PF-06881894, a Proposed Biosimilar to Pegfilgrastim, Versus US-Licensed and EU-Approved Pegfilgrastim Reference Products (Neulasta®): Pharmacodynamics, Pharmacokinetics, Immunogenicity, and Safety of Single or Multiple Subcutaneous Doses in Healthy Volunteers

Shahrzad Moosavi, Troy Borema, Reginald Ewesuedo, Stuart Harris, Jeffrey Levy, Thomas B May, Martin Summers, Jeffrey S Thomas, Jeffrey Zhang, Hsuan-Ming Yao, Shahrzad Moosavi, Troy Borema, Reginald Ewesuedo, Stuart Harris, Jeffrey Levy, Thomas B May, Martin Summers, Jeffrey S Thomas, Jeffrey Zhang, Hsuan-Ming Yao

Abstract

Introduction: PF-06881894 is a proposed biosimilar to pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®). This study evaluated the pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic (PD/PK) equivalence, immunogenicity, and safety of PF-06881894 vs pegfilgrastim reference products (US- and EU-Neulasta®) in healthy volunteers.

Methods: A phase 1, open-label, randomized, crossover study was conducted to assess the pharmacologic equivalence and safety of a single 6-mg dose of PF-06881894, pegfilgrastim-US, and pegfilgrastim-EU. The primary PD endpoints were area under the effect-versus-time curve for absolute neutrophil count (ANC) from dose administration to 288 h postdose, and maximum observed ANC value among subjects confirmed negative for anti-pegfilgrastim antibodies. Primary PK variables included area under the serum pegfilgrastim-versus-time curve from the time of dose administration to time infinity and maximum observed serum pegfilgrastim concentration. A second phase 1, open-label, randomized (1:1), parallel-group, non-inferiority study was conducted to assess the immunogenicity and safety of multiple 6-mg doses of PF-06881894 versus pegfilgrastim-US. The primary endpoint for the immunogenicity study was the proportion of subjects with both negative baseline and confirmed positive postdose anti-pegfilgrastim antibodies at any time during the study.

Results: Across the single- and multiple-dose studies (N = 153 and N = 420 treated subjects, respectively), demographics for age (18-65 years), male gender (n = 264/573), and white race (n = 423/573) were similar. Three-way PD/PK equivalence of PF-06881894, pegfilgrastim-US, and pegfilgrastim-EU was demonstrated with the primary PD endpoints and primary PK variables being completely contained within the predefined 90% confidence interval acceptance limits (80-125%). The non-inferiority of PF-06881894 versus pegfilgrastim-US in terms of immunogenicity was established according to the prespecified non-inferiority margin (≤10%). Overall, there were no clinically meaningful differences in safety profiles among or between study groups.

Conclusions: Single-dose PF-06881894 demonstrated PD/PK equivalence and comparable safety with US- and EU-pegfilgrastim reference products. Multiple-dose PF-06881894 demonstrated immunogenicity non-inferiority to pegfilgrastim-US with comparable safety. Both studies contributed to the totality of evidence supporting biosimilarity.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02629289; NCT03273842 (C1221005).

Keywords: Biosimilar; Immunogenicity; Myelosuppressive chemotherapy; Neulasta®; Neutropenia; PF-06881894; Pegfilgrastim; Pharmacodynamics; Pharmacokinetics; Safety.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Clinical development program for PF-06881894 in healthy volunteers. a C1221001: a single-dose PD/PK study of PF-06881894 versus pegfilgrastim-US and pegfilgrastim-EUa. b C1221005: a multiple-dose comparative immunogenicity study of PF-06881894 versus pegfilgrastim-USb. a For the PD evaluations, blood samples (4.0 mL) for ANC were collected by either intravenous catheter or venipuncture into evacuated collection tubes within 1 h before dose administration and at 12, 24, 48, 72, 96, 120, 144, 168, 192, 216, 240, 264, and 288 h postdose. A total of 14 samples were planned for PD analysis in each period. For PK evaluations, blood samples (5.0 mL) for the pegfilgrastim assay were collected within 1 h before dosing and at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 24, 48, 72, 96, 120, 144, 168, 192, 216, 240, 264, and 288 h postdose. Blood samples (7 mL) for ADA testing were collected within 1 h before dosing on days 1 and 13 of each period, at day 30 of the follow-up visit of each period, or early termination (if applicable). b Identical dosing procedures were performed on day 1 of phase 1 (first drug dose) and phase 2 (second drug dose) in this parallel-design study. Blood samples (7.5 mL) for ADAs were collected before dosing (day 1, phase 1 only) and after fasting for at least 4 h (on days 13 and 30 ± 2, phase 1 and on days 13, 30 ± 2, 60 ± 5 or at early withdrawal, phase 2). Early termination from the study required a subject to have completed the day 30 ± 2, phase 2 assessments. ISR data collection occurred up to 90 min postdose (days 1, 3, and 5 of phases 1 and 2); other ISR data were captured outside the ISR schedule during AE monitoring. ADA anti-drug antibody, AE adverse event, ANC absolute neutrophil count, ISR injection-site reaction, NAb neutralizing antibody, PDpharmacodynamic, pegfilgrastim-EUpegfilgrastim sourced from the European Union (reference product), pegfilgrastim-USpegfilgrastim sourced from the USA (reference product), PF-06881894 proposed biosimilar of pegfilgrastim (test product), PKpharmacokinetic, SCsubcutaneous
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Mean (SD) serum absolute neutrophil count concentration over time in the single-dose study (C1221001) (PD population). ANC absolute neutrophil count, PD pharmacodynamic, pegfilgrastim-EU pegfilgrastim sourced from the European Union (reference product),pegfilgrastim-US pegfilgrastim sourced from the USA (reference product), PF-06881894proposed biosimilar of pegfilgrastim (test product), SD standard deviation
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Mean (SD) serum pegfilgrastim concentration over time in the single-dose study (C1221001) (PK population).Pegfilgrastim-EU pegfilgrastim sourced from the European Union (reference product),pegfilgrastim-US pegfilgrastim sourced from the USA (reference product), PF-06881894proposed biosimilar of pegfilgrastim (test product), PK pharmacokinetic, SD standard deviation

