Equivalence trial of proposed denosumab biosimilar GP2411 and reference denosumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis: the ROSALIA study.

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody used to reduce risk of fractures in osteoporosis. ROSALIA was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, integrated phase I/phase III study comparing the efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), immunogenicity, and safety of proposed biosimilar denosumab GP2411 with reference denosumab (REF-DMAb) (Prolia®; Amgen). Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomized 1:1 to 2 60-mg doses of GP2411 or REF-DMAb, one at study start and one at week 26. At week 52, the REF-DMAb group was re-randomized 1:1 to a third dose of REF-DMAb or switch to GP2411. The primary efficacy endpoint was percentage change from baseline (%CfB) in LS-BMD at week 52. Secondary efficacy endpoints were %CfB in LS-BMD, FN-BMD, and TH-BMD at weeks 26 and 78 (and week 52 for FN-BMD and TH-BMD). Primary PK and PD endpoints were the area under the serum concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity and maximum drug serum concentration at week 26, and the area under the effect-time curve of the %CfB in serum CTX at week 26. Secondary PK and PD endpoints included drug serum concentrations and %CfB in serum CTX and P1NP during the study period. Similar efficacy was demonstrated at week 52, with 95% CIs of the difference in %CfB in LS-BMD between treatment groups fully contained within prespecified equivalence margins. Similarity in PK and PD was demonstrated at week 26. Immunogenicity was similar between groups and was not impacted by treatment switch. The rate of new vertebral fractures was comparable. Treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between groups (63.6% [GP2411/GP2411]; 76.0% [REF-DMAb/REF-DMAb]; 76.6% [REF-DMAb/GP2411]). In conclusion, ROSALIA showed similar efficacy, PK and PD, and comparable safety and immunogenicity of GP2411 to REF-DMAb in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Denosumab is a biologic treatment that stops bone breakdown. This clinical trial evaluated how similar GP2411 (a denosumab biosimilar in development) is compared with European-approved reference denosumab in women with post-menopausal osteoporosis. Biosimilars are highly similar to the original treatment ('reference denosumab') and may have a lower price. 263 patients were randomly assigned to receive GP2411 and 264 to reference denosumab. Treatment was given at the study beginning, at Week 26 and at Week 52. 124 patients were re-assigned at Week 52 to test the effect of changing from reference denosumab to GP2411. The study showed similarity in how the body interacts with the treatments, what effects the treatment has (both measured over 26 weeks), and bone mineral density (measured over 78 weeks). Antibody responses to GP2411 were detected in similar proportions of patients on each treatment. Reported adverse events were similar between treatments before Week 52, and from Week 52 to 78, and <5% of patients experienced serious adverse events. A change of treatment from reference denosumab to GP2411 did not affect outcomes. These results showed similarity between GP2411 and reference denosumab in this population. In future, GP2411 may enable more patients to benefit from denosumab.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the proposed biosimilar denosumab GP2411 and reference denosumab in healthy males.

BACKGROUND: This Phase I study compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) similarity of GP2411 proposed denosumab biosimilar to reference denosumab (a monoclonal antibody for specific pro-resorptive conditions). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Healthy males (28-65 years, 50-90 kg) were randomized to a single sub-therapeutic subcutaneous injection of 35 mg GP2411, EU-Xgeva® or US-Xgeva®, and followed for 39 weeks. The primary endpoints were AUCinf, AUClast, and Cmax. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-two participants completed treatment. The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) (AUCinf, AUClast, and Cmax) and 95% CI of the geometric mean ratios of AUEC of % change from baseline in serum CTX were fully contained within the prespecified equivalence margins (0.80, 1.25), demonstrating similarity. The occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with GP2411, EU-Xgeva® and US-Xgeva® was similar (72.9%, 76.0%, and 71.0% of participants, respectively). Most were Grade 1 or 2, <30% were treatment-related, and there was only one TEAE-related study discontinuation. Rates of positive anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) were similar (57.8%, 64.9%, and 69.1% of participants respectively), but immunogenicity was only borderline detectable and of very low magnitude. Ninety-nine percent of positive ADAs were transient. CONCLUSION: GP2411 demonstrated similarity with EU-Xgeva® and US-Xgeva® in PK, PD, safety, and immunogenicity in this population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2019-001651-39.

