Comparison of the efficacy and safety of a proposed biosimilar MSB11456 with tocilizumab reference product in subjects with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: results of a randomised double-blind study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of the proposed biosimilar MSB11456 versus European Union (EU)-approved tocilizumab reference product in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, multinational, parallel-group study (NCT04512001). METHODS: Adult patients with moderate-to-severe active RA and inadequate clinical response to ≥1 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (synthetic or biologic) receiving methotrexate were randomised to receive 24 weekly subcutaneous 162 mg injections of either MSB11456 or EU-approved tocilizumab. Equivalence between treatments was considered if the 95% CI (European Medicines Agency)/90% CI (US Food and Drug Administration) for the difference in mean change from baseline to week 24 in Disease Activity Score-28 Joint Count with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) between treatments was entirely within prespecified equivalence intervals (-0.6 to 0.6 and -0.6 to 0.5, respectively). At week 24, patients were rerandomised to continued treatment or MSB11456. Secondary efficacy endpoints to week 52, and safety and immunogenicity to week 55 were also evaluated. RESULTS: At week 24, the least squares mean difference in the change from baseline in DAS28-ESR between treatments was 0.01 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.22) in the 604 randomised patients. Similarity between treatments was shown for all other efficacy, safety and immunogenicity endpoints, including in patients who switched from EU-approved tocilizumab to MSB114466. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic equivalence was demonstrated for efficacy endpoints, and safety and immunogenicity analyses support the similarity of the two treatments. The results of this study strengthen the evidence that the proposed biosimilar MSB11456 and EU-approved tocilizumab exert similar clinical effects.

2023 White Paper on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis: ISR for ADA Assays, the Rise of dPCR vs qPCR, International Reference Standards for Vaccine Assays, Anti-AAV TAb Post-Dose Assessment, NanoString Validation, ELISpot as Gold Standard (Part 3 - Recommendations on Gene Therapy, Cell Therapy, Vaccines Immunogenicity & Technologies; Biotherapeutics Immunogenicity & Risk Assessment; ADA/NAb Assay/Reporting Harmonization).

The 17th Workshop on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis (17th WRIB) took place in Orlando, FL, USA on June 19-23, 2023. Over 1000 professionals representing pharma/biotech companies, CROs, and multiple regulatory agencies convened to actively discuss the most current topics of interest in bioanalysis. The 17th WRIB included 3 Main Workshops and 7 Specialized Workshops that together spanned 1 week to allow an exhaustive and thorough coverage of all major issues in bioanalysis of biomarkers, immunogenicity, gene therapy, cell therapy and vaccines. Moreover, in-depth workshops on "EU IVDR 2017/746 Implementation and impact for the Global Biomarker Community: How to Comply with these NEW Regulations" and on "US FDA/OSIS Remote Regulatory Assessments (RRAs)" were the special features of the 17th edition. As in previous years, WRIB continued to gather a wide diversity of international, industry opinion leaders and regulatory authority experts working on both small and large molecules as well as gene, cell therapies and vaccines to facilitate sharing and discussions focused on improving quality, increasing regulatory compliance, and achieving scientific excellence on bioanalytical issues. This 2023 White Paper encompasses recommendations emerging from the extensive discussions held during the workshop and is aimed to provide the bioanalytical community with key information and practical solutions on topics and issues addressed, in an effort to enable advances in scientific excellence, improved quality and better regulatory compliance. Due to its length, the 2023 edition of this comprehensive White Paper has been divided into three parts for editorial reasons. This publication (Part 3) covers the recommendations on Gene Therapy, Cell therapy, Vaccines and Biotherapeutics Immunogenicity. Part 1A (Mass Spectrometry Assays and Regulated Bioanalysis/BMV), P1B (Regulatory Inputs) and Part 2 (Biomarkers, IVD/CDx, LBA and Cell-Based Assays) are published in volume 16 of Bioanalysis, issues 8 and 9 (2024), respectively.

Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of prefilled syringe and auto-injector presentations of MSB11456: results of a randomized, single-dose study in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin G interleukin-6 receptor antagonist. MSB11456 is a proposed tocilizumab biosimilar. OBJECTIVE: To determine the pharmacokinetic equivalence of a single subcutaneous injection of MSB11456, when delivered via autoinjector (AI) and prefilled syringe (PFS), in healthy adult subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, single fixed-dose, crossover study, 91 subjects received subcutaneous administration of tocilizumab 162 mg via AI and PFS presentations. The primary endpoint pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed using analysis of variance. Safety data were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: There were no differences in pharmacokinetic parameters between presentations, and safety parameters were comparable. The 90% confidence intervals for the geometric least squares mean ratios of all primary pharmacokinetic parameters were contained within the predefined 80.00% to 125.00% bioequivalence limits, indicating pharmacokinetic equivalence between the AI and PFS. CONCLUSIONS: MSB11456 administration via AI was bioequivalent to administration via PFS. MSB11456 can be administered by AI or PFS, increasing the available range of self-injection devices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at EudraCT, number 2020-003419-86.

Tocilizumab is a biologic drug that is used to treat autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis. MSB11456 has been shown to be equivalent to the US-licensed and EU-approved tocilizumab when administered by subcutaneous injection. There are different devices available to administer subcutaneous injections, and depending on the device, the patient's experience can be enhanced, convenience and compliance increased, and cost-effectiveness ensured for patients taking this medicine. This randomized, single fixed-dose, crossover study tested the pharmacokinetic similarity of MSB11456 when given subcutaneously via an auto-injector device versus a pre-filled syringe device in 100 healthy subjects. A total of 91 healthy volunteers received MSB11456 via both auto-injector and pre-filled syringe using a crossover design. Blood was collected before the first dose and at regular intervals during the study to determine the pharmacokinetics of tocilizumab and ensure safety. This study found that the pharmacokinetics of tocilizumab following administration using the autoinjector and the prefilled syringe were equivalent, and the safety profiles were similar. These findings indicate that the auto-injector can be considered another option that can be used to subcutaneously inject MSB11456.

Pharmacokinetics of a proposed tocilizumab biosimilar (MSB11456) versus US-licensed tocilizumab: results of a randomized, double-blind, single-intravenous dose study in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab, a recombinant monoclonal immunoglobulin G, targets the interleukin-6 receptor. MSB11456 is a proposed tocilizumab biosimilar. OBJECTIVES: To assess pharmacokinetic equivalence of intravenous MSB11456 to US-licensed tocilizumab. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this double-blind, parallel-group, single-dose study, 128 healthy adults were randomized to a single one-hour 8 mg/kg IV infusion of either MSB11456 or US-licensed tocilizumab. Blood samples were collected pre-dose and at regular intervals up to day 48 post-dose. The primary endpoint pharmacokinetic parameter was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the natural logarithm of the endpoint (AUC0-last), with treatment as a fixed effect. Immunogenicity and safety data were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Subjects received either MSB11456 (N = 62) or US-licensed tocilizumab (N = 66). Pharmacokinetic bioequivalence, defined as 90% confidence intervals for the geometric least squares mean ratio entirely contained within the 80.00% to 125.00% equivalence limits, was demonstrated between MSB11456 and US-licensed tocilizumab for the primary and secondary pharmacokinetic endpoints. Anti-drug antibody responses, frequency of neutralizing antibodies against tocilizumab, and safety profiles showed no notable between-treatment differences. Safety was comparable between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacokinetic similarity of MSB11456 and US-licensed tocilizumab was demonstrated, with comparable immunogenicity and safety profiles, supporting MSB11455 as a biosimilar to US-licensed tocilizumab. The trial is registered at EudraCT, number 2019-003484-22.

Tocilizumab is a biologic drug that is prescribed for autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis in adults and arthritis in children where the cause is unknown. Because of the high cost of biologic drugs, alternate similar drugs are being designed and tested to ensure that they are as effective and as safe as drugs that are currently available. These new drugs are called biosimilars. MSB11456 is a proposed tocilizumab biosimilar. Our study tested how the pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and safety of intravenously administered MSB11456 compared to that of the already approved tocilizumab drug marketed in the US (US-licensed tocilizumab). One hundred and twenty-eight healthy adult volunteers received a one-hour 8 mg/kg intravenous infusion of either MSB11456 or US-licensed tocilizumab in this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, single-dose study. Blood samples were taken before and at scheduled times during the study, up to 48 days after the first dose for analysis. In this study, we showed that the pharmacokinetics of MSB11456 were equivalent to the US-licensed tocilizumab. The safety and immune response to the drugs were also similar. These findings indicate that MSB11456 can be considered a biosimilar to tocilizumab. Biosimilars can reduce the cost of drugs by increasing competition and improve access to these, generally expensive, treatment options.

When to Extend Monitoring of Anti-drug Antibodies for High-risk Biotherapeutics in Clinical Trials: an Opinion from the European Immunogenicity Platform.

The determination of a tailored anti-drug antibody (ADA) testing strategy is based on the immunogenicity risk assessment to allow a correlation of ADAs with changes to pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety. The clinical impact of ADA formation refines the immunogenicity risk assessment and defines appropriate risk mitigation strategies. Health agencies request for high-risk biotherapeutics to extend ADA monitoring for patients that developed an ADA response to the drug until ADAs return to baseline levels. However, there is no common understanding in which cases an extension of ADA follow-up sampling beyond the end of study (EOS) defined in the clinical study protocol is required. Here, the Immunogenicity Strategy Working Group of the European Immunogenicity Platform (EIP) provides recommendations on requirements for an extension of ADA follow-up sampling in clinical studies where there is a high risk of serious consequences from ADAs. The importance of ADA evaluation during a treatment-free period is recognized but the decision whether to extend ADA monitoring at a predefined EOS should be based on evaluation of ADA data in the context of corresponding clinical signals. If the clinical data set shows that safety consequences are minor, mitigated, or resolved, further ADA monitoring may not be required despite potentially detectable ADAs above baseline. Extended ADA monitoring should be centered on individual patient benefit.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a proposed tocilizumab biosimilar MSB11456 versus both the US-licensed and EU-approved products: a randomized, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor (IL-6 R). MSB11456 is a proposed tocilizumab biosimilar. OBJECTIVES: To assess the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity of MSB11456 to both US-licensed and EU-approved tocilizumab. METHODS: Healthy adult volunteers (N = 685) received a single 162 mg subcutaneous injection of MSB11456, US-licensed tocilizumab, or EU-approved tocilizumab in this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Blood samples were taken pre-dose and for up to 48 days post-dose. Primary endpoint pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed using analysis of covariance. Secondary pharmacodynamic measures included serum-soluble IL-6 R and serum C-reactive protein. Safety data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic equivalence (with all corresponding 90% confidence intervals for the geometric least squares mean ratios within the predefined 80.00% to 125.00% equivalence margin) was demonstrated between MSB11456 and both US-licensed and EU-approved tocilizumab, as well as between the reference products. Pharmacodynamic analyses demonstrated similarity of MSB11456 and both US-licensed and EU-approved tocilizumab, as well as between the reference products. Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity were comparable between treatments. CONCLUSION: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity of MSB11456, US-licensed tocilizumab, and EU-approved tocilizumab were demonstrated, and the three products had comparable immunogenicity and safety, supporting MSB11456 as a biosimilar to tocilizumab.

Tocilizumab is a biologic drug that is used to treat autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis. Biologic drugs are very important for the treatment of autoimmune diseases, but their costs limit accessibility. Therefore, the availability of biosimilars, which are biologics that are very similar in structure and function to an existing biologic drug, may provide a significant cost advantage for national healthcare programs and consumers. MSB11456 is a proposed tocilizumab biosimilar. Our study tested the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic similarity of MSB11456 to the approved formulations of tocilizumab in the US and EU (US-licensed and EU-approved tocilizumab) in a large group of healthy adults. Volunteers received a single 162 mg subcutaneous injection of MSB11456, US-licensed tocilizumab, or EU-approved tocilizumab in this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Blood samples were taken before and regularly after the injection, and safety was monitored. We showed that the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of MSB11456, US-licensed and EU-approved tocilizumab were sufficiently similar to claim equivalence between the three products. Safety and immunogenicity were also comparable between the three treatments. These findings suggest that MSB11456 can be considered as a biosimilar to tocilizumab. Biosimilars have improved price competition and led to a reduction in the net costs of biologics, so tocilizumab biosimilars can be expected to contribute to this and potentially improve access to the best available care.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of a Proposed Pegfilgrastim Biosimilar MSB11455 Versus the Reference Pegfilgrastim Neulasta in Healthy Subjects: A Randomized, Double-blind Trial.

