A multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of CT-P10 and innovator rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate pharmacokinetic equivalence of CT-P10 and innovator rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses or intolerances to antitumour necrosis factor agents. METHODS: In this randomised phase I trial, patients with active RA were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive 1000 mg CT-P10 or RTX at weeks 0 and 2 (alongside continued methotrexate therapy). Primary endpoints were area under the serum concentration-time curve from time zero to last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-last) and maximum serum concentration after second infusion (Cmax). Additional pharmacokinetic parameters, efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety were also assessed. Data are reported up to week 24. RESULTS: 103 patients were assigned to CT-P10 and 51 to RTX. The 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means (CT-P10/RTX) for both primary endpoints were within the bioequivalence range of 80%-125% (AUC0-last: 97.7% (90% CI 89.2% to 107.0%); Cmax: 97.6% (90% CI 92.0% to 103.5%)). Pharmacodynamics and efficacy were comparable between groups. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 17.6% of patients in each group at week 24. CT-P10 and RTX displayed similar safety profiles. CONCLUSIONS: CT-P10 and RTX demonstrated equivalent pharmacokinetics and comparable efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01534884.

Partial remission in ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis in treatment with infliximab plus naproxen or naproxen alone: associations between partial remission and baseline disease characteristics.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate partial remission during treatment with infliximab (IFX) + naproxen (NPX) vs NPX alone in patients from the two subgroups of SpA and explore baseline predictors of partial remission. METHODS: Infliximab as First Line Therapy in Patients with Early Active Axial Spondyloarthritis Trial was a double-blind, randomised controlled trial of IFX in biologic-naïve patients with early, active axial SpA. Patients were randomised (2:1) to receive 28 weeks of treatment with i.v. IFX 5 mg/kg (weeks 0, 2, 6, 12, 18 and 24) + NPX 1000 mg/day or i.v. placebo (PBO) + NPX 1000 mg/day. The current post hoc analysis evaluated outcomes in patients who did or did not meet modified New York radiographic criteria for AS. RESULTS: The analysis included 94 patients who met AS criteria and 56 with non-radiographic axial SpA (nr-axSpA). At week 28, Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) partial remission was greater with IFX + NPX than PBO + NPX for both the AS group (70.5 vs 33.3%, respectively) and the nr-axSpA group (50.0 vs 37.5%, respectively). A similar pattern occurred with several efficacy measures. Larger treatment effects occurred in the AS group than the nr-axSpA group, possibly due to baseline differences in disease characteristics. Multivariable analyses identified the type of treatment, age and HLA-B27 status as predictors of ASAS partial remission in the total study population. MRI sacroiliac joint scores were associated with partial remission during IFX + NPX treatment. CONCLUSION: Patients with AS had greater partial remission with IFX + NSAID than NSAID therapy alone; patients with nr-axSpA had a smaller treatment effect. Baseline disease characteristics and age were associated with partial remission with IFX therapy.

Efficacy, Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Up to Two Courses of the Rituximab Biosimilar CT-P10 Versus Innovator Rituximab in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results up to Week 72 of a Phase I Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: CT-P10 is a biosimilar of innovator rituximab (RTX), a biological therapy used to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have responded inadequately to anti-tumor necrosis factor agents. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the clinical profile of CT-P10 versus RTX in patients with RA who received up to two courses of treatment and were followed for up to 72 weeks. METHODS: In this multicenter double-blind phase I study, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive CT-P10 1000 mg or RTX 1000 mg at weeks 0 and 2. Based on disease activity, patients could receive a second course of treatment between weeks 24 and 48. Efficacy endpoints, including mean change from baseline in Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28), safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics were evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 154 patients were randomized to CT-P10 or RTX (n = 103 and 51, respectively); 137 (n = 92 and 45) completed the first course of treatment, of whom 83 (n = 60 and 23) were re-treated. Improvements from baseline in all efficacy endpoints were highly similar between the CT-P10 and RTX groups over both treatment courses. At week 24 after the second course, mean change from week 0 of the first course in DAS28 erythrocyte sedimentation rate was -2.47 and -2.04 for CT-P10 and RTX, respectively, (p = 0.1866) and in DAS28 C-reactive protein was -2.32 and -2.00, respectively (p = 0.3268). The proportion of patients positive for antidrug antibodies at week 24 after the second treatment course was 20.0% and 21.7% in the CT-P10 and RTX groups, respectively. The safety profile of CT-P10 was comparable to that of RTX, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RA, efficacy, safety, and other clinical data were comparable between CT-P10 and RTX after up to two courses of treatment over 72 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01534884).

Efficacy and Safety of Switching from Innovator Rituximab to Biosimilar CT-P10 Compared with Continued Treatment with CT-P10: Results of a 56-Week Open-Label Study in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: CT-P10 is a biosimilar candidate of innovator rituximab (RTX) that demonstrated a comparable clinical profile to RTX in a phase I randomized controlled trial (RCT) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01534884). OBJECTIVE: This open-label extension (OLE) study (NCT01873443) compared the efficacy and safety of CT-P10 in patients with RA who received CT-P10 from the outset (i.e., from the start of the RCT and also in the OLE; 'maintenance group') with those who received RTX during the RCT and switched to CT-P10 during the OLE ('switch group'). METHODS: Patients who completed the RCT were recruited. Based on the Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28) and predefined safety criteria, patients could receive up to two courses of CT-P10 during the OLE. Efficacy [DAS28 and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response], safety and immunogenicity were assessed. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were enrolled; 58 and 29 had previously received CT-P10 or RTX, respectively, in the RCT. Of these, 38 (65.5%) and 20 (69.0%) were treated with CT-P10 in the OLE and therefore comprised the maintenance and switch groups, respectively. The mean change in DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) from baseline (week 0 of RCT) at week 24 of the first OLE treatment course in the maintenance and switch groups was -2.7 and -2.4, respectively. The proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR responses was also comparable between groups. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 13.2 and 15.0% of patients in the maintenance and switch groups, respectively, at week 24 of the first OLE course. CT-P10 treatment was well-tolerated when administered for up to 2 years or after switching from RTX. CONCLUSION: In this study population, comparable efficacy and safety profiles were observed in patients who switched from RTX to CT-P10 and those maintained on CT-P10 throughout treatment.