Dataset Information

Immunogenicity and safety of a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar MSB11455 versus the reference pegfilgrastim Neulasta® in healthy subjects: A randomized, double-blind trial.

ABSTRACT: MSB11455 is a proposed biosimilar to the currently licensed reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta® ). This study was designed primarily to compare the immunogenicity of MSB11455 and Neulasta® . As secondary objectives, the safety and tolerability of MSB11455 and Neulasta® were also compared. Healthy adult subjects were randomized to either MSB11455 or Neulasta® , stratified by antipolyethylene glycol (PEG) antibody status at screening and study site. Subjects received a single subcutaneous dose of MSB11455 or Neulasta® (both 6 mg/0.6 mL) on day 1 of each of two study periods (same product in both periods), separated by a washout of 28-35 days. Immunogenicity samples were taken predose and up to day 84 post-first dose. Noninferiority was confirmed if the upper limit of the exact one-sided adjusted 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in antidrug antibody (ADA)-positive rates was < 10%. Safety was assessed throughout the study. Overall, 336 subjects were randomized and treated (N = 168 in each group). Noninferiority of MSB11455 over Neulasta® was demonstrated for immunogenicity; the difference in confirmed treatment-induced ADA-positive rate between MSB11455 and Neulasta® was -0.6% (upper limit of the exact one-sided adjusted 95% CI: 6.25%). ADAs were mostly directed against the PEG moiety of pegfilgrastim. No filgrastim-specific neutralizing antibodies were detected in either treatment group. Safety and tolerability were as expected for pegfilgrastim, and comparable between treatments. This study supports and strengthens the available evidence for the biosimilarity of MSB11455 to Neulasta® .

SUBMITTER: Wynne C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7183238 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Immunogenicity and safety of a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar MSB11455 versus the reference pegfilgrastim Neulasta® in healthy subjects: A randomized, double-blind trial.

Wynne Chris C Schwabe Christian C Vincent Emmanuelle E Schueler Armin A Ryding Janka J Ullmann Martin M Ghori Vishal V Kanceva Radmila R Stahl Michael M

Pharmacology research & perspectives 20200401 2

MSB11455 is a proposed biosimilar to the currently licensed reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta® ). This study was designed primarily to compare the immunogenicity of MSB11455 and Neulasta® . As secondary objectives, the safety and tolerability of MSB11455 and Neulasta® were also compared. Healthy adult subjects were randomized to either MSB11455 or Neulasta® , stratified by antipolyethylene glycol (PEG) antibody status at screening and study site. Subje ...[more]

PMID: 32333641

Similar Datasets

Project description:AIMS:This 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. METHODS:The 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). RESULTS:Overall, 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. CONCLUSIONS:PK/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:Background:Following the functional and physicochemical characterization of a proposed biosimilar, comparative clinical studies help to confirm biosimilarity by demonstrating similar safety and efficacy to the reference product in a sensitive patient population. Patients and methods:LA-EP2006 is a proposed biosimilar that has been developed for pegfilgrastim, a long-acting form of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for the prevention of neutropenia. The current analysis reports data pooled from two independent, multinational, prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind phase III studies of similar design comparing the safety and efficacy of reference pegfilgrastim with LA-EP2006 in patients with breast cancer receiving myelotoxic (neo)adjuvant TAC (docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy and requiring granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Results:A total of 624 patients were randomized in the PROTECT-1 and PROTECT-2 studies (NCT01735175; NCT01516736) (LA-EP2006: n?=?314; reference: n?=?310). Baseline characteristics of patients were well balanced across treatment groups. The primary end point, mean duration of severe neutropenia in the first chemotherapy cycle was similar in both the LA-EP2006 and reference groups (1.05?±?1.055 days versus 1.01?±?0.958 days), with a treatment difference of?-?0.04 days [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.19 to 0.11] that met the equivalence criteria (the 95% CI were within the defined margin of?±1?day). Secondary end points, such as the nadir of absolute neutrophil count and the incidence of febrile neutropenia, were also similar between LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim. The safety and tolerability profile of LA-EP2006 was similar to that observed with reference pegfilgrastim, and there were no reports of neutralizing antibodies. Conclusions:This pooled analysis confirms, as a part of totality of evidence approach, that the proposed biosimilar pegfilgrastim LA-EP2006 has a comparable efficacy and safety profile to reference pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer receiving TAC chemotherapy. Clinical trial numbers:NCT01735175 and NCT01516736.

