MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of a proposed biosimilar product based on the demonstration of physicochemical, pharmacologic and clinical similarity to pegfilgrastim.

2015· article· en· W2414307865 on OpenAlexaff
Kalpna Desai, S. Brokx, Sanyukta Kher, Tina Catalano, Devanshi Maharaja, Louise A. Scrocchi, Jason Dowd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsApotex (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosimilarMedicinePegfilgrastimCmaxFilgrastimOncologyPhases of clinical researchConfidence intervalPharmacologyInternal medicineClinical trialPharmacokineticsChemotherapyNeutropenia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e13534 Background: Biosimilar development involves extensive analytical characterization to ensure similarity to the reference medicinal product to support the demonstration of similarity in terms of clinical efficacy and safety. We report the comparative physicochemical, functional and clinical characterization of the proposed biosimilar, Pegylated Apo-Filgrastim (Pelgraz), to the reference product Neulasta. Methods: A variety of orthogonal physicochemical methods were applied to analyze primary and higher order structures, purity, and biological activity. Methods included spectroscopic and chromatographic methods, and a cell based potency assay. A phase I study in 66 healthy volunteers assessed the PK/PD similarity of Pelgraz and Neulasta following single-dose administration of 6 mg. A Phase III efficacy and safety study in ~600 breast cancer patients receiving TAC chemotherapy in adjuvant setting assessed and compared Pelgraz to US and EU Neulasta. Both studies included immunogenicity assessment. Results: Pelgraz has the same primary and higher order structure as Neulasta, demonstrated by peptide mapping and hydrogen-deuterium exchange. As determined by SE-HPLC, purity of Pelgraz batches averaged 99.4% vs. 97.8% for Neulasta. Pelgraz was shown to be equivalent to Neulasta in cell based bioassays. Results from the phase I study demonstrated the PK and PD similarity of these products with the 90% Confidence Interval (CI) for primary PK endpoints (AUC and Cmax)and 95% CI for primary PD endpoints (AUEC and Emax of the absolute neutrophil count) lying within pre-defined acceptance margins of 80-125%. The phase III study demonstrated similarity of efficacy for Pelgraz and Neulasta as assessed by the primary efficacy endpoint Duration of Severe Neutropenia (DSN), with the 95% CI of the difference in mean DSN falling within the pre-defined equivalence margin of ± 0.5 days. The safety and immunogenicity profile of Pelgraz was similar to that of Neulasta. Conclusions: In vitro analyses demonstrate finger-print-like similarity, and the clinical program demonstrated that there are no clinically meaningful differences between Pelgraz and Neulasta.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.274
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsFrench-language works237,207