Key design considerations on comparative clinical efficacy studies for biosimilars: adalimumab as an example.

The global development of a biosimilar product is a methodologically complex affair, lined with potential design pitfalls and operational missteps to be avoided. Without careful attention to experimental design and meticulous execution, a development programme may fail to demonstrate equivalence, as would be anticipated for a biosimilar product, and not receive regulatory approval based on current guidance. In order to demonstrate similarity of a biosimilar product versus the originator (ie, the branded product), based on regulatory guidance, a stepwise approach is usually taken, starting with a comprehensive structural and functional characterisation of the new biological moiety. Given the sequential nature of the review process, the extent and nature of the non-clinical in vivo studies and the clinical studies to be performed depend on the level of evidence obtained in these previous step(s). A clinical efficacy trial is often required to further demonstrate biosimilarity of the two products (biosimilar vs branded) in terms of comparative safety and effectiveness. Owing to the focus on demonstrating biosimilarity and not safety and efficacy de novo, designing an adequate phase III (potentially pivotal) clinical efficacy study of a biosimilar may present some unique challenges. Using adalimumab as an example, we highlight design elements that may deserve special attention.

Evaluation of the single-dose pharmacokinetics of bilastine in subjects with various degrees of renal insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: Bilastine is a novel second-generation H1 antihistamine, which has not shown sedative or cardiotoxic effects in clinical trials and in post-marketing experience so far, developed for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria. It has recently been granted marketing authorization for these therapeutic indications in adults and adolescents at a once-daily oral dose of 20 mg in several European countries. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to determine the pharmacokinetics of bilastine at a single oral dose of 20 mg in renally impaired subjects. The need for a dose adjustment in patients with renal insufficiency was assessed by comparing the exposure to bilastine in these subjects with the estimated exposure of a dose corresponding to the safety margin. METHODS: The study was an open-label, single-dose, parallel-group study of the pharmacokinetics and safety of a single dose of bilastine. The study was conducted as an in-patient setting at a clinical pharmacology facility. A total of 24 male or female subjects aged 18-80 years were to be enrolled in four groups of six subjects each. The groups were as follows: (1) healthy [glomerular filtration rate (GFR) >80 mL/min/1.73 m(2)]; (2) mild renal insufficiency (GFR 50-80 mL/min/1.73 m(2)); (3) moderate renal insufficiency (GFR 30-50 mL/min/1.73 m(2)); and (4) severe renal insufficiency (GFR ≤30 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). A single 20 mg bilastine tablet was administered in a fasted state. Blood and urine samples were collected from pre-dose up to 72 h post-dose for bilastine pharmacokinetic analysis. Pharmacokinetic results were summarized using appropriate descriptive statistics. RESULTS: There was a clear trend of increasing area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) through the groups 1-4. The mean AUC from time zero to infinity (AUC(∞)) ranged from 737.4 to 1708.5 ng·h/mL in healthy subjects and severely impaired subjects, respectively. No significant differences among groups in median time to reach Cmax (tmax) or in the mean terminal disposition rate constants for bilastine were found. Renal and plasma clearance paralleled GFR. In all groups of renally impaired subjects the corresponding 90 % confidence interval of both AUC(∞) and AUC from time zero to time of last measurable plasma concentration (AUC(last)) were not within the 0.8-1.25 interval, indicating that bioequivalence between groups could not be demonstrated. The majority of bilastine was excreted within the first 12 h, and elimination was essentially complete by 72 h. CONCLUSION: An oral dose of bilastine (20 mg) was well-tolerated in renal insufficiency, despite the increase in exposure. The oral plasma clearance to renal clearance ratio [(CL(P)/F)/CL(R)] was approximately equal in the different groups, suggesting that renal excretion was the main elimination route for bilastine, and no alternative elimination routes were used even in severe renal insufficiency. Although exposure to bilastine was higher in renally impaired subjects, it remained well within the safety margins, thus allowing the conclusion that a 20-mg daily dose can be safely administered to subjects with different degrees of renal insufficiency without the need for dose adjustments.

Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI of the breast: analysis of dose response and comparison with gadopentetate dimeglumine.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and dose response relationship of three doses of gadobenate dimeglumine for MRI of the breast and to compare the results with those obtained after a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg of body weight of gadopentetate dimeglumine. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Gadobenate dimeglumine at 0.05, 0.1, or 0.2 mmol/kg of body weight or gadopentetate dimeglumine at 0.1 mmol/kg of body weight was administered by IV bolus injection to 189 patients with known or suspected breast cancer. Coronal three-dimensional T1-weighted gradient-echo images were acquired before and at 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8 min after the administration of the dose. Images were evaluated for lesion presence, location, size, morphology, enhancement pattern, conspicuity, and type. Lesion signal intensity-time curves were acquired, and lesion matching with on-site final diagnosis was performed. A determination of global lesion detection from unenhanced to contrast-enhanced and combined images was performed, and evaluations were made of the diagnostic accuracy for lesion detection and characterization. A full safety evaluation was conducted. RESULTS: Significant dose-related increases in global lesion detection were noted for patients who received gadobenate dimeglumine (p < 0.04, all evaluations). The sensitivity for detection was comparable for 0.1 and 0.2 mmol/kg of gadobenate dimeglumine, and specificity was highest with the 0.1 mmol/kg dose. Higher detection scores and higher sensitivity values for lesion characterization were found for 0.1 mmol/kg of gadobenate dimeglumine compared with 0.1 mmol/kg of gadopentetate dimeglumine, although more variable specificity values were obtained. No differences in safety were observed, and no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Gadobenate dimeglumine is a capable diagnostic agent for MRI of the breast. Although preliminary, our results suggest that 0.1 mmol/kg of gadobenate dimeglumine may offer advantages over doses of 0.05 and 0.2 mmol/kg of gadobenate dimeglumine and 0.1 mmol/kg of gadopentetate dimeglumine for breast lesion detection and characterization.