Dataset Information

Pharmacokinetic Similarity and Comparative Pharmacodynamics, Safety, Efficacy, and Immunogenicity of DRL_RI Versus Reference Rituximab in Biologics-Naive Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Three-Arm Study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:The aims were to demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity between DRL_RI, a proposed rituximab biosimilar, and two reference innovator products (Rituxan® [RTX-US] and MabThera® [RTX-EU]) and compare their pharmacodynamics (PD), efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX)-based therapy and no prior biologic administration. METHODS:In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, 276 patients with moderate-to-severe active RA were randomized to receive DRL_RI, RTX-US, or RTX-EU on days 1 and 15. The primary PK end points included area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to 336 h after first infusion (AUC0-14 days, first infusion), AUC from day 1 through week 16 (AUC0-?, entire course), and AUC from time 0 to time of last quantifiable concentration after the second dose (AUC0-t, second infusion). Secondary end points included other PK parameters, such as maximum concentration (Cmax), time to Cmax after each infusion, terminal half-life, systemic clearance, and volume of distribution after the second infusion; PD parameters and efficacy until week 24; safety and immunogenicity at week 24 and 52; and B cell recovery until week 52. AUC from time 0 to time of last quantifiable concentration after the first dose and over the entire course from day 1 through week 16 (AUC0-t, entire course) was analyzed as an exploratory end point. RESULTS:The 91% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) for the primary end point of AUC0-?, entire course were within the bioequivalence limits of 80-125% for all comparisons: DRL_RI versus RTX-US 100.37% (92.30-109.14), DRL_RI versus RTX-EU 93.58% (85.98-101.85), and RTX-US versus RTX-EU 93.24% (85.62-101.54). PD outcomes (peripheral blood B-cell depletion and mean change in Disease Activity Score [28 joints]-C-reactive protein), efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were also comparable between DRL_RI and the reference products. CONCLUSION:DRL_RI, a proposed biosimilar, demonstrated three-way PK similarity with RTX-EU and RTX-US, the reference innovator products, with comparable efficacy, PD, safety, and immunogenicity. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02296775.

SUBMITTER: Haridas VM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7113224 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pharmacokinetic Similarity and Comparative Pharmacodynamics, Safety, Efficacy, and Immunogenicity of DRL_RI Versus Reference Rituximab in Biologics-Naïve Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Three-Arm Study.

Haridas Vikram Muralidhar VM Katta Rahul R Nalawade Ajit A Kharkar Sandeep S Zhdan Vyacheslav V Garmish Olena O Lopez-Lazaro Luis L Batra Sonica Sachdeva SS Kankanwadi Suresh S

BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy 20200401 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>The aims were to demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity between DRL_RI, a proposed rituximab biosimilar, and two reference innovator products (Rituxan<sup>®</sup> [RTX-US] and MabThera<sup>®</sup> [RTX-EU]) and compare their pharmacodynamics (PD), efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX)-based therapy and no prior biologic administration.<h4>Methods</h4>In this randomized, double-blind, paral ...[more]

PMID: 32052313

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThis study aimed to demonstrate that the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profile of Sandoz proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim (LA-EP2006) matches reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta® ) in healthy subjects. Safety and immunogenicity were also assessed.MethodsThe phase I, randomized, double-blind, two-period crossover study consisted of two treatment periods separated by an 8-week washout period. Healthy subjects aged 18-45 were randomized to either proposed biosimilar/reference pegfilgrastim or reference pegfilgrastim/proposed biosimilar. Proposed biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastim were administered on Day 1 of each treatment period (single 6 mg subcutaneous injection). Blood samples for PK/PD analysis were taken predose and ≤336 h postdose. PK/PD similarity was claimed if 90% (PK) and 95% (PD) confidence intervals (CI) for geometric mean ratios of the area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) from time of dosing and extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-inf ), or to the last measurable concentration (AUC0-last ), maximum observed serum concentration (Cmax ), absolute neutrophil count (ANC) area under the effect curve from the time of dosing to the last measurable concentration (AUEC0-last ) and ANC maximum effect attributable to the therapy under investigation (Emax ) were completely contained within the predefined margin (0.8 to 1.25).ResultsOverall, 169 subjects completed the study. PK/PD similarity was demonstrated; 90% CIs of geometric mean ratio of proposed biosimilar/reference for PK: AUC0-inf (1.0559-1.2244), AUC0-last (1.0607-1.2328), Cmax (1.0312-1.1909) and 95% CIs for PD (ANC): AUEC0-last (0.9948-1.0366), Emax (0.9737-1.0169) were completely contained within predefined margin of 0.8 to 1.25. Both biologics had similar safety profiles, were well tolerated and had low incidence of anti-drug antibodies. No neutralizing or clinically relevant antibodies were detected.ConclusionsPK/PD similarity of Sandoz proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim and reference pegfilgrastim was confirmed. No clinically meaningful differences in safety, tolerability and immunogenicity were observed in healthy subjects.

Project description:ObjectiveTofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib versus current biologics, considering combinations of first-line (1L) and second-line (2L) therapies, from a Japanese payer's perspective in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC following an inadequate response to conventional therapy and in those who were naïve to biologics.MethodsA cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted during the time horizon specified in the Markov model, which considers a patient's lifetime as 60 years and an annual discount rate of 2% on costs and effects. The model compared tofacitinib with vedolizumab, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, and ustekinumab. The time of active treatment was divided into induction and maintenance phases. Patients not responding to their biologic treatment after induction or during the maintenance phase were switched to a subsequent line of therapy. Treatment response and remission probabilities (for induction and maintenance phases) were obtained through a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis that employed a multinomial analysis with fixed effects. Patient characteristics were sourced from the OCTAVE Induction trials. Mean utilities associated with UC health states and adverse events (AEs) were obtained from published sources. Direct medical costs related to drug acquisition, administration, surgery, patient management, and AEs were derived from the JMDC database analysis, which corresponded with the medical procedure fees from 2021. The drug prices were adjusted to April 2021. Further validation through all processes by clinical experts in Japan was conducted to fit the costs to real-world practices. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were also performed to confirm the accuracy and robustness of the base-case results.ResultsIn the base-case, the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib was more cost-effective than vedolizumab, infliximab, golimumab, and ustekinumab for 1L therapies in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (based on the Japanese threshold of 5,000,000 yen/QALY [38,023 United States dollars {USD}/QALY]). The base-case results demonstrated that the incremental costs would be reduced for all biologics, and decreases in incremental QALYs were observed for all biologics other than adalimumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was found to be dominant for adalimumab; for the other biologics, it was found to be less costly and less efficacious. The efficiency frontier on the cost-effectiveness plane indicated that tofacitinib-infliximab and infliximab-tofacitinib were more cost-effective than the other treatment patterns. When infliximab-tofacitinib was compared with tofacitinib-infliximab, the ICER was 282,609,856 yen/QALY (2,149,157 USD/QALY) and the net monetary benefit (NMB) was -12,741,342 yen (-96,894 USD) with a threshold of 5,000,000 yen (38,023 USD) in Japan. Therefore, infliximab-tofacitinib was not acceptable by this threshold, and tofacitinib-infliximab was the cost-effective treatment pattern.ConclusionThe current analysis suggests that the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib is a cost-effective alternative to the biologics for patients with moderate-to-severe UC from a Japanese payer's perspective.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Vedolizumab (VDZ) was approved by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in 2018 for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis (UC). The comparative cost-effectiveness of VDZ compared with other biologics is unknown in Japan. This information could be useful for decision makers at the time of repricing biologics for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe UC. OBJECTIVE:The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of VDZ versus other branded biologics for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe UC who were anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-naïve, from the Japanese public healthcare payer perspective. METHODS:A hybrid decision tree/Markov model was developed to predict the number of patients who achieved response and remission at the end of the induction phase and sustained it during the maintenance phase, translating this into quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs. Treatment-related adverse events, discontinuation and surgery, and their impact on QALYs and costs were also modeled. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were conducted to estimate the comparative efficacy of each treatment versus placebo. Rates of adverse events, surgery, surgery complications, and utilities were from the literature. Costs (2018 Japanese yen) were obtained from the Japanese National Health Insurance drug price list and medical fee table and local claims databases. Clinical and economic outcomes were projected over a lifetime and discounted at 2% annually. RESULTS:Over a lifetime, VDZ yielded greater QALYs and cost savings compared with golimumab and was cost-effective compared with adalimumab and infliximab (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ¥4,821,940 and ¥4,687,692, respectively). Deterministic and probabilistic analyses supported the robustness of the findings in the base-case analysis, indicating that VDZ was either dominant or cost-effective in most scenarios and replications. The main limitations of this analysis include excluding tofacitinib and infliximab biosimilar as comparators, health-state utility estimates were obtained from population studies in the United Kingdom, and the impact of subsequent (i.e., second-line) biologic treatment was not evaluated. CONCLUSION:Our analysis suggests that VDZ is dominant or cost-effective compared with other branded biologics for the treatment of anti-TNF-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe UC in Japan.

Project description:BackgroundThis multi-center, retrospective study aimed to clarify retention rates and reasons for discontinuation of 7 biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and tofacitinib (TOF), one of the janus kinase inhibitors, in bDMARDs-naïve and bDMARDs-switched patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsThis study assessed 3897 patients and 4415 treatment courses with bDMARDs and TOF from 2001 to 2019 (2737 bDMARDs-naïve courses and 1678 bDMARDs-switched courses [59.5% of switched courses were their second agent], female 82.3%, baseline age 57.4 years, disease duration 8.5 years; rheumatoid factor positivity 78.4%; Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate 4.3; concomitant prednisolone [PSL] dose 6.1 mg/day [usage 42.4%], and methotrexate [MTX] dose 8.5 mg/week [usage 60.9%]). Treatment courses included abatacept (ABT; n = 663), adalimumab (ADA; n = 536), certolizumab pegol (CZP; n = 226), etanercept (ETN; n = 856), golimumab (GLM; n = 458), infliximab (IFX; n = 724), tocilizumab (TCZ; n = 851), and TOF (n = 101/only bDMARDs-switched cases). Drug discontinuation reasons (categorized into lack of effectiveness, toxic adverse events, non-toxic reasons, or remission) and rates were estimated at 36 months using Gray's test and statistically evaluated after adjusted by potential clinical confounders (age, sex, disease duration, concomitant PSL and MTX usage, starting date, and number of switched bDMARDs) using the Fine-Gray model.ResultsCumulative incidence of drug discontinuation for each reason was as follows: lack of effectiveness in the bDMARDs-naïve group (from 13.7% [ABT] to 26.9% [CZP]; P < 0.001 between agents) and the bDMARDs-switched group (from 18.9% [TCZ] to 46.1% [CZP]; P < 0.001 between agents); toxic adverse events in the bDMARDs-naïve group (from 4.6% [ABT] to 11.2% [ETN]; P < 0.001 between agents) and the bDMARDs-switched group (from 5.0% [ETN] to 15.7% [TOF]; P = 0.004 between agents); and remission in the bDMARDs-naïve group (from 2.9% [ETN] to 10.0% [IFX]; P < 0.001 between agents) and the bDMARDs-switched group (from 1.1% [CZP] to 3.3% [GLM]; P = 0.9 between agents).ConclusionsRemarkable differences were observed in drug retention of 7 bDMARDs and TOF between bDMARDs-naïve and bDMARDs-switched cases.

Project description:The randomized phase 3 LYM3001 trial in relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) demonstrated higher overall (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab. We report findings in high-risk patients (FL International Prognostic Index [FLIPI] score ?3, and high tumor burden by modified Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomas Folliculaires [GELF] criteria).Patients aged ?18 years with grade 1/2 FL, ?1 measurable lesion, and documented relapse or progression following prior therapy, rituximab-naïve or rituximab-sensitive, were enrolled at 164 centers in 29 countries across Europe, the Americas, and Asia-Pacific. Patients were randomized (1:1) to five 5-week cycles of bortezomib-rituximab (bortezomib 1.6 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15, and 22, all cycles; rituximab 375 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15, and 22, cycle 1, and day 1, cycles 2-5; N=336) or rituximab alone (N=340). Randomization was stratified by FLIPI score, prior rituximab, time since last dose of anti-lymphoma therapy, and geographical region. The primary endpoint of the study was PFS.103 bortezomib-rituximab and 98 rituximab patients had high-risk FL. The ORR was 59% versus 37% (p=0.002), the CR/CRu rate was 13% versus 6% (p=0.145), and the durable response rate was 45% versus 26% (p=0.008) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab. Median PFS was 9.5 versus 6.7 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.667, p=0.012) with bortezomib-rituximab versus rituximab; median time to progression was 10.9 versus 6.8 months (HR 0.656, p=0.009); median time to next anti-lymphoma treatment was 14.8 versus 9.1 months (HR 0.762, p=0.103); and the 1-year Overall Survival rate was 83.1% versus 76.6%. Overall, 51% of bortezomib-rituximab and 32% of rituximab patients reported grade ?3 adverse events, including neutropenia (18%, 6%), anemia (4%, 5%), diarrhea (8%, 0%), thrombocytopenia (5%, 2%), and sensory neuropathy (1%, 0%).High-risk FL patients treated with bortezomib-rituximab had significantly higher ORR and longer PFS than patients receiving rituximab alone, with greater clinical benefit than in the overall study population; additional toxicity was acceptable and did not affect treatment feasibility.The phase 3 LYM3001 trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, with the identifier NCT00312845.

Dataset Information

Pharmacokinetic Similarity and Comparative Pharmacodynamics, Safety, Efficacy, and Immunogenicity of DRL_RI Versus Reference Rituximab in Biologics-Naive Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Three-Arm Study.

Publications

Pharmacokinetic Similarity and Comparative Pharmacodynamics, Safety, Efficacy, and Immunogenicity of DRL_RI Versus Reference Rituximab in Biologics-Naïve Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Three-Arm Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets