COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE LONG-TERM EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF THE INFLIXIMAB BIOSIMILAR BCD-055 AND REFERENCE INFLIXIMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: RESULTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL MULTICENTER RANDOMIZED DOUBLE-BLIND PHASE III CLINICAL STUDY ASART-2

The paper gives data on the clinical efficiency and safety profile of long-term use of the infliximab (INF) biosimilar BCD-055 versus the reference drug Remicade® (REM) in a population of patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

Subjects and methods. An international multicenter randomized double-blind Phase III clinical trial was conducted in 199 patients who were randomized into two groups in a 2:1 ratio and who received BCD-055 or REM at a dose of 5 mg/kg at 0, 2, and 6 weeks, then every 8 weeks. Efficiency assessment was made at 14, 30 and 54 weeks in patients who received at least one dose of INF [intent-to-treat (ITT)], as well as at 54 weeks in those who completed the study according to the Protocol (PP) (per protocol). The efficiency endpoints were the proportion of patients who had achieved ASAS20/ASAS40 responses; changes in BASDAI, BASMI, BASFI, MASES, and SF-36 scores. Immunogenicity was assessed by the proportion of patients in each group with identified binding and neutralizing antibodies (BAbs and NAbs) against INF. The safety analysis included the overall rate of adverse events (AEs), including those that met the respective criteria for serous AEs (SAEs), and grade 3–4 toxicity, as well as the number of cases of early termination of the study because of AEs and SAEs.

Results and discussion. The ITT population included 199 patients and the PP one consisted of 161 people. The groups were not statistically different in the rate of and reasons for patient withdrawal from the study. A comparable number of patients achieved ASAS20/ASAS40 responses at 14, 30, 54 weeks (р ≥ 0.05). At 54 week, the proportion of patients who received BCD-055 and REM therapy and achieved an ASAS20 response was 67.42 and 52.24% in the ITT population (p = 0.053) and 80.91 and 68.63% in the PP population (p = 0.128). The BCD-055 and drug comparison groups achieved an ASAS40 response in 53.03 and 38.81% in the ITT population (p = 0.081) and in 63.64 and 50.98% in the PP one (p = 0.177). The proportion of persons with identified BAbs and NAbs was comparable: 21.26 and 3.15% in the BCD-055 group (p = 0.920) and 20.63 and 6.35% in the group REM (p = 0.443), respectively. It was found that the presence of NAbs did not affect the therapeutic response. Both groups did not differ in the detection rate and profile of AEs and SAEs or in the rate of patient withdrawal due to AEs. Most identified AEs were mild to moderate.

Conclusion. The efficacy of the INF biosimilar BCD-055 used long in patients with AS did not significantly differ from that of the original drug REM; the safety profile of both drugs was comparable. 

1. Эрдес ШФ, Бадокин ВВ, Бочкова АГ и др. О терминологии спондилоартритов. Научно-практическая ревматология. 2015;53(6):657-60 [Erdes ShF, Badokin VV, Bochkova AG, et al. On the terminology of spondyloarthritis. NauchnoPrakticheskaya Revmatologiya = Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2015;53(6):657-60 (In Russ.)]. doi: 10.14412/1995- 4484-2015-657-660

2. Дубинина ТВ, Гайдукова ИЗ, Годзенко АА и др. Рекомендации по оценке активности болезни и функционального состояния больных анкилозирующим спондилитом в клинической практике. Научно-практическая ревматология. 2017;55(4):344-50 [Dubinina TV, Gaidukova IZ, Godzenko AA, et al. Guidelines for the assessment of disease activity and functional status in patients with ankylosing spondylitis in clinical practice. Nauchno-Prakticheskaya Revmatologiya = Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2017;55(4):344-50 (In Russ.)]. doi: 10.14412/1995-4484-2017-344-350

3. Эрдес ШФ, Дубинина ТВ, Абдулганиева ДЭ и др. Клиническая характеристика анкилозирующего спондилита в реальной практике в России: результаты одномоментного многоцентрового неинтервенционного исследования ЭПИКА2. Научно-практическая ревматология. 2016;54(Прил 1):10-4 [Erdes ShF, Dubinina TV, Abdulganieva DE, et al. Clinical characteristics of ankylosing spondylitis in real practice in Russia: Results of the cross-sectional non-interventional trial EPICA2. Nauchno-Prakticheskaya Revmatologiya = Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2016;54(Suppl. 1):10-4 (In Russ.)]. doi: 10.14412/1995-4484-2016-1S-10-14

4. Stolwijk C, van Onna M, Boonen A, van Tubergen A. Global Prevalence of Spondyloarthritis: A systematic review and metaregression analysis. Arthritis Care Res. 2016;68:1320-31. doi: 10.1002/acr.22831.

