JavaScript NENÍ povolen !

* Zobrazit nápovědu

9 záznamů v Medvik Filtry

Článek

Phase III Randomized Study of SB5, an Adalimumab Biosimilar, Versus Reference Adalimumab in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis

Weinblatt, Michael E
Autor Weinblatt, Michael E Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Baranauskaite, Asta
Autor Baranauskaite, Asta Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania
Niebrzydowski, Jaroslaw
Autor Niebrzydowski, Jaroslaw Medica Pro Familia, Gdynia, Poland
Dokoupilova, Eva
Autor Dokoupilova, Eva Medical Plus, Uherske Hradiste, Czech Republic
Zielinska, Agnieszka
Autor Zielinska, Agnieszka Medica Pro Familia, Warsaw, Poland
Jaworski, Janusz
Autor Jaworski, Janusz Reumatika, Centrum Reumatologii, Warsaw, Poland
Racewicz, Artur
Autor Racewicz, Artur Zdrowie Osteo-Medic, Białystok, Poland
Pileckyte, Margarita
Autor Pileckyte, Margarita Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania
Jedrychowicz-Rosiak, Krystyna
Autor Jedrychowicz-Rosiak, Krystyna Mazowieckie Centrum Badań Klinicznych, Grodzisk Mazowiecki, Poland
Cheong, Soo Yeon
Autor Cheong, Soo Yeon Samsung Bioepis, Incheon, Republic of Korea

Arthritis & rheumatology. 2018 ; 70 (1) : 40-48. [pub] 20171121

ISSN 2326-5205
Medvik
Zdroj

OBJECTIVE: SB5 is a biosimilar agent for adalimumab (ADA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and immunogenicity of SB5 in comparison with reference ADA in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In this phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients with moderately to severely active RA despite treatment with methotrexate were randomized 1:1 to receive SB5 or reference ADA at a dosage of 40 mg subcutaneously every other week. The primary efficacy end point was the response rate based on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at week 24 in the per-protocol set (completer analysis). Additional end points included efficacy, PK, safety, and immunogenicity assessments. RESULTS: Of the 544 patients randomized to receive a study drug, the full analysis set comprised 542 patients (269 in the SB5 group, 273 in the reference ADA group) and the per-protocol set comprised 476 patients (239 receiving SB5, 237 receiving reference ADA). The ACR20 response rate at week 24 in the per-protocol set was equivalent between those receiving SB5 and those receiving reference ADA (72.4% and 72.2%, respectively); the difference in the ACR20 response rate (0.1%, [95% confidence interval -7.83%, 8.13%]) was within the predefined equivalence margin (±15%). Similar results were seen in the full analysis set (missing data being considered a nonresponse). The SB5 and reference ADA treatment groups were comparable across other end points, including the ACR 50% and ACR 70% improvement response rates, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, PK data, incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events, and the antidrug antibody response. Subgroup analyses showed that the efficacy and safety of SB5 and reference ADA were comparable regardless of antidrug antibody status. CONCLUSION: The ACR20 response rate at week 24 was equivalent between patients treated with the biosimilar agent SB5 and those treated with reference ADA. SB5 and reference ADA were both well tolerated, with comparable safety profiles, in patients with RA.

Článek

Switching From Reference Adalimumab to SB5 (Adalimumab Biosimilar) in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Fifty-Two-Week Phase III Randomized Study Results

Arthritis & rheumatology. 2018 ; 70 (6) : 832-840. [pub] 20180424

Arthritis Rheumatol
ISSN 2326-5205
Medvik
Zdroj

OBJECTIVE: The 24-week equivalent efficacy and comparable safety results of the biosimilar SB5 and reference adalimumab (ADA) from the phase III randomized study in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been reported previously. We undertook this transition study to evaluate patients who switched from ADA to SB5 or who continued to receive SB5 or ADA up to 52 weeks. METHODS: In this phase III study, patients were initially randomized 1:1 to receive SB5 or ADA (40 mg subcutaneously every other week). At 24 weeks, patients receiving ADA were rerandomized 1:1 to continue with ADA (ADA/ADA group) or to switch to SB5 (ADA/SB5 group) up to week 52; patients receiving SB5 continued with SB5 for 52 weeks (SB5 group). Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were evaluated up to 52 weeks. RESULTS: The full analysis set population consisted of 542 patients (269 in the SB5 group, 273 in the ADA overall group [patients who were randomized to receive ADA at week 0], 125 in the ADA/SB5 group, and 129 in the ADA/ADA group). The percentages of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, or 70% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20, ACR50, or ACR70 response) at week 24 were maintained after the transition from ADA to SB5, and these response rates were comparable across treatment groups throughout the study. ACR20 response rates ranged from 73.4% to 78.8% at week 52. Radiographic progression was minimal and comparable across treatment groups. The safety profile and the incidence of antidrug antibodies were comparable across treatment groups after transition. CONCLUSION: SB5 was well tolerated over 1 year in patients with RA, with efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity comparable to those of ADA. Switching from ADA to SB5 had no treatment-emergent issues such as increased adverse events, increased immunogenicity, or loss of efficacy.

Článek

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. 2017 ; 76 (1) : 51-57. [pub] 20150706

Ann Rheum Dis
ISSN 1468-2060
Medvik
Zdroj

OBJECTIVES: To 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. METHODS: This 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. RESULTS: 596 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%). CONCLUSIONS: SB4 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 NUMBERS: NCT01895309, EudraCT 2012-005026-30.

Článek

52-week results of the phase 3 randomized study comparing SB4 with reference etanercept in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatology. 2017 ; 56 (12) : 2093-2101.

Rheumatology (Oxford)
ISSN 1462-0332
Medvik
Zdroj

Objective: To compare the 52-week efficacy and safety of SB4 [an etanercept biosimilar] with reference etanercept (ETN) in patients with active RA. Methods: In a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicentre study, patients with moderate to severe RA despite MTX treatment were randomized to receive 50 mg/week of s.c. SB4 or ETN up to week 52. Efficacy assessments included ACR response rates, 28-joint DAS, Simplified and Clinical Disease Activity Indices and changes in the modified total Sharp score (mTSS). Safety and immunogenicity were also evaluated. Results: A total of 596 patients were randomized to receive either SB4 (n = 299) or ETN (n = 297) and 505 (84.7%) patients completed 52 weeks of the study. At week 52, the ACR20 response rates in the per-protocol set were comparable between SB4 (80.8%) and ETN (81.5%). All efficacy results were comparable between the two groups and they were maintained up to week 52. Radiographic progression was also comparable and the change from baseline in the mTSS was 0.45 for SB4 and 0.74 for ETN. The safety profile of SB4 was similar to that of ETN and the incidence of anti-drug antibody development up to week 52 was 1.0 and 13.2% in the SB4 and ETN groups, respectively. Conclusion: Efficacy including radiographic progression was comparable between SB4 and ETN up to week 52. SB4 was well tolerated and had a similar safety profile to that of ETN. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01895309, EudraCT 2012-005026-30.