Background Comparative effectiveness trials using suitable endpoints are necessary to demonstrate therapeutic equivalence of biosimilar molecules. Objectives This phase 3 double-blind, active comparator, clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of a biosimilar infliximab (IFX), BOW015, to innovator IFX (iIFX). Methods 189 subjects with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) diagnosed according to the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria, on stable doses of oral methotrexate (MTX) 10-20 mg/wk, were randomized 2:1 to receive either BOW015 or iIFX 3 mg/kg iv on wks 0, 2, 6, and 14. Subjects had CRP ≥10 mg/L at screening and were tested for TB by PPD, QuantiFERON-TB Gold, and chest radiographs. The primary endpoint was ACR20 response at Wk 16, within a 23% equivalence margin. Responders to BOW015 were continued on treatment and responders to iIFX were crossed over to BOW015 during an open-label phase in which all subjects are being treated every 8 wks through Wk 46. Efficacy and safety were assessed at each visit and immunogenicity at Wks 0 and 14. Twelve subjects were not included in the per protocol (PP) analysis due to study drug discontinuation prior to Wk 16 (n=9), dosing error (n=2) or missing data (n=1). In serum from each patient, antibodies to IFX were assayed using sensitive bridge ELISAs against BOW015 and iIFX. Results The ACR20 responses at Wk 16 for BOW015 and iIFX, respectively, were 89.9% and 86.4% in the PP population (95% CI for the difference, -6.9% to 13.7%) and 85.0% and 85.5% in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (95% CI for the difference, -11.2% to 10.3%). Kinetics of the ACR20 response was similar for both treatments over the first 16 wks of the trial in both the PP and ITT populations. The maximum treatment difference for the PP population was 3.4% and that for the ITT population was 6.4%, each at Wk 2. Overall, 43.3% of BOW015-treated and 50.0% of iIFX-treated subjects had at least one treatment emergent adverse event (AE). There was no significant difference in AE incidence by body system. Infectious AEs occurred in 15.8% of BOW015-treated and 9.7% of iIFX-treated subjects (p=0.368). Anti-IFX antibodies were detected in 22.1% of BOW015-treated and 35.5% of iIFX-treated subjects at Wk 14 (p=0.055). There was high concurrence between the BOW015-specific and iIFX-specific immunoassays among all subjects, regardless of treatment (κ=0.96). Conclusions This is the first clinical trial of a biosimilar IFX to demonstrate and report the kinetics of response to treatment prior to the plateau phase. The comparable proportion of responders at each of these early time points and at the Wk 16 primary endpoint provides convincing evidence of therapeutic equivalence. The high ACR20 response rates are consistent with those observed in other RA clinical trials in which patients had not failed MTX and were all treated with an active drug. Disclosure of Interest J. Kay Grant/research support: AbbVie Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Roche Laboratories, Inc., Consultant for: Amgen Inc.; AbbVie Inc.; Bristol-...
BackgroundBOW015 is being developed as a biosimilar of reference infliximab (rIFX, Remicade®). Therapeutic equivalence of BOW015 and rIFX was evaluated in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a 54-week (wk) Phase 3 comparative effectiveness study. ACR20 responses and safety and immunogenicity data have been reported.1,2 Here, we report the secondary efficacy endpoints for this study.ObjectivesTo determine whether efficacy of BOW015 is equivalent to that of rIFX when each is administered in combination with methotrexate (MTX).MethodsIn this double-blind (DB), active comparator study, 189 patients with RA (87.8% female; mean age, 44.8 years) receiving stable MTX doses (10-20 mg/wk) were randomized 2:1 to receive either BOW015 or rIFX 3 mg/kg IV at wks 0, 2, 6 and 14. In the open-label (OL) phase, responders to BOW015 or rIFX (n=157) received BOW015 3 mg/kg IV every 8 wks at wks 22, 30, 38 and 46, with follow-up at wk 54. ACR20/50/70 responses, CRP, ESR, tender and swollen joint counts, subject pain assessment and subject and physician global assessment of disease activity (each by VAS 0-10 cm) were evaluated at multiple time points.ResultsBaseline values were similar for subjects in both treatment arms. At the end of the DB phase (wk 16), BOW015 and rIFX each produced clinically significant improvement from baseline in all secondary endpoints (see table). There was no significant difference in the proportion of subjects achieving ACR20, 50, or 70 responses between treatment groups; these remained stable throughout the OL phase, demonstrating long-term durability of the response to BOW015, including that for the rIFX responders who switched to BOW015 at wk 22. At the end of the OL phase (wk 54), mean improvements in CRP, ESR, and tender and swollen joint counts were similar to those obtained at wk 16 and again did not differ significantly between treatment arms, supporting durability of response. Mean VAS scores for subject pain assessment and for both subject and physician global assessment also did not differ significantly between treatment arms at wk 54 and were lower than those reported at wk 16, consistent with further improvement during the OL phase.ConclusionsEfficacy of BOW015 and rIFX are equivalent, as assessed at wk 16 both by the primary endpoint of ACR20 and by secondary efficacy outcomes. Durability of response to BOW015 has been demonstrated over 54 wks. Taken in combination with analytical, pharmacokinetic, and safety data, these results establish biosimilarity between BOW015 and rIFX.ReferencesKay J et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73(Suppl2):64.Kay J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014; 66(12):3538.AcknowledgementsThis research was sponsored by EPIRUS Biopharmaceuticals Inc.Disclosure of InterestJ. Kay Grant/research support from: AbbVie Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Pfizer Inc.; Roche Laboratories, Inc. (paid to the University of Massachusetts Medical School), Consultant for: Amgen, Inc.; AbbVie Inc.; AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Eli Lilly and Company; Ep...
Eperisone hydrochloride was effective and well tolerated for the treatment of patients with AMSP with LBP.
Background: Indian data from controlled drug trials on the use of meloxicam (a new preferential COX‐2 inhibitor) and other non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in arthritis is sparse. Aim: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of meloxicam. Patients and methods: One hundred and twenty‐one patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and 133 patients with osteoarthritis (OA) knees were randomized into two different multicentric, double‐blind, drug trials of four‐weeks duration each. Meloxicam 7.5 mg (OA study) and 15 mg (RA study) was compared to diclofenac 100 mg and piroxicam 20 mg in daily dosages, respectively. Strict eligibility criteria ensured active symptomatic disease. Standard ACR efficacy measures of pain and function (including validated Indian versions of HAQ & WOMAC) were used. Protocol‐driven evaluations were carried out throughout the study. An intent‐to‐treat efficacy analysis (significance at P < 0.05) was carried out to test the hypothesis of equal efficacy between meloxicam and comparator. Results: (i) There were no significant differences between meloxicam and piroxicam in the RA study. (ii) While joint count for pain/tenderness was improved (P < 0.05) by both meloxicam and piroxicam, only meloxicam showed significant improvement (95% CI ≈ 0.7,5.6) in swollen joint count. (iii) In the OA study, though painVAS reduction was marginally better (95% CI ≈ −15,−0.6) with diclofenac, both meloxicam and diclofenac were equally effective (95% CI ≈ −10,2.0) in improving WOMAC‐physical function. (iv) Overall, meloxicam demonstrated a superior safety and gut tolerability profile as compared to piroxicam (maximum adverse events, 29.3%) and diclofenac. (iv) Maximum dyspepsia (6.2%) was reported by the diclofenac group. (v) Overall, the drug toxicity seen in the trials was mild, and only one patient (on diclofenac) was withdrawn due to haematuria. (vi) All treatment groups consumed paracetamol (P > 0.05) as a rescue analgesic. Conclusions: When compared to piroxicam and diclofenac, meloxicam has equal clinical efficacy and a better safety profile. Multicentric control drug trials are feasible in our population.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.