A pharmacokinetic study comparing the biosimilar HEC14028 and Dulaglutide (Trulicity®) in healthy Chinese subjects.

This study aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PKs), safety, and immunogenicity of the biosimilar HEC14028 compared to reference Trulicity® (dulaglutide) in healthy male Chinese subjects. This study was a single-center, randomized, open, single-dose, parallel-controlled comparative Phase I clinical trial, including a screening period of up to 14 days, a 17-day observation period after administration, and a 7-day safety follow-up period. A total of 68 healthy male subjects were randomly assigned (1:1) to the test group (HEC14028) and the reference group (dulaglutide) (single 0.75 mg abdominal subcutaneous dose). The primary objective was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic characteristics of HEC14028 and compare the pharmacokinetic similarities between HEC14028 and dulaglutide. The primary PK endpoints were maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the blood concentration-time curve from zero time to the estimated infinite time (AUC0-∞). The study results showed that HEC14028 and dulaglutide were pharmacokinetically equivalent: 90% confidence interval (CI) of Cmax and AUC0-∞ geometric mean ratios were 102.9%-122.0% and 97.1%-116.9%, respectively, which were both within the range of 80.00%-125.00%. No grade 3 or above treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), TEAEs leading to withdrawal from the trial, or TEAEs leading to death were reported in this study. Both HEC14028 and dulaglutide showed good and similar safety profiles, and no incremental immunogenicity was observed in subjects receiving HEC14028 and dulaglutide.

Pharmacokinetic similarity of switching SAR341402 insulin aspart biosimilar and NovoLog insulin aspart versus continuous use of NovoLog in adults with type 1 diabetes: The GEMELLI X trial.

AIM: To assess whether multiple switches between SAR341402 biosimilar insulin aspart (SAR-Asp) and the insulin aspart reference product (NovoLog; NN-Asp) leads to equivalent pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure compared with continuous use of NN-Asp in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study randomized (1:1) 210 subjects with T1D treated with once-daily insulin glargine U100 as basal insulin to four 4-week periods of alternating multiple daily injections of SAR-Asp and NN-Asp (NN-Asp for the first 4 weeks, SAR-Asp in the last 4 weeks; switching group) versus 16 weeks of continuous NN-Asp (non-switching group). At week 16, a single dose (0.15 U/kg) of SAR-Asp in the switching group (n = 95) or NN-Asp in the non-switching group (n = 105) was given in the morning before breakfast. Primary PK endpoints were area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) of SAR-Asp versus NN-Asp after the single dose at week 16. RESULTS: The extent of PK exposure was similar between the two treatments (SAR-Asp in the switching group and NN-Asp in the non-switching group) at week 16, with point estimates of treatment ratios close to 1. The 90% confidence intervals for AUC treatment ratios were contained within 0.8-1.25. For Cmax in the primary analysis set, the upper confidence limit was 1.32. This was because of the profiles of three participants with implausible high values. A prespecified sensitivity analysis excluding implausible values showed results contained within 0.8-1.25. CONCLUSIONS: PK exposure of SAR-Asp (switching group) and reference NN-Asp (non-switching group) were similar, supporting interchangeability between these two insulin aspart products.

Zarzio Ameliorates Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Induced By a High Fat Diet in a Rat Experimental Model: A Histological and Immunohistochemical Study

