Search

BACKGROUND Biosimilar granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have been available in the European Union since 2008, and Sandoz' biosimilar filgrastim was approved in the United States in March 2015 for all of the reference product's indications except acute radiation syndrome. Biosimilar G-CSFs have been largely embraced by the medical community, except for some reservations about healthy-donor stem cell mobilization, for which use outside of clinical studies was cautioned against by some members of the scientific community. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS In a two-center safety surveillance study (National Clinical Trial NCT01766934), 245 healthy volunteer stem cell donors were enrolled. Of 244 donors who began mobilization with twice-daily Sandoz biosimilar filgrastim, 242 received a full (n = 241) or partial (n = 1) course of G-CSF and underwent apheresis. Efficacy and safety were assessed and are reported here. RESULTS Biosimilar filgrastim was accompanied by the typical G-CSF class-related adverse effects of expected frequency and severity. Median mobilization for CD34-positive stem cells was 97/µL (range, 20-347/µL); after one apheresis (91%) or two aphereses (9%) from all but three donors (1.2%), cell doses in excess of the typical 4 × 106 CD34-positive cells/kg of the recipient had been collected (range, 3-52 × 106/kg). Biochemical and hematologic alterations were consistent with previous reports; all had normalized by the first follow-up 1 month after mobilization. Stem cell products engrafted with typical probability and kinetics for G-CSF-mobilized stem cell products. CONCLUSION These data support the use of biosimilar filgrastim for healthy-donor stem cell mobilization as safe and effective.

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.

This randomized, double-blind comparison demonstrates that biosimilar filgrastim (EP2006) and the US-licensed reference filgrastim are similar with no clinically meaningful differences regarding efficacy and safety in prevention of severe neutropenia. Biosimilar filgrastim could represent an important alternative to the reference product, potentially increasing access to filgrastim treatment., Background Biosimilars of filgrastim are in widespread clinical use in Europe. This phase III study compares biosimilar filgrastim (EP2006), with the US-licensed reference product, Neupogen®, in breast cancer patients receiving (neo)adjuvant myelosuppressive chemotherapy (TAC). Patients and methods A total of 218 patients receiving 5 µg/kg/day filgrastim over six chemotherapy cycles were randomized 1:1:1:1 into four arms. Two arms received only one product (nonalternating), biosimilar or reference, and two arms (alternating) received alternating treatments during each cycle (biosimilar then reference or vice versa). The primary end point was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) during cycle 1. Results The baseline characteristics were balanced between the four treatment arms. Noninferiority of biosimilar versus the reference was demonstrated: DSN (days) in cycle 1 was 1.17 ± 1.11 (biosimilar, N = 101) and 1.20 ± 1.02 (reference, N = 103), 97.5% confidence interval lower boundary for the difference was −0.26 days (above the predefined limit of −1 day). No clinically meaningful differences were observed regarding any other efficacy parameter: incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN); hospitalization due to FN; incidence of infections; depth and time of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir and time to ANC recovery during cycle 1 and across all cycles. The pattern and frequency of adverse events were similar across all treatments. Conclusion This study demonstrates that biosimilar and the reference filgrastim are similar with no clinically meaningful differences regarding efficacy and safety in prevention of severe neutropenia. Biosimilar filgrastim could represent an important alternative to the reference product, potentially benefiting public health by increasing access to filgrastim treatment. Study number NCT01519700.

Background Biosimilars provide safety, purity, and potency similar to those of a reference biologic product. Methods An array of protein analytical techniques was used to compare the physicochemical properties of proposed biosimilar filgrastim (EP2006), US-approved originator filgrastim, and EU-approved originator filgrastim. Biological characterization involved surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy analyses and in vitro proliferation assays. A randomized, double-blind, two-way crossover, phase I study in healthy volunteers assessed the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and safety profiles of EP2006 and US-approved originator filgrastim (administered as a single subcutaneous 10 µg/kg injection). Results EP2006 and originator filgrastim (US and EU approved) were highly similar with respect to primary, secondary, and tertiary protein structures; mass, size, purity, charge, and hydrophobicity. No differences in receptor binding affinity were observed, and all samples demonstrated similar in vitro bioactivity. In the phase I study, no statistically significant differences between EP2006 and US-approved originator filgrastim were noted in pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic parameters, and all confidence intervals were within the equivalence boundaries. The two products had similar safety profiles. Conclusion These studies provide robust evidence of the structural and functional similarity between the proposed biosimilar filgrastim (EP2006) and the US-approved originator filgrastim.