Project description:IntroductionPF-06881894 is a proposed biosimilar to pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®). This study evaluated the pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic (PD/PK) equivalence, immunogenicity, and safety of PF-06881894 vs pegfilgrastim reference products (US- and EU-Neulasta®) in healthy volunteers.MethodsA phase 1, open-label, randomized, crossover study was conducted to assess the pharmacologic equivalence and safety of a single 6-mg dose of PF-06881894, pegfilgrastim-US, and pegfilgrastim-EU. The primary PD endpoints were area under the effect-versus-time curve for absolute neutrophil count (ANC) from dose administration to 288 h postdose, and maximum observed ANC value among subjects confirmed negative for anti-pegfilgrastim antibodies. Primary PK variables included area under the serum pegfilgrastim-versus-time curve from the time of dose administration to time infinity and maximum observed serum pegfilgrastim concentration. A second phase 1, open-label, randomized (1:1), parallel-group, non-inferiority study was conducted to assess the immunogenicity and safety of multiple 6-mg doses of PF-06881894 versus pegfilgrastim-US. The primary endpoint for the immunogenicity study was the proportion of subjects with both negative baseline and confirmed positive postdose anti-pegfilgrastim antibodies at any time during the study.ResultsAcross the single- and multiple-dose studies (N = 153 and N = 420 treated subjects, respectively), demographics for age (18-65 years), male gender (n = 264/573), and white race (n = 423/573) were similar. Three-way PD/PK equivalence of PF-06881894, pegfilgrastim-US, and pegfilgrastim-EU was demonstrated with the primary PD endpoints and primary PK variables being completely contained within the predefined 90% confidence interval acceptance limits (80-125%). The non-inferiority of PF-06881894 versus pegfilgrastim-US in terms of immunogenicity was established according to the prespecified non-inferiority margin (≤10%). Overall, there were no clinically meaningful differences in safety profiles among or between study groups.ConclusionsSingle-dose PF-06881894 demonstrated PD/PK equivalence and comparable safety with US- and EU-pegfilgrastim reference products. Multiple-dose PF-06881894 demonstrated immunogenicity non-inferiority to pegfilgrastim-US with comparable safety. Both studies contributed to the totality of evidence supporting biosimilarity.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02629289; NCT03273842 (C1221005).

Project description:AIMS:The aim of the study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety and tolerability of the proposed adalimumab biosimilar MSB11022 (Merck) with Humira(®) (AbbVie), sourced from both the US (US reference product [US-RP]) and Europe (European reference medicinal product [EU-RMP]). METHODS:In this phase 1 double-blind, parallel group trial (EMR200588-001), 213 healthy volunteers were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to receive a single dose (40 mg) of MSB11022, US-RP or EU-RMP in order to achieve 80% power assuming a 5% difference among groups and a 10% dropout rate. Following a preplanned blinded sample size re-assessment after more than 50% of the originally planned subjects had been observed, the sample size was increased to 237 (79 per arm) to ensure 213 completers. Primary PK endpoints analyzed by non-compartmental methods, were area under the curve (AUC) from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC(0,?)), maximum observed concentration (Cmax ), and AUC from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC(0,tlast )). PK equivalence was declared if the 90% CI for the test : reference ratio lay within the 80-125% equivalence margin. Bioequivalence was demonstrated if all three PK parameters met the PK equivalence criteria. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS:Mean serum concentration-time profiles for the three treatments were similar. MSB11022 demonstrated PK equivalence to US-RP and EU-RMP for all primary endpoints. The geometric means of AUC(0,?), Cmax and AUC(0,tlast ) following a single dose of MSB11022 were 2276.05 ?g ml(-1) h, 3.44 ?g ml(-1) and 1983.90 ?g ml(-1) h, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were similar across all groups, with treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) reported by 62.8%, 56.3% and 62.0% of subjects within the MSB11022, US-RP and EU-RMP groups, respectively. Most of the TEAEs were considered mild and unrelated to study drug. No deaths or severe AEs related to the study drug were reported. CONCLUSIONS:Bioequivalence between MSB11022, US-RP and EU-RMP was demonstrated. Safety, tolerability and immunogenicity profiles were similar between subjects receiving MSB11022 and US-RP or EU-RMP. These data support the further clinical evaluation of MSB11022 as a proposed biosimilar of adalimumab.

Project description:Background/objectivesABP 798 is a proposed biosimilar to the originator biologic rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody. This comparative clinical study evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and efficacy of ABP 798 versus rituximab reference product (RP) in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsAdults with moderate-to-severe RA with an inadequate response or intolerance to other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs including 1 or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapies (n = 311) received ABP 798, US-sourced rituximab RP (rituximab US), or EU-sourced rituximab RP (rituximab EU) (1000 mg, 2 weeks apart). At week 24, ABP 798- or rituximab EU-treated subjects received a second dose of the same treatment, while rituximab US-treated subjects transitioned to receive ABP 798. The key efficacy endpoint was DAS28-CRP change from baseline at week 24. Other efficacy endpoints included DAS28-CRP at other time points; ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 criteria; and hybrid ACR. The rituximab RP groups were pooled for all efficacy endpoints since PK equivalence had been established between rituximab US and rituximab EU.ResultsClinical equivalence between ABP 798 and rituximab RP was established as the 90% confidence interval for DAS28-CRP change from baseline at week 24 fell within the prespecified equivalence margin (- 0.6, 0.6). Safety and immunogenicity profiles of ABP 798 were comparable across treatment groups and not affected by single transition from RP to ABP 798.ConclusionsClinical equivalence in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity was established between ABP 798 and rituximab RP in this comparative clinical trial in patients with moderate-to-severe RA. Key Points • ABP 798 provided similar efficacy as rituximab reference product (RP) in patients with moderate-severe rheumatoid arthritis. • The safety and immunogenicity profiles for ABP 798 were similar to those for the rituximab RP. • The single transition from rituximab RP to ABP 798 did not show differences in efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity.

