Similar Pharmacokinetics of the Adalimumab (Humira®) Biosimilar BI 695501 Whether Administered via Subcutaneous Autoinjector or Prefilled Syringe (VOLTAIRE®-AI and VOLTAIRE®-TAI): Phase 1, Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel-Group Trials

Pharmacokinetics and safety of candidate tocilizumab biosimilar CT-P47 administered by auto-injector or pre-filled syringe: a randomized, open‑label, single-dose phase I study

BACKGROUND

This study compared the pharmacokinetics (PK), immunogenicity, and safety of candidate tocilizumab biosimilar, CT-P47, administered via auto-injector (CT-P47 AI) or pre-filled syringe (CT-P47 PFS), in healthy Asian adults.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this phase I, multicenter, open-label study, participants were randomized 1:1 to receive a single 162 mg/0.9 mL dose of CT-P47 via AI or PFS. Primary endpoints were area under the concentration - time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC0-inf) and maximum serum concentration (Cmax). PK equivalence was determined if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of geometric least-squares means (gLSMs) were within the predefined 80-125% equivalence margin. Secondary PK parameters, immunogenicity, and safety outcomes were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 314 participants randomized (155 CT-P47 AI; 159 CT-P47 PFS), 310 received the study drug (153 CT-P47 AI; 157 CT-P47 PFS). Primary and secondary PK results, immunogenicity and safety were similar between groups. Ninety percent CIs for the ratio of gLSMs were within the predefined equivalence margin for AUC0-inf (85.87-102.94) and Cmax (82.98-98.16).

CONCLUSIONS

PK equivalence between CT-P47 AI and CT-P47 PFS was demonstrated in healthy Asian adults, with comparable immunogenicity and safety between the two devices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05617183.

A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing the Pharmacokinetics and Tolerability of the Proposed Adalimumab Biosimilar MSB11022 Delivered via Autoinjector and Pre-filled Syringe in Healthy Subjects

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to demonstrate the bioequivalence, and compare the safety and tolerability of MSB11022, a proposed biosimilar of adalimumab, when delivered by either an autoinjector (AI) or a pre-filled syringe (PFS).

METHODS

In this pharmacokinetic (PK), parallel group, open-label study, 216 healthy volunteers were randomised 1:1 to receive a single subcutaneous injection of a 40 mg/0.8 mL dose of MSB11022 administered via AI or PFS. Coprimary PK endpoints were maximum observed concentration (C_max), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC_0-t), and AUC from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC_0-inf). PK equivalence between the AI and PFS administration methods was declared if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of geometric least square means was entirely contained within the 80-125% equivalence margin for all coprimary endpoints. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The 90% CI for the three coprimary PK endpoints (C_max, AUC_0-t and AUC_0-inf) were entirely contained within the predefined equivalence margins of 80-125%. Mean serum concentration-time profiles were similar following injection via AI or PFS. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable across both treatment groups. Study device-related TEAEs were reported by 11.3% and 13.1% of subjects in the AI and PFS treatment groups, respectively. Study drug-related TEAEs were reported by 28.3% and 34.6% of subjects in the AI and PFS treatment groups, respectively. Few subjects experienced injection-site reactions, mainly pain and erythema, regardless of the administration method.

CONCLUSION

Delivery of MSB11022 via an AI is bioequivalent to delivery via a PFS. The safety and tolerability profile of MSB11022 was comparable across administration methods. The development of an AI for MSB11022 provides a choice of self-injection devices available to patients, potentially improving treatment compliance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov trial identifier: NCT04018599.

Comparison of two biosimilarity studies of FKB327 with the adalimumab reference product: randomized phase 1 studies of single-blind, single-dose subcutaneous injection in healthy Japanese male participants

Background

FKB327 has been developed as a biosimilar of the adalimumab reference product (RP). We compared the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and immunogenicity of FKB327 with those of the adalimumab RP after a single dose by subcutaneous (SC) injection in Japanese male participants.

Methods

Two randomized, single-blind, single-dose studies were conducted in healthy Japanese male participants to compare PK characteristics between FKB327 and the RP. Study 1 included 130 participants who were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive a subcutaneous injection of 40 mg of either FKB327 or the RP into the abdomen. In Study 2, another 130 subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either drug as in Study 1, but the drug administration site was changed to the thigh. The primary PK endpoints of both studies were area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to the last measurable concentration (AUC_0-t) and maximum serum concentration; area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 360 h was also evaluated as one of the primary endpoints in Study 1. Biosimilarity in terms of pharmacokinetics was determined if the 90% confidence interval of the mean difference in geometric mean ratio of all primary PK parameters was within the prespecified equivalence criteria (0.80–1.25). Immunogenicity and safety were also evaluated as secondary endpoints.

Results

The serum concentration-time profiles were comparable between the FKB327 and the RP treatment groups in both studies. Primary PK parameters were within the prespecified bioequivalence range in Study 2, although AUC_0-t was slightly outside the upper side of the range in Study 1. No differences in safety profile were observed in these studies. The incidence of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) and impact of ADAs on PK profile were similar among the treatment groups in both studies.

Conclusion

Biosimilarity between FKB327 and the RP after a single 40-mg SC injection was confirmed in healthy Japanese male participants by modifying the study design.

Trial registration

jRCT2071200058 (https://jrct.niph.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCT2071200058, https://rctportal.niph.go.jp/en/detail?trial_id=jRCT2071200058) and jRCT2071200057 (https://jrct.niph.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCT2071200057, https://rctportal.niph.go.jp/en/detail?trial_id=jRCT2071200057). Retrospectively registered 25/11/2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40360-021-00545-3.

An update on the adalimumab biosimilar landscape following the approval of the first high-concentration biosimilar

Biosimilars can reduce healthcare costs and expand patient access to biologic therapies. Currently, eight adalimumab biosimilars have received regulatory approval from the EMA and/or the US FDA. Following recent EMA approval of the first high-concentration adalimumab biosimilar, CT-P17, this review provides a contemporary update on adalimumab biosimilars currently licensed in Europe and the USA. The totality of evidence from each clinical development program is summarized, and characteristics of each formulation and/or device that potentially affect the convenience of treatment for patients are discussed. Future perspectives are considered, including the potential impact of the FDA's first interchangeability designation for an adalimumab biosimilar, ahead of their entry into the US marketplace in 2023.

Randomised, phase I pharmacokinetic study of adalimumab biosimilar CT-P17 (40 mg/0.4 mL) by autoinjector and prefilled syringe in healthy subjects

AIMS

To evaluate pharmacokinetic equivalence and preliminary safety of the adalimumab biosimilar CT-P17 administered via autoinjector (CT-P17 AI) or prefilled syringe (CT-P17 PFS) in healthy subjects.

METHODS

This phase I, open-label study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04295356) randomised subjects (1:1) to receive a single 40-mg (100 mg/mL) dose of CT-P17 AI or CT-P17 PFS. Primary endpoint was pharmacokinetic equivalence of CT-P17 AI to CT-P17 PFS for: area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC0-inf ); area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-last ); maximum serum concentration (Cmax ). Equivalence was determined if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric least-squares mean ratio was within the 80-125% equivalence margin. Additional pharmacokinetic endpoints, safety and immunogenicity were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 193 subjects who were randomised (98 CT-P17 AI; 95 CT-P17 PFS), 180 received study drug. Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated: 90% confidence intervals were within the 80-125% equivalence margin (AUC0-inf : 93.98-114.29; AUC0-last : 91.09-121.86; Cmax : 94.08-111.90). Mean serum CT-P17 concentrations, secondary pharmacokinetic parameters and numbers of subjects with antidrug antibodies (ADAs) or neutralising ADAs were comparable between groups. AUC0-inf , AUC0-last and Cmax were numerically lower for ADA-positive than for ADA-negative subjects (both groups); pharmacokinetic equivalence was also demonstrated among ADA-positive subjects. CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS were well tolerated, with comparable overall safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS were pharmacokinetically equivalent. Overall safety and immunogenicity were comparable between the 2 delivery devices.

Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching: What is the Rationale and Current Experience?

Over time, clinicians have become increasingly comfortable embracing the prescription of biosimilars-highly similar versions of innovator or reference biological agents-for their patients with inflammatory diseases. Although a switch from a reference product to a licensed biosimilar version (or vice versa) is a medical decision robustly supported by the stepwise accumulation of clinical trial evidence concerning comparable safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy between these products, a switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference product, or a cross-switch, is not. Similarity among biosimilars of a reference product is not a regulatory agency concern and therefore is unlikely to be investigated in randomized controlled trials in the foreseeable future. Yet in clinical practice, across a diverse range of patients, the option to cross-switch from one biosimilar to another can and does arise for valid reasons such as convenience or tolerability issues, or driven by third parties (e.g., payers). In the absence of clinical trial data, clinicians must attempt to objectively evaluate the emerging real-world cross-switching evidence within the context of what is known about the science underpinning a designation of biosimilar. That knowledge then needs to be integrated with what clinicians know about their patients and their disease on a case-by-case basis. This review aims to consolidate relevant emerging real-world data and other key information about biosimilar-to-biosimilar cross-switching for prescribing clinicians. In the absence of clear clinical guidelines addressing this topic at present, this review may serve to facilitate discretionary and educated treatment decision making.

Impact of injection sites on clinical pharmacokinetics of subcutaneously administered peptides and proteins

For most approved subcutaneously (SC) administered drug products in the US, the recommended injection sites (i.e., abdomen, thigh, and upper arm) are usually based on experience from phase 3 trials. Relative bioavailability data directly comparing the pharmacokinetics (PK) of different SC injection sites are often not available and the underlying mechanisms that may affect SC absorption have not been systematically investigated. In this study, we surveyed clinical PK data (AUC, C_max, and T_max) for SC administered drug products including therapeutic proteins and peptides based on literature and FDA database. The PK data after abdominal injection was used as a reference to determine the relative bioavailability of SC injections to the arm and thigh. The survey retrieved 19 immunoglobulin G (IgGs), 18 peptides/small proteins (molecular weight < 16 kDa), and 8 non-IgG proteins that had available clinical PK data from multiple SC injection sites. Among these, 5 (26%) IgGs, 9 (50%) peptides/small proteins, and 3 (38%) non-IgG proteins, exhibited injection site-dependent PK (i.e. PK differed by injection sites). Correlation analyses revealed that the PK of peptides/small proteins undergoing rapid SC absorption (T_max ≤ 2 h), elimination (CL/F ≥ 39 L/h) or low plasma protein binding were more sensitive to injection sites. Similarly, non-IgG proteins (molecular weight ≥ 16 kDa) with high CL/F and low T_max are associated with high risk of injection site-dependent SC absorption. IgGs with T_1/2 < 15 days or T_max < 5 days are more likely to show injection site-dependent SC absorption. Positive charge of the drug molecule (isoelectric point ≥8) may reduce SC absorption from all three injection sites but is not associated with high risk of injection site-dependent SC absorption. In summary, the results suggested that regional differences in pre-systemic catabolism and local SC blood flow potentially contribute injection site-dependent SC absorption of peptides/small proteins while local lymphatic flow and FcRn binding likely contribute to site-dependent SC absorption of IgGs.

Comparable Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Etrolizumab Administered by Prefilled Syringe or Autoinjector in a Randomized Trial in Healthy Volunteers

Introduction

Etrolizumab is a novel, dual-action anti-β7 integrin antibody studied in phase 3 trials in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. An autoinjector (AI) is being developed in parallel to complement the prefilled syringe with needle safety device (PFS-NSD) for subcutaneous (SC) administration in these trials. Here we demonstrate the comparable pharmacokinetics, tolerability, and safety of both devices.

Methods

This randomized, open-label, two-part study in healthy participants evaluated the comparability of etrolizumab exposure between the AI and the PFS-NSD. Part 1 (pilot) involved a small number of participants, and initial results were used to finalize the design of the larger part 2 (pivotal) study. In both parts, participants were randomly assigned to receive a single SC dose of etrolizumab 105 mg by AI or PFS-NSD. Randomization was stratified by body weight. Primary pharmacokinetic outcomes were C_max, AUC_last, and AUC_0–inf.

Results

One hundred and eighty healthy participants (part 1, n = 30; part 2, n = 150) received a single SC dose of etrolizumab by AI or PFS-NSD. Primary pharmacokinetic results from part 1 supported modification of the part 2 study design. Results from part 2 demonstrated that etrolizumab exposure was equivalent between devices, with geometric mean ratios (GMRs) between AI and PFS-NSD of 102% (90% confidence interval [CI] 94.2–111) for C_max, 98.0% (90% CI 89.3–107) for AUC_last, and 97.6% (90% CI 88.6–107) for AUC_0–inf. Median t_max and mean terminal t_1/2 were also similar between devices. GMRs and 90% CIs of all primary pharmacokinetic parameters were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits (80–125%).

Conclusion

This pharmacokinetic study demonstrated that single SC injections of etrolizumab 105 mg using an AI or a PFS-NSD resulted in equivalent etrolizumab exposure and similar safety and tolerability in healthy participants. Taken together, these results support the use of an AI for etrolizumab administration.

Trial Registration

NCT02996019.

Randomized, Open-Label, Single-Dose, Parallel-Group Pharmacokinetic Study of PF-06410293 (adalimumab-afzb), an Adalimumab Biosimilar, by Subcutaneous Dosing Using a Prefilled Syringe or a Prefilled Pen in Healthy Subjects

This open-label, single-dose, randomized, parallel-group, 2-arm phase 1 bioequivalence (BE) study assessed the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and tolerability of PF-06410293 (ADL-PF), an adalimumab (ADL) biosimilar, following administration by prefilled pen (PFP) or prefilled syringe (PFS). A total of 164 healthy adult subjects were randomized (1:1) to receive ADL-PF (40 mg subcutaneously) in the lower abdomen or upper anterior thigh by PFS or PFP; 163 subjects were included in the primary PK analysis. The concentration-time profiles of the ADL-PF PFS and PFP treatment arms were similar. The 90% confidence intervals for the test/reference ratios of the primary end points (area under the serum concentration-time profile from time 0 to 2 weeks after dosing and maximum observed serum concentration) fell within the 80.00%-125.00% prespecified margin for BE. Comparable numbers of subjects experienced adverse events (AEs) between treatment groups, and injection-site pain was similar at all times and for the 2 injection-site locations. This study demonstrated the BE of ADL-PF following subcutaneous administration using either a PFS or PFP device. ADL-PF by PFS or PFP injection was well tolerated, with the distribution of AEs, including injection-site reactions, being similar between treatment arms.

Immunogenicity of an adalimumab biosimilar, FKB327, and its reference product in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Aim

This study, FKB327‐003, is a phase 3, open‐label extension (OLE) study comparing the long‐term immunogenicity of an adalimumab biosimilar, FKB327 (F), with the reference product (RP).

Methods

In the OLE, patients completing 24 weeks of an initial randomized, double‐blind (DB) study (Period 1) with clinical response and no safety concerns were rerandomized to F or RP, so that two‐thirds of patients remained on the same treatment and one‐third switched to the alternate treatment for weeks 24 through 54 (OLE weeks 0‐30; Period 2), then all received F through week 100 (OLE week 76; Period 3). Treatment sequences were F‐F‐F (no switch), RP‐F‐F and RP‐RP‐F (single switch), and F‐RP‐F (double switch). Patients who entered the OLE study were evaluated for immunogenicity across switching sequences.

Results

The proportion of patients with positive antidrug antibody (ADA) status at the end of Period 1 was 61.7% and 60.0% for F and RP, respectively. The proportion of patients with positive ADA status did not increase throughout Period 1, and was similar for F and RP at all time points. At the end of Period 3, the proportion of patients with positive ADA status was lower in all treatment sequences, at 51.1%, 54.4%, 48.1%, and 42.5% for F‐F‐F, F‐RP‐F, RP‐F‐F, and RP‐RP‐F, respectively.

Conclusion

The RP and F showed comparable immunogenicity characteristics after long‐term administration. Development of ADAs with the RP and F was similar, and was not impacted by switching and double switching between F and RP treatment.

Comparison of Adalimumab Serum Drug Levels When Delivered by Pen Versus Syringe in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease. An International, Multicentre Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab is administered via a pre-filled syringe or spring-loaded pen. In a previous study in Crohn's disease, higher drug levels were observed in syringe users. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of delivery device on adalimumab drug levels in patients with Crohn's disease.

METHODS

Consecutive Crohn's disease patients treated with maintenance adalimumab [40 mg fortnightly] were recruited from five centres. The first recorded drug level with matched clinical and biochemical markers of disease activity was compared between pen and syringe users.

RESULTS

Of 218 patients, 64% used pen, with a median faecal calprotectin 110 μg/g and serum C-reactive protein 4 mg/L. In comparison to pen, syringe users had higher albumin [39 vs 42 g/L; p = 0.016], lower Harvey-Bradshaw Index [2 vs 1; p = 0.017], and higher rates of concomitant immunomodulation [54% vs 71%; p = 0.014]. Drug levels were equivalent between pen and syringe users [median 5.3 vs 5.2 μg/ml; p = 0.584], even after controlling for disease activity and immunomodulation. Syringe users at Alfred Health had higher drug levels than pen [6.1 vs 4.5 μg/ml; p = 0.039]; a greater proportion achieved therapeutic levels [75% vs 44%; p = 0.045]. A higher proportion of pen users from Saint-Étienne had therapeutic levels [79% vs 42%; p = 0.027], yet no significant difference in drug levels [7.9 vs 4.5 μg/ml; p = 0.119].

CONCLUSIONS

Delivery device does not appear to significantly affect adalimumab drug levels. Given differences between study sites, studies evaluating administration education and technique are warranted.

Single-Use Autoinjector Functionality And Reliability For At-Home Administration Of Benralizumab For Patients With Severe Asthma: GRECO Trial Results

Purpose

Accessorized prefilled syringes (APFS) have demonstrated functionality and reliability for subcutaneous (SC) delivery, including self-administration, of benralizumab 30 mg in the clinic or at home. The multicenter, open-label GRECO study (NCT02918071) assessed functionality and reliability of a single-use autoinjector (AI) for at-home benralizumab administration by patients or their caregivers.

Patients and methods

Adults with severe asthma received benralizumab SC injections at the study site at Weeks 0, 4, and 8. The first dose was administered by health care providers. Patients/caregivers had the option of administering the second dose and were required to administer the third dose under supervision. At Weeks 12 and 16, patients/caregivers administered benralizumab via AI at home. After each administration, patients/caregivers completed questionnaires concerning administration and device functioning. All AI devices used were returned for evaluation.

Results

A total of 595 AIs were used for 121 patients (mean age 48.5 years; 64% female) in the clinic and at home. Of 116 participants, 113 (97.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 92.63–99.46) and 112 (96.6%; 95% CI: 91.41–99.05) successfully administered benralizumab at home at Weeks 12 and 16, respectively; 108 (93.1%; 95% CI: 86.86–96.98) were successful on both occasions. Throughout the study, 10 (1.7%) AI administrations were unsuccessful: 8 (1.3%) because of user error, 1 (0.2%) with undetermined cause, and 1 (0.2%) because of a manufacturing defect. Benralizumab efficacy (assessed by Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 score) and pharmacokinetics for patients using the AI were comparable to published results for patients receiving benralizumab via syringe in a clinical setting. No new or unexpected safety findings were observed.

Conclusion

AIs were functional, reliable, and performed well in the clinic and at home. Nearly all patients and caregivers successfully administered SC benralizumab via AI. Benralizumab availability in AI and APFS could provide patients with choices for self-administration.