Population Pharmacokinetics of MYL-1402O, a Proposed Biosimilar to Bevacizumab and Reference Product (Avastin®) in Patients with Non-squamous Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: MYL-1402O is a bevacizumab (Avastin®) biosimilar. Pharmacokinetic and safety similarity of MYL-1402O and reference Avastin® authorized in the European Union (EU-Avastin®) and the US (US-Avastin®) was demonstrated in healthy subjects (phase I, NCT02469987). The key objectives of this study were to establish a population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) model on pooled data from the phase I and phase III clinical studies to assess pharmacokinetic linearity of MYL-1402O and Avastin® across dose ranges, to assess the pharmacokinetic similarity of MYL-1402O and Avastin® in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC), and to explore potential covariates to account for systematic sources of variability in bevacizumab exposure. METHODS: Efficacy and safety of MYL-1402O compared with EU-Avastin® was investigated in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study in patients with stage IV nsNSCLC (phase III, NCT04633564). PopPK models were developed using a nonlinear mixed effects approach (NONMEM® 7.3.0). RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics of Avastin® and MYL-1402O were adequately described with a two-compartment linear model. Fourteen covariates were found to be statistically significant predictors of bevacizumab pharmacokinectics. The impact of each covariate on area under the concentration-time curve, half-life, and maximum plasma concentration was modest, and ranges were similar between the treatment groups, MYL-1402O and EU-Avastin®, in patients with nsNSCLC. The pharmacokinectics of bevacizumab appeared to be linear. CONCLUSIONS: PopPK analysis revealed no significant differences between pharmacokinetics of MYL-1402O and Avastin® in patients with nsNSCLC. The developed PopPK model was considered robust, as it adequately described bevacizumab pharmacokinetics in healthy participants and nsNSCLC patients.

Immunogenicity, Efficacy, and Safety of Biosimilar Insulin Aspart (MYL-1601D) Compared with Originator Insulin Aspart (Novolog®) in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes After 24 Weeks: A Randomized Open-Label Study.

BACKGROUND: MYL-1601D is a proposed biosimilar of originator insulin aspart, Novolog®/NovoRapid® (Ref-InsAsp-US/Ref-InsAsp-EU). OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of MYL-1601D with Ref-InsAsp-US in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D). METHODS: This was a 24-week, open-label, randomized, phase III study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to mealtime MYL-1601D or Ref-InsAsp-US in combination with insulin glargine (Lantus SoloSTAR®) once daily. The treatment-emergent antibody response (TEAR) rate (defined as patients who were anti-insulin antibody [AIA] negative at baseline and became positive at any timepoint post-baseline or patients who were AIA positive at baseline and demonstrated a 4-fold increase in titer values at any timepoint post-baseline) was the primary endpoint. The study also compared the change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), prandial, basal, and total daily insulin, 7-point self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) profiles, immunogenicity, and adverse events (AEs) including hypoglycemia. RESULTS: In total, 478 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis (MYL-1601D: 238; Ref-InsAsp-US: 240) set. The 90% confidence interval (CI) for the primary endpoint was within the pre-defined equivalence margin of ±11.7% and the treatment differences (SE) in TEAR responders between the treatment groups was - 2.86 (4.16) with 90% CI - 9.71 to 3.99. The mean (SD) changes from baseline for HbA1c, FPG, and insulin dosages were similar in both groups at week 24. The safety profiles including hypoglycemia, immune-related events, AEs, and other reported variables were similar between the treatment groups at week 24. CONCLUSIONS: MYL-1601D demonstrated similar immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety profiles to Ref-InsAsp-US in patients with T1D over 24 weeks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT03760068.

Phase III double-blind study comparing the efficacy and safety of proposed biosimilar MYL-1402O and reference bevacizumab in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of proposed biosimilar MYL-1402O with reference bevacizumab (BEV), as first-line treatment for patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive MYL-1402O or bevacizumab with carboplatin-paclitaxel up to 18 weeks (6 cycles), followed by up to 24 weeks (8 cycles) of bevacizumab monotherapy. The primary objective was comparison of overall response rate (ORR), based on independently reviewed best tumor responses as assessed during the first 18 weeks. ORR was analyzed per US Food and Drug Administration (ratio of ORR) and European Medicines Agency (difference in ORRs) requirements for equivalence evaluation. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, disease control rate, duration of response, overall survival, safety, and immunogenicity over a period of 42 weeks, and pharmacokinetics (up to 18 weeks). RESULTS: A total of 671 patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. The ratio of ORR was 0.96 [confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.12] and the difference in ORR was -1.6 (CI -9.0, 5.9) between treatment arms; CIs were within the predefined equivalence margins. Overall, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events was comparable. Treatment-emergent anti-drug antibody (ADA) positivity was transient, with no notable differences between treatment arms (6.5% versus 4.8% ADA positivity rate in MYL-1402O versus BEV, respectively). The incidence of neutralizing antibody post-baseline was lower in the MYL-1402O arm (0.6%) compared to the bevacizumab arm (2.5%). CONCLUSIONS: MYL-1402O is therapeutically equivalent to bevacizumab, based on the ORR analyses, with comparable secondary endpoints. TRIAL REGISTRY INFORMATION: EU Clinical Trials Register, Registration # EudraCT no. 2015-005141-32https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2015-005141-32. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Previous studies established bioequivalence of the proposed bevacizumab biosimilar MYL-1402O to reference bevacizumab. In this randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, MYL-1402O (n = 337) demonstrated comparable efficacy to bevacizumab (n = 334) in treating advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer per Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency requirements for equivalence; the ratio of objective response rate (ORR) was 0.96 [90% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.12] and the difference in ORR (MYL-1402O:bevacizumab) was -1.6 (95% CI -9.0, 5.9). Median progression-free survival at 42 weeks was comparable: 7.6 (7.0, 9.5) with MYL-1402O versus 9.0 (7.2, 9.7) months (p = 0.0906) with bevacizumab, by independent review. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to death (2.4% vs 1.5%), serious adverse events (17.6% vs 16.7%), and antidrug antibodies (6.5% vs 4.8%), were comparable in the MYL-1402O vs bevacizumab arms, respectively. The incidence of neutralizing antibody post-baseline was lower with MYL-1402O (0.6%) than with bevacizumab (2.5%). These findings confirm therapeutic equivalence of MYL-1402O to bevacizumab, providing opportunities for improving access to bevacizumab.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalence of biosimilar MYL-1601D with US and European insulin aspart in healthy volunteers: A randomized, double-blind, crossover, euglycaemic glucose clamp study.

AIM: To evaluate the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) bioequivalence (BE) of MYL-1601D biosimilar with originator, NovoLog (Ref-InsAsp-US), and NovoRapid (Ref-InsAsp-EU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, crossover study that enrolled 71 healthy subjects to receive a single subcutaneous dose (0.2 U/kg) of each formulation under automated euglycaemic clamp conditions (ClampArt, level 81 mg/dL, duration 12 hours postdose). Primary PK endpoints were area under the plasma insulin aspart concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12h ) and maximum plasma insulin aspart concentration (Cmax ). Primary PD endpoints were area under the glucose infusion rate (GIR) time curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUCGIR0-12h ) and maximum GIR (GIRmax ). Insulin aspart in plasma was quantified using immunoaffinity purification followed by ultraperformance liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometric detection. The pairwise comparisons of geometric least square mean (LS-mean) ratio for a 90% confidence interval (CI) of primary PK, and 90% CIs (MYL-1601D vs. Ref-InsAsp-US) and 95% CIs (MYL-1601D vs. Ref-InsAsp-EU) of primary PD variables, were to be within 80% to 125% to show BE. RESULTS: MYL-1601D showed PK BE to both Ref-InsAsp-US (AUC0-12h geometric LS-mean ratio 102.17, 90% CI [100.26; 104.11]; Cmax 106.13 [100.71; 111.85]) and Ref-InsAsp-EU (AUC0-12h 101.84 [100.04; 103.67]; Cmax 105.74 [101.09; 110.60]). Likewise, MYL-1601D showed PD BE to Ref-InsAsp-US (AUCGIR_0-last 99.93; 90% CI [95.74; 104.30]; GIR_max 100.12 [94.46; 106.12]) and Ref-InsAsp-EU (AUCGIR_0-last 96.42; 95% CI [91.17; 101.98]; GIR_max 95.10 [89.37; 101.19]). All three insulin aspart products were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: MYL-1601D showed BE to Ref-InsAsp-US and Ref-InsAsp-EU with a comparable safety profile.

The Path Towards a Tailored Clinical Biosimilar Development.

