Pooled analysis of three pharmacokinetic studies comparing biosimilar MB02 and reference bevacizumab.

Miguel-Lillo B ，Sánchez-Vidaurre S ，Pérez Díaz L ，Paravisini A ... -  《Pharmacology Research & Perspectives》

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and immunogenicity of HLX14 versus reference denosumab in healthy males: A randomized phase I study.

Denosumab is a human IgG2 monoclonal antibody against receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL) for the treatment of osteoporosis and bone loss. HLX14 is a proposed biosimilar of denosumab. This randomized, parallel-group, two-part, phase I study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and immunogenicity of HLX14 with reference denosumab in Chinese healthy adult male participants. In Part 1, participants were randomized 1:1 and given HLX14 or reference denosumab sourced from the European Union (EU). In double-blind Part 2, participants were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive HLX14 or denosumab sourced from the United States, EU, or China. All study drugs were administered via subcutaneous injection at a single dose of 60 mg. The primary endpoints were area under the serum drug concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last concentration-quantifiable time t (AUC0-t), maximum serum drug concentration (Cmax), and area under the serum drug concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-inf). Twenty-four participants were randomized in Part 1 and 228 in Part 2. The 90% confidence intervals of geometric mean ratio of AUC0-t, Cmax, and AUC0-inf between HLX14 and denosumab from different sources fell within the pre-specified similarity margins of 0.80-1.25 (AUC0-t, 0.91-1.13; Cmax, 0.91-1.13; AUC0-inf, 0.91-1.12), demonstrating pharmacokinetic similarity. No notable difference was observed among treatment groups in pharmacodynamics, safety, or immunogenicity. HLX14 demonstrated highly similar pharmacokinetic characteristics with comparable pharmacodynamics, safety, and immunogenicity to denosumab, supporting its further investigation as a potential denosumab biosimilar.

Li N ，Chu N ，Zhu L ，Wu X ，Wei Q ，Wang J ，Hu X ，Yu H ，Wang Q ，Yuan W ，Huang K ，Zhang J ... -  《-》

The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Sample collection is a key driver of accuracy in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Viral load may vary at different anatomical sampling sites and accuracy may be compromised by difficulties obtaining specimens and the expertise of the person taking the sample. It is important to optimise sampling accuracy within cost, safety and accessibility constraints. To compare the sensitivity of different sampling collection sites and methods for the detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection with any molecular or antigen-based test. Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 22 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions. We included studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic people with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing testing. We included studies of any design that compared results from different sample types (anatomical location, operator, collection device) collected from the same participant within a 24-hour period. Within a sample pair, we defined a reference sample and an index sample collected from the same participant within the same clinical encounter (within 24 hours). Where the sample comparison was different anatomical sites, the reference standard was defined as a nasopharyngeal or combined naso/oropharyngeal sample collected into the same sample container and the index sample as the alternative anatomical site. Where the sample comparison was concerned with differences in the sample collection method from the same site, we defined the reference sample as that closest to standard practice for that sample type. Where the sample pair comparison was concerned with differences in personnel collecting the sample, the more skilled or experienced operator was considered the reference sample. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C checklists, tailored to this review. We present estimates of the difference in the sensitivity (reference sample (%) minus index sample sensitivity (%)) in a pair and as an average across studies for each index sampling method using forest plots and tables. We examined heterogeneity between studies according to population (age, symptom status) and index sample (time post-symptom onset, operator expertise, use of transport medium) characteristics. This review includes 106 studies reporting 154 evaluations and 60,523 sample pair comparisons, of which 11,045 had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ninety evaluations were of saliva samples, 37 nasal, seven oropharyngeal, six gargle, six oral and four combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples. Four evaluations were of the effect of operator expertise on the accuracy of three different sample types. The majority of included evaluations (146) used molecular tests, of which 140 used RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction). Eight evaluations were of nasal samples used with Ag-RDTs (rapid antigen tests). The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (35/106, 33%) or the USA (27%) and conducted in dedicated COVID-19 testing clinics or in ambulatory hospital settings (53%). Targeted screening or contact tracing accounted for only 4% of evaluations. Where reported, the majority of evaluations were of adults (91/154, 59%), 28 (18%) were in mixed populations with only seven (4%) in children. The median prevalence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 23% (interquartile (IQR) 13%-40%). Risk of bias and applicability assessment were hampered by poor reporting in 77% and 65% of included studies, respectively. Risk of bias was low across all domains in only 3% of evaluations due to inappropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria, unclear recruitment, lack of blinding, nonrandomised sampling order or differences in testing kit within a sample pair. Sixty-eight percent of evaluation cohorts were judged as being at high or unclear applicability concern either due to inflation of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in study populations by selectively including individuals with confirmed PCR-positive samples or because there was insufficient detail to allow replication of sample collection. When used with RT-PCR • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between gargle and nasopharyngeal samples (on average -1 percentage points, 95% CI -5 to +2, based on 6 evaluations, 2138 sample pairs, of which 389 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between saliva collection from the deep throat and nasopharyngeal samples (on average +10 percentage points, 95% CI -1 to +21, based on 2192 sample pairs, of which 730 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was evidence that saliva collection using spitting, drooling or salivating was on average -12 percentage points less sensitive (95% CI -16 to -8, based on 27,253 sample pairs, of which 4636 had SARS-CoV-2) compared to nasopharyngeal samples. We did not find any evidence of a difference in the sensitivity of saliva collected using spitting, drooling or salivating (sensitivity difference: range from -13 percentage points (spit) to -21 percentage points (salivate)). • Nasal samples (anterior and mid-turbinate collection combined) were, on average, 12 percentage points less sensitive compared to nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -17 to -7), based on 9291 sample pairs, of which 1485 had SARS-CoV-2. We did not find any evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples collected from the mid-turbinates (3942 sample pairs) or from the anterior nares (8272 sample pairs). • There was evidence that oropharyngeal samples were, on average, 17 percentage points less sensitive than nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -29 to -5), based on seven evaluations, 2522 sample pairs, of which 511 had SARS-CoV-2. A much smaller volume of evidence was available for combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples and oral samples. Age, symptom status and use of transport media do not appear to affect the sensitivity of saliva samples and nasal samples. When used with Ag-RDTs • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples (sensitivity, on average, 0 percentage points -0.2 to +0.2, based on 3688 sample pairs, of which 535 had SARS-CoV-2). When used with RT-PCR, there is no evidence for a difference in sensitivity of self-collected gargle or deep-throat saliva samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples collected by healthcare workers when used with RT-PCR. Use of these alternative, self-collected sample types has the potential to reduce cost and discomfort and improve the safety of sampling by reducing risk of transmission from aerosol spread which occurs as a result of coughing and gagging during the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal sample collection procedure. This may, in turn, improve access to and uptake of testing. Other types of saliva, nasal, oral and oropharyngeal samples are, on average, less sensitive compared to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples, and it is unlikely that sensitivities of this magnitude would be acceptable for confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR. When used with Ag-RDTs, there is no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The implications of this for self-testing are unclear as evaluations did not report whether nasal samples were self-collected or collected by healthcare workers. Further research is needed in asymptomatic individuals, children and in Ag-RDTs, and to investigate the effect of operator expertise on accuracy. Quality assessment of the evidence base underpinning these conclusions was restricted by poor reporting. There is a need for further high-quality studies, adhering to reporting standards for test accuracy studies.

Davenport C ，Arevalo-Rodriguez I ，Mateos-Haro M ，Berhane S ，Dinnes J ，Spijker R ，Buitrago-Garcia D ，Ciapponi A ，Takwoingi Y ，Deeks JJ ，Emperador D ，Leeflang MMG ，Van den Bruel A ，Cochrane COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies for cancer treatment in adults.

Biosimilars are products containing an approved biological medicine. They are similar, but not identical, to an originator medicine. In cancer, biosimilars have been developed from the monoclonal antibodies, bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. They have become available for the treatment of lung, colorectal, non-Hodkin's lymphoma, and breast cancers. As these biological products are not identical, synthesis of evidence of the clinical effects of biosimilars compared to their originators is needed to understand their comparative effectiveness and harms. To evaluate the benefits and harms of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies versus their originator drugs for adults with cancer. We searched bibliographic (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science) and clinical trials databases to February 2024. We included head-to-head randomised controlled trials conducted in adults with cancer treated with biosimilar or originator monoclonal antibodies. We followed standard Cochrane methodology. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival, duration of response, overall survival, breast cancer's pathological complete response, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. If survival estimates were adjusted or provided as rates, we did not combine them. We used Cochrane's RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias and GRADE to evaluate the certainty of evidence of critical and important outcomes according to the relevance determined by consumers. We included 55 studies with 22,046 adults (23 of bevacizumab, 10,639 participants with colorectal or lung cancer; 17 of rituximab, 4412 participants with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; and 15 of trastuzumab, 6995 participants with breast cancer). Studies were conducted in all continents, most were multicentre, and all were funded by the drug manufacturer. Participants' ages ranged from 47 (mean) to 62 (median) years and the proportion of women from 18% to 100%. Fifteen studies were conducted as non-inferiority and 40 as equivalence. The overall risk of bias was low; main biases were in the incomplete outcome data and selective reporting domains. Bevacizumab biosimilar versus bevacizumab originator in lung or colorectal cancer Progression-free survival is likely similar between bevacizumab biosimilar and the originator (per 1000: 380 in both groups at 12 months, hazard ratio (HR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.09; 5 studies, 2660 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in lung or colorectal cancer subgroups. Bevacizumab biosimilar is likely similar to the originator in duration of response (per 1000: 219 participants who achieved response progressed with biosimilar versus 210 with originator at 12 months; HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.37; 1 study, 762 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and overall survival (per 1000: 592 with biosimilar versus 610 with originator at 12 months; HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.19; 5 studies, 2783 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in cancer type subgroups. Bevacizumab biosimilar is likely similar to the originator in serious adverse events (per 1000: 303 with biosimilar versus 309 with originator; risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03; 23 studies, 10,619 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab biosimilar may be similar to originator in health-related quality of life as scores were comparable in the one study that assessed this outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer (low-certainty evidence). This critical outcome was not assessed in other biosimilars comparisons. Bevacizumab biosimilar is likely similar to originator in objective response (per 1000: 481 with biosimilar versus 501 with originator; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.00; 23 studies, 10,054 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and mortality (per 1000: 287 with biosimilar versus 279 with originator; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.09; 19 studies, 9231 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in lung or colorectal cancers. Rituximab biosimilar versus rituximab originator in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma Rituximab biosimilar is likely similar to originator in progression-free survival (7 studies, 2456 participants), duration of response (2 studies, 522 participants), and overall survival (7 studies, 2353 participants; data not pooled as survival estimates were adjusted for different factors or reported as rates) (all moderate-certainty evidence). Rituximab biosimilar is likely similar to originator in the risk of serious adverse events (per 1000: 210 with biosimilar versus 204 with originator; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.14; 15 studies, 4197 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and objective response (per 1000: 807 with biosimilar versus 799 with originator; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04; 16 studies, 3922 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No study reported quality of life. Rituximab biosimilar is similar to originator in mortality (per 1000: 52 with biosimilar versus 53 with originator; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.35; 8 studies, 2557 participants; high-certainty evidence). Trastuzumab biosimilar versus trastuzumab originator in breast cancer Trastuzumab biosimilar is likely similar to originator in progression-free survival (4 studies, 2221 participants), duration of response (3 studies, 1488 participants), and overall survival (6 studies, 2221 participants), which were not pooled due to adjustment for different factors or provided as rates. No study reported quality of life. Trastuzumab biosimilar may be similar to originator in pathological complete response (per 1000: 459 with biosimilar versus 433 with originator; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 7 studies, 3403 participants; low-certainty evidence), is likely similar in serious adverse events (per 1000: 129 in both groups; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.17; 13 studies, 6183 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and slightly increases objective response (per 1000: 801 with biosimilar versus 777 with originator; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.05; 13 studies, 5509 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Treatment with bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab biosimilars are likely similar to their originator drugs in terms of their impact on progression-free survival, duration of response, overall survival, serious adverse events, objective response, and mortality. Limited evidence showed similarity in pathological complete response for trastuzumab and quality of life for bevacizumab compared with originators, which was not assessed in the other comparisons. The overall certainty of evidence was moderate and imprecision was the main reason for downgrading our certainty in the findings.

