PB006: A Natalizumab Biosimilar.

PB006 (Tyruko®) is the first biosimilar of the reference monoclonal anti-α4-integrin antibody natalizumab. It is approved for use in the same indications for which reference natalizumab is approved, as a single disease-modifying therapy in adults with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). PB006 has similar physicochemical and pharmacodynamic properties to those of reference natalizumab, and the pharmacokinetic similarity of the agents has been demonstrated in a study in healthy subjects. PB006 demonstrated clinical efficacy similar to that of reference natalizumab in patients with RRMS, and was generally well tolerated in this population. The tolerability, safety and immunogenicity profiles of PB006 were similar to those of reference natalizumab, and switching from reference natalizumab to PB006 appeared to have no impact on tolerability or immunogenicity. The role of reference natalizumab in the management of RRMS is well established and PB006 provides an effective biosimilar alternative for patients requiring natalizumab therapy.

Factors associated with hematological adverse reactions of drugs authorized via the centralized procedure.

Serious hematological adverse drug reactions (HADRs) may lead to or prolong hospitalization and even cause death. The aim of this study was to determine the regulatory factors associated with HADRs caused by drugs that were authorized up to July 2023 by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and to evaluate the frequency of HADRs. Using a cross-sectional approach, the type and frequency of HADRs were collected from the Summaries of Product Characteristics of Drugs Authorized by the EMA and analyzed within proprietary, nonproprietary, and biosimilar/biological frameworks. Multivariate statistical analysis was used to investigate the associations of generic status, biosimilar status, conditional approval, exceptional circumstances, accelerated assessment, orphan drug status, years on the market, administration route, and inclusion on the Essential Medicines List (EML) with HADRs. In total, 54.78% of proprietary drugs were associated with HADRs at any frequency, while anemia, leucopenia, and thrombocytopenia were observed in approximately 36% of the patients. The predictors of any HADR, anemia, and thrombocytopenia of any frequency are generic status, biosimilar status, and inclusion on the EML, while the only protective factor is the administration route. Biosimilars and their originator biologicals have similar frequencies of HADRs; the only exception is somatropin. Knowledge of the regulatory factors associated with HADRs could help clinicians address monitoring issues when new drugs are introduced for the treatment of patients.

Dermatologists' Perspectives on Biosimilars.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilars are biologic agents the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has deemed to have no clinical difference from their reference biologics. In dermatology,  biosimilars are approved for the treatment of psoriasis and hidradenitis suppurativa. Although dermatologists are high prescribers of biologics, they are more reluctant to prescribe biosimilars than other specialists. This survey-based study sought to characterize dermatologists’ current perspectives on biosimilars.  Methods: A 27-question survey was distributed via email to dermatologists between September and October of 2022.  Results: Twenty percent of respondents would not prescribe a biosimilar for an FDA-approved indication. When asked about the greatest barriers to biosimilar adoption, 61% had concerns about biosimilar safety and efficacy, 24% reported uncertainty about state laws for interchangeability and substitutions, and 20% had concerns about biosimilar safety without concerns about efficacy. Thirty-five percent of respondents felt moderately or extremely knowledgeable about biosimilar interchangeability.  Conclusion: Biosimilars are safe and effective for treating approved dermatological conditions and may lower patient costs compared to their reference products. Patients are not always offered biosimilar therapy as an option, which may be due to unfamiliarity among dermatologists.  This survey suggests a need for more research and educational initiatives, such as modules and workshops that focus on biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability guidelines. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(4):doi:10.36849/JDD.7755.

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.

Efficacy and safety of biosimilar trastuzumab (CT-P6) in routine clinical practice in the Republic of Korea: a real-world post-marketing surveillance study.

BACKGROUND: The trastuzumab biosimilar CT-P6 is approved for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer (EBC), metastatic breast cancer (MBC), and metastatic gastric cancer (MGC). The objective of this post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study was to evaluate the real-world safety and effectiveness of CT-P6 in patients with HER2-positive cancers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This open-label, observational, prospective, PMS study collected data via investigator surveys from 35 centers in the Republic of Korea (5 October 2018-4 October 2022). Eligible patients with HER2-positive EBC, MBC, or MGC started CT-P6 treatment during routine clinical practice, followed by 1-year observation. Evaluations included adverse events (AEs), adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and effectiveness. RESULTS: Safety was analyzed in 642 patients (494 EBC, 94 MBC, 54 MGC). Overall, 325 (50.6%) patients experienced 1316 AEs, and 550 ADRs occurred in 199 (31.0%) patients. Unexpected ADRs occurred in 62 (9.7%) patients. Unexpected ADRs and ADRs of special interest did not raise any new safety signals. Among trastuzumab-naïve patients, 34/106 (32.1%) with EBC achieved pathological complete response; 30/74 (40.5%) MBC and 24/49 (49.0%) MGC patients achieved complete or partial response. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, CT-P6 demonstrated safety and efficacy findings consistent with previous CT-P6 studies.

Immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of biosimilar insulin glargine (Gan & Lee glargine) compared with originator insulin glargine (Lantus®) in patients with type 2 diabetes after 26 weeks' treatment: A randomized open label study.

AIM: To evaluate the equivalence of immunogenicity, safety and efficacy of Gan & Lee (GL) Glargine (Basalin®; Gan & Lee Pharmaceutical) with that of the reference product (Lantus®) in adult participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This was a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, equivalence trial conducted across 57 sites. In total, 567 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to undergo treatment with either GL Glargine or Lantus® for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants in each treatment arm who manifested treatment-induced anti-insulin antibodies (AIA). Secondary endpoints included efficacy and safety metrics, changes in glycated haemoglobin levels, and a comparative assessment of adverse events. Results were analysed using an equivalence test comparing the limits of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for treatment-induced AIA development to the prespecified margins. RESULTS: The percentages of participants positive for treatment-induced glycated haemoglobin by week 26 were similar between the GL Glargine (19.2%) and Lantus® (21.3%) treatment groups, with a treatment difference of -2.1 percentage points and a 90% CI (-7.6%, 3.5%) (predefined similarity margins: -10.7%, 10.7%). The difference in glycated haemoglobin was -0.08% (90% CI, -0.23, 0.06). The overall percentage of participants with any treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the GL Glargine (80.1%) and Lantus® (81.6%) treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: GL Glargine was similar to Lantus® in terms of immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety, based on the current study.

[Comparative characteristics of the efficacy and safety of the original alteplase and its complete biosimilar in the treatment of ischemic stroke in real clinical practice]. / Sravnitel'naya kharakteristika effektivnosti i bezopasnosti original'noi alteplazy i ee bioanaloga pri lechenii ishemicheskogo insul'ta v real'noi klinicheskoi praktike.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comparative analysis between the original alteplase and its biosimilar in terms of efficacy and safety in real clinical practice in the Republic of Belarus. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The cohort study included 420 patients. All included patients underwent thrombolytic therapy with alteplase within 4.5 hours of the onset of stroke symptoms according to the approved tactics of the Republic of Belarus and international recommendations. The patients were divided into 2 groups: 215 received the drug Revelisa, 205 - Actilyse. RESULTS: The patients were comparable in gender, age, ASPECTS assessment, but had statistically significant difference in NIHSS was found, due to the large number of patients with NIHSS=16-25 in the Actilyse group. The assessment of premorbid disability also showed a statistically significant difference: there were more patients in the Revelisa group who had functional limitations of varying degrees before the disease, 83 (38.6%) versus 62 (28.3%) patients in the comparison group. Clinical outcomes were comparable, the proportion of patients achieving mRS=0-1 at discharge was 41.5% in group A and 42.8% in group P. The Revelisa demonstrated a statistically significant lower number of deaths in 15 (7.0%) and 29 (14.1%) in the comparison group. The development of a greater number of clinically insignificant petechial hemorrhages was noted after the use of Actilyse. CONCLUSION: The analysis demonstrated a high level of safety in the use of alteplase preparations in routine practice. The compared fibrinolytics had comparable effectiveness in achieving functional independence after ischemic stroke, despite the more premorbid disability of patients who received a biosimilar.

Equivalence trial of proposed denosumab biosimilar GP2411 and reference denosumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis: the ROSALIA study.

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody used to reduce risk of fractures in osteoporosis. ROSALIA was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, integrated phase I/phase III study comparing the efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), immunogenicity, and safety of proposed biosimilar denosumab GP2411 with reference denosumab (REF-DMAb) (Prolia®; Amgen). Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomized 1:1 to 2 60-mg doses of GP2411 or REF-DMAb, one at study start and one at week 26. At week 52, the REF-DMAb group was re-randomized 1:1 to a third dose of REF-DMAb or switch to GP2411. The primary efficacy endpoint was percentage change from baseline (%CfB) in LS-BMD at week 52. Secondary efficacy endpoints were %CfB in LS-BMD, FN-BMD, and TH-BMD at weeks 26 and 78 (and week 52 for FN-BMD and TH-BMD). Primary PK and PD endpoints were the area under the serum concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity and maximum drug serum concentration at week 26, and the area under the effect-time curve of the %CfB in serum CTX at week 26. Secondary PK and PD endpoints included drug serum concentrations and %CfB in serum CTX and P1NP during the study period. Similar efficacy was demonstrated at week 52, with 95% CIs of the difference in %CfB in LS-BMD between treatment groups fully contained within prespecified equivalence margins. Similarity in PK and PD was demonstrated at week 26. Immunogenicity was similar between groups and was not impacted by treatment switch. The rate of new vertebral fractures was comparable. Treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between groups (63.6% [GP2411/GP2411]; 76.0% [REF-DMAb/REF-DMAb]; 76.6% [REF-DMAb/GP2411]). In conclusion, ROSALIA showed similar efficacy, PK and PD, and comparable safety and immunogenicity of GP2411 to REF-DMAb in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Denosumab is a biologic treatment that stops bone breakdown. This clinical trial evaluated how similar GP2411 (a denosumab biosimilar in development) is compared with European-approved reference denosumab in women with post-menopausal osteoporosis. Biosimilars are highly similar to the original treatment ('reference denosumab') and may have a lower price. 263 patients were randomly assigned to receive GP2411 and 264 to reference denosumab. Treatment was given at the study beginning, at Week 26 and at Week 52. 124 patients were re-assigned at Week 52 to test the effect of changing from reference denosumab to GP2411. The study showed similarity in how the body interacts with the treatments, what effects the treatment has (both measured over 26 weeks), and bone mineral density (measured over 78 weeks). Antibody responses to GP2411 were detected in similar proportions of patients on each treatment. Reported adverse events were similar between treatments before Week 52, and from Week 52 to 78, and <5% of patients experienced serious adverse events. A change of treatment from reference denosumab to GP2411 did not affect outcomes. These results showed similarity between GP2411 and reference denosumab in this population. In future, GP2411 may enable more patients to benefit from denosumab.

Persistence and safety of anti-TNF biosimilars versus originators in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: an observational study on the French National Health Data System.

OBJECTIVES: Biosimilar-originator equivalence has been demonstrated in phase 3 trials in a few indications of infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab. The objective of our study was to compare the persistence and safety of biosimilars versus originators in all the licensed indications of these molecules. METHODS: We used data from the French National Health Data System (SNDS), covering 99% of the French population, to identify infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab initiators from biosimilar launch (January 2015, May 2016 and October 2018, respectively) to 30 June 2021. Patients were then followed for 1 year. Treatment persistence (duration without treatment discontinuation or modification) and safety (including severe infections, all-cause hospitalisation and death) were compared between originator and biosimilar users by Cox regressions weighting the populations on the inverse probability of treatment. Analyses were performed by molecule, by disease and by biosimilar product. RESULTS: From January 2015 to June 2021, 86 776 patients were included in the study: 22 670, 24 442 and 39 664 patients had initiated infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab, respectively; 49 752 (53%) were biosimilar initiators. We did not find any risk of discontinuation (HRs were below or around 1, here all pathologies and products together: infliximab 0.88 (0.80-0.97), etanercept 0.85 (0.81-0.90) and adalimumab 0.96 (0.91-1.00)) or safety event (infection: infliximab 0.97 (0.78-1.21), etanercept 1.04 (0.81-1.33) and adalimumab 0.98 (0.83-1.16); hospitalisation: infliximab 1.08 (0.96-1.23), etanercept 0.99 (0.87-1.11) and adalimumab 0.91 (0.83-0.99)) associated with biosimilar versus originator use. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows reassuring results regarding the persistence and safety of biosimilar tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors compared with originators in all licensed indications.

