MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3097824528 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-142723

Totality of Scientific Evidence in the Development of ABP 798, a Biosimilar to Rituximab

2020· article· en· W3097824528 sur OpenAlexaff
Dietger Niederwieser, Caroline Hamm, Patrick Cobb, Theingi M. Thway, Cecily Forsyth, Alessandra Tucci, Vincent Delwail, Roman Hájek, Vladimir Hanes

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineImmunology and Microbiology
ThématiqueBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Établissements canadiensWindsor Regional Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineRituximabOncologyPharmacologyClinical trialIn vivoPharmacodynamicsInternal medicineBiosimilarLymphomaPharmacokineticsBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: ABP 798 is a proposed biosimilar to rituximab reference product (RP). Regulatory approval of biosimilars is based on a totality of evidence (TOE) approach which includes similarity in analytical characteristics (structural and functional), in mechanism of action (MoA) -clinical pharmacology, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and in comparative clinical studies. Evidence from analytical, functional, clinical PK/PD, and efficacy and safety evaluations indicate that ABP 798 is similar to rituximab RP. Similarity of efficacy and safety in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) was demonstrated in a randomized, double-blind, comparative clinical study in which the primary analysis was based on data from central, independent, and blinded assessments of disease and the sensitivity analysis was based on data using investigator assessments of disease. Here we present in vitro chemo synergy, preclinical in-vivo tumor efficacy data and show how the results of the sensitivity analysis using investigator assessments of the response rate from the NHL clinical study further add to the TOE supporting similarity of ABP 798 with the RP. Methods: In vitro synergy with chemotherapeutic agents was investigated by assessing the effect of docetaxel, gemcitabine, or doxorubicin with ABP 798 and rituximab RP in SU-DHL-6 cell lines and measured using the ATP-based cell viability endpoint (ATPLite). In vivo efficacy was assessed by evaluating the anti-tumor activity of ABP 798 and rituximab RP in NHL xenograft models in NOD/SCID mice using CD20-expressing RL and Raji cell lines. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of the results of the primary efficacy endpoint of the proportion of patients with the best overall response of complete response, partial response, or unconfirmed complete response (ORR) in the NHL comparative clinical study using the investigator's assessment of disease on the full analysis set. Waterfall plots of the maximum percent reduction in the sum of the products of the greatest diameters (SPD) for index nodal lesions based on both the central, independent, blinded assessment of disease and the investigator's assessment of disease were used. Results: In vitro study results demonstrated synergistic activity of the combination of docetaxel and ABP 798 or the RP (synergy score = 6.35±0.69 [with ABP 798]; 6.79±0.12 [with RP]). In contrast, combinations with gemcitabine (synergy score = 2.68±0.20 [with ABP 798] and 2.54±0.29 [with RP]) or doxorubicin (synergy score = 1.95±0.56 [with ABP 79]) and 3.23±0.53 [with RP]) were additive. In RL cell lines, ABP 798 inhibited tumor growth similarly to rituximab RP, with no statistical difference between dose groups at 3 and 30 mg/kg (p = 0.951 and p = 0.996, respectively). In Raji cells, ABP 798 and rituximab RP significantly and similarly inhibited tumor growth when compared to an IgG1 isotype control (p < 0.001 for 3 and 30 µg/kg doses). ABP 798, at both dose levels, inhibited tumor growth similarly to rituximab RP by 27-41%, with no statistical difference. In the NHL comparative clinical study, risk difference (RD) of ORR with 1-sided 95% lower and upper confidence limits from the adjusted linear model was 7.7% (-3.2%, 18.6%) using central, blinded, independent assessments of the modified full analysis set based on randomized treatment assignment. The sensitivity analysis using investigator assessments of disease of the full analysis set of all randomized subjects based on the randomized treatment assignment received was RD = 0.5% (-7.8%, 8.8%). Waterfall plots of the maximum percent reduction in the SPD for index nodal lesions further demonstrate similarity of efficacy with central or local assessments of disease. Conclusions: In vitro and in vivo preclinical studies demonstrated chemo synergy and in vivo tumor efficacy. The sensitivity analysis of ORR using local assessments in the NHL comparative clinical study was consistent with results from the primary efficacy analysis; the maximum percent reduction in index nodal lesions was similar for central and local assessments of disease. These results further support that ABP 798 is similar to the RP across a range of efficacy evaluations as well as primary and secondary mechanisms of action and add additional supporting data to the TOE. Disclosures Niederwieser: Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Cellectis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi: Research Funding; Amgen: Speakers Bureau. Hamm:Amgen: Consultancy. Cobb:Amgen: Consultancy. Thway:Amgen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Forsyth:Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Australia: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tucci:Amgen: Consultancy. Delwail:Amgen: Consultancy. Hajek:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Hanes:Amgen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,023
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,224

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,111
Tête enseignante GPT0,325
Écart entre enseignants0,214 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsTravaux en français237 207