Galvao TF ，Livinalli A ，Lopes LC ，Zimmermann IR ，Silva MT ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Pharmacokinetics and Bioequivalence of Two Powders of Azithromycin for Suspension: A Nonblinded, Single-Dose, Randomized, Three-Way Crossover Study in Fed and Fasting States Among Healthy Chinese Volunteers.

Azithromycin, a macrolide antibiotic, is commonly used to treat mild-to-moderate bacterial infections. This research aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) properties and bioequivalence (BE) of two azithromycin (EQ 100 mg base/packet) powders for suspension in Chinese healthy participants in fed and fasting conditions. A total of 90 Chinese healthy participants were enrolled in this nonblinded, single-dose, randomized, semireplicate, three-period, three-sequence, crossover study. Of them, 42 and 40 were categorized to the fed and fasting conditions, respectively. The washout period between doses was 21 days. Blood specimens were harvested prior to administering the drug and 194 h following administration. The plasma levels of azithromycin were analyzed using a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) approach. PK parameters were measured using noncompartmental analysis. This research compared BE between the reference and test products using the average bioequivalence (ABE) or reference-scaled average bioequivalence (RSABE) method, considering the within-subject variability (SWR) of the reference preparation. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored to examine safety and tolerability. The RSABE method (SWR ≥ 0.294) was used to determine the BE of maximal plasma concentration (Cmax) in both fed and fasting conditions. In the ABE approach, (SWR < 0.294) was adopted to assess the BE of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last measurable time point (AUC0-t) and determine the area under the plasma concentration time curve from time zero to time infinity (AUC0-inf). In the fasting condition, the point estimate of the test/reference ratio for Cmax was 1.08, with a 95% upper confidence bound of - 0.05 < 0.00. The geometric mean ratio (GMRs) for AUC0-t and AUC0-inf was 115.21% [90% confidence interval (CI) 107.25-123.27%] and 113.07% (90% CI 105.14-121.61%), respectively. In the fed condition, the point estimate of the test/reference ratio for Cmax was 0.94, with a 95% upper confidence bound of - 0.10 < 0.00. The GMR for AUC0-t and AUC0-inf was 99.51% (90% CI of 91.03-108.78%) and 99.43% (90% CI 91.73-107.78%), respectively. These data all satisfied the BE criteria for drugs with high variability. All AEs were transient and mild, and no severe AEs were observed. Our study indicated that the test and reference products of azithromycin (EQ 100 mg base/packet) powder for suspension were bioequivalent and safe in healthy Chinese participants, irrespective of the feeding condition. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION (CHINADRUGTRIALS.ORG.CN): CTR20232646, registered on 25 August 2023.

Shao J ，Liu X ，Lin J ，Chen J ，Xie X ... -  《-》