RESUMEN

The development of new large molecule drug therapies along with the innovation of biologic-device combination products such as prefilled syringes, autoinjectors and pen injectors have significantly impacted the treatment of new diseases and has improved the process of administering parenteral medicines. To support the regulatory approval of a new biologic-device combination products or subsequent chemistry, manufacturing and control changes impacting a combination product, sponsor companies must thoroughly assess the potential impact to product quality, safety and efficacy. In this report, a risk-based process to determine the potential impact to product quality, safety, and efficacy as well as corresponding regulatory actions supporting a chemistry, manufacturing and control change is presented. The risk assessment includes the standardized assessment of a) chemistry, manufacturing and control risk factors, potential responses and appropriately weighted scoring; b) pharmacokinetic risk factors, potential responses and appropriately weighted scoring; and c) the use of a 2-dimensional risk grid to combine the chemistry, manufacturing and control risks and pharmacokinetic risks to provide a regulatory recommendation. Three case studies (two clinical case studies and a post-approval case study) are provided to demonstrate the assessment process and capabilities.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Augmentation therapy with plasma-derived α1-proteinase inhibitor (A1PI) products is currently the only approved disease-specific therapy for α1-antitrypsin deficiency (AATD), a genetic disorder associated with decreased levels of A1PI. Systemic trough levels of A1PI in plasma or serum are widely accepted as a biochemical efficacy endpoint in clinical trials for A1PI products. METHODS: Retrospective analyses utilizing data from three clinical studies in patients with AATD were conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetic(s) (PK) and biochemical efficacy comparability of Aralast NP and two other A1PI augmentation therapies, Aralast and Prolastin. All three A1PI products were administered as either single or multiple 60 mg/kg intravenous infusions. PK and biochemical efficacy comparability analyses were conducted by evaluating antigenic and functional A1PI serum or plasma concentration data from each of the three studies. RESULTS: Comparable PK parameters were demonstrated between the three products for antigenic A1PI levels following a single infusion, with baseline-corrected and uncorrected geometric mean ratios for peak and systemic exposure ranging from 89.0% to 99.6%, with 90% confidence intervals within the 80-125% reference interval for bioequivalence. Biochemical efficacy comparability analyses of Aralast and Prolastin after multiple infusions at steady state showed geometric mean ratios for uncorrected and baseline-corrected antigenic and functional A1PI trough concentrations over weeks 8-11, and for individual weeks, that ranged from 75.8% to 106.6%, with the majority of the 90% confidence intervals falling either within the 80-125% interval or in proximity to it. Nonparametric superpositioning at steady state suggested that predicted trough concentrations for Aralast NP were comparable to the observed concentrations for Aralast and Prolastin. CONCLUSION: These retrospective analyses provide robust evidence that Aralast NP has biochemical efficacy and PK comparable to that of Aralast and Prolastin, supporting the use of any of these A1PI products for the treatment of patients with AATD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT00242385 and NCT00396006.

RESUMEN

Alpha1-proteinase inhibitor (A1PI) augmentation is the only specific treatment targeting the underlying deficiency in alpha1-antitrypsin deficiency (AATD). The demonstration of efficacy has been based on maintaining the biochemical surrogate endpoints of plasma antigenic and functional A1PI levels above >11 µM. Here we report a biochemical comparability analysis based on data from a phase 2/3, randomized, double-blind, two-arm study with partial crossover of Glassia® (Baxalta US Inc. Westlake Village, CA, USA) and Prolastin® (Grifols Therapeutics LLC, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA) in patients with AATD (NCT00460096). Patients (N = 50) were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either Glassia (n = 33) or Prolastin (n = 17), respectively. In the present study, data from patients in the per-protocol population (n = 29, Glassia; n = 12, Prolastin) were analyzed. We compared the biochemical efficacy of these two A1PI products at steady state of A1PI in plasma after weekly intravenous administration of A1PI at a dose of 60 mg/kg body weight. For both antigenic and functional A1PI levels, with or without baseline correction, the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of plasma trough levels (Glassia/Prolastin) over a 6-week period at steady state (Weeks 7-12 post-randomization) were near or above 100%, with the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) contained within the 80%-125% interval. For antigenic A1PI, the GMR (90% CI) was 115.8% (108.1-124.2) for baseline corrected and 114.2% (109.2-119.5) for uncorrected concentrations. For functional A1PI, the GMR (90% CI) was 98.7 (92.5-105.4) for baseline corrected and 107.8% (102.3-113.5) for uncorrected concentrations. In conclusion, the biochemical efficacy of Glassia using the endpoints of plasma antigenic and functional A1PI trough concentrations at steady state was comparable with Prolastin in patients with AATD.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Etrolizumab is a novel, dual-action anti-ß7 integrin antibody studied in phase 3 trials in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. An autoinjector (AI) is being developed in parallel to complement the prefilled syringe with needle safety device (PFS-NSD) for subcutaneous (SC) administration in these trials. Here we demonstrate the comparable pharmacokinetics, tolerability, and safety of both devices. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, two-part study in healthy participants evaluated the comparability of etrolizumab exposure between the AI and the PFS-NSD. Part 1 (pilot) involved a small number of participants, and initial results were used to finalize the design of the larger part 2 (pivotal) study. In both parts, participants were randomly assigned to receive a single SC dose of etrolizumab 105 mg by AI or PFS-NSD. Randomization was stratified by body weight. Primary pharmacokinetic outcomes were Cmax, AUClast, and AUC0-inf. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty healthy participants (part 1, n = 30; part 2, n = 150) received a single SC dose of etrolizumab by AI or PFS-NSD. Primary pharmacokinetic results from part 1 supported modification of the part 2 study design. Results from part 2 demonstrated that etrolizumab exposure was equivalent between devices, with geometric mean ratios (GMRs) between AI and PFS-NSD of 102% (90% confidence interval [CI] 94.2-111) for Cmax, 98.0% (90% CI 89.3-107) for AUClast, and 97.6% (90% CI 88.6-107) for AUC0-inf. Median tmax and mean terminal t1/2 were also similar between devices. GMRs and 90% CIs of all primary pharmacokinetic parameters were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits (80-125%). CONCLUSION: This pharmacokinetic study demonstrated that single SC injections of etrolizumab 105 mg using an AI or a PFS-NSD resulted in equivalent etrolizumab exposure and similar safety and tolerability in healthy participants. Taken together, these results support the use of an AI for etrolizumab administration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02996019.

Asunto(s)