Comparability of Antibody-Mediated Cell Killing Activity Between a Proposed Biosimilar RTXM83 and the Originator Rituximab

Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of Rituximab Biosimilar RTXM83: A Retrospective Extension Study in Brazilian Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

INTRODUCTION

RTXM83, a biosimilar of rituximab, was approved after physicochemical, functional, non-clinical, and clinical studies demonstrated their similarity; these studies included RTXM83-AC-01-11, a multicentric double-blind international prospective pivotal study. Long-term data on biosimilars can potentially elucidate their clinical robustness and facilitate their broader adoption.

METHODS

In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed a dataset from a Brazilian cohort previously randomized in the RTXM83-AC-01-11 study followed by the assessment of long-term outcomes in an observational extension phase from randomization in the RTXM83-AC-01-11 study to the last recorded evaluation. Patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) received either reference rituximab (R) or RTXM83 plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) as adjuvant treatment.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 77.0 months. Patients with initial DLBCL stages III and IV comprised 50% of the R-CHOP group and 40% of the biosimilar group. Five (18.5%) patients, including two RTXM83-CHOP-treated and three R-CHOP-treated individuals, experienced late adverse events (AEs) of interest. No new safety signs were established. At the final assessment, the progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 93.3% and 50.0% in the RTXM83-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively. Median PFS was not achieved in the RTXM83-CHOP group, which was 40.5 months in the R-CHOP group. The overall survival (OS) rates were 100% and 66.7% in the RTXM83-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively. The median OS was not reached in any group.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the long-term safety and effectiveness of RTXM83 in treating DLBCL; outcomes comparable to those of the reference product and potentially improved access to treatment have been indicated. However, further research with more diverse patient groups can validate these findings and advocate the broader adoption of biosimilars in cancer care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04928573. June 16, 2021, "retrospectively registered".

Assessment of Functional Characterization and Comparability of Biotherapeutics: a Review

The development of monoclonal antibody (mAb) biosimilars is a complex process. The key to their successful development and commercialization is an in-depth understanding of the key product attributes that impact safety and efficacy and the strategies to control them. Functional assessment of mAb is a crucial part of the comparability of biopharmaceutical drugs. The development of a relevant and robust functional assay requires an interdisciplinary approach and sufficient flexibility to balance regulatory concerns as well as dynamics and variability during the manufacturing process. Although many advanced tools are available to study and compare the potency and bioactivity of the protein, most of these techniques suffer from major shortcomings that limit their routine use. These include the complexity of the task, establishment of the relevance of the chosen method with the mechanism of action (MOA) of the biosimilar, cost and extended time of analysis, and often the ambiguity in interpretation of the resulting data. To overcome or to address these challenges, the use of multiple orthogonal state-of-the-art techniques is a necessary prerequisite.

Rituximab in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Background

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most frequent non-Hodgkin lymphoma worldwide. The current standard of care is chemoimmunotherapy with an R-CHOP regimen. We aim to review the role of this regimen after two decades of being the standard of care.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review of DLBCL, including the epidemiology, trials defining R-CHOP as the standard of care, as well as dose intensification and dose reduction schemes. Additionally, we briefly review the development of rituximab biosimilars and the addition of targeted drugs to R-CHOP in clinical trials.

Discussion

R-CHOP cures approximately 70% of DLBCL patients. Dose-dense regimens do not show a benefit in response and increase toxicity. Dose reduction, particularly in elderly patients or with comorbidities, may be a treatment option. DLBCL constitutes a group of diseases that activate different biological pathways. Matching specific treatments to a defined genetic alteration is under development. Rituximab biosimilars have become available to a broader population, particularly in developing countries, where access to treatment is limited because of economic resources.

Conclusion

DLBCL landscape is heterogeneous. R-CHOP immunochemotherapy has been a standard of care for two decades and cures approximately 70% of cases. Molecular characterization of patients is evolving and may have critical therapeutic implications.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of IBI301 versus rituximab in patients with CD20+ B-cell lymphoma: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled study

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled trial aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) of IBI301 with rituximab in patients with CD20-positive (CD20⁺) B-cell lymphoma, who achieved a complete response/unconfirmed complete response after standard treatments. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive IBI301 or rituximab (375 mg/m², IV). Patients who continuously benefitted from the trial after the PK phase underwent the extension phase to receive up to three cycles of 3-month-cycle of rituximab/IBI301 maintenance therapy. PK was described using the area under the serum concentration–time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC_0-inf), AUC from time zero to last quantifiable concentration (AUC_0-t), and maximum serum concentration (C_max). Pharmacodynamics (PD), incidence of adverse events and immunogenicity were evaluated. PK was defined equivalent, if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for geometric mean ratios of PK endpoints fell within the margin of 0.8–1.25. Overall, 181 patients were enrolled in IBI301 (n = 89) and rituximab (n = 92) groups. Geometric mean ratios of AUC_0-inf, AUC_0-t, and C_max were 0.91 (90% CI 0.85, 0.97), 0.91 (90% CI 0.86, 0.97), and 0.96 (90% CI 0.92, 1.01) between treatment groups, all within the bioequivalence range. Peripheral CD19⁺ and CD20⁺ B-cell counts were similar at each prespecified time point between the groups. No difference in immunogenicity was observed. The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (84.3% vs. 83.5%) and treatment-related AEs (56.2% vs. 61.5%) were comparable (IBI301 vs. rituximab). IBI301 was PK bioequivalent to rituximab in patients with CD20⁺ B-cell lymphoma. The PD, safety, and immunogenicity profiles of IBI301 were similar to those of rituximab.

Rituximab biosimilars for lymphoma in Europe

Introduction: The approval of rituximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting CD20, revolutionized the treatment of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas and became an undisputed standard of care. However, as with all biologic medicines, the complex development and manufacturing process for rituximab have meant that the medicine attracts high treatment costs. Approved rituximab biosimilars have been comprehensively demonstrated to match the reference medicine. With the potential to increase access to biologic therapy, they have a key role in helping to improve patient outcomes in lymphoma care. Areas covered: In this review, we discuss the role of rituximab in the treatment of lymphoma. We explore development and regulatory requirements for biosimilar development and the potential impact of these medicines on access and sustainability. Focusing on biosimilars of rituximab, we examine in detail the evidence for biosimilarity for the two rituximab biosimilars that are approved in Europe and provide an overview of rituximab biosimilars currently in development. Expert opinion: We foresee a wider uptake of biosimilar medicines for lymphoma treatment over the next 5 years. The associated cost savings should be invested in broadening patient access to biological therapies, enabling wider use of more expensive treatment strategies and driving innovation in cancer care.

Rituximab biosimilar RTXM83 versus reference rituximab in combination with CHOP as first-line treatment for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a randomized, double-blind study

This multicenter, double-blind, randomized study compared the efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PKs)/pharmacodynamics (PDs), safety and immunogenicity profile of RTXM83 vs. reference rituximab (R-rituximab), both with CHOP, as first-line treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). A total of 272 patients <65 years of age, with good prognosis (136 per arm) were randomized (1:1) to receive six cycles of either RTXM83 or R-rituximab. The primary efficacy endpoint was achieved (overall response rate of 83.6% for RTXM83 and 82.9% for R-rituximab) with a difference 0.7% between arms (95%CI: [-8.77% to 10.17%]) fulfilling the predefined non-inferiority margin (-13%). Similar number of patients reported at least one adverse event (AE) (131 per arm) or one serious AE (47 with RTXM83 and 45 with R-rituximab). Anti-drug antibody development was comparable between the arms. PK/PD secondary endpoint results support similarity between the compounds. RTXM83 exhibits non-inferior efficacy and similar safety/immunogenicity to R-rituximab, being an accessible alternative for the treatment of patients with previously untreated DLBCL.

Structural and functional comparability study of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody with reference product

Background

Cell surface protein, CD20, is extensively expressed on the surface of B cells. Antibodies targeting CD20 protein are being used to treat B-cell malignancies and B-cell mediated autoimmune diseases. Considering the cost of therapy with innovator monoclonal antibodies for these diseases, development of biosimilar products for the treatment of such diseases provides affordable solution to rising healthcare costs.

Materials and Methods

Reference products of rituximab (six batches) were procured and stored as per manufacturer's instructions. Cell lines used in bioassay were procured from American Type Culture Collection and all other reagents used for analysis were of analytical grade. Primary structure was studied by intact mass analysis, peptide fingerprinting, peptide mass fingerprinting and sequence coverage analysis. Higher order structure was studied by circular dichroism, ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy, fluorescence spectroscopy, and disulfide bridge analysis. Different isoforms of reference product and SB-02 were identified using capillary isoelectric focusing and capillary zone electrophoresis. Glycosylation was studied by N-glycan mapping using LC-ESI-MS, point of glycosylation, released glycan analysis using ultra performance liquid chromatography (UPLC). Product related impurities such as oligomer content analysis and oxidized impurities were studied using size exclusion chromatography and reverse phase high performance liquid chromatography, respectively.

Results and Conclusion

Here, we report physicochemical and biological characterizations of Sun Pharma’s proposed biosimilar (SB-02) to rituximab, a monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody approved for the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. SB-02 and rituximab exhibited indistinguishable primary as well as higher-order structure upon analyzing with the array of analytical and extended characterization methods according to statistical methods. The molecule also displayed comparability to reference product in post-translational modifications and charge heterogeneity. In functional bioassays, SB-02 demonstrated comparable potency with respect to reference product. Our results indicate highly similar quality profile between SB-02 and rituximab.

Science of Biosimilars

Biosimilar therapeutic proteins in oncology offer the potential to decrease costs while providing safety and efficacy profiles consistent with their respective reference or originator products. Biosimilars have a number of important differences from generic small-molecule drugs, including manufacturing processes that are unique from their reference products. These differences may affect biosimilars through posttranslational modifications that can occur in specific cellular production lines, and these modifications have potential effects on protein structure, function, clinical pharmacology, and immunogenicity. Regulatory agencies expect these differences to be identified, analyzed, and minimized through iterative processes and extensive preclinical efforts. Generic naming of biosimilars reflects the nonproprietary reference product name along with a meaningless four-letter suffix to ensure that each product can be uniquely identified for prescribing and pharmacovigilance purposes. Labeling information for biosimilars reflects a greater detail of comparisons to reference products than conventional generic drugs, which ensures that prescribers can understand the source of information and have a complete understanding of the therapeutic profile of each biosimilar agent. Postmarketing surveillance programs will be required to evolve and ensure optimal pharmacovigilance reporting, because the potential for unexpected adverse events with biosimilars is higher than with conventional generic agents as a result of different manufacturing processes and different clinical trial designs and durations. The existing filgrastim biosimilars are likely to be joined soon by therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, including rituximab, trastuzumab, and bevacizumab, on the basis of patent expiration dates and clinical trial results.

Comparative assessment of pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics between RTXM83™, a rituximab biosimilar, and rituximab in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients: a population PK model approach

PURPOSE

The main objective was to quantify any potential differences in pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters (AUC and C_max) between RTXM83, a proposed rituximab biosimilar, and its reference product, using a population PK model approach.

METHODS

Rituximab PK and PD data were obtained from a randomized, double-blind, phase III clinical study (RTXM83-AC-01-11) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) that received 375 mg/m² intravenous RTXM83 or its reference product with CHOP regimen, every 3 weeks, for six cycles. Rituximab levels were quantified by Meso Scale Discovery assay. PK analysis was performed using NONMEM 7.3.0. The effect of disease and patient covariates on RXTM83 PK was investigated. Model was evaluated using visual predictive check and non-parametric bootstrap.

RESULTS

In total, 251 DLBCL patients (127 and 124 in RXTM83-CHOP and rituximab-CHOP arms, respectively) and 5341 serum concentrations (2703 for RXTM83 and 2638 for rituximab, respectively) were available for the population PK analysis. The volume of distribution of the central compartment (V₁) and clearance of RXTM83 were estimated at 3.19 L and 12.5 mL/h, respectively. Body surface area allowed to explain the interindividual variability for V₁. A statistical analysis showed that systemic exposure (AUC and C_max) of RTXM83 was similar to rituximab. The 90% confidence intervals for all pairwise comparisons were within the predefined bioequivalence interval of 0.80-1.25. PD similarity of B-cell depletion and recovery was also observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The time course of RTXM83 was well characterized by the model developed. The systemic exposure of RTXM83 and its associated variability were similar to those for rituximab reference in DLBCL patients, demonstrating PK similarity. The PD similarity of RTXM83 and rituximab reference product was also demonstrated.

Assessment of structural and functional similarity of biosimilar products: Rituximab as a case study

Biosimilars are products that are similar in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to an already licensed reference/ innovator product and are expected to offer improved affordability. The most significant source of reduction in the cost of development of a biosimilar is the reduced clinical examination that it is expected to undergo as compared to the innovator product. However, this clinical relief is predicated on the assumption that there is analytical similarity between the biosimilar and the innovator product. As a result, establishing analytical similarity is arguably the most important step towards successful development of a biosimilar. Here, we present results from an analytical similarity exercise that was performed with five biosimilars of rituximab (Ristova®, Roche), a chimeric mouse/ human monoclonal antibody biotherapeutic, that are available on the Indian market. The results show that, while the biosimilars exhibited similarity with respect to protein structure and function, there were significant differences with respect to size heterogeneity, charge heterogeneity and glycosylation pattern.

In Vitro Methods for Comparing Target Binding and CDC Induction Between Therapeutic Antibodies: Applications in Biosimilarity Analysis

Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are relevant to the treatment of different pathologies, including cancers. The development of biosimilar mAbs by pharmaceutical companies is a market opportunity, but it is also a strategy to increase drug accessibility and reduce therapy-associated costs. The protocols detailed here describe the evaluation of target binding and CDC induction by rituximab in Daudi cells. These two functions require different structural regions of the antibody and are relevant to the clinical effect induced by rituximab. The protocols allow the side-to-side comparison of a reference rituximab and a marketed rituximab biosimilar. The evaluated products showed differences both in target binding and CDC induction, suggesting that there are underlying physicochemical differences and highlighting the need to analyze the impact of those differences in the clinical setting. The methods reported here constitute simple and inexpensive in vitro models for the evaluation of the activity of rituximab biosimilars. Thus, they can be useful during biosimilar development, as well as for quality control in biosimilar production. Furthermore, the presented methods can be extrapolated to other therapeutic mAbs.

Improving Access to Cancer Treatments: The Role of Biosimilars

Biologics play a key role in cancer treatment and are principal components of many therapeutic regimens. However, they require complex manufacturing processes, resulting in high cost and occasional shortages in supply. The cost of biologics limits accessibility of cancer treatment for many patients. Effective and affordable cancer therapies are needed globally, more so in developing countries, where health care resources can be limited. Biosimilars, which have biologic activity comparable to their corresponding reference drugs and are often more cost effective, have the potential to enhance treatment accessibility for patients and provide alternatives for decision makers (ie, prescribers, regulators, payers, policymakers, and drug developers). Impending patent expirations of several oncology biologics have opened up a vista for the development of corresponding biosimilars. Several countries have implemented abbreviated pathways for approval of biosimilars; however, challenges to their effective use persist. Some of these include designing appropriate clinical trials for assessing biosimilarity, extrapolation of indications, immunogenicity, interchangeability with the reference drug, lack of awareness and possibly acceptance among health care providers, and potential political barriers. In this review, we discuss the potential role and impact of biosimilars in oncology and the challenges related to their adoption and use. We also review the safety and efficacy of some of the widely used biosimilars in oncology and other therapeutic areas (eg, bevacizumab, darbepoetin, filgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab).