Use of multibiomarker disease activity scores in biosimilarity studies for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: This exploratory analysis investigated the potential use of the multibiomarker disease activity (MBDA) score to support biosimilarity assessments using data from two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of biosimilar infliximab (IFX-qbtx) and biosimilar adalimumab (ADL-afzb) versus EU-sourced infliximab (Remicade; IFX-EU) and adalimumab (Humira; ADL-EU) reference products, respectively, both conducted in adult patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In one study, patients (N=650) were randomised 1:1 to IFX-qbtx or IFX-EU (3 mg/kg intravenous at weeks 0, 2 and 6, then every 8 weeks). In the other, patients (N=597) were randomised 1:1 to ADL-afzb or ADL-EU (40 mg subcutaneous every other week). All treatments were given with MTX. Mean values of MBDA scores were calculated at baseline (BL), based on the concentrations of 12 serum proteins using the Vectra disease activity algorithm, and at timepoints throughout treatment period 1 (TP1) of the IFX (weeks 6, 14, 30) and ADL (weeks 6, 12, 26) studies. Data were summarised using descriptive statistics for the intent-to-treat population, without imputation for missing data. RESULTS: At BL, mean (±SD) MBDA scores were 61.3 (±12.5) and 58.8 (±13.2) for IFX-qbtx (n=236) and IFX-EU (n=248), respectively, and 57.2 (±14.44) and 58.3 (±15.34) for ADL-afzb (n=292) and ADL-EU (n=293), respectively. Mean MBDA scores were highly comparable between IFX-qbtx and IFX-EU and between ADL-afzb and ADL-EU at all measured timepoints during TP1 in each study. CONCLUSIONS: These RCTs are the first to incorporate MBDA score as an exploratory assessment of biosimilarity. MBDA scores may provide objective, quantitative evidence of biosimilarity using an assessment of disease activity that is independent of the potential subjectivity inherent in joint counts, or in patient or physician global assessments. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02222493 and NCT02480153.

Usability Study of PF-06410293, an Adalimumab Biosimilar, by Prefilled Pen: Open-Label, Single-Arm, Sub-Study of a Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this sub-study was to evaluate injection success of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and their caregivers administering the adalimumab (ADL) biosimilar, PF-06410293 (ADL-PF: adalimumab-afzb; Abrilada®/Amsparity®/Xilbrilada®) by prefilled pen (PFP) during the open-label treatment period in year two (weeks 52-78) of a phase 3 multinational, double-blind, clinical study (NCT02480153) comparing ADL-PF and reference ADL (Humira®) sourced from the EU. METHODS: This sub-study included adult patients with active RA not adequately controlled by methotrexate. Patients received subcutaneous ADL-PF 40 mg by prefilled syringe (PFS) at weeks 52 and 54, then six biweekly doses (weeks 56-66) of ADL-PF 40 mg each via a single-use PFP device. Training was given on first injection at week 56; all injections were given by patients/caregivers. The primary endpoint was delivery system success rate (DSSR): the percentage of participants (i.e., actual PFP user) achieving delivery success for each of the six attempted PFP injections. Injection success was recorded by the observer (Observer Assessment Tool) and participant (Participant Assessment Tool). RESULTS: In total, 50 patients with no experience self-injecting with an autoinjector/injection pen were included (74.0% female; mean age at screening, 54.9 years; mean RA duration, 8.0 years). Of these, 49 (98.0%) completed the sub-study and 46 (92.0%) received all six PFP injections. Overall DSSR (n = 294 injections) across visits was 100% (95% CI 92.0-100.0%). Complete injection was confirmed following inspection of 292 used and returned PFPs. A total of 47/49 (95.9%) participants who completed the sub-study elected to continue study treatment using PFP injections, rather than switching back to the PFS. CONCLUSIONS: All actual PFP users could safely and effectively administer ADL-PF by PFP at each visit, and nearly all participants who completed the sub-study elected to continue study treatment using PFP injections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02480153; EudraCT number: 2014-000352-29.

Long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the adalimumab biosimilar, PF-06410293, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis after switching from reference adalimumab (Humira®) or continuing biosimilar therapy: week 52-92 data from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: REFLECTIONS B538-02 is a randomized, double-blind comparative study of the adalimumab (ADL) biosimilar PF-06410293, (ADL-PF), and reference ADL sourced from the European Union (ADL-EU) in patients with active RA. Therapeutic equivalence was demonstrated based on ACR20 responses at week 12 (primary endpoint). We report long-term safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of ADL-PF in patients who continued ADL-PF treatment throughout 78 weeks or who switched from ADL-EU to ADL-PF at week 26 or week 52. METHODS: Eligible patients (2010 ACR/EULAR RA diagnosis criteria for ≥ 4 months; inadequate response to MTX, ≤ 2 doses non-ADL biologic), stratified by geographic regions were initially randomized (1:1) in treatment period 1 (TP1) to ADL-PF or ADL-EU (40 mg subcutaneously, biweekly), both with MTX (10-25 mg/week). At week 26 (start of TP2), patients receiving ADL-EU were re-randomized to remain on ADL-EU or transition to ADL-PF for 26 weeks. At week 52 (start of TP3), all patients received open-label treatment with ADL-PF for 26 weeks and were followed after last treatment dose to week 92. To evaluate maintenance of response after switching or remaining on ADL-PF, ACR20, DAS28-4(CRP), and other measures of clinical response/remission were assessed through week 78 as secondary endpoints. Three groups were evaluated: biosimilar, week 26 switch, and week 52 switch. RESULTS: Overall, 507 patients participated in TP3. ACR20 response rates at week 52 were 88.4%, 88.2%, and 87.6% for the biosimilar, week 26, and week 52 switch groups, respectively. ACR20 response rates and DAS28-4(CRP) scores were sustained and comparable across groups in TP3. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) during TP3 and follow-up was 42.6% (biosimilar), 37.0% (week 26 switch), and 50.8% (week 52 switch); 3 (0.6%) patients (all week 52 switch) reported treatment-related serious AEs. ADL-PF was generally well tolerated, with a comparable safety profile across groups. Overall, incidences of patients with anti-drug antibodies in TP3 and follow-up were comparable among groups (46.1%, 46.5%, and 54.2%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy for patients who were maintained on ADL-PF for 78 weeks and those who had switched from ADL-EU at week 26 or week 52. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02480153. First posted on June 24, 2015; EU Clinical Trials Register; EudraCT number: 2014-000352-29. Start date, October 27, 2014.

Randomised study of PF-06410293, an adalimumab (ADL) biosimilar, compared with reference ADL for the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis: results from weeks 26-52, including a treatment switch from reference ADL to PF-06410293.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics of biosimilar adalimumab (ADL) PF-06410293 (ADL-PF; adalimumab-afzb) versus EU-sourced reference ADL (ADL-EU) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on longer-term treatment and after being switched from ADL-EU to ADL-PF. METHODS: In this multinational, double-blind study, patients with active RA were initially randomised to ADL-PF or ADL-EU for 26 weeks (treatment period (TP) 1). At the start of TP2 (weeks 26-52), patients in the ADL-EU arm were blindly re-randomised 1:1 to remain on ADL-EU (ADL-EU/ADL-EU; n=135) or switched to ADL-PF (ADL-EU/ADL-PF; n=134); patients receiving ADL-PF continued blinded treatment (ADL-PF/ADL-PF; n=283). RESULTS: The American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) response rates were comparable between treatment groups at all visits during TP2. At week 52, ACR20 response rates were 82.7% (ADL-PF/ADL-PF), 79.3% (ADL-EU/ADL-EU) and 84.3% (ADL-EU/ADL-PF). Other measures of deep response (ACR50/70, ACR/EULAR-defined remission, EULAR good response, and Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints Based on High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein <2.6) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index were maintained over TP2 and comparable between groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 43.5% (ADL-PF/ADL-PF), 44.4% (ADL-EU/ADL-EU) and 38.3% (ADL-EU/ADL-PF) of patients; there were no clinically meaningful differences in the safety profiles between groups. The percentage of patients who were antidrug antibody positive was comparable overall among ADL-PF/ADL-PF (47.3%), ADL-EU/ADL-EU (54.1%) and ADL-EU/ADL-PF (45.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The similar efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics of ADL-PF and ADL-EU, maintained up to week 52, were unaffected by blinded treatment switch from ADL-EU to ADL-PF at week 26. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02480153; EudraCT number: 2014-000352-29.

