Randomised, double-blind, phase III study comparing the infliximab biosimilar, PF-06438179/GP1111, with reference infliximab: efficacy, safety and immunogenicity from week 30 to week 54

ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of PF-06438179/GP1111 (PF-SZ-IFX) compared with European reference infliximab (Remicade®; ref-IFX) in patients with moderate-to-severe, active rheumatoid arthritis after continued long-term use of PF-SZ-IFX, and in patients who were switched from ref-IFX to PF-SZ-IFX.MethodsREFLECTIONS B537-02 was a double-blind, active-controlled, multinational study in which patients (N=650) were initially randomised to PF-SZ-IFX or ref-IFX for 30 weeks (treatment period [TP] 1). During weeks 30–54 (TP2), the PF-SZ-IFX group (n=280) continued treatment with PF-SZ-IFX (PF-SZ-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX) and patients in the ref-IFX group (n=286) were rerandomised (1:1) to continue ref-IFX (ref-IFX/ref-IFX) (n=143) or switch to PF-SZ-IFX (ref-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX) (n=143) for a further 24 weeks. Efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics were evaluated.ResultsDuring TP2, patients in all three treatment groups continued to maintain comparable treatment response. At week 54, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) response rates were 71.1% (PF-SZ-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX), 64.3% (ref-IFX/ref-IFX) and 70.6% (ref-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX). Observations for other endpoints, including ACR50/70, Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints Based on High-Sensitivity C Reactive Protein(DAS28-CRP) remission, and mean change in DAS28-CRP and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, were also comparable. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 36.8% (PF-SZ-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX), 33.6% (ref-IFX/ref-IFX) and 37.8% (ref-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX) of patients; there were no clinically meaningful differences in the safety profiles between groups. The percentage of patients who were antidrug antibody-positive was generally stable through the treatment period and comparable overall between the PF-SZ-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX (52.1%; neutralising: 80.8%), ref-IFX/ref-IFX (60.1%; neutralising: 84.9%) and ref-IFX/PF-SZ-IFX (58.0%; neutralising 78.3%) groups.ConclusionsThe similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of PF-SZ-IFX compared with ref-IFX were maintained for up to 54 weeks and were not affected by blinded treatment switch from ref-IFX to PF-SZ-IFX at week 30.Trial registration numberNCT02222493.

Download Full-text

Phase III, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group study to evaluate the similarities between LBEC0101 and etanercept reference product in terms of efficacy and safety in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis inadequately responding to methotrexate

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212172 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 77 (4) ◽

pp. 488-494 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Hiroaki Matsuno ◽

Masato Tomomitsu ◽

Atsushi Hagino ◽

Seonghye Shin ◽

Jiyoon Lee ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Reference Product ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Double Blind ◽

Acr20 Response ◽

American College Of Rheumatology ◽

Parallel Group ◽

Registration Number

ObjectiveTo evaluate the similarities between LBEC0101 (etanercept biosimilar) and the etanercept reference product (ETN-RP) in terms of efficacy and safety, including immunogenicity, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment.MethodsThis phase III, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, 54-week study was conducted in Japan and Korea. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in the disease activity score in 28 joints based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) at week 24. American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response rate, adverse events (AEs), pharmacokinetics and development of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) were also evaluated.ResultsIn total, 374 patients were randomised to LBEC0101 (n=187) or ETN-RP (n=187). The least squares mean changes from baseline in DAS28-ESR at week 24 in the per-protocol set were −3.01 (95% CI −3.198 to −2.820) in the LBEC0101 group and −2.86 (95% CI −3.051 to −2.667) in the ETN-RP group. The estimated between-group difference was −0.15 and its 95% CI was −0.377 to 0.078, which was within the prespecified equivalence margin of −0.6 to 0.6. ACR20 response rates at week 24 were similar between the groups (LBEC0101 93.3% vs ETN-RP 86.7%). The incidence of AEs up to week 54 was comparable between the groups (LBEC0101 92.0% vs ETN-RP 92.5%), although fewer patients in the LBEC0101 group (1.6%) than the ETN-RP group (9.6%) developed ADAs.ConclusionThe clinical efficacy of LBEC0101 was equivalent to that of ETN-RP. LBEC0101 was well tolerated and had a comparable safety profile to ETN-RP.Trial registration numberNCT02357069.

Download Full-text

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

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207764 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 76 (1) ◽

pp. 58-64 ◽

Cited By ~ 93

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.

Download Full-text

Certolizumab pegol in combination with dose-optimised methotrexate in DMARD-naïve patients with early, active rheumatoid arthritis with poor prognostic factors: 1-year results from C-EARLY, a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-209057 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 76 (1) ◽

pp. 96-104 ◽

Cited By ~ 44

Author(s):

P Emery ◽

C O Bingham ◽

G R Burmester ◽

V P Bykerk ◽

D E Furst ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Prognostic Factors ◽

Structural Damage ◽

Certolizumab Pegol ◽

Health Assessment ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Sustained Remission ◽

Double Blind ◽

Registration Number ◽

Modified Total Sharp Score

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol (CZP)+dose-optimised methotrexate (MTX) versus placebo (PBO)+dose-optimised MTX in inducing and sustaining clinical remission in DMARD-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe, active, progressive rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with poor prognostic factors over 52 weeks.MethodsDMARD-naïve patients with ≤1 year of active RA were randomised (3:1) in a double-blind manner to CZP (400 mg Weeks 0, 2, 4, then 200 mg Q2W to Week 52)+MTX or PBO+MTX (the mean optimised-MTX dose=21 and 22 mg/week, respectively). Sustained remission (sREM) and sustained low disease activity (sLDA; DAS28(ESR)<2.6 and DAS28(ESR)≤3.2, respectively, at both Weeks 40 and 52) were the primary and secondary endpoints.ResultsPatients were randomised to CZP+MTX (n=660) and PBO+MTX (n=219). At Week 52, significantly more patients assigned to CZP+MTX compared with PBO+MTX achieved sREM (28.9% vs 15.0%, p<0.001) and sLDA (43.8% vs 28.6%, p<0.001). Inhibition of radiographic progression and improvements in physical functioning were significantly greater for CZP+MTX versus PBO+MTX (van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (mTSS) mean absolute change from baseline (CFB): 0.2 vs 1.8, p<0.001, rate of mTSS non-progressors: 70.3% vs 49.7%, p<0.001; least squares (LS) mean CFB in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI): −1.00 vs −0.82, p<0.001). Incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs was similar between treatment groups. Infection was the most frequent AE, with higher incidence for CZP+MTX (71.8/100 patient-years (PY)) versus PBO+MTX (52.7/100 PY); the rate of serious infection was similar between CZP+MTX (3.3/100 PY) and PBO+MTX (3.7/100 PY).ConclusionsCZP+dose-optimised MTX treatment of DMARD-naïve early RA resulted in significantly more patients achieving sREM and sLDA, improved physical function and inhibited structural damage compared with PBO+dose-optimised MTX.Trial registration numberNCT01519791.

Download Full-text

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

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-211741 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 77 (2) ◽

pp. 234-240 ◽

Cited By ~ 59

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.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of netakimab in patients with psoriatic arthritis: results of the phase III PATERA clinical study

Rheumatology Science and Practice ◽

10.47360/1995-4484-2020-480-488 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 58 (5) ◽

pp. 480-488

Author(s):

T. V. Korotaeva ◽

V. I. Mazurov ◽

A. M. Lila ◽

I. Z. Gaydukova ◽

A. L. Bakulev ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Placebo Group ◽

Psoriatic Arthritis ◽

Safety Profile ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Double Blind ◽

Acr20 Response ◽

American College Of Rheumatology ◽

Blinded Manner

Netakimab (NTK) is a humanized anti-interleukin-17А (IL-17A) monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, moderate to severe psoriasis. Here, we present the results of the 24-weeks double blind period of the PATERA study.Objective. The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NTK compared to placebo in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).Patients and methods. 194 patients with active PsA with an inadequate response to previous therapy with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, conventional or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous 120 mg NTK or placebo at weeks 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 18, 22. At week 16 ACR20 (20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response criteria) non-responders in placebo group were reassigned to NTK in a blinded manner. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieved ACR20 response at week 24.Results. 82,5% of patients in the NTK group and 9.3% of patients in the placebo group achieved ACR20 at week 24 with the 95% CI [0,63; 0,84] (p < 0,0001). Skin manifestations and axial disease significantly improved with NTK. The safety profile of NTK was comparable to placebo. The most frequent treatment-related AEs were expected and common for all other IL-17 inhibitors: increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT), infections, lymphopenia.Conclusion. NTK in the dose of 120 mg has superior efficacy over placebo in patients with active psoriatic arthritis. The safety profile is consistent with other IL-17 inhibitors.

Download Full-text

Filgotinib in combination with methotrexate or as monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and limited or no prior exposure to methotrexate: the phase 3, randomised controlled FINCH 3 trial

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219213 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. annrheumdis-2020-219213

Author(s):

René Westhovens ◽

William F C Rigby ◽

Désirée van der Heijde ◽

Daniel W T Ching ◽

William Stohl ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Primary Endpoint ◽

Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Health Assessment ◽

Signs And Symptoms ◽

Janus Kinase ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Double Blind ◽

Acr20 Response ◽

American College Of Rheumatology

ObjectivesTo investigate efficacy and safety of the Janus kinase-1 inhibitor filgotinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with limited or no prior methotrexate (MTX) exposure.MethodsThis 52-week, phase 3, multicentre, double-blind clinical trial (NCT02886728) evaluated once-daily oral filgotinib in 1252 patients with RA randomised 2:1:1:2 to filgotinib 200 mg with MTX (FIL200 +MTX), filgotinib 100 mg with MTX (FIL100 +MTX), filgotinib 200 mg monotherapy (FIL200), or MTX. The primary endpoint was proportion achieving 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 24.ResultsThe primary endpoint was achieved by 81% of patients receiving FIL200+ MTX versus 71% receiving MTX (p<0.001). A significantly greater proportion treated with FIL100+ MTX compared with MTX achieved an ACR20 response (80%, p=0.017) at week 24. Significant improvement in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index was seen at week 24; least-squares mean change from baseline was −1.0 and −0.94 with FIL200+MTX and FIL100+MTX, respectively, versus −0.81 with MTX (p<0.001, p=0.008, respectively). Significantly higher proportions receiving FIL200+MTX (54%) and FIL100+MTX (43%) achieved DAS28(CRP) <2.6 versus MTX (29%) (p<0.001 for both) at week 24. Hierarchical testing stopped for comparison of ACR20 for FIL200 monotherapy (78%) versus MTX (71%) at week 24 (p=0.058). Adverse event rates through week 52 were comparable between all treatments.ConclusionsFIL200+MTX and FIL100+MTX both significantly improved signs and symptoms and physical function in patients with active RA and limited or no prior MTX exposure; FIL200 monotherapy did not have a superior ACR20 response rate versus MTX. Filgotinib was well tolerated, with acceptable safety compared with MTX.

Download Full-text

Impact of guselkumab, an interleukin-23 p19 subunit inhibitor, on enthesitis and dactylitis in patients with moderate to severe psoriatic arthritis: results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase II study

RMD Open ◽

10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001217 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 6 (2) ◽

pp. e001217 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Philip J Mease ◽

Dafna D Gladman ◽

Atul Deodhar ◽

Dennis G McGonagle ◽

Peter Nash ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Psoriatic Arthritis ◽

Phase Ii ◽

Group Versus ◽

Severity Index ◽

Double Blind ◽

Acr20 Response ◽

Link Type ◽

American College Of Rheumatology ◽

Registration Number ◽

Interleukin 23

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of guselkumab on enthesitis and dactylitis in a phase II trial of patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).MethodsThis was a phase II, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of adults with active PsA (≥3 swollen and ≥3 tender joints and C reactive protein ≥0.3 mg/dL) despite conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, and/or oral corticosteroid therapy. Patients were randomised to subcutaneous injections of guselkumab 100 mg or placebo at weeks 0, 4 and every 8 weeks, with placebo crossover to guselkumab at week 24. Dactylitis was scored on a scale of 0–3 on each digit; enthesitis was assessed using the Leeds Enthesitis Index (0–6). Other assessments included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index responses.ResultsOf 149 randomised patients, 107 patients had enthesitis (mean score=2.7) and 81 patients had dactylitis (mean dactylitis score=5.7) at baseline. Mean improvements in enthesitis and dactylitis at week 24 were greater in the guselkumab group versus placebo and sustained through week 56. Similar results were observed for the proportions of patients with resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis. At week 56, mean improvements in enthesitis and dactylitis among patients who switched from placebo to guselkumab treatment were similar to those in the guselkumab group. In the guselkumab group, ACR20 responders had greater improvements in enthesitis and dactylitis versus non-responders (week 24).ConclusionsAt week 24, the guselkumab group had greater mean improvements in enthesitis and dactylitis and greater proportions of patients with resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis versus placebo. ACR20 response was associated with improvements in enthesitis and dactylitis.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02319759.URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02319759; Registered 18 December 2014.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of filgotinib in methotrexate-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis with poor prognostic factors: post hoc analysis of FINCH 3

RMD Open ◽

10.1136/rmdopen-2021-001621 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

pp. e001621

Author(s):

Daniel Aletaha ◽

René Westhovens ◽

Cecile Gaujoux-Viala ◽

Giovanni Adami ◽

Alan Matsumoto ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Prognostic Factors ◽

Structural Damage ◽

High Sensitivity ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Double Blind ◽

Post Hoc Analysis ◽

American College Of Rheumatology ◽

Post Hoc

ObjectiveThis analysis evaluated efficacy and safety of filgotinib, a Janus-associated kinase 1-preferential inhibitor, in methotrexate (MTX)-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with multiple poor prognostic factors (PPFs).MethodsThis was a post hoc analysis of the phase III, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, FINCH 3 study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02886728). Patients received once-daily oral filgotinib 200 or 100 mg plus once-weekly oral MTX ≤20 mg (FIL200 + MTX and FIL100 + MTX), filgotinib 200 mg monotherapy (FIL200), or oral MTX monotherapy (MTX-mono) for up to 52 weeks. PPFs investigated were seropositivity for rheumatoid factor or anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies, high-sensitivity C reactive protein (CRP) ≥4 mg/L, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with CRP (DAS28(CRP)) >5.1, and presence of erosions. Filgotinib efficacy and safety in patients with all four PPFs at baseline were explored versus MTX-mono within this subgroup and compared informally with the overall population.ResultsOf 1249 patients in FINCH 3, 510 (40.8%) had all PPFs. Efficacy of FIL200 + MTX among these patients was comparable to the overall population, with higher rates of 20%/50%/70% improvement from baseline by American College of Rheumatology criteria, DAS28(CRP) <2.6, and remission; greater improvement in physical function and pain; and better inhibition of structural damage relative to MTX-mono. FIL100 + MTX and FIL200 were not consistently more efficacious versus MTX-mono. Safety of filgotinib in patients with PPFs was comparable to the overall population; no new safety signals were observed.ConclusionFIL200 + MTX efficacy and safety in patients with multiple PPFs were similar to the overall population.

Download Full-text

Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of GP2015, an etanercept biosimilar, compared with the reference etanercept in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: 24-week results from the comparative phase III, randomised, double-blind EQUIRA study

RMD Open ◽

10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000757 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 4 (2) ◽

pp. e000757 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Marco Matucci-Cerinic ◽

Yannick Allanore ◽

Arthur Kavanaugh ◽

Maya H Buch ◽

Hendrik Schulze-Koops ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Treatment Period ◽

Similar Efficacy ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Double Blind ◽

Reactive Protein ◽

Period 2 ◽

Equivalent Efficacy ◽

The Difference

ObjectivesTo demonstrate the equivalent efficacy and compare the safety and immunogenicity of an etanercept biosimilar, GP2015, with reference etanercept (ETN) in patients with moderate-to-severe, active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), characterised by an inadequate response to synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).MethodsIn the EQUIRA study, eligible patients (n=376) were randomised 1: 1 to 50 mg GP2015 or ETN subcutaneously, once weekly, for 24 weeks (treatment period 1). Patients from both groups, with at least moderate European League Against Rheumatism response at week 24, received GP2015 up to week 48 (treatment period 2). All patients continued to receive concomitant methotrexate at a stable dose (10–25 mg/week) until end of the study. The 24-week results are presented here.ResultsEquivalent efficacy between GP2015 and ETN was demonstrated if the 95% CI for the difference in disease activity score 28-joint count C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) change from baseline to week 24 between treatment arms was contained within the prespecified equivalence margin range of −0.6 to 0.6. The least squares mean difference (GP2015–ETN) in change from baseline in DAS28-CRP up to week 24 was −0.07 (95% CI −0.26 to 0.12 [primary endpoint)]. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable between GP2015 (43.5%) and ETN (49.5%). None of the GP2015-treated patients developed neutralising anti-drug antibodies (NAbs) whereas 1.6% and 0.6% of patients in ETN group were NAb positive at weeks 4 and 12, respectively.ConclusionIn patients with RA who had an inadequate response to DMARDs, GP2015 demonstrated a similar efficacy and a comparable safety and immunogenicity profile with ETN.Trial registrationNCT02638259.

Download Full-text

A phase III randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study comparing SB4 with etanercept reference product in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207588 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 76 (1) ◽

pp. 51-57 ◽

Cited By ~ 135

Author(s):

Paul Emery ◽

Jiří Vencovský ◽

Anna Sylwestrzak ◽

Piotr Leszczyński ◽

Wieslawa Porawska ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Primary Endpoint ◽

Reference Product ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Pharmacokinetic Parameters ◽

Weekly Dose ◽

Double Blind ◽

Acr20 Response ◽

American College Of Rheumatology ◽

Parallel Group

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of SB4 (an etanercept biosimilar) with reference product etanercept (ETN) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate (MTX) therapy.MethodsThis is a phase III, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre study with a 24-week primary endpoint. Patients with moderate to severe RA despite MTX treatment were randomised to receive weekly dose of 50 mg of subcutaneous SB4 or ETN. The primary endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 24. Other efficacy endpoints as well as safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetic parameters were also measured.Results596 patients were randomised to either SB4 (N=299) or ETN (N=297). The ACR20 response rate at week 24 in the per-protocol set was 78.1% for SB4 and 80.3% for ETN. The 95% CI of the adjusted treatment difference was −9.41% to 4.98%, which is completely contained within the predefined equivalence margin of −15% to 15%, indicating therapeutic equivalence between SB4 and ETN. Other efficacy endpoints and pharmacokinetic endpoints were comparable. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable (55.2% vs 58.2%), and the incidence of antidrug antibody development up to week 24 was lower in SB4 compared with ETN (0.7% vs 13.1%).ConclusionsSB4 was shown to be equivalent with ETN in terms of efficacy at week 24. SB4 was well tolerated with a lower immunogenicity profile. The safety profile of SB4 was comparable with that of ETN.Trial registration numbersNCT01895309, EudraCT 2012-005026-30.

Download Full-text