MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Comparative double-blind randomized trial of 2 rituximab products in patients with CD20+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

2017· article· en· W2891887641 on OpenAlexaff
Sandip Shah, Auro Viswabandya, Asis Mukhopadhyay, Rajnish Nagarkar, Sonica Sachdeva Batra, Luis López Lázaro, Suresh Kankanwadi, Alok Srivastava

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRituximabInternal medicineAdverse effectPharmacokineticsBiosimilarPharmacodynamicsGastroenterologyDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaPrednisoneTolerabilityLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7550 Background: DRL-Rituximab (T) is a proposed biosimilar of the innovator reference rituximab (USA: Rituxan; EU: MabThera). Physicochemical analyses and nonclinical studies have shown T to be comparable with innovator Rituximab. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of T with EU sourced MabThera (R) in DLBCL patients. Methods: Multicentre randomized double-blind 2-arm parallel study conducted in patients aged 18-60 yrs, with a centrally confirmed newly diagnosed CD20+ DLBCL, as first line of treatment. Patients received 6 cycles (C), every 21 days, of either T or R at 375 mg/m2 + CHOP. Primary objective was to compare C1 PK (AUC0-21d & Cmax). Overall Response Rate (ORR) was the key secondary objective, with C6 PK parameters, PD parameters (B-cells measured as CD19+ positive cells in peripheral blood- depletion & repletion), treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and anti-drug antibodies (ADA) as other secondary objectives. PK similarity criterion was 90% CI of geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of AUC0-21d and Cmax in C1, within 80-125%. Results: 151 patients were randomized (T, 76; R, 75). PK similarity criterion was met. The GMR T/R ratios with 90% CIs for AUC0-21d & Cmax were 100.0% (87.7, 114.0) & 96.2% (88.7, 104.4), respectively. Per protocol, ORR with 95% CI was 82.1% (69.6, 91.1) with T and 87.1% (76.1, 94.3) with R. Trough concentration (C5/C6) GMR (90% CI) of 91.3% (86.3, 96.7) for T & 94.0% (88.9, 99.5) for R indicated steady state. C6 AUC0-21d & Cmax GMR (T/R [90% CI]) were 88.9% (80.3, 98.5) and 94.6% (88.1, 101.7), respectively. T and R led to comparable B-cell depletion and repletion. Incidence of all grades of TEAEs were comparable. TEAEs ≥Grade 3 were 80.3% in T (n = 61) and 88.0% R (n = 66). Neutropenia was the most common TEAE (overall: T, 75.0%; R, 73.3% & ≥ grade 3: T, 64.5%; R, 64.0%). No neutralizing antibodies were observed in either of the arms. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that DRL-Rituximab has comparable PK, PD, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity to MabThera. MabThera already has an established efficacy in longer term follow-up. Clinical trial information: CTRI/2012/11/003129.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research→French-language works237,207→