5. Van der Heijde D, Ramiro S, Landewe R. 2016 update of the ASAS-EULAR management recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Jun;76(6):978-91. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210770

6. Насонов ЕЛ, редактор. Российские клинические рекомендации. Ревматология. Москва: ГЭОТАР-Медиа; 2017. 464 с. [Nasonov EL, editor. Rossiyskie klinicheskie rekomendatsii. Revmatologiya [Russian clinical guidelines. Rheumatology]. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media; 2017. 464 p. (In Russ.)].

7. Ward MM, Deodhar A, Akl EA. American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network 2015 Recommendations for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2016 Feb;68(2):282-98. doi: 10.1002/art.39298

8. Каратеев ДЕ, Мазуров ВИ, Зонова ЕВ и др. Сравнительная эффективность и безопасность биоаналога инфликсимаба (BCD-055) и оригинального инфликсимаба у пациентов с анкилозирующим спондилитом (результаты международных многоцентровых рандомизированных двойных слепых клинических исследований I и III фазы). Современная ревматология. 2017;11(3):14-25 [Karateev DE, Mazurov VI, Zonova EV, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of infliximab biosimilar (BCD-055) and innovator infliximab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (results of international, multiple-center, double-blind phase I and phase III clinical studies). Sovremennaya Revmatologiya = Modern Rheumatology Journal. 2017;11(3):14-25 (In Russ.)]. doi: 10/14412/1996-7012-2017-3

9. Gamez-Belmonte R, Hernandez-Chirlaque C, ArredondoAmador M. Biosimilars: concepts and controversies. Pharmacol Res. 2018 Feb 8. pii: S1043-6618(17)31164-7. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2018.01.024 [Epub ahead of print]. Review.

10. WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization. Guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs), annex 2. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 2013;977:53-89.

11. European Medicines Agency. Biosimilar Medicines. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl= pages/special_topics/document_listing/document_listing_000318.jsp. Accessed 20 February 2018

12. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived proteins as active substance: non-clinical and clinical issues. EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/42832/2005 Rev1. 2014.

13. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Biosimilars. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/howdrugsaredevelopedandapproved/approvalapplications/therapeuticbiologicapplications/biosimilars/default.htm. Accessed 20 February 2018.

14. Насонов ЕЛ. Биоаналоги в ревматологии. Научно-практическая ревматология. 2016;54(6):628-40 [Nasonov EL. Biosimilars in rheumatology. Nauchno-Prakticheskaya Revmatologiya = Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2016;54(6):628-40 (In Russ.)]. doi: 10.14412/1995-4484-2016-628-640

15. Федеральный закон от 22 декабря 2014 г. № 429-ФЗ «О внесении изменений в Федеральный закон "Об обращении лекарственных средств"». Принят Государственной Думой 9 декабря 2014 г. Одобрен Советом Федерации 17 декабря 2014 г. [Federal law of December 22, 2014 № 429-FZ «On Amendments to the Federal Law "On Circulation of Medicines"». Adopted by the State Duma on December 9, 2014 Approved by the Federation Council December 17, 2014 (In Russ.)].

16. Declerck P, Danesi R, Petersel D, Jacobs I. The Language of Biosimilars: Clarification, Definitions, and Regulatory Aspects. Drugs. 2017 Apr;77(6):671-7. doi: 10.1007/s40265-017-0717-1

17. Generics and Biosimilars Initiative. Biosimilars approved in Europe. [February 24, 2017]. Available from: http://www.gabionline.net/Biosimilars/General/Biosimilarsapproved-in-Europe

18. Hung A, Vu Q, Mostovoy L. A Systematic Review of U.S. Biosimilar Approvals: What Evidence Does the FDA Require and How Are Manufacturers Responding? J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017;23(12):1234-44. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.12.1234

19. Kay J, Schoels MM, Dö rner T, et al. Consensus-based recommendations for the use of biosimilars to treat rheumatological diseases. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;0:1-10. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-211937

20. Braun J, Brandt J, Listing J, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of infliximab in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: an open, observational, extension study of a three-month, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2003 Aug; 48(8):2224-33. doi: 10.1002/art.11104

21. Van der Heijde D, Dijkmans B, Geusens P, et al. Efficacy and safety of infliximab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: Results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial (ASSERT). Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Feb;52(2):582-91. doi: 10.1002/art.20852

22. Park W, Hrycaj P, Jeka S, et al. A randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel-group, prospective study comparing the pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of CT-P13 and innovator infliximab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: the PLANETAS study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013 Oct;72(10):1605-12. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-203091. Epub 2013 May 16.

23. Park W, Yoo DH, Jaworski J, et al. Comparable long-term efficacy, as assessed by patient-reported outcomes, safety and pharmacokinetics, of CT-P13 and reference infliximab in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: 54-week results from the randomized, parallel-group PLANETAS study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2016 Jan 20;18:25. doi: 10.1186/s13075-016-0930-4

24. Park W, Yoo DH, Miranda P, et al Efficacy and safety of switching from reference infliximab to CT-P13 compared with maintenance of CT-P13 in ankylosing spondylitis: 102-week data from the PLANETAS extension study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Feb;76(2):346-54. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-208783. Epub 2016 Apr 26.

25. Harrison MJ, Dixon WG, Watson KD, et al. Rates of new-onset psoriasis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha therapy: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009 Feb;68(2):209-15. doi: 10.1136/ard.2007.087288. Epub 2008 Apr 2.

26. Joyau C, Veyrac G, Dixneuf V, Jolliet P. Anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha therapy and increased risk of de novo psoriasis: is it really a paradoxical side effect? Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2012 SepOct;30(5):700-6. Epub 2012 Oct 17.

27. Shmidt E, Wetter DA, Ferguson SB, Pittelkow MR. Psoriasis and palmoplantar pustulosis associated with tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors: the Mayo Clinic experience, 1998 to 2010. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Nov;67(5):e179-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2011.05.038. Epub 2011 Jul 14.

28. Toussirot E, Aubin F. Paradoxical reactions under TNF-α blocking agents and other biological agents given for chronic immune-mediated diseases: an analytical and comprehensive overview. RMD Open. 2016;2(2):e000239. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2015-000239

29. Williams EL, Gadola S, Edwards CJ. Anti-TNF-induced lupus. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2009 Jul;48(7):716-20. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kep080. Epub 2009 May 4.

30. Ramos-Casals M, Brito-Zeron P, Munoz S, et al. Autoimmune Diseases Induced by TNF-Targeted Therapies: Analysis of 233 Cases. Medicine (Baltimore). 2007 Jul;86(4):242-51. doi: 10.1097/MD.0b013e3181441a68

31. Almoallim H, Al-Ghamdi Y, Almaghrabi H, Alyasi O. AntiTumor Necrosis Factor-α Induced Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Open Rheumatol J. 2012;6:315-9. doi: 10.2174/1874312901206010315. Epub 2012 Nov 16.

32. Roach DR, Bean AG, Demangel C, et al. TNF regulates chemokine induction essential for cell recruitment, granuloma formation, and clearance of mycobacterial infection. J Immunol. 2002 May 1;168(9):4620-7. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.168.9.4620

33. Xie X, Li F, Chen JW, Wang J. Risk of tuberculosis infection in anti-TNF-a biological therapy: From bench to bedside. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2014 Aug;47(4):268-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2013.03.005. Epub 2013 May 30.

34. Каратеев ДЕ. Вопросы иммуногенности биологических препаратов: теория и практика. Современная ревматология. 2009;3(1):67-72 [Karateev DE. The problems of the immunogenicity of biologicals: theory and practice. Sovremennaya Revmatologiya = Modern Rheumatology Journal. 2009;3(1):67-72 (In Russ.)]. doi: 10.14412/1996-7012-2009-527

35. Eng GP, Bentzen K, Bliddal H, et al. Antibodies to Infliximab and Adalimumab in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in Clinical Remission: A Cross-Sectional Study. Arthritis. 2015;2015:784825. doi: 10.1155/2015/784825. Epub 2015 Feb 11.

36. Bito T, Nishikawa R, Hatakeyama M, et al. Influence of neutralizing antibodies to adalimumab and infliximab on the treatment of psoriasis. Br J Dermatol. 2014 Apr;170(4):922-9. doi: 10.1111/bjd.12791

37. Aikawa NE, de Carvalho JF, Almeida Silva CA, Bonfa E. Immunogenicity of Anti-TNF-alpha agents in autoimmune diseases. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2010 Apr;38(2-3):82-9. doi: 10.1007/s12016-009-8140-3