Efficacy, Safety and Immunogenicity of Sun's Ranibizumab Biosimilar in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Phase 3, Double-Blind Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to evaluate comparability in terms of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of Sun's ranibizumab biosimilar with reference ranibizumab in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). METHODS: This prospective, randomised, double-blind, two-group, parallel-arm, multicentre, phase 3 comparative study included patients with nAMD ≥ 50 years, randomised (in a 2:1 ratio) in a double-blind manner to receive 0.5 mg (0.05 mL) intravitreal injection of either Sun's ranibizumab or reference ranibizumab in the study eye every 4 weeks until week 16 (total of four doses). RESULTS: Primary endpoint results demonstrated equivalence in the proportion of patients who lost fewer than 15 letters from baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) to the end of week 16 (99% of patients in Sun's ranibizumab and 100% in reference ranibizumab; p > 0.9999), with the proportional difference (90% confidence interval) at -1% (-2.51, +0.61) lying within a pre-specified equivalence margin. Visual acuity improved by 15 or more letters in 43% of Sun's ranibizumab group and 37% of the reference ranibizumab group (p = 0.4267). The mean increase in BCVA was 15.7 letters in Sun's ranibizumab group and 14.6 letters in the reference ranibizumab group (p < 0.001 within both groups and p = 0.5275 between groups). The mean change in central macular thickness was comparable between groups (p = 0.7946). Anti-ranibizumab antibodies were found in one patient of the reference ranibizumab group, while neutralising antibodies were not found in any patients. Both products were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Sun's ranibizumab biosimilar is found to be therapeutically equivalent to reference ranibizumab in patients with nAMD. There were no additional safety or immunogenicity concerns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CTRI/2020/09/027629, registered on 07 September 2020.

The Efficacy and Safety of High Dose (10 mg) of Desloratadine (Dazit® 10) in the Treatment of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria in India: A Phase III, Multicentric, Open-Label, Single-Arm Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a debilitating affliction that affects diverse quality of life (QoL) parameters such as sleep, self-esteem, and daily activities. Second-generation antihistamines, such as desloratadine, are more effective and safer in managing CSU. Desloratadine is a nonsedating, potent, and highly selective H1 receptor antagonist. At its daily dose of 5 mg, almost half of CSU patients do not show symptomatic improvement. European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)/Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN)/European Dermatology Forum (EDF) (EuroGuiDerm)/Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (APAAACI) guidelines recommend increasing the dosage to up to four times in such nonresponsive patients. However, there is insufficient clinical evidence in Indian settings. METHOD: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of 10 mg desloratadine (OD) in 256 nonresponsive patients with moderate to severe CSU. The primary outcome was the change in Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) from baseline to four weeks. Additionally, change in Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life (CU-Q2oL) scores during the course of treatment was also evaluated. RESULT: The mean UAS7 scores showed a significant reduction from 31.9 ± 4.8 at baseline to 18.2 ± 8.1 at the end of the study (p < 0.0001). The use of a higher dose of desloratadine also decreased the CU-Q2oL scores significantly from 59.8 ± 14.7 at baseline to 35.4 ± 10 at four weeks (p < 0.0001). The incidence of adverse events (AEs) possibly linked to the drug was low (1.6%), and no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Results indicated improvements in the disease severity as well as its positive impact on participants' QoL. This study confirms the efficacy and safety of daily use of a twofold dose of desloratadine in nonresponsive moderate to severe CSU patients.

Rituximab biosimilar for the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a phase 3 randomized study in India.

PURPOSE: Very few studies have demonstrated the rituximab biosimilarity in terms of efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in India. Therefore, we compared the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and immunogenicity of our biosimilar rituximab with the reference rituximab (Ristova, Roche products [India] Pvt. Ltd) in patients with DLBCL in India. METHODS: A phase 3, randomized, assessor-blind, parallel-group, two-arm study was conducted across 28 sites in India. A total of 153 newly diagnosed DLBCL patients were randomized to receive either biosimilar rituximab or reference rituximab. The study drugs were administered at a dose of 375 mg/m2 by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks for six cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at the end of Cycle 6. Secondary end points included: pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety assessment. RESULTS: The ORR at the end of Cycle 6 was 82.14% in the biosimilar rituximab and 85.71% in the reference rituximab group. The risk difference (90% CIs) was - 3.57 (- 14.80, 7.66). It met the non-inferiority margin of - 20%. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters were comparable between the two treatment groups. The incidence rate of immunogenicity was very low and similar in both the treatment groups. The safety profile of both the treatments was comparable with no major difference in terms of nature, frequency and severity of TEAEs. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated the biosimilarity between the biosimilar rituximab and the reference rituximab. Our biosimilar rituximab could add to the cost-effective treatment alternatives for patients with DLBCL in India.

Efficacy and Safety of Pregabalin Prolonged Release-Etoricoxib Combination Compared to Etoricoxib for Chronic Low Back Pain: Phase 3, Randomized Study.

INTRODUCTION: Currently available treatments for chronic lower back pain (CLBP) do not adequately address both nociceptive and neuropathic components of pain. We evaluated efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination (FDC) of low-dose pregabalin prolonged release 75 mg-etoricoxib 60 mg to address both pain components. METHODS: This randomized phase 3 trial conducted at 12 centres across India evaluated efficacy (based on mean change in numeric rating scale [NRS], Roland-Morris disability questionnaire [RDQ], visual analogue scale [VAS], patient global impression of improvement [PGI-I], clinical global impression of improvement [CGI-I] and rescue medication consumption) and safety of FDC in comparison to etoricoxib alone in adult patients with CLBP. Treatment duration was 8 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 371 patients screened, 319 were randomized and considered for efficacy and safety analysis. Both treatment groups had no significant difference in terms of demography and baseline disease characteristics. Significantly better outcomes with FDC compared to etoricoxib were observed at week 4 onwards. At week 8, both groups showed significant reduction in mean NRS score from baseline (- 4.00 ± 1.65 in FDC; - 2.92 ± 1.59 in etoricoxib) with mean NRS score being significantly less in the FDC group compared to etoricoxib group (3.26 ± 1.56 vs 4.31 ± 1.56; p < 0.0001). The FDC was more effective than etoricoxib in terms of significantly greater reduction in RDQ score (- 9.28 ± 4.48 vs - 6.78 ± 4.34; p < 0.0001) and VAS score (- 37.66 ± 18.7 vs - 28.50 ± 16.31; p < 0.0001) at week 8. The FDC was also better in terms of significantly more patients reporting their condition as 'very much better' (36.9% vs 5.0%; p < 0.0001) and clinicians reporting patient's condition as 'very much improved' (36.3% vs 5.7%; p < 0.0001). Overall, study medications were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: FDC of pregabalin and etoricoxib provided significant benefits in reducing pain and improving functional status compared with etoricoxib alone in patients with CLBP. Pregabalin prolonged release-etoricoxib FDC could be one of the treatment options for early and sustained pain relief and improvement in quality-of-life in treating CLBP as it addresses both neuropathic and nociceptive components of pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CTRI/2018/10/015886.

Low back pain is one of the most common causes of loss of productivity worldwide. About 60% of Indians suffer from low back pain at some point. Low back pain that persists for more than 3 months is classified as chronic low back pain which mostly includes both nociceptive and neuropathic components. Monotherapies, if prescribed, are not completely effective, as they generally only target either nociceptive or neuropathic components of pain. Multiple drugs are usually needed at multiple times a day, at higher doses for optimal effectiveness, and in most cases they have significant side effects if taken over prolonged periods and also add to the pill burden. To minimize treatment-associated adverse effects, and to increase treatment compliance, while addressing both the components of pain, we developed a fixed-dose combination of low-dose pregabalin prolonged release and etoricoxib. A phase 3 trial was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of the fixed-dose combination in comparison with etoricoxib alone in treating chronic low back pain. The combination demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes­pain, functionality and quality of life­as early as 4 weeks after starting the medication. No severe or serious adverse effects were reported. Thus, the combination of low-dose pregabalin prolonged release and etoricoxib could provide an option for optimal management of chronic low back pain. This would provide multiple benefits, such as addressing both nociceptive and neuropathic components of chronic low back pain, reducing drug-related adverse effects because of low dose, reducing pill burden and thereby increasing drug compliance.

Fixed-dose Combination of Metoprolol, Telmisartan, and Chlorthalidone for Essential Hypertension in Adults with Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Phase III Study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination (FDC) of metoprolol, telmisartan, and chlorthalidone in patients with essential hypertension and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) who showed inadequate response to dual therapy. METHODS: In this phase III, open-label, multicenter study, 254 adults with stable CAD having uncontrolled hypertension despite being treated with FDC of metoprolol (25/50 mg) and telmisartan (40 mg) were included. Patients received either of the following FDC for 24 weeks: metoprolol (25 mg), telmisartan (40 mg), and chlorthalidone (12.5 mg) (FDC1; n = 139) or metoprolol (50 mg), telmisartan (40 mg), and chlorthalidone (12.5 mg) (FDC2; n = 115) tablets once daily. The FDCs were developed using the novel Wrap Matrix™ platform technology. Primary endpoint assessed the mean change in seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) and seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) from baseline to 24 weeks. Secondary efficacy endpoints included proportion of patients achieving < 90 mmHg SeDBP (SeDBP responder) and < 140 mmHg SeSBP (SeSBP responder) at weeks 12, 16, 20, and 24. Safety was assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: A total of 243 (95.70%) patients completed study. The mean change in BP from baseline (FDC1, 155/96 mmHg; FDC2, 165/98 mmHg) to week 24 (FDC1, 128/82 mmHg; FDC2, 131/83 mmHg) was statistically significant (both groups p < 0.0001). Within FDC1 and FDC2, the mean change from baseline to week 24 in SeDBP (82.60 mmHg and 83.09 mmHg) and SeSBP (128.07 mmHg and 131.29 mmHg) was statistically significant (both groups p < 0.0001). At week 24, in FDC1, 80.15% and 84.73% were SeDBP and SeSBP responders, respectively; in FDC2, 79.46% and 74.11% were SeDBP and SeSBP responders, respectively. No serious adverse events or deaths were reported. CONCLUSION: Triple FDCs of metoprolol, telmisartan, and chlorthalidone were considered effective and well tolerated in patients with hypertension who respond inadequately to dual therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: CTRI/2016/11/007491.

