ObjectiveTo demonstrate pharmacokinetic equivalence of CT-P10 and innovator rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses or intolerances to antitumour necrosis factor agents.MethodsIn this randomised phase I trial, patients with active RA were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive 1000 mg CT-P10 or RTX at weeks 0 and 2 (alongside continued methotrexate therapy). Primary endpoints were area under the serum concentration–time curve from time zero to last quantifiable concentration (AUC0–last) and maximum serum concentration after second infusion (Cmax). Additional pharmacokinetic parameters, efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety were also assessed. Data are reported up to week 24.Results103 patients were assigned to CT-P10 and 51 to RTX. The 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means (CT-P10/RTX) for both primary endpoints were within the bioequivalence range of 80%–125% (AUC0–last: 97.7% (90% CI 89.2% to 107.0%); Cmax: 97.6% (90% CI 92.0% to 103.5%)). Pharmacodynamics and efficacy were comparable between groups. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 17.6% of patients in each group at week 24. CT-P10 and RTX displayed similar safety profiles.ConclusionsCT-P10 and RTX demonstrated equivalent pharmacokinetics and comparable efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety.Trial registration numberNCT01534884.

Objective To assess non-inferiority of s.c. to i.v. CT-P13 in RA. Methods Patients with active RA and inadequate response to MTX participated in this phase I/III double-blind study at 76 sites. Patients received CT-P13 i.v. 3 mg/kg [week (W) 0 and W2] before randomization (1:1) at W6 to CT-P13 s.c. via pre-filled syringe (PFS) 120 mg biweekly until W28, or CT-P13 i.v. 3 mg/kg every 8 weeks until W22. Randomization was stratified by country, W2 serum CRP and W6 body weight. From W30, all patients received CT-P13 s.c. In a usability sub-study, patients received CT-P13 s.c. via auto-injector (W46–54) then PFS (W56–64). The primary endpoint was change (decrease) from baseline in disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28)-CRP at W22 (non-inferiority margin: −0.6). Results Of 357 patients enrolled, 343 were randomized to CT-P13 s.c. (n = 167) or CT-P13 i.v. (n = 176) at W6. The least-squares mean change (decrease) from baseline (standard error) in DAS28-CRP at W22 was 2.21 (0.22) for CT-P13 s.c. (n = 162) and 1.94 (0.21) for CT-P13 i.v. [n = 168; difference 0.27 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.52)], establishing non-inferiority. Efficacy findings were similar between arms at W54. Safety was similar between arms throughout: 92 (54.8%; CT-P13 s.c.) and 117 (66.9%; CT-P13 i.v.) patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (from W6). There were no treatment-related deaths or new safety findings. Usability was similar for CT-P13 s.c. via auto-injector or PFS. Conclusion CT-P13 s.c. was non-inferior to CT-P13 i.v. in active RA. The convenience of s.c. administration could benefit patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03147248.

This multinational, randomized, double-blind trial, (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02149121) was designed to demonstrate equivalence in pharmacokinetics and efficacy between CT-P10 and innovator rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Adults with active RA were treated with CT-P10, United States-sourced RTX (US-RTX; Rituxan®), or European Union-sourced RTX (EU-RTX; MabThera®) at weeks 0 and 2. The co-primary pharmacokinetic endpoints were area under the serum concentration–time curve (AUC) from time zero to last measurable concentration (AUC0–last), AUC from time zero to infinity (AUC0–∞), and maximum concentration (Cmax) after two infusions. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 24 in Disease Activity Score using 28 joints-C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). Pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety were also assessed. 372 patients were randomly assigned to CT-P10 (n = 161) or RTX (n = 211 [US-RTX, n = 151; EU-RTX, n = 60]). For the co-primary pharmacokinetic endpoints, 90% confidence intervals (CI) for ratios of geometric means (CT-P10/US-RTX, CT-P10/EU-RTX or EU-RTX/US-RTX) all fell within the equivalence margin of 80–125%. Adjusted least squares (LS) mean (standard error) change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 was −2.13 (0.175) for CT-P10 and −2.09 (0.176) for RTX. The 95% CI (−0.29, 0.21) of the estimated treatment difference between CT-P10 and RTX (−0.04) was entirely within the efficacy equivalence margin of ±0.5. Pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety profiles were similar for CT-P10 and RTX. The pharmacokinetics of CT-P10, US-RTX, and EU-RTX were equivalent. CT-P10 and RTX were also equivalent in terms of efficacy and displayed similar pharmacodynamic, immunogenicity, and safety profiles up to week 24.

BackgroundCT-P10 is a biosimilar candidate of innovator rituximab (RTX) that demonstrated a comparable clinical profile to RTX in a phase I randomized controlled trial (RCT) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01534884).ObjectiveThis open-label extension (OLE) study (NCT01873443) compared the efficacy and safety of CT-P10 in patients with RA who received CT-P10 from the outset (i.e., from the start of the RCT and also in the OLE; ‘maintenance group’) with those who received RTX during the RCT and switched to CT-P10 during the OLE (‘switch group’).MethodsPatients who completed the RCT were recruited. Based on the Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28) and predefined safety criteria, patients could receive up to two courses of CT-P10 during the OLE. Efficacy [DAS28 and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response], safety and immunogenicity were assessed.ResultsEighty-seven patients were enrolled; 58 and 29 had previously received CT-P10 or RTX, respectively, in the RCT. Of these, 38 (65.5%) and 20 (69.0%) were treated with CT-P10 in the OLE and therefore comprised the maintenance and switch groups, respectively. The mean change in DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) from baseline (week 0 of RCT) at week 24 of the first OLE treatment course in the maintenance and switch groups was −2.7 and −2.4, respectively. The proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR responses was also comparable between groups. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 13.2 and 15.0% of patients in the maintenance and switch groups, respectively, at week 24 of the first OLE course. CT-P10 treatment was well-tolerated when administered for up to 2 years or after switching from RTX.ConclusionIn this study population, comparable efficacy and safety profiles were observed in patients who switched from RTX to CT-P10 and those maintained on CT-P10 throughout treatment.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40259-017-0233-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban are direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that are increasingly used worldwide. Taking into account their widespread use for the prevention of thromboembolism in cardiology, neurology, orthopedics, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) as well as their different pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenetics dependence, it is critical to explore new opportunities for DOACs administration and predict their dosage when used as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs. In this review, we describe the details of the relative pharmacogenetics on the pharmacokinetics of DOACs as well as new data concerning the clinical characteristics that predetermine the needed dosage and the risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The usefulness of genetic information before and shortly after the initiation of DOACs is also discussed. The reasons for particular attention to these issues are not only new genetic knowledge and genotyping possibilities, but also the risk of serious ADRs (primarily, gastrointestinal bleeding). Taking into account the effect of the carriership of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) of genes encoding biotransformation enzymes and DOACs metabolism, the use of these measures is important to predict changes in pharmacokinetics and the risk of ADRs in patients with a high risk of thromboembolism who receive anticoagulant therapy.

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate long-term clinical outcomes of extended treatment with CT-P10, a rituximab biosimilar, compared with rituximab reference products sourced from the USA and the EU (US-RTX and EU-RTX) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for up to 48 weeks. Methods In this multinational, randomized, double-blind trial, adults with active RA received up to two courses of CT-P10, US-RTX, or EU-RTX alongside methotrexate. Efficacy endpoints included Disease Activity Score 28-joint count (DAS28) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety were also assessed. Results Of 372 patients randomized to the study drug, 330 (88.7%) completed the second treatment course. Mean change from baseline to week 48 in DAS28-C-reactive protein was comparable in the CT-P10 and combined rituximab (US-RTX and EU-RTX) groups (− 2.7 and − 2.6, respectively). ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 response rates at week 48 indicated no differences between groups (80.6%, 55.4%, and 31.7% vs. 79.8%, 53.9%, and 33.7% in the CT-P10 and combined rituximab groups, respectively). Similar improvements in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and all medical outcomes in the Short Form 36-Item Health Survey, including physical and mental health, were seen in all groups. At week 48, antidrug antibodies were detected in 4.9%, 9.4%, and 8.6% of patients in the CT-P10, US-RTX, and EU-RTX groups, respectively. CT-P10 and rituximab displayed similar pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and safety profiles. Conclusion CT-P10 was similar to EU-RTX and US-RTX in terms of efficacy, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety up to week 48. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02149121. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-018-00331-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of CT-P10, a rituximab biosimilar after a single switch, during a multinational, randomized, double-blind Phase 3 trial involving patients with RA. Methods Patients received 48 weeks’ treatment with CT-P10 or United States- or European Union-sourced reference rituximab (US-RTX and EU-RTX, respectively). Patients entering the extension period (weeks 48–72) remained on CT-P10 (CT-P10/CT-P10; n = 122) or US-RTX (US-RTX/US-RTX; n = 64), or switched to CT-P10 from US-RTX (US-RTX/CT-P10; n = 62) or EU-RTX (EU-RTX/CT-P10; n = 47) for an additional course. Efficacy endpoints included Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates, and quality of life-related parameters. Pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety were also assessed. Results At week 72, similar improvements were observed by disease activity parameters including DAS28 and ACR response rate in the four extension period treatment groups. Quality of life improvements at week 72 vs baseline were similarly shown during the extension period in all groups. Newly developed anti-drug antibodies were detected in two patients following study drug infusion in the extension period. Similar pharmacodynamic and safety profiles were observed across groups. Conclusion Long-term use of CT-P10 up to 72 weeks was effective and well tolerated. Furthermore, switching from reference rituximab to CT-P10 in RA was well tolerated and did not result in any clinically meaningful differences in terms of efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety. Trail registration ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02149121.

BackgroundCT-P10 is a biosimilar of innovator rituximab (RTX), a biological therapy used to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have responded inadequately to anti-tumor necrosis factor agents.ObjectiveOur objective was to compare the clinical profile of CT-P10 versus RTX in patients with RA who received up to two courses of treatment and were followed for up to 72 weeks.MethodsIn this multicenter double-blind phase I study, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive CT-P10 1000 mg or RTX 1000 mg at weeks 0 and 2. Based on disease activity, patients could receive a second course of treatment between weeks 24 and 48. Efficacy endpoints, including mean change from baseline in Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28), safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics were evaluated.ResultsIn total, 154 patients were randomized to CT-P10 or RTX (n = 103 and 51, respectively); 137 (n = 92 and 45) completed the first course of treatment, of whom 83 (n = 60 and 23) were re-treated. Improvements from baseline in all efficacy endpoints were highly similar between the CT-P10 and RTX groups over both treatment courses. At week 24 after the second course, mean change from week 0 of the first course in DAS28 erythrocyte sedimentation rate was −2.47 and −2.04 for CT-P10 and RTX, respectively, (p = 0.1866) and in DAS28 C-reactive protein was −2.32 and −2.00, respectively (p = 0.3268). The proportion of patients positive for antidrug antibodies at week 24 after the second treatment course was 20.0% and 21.7% in the CT-P10 and RTX groups, respectively. The safety profile of CT-P10 was comparable to that of RTX, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties were similar.ConclusionsIn patients with RA, efficacy, safety, and other clinical data were comparable between CT-P10 and RTX after up to two courses of treatment over 72 weeks.(ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01534884).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40259-017-0232-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.