Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of a Bevacizumab Biosimilar, in Combination with Chemotherapies, in Nonresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer and in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study.

Ranjith K.The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of a proposed bevacizumab biosimilar (DRL_BZ) with the innovator Avastin (reference medicinal product [RMP]) in patients with nonresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) over a period of 9 months and advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) over 6 months. The study was planned as a randomized, double-blind trial. In part A, a total of 117 mCRC patients were intended to receive 5 mg/kg of bevacizumab every 2 weeks along with mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy for a maximum of 18 cycles. In part B, 60 NSCLC patients were to receive 15 mg/kg of bevacizumab every 3 weeks along with pemetrexed and carboplatin for the initial four cycles, followed by pemetrexed for another four cycles. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival rate at 6 months (PFS6) in both subparts. The anticipated sample size was 106 evaluable mCRC patients to achieve 85% statistical power for concluding noninferiority with a margin of half the difference (18.8%) between DRL_BZ and Avastin, along with a pilot study involving 60 evaluable NSCLC patients. Safety comparison included assessing adverse events (AEs), infusion reactions, and lab abnormalities. Immunogenicity comparison involved the incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) and neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). Pharmacokinetic comparison was planned after the first and fourth dosing cycles of treatment in 24 NSCLC patients. The PFS6 for mCRC patients treated with DRL_BZ and RMP was 57.8% and 50% respectively, with a difference in efficacy of 7.8 (-8.7, 23.7). The PFS9 was 31.1% and 22.9%, with a difference of 8.2% (-6.9%, 22.9%). The objective response rate (ORR) for DRL_BZ and RMP was 28.8% and 22.4%, while the disease control rate (DCR) was 44.2% and 37.9% respectively. For NSCLC patients, the PFS6 was 44% and 45%, showing a difference of -1.0 (-4.2, 22.1). The ORR was 41.4% and 48.1%, and the DCR was 62.1% and 63%. The frequency, type, and severity of AEs were similar in both indications. Blood levels during the first and fourth dosing cycles exhibited comparable values. All NSCLC patients tested negative for ADA, while no mCRC patients on DRL_BZ tested positive for ADA. Low incidences of ADA (8%) and NAbs (4.0%) were reported in patients on RMP. Overall, the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetic parameters of DRL_BZ and RMP were found to be comparable. Clinical Trial Registration For BZ-01-002: CTRI/2016/01/006481.

Efficacy, Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Immunogenicity of DRL-Trastuzumab Versus Herceptin in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Dr Reddy's Laboratories Trastuzumab (DRL_TZ) is a biosimilar to Herceptin under development. The present study was conducted to evaluate efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics (PKs), and immunogenicity of DRL_TZ in comparison with the reference medicinal product (RMP) along with concomitant weekly paclitaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind study in female patients with HER2-positive MBC, randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either DRL_TZ or the RMP, that is, an innovator product sourced from the European region, along with additional chemotherapy, as first-line treatment for up to 24 weeks. The primary end point was the best overall response rate (ORR) as per RECIST 1.1 criteria. Progression-free survival rate at 6 months (PFS6), safety, immunogenicity, and PK parameters were assessed as secondary end points. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients were randomly assigned to receive either DRL_TZ or the RMP. Best ORR in the per-protocol population was comparable, 91.9% (93.3% CI, 83.2 to 96.3) versus 82.1% (93.3% CI, 72.0 to 89.1) in DRL_TZ and RMP arms, respectively; the difference between the arms was 9.8% with a 93.3% CI of -1.3 to 20.8. The PFS6 rate, safety, PK profile, and antidrug antibody incidence were comparable. An additional 44 patients were recruited in the postrandomization phase, in an open-label manner, and started on DRL_TZ to generate more data on efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. The additional data with DRL_TZ, when pooled, were similar to the RMP data. CONCLUSION: DRL_TZ was found to have similar efficacy and comparable safety, PK, and immunogenicity profiles as the RMP.

Real-world outcomes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the biosimilar era.

Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive and the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The clinical use of rituximab has improved the treatment response and survival of patients with DLBCL. The introduction of rituximab biosimilar into healthcare system has helped in providing a cost-effective treatment to B-cell lymphoid malignancies as standard of care and has improved access to patients worldwide. The aim of this study was to observe the real-world effectiveness and safety of Reditux™ and Ristova® in DLBCL patients. Methods: Observational study in adults with DLBCL receiving Reditux™ or Ristova® across 29 centers in India (2015-2022). Effectiveness and safety were assessed up to 2 years after first dose. Results: Out of 1,365 patients considered for analysis, 1,250 (91.6%) were treated with Reditux™ and 115 (8.42%) with Ristova®. At 2 years, progression-free survival (PFS) 69% [hazard ratio (HR), 1.16; 95% CI, 0.80-1.67], overall survival (OS) 78.7% (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.78-1.86), response rates, quality of life (QoL), and overall safety in both the cohorts were comparable. The best overall response rate (BORR) at 6 months was comparable with no statistically significant differences between the Reditux™ and the Ristova® cohorts (89.2% vs. 94.3%). In multivariate analysis, BCL-2 and VAS were significant prognostic factors for PFS. Conclusion: Reditux™ and Ristova® were comparable in real-world setting. Clinical Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry, identifier (ISRCTN13301166).

Rituximab pharmacokinetic and pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic evaluation based on a study in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: Influence of tumor size on pharmacokinetic and assessment of pharmacokinetic similarity.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories rituximab (DRL_RI; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories SA, Basel, Switzerland) is under development as a rituximab biosimilar. Study RI-01-002 (Clinical Trials Registry - India/2012/11/003129), comparing DRL_RI to the reference medicinal product (RMP) MabThera® (Roche, Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany), demonstrated pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence and showed comparable pharmacodynamic, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles. We used data from the same study to perform population PK and PK-pharmacodynamic analyses: first exploring possible factors influencing the PK similarity assessment between products and then performing simulations to investigate the impact of tumor size on rituximab PK. Nonlinear mixed-effects models for PK, tumor size, tumor size-PK, and tumor response were developed independently. The final PK model included drug product as a dose-scaling parameter and predicted a 6.75% higher dose reaching the system in RMP-treated patients. However, when tumor size was included in the tumor size-PK model, the drug product effect was no longer observed. The model rather indicated that patients with larger tumor size have higher clearance. Further simulations confirmed that higher baseline tumor size is associated to slightly lower rituximab exposure. Tumor response, described by a continuous-time Markov model, did not differ between drug products. Both had higher effects during the first 20 weeks of treatment. Also, the model described a subpopulation of nonresponders to treatment (42%) with faster transitions to a worse state. The different rituximab exposure initially detected between drug products (6.75%) was shown using PK/PK-pharmacodynamic analysis to be attributed to a tumor size imbalance between treatment groups. PK/PK-pharmacodynamic analyses may contribute to PK similarity assessments.