significant covariate on any parameter in the combined model, and the addition of drug product as covariate did not improve the model fit. A similar structural model described both the test and reference data best. Only minor differences were found between the estimated parameters from these separate models. CONCLUSIONS: PPK can also be used to support a biosimilarity claim for a MAb. However, in contrast to the standard non-compartmental analysis, there is less experience with a PPK approach. Here, we describe two methods of how PPK can be incorporated in biosimilarity testing for complex therapeutics.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.