SUMMARY: The therapeutic effect of a granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilar drug, zarzio, on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in a rat model was investigated in this study. Thirty-two rats were randomly divided into four groups. Groups I and II were fed a standard laboratory diet, whereas groups III and IV were fed a high fat diet (HFD) for 14 weeks. After 12 weeks of feeding, groups I and III were administered normal saline, and groups II and IV were intraperitoneally administered zarzio (200 mg/kg/day) for two consecutive weeks. Hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) staining was used to assess hepatic and pancreatic morphology in all groups, oil red O (ORO) staining for lipid accumulation, Masson's staining for fibrosis, and immunohistochemistry assay for hepatic protein expression of insulin receptor substrate 1 (IRS1), nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2), tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and pancreatic caspase-3. The NAFLD rats (group III) developed hepatic steatosis with increased lipid accumulation, perisinusoidal fibrosis, upregulated IRS1, TNF-α (all P<0.05) without a significant increase in Nrf2 protein expression compared with normal control. In comparison, model rats treated with zarzio (group IV) showed significant rejuvenation of the hepatic architecture, reduction of fat accumulation, and fibrosis. This was accompanied by the upregulation of Nrf2, downregulation of IRS1 and TNF-α protein expression (all P<0.05). No correlation was detected between NAFLD and non-alcoholic fatty pancreas disease (NAFPD). However, the pancreatic β-cells in group III showed increased caspase-3 expression, which was decreased (P<0.05) in group IV. In conclusion, zarzio ameliorates NAFLD by improving the antioxidant capacity of liver cells, reducing hepatic IRS1, TNF-α protein expression and pancreatic β-cells apoptosis, suggesting that zarzio could be used as a potential therapy for NAFLD.

En este estudio se investigó el efecto terapéutico de un fármaco biosimilar del factor estimulante de colonias de granulocitos (G-CSF), zarzio, sobre la enfermedaddel hígado graso no alcohólico (NAFLD) en un modelo de rata. Treinta y dos ratas se dividieron aleatoriamente en cuatro grupos. Los grupos I y II fueron alimentados con una dieta estándar de laboratorio, mientras que los grupos III y IV fueron alimentados con una dieta alta en grasas (HFD) durante 14 semanas. Después de 12 semanas de alimentación, a los grupos I y III se les administró solución salina normal, y a los grupos II y IV se les administró zarzio por vía intraperitoneal (200 mg/kg/ día) durante dos semanas consecutivas. Se utilizó tinción de hematoxilina-eosina (H&E) para evaluar la morfología hepática y pancreática en todos los grupos, tinción con rojo aceite O (ORO) para la acumulación de lípidos, tinción de Masson para la fibrosis y ensayo de inmunohistoquímica para la expresión de la proteína hepática del sustrato 1 del receptor de insulina (IRS1), factor nuclear eritroide 2 relacionado con el factor 2 (Nrf2), factor de necrosis tumoral alfa (TNF-α) y caspasa-3 pancreática. Las ratas NAFLD (grupo III) desarrollaron esteatosis hepática con aumento de la acumulación de lípidos, fibrosis perisinusoidal, IRS1 y TNF-α regulados positivamente (todos P <0,05) sin un aumento significativo en la expresión de la proteína Nrf2 en comparación con el control normal. En comparación, las ratas modelo tratadas con zarzio (grupo IV) mostraron un rejuvenecimiento significativo de la arquitectura hepática, una reducción de la acumulación de grasa y fibrosis. Esto estuvo acompañado por la regulación positiva de Nrf2, la regulación negativa de la expresión de la proteína IRS1 y TNF-α (todas P <0,05). No se detectó correlación entre NAFLD y la enfermedad del páncreas graso no alcohólico (NAFPD). Sin embargo, las células β pancreáticas en el grupo III mostraron una mayor expresión de caspasa-3, que disminuyó (P <0,05) en el grupo IV. En conclusión, zarzio mejora la NAFLD al mejorar la capacidad antioxidante de las células hepáticas, reduciendo el IRS1 hepático, la expresión de la proteína TNF-α y la apoptosis de las células β pancreáticas, lo que sugiere que zarzio podría usarse como una terapia potencial para la NAFLD.

Interchangeability of biosimilars: A study of expert views and visions regarding the science and substitution.

