Final overall survival analysis of the phase 3 HERITAGE study demonstrates equivalence of trastuzumab-dkst to trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The phase 3 HERITAGE trial demonstrated that the biosimilar trastuzumab-dkst is well tolerated with similar efficacy (measured by overall response rate [ORR] and progression-free survival [PFS]) compared with originator trastuzumab combined with taxane followed by monotherapy in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Herein, we present final overall survival (OS) from HERITAGE. METHODS: HERITAGE is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive trastuzumab-dkst or trastuzumab plus taxane followed by continued monotherapy until disease progression. Overall survival was to be assessed at 36 months or after 240 deaths, whichever occurred first, as observed from time of randomization of last patient. RESULTS: At the final analysis (36 months), 242 patients in the intention-to-treat population had died during the study: 116 and 124 in the trastuzumab-dkst and trastuzumab groups, respectively, and 1 untreated patient from each treatment group. Median OS by Kaplan-Meier analysis was 35.0 months with trastuzumab-dkst and 30.2 months with trastuzumab. Evaluation of PFS showed a median of 11.1 months in both treatment groups. No new safety concerns were reported from week 48 until the end of the survival follow-up. CONCLUSION: This is the first phase 3 trial of a trastuzumab biosimilar to report long-term survival data similar to originator trastuzumab in patients with MBC. The comparable long-term OS between the trastuzumab-dkst and originator trastuzumab groups further supports the similarity of trastuzumab-dkst with originator trastuzumab and establishes trastuzumab-dkst as a safe and effective treatment option for patients with HER2-positive MBC. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02472964; 6/16/2015.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalence of biosimilar MYL-1601D with US and European insulin aspart in healthy volunteers: A randomized, double-blind, crossover, euglycaemic glucose clamp study.

AIM: To evaluate the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) bioequivalence (BE) of MYL-1601D biosimilar with originator, NovoLog (Ref-InsAsp-US), and NovoRapid (Ref-InsAsp-EU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, crossover study that enrolled 71 healthy subjects to receive a single subcutaneous dose (0.2 U/kg) of each formulation under automated euglycaemic clamp conditions (ClampArt, level 81 mg/dL, duration 12 hours postdose). Primary PK endpoints were area under the plasma insulin aspart concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12h ) and maximum plasma insulin aspart concentration (Cmax ). Primary PD endpoints were area under the glucose infusion rate (GIR) time curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUCGIR0-12h ) and maximum GIR (GIRmax ). Insulin aspart in plasma was quantified using immunoaffinity purification followed by ultraperformance liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometric detection. The pairwise comparisons of geometric least square mean (LS-mean) ratio for a 90% confidence interval (CI) of primary PK, and 90% CIs (MYL-1601D vs. Ref-InsAsp-US) and 95% CIs (MYL-1601D vs. Ref-InsAsp-EU) of primary PD variables, were to be within 80% to 125% to show BE. RESULTS: MYL-1601D showed PK BE to both Ref-InsAsp-US (AUC0-12h geometric LS-mean ratio 102.17, 90% CI [100.26; 104.11]; Cmax 106.13 [100.71; 111.85]) and Ref-InsAsp-EU (AUC0-12h 101.84 [100.04; 103.67]; Cmax 105.74 [101.09; 110.60]). Likewise, MYL-1601D showed PD BE to Ref-InsAsp-US (AUCGIR_0-last 99.93; 90% CI [95.74; 104.30]; GIR_max 100.12 [94.46; 106.12]) and Ref-InsAsp-EU (AUCGIR_0-last 96.42; 95% CI [91.17; 101.98]; GIR_max 95.10 [89.37; 101.19]). All three insulin aspart products were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: MYL-1601D showed BE to Ref-InsAsp-US and Ref-InsAsp-EU with a comparable safety profile.

Similar immunogenicity profiles between the proposed biosimilar MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine in patients with diabetes mellitus: the phase 3 INSTRIDE 1 and INSTRIDE 2 studies.