Since the first approval of a biosimilar medicinal product in 2006, scientific understanding of the features and development of biosimilar medicines has accumulated. This review scrutinizes public information on development programs and the contribution of the clinical studies for biosimilar approval in the European Union (EU) and/or the United States (US) until November 2019. The retrospective evaluation of the programs that eventually obtained marketing authorization and/or licensure revealed that in 95% (36 out of 38) of all programs, the comparative clinical efficacy studies confirmed similarity. In the remaining 5% (2 out of 38), despite meeting efficacy outcomes, the biosimilar candidates exhibited clinical differences in immunogenicity that required changes to the manufacturing process and additional clinical studies to enable biosimilar approval. Both instances of clinical differences in immunogenicity occurred prior to 2010, and the recurrence of these cases is unlikely today due to state-of-the-art assays and improved control of process-related impurities. Biosimilar candidates that were neither approved in the EU nor in the US were not approved due to reasons other than clinical confirmation of efficacy. This review of the development history of biosimilars allows the proposal of a more efficient and expedited biosimilar development without the routine need for comparative clinical efficacy and/or pharmacodynamic studies and without any compromise in quality, safety, or efficacy. This proposal is scientifically valid, consistent with regulation of all biologics, and maintains robust regulatory standards in the assessment of biosimilar candidates. Note: The findings and conclusion of this paper are limited to biosimilar products developed against the regulatory standards in the EU and the US.

Randomized phase 3 efficacy and safety trial of proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar MYL-1401H in the prophylactic treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

Pegfilgrastim is indicated for reducing the duration of neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Here, safety and efficacy of MYL-1401H, a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar, were investigated as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group equivalence trial of MYL-1401H vs European Union-sourced reference pegfilgrastim. Patients with newly diagnosed stage II/III breast cancer eligible to receive (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide every 3 weeks for 6 cycles were enrolled and randomized 2:1 to 6 mg of MYL-1401H or reference pegfilgrastim 24 h (+ 2-h window after the first 24 h) after the end of chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 (i.e., days with absolute neutrophil count (ANC) < 0.5 × 109/L). Mean (standard deviation (SD)) duration of severe neutropenia in MYL-1401H and reference pegfilgrastim groups was 1.2 days (0.93) and 1.2 days (1.10), respectively. The 95% CI for least squares mean difference (- 0.285, 0.298) was within the predefined equivalence range of ± 1 day. Secondary endpoints, including grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (frequency, 91% and 82% for MYL-1401H and reference pegfilgrastim, respectively), time to ANC nadir (mean (SD), 6.2 (0.98) and 6.3 (1.57) days), and duration of post-nadir recovery (mean (SD), 1.9 (0.85) and 1.7 (0.91) days) were comparable. Overall safety profiles of the study drugs were comparable. MYL-1401H demonstrated equivalent efficacy and similar safety to reference pegfilgrastim and may be an equivalent option for reducing incidence of neutropenia. ( ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02467868; EudraCT, 2014-002324-27).

A pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics equivalence trial of the proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar, MYL-1401H, versus reference pegfilgrastim.

PURPOSE: Pegfilgrastim is a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor indicated for prevention of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy by promoting neutrophil recovery. METHODS: This phase 1, randomized, double-blind, three-way crossover trial in healthy volunteers evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), safety, and tolerability of the proposed biosimilar, comparing MYL-1401H, reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®, Amgen Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA) sourced from the European Union, and reference pegfilgrastim sourced from the USA. Primary PK end points were peak plasma concentration of pegfilgrastim (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from the time of dosing to infinity (AUC0-inf). Primary PD end points were area under the curve above baseline for absolute neutrophil counts (ANC AUC0-t) and maximum change from baseline for ANC (ANC Cmax). Adverse events were also recorded. RESULTS: The primary PK and PD end points were similar across all groups. For the PK parameters, the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means ranged between 0.91 and 1.18, which were within the predefined bioequivalence interval of 0.8000 to 1.2500 for all comparisons. For the PD parameters, the 95% CIs of the ratios of geometric means ranged between 0.94 and 1.06 for all comparisons, which were within the predefined PD equivalence interval of 0.8500 to 1.1765. The safety profiles were similar, with the most common adverse events being back pain and headache. CONCLUSIONS: MYL-1401H demonstrated similar PK, PD, and safety to reference pegfilgrastim in healthy volunteers and may be an equivalent option for the prevention of febrile neutropenia.

Henoch-Schonlein Purpura with thrombocythaemia: an abnormality in Smad4 expression?

We discuss a patient with Henoch-Schonlein Purpura (HSP) and a thrombocythaemia which was diagnosed as a coincidental Essential Thrombocythaemia. We suggest that deficiencies in Smad4 expression may allow for escape thrombocythaemia under the influence of the high levels of TGF-beta found in HSP. With normal Smad4 expression TGF-beta provides inhibition of thrombocyte proliferation. While this needs further elucidation, it could lead to a new approach to classification and management of HSP.