Additional Data in Expanded Patient Populations and New Indications Support the Practice of Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching.

As of 31 December, 2023, 31 observational studies have been published, including a total of 6081 patients who underwent a switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic. Most studies evaluated infliximab, while a smaller number evaluated adalimumab, rituximab or etanercept. Indications studied now include sarcoidosis, as well as the indications previously reported of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis/ankylosing spondylitis and inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis). This updated data set includes eight additional studies and 2386 more patients compared with those included in an earlier systematic review of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching. In addition, since the earlier systematic review was published in 2022, the European Medicines Agency has stated that reference-to-biosimilar and biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching in the European Union is safe and efficacy remains unchanged after switching. Furthermore, following a review of the available evidence, the US Food and Drug Administration has confirmed that initial safety and immunogenicity concerns related to biosimilar switching are unfounded and that no differences are observed in efficacy, safety or immunogenicity following one or more switches. The availability of this new efficacy and safety data together with the supportive statements from the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration re-confirm the conclusion that as a scientific matter, biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching is an effective clinical practice, with no new safety concerns. Any suggestions to the contrary are not supported by the evidence.

Safety and Effectiveness of a Biosimilar Recombinant Human Growth Hormone in Children Requiring Growth Hormone Treatment: Analysis of Final Data from PATRO Children, an International, Post-Marketing Surveillance Study.

Purpose: Omnitrope® (somatropin) was approved as a biosimilar recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) in 2006. Here, we report final data from the PAtients TReated with Omnitrope® (PATRO) Children study, a post-marketing surveillance study designed to monitor the long-term safety and effectiveness of this treatment in pediatric patients. Methods: The study population included all pediatric patients treated with Omnitrope® (biosimilar rhGH), administered via daily injection, in routine clinical practice. The primary objective was to assess long-term safety, with effectiveness assessed as a secondary objective. Results: In total, 7359 patients were enrolled and treated in the PATRO Children study; 86.0% were treatment-naïve at baseline. Growth hormone deficiency was the most frequent indication (57.9%), followed by patients born small for gestational age (SGA; 26.6%). The mean (SD) duration of exposure to biosimilar rhGH was 3.66 years (2.39). A total of 16,628 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 3981 (54.1%) patients, most of which were mild/moderate. AEs suspected to be treatment related occurred in 8.3% of patients, most frequently headache (1.6%), injection-site pain (1.1%), or injection-site hematoma (1.1%). The incidence rate (IR) of type 2 diabetes mellitus was 0.11 per 1000 person-years (PY) across all patients, and 0.13 per 1000 PY in patients born SGA. The IR of newly diagnosed primary malignancies was 0.22 per 1000 PY across all patients. In the 6589 patients included in the effectiveness population, a sustained catch-up growth was observed across all indications. After 5 years of treatment, height SDS increased from baseline by a median (range) of +1.79 (-3.7 to 6.2) in treatment-naïve patients and +0.73 (-1.4 to 3.7) in pretreated patients. Conclusion: This final analysis of the PATRO Children study indicates that biosimilar rhGH is well tolerated and effective in real-world clinical practice. These data are consistent with the well-characterized safety profile of rhGH treatment in pediatric patients.

Safety of biologic agents for the management of rheumatic diseases during pregnancy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the current understanding regarding the use of biologic therapeutics in pregnancy. RECENT FINDINGS: Our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the potential fetal and infant exposure to biologics as well as a growing body of empirical evidence from real world use of biologics in pregnancy have demonstrated that biologics are generally compatible preconception and during pregnancy. Long-term effects of exposure to biologic agents in utero are not known, but will be uncovered in time. Biosimilars, which are becoming more popular, may not always share the same safety profiles as their originators. SUMMARY: Biologics have revolutionized the management of rheumatologic disease and ushered in a new era of clinical remission among patients. These agents, developed and introduced into clinical use at the beginning of the new millennium, are very potent, yet their efficacy in treating disease often in reproductive aged women, raises questions regarding their safety during pregnancy. These therapeutics can cause immunosuppression and can inhibit immunologic circuits that are not only involved in disease pathophysiology but hypothetically could impact the development of the fetal immune system. Reassuringly, biologics, typically antibodies or antibody-based proteins, are introduced to the fetus via the typical route of transplacental antibody transfer, and thus only begin to be transferred in appreciable amounts in the second trimester (after organogenesis). From theoretic and empirical standpoints, biologic use during pregnancy appears well tolerated for fetal development and to not substantially affect infant immune development.

Real-world clinical scenarios during introduction of trastuzumab biosimilar for HER2-positive breast cancer in the European Union.

Aim: Trastuzumab-anns is an intravenously administered biosimilar to trastuzumab approved by the EMA and US FDA for treatment of HER2+ early and metastatic breast cancer as well as metastatic gastric cancer. Lack of real-world characterization of biosimilar use has hindered uptake. Methods: This observational chart review characterizes 488 patients who received trastuzumab-anns in EU clinical practice settings. Results: Approximately 2/3rds of patients initiated trastuzumab-anns in adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings and most were naive new starters (70%). 30% were switchers from another trastuzumab, among whom 48% switched from trastuzumab iv. reference product. Common reasons for trastuzumab-anns discontinuation were a switch to another biosimilar product (34.8%, n = 85) or to trastuzumab reference product (15.6%, n = 38). Conclusion: Trastuzumab-anns was widely used in various treatment settings for HER2+ breast cancer.

Some patients have a type of breast cancer caused by abnormal amounts of a normal growth factor receptor. This growth factor receptor, known as human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2), plays a role in normal life changes that occur in breast tissue, including during pregnancy. HER-2 exists on the surface of breast cells and sends a signal inside cells for growth and proliferation. Sometimes an abnormal amount of HER-2 appears on breast cell surfaces, which causes HER-2 to promote excessive growth and proliferation and leads to HER2+ breast cancer. HER2+ breast cancer can be treated with trastuzumab, a medicine that specifically blocks HER-2 signals, and stops cancer cell growth. Trastuzumab has greatly improved outcomes for women worldwide with HER2+ breast cancer but trastuzumab is not always available due, in part, to its high cost. Biosimilars are medicines that are highly similar, but not identical, to the brand name (original) product and have been shown in clinical trials to result in no meaningful difference in efficacy and safety compared with the original product. Trastuzumab-anns is an intravenously administered biosimilar to trastuzumab. Biosimilars are as effective and safe as original products, although more cost-effective, such that physicians and patients can benefit from more information about their use in the real world. This study provided information about trastuzumab-anns use from clinical oncology practices in seven European countries. The study provides real world evidence that trastuzumab-anns is used widely across different patients with HER2+ breast cancer, including those with metastatic disease.

Ranibizumab Biosimilars in Treating Retinal Disorders: A Cost-Effective Revolution?

Ranibizumab, is a humanized, monoclonal antibody fragment that binds and inactivates vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) and VEGF-B. One of the main indications for an intravitreal treatment with ranibizumab is age-related macular degeneration (AMD), which is a retinal disease with a high worldwide socioeconomic impact. Biosimilars constitute biological products that demonstrate similar pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics with a reference product, as well as comparable clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. Since the approval of the first biosimilar Razumab, there has been a variety of new biosimilars available on the market. They offer the advantage of the same good clinical and safety results at a better price. All Ranibizumab biosimilars that have gained approval were tested in double masked Phase 3 clinical studies. The use of Ranibizumab biosimilars in neovascular AMD is well reported in the bibliography. Nevertheless, over the last few years, there is a tendency of using biosimilars in other retinal diseases like retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), diabetic macular edema (DME) or polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV). In conclusion, ranibizumab biosimilars offer a promising avenue for the management of retinal diseases, especially in countries with lower socioeconomic status, where there is lack of availability of innovator ranibizumab. However, further research is required to fully explore their efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes in a plethora of retinal diseases.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of a proposed biosimilar MSB11456 with tocilizumab reference product in subjects with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: results of a randomised double-blind study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of the proposed biosimilar MSB11456 versus European Union (EU)-approved tocilizumab reference product in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, multinational, parallel-group study (NCT04512001). METHODS: Adult patients with moderate-to-severe active RA and inadequate clinical response to ≥1 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (synthetic or biologic) receiving methotrexate were randomised to receive 24 weekly subcutaneous 162 mg injections of either MSB11456 or EU-approved tocilizumab. Equivalence between treatments was considered if the 95% CI (European Medicines Agency)/90% CI (US Food and Drug Administration) for the difference in mean change from baseline to week 24 in Disease Activity Score-28 Joint Count with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) between treatments was entirely within prespecified equivalence intervals (-0.6 to 0.6 and -0.6 to 0.5, respectively). At week 24, patients were rerandomised to continued treatment or MSB11456. Secondary efficacy endpoints to week 52, and safety and immunogenicity to week 55 were also evaluated. RESULTS: At week 24, the least squares mean difference in the change from baseline in DAS28-ESR between treatments was 0.01 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.22) in the 604 randomised patients. Similarity between treatments was shown for all other efficacy, safety and immunogenicity endpoints, including in patients who switched from EU-approved tocilizumab to MSB114466. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic equivalence was demonstrated for efficacy endpoints, and safety and immunogenicity analyses support the similarity of the two treatments. The results of this study strengthen the evidence that the proposed biosimilar MSB11456 and EU-approved tocilizumab exert similar clinical effects.