BACKGROUND: MYL-1501D is a proposed biosimilar to insulin glargine. The noninferiority of MYL-1501D was demonstrated in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes in 2 phase 3 trials. Immunogenicity of MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine was examined in both studies. METHODS: INSTRIDE 1 and INSTRIDE 2 were multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group studies. In INSTRIDE 1, patients with type 1 diabetes received MYL-1501D or insulin glargine over a 52-week period. In INSTRIDE 2, patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antidiabetic drugs, insulin naive or not, received MYL-1501D or reference insulin glargine over a 24-week period. Incidence rates and change from baseline in relative levels of antidrug antibodies (ADA) and anti-host cell protein (anti-HCP) antibodies in both treatment groups were determined by a radioimmunoprecipitation assay and a bridging immunoassay, respectively. Results were analyzed using a mixed-effects model (INSTRIDE 1) or a nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test (INSTRIDE 2). RESULTS: Total enrollment was 558 patients in INSTRIDE 1 and 560 patients in INSTRIDE 2. The incidence of total and cross-reactive ADA was comparable between treatment groups in INSTRIDE 1 and INSTRIDE 2 (P > 0.05 for both). A similar proportion of patients had anti-HCP antibodies in both treatment groups in INSTRIDE 1 at week 52 (MYL-1501D, 93.9 %; reference insulin glargine, 89.6 %; P = 0.213) and in INSTRIDE 2 at week 24 (MYL-1501D, 87.3 %; reference insulin glargine, 86.9 %; P > 0.999). CONCLUSIONS: In INSTRIDE 1 and INSTRIDE 2, similar immunogenicity profiles were observed for MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, respectively. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, INSTRIDE 1 ( NCT02227862 ; date of registration, August 28, 2014); INSTRIDE 2 ( NCT02227875 ; date of registration, August 28, 2014).

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalence of proposed biosimilar MYL-1501D with US and European insulin glargine formulations in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: To report phase 1 bioequivalence results comparing MYL-1501D, US reference insulin glargine (US IG), and European reference insulin glargine (EU IG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The double-blind, randomized, three-way crossover study compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics of MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG. In total, 114 patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) received 0.4 U/kg of each study treatment under automated euglycaemic clamp conditions. Insulin metabolite M1 concentrations, insulin glargine (IG) and glucose infusion rates (GIRs) were assessed over 30 hours. Primary PK endpoints were area under the serum IG concentration-time curve from 0 to 30 hours (AUCins.0-30h ) and maximum serum IG concentration (Cins.max ). Primary PD endpoints were area under the GIR-time curve from 0 to 30 hours (AUCGIR0-30h ) and maximum GIR (GIRmax ). RESULTS: Bioequivalence among MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG was demonstrated for the primary PK and PD endpoints. Least squares mean ratios were close to 1, and 90% confidence intervals were within 0.80 to 1.25. The PD GIR-time profiles were nearly superimposable. There were no noticeable differences in the safety profiles of the three treatments, and no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Equivalence with regard to PK and PD characteristics was shown among MYL-1501D, US IG and EU IG in patients with T1DM, and each treatment was well tolerated and safe.

Efficacy and safety of MYL-1501D versus insulin glargine in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus: Results of the INSTRIDE 3 phase 3 switch study.

AIMS: To assess the efficacy, insulin dose, safety and immunogenicity when people with type 1 diabetes mellitus switched between MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine (Lantus®; Sanofi-Aventis US LLC, Bridgewater, New Jersey). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible participants from INSTRIDE 1 who completed 52 weeks of reference insulin glargine treatment were randomized 1:1 to the reference sequence (n = 63; reference insulin glargine for 36 weeks) or to the treatment-switching sequence (n = 64; MYL-1501D [weeks 0-12], reference insulin glargine [weeks 12-24] and MYL-1501D [weeks 24-36]). Change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 36 was the primary efficacy endpoint used to demonstrate equivalence between the two treatment sequences. Secondary endpoints included: change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) and insulin dose; immunogenicity; and adverse events, including hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: Mean changes in HbA1c (least squares [LS] mean [SE]) from baseline to week 36 were -0.05 (0.032) and -0.06 (0.034) for the treatment-switching and reference sequences, respectively (LS mean difference 0.01 [95% CI -0.085 to 0.101]). Treatment sequences were comparable in terms of secondary endpoints, including FPG, SMBG and insulin dose, and the safety and immunogenicity profiles of the two sequences were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Switching participants between MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine demonstrated equivalent efficacy and similar safety and immunogenicity, showing that people taking reference insulin glargine can safely switch to MYL-1501D.

