Cargando…

A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing the Pharmacokinetics and Tolerability of the Proposed Adalimumab Biosimilar MSB11022 Delivered via Autoinjector and Pre-filled Syringe in Healthy Subjects

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to demonstrate the bioequivalence, and compare the safety and tolerability of MSB11022, a proposed biosimilar of adalimumab, when delivered by either an autoinjector (AI) or a pre-filled syringe (PFS). METHODS: In this pharmacokinetic (PK), parallel group, open...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sabet, Ahad, Dickerson, Daniel S., Kunina, Eugenia E., Buccarello, Anna Lucia, Monnet, Joëlle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8964896/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35262901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40744-022-00432-1
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to demonstrate the bioequivalence, and compare the safety and tolerability of MSB11022, a proposed biosimilar of adalimumab, when delivered by either an autoinjector (AI) or a pre-filled syringe (PFS). METHODS: In this pharmacokinetic (PK), parallel group, open-label study, 216 healthy volunteers were randomised 1:1 to receive a single subcutaneous injection of a 40 mg/0.8 mL dose of MSB11022 administered via AI or PFS. Coprimary PK endpoints were maximum observed concentration (C(max)), area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC(0–t)), and AUC from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC(0–inf)). PK equivalence between the AI and PFS administration methods was declared if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of geometric least square means was entirely contained within the 80–125% equivalence margin for all coprimary endpoints. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS: The 90% CI for the three coprimary PK endpoints (C(max), AUC(0–t) and AUC(0–inf)) were entirely contained within the predefined equivalence margins of 80–125%. Mean serum concentration–time profiles were similar following injection via AI or PFS. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable across both treatment groups. Study device-related TEAEs were reported by 11.3% and 13.1% of subjects in the AI and PFS treatment groups, respectively. Study drug-related TEAEs were reported by 28.3% and 34.6% of subjects in the AI and PFS treatment groups, respectively. Few subjects experienced injection-site reactions, mainly pain and erythema, regardless of the administration method. CONCLUSION: Delivery of MSB11022 via an AI is bioequivalent to delivery via a PFS. The safety and tolerability profile of MSB11022 was comparable across administration methods. The development of an AI for MSB11022 provides a choice of self-injection devices available to patients, potentially improving treatment compliance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov trial identifier: NCT04018599. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-022-00432-1.