Comparison of biosimilar CT-P10 and innovator rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled Phase 3 trial

2024 Update of the Japan College of Rheumatology Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Secondary publication

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to update the Japan College of Rheumatology Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis (CPG for RA).

METHODS

The recommendations were developed based on the evidence published until the end of June 2022 using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. The steering committee, CPG panel, systematic review (SR) group, and SR support team were organised.

RESULTS

The treatment goal and drug treatment algorithm required no modifications; however, the footnotes of the drug treatment algorithm were modified. SR of 21 new or updated recommendations for subcutaneous methotrexate (n = 1), biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (n = 1), rituximab (n = 5), Janus kinase inhibitors (n = 6), biosimilars (n = 2), older patients (n = 4), and pregnancy and lactation (n = 2) was conducted. The recommendations for comorbidities and surgery and rehabilitation remained unchanged from the 2020 CPG for RA.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2024 CPG for RA, which provide recommendations that reflect the current healthcare environment for rheumatoid arthritis in Japan, can be used effectively as a tool for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients in the treatment of RA.

Biosimilars and immunogenicity: a matter of concern?

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars have transformed treatment modalities across various medical fields such as oncology, rheumatology, and immunology. Despite their potential for reducing healthcare costs, concerns persist regarding their ability to induce an immune response, which could affect efficacy and safety. This review critically evaluates the current evidence on the immunogenicity of biosimilars and discusses the regulatory frameworks guiding their approval and monitoring.

AREAS COVERED

This review includes studies from databases like Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect, published up to April 2024. It explores the 'totality of the evidence' approach used by regulatory bodies like the FDA and EMA, detailing analytical, preclinical, and clinical assessments that ensure biosimilars' similarity to their reference products in terms of structure, function, and clinical outcomes. The review also addresses the challenges and limitations in current research methodologies and the implications of immunogenicity on therapeutic efficacy and patient safety.

EXPERT OPINION

While substantial evidence confirms the safety and efficacy of biosimilars, the review emphasizes the need for continuous regulatory vigilance and advanced methodologies in post-marketing surveillance to capture long-term immunogenicity data effectively. It advocates for integrating cutting-edge analytical techniques and personalized medicine to better manage immunogenic risks associated with biological therapies.

Systematic review and meta-analysis for the 2024 update of the Japan College of Rheumatology clinical practice guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article is to update evidence on the efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and provide information to the taskforce for the 2024 update of the Japan College of Rheumatology clinical practice guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We searched various databases for randomised controlled trials on RA published until June 2022, with no language restriction. For each of the 15 clinical questions, two independent reviewers screened the articles, evaluated the core outcomes, and performed meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Subcutaneous injection of methotrexate (MTX) showed similar efficacy to oral MTX in MTX-naïve RA patients. Ozoralizumab combined with MTX improved drug efficacy compared to the placebo in RA patients with inadequate response (IR) to conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD). Rituximab with and without concomitant csDMARDs showed similar efficacy to other biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) in bDMARD-IR RA patients. Combined Janus kinase inhibitors and MTX achieved similar clinical responses and equal safety during a 4-year period compared to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in MTX-IR RA patients. Biosimilars showed efficacy equivalent to that of the original bDMARDs in csDMARD-IR and bDMARD-IR RA patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides latest evidence for the 2024 update of the Japan College of Rheumatology clinical practice guidelines for RA management.

Non-TNF biologics and their biosimilars in rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory rheumatic disease that affects both the articular and extra-articular structures, leading to significant joint damage, disability and excess mortality. The treatment algorithm of RA has changed tremendously in the past 1-2 decades because of the emergence of novel biological therapies that target different mechanisms of action in addition to TNFα.

AREAS COVERED

This article summarizes the evidence and safety of the non-TNF biological DMARDs in the treatment of RA, including those that target B cells, T-cell co-stimulation, interleukin (IL)-6 and granulocyte-monocyte colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). The targeted synthetic DMARDs such as the Janus kinase inhibitors are not included. The availability of the less costly biosimilars has enabled more patients to receive biological therapy earlier in the course of the disease. The evidence for the non-TNF biosimilar compounds in RA is also reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

There are unmet needs of developing novel therapeutic agents to enhance the response rate and provide more options for difficult-to-treat RA. These include the newer generation biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs. A personalized treatment strategy in RA requires evaluation of the cellular, cytokine, genomic and transcriptomic profile that would predict treatment response to biologic or targeted DMARDs of different mechanisms of action.

A narrative review of the comparative safety of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have improved the outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). DMARDs are classified into three categories: conventional synthetic DMARDs, biological DMARDs (including biosimilars), and targeted synthetic DMARDs. DMARDs, by way of their effect on the immune system, are associated with increased risk of adverse events, including infections, malignancies, cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal perforations, and other less common events.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative literature review performed with searches of the PubMed database from 1 January 2010 through 1 January 2023, we compare the risk of safety events between DMARDs using data from both randomized clinical trials and observational studies.

EXPERT OPINION

DMARD use in RA is associated with higher rates of serious infections, tuberculosis reactivation, opportunistic infections, and possibly malignancies. Specific biologic DMARDs and higher doses are associated with elevated risks of various adverse events (gastrointestinal perforations, thromboembolism, serious infection). Shared decision-making is paramount when choosing a treatment regimen for patients based on their own comorbidities. JAKi are the newest class of medications used for RA with robust safety data provided in clinical trials. However, more real-world evidence and phase-IV pharmacovigilance data are needed to better understand comparative safety profile of DMARDs in RA.

Biosimilars in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a pharmacokinetic overview

INTRODUCTION

As of May 2023, 19 and 18 biosimilars have been approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) respectively.

AREA COVERED

Pharmacokinetic results of phase 1 studies of approved biosimilars were reviewed by systematic literature search. The impact of immunogenicity on the pharmacokinetic data and clinical response was assessed, and the potential benefit of monitoring serum concentrations of biologic drugs is discussed. The advantage of subcutaneous CT-P13 (an infliximab biosimilar) in clinical practice is reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

Biosimilars are approved based on the totality of evidence including comparable physiochemical properties, PK / PD profiles, and clinical efficacy and safety to the originator. To utilize biosimilars more effectively, physicians should be aware of the utility of combination DMARD therapy to reduce immunogenicity and maintain efficacy and PK profile. PK monitoring, however, is not currently recommended in clinical practice. CT-P13 subcutaneous (SC) is the first SC infliximab used for treatment of RA patients. Based on data from clinical studies and the real world, SC-infliximab is an attractive therapeutic option compared to IV formulations of infliximab based on its efficacy, pharmacokinetics, patient-reported outcomes, and safety profile.