Biosimilars are approved biologics with comparable quality, safety, and efficacy to a reference product. Unlike generics, which are chemically manufactured copies of small-molecule drugs with relatively simple chemical structures, the biosimilar designation is applied to drugs that are produced by living organisms, implying much more difficult to control manufacturing and purification procedures. To account for these complexities, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the US Food and Drug Administration, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration, and other regulatory authorities have devised and implemented specific, markedly more demanding pathways for the evaluation and approval of biosimilars. To date, several biosimilars have been approved, including versions of somatropin, erythropoietin, and granulocyte–colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), and several biosimilar monoclonal antibodies are currently in development. The reference G-CSF product (Neupogen, Amgen) has been used for many years for prevention and treatment of neutropenia and also for mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs). However, concerns have been raised about the safety and efficacy of biosimilar G-CSF during PBSC mobilization procedures, especially in healthy donors. This article reviews the available evidence on the use of biosimilar G-CSF in this setting. Aggregate clinical evidence supports the assessment by the EMA of biosimilar and originator G-CSF as highly biologically similar, with respect to desired and undesired effects.

ObjectiveTwo strengths of a novel ready-to-use liquid preparation of the recombinant human GH (rhGH) Omnitrope were developed to increase the convenience for the patients.DesignOmnitrope 3.3 mg/ml solution or Omnitrope 6.7 mg/ml solution was compared to Omnitrope 5 mg/ml powder and Genotropin 5 mg/ml powder in terms of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and local tolerance after a single s.c. dose of 5 mg.MethodsTwo randomized, double-blind, single-dose, three-way crossover studies were carried out in 36 young healthy volunteers each. Endogenous GH secretion was suppressed with a 25-h continuous i.v. infusion of octreotide (40 μg/h) starting 1 h before rhGH administration.ResultsPharmacokinetic parameters were similar for the three treatments in both studies respectively. Bioequivalence criteria were met for area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) and Cmax. Likewise, the pharmacodynamic parameters for IGF1, IGF-binding protein 3, and non-esterified fatty acid were similar for all preparations. No differences in adverse events were observed between groups.ConclusionsOmnitrope 3.3 mg/ml solution, 6.7 mg/ml solution, and 5 mg/ml powder, and Genotropin 5 mg/ml powder are bioequivalent, have similar pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, and are equally safe. Overall, the products can be considered to be therapeutically interchangeable.

Objectives Treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with the tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) receptor fusion protein etanercept has shown efficacy in patients with active disease in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for limited periods. The objective of the study was to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of etanercept over 1 yr, including discontinuation and readministration. Methods In this 54-week open observational study, 26 AS patients received 25 mg etanercept subcutaneously twice weekly after several months of discontinuation following a 6-month RCT with the same agent. All patients who developed high disease activity after cessation of etanercept, defined as a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) > or = 4 and pain > or = 4 on a numerical rating scale, entered the study. Standard assessment tools, such as the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis functional index (BASFI), were used. An intention-to-treat (ITT) and a completer analysis were performed. The results were compared with the baseline values of the open study. Results Out of the initial 30 patients, 26 (87%) were eligible for the open extension study after a mean of about 27 weeks. At week 54, 23/26 patients (88%) were still on treatment with etanercept. The ITT analysis showed that 58% (95% confidence interval 39-74%) of the patients achieved a 50% improvement of BASDAI at week 54. According to the Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis working group criteria, 8/26 patients (31%) were in partial remission at week 54. Function, metrology and quality of life improved significantly. Only one patient had a serious adverse event that resulted in discontinuation. Conclusions This study shows that treatment with etanercept is efficacious and safe after readministration over 1 yr in patients with active AS not taking DMARDs or steroids.

Up to now more than 600 patients with rheumatoid arthritis are treated in clinical trials with infliximab, a monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor alpha. The results of the ATTRACT- trial show like previous studies, that the combination of infliximab and methotrexate leads to a significant improvement of clinical symptoms or to a remission of the disease. The analysis of radiological data after one year demonstrates that infliximab arrests the progression of bone erosion and joint space narrowing in methotrexate-refractory patients. Therefore infliximab is a new therapeutic option, which can stop the joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis. In Germany infliximab (Remicade®) was approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis at the beginning of June 2000. Bisher sind in klinischen Studien uber 600 Patienten mit rheumatoider Arthritis mit Infliximab, einem monoklonalen Antikorper gegen den Tumor-Nekrose-Faktor-alpha, behandelt worden. Wie in den vorhergehenden Studien konnte in der ATTRACT-Studie nachgewiesen werden, dass Infliximab in Kombination mit Methotrexat zu einer deutlichen Verbesserung der klinischen Symptomatik bis hin zur Remission der Erkrankung fuhrt. Die Analyse der radiologischen Daten nach einem Jahr Studiendauer zeigt, dass Infliximab das Fortschreiten von Knochenerosionen und Gelenkspaltverschmalerungen bei Methotrexat-refraktaren Patienten stoppt. Damit ist Infliximab eine neue Therapieoption, welche die durch die rheumatoide Arthritis bedingte Gelenkzerstorung zum Stillstand bringen kann. Die Zulassung von Infliximab (Remicade®) fur die Behandlung der rheumatoiden Arthritis ist in Deutschland Anfang Juni 2000 erfolgt.

Der Morbus Fabry ist eine seltene lysosomale Speichererkrankung. Eine fruhe zerebrale Beteiligung mit entsprechenden funktionellen Einschrankungen reduziert die Lebensqualitat oft erheblich. Wir stellen einen 38-jahrigen Patienten mit Morbus Fabry mit bereits 6 vorangegangenen zerebralen Insulten, neu aufgetretenem Blepharospasmus und einem Nystagmus mit unterschiedlichen Schlagformen und -richtungen vor.

BACKGROUND A work force based case-control study of lung cancer was performed in non-silicotic subjects exposed to crystalline silica to investigate the association between silica dust and lung cancer excluding the influence of silicosis. METHODS Two hundred and forty seven patients with lung cancer and 795 control subjects were enrolled, all of whom had been employed in the German stone, quarrying, or ceramics industries. Smoking was used as a matching criterion. Exposure to silica was quantified by measurements, if available, or otherwise by industrial hygienists. Several indices (peak, average and cumulative exposure) were used to analyse the relationship between the level of exposure and risk of lung cancer as odds ratios (OR). RESULTS The risk of lung cancer is associated with the year of and age at first exposure to silica, duration of exposure, and latency. All odds ratios were adjusted for these factors. Considering the peak exposure, the OR for workers exposed to high levels (⩾0.15 mg/m3 respirable silica dust which is the current occupational threshold value for Germany) compared with those exposed to low levels (

Introduction: Biosimilars are biologics which have demonstrated highly similar safety, potency and purity to an originator product. Several biosimilars of recombinant human filgrastim, based on the originator Neupogen®, have become available in Europe since 2008 and are now in clinical use for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and hematopoietic stem cell mobilization. Filgrastim biosimilars are presently being developed for the U.S. market. Study design: A randomized, double-blind, four-group, multi-center phase III non-inferiority trial was performed with breast cancer patients treated with myleosuppressive chemotherapy. The two filgrastim products – proposed biosimilar, EP2006 (“biosimilar”) vs. originator (U.S.-licensed Neupogen®) - were compared regarding efficacy and safety. Patients included: women ≥18 years with histologically-proven breast cancer eligible for neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with docetaxel 75 mg/m2, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 (TAC regimen) given for 6 cycles. Other key inclusion criteria included: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2 and adequate bone marrow function. Eligible patients were randomized to 4 groups with 2 of these groups alternating between the biosimilar and the originator filgrastim at the end of each cycle: 1) EP: treatment with EP2006 in all cycles; 2) EPNEU: EP2006 in Cycle 1, alternating between Neupogen and EP2006 in the following cycles; 3) NEUEP: Neupogen in Cycle 1, alternating between EP2006 and Neupogen in the following cycles; 4) NEU: treatment with Neupogen in all cycles. Patients received either biosimilar or originator filgrastim subcutaneously (daily dose of 5 µg/kg body weight) starting on Day 2 of each chemotherapy cycle until the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovered to 10×109/L after nadir or up to 14 days. Total duration of the study was 25 weeks: 3 weeks screening, 18 weeks treatment (total 6 cycles, 3 weeks each) and a follow-up visit 4 weeks after the last study drug administration. Primary objective was to assess the efficacy of the biosimilar compared to the originator with respect to mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) following Cycle 1 chemotherapy. A one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the mean DSN calculated using ANCOVA model with factors “treatment” and “kind of therapy” and covariates “baseline ANC” was to be considered non-inferior if lower limit of this CI lies entirely above non-inferiority margin of -1 day. All secondary efficacy endpoints and safety endpoints were analyzed descriptively by treatment group. The study was conducted between December 2011 and June 2013. Results: Enrolled were 258 patients in 27 centers, of which 218 patients were randomized to treatment. The baseline characteristics were balanced between different groups. The per-protocol set included 204 patients out of 218 randomized patients. The safety set included 214 patients who received at least one dose of study drug. On average each patient received treatment for 8-9 days per cycle. The mean DSN in Cycle 1 was 1.17±1.11 days (biosimilar) and 1.20±1.02 days (originator); the mean difference in DSN was 0.04 days (97.5% CI, lower limit -0.26 days). The pre-defined non-inferiority criteria were met and the biosimilar was considered non-inferior to the originator filgrastim. The incidence of febrile neutropenia over all 6 cycles chemotherapy was comparably low in all treatment groups (EP: 2/40, 5.0%, EPNEU: 5/45, 11.1%, NEUEP: 1/44, 2.3%, NEU: 0/46, 0.0%). There was no obvious difference in incidences of treatment emergent adverse events between the treatment arms. Twelve patients experienced serious adverse events (EP: 5/53, 9.4% patients; EPNEU: 4/54, 7.4%; NEUEP: 1/55, 1.8%; NEU: 2/52, 3.8%). None of them were study drug related, including one death (in the EP treatment group due to pulmonary embolism). No subjects developed anti-drug antibodies. Conclusion: This large clinical study showed that efficacy and safety of the biosimilar was comparable to the originator filgrastim in prevention of neutropenia in patients with breast cancer. Repeated switching between the biosimilar and the originator filgrastim did not impact efficacy, safety or immunogenicity. Acknowledgment: The authors acknowledge the other investigators of the PIONEER study and acknowledge Gabor Stiegler, Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals for the medical writing. Disclosures Blackwell: Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Semiglazov:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Gascon:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Nakov:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Employment. Kramer:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Employment. Schwebig:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Employment. Harbeck:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Consultancy.

A multicentre controlled trial was carried out to determine the optimal dosage of a 2/1 combination of captopril plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in mild hypertension at three doses against placebo in a 6 week double-blind trial. The number of patients was 111:27 received placebo; 26 were treated with captopril 25 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg (25/12.5); 25 with captopril 50 mg plus HCTZ 25 mg (50/25); and 33 with captopril 100 mg plus HCTZ 50 mg (100/50). A significant fall in blood pressure was seen in all four groups, but was greater with the active treatments. The percentage of patients who were normalized [diastolic blood pressure (DBP) less than or equal to 90 mm Hg] or good responders (10% fall in DBP) increased as a function of the dose. At Day 21, the antihypertensive effect of 50/25 was similar to that of 100/50, but greater than that of captopril 25-HCTZ 12.5. At Day 42, the antihypertensive effects of the three doses were similar. Tolerance data showed a higher incidence of side-effects with 100/50 than with the other dosages. Thus, 50/25 appeared to be the optimal dosage for the control of mild hypertension.