Consistent Effects of Early Remdesivir on Symptoms and Disease Progression Across At-Risk Outpatient Subgroups: Treatment Effect Heterogeneity in PINETREE Study.

INTRODUCTION: In the PINETREE study, early remdesivir treatment reduced risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalizations or all-cause death versus placebo by 87% by day 28 in high-risk, non-hospitalized patients. Here we report results of assessment of heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) of early outpatient remdesivir, focusing on time from symptom onset and number of baseline risk factors (RFs). METHODS: PINETREE was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who were randomized within 7 days of symptom onset and had ≥ 1 RF for disease progression (age ≥ 60 years, obesity [body mass index ≥ 30], or certain coexisting medical conditions). Patients received remdesivir intravenously (200 mg on day 1 and 100 mg on days 2 and 3) or placebo. RESULTS: In this subgroup analysis, HTE of remdesivir by time from symptom onset at treatment initiation and number of baseline RFs was not detected. Treatment with remdesivir reduced COVID-19-related hospitalizations independent of stratification by time from symptom onset to randomization. Of patients enrolled ≤ 5 days from symptom onset, 1/201 (0.5%) receiving remdesivir and 9/194 (4.6%) receiving placebo were hospitalized (hazard ratio [HR] 0.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01-0.82). Of those enrolled at > 5 days from symptom onset, 1/78 (1.3%) receiving remdesivir and 6/89 (6.7%) receiving placebo were hospitalized (HR 0.19; 95% CI 0.02-1.61). Remdesivir was also effective in reducing COVID-19-related hospitalizations when stratified by number of baseline RFs for severe disease. Of patients with ≤ 2 RFs, 0/159 (0.0%) receiving remdesivir and 4/164 (2.4%) receiving placebo were hospitalized; of those with ≥ 3 RFs, 2/120 (1.7%) receiving remdesivir and 11/119 (9.2%) receiving placebo were hospitalized (HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.04-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: In the outpatient setting, benefit of remdesivir initiated within 7 days of symptoms appeared to be consistent across patients with RFs. Therefore, it may be reasonable to broadly treat patients with remdesivir regardless of comorbidities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04501952.

A Review of the Totality of Evidence for the Development and Approval of ABP 710 (AVSOLA), an Infliximab Biosimilar.

ABP 710 (AVSOLA®) is a biosimilar to infliximab reference product (RP), a monoclonal antibody targeting tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα). It is approved in the USA and Canada for all the same indications as infliximab RP. Approval of ABP 710 was based on the totality of evidence (TOE) generated using a stepwise approach to assess its similarity with infliximab RP with regard to analytical (structural and functional) characteristics, pharmacokinetic parameters, and clinical efficacy and safety. ABP 710 was shown to be analytically similar to infliximab RP including in amino acid sequence, primary peptide structure, and glycan mapping and purity. ABP 710 was also demonstrated to be similar to infliximab RP with regard to functional characterization including in vitro binding, effector functions, and signaling pathways important for the mechanisms of action for clinical efficacy in multiple indications of immune-mediated inflammatory disorders including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), especially binding to both soluble and membrane-bound TNFα. Pharmacokinetic similarity of ABP 710 with infliximab RP was demonstrated in healthy volunteers following a single 5 mg/kg intravenous dose. Comparative clinical efficacy of ABP 710 with infliximab RP was demonstrated in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Safety and immunogenicity were also demonstrated to be similar for both ABP 710 and the RP. Overall, the TOE supported the conclusion that ABP 710 is highly similar to infliximab RP and supported scientific justification for extrapolation to all approved indications of infliximab RP, including IBD.

A Review of the Totality of Evidence Supporting the Development of the First Adalimumab Biosimilar ABP 501.

