Dataset Information

A randomized phase I study comparing the pharmacokinetics of a bevacizumab (HD204) biosimilar to European Union- and United States of America-sourced bevacizumab.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This first-in-human study was designed to evaluate the pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence between HD204 and the European Union (EU)-sourced bevacizumab, between HD204 and the United States of America (US)-sourced bevacizumab, and between EU-sourced and US-sourced bevacizumab (NCT03390673).

Methods

In this randomized, double-blind, 3-way parallel group, single-dose comparative PK study, healthy male subjects were randomized to receive a single 1 mg/kg intravenous dose of HD204, EU-sourced bevacizumab or US-sourced bevacizumab. PK parameters were calculated using non-compartmental methods. PK equivalence was determined using the pre-defined equivalence margin of 0.8-1.25 in terms of AUC(0-∞) for the pairwise comparisons.

Findings

Baseline demographics for the 119 randomized subjects were similar across the three groups. The 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of HD204 to US-sourced bevacizumab, HD204 to EU-sourced bevacizumab, and EU-sourced to US-sourced bevacizumab were all within the interval of 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, thus demonstrating equivalency in the PK properties for all three treatment groups. Similarly, the ratio of the geometric means for AUC0-last and Cmax were all within the 80% and 125% margins, supporting the robustness of the primary findings. All other PK parameters, including the half-life (t1⁄2) clearance (CL), volume of distribution (Vd) and time of maximum concentration (tmax), were comparable. There was no difference between the 3 treatment arms in terms of vital signs, laboratory tests and adverse events. None of the subjects treated with HD204 had positive ADA results.

Implications

HD204 demonstrates equivalent pharmacokinetic profiles compared to those of both US-sourced and EU-sourced bevacizumab. (NCT03390673).

SUBMITTER: Demarchi M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8460034 | 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:BackgroundCT-P16 is a candidate bevacizumab biosimilar.ObjectiveThis double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group, phase III study aimed to establish equivalent efficacy between CT-P16 and European Union-approved reference bevacizumab (EU-bevacizumab) in patients with metastatic or recurrent non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC).Patients and methodsPatients with stage IV or recurrent nsNSCLC were randomized (1:1) to receive CT-P16 or EU-bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks; ≤ 6 cycles) with paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) and carboplatin (area under the curve 6.0; both for 4-6 cycles), as induction therapy. Patients with controlled disease after induction therapy continued with CT-P16 or EU-bevacizumab maintenance therapy. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) during the induction period. Time-to-event analyses, pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity were also evaluated. Results obtained after 1 year of follow-up are presented.ResultsOverall, 689 patients were randomized (CT-P16, N = 342; EU-bevacizumab, N = 347). ORR was 42.40% (95% confidence interval [CI] 37.16-47.64) and 42.07% (95% CI 36.88-47.27) for CT-P16 and EU-bevacizumab, respectively. The risk difference (0.40 [95% CI - 7.02 to 7.83]) and risk ratio (1.0136 [90% CI 0.8767-1.1719]) for ORR fell within predefined equivalence margins (- 12.5 to + 12.5%, and 0.7368 to 1.3572, respectively), demonstrating equivalence between CT-P16 and EU-bevacizumab. Median response duration, time to progression, progression-free survival, and overall survival were comparable between treatment groups. Safety profiles were similar: 96.2% (CT-P16) and 93.0% (EU-bevacizumab) of patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events. Pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity were comparable between groups.ConclusionsEquivalent efficacy and similar pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity support bioequivalence of CT-P16 and EU-bevacizumab in patients with nsNSCLC.Trial registration numberNCT03676192.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND AIMS:The World Health Organization recommends increasing alcohol taxes as a 'best-buy' approach to reducing alcohol consumption and improving population health. Alcohol may be taxed based on sales value, product volume or alcohol content; however, duty structures and rates vary, both among countries and between beverage types. From a public health perspective, the best duty structure links taxation level to alcohol content, keeps pace with inflation and avoids substantial disparities between different beverage types. This data note compares current alcohol duty structures and levels throughout the 28 European Union (EU) Member States and how these vary by alcohol content, and also considers implications for public health. DESIGN AND SETTING:Descriptive analysis using administrative data, European Union, July 2018. MEASUREMENTS:Beverage-specific alcohol duty rates per UK alcohol unit (8 g ethanol) in pounds sterling at a range of different alcoholic strengths. FINDINGS:Only 50% of Member States levy any duty on wine and several levy duty on spirits and beer at or close to the EU minimum level. There is at least a 10-fold difference in the effective duty rate per unit between the highest- and lowest-duty countries for each beverage type. Duty rates for beer and spirits stay constant with strength in the majority of countries, while rates for wine and cider generally fall as strength increases. Duty rates are generally higher for spirits than other beverage types and are generally lowest in eastern Europe and highest in Finland, Sweden, Ireland and the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS:Different European Union countries enact very different alcohol taxation policies, despite a partially restrictive legal framework. There is only limited evidence that alcohol duties are designed to minimize public health harms by ensuring that drinks containing more alcohol are taxed at higher rates. Instead, tax rates appear to reflect national alcohol production and consumption patterns.