Healthcare systems have reached a critical point regarding the question of whether biosimilar substitution should become common practice. To move the discussion forward, the study objective was to investigate the views of experts from medicines agencies and the pharmaceutical industry on the science underpinning interchangeability of biosimilars. We conducted an empirical qualitative study using semi-structured interviews informed by a cross-disciplinary approach encompassing regulatory science, law, and pharmaceutical policy. In total 25 individuals with experience within biologics participated during September 2018-August 2019. Eight participants were EU national medicines authority regulators, and 17 had pharmaceutical industry background: five from two originator-only companies, four from two companies with both biosimilar and originator products, and eight from seven biosimilar-only companies. Two analysts independently conducted inductive content analysis, resulting in data-driven themes capturing the meaning of the data. The participants reported that interchangeability was more than a scientific question of likeness between biosimilar and reference products: it also pertained to regulatory practices and trust. Participants were overall confident in the science behind exchanging biosimilar products for the reference products via switching, i.e., with physician involvement. However, their opinions differed regarding the scientific risk associated with biosimilar substitution, i.e., without physician involvement. Almost all participants saw no need for additional scientific data to support substitution. Moreover, the participants did not believe that switching studies, as required in the US, were appropriate for obtaining scientific certainty due to their small size. It is unclear why biosimilar switching is viewed as scientifically safer than substitution; therefore, we expect greater policy debate on biosimilar substitution in the near future. We urge European and UK policymakers and regulators to clarify their visions for biosimilar substitution; the positions of these two frontrunners are likely to influence other jurisdictions on the future of biosimilar use.

Detection of recombinant erythropoietin biosimilar Jimaixin™ after administration in healthy subjects.

Jimaixin™ (Jintan Ltd, China) is a biosimilar of recombinant erythropoietin (rEPO) now authorized for therapeutic application in China. With a risk of abuse by athletes, a clear evaluation of its detection using the electrophoretic methods in use in antidoping laboratories was necessary. In a previous work, we showed that Jimaixin™ electrophoretic profile presented slight changes compared with the original drug (first generation rEPO) and that a spike of Jimaixin™ in urine and serum was well identified by SDS-PAGE but with less performance by IEF-PAGE unless a neuraminidase treatment was applied first. The aims of this research were to perform an intravenous administration of Jimaixin™ on three healthy subjects (one microdose [10 IU/kg] and three therapeutic doses [50 IU/kg]) and to evaluate the detection in urine and blood up to 7 days post administration. Analysis of the samples showed that Jimaixin™ detection was complicated by IEF-PAGE due to the loss of the most distinctive basic isoforms. In addition, a neuraminidase treatment did not improve detection (contrary to the observations from spike experiments). On the contrary, Jimaixin™ was very efficiently detected in blood and urine by SDS-PAGE: up to 40 h after a microdose and up to 7 days after the therapeutic doses. The effect of Jimaixin™ on hematological parameters was limited to a clear but transitory increase of the reticulocytes. These data give new elements to better survey a potential misuse of Jimaixin™ by athletes.

Novel therapeutic interventions for combating Parkinson's disease and prospects of Nose-to-Brain drug delivery.

Parkinson disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder prevalent mainly in geriatric population. While, L-DOPA remains one of the major choices for the therapeutic management of PD, various motor and non-motor manifestations complicate the management of PD. In the last two decades, exhaustive research has been carried out to explore novel therapeutic approaches for mitigating motor and non-motor symptoms of PD. These approaches majorly include receptor-based, anti-inflammatory, stem-cell and nucleic acid based. The major limitations of existing therapeutic interventions (of commonly oral route) are low efficacy due to low brain bioavailability and associated side effects. Nanotechnology has been exploited and has gained wide attention in the recent years as an approach for enhancement of bioavailability of various small molecule drugs in the brain. To address the challenges associated with PD therapy, nose-to-brain delivery utilizing nanomedicine-based approaches has been found to be encouraging in published evidence. Therefore, the present work summarises the major challenges and limitations with antiparkinsonian drugs, novel therapeutic interventions, and scope of nanomedicine-based nose-to-brain delivery in addressing the current challenges of antiparkinsonian therapy. The manuscript tries to sensitize the researchers for designing brain-targeted nanomedicine loaded with natural/synthetic scaffolds, biosimilars, and nucleic acids that can bypass the first-pass effect for the effective management of PD.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity between SAR341402 insulin aspart and Japan-approved NovoRapid in healthy Japanese subjects.