A non-interventional, post-marketing surveillance study evaluating the safety and effectiveness of biosimilar rituximab (CT-P10) during routine clinical practice in the Republic of Korea

BACKGROUND

CT-P10 was the first licensed rituximab biosimilar. This Korean post-marketing surveillance study evaluated CT-P10 safety and effectiveness in approved indications.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This prospective, open-label, observational, phase 4 study collected routine clinical practice data across 27 centers in the Republic of Korea. Patients received their first CT-P10 treatment, per prescribing information, for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), or microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) during the surveillance period (16 November 2016-15 November 2020). Safety (including adverse events [AEs] and adverse drug reactions [ADRs]) and disease-specific clinical response (by best overall response [NHL/CLL], Disease Activity Score in 28-joints [RA], or Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score for Wegener's Granulomatosis [GPA/MPA]) were assessed for ≤1 year (NHL/CLL) or ≤24 weeks (RA/GPA/MPA).

RESULTS

The safety population comprised 677 patients (604 NHL, 16 CLL, 42 RA, 7 GPA, 8 MPA). AEs/ADRs were reported for 68.4%/27.7% (NHL/CLL), 31.0%/14.3% (RA), and 86.7%/13.3% (GPA/MPA) of patients. Serious AEs and unexpected ADRs did not raise new safety signals. Pneumonia was the most frequent serious ADR overall. Positive effectiveness outcomes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings were consistent with the known CT-P10/reference rituximab safety profile, with high effectiveness observed in NHL/CLL and RA.

Real-world experience of rituximab biosimilar GP2013 in rheumatoid arthritis patients naïve to or switched from reference rituximab

Randomized controlled trials showed high comparability of biosimilar rituximab (bs-RTX) GP2013 to biologic originator RTX (bo-RTX). Data on effectiveness of switching from bo-RTX to bs-RTX, starting therapy with bs-RTX, and bs-RTX drug survival in real-world setting are sparse. To explore long-term drug effectiveness and survival of bs-RTX GP2013 in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients both naïve to and mandatory switched from bo-RTX, and to clarify reasons for treatment cessation. Retrospective observational cohort study including RA outpatient clinic patients treated with bs-RTX between 2018 and 2021 in Norway. Patients were examined and monitored using recommended measures for disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). For description of population medians and interquartile range were used. Difference between observation times was assessed with Signed-Rank test, drug survival with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Reasons for discontinuation were ascertained. Among 110 patients, at baseline, 88 were mandatory switched from bo-RTX and 22 were RTX-naïve. During 2-year follow-up, disease activity and PROs measures remained stable in switchers subgroup and improved in subgroup starting bs-RTX for the first time. Overall drug survival was 80.0% after 1 year and 57.7% after 2 years and was significantly higher in bs-RTX-switched than in bs-RTX-naïve patients (p = 0.036). Two most frequently reported reasons for drug discontinuation were remission (38.6%) and doctor's decision (27.1%). RA patients treated with bs-RTX had satisfactory treatment response and drug retention rates which supports equivalence of bs-RTX GP2013 to bo-RTX, both in patients naïve to and mandatory switched from bo-RTX.

Interchangeability and adverse events in originator-rituximab and its biosimilar (CT-P10) among rheumatic patients: a real-life experience

Biosimilars offer cost-effective and safe treatment options both for patients and healthcare systems. CT-P10 is the first biosimilar of rituximab approved in Europe for use in all indications of originator rituximab (oRTX). This study aimed to provide real-life data on treatment changes and adverse events in patients who received oRTX or CT-P10. We retrospectively reviewed treatment-related adverse events [infusion-related reactions (IRRs), infections, hypogammaglobulinemia] in patients treated with at least one dose of oRTX (MabThera^®) or CT-P10 (Truxima^®) between 2020 and 2021 and had at least 6 months follow-up after rituximab infusion in a rheumatology clinic. The switches between oRTX and CT-P10 were performed according to drug availability at the hospital pharmacy at the time of infusion according to the local hospital procedure. Physicians were not involved in the decision of biosimilar selection. A total of 128 patients (CT-P10, n = 64; oRTX, n = 64) were included. CT-P10 was switched in 52 (40.6%) patients who had previously used oRTX, and 48 (37.5%) patients remained on oRTX. We demonstrated no difference between patients treated with oRTX or CT-P10 in the rates of IRRs, in which all reactions were grade 1 and 2. Comparable rates of infections (p > 0.05) and the rate of hypogammaglobulinemia (p > 0.05) were found in both groups with no significant difference. CT-P10 provides a safe treatment alternative in patients who require rituximab therapy. The rational use of biosimilars can be supported by evolving evidence on interchangeability and switching in real-life settings, which will help clinicians in decision-making.

Real-world clinical effectiveness and safety of CT-P10 in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: An observational study in Europe

The rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 is approved for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Previous studies have demonstrated clinical similarity between CT-P10 and reference rituximab. However, real-world data relating to treatment in patients with DLBCL with rituximab biosimilars are limited. This study collected real-world data relating to the effectiveness and safety of CT-P10 treatment from the medical records of 389 patients with DLBCL (24 centers, five European countries). For the primary outcome (clinical effectiveness), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and best response (BR) were assessed. The percentage (95% confidence interval [95% CI]) of patients alive at 12-, 18-, and 30 months postindex (initiation of CT-P10) was 86% (82.4%-89.4%), 81% (76.9%-84.9%), and 76% (71.2%-80.1%), respectively. The PFS rate (percent, [95% CI]) at 12-, 18-, and 30 months postindex was 78% (74.2%-82.5%), 72% (67.9%-76.9%), and 67% (61.9%-71.7%), respectively. Median OS/PFS was not reached. For 82% (n = 312) of patients, the BR to CT-P10 was a complete response. Adverse events were consistent with known effects of chemotherapy. This international, multicenter study provides real-world data on the safety and effectiveness profile of CT-P10 for DLBCL treatment and supports the adoption of CT-P10 for the treatment of DLBCL.

The lessebo effect in randomized controlled trials of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to assess the impact of negative expectations associated with receiving a placebo (the lessebo effect) on efficacy outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis on the American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, and 70% (ACR20, 50, 70) response rates in the placebo and active (biosimilar)-controlled groups (reference-pbo and reference-bs) of rituximab showing an insufficient response to methotrexate or tumor necrosis factor. We evaluated the difference in ACR20, 50, 70 response rates between the two groups (reference-bs vs. reference-pbo).

RESULTS

Nine RCTs included a total of 2734 patients with RA. The pooled incidence of ACR20 response rate in the placebo- and active-controlled groups of the rituximab RCTs for RA was 53.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 49.9-56.3%) and 75.0% (95% CI 71.2-78.4%), respectively. The difference in the ACR20 response rate between the placebo- and active-controlled groups was -20.9% (95% CI -26.9 to 61.9%, p < 0.001). The pooled incidence of ACR50 response rate in the placebo- and active-controlled groups of the rituximab RCTs for RA was 29.0% (95% CI 26.2-32.0%) and 47.4% (95% CI 43.2-51.6%), respectively. The ACR50 response rates were significantly higher in the active-controlled groups than in the placebo-controlled groups (-18.4%; 95% CI -18.4 to -13.4%, p < 0.001). The difference in the ACR70 response rate between the placebo- and active-controlled groups was -14.9% (95% CI -22.2 to -7.6%, p < 0.001). The ACR20, 50, 70 response rates were significantly higher in the active-controlled groups than in the placebo-controlled group.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the use of a placebo can be associated with a clinically significant reduction in the magnitude of change of the ACR20, 50, 70 response rates in rituximab RCTs for RA. The lessebo effect has potential implications for the development of new treatments and appraisal of current treatment options for RA.

A Developer's Perspective on Clinical Evidence and Benefits for Rituximab Biosimilar Uptake, with a Focus on CT-P10

To date, four rituximab biosimilars have received regulatory approval from the European Medicines Agency and/or US Food and Drug Administration. CT-P10 was the first rituximab biosimilar to be approved by each agency, in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Regulatory approval of CT-P10 followed demonstration of pharmacokinetic equivalence to the reference product in a phase I study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Phase III pivotal studies of CT-P10 subsequently demonstrated equivalence or non-inferiority of pharmacokinetics and efficacy between CT-P10 and reference rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, advanced-stage follicular lymphoma, and low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma. Almost 5 years after its initial regulatory approval, significant real-world experience has accumulated with CT-P10 use, particularly in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, one of the indications approved by extrapolation. This article summarises the pivotal data underlying regulatory approval for the four licensed rituximab biosimilars, before focusing on real-world data gathered with CT-P10. These data provide further support for the safety and effectiveness of CT-P10 and should boost healthcare professional and patient confidence in its use. Pharmacoeconomic analyses support the potential healthcare system cost savings offered by rituximab biosimilar uptake, which could lead to improved patient access to biologic treatments. Opportunities arising from biosimilar uptake extend further, potentially enabling innovative investigator-led research and therapeutic advances.

The safety and clinical effectiveness of rapid infusion with CT-P10 in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A retrospective non-interventional post-authorization safety study in Europe

Rapid infusion (RI) of the rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 is currently only an approved treatment regimen for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Although both CT-P10 and reference rituximab are known to be frequently administered using a RI regimen (≤90 min) in clinical practice, published data on the safety of RI of CT-P10 in patients with NHL and CLL are limited. Hence, this study collected real-world safety and effectiveness data on RI-CT-P10 from the medical records of 196 patients with NHL or CLL in 10 European centers, 6 months after the date of the first RI (index date); the infusion-related reaction (IRR) rate was compared to previously published data. Ten percent (95% confidence interval 6%-15%; n = 20/196) of patients experienced an infusion-related reaction (IRR) on day 1-2 post-index, which was not significantly different (p = 0.45) to the IRR rate for rituximab described in a previous meta-analysis (8.8%). During the observation period, 2% of patients experienced grade 3-5 IRRs and 85% (n = 166) experienced an adverse event (non-IRR). The most common reason for discontinuation of first-line CT-P10 was planned treatment completion (81%; n = 158). Complete response and partial response to CT-P10 was observed in 74% (n = 142/192) and 22% (n = 42/192) of patients, respectively. The results of this real-world study demonstrate that the safety and effectiveness profile of RI-CT-P10 is similar to RI of reference rituximab and therefore support the current use of RI-CT-P10 in patients with NHL and CLL.

Catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome presented with coronary thrombosis, renal impairment, and suspected diffuse alveolar hemorrhage treated with rituximab biosimilar (CT-P10)

Catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome (CAPS) is a lethal disease that occurs suddenly and progresses to multi-organ failure. We present a case of CAPS successfully treated with the rituximab biosimilar CT-P10. A 38-year-old man was referred with a sustained fever and unexplained elevated creatinine levels. Cardiac arrest by ventricular fibrillation occurred upon arrival at the hospital. We diagnosed probable CAPS because of coronary thrombus, renal impairment, suspected diffuse alveolar hemorrhage, and positive anticardiolipin antibody immunoglobulin G. We performed percutaneous coronary intervention for the cardiac arrest, and treated him with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, mechanical ventilation, and continuous renal replacement therapy. When CAPS was diagnosed, we administered CT-P10 after administering high-dose glucocorticoid. Our case suggests that the use of a rituximab biosimilar is economically efficient in the treatment of CAPS, as in other rheumatic diseases. The patient was cured without recurrence at the 2-year follow-up.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of biosimilar for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis informing the 2020 update of the Japan College of Rheumatology clinical practice guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of biosimilars compared with reference biological disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as a part of the process of developing the 2020 update of the Japan College of Rheumatology guidelines for the management of RA.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Japan Centra Revuo Medicina were searched for articles to conduct a systematic review (SR). The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

RESULTS

Twenty randomized controlled trials were included (biosimilars of infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab). A meta-analysis revealed that the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of achieving the American College of Rheumatology 50% response (ACR50) at week 24 and serious adverse events (SAEs) for biosimilars compared with the reference bDMARDs were 1.04 (0.98-1.10) and 0.84 (0.61-1.18), respectively. The RRs of achieving ACR50 and SAEs at week 24 were respectively 0.93 (0.69-1.26) and 2.15 (0.55-8.35) in the patients who switched to biosimilars from the reference bDMARDs and 0.92 (0.76-1.12) and 1.41 (0.32-6.15) in those who continued the reference bDMARDs.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilars and reference bDMARDs were equally useful for the management of RA.

Therapeutic applications of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies: Systematic review of the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in autoimmune disorders

PURPOSE

Biosimilars are biological products that could be used instead of reference biological drugs to provide a less costly option for treating patients with autoimmune disorders. With the introduction of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies into the drug market, the main concern is confirming the similarity in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of these biosimilars with their reference products. The presence of valuable comparative clinical trials to demonstrate these similarities with analytical methods is challenging. This review discusses the similarity between biosimilar mAbs and reference products as candidates for autoimmune diseases.

METHODS

Data on efficacy endpoints, adverse events, production of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs), and neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) were collected from trials.

FINDINGS

Overall, these data suggest the similarity between biosimilar mAbs and reference products in terms of safety and efficacy.

IMPLICATIONS

Biosimilars are used in a wider range of diseases, and by examining their similarities in all those diseases with reference drugs, more comprehensive results can be obtained.