Project description:Objective: The study aimed to explore the bioequivalence of a proposed biosimilar BAT1806 to its reference products marketed in the EU and US (RoActemra-EU and Actemra-US) among healthy Chinese men. The tolerance, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of the three drugs were also investigated. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, single-dose, three-arm, parallel study, a single-dose of 4 mg/kg of the reference products, or the biosimilar was administered to the participants. The participants were followed up for 57 days, and PK, immunogenicity, and tolerance evaluations were completed during this period. Results: The PK parameters were similar in all three groups: BAT1806 (n = 45), RoActemra-EU (n = 42), and Actemra-US (n = 42). The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of C max , AUC0-t and AUC0-? were 86.90-104.41% for BAT1806 vs. RoActemra-EU, 91.70-106.15% for BAT1806 vs Actemra-US, and 90.04-105.53% for Actemra-US vs RoActemra-EU. For all comparisons, the 90% CIs for the C max , AUC0-t , and AUC0-? were within the predefined bioequivalence limit of 80.00-125.00%. The intersubject variability ranged from 14.5% to 21.5%, which was considerably low. Among the participants, 19 (42.2%), 10 (23.8%), and 12 (28.6%) from the BAT1806, RoActemra-EU, and Actemra-US groups were, respectively, found to be positive for anti-drug antibodies, while 14 (31.1%), nine (21.4%), and 12 (28.6%) were positive for neutralizing antibodies. Nevertheless, these antibodies did not affect the drug concentrations, and the outcomes in the bioequivalence tests were similar after sensitivity analysis. Treatment-related and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were recorded in 27, 34, and 32 participants in the BAT1806, RoActemra-EU, and Actemra-US groups, respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse events observed were a decrease in neutrophil, and white blood cell counts. Conclusion: The PK characteristics of BAT1806 were similar to those of the reference products, RoActemra-EU and Actemra-US. Both BAT1806 and the reference products exhibited low intersubject variability and similar safety profiles. Clinical trial registration number: http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/index.html, CTR20180039; https://clinicaltrials.gov/NCT03606876.

Project description:Background:Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a common result of myelosuppressive chemotherapy treatment. Infections such as febrile neutropenia (FN) are sensitive to the duration of neutropenia as well as the depth of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) at nadir. Filgrastim, a granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), can stimulate the function of mature neutrophils. Pegfilgrastim, a long-acting form of filgrastim, has been shown to reduce FN to a greater extent compared to filgrastim. G-CSF agents have been recommended for prophylactic administration with chemotherapy. Apotex developed a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar. This study was conducted to confirm that no clinically meaningful efficacy or safety differences exist between Apotex's proposed biosimilar and its reference product. Methods:589 breast cancer patients were randomized and dosed with the proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar, US-licensed pegfilgrastim reference product, or EU-approved pegfilgrastim reference product. The primary endpoint assessed was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) and secondary endpoints included rate of FN and ANC nadir. Results:Data showed that the mean DSN, the primary endpoint measured, was comparable across all three treatments. The As Treated arm had a 95% confidence interval within the equivalence range for the proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar with the US-licensed and EU-approved pegfilgrastim reference products. Secondary endpoints, which included depth and peak of ANC nadir, time to ANC recovery post-nadir and rates of FN, also showed similarity between the three different treatment groups. The adverse event incidence was similar across treatment arms and there were no unexpected safety events. Conclusions:Overall, these results show that the proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar is similar to Amgen's US-licensed and EU-approved pegfilgrastim reference products with regard to the clinical efficacy and safety endpoints assessed.Trial registration EMA: European Union Clinical Trials Register: (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=eudract_number:2011-002678-21) Eudract # 2011-002678-21 Registered: 01/10/2012.

Dataset Information

Immunogenicity and safety of a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar MSB11455 versus the reference pegfilgrastim Neulasta® in healthy subjects: A randomized, double-blind trial.

Publications

Immunogenicity and safety of a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar MSB11455 versus the reference pegfilgrastim Neulasta<sup>®</sup> in healthy subjects: A randomized, double-blind trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure