Dataset Information

Key design considerations on comparative clinical efficacy studies for biosimilars: adalimumab as an example.

ABSTRACT: The global development of a biosimilar product is a methodologically complex affair, lined with potential design pitfalls and operational missteps to be avoided. Without careful attention to experimental design and meticulous execution, a development programme may fail to demonstrate equivalence, as would be anticipated for a biosimilar product, and not receive regulatory approval based on current guidance. In order to demonstrate similarity of a biosimilar product versus the originator (ie, the branded product), based on regulatory guidance, a stepwise approach is usually taken, starting with a comprehensive structural and functional characterisation of the new biological moiety. Given the sequential nature of the review process, the extent and nature of the non-clinical in vivo studies and the clinical studies to be performed depend on the level of evidence obtained in these previous step(s). A clinical efficacy trial is often required to further demonstrate biosimilarity of the two products (biosimilar vs branded) in terms of comparative safety and effectiveness. Owing to the focus on demonstrating biosimilarity and not safety and efficacy de novo, designing an adequate phase III (potentially pivotal) clinical efficacy study of a biosimilar may present some unique challenges. Using adalimumab as an example, we highlight design elements that may deserve special attention.

SUBMITTER: Lai Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4746581 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Key design considerations on comparative clinical efficacy studies for biosimilars: adalimumab as an example.

Lai Zhihong Z La Noce Anna A

RMD open 20160205 1

The global development of a biosimilar product is a methodologically complex affair, lined with potential design pitfalls and operational missteps to be avoided. Without careful attention to experimental design and meticulous execution, a development programme may fail to demonstrate equivalence, as would be anticipated for a biosimilar product, and not receive regulatory approval based on current guidance. In order to demonstrate similarity of a biosimilar product versus the originator (ie, the ...[more]

PMID: 26870392

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe efficacy of adalimumab biosimilars is similar to that of brand-name adalimumab (Humira, hereinafter originator) in clinical trials. However, limited knowledge about real-world data exists for adalimumab biosimilars.ObjectiveTo assess the outcomes following a mandatory nonmedical switch from adalimumab originator to adalimumab biosimilars in patients with psoriasis.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study assesses the outcomes following a switch from adalimumab originator to an adalimumab biosimilar. Patients in the Biological Treatment in Danish Dermatology (DERMBIO) registry, a Danish nationwide registry of all patients treated with biologics (including biosimilars) for psoriasis since 2007, were assessed for eligibility. All patients who switched from adalimumab originator to an adalimumab biosimilar between November 1, 2018, and May 1, 2019, were included in the adalimumab biosimilar cohort. All patients with a visit between May 1, 2017, and November 1, 2017, treated with adalimumab originator were included in the adalimumab originator cohort. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2020, to October 10, 2021.ExposureSwitch from adalimumab originator to an adalimumab biosimilar.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was 1-year drug retention in patients switching to adalimumab biosimilars compared with patients treated with adalimumab originator. Crude and adjusted retention rates for the adalimumab biosimilar cohort were compared with the adalimumab originator cohort with Cox proportional hazards regression using robust variance.ResultsA total of 348 patients were included in the adalimumab biosimilar cohort (mean [SD] age, 52.2 [13.6] years; 251 [72.1%] male) and 378 patients in the adalimumab originator cohort (mean [SD] age, 51.1 [14.1] years; 272 [72.0%] male). The 1-year drug retention rates were 92.0% (95% CI, 89.0%-94.9%) for the adalimumab biosimilar cohort and 92.1% (95% CI, 89.4%-94.8%) for the adalimumab originator cohort. Similar hazard ratios were observed between the 2 cohorts. The crude hazard ratios were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.61-1.70; P = .94) for all causes of drug discontinuation, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.39-1.73; P = .60) for insufficient effect, and 1.41 (95% CI, 0.52-3.77; P = .50) for adverse events for the adalimumab biosimilar cohort when compared with the adalimumab originator cohort.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study from Denmark, a nonmedical switch from adalimumab originator to adalimumab biosimilars was not associated with drug retention.

Project description:BackgroundIn diagnostic evaluation, it is necessary to assess the clinical impact of a new diagnostic as well as its diagnostic accuracy. The comparative interrupted time series design has been proposed as a quasi-experimental approach to evaluating interventions. We show how it can be used in the design of a study to evaluate a point-of-care diagnostic test for C-reactive protein in out-of-hours primary care services, to guide antibiotic prescribing among patients presenting with possible respiratory tract infection. This study consisted of a retrospective phase that used routinely collected monthly antibiotic prescribing data from different study sites, and a prospective phase in which antibiotic prescribing rates were monitored after the C-reactive protein diagnostic was introduced at some of the sites.MethodsOf 8 study sites, 3 were assigned to receive the diagnostic and 5 were assigned as controls. We obtained retrospective monthly time series of respiratory tract targeted antibiotic prescriptions at each site. Separate ARIMA models at each site were used these to forecast monthly prescription counts that would be expected in the prospective phase, using simulation to obtain a set of 1-year predictions alongside their standard errors. We show how these forecasts can be combined to test for a change in prescription rates after introduction of the diagnostic and estimate power to detect this change.ResultsFitted time series models at each site were stationary and showed second-order annual seasonality, with a clear December peak in prescriptions, although the timing and extent of the peak varied between sites and between years. Mean one-year predictions of antibiotic prescribing rates based on the retrospective time series analysis differed between sites assigned to receive the diagnostic and those assigned to control. Adjusting for the trend in the retrospective time series at each site removed these differences.ConclusionsQuasi-experimental designs such as comparative interrupted time series can be used in diagnostic evaluation to estimate effect sizes before conducting a full randomised controlled trial or if a randomised trial is infeasible. In multi-site studies, existing retrospective data should be used to adjust for underlying differences between sites to make outcome data from different sites comparable, when possible.

Dataset Information

Key design considerations on comparative clinical efficacy studies for biosimilars: adalimumab as an example.

Publications

Key design considerations on comparative clinical efficacy studies for biosimilars: adalimumab as an example.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets