A Real-World Study of Safety, Immunogenicity and Efficacy of Bevacizumab in Patients With Solid Malignancies: A Phase IV, Post-Marketing Study in India.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the post-marketing safety, tolerability, immunogenicity and efficacy of Bevacizumab (manufactured by Hetero Biopharma) in a broader population of patients with solid tumors. Patients And Methods: This phase IV, prospective, multi-centric clinical study was carried out in Indian patients with solid malignancies (metastatic colorectal cancer, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, metastatic renal cell carcinoma) treated with Bevacizumab between April 2018 and July 2019. This study included 203 patients from 16 tertiary care oncology centers across India for safety assessment, of which a subset of 115 patients who have consented were also evaluated for efficacy and immunogenicity. This study was prospectively registered in the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI), and was commenced only after receiving approval from the competent authority (Central Drugs Standard Control Organization, CDSCO). Results: Out of the 203 enrolled patients, 121 (59.6%) patients reported 338 adverse events (AEs) during this study. Of 338 reported AEs, 14 serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported by 13 patients including 6 fatal SAEs, assessed as unrelated to the study medication and 7 non-fatal SAEs, 5 assessed as related, and 3 unrelated to Bevacizumab. Most AEs reported in this study (33.9%) were general disorders and administration site conditions, followed by gastrointestinal disorders (29.1%). The most frequently reported AEs were diarrhea (11.3%), asthenia (10.3%), headache (8.9%), pain (7.4%), vomiting (7.9%), and neutropenia (5.9%). At the end of the study, 2 (1.75%) of 69 patients reported antibodies to Bevacizumab without affecting safety and efficacy. However, at the end of 12 months, no patient had reported antibodies to Bevacizumab. Complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) were reported in 18.3%, 22.6%, 9.6%, and 8.7% of patients, respectively. The overall response rate (CR + PR) was reported in 40.9% of patients at the end of the study. Disease control rate (DCR), also known as the clinical benefit rate (CBR) was reported in 50.4% of patients. Conclusions: Bevacizumab (Cizumab, Hetero Biopharma) was observed to be safe, well tolerated, lacking immunogenicity, and efficacious in the treatment of solid tumors. The findings of this phase IV study of Bevacizumab, primarily as a combination therapy regimen suggest its suitability and rationality for usage in multiple solid malignancies. Clinical Trial Registry Number: CTRI/2018/4/13371 [Registered on CTRI http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/advsearch.php : 19/04/2018]; Trial Registered Prospectively.

Efficacy and Safety of Molnupiravir in Mild COVID-19 Patients in India.

Background At the peak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the need for an orally administered agent to prevent the progression of acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection became increasingly evident, which was the impetus behind our investigations with molnupiravir. Molnupiravir has been shown to be effective in preventing hospitalizations and/or clinical complications in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. In this study, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in Indian patients with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least one risk factor for disease progression (CTRI/2021/05/033739). Methodology This was a phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled study conducted in Indian adults aged 18-60 years with mild SARS-CoV-2, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-positive within 48 hours of enrollment in the study, and within five days of first symptom onset. Enrolled patients were randomized to treatment arms in a 1:1 ratio to receive molnupiravir or placebo in addition to the standard of care (SoC) for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The SoC was in compliance with Government of India guidelines that were in force at the time. The primary endpoint was the rate of hospitalization up to day 14. Safety endpoints included incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results Eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive molnupiravir in addition to SoC treatment (n = 608) or SoC alone (n = 610). In the molnupiravir group, nine (1.48%) patients required hospitalization versus 26 (4.26%) patients in the control group (risk difference = -2.78%; 95% CI = -4.65, -0.90; p = 0.0053). Overall, 45 (3.70%) patients reported 47 AEs during the study, most of which were mild and resolved completely. The molnupiravir group reported 30 AEs compared to 17 AEs in the control group. Headache and nausea were the two most commonly reported AEs. Conclusions The molnupiravir arm showed a lower rate of hospitalization and a shorter time for the improvement of clinical symptoms coupled with early RT-PCR negativity. Molnupiravir was well tolerated, and AEs were mild and rare. The addition of molnupiravir to standard therapy has the potential to prevent the progression of mild COVID-19 disease to the severe form.