Denosumab is a biological treatment that inhibits bone degradation. It is very effective in conditions characterized by elevated bone degradation, such as osteoporosis in women who have gone through the menopause, and in the treatment of specific bone cancers. However, the cost of the original patented denosumab ('reference denosumab') treatment may result in fewer eligible patients receiving denosumab treatment. A biosimilar is highly similar to the original treatment but at a lower price, enabling more patients to benefit.GP2411 is being developed as a proposed biosimilar to denosumab. This Phase I clinical trial was the first clinical trial to compare GP2411 to the EU and US versions of the reference denosumab (EU-Xgeva® and US-Xgeva®). All three products were given at a dose of 35 mg to 502 healthy males. The dose was lower than the dose that would be used in clinical practice to provide a more sensitive evaluation of similarity. Healthy males were chosen because they have fewer hormonal fluctuations than females, and are considered the most appropriate population for detecting differences in pharmacological effects of denosumab.The results demonstrate that GP2411 proposed denosumab biosimilar is highly similar to the reference products in absorption, distribution, and elimination, and other outcomes, including bone turnover. The incidence of adverse events was also comparable, most adverse events were very mild, and GP2411 was not associated with a higher rate of immune reactions.These results support its continued development and GP2411 may, in future, enable more patients to benefit from denosumab treatment.

Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of GP2015, an etanercept biosimilar, compared with the reference etanercept in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: 24-week results from the comparative phase III, randomised, double-blind EQUIRA study.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the equivalent efficacy and compare the safety and immunogenicity of an etanercept biosimilar, GP2015, with reference etanercept (ETN) in patients with moderate-to-severe, active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), characterised by an inadequate response to synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: In the EQUIRA study, eligible patients (n=376) were randomised 1: 1 to 50 mg GP2015 or ETN subcutaneously, once weekly, for 24 weeks (treatment period 1). Patients from both groups, with at least moderate European League Against Rheumatism response at week 24, received GP2015 up to week 48 (treatment period 2). All patients continued to receive concomitant methotrexate at a stable dose (10-25 mg/week) until end of the study. The 24-week results are presented here. RESULTS: Equivalent efficacy between GP2015 and ETN was demonstrated if the 95% CI for the difference in disease activity score 28-joint count C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) change from baseline to week 24 between treatment arms was contained within the prespecified equivalence margin range of -0.6 to 0.6. The least squares mean difference (GP2015-ETN) in change from baseline in DAS28-CRP up to week 24 was -0.07 (95% CI -0.26 to 0.12 [primary endpoint)]. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable between GP2015 (43.5%) and ETN (49.5%). None of the GP2015-treated patients developed neutralising anti-drug antibodies (NAbs) whereas 1.6% and 0.6% of patients in ETN group were NAb positive at weeks 4 and 12, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with RA who had an inadequate response to DMARDs, GP2015 demonstrated a similar efficacy and a comparable safety and immunogenicity profile with ETN. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02638259.

Healthy donor hematopoietic stem cell mobilization with biosimilar granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor: safety, efficacy, and graft performance.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilar granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have been available in the European Union since 2008, and Sandoz' biosimilar filgrastim was approved in the United States in March 2015 for all of the reference product's indications except acute radiation syndrome. Biosimilar G-CSFs have been largely embraced by the medical community, except for some reservations about healthy-donor stem cell mobilization, for which use outside of clinical studies was cautioned against by some members of the scientific community. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In a two-center safety surveillance study (National Clinical Trial NCT01766934), 245 healthy volunteer stem cell donors were enrolled. Of 244 donors who began mobilization with twice-daily Sandoz biosimilar filgrastim, 242 received a full (n = 241) or partial (n = 1) course of G-CSF and underwent apheresis. Efficacy and safety were assessed and are reported here. RESULTS: Biosimilar filgrastim was accompanied by the typical G-CSF class-related adverse effects of expected frequency and severity. Median mobilization for CD34-positive stem cells was 97/µL (range, 20-347/µL); after one apheresis (91%) or two aphereses (9%) from all but three donors (1.2%), cell doses in excess of the typical 4 × 106 CD34-positive cells/kg of the recipient had been collected (range, 3-52 × 106 /kg). Biochemical and hematologic alterations were consistent with previous reports; all had normalized by the first follow-up 1 month after mobilization. Stem cell products engrafted with typical probability and kinetics for G-CSF-mobilized stem cell products. CONCLUSION: These data support the use of biosimilar filgrastim for healthy-donor stem cell mobilization as safe and effective.

Comparability of biosimilar filgrastim with originator filgrastim: protein characterization, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilars provide safety, purity, and potency similar to those of a reference biologic product. METHODS: An array of protein analytical techniques was used to compare the physicochemical properties of proposed biosimilar filgrastim (EP2006), US-approved originator filgrastim, and EU-approved originator filgrastim. Biological characterization involved surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy analyses and in vitro proliferation assays. A randomized, double-blind, two-way crossover, phase I study in healthy volunteers assessed the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and safety profiles of EP2006 and US-approved originator filgrastim (administered as a single subcutaneous 10 µg/kg injection). RESULTS: EP2006 and originator filgrastim (US and EU approved) were highly similar with respect to primary, secondary, and tertiary protein structures; mass, size, purity, charge, and hydrophobicity. No differences in receptor binding affinity were observed, and all samples demonstrated similar in vitro bioactivity. In the phase I study, no statistically significant differences between EP2006 and US-approved originator filgrastim were noted in pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic parameters, and all confidence intervals were within the equivalence boundaries. The two products had similar safety profiles. CONCLUSION: These studies provide robust evidence of the structural and functional similarity between the proposed biosimilar filgrastim (EP2006) and the US-approved originator filgrastim.

Biosimilar granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor for healthy donor stem cell mobilization: need we be afraid?

Biosimilars are approved biologics with comparable quality, safety, and efficacy to a reference product. Unlike generics, which are chemically manufactured copies of small-molecule drugs with relatively simple chemical structures, the biosimilar designation is applied to drugs that are produced by living organisms, implying much more difficult to control manufacturing and purification procedures. To account for these complexities, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the US Food and Drug Administration, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration, and other regulatory authorities have devised and implemented specific, markedly more demanding pathways for the evaluation and approval of biosimilars. To date, several biosimilars have been approved, including versions of somatropin, erythropoietin, and granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), and several biosimilar monoclonal antibodies are currently in development. The reference G-CSF product (Neupogen, Amgen) has been used for many years for prevention and treatment of neutropenia and also for mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs). However, concerns have been raised about the safety and efficacy of biosimilar G-CSF during PBSC mobilization procedures, especially in healthy donors. This article reviews the available evidence on the use of biosimilar G-CSF in this setting. Aggregate clinical evidence supports the assessment by the EMA of biosimilar and originator G-CSF as highly biologically similar, with respect to desired and undesired effects.

Bioequivalence between novel ready-to-use liquid formulations of the recombinant human GH Omnitrope and the original lyophilized formulations for reconstitution of Omnitrope and Genotropin.

OBJECTIVE: Two strengths of a novel ready-to-use liquid preparation of the recombinant human GH (rhGH) Omnitrope were developed to increase the convenience for the patients. DESIGN: Omnitrope 3.3 mg/ml solution or Omnitrope 6.7 mg/ml solution was compared to Omnitrope 5 mg/ml powder and Genotropin 5 mg/ml powder in terms of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and local tolerance after a single s.c. dose of 5 mg. METHODS: Two randomized, double-blind, single-dose, three-way crossover studies were carried out in 36 young healthy volunteers each. Endogenous GH secretion was suppressed with a 25-h continuous i.v. infusion of octreotide (40 microg/h) starting 1 h before rhGH administration. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic parameters were similar for the three treatments in both studies respectively. Bioequivalence criteria were met for area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and C(max). Likewise, the pharmacodynamic parameters for IGF1, IGF-binding protein 3, and non-esterified fatty acid were similar for all preparations. No differences in adverse events were observed between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Omnitrope 3.3 mg/ml solution, 6.7 mg/ml solution, and 5 mg/ml powder, and Genotropin 5 mg/ml powder are bioequivalent, have similar pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, and are equally safe. Overall, the products can be considered to be therapeutically interchangeable.