PURPOSE: MSB11455 is a proposed biosimilar to the reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®). This pivotal equivalence study (NCT03251248) assessed the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence of MSB11455 to the reference product. METHODS: This 2-way, 2-sequence, group-sequential, crossover study was conducted in healthy subjects. Subjects received a single subcutaneous dose of MSB11455 or the reference product (both 6 mg/0.6 mL) on Day 1 of each study period. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (absolute neutrophil count; ANC) samples were taken predose and up to day 16 post-dose. Non-compartmental parameters were calculated. Immunogenicity samples were taken pre-dose and up to day 84 after the first dose. Safety was assessed throughout the study. FINDINGS: A total of 292 subjects were randomized to therapy and treated; 244 received both treatments. For all primary pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters, 90% repeated confidence intervals of geometric means ratio of MSB11455 to the reference product were within the pre-defined equivalence range (80.00%-125.00%) for AUC0-∞ (96.59-112.82); AUC0-last (97.29-113.96), Cmax (97.13-114.99), maximum observed effect on ANC (98.74-102.39), and area under the effect-time curve from time zero to time to last quantifiable concentration (97.30-100.23). Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity were comparable between treatments. No filgrastim-specific neutralizing antibodies were detected with either treatment sequence. IMPLICATIONS: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence of MSB11455 and the reference product was shown, with comparable immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability between treatments. The study supports the biosimilarity of MSB11455 to the reference product. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03251248.

Immunogenicity and safety of a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar MSB11455 versus the reference pegfilgrastim Neulasta® in healthy subjects: A randomized, double-blind trial.

MSB11455 is a proposed biosimilar to the currently licensed reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta® ). This study was designed primarily to compare the immunogenicity of MSB11455 and Neulasta® . As secondary objectives, the safety and tolerability of MSB11455 and Neulasta® were also compared. Healthy adult subjects were randomized to either MSB11455 or Neulasta® , stratified by antipolyethylene glycol (PEG) antibody status at screening and study site. Subjects received a single subcutaneous dose of MSB11455 or Neulasta® (both 6 mg/0.6 mL) on day 1 of each of two study periods (same product in both periods), separated by a washout of 28-35 days. Immunogenicity samples were taken predose and up to day 84 post-first dose. Noninferiority was confirmed if the upper limit of the exact one-sided adjusted 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in antidrug antibody (ADA)-positive rates was < 10%. Safety was assessed throughout the study. Overall, 336 subjects were randomized and treated (N = 168 in each group). Noninferiority of MSB11455 over Neulasta® was demonstrated for immunogenicity; the difference in confirmed treatment-induced ADA-positive rate between MSB11455 and Neulasta® was -0.6% (upper limit of the exact one-sided adjusted 95% CI: 6.25%). ADAs were mostly directed against the PEG moiety of pegfilgrastim. No filgrastim-specific neutralizing antibodies were detected in either treatment group. Safety and tolerability were as expected for pegfilgrastim, and comparable between treatments. This study supports and strengthens the available evidence for the biosimilarity of MSB11455 to Neulasta® .

Safety of adalimumab biosimilar MSB11022 (acetate-buffered formulation) in patients with moderately-to-severely active rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of MSB11022 (acetate-buffered formulation), an adalimumab biosimilar, with the reference product. METHOD: AURIEL-RA study was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group trial (NCT03052322). Patients with moderately-to-severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to methotrexate were randomized 1:1 to MSB11022 or reference adalimumab. The primary endpoint was the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest (AESIs) (predefined as hypersensitivity) up to week 52. The key secondary endpoint was ACR20 (≥ 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology core set measurements from baseline) at week 12. Other efficacy endpoints, quality of life, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated up to week 52. Secondary safety endpoints were evaluated up to week 52 and at a 4-month safety follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 288 patients were randomized. The proportion of patients experiencing ≥ 1 treatment-emergent AESI up to week 52 was similar between trial arms: 6 patients (4.2%; 95% CI 1.56, 8.91) receiving MSB11022, and 8 patients (5.5%; 95% CI 2.41, 10.58) receiving reference adalimumab. No clinically meaningful differences in efficacy, quality of life, or immunogenicity were seen between treatment arms up to week 52. No notable difference in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was observed between treatment arms up to the end of the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest MSB11022 and reference adalimumab are similar in patients with moderately-to-severely active rheumatoid arthritis in terms of safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy. AURIEL-RA provides evidence to support the similarity of MSB11022 and adalimumab.Key Points• Incidences of hypersensitivity events were similar for MSB11022 (modified buffer) and reference adalimumab.• There was no difference in local reactions between MSB11022 (modified buffer) and reference adalimumab.• AURIEL-RA confirms the equivalence in efficacy and immunogenicity of MSB11022 (modified buffer) and reference adalimumab.

Demonstrating biosimilar and originator antidrug antibody binding comparability in antidrug antibody assays: a practical approach.

Biosimilar drug development has brought new challenges to bioanalytical ligand-binding assays used to determine drug concentration, antidrug antibodies and neutralizing antibodies. One particular challenge is how to demonstrate that the antidrug antibody assay can adequately detect antibodies against both biosimilar and originator. In this paper, we review the current guidelines and literature for practical recommendations and present a gap analysis. Case examples of antibody binding comparability testing are presented, and the challenges and implications are discussed. Based on the lessons learned from our biosimilar assay applications, we recommend a bioanalytical comparability testing approach that is outlined and discussed.

2016 White Paper on recent issues in bioanalysis: focus on biomarker assay validation (BAV): (Part 3 - LBA, biomarkers and immunogenicity).

The 2016 10th Workshop on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis (10th WRIB) took place in Orlando, Florida with participation of close to 700 professionals from pharmaceutical/biopharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, contract research organizations, and regulatory agencies worldwide. WRIB was once again a weeklong event - A Full Immersion Week of Bioanalysis for PK, Biomarkers and Immunogenicity. As usual, it is specifically designed to facilitate sharing, reviewing, discussing and agreeing on approaches to address the most current issues of interest including both small and large molecules involving LCMS, hybrid LBA/LCMS, and LBA approaches, with the focus on PK, biomarkers and immunogenicity. This 2016 White Paper encompasses recommendations emerging from the extensive discussions held during the workshop, and is aimed to provide the bioanalytical community with key information and practical solutions on topics and issues addressed, in an effort to enable advances in scientific excellence, improved quality and better regulatory compliance. This White Paper is published in 3 parts due to length. This part (Part 3) discusses the recommendations for large molecule bioanalysis using LBA, biomarkers and immunogenicity. Parts 1 (small molecule bioanalysis using LCMS) and Part 2 (Hybrid LBA/LCMS and regulatory inputs from major global health authorities) have been published in the Bioanalysis journal, issues 22 and 23, respectively.

Comparison of the pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity of MSB11022, a biosimilar of adalimumab, with Humira(®) in healthy subjects.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety and tolerability of the proposed adalimumab biosimilar MSB11022 (Merck) with Humira(®) (AbbVie), sourced from both the US (US reference product [US-RP]) and Europe (European reference medicinal product [EU-RMP]). METHODS: In this phase 1 double-blind, parallel group trial (EMR200588-001), 213 healthy volunteers were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to receive a single dose (40 mg) of MSB11022, US-RP or EU-RMP in order to achieve 80% power assuming a 5% difference among groups and a 10% dropout rate. Following a preplanned blinded sample size re-assessment after more than 50% of the originally planned subjects had been observed, the sample size was increased to 237 (79 per arm) to ensure 213 completers. Primary PK endpoints analyzed by non-compartmental methods, were area under the curve (AUC) from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC(0,∞)), maximum observed concentration (Cmax ), and AUC from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC(0,tlast )). PK equivalence was declared if the 90% CI for the test : reference ratio lay within the 80-125% equivalence margin. Bioequivalence was demonstrated if all three PK parameters met the PK equivalence criteria. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS: Mean serum concentration-time profiles for the three treatments were similar. MSB11022 demonstrated PK equivalence to US-RP and EU-RMP for all primary endpoints. The geometric means of AUC(0,∞), Cmax and AUC(0,tlast ) following a single dose of MSB11022 were 2276.05 µg ml(-1)  h, 3.44 µg ml(-1)   and 1983.90 µg ml(-1)  h, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were similar across all groups, with treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) reported by 62.8%, 56.3% and 62.0% of subjects within the MSB11022, US-RP and EU-RMP groups, respectively. Most of the TEAEs were considered mild and unrelated to study drug. No deaths or severe AEs related to the study drug were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Bioequivalence between MSB11022, US-RP and EU-RMP was demonstrated. Safety, tolerability and immunogenicity profiles were similar between subjects receiving MSB11022 and US-RP or EU-RMP. These data support the further clinical evaluation of MSB11022 as a proposed biosimilar of adalimumab.

Bioanalytical method validation for macromolecules in support of pharmacokinetic studies.

The development and validation of ligand binding assays used in the support of pharmacokinetic studies has been the focus of various workshops and publications in recent years, all in an effort to establish a guidance document for standardization of these bioanalytical methods. This summary report of the workshop from 2003 focuses on the issues discussed in presentations and notes points of discussion and areas of consensus among the participants.