Efficacy and Safety of Acotiamide Versus Mosapride in Patients With Functional Dyspepsia Associated With Meal-Induced Postprandial Distress Syndrome: A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND:  Acotiamide is a novel prokinetic drug that acts by enhancing the release of acetylcholine and is used in the treatment of functional dyspepsia-postprandial distress syndrome (FD-PDS). Mosapride is indicated to FD-PDS as per the Rome III treatment guidelines. Mosapride 5 mg three times daily (TID) is approved by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) for the treatment of FD-PDS. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of Acotiamide in comparison with Mosapride on FD-PDS. METHODS: The 220 patients of either gender (aged 18-64 years) with active PDS included in the study were centrally randomized 1:1 to receive either 100 mg Acotiamide (test product) or 5 mg Mosapride (reference product) TID for four weeks. Responder rates for the overall treatment effect (OTE) at the end of four weeks were the primary efficacy endpoint. Secondary efficacy endpoints included the elimination rate of postprandial fullness, upper abdominal bloating, and early satiation. The study also evaluated the OTE at each week, individual symptom scores, and quality of life (QoL) assessed by the Short Form-Nepean Dyspepsia Index questionnaire (SF-NDI). The safety endpoints included assessments of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS:  At the end of four weeks, the responders in the Acotiamide versus Mosapride group for OTE was 98% versus 93.27% in the per-protocol (PP) population. Among the intent to treat (ITT) population, the comparison of Acotiamide versus Mosapride stood at 95.15% versus 89.81%. Secondary efficacy endpoints were significantly improved with 100 mg TID Acotiamide, which was evident from the improvement in postprandial fullness (14.56%), upper abdominal bloating (15.53%), early satiation (10.68%), and QoL (13.7 ± 4.67). CONCLUSIONS:  Our study results demonstrated that Acotiamide is effective, safe, and well-tolerated and had significantly improved the QoL over a four-week treatment period in FD-PDS patients. The efficacy and safety profiles of Acotiamide were similar to Mosapride.

A Phase III Prospective Active and Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial of Vilazodone in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder.

Background Depression is a leading cause of psychiatric morbidity in the modern world, and the introduction of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is a revolution in the treatment of depression. Vilazodone, a novel SSRI and 5-HT1A partial agonist, received FDA approval in 2011 to treat the major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. This study conducted in India aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vilazodone when compared to escitalopram or placebo in patients with MDD. Methods This was a prospective, multicentre, randomized, comparative study of 375 participants over eight weeks of treatment with either vilazodone (10-40mg/day) or escitalopram (10-40 mg/day) or placebo in adult patients with MDD. Primary efficacy was assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17); secondary efficacy was assessed using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score. Safety parameters included adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory results, vital signs, electrocardiogram ( ECG), and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). Results Mean change in the HAM-D-17 total score from baseline to week 8 for vilazodone, escitalopram, and placebo-treated patients in intent-to-treat (ITT) population was: -18.9 (± 7.49), -17.8 (± 6.06), and -7.4 (± 6.32); in ITT population (with Last Observation Carried Forward( LOCF) imputation) was: -17.9 (± 7.71), -17.4 (± 6.19), and -6.4 (± 6.84), and in per-protocol (PP) population was: -19.1 (± 7.20), -17.8 (± 6.08), and -7.7 (± 6.29), respectively. The upper limit of 95% CI (0.56 (ITT); 0.90 (ITT with LOCF Imputation); 0.23 (PP)) of difference in HAM-D-17 between vilazodone 40mg and escitalopram 40mg, which is lower than the defined non-inferiority margin (3.56), proving non-inferiority. The difference between vilazodone 40mg, escitalopram 40mg, and the placebo was statistically significant (p<0.0001). No deaths or serious adverse events were reported in this study. Conclusion Vilazodone demonstrated comparable efficacy to escitalopram and superior efficacy over the placebo in the treatment of MDD.

Safety, Tolerability, and Immunogenicity of Prescribed Usage of Darbepoetin-Alfa (Hetero Biopharma) in Patients of Chronic Kidney Disease With Renal Anemia: A Post-Marketing Surveillance Study.

Background This post-marketing surveillance (PMS), observational, prospective, safety study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and long-term immunogenicity of prescribed usage of Darbepoetin alfa (DA-α, manufactured by Hetero Biopharma, Hyderabad, India) in Indian patients having chronic kidney disease (CKD) with anemia. Methods All patients having chronic kidney disease with anemia and prescribed Hetero-Darbepoetin were the target patient population. The present study gathered the data from 503 Hetero-Darbepoetin alfa prescribed patients. This study collected information of patient demography, patient's medical history, concomitant medications, action taken with respect to Hetero-Darbepoetin-alfa, adverse events details (AE term, start date, stop date, severity, action taken, outcome, and causality), periodic hemoglobin (Hb) levels, and abnormal laboratory tests results until treatment is discontinued or the patient is lost to follow-up. Immunogenicity data were collected in 121 patients at the end of treatment and after one year. Results Eighty-seven AEs were reported in this study and most of them were mild to moderate in intensity. No deaths or serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in this study. Anti-drug antibodies were not detected in any subject at the end of the treatment phase and after 12 months long-term follow-up period. The baseline mean hemoglobin value was 8.34 (SD 1.24) g/dL and the last visit mean hemoglobin value was 10.42 ± 1.24 (mean ± SD) g/dL. The mean difference between baseline and last visit in hemoglobin value was 2.10 [2.00, 2.20], statistically significant (p-value <0.0001). Conclusions The safety and tolerability of the usage of DA-α are similar to that reported in the published literature of the innovator. No patients showed anti-drug antibodies after treatment. Additionally, the patients also showed significant improvement in hemoglobin levels, compared to baseline.

Efficacy and Safety of Orally Administered Acotiamide Extended-Release Tablets Among Functional Dyspepsia-Postprandial Distress Syndrome Patients: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Acotiamide, is the world's first-in-class, prokinetic drug and world's first approved treatment for postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) symptoms of functional dyspepsia (FD). An extended-release (ER) formulation of this drug product, developed first-time in the world has been evaluated in phase 3, a comparative trial to explore the efficacy and safety in patients with FD-PDS. METHODS: In this study, 219 patients with FD-PDS aged 18-65 years were randomized (1:1) to receive either acotiamide ER 300 mg once daily or acotiamide 100 mg three times daily for four weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was responder rates for the overall treatment effect (OTE) at end of week 4. Secondary efficacy endpoints included OTE at each week, elimination rate of postprandial fullness, upper abdominal bloating and early satiation, improvement of individual symptom scores, and quality of life (QoL). The safety endpoints included assessments of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: The responder rate for OTE at the end of the four week period, in acotiamide ER 300 mg OD versus acotiamide 100 mg TID group was 92.66% and 94.39% (97.5% CI -8.3,4.8), respectively, in per-protocol (PP) population and 92.66% and 92.73% (97.5% CI -7.0,6.8), respectively, in intent to treat (ITT) population. All other secondary efficacy endpoints, including QoL, were significantly improved with acotiamide ER 300 mg. Both the formulations of acotiamide significantly improved symptom severity and eliminated meal-related symptoms in patients with FD. Adverse events were reported by 7.9% of patients in acotiamide ER 300 mg and 9.2% in acotiamide 100 mg patients; the most common adverse event reported was a headache. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of acotiamide ER 300 mg once daily were observed to be comparable to acotiamide immediate release 100 mg thrice daily. A significant improvement in QoL over a four-week treatment period in FD-PDS patients was observed.

Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Azilsartan in Adult Patients with Essential Hypertension: A Randomized, Phase-III Clinical Study in India.

BACKGROUND: Globally, women and men over the age of 25 years suffer from hypertension, the need for new treatment strategies to treat hypertension is due to the multi-faceted nature of the disease. Lack of optimal blood pressure control can lead to multiple complications. Therefore, this phase 3 study was conducted to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of potential product azilsartan hydrochloride for reduction in blood pressure in Indian patients with essential hypertension. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre, randomized, comparative, parallel study of 303 participants over six weeks of treatment period with either azilsartan 40 mg or azilsartan 80 mg or telmisartan 40 mg in adult patients with essential hypertension. The primary endpoint was the change in mean trough sitting clinic systolic blood pressure (scSBP) from baseline to week 6. The secondary endpoints were the change in mean trough sitting clinic diastolic blood pressure (scDBP) from baseline and change in the 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP)and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from baseline. RESULTS: The change in mean trough scSBP from baseline to week 6 was -27.2 ± 9.99, -28.2 ± 10.06 and -26.7 ± 9.72 (Per Patient (PP) Population) and -27.2 ± 9.93, -28.3 ± 10.01 and -26.7 ± 9.67 (Intent to Treat (ITT) Population) in the azilsartan 40mg, 80mg and telmisartan 40mg groups respectively. The lower limit of 95% CI of difference in change in mean systolic blood pressure was -2.35(Azilsartan 40mg) and 1.32 (Azilsartan 80mg) is less than the non-inferiority margin (i.e. 2.67). The change in mean trough scDBP from baseline to week 6 was -13.1 ± 8.46, -12.9 ± 7.20, and -13.0 ± 7.96 (PP) and -13.1 ± 8.42, -12.9 ± 7.16 and -13.0 ± 7.92 (ITT) in Azilsartna 40 mg, Azilsartan 80 mg and Telmisartan 40 mg respectively. The reduction in trough scDBP in Azilsartan 40 mg (p=0.9461: PP; p=0.9330: ITT) and Azilsartan 80 mg (p=0.9090: PP; p=0.9158: ITT) was not statistically significant compared to Telmisartan 40 mg. The difference in fall in the trough scSBP, scDBP and ambulatory SBP and DBP was similar between the groups from baseline to week 6 (P >0.05). Headache and dizziness were the most frequent treatmentrelated treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION: Azilsartan is an effective blood pressure lowering drug and well tolerated and was non- inferior to telmisartan in its safety and efficacy.

Comparative evaluation of efficacy, pharmacodynamics, and safety of Hetero's adalimumab (Mabura®, Hetero Biopharma Ltd.) and reference adalimumab (Humira®, Abbvie Inc.) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis on concomitant methotrexate therapy.

BACKGROUND: Our study aimed to compare efficacy and safety of Hetero's adalimumab (Mabura®, Hetero Biopharma Limited) versus reference adalimumab (Humira®, Abbvie Inc.) in Indian patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) concomitant on methotrexate (MTX) therapy. METHODS: Patients (n = 168) were randomized (2:1) to receive either test or reference product for 24 weeks with concomitant MTX. Proportion of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) criteria at week 12 was the primary endpoint. Changes in Disease Activity Score of 28 joints-C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and patients achieving ACR20 at week 24, ACR50/70 at weeks 12 and 24 were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Patients achieving ACR20 responses with test (96.43%) were similar to reference (96.43%) in intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis at week 12. Proportional difference (PD) between groups (PD [95% CI] 0.0 [- 6.0, 6.0], p = 1.000) for ACR20 at week 12 for ITT analysis showed lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was above the pre-specified noninferiority margin of - 15%. Similar trend in PP analysis (PD [95% CI] 0.0 [- 0.03, 0.07], p = 1.000), confirmed therapeutic equivalence. No significant difference was noted between arms for patients attaining ACR20 at week 24 and ACR50/70 at weeks 12 and 24 (all p > 0.05). DAS28-CRP and HAQ-DI were similar between groups. Total of 54 patients reported 88 AEs during the study. Out of these, 60 AEs were reported in 34 patients with Hetero-Adalimumab and 28 AEs were reported in 20 patients with Reference-Adalimumab. Total two patients, one in each group reported two serious adverse events (Sinusitis and Viral infection) during the study and resolved completely. No deaths and no life threatening AEs were reported. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrated Hetero's adalimumab is as effective and well tolerated as reference adalimumab in patients with active RA concomitantly on MTX therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CTRI/2016/04/006884, Registered on 28/04/2016.

