Search

Purpose: To compare pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity between SB8, a bevacizumab biosimilar, and the European Union (EU) and United States (US) reference products (bevacizumab-EU, bevacizumab-US). Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, and single-dose study, healthy volunteers were randomized to receive a 3 mg/kg dose of SB8, bevacizumab-EU, or bevacizumab-US via intravenous infusion. Primary endpoints were area under the concentration–time curve from time zero to infinity (AUCinf) and to the last quantifiable concentration (AUClast), and maximum observed serum concentration (Cmax). Bioequivalence was achieved if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric least squares means (LSMeans) of primary endpoints were within the predefined bioequivalence margins of 80.00–125.00%. Safety and immunogenicity were also investigated. Results: The 90% CIs for the geometric LSMean ratios of AUCinf, AUClast and Cmax were all within the prespecified bioequivalence margins. Geometric LSMean ratios for SB8/bevacizumab-EU, SB8/bevacizumab-US and bevacizumab-EU/bevacizumab-US were 88.01%, 88.48% and 100.54% for AUCinf, 88.65%, 89.08% and 100.49% for AUClast and 99.59%, 101.15% and 101.56% for Cmax, respectively. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) across treatment groups was comparable (SB8: 50.0%, bevacizumab-EU: 37.5%, bevacizumab-US: 53.8%). Most TEAEs were mild and considered as not related to the study drug. No deaths or treatment discontinuations due to adverse events occurred. Incidence of anti-drug antibodies was also comparable between all groups and no neutralizing antibodies were detected. Conclusion: This study demonstrated pharmacokinetic bioequivalence and similar safety and immunogenicity profiles of SB8 to both reference products, bevacizumab-EU and bevacizumab-US, and of bevacizumab-EU to bevacizumab-US. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02453672 (submitted date); EudraCT number: 2015-001,026-41. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims SB4 has been developed as a biosimilar of etanercept. The primary objective of the present study was to demonstrate the pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence between SB4 and European Union -sourced etanercept (EU-ETN), SB4 and United States-sourced etanercept (US-ETN), and EU-ETN and US-ETN. The safety and immunogenicity were also compared between the treatments. Methods This was a single-blind, three-part, crossover study in 138 healthy male subjects. In each part, 46 subjects were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive a single 50 mg subcutaneous dose of the treatments (part A: SB4 or EU-ETN; part B: SB4 or US-ETN; and part C: EU-ETN or US-ETN) in period 1, followed by the crossover treatment in period 2 according to their assigned sequences. PK equivalence between the treatments was determined using the standard equivalence margin of 80-125%. Results The geometric least squares means ratios of AUCinf, AUClast and Cmax were 99.04%, 98.62% and 103.71% (part A: SB4 vs. EU-ETN); 101.09%, 100.96% and 104.36% (part B: SB4 vs. US-ETN); and 100.51%, 101.27% and 103.29% (part C: EU-ETN vs. US-ETN), respectively, and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals were completely contained within the limits of 80-125 %. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable, and the incidence of the antidrug antibodies was lower in SB4 compared with the reference products. Conclusions The present study demonstrated PK equivalence between SB4 and EU-ETN, SB4 and US-ETN, and EU-ETN and US-ETN in healthy male subjects. SB4 was well tolerated, with a lower immunogenicity profile and similar safety profile compared with those of the reference products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: A sustained-release (SR) formulation of cilostazol was recently developed in Korea and was expected to yield a lower Cmax and a similar AUC to the immediate-release (IR) formulation. Objective: The goal of the present study was to compare the pharmacokinetic profiles of a newly developed SR formulation and an IR formulation of cilostazol after single- and multiple-dose administration and to evaluate the influence of food in healthy Korean subjects. This study was developed as part of a product development project at the request of the Korean regulatory agency. Methods: This was a randomized, 3-part, sequential, open-label, 2-period crossover study. Each part consisted of different subjects between the ages of 19 and 55 years. In part 1, each subject received a single dose of SR (200 mg × 1 tablet, once daily) and IR (100 mg × 2 tablets, BID) formulations of cilostazol orally 7 days apart in a fasted state. In part 2, each subject received a single dose of the SR (200 mg × 1 tablet, once daily) formulation of cilostazol 7 days apart in a fasted and a fed state. In part 3, each subject received multiple doses of the 2 formulations for 8 consecutive days 21 days apart. Blood samples were taken for 72 hours after the dose. Cilostazol pharmacokinetics were determined for both the parent drug and its metabolites (OPC-13015 and OPC-13213). Adverse events were evaluated through interviews and physical examinations. Results: Among the 92 enrolled subjects (66 men, 26 women; part 1, n = 26; part 2, n = 26; part 3, n = 40), 87 completed the study. In part 1, all the primary pharmacokinetic parameters satisfied the criterion for assumed bioequivalence both in cilostazol and its metabolites, yielding 90% CI ratios of 0.9624 to 1.2323, 0.8873 to 1.1208, and 0.8919 to 1.1283 for Cmax and 0.8370 to 1.0134, 0.8204 to 0.9807, and 0.8134 to 0.9699 for AUC0–last of cilostazol, OPC-13015, and OPC-13213, respectively. In part 2, food intake increased Cmax and AUC significantly (P < 0.0001), yielding geometric mean ratios of 3.2879, 2.9894, and 3.0592 for Cmax and 1.7001, 1.7689, and 1.6976 for AUC0–last of cilostazol, OPC-13015, and OPC-13213. In part 3, only the Cssmax of clilostazol in the reference formulation did not satisfy the criterion for assumed bioequivalence, yielding 90% CI ratios of 1.2693 to 1.4238 and 1.2038 to 1.3441, respectively. When each dose was normalized, the Cmax for the SR formulation was significantly lower (P < 0.005 for cilostazol). Headache was the most frequently noted adverse effect (part 1, a total of 14 subjects with the IR formulation and 14 with the SR formulation; part 2, a total of 10 without food and 23 with a high-fat meal; part 3, a total of 10 with the IR formulation and 24 with the SR formulation), followed by nausea (part 1, none; part 2, only 1 without food and 3 with a high-fat meal; part 3, a total of 3 with the IR formulation and 3 with the SR formulation), and then dizziness (parts 1 and 2, none; part 3, a total of 4 with the IR formulation and 5 with the SR formulation). All other AEs, including fever, cough, vomiting, palpitation, diarrhea, and epigastric pain, occurred in <3 subjects. Conclusions: These findings suggest that in this select group of healthy Korean volunteers, the SR formulation of cilostazol was not significantly different in AUC compared with that of the IR formulation, although it did display a significantly lower Cmax per dose in both the single- and multiple-dose groups. Food significantly increased the bioavailability of the SR formulation. The cilostazol SR and IR formulations were well tolerated in all parts of the study, with no serious adverse events reported. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01455558. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]