Dataset Information

Similar immunogenicity profiles between the proposed biosimilar MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine in patients with diabetes mellitus: the phase 3 INSTRIDE 1 and INSTRIDE 2 studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

MYL-1501D is a proposed biosimilar to insulin glargine. The noninferiority of MYL-1501D was demonstrated in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes in 2 phase 3 trials. Immunogenicity of MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine was examined in both studies.

Methods

INSTRIDE 1 and INSTRIDE 2 were multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group studies. In INSTRIDE 1, patients with type 1 diabetes received MYL-1501D or insulin glargine over a 52-week period. In INSTRIDE 2, patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antidiabetic drugs, insulin naive or not, received MYL-1501D or reference insulin glargine over a 24-week period. Incidence rates and change from baseline in relative levels of antidrug antibodies (ADA) and anti-host cell protein (anti-HCP) antibodies in both treatment groups were determined by a radioimmunoprecipitation assay and a bridging immunoassay, respectively. Results were analyzed using a mixed-effects model (INSTRIDE 1) or a nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test (INSTRIDE 2).

Results

Total enrollment was 558 patients in INSTRIDE 1 and 560 patients in INSTRIDE 2. The incidence of total and cross-reactive ADA was comparable between treatment groups in INSTRIDE 1 and INSTRIDE 2 (P > 0.05 for both). A similar proportion of patients had anti-HCP antibodies in both treatment groups in INSTRIDE 1 at week 52 (MYL-1501D, 93.9 %; reference insulin glargine, 89.6 %; P = 0.213) and in INSTRIDE 2 at week 24 (MYL-1501D, 87.3 %; reference insulin glargine, 86.9 %; P > 0.999).

Conclusions

In INSTRIDE 1 and INSTRIDE 2, similar immunogenicity profiles were observed for MYL-1501D and reference insulin glargine in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, respectively.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, INSTRIDE 1 ( NCT02227862 ; date of registration, August 28, 2014); INSTRIDE 2 ( NCT02227875 ; date of registration, August 28, 2014).

SUBMITTER: Sun B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8235862 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeBevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor-specific angiogenesis in some cancers. MYL-1402O is a proposed bevacizumab biosimilar.MethodsThe primary objective of this single-center, randomized, double-blind, three-arm, parallel-group, phase 1 study in healthy male volunteers was to evaluate bioequivalence of MYL-1402O to EU and US-reference bevacizumab, and EU-reference bevacizumab to US-reference bevacizumab. The primary pharmacokinetic parameter was area under the serum concentration-time curve from 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞). Pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed using general linear models of analysis of variance. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability.ResultsOf 111 enrolled subjects, 110 were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis (MYL-1402O, n = 37; EU-reference bevacizumab, n = 36; US-reference bevacizumab, n = 37). Bioequivalence was demonstrated between MYL-1402O and EU-reference bevacizumab, MYL-1402O and US-reference bevacizumab, and between EU- and US-reference bevacizumab where least squares mean ratios of AUC0-∞ were close to 1, and 90% CIs were within the equivalence range (0.80-1.25). Secondary pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC from 0 to time of last quantifiable concentration [AUC0-t], peak serum concentration [Cmax], time to Cmax, elimination rate constant, and elimination half-life) were also comparable, with 90% CIs for ratios of AUC0-t and Cmax within 80-125%. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across all three treatment groups and were consistent with clinical data for bevacizumab.ConclusionMYL-1402O was well tolerated and demonstrated pharmacokinetic and safety profiles similar to EU-reference bevacizumab and US-reference bevacizumab in healthy male volunteers. No new significant safety issues emerged (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02469987; ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu EudraCT, 2014-005621-12; June 12, 2015).

Project description:Purpose: This phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of proposed biosimilar MYL-1402O with reference bevacizumab (BEV), as first-line treatment for patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients and methods: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive MYL-1402O or bevacizumab with carboplatin-paclitaxel up to 18 weeks (6 cycles), followed by up to 24 weeks (8 cycles) of bevacizumab monotherapy. The primary objective was comparison of overall response rate (ORR), based on independently reviewed best tumor responses as assessed during the first 18 weeks. ORR was analyzed per US Food and Drug Administration (ratio of ORR) and European Medicines Agency (difference in ORRs) requirements for equivalence evaluation. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, disease control rate, duration of response, overall survival, safety, and immunogenicity over a period of 42 weeks, and pharmacokinetics (up to 18 weeks). Results: A total of 671 patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. The ratio of ORR was 0.96 [confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.12] and the difference in ORR was −1.6 (CI −9.0, 5.9) between treatment arms; CIs were within the predefined equivalence margins. Overall, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events was comparable. Treatment-emergent anti-drug antibody (ADA) positivity was transient, with no notable differences between treatment arms (6.5% versus 4.8% ADA positivity rate in MYL-1402O versus BEV, respectively). The incidence of neutralizing antibody post-baseline was lower in the MYL-1402O arm (0.6%) compared to the bevacizumab arm (2.5%). Conclusions: MYL-1402O is therapeutically equivalent to bevacizumab, based on the ORR analyses, with comparable secondary endpoints. Trial Registry Information EU Clinical Trials Register, Registration # EudraCT no. 2015-005141-32https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2015-005141-32 Plain language summary Previous studies established bioequivalence of the proposed bevacizumab biosimilar MYL-1402O to reference bevacizumab. In this randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, MYL-1402O (n = 337) demonstrated comparable efficacy to bevacizumab (n = 334) in treating advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer per Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency requirements for equivalence; the ratio of objective response rate (ORR) was 0.96 [90% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.12] and the difference in ORR (MYL-1402O:bevacizumab) was −1.6 (95% CI −9.0, 5.9). Median progression-free survival at 42 weeks was comparable: 7.6 (7.0, 9.5) with MYL-1402O versus 9.0 (7.2, 9.7) months (p = 0.0906) with bevacizumab, by independent review. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to death (2.4% vs 1.5%), serious adverse events (17.6% vs 16.7%), and antidrug antibodies (6.5% vs 4.8%), were comparable in the MYL-1402O vs bevacizumab arms, respectively. The incidence of neutralizing antibody post-baseline was lower with MYL-1402O (0.6%) than with bevacizumab (2.5%). These findings confirm therapeutic equivalence of MYL-1402O to bevacizumab, providing opportunities for improving access to bevacizumab.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronically elevated blood glucose levels are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Many diabetes patients will eventually require insulin treatment to maintain good glycaemic control. There are still uncertainties about the optimal insulin treatment regimens for type 2 diabetes, but the long-acting insulin analogues seem beneficial. Several reviews have compared either insulin detemir or insulin glargine to NPH insulin, but research directly comparing both insulin analogues is limited. OBJECTIVES:To assess the effects of insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with each other in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH STRATEGY:We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, online registries of ongoing trials and abstract books. Date of last search was January 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA:All randomised controlled trials comparing insulin detemir with insulin glargine with a duration of 12 weeks or longer were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two authors independently selected the studies and extracted the data. Pooling of studies by means of random-effects meta-analysis was performed. MAIN RESULTS:This review examined four trials lasting 24 to 52 weeks involving 2250 people randomised to either insulin detemir or glargine. Overall, risk of bias of the evaluated studies was high. Insulin glargine was dosed once-daily in the evening. Insulin detemir was initiated once-daily in the evening with the option of an additional dose in the morning in three studies and initiated twice-daily in one study. Of randomised patients 13.6% to 57.2% were injecting insulin detemir twice-daily at the end of trial.Glycaemic control, measured by glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and HbA1c equal to or less than 7% with or without hypoglycaemia, did not differ statistically significantly between treatment groups.The results showed no significant differences in overall, nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia between treatment groups.Insulin detemir was associated with less weight gain. Treatment with insulin glargine resulted in a lower daily basal insulin dose and a lower number of injection site reactions.There was no significant difference in the variability of FPG or glucose values in 24-hour profiles between treatment groups. It was not possible to draw conclusions on quality of life, costs or mortality. Only one trial reported results on health-related quality of life and showed no significant differences between treatment groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Our analyses suggest that there is no clinically relevant difference in efficacy or safety between insulin detemir and insulin glargine for targeting hyperglycaemia. However, to achieve the same glycaemic control insulin detemir was often injected twice-daily in a higher dose but with less weight gain, while insulin glargine was injected once-daily, with somewhat fewer injection site reactions.

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.