Correction to: Efficacy, tolerability and safety of darbepoetin alfa injection for the treatment of anemia associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing dialysis: a randomized, phase-III trial.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported errors in the presentation of Tables 2, 4 and 5.

Efficacy, tolerability and safety of darbepoetin alfa injection for the treatment of anemia associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing dialysis: a randomized, phase-III trial.

BACKGROUND: Darbepoetin alfa (DA-α) is a long-acting erythropoiesis-stimulating glycoprotein which has half-life three-fold longer than that of Erythropoietin alfa (EPO). The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of DA-α injection versus EPO for treating renal anemia amongst Indian patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing dialysis. METHODS: Patients of either gender (aged 18-65 years) with ESRD undergoing dialysis who had hemoglobin (Hb) levels < 10 g/dL after receiving EPO were switched to DA-α (0.45 µg/kg) once weekly subcutaneously or EPO 50 IU/kg thrice weekly subcutaneously (centrally randomized 1:1) for 12-24 weeks (correction phase) followed by 12 weeks maintenance phase (for Hb levels ≥10 g/dL). The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change in Hb level from baseline to end of correction phase. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat population (n = 126), the between group difference in mean Hb change was - 0.01 g/dL (95% CI - 0.68 to - 0.66, p = 0.97). After adjusting for covariates, the difference was - 0.2878 g/dL (95% CI -0.936 to0.360). The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of primary endpoint was above the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of - 1.0 g/dL. Similar trend of non-inferiority was observed for per-protocol population. Safety profile of DA-α and EPO were observed to be similar. CONCLUSION: Our study results demonstrated that for patients with ESRD undergoing dialysis, administering DA-α at lower dose frequency, is equally effective and well tolerated as EPO for treating renal anemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CTRI/2012/07/002835 [Registered on: 27/07/2012]; Trial Registered Prospectively.

A Prospective, Randomized, Multiple-Dose, Multi-Center, Comparative Clinical Study to Evaluate the Efficacy, Safety, Immunogenicity of a biosimilar Bevacizumab (Test product, Hetero) and Reference Medicinal Product (Bevacizumab, Roche) in Patients of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: :To compare efficacy and safety of a biosimilar, Bevacizumab (Hetero) vs reference medicinal product (Bevacizumab, Roche) as first line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in combination with chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients of aged 18 to 65 with histologically pre-confirmed mCRC and treatment naïve with unresectable metastatic disease or distant metastases were enrolled and randomized to receive either Hetero-Bevacizumab or RMPBevacizumab along with chemotherapy (XELOX or FOLFOX-4) regimen over a period of 24 weeks (up to 8 cycles of Hetero-Bevacizumab/RMP-Bevacizumab+ XELOX regimen (each cycle of 3 weeks) or up to 12 cycles of Hetero-Bevacizumab/ RMP-Bevacizumab + FOLFOX-4 regimen (each cycle of 2 weeks). Bevacizumab was administered at 7.5 mg/kg as an IV infusion over 60-90 minutes on Day 1 of each treatment cycle. The efficacy endpoints were the overall response rate (CR+PR) and disease control rate (DCR) according to RECIST 1.1. The safety endpoints included assessments of treatment emergent adverse events and immunogenicity. RESULTS: 160 patients were screened; 111 patients were randomized in the study. No statistical significant difference in overall response rate between both the treatment groups (HB-MAB vs. RB-MAB: 35.56 % vs. 20%, P=0.28 at Week 6; 37.50 % vs. 30.77 %, P=0.73 at Week 12). Similar trend was observed for disease control rate (HB-MAB vs. RB-MAB: 100% vs. 96%, P=0.36 at Week 6; 95.83 vs. 100%, P=1.00 at Week 12). CONCLUSIONS: Herero's Bevacizumab was found to be comparable to reference medical product, Bevacizumab in terms of efficacy and tolerability for the Indian patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.