Randomized phase 3 efficacy and safety trial of proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar MYL-1401H in the prophylactic treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

Pegfilgrastim is indicated for reducing the duration of neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Here, safety and efficacy of MYL-1401H, a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar, were investigated as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group equivalence trial of MYL-1401H vs European Union-sourced reference pegfilgrastim. Patients with newly diagnosed stage II/III breast cancer eligible to receive (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide every 3 weeks for 6 cycles were enrolled and randomized 2:1 to 6 mg of MYL-1401H or reference pegfilgrastim 24 h (+ 2-h window after the first 24 h) after the end of chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 (i.e., days with absolute neutrophil count (ANC) < 0.5 × 109/L). Mean (standard deviation (SD)) duration of severe neutropenia in MYL-1401H and reference pegfilgrastim groups was 1.2 days (0.93) and 1.2 days (1.10), respectively. The 95% CI for least squares mean difference (- 0.285, 0.298) was within the predefined equivalence range of ± 1 day. Secondary endpoints, including grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (frequency, 91% and 82% for MYL-1401H and reference pegfilgrastim, respectively), time to ANC nadir (mean (SD), 6.2 (0.98) and 6.3 (1.57) days), and duration of post-nadir recovery (mean (SD), 1.9 (0.85) and 1.7 (0.91) days) were comparable. Overall safety profiles of the study drugs were comparable. MYL-1401H demonstrated equivalent efficacy and similar safety to reference pegfilgrastim and may be an equivalent option for reducing incidence of neutropenia. ( ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02467868; EudraCT, 2014-002324-27).

Efficacy and safety of MYL-1501D versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes after 24 weeks: Results of the phase III INSTRIDE 2 study.

AIMS: To assess the non-inferiority of MYL-1501D, a proposed biosimilar or follow-on biological agent to marketed insulin glargine, to reference insulin glargine (Lantus®; Sanofi-Aventis US LLC, Bridgewater, New Jersey) based on change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). MATERIALS AND METHODS: INSTRIDE 2 was a multicentre, open-label, randomized, parallel-group, phase III non-inferiority study comparing the efficacy and safety of MYL-1501D with those of reference insulin glargine in insulin-naive and insulin-non-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). The primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24. Secondary endpoints included metabolic readouts (eg, changes in fasting plasma glucose, insulin dosage, self-monitored blood glucose), immunogenicity and adverse events, including hypoglycaemia and nocturnal hypoglycaemic events. RESULTS: In all, 560 patients were randomized to MYL-1501D or insulin glargine in combination with OADs for 24 weeks. The mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 was -0.60% (95% CI -0.78, -0.41) and - 0.66% (95% CI -0.84, -0.48) for MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine, respectively. MYL-1501D was well tolerated and had a safety profile similar to that of reference insulin glargine. CONCLUSIONS: Demonstration of non-inferiority between MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine for reduction of HbA1c during 24 weeks of treatment was achieved. The two treatment groups were similar in terms of secondary endpoints, including hypoglycaemia and nocturnal hypoglycaemia, local and systemic reactions, other safety variables, and immunogenicity.

Efficacy and safety of MYL-1501D vs insulin glargine in patients with type 1 diabetes after 52 weeks: Results of the INSTRIDE 1 phase III study.

AIM: To test the safety and efficacy of MYL-1501D, a proposed insulin glargine biosimilar, in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). METHODS: The safety and efficacy of MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine were evaluated in INSTRIDE 1, a 52-week, open-label, randomized, phase III study in patients with T1DM. The primary objective was to determine whether once-daily MYL-1501D was non-inferior to once-daily insulin glargine when administered in combination with mealtime insulin lispro based on change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 24. Secondary endpoints were changes in fasting plasma glucose, insulin dose, self-monitored blood glucose and immunogenicity from baseline, and occurrences of hypoglycaemic, nocturnal hypoglycaemic and adverse events up to week 52. RESULTS: Overall, 558 patients were randomized 1:1 to MYL-1501D or reference insulin glargine in combination with thrice-daily mealtime insulin lispro for 52 weeks. The mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 was 0.14% (standard error [SE] 0.054; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.033, 0.244) for MYL-1501D and 0.11% (SE 0.054; 95% CI 0.007, 0.220) for reference insulin glargine. MYL-1501D had a safety profile similar to that of reference insulin glargine and was well tolerated in patients with T1DM up to week 52. CONCLUSIONS: The upper 95% CI limit for mean change in HbA1c at week 24 indicated that MYL-1501D was non-inferior to reference insulin glargine. There were no clinically meaningful differences between groups in incidence of overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemia, local or systemic reactions, safety or immunogenicity.