This study compared the pharmacokinetic and glucodynamic profiles of biosimilar SAR341402 insulin aspart to Japan-approved insulin aspart (NovoRapid) in healthy Japanese males. In this single-center, randomized, double-blind, single-dose, two-period, crossover study, subjects received 0.3 U/kg of SAR341402 or NovoRapid before undergoing a 10 h euglycemic clamp procedure. Plasma insulin aspart concentrations and blood glucose levels were measured, and glucose infusion rates (GIRs) were assessed. Primary endpoints were maximum plasma insulin aspart concentration (INS-Cmax), area under the plasma insulin concentration-time curve to the last quantifiable concentration (INS-AUClast), area under the GIR-time curve during the clamp (GIR-AUC0-10 h), and maximum GIR (GIRmax). Forty subjects were randomized with 39 completing both treatment periods. Pharmacokinetic exposure showed a mean ratio between products of 1.00 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.05) for INS-Cmax and 1.02 (90% CI 1.00-1.04) for INS-AUClast. Glucodynamic activity showed a mean ratio between products of 1.00 (95% CI 0.93-1.06) for GIR-AUC0-10 h and 1.01 (95% CI 0.95-1.08) for GIRmax. The 90% CIs for pairwise treatment ratios were within the predefined equivalence range of 0.80-1.25. Both treatments were well tolerated. We concluded that similar pharmacokinetic exposure and glucodynamic potency were shown for SAR341402 and NovoRapid in healthy Japanese males.

Safety, Immunogenicity and Interchangeability of Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies and Fusion Proteins: A Regulatory Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilars have been used for 15 years in the European Union (EU), and have been shown to reduce costs and increase access to important biological medicines. In spite of their considerable exposure and excellent safety record, many prescribers still have doubts on the safety and interchangeability of biosimilars, especially monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and fusion proteins. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyse the short- and long-term safety and interchangeability data of biosimilar mAbs and fusion proteins to provide unbiased information to prescribers and policy makers. METHODS: Data on the safety, immunogenicity and interchangeability of EU-licensed mAbs and fusion proteins were examined using European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and postmarketing safety surveillance reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). As recent biosimilar approvals allow self-administration by patients by the subcutaneous route, the administration devices were also analyzed. RESULTS: Prelicensing data of EPARs (six different biosimilar adalimumabs, three infliximabs, three etanercepts, three rituximabs, two bevacizumabs, and six trastuzumabs) revealed that the frequency of fatal treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), TEAEs leading to discontinuation of treatment, serious adverse events (SAEs), and main immune-mediated adverse events (AEs) were comparable between the biosimilars and their reference products. The availability of new biosimilar presentations and administration devices may add to patient choice and be an emerging factor in the decision to switch patients. Analysis of postmarketing surveillance data covering up to 7 years of follow-up did not reveal any biosimilar-specific adverse effects. No product was withdrawn for safety reasons. This is in spite of considerable exposure to biosimilars in treatment-naïve patients and in patients switched from the reference medicinal product to the biosimilar. Analysis of data from switching studies provided in regulatory submissions showed that single or multiple switches between the originator and its biosimilar versions had no negative impact on efficacy, safety or immunogenicity. CONCLUSIONS: In line with previous reports of prelicensing studies of biosimilar mAbs and etanercepts, this study demonstrated comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity compared with the reference products. This is the first study to comprehensively analyze postmarketing surveillance data of the biosimilar mAbs and etanercept. An analysis of more than 1 million patient-treatment years of safety data raised no safety concerns. Based on these data, we argue that biosimilars approved in the EU are highly similar to and interchangeable with their reference products. Thus, additional systematic switch studies are not required to support the switching of patients.

Phase I/II study to assess the clinical pharmacology and safety of single ascending and multiple subcutaneous doses of PF-06881894 in women with non-distantly metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the pharmacodynamics (PD), pharmacokinetics (PK), and safety of single and multiple doses of PF-06881894 (pegfilgrastim-apgf; Nyvepria™), a biosimilar to reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®), in women with non-distantly metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: In Phase I (Cycle 0) of this Phase I/II study, the PD response (absolute neutrophil count [ANC]; CD34 + count), PK profile, and safety of a single 3- or 6-mg subcutaneous dose of PF-06881894 were assessed in chemotherapy-naïve patients before definitive breast surgery. In Phase II (Cycles 1-4), the PD response (duration of severe neutropenia [DSN, Cycle 1], ANC [Cycles 1 and 4]) and PK profile (Cycles 1 and 4) of single and multiple 6-mg doses of PF-06881894 concomitant with chemotherapy and after definitive breast surgery were assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (mean age 59 years) were enrolled (Cycle 0, n = 12; Cycles 1-4, n = 13). In Cycle 0, PD responses and PK values were lower with 3-mg versus 6-mg PF-06881894. In Cycles 1 and 4, mean DSN was 0.667 days after single or multiple 6-mg doses of PF-06881894, respectively. In Cycle 4 versus Cycle 1, PD responses were more robust; PK values (mean area under the curve, maximum concentration) were lower; and clearance values were higher. The safety profile of PF-06881894 was similar to that for reference pegfilgrastim. CONCLUSION: PF-06881894 as a single 3- or 6-mg dose prior to definitive surgery, or multiple 6-mg/cycle doses postoperatively, with/without myelosuppressive chemotherapy, was consistent with the clinical pharmacology and safety profile of reference pegfilgrastim. TRIAL REGISTRATION: October 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02650193. EudraCT Number: 2015-002057-35.

Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching: What is the Rationale and Current Experience?

Over time, clinicians have become increasingly comfortable embracing the prescription of biosimilars-highly similar versions of innovator or reference biological agents-for their patients with inflammatory diseases. Although a switch from a reference product to a licensed biosimilar version (or vice versa) is a medical decision robustly supported by the stepwise accumulation of clinical trial evidence concerning comparable safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy between these products, a switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference product, or a cross-switch, is not. Similarity among biosimilars of a reference product is not a regulatory agency concern and therefore is unlikely to be investigated in randomized controlled trials in the foreseeable future. Yet in clinical practice, across a diverse range of patients, the option to cross-switch from one biosimilar to another can and does arise for valid reasons such as convenience or tolerability issues, or driven by third parties (e.g., payers). In the absence of clinical trial data, clinicians must attempt to objectively evaluate the emerging real-world cross-switching evidence within the context of what is known about the science underpinning a designation of biosimilar. That knowledge then needs to be integrated with what clinicians know about their patients and their disease on a case-by-case basis. This review aims to consolidate relevant emerging real-world data and other key information about biosimilar-to-biosimilar cross-switching for prescribing clinicians. In the absence of clear clinical guidelines addressing this topic at present, this review may serve to facilitate discretionary and educated treatment decision making.

Assessment of rituximab-abbs, a biosimilar, and rituximab outcomes in patients with CLL or NHL: A real-world UK study.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab (chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) treatment is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Rituximab-abbs (first biosimilar approved in 2017) is expected to significantly reduce healthcare economic burden due to lower acquisition costs. This non-interventional, non-comparative study assessed real-world effectiveness and tolerability of rituximab-abbs and rituximab in treatment-naive patients with CLL or NHL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Via an online physician survey, 46 UK-registered hematologists and oncologists retrospectively reported on randomly selected patients aged ≥18 years with CLL or NHL with rituximab-abbs or rituximab as first-line immunotherapy. Overall, 201 patient charts were examined across 4 cohorts: rituximab-abbs in CLL, rituximab-abbs in NHL, rituximab in CLL, rituximab in NHL. RESULTS: Demographic profiles across cohorts were similar. Most patients (94 %-100 %) received combination therapy (rituximab-abbs or rituximab mainly with chemotherapy). For both treatments, overall response rate (94 %-98 %) and 1-year overall survival (98 %-100 %) were very high for patients with CLL or NHL. Most common serious adverse events were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia and infusion reactions. The majority of patients (54 %-66 %) did not experience a grade ≥3 adverse event. Healthcare resource utilization was similarly high across cohorts, driven by diagnostic testing, oncologist office visits, and day-case hospital admissions; many patients required supportive medical therapies. Mean annual savings of ∼£1000/patient driven by acquisition costs occurred with rituximab-abbs versus rituximab, administration costs were similar. CONCLUSION: Rituximab-abbs and rituximab demonstrated similar effectiveness and tolerability in treating CLL and NHL in routine UK clinical practice and demonstrate the utility of the biosimilar as a cost-saving alternative treatment.

Viability of a Serum Infliximab Concentration-Detecting Reagent as a Qualitative Assay for an Infliximab Biosimilar.

The efficacy of infliximab in treating rheumatoid arthritis depends on its serum trough concentration, which must be maintained at a minimum of 1 µg/mL to achieve the desired effects. However, Japan's National Health Insurance system does not cover tests for rheumatoid arthritis patients undergoing treatment with biosimilar infliximab because its performance as a biosimilar remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate whether the Remi-check Q qualitative assay yields comparable results for biosimilar infliximab and the originator product. Infliximab BS 100 "NK" and Remicade 100® were separately diluted in pooled human serum to yield test samples at the following concentrations: 0.30, 0.70, 1.20, and 3.00 µg/mL. Prepared samples were quantitatively assessed using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and qualitatively using Remi-check Q, and the results obtained for the originator and biosimilar product were compared. For both originator and biosimilar infliximab, Remi-check Q yielded a negative result for all 0.30 and 0.70 µg/mL samples and a positive result for all 3.00 µg/mL samples. However, negative results were obtained with a fraction of the 1.20 µg/mL samples (biosimilar, 4/15; originator, 3/15). Concurrence rates between the results of quantitative ELISA and qualitative Remi-check Q analyses were comparable between originator and biosimilar infliximab at all tested concentrations. These results indicate that Remi-check Q yields comparable results for biosimilar infliximab and the originator product on being used as a qualitative assay for trough serum levels.

A randomized, double-blind, single-dose study (LAVENDER) to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of a combined infusion of ABP 980 and pertuzumab in healthy subjects.

PURPOSE: ABP 980 (KANJINTI™) is a biosimilar to reference product HERCEPTIN® (trastuzumab RP). The goal of this study was to characterize the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of ABP 980 plus pertuzumab (PERJETA®) when co-administered in a single infusion bag in healthy subjects. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, single-dose, 2-arm, parallel-group study (LAVENDER Study) evaluated an intravenous (IV) infusion of ABP 980 (6 mg/kg) plus pertuzumab (420 mg) combined in a single infusion bag relative to an IV infusion of trastuzumab RP (6 mg/kg) plus pertuzumab (420 mg) combined in a single infusion bag given over 60 min. The subjects were followed for 92 days post dosing. RESULTS: A total of 42 subjects were enrolled in the study and treated with investigational product. Due to an operational issue during dosing, the first 6 subjects enrolled in the study were replaced. A total of 36 randomized subjects, n = 18 for ABP 980 plus pertuzumab and n = 18 for trastuzumab RP plus pertuzumab, were treated. Resulting serum concentrations of ABP 980 and trastuzumab RP were similar. There were no serious adverse events, no deaths, and no cardiac disorders during the study. No subject developed anti-drug antibodies throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the safety and tolerability of ABP 980 and pertuzumab admixture in a single infusion bag. The safety profiles and pharmacokinetic parameters of ABP 980 and pertuzumab were consistent with what is known for trastuzumab RP and pertuzumab. CLINICAL TRIAL LISTING: EudraCT 2018-002903-33.