References

    1. Crawford J, Dale DC, Lyman GH. Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: risks, consequences, and new directions for its management. Cancer. 2004;100(2):228–237. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11882.
    1. Green MD, Koelbl H, Baselga J, et al. A randomized double-blind multicenter phase III study of fixed-dose single-administration pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2003;14(1):29–35. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdg019.
    1. Sureda A, Domingo-Domenech E, Gautam A. Neutropenia during frontline treatment of advanced Hodgkin lymphoma: incidence, risk factors, and management. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2019;138:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2019.03.016.
    1. Metcalf D. The colony-stimulating factors and cancer. Cancer Immunol Res. 2013;1(6):351–356. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-13-0151.
    1. Amgen. NEUPOGEN® (filgrastim) prescribing information. Amgen. 2018 (last update June 2018). . Accessed 17 Jan 2019.
    1. Arvedson T, O’Kelly J, Yang B-B. Design rationale and development approach for pegfilgrastim as a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. BioDrugs. 2015;29(3):185–198. doi: 10.1007/s40259-015-0127-4.
    1. Amgen. NEULASTA® (pegfilgrastim) summary of product characteristics. Amgen. 2018 (last update September 2018). . Accessed 7 Mar 2019.
    1. Ho R, Gibaldi M. Biotechnology and biopharmaceuticals: transforming proteins and genes into drugs. In: Ho R, Gibaldi M, editors. Therapeutics based on biotechnology. Hematopoietic growth factors and coagulation factors. Hoboken: Wiley; 2003. pp. 157–158.
    1. Amgen. NEULASTA® (pegfilgrastim) prescribing infomation. 2020. . Accessed 27 May 2020.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration. Scientific considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity to a reference product. Guidance for industry. US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Silver Spring, MD. 2015. . Accessed 9 Mar 2020.
    1. European Medicines Agency. Biosimilars in the EU: Information guide for healthcare professionals. 2017. . Accessed 17 Jun 2019.
    1. World Health Organization. Annex 2, Guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs): WHO Technical Report Series No. 977. 2013. . Accessed 27 May 2020.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration. Clinical pharmacology data to support a demonstration of biosimilarity to a reference product. Guidance for industry. US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Silver Spring, MD. 2016. . Accessed 5 Mar 2019.
    1. Gascon P, Fuhr U, Sorgel F, et al. Development of a new G-CSF product based on biosimilarity assessment. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(7):1419–1429. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdp574.
    1. Li J, Florian J, Campbell E, et al. Advancing biosimilar development using pharmacodynamic biomarkers in clinical pharmacology studies. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;107(1):40–42. doi: 10.1002/cpt.1653.
    1. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing recombinant granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (rG-CSF), EMEA/CHMP/BMWP/31329/2005 Rev 1 2018. Accessed 10 Jan 2020.
    1. Wolff-Holz E, Tiitso K, Vleminckx C, Weise M. Evolution of the EU biosimilar framework: past and future. BioDrugs. 2019;33(6):621–634. doi: 10.1007/s40259-019-00377-y.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration. Bioanalytical method validation. Guidance for industry. US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), Silver Spring, MD. 2018. . Accessed 20 Nov 2019.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration. Immunogenicity assessment for therapeutic protein products. Guidance for industry. US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Silver Spring, MD. 2014. . Accessed 1 Nov 2019.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration. Assay development and validation for immunogenicity testing of therapeutic protein products. Guidance for industry (draft guidance). US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Silver Spring, MD. 2016. . Accessed 3 Nov 2019.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry assay development for immunogenicty testing of therapeutic proteins: Guidance. US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Silver Spring, MD. 2009. . Accessed 13 Jan 2020.
