A Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Phase 1 Clinical Trial Comparing the Pharmacokinetic, Safety, and Immunogenicity of the Biosimilar HS016 and the Originator Adalimumab in Chinese Healthy Male Subjects

Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies in China: A patent review

Biosimilars play an important role in reducing the burden on patients and increasing the market competition. Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies are currently one of the hotspots of research and development in China with policies support. With the continuous improvement of policies, the enthusiasm for the research and development of biosimilars has increased year by year. The policy requirements in different periods have different degrees of impact on the patent applications of pharmaceutical companies. This review introduces the biosimilar monoclonal antibodies market status and approval process in China, analyzes the patents in this field, and helps pharmaceutical companies protect their intellectual property rights.

Physicochemical and functional characterization of HS016, a biosimilar of adalimumab (Humira)

The characterization of a biosimilar drug HS016, the reference product adalimumab (Humira), and their biosimilarities were determined using physical chemistry and functional similarity tests. The primary and higher order structures, size and charge variants, glycosylation profiles, and in vitro potency of both antibodies were characterized both for unstressed and stability samples. Slight differences were observed in the relative levels of methionine oxidation, low molecular weight components, terminal lysine variant, high mannoses and galactosylated glycans between HS016 and Humira. However, no differences in antigen binding activity, Fc receptor affinity, antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity or complemented-dependent cytotoxicity were found. The primary and higher order structures, physicochemical properties, and biological activity of HS016 and adalimumab were similar.

A randomized, double-blind, single-dose, two-way, parallel phase I clinical study comparing the pharmacokinetics and safety of adalimumab injecta and Humira® in healthy Chinese male volunteers

Background: Humira® is a fully humanized anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α) monoclonal antibody that has been marketed and approved in the United States for the clinical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis, psoriasis and other immune-mediated diseases. This study compared the bioequivalence, immunogenicity and safety of adalimumab injecta (a biosimilar of Humira® produced by Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd) and Humira® in healthy Chinese male subjects in a phase I clinical study.Methods: Healthy Chinese male subjects (N = 164) were randomly given a subcutaneous injection of 40 mg adalimumab or Humira® at a 1:1 ratio. Plasma drug concentrations were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and primary pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were statistically analyzed. To evaluate drug immunogenicity, anti-drug antibody (ADA) and neutralizing antibody (nAb) levels were detected. To evaluate the safety of the drugs, the subjects' physical indicators, such as multiple vital signs and routine blood tests, were continuously monitored.Results: The similarity ratios of adalimumab and Humira® PK parameters were all within 80%-125%, meeting the bioequivalence standards. Drug-induced ADA and nAb levels were similar, and the drug safety in subjects was also similar.Conclusions: All study drugs showed similar bioequivalence, immunogenicity and safety.Clinical trial registration: CTR20182070 (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry).

A Phase I, Randomized, Single-Dose Study to Evaluate the Biosimilarity of HOT-3010 to Adalimumab Among Healthy Chinese Male Subjects

Objective: This study explored the bioequivalence of a proposed biosimilar HOT-3010 vs. its reference product (adalimumab) among healthy Chinese male subjects. The study also investigated the tolerance, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetics (PK).

Methods: A randomized, double-blind, two-arm, parallel study was performed to examine the bioequivalence of HOT-3010 (40 mg) with that of adalimumab (Humira^®, AbbVie) as a reference drug. The study subjects were followed up for 71 days.

Results: PK properties exhibited by HOT-3010 (N = 66) and adalimumab (N = 68) groups were similar. The 90% confidence intervals of the ratios for C_max, AUC_0-t, and AUC_0∞ were observed to be in the range 80–125% on comparing the two groups. For anti-drug antibodies (ADA), the number of subjects found to be positive in the HOT-3010 group and adalimumab group were 29 (43.94%) and 32 (47.06%), whereas 27 (40.91%) and 27 (39.71%) subjects were found to be positive for NAb, respectively. Treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were recorded in 32 subjects each in both the groups, respectively.

Conclusion: The PK characteristics and immunogenicity exhibited by HOT-3010 were similar to that of the reference product, adalimumab. The safety profiles were similar in both the treatment groups with mild-moderate adverse effects.

Changes in Efficacy Indicators for Adalimumab Biosimilar Candidate (HS016) for the Treatment of Active Ankylosing Spondylitis at Various Time Points

Objectives: A phase III, 24-weeks Chinese clinical trial demonstrated that efficacy and safety outcomes of treatments with 40 mg/0.8 ml HS016 (n = 416) or adalimumab (n = 232) for active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients was comparable. In the present study, a subanalysis of the clinical trial was conducted to determine whether also individual efficacy indicators were comparable between HS016 and adalimumab. Methods: The individual efficacy indicators total and nocturnal back pain, global assessment of disease activity, swollen joint count, Maastricht AS Enthesitis Score, Bath AS Disease Activity Index, Bath AS Functional Index, Bath AS Metrology Index and chest expansion, were assessed at baseline and every 2 weeks during the treatment period. Results: This subanalysis revealed no significant difference between the patient groups treated with HS016 or adalimumab for any individual efficacy indicator investigated at any time point (all p > 0.05) beside faster total back pain score improvements in the adalimumab group on week 10, 12 and 22, which became equal at week 24. Among these indicators, chest expansion showed a significant increase at each time point compared with baseline, whereas all other efficacy indicators showed significant decreases compared with baseline at each time point (all p < 0.05). All efficacy indicators had increased or decreased rapidly by week 2, and the values continued to increase/decrease up to week 12, with subsequent smaller changes thereafter up to week 24 of treatment. Conclusion: The response trajectory of most individual efficacy indicators was comparable between HS016 and adalimumab at each time point during the 24 weeks of the trial. Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=37910, identifier [ChiCTR1900022520].