Safety and efficacy of BI 695501 versus adalimumab reference product in patients with advanced Crohn's disease (VOLTAIRE-CD): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: BI 695501 is a biosimilar that has demonstrated similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to adalimumab reference product in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and chronic plaque psoriasis. The VOLTAIRE-CD study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of BI 695501 with adalimumab reference product in patients with Crohn's disease. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind study was done at 92 centres in 12 countries across Europe and the USA in patients aged 18-80 years with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease (Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI] score 220-450). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 using an interactive response technology system to the BI 695501 group or adalimumab reference product group, stratified by previous exposure to infliximab (yes vs no) and simple endoscopic score for Crohn's disease at screening (<16 vs ≥16). All investigators involved in trial assessments or procedures and all patients were masked to treatment allocation until week 24. Patients received BI 695501 (40 mg/0·8 mL formulation) or adalimumab reference product (either 40 mg/0·4 mL citrate-free or 40 mg/0·8 mL) 160 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on day 15, followed by 40 mg every 2 weeks, via subcutaneous injection. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with clinical response (CDAI decrease ≥70 points) at week 4, with an exploratory non-inferiority margin of 0·76 for the lower limit of the two-sided 90% CI of the risk ratio (RR). The primary analysis was done in a modified full analysis set of all patients who received at least one dose of study medication and had a baseline and at least one post-baseline CDAI assessment. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. After week 4, responders were treated until week 46; those randomly assigned to adalimumab reference product switched to BI 695501 at week 24. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02871635) and EudraCT (2016-000612-14). FINDINGS: Between Jan 4, 2017, and April 5, 2018, 147 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to BI 695501 (n=72) or adalimumab reference product (n=75). At week 4, 61 (90%) of 68 patients in the BI 695501 group and 68 (94%) of 72 in the adalimumab reference product group had a clinical response (adjusted RR 0·945 [90% CI 0·870-1·028]). In the safety analysis set, 45 (63%) of 72 patients in the BI 695501 group and 42 (56%) of 75 in the adalimumab reference product group had an adverse event during weeks 0-24; 31 (43%) and 34 (45%) had adverse events during weeks 24-56. The most common drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events during weeks 0-24 were weight increase (three [4%] patients in the BI 695501 group) and injection-site erythema and upper respiratory tract infection (three [4%] patients for each event) in the adalimumab reference product group. The only drug-related TEAEs reported in two or more patients during weeks 24-56 were weight increase and increased γ-glutamyltransferase, which occured in two (3%) patients each in the BI 695501 group. No drug-related TEAEs were reported in two or more patients during weeks 24-56 in the adalimumab reference product followed by BI 699501 group. Serious adverse events occurred in six (8%) patients in the BI 695501 group and eight (11%) in the adalimumab reference group between weeks 0-24, and two (3%) and nine (12%) patients between weeks 24-56. Adverse events of special interest occurred in two (3%) patients in each treatment group during weeks 0-24 (acute sinusitis and pulmonary tuberculosis in the BI 695501 group and anal abscess and postoperative wound infection in the adalimumab reference product group) and two (3%) patients in each group during weeks 24-56 (psoas abscess and hypersensitivity in the BI 695501 group and pulmonary tuberculosis and erythematous rash in the adalimumab reference product followed by BI 699501 group). INTERPRETATION: Safety and efficacy were similar in patients with Crohn's disease treated with BI 695501 or adalimumab reference product. Treatment benefits were maintained in patients receiving adalimumab reference product who switched to BI 695501. These results further support the existing licensure of BI 695501 as an alternative to adalimumab reference product for patients with Crohn's disease, as well as the other indications for which BI 695501 is approved. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Physicochemical and functional characterization of trastuzumab-dkst, a trastuzumab biosimilar.

Aims: Preclinical comparative similarity studies of trastuzumab-dkst, a Herceptin® biosimilar, are reported. Materials & methods: Primary sequence and higher order structure and pharmacological mechanisms of action were compared using multiple techniques. Pharmacokinetics and repeat-dose toxicity were assessed in cynomolgus monkeys. Results: Primary structures were identical; secondary and tertiary structures were highly similar. Non-significant differences were observed for charge heterogeneity. Twelve of 13 glycan species were highly similar, with slightly higher total mannose levels in trastuzumab-dkst. FcγR and FcRn binding activity was highly similar. Each drug equally inhibited HER2+ cell proliferation, demonstrating equivalent relative potency in mediating HER2+ cell cytolysis by antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. Pharmacokinetic and toxicological profiles in cynomolgus monkeys were similar. Conclusion: Trastuzumab-dkst, US-licensed trastuzumab and EU-approved trastuzumab demonstrate high structural and functional similarity.

An Update Review of Biosimilars of Adalimumab in Psoriasis - Bioequivalence and Interchangeability.