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 comparative clinical study of PF-06410293, a candidate adalimumab biosimilar, and adalimumab reference product (Humira®) in the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: This double-blind, randomized, 78-week study evaluated the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of PF-06410293, a candidate adalimumab biosimilar, versus adalimumab reference product (Humira®) sourced from the EU (adalimumab-EU) in biologic-naïve patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate (MTX) (10-25 mg/week). We report results for the first 26 weeks of treatment. METHODS: Patients with active RA (N = 597) were randomly assigned (1:1) to PF-06410293 or adalimumab-EU, while continuing with MTX treatment. The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) at week 12. Therapeutic equivalence was concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ACR20 difference between the two arms was entirely contained within the symmetric equivalence margin (±14%). Additionally, a two-sided 90% CI was calculated by using an asymmetric equivalence margin (-12%, 15%). Secondary efficacy endpoints to week 26 included ACR20/50/70, change from baseline Disease Activity Score based on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [DAS28-4(CRP)], European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, DAS28-4(CRP) of less than 2.6, and ACR/EULAR remission. QuantiFERON-TB testing was performed at screening and week 26. RESULTS: Patients (78.7% of whom were female and whose mean age was 52.5 years) had a mean baseline RA duration of 6.8 years. The mean baseline DAS28-4(CRP) values were 5.9 (PF-06410293) and 6.1 (adalimumab-EU). The observed week-12 ACR20 values were 68.7% (PF-06410293) and 72.7% (adalimumab-EU) in the intention-to-treat population. With non-responder imputation, the treatment difference in week-12 ACR20 was -2.98% and corresponding CIs-95% CI (-10.38%, 4.44%) and 90% CI (-9.25%, 3.28%)-were entirely contained within the equivalence margins (symmetric and asymmetric, respectively). The secondary efficacy endpoints were similar between arms. Over 26 weeks, injection-site reactions occurred in 1.7% versus 2.0%, hypersensitivity events in 4.4% versus 8.4%, pneumonia in 0.7% versus 2.0%, and opportunistic infections in 2.4% versus 1.7% in the PF-06410293 and adalimumab-EU arms, respectively. One death due to myocardial infarction occurred (adalimumab-EU arm). Rates of anti-drug antibody incidence were 44.4% (PF-06410293) and 50.5% (adalimumab-EU). CONCLUSIONS: The study results demonstrate that efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of PF-06410293 and adalimumab-EU were similar during the first 26 weeks of treatment in patients with active RA on background MTX. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02480153 . First posted on June 24, 2015; EU Clinical Trials Register EudraCT number: 2014-000352-29 . Start date: October 27, 2014.

Development by a Large Integrated Health Care System of an Objective Methodology for Evaluation of Medical Oncology Service Sites.

PURPOSE: Aurora Health Care (AHC) is the largest health care system in Wisconsin, with 14 acute care hospitals. In early 2010, a group of 18 medical oncologists became affiliated with AHC. This affiliation added 13 medical oncology infusion clinics to our existing 12 sites. In the era of health care reform and declining reimbursement, we need an objective method and criteria to evaluate our 25 outpatient medical oncology sites. We developed financial, clinical, and strategic tools for the evaluation and management of our cancer subservice lines and outpatient sites. The key to our success has been the direct involvement of stakeholders with a vested interest in the services in the selection of the criteria and evaluation process. METHODS: We developed our objective metrics for evaluation based on strategic, financial, operational, and patient experience criteria. Strategic criteria included: population trends, full-time equivalent (FTE) medical oncologists/primary care physicians, FTE radiation oncologists, FTE oncologic surgeons, new annual cases of patients with cancer, and market share trends. Financial criteria per site included: physician work relative value units, staff FTE by type, staff salaries, and profit and loss. Operational criteria included: facility by type (clinic v hospital based), hours of operation, and facility detail (eg, No. of chairs, No. of procedure and examination rooms, square footage). Patient experience criteria included: nursing model primary/nurse navigators, multidisciplinary support at site, Press Ganey (South Bend, IN; health care performance improvement company) results, and employee engagement score. RESULTS: The outcome of our data analysis has resulted in the development of recommendations for AHC senior leadership and geographic market leadership to consider the consolidation of four sites (phase one, four sites; phase two, two sites) and priority strategic sites to address capacity issues that limit growth. The recommendations if implemented would result in significant cost savings, currently being quantified as a result of consolidation and improved efficiency. A reinvestment of these cost savings would be required to address facility expansion and program enhancement to maximize patient-centered expert care consistently across all of our remaining sites of service.