GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Hematological Oncology, Wiley, Vol. 38, No. 1 ( 2020-02), p. 67-73
    Abstract: BCD‐020 is a proposed rituximab biosimilar, which has shown high similarity to rituximab in quality and nonclinical studies in vitro and in vivo. International multicenter clinical trial was conducted to compare efficacy and safety of BCD‐020 and reference rituximab in adult (older than 18 years) patients with indolent lymphomas (follicular lymphoma grade 1‐2, splenic marginal zone lymphoma, and nodal marginal zone lymphoma). Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity were also studied. Patients with no previous biologic treatment for lymphoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive BCD‐020 or comparator 375 mg/m 2 for 4 weeks. Primary study outcome was day 50 overall response rate defined as complete or partial remission. Equivalence range was −20% to 20% for 95% CI for overall response rates difference. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity. One hundred seventy‐four patients were enrolled, 89 in BCD‐020 arm and 85 in comparator arm. The overall response rate was 44.71% in BCD‐020 arm and 41.89% in comparator arm. Limits of 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference of overall response rates between arms were (−12.62%‐18.24%) showing equivalent efficacy. Sixty‐one (68.54%) and 59 (69.41%) patients had at least one adverse event in BCD‐020 arm or comparator arm, respectively. No unexpected adverse reactions were reported. Antidrug antibodies with no neutralizing activity were detected in two patients in comparator arm on day 14 further declining below detection threshold. Rituximab concentrations had equivalent pattern after intravenous administration of both drugs. Both drugs caused depletion of B‐cells without significant influence on other blood cell lineages. In this study, we showed equivalent efficacy of BCD‐020 and reference rituximab when used in patients with CD20‐positive indolent lymphomas. We also confirmed pharmacokinetic equivalence of BCD‐020 and reference rituximab. Safety profile, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity of BCD‐020 were also comparable with those of reference rituximab.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0278-0232 , 1099-1069
    URL: Issue
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2001443-0
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 124, No. 21 ( 2014-12-06), p. 5467-5467
    Abstract: BCD-020 (Acellbia, rituximab biosimilar candidate) was shown to be highly similar to innovator rituximab (MabThera®/Rituxan®) in terms of its quality characteristics, in vitro biological activity, as well as toxicology and PK/PD characteristics in non-human primates. International multicenter comparative randomized open-label clinical study was carried out in a period from 2011 to 2013 and involved over 30 centers in Russia, Ukraine and India. Its methodology and design complies with current EMA guidelines on similar biological products containing monoclonal antibodies (EMA/CHMP/BMWP/403543/2010). 92 patients with follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, stage I-IV by Ann Arbor, or marginal zone lymphoma, stage I-IV by Ann Arbor, ECOG 0-2, who had at least 1 measurable lesion were enrolled. According to study protocol patients with secondary transformed B-cell lymphomas or with highly aggressive types of tumor, bulky disease, severe concomitant somatic disorders and some other conditions were excluded. If a patient had previous story of chemotherapy or radiation he could be included after at least 3 weeks post-treatment. Participation of patients who were previously treated with any kind of monoclonal antibodies was prohibited. After signing standard informed consent form and completion of 28-days screening period eligible patients underwent stratification in accordance to their prognostic risk (FLIPI or IPI) and previous treatment (naïve or pretreated). Subsequently patients were randomized (1:1) into 2 groups: 46 patients were included in the main group where Acellbia (rituximab biosimilar) was administered at a dose of 375 mg/m2 as a slow IV infusion on day 1, 8, 15 and 22; 46 patients were included in the reference group where MabThera was used at the same regimen. Use of any other medicines for the treatment of lymphoma was strictly prohibited. Efficacy was assessed on the basis of computed tomography and bone marrow evaluation which were performed 1 month after the completion of treatment. Median age of patients in each group was 57.5 years (main group [50.0-64.0], reference group [47.0-65.0] ). Manageable comorbidities were reported in 50% of patients in the main group and 34.78% of patients in the reference group, p=0.2053. Comparative analysis of the prognostic risk factors confirmed the equivalence of study groups. The number of pretreated patients in both groups was equal – 8 individuals per group. Statistical analysis didn’t find any difference in overall response rate in general population of patients (39.52% patients in the main group vs. 36.57% patients in the reference group, p=0.8250), as well as in population of pretreated patients (28.6% vs 37.5% respectively, p=1.00) and in population of naïve patients (42.8% vs 39.4% respectively, p=1.00). The lower limit of the two-tailed 95% CI for difference in proportions of ORR was equal to -0.17 and exceeded the predefined non-inferiority margin -0.2, which confirmed non-inferiority of Acellbia to MabThera in terms of efficacy. Treatment-associated AE of any grade were reported in 21.74% patients in both arms, in the absence of statistically or clinically significant difference (p = 0.8005). There were 2 cases of CTCAE 4.03 grade 3-4 AEs in each group. PK and PD parameters were shown to be equivalent in both study groups. Thus, study results suggest that Acellbia has same efficacy and safety in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Disclosures Chernyaeva: JCS BIOCAD: Employment. Ivanov:JCS BIOCAD: Employment. Isaev:JCS BIOCAD: Employment.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2014
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: Blood, American Society of Hematology, Vol. 116, No. 21 ( 2010-11-19), p. 312-312
    Abstract: Abstract 312 Background: Bortezomib (VELCADE®) is approved in the US and Europe for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) in both the frontline and the relapse settings. The recommended dose of bortezomib is 1.3 mg/m2 administered as a 3- to 5-second bolus intravenous (IV) injection. As an alternative to IV delivery, subcutaneous (SC) administration of bortezomib may be a good option for some patients, particularly those with poor venous access, since it would eliminate the need for repeated IV access or insertion of long-term central venous access devices, improving convenience for some patients and physicians. In a randomized phase 1 trial of SC versus IV bortezomib in 24 relapsed or refractory MM patients, both routes of administration demonstrated similar systemic drug exposure and proteasome inhibition, good local tolerability and, importantly, comparable response rates and safety profiles (Moreau et al. Haematologica 2008). A large, multicenter, international, randomized, phase 3 open-label trial was therefore undertaken to compare SC and IV administration in patients with previously treated MM to confirm these preliminary findings. Methods: Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years with measurable secretory MM who had relapsed or progressed following prior systemic therapy and had a Karnofsky performance status of ≥70%. Patients who had received prior bortezomib or 〉 3 previous lines of therapy, or who had peripheral neuropathy or neuropathic pain of NCI CTCAE grade ≥2 were excluded. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive SC or IV bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 every 21 days for a total of eight cycles. SC injection sites were the thighs or abdomen, and the injection site was rotated for subsequent injections within a cycle. IV injections were administered at a concentration of 1 mg/ml as a 3- to 5-second IV push, and SC injections were administered at 2.5 mg/ml. For cycles 1–4, patients received bortezomib monotherapy. After 4 cycles, if a patient had no change or partial response (PR) as the best response and had not progressed, oral dexamethasone 20 mg could be added on the day of and day after bortezomib dosing (days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11, 12) in the next 4 cycles. At the end of 8 cycles, patients who had an unconfirmed PR or who were evolving steadily to a delayed PR could receive two additional cycles of study medication. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; complete response [CR + PR]) after 4 cycles. Response was evaluated using EBMT response criteria, modified with the addition of the response categories of near CR (nCR) and very good partial response (VGPR). Secondary endpoints were CR, nCR and VGPR rates after 4 cycles, ORR after 8 cycles including the effect of adding dexamethasone, duration of response (DOR), time to progression (T TP), progression-free survival, 1-year survival, and time to response. Safety and tolerability of the two administration routes, including local tolerability of SC administration, were also assessed. Pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) (via whole blood 20S proteasome inhibition assay) were evaluated in a subset of patients. Results: Between July 2008 and February 2010, 222 patients from 53 centers in 10 countries across Asia, Europe and South America were enrolled and randomized to SC or IV bortezomib (148 SC, 74 IV). 32 patients (18 SC, 14 IV) in 8 centers participated in the PK/PD substudy. The primary study analysis will occur in October 2010. Conclusion: Final data for all primary and secondary endpoints will be presented during the meeting, including time-to-event data for DOR, TTP and 1-year survival rate, as well as PK/PD data. Disclosures: Moreau: Jansen-Cilag: Honoraria; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Advisory board, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Discussion of Velcade administered as an SC rather than an IV bolus is included. Leleu:Jansen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Co-Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Robak:Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding. Kropff:ORTHO BIOTECH: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavet:OrthoBiotech: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Parasuraman:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Feng:Johnson & Johnson: Employment. Skee:Johnson & Johnson: Employment. van de Velde:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Deraedt:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Harousseau:Jansen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0006-4971 , 1528-0020
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Hematology
    Publication Date: 2010
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1468538-3
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 80069-7
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...