Efficacy and safety of the ustekinumab biosimilar, Bmab 1200, versus reference ustekinumab in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: 28‑week results of the randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 STELLAR-2 study.
Jacek C Szepietowski, Adam Reich, Steven R Feldman, Grazyna Pulka, Lally Mekokishvili, Nino Tsiskarishvili, Inese Svarca, Airi Poder, Gursharan Singh, Sarika Deodhar, Kuldeep Kumar, Ashwani Marwah, Subramanian Loganathan, Sandeep N Athalye, Elena Wolff-Holz
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of the ustekinumab biosimilar, Bmab 1200, versus reference ustekinumab in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: 28‑week results of the randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 STELLAR-2 study.","authors":"Jacek C Szepietowski, Adam Reich, Steven R Feldman, Grazyna Pulka, Lally Mekokishvili, Nino Tsiskarishvili, Inese Svarca, Airi Poder, Gursharan Singh, Sarika Deodhar, Kuldeep Kumar, Ashwani Marwah, Subramanian Loganathan, Sandeep N Athalye, Elena Wolff-Holz","doi":"10.1080/14712598.2025.2538608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>STELLAR-2 assessed the equivalent efficacy of the ustekinumab biosimilar, Bmab 1200, versus reference ustekinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis. Safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetics (PK) were also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>In this double-blind, parallel-group, Phase 3 study, patients were randomized 1:1 to Bmab 1200 or reference ustekinumab in Treatment Period (TP)1, and at Week 16, those who responded to reference ustekinumab (improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI] score ≥ 50%) were re-randomized (1:1) to continue reference ustekinumab or switch to Bmab 1200 in TP2. The primary endpoint was the change in PASI from baseline to Week 12. Equivalent efficacy was established if 90% and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the treatment difference were within predefined equivalence margins of ± 10% and ± 13%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 384 patients were randomized (Bmab 1200: <i>N</i> = 191; reference ustekinumab: <i>N</i> = 193) in TP1. At Week 12, the least squares mean treatment difference (0.6800%; 90% CI: -1.27, 2.63; 95% CI: -1.64, 3.00) was within the predefined equivalence margins for 90% and 95% CIs. Safety, immunogenicity, and PK were comparable between treatment groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Bmab 1200 and reference ustekinumab had similar efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and PK in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu identifier is 2021-006668-25; www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT05335356.</p>","PeriodicalId":12084,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","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/10.1080/14712598.2025.2538608","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: STELLAR-2 assessed the equivalent efficacy of the ustekinumab biosimilar, Bmab 1200, versus reference ustekinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis. Safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetics (PK) were also evaluated.
Research design and methods: In this double-blind, parallel-group, Phase 3 study, patients were randomized 1:1 to Bmab 1200 or reference ustekinumab in Treatment Period (TP)1, and at Week 16, those who responded to reference ustekinumab (improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI] score ≥ 50%) were re-randomized (1:1) to continue reference ustekinumab or switch to Bmab 1200 in TP2. The primary endpoint was the change in PASI from baseline to Week 12. Equivalent efficacy was established if 90% and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the treatment difference were within predefined equivalence margins of ± 10% and ± 13%, respectively.
Results: Overall, 384 patients were randomized (Bmab 1200: N = 191; reference ustekinumab: N = 193) in TP1. At Week 12, the least squares mean treatment difference (0.6800%; 90% CI: -1.27, 2.63; 95% CI: -1.64, 3.00) was within the predefined equivalence margins for 90% and 95% CIs. Safety, immunogenicity, and PK were comparable between treatment groups.
Conclusions: Bmab 1200 and reference ustekinumab had similar efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and PK in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.
Trial registration: www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu identifier is 2021-006668-25; www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT05335356.
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.