A Systematic Review Evaluating the Efficacy, Immunogenicity and Safety of the Biosimilar FKB327 in Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Biosimilars are known to be pharmaceutical products which are very similar to a biologic drug. FKB327 is one such biosimilar of the drug Adalimumab which is prescribed in treating autoimmune diseases like Rheumatoid Arthritis. The aim of this review is to evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of the drug FKB327 in treating patients with mild to moderate Rheumatoid Arthritis and compare the same with that of the drug Adalimumab. Two databases (PubMed and Cochrane Library) were used to screen relevant publications using pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of the 12 studies found to be relevant, 3 were found to be eligible for the review. The data were extracted for the study characteristics, outcome measures, complications, and safety. The quality of the papers was assessed through Jadad scoring. Three (3) papers were reviewed in the study although there were limitations in reviewing efficacy as one of the papers lacked required data for efficacy. Efficacy was observed through ACR20 response and DAS28 score in the 24th week of all the three studies and immunogenicity was reviewed through the presence of Anti-drug antibody in patients after administration of both the drugs in same dosage. Safety was assessed through the development of complications after the administration of the drugs. The review concludes that there are similarities in efficacy, immunogenicity and safety between FKB327 but could not adequately prove the superiority of FKB327 over Adalimumab.

Subcutaneous infliximab CT-P13 without intravenous induction in psoriatic arthritis: A case report and pharmacokinetic considerations.

INTRODUCTION: The biosimilar CT-P13, the first and only subcutaneous (SC) infliximab formulation, is recommended for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and can be administered as a maintenance treatment, to be started 4 weeks after the induction treatment with 2 intravenous (IV) infliximab infusions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment with SC infliximab without prior IV infusion induction to meet patient needs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After approval by the ethics review board and based on the schedule approved for rheumatoid arthritis, SC induction was performed with infliximab CT-P13 120 mg weekly for 4 weeks, followed by an injection of 120 mg every 2 weeks. RESULTS: After 4 months of therapy, joint symptoms were resolved, inflammation parameters were normalized (erythrocyte sedimentation rate) reduced from 42 to 16 mm/h, and C-reactive protein from 1.74 to 0.43 mg/dL), and clinical assessment parameters were improved. After 9 months of therapy, the clinical data remained stable, with no adverse events or local side effects. CONCLUSION: SC infliximab was successfully used without previous IV infusion induction. Although, to date, the induction of PsA treatment via the SC route is not foreseen, the known pharmacokinetic properties and the outcome improvements observed in our patient show that subcutaneous treatment induction, as is already done in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, is also possible.

A Randomized, Open-Label Study Conducted to Evaluate the Bioequivalence of Pegfilgrastim-cbqv On-Body Injector Versus Prefilled Syringe in Healthy Male Participants.

