A recent international, randomized, double-blind study comparing the proposed biosimilar GP2013with both the reference rituximab approved in the European Union and in the United States found that GP2013 demonstrated 3-way pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence with both products in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
A recent international, randomized, double-blind study comparing the proposed biosimilar GP2013 (Sandoz’s Rixathon) with both the reference rituximab (RTX) approved in the European Union (EU) (Roche’s MabThera) and in the United States (Genetech’s Rituxan) found that GP2013 demonstrated 3-way pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) equivalence with both products in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles were similar between GP2013 and the innovator products, according to the study sponsored by Sandoz and published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
The study involved 312 patients—randomized to receive GP2013, RTX-EU, or RTX-US reference product, along with methotrexate and folic acid—who had active RA despite prior tumor necrosis factor-alpha—inhibitor therapy. The study’s primary PK endpoint was the area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) from study drug infusion to infinity (AUC0-inf). Additional PK and PD parameters, along with efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety outcomes, were also assessed up to week 24 of the study. To claim bioequivalence, the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the geometric mean AUCs had to fall within the predefined range of 80% to 125%.
The main efficacy objective was to show non-inferiority of GP2013 to the reference rituximab products in terms of change from baseline in 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) using C-reactive protein (CRP) at week 24. Other secondary efficacy objectives included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). The main PD parameter was peripheral CD19-positive B-cell count relative to baseline, up to the second infusion (AUEC0-14d). The researchers also assessed anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) to evaluate immunogenicity.
The rate of all adverse events (AEs), AEs related to the study medication, AEs leading to study drug discontinuation, serious AEs, and infusion-related reactions were similar between the treatment arms. The rate of ADAs was 16.5% in the GP2013 group versus 15.1% in the reference group up to the last patient visit—a majority of ADAs were transient. Five patients in the GP2013 arm and 1 patient in the RTX arm had neutralizing ADAs.
The researchers conclude that their study is part of the stepwise demonstration of similarity of the proposed biosimilar GP2013, and reference rituximab. “The primary objective of the study was met by demonstrating 3-way PK bioequivalence of GP2013, RTX-EU and RTX-US,” the authors said, and that their data are in line with previously published data on rituximab. The study also met its main efficacy objective by demonstrating non-inferiority of GP2013 versus RTX in terms of DAS28 CRP change from baseline at week 24. “Overall, the treatment effect was numerically greater in the current study as compared with the historic data, while efficacy was similar among the treatment arms in the current study,” they concluded. There were no relevant differences in the rate or severity of AEs among treatment arms. The researchers said that comparison of the rate of ADAs between studies is challenging because of differences of assay methodology, but the data observed were generally consistent with data in the literature, and the rate of ADAs in this study was similar between GP2013 and the reference rituximab.
In summary, the researchers concluded that their study met its primary objective by demonstrating 3-way bioequivalence of GP2013, RTX-EU, and RTX-US. The study also demonstrated 3-way PD equivalence, and GP2013 and reference rituximab were shown to be similar in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity.
Data Show Promise for Adalimumab Biosimilars to Deliver on Safety, Cost Savings
May 16th 2024Two posters from the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy’s annual meeting provided hope that despite low uptake so far, adalimumab biosimilars can deliver on the promise of comparable safety and efficacy with the originator in multiple disease states, as well as cost savings.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for April 2024—Podcast Edition
May 5th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® glances back at all the major biosimilar policy updates from April, including 2 FDA approvals, 1 European approval, and several insights into possible policy changes from the Festival of Biologics USA conference.
Challenges and Guidance in Biosimilar Assessment: An ISPOR Report on HTA Agency Approaches
May 14th 2024The ISPOR report highlights the urgent need for clear guidance on when and how to conduct health technology assessments (HTAs) for biosimilars, emphasizing the challenges faced by HTA agencies and the evolving role of HTAs in evaluating biosimilar value.
Patients With IBD Experience Nocebo Effect Post Mandatory Switch to Biosimilar
May 11th 2024In Canada, a study on patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) switching to infliximab or adalimumab biosimilars found no change in clinical remission or antidrug antibodies after 24 weeks, but 13% experienced the nocebo effect, leading to one-fifth discontinuing therapy.
Partnering for Biosimilar Security: India's Role in US Health Care Savings, Supply Chain Stability
May 9th 2024As Indian pharmaceutical companies supplied 4 of every 10 prescriptions in the US in 2022, generating $1.3 trillion in health care savings, a new IQVIA report highlights concerns about supply chain risks and advocates for partnerships to bolster biosimilar security and overall supply chain resilience.