ABP 501 [United States: AMJEVITA™ (adalimumab-atto); European Union: AMGEVITA® (adalimumab)] is the first approved biosimilar to adalimumab [reference product (RP)], a monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting tumor necrosis factor-alfa (TNF-α). ABP 501 has received approval for use in indications that adalimumab RP is approved for, except those protected by regulatory exclusivity. A systematic step-wise totality of evidence (TOE) approach formed the basis of approval of ABP 501; this involved methodical accumulation of scientifically robust comparative data supporting similarity in analytical, preclinical, and clinical [pharmacokinetics (PK)], efficacy, safety and immunogenicity) evaluations. As a foundational first step, comprehensive analytical assessments demonstrated that ABP 501 is structurally and functionally similar to adalimumab RP in critical quality attributes. Preclinical assessments confirmed similar activity in assessing mechanisms of action and toxicology. Clinical evaluation included a phase 1 PK equivalence study in healthy subjects and two comparative phase 3 studies that evaluated ABP 501 and adalimumab RP in two sensitive patient populations, plaque psoriasis (PsO) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The PK profiles of ABP 501 and adalimumab RP were similar in healthy subjects as well as patients with PsO and RA. The pivotal phase 3 study in patients with PsO demonstrated that ABP 501 was clinically similar to adalimumab RP in terms of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in both the primary and transition phases. The pivotal phase 3 study in patients with RA also established clinical similarity between ABP 501 and adalimumab RP; an open-label extension of this study demonstrated sustained efficacy over an additional 72 weeks, with no new safety or immunogenicity concerns with ABP 501 treatment. Overall, the TOE supported the conclusion that ABP 501 is highly similar to adalimumab RP and provided scientific justification for extrapolation to all the approved indications of adalimumab RP not protected by exclusivities.Funding: Amgen Inc.

Biosimilars: Considerations for Payers.

Evaluating biosimilars requires payers to go beyond cost considerations: safety and efficacy, reliability of supply and logistics, and the impact of state laws on substitution and interchangeability must all be deliberated.

Scientific and statistical considerations in evaluating the analytical similarity of ABP 501 to adalimumab.

Analytical similarity is the foundation of the totality-of-evidence-based approach for demonstrating that a proposed biosimilar is highly similar to a reference product. This review uses analytical similarity assessment of ABP 501, the first approved adalimumab biosimilar, as a case study to highlight considerations necessary to demonstrate analytical similarity. Similarity assessments start with risk-ranking the critical quality attributes based on scientific understanding of how they impact safety, efficacy, immunogenicity and/or pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics. Testing strategy and evaluation approaches are designed with the understanding of the analytical methods and their capabilities. Statistical considerations are used to establish objective assessment criteria. The result is a scientifically justified, objective analytical similarity assessment that demonstrates that a proposed biosimilar is structurally and functionally similar to a reference product.

A Framework for Integrating Biosimilars Into the Didactic Core Requirements of a Doctor of Pharmacy Curriculum.

Biologic drugs approved via the abbreviated United States biosimilar approval pathway are anticipated to improve access to medications by addressing increasing health care expenditures. Surveys of health care practitioners indicate that there is inadequate knowledge and understanding about biosimilars; this must be addressed to ensure safe and effective use of this new category of products. Concepts of biosimilar development, manufacturing, regulation, naming, formulary, and inventory considerations, as well as patient and provider education should be included within the doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) curriculum as preparation for clinical practice. Based on these considerations, we propose that PharmD graduates be required to have knowledge in the following domains regarding biologics and biosimilars: legal definition, development and regulation, state pharmacy practice laws, and pharmacy practice management. We link these general biosimilar concepts to the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) Standards 2016 and Center for the Advancement of Pharmacy Education (CAPE) Outcomes 2013, and provide example classroom learning objectives, in-class activities, and assessments to guide implementation.

Developing the Totality of Evidence for Biosimilars: Regulatory Considerations and Building Confidence for the Healthcare Community.

Biosimilars are highly similar versions of approved branded biologics. Unlike generics, they are not exact replicas of reference products. Minor differences between biosimilars and reference products in some aspects are expected; likewise, biosimilar products will differ from each other. The objective of this review is to discuss the challenges associated with the development and approval of biosimilar products that are unique because of their complex structure and specialized manufacturing processes, which can impact not only efficacy but also immunogenicity and safety. Regulatory guidelines recommend a totality-of-evidence approach focused on stepwise development that involves demonstration of structural similarity and functional equivalence. Structural and functional characteristics of the proposed biosimilar are compared with the reference product; similarity of these functions forms the foundation of the biosimilar development program, including potential animal studies, a human pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics equivalence study, and a clinical study to confirm similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. The clinical study should be performed in a sensitive population using appropriate endpoints to allow detection of any clinically meaningful differences between the biosimilar and the reference product if such differences exist. In conclusion, development of biosimilars is focused on the minimization of potential differences between the proposed biosimilar and reference product and the establishment of a robust manufacturing process to consistently produce a high-quality biosimilar product.