A pharmacokinetics phase 1 bioequivalence study of the trastuzumab biosimilar MYL-1401O vs. EU-trastuzumab and US-trastuzumab.

AIMS: Trastuzumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) oncoprotein and is an effective therapy for HER2-overexpressing breast cancer. MYL-1401O is a trastuzumab biosimilar. Here, we report results from a phase 1 study that investigated bioequivalence among MYL-1401O, reference EU-trastuzumab and US-trastuzumab. METHODS: This single-centre, randomized, double-blind, three-arm, parallel-group, phase 1 study was conducted in healthy adult male volunteers. Subjects were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a single 8 mg kg-1 dose of MYL-1401O, EU-trastuzumab or US-trastuzumab as a 90-min intravenous infusion. The primary objective was to assess PK similarity among all three products. Primary endpoints assessed were peak serum concentration (Cmax), area under the serum concentration-time curve from time of dosing to time of last quantifiable concentration and from time of dosing to infinity. Secondary endpoints included time of Cmax, elimination rate constant, half-life, safety and immunogenicity. RESULTS: Of 132 subjects enrolled (44/treatment), 120 (MYL-1401O, n = 42; EU-trastuzumab, n = 41; US-trastuzumab, n = 37) were included in the PK analysis. The 90% confidence intervals of the ratios of geometric means for the primary endpoints were bounded within the predefined bioequivalence criterion of 80-125%. Secondary endpoints time of Cmax, elimination rate constant and half-life were similar among groups. All treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate, similar across groups and no serious adverse events were reported. No treatment-related antidrug antibodies were detected. CONCLUSIONS: MYL-1401O was well tolerated and demonstrated PK and safety profiles similar to EU-trastuzumab and US-trastuzumab in healthy volunteers (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02594761).

Effect of a Proposed Trastuzumab Biosimilar Compared With Trastuzumab on Overall Response Rate in Patients With ERBB2 (HER2)-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Treatment with the anti-ERBB2 humanized monoclonal antibody trastuzumab and chemotherapy significantly improves outcome in patients with ERBB2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer; a clinically effective biosimilar may help increase access to this therapy. Objective: To compare the overall response rate and assess the safety of a proposed trastuzumab biosimilar plus a taxane or trastuzumab plus a taxane in patients without prior treatment for ERBB2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, phase 3 equivalence study in patients with metastatic breast cancer. From December 2012 to August 2015, 500 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive a proposed biosimilar or trastuzumab plus a taxane. Chemotherapy was administered for at least 24 weeks followed by antibody alone until unacceptable toxic effects or disease progression occurred. Interventions: Proposed biosimilar (n = 230) or trastuzumab (n = 228) with a taxane. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was week 24 overall response rate (ORR) defined as complete or partial response. Equivalence boundaries were 0.81 to 1.24 with a 90% CI for ORR ratio (proposed biosimilar/trastuzumab) and -15% to 15% with a 95% CI for ORR difference. Secondary outcome measures included time to tumor progression, progression-free and overall survival at week 48, and adverse events. Results: Among 500 women randomized, the intention-to-treat population included 458 women (mean [SD] age, 53.6 [11.11] years) and the safety population included 493 women. The ORR was 69.6% (95% CI, 63.62%-75.51%) for the proposed biosimilar vs 64.0% (95% CI, 57.81%-70.26%) for trastuzumab. The ORR ratio (1.09; 90% CI, 0.974-1.211) and ORR difference (5.53; 95% CI, -3.08 to 14.04) were within the equivalence boundaries. At week 48, there was no statistically significant difference with the proposed biosimilar vs trastuzumab for time to tumor progression (41.3% vs 43.0%; -1.7%; 95% CI, -11.1% to 6.9%), progression-free survival (44.3% vs 44.7%; -0.4%; 95% CI, -9.4% to 8.7%), or overall survival (89.1% vs 85.1%; 4.0%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 10.3%). In the proposed biosimilar and trastuzumab groups, 239 (98.6%) and 233 (94.7%) had at least 1 adverse event, the most common including neutropenia (57.5% vs 53.3%), peripheral neuropathy (23.1% vs 24.8%), and diarrhea (20.6% vs 20.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with ERBB2-positive metastatic breast cancer receiving taxanes, the use of a proposed trastuzumab biosimilar compared with trastuzumab resulted in an equivalent overall response rate at 24 weeks. Further study is needed to assess safety and long-term clinical outcome. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02472964; EudraCT Identifier: 2011-001965-42.