    1. Chan IS, Zhang Z. Test-based exact confidence intervals for the difference of two binomial proportions. Biometrics. 1999;55(4):1202–1209. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.1999.01202.x.
    1. Webster CJ, Woollett GR. A 'global reference' comparator for biosimilar development. BioDrugs. 2017;31(4):279–286. doi: 10.1007/s40259-017-0227-4.
    1. Hamidi M, Azadi A, Rafiei P. Pharmacokinetic consequences of pegylation. Drug Deliv. 2006;13(6):399–409. doi: 10.1080/10717540600814402.
    1. Yang Q, Lai SK. Anti-PEG immunity: emergence, characteristics, and unaddressed questions. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol. 2015;7(5):655–677. doi: 10.1002/wnan.1339.
    1. Yang Q, Jacobs TM, McCallen JD, et al. Analysis of pre-existing IgG and IgM antibodies against polyethylene glycol (PEG) in the general population. Anal Chem. 2016;88(23):11804–11812. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.6b03437.
    1. Ishida T, Kiwada H. Anti-polyethyleneglycol antibody response to PEGylated substances. Biol Pharm Bull. 2013;36(6):889–891. doi: 10.1248/bpb.b13-00107.
    1. Blackwell K, Donskih R, Jones CM, et al. A comparison of proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim for the prevention of neutropenia in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy: pegfilgrastim randomized oncology (supportive care) trial to evaluate comparative treatment (PROTECT-2), a phase III, randomized, double-blind trial. Oncologist. 2016;21(7):789–794. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0011.
    1. Desai K, Catalano T, Rai G, Misra P, Shah N. Confirmation of biosimilarity in a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study in healthy volunteers for an analytically highly similar pegfilgrastim. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev. 2016;5(5):354–363. doi: 10.1002/cpdd.269.
    1. Zou L, Buchner A, Roberge M, Liu PM. Immunogenicity assessment of lipegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. J Immunol Res. 2016;2016:9248061. doi: 10.1155/2016/9248061.
    1. Gladkov O, Moiseyenko V, Bondarenko IN, et al. A phase III study of balugrastim versus pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with doxorubicin and docetaxel. Oncologist. 2016;21(1):7–15. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0152.
    1. Yang BB, Morrow PK, Wu X, Moxness M, Padhi D. Comparison of pharmacokinetics and safety of pegfilgrastim administered by two delivery methods: on-body injector and manual injection with a prefilled syringe. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2015;75(6):1199–1206. doi: 10.1007/s00280-015-2731-x.
    1. Harbeck N, Lipatov O, Frolova M, et al. Randomized, double-blind study comparing proposed biosimilar LA-EP2006 with reference pegfilgrastim in breast cancer. Future Oncol. 2016;12(11):1359–1367. doi: 10.2217/fon-2016-0016.
    1. Holmes FA, O'Shaughnessy JA, Vukelja S, et al. Blinded, randomized, multicenter study to evaluate single administration pegfilgrastim once per cycle versus daily filgrastim as an adjunct to chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II or stage III/IV breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(3):727–731. doi: 10.1200/jco.2002.20.3.727.
    1. Holmes FA, Jones SE, O'Shaughnessy J, et al. Comparable efficacy and safety profiles of once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim and daily injection filgrastim in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: a multicenter dose-finding study in women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2002;13(6):903–909. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdf130.
    1. Waller CF, Tiessen RG, Lawrence TE, et al. A pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics equivalence trial of the proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar, MYL-1401H, versus reference pegfilgrastim. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018;144(6):1087–1095. doi: 10.1007/s00432-018-2643-3.
    1. Shankar G, Arkin S, Cocea L, et al. Assessment and reporting of the clinical immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins and peptides-harmonized terminology and tactical recommendations. AAPS J. 2014;16(4):658–673. doi: 10.1208/s12248-014-9599-2.
    1. van Brummelen EM, Ros W, Wolbink G, Beijnen JH, Schellens JH. Antidrug antibody formation in oncology: clinical relevance and challenges. Oncologist. 2016;21(10):1260–1268. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0061.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever