Proposed rituximab biosimilar BCD-020 versus reference rituximab for treatment of patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas: An international multicenter randomized trial.

BCD-020 is a proposed rituximab biosimilar, which has shown high similarity to rituximab in quality and nonclinical studies in vitro and in vivo. International multicenter clinical trial was conducted to compare efficacy and safety of BCD-020 and reference rituximab in adult (older than 18 years) patients with indolent lymphomas (follicular lymphoma grade 1-2, splenic marginal zone lymphoma, and nodal marginal zone lymphoma). Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity were also studied. Patients with no previous biologic treatment for lymphoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive BCD-020 or comparator 375 mg/m2 for 4 weeks. Primary study outcome was day 50 overall response rate defined as complete or partial remission. Equivalence range was -20% to 20% for 95% CI for overall response rates difference. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity. One hundred seventy-four patients were enrolled, 89 in BCD-020 arm and 85 in comparator arm. The overall response rate was 44.71% in BCD-020 arm and 41.89% in comparator arm. Limits of 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference of overall response rates between arms were (-12.62%-18.24%) showing equivalent efficacy. Sixty-one (68.54%) and 59 (69.41%) patients had at least one adverse event in BCD-020 arm or comparator arm, respectively. No unexpected adverse reactions were reported. Antidrug antibodies with no neutralizing activity were detected in two patients in comparator arm on day 14 further declining below detection threshold. Rituximab concentrations had equivalent pattern after intravenous administration of both drugs. Both drugs caused depletion of B-cells without significant influence on other blood cell lineages. In this study, we showed equivalent efficacy of BCD-020 and reference rituximab when used in patients with CD20-positive indolent lymphomas. We also confirmed pharmacokinetic equivalence of BCD-020 and reference rituximab. Safety profile, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity of BCD-020 were also comparable with those of reference rituximab.

Fludarabine plus alemtuzumab versus fludarabine alone in patients with previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is an incurable and chronic disorder, with worsening prognosis for patients as their disease progresses. We compared the efficacy and safety of the combination of fludarabine and alemtuzumab with fludarabine monotherapy in previously treated patients with relapsed or refractory CLL. METHODS: Patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with CLL Binet stage A, B, or C or Rai stages I-IV were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio according to a computer-generated allocation schedule to open-label combination treatment (fludarabine 30 mg/m(2) per day and alemtuzumab 30 mg per day on days 1-3) or monotherapy (fludarabine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1-5) by use of an interactive voice response system. Both regimens were given intravenously for a maximum of six 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00086580. FINDINGS: Fludarabine plus alemtuzumab (n=168) resulted in better PFS than did fludarabine monotherapy (n=167; median 23·7 months [95% CI 19·2-28·4] vs 16·5 months [12·5-21·2]; hazard ratio 0·61 [95% CI 0·47-0·80]; p=0·0003) and overall survival (median not reached vs 52·9 months [40·9-not reached]; 0·65 [0·45-0·94]; p=0·021) compared with fludarabine alone. All-cause adverse events occurred in 161 (98%) of 164 patients in the combination treatment group and 149 (90%) of 165 in the fludarabine alone group. Patients in the fludarabine plus alemtuzumab group had more cytomegalovirus events (23 [14%] vs one [<1%]) and grade 1 or 2 potentially alemtuzumab infusion-related adverse reactions (102 [62%] vs 22 [13%]). Grade 3 or 4 toxicities in the combination treatment and monotherapy groups were leucopenia (121 [74%] of 164 vs 55 [34%] of 164), lymphopenia (149 [94%] of 158 vs 53 [33%] of 161), neutropenia (93 [59%] of 157 vs 110 [68%] of 161), thrombocytopenia (18 [11%] of 164 vs 27 [17%] of 163), and anaemia (14 [9%] of 163 vs 28 [17%] of 164). The incidence of serious adverse events was higher in the combination treatment group (54 [33%] of 164 vs 41 [25%] of 165); deaths due to adverse events were similar between the two groups (ten [6%] vs 12 [7%]). INTERPRETATION: The combination of fludarabine and alemtuzumab is another treatment option for patients with previously treated CLL. FUNDING: Genzyme.

Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous injection is the standard administration route of bortezomib; however, subcutaneous administration is an important alternative. We compared the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib at the approved 1·3 mg/m(2) dose and twice per week schedule in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. METHODS: This randomised, phase 3 study was undertaken at 53 centres in ten countries in Europe, Asia, and South America. Patients aged 18 years and older with relapsed multiple myeloma after one to three previous lines of therapy were randomly assigned to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of bortezomib 1·3 mg/m(2), on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, by subcutaneous injection or intravenous infusion. Randomisation was by an interactive voice response system based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule, stratified by number of previous lines and disease stage. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in terms of overall response rate (ORR) after four cycles in all patients with a diagnosis of measurable, secretory multiple myeloma who received one or more dose of drug (response-evaluable population). Non-inferiority was defined as retaining 60% of the intravenous treatment effect. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00722566, and is ongoing for long-term follow-up. FINDINGS: 222 patients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous (n=148) or intravenous (n=74) bortezomib. The response-evaluable population consisted of 145 patients in the subcutaneous group and 73 in the intravenous group. Patients received a median of eight cycles (range one to ten) in both groups. ORR after four cycles was 42% in both groups (61 patients in subcutaneous group and 31 in intravenous group; ORR difference -0·4%, 95% CI -14·3 to 13·5), showing non-inferiority (p=0·002). After a median follow-up of 11·8 months (IQR 7·9-16·8) in the subcutaneous group and 12·0 months (8·1-15·6) in the intravenous group, there were no significant differences in time to progression (median 10·4 months, 95% CI 8·5-11·7, vs 9·4 months, 7·6-10·6; p=0·387) and 1-year overall survival (72·6%, 95% CI 63·1-80·0, vs 76·7%, 64·1-85·4; p=0·504) with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib. Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 84 (57%) patients in the subcutaneous group versus 52 (70%) in the intravenous group; the most common were thrombocytopenia (19 [13%] vs 14 [19%]), neutropenia (26 [18%] vs 13 [18%]), and anaemia (18 [12%] vs six [8%]). Peripheral neuropathy of any grade (56 [38%] vs 39 [53%]; p=0·044), grade 2 or worse (35 [24%] vs 30 [41%]; p=0·012), and grade 3 or worse (nine [6%] vs 12 [16%]; p=0·026) was significantly less common with subcutaneous than with intravenous administration. Subcutaneous administration was locally well tolerated. INTERPRETATION: Subcutaneous bortezomib offers non-inferior efficacy to standard intravenous administration, with an improved safety profile. FUNDING: Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, and Millennium Pharmaceuticals.