An open-label extension study to demonstrate long-term safety and efficacy of ABP 501 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: ABP 501 was evaluated in a phase 3 single-arm, open-label extension (OLE) study to collect additional safety and efficacy data in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Subjects completing the final visit in the parent phase 3 randomized, double-blind, controlled equivalence study comparing the efficacy and safety of the biosimilar ABP 501 with adalimumab reference product (RP) were enrolled in this open-label extension (OLE) study. All subjects received 40 mg ABP 501 every other week for 68 weeks. Key safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and anti-drug antibody (ADA) incidences. Efficacy endpoints included ACR20 (at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology core set measurements from baseline) and Disease Activity Score 28-joint count C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) change from baseline. RESULTS: Among 466/467 patients treated with ABP 501, 229 transitioned from the ABP 501 arm of the parent study (ABP 501/ABP 501) and 237 from the adalimumab RP arm (RP/ABP 501); 412/467 (88.2%) patients completed the study. The overall TEAE incidence was 63.7% (297/466); grade ≥ 3 TEAE incidence was 9.0% (42/466). The incidence of TEAEs leading to discontinuation of investigational product was 3.6% (17/466). The SAE incidence was 9.9% (46/466). Overall, 18.2% (85/466) of subjects developed binding ADAs and 6.9% (32/466) developed neutralizing ADAs in the OLE study. The ACR20 response rate was 73.3% (340/464 subjects) at OLE baseline, and 78.8% (327/415 subjects) at week 70 of the OLE study. The overall mean DAS28-CRP change from the parent study baseline was - 2.25 at the OLE study baseline (n = 440), - 2.36 at week 4 (n = 463), - 2.41 at week 24 (n = 450), - 2.55 at week 48 (n = 433), and - 2.60 at week 70 (n = 412). Efficacy was maintained throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy previously demonstrated in the parent study was maintained in this OLE study with no new safety findings. Long-term safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy were similar in the ABP 501/ABP 501 and RP/ABP 501 groups. The single switch from RP to ABP 501 did not impact immunogenicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT02114931.

Current state of and needs for hepatitis B screening: results of a large screening study in a low-prevalent, metropolitan region.

BACKGROUND: In low hepatitis B virus (HBV)-prevalent countries, most HBV-infected persons are unaware of their status. We aimed to evaluate whether (i) previous HBV-testing, (ii) physicians decision to screen, and (iii) CDC's recommendations identified infected individuals and which risk-factor groups needing testing. METHODS: During a mass, multi-center HBV-screening study from September 2010-August 2011, 3929 participants were screened for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), anti-HBs and anti-Hepatitis B core antibodies (anti-HBcAb). Questions on HBV risk-factors and testing practices were asked to participants, while participants' eligibility for HBV-testing was asked to study medical professionals. RESULTS: 85 (2.2%) participants were HBsAg-positive, while 659 (16.8%) had either resolved HBV infection or isolated anti-HBcAb. When comparing practices, HBV-testing was more likely to occur in HBV-infected participants if Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations were used (Sensitivity = 100%, 95%CI: 95.8-100) than physicians' discretion (Sensitivity = 87.1%, 95%CI: 78.0-93.4) or previous HBV-test (Sensitivity = 36.5%, 95%CI: 26.3-47.6) (p<0.0001). Nevertheless, many non-infected individuals would still have been screened using CDC-recommendations (Specificity = 31.1%, 95%CI: 29.6-32.6). Using multivariable logistic regression, HBsAg-positive status was significantly associated with the following: males, originating from high HBV-endemic region, contact with HBV-infected individual, without national healthcare, and intravenous-drug user (IDU). Of these risk-factors, physician's discretion for testing HBV was not significantly associated with participants' geographical origin or IDU. CONCLUSIONS: Missed opportunities of HBV-screening are largely due to underestimating country of origin as a risk-factor. Applying CDC-recommendations could improve HBV-screening, but with the disadvantage of many tests. Further development of HBV-testing strategies is necessary, especially before severe disease occurs.

Performance of rapid tests for detection of HBsAg and anti-HBsAb in a large cohort, France.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The systematic use of rapid tests performed at points-of-care may facilitate hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening and substantially increase HBV infection awareness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of such tests for HBsAg and anti-HBsAb detection among individuals visiting a variety of healthcare centers located in a low HBV-prevalent area. METHODS: Three rapid tests for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) detection (VIKIA, Determine and Quick Profile) and one test for anti-hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBsAb) detection (Quick Profile) were evaluated in comparison to ELISA serology. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) and area under the ROC curve were used to estimate test performance. Non-inferiority criteria of the joint Se, Sp were set at 0.80, 0.95. RESULTS: Among the 3956 subjects screened, 85 (2.1%) were HBsAg-positive and 2225 (56.5%) had a protective anti-HBsAb titer. Test Se and Sp (lower bound of 97.5% CI) were as follows: 96.5% (89.0%), 99.9% (99.8%) for Vikia; 93.6% (80.7%), 100.0% (99.8%) for Determine; and 90.5% (80.8%), 99.7% (99.5%) for Quick Profile; with all three tests achieving minimal non-inferiority criteria. False negatives were typically observed in inactive HBsAg carriers. The anti-HBsAb Quick Profile test had excellent specificity (97.8%) and PPV (97.8%) albeit low sensitivity (58.3%), thus failing to establish non-inferiority. CONCLUSIONS: All three HBsAg rapid tests could be considered ideal for HBV screening in low HBV-prevalent countries, given the ease of use, rapidity, and high classification probabilities. The anti-HBsAb Quick Profile could be considered reliable only for positive tests.