Biologic drugs have revolutionized the treatment of psoriasis and other rheumatological diseases. In recent years, many biosimilar agents that are highly similar in structure and function to their originator products have been developed, including the tumor necrosis factor-alpha antagonist adalimumab. The considerably lower cost of these products has greatly cut the economic burden of the patients and increased the accessibility of biologic therapies worldwide. The US Food and Drug Administration and/or the European Medicines Agency have approved eight biosimilars of adalimumab (ABP 501/BI 695501/SB5/GP2017/FKB327/MSB11022/PF-06410293/CT-P17) for the treatment of psoriasis, and others are under review. Given that these agents showed pharmacokinetic, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles comparable to those of the originator, adalimumab biosimilars were licensed for all indications approved for reference adalimumab based on extrapolation; however, some of the equivalence studies were only conducted in one or two disease populations. This review discusses the bioequivalence of adalimumab biosimilars as demonstrated by various clinical trials, the extrapolation of indications, guidance and policies of the EU and US on interchangeability (nonmedical switching/automatic substitution) between biosimilars and originators, and the real-life practices of switching from reference adalimumab to the respective biosimilars. Further data from real-world studies and post-marketing analyses are needed better to address the efficacy and safety of the transition strategy.

A randomized, single-dose, pharmacokinetic equivalence study comparing MB02 (proposed biosimilar) and reference bevacizumab in healthy Japanese male volunteers.

PURPOSE: MB02 is a biosimilar to bevacizumab that has demonstrated similar physicochemical and functional properties in in vitro studies to the reference bevacizumab (Avastin®). This study aims to assess the pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity of MB02 to the reference bevacizumab in Japanese population. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, single-dose PK study, was performed in healthy Japanese male volunteers. Subjects were equally randomized (1:1) to receive a single (3 mg/kg) IV dose of MB02 or reference bevacizumab. PK assessments were done up to 70 days post-dose. Non-compartmental parameters were calculated. PK similarity was determined using predefined equivalence range (0.80-1.25) for the area under the serum concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞). Immunogenicity samples were taken pre-dose and up to day 70. Safety was assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: In total, 48 subjects (24 in each treatment group) were dosed. Consequently to the observed similar PK profile, the 90% confidence interval for the geometric means ratio for the primary PK endpoint, AUC0-∞, was within the predefined equivalence range (0.981-1.11). Forty-seven treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 20 subjects (41.7%) with comparable incidence among MB02 and reference bevacizumab groups (22 and 25, respectively), none of them was severe or serious. Anti-drug antibodies incidence was low and similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacokinetic similarity of MB02 to reference bevacizumab was evidenced in Japanese healthy subjects, with comparable safety and immunogenicity profile between treatments. This study supports the biosimilarity of MB02 to reference bevacizumab in Japanese population. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04238650.

Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilar and Originator Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: Real-Life Data.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of real-life clinical data for biosimilar etanercept, an anti-TNF blocking fusion protein. We describe the comparable efficacy and safety of originator and biosimilar etanercept in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in a real-life clinical setting. Our data confirm that a biosimilar etanercept can be safely used as first-line treatment as well as in patients switched from a previous originator compound. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of originator and biosimilar etanercept in a cohort of RA patients attending two Italian hospitals. METHODS: The study involved 81 consecutive adult RA patients treated for at least 6 months with originator or biosimilar etanercept and considered their clinical and laboratory data, concomitant medications, and adverse events at baseline, and after 3 and 6 months of treatment. RESULTS: Group 1 included 51 patients taking originator etanercept; group 2 included 30 taking biosimilar etanercept, including 19 who had been switched from the reference product. Despite a significant baseline difference in clinical disease activity, one-way analysis of variance showed that the two groups were clinically comparable after 6 months of treatment, and the same was true when only those receiving etanercept as first-line biological treatment were considered. Nine patients discontinued the treatment due to inefficacy or adverse events, which were never serious and were only reported in group 1. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety profiles of originator and biosimilar etanercept are comparable in RA patients in a real-life clinical setting. Further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary findings.