SAT0152 A Randomised, Double-Blind, Phase III Study Comparing SB2, An Infliximab Biosimilar, To the Infliximab Reference Product (Remicade®) in Patients with Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis Despite Methotrexate Therapy

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 706.3-707 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.-Y. Choe ◽  
N. Prodanovic ◽  
J. Niebrzydowski ◽  
I. Staykov ◽  
E. Dokoupilova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Reference Product ◽  
Methotrexate Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Study

scholarly journals A randomised, double-blind, phase III study comparing SB2, an infliximab biosimilar, to the infliximab reference product Remicade in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy

2015 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jung-Yoon Choe ◽  
Nenad Prodanovic ◽  
Jaroslaw Niebrzydowski ◽  
Ivan Staykov ◽  
Eva Dokoupilova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Reference Product ◽  
Methotrexate Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Adjusted Rate

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics (PK) of SB2 to the infliximab reference product (INF) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate therapy.MethodsThis is a phase III, randomised, double-blind, multinational, multicentre parallel group study. Patients with moderate to severe RA despite methotrexate therapy were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either SB2 or INF of 3 mg/kg. The primary end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 30. Inclusion of the 95% CI of the ACR20 response difference within a ±15% margin was required for equivalence.Results584 subjects were randomised into SB2 (N=291; 290 analysed) or INF (N=293). The ACR20 response at week 30 in the per-protocol set was 64.1% in SB2 versus 66.0% in INF. The adjusted rate difference was −1.88% (95% CI −10.26% to 6.51%), which was within the predefined equivalence margin. Other efficacy outcomes such as ACR50/70, disease activity score measured by 28 joints and European League against Rheumatism response were similar between SB2 and INF. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable (57.6% in SB2 vs 58.0% in INF) as well as the incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADA) to infliximab up to week 30 (55.1% in SB2 vs 49.7% in INF). The PK profile was similar between SB2 and INF. Efficacy, safety and PK by ADA subgroup were comparable between SB2 and INF.ConclusionsSB2 was equivalent to INF in terms of ACR20 response at week 30. SB2 was well tolerated with a comparable safety profile, immunogenicity and PK to INF.Trial registration numberNCT01936181.

scholarly journals Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy after switching from reference infliximab to biosimilar SB2 compared with continuing reference infliximab and SB2 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results of a randomised, double-blind, phase III transition study

2017 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 234-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josef S Smolen ◽  
Jung-Yoon Choe ◽  
Nenad Prodanovic ◽  
Jaroslaw Niebrzydowski ◽  
Ivan Staykov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Transition Study ◽  
To Receive

ObjectivesEfficacy, safety and immunogenicity results from the phase III study of SB2, a biosimilar of reference infliximab (INF), were previously reported through 54 weeks. This transition period compared results in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switched from INF to SB2 with those in patients who maintained treatment with INF or SB2.MethodsPatients with moderate to severe RA despite methotrexate treatment were randomised (1:1) to receive SB2 or INF at weeks 0, 2 and 6 and every 8 weeks thereafter until week 46. At week 54, patients previously receiving INF were rerandomised (1:1) to switch to SB2 (INF/SB2 (n=94)) or to continue on INF (INF/INF (n=101)) up to week 70. Patients previously receiving SB2 continued on SB2 (SB2/SB2 (n=201)) up to week 70. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity were assessed up to week 78.ResultsEfficacy was sustained and comparable across treatment groups. American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 responses between weeks 54 and 78 ranged from 63.5% to 72.3% with INF/SB2, 66.3%%–69.4% with INF/INF and 65.6%–68.3% with SB2/SB2. Treatment-emergent adverse events during this time occurred in 36.2%, 35.6% and 40.3%, respectively, and infusion-related reactions in 3.2%, 2.0% and 3.5%. Among patients who were negative for antidrug antibodies (ADA) up to week 54, newly developed ADAs were reported in 14.6%, 14.9% and 14.1% of the INF/SB2, INF/INF and SB2/SB2 groups, respectively.ConclusionsThe efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles remained comparable among the INF/SB2, INF/INF and SB2/SB2 groups up to week 78, with no treatment-emergent issues or clinically relevant immunogenicity after switching from INF to SB2.Trial registration numberNCT01936181; EudraCT number: 2012-005733-37.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document