Aflibercept Biosimilar MYL-1701P vs Reference Aflibercept in Diabetic Macular Edema: The INSIGHT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Biosimilars may be lower-cost alternatives to originator biologic products, potentially offering expanded access or reduced economic burden, but have not been evaluated with aflibercept in diabetic macular edema (DME). Objective: To compare efficacy and safety of MYL-1701P, an aflibercept biosimilar, with reference aflibercept (Eylea [Regeneron]) in DME. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a double-masked, randomized clinical trial that included participants at 77 centers across the US, Europe, Japan, and India. Included in the analysis were individuals 18 years and older with type 1 or type 2 diabetes with central DME and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) letter score of 73 to 38 in the study eye using an Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Study data were analyzed from October to December 2021. Interventions: Formulations of MYL-1701P (0.5-mg vial) or reference aflibercept every 4 weeks for 5 consecutive intravitreal injections, followed by every 8 weeks through week 52. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the adjusted difference in least squares mean (SE) change from baseline BCVA letter score at week 8 with an equivalence margin of -3 to +3 letters. Secondary outcomes included change in central subfield thickness (CST), BCVA, number of injections over 52 weeks, incidence of adverse events (AEs), and antidrug antibodies (ADAs). Results: A total of 355 participants (mean [SD] age, 62.2 [9.2] years; 216 male [60.8%]) were randomized to MYL-1701P (179 participants [50.4%]) and aflibercept (176 participants [49.6%]). At week 8, mean (SE) change in BCVA was 6.60 (0.55) letters vs 6.56 (0.55) letters in the MYL-1701P vs aflibercept groups. The adjusted mean difference of 0.04 letters (90% CI, -1.16 to 1.24 letters) met the primary outcome. At week 8, mean (SE) change in CST was -112 (7) µm vs -124 (7) µm in the MYL-1701P vs aflibercept groups (adjusted mean difference, 12 µm; 90% CI, -3 to 26 µm). The incidence of treatment-emergent AEs in the MYL-1701P and aflibercept arms were ocular (30.9% [55 of 178] vs 29.5% [52 of 176]), serious ocular (0.6% [1 of 178] vs 1.1% [2 of 176]), nonocular (65.2% [116 of 178] vs 65.3% [115 of 176]), and serious nonocular (16.9% [30 of 178] vs 11.9% [21 of 176]). The mean (SD) total number of injections was 8.4 (2.1) vs 8.7 (1.8) in the MYL-1701P vs aflibercept groups. The incidence of treatment-induced or treatment-boosted ADAs was 2.8% (5 of 177) vs 5.7% (10 of 176) in the MYL-1701P vs aflibercept arms. Conclusions and Relevance: MYL-1701P demonstrated clinical equivalence in regard to efficacy, with comparable safety and immunogenicity, to reference aflibercept. These findings support use of MLY-1701P as an alternative to reference aflibercept. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03610646.

Population Pharmacokinetics of MYL-1402O, a Proposed Biosimilar to Bevacizumab and Reference Product (Avastin®) in Patients with Non-squamous Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: MYL-1402O is a bevacizumab (Avastin®) biosimilar. Pharmacokinetic and safety similarity of MYL-1402O and reference Avastin® authorized in the European Union (EU-Avastin®) and the US (US-Avastin®) was demonstrated in healthy subjects (phase I, NCT02469987). The key objectives of this study were to establish a population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) model on pooled data from the phase I and phase III clinical studies to assess pharmacokinetic linearity of MYL-1402O and Avastin® across dose ranges, to assess the pharmacokinetic similarity of MYL-1402O and Avastin® in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC), and to explore potential covariates to account for systematic sources of variability in bevacizumab exposure. METHODS: Efficacy and safety of MYL-1402O compared with EU-Avastin® was investigated in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study in patients with stage IV nsNSCLC (phase III, NCT04633564). PopPK models were developed using a nonlinear mixed effects approach (NONMEM® 7.3.0). RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics of Avastin® and MYL-1402O were adequately described with a two-compartment linear model. Fourteen covariates were found to be statistically significant predictors of bevacizumab pharmacokinectics. The impact of each covariate on area under the concentration-time curve, half-life, and maximum plasma concentration was modest, and ranges were similar between the treatment groups, MYL-1402O and EU-Avastin®, in patients with nsNSCLC. The pharmacokinectics of bevacizumab appeared to be linear. CONCLUSIONS: PopPK analysis revealed no significant differences between pharmacokinetics of MYL-1402O and Avastin® in patients with nsNSCLC. The developed PopPK model was considered robust, as it adequately described bevacizumab pharmacokinetics in healthy participants and nsNSCLC patients.