Project description:PurposeTo compare pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity between SB8, a bevacizumab biosimilar, and the European Union (EU) and United States (US) reference products (bevacizumab-EU, bevacizumab-US).MethodsIn this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, and single-dose study, healthy volunteers were randomized to receive a 3 mg/kg dose of SB8, bevacizumab-EU, or bevacizumab-US via intravenous infusion. Primary endpoints were area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUCinf) and to the last quantifiable concentration (AUClast), and maximum observed serum concentration (Cmax). Bioequivalence was achieved if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric least squares means (LSMeans) of primary endpoints were within the predefined bioequivalence margins of 80.00-125.00%. Safety and immunogenicity were also investigated.ResultsThe 90% CIs for the geometric LSMean ratios of AUCinf, AUClast and Cmax were all within the prespecified bioequivalence margins. Geometric LSMean ratios for SB8/bevacizumab-EU, SB8/bevacizumab-US and bevacizumab-EU/bevacizumab-US were 88.01%, 88.48% and 100.54% for AUCinf, 88.65%, 89.08% and 100.49% for AUClast and 99.59%, 101.15% and 101.56% for Cmax, respectively. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) across treatment groups was comparable (SB8: 50.0%, bevacizumab-EU: 37.5%, bevacizumab-US: 53.8%). Most TEAEs were mild and considered as not related to the study drug. No deaths or treatment discontinuations due to adverse events occurred. Incidence of anti-drug antibodies was also comparable between all groups and no neutralizing antibodies were detected.ConclusionThis study demonstrated pharmacokinetic bioequivalence and similar safety and immunogenicity profiles of SB8 to both reference products, bevacizumab-EU and bevacizumab-US, and of bevacizumab-EU to bevacizumab-US. CLINICALTRIALS.Gov identifierNCT02453672 (submitted date); EudraCT number: 2015-001,026-41.

Project description:BackgroundPolicymakers and regulators in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) are weighing reforms to their medical device approval and post-market surveillance systems. Data may be available that identify strengths and weakness of the approaches to medical device regulation in these settings.Methods and findingsWe performed a systematic review to find empirical studies evaluating medical device regulation in the US or EU. We searched Medline using two nested categories that included medical devices and glossary terms attributable to the US Food and Drug Administration and the EU, following PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. We supplemented this search with a review of the US Government Accountability Office online database for reports on US Food and Drug Administration device regulation, consultations with local experts in the field, manual reference mining of selected articles, and Google searches using the same key terms used in the Medline search. We found studies of premarket evaluation and timing (n?=?9), studies of device recalls (n?=?8), and surveys of device manufacturers (n?=?3). These studies provide evidence of quality problems in pre-market submissions in the US, provide conflicting views of device safety based largely on recall data, and relay perceptions of some industry leaders from self-surveys.ConclusionsFew studies have quantitatively assessed medical device regulation in either the US or EU. Existing studies of US and EU device approval and post-market evaluation performance suggest that policy reforms are necessary for both systems, including improving classification of devices in the US and promoting transparency and post-market oversight in the EU. Assessment of regulatory performance in both settings is limited by lack of data on post-approval safety outcomes. Changes to these device approval and post-marketing systems must be accompanied by ongoing research to ensure that there is better assessment of what works in either setting.