The increasing prevalence of hypertension in India requires immediate attention. To adequately manage blood pressure and ensure compliance to medications, innovative treatment options involving combination therapy with three or more drugs to treat hypertension need to be explored. Fixed-dose combination (FDC) of three antihypertension drugs, viz., metoprolol, telmisartan, and chlorthalidone, were tested in Indian patients who could not respond adequately to dual treatment. The rationale behind using a combination of three drug types was to take advantage of the complementary actions of each drug class for an enhanced treatment effect. The two variants of FDCs were tested in 254 adults with the most common form of heart disease, i.e., stable coronary artery disease. Changes in seated diastolic and systolic blood pressure (SeDBP and SeSBP) were measured to assess the effectiveness of the FDC. The mean changes in SeDBP and SeSBP were statistically significant by the end of the study, i.e., it determined that results are not explainable by chance alone. A greater proportion of patients (range 74­84%) achieved their target BPs with the FDC used in the study. The FDC variants were well tolerated without any reports of serious adverse events or deaths. Overall, this triple combination therapy option was effective and considered safe to be administered to hypertensive Indian adults with stable coronary artery disease who did not respond adequately to dual antihypertension therapy.

Three-way, three-period, crossover bioequivalence study of single oral dose of three brands of 300 mg phenytoin sodium tablets marketed in India, on healthy Indian human volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the bioavailability of two brands of phenytoin sodium tablets available in the Indian market using Eptoin™ as the reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, assessor-blind, three-way crossover design study was carried out over a period of 6 months after approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Twenty-two healthy male participants received a single oral 300 mg oral tablet of either of the formulations with a 2-week washout. Blood samples were collected predose and at regular intervals postdose. Plasma phenytoin levels were estimated by high-performance liquid chromatography. Calculation of Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ was done by the linear trapezoidal rule and 90-110% margin (90% confidence interval (CI)) was used to assess bioequivalence. RESULTS: Twenty volunteers completed the study. It was seen that the log-transformed values of Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ of the test formulations were not within the specified limits. CONCLUSION: Bioinequivalence of available phenytoin brands indicates that switching brands could lead to variations in blood concentrations and thus impact safety and efficacy. If a brand switch is done for any reason, stringent drug-level monitoring is advised.

Evaluation of factors that motivate participants to consent for non-therapeutic trials in India.

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE: Several factors that motivate individuals to participate in non-therapeutic studies have been identified. This study was conducted as limited data is available regarding these motivations from developing countries. METHODS: This was a single-centre study conducted over 4 months in which a questionnaire was administered to 102 healthy participants and 16 patient participants who had earlier taken part in non-therapeutic studies at our centre. Descriptive statistics and univariate analysis were used to analyse data. RESULTS: The most common motivation among healthy participants was financial reward (65%) followed by altruism, free medical check up, curiosity and personal health benefit. Patient participants, however, most commonly said they consented to take part in the trial as they were 'invited to participate by the treating physician' (88%). In comparison with the patient participants, healthy participants were more likely to be satisfied with the financial reward (p=0.02), and recommend participation in studies to friends or relatives (p=0.0013). CONCLUSIONS: The most common motivating factor to participate in non-therapeutic studies appears to be different for healthy participants (financial reward) and patient participants (invitation to participate by the physician). Participants also felt that adequate information and care was given to them during the trial, and that they would participate in future clinical studies, and would also recommend such studies to their friends.

Intensive monitoring of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients of two medical units at a tertiary care teaching hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To detect incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in hospitalized patients and to assess their causality, seriousness, preventability, and the possible economic impact. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective study carried out in two medical units at a tertiary care, teaching hospital, for about 18 months. All the admitted patients who developed an ADR after admission (group A) or who were admitted primarily for the treatment of an ADR (group B) were included. Descriptive statistics with 95% CI, χ(2), χ(2) for the trend and kappa test were used. RESULTS: Out of 6601 patients, 140 patients developed 154 ADRs with an incidence of 2.12%. Causality of the majority of the ADRs in group A was 'possible' while those in group B was 'probable'. Among 109 ADRs (34 serious) in group A, 38 were preventable. On the other hand, out of 45 serious ADRs in group B, 19 were preventable. The total cost of 154 ADRs in 140 patients was Rs. 1,49,803 with an average of Rs. 1070 per patient. The preventable cost for 57/154 ADR was Rs. 96,310. CONCLUSION: Around 2% of the hospital patients develop ADRs. A large number of these ADRs were preventable. A substantial saving can be made if adequate caution is exerted.