Biocon的ustekinumab (Bmab-1200)与欧盟批准和美国许可的参考ustekinumab在健康受试者中的药代动力学等效性和比较安全性、耐受性和免疫原性:来自生物类似药ustekinumab与SteLARa (stelar -1)的药代动力学等效性研究的结果。

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Jonathan Ackroyd, Sarika S Deodhar, Subramanian Loganathan, Gursharan Singh, Ashwani Marwah, Kuldeep Kumar, Jayanti Panda, Sandeep Nilkanth Athalye
{"title":"Biocon的ustekinumab (Bmab-1200)与欧盟批准和美国许可的参考ustekinumab在健康受试者中的药代动力学等效性和比较安全性、耐受性和免疫原性:来自生物类似药ustekinumab与SteLARa (stelar -1)的药代动力学等效性研究的结果。","authors":"Jonathan Ackroyd, Sarika S Deodhar, Subramanian Loganathan, Gursharan Singh, Ashwani Marwah, Kuldeep Kumar, Jayanti Panda, Sandeep Nilkanth Athalye","doi":"10.1080/13543784.2025.2500334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study assessed the pharmacokinetics (PK) equivalence, safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of Bmab-1200 versus the reference product ustekinumab (EU-approved and US-licensed Stelara).</p><p><strong>Research design & methods: </strong>This 20-week, randomized, double-blind, three-arm, parallel-design, Phase-1 study enrolled healthy male and female subjects (<i>n</i> = 258; 18-55 years). A single, 45-mg subcutaneous injection of Bmab-1200, EU-approved Stelara, or US-licensed Stelara was administered in a 1:1:1 ratio. Subject stratification was performed by ethnicity, body weight range, and gender. Primary PK endpoints included AUC<sub>0-inf</sub> and C<sub>max</sub>. Secondary endpoints included additional PK parameters, immunogenicity, and safety and tolerability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All three pairwise comparisons of Bmab-1200 versus US-Stelara, Bmab-1200 versus EU-Stelara, and US-Stelara versus EU-Stelara were equivalent for AUC<sub>0-inf</sub> (90% confidence intervals [CIs] of the geometric least squares mean [GLSM] ratio: 0.9975-1.1657, 0.9959-1.1685, and 0.9223-1.0921, respectively) and C<sub>max</sub> (90% CIs of the GLSM ratio: 0.9478-1.0732, 0.9136-1.0376, and 0.9012-1.0267, respectively). All secondary analyses supported the primary results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Three-way PK equivalence between Bmab-1200, US-Stelara, and EU-Stelara was demonstrated. A single, 45-mg dose of Bmab-1200 was safe and well tolerated, and, overall, the number of AEs was similar among the groups. Diversity limited to White and Japanese groups did not impact the study results.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>This study was registered with www.isrctn.com; identifier: ISRCTN11424009.</p>","PeriodicalId":12313,"journal":{"name":"Expert opinion on investigational drugs","volume":"34 4","pages":"349-357"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pharmacokinetic equivalence and comparative safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of Biocon's ustekinumab (Bmab-1200) with EU-approved and US-licensed reference ustekinumab in healthy subjects: results from the Study to Test pharmacokinetic BioEquivalence of BiosimiLar ustekinumab to SteLARa (STELLAR-1).\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Ackroyd, Sarika S Deodhar, Subramanian Loganathan, Gursharan Singh, Ashwani Marwah, Kuldeep Kumar, Jayanti Panda, Sandeep Nilkanth Athalye\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13543784.2025.2500334\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study assessed the pharmacokinetics (PK) equivalence, safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of Bmab-1200 versus the reference product ustekinumab (EU-approved and US-licensed Stelara).</p><p><strong>Research design & methods: </strong>This 20-week, randomized, double-blind, three-arm, parallel-design, Phase-1 study enrolled healthy male and female subjects (<i>n</i> = 258; 18-55 years). A single, 45-mg subcutaneous injection of Bmab-1200, EU-approved Stelara, or US-licensed Stelara was administered in a 1:1:1 ratio. Subject stratification was performed by ethnicity, body weight range, and gender. Primary PK endpoints included AUC<sub>0-inf</sub> and C<sub>max</sub>. Secondary endpoints included additional PK parameters, immunogenicity, and safety and tolerability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All three pairwise comparisons of Bmab-1200 versus US-Stelara, Bmab-1200 versus EU-Stelara, and US-Stelara versus EU-Stelara were equivalent for AUC<sub>0-inf</sub> (90% confidence intervals [CIs] of the geometric least squares mean [GLSM] ratio: 0.9975-1.1657, 0.9959-1.1685, and 0.9223-1.0921, respectively) and C<sub>max</sub> (90% CIs of the GLSM ratio: 0.9478-1.0732, 0.9136-1.0376, and 0.9012-1.0267, respectively). All secondary analyses supported the primary results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Three-way PK equivalence between Bmab-1200, US-Stelara, and EU-Stelara was demonstrated. A single, 45-mg dose of Bmab-1200 was safe and well tolerated, and, overall, the number of AEs was similar among the groups. Diversity limited to White and Japanese groups did not impact the study results.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>This study was registered with www.isrctn.com; identifier: ISRCTN11424009.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert opinion on investigational drugs\",\"volume\":\"34 4\",\"pages\":\"349-357\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert opinion on investigational drugs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13543784.2025.2500334\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert opinion on investigational drugs","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13543784.2025.2500334","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究评估了Bmab-1200与参考产品ustekinumab(欧盟批准和美国许可的Stelara)的药代动力学(PK)等效性、安全性、耐受性和免疫原性。研究设计与方法:这项为期20周、随机、双盲、三臂、平行设计的1期研究纳入了健康男性和女性受试者(n = 258;18-55年)。单次皮下注射Bmab-1200,欧盟批准的Stelara,或美国许可的Stelara,按1:1:1的比例给药。受试者按种族、体重范围和性别进行分层。主要PK终点包括AUC0-inf和Cmax。次要终点包括额外的PK参数、免疫原性、安全性和耐受性。结果:Bmab-1200与US-Stelara、Bmab-1200与EU-Stelara、US-Stelara与EU-Stelara的三个配对比较,AUC0-inf(几何最小二乘平均[GLSM]比值的90%置信区间[ci]分别为0.9975-1.1657、0.9959-1.1685和0.9223-1.0921)和Cmax (GLSM比值的90% ci分别为0.9478-1.0732、0.9136-1.0376和0.9012-1.0267)均相等。所有二次分析均支持初步结果。结论:Bmab-1200、US-Stelara和EU-Stelara三者之间具有三向PK等效性。单次45mg剂量的Bmab-1200是安全且耐受性良好的,总体而言,两组之间不良反应的数量相似。限于白人和日本群体的多样性并没有影响研究结果。临床试验注册:本研究在www.isrctn.com注册;标识符:ISRCTN11424009。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pharmacokinetic equivalence and comparative safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of Biocon's ustekinumab (Bmab-1200) with EU-approved and US-licensed reference ustekinumab in healthy subjects: results from the Study to Test pharmacokinetic BioEquivalence of BiosimiLar ustekinumab to SteLARa (STELLAR-1).

Background: This study assessed the pharmacokinetics (PK) equivalence, safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of Bmab-1200 versus the reference product ustekinumab (EU-approved and US-licensed Stelara).

Research design & methods: This 20-week, randomized, double-blind, three-arm, parallel-design, Phase-1 study enrolled healthy male and female subjects (n = 258; 18-55 years). A single, 45-mg subcutaneous injection of Bmab-1200, EU-approved Stelara, or US-licensed Stelara was administered in a 1:1:1 ratio. Subject stratification was performed by ethnicity, body weight range, and gender. Primary PK endpoints included AUC0-inf and Cmax. Secondary endpoints included additional PK parameters, immunogenicity, and safety and tolerability.

Results: All three pairwise comparisons of Bmab-1200 versus US-Stelara, Bmab-1200 versus EU-Stelara, and US-Stelara versus EU-Stelara were equivalent for AUC0-inf (90% confidence intervals [CIs] of the geometric least squares mean [GLSM] ratio: 0.9975-1.1657, 0.9959-1.1685, and 0.9223-1.0921, respectively) and Cmax (90% CIs of the GLSM ratio: 0.9478-1.0732, 0.9136-1.0376, and 0.9012-1.0267, respectively). All secondary analyses supported the primary results.

Conclusion: Three-way PK equivalence between Bmab-1200, US-Stelara, and EU-Stelara was demonstrated. A single, 45-mg dose of Bmab-1200 was safe and well tolerated, and, overall, the number of AEs was similar among the groups. Diversity limited to White and Japanese groups did not impact the study results.

Clinical trial registration: This study was registered with www.isrctn.com; identifier: ISRCTN11424009.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
71
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs (ISSN 1354-3784 [print], 1744-7658 [electronic]) is a MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, international journal publishing review articles and original papers on drugs in preclinical and early stage clinical development, providing expert opinion on the scope for future development. The Editors welcome: Reviews covering preclinical through to Phase II data on drugs or drug classes for specific indications, and their potential impact on future treatment strategies Drug Evaluations reviewing the clinical and pharmacological data on a particular drug Original Research papers reporting the results of clinical investigations on agents that are in Phase I and II clinical trials The audience consists of scientists, managers and decision-makers in the pharmaceutical industry, and others closely involved in R&D.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信