Efficacy and safety of Sandoz biosimilar rituximab for active rheumatoid arthritis: 52-week results from the randomized controlled ASSIST-RA trial

OBJECTIVES

This report provides data for the extent of B cell depletion and recovery, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of Sandoz rituximab (SDZ-RTX; GP2013; Rixathon®) compared with reference rituximab (Ref-RTX) up to week 52 of the ASSIST-RA study.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to SDZ-RTX or Ref-RTX in combination with methotrexate according to the RTX label. The primary endpoint was analysed at week 24. Responders (28-joint DAS [DAS28] decrease from baseline >1.2) at week 24 with residual disease activity (DAS28 ≥2.6) were eligible for a second treatment course between week 24 and 52. Endpoints after week 24 included change from baseline in peripheral B cells, DAS28, ACR 20% response rate (ACR20), Clinical and Simplified Disease Activity Indexes (CDAI, SDAI) and HAQ disability index (HAQ-DI). Safety and immunogenicity were assessed by the incidence of adverse events and antidrug antibodies.

RESULTS

Primary and secondary endpoints up to week 24 were met. Overall, 260/312 randomized patients completed treatment up to week 52. SDZ-RTX resulted in B cell concentrations over time similar to Ref-RTX. The efficacy of SDZ-RTX was similar to Ref-RTX up to week 52, as measured by DAS28, ACR20/50/70, CDAI, SDAI and HAQ-DI. Safety of SDZ-RTX was similar to Ref-RTX regarding frequency, type and severity of adverse events, which were consistent with the known Ref-RTX safety profile. The incidence of antidrug antibodies was low and transient similarly across treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

SDZ-RTX demonstrated similar B cell concentrations over time, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity to Ref-RTX over 52 weeks of the ASSIST-RA study.

Safety of switching between rituximab biosimilars in onco-hematology

Comparable clinical efficacy and safety of the reference rituximab (MABTHERA) and its biosimilars has been established in randomized trials. However, safety concerns are often raised when switching from reference to biosimilar products and between different biosimilars. In this prospective observational study we aimed at evaluating the safety of switching between reference and biosimilar rituximab (TRUXIMA and RIXATHON) at Trento General Hospital (Italy). All patients (n = 83) with Non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL, n = 72) and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL, n = 11) who received rituximab between March 2018 and March 2019 were asked to take part in the study. In 2017 and 2018 two tenders were carried out and two different biosimilars became available in the hospital, these were used sequentially. Thus, patients with or without previous treatments with the originator rituximab either received a biosimilar or were switched between different biosimilars. The incidence of adverse events in these groups of patients is described. The study population received 465 rituximab infusions and all received biosimilars. Fifty patients (60%) experienced at least one switch between different biosimilars or between rituximab originator and biosimilar, whereas 33 (40%) received one of the two biosimilars and one patient received reference rituximab. Adverse events (n = 146) were reported in 71 patients (84.5%). Treatment-related grade 3–4 events were reported in 5 patients (5.9%), whereas grade 1 rituximab related infusion events were observed in 6 patients (7.1%). No safety signal emerged in association with the use of a specific biosimilar nor with the practice of switching. Adverse events were similar, in terms of seriousness and frequency, to those described in the literature, providing further support to the clinical safety of rituximab biosimilars.

Safety and efficacy of rituximab biosimilar (CT-P10) in systemic sclerosis: an Italian multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

Recent data have shown a significant efficacy of rituximab (RTX) in SSc. An RTX biosimilar (RTX-B) is a more affordable option. We assessed the safety and efficacy of an RTX-B (CT-P10) in SSc.

METHODS

SSc patients treated with RTX-B with at least 6 months of follow-up were retrospectively identified from six Italian referral centres. SSc patients naïve to RTX-B (RTX-Bn) or already treated with RTX originator and switched to an RTX-B (RTX-Bs) were evaluated. A comprehensive assessment of disease characteristics and organ involvement at baseline and after 6 months was obtained.

RESULTS

Thirty-three SSc patients were selected: 29 (87.9%) females, mean age 51.6 years (s.d. 14.2), mean disease duration 9.8 years (s.d. 8.1); 21 (64.5%) with dcSSc, 20 (60.1%) anti-topoisomerase I, 7 (21.2%) anti-RNA polymerase III and 6 (18.2%) anti-centromere positive. Seventeen (51.5%) were RTX-Bn and 16 were on RTX-Bs (48.5%). RTX was introduced because of skin progression in 18 patients (54.5%), interstitial lung disease (ILD) worsening in 11 (33.3%) and arthritis in 12 (36.4%). All patients were previously treated with immunosuppressants. At RTX-B introduction, 21 (63.6%) patients were on concomitant immunosuppressants: 15 (71.4%) on MMF and 6 (28.6%) on MTX. Twenty-three (69.7%) were on low-dose steroids. After 6 months, a significant reduction of the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS), 28-joint DAS and CRP was observed (P = 0.002, 0.005 and 0.008, respectively); the mRSS significantly improved both in RTX-Bn (P < 0.024) and RTX-Bs patients (P < 0.031). No significant changes were observed for lung function tests, either in the entire cohort or in the subgroup of ILD patients. Only one RTX-Bs patient experienced transient neutropenia.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that RTX-B can represent a cheaper option in SSc patients, as it is effective in improving skin and joint involvement and in stabilizing lung function.

Safety and effectiveness of biosimilar of Rituximab CT-P10 in the treatment of cryoglobulinemic vasculitis: the MARBLe study (Mixed cryoglobulinemiA Rituximab BiosimiLar)

Rituximab (RTX) represents a milestone in the treatment of mixed cryoglobulinemic vasculitis (MCV). Despite usually well-tolerated, RTX may induce different types of adverse drug reactions, including exacerbation of vasculitis. Recently, RTX biosimilar CT-P10 has been approved in Europe for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but no data are available about effectiveness and safety of CT-P10 in the treatment of MCV. In this multicenter open-label study, we analyzed the safety of CT-P10 in patients with MCV treated in first-line or after a shift by RTX originator. Fifty-one consecutive MCV patients (females/males 35/16, median age 68 years, median disease duration 42 months, 51% HCV positive) were included in the study between July and December 2018 and were treated with CT-P10 (group 1). Safety and effectiveness of CT-P10 were compared with a retrospective group (group 2) including 75 consecutive patients treated with RTX originator between July 2017 and July 2018. Thirty-six patients were treated with CT-P10 for the first time, while the other 15 switched from RTX originator. RTX was administrated with high or dosage schemes (375 mg/m² four times a week apart/1000 mg twice one week apart or 250 mg/m² twice one week apart). During a month period after the last infusion, 13/51 adverse events (AE) were observed in group 1 and 17/75 in group 2 (p not significant). Among them, 7/13 and 6/17 (in group 1 and 2, respectively) could be considered immune-mediated AE (p not significant). At univariate analysis patients with IM-AE were more frequently males (p = 0.04) and with a lower disease duration (p = 0.03), but both the parameters were not significant at logistic regression. About clinical response after 6 months by the end of the treatment, no differences were observed between patients treated with originator and CT-P10 regarding the response to the therapy. No differences were observed in safety and effectiveness between patients naïve at RTX or switching from originator. Despite the higher prevalence of immune-mediated AE among patients treated with CT-P10 than originator, we have observed no significant differences between the 2 groups. The use of a low-dosage regimen is more common in group 1 than in group 2, representing a possible bias of the study, possibly influencing the appearance of AE. Considering the cost/efficacy ratio of biosimilars, their use could be helpful to treat a large number of MCV patients with an effectiveness and safety comparable to originator. Multicenter studies including a large number of patients and the new RTX biosimilars could be useful to fully elucidate the possible risk of immune-mediated adverse events with biosimilar drugs. Considering the cost/efficacy ratio of CT-P10, its use could help to treat a large number of MCV patients with an effectiveness and safety comparable to originator.

Aptamers for Proteins Associated with Rheumatic Diseases: Progress, Challenges, and Prospects of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Applications

Nucleic acid aptamers capable of affine and specific binding to their molecular targets have now established themselves as a very promising alternative to monoclonal antibodies for diagnostic and therapeutic applications. Although the main focus in aptamers’ research and development for biomedicine is made on cardiovascular, infectious, and malignant diseases, the use of aptamers as therapeutic or diagnostic tools in the context of rheumatic diseases is no less important. In this review, we consider the main features of aptamers that make them valuable molecular tools for rheumatologists, and summarize the studies on the selection and application of aptamers for protein biomarkers associated with rheumatic diseases. We discuss the progress in the development of aptamer-based diagnostic assays and targeted therapeutics for rheumatic disorders, future prospects in the field, and issues that have yet to be addressed.

A pharmacokinetic evaluation of the rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

CT-P10 is the first biosimilar of rituximab (RTX) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The application of valuable biosimilar for the treatment of RA may decrease economic burden of society, and disease activity of RA. Thus, it is worthwhile to identify the economic advantage and further requirement for the proper use of CT-P10 in real world.

AREAS COVERED

Literature searching was performed to identify suitable references written in English for this review article. Rituximab, biosimilar, CT-P10, and rheumatoid arthritis were used as keywords. Current state of RA treatment, position of RTX in the recommendations for the treatment of RA, current status of RTX biosimilar development were assessed before evaluating CT-P10 itself. Physicochemical property, pharmacokinetic profile through phase I to phase III studies, pharmacodynamics, toxicology data, clinical efficacy, and safety were reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

As the first biosimilar to originator RTX, CT-P10 may be a useful alternative for the treatment of RA in all indications for originator RTX. In addition, more studies are required to identify long-term effectiveness and safety of CT-P10 in real world. It is also important to find out new indications of CT-P10 and effective mechanisms to lessen nocebo effect against biosimilar including CT-P10.

Immunogenicity of Biosimilars for Rheumatic Diseases, Plaque Psoriasis, and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Review from Clinical Trials and Regulatory Documents

The goal of this narrative review was to summarize immunogenicity data of biosimilars or biosimilar candidates for rheumatic diseases, plaque psoriasis, or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), available in peer-reviewed publications or regulatory documents. PubMed records and regulatory documents were searched for immunogenicity data of TNFα or CD20 inhibitor biosimilars or biosimilar candidates. Data collected included the proportion of patients positive for anti-drug antibodies (ADAbs), proportion with neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) among ADAb-positive patients, ADAb/nAb assay characteristics, cross-reactivity, and the effects of ADAbs on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and safety. We identified eight biosimilars or biosimilar candidates for adalimumab (BI 695501, SB5, ABP 501, GP2017, PF-06410293, MSB-11022, FKB-327, ZRC-3197) four for etanercept (SB4, GP2015, CHS-0214, LBEC0101), and three each for infliximab (SB2, CT-P13, GP1111) and rituximab (CT-P10, GP2013, PF-05280586) with immunogenicity data. Randomized, head-to-head trials with reference products varied in design and methodology of ADAb/nAb detection. The lowest proportions of ADAb-positive (0–13%) and nAb-positive patients (0–3%) were observed in the trials of etanercept and its biosimilars, and the highest with adalimumab, infliximab, and their biosimilars (ADAbs: ≤ 64%; nAbs: ≤ 100%). The most common method of ADAb detection was electrochemiluminescence, and ADAb positivity was associated with nominally inferior efficacy and safety. Overall, there were no significant immunogenicity differences between biosimilars and reference products. However, there are many discrepancies in assessing and reporting clinical immunogenicity. In conclusion, immunogenicity data of biosimilars or biosimilar candidates for TNFα or CD20 inhibitors were collected in trials that varied in design and procedures for ADAb/nAb detection. In general, immunogenicity parameters of biosimilars are similar to those of their reference products.

Comparison of Rituximab Originator With CT-P10 Biosimilar in Patients With Primary Sjögren's Syndrome: A Retrospective Analysis in a Real-Life Setting

Introduction: Over the last two decades, rituximab (RTX) has been widely used, albeit off-label, in primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS). Several studies reported that B lymphocyte depletion with RTX is effective to treat some aspects within the disease spectrum, by reducing disease activity and affecting the inflammation and lymphoid organization that occur in target tissues. Notwithstanding, randomized controlled trials failed to confirm such evidence. With the recent release of several RTX biosimilars on the market, their efficacy and safety compared to the originator must be ascertained across different indications. This study aimed at comparing efficacy and safety of RTX originator and CT-P10 RTX biosimilar in pSS patients in a real-life setting.

Methods: Clinical and laboratory records of pSS patients referring to a tertiary rheumatology clinic were retrospectively evaluated. Patients having received at least two courses of either RTX originator or CT-P10 with complete data at baseline and after 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks of treatment were enrolled. Disease activity was assessed with the EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) and its clinical version without the biological domain (clinESSDAI). Patient-reported symptoms were assessed with the EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient-Reported Index (ESSPRI). Adverse events (AEs) occurring during the study period were also recorded.

Results: Nine patients who received RTX originator and eight patients who received CT-P10 were enrolled. Baseline clinical and serological features, including ESSDAI and ESSPRI, were similar in the two treatment groups. An efficient depletion of circulating CD19⁺ B lymphocytes was achieved in both treatment arms. Both RTX originator and CT-P10 significantly reduced ESSDAI and clinESSDAI by week 24, and no difference between the groups was observed at any timepoint. Conversely, changes of ESSPRI overtime did not differ between the two treatment arms and were not statistically significant compared to corresponding baseline values. With regard to safety, at 48 weeks of follow-up, only four mild AEs (two in the RTX originator and two in the CT-P10 group) were observed.

Conclusion: Our study provides the first evidence that, at 48 weeks of follow-up, RTX originator and CT-P10 display similar efficacy and safety profiles in pSS.

Rituximab biosimilars in hematologic malignancies: the need for a real-world approach

The introduction of rituximab biosimilars into healthcare systems can potentially help to control healthcare costs for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. However, there are currently several barriers to the uptake of biosimilars. This review discusses barriers to the adoption of rituximab biosimilars by stakeholders including patients and healthcare providers. We outline the importance of utilizing real-world evidence in providing additional clinical experience on rituximab biosimilars in hematologic malignancies to improve stakeholder confidence regarding their efficacy and safety. We conclude by offering recommendations for designing and conducting effective real-world studies. Such studies can provide evidence to help achieve lower-priced biologics and improved patient access to help sustain the treatment of hematologic malignancies with biologics, including rituximab biosimilars.

Rituximab Biosimilar Prevents Poor Outcomes of Microscopic Polyangiitis and Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis as Effectively as Rituximab Originator

PURPOSE

There has been no extensive study to compare the efficacy between rituximab originator (Mabthera®) and its biosimilar (Truxima®) for microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA). Here, we investigated the clinical effects of rituximab on poor outcomes of MPA and GPA in Korean patients, and compared those between Mabthera® and Truxima®.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of a total of 139 patients, including 97 MPA patients and 42 GPA patients. At diagnosis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody positivity and comorbidities were assessed. During follow-up, all-cause mortality, relapse, end-stage renal disease, cerebrovascular accident and acute coronary syndrome were evaluated as poor outcomes. In this study, rituximab was used as either Mabthera® or Truxima®.

RESULTS

The median age at diagnosis was 60.1 years and 46 patients were men (97 MPA and 42 GPA patients). Among poor outcomes, patients receiving rituximab exhibited a significantly lower cumulative relapse-free survival rate compared to those not receiving rituximab (p=0.002). Nevertheless, rituximab use did not make any difference in other poor outcomes of MPA and GPA except for relapse, which might be a rebuttal to the fact that rituximab use after relapse eventually led to better prognosis. There were no significant differences in variables at diagnosis and during follow-up between patients receiving Mabthera® and those receiving Truxima®. Patients receiving Truxima® exhibited a similar pattern of the cumulative survival rates of each poor outcome to those receiving Mabthera®.

CONCLUSION

Truxima® prevents poor outcomes of MPA and GPA as effectively as does Mabthera®.

Efficacy of pharmacological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature research informing the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To inform the 2019 update of the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A systematic literature research (SLR) to investigate the efficacy of any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) (conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD, biological (b) and biosimilar DMARD, targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD) or glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in patients with RA was done by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 2016 and 8 March 2019.

RESULTS

234 abstracts were selected for detailed assessment, with 136 finally included. They comprised the efficacy of bDMARDs versus placebo or other bDMARDs, efficacy of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (JAKi) across different patient populations and head-to-head of different bDMARDs versus JAKi or other bDMARDs. Switching of bDMARDs to other bDMARDs or tsDMARDs, strategic trials and tapering studies of bDMARDs, csDMARDs and JAKi were assessed. The drugs evaluated included abatacept, adalimumab, ABT-122, baricitinib, certolizumab pegol, SBI-087, CNTO6785, decernotinib, etanercept, filgotinib, golimumab, GCs, GS-9876, guselkumab, hydroxychloroquine, infliximab, leflunomide, mavrilimumab, methotrexate, olokizumab, otilimab, peficitinib, rituximab, sarilumab, salazopyrine, secukinumab, sirukumab, tacrolimus, tocilizumab, tofacitinib, tregalizumab, upadacitinib, ustekinumab and vobarilizumab. The efficacy of many bDMARDs and tsDMARDs was shown. Switching to another tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi bDMARDs after TNFi treatment failure is efficacious. Tapering of DMARDs is possible in patients achieving long-standing stringent clinical remission; in patients with residual disease activity (including patients in LDA) the risk of flares is increased during the tapering. Biosimilars are non-inferior to their reference products.

CONCLUSION

This SLR informed the task force regarding the evidence base of various therapeutic regimen for the development of the update of EULAR's RA management recommendation.

Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) concerning the safety of synthetic (s) and biological (b) disease-modifying anti rheumatic dugs (DMARDs) to inform the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

An SLR of observational studies comparing safety outcomes of any DMARD with another intervention for the management of RA. A comparator group was required for inclusion. For treatments still without registry data (eg, sarilumab and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib, upadacitinib), randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and long-term extensions (LTEs) were used. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed according to standard procedures.

RESULTS

Forty-two observational studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, addressing safety outcomes with bDMARDs and sDMARDs. Nine studies showed no difference in the risk of serious infections across bDMARDs and two studies (high RoB) showed an increased risk with bDMARDs compared with conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (adjusted incidence rate ratio 3.1-3.9). The risk of Herpes zoster infection was similar across bDMARDs, but one study showed an increased risk with tofacitinib compared with abatacept (adjusted HR (aHR) 2.0). Five studies showed no increased risk of cancer for bDMARDs compared with csDMARDs. An increased risk of lower intestinal perforation was found for tocilizumab compared with csDMARDs (aHR 4.5) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (aHR 2.6-4.0). Sixty manuscripts reported safety data from RCTs/LTEs. Overall, no unexpected safety outcomes were found, except for the possibly increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with JAK inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Data obtained by this SLR confirm the known safety profile of bDMARDs. The risk of VTE in RA, especially in patients on JAK inhibitors, needs further evaluation.

[Interchangeability and substitution of biosimilars]

The rationality of the interchangeability of biosimilars is based on broad scientific evidence and numerous clinical experiences in real life which show no sign of reduced efficacy or different tolerance compared to the original molecule. The substitution of biosimilars (pharmaceutical act) remains widely contested in many countries, notably in France. However, it would make it possible to make very significant savings in a context of major acceleration in health spending. This reluctance is unfounded in light of the quality of biosimilars authorized in Europe and their rigorous evaluation. It is therefore essential to improve the information of health professionals and patients on these biosimilars.

Real-world use and acceptance of rituximab biosimilars in non-Hodgkin lymphoma in an oncologist network in Germany

Aim: Present real-world data for rituximab (biosimilar and reference)-containing regimens in extrapolated indications in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)/chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Patients & methods: Data collected from office-based oncologic practices in Germany (July 2017–June 2019). Results: Of 1741 patients, 1241 had NHL; 500 had CLL. Of 7595 therapy cycles, 28.3% used reference rituximab; 55.2% used rituximab biosimilars; 2.0% used subcutaneous rituximab; 14.5% used rituximab, not otherwise specified. Rituximab biosimilars were used across all indications; 57.3% of cycles were administered in extrapolated indications. Over 24 months, the proportion of rituximab prescriptions that were for biosimilars increased from 12.0 to 83.0%. Conclusion: Our real-world data in NHL and CLL depicts increasing use of rituximab biosimilars across multiple treatment protocols, including extrapolated indications.

Rituximab biosimilars for lymphoma in Europe

Introduction: The approval of rituximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting CD20, revolutionized the treatment of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas and became an undisputed standard of care. However, as with all biologic medicines, the complex development and manufacturing process for rituximab have meant that the medicine attracts high treatment costs. Approved rituximab biosimilars have been comprehensively demonstrated to match the reference medicine. With the potential to increase access to biologic therapy, they have a key role in helping to improve patient outcomes in lymphoma care. Areas covered: In this review, we discuss the role of rituximab in the treatment of lymphoma. We explore development and regulatory requirements for biosimilar development and the potential impact of these medicines on access and sustainability. Focusing on biosimilars of rituximab, we examine in detail the evidence for biosimilarity for the two rituximab biosimilars that are approved in Europe and provide an overview of rituximab biosimilars currently in development. Expert opinion: We foresee a wider uptake of biosimilar medicines for lymphoma treatment over the next 5 years. The associated cost savings should be invested in broadening patient access to biological therapies, enabling wider use of more expensive treatment strategies and driving innovation in cancer care.

The clinical outcomes of rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 (Truxima®) with CHOP as first-line treatment for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: real-world experience

We evaluated real-world effectiveness and safety of CT-P10 (Truxima^®) compared with originator rituximab in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treatment. Before and after the introduction of CT-P10 to our institute (November 2017), 221 newly-diagnosed DLBCL patients received rituximab with standard cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin and prednisone. Patients received originator rituximab throughout (n = 95), switched from originator rituximab to CT-P10 (n = 36), or received CT-P10 throughout (n = 90). There were no significant differences between groups in overall response rate (91.6% vs 94.4% vs 96.7%, respectively; p = 0.403) or complete response rate (84.2% vs 77.8% vs 86.7%, respectively; p = 0.467). Kaplan-Meier survival curves also showed no significant differences in progression-free survival and overall survival between groups (log-rank p = 0.794 and p = 0.955, respectively). Safety profiles were comparable between treatment groups. These data support the ability of CT-P10 to successfully replace originator rituximab in DLBCL treatment and, given the lowered financial barrier, to improve the overall prognosis for DLBCL patients.

Efficacy and safety of switching from rituximab to biosimilar CT-P10 in rheumatoid arthritis: 72-week data from a randomized Phase 3 trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of CT-P10, a rituximab biosimilar after a single switch, during a multinational, randomized, double-blind Phase 3 trial involving patients with RA.

Methods

Patients received 48 weeks’ treatment with CT-P10 or United States- or European Union-sourced reference rituximab (US-RTX and EU-RTX, respectively). Patients entering the extension period (weeks 48–72) remained on CT-P10 (CT-P10/CT-P10; n = 122) or US-RTX (US-RTX/US-RTX; n = 64), or switched to CT-P10 from US-RTX (US-RTX/CT-P10; n = 62) or EU-RTX (EU-RTX/CT-P10; n = 47) for an additional course. Efficacy endpoints included Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates, and quality of life-related parameters. Pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety were also assessed.

Results

At week 72, similar improvements were observed by disease activity parameters including DAS28 and ACR response rate in the four extension period treatment groups. Quality of life improvements at week 72 vs baseline were similarly shown during the extension period in all groups. Newly developed anti-drug antibodies were detected in two patients following study drug infusion in the extension period. Similar pharmacodynamic and safety profiles were observed across groups.

Conclusion

Long-term use of CT-P10 up to 72 weeks was effective and well tolerated. Furthermore, switching from reference rituximab to CT-P10 in RA was well tolerated and did not result in any clinically meaningful differences in terms of efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety.

Trail registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02149121.

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

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.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilar Rituximab and Originator Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rituximab is a biologic medicine widely used for the treatment of autoimmune diseases and lymphoma. Several biosimilars of rituximab have been developed and marketed with the expiration of the originator rituximab's patent; thus, systematic combination and analysis of the latest data on the efficacy and safety of biosimilars and the demonstration of the interchangeability of biosimilar agents are required.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to collate available data from head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and evaluate the efficacy and safety of biosimilar rituximab compared with the reference drug in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL).

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify head-to-head RCTs that directly compare the efficacy and safety of biosimilar rituximab and its originator. The efficacy outcome for RA was the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates and the outcome for NHL was the response rate. The occurrence of adverse events (AEs) and anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) were evaluated for the safety outcome. Data on the pharmacokinetic profile were also included as a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Eleven head-to-head RCTs with 3163 patients were included (1744 patients with RA and 1419 patients with NHL). Biosimilars of rituximab showed similar efficacy in the clinical response in both RA and NHL. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of the ACR 20% response rate (ACR20) response in patients with RA at weeks 24 and 48 was 0.99 (p = 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.06) and 1.04 (p = 0.73, 95% CI 0.83-1.31), respectively. The pooled RR of the overall response at week 24 in NHL patients was 1.02 (p = 0.31, 95% CI 0.98-1.07). No significant differences were found in the formation of ADAs (RR 0.86, p = 0.20, 95% CI 0.68-1.08) or AEs (RR 1.04, p = 0.30, 95% CI 0.97-1.12).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and conventional meta-analysis demonstrated the overall similarity of the long-term efficacy and safety of biosimilar rituximab to those of originator rituximab in RA and NHL patients by combining direct evidence from head-to-head trials. PROSPERO registration No. CRD42019125138.

The rise of oncology biosimilars: from process to promise

Biosimilars are biologic products that are highly similar to, and have no clinically meaningful differences from, the approved originator molecule. They are poised to play an increasingly central role in cancer treatment, helping to improve access by driving down costs. Regulatory bodies have set out robust mechanisms for the approval of biosimilars, based on comprehensive and rigorous analytical and nonclinical comparisons with the originator. Product attributes (e.g., post-translational modifications) that are important to the function of the molecule must be similar between biosimilar and originator. This should be followed by a robust clinical development program, assessing pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. Equivalence in one indication might allow extrapolation across all the indications of the originator biologic. The recent approval of several trastuzumab biosimilars provides an example of how this process can work in practice for the benefit of patients, clinicians and payers.

Biosimilars in rheumatology

Biotechnologicals are an invaluable resource in the treatment of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) non-responsive or intolerant to conventional therapies. However, they are the main driver for increase in direct costs and represent a significant economic burden to healthcare systems worldwide. Since biosimilars are similar and more affordable versions of previously licenced biotechnologicals, they are expected to contribute to healthcare system sustainability and reduce inequities in treatment access. The landmark approval of CT-P13 as the first infliximab biosimilar paved the way for new infliximab but also etanercept, adalimumab and rituximab biosimilars. In Europe, North America and some countries of Asia, development is strictly regulated and only those presenting a totality-of-evidence dossier with highly similar physicochemical, biological and clinical performances are endorsed by regulatory agencies as biosimilars. The current article addresses the importance of biosimilar medicines in the treatment of IRD, as well as their innovative development and regulatory pathways, clinical evidence of similarity and challenges that may undermine their widespread use and success.

Are Biosimilars the Future of Oncology and Haematology?

Biological drugs are vital but often high-cost components of cancer treatment. Several biosimilar versions of these drugs have been approved in Europe and/or the USA, with many more in development. However, there is some disconnect between the biosimilars that are approved for use and those accessible in clinical practice, with availability impacted by factors including patent litigation and complex healthcare insurance policies, particularly in the USA. Provided the barriers to widespread uptake can be overcome, biosimilars offer potential benefits including cost savings and improved patient access versus the reference product (RP). This article provides an up-to-date and focused perspective on the development and use of biosimilars in the haemato-oncology setting. European and US regulatory pathways governing biosimilar licensing demand that there are no clinically meaningful differences between a biosimilar and its RP. Pathways are rigorously enforced and involve comprehensive non-clinical evaluations and clinical trials in selected indications to establish the equivalence or non-inferiority of efficacy, and the comparability of safety, of the biosimilar versus its RP. 'Indication extrapolation' is only permitted if scientifically justifiable considering mechanism(s) of action, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity and safety in relevant patient populations. Switching treatment from RP to biosimilar is supported by most available data, predominantly from indications other than cancer, and post-marketing pharmacovigilance programmes are warranted. Notably, the potential benefits of biosimilar cancer treatment may extend beyond direct cost savings: for example, the availability of biosimilars of common regimen components may help incentivise the evaluation and/or clinical use of new treatment approaches and novel drugs.

Rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Introduction: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by long-standing inflammation in multiple joints. Rituximab, a monoclonal antibody, which binds to CD20, is effective in suppressing disease activity and preventing joint damage in RA. CT-P10 was developed as a biosimilar of rituximab and approved for use to treat hematologic malignancies and immune diseases including RA. Area covered: This article describes the need for this biosimilar and summarizes the non-clinical studies verifying the physicochemical and biologic similarities and the clinical studies confirming the clinical similarity of CT-P10 to rituximab in patients with RA. Expert opinion: CT-P10 had been evaluated and proven the efficacy and safety in RA in Phase I and III randomized controlled trial with extension studies including a switching regimen. Therefore, CT-P10 is recommended in the treatment of RA.

A comprehensive review of rituximab therapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients

Rituximab (RTX) is an approved treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients that do not respond adequately to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. However, different new concerns, such as efficacy, optimum dose, safety issues, prediction of response to RTX, and pregnancy outcomes have attracted a lot of attention. The PubMed database was systematically reviewed for the last published articles, new findings, and controversial issues regarding RTX therapy in RA using "Rheumatoid arthritis" AND "rituximab" keywords, last updated on June 18, 2019. From 1812 initial recorders, 162 studies met the criteria. Regarding the optimum dose, low-dose RTX therapy (2 × 500 mg) seems as effective as standard dose (2 × 1000 mg), safer, and more cost-effective. The most common reported safety challenges included de novo infections, false negative serologic tests of viral infections, reactivation of chronic infections, interfering with vaccination outcome, and development of de novo psoriasis. Other less reported side effects are infusion reactions, nervous system disorders, and gastrointestinal disorders. Lower exposure to other biologics, presence of some serological markers (e.g., anti-RF, anti-CCP, IL-33, ESR), specific variations in FCGR3A, FCGR2A, TGFβ1, IL6, IRF5, BAFF genes, and also EBV-positivity could be used to predict response to RTX. Although there is no evidence of the teratogenic effect of RTX, it is recommended that women do not expose themselves to RTX at least 6 months before the conception. Only a reversible reduction of B cell-count in the offspring may be the pregnancy-related outcome. Although RTX is an effective therapeutic option for RA, more studies on optimum doses, prevention of RTX-related side effects, prediction of RTX response, and safety during the pregnancy are required.

Safety analysis of proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar in Phase I and Phase III studies

Aim: This analysis compares safety data for Sandoz proposed biosimilar (LA-EP2006) and reference pegfilgrastim from a Phase I pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study in healthy volunteers (HVs) and two Phase III confirmatory studies in patients with breast cancer (BC; total n = 808). Patients & methods: Baseline characteristics were summarized, and event rates of bone pain and headache calculated. Results: HVs in the Phase I pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study were generally younger, with lower mean body mass index, versus BC patients in PROTECT-1/-2. Bone pain was the most frequent adverse event with similar incidences with reference versus proposed biosimilar in all studies. Conclusion: No differences in adverse events were found between Sandoz proposed biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastim, notwithstanding some differences between HVs and BC patients.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilar CT-P10 Versus Innovator Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis: 48-Week Results from a Randomized Phase III Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate long-term clinical outcomes of extended treatment with CT-P10, a rituximab biosimilar, compared with rituximab reference products sourced from the USA and the EU (US-RTX and EU-RTX) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for up to 48 weeks.

METHODS

In this multinational, randomized, double-blind trial, adults with active RA received up to two courses of CT-P10, US-RTX, or EU-RTX alongside methotrexate. Efficacy endpoints included Disease Activity Score 28-joint count (DAS28) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 372 patients randomized to the study drug, 330 (88.7%) completed the second treatment course. Mean change from baseline to week 48 in DAS28-C-reactive protein was comparable in the CT-P10 and combined rituximab (US-RTX and EU-RTX) groups (- 2.7 and - 2.6, respectively). ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 response rates at week 48 indicated no differences between groups (80.6%, 55.4%, and 31.7% vs. 79.8%, 53.9%, and 33.7% in the CT-P10 and combined rituximab groups, respectively). Similar improvements in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and all medical outcomes in the Short Form 36-Item Health Survey, including physical and mental health, were seen in all groups. At week 48, antidrug antibodies were detected in 4.9%, 9.4%, and 8.6% of patients in the CT-P10, US-RTX, and EU-RTX groups, respectively. CT-P10 and rituximab displayed similar pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and safety profiles.

CONCLUSION

CT-P10 was similar to EU-RTX and US-RTX in terms of efficacy, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety up to week 48. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT02149121.