A randomized, double-blind, single-dose, phase 1 study comparing the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and immunogenicity of denosumab biosimilar CT‑P41 and reference denosumab in healthy males.
IF 3.6 3区 医学Q2 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Anhye Kim, Jang Hee Hong, Wonsuk Shin, Hyounggyoon Yoo, Jin-Gyu Jung, Jean-Yves Reginster, SungHyun Kim, YunJu Bae, JeeHye Suh, Sera Kim, EunKyung Lee, Stuart Silverman
{"title":"A randomized, double-blind, single-dose, phase 1 study comparing the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and immunogenicity of denosumab biosimilar CT‑P41 and reference denosumab in healthy males.","authors":"Anhye Kim, Jang Hee Hong, Wonsuk Shin, Hyounggyoon Yoo, Jin-Gyu Jung, Jean-Yves Reginster, SungHyun Kim, YunJu Bae, JeeHye Suh, Sera Kim, EunKyung Lee, Stuart Silverman","doi":"10.1080/14712598.2024.2316846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study's objective was to demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity and safety of denosumab biosimilar, CT‑P41, and United States-licensed reference denosumab (US-denosumab) in healthy male Asian adults, considering also pharmacodynamic (PD) outcomes.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>This double-blind, two-arm, parallel-group, Phase 1 study randomized (1:1) healthy males to a single (60-mg) subcutaneous dose of CT‑P41 or US-denosumab. Primary endpoints were area under the concentration - time curve (AUC) from time zero to infinity (AUC<sub>0-inf</sub>), AUC from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC<sub>0-last</sub>), and maximum serum concentration (C<sub>max</sub>). PK equivalence was determined if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for ratios of geometric least-squares means (gLSMs) were within the predefined 80-125% equivalence margin. Secondary PK, PD, safety, and immunogenicity outcomes were also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 154 participants randomized (76 CT‑P41; 78 US-denosumab), 151 received study drug (74 CT‑P41; 77 US-denosumab). Primary and secondary PK results, PD results, safety, and immunogenicity were comparable between groups. Ninety percent CIs for ratios of gLSMs were within the predefined equivalence margin for AUC<sub>0-inf</sub> (100.4-114.7), AUC<sub>0-last</sub> (99.9-114.3), and C<sub>max</sub> (95.2-107.3).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Following a single dose in healthy males, CT‑P41 demonstrated PK equivalence with US-denosumab.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06037395.</p>","PeriodicalId":12084,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"655-663"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2024.2316846","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: This study's objective was to demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity and safety of denosumab biosimilar, CT‑P41, and United States-licensed reference denosumab (US-denosumab) in healthy male Asian adults, considering also pharmacodynamic (PD) outcomes.
Research design and methods: This double-blind, two-arm, parallel-group, Phase 1 study randomized (1:1) healthy males to a single (60-mg) subcutaneous dose of CT‑P41 or US-denosumab. Primary endpoints were area under the concentration - time curve (AUC) from time zero to infinity (AUC0-inf), AUC from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-last), and maximum serum concentration (Cmax). PK equivalence was determined if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for ratios of geometric least-squares means (gLSMs) were within the predefined 80-125% equivalence margin. Secondary PK, PD, safety, and immunogenicity outcomes were also evaluated.
Results: Of 154 participants randomized (76 CT‑P41; 78 US-denosumab), 151 received study drug (74 CT‑P41; 77 US-denosumab). Primary and secondary PK results, PD results, safety, and immunogenicity were comparable between groups. Ninety percent CIs for ratios of gLSMs were within the predefined equivalence margin for AUC0-inf (100.4-114.7), AUC0-last (99.9-114.3), and Cmax (95.2-107.3).
Conclusions: Following a single dose in healthy males, CT‑P41 demonstrated PK equivalence with US-denosumab.
期刊介绍:
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy (1471-2598; 1744-7682) is a MEDLINE-indexed, international journal publishing peer-reviewed research across all aspects of biological therapy.
Each article is structured to incorporate the author’s own expert opinion on the impact of the topic on research and clinical practice and the scope for future development.
The audience consists of scientists and managers in the healthcare and biopharmaceutical industries and others closely involved in the development and application of biological therapies for the treatment of human disease.
The journal welcomes:
Reviews covering therapeutic antibodies and vaccines, peptides and proteins, gene therapies and gene transfer technologies, cell-based therapies and regenerative medicine
Drug evaluations reviewing the clinical data on a particular biological agent
Original research papers reporting the results of clinical investigations on biological agents and biotherapeutic-based studies with a strong link to clinical practice
Comprehensive coverage in each review is complemented by the unique Expert Collection format and includes the following sections:
Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results;
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.