A long-term follow-up of a phase 3 study comparing ranibizumab biosimilar SB11 to the reference product (Lucentis) in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) found the similarity in efficacy end points reported early on was maintained through 52 weeks.
A long-term follow-up of a phase 3 equivalence study comparing the ranibizumab biosimilar SB11 (Byooviz, Samsung Bioepis) to the reference product (Lucentis) in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) found the similarity in efficacy endpoints reported at 4 and 8 weeks was maintained through 52 weeks.
The authors noted that nAMD is a leading cause of visual impairment and blindness in older adults, and intravitreal injections of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, including ranibizumab, are the standard treatment for nAMD. These therapies are a “substantial economic burden” for patients, they said. Biosimilars could expand patient access and “reduce the socioeconomic burden of blindness caused by nAMD.”
Improvements in visual outcomes remained stable through 52 weeks
Patients were randomized to monthly intravitreal injections of biosimilar SB11 or the ranibizumab originator for one year. In the investigators’ original publication, equivalence between SB11 and the reference product was reported for the primary efficacy endpoints: change from baseline of optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness (CST) at week 4 and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at week 8.
The current report described the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity results for the 634 patients (n = 307 randomized to the biosimilar; n = 327 to the reference product) who completed the study through the final visit at 52 weeks.
The authors said their final efficacy results demonstrated that the previously reported improvements “remained stable and appeared comparable between treatment groups at all time points up to week 52.” The adjusted treatment difference between the biosimilar and reference product for BCVA was -0.6 letters (90% CI, -2.1 to 0.9). For change in CST, the adjusted treatment difference was -14.9 µm (95% CI, -25.3 to -4.5).
Comparable Safety Immunogenicity, and Pharmacokinetic Profiles
The investigators described the safety profile of SB11 in this study as “consistent with the known [ranibizumab] profile,” with no new safety concerns identified. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were “mostly” mild or moderate in intensity, and the majority of AEs were not related to the study drugs.
Two percent of patients in the biosimilar group and 1.1% of patients in the originator group experienced ocular TEAEs leading to discontinuation of the study treatment, a difference that was not statistically significant. Intraocular inflammation in the SB11 group was “low” compared to reported rates with ranibizumab treatment, however, numerically higher than that in the originator group.
According to the authors, “a much larger number of study participants from a much larger case series would be needed to determine if these small numerical differences were due to chance or truly represented a small difference in ocular TEAEs.” An increase in intraocular pressure and conjunctival hemorrhage each occurred in more than 5% of the participants, with comparable percentages between groups.
The cumulative incidence of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) over the 52-week study was 4.2% of patients receiving the biosimilar and 5.5% receiving the reference product. There were no significant differences in the incidences of ADAs or neutralizing antibodies between groups, and they were within the known range for ranibizumab, according to the investigators. TEAEs by ADA status were also similar between groups. Pharmacokinetic analysis of 54 patients showed “comparable” mean serum concentrations and pharmacokinetic profiles.
To the authors’ knowledge, their study is the first to report phase 3, 52-week follow-up data on the ranibizumab biosimilar SB11 for treating nAMD. They concluded based on their results that SB11 and the reference product have comparable efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetic profiles, and the similarity between ranibizumab products was maintained at all time points through week 52, “confirming the comparable longer-term efficacy” of SB11.
Reference
Bressler NM, Veith M, Hamouz J, et al. Biosimilar SB11 versus reference ranibizumab in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: 1-year phase III randomised clinical trial outcomes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2023;107(3):384-391. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-319637
Boosting Health Care Sustainability: The Role of Biosimilars in Latin America
November 21st 2024Biosimilars could improve access to biologic treatments and health care sustainability in Latin America, but their adoption is hindered by misconceptions, regulatory gaps, and weak pharmacovigilance, requiring targeted education and stronger regulations.
Biosimilars Development Roundup for October 2024—Podcast Edition
November 3rd 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the GRx+Biosims conference, which included discussions on data transparency, artificial intelligence (AI), and collaboration to enhance the global supply chain for biosimilars and generic drugs, as well as the evolving requirements for biosimilar devices.
Insights from Festival of Biologics: Dracey Poore Discusses Cardinal Health’s 2024 Biosimilar Report
May 19th 2024The discussion highlights key emerging trends from the Festival of Biologics conference and the annual Cardinal Health Biosimilars Report, including the importance of sustainability in the health care landscape and the challenges and successes in biosimilar adoption and affordability.
Eye on Pharma: Henlius, Organon Updates; Meitheal Portfolio Expansion; Celltrion Zymfentra Data
November 5th 2024Henlius and Organon’s pertuzumab biosimilar met phase 3 goals; Meitheal expanded its US biosimilars; Celltrion’s subcutaneous infliximab (Zymfentra) showed monotherapy could be as effective as combination therapy for inflammatory bowel disease.
BioRationality: Should mRNA Copies Be Filed as NDAs or Biosimilars?
November 4th 2024The article by Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, argues that the FDA’s classification of future copies of messenger RNA (mRNA) products could be reconsidered, suggesting they might be eligible for new drug applications (NDAs) or a hybrid biosimilar category due to their unique characteristics and increasing prevalence.