INTRODUCTION: To help prevent febrile neutropenia, pegfilgrastim-cbqv (UDENYCA®; Coherus BioSciences), a pegfilgrastim (NEULASTA®; Amgen) biosimilar, is administered 24-96 h after myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Delivery of pegfilgrastim-cbqv using an on-body injector (OBI) provides an alternative method of administration, affording options in drug delivery. This study aimed to establish pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) bioequivalence and assess the safety of pegfilgrastim-cbqv administered using an OBI compared with a prefilled syringe (PFS). METHODS: In this open-label, two-period crossover study, healthy adult male participants (N = 189) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pegfilgrastim-cbqv 6 mg subcutaneously using an OBI (n = 92) or a PFS (n = 95) in period 1 and then an injection via the other method in period 2. Primary PK end points were area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity, area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration, and maximum plasma concentration. Secondary PD end points, safety, immunogenicity, and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios for the PK and PD end points fell within the predetermined range (80-125%), indicating PK and PD bioequivalence between pegfilgrastim-cbqv OBI and pegfilgrastim-cbqv PFS. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 87.8% and 75.8% of participants in the OBI and PFS groups, respectively. Most TEAEs were musculoskeletal effects. The most common OBI-related TEAE was injection site erythema (31.7%), which was mild, transient, and self-limiting. The incidence of treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies (ADAs) was similar between the OBI and PFS. ADAs had no apparent impact on PK, PD, or safety. Neutralizing antibodies were not detected in any participant. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the study showed PK and PD bioequivalence of pegfilgrastim-cbqv administered using OBI compared with PFS. OBI and PFS administration had similar safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity profiles. No unexpected safety signals were identified. Graphical Abstract available for this article.

Febrile neutropenia is when a patient has a fever and a lower-than-normal number of white blood cells. When white blood cell counts are low, patients are more susceptible to opportunistic infections as a result of their weakened immune systems. Severe febrile neutropenia can lead to the stopping or delaying of chemotherapy. The drug pegfilgrastim-cbqv is used 24­96 h after chemotherapy to stimulate the growth of white blood cells. Pegfilgrastim-cbqv is available in a single-dose prefilled syringe and in a prefilled autoinjector. If a patient cannot inject themselves with the drug, they must go to a clinic for the injection. Using an on-body injector applied to the skin that automatically injects the drug at a specific time could eliminate the need to go to the clinic. During this study, healthy adult male participants were given pegfilgrastim-cbqv through an on-body injector or a prefilled syringe to investigate if the movement of the drug into, through, and out of the body (pharmacokinetics) and the physiological action of the drug in the body (pharmacodynamics) were similar between the two injection methods. Side effects were also studied. The researchers found that the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics for pegfilgrastim-cbqv given by on-body-injector or prefilled syringe were similar. The number and types of side effects were also similar. The most common side effect for the on-body injector was mild erythema at the injection site. This side effect resolved by itself. The treatment benefit and safety of pegfilgrastim-cbqv were very similar regardless of how the drug was administered.

Comparison of SB17 and reference ustekinumab in healthy adults: A randomized, double-blind, single-dose, phase I study.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics of SB17 (Samsung Bioepis, Incheon, Republic of Korea), a proposed biosimilar of ustekinumab (UST) against reference UST (Stelara, Janssen Biotech, Horsham, PA, USA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This double-blind, three-arm, parallel-group, single-dose study randomized 201 healthy adult subjects 1 : 1 : 1 to receive 45 mg of SB17, European Union-sourced UST (EU-UST) or United States of America-sourced UST (US-UST) via subcutaneous (SC) injection. Primary endpoints were area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUCinf) and maximum serum concentration (Cmax). Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity were investigated. RESULTS: All 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of AUCinf and Cmax between groups were within the predefined bioequivalence margin of 0.8 - 1.25. The geometric LSMeans ratios of AUCinf and Cmax were 0.99 and 0.90 for SB17/EU-UST, 1.01 and 0.94 for SB17/US-UST, and 1.02 and 1.05 for EU-UST/US-UST, respectively. The proportion of subjects with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was comparable between SB17, EU-UST, and US-UST (68.7, 58.2, and 65.7%). No deaths, serious adverse events (SAEs), or severe TEAEs were reported. The incidence of subjects testing positive for post-dose anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) was 26.9%, 34.3%, and 34.3% in the SB17, EU-UST, and US-UST groups, respectively. Among the subjects with a positive ADA result at day 99/end of study, 53.8% (SB17 n = 5, EU-UST n = 12, and US-UST n = 11) were positive for neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated bioequivalence of SB17, EU-UST, and US-UST in terms of PK. Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity were also comparable between all groups.