Immunogenicity, Efficacy, and Safety of Biosimilar Insulin Aspart (MYL-1601D) Compared with Originator Insulin Aspart (Novolog®) in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes After 24 Weeks: A Randomized Open-Label Study.

BACKGROUND: MYL-1601D is a proposed biosimilar of originator insulin aspart, Novolog®/NovoRapid® (Ref-InsAsp-US/Ref-InsAsp-EU). OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of MYL-1601D with Ref-InsAsp-US in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D). METHODS: This was a 24-week, open-label, randomized, phase III study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to mealtime MYL-1601D or Ref-InsAsp-US in combination with insulin glargine (Lantus SoloSTAR®) once daily. The treatment-emergent antibody response (TEAR) rate (defined as patients who were anti-insulin antibody [AIA] negative at baseline and became positive at any timepoint post-baseline or patients who were AIA positive at baseline and demonstrated a 4-fold increase in titer values at any timepoint post-baseline) was the primary endpoint. The study also compared the change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), prandial, basal, and total daily insulin, 7-point self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) profiles, immunogenicity, and adverse events (AEs) including hypoglycemia. RESULTS: In total, 478 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis (MYL-1601D: 238; Ref-InsAsp-US: 240) set. The 90% confidence interval (CI) for the primary endpoint was within the pre-defined equivalence margin of ±11.7% and the treatment differences (SE) in TEAR responders between the treatment groups was - 2.86 (4.16) with 90% CI - 9.71 to 3.99. The mean (SD) changes from baseline for HbA1c, FPG, and insulin dosages were similar in both groups at week 24. The safety profiles including hypoglycemia, immune-related events, AEs, and other reported variables were similar between the treatment groups at week 24. CONCLUSIONS: MYL-1601D demonstrated similar immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety profiles to Ref-InsAsp-US in patients with T1D over 24 weeks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT03760068.

A pharmacokinetics study of proposed bevacizumab biosimilar MYL-1402O vs EU-bevacizumab and US-bevacizumab.

PURPOSE: Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor-specific angiogenesis in some cancers. MYL-1402O is a proposed bevacizumab biosimilar. METHODS: The primary objective of this single-center, randomized, double-blind, three-arm, parallel-group, phase 1 study in healthy male volunteers was to evaluate bioequivalence of MYL-1402O to EU and US-reference bevacizumab, and EU-reference bevacizumab to US-reference bevacizumab. The primary pharmacokinetic parameter was area under the serum concentration-time curve from 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞). Pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed using general linear models of analysis of variance. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Of 111 enrolled subjects, 110 were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis (MYL-1402O, n = 37; EU-reference bevacizumab, n = 36; US-reference bevacizumab, n = 37). Bioequivalence was demonstrated between MYL-1402O and EU-reference bevacizumab, MYL-1402O and US-reference bevacizumab, and between EU- and US-reference bevacizumab where least squares mean ratios of AUC0-∞ were close to 1, and 90% CIs were within the equivalence range (0.80-1.25). Secondary pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC from 0 to time of last quantifiable concentration [AUC0-t], peak serum concentration [Cmax], time to Cmax, elimination rate constant, and elimination half-life) were also comparable, with 90% CIs for ratios of AUC0-t and Cmax within 80-125%. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across all three treatment groups and were consistent with clinical data for bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: MYL-1402O was well tolerated and demonstrated pharmacokinetic and safety profiles similar to EU-reference bevacizumab and US-reference bevacizumab in healthy male volunteers. No new significant safety issues emerged (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02469987; ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu EudraCT, 2014-005621-12; June 12, 2015).

