Evaluation of Truncated AUC as an Alternative Measure to Assess Pharmacokinetic Comparability in Bridging Biologic-Device Using Prefilled Syringes and Autoinjectors

Pharmacokinetic (PK) comparisons between therapeutic biologics have largely been based on the total area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and the maximum concentration (Cmax ). For biologics with a long half-life, a PK comparability study may be long in duration and costly to conduct. The goal of this study was to evaluate whether a truncated AUC (tAUC) can be used to assess PK comparability when bridging prefilled syringe (PFS) and autoinjector (AI) treatment options for biologics with a long half-life. Fifteen biologics license applications (BLAs) were included to determine the concordance and geometric percent coefficient of variation (%CV) between tAUCs evaluated on days 7, 14, 21, and 28 and AUC evaluated to infinity (AUC0-inf ). Concordance is established if the tAUCs are comparable with AUC0-inf . Trial simulation was performed to examine the effect of the absorption rate constant (ka ) and sample size on the concordance of tAUCs. The tAUCs evaluated on day 14, 21, and 28 had 100% concordance with AUC0-inf for all 15 BLAs. The concordance of tAUC evaluated at day 7 was 87.5%. Based on the trial simulation, tAUC evaluated to day 28 post-dose can achieve high concordance (≥85%) for biologics exhibiting linear or nonlinear elimination with a ka of ≥0.1/day and with a sample size of 70 subjects per arm. tAUC appears to be a promising alternative PK measure, relative to AUC0-inf , for PK comparability assessments.

GP2017-HCF, a high concentration formulation, demonstrates similar pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity and safety to GP2017, an approved adalimumab biosimilar

BACKGROUND

GP2017 is an adalimumab biosimilar. The objective of this study is to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) of GP2017 in its approved formulation and GP2017-high concentration formulation (HCF) in a randomized, double-blind, two-arm PK bridging study.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Healthy male subjects received a single 40 mg subcutaneous injection of either GP2017-HCF (n = 162) or GP2017 (n = 168). PK, safety, and immunogenicity were assessed over 72 days post-injection.

RESULTS

The 90% confidence intervals [CIs] of geometric mean ratios between GP2017-HCF and GP2017 for Cmax, AUC0-inf, AUC0-360 and AUC0-last were within the pre-defined margin of 0.80 to 1.25; thus, PK comparability between GP2017-HCF and GP2017 was demonstrated. Subgroup analysis of PK comparability by anti-drug antibody (ADA) subpopulation showed that the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios between GP2017-HCF and GP2017 for Cmax, AUC0-inf, AUC0-360 and AUC0-last were within the margin of 0.80 to 1.25 in ADA-positive and ADA-negative subjects. The proportions of subjects with positive ADA responses and with neutralizing antibodies were comparable between the GP2017-HCF and GP2017 groups. GP2017-HCF and GP2017 were well tolerated, and there were no reports of deaths or other serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Results show PK comparability between GP2017-HCF and GP2017 and comparable safety and tolerability.

Systematic Review of Device Parameters and Design of Studies Bridging Biologic-Device Combination Products Using Prefilled Syringes and Autoinjectors

Biologic-device combination products using prefilled syringes (PFSs) and autoinjectors (AIs) are popular for biological products administered subcutaneously. Pharmacokinetic (PK) comparability studies commonly provide the scientific data to support introduction of AI presentations via bridging with PFS. A survey of biological products approved by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research identified 17 biologics license applications (BLAs) with both PFS and AI presentations for subcutaneous (SC) administration, including 16 approved on February 1, 2018, and one with AI presentation under review. A systematic review on the device parameters and the PK comparability studies bridging the two presentations was conducted. Subsequently, whether device parameters or the PK study design may have influenced the PK comparability study results was evaluated. The reported device parameters for AI and PFS are generally consistent across BLAs, whereas the approach to assess PK comparability varied, including the study design. Most PK comparability studies met bioequivalence (BE) criteria. Upon inspection of the studies that did not meet BE criteria, injection depth of AI and the injection site for either AI or PFS were identified as potential influencing factors to the outcome of PK comparability study. This study represents an initial attempt to identify the potential influencing factors on device bridging, including the characteristics of the device and the clinical pharmacology study. These findings may inform the combination product development strategy, specifically design considerations for device and PK comparability studies.