Phase III double-blind study comparing the efficacy and safety of proposed biosimilar MYL-1402O and reference bevacizumab in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of proposed biosimilar MYL-1402O with reference bevacizumab (BEV), as first-line treatment for patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive MYL-1402O or bevacizumab with carboplatin-paclitaxel up to 18 weeks (6 cycles), followed by up to 24 weeks (8 cycles) of bevacizumab monotherapy. The primary objective was comparison of overall response rate (ORR), based on independently reviewed best tumor responses as assessed during the first 18 weeks. ORR was analyzed per US Food and Drug Administration (ratio of ORR) and European Medicines Agency (difference in ORRs) requirements for equivalence evaluation. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, disease control rate, duration of response, overall survival, safety, and immunogenicity over a period of 42 weeks, and pharmacokinetics (up to 18 weeks). RESULTS: A total of 671 patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. The ratio of ORR was 0.96 [confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.12] and the difference in ORR was -1.6 (CI -9.0, 5.9) between treatment arms; CIs were within the predefined equivalence margins. Overall, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events was comparable. Treatment-emergent anti-drug antibody (ADA) positivity was transient, with no notable differences between treatment arms (6.5% versus 4.8% ADA positivity rate in MYL-1402O versus BEV, respectively). The incidence of neutralizing antibody post-baseline was lower in the MYL-1402O arm (0.6%) compared to the bevacizumab arm (2.5%). CONCLUSIONS: MYL-1402O is therapeutically equivalent to bevacizumab, based on the ORR analyses, with comparable secondary endpoints. TRIAL REGISTRY INFORMATION: EU Clinical Trials Register, Registration # EudraCT no. 2015-005141-32https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2015-005141-32. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Previous studies established bioequivalence of the proposed bevacizumab biosimilar MYL-1402O to reference bevacizumab. In this randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, MYL-1402O (n = 337) demonstrated comparable efficacy to bevacizumab (n = 334) in treating advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer per Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency requirements for equivalence; the ratio of objective response rate (ORR) was 0.96 [90% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.12] and the difference in ORR (MYL-1402O:bevacizumab) was -1.6 (95% CI -9.0, 5.9). Median progression-free survival at 42 weeks was comparable: 7.6 (7.0, 9.5) with MYL-1402O versus 9.0 (7.2, 9.7) months (p = 0.0906) with bevacizumab, by independent review. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to death (2.4% vs 1.5%), serious adverse events (17.6% vs 16.7%), and antidrug antibodies (6.5% vs 4.8%), were comparable in the MYL-1402O vs bevacizumab arms, respectively. The incidence of neutralizing antibody post-baseline was lower with MYL-1402O (0.6%) than with bevacizumab (2.5%). These findings confirm therapeutic equivalence of MYL-1402O to bevacizumab, providing opportunities for improving access to bevacizumab.

Physicochemical and functional characterization of MYL-1501D, a proposed biosimilar to insulin glargine.

Insulin glargine is a long-acting analogue of human insulin that has been used to manage hyperglycemia in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) for nearly 20 years. Insulin glargine has a relatively constant concentration-time profile that mimics basal levels of insulin and allows for once-daily administration. MYL-1501D is a biosimilar insulin glargine designed to offer greater access of insulin glargine to patients, with comparable efficacy and safety to the marketed reference product. We conducted a comprehensive panel of studies based on a formal analysis of critical quality attributes to characterize the structural and functional properties of MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine products available in the United States and European Union. MYL-1501D was comprehensively shown to have high similarity to the reference products in terms of protein structure, metabolic activity (both in vitro cell-based assays and in vivo rabbit bioassays), and in vitro cell-based assays for mitogenic activity. The structural analyses demonstrated that the primary protein sequence was identical, and secondary and tertiary structures are similar between the proposed biosimilar and the reference products. Insulin receptor binding affinity and phosphorylation studies also established analytical similarity. MYL-1501D demonstrated high similarity in different metabolic assays of glucose uptake, adipogenesis activity, and inhibition of stimulated lipolysis. Rabbit bioassay studies showed MYL-1501D and EU-approved insulin glargine are highly similar to US-licensed insulin glargine. These product quality studies show high similarity between MYL-1501D and licensed or approved insulin glargine products and suggest the potential of MYL-1501D as an alternative cost-effective treatment option for patients and clinicians.

Correlation between week 24 trastuzumab-dkst response and week 48 progression-free survival: the HERITAGE trial.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab-dkst is a biosimilar of trastuzumab. The phase 3 HERITAGE trial demonstrated equivalent overall response rate (ORR) with trastuzumab-dkst or originator trastuzumab at 24 weeks in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. We now present the correlation of ORR with progression-free survival (PFS) for maintenance monotherapy with trastuzumab-dkst vs trastuzumab at 48 weeks of treatment, and the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity. METHODS: HERITAGE is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, phase 3 study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive trastuzumab-dkst or trastuzumab in combination with taxane followed by continued monotherapy until disease progression. The analysis included PFS at 48 weeks to support the primary efficacy endpoint of ORR and safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of trastuzumab-dkst vs trastuzumab as maintenance monotherapy. RESULTS: Of 500 randomized patients, 342 entered the monotherapy phase; 214 patients received ≥48 weeks of treatment. There were no statistically significant differences between PFS, ORR, or interim overall survival at week 48 between trastuzumab-dkst and trastuzumab. Week 24 ORR was highly correlated with week 48 PFS (rb = 0.75). Cumulative treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious AEs were similar in both groups, with few grade ≥3 TEAEs. Immunogenicity was low and similar in both groups at 48 weeks. CONCLUSION: The correlation between ORR and PFS supports the design of first-line metastatic trials assessing biosimilar trastuzumab. Overall, trastuzumab-dkst and trastuzumab were well tolerated with similar efficacy, including ORR and PFS, in combination with a taxane followed by monotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of the vasopressin V1A/V2-receptor antagonist conivaptan in acute decompensated heart failure: a dose-ranging pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) involves substantial morbidity and mortality. Current management strategies have major limitations, and there has been little progress in the development of newer therapies. Arginine vasopressin-receptor antagonists may have promise in the treatment of ADHF in view of their ability to facilitate diuresis. This pilot study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous conivaptan, a dual arginine vasopressin V(1A)/V(2)-receptor antagonist, in treating ADHF. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a double-blind, multicenter trial, 170 patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure and given standard therapy were randomly assigned to treatment with conivaptan (20-mg loading dose followed by 2 successive 24-hour continuous infusions of 40, 80, or 120 mg/d) or placebo. The conivaptan and placebo groups did not differ significantly in patient or clinician assessments of global and respiratory status at 48 hours. There was no evidence of worsening heart failure in any group. Conivaptan at each dosage increased urine output significantly more than placebo at 24 hours (P

Assessment of the efficacy and safety of intravenous conivaptan in patients with euvolaemic hyponatraemia: subgroup analysis of a randomized, controlled study.

OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: Most cases of euvolaemic hyponatraemia are associated with elevated plasma levels of AVP. Conivaptan is a high-affinity, nonpeptide vasopressin V(1A)/V(2)-receptor antagonist. We performed a subgroup analysis of a multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous (i.v.) conivaptan for the treatment of euvolaemic hyponatraemia. PATIENTS: Fifty-six euvolaemic patients with serum [Na(+)] of 115 to < 130 mmol/l received conivaptan 40 or 80 mg/day or placebo via continuous i.v. infusion for 4 days. A 20-mg loading dose was administered intravenously over 30 min in the conivaptan groups; the placebo group received a placebo loading dose. MEASUREMENTS: Change in serum [Na(+)], measured by the baseline-adjusted area under the serum [Na(+)]-time curve (AUC), was the primary efficacy parameter. Secondary efficacy measures included the time from the first dose to a confirmed > or = 4 mmol/l increase in serum [Na(+)], total time with serum [Na(+)] > or = 4 mmol/l above baseline, change in serum [Na(+)] from baseline, and number of patients with a confirmed > or = 6 mmol/l increase in serum [Na(+)] or normal [Na(+)]. Safety assessments included adverse events (AE), incidence of overly rapid correction of serum [Na(+)], and changes in vital signs and electrocardiographic and clinical laboratory parameters. RESULTS: During the first 2 days of treatment, and over the entire 4-day treatment period, both conivaptan doses significantly increased the serum [Na(+)] AUC more than placebo (P < 0.01). Conivaptan 40 and 80 mg/day significantly improved all secondary efficacy measures. Conivaptan was generally well tolerated; infusion-site reaction was the most common AE. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized patients with euvolaemic hyponatraemia, i.v. conivaptan significantly increased serum [Na(+)] promptly and was well tolerated.